45 replies to this topic

[LordNothing]

Thunder Child, on 16 July 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

Could you explain how it worked in MWLL? I am intensely curious.

http://wiki.mechlivi...ex.php?title=C3

this pretty much explains it.

[Thunder Child]

Ah, so turn it into the Target Info Sharing system that everyone actually thinks it is.
The only issue I see with that is that in Pugs, you might get people wanting to save that whole ton for ammo or whatever, and so the whole network breaks down and no-one can see anything. C3 would become a mandatory piece of equipment to do what we already have.

Also, Clans don't get C3, so they would be unable to share Target Info at all.

It would help quiet all the LRM Haters though, since LRMers would need to add yet another piece of equipment to make LRMs work.

[El Bandito]

Thunder Child, on 16 July 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

Okay, so with the new ECM discussion raging on, I've decided it's prudent to repost a thread I made a while back, because people seem to be confused about what C3 ACTUALLY DOES.

So, here it is.

Most of us have heard the complaint at least once. "LRMs wouldn't be so bad if PGI hadn't given us free C3"

People seem to assume that C3 was some magic box that allowed LRMs to be fired indirectly, but this is not the case. LRMs have ALWAYS (well, since The Battletech Compendium at least) had the ability to fire indirectly, with the aid of a spotter.

What C3 ACTUALLY did, was allow Inner Sphere mechs to compete on a nearly even footing with Clan mechs, in terms of weapon ranges.
Yes, they payed a tonnage Tax (5 tons for a Master Unit, 1 ton for a Slave Unit), but it allowed them to fire Long Range Shots as though they were Short Range shots, provided a member of the C3 Unit was within Short Range.
Now, in TT, this meant that the Weapon Skill Modifier was reduced from +4 to +0. I realize that MWO is based on "Skill" rather than random numbers, which is why if C3 were to be implemented in MWO it would have to function slightly differently.

I propose that C3 provide the same Buffs as a Clan Targeting computer, with each unit in range increasing the TC Tier by 1, provided they can link to a Master unit. The Master unit would be capped at TC V, with each Slave starting at TC I, and stacking up to TC IV.

TL:DR. Please stop blaming the poor C3 unit for LRMs. It was designed to buff all weapons, and would balance IS against Clans nicely if PGI ever decided to implement it.

PGI, hire this man!

[Thunder Child]

El Bandito, on 16 July 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

PGI, hire this man!

Much as I appreciate the sentiment, I have twice as many bad ideas as good ones. However, I would volunteer Koniving as the Community Representative for Good Ideas. He has a lot of thoughts that'd make this a nice expanded game, rather than a mech Moba.

[stjobe]

Ashvins, on 16 July 2015 - 04:34 PM, said:

Anyway, LRM indirect fire had a penalty for it (None in MWO) not a big one mind you but it did have one. add in the spotter's movement & terrain penalties and it was a bad situation. Only done if you had ammo to burn. In MWO we have none of those penalties. If the spotter and the LRM boat had to go through the process of locking the target and LRM's spread like an LBX in MWO for indirect fire then it would be close to as intended in BT.

As it is, indirect fire LRM's have a big advantage compared to BT rules. And as your fine finding of rules state C3 master=Tag Slave =normal IDF rules.

Problem is MWO does not use those IDF rules in any way. IDF in MWO is just like you had LOS. Hence the Problem with LRM's in MWO IMO.

I'll drop my "C3" comments at this point and focus on the lack of IDF adjustments to LRM's instead.

I think you'd be better off dropping that line of argument as well, since it is just as wrong as your ideas about C3.

Indirect fire in MWO has all the penalties you say it doesn't.

* someone needs to spot the target
* firer needs to lock on to it
* the missile spread is worse than in LoS targeting.

[LordKnightFandragon]

C3 would just basically give us better COF at long range....

[Ashvins]

stjobe, on 16 July 2015 - 10:51 PM, said:

I think you'd be better off dropping that line of argument as well, since it is just as wrong as your ideas about C3.

Indirect fire in MWO has all the penalties you say it doesn't.

* someone needs to spot the target
* firer needs to lock on to it
* the missile spread is worse than in LoS targeting.

I can't give you any of those points. Spotter mean's nothing in this game as far as hitting with LRM's is concerned.Doesn't matter if it is you , your buddy in a scout or a UAV. As long as the enemy mech is targeted LRM's can be fired on it.

You Always have to lock the target so no difference from direct fire.

Missile spread is exactly the same unless you have Artemis. Then the spread is set to non Artemis spread for indirect fire. If the target is taged or narced these tighten up the spread IDF or DF. Artemis does this with DF only. IDF has same spread as DF for non narc,tag,Artemis targets.

I wish there was a difference but you only see that if you have Artemis and are using your LRM's through indirect fire. Otherwise it's the same spread.

