30 replies to this topic

[pursang]

Hmm. Now who said they're going to have any of the those components, at launch anyway? I don't remember any of those systems being confirmed as being in-game. So this is a little presumptuous to talk about, no?

[Dracol]

I could see Artemis and Narcs working like this:

Catapult has equipped Artemis with its LRMS. When it acquires a lock on, the Artemis helps more missiles reach target. Ammo for these LRM may cost more than ammo for a non-Artemis LRM system.

A lancemate of the Catapult is running a Commando with Narc system. During the course of a match, the Commando lands a Narc. If the Catapult fires its LRMS against a target it has a lock on against, then the narc is ignored. If the Catapult fires the LRMS with out having a target lock, they then track the narc. Whether or not the LRMS launcher has Artemis would have no bearing on the success of the Narc tracking missiles. No special ammo would be required to utilize the narc.

No stacking BUT both systems remain relevant.

[Durant Carlyle]

Quote

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.

I described a situation where multi-guidance (both Artemis and NARC-enabled) missiles could get confused if a NARC beacon was activated mid-flight. Even if not activated mid-flight, how do you choose which target to fire on when you have your own missile lock and someone on your team activates NARC?

Quote

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?

The way "I want" (as you call it) the missiles to work is how previous PC games (every single one of them) did it. TT rules and all of the previous games agreed. Doesn't seem to have added any complexity...

Quote

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.

Playing with random people, yes. Not with random 'Mechs. Every pilot still has their own stable of 'Mechs to choose from, where you can customize your ammo to your heart's content.

[Lightdragon]

Glythe, on 14 July 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

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?


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.

actually in tabletop rules... there is also indirect fire lrm ammo that follows tag

[Graphite]

Glythe, on 14 July 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

The complexity you guys seem to want ...
From a video game development standpoint you're talking about ...
I have an idea they aren't going to implement them the way you want ...

What are you talking about? You're the only person who's made a suggestion.

Quote

So far the only argument you can make is that the table top game doesn't work that way. Is there any other reason?

You mean against the argument you're making? BTW, which are you predicting will be most popular: NARC or ArtemisIV? You make both arguments in your OP.

TAG is unlikely to be available anyway, so is irrelevant. (Possibly by commanders for artillery? If so, there's your niche and reason for TAG right there)

NARC and ArtemisIV have (essentially) the same effect. How would you stack it, and why bother (as a dev, and as a player)?
More options means more variety means better.

Of course NARC will be less desirable if you aren't sure your team-mates will have matching gear.
You can use NARC as a lone wolf if you really want to (equip a narc beacon launcher, and narc ammo for your LRMs).

On the other hand NARC could be stunningly effective if you know (or think) multiple allies will be appropriately equipped, for a much lower cost (weight, space) than ArtemisIV.

I don't even see the existence of a "problem" here that needs to be "fixed".

Edited by Graphite, 14 July 2012 - 08:01 PM.

[Glythe]

Durant Carlyle, on 14 July 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

I described a situation where multi-guidance (both Artemis and NARC-enabled) missiles could get confused if a NARC beacon was activated mid-flight. Even if not activated mid-flight, how do you choose which target to fire on when you have your own missile lock and someone on your team activates NARC?

You target the enemy and press the fire button. Watch Russ play the Atlas in the assault video... he has a distant mech targeted and launches lrm volleys while using his lasers on a close up catapult. Real simple. Missiles target what you want but they would get a bonus if the target had a narc on it.

Durant Carlyle, on 14 July 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Playing with random people, yes. Not with random 'Mechs. Every pilot still has their own stable of 'Mechs to choose from, where you can customize your ammo to your heart's content.

So you think that it's just going to magically match up fine? The last we heard there is no weight drop limit at the moment (meaning every lance can be 4 Atlases). You can choose whichever ammo you want, but unless you pick A and he picks A you're just wasting your time. That's really unfriendly in terms of game development and in terms of matching players who are RANDOMLY thrown together. You might not even get a scout on your team much less have a scout that has a target assist. And then the answer becomes that Artemis IV would be the best option 90% of the time and that is just pure bad game design (to have one thing be above and beyond the best).

