Jump to content

Roland's Treatise On Ecm And Sensors

Gameplay General Metagame

220 replies to this topic

#21 Dolph Hoskins

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Territorial
  • The Territorial
  • 499 posts
  • LocationThe Machine

Posted 17 September 2014 - 11:20 AM

View PostLemming211, on 17 September 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:


I believe that the whole system, as proposed, would resolve the majority of my complains regarding LRMs. I'll take what I can get. I just additionally feel like they shouldn't be functioning as artillery, that's what Arrow IV is for.


We're all here (in this thread at least) to put our thoughts out there. On the matter of lrm's low flying, it just seems to me like a poorly designed dud weapon, and it seems like a counter intuitive trait for that weapon to have.

Edited by The Ripper13, 17 September 2014 - 11:21 AM.


#22 STEF_

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nocturnal
  • The Nocturnal
  • 5,443 posts
  • Locationmy cockpit

Posted 17 September 2014 - 11:26 AM

Interesting.
We absolutely need larger maps.
Many maps we have now are so tiny that it's not necessary a radar to find a mech.

Edit: and with larger maps, light mechs really get a role, not only as annoying bugs or ecm umbrella....

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 17 September 2014 - 11:38 AM.


#23 Lemming211

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationDetroit

Posted 17 September 2014 - 11:39 AM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 17 September 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

have you read "indirect LRM fire" rules in Btech?

LRMs were acting as poor man's artillery before there WAS Arrow IV


Poor man's, yes, with assistance. Give it the arc when using TAG/NARC/C3, making them more valuable.

View PostThe Ripper13, on 17 September 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

We're all here (in this thread at least) to put our thoughts out there. On the matter of lrm's low flying, it just seems to me like a poorly designed dud weapon, and it seems like a counter intuitive trait for that weapon to have.


I still think it should have some clearance; it should pass over an Atlas' head for instance, and should still retain it's tracking mechanism. But, I should be able to take cover behind a vertical surface reasonably greater than the height of my mech, say 25% taller. With the extreme arcs as currently implemented, I can not find cover in many cases.

Edited by Lemming211, 17 September 2014 - 11:41 AM.


#24 VanillaG

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,115 posts
  • LocationIn my parent's basement

Posted 17 September 2014 - 12:11 PM

From a rewards perspective you are going to need to increase the XP/CBills for TAG and NARC since there is no more LoS spotting assists available. I would also like to see awarding of assists and a percent of damage dealt by indirect LRMs to the spotter. This way the scout can be properly rewarded for doing something else other than direct damage.

#25 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 12:19 PM

View PostVanillaG, on 17 September 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

From a rewards perspective you are going to need to increase the XP/CBills for TAG and NARC since there is no more LoS spotting assists available. I would also like to see awarding of assists and a percent of damage dealt by indirect LRMs to the spotter. This way the scout can be properly rewarded for doing something else other than direct damage.

This is a fair point.

From my perspective, my main considerations are how useful a scout is in regards to actually helping his team win the game. I wasn't really thinking about "rewards" for doing such things. In my mind, the reason why I scout out the position of enemies is because doing so helps my team, not because I get "points" for doing so.

Yet at the same time, I recognize that such rewards are important, especially for many players who are just playing with other random players and perhaps don't care as much about whether or not they win, and want some direct compensation for their actions.

To address such a concern, it could possibly be rigged up to gain periodic spotting bonuses for whenever your mech is the only mech currently holding contact on an enemy, similar to how you gain UAV bonuses currently.

This would result in scouting mechs generating earnings for scouting ahead of their main force and gaining contact on enemy mechs.

#26 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 17 September 2014 - 12:25 PM

I kind of like MechWarrior Online's approach to the way sensor spotting works, and a lot of the idea seems pretty much going back to MechWarrior 4, which I think a lot of mechanics could be attributed to limitations of what games and computers could do 11 years ago.

I like the detection ranges based on individual chassis, but the interaction between ECM and Beagle to be solely a 25% buff or debuff in sensor range seems like it would make the interaction between them even less interesting than we have now.

In your LRM redesign, you brought up a system like MechWarrior 4's where locks did not require targeting first --- this right here would probably be enough to fix the current problems with ECM's interaction with LRM's. If you see it, you can shoot it with LRM's or any weapon. ECM would still be pretty devastating to clueless pugs who don't pay attention and don't believe enemies can exist without the existence of a dorito, but at least it wouldn't block out all their weapons.

Edited by DocBach, 17 September 2014 - 12:32 PM.


