30 replies to this topic

[Glythe]

In the TT game you can't use Artemis IV, NARC or TAG all at once to create a better lock.

But in this game there is a good reason to allow multiple target enhancers to stack. If they don't then there is no reason to bring TAG (except for commander artillery strikes) and less reason to bring NARC (still nice to know where they are going) on a scout if your Catapult is using the Artemis IV system.

There are already natural counters in the game to counterbalance LRMs.... namely the speed of an enemy mech or an AMS (and in some cases the terrain itself). The Artemis IV has a pretty substantial price increase; who would bother using it if it didn't stack with NARC or TAG when you can just have scout lance mates? NARC and TAG both put the scout in a risky situation and as such that risk should reward the pilot who successfully designates his enemies for LRM toting allies. Why bother to going through all that trouble if all you need to do is bring an Artemis IV system for your LRM instead?

I'm not sure if NARC and TAG should stack but I definitely think Artemis should stack with either of the other two. The other solution might be to allow two out of the three to stack. That would help keep the Raven in its scouting niche; not only can it mark a target with the NARC it can continue to track it with TAG (but at the risk of being discovered by those targets).

Thinking about the game from a role warfare point of view I don't think it is a good design to allow a different role to make your role obsolete in any way. Allowing Artemis to stack with TAG or NARC helps to ensure that this can't happen.

Edited by Glythe, 13 July 2012 - 10:28 AM.

[Paralax]

NO, Ought right NO!


The Artemis IV Fire Control System is a guidance system that utilizes an infrared laser designator and tight-beam microwave transmitter which improves the accuracy of LRMs, SRMs, and MMLs by roughly thirty-five percent. The Artemis IV FCS must be mounted in the same location as the launcher it controls, taking up space and weight on a BattleMech like other components

The TAG unit works by firing an infrared laser beam to designate the target and transmits that data via a tight-beam laser communication system to the guidance systems of friendly "smart" bombs and missiles.TAG is compatible with systems such as Arrow IV Homing Missiles or Semi-Guided LRM munitions. Semi-Guided LRM debuted in 3057. The only disadvantages are semi-guided missiles are three times the cost of standard missiles and somewhat rare outside the borders of the Free Worlds League or among the forces of the Word of Blake.

NARC The reason the Narc system is superior to the similar Artemis IV FCS is that the target lock is never broken because the homing beacon is attached to the target, and that other friendly 'Mechs can fire missiles equipped to follow the signal without carrying their own Narc beacons.

Edited by Paralax, 13 July 2012 - 10:46 AM.

[Maxxinator]

I never knew why these couldn't stack, but I'm sure that Paul has thought of this... or not.

[Thorn Hallis]

I think the Kintaro does not care that his NARC beacon does not count for the Artemis IV or V equipped Catapult behind him.

[Glythe]

Paralax, on 13 July 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

NO, Ought right NO!

Other than the fact that it might break game lore a bit can you counter with an argument based on what I presented in terms of role warfare? Stacking them encourages smarter team play. Not letting them stack promotes more selfish game play.

[Paralax]

Other then being COMPLETELY aginst the mechanics of how the stuff works? and Stacking them invites Cheese?

Or that TAG is designed to work with the Arrow IV ONLY at this point in history.

Or that NARC and A4 FCS are essentially the same thing Bonus to hit mechanic.

In order to actually take the benefit of Artemis IV, the missiles fired must be Artemis compatible, which are more expensive than standard versions, and the firing unit must have line of sight to its target, indirectly fired LRM receives no increase in accuracy.

The Narc is a missile homing utility that can be planted on enemy targets, causing friendly SRMs and LRM missiles (even those that do not traditionally have homing capabilities) to lock on to them.


Next thing you'll tell me is you want a HAG with a TC and TAG to help the TC?

Edited by Paralax, 13 July 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[Durant Carlyle]

Any missile ammunition carried by a BattleMech can only be one special type, designated in full-ton lots.

Special types:
Standard
Streak
Artemis IV
NARC

Each ammo type can only benefit from one boost.