[Joseph Mallan]

ShadowWolf Kell, on 16 July 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:

The information sharing is already innate. They should add in C3 in all it's glory and swap the information sharing to apply only to lances running a C3 Master/Slave combo.

Well what you are saying is add the weight. or to make it so we cannot share basic info between Mechs?

[Joseph Mallan]

Ashvins, on 17 July 2015 - 12:05 AM, said:

I can't give you any of those points. Spotter mean's nothing in this game as far as hitting with LRM's is concerned.Doesn't matter if it is you , your buddy in a scout or a UAV. As long as the enemy mech is targeted LRM's can be fired on it.

You Always have to lock the target so no difference from direct fire.

Missile spread is exactly the same unless you have Artemis. Then the spread is set to non Artemis spread for indirect fire. If the target is taged or narced these tighten up the spread IDF or DF. Artemis does this with DF only. IDF has same spread as DF for non narc,tag,Artemis targets.

I wish there was a difference but you only see that if you have Artemis and are using your LRM's through indirect fire. Otherwise it's the same spread.

So you don't think losing target lock cause your spotter didn't keep eyes on isn't equal to a numeric penalty to hit? Each of the other methods of targeting for Missiles have a % chance of dropping as well, maybe not as big maybe bigger.

[Random Carnage]

C3 for donations! At Nex...erm...wait...

[Thunder Child]

Hopefully with the ECM Changes, and the upcoming Quirks revision, LRMs might start being somewhat useful again, outside of the Super Quirk boats.

But regarding C3, and the proposed implementation, do you think it's a fair assessment? How would you implement it differently?

[Strum Wealh]

Thunder Child, on 17 July 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

How would you implement it differently?

Strum Wealh, on 23 February 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

Then again, maybe they'll implement C3 Networks (with the associated C3 Command Units and C3 Slave Units), with data-sharing capabilities beyond what is currently available through the BattleMechs' basic data-sharing systems.
Doing so would open up variants like the MAL-C Mauler (a 3051 variant, based on the MAL-1R, that trades one ton of AC ammo for a C3 Slave Unit) and the PNT-C Panther (a 3051 variant, based on the PNT-10K, that trades the Artemis IV FCS for a C3 Slave Unit) and the CP-11-C Cyclops (a 3050 variant, based on the CP-11-A, that trades its LRM-10 launcher for a C3 Command Unit and two additional tons of armor).

Potential capabilities of a hypothetical MWO C3 Network:

• Decreased target info acquisition time (similar to Beagle, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 15% or so, versus Beagle's 25%) for all members of the network.
  
• Improves base sensor range (similar to Beagle, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 15% or so, versus Beagle's 25%) for all members of the network.
  
• Improves the lock-on-time and tracking strength of LRMs (similar to Artemis, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 25% or so, versus Artemis' 50%, Narc's 50%, and TAG's 50%) for all members of the network.
  
• Improves the grouping size of SRM volleys (similar to Artemis, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 15% or so, versus Artemis' 34%) for all members of the network.
  
• Improves convergence speed of torso and arm weapons (similar to "Pinpoint" 'Mech Tree Elite Efficiency, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 8% or so, versus Pinpoint's 15%) for all members of the network.
  
• All C3 bonuses stack with similar bonuses from other equipment.
  
• All C3 bonuses are active so long as one's 'Mech is carrying a functioning C3 Command Unit (5.0 tons, 5 critical slots) OR one's 'Mech is carrying a functioning C3 Slave Unit (1.0 tons, 1 critical slot) that can reach a lancemate's functioning C3 Command Unit.
  
• C3 Networks would automatically configure themselves at the start of a match (with the Lance Commander's C3 Command Unit taking precedence if there are multiple C3 Command Units, or precedence being randomly assigned if there is no designated Lance Commander, and the Company Commander's C3 Command Unit taking precedence among the Lance Commanders, or precedence being randomly assigned if there is no designated Company Commander).
  
• C3 systems have no ECM-countering ability, and members of a C3 network may be cut off from the network (and lose their C3-granted bonuses) when covered by a hostile ECM field.

In this way, the proposed C3 Network provides a wide breadth of benefits to a Lance or Company, but the benefits to the individual units/players do not necessarily supplant the places of dedicated equipment - C3 becomes the proverbial "jack of all benefits, master of none", and its effectiveness both increases with coordination and promotes coordination and communication.

Additionally, its presence opens up the availability of certain 'Mech variants (see here for 'Mechs with at least one variant equipped with a C3 Command Unit, and here for 'Mechs with at least one variant equipped with a C3 Slave Unit), and it would also serve as something of an IS counterpart to the Clans' Targeting Computer.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 17 July 2015 - 03:05 PM.