Graphite, on 14 July 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

NARC and ArtemisIV have (essentially) the same effect. How would you stack it, and why bother (as a dev, and as a player)?
More options means more variety means better.

If you ignore TT for a moment (which is often necessary when it comes to making a 3D fps from a turn based 2d game) it would just be +1 guidance and +1 more guidance stacked. It would reward the scout for narcing a target and reward the LRM launching player for using Artemis. In the random machmaker shuffle it would ALWAYS pay to use Artemis IV if it goes by cannon and hardly ever pay to use a NARC enabled missile. That's bad design as I said before.

Graphite, on 14 July 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Of course NARC will be less desirable if you aren't sure your team-mates will have matching gear.

Exactly.... because you are depending on the scout hitting the target with a NARC and then you also need to have NARC LRM. Going by canon it doesn't make sense in terms of game design as one option is clearly better than the other. Option A always works, Option B works depending on two IF statements. If they both have the same bonus to hit there's little reason to take B over A. But note that the way I suggest it should work makes both a viable option. Regular missiles are improved by NARC and so are Artemis missiles.

Graphite, on 14 July 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

I don't even see the existence of a "problem" here that needs to be "fixed".

You're also not thinking about a fps in terms of how it will play out compared to the board game.

I'm suggesting to just have 2 missile types.... standard LRMs and Artemis IV. I'm suggesting you let someone use TAG to paint a target to assist the guidance of a missile to the target. I'm suggesting you let either TAG and Artemis IV or NARC and Artemis IV stack to create a double lock on bonus.

Say whatever you like but TAG is basically a laser designator. How I suggest it could be used is supported by sarna:
"Target Acquisition Gear is an advanced targeting device for use by artillery spotters. 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."

Go watch all the videos we have and you'll see the LRM is quite pathetic in terms of even hitting the target (much less doing any concentrated damage as the missiles when they do actually hit spread minimal damage over the mech). Note the weight to damage ratio of the LRM and how pathetic that is compared to most of the other weapons.

Armor was doubled to make there be less alpha strike killing. Lasers were changed so you have to hold them on the target (in part to make them more dangerous to use compared to say a projectile weapon such as PPC or an AC.

Edited by Glythe, 18 July 2012 - 08:58 AM.

[Graphite]

Glythe, on 18 July 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

If you ignore TT for a moment (which is often necessary when it comes to making a 3D fps from a turn based 2d game) it would just be +1 guidance and +1 more guidance stacked. It would reward the scout for narcing a target and reward the LRM launching player for using Artemis. In the random machmaker shuffle it would ALWAYS pay to use Artemis IV if it goes by cannon and hardly ever pay to use a NARC enabled missile. That's bad design as I said before.

You have this the wrong way round - you could very easily stack NARC and Artemis in TT - just apply both bonuses (it would be illegal of course).
It's harder in a real time 3D game, because you need to be able to define what "+1" for that is...(I've written practice missile simulations for flight sim fans)

Quote

Exactly.... because you are depending on the scout hitting the target with a NARC and then you also need to have NARC LRM. Going by canon it doesn't make sense in terms of game design as one option is clearly better than the other. Option A always works, Option B works depending on two IF statements. If they both have the same bonus to hit there's little reason to take B over A. But note that the way I suggest it should work makes both a viable option. Regular missiles are improved by NARC and so are Artemis missiles.

We don't have to alter every piece of equipment to make them equally desirable in all situations.
NARC already has it's own advantages over Artemis: it can potentially apply the Artemis bonus to a large number of mechs, all for the cost of a single NARC launcher on a scout.
And I'd bet my left arm we get mechanisms to be able to play with our friends (if not at launch then very soon).

Quote

You're also not thinking about a fps in terms of how it will play out compared to the board game.

No, you're not realising both have their own unique strengths and weaknesses, which means the choice will depend on the situation.
Nothing to do with TT at all - there is no problem.

Quote

I'm suggesting to just have 2 missile types.... standard LRMs and Artemis IV. I'm suggesting you let someone use TAG to paint a target to assist the guidance of a missile to the target. I'm suggesting you let either TAG and Artemis IV or NARC and Artemis IV stack to create a double lock on bonus.

