220 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

Roland, on 17 September 2014 - 01:37 PM, said:

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.

Couldn't we have the same effect without changing the whole sensor system from the ground up by giving beyond LOS radar detection to Beagle Active Probe?

Edited by DocBach, 17 September 2014 - 02:15 PM.

[Dolph Hoskins]

Roland,
What are your thoughts on the sensor/radar modules currently in the game? Any thoughts or concerns as how they would interact with what you've posted up?

The 360 radar module would be pretty much nullified as it currently is.

[Clit Beastwood]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2014 - 10:03 AM, said:

Interesting.

Do have a question, is the point of the ECM council to propose their own ideas, or to collate and present the communities in a cogent manner though? Cause, no knock on this here, but boy howdy is that gonna be a mouthful.

I am actually rereading it to see what salients I missed.

Only thing I will note, is IMO, the lack of God Radar means scouts actually have to scout. It's more difficult, but also more in the spirit of TT, which I like, whereas I always felt MW4 and other iterations radar, actually lessened the need of scouts due to it acting as an "early warning system".

The point of the ECM council is to tie the community up on something trivial so they stop digging at other parts of the game

[Bishop Steiner]

Fierostetz, on 17 September 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

The point of the ECM council is to tie the community up on something trivial so they stop digging at other parts of the game

stillmadbro?

[Kirkland Langue]

The way I read the LRM portion - it sounds like LRMs would become basically long range SRMs.

Is this correct?

[GremlingGSP]

I like this Idea.

[ApolloKaras]

Its kind of a play on Rasc4l's idea and you threw in some extra in with it, I like it!

[Clit Beastwood]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

stillmadbro?

Not mad about anything. When I need to buy time at work I tell the group asking questions to come up with a unified decision, then I'll review and approve. Works every time

80% of an opinionated playerbase coming to an agreement... that's gonna buy them plenty of time

Edited by Fierostetz, 17 September 2014 - 02:35 PM.

[101011]

Kirkland Langue, on 17 September 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

The way I read the LRM portion - it sounds like LRMs would become basically long range SRMs.

Is this correct?

This would not upset me in the least. Simply give them a slight arcing trajectory for direct fire, and a higher arc for NARC/TAG.

[MAXrobo]

I really like most of what you said. The only concern I have is that the detection ranges you suggested would be too long. The maps that are in the game are just too small. You could almost detect the entire enemy team from your starting position on some maps, which would obviously makes scouts irrelevant. I would suggest to ether shorten the detection range of all mechs, or have ECM and BAP work while in passive sensor, and give ECM the blanket coverage of allies it has now.

[Clit Beastwood]

MAXrobo, on 17 September 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

I really like most of what you said. The only concern I have is that the detection ranges you suggested would be too long. The maps that are in the game are just too small. You could almost detect the entire enemy team from your starting position on some maps, which would obviously makes scouts irrelevant. I would suggest to ether shorten the detection range of all mechs, or have ECM and BAP work while in passive sensor, and give ECM the blanket coverage of allies it has now.

Aaaaaaaand we touch on another "customer satisfaction" point. How many slow assault (atlas, dwf, etc.) pilots would poo their pants if we got even bigger maps?

I'd rather we not mess with detection distances, etc. - just make streaks dumb-fire when there's no lock, and make lrms laser guided, so when there's no lock they follow the path of the beam. There's a new reason to carry TAG, so it's no longer seen as potentially wasted tonnage. ECM isn't a total stop for LRMS (players will just have to learn how to aim) and it doesn't require extensive new mechanics. All things serve the beam.

Edited by Fierostetz, 17 September 2014 - 02:43 PM.

[Roland]

Kirkland Langue, on 17 September 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

The way I read the LRM portion - it sounds like LRMs would become basically long range SRMs.

Is this correct?

No, not at all... They would still be guided missiles.
And with Narc or a Tag, they'd still be able to lock and fire onto mechs indirectly.

DocBach, on 17 September 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

Couldn't we have the same effect without changing the whole sensor system from the ground up by giving beyond LOS radar detection to Beagle Active Probe?

I'm not sure what you mean here, could you explain further?

[DocBach]

Roland, on 17 September 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you mean here, could you explain further?

If we gave Beagle Active Probe the ability to serve as an active radar that could see beyond line of sight we could keep MechWarrior Online's current line of sight requirements for standard sensors and avoid having to re-engineer the whole sensor system, but we would have the beyond LOS targeting ability an active radar would provide in your suggestion.

[Lightfoot]

If you want to make LRMs Line of Sight they will need to do probably 2x damage, which could probably be accomplished by increasing the accuracy. The reason LRMs are so weak in MWO is because they don't need Line of Sight and so have more opportunities to hit.

Of course if you have LRMs doing 2x Damage you would also need working Gauss Rifles and PPCs to counter them, otherwise they will just run circles around your brawling ACs and lasers. You can do that with LRMs now, but with indirect locking you don't need too.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lightfoot, on 17 September 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

Of course if you have LRMs doing 2x Damage you would also need working Gauss Rifles and PPCs to counter them, otherwise they will just run circles around your brawling ACs and lasers. You can do that with LRMs now, but with indirect locking you don't need too.

If you need Gauss and PPCs to counter them, wouldnt that imply that they are too good if you buff them to 2x damage....
Fire and Forget and increased velocity would do enough to boost them, hell I would be ok if they set it up so that LRMs lock on like SSRMs with some setup to intentionally miss so I don't have such terrible accuracy with them thanks to their wonky flight paths.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 17 September 2014 - 03:11 PM.

