126 replies to this topic

[Blakkstar]

Apnu, on 30 October 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

So my point is, it could be 100x worse had PGI stuck to strict TT rules and gave every mech telemetry to every other mech in the game from the first second. There would be no brawling and no sniping, just dark clouds of LRMs raining down.

Not really. The problem is that MWO did not account for the TT LRM Indirect Fire spotting rules in this game. In TT, a spotter is required for indirect fire (that's the same), but there is also a natural penalty, and another penalty if the spotter does anything but spot. In MWO, the spotter can hit R and go about his business normally. In other words, spotting is too easy.

An easy fix would be to make spotters keep a lock on the target, just like a normal missile lock. If they move the reticule too far off the target or lose LOS, the lock is broken and indirectly fired LRMs will miss. There's no practical way to apply a penalty while shooting like in TT, but having to maintain the lock makes spotting more risky and difficult, which accomplishes the same goal.

NARC and TAG would then become more valuable. A NARCed mech would broadcast a lock for the duration, and TAG could allow the lock to maintain for a countdown timer even after the spotter loses LOS. The rewards for LRM spotting should also increase to make it worthwhile.

The net effect would be for LRM indirect fire to require more teamwork to be effective, and they would be pushed toward being long-range direct fire weapons more than magic cruise missiles that can only be stopped by the Jesus Box.

[That Dawg]

Halcyon201, on 29 October 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

Why should the other 11 mechs get to target me with precision guided missiles with ZERO line of sight, and without any TAG or NARC help from the other mech I'm fighting?

Why should him targeting me automatically allow every other team member to target me AND fire missiles AND have them hit me?

its a pretend game, in giant pretend robo.....sorry..mechanized warriors, they are on radios.
they broadcast to their allies what they are doing.
its how a game replicates that, you show up on the mechs hud you are fighting, that info is broadcast to others

THANK GOD...I've had my arse saved a dozen times...

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Frequently I get into a sword fight with another knight at point blank range, and EVERY SINGLE TIME arrows start flying from behind enemy lines, out of sword reach behind hills and fortifications to pummel me while I'm trying to duel with this other knight. It takes 0% skill to sit on top of the wall and **** crossbow bolts hoping to hit something. Sword Fighting has effectively been rendered useless because some blacksmith got drunk and started handing out crossbows to every peasant in farmville.

imagine if there were respawns in real life, how many complaints there would be about people dying without ever having a chance to protect themselves due to ridiculous ranged weaponry. Either deal with them as a fact of life in the game and be fortunate there are respawns, or play a game without them. Quit moving into another person's country and complaining its not like the country you left. Sure the game has problems and lrm's have been on the nerf/buff cycle from hell, but I'm gonna tell you what I tell the arty whiners from world of tanks. Git Gud.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 03 November 2014 - 06:21 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Well, i think in the lore there was little to none data exchange between two 'Mechs without a C3 network (i am not very familiar with this kind of equipment though, having never played TT seriously).

It may feel weird, as it would mean that nowadays we have much better data sharing networks between a ship and a fighter, a ship and a ground base, a plane and a base.. But i would not be against making LRM indirect fire more difficult; however, i fear, it would make them too much situational, as cover could negate 90% of the LRM salvos, unless a dedicated spotter can keep the lock for a decent time..

[Joseph Mallan]

Battlecruiser, on 03 November 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

Frequently I get into a sword fight with another knight at point blank range, and EVERY SINGLE TIME arrows start flying from behind enemy lines, out of sword reach behind hills and fortifications to pummel me while I'm trying to duel with this other knight. It takes 0% skill to sit on top of the wall and **** crossbow bolts hoping to hit something. Sword Fighting has effectively been rendered useless because some blacksmith got drunk and started handing out crossbows to every peasant in farmville.

imagine if there were respawns in real life, how many complaints there would be about people dying without ever having a chance to protect themselves due to ridiculous ranged weaponry. Either deal with them as a fact of life in the game and be fortunate there are respawns, or play a game without them. Quit moving into another person's country and complaining its not like the country you left. Sure the game has problems and lrm's have been on the nerf/buff cycle from hell, but I'm gonna tell you what I tell the arty whiners from world of tanks. Git Gud.

WHY DO YOU INSIST ON BRINGING A KNIFE TO A WARZONE???

You sound like a Clanner not a Merc.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

CyclonerM, on 03 November 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

Well, i think in the lore there was little to none data exchange between two 'Mechs without a C3 network (i am not very familiar with this kind of equipment though, having never played TT seriously).

It may feel weird, as it would mean that nowadays we have much better data sharing networks between a ship and a fighter, a ship and a ground base, a plane and a base.. But i would not be against making LRM indirect fire more difficult; however, i fear, it would make them too much situational, as cover could negate 90% of the LRM salvos, unless a dedicated spotter can keep the lock for a decent time..

the problem is that strangers don't work together, and I have several ideas and frameworks I could explain including detailed notes with math on design infrastructure but honestly, I'm not going to waste my time.

