17 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

After much consideration and thought, I believe I may have devised a better manner in which damage dealt from LRMs can be better assigned within a match, and thus rewards for that damage as well.

Here are my thoughts:
A lot of people complain that LRMs deal damage based on someone elses locks, and thus they are not actually earning the damage scores that they show at the end of the match screen. This complaint tends to flow into another one that the unusually high end of match scores and damage does not actively reflect that players real contribution to the game, between spread and having to "leach" off another teammates lock. The standard belief is that spotting assists and other support roles do not aid in end of match scores as much as it should.


Well, I proposed a new system for tracking and scoring LRM damage. Here is what I propose:
LRM damage should be allocated differently than it currently is. As of right now, all LRM damage is attributed to the LRM user, some of which will hide out in back and literally wait for their team to do all the heavy lifting while they spam LRMs on every lock they can see. (It is a legitimate way to play, so I wont bash it, but I feel LRMs belong on the front lines, or at least not far from them.)

To help show where the actual work is going to (not that the LRM users aren't doing their work, mind) I purpose that half of the damage LRMs deal should be assigned to the LRM user directly. From there, whom ever is spotting will receive the other half of the damage credit or at least a part of it if multiple people are spotting the same target. There is a singular exception to this, as if the LRM user is also spotting the target, than they should get full credit for their damage dealt by LRMs.


I say this as an LRM user, I've always considered that a portion of my damage belonged to the person who sometimes spotted for me, as my damage would have been impossible in that situation without someone else risking their neck for that lock. (I do try to get my own locks, but if I don't have to it makes my job just that much easier.) I have never felt that spotters have been fairly attributed for their efforts in this game, making designated NARC users feeling under-powered when the end of match scores came up, and they had low damage for the match, but the LRM user(s) may have a much higher damage.

I feel this would be a more fair and accurate representation of whom is actually doing the leg work, while also attributing enough credit to the LRM user for their contribution. It's a team effort, and thus I feel more of the team should be recognized for that effort. I encourage LRM users to get their own locks when and where possible, so those that do would still get full credit for their efforts, and those that don't will be sharing the credit for their damage with the appropriate teammates who helped make it possible.

I like my LRMs. I use them all the time. I do understand what kind of an impact this suggestion would have on LRMs in the game, and how they are rewarded. I realize that my match scores would look lower if this was in the game, but I do feel it is time we share the credit where credit is due.

I will state for myself, I tend to do half my damage in LRMs and the other half with whatever direct fire I have on my builds. So for me, this will probably affect an eighth of my damage score due to the frequency of how often I go and get my own locks. For others, this may literally be looking at 50% of their damage being spread out to other teammates. But, lets face it, it would be fair and worth it.


If this system was put into place, I believe it would encourage spotting more often for LRMs, discourage purely indirect fired LRMs and promote more overall teamwork rather than "selfish" and "personal glory" styled play. We want teams, right? Then shouldn't we put credit where credit is due and reward the team for greater team play?

Edits: Just cleaning up and fixing a few things.

Edited by Tesunie, 23 March 2017 - 08:51 AM.

[Captain Grayson Lighthorse]

This is only one of the "rewards" problems in game. There are others as well. I've had many instances of not getting credit for my kills that I know I got because I was the only one firing on the Mech and there was no one else around but still did not get credit for the kill. And, there's been other times when I got credit for a kill when I'm certain that I killed nothing. This doesn't happen as often as the not getting credit for kills, but it does happen.

I think LRMs are underrated by many players in MWO. They can have a considerable effect on the outcome of a battle if there are enough of them in the game. And when this happens, there are definitely players that do not get due credit for the damage that they contributed to the destruction of the Mechs that they fired upon. I can see from a developer's point of view where it could be very difficult to determine who's missiles hit a target and who's didn't when you have 4 or 5 LRM boats raining on that target. They may have it figured out but I doubt it.

I also think that light Mechs that perform NARC, TAG, UAV, and direct target lock spotting should be rewarded more for their efforts. Since they are not in the direct battle and cannot inflict heavy damage on a target, they should be rewarded more for the roll that they play in "battle assisting" efforts during a match.

Another issue with using LRMs is that the targeting lock on is so poor in MWO. It is very difficult to maintain a target lock if you are the only team member with a lock on that target. I think this could be improved just a bit but who knows.

