30 replies to this topic

[Willard Phule]

Ok, I'll admit I'm a hardcore lore-tard and that's where most of this comes from, and this is not a rant against LRMs, but hear me out.....

One of the biggest issues surrounding LRMs not just currently, but in just about every multi-player incarnation of the MechWarrior franchise has been "shared targeting." It has always made LRMs an ease of use indirect fire weapon as opposed to direct fire. The mechanic is, technically speaking, pretty much the description of the C3 system used in tabletop. Not a complaint, just synopsizing the issue. Fair enough.

LRMs are supposed to be useable as an indirect fire system, no question about that. Tabletop rules allow one mech to "spot" for another, but they never said how many friendlies can use that spotter nor how, exactly, it functions. We're talking a dice rolling game here, remember. It still applies.

In the novels, we read about both sensor and visual obstructions. Smoke, heat, etc. But we also read about pilots having trouble differentiating friend from foe at times as well. Distance (which is NOT measured in the thousands of meters), heat, ferrous metal...all sorts of things have caused friendly fire incidents or were part of an overall strategy.

Here, in MW:O, we never have to worry about that, apparently. Good guys are blue, bad guys are red (most of the time). And distance doesn't matter for the good guys. Want to know where your team is? Spin around in a circle, look for the blue indicators. Do you see where I'm going with this?

We now have the skill tree, which allows for all sorts of different builds and sensors make a HUGE difference, depending on what you're building.

So, here's my idea:

First, make sensor range apply across the board. Friend and foe alike. If a mech isn't in your personal sensor range, you have no friend or foe indicator (this is where unit colors and schemes actually make a difference). I know this will increase the likelyhood of friendly fire, but I've got a solution for that later on. It makes things a bit more realistic at the expense of the newer players, obviously, but I've got that one covered as well.

These changes also have the effect of making ECM a bit closer to actual electronic warfare because it will only effect a bubble with a radius of the range PGI gives them. If your sensors are further ranged than the ECM range, it doesn't matter. And that IS how it is supposed to work in tabletop.

Once upon a time, FW was introduced as "end game content." We all see how that turned out. Solo queue was supposed to be where you learn. So why not turn FF off in Quick Play and leave it on in FW? Kinda makes it "hard mode" (or "harder mode") and....here's the real kicker....you can have an X minute ban on FW ONLY for excessive team damage. Almost makes a useful penalty. You can still play in QP because you can't hurt your team there anyway.

Now, I know this part is probably beyond PGI, but why not have FF ON/OFF as a setting to pick for QP in the first place? Run servers half and half or whatever. Hell, you could use your Tier system as a gateway into more advanced play. When you're T5 or T4, you aren't even allowed to pick "FF ON."

There you have it. Flame away.

[El Bandito]

It is better to train people with FF from the get go, so they wouldn't make ****** plays once in CW. And splitting queues between FF on and FF off, will increase wait time.

Losing IFF once out of radar range is an interesting idea though.

Edited by El Bandito, 08 June 2017 - 11:40 AM.

[Roughneck45]

Don't show friendlies on radar
Have FF be a toggle/FW only

I don't see how this improves the game?

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

The mechanic is, technically speaking, pretty much the description of the C3 system used in tabletop

No, it is not even technically speaking the description of C3 in tabletop.

To be that, you'd have to have a system where having an IDF spotter 30m away magically sped up LRMs so much they'd hit in a fraction of a second, since C3 in Battletech means range is measured from the closest member of the network, and hence accuracy. Indirect fire is actually pretty darn close to...the tabletop indirect fire. If someone else has LOS, you fire at that target with a penalty. In MWO, parasitic locks effectively mean a target penalty, as generally they're less reliable than holding your own.

On top of that, Battlemechs have IFF transponders that broadcast on a shared frequency. Thus,you know your own people.

Quote

LRMs are supposed to be useable as an indirect fire system, no question about that. Tabletop rules allow one mech to "spot" for another, but they never said how many friendlies can use that spotter nor how, exactly, it functions. We're talking a dice rolling game here, remember. It still applies.

In fact, tabletop rules allow a single infantry trooper to spot for everyone on their side. And there is no limit to the number of friendly units that can use that spotter data (yes, it's in the rules). If indirect fire in Battletech is so simple that one grunt with a walkie-talkie can manage it, there is no reason a 20-ton scout robot full of handy communications and sensor gear can't do the same, if anything with greater ease

Edited by Brain Cancer, 08 June 2017 - 12:05 PM.

