97 replies to this topic

[MechaBattler]

Pjwned, on 10 January 2016 - 09:51 AM, said:

I understand as well why they did it, and it's because of incompetence.

Every player around here thinks they can do better. Bunch of arm chair developers.

[1Grimbane]

ok i like the idea of seismic probes as a consumable.... i would use em with uav's left and right

[DAYLEET]

Strum Wealh, on 09 January 2016 - 11:48 PM, said:

Aside from that, the sensor rules in Tactical Operations (specifically, the Sensor Ranges Table on page 222) state that basic 'Mech Radar has a range of 720 meters (24 hexes) with no special effects from the target (outside of the presence of Stealth Armor, ECM, Null Sig, or CLPS), Beagle has a range of 1080 meters (36 hexes) and also experiences no special effects from the target (outside of the presence of Stealth Armor, ECM, Null Sig, or CLPS), while the other sensor types do experience special effects based on the target type - IR (900 meters/30 hexes) cannot detect targets that are not "hot", seismic (180 meters/6 hexes) cannot detect targets that are stationary or airborne or submerged, and MagScan (900 meters/30 hexes) cannot detect targets below 20 tons or occupying a Heavy Industrial Zone hex.
Of those, only MagScan is affected by target size - "for any unit from 80 to 100 tons, the range of the sensor is expanded for that unit(s) alone by 1 hex" and "nits that weigh less than 20 tons cannot be detected by a magscan sensor, including all infantry".

Also, 'Mech Radar cannot see through terrain (Hill Hexes) or through structures (Building Hexes & Castle Brian Hexes) - the effect is "if along LOS, sensor completely blocked". Also, lots of ground clutter (Heavy Woods/Jungle Hexes & Ultra Woods/Jungle Hexes) would reduce the effectiveness of 'Mech Radar (–1 or -2 hexes per range bracket per hex in LOS).

But, a stock LCT-1V Locust and a stock Daishi Prime at the same distance on a flat, featureless map would show up equally well on 'Mech Radar.
(And, if they were at the same point on the Heat Scale, both would show up equally well on IR. But, the Daishi's being over 80 tons would mean that it would show up a bit further out on MagScan (930 meters/31 hexes, versus 900 meters/30 hexes).)

Ok this is cool, thanks for that post, for once i don't feel like lore is kicking me in the nuts and instead has laid basics that we can actually use and improve. Right now we will disregard everything pertaining to land based radar/building/ship and i removed that part. infotech has been discussed and suggested upon for ever and by people who put much more time than me and without a doubt more nuance into the thought but ill give it a quick shot for the purpose of this discussion because im interested in a deeper and more engaging gameplay.

So a basic mech should have 720m range. 720m would accentuate the role of lights/flankers for scouting purpose. This would also help lrm boat as they will be kept closer to the enemy where their lrm will be more useful and they will be less vulnerable/alone.

BAP will increase that to 1080m. That not great as it nerf lighter mechs because BAP is easier to take on large mech and it nulify the perks of a 720m range radar. We should tweak that maybe keep it as it is right now, it's strong enough.

I propose that battlemech get a new value, one that would mimic cross section based on how sleek they are and their size. It wouldnt be just a scaling thing and it would be dynamic (because im a dreamer) Mech could be rescaled so a Treb have a bigger xsection than a Shadowhawk on the front but on the side it is thiner and has a smaller section.

We could have new modules, like IR Sensors that would only work in temperate/cold environement and give a 100% detection chance on everything at medium range.

Would be cool if ground clutter also affect the time to lock someone with a basic radar. An IR Module on forest would be very much welcomed. At least we would have more relevent choices to make whenit comes to module.

New Stealth Armor that is an upgrade like ferro/endo. It would provide a smaller xsection at the cost of weight or total armor value.


Maybe those are bad ideas, maybe lore wouldnt have any of it, i don't care and that's not the point. The point is lore is giving us something we can use and improve to make a better game than just settle for nothing and keep it like that.