However, a good, manageable place to start that does not require money and significant software engineering and game mode overhauls is by making radar dep the default setting for lock ons and allowing lrm's to be dumb fired easier, and allowing them to track at 50% strength during lock. A more advanced detail would be allowing tag to laser guide unlocked lrm's, however I am unsure of how the current missile framework is put together and this may not even be possible.

[Livewyr]

I think that LRM locks should only be LoS, TAG, or Narc.
I think ECM should block non-LoS targeting. (I.E. No transfer) but should not block LoS targeting.
I think that LRM missile speed should be boosted to 400m/s

I do not think those things because I think LRMs are broken/OP by any stretch. (It has been a long time since I have died to an LRM boat.) I think so because I don't want players to be encouraged to sit back behind the lines with lazy boats demanding people hit "R" for them.

It encourages bad players using missile boats and dragging down their team.

Joseph Mallan, on 03 November 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

WHY DO YOU INSIST ON BRINGING A KNIFE TO A WARZONE???

You sound like a Clanner not a Merc.

*cough* I am a Clanner, and my star and I will happily kill you at 1200 meters.

[Joseph Mallan]

Battlecruiser, on 03 November 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

the problem is that strangers don't work together, and I have several ideas and frameworks I could explain including detailed notes with math on design infrastructure but honestly, I'm not going to waste my time.

However, a good, manageable place to start that does not require money and significant software engineering and game mode overhauls is by making radar dep the default setting for lock ons and allowing lrm's to be dumb fired easier, and allowing them to track at 50% strength during lock. A more advanced detail would be allowing tag to laser guide unlocked lrm's, however I am unsure of how the current missile framework is put together and this may not even be possible.

Teams that fail to work together in combat often end up dead. humiliated in the killing. I do not support making team work harder. at all. ever.

Combat game teamwork should rule. Indirect fire is part of team work.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 November 2014 - 06:52 AM.

[Josef Nader]

Blakkstar, on 03 November 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

Not really. The problem is that MWO did not account for the TT LRM Indirect Fire spotting rules in this game. In TT, a spotter is required for indirect fire (that's the same), but there is also a natural penalty, and another penalty if the spotter does anything but spot. In MWO, the spotter can hit R and go about his business normally. In other words, spotting is too easy.

An easy fix would be to make spotters keep a lock on the target, just like a normal missile lock. If they move the reticule too far off the target or lose LOS, the lock is broken and indirectly fired LRMs will miss. There's no practical way to apply a penalty while shooting like in TT, but having to maintain the lock makes spotting more risky and difficult, which accomplishes the same goal.

NARC and TAG would then become more valuable. A NARCed mech would broadcast a lock for the duration, and TAG could allow the lock to maintain for a countdown timer even after the spotter loses LOS. The rewards for LRM spotting should also increase to make it worthwhile.

The net effect would be for LRM indirect fire to require more teamwork to be effective, and they would be pushed toward being long-range direct fire weapons more than magic cruise missiles that can only be stopped by the Jesus Box.

Spotters -are- taking a penalty, in that they are getting torn apart by incoming fire. Its a lot easier to hit your targets in MWO than with your average IS 4/5 House Garrison MechWarriors. If I had a nickle for every time my ECM Raven got its armor stripped by a dual gauss shot in return for my paiting him with a TAG, I'd be rich. That kind of thing rarely happened in Tabletop.

I'm not complaining. He absolutely should be able to make that shot, because this is a different kind of game. All I'm saying is that there are already penalties for painting a target.

Oh, and you also lose the target lock if you look away from the enemy mech for too long and nobody else has LoS. The system you're suggesting already exists and is working as intended.

Also, NARC is the single most useful tool for spotters in the game. I can roll in on my ECM Raven, hit a target with a blowdart, and scarper before he melts me with weapons fire. Any dedicated spotter who doesn't bring NARC is suicidal.

CyclonerM, on 03 November 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

Well, i think in the lore there was little to none data exchange between two 'Mechs without a C3 network (i am not very familiar with this kind of equipment though, having never played TT seriously).

It may feel weird, as it would mean that nowadays we have much better data sharing networks between a ship and a fighter, a ship and a ground base, a plane and a base.. But i would not be against making LRM indirect fire more difficult; however, i fear, it would make them too much situational, as cover could negate 90% of the LRM salvos, unless a dedicated spotter can keep the lock for a decent time..

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3867215

Linking to my earlier post in this thread. Spotting is working as intended.

[Mercules]

CyclonerM, on 03 November 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

Well, i think in the lore there was little to none data exchange between two 'Mechs without a C3 network (i am not very familiar with this kind of equipment though, having never played TT seriously).