#27 TimoWasTaken

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 48 posts
  • LocationLake Forest Park, WA, USA

Posted 17 September 2014 - 12:32 PM

This is an excellent piece of work and I would be thrilled to see it implemented.

#28 VanillaG

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,115 posts
  • LocationIn my parent's basement

Posted 17 September 2014 - 12:36 PM

View PostRoland, on 17 September 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

This is a fair point.

From my perspective, my main considerations are how useful a scout is in regards to actually helping his team win the game. I wasn't really thinking about "rewards" for doing such things. In my mind, the reason why I scout out the position of enemies is because doing so helps my team, not because I get "points" for doing so.

Yet at the same time, I recognize that such rewards are important, especially for many players who are just playing with other random players and perhaps don't care as much about whether or not they win, and want some direct compensation for their actions.

To address such a concern, it could possibly be rigged up to gain periodic spotting bonuses for whenever your mech is the only mech currently holding contact on an enemy, similar to how you gain UAV bonuses currently.

This would result in scouting mechs generating earnings for scouting ahead of their main force and gaining contact on enemy mechs.

The main reason I brought it up is for leveling a mech from basic through master and to earn enough income to purchase or modify mechs. The game as it currently stands is heavily rewarded for directly dealing damage to other mechs and more rewards for scouting actions opens up another "profession" in the game. It would be counter productive to have to outfit your scout mech to level and gain c-bills in a different manner than to actually be a scout.

Edited by VanillaG, 17 September 2014 - 12:37 PM.


#29 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 12:38 PM

View PostVanillaG, on 17 September 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

The main reason I brought it up is for leveling a mech from basic through master and to earn enough income to purchase or modify mechs. The game as it currently stands is heavily rewarded for directly dealing damage to other mechs and more rewards for scouting actions opens up another "profession" in the game. It would be counter productive to have to outfit your scout mech to level and gain c-bills in a different manner than to actually be a scout.

Like I said, I think your point is absolutely valid, and since there are things in game which require earning money and experience to progress, scouts should most certainly be rewarded for their activities in that very concrete manner.

#30 Hobo Dan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 597 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationWest Virginia

Posted 17 September 2014 - 12:39 PM

Excellent ideas, I hope they are considered.

And now you’ve got me all nostalgic thinking back to the old days of closed beta and my fire and forget Catapult-C1 LRM terror.

Edited by Hobo Dan, 17 September 2014 - 12:41 PM.


#31 Oderint dum Metuant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,758 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 17 September 2014 - 12:58 PM

View PostRoland, on 17 September 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

(There are some tables in this post... if they get screwed up by the forum software, I'll fix them in a little while)

As there is an ongoing discussion regarding some notion of a player council, I've decided that I'm not really that into the drama surrounding such a thing. If put on it, so be it, but I'm kind of beyond caring about a "pre-meeting meeting" to vote about who goes on a ballot to be voted on.

That being said, I've been considering a rework of the sensor system for quite a while, and as such I've put together the following proposal for consideration. Folks can do with it as they see fit. Feel free to offer suggestions for improvement, etc.

The ultimate goal of this proposal is, above all else, to increase the fun level of the game for all involved. If we lose sight of that goal, then we miss our mark, because we are designing a game here. The point of games is to have fun.

In order to try and make things more fun, I'm presenting some systems which focus on two areas They attempt to add depth by making things like sensor detection a more nuanced process, while still being reasonably easy to understand for players. They also attempt to create a more consistent gameplay experience, with less volatile fluctuations from match to match in terms of certain weapons or mechs shifting wildly from underpowered to overpowered based on factors outside the shooter's control.

Further, on top of all of that, I've attempted to constrain my ideas based on technical feasibility. I believe that everything I'm suggesting can be implemented without significant issues, as they all are essentially repackaging of features which we have already seen in MWO throughout its development timeline. This is important, because no matter how great an idea is, it's pointless if it requires 80 thousand man-hours to implement.

Finally, I believe that the type of system proposed here is extensible, potentially facilitating development of a number of additional systems to add complexity and depth at a future date (although these future systems are not discussed here).

This proposal consists of the following major sections:
  • Weight based detection range for mechs (Larger mechs are easier to detect than smaller ones)
  • Non Line-of-Sight radar
  • Introduction of active and passive detection modes
  • Changes to ECM and BAP to focus primarily on detection range modification
  • Changes to LRM's to be more easily balanced with other weapon types, more consistently performing in all situations, and thus less frustrating for both shooters and targets
With all of that laid out, let's get to it.



