64 replies to this topic

[BLOOD WOLF]

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.

I could be wrong or not remembering correctly. But the Lrm's in this game are still similar to how MW2 played out. i am not sure about the other games. I barely played 3 and 4

I think the OP might have gotten active and passive mixed. The radars just use differnt methods to pinpoint location. With active radar, you are bouncing a signal off a object and then that signal comes back to you and from that you can calculate the cords, there is mathmatics for both but that is an aside. With passive you are using signals from seperate locations to try to pinpoint or calculate a targets location.

I dont know how MWLL did it or even if they did it right. what i do know is that the current method for receiving data Is good enough.

Right now were are near active radar engagements. meaning mechs bounce signals off each other. So the Op stated that both are not a thing. I contend that we have a system similar to active but as for passive. I dont see how that would work within the context of the game, and be useful. in other words it needs to be a viable tool that can get information as well as other methods of gaining info, such as tag, narc, LOS, beagle.

I am not saying you can not design a useful and meaningful system and which it is engaging. For now i dont see it contending with anything that your team shouldn't already be helping you do.

sorry el bandito, I quoted you but was actually addressing someone else. Weird that i did that.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 08 August 2016 - 01:43 AM.

[El Bandito]

BLOOD WOLF, on 08 August 2016 - 01:40 AM, said:

I could be wrong or not remembering correctly. But the Lrm's in this game are still similar to how MW2 played out. i am not sure about the other games. I barely played 3 and 4

MW2/3/4 all had fire-and-forget LRMs.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

they fired the guy who could read the code...

dunno ppl accept that as the excuse to why we cant have lbx ammo switching....

El Bandito, on 08 August 2016 - 02:10 AM, said:

MW2/3/4 all had fire-and-forget LRMs.

to understand the guy you quoted, go here http://mwomercs.com/...of-actual-road/

He's used to being wrong to say the least

[Alistair Winter]

It was either because PGI doesn't have faith that the players would handle this degree of complexity, or because Russ & co didn't really enjoy that level of complexity in older Mechwarrior games, or both.

Today, it's probably because MWO is largely a finished product, as far as PGI is concerned. They may add some PVE and various features over time, but they're not going to go back and look at how LRMs work, for example.

People have been asking for passive / active radar since 2012, I think. Three years ago, I was kind of optimistic that it could make it into the game at some point. But now it's too late, unfortunately. May as well accept it.

[Spleenslitta]

Alistair Winter, on 08 August 2016 - 04:27 AM, said:

It was either because PGI doesn't have faith that the players would handle this degree of complexity, or because Russ & co didn't really enjoy that level of complexity in older Mechwarrior games, or both.

Today, it's probably because MWO is largely a finished product, as far as PGI is concerned. They may add some PVE and various features over time, but they're not going to go back and look at how LRMs work, for example.

People have been asking for passive / active radar since 2012, I think. Three years ago, I was kind of optimistic that it could make it into the game at some point. But now it's too late, unfortunately. May as well accept it.

Yeah it may be too late to add any significant features. You're right. Whenever i'm reminded of this i just think to myself:
Why am i still here? it's been about a month since i played and that was very briefly. Time to find another game...

I think i'd better get back to...EVE perhaps?

[Dino Might]

Simple do: Give each mech an RWR screen to replace one of the useless graphics screens. This is a polar graph giving relative bearing to enemy radar emitter with distance from center based on relative strength of signal (closer = stronger). This does not give accurate range information, but gives fairly accurate bearing and an estimate of range if you know the emitter type and raw signal strength.

Active, works just like current sensors (maybe adjust range for balance purposes with various mech weights).
Con: Show up on enemy RWR

Passive, 25% range of active sensors.
Pro: Don't show up on enemy RWR

Don't need to use my more complex radar ideas, though it would be very nice. This would add just a sliver more depth to the engagements and be a good stepping stone to a more complicated set of sensor mechanics.

[Idealsuspect]

Damn will you play deathmatch skirmish matchs without dream about a deeper game !

And one thing only PGI know what is good for "the best Esport game in tha world"

[Davers]

So everyone with direct fire weapons will run passive, and everyone with lock on weapons will run active. Somehow this passes for 'depth'.

