132 replies to this topic

[Mercules]

Tuefel Hunden, on 04 March 2015 - 06:23 AM, said:

What you really have to ask yourself is why such an advanced fighting machine only has forward looking radar?

You mean like almost every fighter plane in existence?

[Tuefel Hunden]

Yep. I would expect superior detection capabilities from a machine that is far more advanced than any fighter plane, tank, or apc we have seen.

[Water Bear]

Jman5, on 02 March 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

Does it make sense to you that a 20 ton locust should be detected at the same range as a 100 ton direwolf? Do you think it is easier or harder to play the role of a scout if you can be detected at the same range as most other mechs on the battlefield?

Yes, it does. In terms of the detectable signals they emit, I don't see how they'd be any different.

Moreover you don't think an APC is "less detectable" than an Abrams battle tank, do you? Aside from the fact that one is faster, anything that would "detect" an APC in a scientific sense would also easily detect an Abrams and vice versa.

Facts aside, I guess I see what you mean about the affect this would have on gameplay, but not every light mech should be an ECM Raven. You should have to work to avoid being seen -- as it is now, if you can get behind the enemy without them laying eyes on you, then you aren't detected. Seems fair. You're asking to be undetected despite players actually, potentially, seeing you, which is what ECM is called.

Edit: Spelling and grammar.

Edited by Water Bear, 04 March 2015 - 07:49 AM.

[Artgathan]

Tuefel Hunden, on 04 March 2015 - 07:39 AM, said:

Yep. I would expect superior detection capabilities from a machine that is far more advanced than any fighter plane, tank, or apc we have seen.

Our 120m machine-guns would like a word. (And ours shoot further than TT's 90m ones).

[Fonzie260]

This brings into question of the size of mechs and their abilities... which I have questioned from day one....

to use from the statement up above.... an apc can't carry the weapons or weight of a M1.... Ie= equipment... how is in this game a light mech can equip assault sized weapons and suffer no penalty?

[FupDup]

Fonzie260, on 04 March 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

This brings into question of the size of mechs and their abilities... which I have questioned from day one....

to use from the statement up above.... an apc can't carry the weapons or weight of a M1.... Ie= equipment... how is in this game a light mech can equip assault sized weapons and suffer no penalty?

Define "assault sized weapons."

[Tuefel Hunden]

Artgathan, on 04 March 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

Our 120m machine-guns would like a word. (And ours shoot further than TT's 90m ones).

I have never seen a 120mm machine gun. What gun are you referring too?

[FupDup]

Tuefel Hunden, on 04 March 2015 - 08:15 AM, said:

I have never seen a 120mm machine gun. What gun are you referring too?

I think he's referring to the range, not the caliber.

...In which case, Mechwarrior's 500 kilogram "machine guns" only reaching out to 90-120 meters (optimal range) is kind of silly. This IP is basically a parade of Space Magic™ at its finest, so don't get caught up in the "realistic" details.


As a funny comparison point, the real-life M2 Browning 50 cal (which weighs only 58 kilograms) can reach out to an effective range of 1800 meters...

Edited by FupDup, 04 March 2015 - 08:23 AM.

[Dino Might]

Fonzie260, on 04 March 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

This brings into question of the size of mechs and their abilities... which I have questioned from day one....

to use from the statement up above.... an apc can't carry the weapons or weight of a M1.... Ie= equipment... how is in this game a light mech can equip assault sized weapons and suffer no penalty?

We are still using the crit/tonnage requirements system of TT. I agree that it would make sense to give light mechs fewer crit slots in various areas; HOWEVER, the 10 heat sinks should all fit in the engine, and then I think we'd both get what we want. The Raven no longer carries a Gauss Rifle, but it can still fit 10 doubles with a few medium pulse lasers. OR, just don't require 10 heat sinks...

I am still bothered by people saying that sensor equipment is not impacted at all by tonnage. One, some is, and two, tonnage correlates with size for MWO, so indirectly, it definitely does, even for radar.

The reason that a Bradley and an M1 MBT have similar detectability on radar is that their radar cross sections, which depend on size and shape, are roughly similar.

