20517 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

TheArisen, on 14 June 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

Nexus deserves more love. It's a cool looking mech with (relatively) good potential for MWO.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Nexus

Wut?

Cmon son we got Resistance Heroes to get excited about before that.

[TheArisen]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 June 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

Wut?

Cmon son we got Resistance Heroes to get excited about before that.

Haha got get started early

[Odanan]

TheArisen, on 14 June 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

Nexus deserves more love. It's a cool looking mech with (relatively) good potential for MWO.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Nexus

Doesn't 3 of the 4 variants (including the "standard") have C3?

[Requiemking]

Odanan, on 14 June 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

Doesn't 3 of the 4 variants (including the "standard") have C3?

Honestly, C3 should be in game already, with target sharing removed from all mechs unless they mount it. As of now, with how the Targeting system works, every mech in game basically has a slotless, tonless, completely free C3I module installed right from the get go. It's makes backstabbing and spotting harder than they should be.

[Sereglach]

Odanan, on 14 June 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

Doesn't 3 of the 4 variants (including the "standard") have C3?

I truly don't understand what your obsession with C3 invalidating mechs comes from. Just like A-Pods, B-Pods, and other things (which we've already got variants in game that had those things), they can just replace C3 with heat sinks, armor, or other items to compensate. It's not impossible to implement. I can't think of any variant of a mech off of the top of my head where there's ZERO possibility to alter the mech slightly to compensate for the lost tonnage of removing a C3 unit.

TheArisen, on 14 June 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

Nexus deserves more love. It's a cool looking mech with (relatively) good potential for MWO.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Nexus

Not my first choice, by any stretch, but not a bad mech. They'd have to give a nod to the Jackrabbit, possibly in the hero, if they ever did implement it.

Edited by Sereglach, 14 June 2017 - 03:09 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Tai Sho
Naginata
Hauptmann D
Everything that mount a C3M 4-8ton when you replace it with Tag

However c3 could be a thing when you turn it into a kind of TC - BAP- target decay sensor range thing

[Bishop Steiner]

[Requiemking]

Karl Streiger, on 14 June 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

Tai Sho
Naginata
Hauptmann D
Everything that mount a C3M 4-8ton when you replace it with Tag

However c3 could be a thing when you turn it into a kind of TC - BAP- target decay sensor range thing

Or just remove automatic target sharing from all mechs and bind it to C3 instead.

[Karl Streiger]

This sound like the obvious thing, but its not that simple.
You would need 3 C3M 9 C3S. Only for the gain of target sharing?
So obvious when the lock would only be usefull (read necessary) for the usage of LRMs it would be dead weight most.

The system need to be as abtsract as the TC system - i can mount a TC7 that should support 35t of weapons but only have 6ERMs

[Requiemking]

Karl Streiger, on 14 June 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:

This sound like the obvious thing, but its not that simple.
You would need 3 C3M 9 C3S. Only for the gain of target sharing?
So obvious when the lock would only be usefull (read necessary) for the usage of LRMs it would be dead weight most.

The system need to be as abtsract as the TC system - i can mount a TC7 that should support 35t of weapons but only have 6ERMs

Or, you know, 12 C3i. Not to mention, target sharing is enormously powerful. It's part of why, in group que, one guy can lock an enemy, call him out, and then everyone can lock and focus fire him.

Edited by Requiemking, 14 June 2017 - 10:17 PM.

[Sereglach]

Karl Streiger, on 14 June 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

Tai Sho
Naginata
Hauptmann D
Everything that mount a C3M 4-8ton when you replace it with Tag

However c3 could be a thing when you turn it into a kind of TC - BAP- target decay sensor range thing

Still easy to replace with non-C3 items as necessary. Few examples that would be the most "difficult":

Cyclops CP-11-C2 . . . possesses 2x C3 Masters

Spoiler

1. Remove 2 C3 Masters 1 from LT and RT each = 10 tons free.

2. Bump armor from 12 tons to 16 tons = 6 tons free.

3. Insert Command Console in HD = 3 tons free.

4. Insert BAP and Guardian ECM into LT and RT = 0 tons free.

Hauptmann D . . . Omnimech with 1x C3M

Spoiler

Option 1 - ECM/BAP.
1. Remove C3M from LT = 5 Tons free.