Weight Based Detection Range

The first major change I would make to the sensor system is to modify the detection range of mechs based upon their weight. Put simply, the heavier a mech is, the easier it is to detect it on radar.

Others have previously suggested that weight class have an impact on detection range, but I'm going a bit further here and suggesting that it be related to the actual weight of the mech itself, as this helps address a common issue that we see, where lighter mechs in a class (like the locust) lack purpose.

This provides a significant benefit, in that lighter mechs suddenly have a reason to exist, which is sorely missing from the current game. Again, what I'm saying here is not simply that LIGHT mechs will have a reason to exist (although they are sorely under-represented in the overall player population, as evident by their consistently low drop counts, often dropping into single digit percentages). But rather LIGHTER mechs will have a benefit. So in any given weight class, the lighter mechs will have some stealth benefit that will help to counter their relative lack of tonnage compared to the heavier mechs in their weight class.

I'm thinking that the base range at which a mech could be detected by a mech with it's active radar on would be 1000m - (5 x (100-MechTonnage))

Note, that modifier of 5 could be tweaked down, in order to reduce the amount that weight affects detection range if we wanted for balance reasons. However, I think that number seems to result in a pretty good detection gradient across mechs.

So you'd have the following example detection ranges:
Atlas 1000m
Awesome/Victor 900m
MadCat 875m
Hunchback 750m
Jenner 675m
Locust 600m

So we see a number of advantages with this system. First, the medium weight class suddenly has some significant utility. The hunchback's sensor advantage over a 75 ton heavy chassis is non-trivial, at 125m. That's enough time for a pilot to say, "Whoa, I don't think I want to walk right in front of that guy," and plan a more prudent avenue of attack. Yet at the same time, he's not magically invisible to sensors. Indeed, it's possible that another, lighter mech actually already has HIM on sensors.

Likewise, even the lowly locust has utility suddenly.... It still can't really carry weapons or armor, but it can out-scout anything at this point. Even against another light mech like a Jenner, the Locust has a narrow buffer zone of 75m that he could potentially work to hold contact without being detected.

Now, in discussions with others about this idea, it was suggested that this gradient of sensor detection ranges may be too complex to keep in mind, compared to more static detection ranges in a game like Mechwarrior 4. However, I think that the system is actually pretty easy to grasp once you realize that it boils down to one fairly simple rule:
All else being equal, you will see a heavier mech before it sees you.

Non Line-of-Sight Based Radar

To further support this notion of scouts, I'm proposing a return to a more omni-directional, non-LOS based radar system as seen in prior Mechwarrior titles.

The reason for this is that the requirement of a direct LOS on a target in order to see it means that it's very difficult, if not impossible, for a mech to truly just scout an enemy force. In order to perceive them on sensors now, he must have a direct line of sight to them. This means that he's exposed to direct fire, and is thus directly engaged in combat in order to gather any intelligence on the enemy forces. This kind of reduces the ability to be stealthy, since for many light scouts, if they stop they are going to get one-shotted. So they need to be moving around constantly, explicitly without cover between them at the mechs they are scouting.

Back in MW4, I routinely ran as a scout for my lance. Scouting in that game was in many ways much more complex and more rewarding than in MWO, because it was all about using sensor ranges in addition to your eyes to locate the enemy without them seeing you.

A large part of this centered around staying under cover and not exposing yourself, while still achieving sensor coverage over areas. You could scout a valley on the other side of a mountain ridge by running along the ridgeline but not popping up over the top... unless you wanted to check briefly to see visually whether there were mechs that were undetectable based on range.

MWO's vision based radar system kind of negates a lot of this, as detection is based specifically upon not having anything between you and your target. This means that in MWO, regardless of your sensor suite or mech, if you can detect a mech, then he can see you. The only thing that actual detection ranges do in MWO is effectively determine missile lock capabilities by providing the magic taco chip, and this is a big problem. Sensors need to be providing situational awareness, not merely a mechanism for locking missiles.

As such, I'd propose going back to an omni-directional radar system which ignores terrain and provides a sensor sweep around a given mech. This is certainly achievable from a technical perspective, as they effectively had it with the Seismic sensor.

The result of this change is that, coupled with the weight based detection ranges noted above, mechs are able to really use their sensors in a tactical manner. The player will know with some degree of certainty (again, fostering the notion of consistence between player expectations and what he experiences) what his exposure level is and what is around him. It'll help facilitate the type of scouting I described above, where a scout can use his sensors to observe regions without necessarily exposing himself to direct fire.

