220 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Rashhaverak, on 19 September 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

Some good ideas in the OP, but also some problems.

Just how is targetting LRMs on mechs without a radar lock on supposed to work? If I have LOS to a mech, even without a radar lock-on, I can lock missiles on them? Doesn't that make LRMs the ultimate mech tracking device? I think this is a broken mechanic.

I think perhaps you are misunderstanding how the mechanic would work.

You would still need to hold your reticle directly over their mech while the missiles locked, until you got tone, in order for the LRM's to target the mech.

It would work exactly as it does today, but it woudn't require you to actually have them targeted with your radar.

Imagine you have all the same mechanics as today, but with this change.. you saw some atlas DDC with ECM wandering around.... Now, his ECM would keep you from detecting him on radar, but you could still see him. In order to get radar lock, you'd just have to hold your reticle over him, and then you'd get a missile lock and could fire.

The ECM would prevent you from detecting him, but you could still lock missiles onto him, since you were able to just acquire the target visually.

Rashhaverak, on 19 September 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

I disagree with any plan that attempts to eliminate indirect fire on LRMs. The ability to spot mechs for LRMs is a key part of scouting, and indirect fire has always been an attribute of LRMs.Trying to turn LRMs into a strictly direct fire weapon is not a good idea and the changes you propose would not balance LRMs versus direct fire weapons. Essentially, the OP changes would cripple LRM mechs and severely limit the viability of LRMs.I could see it now, I step out and start to lock LRMs and wham, there's the PPC-gauss-AC round, and the enemy is already stepping out. No lock, no fun.

But your LRM's would have benefits over what they do now, namely that you wouldn't need stare at the target for the entire flight time. YOu could fire them off, and then get cover, twist your mech to soak damage, etc.

Also, bear in mind you can still have indirect firing of LRM's.. but doing so requires another mech to have either tagged or narced the target.

Also, unlike now, a mech could use tag to spot the target for you, and once you fire your LRM's he doesn't have to sit there and hold the tag on the target.. because the missiles are gonna track until impact now. So tagging targets will actually be a lot more feasible for light spotters, since they only have to tag a target until the missiles are away, and then they can disengage. This in itself would potentially create some interesting gameplay for light spotters.

[Roland]

Delas Ting Usee, on 19 September 2014 - 06:20 PM, said:

@ROLAND,
I like what you're proposing but...how long/difficult is it for PGI to implement, do you think?
An if implemented in stages how long do you think?

Of course, without seeing the actual architecture diagrams for their system, I can't give real estimates of the level of effort required.

However, based on existing features in the game, much of the stuff described here has already been done in one way or another.

For instance, the LRM's tracking through the entire flight. That's actually how they worked in closed beta, and extra code was actually added to make them do what they want now.

In terms of non-LOS detections, seismic already did this to some degree. It would be a matter of connecting it up to the hud targeting in a different way.

For the different detection ranges, all of the component parts are already there. We already have different factors that can affect detection ranges, based on equipment carried by both the detector and the detectee, in the form of various modules, and ECM, and BAP. Given we already have some chunk of code which is checking various variables to determine whether a mech is close enough to be detected, this means it shouldn't be too hard to modify that check to include different things, like the weight of the mech being detected (should be trivially accessible based on what is already being checked).

As I mentioned, I did specifically try to keep things confined to stuff which really should be fairly easy to implement, as it utilizes existing game mechanics, and doesn't really introduce any dramatically new stuff.

[Rasc4l]

Good post! I agree with the most of it as it is very much in agreement with my thinking and proposal mut I would be careful with the non-LOS radar. I don't know if this was already discussed, I went it thru rather fast but non-LOS radar range at least should be less than your current LOS-range. Maybe half.

Edited by Rasc4l, 21 September 2014 - 04:36 AM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Well you know I would be in favour of this Roland.

Though I would like to see a commo-rose where you could spot mechs via sight if they were out of range or something t flag without verbal or text where the enemy are.

So if you are 1000+ out but can see mech movement you can put your reticle over the terrain and a enemy spotted icon would appear static on the map or something to help communicate scouting activities.

[Asmudius Heng]

Also I wanted to point out that having LRMs as fire and forget effectively (once you get a LoS lock anyway) allows people to take single launchers and not screw over all the other targeting mechanics of other weapons they bring.

So you can take an LRM15/20 on a build, lock ad fire then you can turn, twist, lead targets and shoot etc without having to keep your reticule on the enemy all the time.

Less skill? Maybe, but the fact single launchers are hardly used ad boating missiles is the only way to go shows it really needs help. This would not really improve boating performance either so its all good.