2. Add BAP and ECM to LT = 2 Tons free.

3. Add 2x DHS with 1 in each arm = 0 tons free.

Option 2 - Command Console.
1. Remove C3M from LT= 5 tons free.

2. Add Command Console to HD= 2 tons free.

3. Add AMS w/1ton ammo into LT = .5 tons free.

4. Add CASE to LT = 0 tons free.

NOTE: Neither option touches any value that would contradict TT Omnimech build rules.

Tai-Sho TSH 7S . . . "extra tricky" 2xC3M with ZERO free crits in original config.

Spoiler

1. Remove 2xC3M from LT = 10 tons and 10 crits free.

2. Add a Targeting Computer VII (the TT size it'd require) = 3 tons and 3 crits free.

3. Shuffle floating FF crit from head to LT = no change.

4. Add Command Console = 0 tons and 2 crits free.

All of these changes are well within PGI's capabilities. They add ZERO hardpoints to mechs outside of ECM, which PGI assigns as it sees fit, anyway. If they don't want to give ECM hardpoints to mechs that didn't have them (seems like a fair fit for C3M units) then they can easily be replaced with AMS and 1 ton of ammunition.

Requiemking, on 14 June 2017 - 10:03 PM, said:

Or just remove automatic target sharing from all mechs and bind it to C3 instead.

PGI won't utterly obliterate a core system since the beginning of the game's existence just to implement C3 . . . however here's one way C3 could make a big impact on the game:

Spoiler

1. Remove the dependence of C3 Masters and C3 networks. If YOU have C3 of a certain type then YOU gain the benefits of it.

2. C3 Slave Units: You gain full sight of any radar blips that anyone else can see, even if they don't have them targeted. This includes their Seismic Sensors and shutdown mechs still acknowledged via Probe equipment.

3. C3 Improved Units: You gain the benefits of a C3 Slave as well as the ability to target anything, as long as someone has LOS on it, even if it's not locked by anyone else, and you can gain Target Information and locks on.

4. C3 Master Units: You gain the benefits of a C3 Slave and C3 Improved. In addition, this information is shared to anyone within 150m of you; and they can use that information to acquire locks themselves.

5. Boosted C3 Units: Equal to their non-boosted version of C3 and cannot have their functionality obstructed by ECM suites.

While obviously quite an undertaking for PGI to consider implementing, for people who want to see C3 in the game -in a meaningful manner given the medium with which it is going through- that's one way it could be done and made viable.

Requiemking, on 14 June 2017 - 10:16 PM, said:

Or, you know, 12 C3i. Not to mention, target sharing is enormously powerful. It's part of why, in group que, one guy can lock an enemy, call him out, and then everyone can lock and focus fire him.

This happens in TT even without C3 equipped. In TT C3 just lets you use the best to-hit modifier to the target from your units on the table. That's the "targeting data" being shared. In MWO such a thing is incredibly abstract and difficult to achieve. That's one reason why no one has cared about putting C3 into a Battletech video game; and it's a reason I make the recommendations I do above for how it could be implemented and be remotely viable.

Otherwise it's just too abstract and essentially pointless when the "to-hit modifiers" are basically player aiming skill.

Edited by Sereglach, 14 June 2017 - 10:42 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Sereglach, on 14 June 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

This happens in TT even without C3 equipped. In TT C3 just lets you use the best to-hit modifier to the target from your units on the table. That's the "targeting data" being shared. In MWO such a thing is incredibly abstract and difficult to achieve. That's one reason why no one has cared about putting C3 into a Battletech video game; and it's a reason I make the recommendations I do above for how it could be implemented and be remotely viable.