This in turn enables a significant amount of tactical movement, as both sides end up having potentially improved situational awareness which they can use to base their maneuvering on. I say potentially, because combined with the variations in detection range based on weight class, the overall picture of the battlefield will vary significantly based upon how mechs are utilized and positioned. Scouts become extremely important.

(Note, the more observant of you may be noting that with such a system, if we were to leave LRM's as they are, this would be devastating as folks could hold locks and pound you with missiles, without you even being able to shoot the spotter... don't worry, that's addressed later with the LRM changes)

Active and Passive Sensor Modes

In addition to the weight based detection ranges mentioned above, I propose adding in an ability for all mechs to toggle their radar between active and passive modes. As an actual mechanism in game, I'd suggest a simple keybind, such as currently used for toggling the ECM mode. Indeed, you could probably just use that keybind itself, as my suggestion for ECM implementation does not require ECM toggling.

The idea of this will be familiar to anyone who played prior mechwarrior titles. You can run active radar and extend the range at which you can detect enemy mechs, but in doing so you also extend the range at which you can be detected by enemy mechs. Or, you can go into passive mode and be "flying blind", but greatly reduce the range at which you can be detected by other mechs.

Let's assume that the ranges given previously are the "base" ranges for mechs being detectable, while they themselves are in active radar mode, by another active mech.

Flipping into passive radar mode will cause the following to happen:
The range at which you can detect enemy mechs is reduced by 60%
The range at which you can be detected by enemy mechs is reduced by 40%

To give some example numbers, We can take the previously listed example mechs and put together the ranges that they will be detectable in various combinations of sensors.

Posted Image




So this, combined with the previously described changes, create a fairly wide variety of sensor options for a given player, which in turn enables a variety of tactics and playstyles.

This helps temper the changes of the radar model to an omnidirectional, non-LOS model, by enabling mechs to choose to be stealthy by running in passive mode, and thus greatly reducing their detection by enemy mechs who may be fairly close.

As we see, a tiny locust running in passive mode reduces his radar footprint down to a fairly tiny 360m, so that he could get almost on top of enemy mechs and not be noticed. Of course, at the same time, he won't actually see anything lighter than an 80 ton assault mech on his radar, even if they're running in active mode at that range. So he could theoretically sneak up on an active atlas while running in passive mode and detect him unnoticed, but if there happens to be a hunchback standing there too, he won't see him until he's within 300m, which is inside the hunchback's range of detection on the locust.

What this will enable is that mechs will be able to go passive and choose to rely much more directly upon their line of sight, so the type of gameplay we have currently is still possible. That is, you will still be able to sneak around under cover as we do today. You can go through a tunnel on forest colony or frozen city, and still be relatively undetectable unless someone is sitting right there next to the tunnel.

What's nice about this as well, is that it tends to enable a more interactive sensor experience for the player. Under such a system, a scouting mech tends to constantly be flipping back and forth between active and passive mode... running passive most of the time to minimize the liklihood of his detection, while periodically flashing active to get a quick snapshot of what is around him, and then going passive again.

Likewise, on the receiving end of this, enemy mechs will end up getting a quick flash on their radar, but often not know exactly WHERE it was unless they just happened to be looking at their own radar at that exact moment. Since the radar is omnidirectional and not just LOS, the detection is not going to be guaranteed to pop up right in front of them... This creates a situation where players report things like, "I had a flash contact, but I didn't get a bearing on it." This in itself heightens the level of suspense in the game, improving the overall experience.


Changes to BAP and ECM

Now we get to the original issue, which is ECM. Hopefully folks understand at this point how these two systems don't really exist in a vacuum. They are components of the overall sensor system in game, and this whole package needs to be considered holistically, to deliver on the notion of "information warfare".

In this system, most of the depth of the sensor system is derived from the previously described changes. As a result, both ECM and BAP can largely be simplified.

The way I'm considering it is a fairly straightforward modification of detection range with these pieces of equipment.

BAP increases a mech's ability to detect other mechs by 25%.
ECM reduces a mech's detection range by other mechs by 25%.

Effectively, the two systems cancel each other out.

I remove all impact of these systems on missiles. ECM is no longer a shield that protects you against missiles, or disrupts other mechs' abilities to lock missiles. It still offers some protection, in that it makes you harder to detect, but the effect is much less overt. It's merely a subtle reduction in the range at which someone can lock you up and fire on you.