[Mech Jager]

Xetelian, on 09 January 2016 - 07:39 PM, said:

No thank you. Making ECM just a minor annoyance would be too much of a buff to LRMs.
The different radar ranges would probably be a heavy nerf to bigger LRM mechs. I don't think this balances out with the ECM changes at all.


I don't think it makes sense that a DWF would have less radar range than an ACH, if I read the changes correctly, I don't believe that bigger mechs would have crappy radar while little mechs have supreme range.

While I don't think that makes sense I can totally understand the ideas backing the initial changes. Putting light mechs into a better role would be very good. Won't make them any more popular to pilot in a game based around how much damage you do during a match.

I think they are basing this on ww1-ww2 scout planes. They were made lighter and faster by stripping off weapons and maybe armor and then equipping cameras and later on electronics. The speed gave them the range and they were a great help to larger advancing forces. So the loose translation is cumbersome and slow needs fast to get them the info and the nerf to assaults is to make them need the info .

If we had a more even matchmaking system, I am all for adding more complexity to the game. But assaults and lights are the hardest to play effectively and it is bad enough watching folks who do not target or know when to use heat vision. Do we need to give lights more of an excuse to do zero damage while causing slow mechs more of a chance to be separated. I really do not need any info on anything more than 1-2 squares away from my group (yes in real world military it is very different, but in this game 12 people in a group usually wins over 10 people with 2 scouts somewhere else. Folks do not like this, but it is a definite reality.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 January 2016 - 08:35 PM, said:

when the tryhards stop QQing over anything that makes them have to do more than mash pixels?

Naw, it was that the InfoTech portion of the PTS made us solely rely on mashing pixels because of how scarce info tech really was and how sight is still the strongest way to scout in this game and making radar worse did nothing to change that. That last part is what they need to change if they want InfoTech to be a thing, and they already have a starting point (hint: it has to do with the "wallhack" module).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 January 2016 - 11:59 AM.

[BearFlag]

I think some are forgetting just how bad PTS 2 was. It was billed as a comprehensive ("math-based") rebalance that would eliminate weapons quirks and create "balance" through IW magic. It was nothing of the sort. They didn't even get the name right. "Information Warfare?" IW is propaganda, misinformation, strategic deception. Electronic Warfare is the correct name.

It wasn't just "ghost range" that was silly. There was also "Target Acquisition Delay" defined in the quirks and as high as four seconds for some mechs. Combine the two and you have a situation I ran into. Round a corner, spot an enemy 50 meters away, press 'r'. Nothing. Press 'R!'. Nothing. Fire, reduced damage, no chance for streaks. Back to cover. The entire exchange took place with out lock and at near point blank. Dumb.

Then there was the removing of IS weapons quirks with, presumably, "IW" buffs to compensate. Needless to say, faster target info (or whatever) is in no way compensation for weapons performance.

The problem with EW in this game is that there's not much to work with at present. The entire paradigm is detect, target, gather and communicate. That's it. That's all. All systems tie into this. Tag, NARC, ECM, BAP and various modules are modifiers to the singular paradigm. Someone mentioned false mech signatures. That would be something different. How about HUD damage temporary or permanent? How about smoke, chaff, jamming, dumb mines, smart mines, mine detection, live intel?

I don't think we'll see any of this any time soon. What we have is what we have to work with. It's role in balancing is fairly small. Sure, there are tweaks to be made, but LRMs are the only weapon greatly affected by any of this. Everyone else will still aim and shoot - with or without lock.

[Weeny Machine]

MechaBattler, on 10 January 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

Every player around here thinks they can do better. Bunch of arm chair developers.

There are games with passive/active radar, different sensor ranges etc. People know those mechanics from earlier games and there is a thing called "common sense". But heck, because gamers are not employed as developers their opinion can be totally dismissed, right?

Edited by Bush Hopper, 10 January 2016 - 12:38 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

To many pugs dont know how to hit the R button so it might never happen.

[GrimRiver]

I think assaults should have a 90% chance to be spotted at 500m but sensors range is 500m.

Heavies 70% chance to be spotted at 500m, sensor range is 400m.

Mediums 50% at 500m, sensor range is 300m.