[Dino Might]

Dino Might, on 08 August 2016 - 06:49 AM, said:

Davers, on 08 August 2016 - 07:22 AM, said:

So everyone with direct fire weapons will run passive, and everyone with lock on weapons will run active. Somehow this passes for 'depth'.

This would add just a sliver more depth to the engagements and be a good stepping stone to a more complicated set of sensor mechanics.

Baby steps...

As for what I ultimately wish for?

A fully modeled raycasting radar system, with each mech cross section being modeled. Each mech has its own individual sensor suite with strengths/weaknesses vs certain mech weights and cross sections. Radar aperture in the azimuth and elevation is modeled with various modes (long range scan, which gives narrow cone that can be slewed by operator, short range scan - wider cone, close combat - widest aperture, shortest range, and optional auto-lock on nearest detected target [similar to RDO mode in the Mirage).

ECM works by throwing out a ton of noise, but gives enemy missiles a home-on-jam firing mode (less accurate than standard lock and can be outmaneuvered), prevents ranging info and red box, but gives azimuth on radar from much longer distance than normal radar range. Radar burn-through (ECM negated) at ranges approx 50% of max normal detection range.

LRMs have greatly increased flight speed and are more powerful, but still require constant lock (SARH mode). LRMs use proportional navigation to lead target, but have limited turning capability (g-limited), drag modeled so that sharp turns cause a significant loss in kinetic energy - can be evaded somewhat by a maneuvering target. Missiles also have a boost and a coast phase - can run missiles out of energy near max range so they fall short (as they try to lead target, which is maneuvering back and forth). TLDR: make guided missiles behave like guided missiles.

Edited by Dino Might, 08 August 2016 - 07:42 AM.

[Davers]

Dino Might, on 08 August 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

Baby steps...

As for what I ultimately wish for?

A fully modeled raycasting radar system, with each mech cross section being modeled. Each mech has its own individual sensor suite with strengths/weaknesses vs certain mech weights and cross sections. Radar aperture in the azimuth and elevation is modeled with various modes (long range scan, which gives narrow cone that can be slewed by operator, short range scan - wider cone, close combat - widest aperture, shortest range, and optional auto-lock on nearest detected target [similar to RDO mode in the Mirage).

ECM works by throwing out a ton of noise, but gives enemy missiles a home-on-jam firing mode (less accurate than standard lock and can be outmaneuvered), prevents ranging info and red box, but gives azimuth on radar from much longer distance than normal radar range. Radar burn-through (ECM negated) at ranges approx 50% of max normal detection range.

LRMs have greatly increased flight speed and are more powerful, but still require constant lock (SARH mode). LRMs use proportional navigation to lead target, but have limited turning capability (g-limited), drag modeled so that sharp turns cause a significant loss in kinetic energy - can be evaded somewhat by a maneuvering target. Missiles also have a boost and a coast phase - can run missiles out of energy near max range so they fall short (as they try to lead target, which is maneuvering back and forth). TLDR: make guided missiles behave like guided missiles.

But that isn't going to happen.

We all know the entire radar/ECM/Lock on Weapons/NARC/TAG/BAP system is hopelessly flawed. But I don't see PGI doing anything about it. They had the opportunity to revisit it when they had that whole ECM Council thing, and nothing came of it. They had new sensor mechanics on the PTS, but it was scrapped.

The whole sensor thing is pointless if it only affects LRMs and SSRMs.

[Davegt27]

Quote

Posted Today, 12:41 AM
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?

active radar = sends out and receives radar pulses
passive radar = only receives radar emissions (so in theory your IFF transponder could be received if the frequency was known)

IFF = identify friend or foe = transponder beacon= transmits RF energy
ECM = or Electronic Counter Measures (takes many forms) it is deigned to capture the radar emissions analyze it and send a counter which is also a radar emission

so having passive radar would not reduce lock on range since it just receives radar emissions

because of complaints (crying) PGI has just about done away with radar in the game
so this game is pretty much line of sight (they play around with it turning it off or on depending how they feel)

you might have noticed there aren't many complaints about ECM any more (get rid of radar you don't need ECM)


HTHs

Edited by Davegt27, 08 August 2016 - 08:01 AM.

