132 replies to this topic

[kapusta11]

What's the purpose of such a change? You can still see the enemy with your EYES. The only effect it will have is further nerf already bad LRMs. If you can't avoid LRMs in a fast light you deserve to die.

[Strykewolf]

Mk I Eyeball has a great detection range.

[Jman5]

kapusta11, on 02 March 2015 - 01:47 PM, said:

Further nerf to LRMs? No thanks, they are already bad.

Well I would argue that shooting LRMs at Lights from more than 500 meters is a good way to waste ammo. So maybe this would actually be a stealth buff to LRM-users!

Edited by Jman5, 02 March 2015 - 02:02 PM.

[KraftySOT]

Dimento Graven, on 02 March 2015 - 01:59 PM, said:

If your point is that weapon ranges are out of whack vs. logic, yeah, but at least with weapon ranges we're talking about base values based on the TT game lore.

This, I can't recall seeing anything like this in the rule sets (though admittedly I am not as versed in the later versions as I am with the originals).

And technically in the rule set of the table top, its not that the weapons damage falls off, or even stops, its just the range at which you can actually hit things.

Its implied that the weapon ranges are actually much much longer. Since they go for dozens or hundreds of kilometers in space.

[aniviron]

If sensors are based on the emitted EM signature and/or radar cross-section from the mech, then surely we should have non-LOS targeting?

Just admit it: the way targeting in this game works makes no sense. Not the LOS aspect, not the range, not how quickly targeting decays. (For that matter, using giant mechs instead of tanks doesn't make any sense either, shhhhh, don't tell anyone).

So instead of worrying about whether this reflects real life physics, worry about whether or not it promotes good gameplay. If you think this is a great change because it would let sniper lights do their thing, that's a valid opinion and please tell us. If you think it's an awful change because it makes it easier for SPL Firestarter cheese to happen, that's a valid opinion, say it. If you think that this is totally unrealistic because your dad is a radar engineer for NASA and you know all about radar and this isn't how it works, please remember that you're in a thread for SPACE FUTURE MECHS.

[Dimento Graven]

KraftySOT, on 02 March 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

Nope. Sensor range is based on the sensor suite in the head. Theres a crit for it.

It varies wildly between role, size, complexity, age, and manufacturer.

Even load up a full doubleblind game in Megamek, and check it out. Different mechs have different sensor ranges and types.

Not everything has Magscan for instance.

I am not familiar with Megamek except that it is an "unofficial" online version of the BattleTech board game, and as that is ALL I know of Megamek, I do not know if they are following any of the lore/canon of the original BattleTech board game, or how closely they do follow it.

As far as I can recall from lore, in fact, every 'mech did have magscan (though admittedly I might be misremembering).

No, I don't see this as making much sense.

NOW, if you're talking adjusting seismic based on weight, and speed, of an enemy 'mech, NOW we're talking...

[KraftySOT]

And I mean put a laser powerful enough to blow up a tank on a tank...how far to think its engagement ranges would actually be? Miles? Where are there miles of line of sight? Deserts maybe? Engagement ranges would still be the 500-1000m they are now.

aniviron, on 02 March 2015 - 02:05 PM, said:

If sensors are based on the emitted EM signature and/or radar cross-section from the mech, then surely we should have non-LOS targeting?

Just admit it: the way targeting in this game works makes no sense. Not the LOS aspect, not the range, not how quickly targeting decays. (For that matter, using giant mechs instead of tanks doesn't make any sense either, shhhhh, don't tell anyone).

So instead of worrying about whether this reflects real life physics, worry about whether or not it promotes good gameplay. If you think this is a great change because it would let sniper lights do their thing, that's a valid opinion and please tell us. If you think it's an awful change because it makes it easier for SPL Firestarter cheese to happen, that's a valid opinion, say it. If you think that this is totally unrealistic because your dad is a radar engineer for NASA and you know all about radar and this isn't how it works, please remember that you're in a thread for SPACE FUTURE MECHS.

Yes the way it works in MWO makes no sense.

The way it works in Btech makes total sense.

"PGI."

[Dimento Graven]

aniviron, on 02 March 2015 - 02:05 PM, said:

If sensors are based on the emitted EM signature and/or radar cross-section from the mech, then surely we should have non-LOS targeting?

Just admit it: the way targeting in this game works makes no sense. Not the LOS aspect, not the range, not how quickly targeting decays. (For that matter, using giant mechs instead of tanks doesn't make any sense either, shhhhh, don't tell anyone).