You cannot tell me that, in MWO, the radar cross sections of a Locust and an Atlas are roughly similar.

Edited by Dino Might, 04 March 2015 - 08:26 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Dino Might, on 04 March 2015 - 08:23 AM, said:

We are still using the crit/tonnage requirements system of TT. I agree that it would make sense to give light mechs fewer crit slots in various areas; HOWEVER, the 10 heat sinks should all fit in the engine, and then I think we'd both get what we want. The Raven no longer carries a Gauss Rifle, but it can still fit 10 doubles with a few medium pulse lasers. OR, just don't require 10 heat sinks...

I am still bothered by people saying that sensor equipment is not impacted at all by tonnage. One, some is, and two, tonnage correlates with size for MWO, so indirectly, it definitely does, even for radar.

The reason that a Bradley and an M1 MBT have similar detectability on radar is that their radar cross sections, which depend on size and shape, are roughly similar.

You cannot tell me that, in MWO, the radar cross sections of a Locust and an Atlas are roughly similar.

Why should a 20 ton mech moving at 150 kph have a lower detection signature then a 100 tone at 50 kph.
All you need it a microphone and you can hear them coming. What the game needs is dynamic detection thresholds. if i's standing still your ability to detect me should go down. static valuse are not good for game play. but the game is a FPS not a SIM. that dictates how things work.

[Strum Wealh]

Artgathan, on 04 March 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

Our 120m machine-guns would like a word. (And ours shoot further than TT's 90m ones).

Tuefel Hunden, on 04 March 2015 - 08:15 AM, said:

I have never seen a 120mm machine gun. What gun are you referring too?

FupDup, on 04 March 2015 - 08:20 AM, said:

I think he's referring to the range, not the caliber.

...In which case, Mechwarrior's 500 kilogram "machine guns" only reaching out to 90-120 meters (optimal range) is kind of silly. This IP is basically a parade of Space Magic™ at its finest, so don't get caught up in the "realistic" details.


As a funny comparison point, the real-life M2 Browning 50 cal (which weighs only 58 kilograms) can reach out to an effective range of 1800 meters...

Personally, I've always liked the idea of using the BattleForce distance conversion (1 hex = 180 meters) as representing the "real" effective ranges of BT weapons against 'Mech-grade armor.

For reference, the M61 Vulcan - a 20mm weapon, like many BT.MW Machine Guns - has "6.3 mm RHA penetration at 0 degree impact angle and 1000 m range" when firing the M53 API round and "12.5 mm RHA penetration at 0 degree obliquity at 100 m range" when firing the M56A3/A4 HEI round.

Given that machine guns fire solid bullets rather than explosive shells (one of the distinctions that marks them as distinct from autocannons), it stands to reason that their effective ranges (e.g. how much damage can be done against armor) might be a bit shorter (since they would only have KE & momentum as their damage mechanism).
As such, BT MGs having an effective range (versus 'Mech armor) of 540 meters (after which, the bullets simply wouldn't have enough KE or momentum left to cause significant damage to 'Mech armor) is less-unreasonable.

IMO, using the BattleForce conversion also works well for other weapons:

