34 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

Khobai, on 22 February 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

The problem was that PGI tried to apply it to lasers only. When it should have been applied to EVERY weapon in the game.

I think the idea wouldve been accepted by the community had it affected all weapons equally rather than just selectively nerfing lasers.

I don't think so. It didn't make so much sense for lasers (since our mechs have automatic range finders that constantly measure the distance to whatever you're aiming at, so lens focus shouldn't be an issue) but it would certainly be absolutely ridiculous for ballistic weapons and missiles.

I would probably have quit playing MWO if it affected all weapons equally. Would certainly have stopped spending money anyway, that's for damned sure.

[GreyNovember]

I'm in favor of damage reduction on unlocked targets. This would affect... anything running ECM, which means everyone who is afraid of 6SPL cheetahs is going to bring bap so they can nullify their ECM shield.

No sane amount of sensor shenanigans is going to stop me from playing hunter-killer lights. There's a reason I pack 3ERLL on a Raven and run a 6x6CSRM J2C.

I mean SURE, I could sit on the side, look at targets, and tell my team about it, then go sit in a corner or poke with a single ERLL for an assist. But how is that at all enjoyable?

[Doman Hugin]

That part of your hud that shows dorito's, and puts a box around targeted mech's is called a targeting computer.

I don't know about anyone else, but having a targeting computer that has zero effect on your ability to 'target' the enemy, just seems a little stupid to me.

Just think about all those movies with modern or futuristic war machines, that red box and tone that rises as the target gets closer to a lock, do you fire before or after getting a lock tone. thats not MWO but you know the concept.

[Johnny Z]

Alistair Winter, on 22 February 2016 - 04:01 AM, said:

I don't think so. It didn't make so much sense for lasers (since our mechs have automatic range finders that constantly measure the distance to whatever you're aiming at, so lens focus shouldn't be an issue) but it would certainly be absolutely ridiculous for ballistic weapons and missiles.

I would probably have quit playing MWO if it affected all weapons equally. Would certainly have stopped spending money anyway, that's for damned sure.

I don't get this. Was the reduction to high? Just quitting or what ever, because of a reduction in damage for no target lock doesn't make sense.

There are many ways to explain that the targeting computer not having a lock would reduce damage. Trajectory or some such is off for ballistics, discharge for lasers is slightly off, etc.

The idea of reduced damage for no target lock wasn't my idea but it is an obvious conclusion. It adds a game play effect to information warfare. Maybe 30% was to harsh but something like 5% isn't.

Adding IW to the game in a way that strengthens weaker mechs and extends TTK in a minor way is an excellent idea.

Edited by Johnny Z, 22 February 2016 - 05:03 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

The gameplay mechanic of "no lock reduces damage" is bad. Direct fire weapons shoot where you point them (for the most part, convergence/CoF discussion is a separate issue), if they connect, they do damage. Lasers are THE MOST direct fire weapon out there, so this is especially nonsensical when applied to them.

"No lock makes you miss" is possibly viable, but it also will turn people off. This is simply because people like their "skillz" and like things to be accurate ("I was aiming there! WTF?! Why didn't it hit!?" )

More importantly, IW should first be a self contained system that should not affect damage in any direct way. That is, it should be about info, not about how much damage your AC shell or laser beam does when it hits a target.

The problem with it being about info in MWO as it stands today is that we have TOO MUCH info right now. Scarcity creates value, whereas availability reduces it.

The auto-C3 is the cause of this. Removing this creates a significant scarcity of target info, and thus make any info you can get more valuable.

We should not be able to share sensor/target info without making a meaningful choice and bringing the equipment (namely, C3 master/slave).

Further than that, see my above post:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5034210

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 24 February 2016 - 07:23 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 24 February 2016 - 07:22 PM, said:

The gameplay mechanic of "no lock reduces damage" is bad. Direct fire weapons shoot where you point them (for the most part, convergence/CoF discussion is a separate issue), if they connect, they do damage. Lasers are THE MOST direct fire weapon out there, so this is especially nonsensical when applied to them.