LRMs are very helpful in most every match, and I hate when no one on my team has them. Especially when the other team does. This creates a very lop-sided battle when one team can be damaged without a chance to inflict any on the other team. I know that a lot of the upper tier players don't like LRMs and don't even consider them a viable weapon. I think they're crazy. But, they can play any way they want. It's their choice.

[Koniving]

If its consolation the intended accurate range is supposed to be 660 instead of 1000.

[Tesunie]

Koniving, on 23 March 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

If its consolation the intended accurate range is supposed to be 660 instead of 1000.

Well then, that lines up well with what I find to be it's good range. LRMs are better 600m and closer.

[Tesunie]

I guess just a tiny bump wouldn't hurt?

[Shifty McSwift]

The damage score should go to the LRM user, but in circumstances where a player is providing a lock and friendly LRMs are incoming due to that lock, he should be receiving a payoff for each time it occurs, doesn't have to be huge, but just incentive to do it.

A support target bonus of 1000 cbills or somesuch for each time it happens.

[Mian]

Koniving, on 23 March 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

If its consolation the intended accurate range is supposed to be 660 instead of 1000.

Why reduce the range?
I would already feel it as a preliminary step if Mechs with more than 50t weight would lose 1 ton for AMS + AMS-Ammo.
The lights hardly AMS have I understand, Medium is also halfway ok, but Heavy and Assault?
Since it is simply negligent, and best moan this in the match also still, why again so many LURM boats are on the road.
Just as stupid as people who complain about why they always shoot their legs, always when they put them on 10 Armor.

[Koniving]

Mian, on 01 April 2017 - 01:18 AM, said:

Why reduce the range?
I would already feel it as a preliminary step if Mechs with more than 50t weight would lose 1 ton for AMS + AMS-Ammo.
The lights hardly AMS have I understand, Medium is also halfway ok, but Heavy and Assault?
Since it is simply negligent, and best moan this in the match also still, why again so many LURM boats are on the road.
Just as stupid as people who complain about why they always shoot their legs, always when they put them on 10 Armor.

Nobody said to do so.

I just said that the source material's range is supposed to be a lot less than it is (accurate range mind you, actual max range goes out to 1,200 if just using the long range as optimum, now if using extreme range as optimum... Well I don't know its extreme range but the max is extreme optimum *2 to account for MaxTech's sniper trait which allows you to double the range of any weapon for the same accuracy gunnery check.)

[Tesunie]

Shifty McSwift, on 31 March 2017 - 11:51 PM, said:

The damage score should go to the LRM user, but in circumstances where a player is providing a lock and friendly LRMs are incoming due to that lock, he should be receiving a payoff for each time it occurs, doesn't have to be huge, but just incentive to do it.

A support target bonus of 1000 cbills or somesuch for each time it happens.

My idea isn't to reward a spotter for each time he spots, but for the amount of damage he, in theory, just helped to land onto it's target. Basically "equal work and equal pay" kinda philosophy.

I feel all too often a good dedicated spotted has much too low of a match score in a match, and a low damage score makes other players think they didn't do their job in the match (because some people seem to think damage is everything). I, personally, would like to attribute some of the damage they permitted to happen to actually be awarded to them.

Of course, I also want to keep damage and the work where it is suppose to be, so if an LRM mech is spotting for themselves, they should retain full credit for that, as they are the one doing full work. This should help to actually show how the roles are being perceived, as in spotting being actually useful to the spotter as well as letting people know how much someone really may have contributed.

Seen as I hear so often how many LRM "boats" never get their own lock and get "thousands of damage easily", I think it would be only fair to let the person pulling said LRM boat's weight around to actually get some credit for that said "thousands of damage". It seems to be a common complaint about "how well LRMs work on getting high damage scores", but then I also keep hearing that "LRMs are useless"... Kinda does make you wonder which is true? Or is the truth somewhere between those two states?

ANYWAY... Now that I side tracked myself here... I just feel the sharing of this damage (and it doesn't "have" to be 50/50, that's more or less a place holder) would provide a more accurate reward and picture as to how much work who is putting into the actions.

EX: A player who shoots LRMs only indirectly will have a match score and damage score that would show their dependency on teammates. An LRM user though that gets their own locks will have results to reflect the extra work and skill that they have instead placed into the match. Often, each has their purpose, but an LRM user who gets their own locks often has had more of an impact into a match, as well as worked harder for the match, than an LRM user who shot only indirectly. Even if the indirect LRM user did more damage.