• Small Laser: 90 meters → 540 meters
  
• Medium Laser: 270 meters → 1620 meters
  
• Large Laser: 450 meters → 2700 meters
  
• ER Large Laser: 570 meters → 3420 meters
  
• Small Pulse Laser: 90 meters → 540 meters
  
• Medium Pulse Laser: 180 meters → 1080 meters
  
• Large Pulse Laser: 300 meters → 1800 meters
  
• PPC: 540 meters → 3240 meters
  
• ER PPC: 690 meters → 4140 meters
  
• Flamer: 90 meters → 540 meters
  
• AC/2: 720 meters → 4320 meters
  
• AC/5: 540 meters → 3240 meters
  
• AC/10: 450 meters → 2700 meters
  
• AC/20: 270 meters → 1620 meters
  
• LB 10-X AC: 540 meters → 3240 meters
  
• Ultra AC/5: 600 meters → 3600 meters
  
• Gauss Rifle: 660 meters → 3960 meters
  
• Machine Gun: 90 meters → 540 meters
  
• LRMs: 630 meters → 3780 meters
  
• SRMs & SSRMs: 270 meters → 1620 meters

By way of comparison, the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger has an effective range of 1220 meters, the 30mm Bushmaster II has an effective range of 3000 to 5100 meters (depending on whether it's the land or naval version), the M256 120mm Smoothbore Gun (the main cannon of the M1 Abrams MBT) has an effective range of 3000 to 4000 meters (depending on the munition used), the FIM-43 Redeye missile (the same size & weight as BT LRMs) has an effective range of 4500 meters.

It'd also work for sensor ranges (using the Sensor Ranges Table on page 222 of Tactical Operations):

• 'Mech Radar: 720 meters → 4320 meters
  
• 'Mech IR/Magscan sensor: 900 meters → 5400 meters
  
• 'Mech Seismic Sensor: 180 meters → 1080 meters
  
• Beagle Active Probe: 1080 meters → 6480 meters

Personally, I would have preferred that PGI had used those ranges & made all of the maps truly massive (e.g. minimum radius of ~10 km) to compensate.
Aside from making weapon & sensor ranges make more sense in comparison to their real-world counterparts, it would (IMO) also make scouting more important & better-emphasize the role of lighter, faster 'Mechs as recon and/or screening units.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 04 March 2015 - 11:08 AM.

[CocoaJin]

Ballistic AC ranges in BT aren't the actual max range, or even the max effective range for the rounds....its the effective range of the weapon system to effectively hit a target due to recoil/dispersion, etc for ACs that are supposed to be burst fire cannons. The short range of the AC20 is supposed to imply the max range to reasonably expect a round(s) from the burst to impact considering the large round size and sizable recoil/shot error of burst firing such large rounds...it is not saying the rounds don't travel much more than 270m(is that the right range?) and lose too much energy to do damage after 270m. It's saying you can't reasonably expect to land a hit after 270m, even though the actual rounds could actually be traveling 1500, 2000, maybe even 5000m down range with full lethality. I suspect the problem is that TT didn't(nor was it intended to)have the fidelity to maintain such detailed tracking of a fired round down range if it missed its chosen target, and I assume they wanted to discourage people rolling the dice to fire high damage weapons down range as a go to "Hail Mary" spam tactic...so essentially TT forgets about your round after it's passed its effective range.

This one of the reasons I feel we should have Cone of Fire/dispersion and Reticle Bloom, with the rates of fire we have(especially with us IS ACs single shot firing), we need this effect in place to demonstrate the negative impact firing ACs have on aim...we could also play with the idea of increasing AC ranges, provided all ACs, including IS variants, went to burst firing for each trigger pull. We could also keep IS ACs single shot for faction-flavor and still increase our ranges, but significantly reduce our rates of fire to compensate for our artifical increase in accuracy single ACs inherently have.

[Khobai]

Quote

What you really have to ask yourself is why such an advanced fighting machine only has forward looking radar?

Because active radar can be detected. If you send out radar in all directions then enemies in all directions can detect you more easily. But when you only project your radar in your front arc you can only be detected by enemies in your front arc. Unfortunately MWO doesnt handle radar properly. We dont have different radar modes like: active 360 radar, active narrow radar, and passive radar modes.

The game should have different radar modes. For example: active 360 radar (sends out active radar in all directions; BAP does this), active narrow radar (sends out active radar in the front arc only), and passive radar (does not send out active radar, but still detects incoming active radar signatures)

Active radar should make it easier to detect enemy mechs AND be detected by enemy mechs. Passive radar should make you harder to detect but ONLY allow you to detect enemy mechs in active radar mode (enemy mechs in passive radar mode would be invisible to you).

Equipment like ECM, null signature system, and stealth armor would make it harder for enemy active radar to detect you. While BAP would amplify the range of your active sensors and could also be required to use active 360 radar mode.

It sounds much more complicated than it really is though. Really were just talking about adding two different radar modes (active and passive) and a possible third radar mode for BAP (active 360). Its simple to add these radar modes but would also add a great deal more complexity to the game.