If you know your drop-buddy has a Raven with a NARC launcher, you'd better equip your 'Mech with NARC-enabled ammo (which will cost more than Standard). If you equip Standard, Streak, or Artemis IV, you get no benefit from your buddy's NARC. That's why it's good to drop with the same peeps so you know what they like to carry and can plan accordingly.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 13 July 2012 - 01:37 PM.

[Glythe]

Paralax, on 13 July 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Other then being COMPLETELY aginst the mechanics of how the stuff works? and Stacking them invites Cheese?

Your objection seem based purely on TT observations. You are aware that lasers are a 2 second burst in this game for balance reasons right? Not everything can and should be the same as a board game.

Durant Carlyle, on 13 July 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

If you know your drop-buddy has a Raven with a NARC launcher, you'd better equip your 'Mech with NARC-enabled ammo (which will cost more than Standard). If you equip Standard, Streak, or Artemis IV, you get no benefit from your buddy's NARC. That's why it's good to drop with the same peeps so you know what they like to carry and can plan accordingly.

And then bear in mind that this is a game designed so that 12 random people can fight 12 random people without planning.

Yes it goes against the limits of what should work... but if you limit NARC to NARC enabled LRMs how often do you think that's randomly going to happen?

I still think it is a good idea in the interest of making a better game that will be more readily playable by everyone.

Edited by Glythe, 13 July 2012 - 01:56 PM.

[Durant Carlyle]

Rather than turning the canon rules on their ear, it would be easier for the pilots of NARC-equipped 'Mechs to have non-NARC variants for PUGs.

Or ... chat with the peeps waiting in the queue with you, telling them you've got NARC so they should buy the right ammo. They visit their MechLab while waiting, and presto-chango the team becomes more effective.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 13 July 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[Lightdragon]

Glythe, on 13 July 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

In the TT game you can't use Artemis IV, NARC or TAG all at once to create a better lock.

But in this game there is a good reason to allow multiple target enhancers to stack. If they don't then there is no reason to bring TAG (except for commander artillery strikes) and less reason to bring NARC (still nice to know where they are going) on a scout if your Catapult is using the Artemis IV system.

There are already natural counters in the game to counterbalance LRMs.... namely the speed of an enemy mech or an AMS (and in some cases the terrain itself). The Artemis IV has a pretty substantial price increase; who would bother using it if it didn't stack with NARC or TAG when you can just have scout lance mates? NARC and TAG both put the scout in a risky situation and as such that risk should reward the pilot who successfully designates his enemies for LRM toting allies. Why bother to going through all that trouble if all you need to do is bring an Artemis IV system for your LRM instead?

I'm not sure if NARC and TAG should stack but I definitely think Artemis should stack with either of the other two. The other solution might be to allow two out of the three to stack. That would help keep the Raven in its scouting niche; not only can it mark a target with the NARC it can continue to track it with TAG (but at the risk of being discovered by those targets).

Thinking about the game from a role warfare point of view I don't think it is a good design to allow a different role to make your role obsolete in any way. Allowing Artemis to stack with TAG or NARC helps to ensure that this can't happen.

if its not allowed in the tabletop rules why the **** would we wan t it in mwo?? we want a sim not a ******* arcade game like mech assault

[Glythe]

Here's the thing I understand you want it to be like the Table Top when you play an organized match.... but think for a minute if you went to play a game of battletech and you had to randomly pick units out of a line up. Most of the time you would get mismatched units in terms of this missile not being the correct type for that type of firing assist mechanism.

Is that what you want? I doubt you or anyone would ever randomly assign weapons to your mechs for the TT game. And as such it just doesn't translate when you consider that 95-99% of the games you play are going to be random matches.

No one is asking this to be like mechassault .... but there's no reason to make it be overly complicated either.

I'll ask again. Can anyone explain from a game design standpoint why it would be better for MWO to be just like the table top game instead of what I have suggested?

[Lightdragon]

it is how it is, we want mwo to be true to battletech and not another microsoft bastardization of the franchise

[Graphite]

Glythe, on 13 July 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

I'll ask again. Can anyone explain from a game design standpoint why it would be better for MWO to be just like the table top game instead of what I have suggested?