[VonBruinwald]

If we're going down this route we also need to workout a way to detract dmg scores from pop-tarts, hill pokers and other players who also leach off other peoples locks. We all know the type, they sit behind a hill/corner, wait for someone else to get a lock then crest it after aligning with the lock reticule to go full-alpha then backpedal to cool off.

How about this for a generic solution rather than treating lurmers as a special case:

Quote

If you haven't had direct LOS on a target 'mech for at least 1.5s before dealing damage to that target then your damage score is split equally between you and all of your teammates who have had target lock for at least 1.5s prior to you scoring damage.

There. Now everybody is treated equal so everyone can whine equally about how it's unfair their score is taken away.

[Tesunie]

VonBruinwald, on 01 April 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

If we're going down this route we also need to workout a way to detract dmg scores from pop-tarts, hill pokers and other players who also leach off other peoples locks. We all know the type, they sit behind a hill/corner, wait for someone else to get a lock then crest it after aligning with the lock reticule to go full-alpha then backpedal to cool off.

How about this for a generic solution rather than treating lurmers as a special case:



There. Now everybody is treated equal so everyone can whine equally about how it's unfair their score is taken away.

Jump sniping doesn't cause the issues of "shared armor", doesn't "depend" upon allies getting locks, and also is not being fired "indirectly". All these things cause far more complaints than jump sniping.

Also, tactically using information is different from depending upon a lock. Those jump snipers don't depend upon allies locks, as they can jump up and get the shot off themselves without any allies getting those locks.

There is a difference between an ally depending upon locks, and allies using intel on enemy positions. As someone who LRMs and also Jump Snipes, one depends upon a solid lock, the other does not.


The intent is to reward those who are doing their role. Someone getting a lock and a jumper using that intelligence isn't nearly the same as intending to be a spotter, hiding with TAG or using NARC, and LRM mechs (typically boats) who may or may not hide in the background shooting only indirect LRM fire.

The intent is to also encourage more teamwork, and to discourage using LRMs in what is very likely the worst way to use them (indirectly, hiding out back, as far from the fight as possible). It's to encourage LRM players to move with their team, be closer to the fight, and to not depend solely upon their team to "pull them along". It's to also reward using LRMs with more skill, which normally involves getting your own lock, and being closer to your targets. (LRMs are actually best when used within 600m or closer. Closer to minimum range being better.) However, it isn't intended to make LRMs unrewarding, letting you still use them either way, while giving more credit to those whom are holding locks for those said LRMs, which can/will miss without said lock.

Difference here is LRMs firing indirectly and dealing damage would be impossible without an allies lock. A Jump Sniper however can deal damage easily enough even if no allies provided any locks. Thus, jump shooting isn't depending upon someone else, it just can be useful.

[Shifty McSwift]

Tesunie, on 01 April 2017 - 04:46 AM, said:

My idea isn't to reward a spotter for each time he spots, but for the amount of damage he, in theory, just helped to land onto it's target. Basically "equal work and equal pay" kinda philosophy.

I feel all too often a good dedicated spotted has much too low of a match score in a match, and a low damage score makes other players think they didn't do their job in the match (because some people seem to think damage is everything). I, personally, would like to attribute some of the damage they permitted to happen to actually be awarded to them.

Of course, I also want to keep damage and the work where it is suppose to be, so if an LRM mech is spotting for themselves, they should retain full credit for that, as they are the one doing full work. This should help to actually show how the roles are being perceived, as in spotting being actually useful to the spotter as well as letting people know how much someone really may have contributed.

Seen as I hear so often how many LRM "boats" never get their own lock and get "thousands of damage easily", I think it would be only fair to let the person pulling said LRM boat's weight around to actually get some credit for that said "thousands of damage". It seems to be a common complaint about "how well LRMs work on getting high damage scores", but then I also keep hearing that "LRMs are useless"... Kinda does make you wonder which is true? Or is the truth somewhere between those two states?

ANYWAY... Now that I side tracked myself here... I just feel the sharing of this damage (and it doesn't "have" to be 50/50, that's more or less a place holder) would provide a more accurate reward and picture as to how much work who is putting into the actions.

