30 replies to this topic

[topgun505]

One of the things that has bugged me since day one about MWO is its target data sharing.

My sensors extend out to 800m (or more depending on enhancements). If the target ducks behind a hill, I lose lock.

Ok ... fine by me, makes sense. But this also points out something else. There are no satellites or warships in atmosphere or orbit feeding targeting data down to us. Ok, makes sense. Most likely the first casualty in any invasion that originates from orbit will be the removal of satellites. And, in pugland since you don't know who the 'attackers' are it makes sense to just balance it out and say no satellites are available to either side.

So ... what's the problem?

Well if terrain blocks my targeting data to a unit, then HOW am I getting targeting data on a target I do not have line of sight to that is being fed to me by a friendly unit WHEN I DO NOT HAVE LINE OF SIGHT TO MY FRIENDLY UNIT EITHER (unit B )?

We just determined there are no satellites or other communication methods feeding me data, and it's safe to say the friendly unit isn't trailing a wire a couple of kilometers long to hook back into the rest of the mechs in the unit. So HOW am I getting his data when there is no clear line to him?

Now, if he is on top of a hill where I have LOS to him (unit C) then sure, I should see what he sees. Likewise if I pop up a UAV (unit E) which has a clear LOS to the target (and it's in range to it) then it should report back targeting data to me. Same goes for if the friendly is out of LOS but he pops up a UAV which I subsequently have LOS to.

I think MWO would be greatly enhanced by getting rid of the friendly-unit God-mode sensor data.

Edited by topgun505, 10 February 2015 - 09:28 PM.

[Ursh]

It would be nice, and logical, for this to happen. As it stands currently, a good light spotter can spot just by poking above a ridge every 2 seconds or so, without ever really keeping eyes on the target(s).

[Ratpoison]

Yes, make it even easier for the pugs to wander off on their own and get killed since they wont be able to track their own team.

I don't see how this would "enhance" gameplay in any way, logical or not.

[zagibu]

Reality usually isn't a good model for fun gameplay. That's why we have cannons with 270m optimal range and various other rather unrealistic kinks.

[El Bandito]

topgun505, on 10 February 2015 - 09:26 PM, said:

One of the things that has bugged me since day one about MWO is its target data sharing.

My sensors extend out to 800m (or more depending on enhancements). If the target ducks behind a hill, I lose lock.

Ok ... fine by me, makes sense. But this also points out something else. There are no satellites or warships in atmosphere or orbit feeding targeting data down to us. Ok, makes sense. Most likely the first casualty in any invasion that originates from orbit will be the removal of satellites. And, in pugland since you don't know who the 'attackers' are it makes sense to just balance it out and say no satellites are available to either side.

There are satellites on every map. Seismic sensor module of your mech takes geological survey satellite feed of data from seismic sensors in the area. Oh, and invading forces do not take out satellite in BT universe whenever possible, as it is precious technology they cannot afford to lose.

Edited by El Bandito, 10 February 2015 - 09:54 PM.

[F4T 4L]

topgun505, on 10 February 2015 - 09:26 PM, said:

One of the things that has bugged me since day one about MWO is its target data sharing.

My sensors extend out to 800m (or more depending on enhancements). If the target ducks behind a hill, I lose lock.

Ok ... fine by me, makes sense. But this also points out something else. There are no satellites or warships in atmosphere or orbit feeding targeting data down to us. Ok, makes sense. Most likely the first casualty in any invasion that originates from orbit will be the removal of satellites. And, in pugland since you don't know who the 'attackers' are it makes sense to just balance it out and say no satellites are available to either side.

So ... what's the problem?

Well if terrain blocks my targeting data to a unit, then HOW am I getting targeting data on a target I do not have line of sight to that is being fed to me by a friendly unit WHEN I DO NOT HAVE LINE OF SIGHT TO MY FRIENDLY UNIT EITHER (unit B )?

We just determined there are no satellites or other communication methods feeding me data, and it's safe to say the friendly unit isn't trailing a wire a couple of kilometers long to hook back into the rest of the mechs in the unit. So HOW am I getting his data when there is no clear line to him?

Now, if he is on top of a hill where I have LOS to him (unit C) then sure, I should see what he sees. Likewise if I pop up a UAV (unit E) which has a clear LOS to the target (and it's in range to it) then it should report back targeting data to me. Same goes for if the friendly is out of LOS but he pops up a UAV which I subsequently have LOS to.

I think MWO would be greatly enhanced by getting rid of the friendly-unit God-mode sensor data.

Riiight.. Cos the BattleTech universe is so grounded in realistic physics.. Sure.

You don't like it cos it isn't a direct translation of table top, admit it.

I think what we have works fine, and makes for good gameplay.

[RAM]

F4T 4L, on 10 February 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

You don't like it cos it isn't a direct translation of table top, admit it.

Not how TT works...


RAM
ELH

[F4T 4L]

RAM, on 10 February 2015 - 10:04 PM, said:

Not how TT works...


RAM
ELH

I didn't say it was. Learn to read.

[mike29tw]

tortuousGoddess, on 10 February 2015 - 09:38 PM, said:

Yes, make it even easier for the pugs to wander off on their own and get killed since they wont be able to track their own team.

I don't see how this would "enhance" gameplay in any way, logical or not.

Deathball is the only way.
Burn all the heretics.

[627]

Why is radio transmission not an option?