Say whatever you like but TAG is basically a laser designator. How I suggest it could be used is supported by sarna:
"Target Acquisition Gear is an advanced targeting device for use by artillery spotters. 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."

I don't think TAG is worth comparing wit the other two, as it'll only be used for artillery.

Quote

Go watch all the videos we have and you'll see the LRM is quite pathetic in terms of even hitting the target (much less doing any concentrated damage as the missiles when they do actually hit spread minimal damage over the mech). Note the weight to damage ratio of the LRM and how pathetic that is compared to most of the other weapons.

Again, there's no point trying to level all weapons - you'd end up with only a single weapon.
Damage/Weight is an extremely simplistic view. There are many other unique points about LRM: extreme long range, fire and forget, hit beyond LOS, crit seeking, price, heat, and of course MWO has missile only hardpoints.
There is no LRM problem. If you don't like them, just avoid playing them.

Quote

Armor was doubled to make there be less alpha strike killing. Lasers were changed so you have to hold them on the target (in part to make them more dangerous to use compared to say a projectile weapon such as PPC or an AC.

Armour was doubled to extend play times. Lasers were changed to make them less munchkin. NARC won't be stacking with Artemis....

Edited by Graphite, 18 July 2012 - 04:37 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

pursang, on 14 July 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Hmm. Now who said they're going to have any of the those components, at launch anyway? I don't remember any of those systems being confirmed as being in-game. So this is a little presumptuous to talk about, no?

'Twas in the first "Ask the Devs":

Garth Erlam, on 08 May 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

QUESTION: Can you give us a list of weapons and equipment you expect at launch? Or at least what you KNOW will make it as of today? -Sprouticus

ANSWER: The weapon list is every Inner Sphere weapon available in the time frame, and they should all be in for launch. The following is a list of the weapons and equipment available at the time.
Weapons
Ballistic:
AC/2, AC/5, AC/10, AC/20
LB 10-X AC
Ultra AC/5
Gauss Rifle
Machine Gun

Energy:
Flamer
Small Laser, Medium Laser, Large Laser
ER Large Laser
Small Pulse Laser, Medium Pulse Laser, Large Pulse Laser
PPC
ER PPC

Missile Weapons:
LRM 5, LRM 10, LRM 15, LRM 20
SRM 2, SRM 4, SRM 6
Streak SRM 2

Equipment:
Standard and Endo-Steel Internal Structures
Standard and XL Fusion Engines
Jump Jets
Standard and Double Heat Sinks
Standard and Ferro-Fibrous Armour
CASE

Obviously not all of this will be stock, and some things will be harder to get than others. The equipment list is everything that I can guarantee for launch, though we’re likely to also have most, if not all, of the following ready to go:

Artemis IV
Anti-Missile System
Active Probe
ECM Suite
Narc Beacon
TAG

Hope you guys enjoyed this, and we'll run another one of these soon!

So, we know that all of Artemis IV, Narc, and TAG are (or are intended to be) in MWO.

Also, from the FAQ:

Quote

Q. Will LRMs in MechWarrior® Online™ be guided or unguided?

A. LRMs will be semi-guided. What the heck does that mean? You will be able to lock on to your target but it doesn't mean the actual missiles will home directly to the target. The chance of missing will still be part of LRM gameplay. Use of the Artemis IV system and subsequent munitions, will narrow the area of damage by focusing the flight paths of the missiles. We're finding that this is a good balance between gameplay and staying true to the BattleTech canon.

So, we know that normal LRMs are planned to be implemented as semi-guided munitions (which may make them compatible with TAG?), and that "use of the Artemis IV system and subsequent munitions, will narrow the area of damage by focusing the flight paths of the missiles".

Speaking of "subsequent munitions", there is a statement from the tenth "Ask the Devs":

Quote

Q: WIll we be able to switch between cluster ammo and slugs with LB-X autocannons? [DerMaulwurf]

A: We plan to have this functionality eventually, but currently it is not available. Who doesn't want lots of different Ammo types, right? [GARTH]

We know that alternate ammo types are planned for the LB-X ACs, even though they're not implemented right now.