EX: A player who shoots LRMs only indirectly will have a match score and damage score that would show their dependency on teammates. An LRM user though that gets their own locks will have results to reflect the extra work and skill that they have instead placed into the match. Often, each has their purpose, but an LRM user who gets their own locks often has had more of an impact into a match, as well as worked harder for the match, than an LRM user who shot only indirectly. Even if the indirect LRM user did more damage.

I get the concept, it is just dangerous to mess about with a guys damage score like that, personally I think the game payoffs should be less directly affected by damage scores in general, but nonetheless;

The issues come in when you start divvying up rates like that, what if 6 targets are close enough to get paid off for spotting, but actually provide no damage while the LRM boat wastes ammo. By the same measure that people now turn off their locks so that LRMs don't "steal" their kills, this kind of split bonus would mess with how people view and play with LRM boat, and in how they are played. Also how would the game determine these things? Too much scripted monitoring tends to cause problems.

Where as, for example, if you just reduced the direct cash payout from LRM damage by half or .25, and added spotting or target assist payoffs directly relevant to LRM rain, in a way that is clear and simple, and does not impact negatively anyone's score no matter how hard you mess with it, you get a similar result in who is rewarded.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 01 April 2017 - 11:22 PM.

[Khobai]

ams users should also get rewards for shooting down lrms that are targeting allies (but dont reward ams users for shooting down missiles targeting themselves)

Quote

If its consolation the intended accurate range is supposed to be 660 instead of 1000.

yeah and the ERPPC is only supposed to have 690m range not 810m range.

so if erppc gets +120m effective range then LRMs should also get +120m effective range, which means LRMs should be effective out to 780m... and theyre not. theyre barely effective past 600m now.

To compete with direct fire weapons like the ERPPC, LRMs need a massive velocity increase. But to balance that velocity increase indirect LRMs should only be possible with TAG/NARC.

Edited by Khobai, 02 April 2017 - 01:01 AM.

[VonBruinwald]

Tesunie, on 01 April 2017 - 05:42 PM, said:

Also, tactically using information is different from depending upon a lock. Those jump snipers don't depend upon allies locks, as they can jump up and get the shot off themselves without any allies getting those locks.

There is a difference between an ally depending upon locks, and allies using intel on enemy positions. As someone who LRMs and also Jump Snipes, one depends upon a solid lock, the other does not.

The intent is to reward those who are doing their role. Someone getting a lock and a jumper using that intelligence isn't nearly the same as intending to be a spotter, hiding with TAG or using NARC, and LRM mechs (typically boats) who may or may not hide in the background shooting only indirect LRM fire.


Difference here is LRMs firing indirectly and dealing damage would be impossible without an allies lock. A Jump Sniper however can deal damage easily enough even if no allies provided any locks. Thus, jump shooting isn't depending upon someone else, it just can be useful.

If that "tactical information" comes from someone else’s lock what's the difference? You're still using their lock.

If you noticed my system didn't penalise pop-tarts/humpers who got their own locks or fired at targets of opportunity. It did penalise the ones who wait for someone else to get a lock and fired upon that target. "Shared armour" is still an issue if you're cowering at the back waiting for someone else to mark a target regardless of using direct/indirect fire, I would even go as far to say the pop-tarts/humpers are worse as they clog up the forward firing line and are notorious for turning tail at the first sign of an enemy push which weakens that forward position significantly.

[Tesunie]

Shifty McSwift, on 01 April 2017 - 11:20 PM, said:

I get the concept, it is just dangerous to mess about with a guys damage score like that, personally I think the game payoffs should be less directly affected by damage scores in general, but nonetheless;

The issues come in when you start divvying up rates like that, what if 6 targets are close enough to get paid off for spotting, but actually provide no damage while the LRM boat wastes ammo. By the same measure that people now turn off their locks so that LRMs don't "steal" their kills, this kind of split bonus would mess with how people view and play with LRM boat, and in how they are played. Also how would the game determine these things? Too much scripted monitoring tends to cause problems.

Where as, for example, if you just reduced the direct cash payout from LRM damage by half or .25, and added spotting or target assist payoffs directly relevant to LRM rain, in a way that is clear and simple, and does not impact negatively anyone's score no matter how hard you mess with it, you get a similar result in who is rewarded.