"No lock makes you miss" is possibly viable, but it also will turn people off. This is simply because people like their "skillz" and like things to be accurate ("I was aiming there! WTF?! Why didn't it hit!?" )

More importantly, IW should first be a self contained system that should not affect damage in any direct way. That is, it should be about info, not about how much damage your AC shell or laser beam does when it hits a target.

The problem with it being about info in MWO as it stands today is that we have TOO MUCH info right now. Scarcity creates value, whereas availability reduces it.

The auto-C3 is the cause of this. Removing this creates a significant scarcity of target info, and thus make any info you can get more valuable.

We should not be able to share sensor/target info without making a meaningful choice and bringing the equipment (namely, C3 master/slave).

Further than that, see my above post:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5034210

20 topics about pinpoint damage being bad and the one idea that could mitigate that and doesn't include RNG is shot down "because".

This was in and then taken out. I think the guys building this game will add it back along with so many features, the "because" brigade they wont be able to mount a comprehensive "because" outcry. Good call PGI, good call. LOL

Edited by Johnny Z, 24 February 2016 - 08:25 PM.

[brroleg]

Alistair Winter, on 21 February 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

• I would like some mechs to have better sensors than others.

And ECM. There is already plenty of ECM mechs ingame. So they must have different ECM bubble size. Mainly lights with ECM having bigger ECM bubble than heavies with ECM. But also some exceptions withing one weight class also may be.

Quote

We should not be able to share sensor/target info without making a meaningful choice and bringing the equipment (namely, C3 master/slave).

Also Yes for this

Edited by brroleg, 25 February 2016 - 04:32 AM.

[topgun505]

@Fup. In regards to the Myst. Maybe increased seismic range as well. It IS a sensor after all. Maybe you could even re-introduce the predator heat vision mode that we had back in beta for some mechs with improved sensors.

Or include RWR (Radar Warning Receiver). Even if you have your radar off you can detect radar emissions from other mechs (and a general bearing of where it is coming from), possibly even identify what type of mech.

Edited by topgun505, 25 February 2016 - 05:19 AM.

[Jetfire]

I say just do basic infotech right. Each mech has a cross sectional signature, heat signature and electromagnetic signature. A certain minimum threshold is set by the targeting system in each mech. Make three targeting systems, High, Med, Low strength each with their own threshold. Each mech based on their Infotech strength gets one permanently equipped. Add in quirks for some mechs that minimize certain signatures, IE give the hero battle master reduced heat signature for a given heat level. Without a signature with sufficient strength for your targeting system you cannot lock onto a mech unless another mech has it locked.

CS: equal to the cross sectional area of the mech currently in view not obscured by buildings or terrain
HS: equal to your heat level
EM: equal to you number of armorless sections plus a base level (armor falling off exposes internal EM signals more)

Add in modules that boost detection ability or reduce emissions and add some HUD indicators and you have infotech.

[Almond Brown]

FupDup, on 21 February 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

The main concern is trying to find the exact point at which a mech with little or no combat power in exchange for sensors can be as useful as a mech that has very high combat power.

For example, what kind of crazy sensors would a Mist Lynx need to not be considered a running joke? I'm being serious here. Even crazy stuff like 1200+ meter detecting might not do it, and most maps don't even have long enough sight lines for that anyways.

I don't think that range of detecting and being detected would be sufficient for most gundams.

I think that stuff like having multiple red doritos locked at a time by only one mech (e.g. let the MLX have 3 doritos or something?) and much longer target decay (so you can peek around, get the dorito, and then scurry away while your team still sees enemy doritos for a few moments) would be the only things drastic enough...

Just create a Anti-Radar Derp Module...

P.S. The ability to hold 2-3 Doritos idea might work. Just allow the Light Mech to get paid per Dorito held over time. Code already exists.