Also, I would remove the ability for these systems to affect other mechs. They will only impact the carrier directly. Thus, ECM is useful for scouts, primarilly operating away from their main lance.

This brings up another interesting implication of all of these changes.

In the system proposed here, since different mechs have different detection ranges, based on their size and their equipment, this provides some incentive to spread forces out a bit more to gather information on the enemy forces. That is, it's not necessarily a great idea to have everyone clustered together in a giant blob, because doing so effectively makes the whole body as detectable as the biggest mech.

But at the same time, the same strengths that come with consolidated forces continue to exist. So you end up with a tradeoff of different strengths. You can spread out your forces and be more likely to get detections on enemy forces early enough to re-deploy your own, but risk getting isolated sections of your team caught by enemy forces while too far away from friendlies to get support.

Additionally, these systems ONLY work when a mech is in Active Radar Mode. That is, passive detection ranges for passive mechs are always the same as those described previously. ECM will make an active mech less detectable, while BAP will make an active mech more capable of detecting other mechs.

This then puts BAP on par with ECM in terms of utility in many ways. As a result of this, I would suggest making similar restrictions to BAP, enabling only certain mechs to carry it (generally mechs which carried in in their stock configurations, similar to how we deal with ECM mechs now).

What you'll see is that certain mechs, like the Raven, will become exceptionally good at scouting, as they will be able to run both BAP and ECM, allowing them to run active all the time and only really be matched in terms of detection by other mechs carrying the same combination.

And yet, at the same time, these mechs are not the uber-powerhouses that they were back when ECM was originally introduced, because the systems don't really play a direct role in terms of combat.

To grasp the difference here, we need to consider the primary reason why ECM was so powerful on a mech like the Raven is that it enabled the raven to carry SSRM's (which were extremely powerful then), while countering the ability for OTHER mechs to use SSRM's on the raven.

Given that we've removed ECM's ability to disrupt missile locking, this issue tends to go away. The ability to carry ECM and BAP is still advantageous, to be sure, but that advantage is largely confined to scouting and information gathering, and thus only indirectly impacting combat. Neither of these systems will directly prevent the usage of any other system or weapon any longer.

With these change to BAP and ECM, we get the following changes to the table presented previously.

Note, I've added some rows with ECM enabled mechs, namely the Atlas and the Raven. I've added the DWolf in as an example of a non ECM equipped 100 ton mech to compare to the atlas.

Posted Image


Another point to note here, is that the way effects are applied goes as such:
Target State (Active or passive) > ECM > BAP
The result of this is that BAP doesn't exactly cancel out ECM, since it's increase of range is applied afterwards. So, the 25% increase you're getting isn't quite as large as the 25% reduction the ECM originally applied. So, even against BAP mechs, ECM still has some utility (although lessened).

Some other implications here. ECM is, essentially, reducing the radar footprint of the mech to that of a mech half its size. An ECM equipped atlas, for instance, is equivalent to a hunchback in terms of detectability.

Changes to Long Range Missiles

The final section of this proposal includes an overhaul of the LRM weapons systems. I think many folks agree that LRM's have been a consistent source of balance issues. This isn't because they are necessarily under or over-powered, but rather because they function in such a way as to make their performance extremely inconsistent across different matches. Against some opponents they are like the hand of God, crushing targets who have virtually no way to counter attack. Against others, they are a complete waste of weapons tonnage. Very rarely do LRM's ever seem balanced to all parties involved. The result of this is a weapon system which will often be a source of frustration for either the shooter or the target.

A big part of this has already been addressed above, by the removal of ECM's ability to affect missiles. With that change, LRM's can no longer be automatically negated by a 1.5 ton piece of equipment.

However, the overall impact of allowing LRM's to target mechs without LOS results in some major balance problems. Getting pummeled by LRM's from a mech behind cover is really quite un-fun.. And with sensors able to gain detections through terrain, this would be greatly magnified, as you could potentially be spotted by someone who is under cover.

In order to address this, I would make LRM's require a direct LOS in order to fire on a target. That is, you would be required to not only hold the target yourself to lock missiles on it, but you would actually have to expose your mech to return fire to get the lock.

The exception to this rule will be TAG and NARC. If a mech is tagged or Narc'ed, then that mech will then be able to be targeted indirectly, as is the case today. Effectively, if a mech is tagged or narced, it's as though every mech has a direct LOS to that target.