Who has done what spotting as far as I already know is already tracked within the system. How else would it know who gets the Adv. Target Decay effects and who doesn't? As well as scouting, spotting assists, etc. All this would do is, if missiles are fired indirectly completely based on someone else's lock (and at their risk usually), that the person spotting (how ever many it may be) would get a portion (maybe not half) of that damage as being counted for them instead. I see it as damage that, otherwise, would not have even been possible without their help. (Unlike sniper or even jumpsniper damage, which can be done completely without any ally assistance at all.)

My issue with reducing the payout for using LRMs (AKA: to their damage) would be for those LRM pilots who don't "leach" (I use this term as a general statement others say) on other people's locks completely, and instead run them with their own locks when possible.

Rewards (and by extension match score and maybe damage as a stat similar to match score) should encourage good play and teamwork. RIght now, it kinda rewards more selfish play and solo abilities. It doesn't encourage players to work together for a match, but instead to "just worry about yourself and what you can do". This can lead to far more selfish behaviors in the game being rewarded over less selfish and more teamplaying behaviors. (Such as getting locks for a known LRM user (boat or not), distracting an enemy (hard to reward, I know), etc.) Right now, I see players who are doing game winning actions for their team at a sacrifice to their own in game potential (damage, kills, etc) and getting almost not match score or recognition for it.

That's the part I'm more wanting to address. I figured I could address it at least in a part of the formula, via how spotting is being rewarded.

Khobai, on 02 April 2017 - 12:55 AM, said:

ams users should also get rewards for shooting down lrms that are targeting allies (but dont reward ams users for shooting down missiles targeting themselves)



To compete with direct fire weapons like the ERPPC, LRMs need a massive velocity increase. But to balance that velocity increase indirect LRMs should only be possible with TAG/NARC.

I completely agree that AMS that has been used in a team defensive manner should be rewarded. It's been something else I've mentioned around these forums, but never tried to make a suggestion to address it specifically (at least yet). There are a lot of "team support" actions that I feel should be rewarded (such as AMS), which are not.


I kinda disagree with your other statement I kept in the quote. I feel indirect fired LRMs should still be possible as it is right now, but we can adjust more than just velocity. What about spread? Or tracking strength (ability to turn in air)?

Actually, I'd love to address the whole LRM spread mechanic, though it's a little beyond the scope if this thread's topic. But, basically one (of the many ideas) I've had for LRMs might be to have them track similar to SSRMs (missiles home in on specific components of a mech), rather than center of mass. LRMs though would do so in bundles of five. Then, the chances of where the missiles will aim for could be determined by different factions, such as TAG, NARC, Artemis, direct or indirect fire, etc. (Just one concept of several possible I'd consider for LRM balance.)

VonBruinwald, on 02 April 2017 - 05:52 AM, said:

If that "tactical information" comes from someone else’s lock what's the difference? You're still using their lock.

If you noticed my system didn't penalise pop-tarts/humpers who got their own locks or fired at targets of opportunity. It did penalise the ones who wait for someone else to get a lock and fired upon that target. "Shared armour" is still an issue if you're cowering at the back waiting for someone else to mark a target regardless of using direct/indirect fire, I would even go as far to say the pop-tarts/humpers are worse as they clog up the forward firing line and are notorious for turning tail at the first sign of an enemy push which weakens that forward position significantly.

One depends upon the lock, the other is only aided by the lock. That is the difference as I see it. A jump sniper doesn't need your lock to deal his damage, he could jump up, see a target, scope in on it and fire. All without anyone else having a lock.

LRMs though when fired indirectly require a lock to do so, and if that lock can be held till the missiles impact, all the better and more accurate for the LRM user. So in this case, an ally (possibly you) would have to get and hold that lock till missile impact (or near enough) for those LRMs from someone else to even attempt to be effective.


My issue really with your concept is that, 1.5 seconds is a long time in this game sometimes. (I know, it was probably a place holder time.) There are even times where you may not be able to get a lock yourself (outside sensor ranges, ECM, etc). There may even be a time where there are more than a single mech in front of you, and you are sending shots into as many of them as possible (maybe in a panic) or splashing lasers just to deal some damage to someone. You can only get and keep a single lock, so what happens in those situations?

No matter what, some people will find fault in just about any tactic someone uses, especially if they don't like it. "Brawlers just charge in and die, being a waste to the team." "LRMers just sit out back and wait for their team to carry them to a win." "Snipers sit out back and don't support the charges." "That light mech is dumb running off by himself." You will never be able to please everyone, and everyone probably has a valid point within specific situations, or at least from their perspective.