1 Dorito = 1X C-Bills.
2 Dorito = 3X C-Bills.
3 Dorito = 5X C-Bills.

Rules: If the Scout has 1 Dorito already locked, they have 20s(X random value) to get a 2nd one and if they do get a 2nd one, the 1st Doritos time gets extended another 20s, add a third and get another 20s more for all 3 till they all time out.

Edited by Almond Brown, 25 February 2016 - 06:35 AM.

[rook]

A few things that I would like to see on IW types mechs that would make it a little more worth while, (remember, this would be limited to mechs that need IW to make up for sub-par damage performance and/or mechs that are classic scout or command mechs):

Stronger sensors -> ground penetrating radar
Sensor spuffing -> your mech creates multiple doritos and/or multiple minimap indicators
IFF jamming -> great for a brawling light, get into the scrum and all mechs in a small bubble go to grey doritos


These things can be countered with good team communication, but that should be the counter.

[Khobai]

Quote

don't think so. It didn't make so much sense for lasers (since our mechs have automatic range finders that constantly measure the distance to whatever you're aiming at, so lens focus shouldn't be an issue) but it would certainly be absolutely ridiculous for ballistic weapons and missiles.

not really. since partial/glancing hits are entirely conceivable for lasers/ballistics/missiles without a target lock. theres nothing ridiculous about it. Battletech even has optional rules for partial/glancing hits.

Scouting/electronic warfare will NEVER become a thing unless theres a strong incentive to obtain and hold locks. And that incentive needs to be damage. There is simply no other incentive thats strong enough.

Quote

The gameplay mechanic of "no lock reduces damage" is bad

Yet it would give sensors an actual purpose in the game. Besides I dont see you coming up with any better ideas to make sensors actually matter. I just see you sh*tting on other people's ideas.

Quote

IW should first be a self contained system that should not affect damage in any direct way. That is, it should be about info, not about how much damage your AC shell or laser beam does when it hits a target.

What info? there's no form of information you could possibly give players to make it worthwhile for lights to risk getting themselves killed over (especially since lights can eyeball enemies well outside of sensor range and dont even need to use sensors to find enemies). Thats what you dont seem to understand.

The only way to make sensor locks matter is to tie them to something that's actually meaningful like damage.

Regardless of whether you like the idea or not, damage being reduced without a sensor lock would 100% make getting and holding locks important. Thats simply an irrefutable and undeniable fact.

Edited by Khobai, 25 February 2016 - 07:06 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 25 February 2016 - 06:49 AM, said:

Scouting/electronic warfare will NEVER become a thing unless theres a strong incentive to obtain and hold locks. And that incentive needs to be damage. There is simply no other incentive thats strong enough.

Or you know, having constant positional/movement data on things thanks to target locks, knowing when and where an enemy is poking from is pretty beneficial since it allows you to better react to it. Knowing where the main force is without having your scouts overextend and potentially get caught would be really nice.

Sorry, but radar being tied to LOS has been the bane of IW since the beginning.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 February 2016 - 07:31 AM.

[Barantor]

Why not link it to crits? Targeting could give you a substantial bonus to take out that AC20 on the Atlas instead of just plowing more damage into that torso if he isn't targeted?

Giving lore appropriate mechs sensor buffs needs to be a thing. Command Console needs to be a good thing incorporated into this too.

I honestly think that the time to call up the targets info needs to be lengthened, then lowered if certain mechs are sharing the info with you. That Mauler might be CT cored, but you can't see it right away... but if the raven with the sensor buffs had just targeted it then you almost immediately get the info on your hud and that raven gets a bonus when you kill that mech.

[Mystere]

Alistair Winter, on 21 February 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

They mentioned it, tried it out, the forums exploded in turmoil. Then went radio silent. And as far as I know, NGNG never asked them about it again. (I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but it's a conspiracy.)

FTFY.