Because they are all different systems, and have their own strengths and weaknesses.
* ArtemisIV means a more concentrated swarm.
* NARC concentrates the swarm of everyone with narc missiles without them having to buy or fit ArtemisIV, beacon has to be shot onto target, susceptible to ECM.
* TAG means a higher accuracy against moving targets, can't be blocked by ECM, makes indirect fire more accurate, needs a TAG spotter with LOS, tech probably too advanced to be initially included in MWO anyway.

Edited by Graphite, 13 July 2012 - 08:12 PM.

[Durant Carlyle]

Let's just for one minute assume that things work the way you want them to, Glythe...

I've got my nice shiny new Catapult with LRM-15s, Artemis IV systems and a full load of multi-guidance ammo. I lock onto an enemy scout 400 meters away right in front of me and press the firing button. I hear the usual 'whoosh' as the missiles ripple-fire and I see them streak towards my target ... only to turn 90º to the left and follow the NARC guidance signal from the target my Raven drop-buddy just marked. I sit there open-mouthed as the missiles that might have killed the puny Jenner scout instead fly towards some other target I didn't even know was there.

In other words ... how is the hypothetical multi-guidance missile going to choose which guidance signal to follow?

We don't need the kind of empty complexity that would add to the game.

Besides ... I haven't seen anything saying that we'll be running random 'Mechs in matches. I've just seen stuff saying we'll be running with random people sometimes, but we'll each have our normal 'Mechs to choose from. And as I said in my last post above, all we have to do is chat with each other to find out what we're equipped with and change up ammo accordingly.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 13 July 2012 - 09:02 PM.

[Graphite]

Durant Carlyle, on 13 July 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

I lock onto an enemy scout 400 meters away right in front of me and press the firing button. I hear the usual 'whoosh' as the missiles ripple-fire and I see them streak towards my target ... only to turn 90º to the left and follow the NARC guidance signal from the target my Raven drop-buddy just marked. I sit there open-mouthed as the missiles that might have killed the puny Jenner scout instead fly towards some other target I didn't even know was there.

Neither ArtemisIV nor NARC does what you've described (officially).

[Durant Carlyle]

Graphite, on 13 July 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Neither ArtemisIV nor NARC does what you've described (officially).

The Artemis IV system locks on just like normal LRMs do, but enhances the guidance a bit. Therefore, more missiles hit.

In the TT game, if you have NARC-enabled ammo, you can fire in any direction (even directly away from the target) and the missiles will turn to follow the signal.

The situation I described was if the missiles locked on via Artemis IV as normal, then a NARC beacon was activated mid-flight and the missiles decided to follow that guidance instead. This is the unnecessary confusion that multi-guidance missiles would cause.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 13 July 2012 - 09:27 PM.

[Glythe]

Durant Carlyle, on 13 July 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

Let's just for one minute assume that things work the way you want them to, Glythe...

I've got my nice shiny new Catapult with LRM-15s, Artemis IV systems and a full load of multi-guidance ammo. I lock onto an enemy scout 400 meters away right in front of me and press the firing button. I hear the usual 'whoosh' as the missiles ripple-fire and I see them streak towards my target ... only to turn 90º to the left and follow the NARC guidance signal from the target my Raven drop-buddy just marked. I sit there open-mouthed as the missiles that might have killed the puny Jenner scout instead fly towards some other target I didn't even know was there.

In other words ... how is the hypothetical multi-guidance missile going to choose which guidance signal to follow?

In this game you target an enemy with LRM and the missiles track to the best of their ability. You invented a scenario where the missiles chose a different target mid flight. That's not in any way how I described the situation.

Durant Carlyle, on 13 July 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

We don't need the kind of empty complexity that would add to the game.

You want targeting system A to only work with Missile A, system B to only work with Missile B, and system C to only work with Missile C.

Meanwhile I want there to only be regular LRMs and Artemis IV LRMs both of which work with target enhancement systems. Now which one is empty complexity?

Which one makes more sense given that the majority of any player's game experience will be from random matches? Do you think people would even bother to bring NARC/TAG LRM if they were playing alone? Remember not everyone has a clan from another game that will be on 24/7 to help them fill a lance.