Then, there is a non-zero chance that the other weapons - the standard ACs and the missile launchers - may get access to their alternate munition types as well.

So, there may well be plans for Artemis-specific munitions and Narc-specific munitions for the missile launchers, and possibly TAG-specific munitions as well (if the normal/standard munitions don't support it).

-----

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.

With regard to whether Artemis, Narc, and TAG should be able to stack, my personal opinion is that they should not, on the grounds that
1.) it (stacking Artemis, Narc, and TAG) was not allowed in the TT for a reason, with that reason most likely being related to balance and play-testing,
2.) disallowing it could/should promote variety/diversity by reducing "Swiss Army Knife"/"Master of All Trades" syndrome (or, at least, makes succumbing to it more costly to would-be munchkins), and
3.) disallowing it rewards a degree of specialization and streamlining of designs toward specific goals, which (together with (2)) could/should promote a greater number of different styles of play.

Your thoughts?

[Durant Carlyle]

Quote

So you think that it's just going to magically match up fine? The last we heard there is no weight drop limit at the moment (meaning every lance can be 4 Atlases). You can choose whichever ammo you want, but unless you pick A and he picks A you're just wasting your time. That's really unfriendly in terms of game development and in terms of matching players who are RANDOMLY thrown together. You might not even get a scout on your team much less have a scout that has a target assist. And then the answer becomes that Artemis IV would be the best option 90% of the time and that is just pure bad game design (to have one thing be above and beyond the best).

The game won't necessarily be optimally designed for random matches where you have no idea who you will be playing with. To get the best synergy, you will need to join a unit (whether House or Mercenary) and develop strategies with them. This will include whether you will have teammates equipped with NARC and other technologies.

If you plan on making random matches your main thing, then yes your best option would be Artemis IV for missile guidance. That way at least more of your own missiles will hit.

It comes down to this: In a random match, who cares about anyone else's missiles?

[Dark Baron]

Lightdragon, on 13 July 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

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

No YOU want it to true to older renditions of the game, for whatever nostalgic reasons. I personally just want a balanced game that I can grab a mech and jump into a random pug with and still manage to operate it with at least minimally effectiveness. In it's current state, LRMs are broken for pugs. Outside of the fact that the vast majority of the player base doesn't understand how the LRM locking mechanism works to begin with-no scout is going to drop the space for an additional laser to drag along a tag for the express purpose of aiding LRMs when most of the time there isn't a designated LRM boat in the match. Even more so, it's even less likely a LRM boat is going to rely on scouts having tag for narcs to supply targets as most matches there won't be one, leaving him dead in the water. Hell you can't even rely on scouts to protect you from enemy fast mechs now as it is. Pugs are by their nature, purely selfish in design. Yes it's great when a premade drop organizes their whole team around each other's builds, but that is a small minority of the player base. 90-95% of the battles and player base only does pugs, and creating the game to favor premades only alienates that 90% of your player base, causing them to eventually leave the game. In short, it's a very bad business model to practice. Yes I agree with the original poster that out of Narc, Tag and Artemis, at least 2 of the 3 should stack.(although from my understanding, Narcs just basically act as having a mech targeting the openent the Narc was attached to for the purposes of targeting, but not really offering any other particular bonuses to LRMs) This would allow pugs with lights and LRM boats that have upgrades to work together when they happen, but doesn't punish the player for taking an upgrade for his LRM boat for when there aren't scouts in the game equipped to help him. Besides, it would also help bridge the gap between pugs and premades, which in it's current state, is woefully out of balance.

Edited by Dark Baron, 22 February 2013 - 10:30 PM.

[FrostVixen]

LRM's hurt enough as it is without having them hit perfectly on one part of armor (Which is what would happen if they do the system you want). You basically want missiles to become pinpoint accuracy death clouds that are going to pretty much break every mech they hit because every missile will pretty much hit in the same spot. The spread of them with artemis and tag is fine the way it is. Any more compaction between the missile cloud means instant death for any component they manage to hit. That would be FAR too much power for LRM's.

It's bad enough having to deal with chain fired streams of death coming at you, You can't even see through the smoke clouds and double vision your pilot gets when they hit. You are asking for an easy button with this stackable targeting system.