Now, the requirement for direct LOS (excepting Narc and Tag) itself would be crippling to LRM's as they exist today, because in a direct firefight LRM"s have many disadvantages. To counterbalance this, the second change I would make to missiles would be that I would revert them to their original mechanic they had in closed beta, where missiles continue to track a target once fired, without the shooter needing to hold lock. This has an important impact, in that it makes LRM's much more useful in terms of direct combat, in that a shooter does not need to just continue staring at a target to hold a lock. LRM carriers can engage in normal combat, spreading and soaking damage just like everyone else. This has the effect of making it so that LRM's will become more compatible with other direct fire weaponry, enabling mechs which are effective with a mix of LRM's and other weaponry.

Further, I suggest making it such that LRM's do not actually need a radar lock to fire on a target. That is, if you can directly see an enemy mech, you can lock LRM's onto it regardless of whether it's within radar detection range. So at no point are you stuck in a situation where those LRM's are useless. If you can see a mech, and it's within range of your missiles, you can hit it.

Thus, under such a system, a shooter could have targets on radar, either through his teammates relayed contacts or his own radar system. However, he would need to position himself in such a fashion as to get direct LOS on those targets to start raining down LRM's onto them. But once in position, he would only need to expose himself for as long as it took to get a missile lock (a second or so), unleash his missiles, and then he would be free to duck down behind cover.

The target gets an opportunity to fire on the LRM shooter, while the LRM shooter is guaranteed to be able to use his missiles. What's more, he knows that if he fires those missiles, there's a quite good chance of them actually hitting the target. Overall, neither player is put in a position where he feels powerless, or his weapons feel useless.

Also, given that LRM's are then used in a situation which is a bit more similar to other weaponry, this should make them easier to balance.



Ok folks, I think that's all I got. Do as you will with it.



I got half way through writing my ideas on a word document and it appears we headed the same place.

The only difference I was pondering a counterplay system.

ECM would still have a bubble that would interrupt targeting in the sense of being able to lock one up; however direct line of sight would allow LRM lock at an extended time; but that also friendlies inside the ECM bubble would be lockable because ECM disrupts IFF.

Missile boats would need to pay attention before firing blindly.


#32 RetroActive

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • LocationFL, USA

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:08 PM

Great ideas! I'd support these changes with one change: BAP/ECM would also increase/reduce detection range when radar is passive. I just feel they should also give a benefit when passive.

How would this affect the radar sharing that we currently have? Is that gone completely?

#33 Maxx Blue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 370 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:10 PM

I like some of it, but I'm not sure about other bits. I'll try to be concise here, but I have a tendancy to get all wall-o-text if given half a chance! Anyway, here are some points/questions that came to mind reading all that stuff:
  • Weight-based detection ranges are a great idea. However, I would think you could also include heat and speed as factors in the equation without much fuss. The data is already on the server, and it would give you some additional tuning options if it turns out that being small/fast is too powerful, but being small/slow isn't. It would also give some incentive to keep you heat low in certain situations. So, weight is a good parameter, but I think you might want to add one or two other parameters as well for tuning ability and to help emulate the different kids of sensors mechs supposedly have.
  • I don't think it would be a huge problem to still let ECM affect all friendly mechs in a radius. Having only 25% sensor decrease to your self with LOS LRM targetting allowed feels TOO weak. Also, the fact that ECM can bea team tool is really a nice feature. I'd like to keep the team-friendly aspect of ECM if possible.
  • I'm not a fan of flat-out getting rid of indirect fire without TAG/NARC contact. I would suggest either adding a lock-time penalty or a missile spread penalty for indirect fire instead of removing it entirely without TAG or NARC. I'm OK with a susbtantial penalty, but don't like getting rid of it 100%. Not just because TT allowed spotting, but because I feel like using LRM's out of LOS should still be possible without special equipment, just less effective than it is now.
  • I'm unclear on TAG/NARC. Do you intend for them to totally override the other sensor range calculations? Do you intend for them to just add XX% to the detection range? I could see NARC working that way, but not TAG. If TAG lets you override all the other targetting +/- stuff and has a 750M range, that seems really powerful, especially if you get rid of any other indirect targetting. Mode detail on TAG/NARC in this brave new world please!
  • Is there a reason you focused solely on detection range and not target lock time and missile spread? We know those are also both existing variables that can be adjusted. I understand this is a sensors post, not specifically a LRM post, but I want to make sure this system contemplates LRM's having other ways to tune their performance other than lock range. I would think you could relax the LOS requirements if you knew that LRM balance didn't rest entirely on the shoulders of sensor range.