You see the enemy, your target computer analyzes it and radio it to your unit. Basically what a C3 does. Don't need LoS unless you are in a gigantic metal cave or so.

[Xmith]

Without the crutches most won't have any fun. Takes too much skill to play with LOS.

PGI thinks tapping the R key is all the skill you need when it comes to shared targeting.

The reason PGI set it up this way is for the sake of gameplay. They have to make it easy or most will give up and split.

[STEF_]

627, on 10 February 2015 - 11:10 PM, said:

Why is radio transmission not an option?

You see the enemy, your target computer analyzes it and radio it to your unit. Basically what a C3 does. Don't need LoS unless you are in a gigantic metal cave or so.

C3 has weight and critical space, while now all mechs have it for free.

It should be right and fair to implement it among the equipment, so to have shared data only between pilots who have it.

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 10 February 2015 - 11:42 PM.

[EgoSlayer]

Radar requires LOS. The RF communication with your allies doesn't.

[YueFei]

With more advanced info warfare models, you could have both non-LOS target sharing and LOS-target sharing.

With non-LOS, you radiate, and are more easily detected by the enemy.

WIth LOS-sharing, you tight-beam a laser link to a friendly, and don't increase your signature to the enemy.

You could have on-map assets for your team like the comm towers. With your team's comm-towers intact, you can tight-beam a laser to it, and it can relay to friendlies in LOS. Destroying the enemy's comm towers compromises their info-sharing ability, unless they choose to radiate.

Things like that to make information warfare interesting.

[EgoSlayer]

Stefka Kerensky, on 10 February 2015 - 11:41 PM, said:

C3 has weight and critical space, while now all mechs have it for free.

It should be right and fair to implement it among the equipment, so to have shared data only between pilots who have it.

For the 10,000th time - we don't have C3. You can share targeting data in TT without C3 and if any friendly has LOS *every* friendly knows the enemy location. C3 allows you to use the other person's range modifiers to apply to your to-hit.

Translated to MWO that would mean that your ballistic/PPC and LRM/SRM weapons speed would increase to reduce the travel time to what it would be if your ally was firing the shot.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 10 February 2015 - 11:47 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

At most we probably should just share a ping on the radar, when a friendly gains a Target.

The red arrow showing the direction their legs are facing, the Paperdoll info update, the Magic Dorito with the Target Corners Bracketing and IFF Names over their heads is a lot to instantly be popping up so dynamically, and maybe should be limited for LOS on targets at most.

And since we can't see "Mad Cat" and other iconic monikers when a Timber or other Clan Mech pops up, I feel that we get information overload anyway, especially now with in-game titles appearing and adding an extra line!



So to be clear, having Teammate info is necessary and should be possible with sensors and transmitting IFF, I just feel we get too much clutter when targeting the enemy.

So Targeting Info should be simplified some, I'd remove the Magic Doritos over head and use modified Target Corner Bracketing so that when an enemy is seen we see the thin lines, and when targeted they get bolded.

Next I'd move the extra info like Names, Titles and Mech info off to the Paperdoll, so that the Target Corner Brackets only display the Target Letters A, B, C, AA, BB and so on.

Hope I'm making sense here!

[Nothing Whatsoever]

EgoSlayer, on 10 February 2015 - 11:46 PM, said:

For the 10,000th time - we don't have C3. You can share targeting data in TT without C3 and if any friendly has LOS *every* friendly knows the enemy location. C3 allows you to use the other person's range modifiers to apply to your to-hit.

Translated to MWO that would mean that your ballistic/PPC and LRM/SRM weapons speed would increase to reduce the travel time to what it would be if your ally was firing the shot.

Well, the accuracy and precision of the weapons are the attributes being increased with C3; when using say the short range modifiers on a target that is sitting at say 8 hexes from you with your ally that is 4 hexes from the target for a long range weapon, not necessarily modifying the velocity or range of the weapon being fired.

[EgoSlayer]

Praetor Knight, on 10 February 2015 - 11:55 PM, said:

Well, the accuracy and precision of the weapons are the attributes being increased with C3; when using say the short range modifiers on a target that is sitting at say 8 hexes from you with your ally that is 4 hexes from the target for a long range weapon, not necessarily modifying the velocity or range of the weapon being fired.

Right, but how do you increase the odds of hitting in a FPS? Reduce the travel time to make it nearly hit scan. There isn't any easy way to increase the 'to hit' number in a FPS outside of auto-aim or some sort of bore site indicator.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 10 February 2015 - 11:59 PM.

[Davers]

topgun505, on 10 February 2015 - 09:26 PM, said:

I think MWO would be greatly enhanced by getting rid of the friendly-unit God-mode sensor data.

Remove shared target data, and everyone who wants to play without a mic will be crippled and useless.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

EgoSlayer, on 10 February 2015 - 11:58 PM, said:

Right, but how do you increase the odds of hitting in a FPS? Reduce the travel time to make it nearly hit scan. There isn't any easy way to increase the 'to hit' number in a FPS outside of auto-aim or some sort of bore site indicator.

True, too bad we can't have a Hud element to show where a player should aim to hit an intended target, such as with this diagram:



I was thinking that the C3 Network could maybe be like the IS equivalent of the Targeting Computer, where it would aid the player by displaying a special crosshair for where to aim for to hit a target with ballistic weapons at least.

That's the only thing coming to mind that should leave it to the player to pull the trigger without auto-aim assist.