[Dark Jackal]

Good detailed explanation. I also like Doc's master document as well. We are fortunate to have some pretty good hard headed thinking overall with ECM.

Though, I have to ask, does anyone know how e-sports is going to play out with all of this? I have some understanding ECM was made from the get-go to be the electronic version to facilitate team-based play and counter plays centered around e-sports logic to a degree. Correct me if I'm wrong but I did recall Russ mention e-sports as part of the future of MWO. So, I can see that one unknown as I don't have a real grasp the full extent of what e-sports is supposed to deliver to MWO product and sadly have not come across that from the community as a whole.

Maybe Russ can elaborate?

Many thanks for your time and effort Roland. I miss the creative discussion back on RI as you could end up of thinking of ways to do things not initially though of from the beginning.

Edited by Dark Jackal, 17 September 2014 - 03:17 PM.

[Destoroyah]

The problem with trying to address the ECM issue is that you really can't fix it properly till you get the rest of the information warfare pillar addressed. Currently the majority of the information pillar is comprised around the ECM alone with the rest being marginal additions that don't contribute much.

While Roland's ideas have merits it doesn't adequately compensate mechs like the locust to encourage their use. Most maps are only a 2k-3k in length and width and most engagements happen in the 800m to 500m zones. So 600m detection range isn't much of a boon for a scout and with jenners, embers, and spiders only having a measly 50-75m increase over that of a locust they would still be better scouts cause they got the durability to take more risks. Also I think the sensor range should stay at 800m and only the scout mechs get the more advanced radars.

This persons ideas for the sensors is more in line of what the detection ranges should look like and also touches on the information gathering aspect of the information warfare pillar.
http://mwomercs.com/...pillars-of-mwo/

I got to also disagree with the natural throught terrain radar suggestion as it nullifies or marginalizes to many systems like seismic, 360 radar module, UAV. I think that feature should be a mode for BAP.

The ECM/BAP suggestion is ok but the equipment needs to do more then something so simple.
Such as ECM removes the bonuses granted from NARC/Artemis/and any info gathering equipment or modules. Increases lock time by 25%
Counter Mode changed to Jamming Mode shuts off all advanced equipment in it's limited range. So SSRM become SRMS and LRMs can't lock and NARC/TAG/UAV stop working, but you lose the disruption bubble so you can be targeted from further away making you more vulnerable to enemy support.
BAP can detect mechs at full profile detection range even if in passive or shutdown.
Active Scan Mode allows you to see/target mechs through terrain up to 120-180m, but you lose the extra sensor range and ability to detect mechs in passive or shutdown past the 120-180m range. Also ECM in disrupt mode will hide any mechs you can't see but you will get a indicator similar to seismic where the ECM mech is.

Overall I support the OP's suggestions just disagree with the finer details.

Edited by Destoroyah, 17 September 2014 - 03:45 PM.

[Dracol]

Roland, on 17 September 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

{snip}

Roland, I respect your dedication to the ECM cause. Your write up is well thought out if not a little complex.

With that said, the direction your write up takes to remove LOS based sensors and replace with MW4 like sensors does not sit well with me. Personally, I believe PGI made the right choice changing that aspect from prior games.

Personal feelings aside, historically speaking, this aspect will not go over well with a fairly large segment of the player base. I am of course referring to the release of seismic. Prior to the additional rule having to be at a complete stop to get a reading, it had the nickname as "The Wall Hack".

Other points of your well written post I can not comment on since the foundation I do not agree with.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Destoroyah, on 17 September 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

Counter Mode changed to Jamming Mode shuts off all advanced equipment in it's limited range. So SSRM become SRMS and LRMs can't lock...

No, this is not how they even worked in TT (SSRMs becoming SRMs was Angel ECM) and is part of what made ECM so powerful in the first place, even if you do give up the ability to hide your dorito.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 17 September 2014 - 03:56 PM.

[Roland]

Lightfoot, on 17 September 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

If you want to make LRMs Line of Sight they will need to do probably 2x damage, which could probably be accomplished by increasing the accuracy. The reason LRMs are so weak in MWO is because they don't need Line of Sight and so have more opportunities to hit.

Of course if you have LRMs doing 2x Damage you would also need working Gauss Rifles and PPCs to counter them, otherwise they will just run circles around your brawling ACs and lasers. You can do that with LRMs now, but with indirect locking you don't need too.

Well, note that there are some significant buffs to LRM's in what I've proposed. Mainly, by having LRM's track regardless of whether you keep lock on the target, you are improving LRM's significantly.

First, it means that many more of your LRM's will actually hit the target, as they will be much harder to evade. Targets will no longer be able to just duck behind cover and have all of the LRM's impact the ground next to them.

Second, it means that you'll be able to effectively use LRM's alongside normal weaponry, as they will function similarly. Between shots, you'll be able to fully torso twist and soak damage, instead of being forced to stare at the target while your LRM's in en-route.


Beyond those buffs, the fact that ECM will no longer actually prevent you from locking missiles, and the fact that you'll be able to lock missiles on any target that you have a line of sight to (even if it's not detectable on radar), means that LRM's will be able to be fired on more targets.

That being said, it's certainly possible that LRM's will need to have their damage adjusted. But that's part of the reason for these proposed changes to LRM's. These types of changes should result in LRM's which have more consistent performance in any given match, which should make it easier to buff or nerf them based on how strong they end up being.