[Willard Phule]

Brain Cancer, on 08 June 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

No, it is not even technically speaking the description of C3 in tabletop.

To be that, you'd have to have a system where having an IDF spotter 30m away magically sped up LRMs so much they'd hit in a fraction of a second, since C3 in Battletech means range is measured from the closest member of the network, and hence accuracy. Indirect fire is actually pretty darn close to...the tabletop indirect fire. If someone else has LOS, you fire at that target with a penalty. In MWO, parasitic locks effectively mean a target penalty, as generally they're less reliable than holding your own.

Granted. Like I said, it's close. It'd be virtually impossible to replicate the exact effects.

Brain Cancer, on 08 June 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

On top of that, Battlemechs have IFF transponders that broadcast on a shared frequency. Thus,you know your own people.

In fact, tabletop rules allow a single infantry trooper to spot for everyone on their side. And there is no limit to the number of friendly units that can use that spotter data (yes, it's in the rules). If indirect fire in Battletech is so simple that one grunt with a walkie-talkie can manage it, there is no reason a 20-ton scout robot full of handy communications and sensor gear can't do the same, if anything with greater ease

Fair enough, but again, range is an issue. Why is it you can detect an enemy at X meters, but you can tell where a friendly is even if he's on the other side of the planet? Doesn't make sense.

[Jiang Wei]

The trouble with IFF in a game like this... if you happen to see someone you cant identify, you automatically know its an enemy.

[Savage Wolf]

Willard Phule, on 08 June 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:

Fair enough, but again, range is an issue. Why is it you can detect an enemy at X meters, but you can tell where a friendly is even if he's on the other side of the planet? Doesn't make sense.

Makes perfect sense. All friendlies simply broadcast their location to the team. No need to detect them.

[Brain Cancer]

That's normal. In modern warfare, you frequently don't even get visual on a target- so if it's IFF is screwed up, you might very well end up shooting down your own people.

Blue on blue in most cases is a brutal, horrible thing and that's why it's so easy to ID friendlies.

[Willard Phule]

Savage Wolf, on 08 June 2017 - 01:46 PM, said:

Makes perfect sense. All friendlies simply broadcast their location to the team. No need to detect them.

At which point, shouldn't ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) block that signal? If you're in the enemy ECM bubble, your team shouldn't be receiving anything.

Brain Cancer, on 08 June 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

That's normal. In modern warfare, you frequently don't even get visual on a target- so if it's IFF is screwed up, you might very well end up shooting down your own people.

Blue on blue in most cases is a brutal, horrible thing and that's why it's so easy to ID friendlies.

Which is why....uniforms, unit patches, camo patterns, a big red skull and crossbones, etc.

Edited by Willard Phule, 08 June 2017 - 02:02 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Mk1 Eyeball Sensor doesn't work so good at ID'ing a target you're lobbing a radar-guided missile at from over the horizon. Or a bomb while flying by at a few thousand MPH.

IFF is an absolute need on the modern battlefield to prevent regular cases of friendly fire.

[Willard Phule]

Brain Cancer, on 08 June 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

Mk1 Eyeball Sensor doesn't work so good at ID'ing a target you're lobbing a radar-guided missile at from over the horizon. Or a bomb while flying by at a few thousand MPH.

IFF is an absolute need on the modern battlefield to prevent regular cases of friendly fire.

Yeah, that's sort of my point.

See...if you can't lock, you can't make the woosh. One of the things that actually distinguishes someone who knows how to use LRMs versus a "potato" is that the one that knows what they can do can actually aim them without a lock. A couple of LRM20s at 200m is pretty vicious if you know how to aim them right.

Nobody likes to be bitched at for shooting their own team and nobody likes to be penalized for doing it. One would think that doing something to limit the locks even further would force the new guys to use direct fire weapons sooner than T1.

[Savage Wolf]

Willard Phule, on 08 June 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

At which point, shouldn't ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) block that signal? If you're in the enemy ECM bubble, your team shouldn't be receiving anything.

I think it did at some point. Because yes, that would make sense.

[Almond Brown]

Savage Wolf, on 09 June 2017 - 05:12 AM, said:

I think it did at some point. Because yes, that would make sense.