Lights 10% at 500m, sensor range is 150m.

The bigger you are the higher chances you are spotted at 500m but your sensor range bigger.

The smaller you are the less chances you are spotted at 500m but your sensor range is smaller.

Assaults sensor range is large due to being able to fit bigger more powerful sensor systems and if CC is installed it's bonus is added on top of this.

ECM on assaults should work 20% better since the computer systems are bigger and better, but on lights it's stays 90m.

Just my 2 cents on the idea.

[MechaBattler]

Bush Hopper, on 10 January 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

There are games with passive/active radar, different sensor ranges etc. People know those mechanics from earlier games and there is a thing called "common sense". But heck, because gamers are not employed as developers their opinion can be totally dismissed, right?

I can. But the devs didn't. Since they opted not to implement changes in the face of such a knee jerk reaction to them. Especially on the eve of Steam release. Yet everyone wants to stack the blame all on them. No one wants to admit the community let them burn at the stake when it came to the changes.

[DAYLEET]

Another good part that was left behind was the reticle mechanic. But people fell head over heel because they wouldnt be able to blindly shoot at red doritos with zero visual and not magicaly know if they hit or not. At the very least, require a lock to have the reticle blink or go red to feedback damage and make it all damage not just yours.

But again, lasers graphic are said to be changed so it's easier to know when you are out of range... so i guess we can forget anything that will ever add complexity and deph to the game. We wanted the game to be more accessible to new players, instead they make it easier, not the same word.

[Mystere]

pbiggz, on 10 January 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

The key to info warfare, whatever it might shape up to be, is the mechanics have to be clearly defined and easy to see and understand in action. If the info tech rules are all implicit and subtle and the only way you can understand WHY that locust can see you when the atlas cant is by reading a document on the forums then already, the implementation fails.

It will indeed be a failure ... for the ADHD and other instant gratification folks. I don't mind info tech requiring a document to understand as long as it is understandable.

And by the way, how can something be clearly defined if not for documentation that defines it clearly?

[Mystere]

Monkey Lover, on 10 January 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

To many pugs dont know how to hit the R button so it might never happen.

And which is why I approve of having a system where not pressing "R" will cost the player dearly.

[Mcgral18]

DAYLEET, on 10 January 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

Another good part that was left behind was the reticle mechanic. But people fell head over heel because they wouldnt be able to blindly shoot at red doritos with zero visual and not magicaly know if they hit or not. At the very least, require a lock to have the reticle blink or go red to feedback damage and make it all damage not just yours.

It wouldn't be so bad if you could actually see the mech within 500M...
Can you find the mech?


Here it is!

Spoiler

[Mystere]

DAYLEET, on 10 January 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

Another good part that was left behind was the reticle mechanic. But people fell head over heel because they wouldnt be able to blindly shoot at red doritos with zero visual and not magicaly know if they hit or not. At the very least, require a lock to have the reticle blink or go red to feedback damage and make it all damage not just yours.

I really liked that idea. I hope that one isn't dead yet.

Some people here treat sensors as if they were magic. But then again, most people who do not understand physics shrug it off as magic as well.

DAYLEET, on 10 January 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

But again, lasers graphic are said to be changed so it's easier to know when you are out of range... so i guess we can forget anything that will ever add complexity and deph to the game. We wanted the game to be more accessible to new players, instead they make it easier, not the same word.

Let's be brutally frank. There are those who want to dumb down the game to appeal to a wider audience. I, on the other hand, would rather MWO die than have it dumbed down even more.

[STEF_]

jss78, on 10 January 2016 - 09:34 AM, said:

Doesn't that still leave all the usual benefits of target locking: letting friendlies know where the enemies are, identifying exposed components, missile locks. We advise new people to hit "R" all the time, while we don't have the ghost range mechanic.

All I'm saying is that I'd prefer a system to where the ability and delay to obtain lock and get target information (paper doll) depends cumulatively on several factors such as the strength of sensors, # of friendly mechs having LOS to target, range to target, amount of ECM and counter ECM, and the target's radar signature. Make it really slow or potentially impossible if it's a tiny mech at a long distance and if ECM is present. Very quick locks if it's a big target being scanned from close range by mechs with exceptional targetting equipment.