I wrote up something similar ages ago but much less fleshed out. I am hoping the weight of such opinions are starting to sink in with PGI.

[Here5y]

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.

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.

some of the suggestions are heading to a good direction, but exchanging the radar system to a more general approach goes into the wrong direction - especially considering the map sizes and how worthless scouting is in the current Form in MW:O.

Making Mechs vulnerable to sneaky surprise ambushes, walking blindly into a trap, because the scouts did`t do their job is a plus not a negative point.

EDIT : Shortened Post , because I Kinda feel I hijacked this thread for my own evil purposes.

Edited by Plizzken, 30 September 2014 - 02:52 AM.

[Cyborne Elemental]

The only part of it that I dislike, is non-LOS radar tracking.

We've got UAV's and the Seismic Module that accomplishes that aspect of detection without a "cheatish" or "cheap" (wallhacks) approach to tracking through solid walls/terrain.

As for the rest of the OP's entire plan, I'm 99% in support of all of it, as it would make an outstanding addition to the game if they can put it in.

[kapusta11]

No good, too few variables were taken into account, too many naive assumptions regarding the results of proposed changes.

[Blue Shadow]

I agree with almost everything in the OP with only the following the objections:

1: "sensors able to gain detections through terrain" This would make seismic sensor useless, it would also make hiding for an ambush impossible, and ruin the stealth mechanics you have proposed in many circumstances, and lastly just makes no sense for a radar to detect anything through a solid wall. - My counter to this idea would be to have 360 radars that can not detect through terrain, so it gives better awareness. With the stealth you have introduced, scouting is much easier & less risky, but there will need to be at least some risk to scouting.

2. "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." - This makes no sense you should need to at least lock a target, otherwise your implemented stealth mechanics are mostly useless and enemy detection not necessary and so reducing the need for information warfare. Such a major buff to a weapon that can track a target and with fire and forget would be a big problem.

Other then that it all looks good to me especially the need to use NARC and TAG for indirect fire. One suggestion though, why not include the effects of ECM + BAP when using passive sensors?

[Clint Steel]

Some interesting ideas. STO has 2 different test servers, now just using the one we have would be an improvement, another server could be used for more extreme ideas, such as what was presented in this thread.

Personally the only problem I have with ECM is that only certain mechs, and then only certain varients of those mechs get it. It doesn't seem to be the right way to limit its presents on the battlefield. In my mind there should be different degrees of ECM, with different weights to each module, so the current ECM would only cover the mech that has it installed, then one that covers 50m costs an additional ton, and so on. I would then also allow all mechs to mount it (perhaps with tonnage increase per weight class)

Idea's I had for LRMs
http://mwomercs.com/...65#entry3637065

[Chronojam]

Mister D, on 30 September 2014 - 01:08 AM, said:

The only part of it that I dislike, is non-LOS radar tracking.

We've got UAV's and the Seismic Module that accomplishes that aspect of detection without a "cheatish" or "cheap" (wallhacks) approach to tracking through solid walls/terrain.

As for the rest of the OP's entire plan, I'm 99% in support of all of it, as it would make an outstanding addition to the game if they can put it in.

So obviously there's a need to make the UAV and Seismic different, that's all. Non-LOS radar could provide you with the fact there is a mech there, seismic module could tell you the weight and work at its stated range regardless of other sensor interplay. UAV, on the other hand, is a deployable thing you can leave behind that can gather other sensor data with greatly increased line-of-sight due to altitude.

[DukeDublin]

Radar ranges: Yes that seems ok.
Active/Passive: Yes please.
ECM/BAP changes: They are basically modules that cost tonnage, still not interesting.
LRM changes: Changing to LOS only would alienate players who use LRMS specifically for that gameplay.
Radar Implementation: Maps are too cover focused and too small for this kind of gameplay.

In order to keep this idea realistic, we have to hybridise the current system with this new system.

Line of Sight Radar.

360 degrees, but partially blocked by terrain.

Buildings for example would weaken radar signal in that direction, a metal building even more so. A mound of snow would have less effect.

ECM could act as soft~moderate terrain, weakening radar signals in that direction. Pilots would be notified that an abnormality is detected.
BAP mechs could penetrate past terrain more than regular radars, including ECM.

Seismic and UAV can keep it's place, LRMS can keep their playstyle. Information warfare becomes more complex and more important. Everybody wins.

Edited by DukeDublin, 01 October 2014 - 10:47 AM.