It still does but the "bubble" is not crazy large and a good Scout could keeps "eyes on" and stay outside the bubbles range (noted as 90m on Smurfy's)

MWO has a quasi C3 and slave system built in to every Mech, otherwise no one would take them, they add weight, and no one carries anything, that adds weight, that might benefit the Team, but doesn't add to their Alpha Firepower fcol, for the same reason. So thank PGI for that otherwise LRM would be a strictly direct fire system and we all know how standing out in the open, holding your own locks, works out in MWO. LOL!

Quote

"Normally carried by the lance commander, the C3 Command Unit (3t) is the hub to which three C3 Slave Units (1t) on other friendly 'Mechs can connect. However C3 Command Units can also be linked in this manner to expand the network, the command units of each of lance commanders can be connected to a second separate command unit carried by the company command 'Mech/vehicle. Due to complexity required to coordinate C3 networks, they can not be expanded beyond company size, or multiple companies linked together, even with the addition of extra command vehicles.

[Coolant]

absolutely make missiles require LOS

[Mystere]

Willard Phule, on 08 June 2017 - 11:31 AM, said:

Now, I know this part is probably beyond PGI, but why not have FF ON/OFF as a setting to pick for QP in the first place? Run servers half and half or whatever. Hell, you could use your Tier system as a gateway into more advanced play. When you're T5 or T4, you aren't even allowed to pick "FF ON."

No.

That is all that needs to be said.

What we need to do is bring back ECM's ability to disable IFF for all Mechs within it's range. ECM's disruptiveness needs to be brought back.

Willard Phule, on 08 June 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

At which point, shouldn't ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) block that signal? If you're in the enemy ECM bubble, your team shouldn't be receiving anything.

That's exactly what ECM used to have, until the crybabies ... well ... cried and did so loudly and incessantly.

Edited by Mystere, 09 June 2017 - 07:25 AM.

[MrJeffers]

Mystere, on 09 June 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:

No.

That is all that needs to be said.

What we need to do is bring back ECM's ability to disable IFF for all Mechs within it's range. ECM's disruptiveness needs to be brought back.




That's exactly what ECM used to have, until the crybabies ... well ... cried and did so loudly and incessantly.

You mean until team kills and friendly fire went thought the roof, so PGI removed it for game play reasons. Losing IFF in PUG play ruined it.
If there were any option, it would be to turn on the ECM block of IFF in private matches, where you should know who your teammates are and the FF incidents would be something that can be better managed by informed players.

[Mystere]

MrJeffers, on 09 June 2017 - 07:35 AM, said:

You mean until team kills and friendly fire went thought the roof, so PGI removed it for game play reasons. Losing IFF in PUG play ruined it.
If there were any option, it would be to turn on the ECM block of IFF in private matches, where you should know who your teammates are and the FF incidents would be something that can be better managed by informed players.

I don't know about you, but I found the confusion it generated among the enemy ranks glorious.

Besides, wasn't MWO supposed to be a "thinking person's shooter"?

Edited by Mystere, 09 June 2017 - 08:35 AM.

[RoadblockXL]

Mystere, on 09 June 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:

What we need to do is bring back ECM's ability to disable IFF for all Mechs within it's range. ECM's disruptiveness needs to be brought back.

That's exactly what ECM used to have, until the crybabies ... well ... cried and did so loudly and incessantly.

ECM blocking IFF meant ECM mechs could completely isolate a mech and kill it without any of their team knowing unless they stopped, mid fight, and typed out their location in chat. It impaired teamwork and made the already Jesus-box ECM even more overpowered.

Which would also be a problem with limiting IFF range; it would decrease the ability of a team of PUGs to coordinate if they were spread out at all. Personally, I think the game is more fun if deathballing isn't the only viable strategy.

[Mystere]

RoadblockXL, on 09 June 2017 - 07:59 AM, said:

ECM blocking IFF meant ECM mechs could completely isolate a mech and kill it without any of their team knowing unless they stopped, mid fight, and typed out their location in chat. It impaired teamwork and made the already Jesus-box ECM even more overpowered.

That's the entire point.

RoadblockXL, on 09 June 2017 - 07:59 AM, said:

Which would also be a problem with limiting IFF range; it would decrease the ability of a team of PUGs to coordinate if they were spread out at all. Personally, I think the game is more fun if deathballing isn't the only viable strategy.

And again that's the entire point. An ECM-equipped Mech right in the middle of the enemy deathball will be highly disruptive, and well-coordinated infiltrators will probably be the death of them.

Edited by Mystere, 09 June 2017 - 08:39 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

Personally I would be happy if they take baby-steps to give sensors more depth: e.g. make it weight depended when a mech gets visible on the radar.