[LuInRei]

Regarding original post, yes, I believe it is a sound idea within current reward system.
There are lots of playstyles within MWO, that aren't rewarded as they should be.
However, there will be inevitably those who who are against your idea,
simply because you propose to take something away from them.

Personally, I couldn't care less about huge damage numbers.Often, they are pretty meaningless.
In fact, every time I get a high match/damage/kill score I know it was a team effort first,
and then me doing my best to not waste that effort.

I'd suggest instead of sharing damage, you might want to consider a completely new parameter
that tracks assisted damage (from any source, with separate multipliers for LRMs) grants spotters their proper rewards,
and displays their contribution to the battle.

I think, even if you do force some people to give up a part of their LRM damage,
it won't encourage them to adopt a more risky and team friendly playstyle.
If "900m spray and pray" is done by a newbie, it's going to dissapear naturally.
Otherwise, if it's a concious choice, then it's a mindset issue.
If you make their boats do less damage, they will just load more ammo
and keep playing the way they want to play.

[Tesunie]

LuInRei, on 03 April 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

Regarding original post, yes, I believe it is a sound idea within current reward system.
There are lots of playstyles within MWO, that aren't rewarded as they should be.
However, there will be inevitably those who who are against your idea,
simply because you propose to take something away from them.

The concept isn't to "take" anything away from people but instead to provide rewards and credit where it is due. However, I can certainly see the issue and why some people would see it that way.

A lot of people see damage as "contribution". If you haven't done X damage, than in their eyes you haven't done enough for the match or the team and have failed them. (I am not one of those.) This concept would be to help actually show "contribution" via more appropriate damage scores.

I've always seen damage I've done via indirect fire to essentially be damage whomever is holding the lock for to have done as well. It's damage that, otherwise without their help, would never have even been possible to begin with. I just would actually like to see that, as it would lead to more rewards.

This concept isn't to actually encourage nor discourage different styles, tactics or manners of playing. It is, however, intended to help reward unrewarded aspects, as well as reward better play. So, if someone wants to LRM boat from the back lines using indirect fire one, they still could and can under this system. But the teammates who are spotting for them will be gaining some of the rewards.


I will comment, the perventage is always up for debate. I just felt 50% was accurate to the work involved. (And recall, it's only damage. Component destruction, assists, kills, KMDDs, etc will still be assigned to the LRM user, if those reward events happen.)

[Bhodi Li773]

I have seen lots of people complain about lrms . They don't share armor, its unfair etc . Snipers sitting 900 m away are not sharing armor either. LRMS by their definition are a Long Range Missile . To be upset you died because of lrms or someone stole your kill and rant at players is childish. Running out in the open , not staying by / in cover, not using ecm (or near ecm coverage) or having ams is poor planning on the players part and a perfect example of poor situational awareness . Instead of screwing with game mechanics start playing the game. This is a team based game. By choosing to not hold locks players are gimping themselves and their teammates.

I agree that players who spot targets /use ams should get better incentives for doing so. Even a c bill per missile shot down/hit would be welcome.( Ive been asked why I run AMS repeatedly). If my mech can run ams I put it on because it saves my teammates and myself. Think about it . 1 AMS shoots down approximately 1/3 of a missile volley which is anything from 2 to 7 less damage . If I use up 2000 rounds of ams and it stops 500 lrms. I just increased my teams armor by an assault mech worth of armor . That's the difference between winning or losing a match. With the new civil war Fire and Forget weapons we will be seeing MRMs, Rocket launchers and ATM entering the game the need for locks will be less but locks provide better damage, mech info for everyone else and a whole new set of balancing issues . The new laser AMS will reduce missile damage in similar fashion for these new weapons I hope , we will see when we get there.

In the meantime I believe they should reward team play more and selfish play less. In all the MWO events have you ever seen "Shoot down 500 LRM with AMS to get X " or" Provide ECM coverage to X amount of mechs to get X" ? We have lance in formation, Scouting, spotting etc but nothing that recognizes the contribution that other team player actions have to the game. This is something MWO has to address themselves by in game rewards of some sort . Remember ... Play the Game.. Don't Let the Game Play You !! O7 MechWarriors .