So instead of worrying about whether this reflects real life physics, worry about whether or not it promotes good gameplay. If you think this is a great change because it would let sniper lights do their thing, that's a valid opinion and please tell us. If you think it's an awful change because it makes it easier for SPL Firestarter cheese to happen, that's a valid opinion, say it. If you think that this is totally unrealistic because your dad is a radar engineer for NASA and you know all about radar and this isn't how it works, please remember that you're in a thread for SPACE FUTURE MECHS.

How about we attack it from THIS angle then:

Show me some BattleTech lore that corresponds to this, then.

I don't like it because it seems to have the potential for allowing a 20 ton 'mech VISIBLE to me, be unlockable/targetable because it's 1 meter outside it's weight/range chart.

That seems a bit, unreasonable, to me.

[KraftySOT]

In Battletech there is no "targeting".

Thats the disconnect. There are no red squares in Battletech.

Theres sensor types, and line of sight.

Edited by KraftySOT, 02 March 2015 - 02:10 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

KraftySOT, on 02 March 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

Nope. Sensor range is based on the sensor suite in the head. Theres a crit for it.

It varies wildly between role, size, complexity, age, and manufacturer.

Even load up a full doubleblind game in Megamek, and check it out. Different mechs have different sensor ranges and types.

Not everything has Magscan for instance.

you put the same sensors on a mech carrying the same power plant, whether it is a 40 ton mech or a 80 ton one the sensors will work exactly the same, because they are identical in performance

[Dimento Graven]

KraftySOT, on 02 March 2015 - 02:10 PM, said:

In Battletech there is no "targeting".

Thats the disconnect.

Not true, it's just that the 'targeting' mechanism was:

Announce your target
Count to hit modifiers
roll dice

Taking turn based table top 'targeting' and porting it over to a REAL TIME FPS shooter requires SOME accommodation.

Adding this weight/range scale is something I can't even think of matching up with ANY sort of in game rule sets, nor lore from novels...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 02 March 2015 - 02:13 PM.

[KraftySOT]

Dimento Graven, on 02 March 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

Not true, it's just that the 'targeting' mechanism was:

Announce your target
Count to hit modifiers
roll dice

Taking turn based table top 'targeting' and porting it over to a REAL TIME FPS shooter requires SOME accommodation.

No, thats what you do.

Each mech, has sensors, its a crit in the head, weighs something, effects your sensor range (among other things). Go load up Megamek, check it out.

You have magscan, IR scan, normal, and off, sensor modes. If say you dont have line of sight in a doubleblind game to an enemy mech, you cant see it on the map, at all, its invisible to you. If you magscan it, and its in range, and its sensors cant defeat it, you can see that mech. You still cant shoot at it though (no line of sight because everything is point fire unless spotted by a spotter, who cant fire, they just relay information/direct fire).

Youre misunderstanding the Table Top.

The reason a secondary target is a +1 to hit, is because its a snap shot, after youve fired your other weapons at your primary target. Everything is always targeted, or not targeted. Theres no red squares.

Its like ..

Go play Arma3 in an Apache. Its like that. thats the only way I can explain it.

Edited by KraftySOT, 02 March 2015 - 02:16 PM.

[stealthraccoon]

I think detection of a mech should be based on tonnage, engine output and speed. For example:

A 20 ton Locust with a 160 rated engine trotting along at 50% throttle should be harder to detect than a 55 ton Wolverine raging by with it's 360 rated engine at 100%.

Even a bonus for mechs sneaking around at <40 kph would be cool.



Ps - Okay, so the stock Urbanmech would be near undetectable, but that isn't really a bad thing

Edited by stealthraccoon, 02 March 2015 - 02:17 PM.

[Beastbear]

between bap, targeting comps, modules, ecm, and seismic...... they really aren't anyway, and if it becomes a game changer the clans then get a bigger advantage because they have more options for extending it.

equip bap and adv sensor module on something together and see what you can see...... it's actually pretty good for scouting and spotting bonuses

[KraftySOT]

Lets see...Falcon 4.0. Arma 3. Any Vietnam or Modern Era flight or tank sim. Thats how it works.

The whole idea of the little paper doll, red squares, 'hitting t' is an invention of Activision developers in the 90s. It has nothing to do with the table top or how its abstracting its "reality".

[Dimento Graven]

KraftySOT, on 02 March 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

No, thats what you do.

Each mech, has sensors, its a crit in the head, weighs something, effects your sensor range (among other things). Go load up Megamek, check it out.

You have magscan, IR scan, normal, and off, sensor modes. If say you dont have line of sight in a doubleblind game to an enemy mech, you cant see it on the map, at all, its invisible to you. If you magscan it, and its in range, and its sensors cant defeat it, you can see that mech. You still cant shoot at it though (no line of sight because everything is point fire unless spotted by a spotter, who cant fire, they just relay information/direct fire).

