64 replies to this topic

[Sader325]

Active Radar vs Active Radar

Game functions exactly like you see it now. You see it, you can lock it (within sensor range obviously).

Active Radar vs Passive Radar

You see it you can lock it, but at reduced range (say 50% of your sensor range) and a lowered lock speed for missiles.


Passive Radar vs Passive Radar

Neither of you are locking ****, both of you are essentially invisible to each other past mid range.


Obviously these are ramblings of a mad man, but how is a system like this so hard for PGI to implement / come up with?

Why are they so afraid of depth?

[SQW]

Because in lore, mechs need radar lock to shoot accurately. In MWO, you twitch aim muti ton weapons via HUD. Since you can hit things in passive just as easily as in active, having a passive radar pointless. Plus, the maps of MWO are largely designed to funnel two groups into 400m short range brawl so you most likely to have fired off your first alpha long before target lock anyway.

[Brain Cancer]

MWLL is lostech.

[NeoCodex]

This and how ECM/BAP changed your sensor ranges was by far my favorite feature in MW4.

[martian]

Sader325, on 07 August 2016 - 10:41 PM, said:

Active Radar vs Active Radar

Game functions exactly like you see it now. You see it, you can lock it (within sensor range obviously).

Active Radar vs Passive Radar

You see it you can lock it, but at reduced range (say 50% of your sensor range) and a lowered lock speed for missiles.


Passive Radar vs Passive Radar

Neither of you are locking ****, both of you are essentially invisible to each other past mid range.


Obviously these are ramblings of a mad man, but how is a system like this so hard for PGI to implement / come up with?

Why are they so afraid of depth?

PGI has told you: "This is not your father's MechWarrior."

That's why.

(also known as MVP - Minimally Viable Product)

[Deathlike]

It's Lostech.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

I would love it, running silent would be a great way help to a lot of mechs, not just lights, but, assaults as well. They use their team to tell them where enemies are and let them get into position properly while having a reduced chance of suffering from "FAT DORITO SHOOT IT" Syndrome that they currently do. This of course also helps lights which means they can act like an attack sub, shark their way around the battlefield and then run up behind some sob without siesmic and smack their mech ***.

I honestly would enjoy it, yes it would be frustrating with more surprise SRM bombers coming in, or cSLP boats, but, I think it would be nice change. Though I would like the ability to at least spot a target with CC if I hover my cursor over them (until they break line of sight for .5 seconds) so that I can manually add a dorito to help with pugs or players just not used to not having the mystical red triangle over enemies.

[vocifer]

We had already tested different sensor range mechanics a year ago.
It was not hard to implement and IIRC most of the players were positive about that PTS session.
And then it was scrapped completely without any comment.
Go figure...

[Appogee]

I love the way MW:LL handles active vs passive radar.

It adds a lot of strategic depth to the game, as you have to risk exposing your own position in order to determine whether other enemies are closeby.

It is a beautiful game mechanic.

Edited by Appogee, 08 August 2016 - 12:25 AM.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Appogee, on 08 August 2016 - 12:24 AM, said:

I love the way MW:LL handles active vs passive radar.

It adds a lot of strategic depth to the game, as you have to risk exposing your own position in order to determine whether other enemies are closeby.

It is a beautiful game mechanic.

Absolutely agreed, if MWO picked it up with some bigger maps with tactical diversity, oh yes I would love that due to information deprivation and making that critical choice like a submarine captain on whether or not to do an active ping or not is just so tasty. Throw in better designed maps and FP could be quite the interesting game, let alone quick play on maps that aren't coffins and have lots of varied terrain.

[BLOOD WOLF]

vocifer, on 08 August 2016 - 12:18 AM, said:

We had already tested different sensor range mechanics a year ago.
It was not hard to implement and IIRC most of the players were positive about that PTS session.
And then it was scrapped completely without any comment.
Go figure...

what were those?

anyways i dont think an active radar will serve any useful purpose. When we have mechs that can scout, tag, narc and other things. Its a cool differentiating feature but that would probably be low on the list

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 08 August 2016 - 12:38 AM.

[El Bandito]

LRMs will need a rework cause passive radar is gonna screw them real good.

[BLOOD WOLF]

El Bandito, on 08 August 2016 - 12:47 AM, said:

LRMs will need a rework cause passive radar is gonna screw them real good.

oh yea, just imagine 3-4 lights just placed strategically with active radar. "I see you"

[El Bandito]

BLOOD WOLF, on 08 August 2016 - 12:49 AM, said:

oh yea, just imagine 3-4 lights just placed strategically with active radar. "I see you"

Can't really count on spotters in pug matches.

[BLOOD WOLF]

will active radar cut through ECM?

[Spleenslitta]

BLOOD WOLF, on 08 August 2016 - 12:36 AM, said:

what were those?

anyways i dont think an active radar will serve any useful purpose. When we have mechs that can scout, tag, narc and other things. Its a cool differentiating feature but that would probably be low on the list

Sorry but i must disagree. There are several reasons.
1) Scouts and harassers would have better chances of getting close to the enemy and thus light mechs would be better capable of doing what they are supposed to do.
They are supposed to be scouts and harassers...that means going in alone and doing their thing.

2) It would make TTK longer since it would be harder to get a lock on to know the enemy weak points.

3) It was in the TT and PGI wanted to stay close to the lore.

I'm very certain i could come up with more reasons but i got a big stack of movies to watch now that i'm finally on vacation.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 08 August 2016 - 01:15 AM.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

El Bandito, on 08 August 2016 - 12:47 AM, said:

LRMs will need a rework cause passive radar is gonna screw them real good.

Would make TAG, NARC, AMS, ECM, Artemis, and BAP pretty useful. However, yes, pugs it would be unreliable at best, that is normal, it is just like LRM's in a match with high ECM saturation. If anything LRM boats would decrease and have at least some back up since they would end up often having to fight off assassins (not the mech, though, that would be nice too).

[S 0 L E N Y A]

MW4 style ftw!

[El Bandito]

Moonlight Grimoire, on 08 August 2016 - 01:03 AM, said:

Would make TAG, NARC, AMS, ECM, Artemis, and BAP pretty useful. However, yes, pugs it would be unreliable at best, that is normal, it is just like LRM's in a match with high ECM saturation. If anything LRM boats would decrease and have at least some back up since they would end up often having to fight off assassins (not the mech, though, that would be nice too).

Nah, LRMs will simply cease to be played. They are too situational as is, currently. So unless PGI is wiling to invalidate an entire weapon system, they better rework LRMs if passive radar is introduced. LRMs should be fire-and-forget, just like in other Mechwarrior games.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

El Bandito, on 08 August 2016 - 01:27 AM, said:

Nah, LRMs will simply cease to be played. They are too situational as is, currently. So unless PGI is wiling to invalidate an entire weapon system, they better rework LRMs if passive radar is introduced. LRMs should be fire-and-forget, just like in other Mechwarrior games.

True, I would also give line of sight bonus to them (flatter trajectory under 550m). In terms of fire and forget they are already slow enough that it really shouldn't be an issue having them as fire and forget weapons in either situation, 160m/s is pretty sluggish all things considered.