NETWORKING

Lastly mechs I feel mechs should have to work harder to share sensor information. Mechs should only be allowed to share sensor information with other mechs inside their network range. So if you stray too far away from other friendly mechs then your ability to share sensor information should vanish. Light/medium mechs would have much farther network ranges than Assault mechs. So light mechs would still be able to scout on their own while sharing information with the rest of the team. Lights and mediums would also be important for maintaining a solid network for sharing sensor information.

obviously that starts to get a bit complicated... but I felt it was an idea worth mentioning.

Edited by Khobai, 04 March 2015 - 04:45 PM.

[Dino Might]

Tombstoner, on 04 March 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

Why should a 20 ton mech moving at 150 kph have a lower detection signature then a 100 tone at 50 kph.
All you need it a microphone and you can hear them coming. What the game needs is dynamic detection thresholds. if i's standing still your ability to detect me should go down. static valuse are not good for game play. but the game is a FPS not a SIM. that dictates how things work.

Because I'm talking about the radar issue that everyone is discussing and you are talking about acoustic signature. I don't disagree with you on the acoustic side, but acoustic sensors are notoriously easy to confuse. Also, we have to consider that speed isn't the only factor. Weight again indirectly affects the acoustic detection. A 100 ton mech stomping the ground (low frequency) will have a significant signature, because the ground won't be able to dampen out as much of the shock/vibe from each step, which translates into sound. The 20 tonner...well, with space magic, is light as a feather, and probably doesn't create as much of an acoustic response with each step. It does put down much faster steps, but that is not affecting the frequency and magnitude of the emitted sounds.

[Tombstoner]

Dino Might, on 04 March 2015 - 12:42 PM, said:

Because I'm talking about the radar issue that everyone is discussing and you are talking about acoustic signature. I don't disagree with you on the acoustic side, but acoustic sensors are notoriously easy to confuse. Also, we have to consider that speed isn't the only factor. Weight again indirectly affects the acoustic detection. A 100 ton mech stomping the ground (low frequency) will have a significant signature, because the ground won't be able to dampen out as much of the shock/vibe from each step, which translates into sound. The 20 tonner...well, with space magic, is light as a feather, and probably doesn't create as much of an acoustic response with each step. It does put down much faster steps, but that is not affecting the frequency and magnitude of the emitted sounds.

My point was to illustrate that detection range in not just radar but a range of sensors and a game derived from 80's tech would do things differently if created today. simply giving light mechs what amounts to a detection buff for already dangerous targets... well firestartes anyway. would be problematic.

i agree that sensors need an over hall but thats really never gona happen. The game is basically in the final stages. so many things are locked in now they cant be touched. That's the reality of a development cycle.

[Water Bear]

Dino Might, on 04 March 2015 - 08:23 AM, said:

We are still using the crit/tonnage requirements system of TT. I agree that it would make sense to give light mechs fewer crit slots in various areas; HOWEVER, the 10 heat sinks should all fit in the engine, and then I think we'd both get what we want. The Raven no longer carries a Gauss Rifle, but it can still fit 10 doubles with a few medium pulse lasers. OR, just don't require 10 heat sinks...

I am still bothered by people saying that sensor equipment is not impacted at all by tonnage. One, some is, and two, tonnage correlates with size for MWO, so indirectly, it definitely does, even for radar.

The reason that a Bradley and an M1 MBT have similar detectability on radar is that their radar cross sections, which depend on size and shape, are roughly similar.

You cannot tell me that, in MWO, the radar cross sections of a Locust and an Atlas are roughly similar.

I'm no expert on the matter, but I don't think size really has much to do with radar detectiblity when you're talking about vehicles large enough to carry men, and especially not for mechs.

Stealth aircraft can be very large (see the SR-71). What makes them radar silent is their shape, their "paint", and probably various other engineering magic I know nothing about in particular.

It would make sense for mechs with special designs and / or special equipment to (perhaps) be harder to detect. (One might even call such special equipment "ECM").