There is all kind of target sharing between mechs with just their normal networks and communication. C3 allows them to coordinate in such a way that the mechs can set up a firing solution as if they were as far away as the nearest member of the C3 network. In other words, if you had an enemy 30 meters from you all his teammates could hit you as if they were standing 30 meters from you as well.

[Joseph Mallan]

Livewyr, on 03 November 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

*cough* I am a Clanner, and my star and I will happily kill you at 1200 meters.

Then you are not Clanners in the truest sense. Now if YOU killed me at 1,200 Meters while your Star killed everyone else... That's Still Clan.

[Appogee]

It was the easiest coding solution.

Or as we MWO players call it "the PGI Way".

[Mercules]

Livewyr, on 03 November 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

I do not think those things because I think LRMs are broken/OP by any stretch. (It has been a long time since I have died to an LRM boat.) I think so because I don't want players to be encouraged to sit back behind the lines with lazy boats demanding people hit "R" for them.

If this is the issue you would be better off hopping in a Light mech that cruises along fairly fast and go back and teach them the errors of being unsupported artillery with very little means of fighting back in a close up fight. That's what I do instead of trying to Nerf an entire weapon system that is already marginal because I don't like the person's playstyle.

[Josef Nader]

Battlecruiser, your cutting jibe is incredible, good sir. I don't think any of us can argue any further on this topic. We have been laid low by your wit and grace.

By all means, PGI should drop everything they're doing and implement your ideas this instant. I will accept nothing less!

Edited by Josef Nader, 03 November 2014 - 06:46 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Halcyon201, on 29 October 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

Why should the other 11 mechs get to target me with precision guided missiles with ZERO line of sight, and without any TAG or NARC help from the other mech I'm fighting?

Why should him targeting me automatically allow every other team member to target me AND fire missiles AND have them hit me?

Halcyon, without reading more than a few posts in, let me express a couple of things, especially because I'm an LRM guy...

1) I agree with you that not everyone in the world should be able to see you and lob LRMs at you indirectly,

2) Once they further nerf LRMs, they will be required to also nerf ECM, which is the bloody bane of an LRM pilot's existence, and

3) Indirect Fire is one of the rules of the tabletop game that should NOT have been transferred directly into the game.

That having been said, here are a couple of solutions I have for PGI to consider...

1) The ability for LRM pilots to gain an indirect fire lock should be limited to being within a certain range from a spotting 'Mech. I'm not saying it should be removed completely, nor that it should remain as it is, but I do offer the following explanation for what I mean, instead. I have a Raven ally who is trying to scope out the opposition, who is 750m from an opponent who is duking it out with another ally; any LRM 'Mech within 750m of the target and 1000m of the spotting ally should be alright to engage that target indirectly, even from cover. After all, LRM 'Mech's die entirely too quickly once discovered, and that's not a lack of skill, it's a lack of brawling weapons.

2) ECM should not provide an impenetrable shroud of cover for the ECM 'Mech or any 'Mechs it is protecting, but a penalty to locking on, instead. What we have, now, is that any ECM 'Mech that comes within 180m of any opposing 'Mech(s) places any target of those opposing 'Mech(s) in a state of broken and gained registration for that pilot, which means any LRM 'Mechs have to lock on with LRMs fresh every single time the target registration is re-established. This is not what was intended by the original BattleTech developers; their target was always to give some manner of penalty for penalty-producing gear. My solution here is that the registration is NEVER broken, but it will take longer to gain the lock due to low signal, and it will be beneficial for the locking 'Mech to get rid of the ECM 'Mech, but it's no longer impossible to gain a lock on the original target. The very same principle should work for 'Mech's at range under ECM protection, not a wall of invisibility over them, but not only do they have to be spotted, but the ECM should only work as a non-lock-breaking penalty to locking.

3) Finally, I think brawling should be encouraged, so those who need and like to brawl can do so in some relative amount of peace. So, in addition to the changes I offered in 1, above, any 'Mechs classified as brawlers who close to a certain range should provide their own penalty to locking on by LRM Indirect Fire rules. The penalty would be something of a movement penalty, since brawlers are, more often than not, dog fighting for the best position, anyway, and LRMs are not supposed to be self-guided munitions. As a matter of fact, I know that, if my lock to the target is broken, or I switch to another target, my LRMs fly straight to the last point -not the last 'Mech- they were aimed at. On a broken lock my target is, in all likelihood, gone from that point, and my missiles will not hit. Of course, this rule would have zero effect on snipers or LRM direct fire folks, but I can see the OPs cause for alarm, and anger, over Indirect Fire.