Durant Carlyle, on 13 July 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

Besides ... I haven't seen anything saying that we'll be running random 'Mechs in matches. I've just seen stuff saying we'll be running with random people sometimes, but we'll each have our normal 'Mechs to choose from. And as I said in my last post above, all we have to do is chat with each other to find out what we're equipped with and change up ammo accordingly.

Go read the community warfare developer blog it clearly states that part of the game (organized play... aka clan matches) will not be available for at least six months to a year. In the meantime you and up to three friends will be playing lots and LOTS of random matches.

The complexity you guys seem to want is going to ensure that 75-90% of the time your LRMs are going to be acting on their own guidance... which is not enough to track a hunchback moving at top speed (in one official video they all miss and another shot has a few partial hits). Might I mention the hunchback is the second slowest mech in the game?

From a video game development standpoint you're talking about a lot of added complexity to the game. Which might translate to an extra 6 weeks to 6 months to get the missiles exactly right. I have an idea they aren't going to implement them the way you want because the way you suggest sounds incredibly frustrating. It is also a lot of extra work (and I can't emphasize that enough from a design standpoint). When you make a game like this... when everything else is equal the simpler option usually wins. Might I point out that your version... while true to the board game makes little sense at all (meaning less than equal) to bother spending the time to implement.

So far the only argument you can make is that the table top game doesn't work that way. Is there any other reason? The way you want them to work won't work with MWO as long as there are random matches. Imagine you have 3 different battle tech armies on your desk and you scoop them up into a big pile and then reassign them all to different groups. Let's say the weight just happened to work out so that each team only gets 1-2 catapults. If we assume that each team might have had a different weapons loadout how many teams are now viable? Wouldn't it suck if you were one of the teams that got catapults with incompatible missiles? That's exactly what you are asking for.... and I don't think this is a good idea.

Edited by Glythe, 14 July 2012 - 08:52 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

As previously stated - TAG is only for Arrow IV missiles - it is a waste of space and weight normally. In pick up games you will have no idea who you are playing with or what they have. WHy should somebody in a Cat buy ammo that is 2x the cost just so you can use your fancy Raven or whatever? As there is no built in voice we arent exactly going to get a great deal of talking.

[Glythe]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 14 July 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

As previously stated - TAG is only for Arrow IV missiles - it is a waste of space and weight normally.

I suspect the commander powers like call airstirke and artillery barrage will work with TAG as well. But what's the point of TAG if its primary function is for a weapon that isn't going to be in the game?

Nik Van Rhijn, on 14 July 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

As there is no built in voice we arent exactly going to get a great deal of talking.

If this game is anything like WoT there won't usually be enough time for you to type more than 1 sentence while you are in the queue.

[SkyDragon]

Glythe, on 13 July 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

Other than the fact that it might break game lore a bit can you counter with an argument based on what I presented in terms of role warfare? Stacking them encourages smarter team play. Not letting them stack promotes more selfish game play.

I think there could be a way to create good game balance with NARC either way but I will say this...

One possible reason not to let them stack is, Non-Compatibility could promote various types of game play and trying different mech builds for various situations. For example, Supposed that Narc "ALWAYS" stacked and helped all rocket guidance, then it would always be a good thing to take as long as someone had rockets. Unless NARC wasn't very effective in helping missiles track at all, then players using light scouts mechs would be foolish unless they always took it for every build in every game. Regardless of playing random PvP or special Solaris matches with well acquainted teammates.

One advantage to allowing NARC tracking to stack for all missiles is that it could prevent much confusion with new/less informed players making NARC more newbie proof. ((Then again, the hardcore fans who have certain expectations about the rules might find a new source of confusion from the discrepancy and might miss educate people.))

I think I prefer the idea of Narc being a specialized tool, which could be used to a great advantage by a well planned and coordinated lance rather then as light buff which always helps. It seems more interesting that way.

Either way, i don't really feel strongly as long as the game play is:

• balanced
  
• promotes a wide variety of viable configurations for mechs.

Edited by SkyDragon, 14 July 2012 - 03:49 PM.