#34 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:12 PM

View PostRetroActive, on 17 September 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

Great ideas! I'd support these changes with one change: BAP/ECM would also increase/reduce detection range when radar is passive. I just feel they should also give a benefit when passive.

How would this affect the radar sharing that we currently have? Is that gone completely?

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to having BAP/ECM affect a passive mech, although my decision to make it only work when active was very much intentional. In my mind, these pieces of equipment are directly tied to the active sensors, and when you go passive you are largely shutting down everything except for passive intercepts. But it's not a dealbreaker either way.

In terms of radar sharing, my notion is that we'd still have what we have today.... When a friendly targets a mech, that information will be made available to his team.

The chief difference will be that you won't be able to fire missiles at that mech based only on the indirect lock. (unless it's been narced or tagged)

#35 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:25 PM

View PostMaxx Blue, on 17 September 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

I like some of it, but I'm not sure about other bits. I'll try to be concise here, but I have a tendancy to get all wall-o-text if given half a chance! Anyway, here are some points/questions that came to mind reading all that stuff:
  • Weight-based detection ranges are a great idea. However, I would think you could also include heat and speed as factors in the equation without much fuss. The data is already on the server, and it would give you some additional tuning options if it turns out that being small/fast is too powerful, but being small/slow isn't. It would also give some incentive to keep you heat low in certain situations. So, weight is a good parameter, but I think you might want to add one or two other parameters as well for tuning ability and to help emulate the different kids of sensors mechs supposedly have.

I agree that the potential exists for these other parameters, although I would wait to try implementation of them, and just work with weight to begin with. We can always add additional facets at a later date.

  • Quote

    I don't think it would be a huge problem to still let ECM affect all friendly mechs in a radius. Having only 25% sensor decrease to your self with LOS LRM targetting allowed feels TOO weak. Also, the fact that ECM can bea team tool is really a nice feature. I'd like to keep the team-friendly aspect of ECM if possible.
I can see this as potentially being valid, and isn't a dealbreaker on its own. However, I'm not necessarily sure that it is necessary. That being said, I acknowledge your point about the team-friendly aspect of ECM being potentially beneficial to the game as whole.

  • Quote

    I'm not a fan of flat-out getting rid of indirect fire without TAG/NARC contact. I would suggest either adding a lock-time penalty or a missile spread penalty for indirect fire instead of removing it entirely without TAG or NARC. I'm OK with a susbtantial penalty, but don't like getting rid of it 100%. Not just because TT allowed spotting, but because I feel like using LRM's out of LOS should still be possible without special equipment, just less effective than it is now.
This is a pretty fundamental aspect of the overall idea though, and I'm not sure that the system will work if you allow indirect missile firing.

Because of the ability to gain detections without LOS, if you enable indirect firing on targets you're going to make it such that missile carriers will be able to almost constantly lay down missile fire on targets. It'd be virtually impossible to break contact to the extent necessary to avoid missile lock.

I understand that this particular point constitutes a significant change, but I think it's a necessary one. Indirect missile firing is probably the single biggest aspect which has made LRM's so incredibly difficult to balance.

I feel that removing the ability to lock targets indirectly will be suitably counterbalanced by the other changes that I proposed, that the end result would be LRM's which would consistently be more fun to use for shooters, and much more easily balanced so that they play a consistent role in the game.

  • Quote

    I'm unclear on TAG/NARC. Do you intend for them to totally override the other sensor range calculations? Do you intend for them to just add XX% to the detection range? I could see NARC working that way, but not TAG. If TAG lets you override all the other targetting +/- stuff and has a 750M range, that seems really powerful, especially if you get rid of any other indirect targetting. Mode detail on TAG/NARC in this brave new world please!
Under my proposal, TAG/NARC would basically override all detection ranges. If you're tagged or Narced, anyone on the enemy team is gonna be able to shoot missiles at you... and those missiles are gonna track you through their entire flight, even if the tagger breaks off, as even if the tag disengages, and even if you lose the detection, those missiles are gonna track.

Indirect firing of missiles is going to be powerful, but it's only going to work if you have a spotter who puts himself into harm's way to get that tag or narc onto the target.

  • Quote

    Is there a reason you focused solely on detection range and not target lock time and missile spread? We know those are also both existing variables that can be adjusted. I understand this is a sensors post, not specifically a LRM post, but I want to make sure this system contemplates LRM's having other ways to tune their performance other than lock range. I would think you could relax the LOS requirements if you knew that LRM balance didn't rest entirely on the shoulders of sensor range.
Eh, lock time can certainly play a role in balancing these things, but I don't think it's enough to really balance stuff on its own.