I don't know if these things are worthy of discussion, or not, but they would be some manner of compromise. Here's the thing... as an LRM boat driver, I love to be able to stand off and hit enemy targets, whether directly or indirectly, so the system PGI have developed suits me. However, there are certain things -as mentioned above- that still need to be tweaked to make the game right.

[Here5y]

Kilo 40, on 29 October 2014 - 09:43 PM, said:

because the others can't target it on their own because it is out of their radar range, under ECM, etc..

TAG was never meant to be the primary/only way to target a mech. It's an enhancement.

I´m thinking about stuff like that .. Point is ECM should not make a Target Lock impossible, but a relaying of the Target Information from a C3 Slave / Master to the Rest of the C3 Network - so ECM would be less beneficial. TAG would provide no Target Information to other Mechs, but only provide a Target Lock (? , but only in your lance?).

C3 Master would come with an integrated Tag.

LRM should get a ability to fire indirect like a mortar without a target lock.

Edited by Plizzken, 03 November 2014 - 07:05 AM.

[Josef Nader]

Paper is OP. Scissors are fine.

-Rock

[Apnu]

Blakkstar, on 03 November 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

Not really. The problem is that MWO did not account for the TT LRM Indirect Fire spotting rules in this game. In TT, a spotter is required for indirect fire (that's the same), but there is also a natural penalty, and another penalty if the spotter does anything but spot. In MWO, the spotter can hit R and go about his business normally. In other words, spotting is too easy.

An easy fix would be to make spotters keep a lock on the target, just like a normal missile lock. If they move the reticule too far off the target or lose LOS, the lock is broken and indirectly fired LRMs will miss. There's no practical way to apply a penalty while shooting like in TT, but having to maintain the lock makes spotting more risky and difficult, which accomplishes the same goal.

NARC and TAG would then become more valuable. A NARCed mech would broadcast a lock for the duration, and TAG could allow the lock to maintain for a countdown timer even after the spotter loses LOS. The rewards for LRM spotting should also increase to make it worthwhile.

The net effect would be for LRM indirect fire to require more teamwork to be effective, and they would be pushed toward being long-range direct fire weapons more than magic cruise missiles that can only be stopped by the Jesus Box.

If that's the case ,then ECM should not blanket fog-of-war over covered mechs. Let it mess up TAG, NARC and Artemis, but not wipe out all sensors but seismic.

LRMs already require bucket loads of teamwork, this weekend's Halloween event saw so much ECM it was impossible, in some matches, to counter it. Many of the games I saw were ECM lopsided also. Frequently I faced 3+ ECM mechs and had 0-1 ECM on my team -- all of this was in the PUG queue. Yeah I know MM doesn't consider tech when making matches, but it should, because that was ridiculous. As a result, breaking ECM so LRMs could be effective took a real effort.

I can't wait for tomorrow's patch with the new BAP counter bubble. I already run BAP on many builds, so the counter range change will be welcome.

[Cyberiad]

12 v 12 is not fun.
Free target sharing without need for Narc/TAG/C3 is not fun.
These game elements results in players hiding behind buildings of half the match. Not fun.
/thread

Edited by Silicon Life, 03 November 2014 - 07:10 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Livewyr, on 03 November 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

I think that LRM locks should only be LoS, TAG, or Narc.

TAG and NARC are still supposed to require LOS to make them work right, but we're not discussing those things because they work as they should.

Quote

I think ECM should block non-LoS targeting. (I.E. No transfer) but should not block LoS targeting.

Intriguing. That ECM would have to be within 180m of either the spotting or the firing 'Mech, however.

Quote

I think that LRM missile speed should be boosted to 400m/s

I sort of disagree with this one. I hate Light 'Mechs and the FACT they can get up on my missile boat and lay me low without much work, but the missile speeds now at least give me a chance to hit them at range, and kill them before they can do that. So, I'm on the fence about this one.

Quote

I do not think those things because I think LRMs are broken/OP by any stretch. (It has been a long time since I have died to an LRM boat.) I think so because I don't want players to be encouraged to sit back behind the lines with lazy boats demanding people hit "R" for them.

It encourages bad players using missile boats and dragging down their team.

Now this I absolutely disagree with. Every player in this game has their abilities, so those who can't brawl, LuRM. It doesn't make bad players, it doesn't make lazy players, what it makes is players who've chosen to take on a support role, and anyone who doesn't hit "R" is inviting their own doom through lack of support help. If you really want to do everything on your own, with no support help whatsoever, then that's on you. I, however, will continue to support my team mates in the best way I can. Since I'm neither a brawler nor a sniper, that means I'm an LRM guy.

Quote

*cough* I am a Clanner, and my star and I will happily kill you at 1200 meters.

Yes, of course you will... you and your Clan buddies carrying LRMs will happily smack down anyone you can find at that range, rather than getting closer. Thank God for terrain and maneuverability.