Even with special equipment it's pretty unbelievable that you could conceal a 30 foot tall metal man with a fusion reactor inside it.

[Dino Might]

Water Bear, on 04 March 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:

I'm no expert on the matter, but I don't think size really has much to do with radar detectiblity when you're talking about vehicles large enough to carry men, and especially not for mechs.

Stealth aircraft can be very large (see the SR-71). What makes them radar silent is their shape, their "paint", and probably various other engineering magic I know nothing about in particular.

It would make sense for mechs with special designs and / or special equipment to (perhaps) be harder to detect. (One might even call such special equipment "ECM").

Even with special equipment it's pretty unbelievable that you could conceal a 30 foot tall metal man with a fusion reactor inside it.

Size definitely matters. Shape and reflectivity (at the frequency of the radar EM waves) are also extremely important.
Look into how navies designs frigates vs destroyers vs cruisers to create certain radar signatures for each. Some they purposely make look bigger by making them more boxy. The other way to make something look bigger on radar is to make it physically bigger, or make it reflect radar waves better (think about buoys with their orthogonal plates).

The fusion reactor wouldn't be difficult to hide unless there was something like a mech-portable neutrino detector. At least, it wouldn't be any harder to hide than a combustion / jet engine.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Tuefel Hunden, on 04 March 2015 - 07:39 AM, said:

Yep. I would expect superior detection capabilities from a machine that is far more advanced than any fighter plane, tank, or apc we have seen.

Modern RADAR isn't much more advanced than RADAR from 80 years ago. The differences are the accuracies and strengths of the transmitters. There are physical limitations with the RADAR beam itself.

I could write a huge post describing how RADARA actually works and why it's easily defeated/confused and it's other limitations (like why RADAR is used exclusively for airborne objects). As well as technical details.

Just look up the parameters to any AN/TPQ is the US arsenal and you'll see what RADAR actually is.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Can we get off the RADAR please, Mech sensors are a lot more than just reflected radio waves after all. They taste the air, they sense vibrations in the air and ground, magscan, thermal, uv, links to orbiting vehicles/sats, the list goes on, it's covered in the fluff, lore and novels, it's a complicated system composed of many things, and unless you can blanket them all, you aren't doing much to hide your Mech.

None of the Mechs in MWO have stealth armor or capabilities, most we have is ECM, which is a specialized system as ALL Mechs on the battlefield have built in ecm systems standard, ECM is actually something extra and doesn't work like what we have in MWO to begin, so lets just leave it at that.

Sensor range by Mech size is silly, pure and simple, because not all Mechs are created to do the same job in their size class. Atlas R has standard sensor suite, Altas D DC has an amped up extended sensor suite because it's a C&C Mech. All the Battlemasters are C&C Mechs and come with better sensor suites due to that. The Panther is a hunter/killer, not a recon Mech, it doesn't carry an extensive sensor suite, it carries a PPC. So, why would a Panther, who has no extra sensor capability, have better sensor range than an Atlas D DC, which does have extra sensor capability?

We can go on down the list of Mechs and you'll find that many of them are not going to have extended sensor capabilities and others are, and they won't be the ones you think. Scout Mechs usually turn OFF their sensors so they don't get picked up by the enemy sensors, they run passive. Assaults tend to run active sensors so they can find the enemy long before they get close, unless setting up an ambush, where they'd go passive.

As for being able to sneak around, well, if I can get my King Crab around the enemy on Caustic and surprise them with dual AC20s at 50m into their backs, I THINK some of the Lights ought to be able to do the same. If they can't, they just aren't trying very hard.

[Khobai]

Quote

Sensor range by Mech size is silly, pure and simple, because not all Mechs are created to do the same job in their size class

but in general a light mech should have better sensors than an assault. for the exceptions there are quirks, so the atlas-d-dc could get a sensor range quirk. but most other assaults should have fairly weak sensors.

one of the main reason why scouting isnt an actual role in MWO is because heavies are nearly as good at scouting as lights are. they have the SAME detection ranges. that is fundamentally wrong for game balance. lights should have better base detection than heavies.