Also, note in my post, under this system, you don't need to have a radar detection to get a lock on a mech... So basically, there is no range limit on your ability to lock up a mech and fire on him... but you have to see him with your own eyes (just like every other weapon in the game).

#36 Mothykins

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Talon
  • Talon
  • 1,125 posts
  • Locationilikerice is my hero.

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:28 PM

I like the concept, But You're missing a few things, like Lock Increase/decrease from BAP and ECM.

it's also slightly rough on the learning curve, so miiiight be not best idea.

Still, it's good insight. Even if it's not used in its entirety, it could help someone else come up with a good solution.

#37 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:37 PM

View PostDocBach, on 17 September 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

I kind of like MechWarrior Online's approach to the way sensor spotting works, and a lot of the idea seems pretty much going back to MechWarrior 4, which I think a lot of mechanics could be attributed to limitations of what games and computers could do 11 years ago.

I like the detection ranges based on individual chassis, but the interaction between ECM and Beagle to be solely a 25% buff or debuff in sensor range seems like it would make the interaction between them even less interesting than we have now.


I hear you on this one... I considered this particular aspect for a very long time.

When I first encountered MWO's detection system, I thought it was going to be really cool and advanced.

However, after playing with it for a few years, and after playing MW4 for years previously, I've come to the conclusion that in terms of the actual gameplay enabled by the two different systems, the LOS based radar is in many ways far LESS deep.

With LOS radar, the radar ends up just being a HUD display system. It highlights targets for you, and enables missiles... but it does very little in terms of actually giving you another tool to use to build your situational awareness.

Consider, in game, whenever you have detected a target... what is happening right then? You're looking RIGHT AT HIM. He's on your screen. Even if you had no radar at all, you would already know he was there if you were observant, as you can see his mech with your eyes.

With a non-LOS based system, you still have your eyes... you're still looking around all the time, because you can't trust your radar to give you all the information... there are gonna be tons of times when mechs are within visual range but not radar detection range (especially small mechs under this system).

Radar then becomes an additional gameplay element, where you are constantly manipulating your radar on and off, in order to monitor regions which you cannot see visually. Constantly trying to balance your mech's ability to detect enemies, with their ability to detect you.

It also tends to lead to many engagements where both sides know exactly where the other is, but are not engaging them directly. In MW4, this resulted in tons of extremely complex engagements, with complex maneuvering and radar manipulation to try and create specific perceptions for the enemy while moving forces around.

Overall, the non-LOS based system enabled more complex and interesting tactical movment, which is why I'm suggesting changing to it. But it was certainly not a decision that I took lightly.

On this specific point though, I urge folks to really consider it deeply (regardless of whether you agree with me or not, as it's the consideration and thought process which is important). Specifically think about the types of gameplay decisions that are made by pilots under each system. That's what should guide the decision, not simply "This is how it used to be, so it's good/bad".

View PostCavale, on 17 September 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

I like the concept, But You're missing a few things, like Lock Increase/decrease from BAP and ECM.

it's also slightly rough on the learning curve, so miiiight be not best idea.

Still, it's good insight. Even if it's not used in its entirety, it could help someone else come up with a good solution.

Certainly, having BAP and ECM modify lock time would work well with this system, especially since most locks will be performed with direct LOS... so getting a faster lock will mean less exposure time for the shooter.

I don't think there's any problem with including such a thing into this system.

#38 Fire and Salt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:42 PM

Line of sight radar is one of the greatest improvements MWO offers over previous titles.



Get you magic radar witchcraft outta here!

#39 Quicksilver Aberration

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nightmare
  • The Nightmare
  • 11,530 posts
  • LocationKansas City, MO

Posted 17 September 2014 - 02:10 PM

View PostFire and Salt, on 17 September 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

Line of sight radar is one of the greatest improvements MWO offers over previous titles.



Get you magic radar witchcraft outta here!

Simply saying it is, doesn't make it true.

Having 5+ years of playing MW4 and being a scout, I can safely say I MW4's radar mechanics lead to better information warfare at least in the scouting end than this game ever did. Simply because you played with your radar to hide your whereabouts to enemy sensors and at the same time detect enemies from a safe region without worrying about whether you were going to get one-shot trying to find the enemy.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 17 September 2014 - 02:12 PM.


#40 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 17 September 2014 - 02:12 PM

See, this is why I wanted Roland in the player council.

Great write-up. I would love to see this implemented in the game!





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users