[Roland]

Chronojam, on 01 October 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

So obviously there's a need to make the UAV and Seismic different, that's all. Non-LOS radar could provide you with the fact there is a mech there, seismic module could tell you the weight and work at its stated range regardless of other sensor interplay. UAV, on the other hand, is a deployable thing you can leave behind that can gather other sensor data with greatly increased line-of-sight due to altitude.

Yes, there are certainly things which could be taken into account to modify the system I've proposed here.
But the key takeaway is that LOS radar doesn't actually make the game deeper, it actually makes the gameplay more shallow. That's what a lot of folks don't fully grasp.

[Asmudius Heng]

One issue for those who did not play MW4 in depth is not understanding how passive and active sensors really work and have a major effect on how you play the entire game.

The sacrifice for being blind but reducing your team footprint and relying on scouts etc.

However they need better in game communication system for this to really help the solo queue.

Also some way to show if someone on your team is passive or active would be nice so you know if a random is giving away your position

[carl kerensky]

Awesome Roland. You rock. Great ideas here. You have my vote on this. This will make MWO much more fun and exciting to play. Love the LOS lrm idea myself. More spice is good. PGI please consider these great ideas on improving your game.
Ck

[Baudin]

These ideas are very very good.

[ApolloKaras]

Glad to see this thread is still getting attention

[Danghen Woolf]

First off, I always enjoy reading your posts Roland, identify the problem, identify a possible solution, present to the masses.

Koniving, on 18 September 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

And on LRMs with Artemis:

• The fluff of Artemis is that the launcher actually has a beam that with line of sight draws from the launcher to the target, feeds back to itself, and relays that information to the LRMs to further enhance their own on board guidance systems. The result is of course significantly more accurate missiles that are externally guided.

This leads us to ECM versus Artemis.

• In the tabletop rulebooks, Artemis benefits become removed if at any point the missile flight path or the line of sight passes through an ECM bubble, even if only by the edge. This represents the disruption of one of the following:
  
  • Artemis beam is cut off, blocking the advanced target positioning data that the Artemis would communicate.

Blakkstar, on 18 September 2014 - 09:40 AM, said:

Battletech: Total Warfare, page 134

ECM SUITE
An ECM suite has an effect radius of six hexes that creates a “bubble” around the carrying unit. The ECM’s disruptive abilities affect all enemy units inside this bubble, as well as any line of sight traced through the bubble. It has no effect on units friendly to the unit carrying the ECM. Within its effect radius, an ECM suite has the following effects on the following systems. The ECM suite does not affect other scanning and targeting devices, such as TAG and targeting computers. (emphasis mine)

Active Probe: Active probes cannot penetrate the ECM’s area of effect. The probing unit would notice that it is being jammed, however.
Artemis IV FCS: ECM blocks the effects of Artemis IV fire control systems. Artemis-equipped launchers may be fired as normal missiles through the ECM, but they lose the Cluster Hits Table bonus.

Konniving,

I thought that the rules for ECM stated that the unit had to be within the ECM "bubble" for the Artemis to be disrupted? That is the way I am reading the excerpt from TW.

I like your Active/Passive options and having each weight assigned a base sensor value. I think this is something that could be added in using existing mechanics as you have already stated that modifications of sensor ranges is already possible. I think that the "Implied C3" that we currently have would need to be revamped so that each mech has a unique sensor overlay and that targetting data cannot be shared between mechs without implementing the C3 computers. In TT a unit had to have LOS to direct IDF but the penalties are quite high because it was described as basically eyeballing the target e.g. "Off mark 30 meters south." Using this mechanic of having IDF used only for TAG and NARC is a great idea.

ECM I think should remain a bubble but only effect mechs within the bubble, e.g. no Artemis bonus, no NARC bonus on ECM mechs, and sensor ranges should be reduced. So if my Scout lance has a Raven in it and needs to fall back the Raven can provide countermeasure support for the other mechs until the get out of range by reducing the enemy sensor effectiveness.

BAP should not be a buff to sensor range but maybe to sensor strength. So using the weight based detection ranges you stated it would shift the spectrum to the left a little with a simple calculation of adding a simulated 25 tons of weight to a mech, effectively giving a Commando a detection range of a Hunchback.

Just my $.02.

[Koniving]

Danghen Woolf, on 29 October 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

Koniving,

I thought that the rules for ECM stated that the unit had to be within the ECM "bubble" for the Artemis to be disrupted? That is the way I am reading the excerpt from TW.

With ECM at 180 meters, what use would ECM be in disabling the Artemis of an LRM weapon? A simple dodge could easily solve the problem without costing tonnage.