[stjobe]

Ashvins, on 17 July 2015 - 12:05 AM, said:

Spotter mean's nothing in this game as far as hitting with LRM's is concerned.Doesn't matter if it is you , your buddy in a scout or a UAV. As long as the enemy mech is targeted LRM's can be fired on it.

So? That's how it works in TT as well. Any unit can spot for indirect LRM fire - it can be an infantry squad, a tank, a fixed-wing aircraft, a 'mech, anything.

Ashvins, on 17 July 2015 - 12:05 AM, said:

You Always have to lock the target so no difference from direct fire.

The difference of course is that the firing unit does not have LoS.

Ashvins, on 17 July 2015 - 12:05 AM, said:

Missile spread is exactly the same unless you have Artemis. Then the spread is set to non Artemis spread for indirect fire. If the target is taged or narced these tighten up the spread IDF or DF. Artemis does this with DF only. IDF has same spread as DF for non narc,tag,Artemis targets.

I'll admit to not keeping up on every change to LRMs seeing as there has been so many over the last three years, but at least in closed beta (and AFAIK open beta and after release) there was quite a significant spread difference between firing direct and indirect.

Ashvins, on 17 July 2015 - 12:05 AM, said:

I wish there was a difference but you only see that if you have Artemis and are using your LRM's through indirect fire. Otherwise it's the same spread.

If it is, I'd be much obliged if you could show me a citation for that.

[Joseph Mallan]

Thunder Child, on 16 July 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

Much as I appreciate the sentiment, I have twice as many bad ideas as good ones. However, I would volunteer Koniving as the Community Representative for Good Ideas. He has a lot of thoughts that'd make this a nice expanded game, rather than a mech Moba.

What You think all these guys with good ideas don't shank one? Not that Koniving isn't a good candidate, cause he is a good one indeed.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 24 July 2015 - 09:04 AM.

[Kissamies]

Hmm, there has been several suggestions for C3. Mine was to make it share every contact, wether the players have actually bothered to make a lock or not. This is more powerful and might actually be worth some tonnage. As I suggested, it could also be made so that it just requires one targeting computer (more can be used for redundancy) and all other units that are part of the network would only need a C3 module.

[Gremlich Johns]

What you all are considering C3 is actually C⁴I²

[Madcap72]

When PGI codes a button that says "roll dice" I'll put more stock in direct comparisons between MW and BT.


But where the rubber meets the road, is that the way the game works, is that every mech has an automated command, control, and communication system that shares battlemap info, allows non-LOS lrms to lock and track, and all that.


It's C3 in function, if not book definition.

[Gremlich Johns]

Madcap72, on 25 July 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

When PGI codes a button that says "roll dice" I'll put more stock in direct comparisons between MW and BT.

It's C3 in function, if not book definition.

Not without "Interoperability"

[Thunder Child]

Madcap72, on 25 July 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

When PGI codes a button that says "roll dice" I'll put more stock in direct comparisons between MW and BT.


But where the rubber meets the road, is that the way the game works, is that every mech has an automated command, control, and communication system that shares battlemap info, allows non-LOS lrms to lock and track, and all that.


It's C3 in function, if not book definition.

And that Command, Control, and Communication system is the Battlemechs Firing Computer and Sensors.

C3 is the EXTRA advanced version. As Strum Wealh posted, each mech is quite capable of sharing targeting information.

And, in the Lore, C3 was developed to counter the Clans Range advantage. Which was why I figured it could be used to give anyone in the network a TC up to Level IV for 1 ton (except the Master unit, which would be up to TC VI for 5 tons).

Another idea, though this one was strongly opposed last time I suggested it, was to allow anyone on the shared network to fire their weapons as though they were at the same range as the closest network member.

So, you have a Raven at 200m from the target. All C3 equipped units now count as firing from 200m away, though the Maximum Weapon Range of 2x would still apply. So, an AC20 for example could be fired from 539m away, and still deal damage as though the firer was only 200m away, due to C3.
Needless to say, much Clan QQ was had.

Edited by Thunder Child, 26 July 2015 - 01:35 AM.

[stjobe]

Thunder Child, on 26 July 2015 - 01:34 AM, said:

Another idea, though this one was strongly opposed last time I suggested it, was to allow anyone on the shared network to fire their weapons as though they were at the same range as the closest network member.

So, you have a Raven at 200m from the target. All C3 equipped units now count as firing from 200m away, though the Maximum Weapon Range of 2x would still apply. So, an AC20 for example could be fired from 539m away, and still deal damage as though the firer was only 200m away, due to C3.
Needless to say, much Clan QQ was had.

Funny thing is, that's exactly how it works in TT (as I'm sure you are aware):


(Total Warfare, p.131)


(Tech Manual, p.209)