MW3 did - I know that I found it valuable and did use it in the Single Player Campaign. Afaik it increased the sensor range by linking all sensor data together

like MWLL (has a very good electronic warfare system)
http://wiki.mechlivi...ex.php?title=C3

Edited by Karl Streiger, 14 June 2017 - 10:47 PM.

[Sereglach]

Karl Streiger, on 14 June 2017 - 10:46 PM, said:

MW3 did - I know that I found it valuable and did use it in the Single Player Campaign. Afaik it increased the sensor range by linking all sensor data together

like MWLL (has a very good electronic warfare system)
http://wiki.mechlivi...ex.php?title=C3

It's been a LONG time since I played MW3. I don't remember using C3 in it, at all, probably because it was essentially useless given the campaign scenarios and gameplay. Even the way the Targeting Computers were implemented (I think it was the TC that gave you the hitbox highlights via numpad selections, or was it Artemis) I didn't find useful because it still didn't do anything to actually help you point and shoot at what was valuable. Maybe if they provided an aim-assist or lead-cursors then it might have been more valuable.

MWLL also isn't an official product, so I don't include it (and it also has PLENTY of its own deviations away from TT concepts, to boot). The same goes for MekTek (plenty of its own deviations -even if they're good in some cases- as well).

[Karl Streiger]

MW3 TC gave you a ITTS - to help to lead the target - i only used TC in combination with LRMs (shouldn't have worked) but if you choosed head - (Num Pad 8) and locked your missiles on the TC circle your missiles like in the intro went for the most part into the head.... fire and forget head shots

I think the MWO TC is the best implementation compared to MW3 and MW4

[Odanan]

Karl Streiger, on 14 June 2017 - 10:59 PM, said:

MW3 TC gave you a ITTS - to help to lead the target - i only used TC in combination with LRMs (shouldn't have worked) but if you choosed head - (Num Pad 8) and locked your missiles on the TC circle your missiles like in the intro went for the most part into the head.... fire and forget head shots

I think the MWO TC is the best implementation compared to MW3 and MW4

Wow, I didn't know you could do that. I found MW3 TC very useful combined with pulse lasers to destroy heads.

But yes, MWO's make more sense.

[Odanan]

Talking about the Command Console, I wish it gave buffs to the surrounding friendly units...

[TheArisen]

Odanan, on 15 June 2017 - 03:22 AM, said:

Talking about the Command Console, I wish it gave buffs to the surrounding friendly units...

Well something to justify the weight.

[Sereglach]

Odanan, on 15 June 2017 - 03:22 AM, said:

Talking about the Command Console, I wish it gave buffs to the surrounding friendly units...

TheArisen, on 15 June 2017 - 03:47 AM, said:

Well something to justify the weight.

Agreed, and there've been lots of ways recommended to make them worthwhile. One of my personal favorites was along the lines of all allies within 200m gain 25% increased Target Info Gathering; and for the mech with the Command Console it also gains an extra 50% target retention, 25% sensor range, as well as anything they target is treated as being under the effects of a TAG.

[Metus regem]

Sereglach, on 15 June 2017 - 08:10 AM, said:

Agreed, and there've been lots of ways recommended to make them worthwhile. One of my personal favorites was along the lines of all allies within 200m gain 25% increased Target Info Gathering; and for the mech with the Command Console it also gains an extra 50% target retention, 25% sensor range, as well as anything they target is treated as being under the effects of a TAG.

I always liked giving it the ability to once per match use an Arty and Air strike from the grid map...

[Requiemking]

Metus regem, on 15 June 2017 - 08:20 AM, said:

I always liked giving it the ability to once per match use an Arty and Air strike from the grid map...

Arty/Airstrike should be a basic function of TAG, not a consumable. As it's stands, TAG is inferior to NARC for the simple reason of NARC being fire and forget, while TAG is a facetime tool with a bright red line pointing straight back at you.