Artemis is actually just a TAG -style laser that targets the mech, and communicates with the missile (where non-Artemis LRMs/SRMs are self-guided and do not communicate with the user's launchers). If the missile's trajectory in any way, shape, or form, enters (touches, crosses over) an ECM field, the missiles lose their Artemis bonus.

As standard LRMs / SRMs are self-contained, self-guided fire-and-forget missiles, they do not require babysitting or communication with the user's launcher. Artemis missiles, when unable to find the beacon/beam for advanced target tracking or communicate with the user's launcher, will automatically default to their standard self-contained guidance. (Fluff, but makes damn good sense when you think about it).

Though the rules about TAG and ECM conflict between versions and rulebooks...
Total Warfare page 134:

Quote

ECM SUITE
An ECM suite has an effect radius of six hexes that creates a
“bubble” around the carrying unit. The ECM’s disruptive abilities
affect all enemy units inside this bubble, as well as any line of sight
traced through the bubble. It has no effect on units friendly to the
unit carrying the ECM.
In the ECM diagram, the ’Mech in Hex A on the Open Terrain
#1 map is equipped with an ECM suite, which has an effect
radius of six hexes (shown as the shaded area). The suite
affects any enemy unit in this area or any enemy LOS traced
through it. The ’Mech in Hex B is affected because it falls inside
the eff ect radius. A shot from Hex C to Hex D would also be
affected because LOS passes through the radius. A shot from
Hex C to Hex E would not be affected because LOS does not pass
through the radius.
Within its eff ect radius, an ECM suite has the following effects
on the following systems. The ECM suite does not affect other
scanning and targeting devices, such as TAG and targeting
computers.

(Affected Systems)
Active Probe: Active probes cannot penetrate the ECM’s area
of eff ect. The probing unit would notice that it is being jammed,
however.
Artemis IV FCS: ECM blocks the eff ects of Artemis IV fi re
control systems. Artemis-equipped launchers may be fi red as
normal missiles through the ECM, but they lose the Cluster Hits
Table bonus.
Narc Missile Beacon: Missiles equipped to home in on an
attached Narc pod lose the Cluster Hits Table bonus for that
system if the pods themselves lie within an ECM “bubble.” The
Narc launcher itself (standard and iNarc) is not aff ected by ECM.
C3 and C3i Computer: ECM has the eff ect of “cutting off ” any C3-
equipped unit from its network. If a C3 master unit is isolated from
the network because it ventures inside the ECM radius, the entire
portion of the network below it is eff ectively shut off (all units
subordinate to it on the diagram on p. 132). Only those C3 units able
to draw an LOS to the master unit that does not pass through the
ECM radius can access the network. If the master unit that connects
the lances of a company lies inside the ECM eff ect radius, the link
between the lances is lost, though each lance’s network functions
normally (unless the ECM also interferes with them individually).

I should note: It was stated in 2012, that all mechs are considered by PGI to have C3 computer systems fully integrated into them as sharing target-data promotes and rewards scouting. This may be why PGI jams target information on ECM mechs, though I find it to be a poor excuse.

Edited by Koniving, 29 October 2014 - 02:02 PM.

[Danghen Woolf]

Koniving, on 29 October 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

Spoiler

With ECM at 180 meters, what use would ECM be in disabling the Artemis of an LRM weapon? A simple dodge could easily solve the problem without costing tonnage.

Artemis is actually just a TAG -style laser that targets the mech, and communicates with the missile (where non-Artemis LRMs/SRMs are self-guided and do not communicate with the user's launchers). If the missile's trajectory in any way, shape, or form, enters (touches, crosses over) an ECM field, the missiles lose their Artemis bonus.

As standard LRMs / SRMs are self-contained, self-guided fire-and-forget missiles, they do not require babysitting or communication with the user's launcher. Artemis missiles, when unable to find the beacon/beam for advanced target tracking or communicate with the user's launcher, will automatically default to their standard self-contained guidance. (Fluff, but makes damn good sense when you think about it).

Though the rules about TAG and ECM conflict between versions and rulebooks...
Total Warfare page 134:


I should note: It was stated in 2012, that all mechs are considered by PGI to have C3 computer systems fully integrated into them as sharing target-data promotes and rewards scouting. This may be why PGI jams target information on ECM mechs, though I find it to be a poor excuse.

Thanks for the clarification, some of the rules do not really make it past the common sense test sometimes and it has been so long since I played an actual game using T2 fittings I forget.
It would not be of much use against LRMs but against SRMs w/ Artemis it would be. So using the current setup or holding locks, it is actually more similar to the fluff description of an Artemis controlled system. This is totally off tangent from the core of the OP by Roland just an observation.