The PTS took steps towards that direction, and I liked that. It probably wouldn't be a game changer either way, and wouldn't be a big factor in mech-to-mech balancing. But it'd make more sense than the current system where our sensors work perfectly out to 800 m but don't do anything at 801 m.

Of course, I always click R and annoy teamates on chat to click R. Sharing gold informations.
Sadly PGI implemented a bad system where you had to click R to do dmg and also there were weird situations on the battlefield (see McGrail post about those one)

[DAYLEET]

Mcgral18, on 10 January 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

It wouldn't be so bad if you could actually see the mech within 500M...
Can you find the mech?


Here it is!

Spoiler

I see it clearly in my own game right now at the same coord, thats either a bug on your part or it;s been fixed since. But who plays Caustic without NV or HV? he'smuch easier to see with HV NV. And if he was moving even in normal vision he would stick up like a sore thumb. Then again theres people telling me that colors make mech easier to see so i guess not everyone can see clearly.

posted screenshot in another post for fairness.

Edited by DAYLEET, 10 January 2016 - 01:45 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

DAYLEET, on 10 January 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

But again, lasers graphic are said to be changed so it's easier to know when you are out of range... so i guess we can forget anything that will ever add complexity and deph to the game. We wanted the game to be more accessible to new players, instead they make it easier, not the same word.

First, how does making it so new players aren't firing lasers past their max range and still seeing a visual hit making the game easier....

Second, more complexity does not mean more depth...

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 January 2016 - 01:42 PM.

[Davers]

BearFlag, on 10 January 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

I think some are forgetting just how bad PTS 2 was. It was billed as a comprehensive ("math-based") rebalance that would eliminate weapons quirks and create "balance" through IW magic. It was nothing of the sort. They didn't even get the name right. "Information Warfare?" IW is propaganda, misinformation, strategic deception. Electronic Warfare is the correct name.

It wasn't just "ghost range" that was silly. There was also "Target Acquisition Delay" defined in the quirks and as high as four seconds for some mechs. Combine the two and you have a situation I ran into. Round a corner, spot an enemy 50 meters away, press 'r'. Nothing. Press 'R!'. Nothing. Fire, reduced damage, no chance for streaks. Back to cover. The entire exchange took place with out lock and at near point blank. Dumb.

Then there was the removing of IS weapons quirks with, presumably, "IW" buffs to compensate. Needless to say, faster target info (or whatever) is in no way compensation for weapons performance.

The problem with EW in this game is that there's not much to work with at present. The entire paradigm is detect, target, gather and communicate. That's it. That's all. All systems tie into this. Tag, NARC, ECM, BAP and various modules are modifiers to the singular paradigm. Someone mentioned false mech signatures. That would be something different. How about HUD damage temporary or permanent? How about smoke, chaff, jamming, dumb mines, smart mines, mine detection, live intel?

I don't think we'll see any of this any time soon. What we have is what we have to work with. It's role in balancing is fairly small. Sure, there are tweaks to be made, but LRMs are the only weapon greatly affected by any of this. Everyone else will still aim and shoot - with or without lock.

The simple problem with EW is that none of it really matters. ECM already taught us that we can beat opponents without ever seeing their load outs. If EW doesn't directly affect damage, then who cares about it?

The question is "Do we want EW to matter?". In general, I think most people don't want that. Even players who keep saying that "Light mechs should be scouts!" don't seem to want to accept the pretty drastic changes that would make scouts necessary- especially since the game has to be balanced around the existence of VOIP. All that jamming, false images, and stuff like that only affects solo players.

[DAYLEET]

Mcgral18, on 10 January 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

It wouldn't be so bad if you could actually see the mech within 500M...

Ill post my own screen from the same place and the same mech. In game hes easier to see too, i didnt crop the image they are supposed to be full.

Edited by DAYLEET, 10 January 2016 - 01:47 PM.