[LordNothing]

because that would require too much thinking.

[LordNothing]

Moonlight Grimoire, on 08 August 2016 - 12:36 AM, said:

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.

it also has the added bonus that all those lerm bots would be lit up like a christmas tree on the radar trying to get locks. i liked mwll's indirect fire mechanics too. and its c3 mechanics. its pretty much had awesome electronic warfare features.

[Pjwned]

It's not a thing because it's a good idea, and we know how PGI treats good ideas.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Honestly it never made any sort of sense to me.

Oh, I'm not sending out any radar.

Well fine, you're still a giant magnetic and seismic signature which could be detected behind hills.

Hell, if you're in the open at all radar would detect from miles and miles away anyways.

Granted good game play is more important than being 100% realistic so I wouldn't really mind too much if it were

[Rebas Kradd]

Passive radar wouldn't work nearly as well in MWO as it did in any of the other MW games (including Living Legends), except to screw over LRMs.

The reason is map design. Information deprivation is largely impossible in MWO because of the massive, wide-open sight lines and dominant terrain features that allow players to scan the entire map with just their eyes (with a few exceptions). You don't need information warfare in this game because you can just use your eyes; that's why info warfare isn't bothered with, most likely.

On the other hand, previous MW games offered enough terrain, forestation, and atmospheric effects to shield mechs from view until you were closer, if you played it right. This made information warfare actually valuable.

So in MWO right now, if you employ passive radar, all it'll stop is LRMs. Other than that, you see a mech walking around from 1200m away, you look to see if there's a blue triangle above it, and if there is, you shoot.

That said, I believe PGI has actually heard our complaints along these lines, given the way their most recent maps are shifting their design philosophy towards denser business. We've seen that in the recent maps, in the upgrades, and in Polar Highlands. Of course, then you have to address the issue of small maps and objectives, because gamemode design shoves everyone towards the center anyway, so information warfare remains pointless.

Just another good idea buried by questionable gamemode design.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 08 August 2016 - 12:04 PM.

[Deathlike]

Rebas Kradd, on 08 August 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

Passive radar wouldn't work nearly as well in MWO as it did in any of the other MW games (including Living Legends), except to screw over LRMs.

The reason is map design. Information deprivation is largely impossible in MWO because of the massive, wide-open sight lines and dominant terrain features that allow players to scan the entire map with just their eyes (with a few exceptions). You don't need information warfare in this game because you can just use your eyes; that's why info warfare isn't bothered with, most likely.

On the other hand, previous MW games offered enough terrain, forestation, and atmospheric effects to shield mechs from view until you were closer, if you played it right. This made information warfare actually valuable.

So in MWO right now, if you employ passive radar, all it'll stop is LRMs. Other than that, you see a mech walking around from 1200m away, you look to see if there's a blue triangle above it, and if there is, you shoot.

That said, I believe PGI has actually heard our complaints along these lines, given the way their most recent maps are shifting their design philosophy towards denser business. We've seen that in the recent maps, in the upgrades, and in Polar Highlands. Of course, then you have to address the issue of small maps and objectives, because gamemode design shoves everyone towards the center anyway, so information warfare remains pointless.

Just another good idea buried by questionable gamemode design.

It wouldn't be that difficult to actually copy how MW4 did LRM locks.

Passive Radar didn't stop getting LRM Locks - as long as you had your cursor over the enemy target (you didn't have to get a red box/Doritos lock) and get the lock that way.

Right now, the missile locking system in MWO is totally dependent on getting the dorito and the subsequent lock... it's not impossible to actually add a system that doesn't "lock" an LRM user out in total (which ECM has done for most of its existence).

[DAYLEET]

I love the idea but would we benefit from them in an arena shooter? As far as i know(and i dont develop game so i dont know) it should not be hard to just implement active/passive and see what happens. It just need a will.

[SuomiWarder]

Been around since closed beta, have never seen an official post from PGI on why they elected not to keep an active/passive system like MW4 and (I think) other mech games had. I can only guess that their initial thoughts on how scouting, ecm abd the built in indirect fire of LRMs (which was never in a MW game before) didn't mesh with active/passive states.

[Stone Wall]

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?

Because MW3 did it and we can't have that.