Youre misunderstanding the Table Top.

The reason a secondary target is a +1 to hit, is because its a snap shot, after youve fired your other weapons at your primary target. Everything is always targeted, or not targeted. Theres no red squares.

Its like ..

Go play Arma3 in an Apache. Its like that. thats the only way I can explain it.

In BattleTech, I can't say I've ever played with the rules you're talking about. Which rule set/module book are you talking about, I'll look it up there.

[KraftySOT]

Like for example an M1A1 can "lock onto" a T-72. It has, in some iterations, wire guided missiles, and radio controlled or even TV controlled missiles. But theres no "red square". Real life targeting doesnt work like that, nor did it in the Btech universe. The rules are an abstraction, the same way they would be in a board game that simulates the battle between the Israeli and Syrian forces at the Golan Heights.

When you fire off your LRMs, they have a dedicated system that helps assist, along with you, some are wire guided, some radio, etc just like real life an LRM is an abstraction of all the systems that can do this. Like an AC5 might be a slow firing 100mm, or a fast firing 57mm.

So the whole sensor warfare thing in our game, ideally, if it wants to be "battletech" it would work like it does in any realistic military simulation like Arma. (not Battlefield)

Dimento Graven, on 02 March 2015 - 02:19 PM, said:

In BattleTech, I can't say I've ever played with the rules you're talking about. Which rule set/module book are you talking about, I'll look it up there.

TacOps and Maxtech.

http://megamek.info/

Get that, go into the client options, check off everything in the Line of Sight and Advanced Rules. Make sure everything related to double blind is checked.

Drop some mechs on a nice hilly map on different teams and play around with that. See what happens when you throw in the various ECM types, ECCM, ECCCM, Beagles, etc. Clan mechs have some neat options too.

It should show your sensor range on the mech placards first page, and on the systems page on the placard, itll show you your sensor modes, switching between the various ways of scanning.

Edited by KraftySOT, 02 March 2015 - 02:26 PM.

[zolop]

KraftySOT, on 02 March 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

Like for example an M1A1 can "lock onto" a T-72. It has, in some iterations, wire guided missiles, and radio controlled or even TV controlled missiles. But theres no "red square". Real life targeting doesnt work like that, nor did it in the Btech universe. The rules are an abstraction, the same way they would be in a board game that simulates the battle between the Israeli and Syrian forces at the Golan Heights.

When you fire off your LRMs, they have a dedicated system that helps assist, along with you, some are wire guided, some radio, etc just like real life an LRM is an abstraction of all the systems that can do this. Like an AC5 might be a slow firing 100mm, or a fast firing 57mm.

So the whole sensor warfare thing in our game, ideally, if it wants to be "battletech" it would work like it does in any realistic military simulation like Arma. (not Battlefield)



TacOps and Maxtech.

http://megamek.info/

Get that, go into the client options, check off everything in the Line of Sight and Advanced Rules. Make sure everything related to double blind is checked.

Drop some mechs on a nice hilly map on different teams and play around with that. See what happens when you throw in the various ECM types, ECCM, ECCCM, Beagles, etc. Clan mechs have some neat options too.

It should show your sensor range on the mech placards first page, and on the systems page on the placard, itll show you your sensor modes, switching between the various ways of scanning.

Good idea, anything that can give this game more information warfare is a good thing if it related to battletech tabeltop.

[Jman5]

kapusta11, on 02 March 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

What's the purpose of such a change? You can still see the enemy with your EYES. The only effect it will have is further nerf already bad LRMs. If you can't avoid LRMs in a fast light you deserve to die.

The purpose is to allow smaller mechs a greater ability to scout and avoid being spotted. In my mind there is a big difference between being seen and being targeted. In the first case, the only people who know your location are people who are staring directly at you. In the other case, you have a bright, neon red triangle hovering over your head. As soon as someone presses the "R" button suddenly everybody on the team knows where you are.

I can't tell you how many times my eyes briefly catch the red triangle, but I didn't otherwise notice the mech. Without that, I wouldn't have noticed.

I believe it's important to create more separation between the tonnages to make player choice more meaningful. This strengthens one of the pillars of the game, role warfare, by allowing them to sneak in a little closer to scout or harry the enemy. In my opinion, it's also a pretty intuitive change to make small mechs harder to see than big mechs.

[Artgathan]

LOS Targetting is actually consistent with battletech - consider the Madcat: sensors trying to ID it would switch between the Catapult and Marauder. If Radars in BT used only IFF transponders, this would never have happened - IS pilots would have simply gotten 'unknown target' on the screen.

That said, I think our sensors could use some work. Check my sig for details.