8 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Quote

Individual Lock System

With current system, locks are shared between missile type. This means that, the assumed problematic Streaks, to nerf it's locking system means to also blanket nerf other homing weapons -- such as we sought this August Patch.

So here's the idea, what if each homing weapons require individual locks instead of shared one? This allows tweaking of Streaks' locking mechanics without affecting other weapons. You can have LRMs have 45 lock-cone, ATMs have 35 Lock cone, SSRMs have 25 lock cone.

Ergonomics wise, individual locking system could take form in showing the cooldown bar of individual homing weapons green if they are locked, similarly there could be a list of locked weapons on the sides of the hud like the words "NARC", "STEALTH NO CAP", etc. for each weapon.

Quote

Indirect Fire needs either TAG or NARC

If you have played Living Legends, this should be familiar. Currently, the indirect-fire of the LRMs is what is limiting it from being a good weapon system in comparison to other weapons. They can't just be balanced for direct-fire because it will invariably make indirect-fire powerful as well.

This can be approached either with "Effective" IDF needs NARC/TAG, this means that LRMS by default could have abhorrent spread, tracking-strength, and the bonuses of LOS/NARC/TAG is set up so high they are required for effective functioning. Or simply it can be approached by preventing missile-lock at all unless there's LOS/NARC/TAG.

The good thing about this is that, LRMs could stand on their own when balanced as DF primarily. And because NARC-TAG is mandated for IDF, this necessity for IDF means they have to bring it for a certain playstyle they wish to play. Spotters would actively bring it, and LRMs would be powerful and thereby NARC-TAG would be more useful. If they don't want kill-stealing, at least LRMs could stand on their own.

Quote

Proximity Tracking

Here's a small idea to bolster dumb-firing. What if, missiles, of different weapon system tracks enemies that flies nearby the missile? It's kind of like fire-and-forget homing, but only when within the proximity of target.

Suppose that a light was near-missed by SRMs, by about 20 meters, however the SRMs have 25m of Proximity-Tracking, and so the SRMs, despite being dumbfired, homes on the light that is within 25m of their bubble.

This feature isn't exactly needed, but I could see it as something used for dumb-firing LRMs, or ATMs, even MRMs if they allow it. They could make LRMs saturate an area effectively, increase the inherent spread but end up capable of efficiently dumping missiles.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 01 September 2018 - 02:53 AM.

[HammerMaster]

A rework IS needed but excuses are usually made.
A rework ABSOLUTELY is dependent on fix for 2 more things:
Fixing "free" C3 style lock on (remove)
Fixing ECM out of lore overreaching effects(free null signature, not allowing any missile lock, REMOVE PLEASE!)

A side note.
Indirect fire is fine. But!
If your not using tag narc, you have to be actively spotting. Not just in LOS.
A new mechanic will have to be generated.
https://bg.battletec...p?topic=17356.0

Edited by HammerMaster, 31 August 2018 - 12:48 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

HammerMaster, on 31 August 2018 - 08:20 AM, said:

A rework IS needed but excuses are usually made.
A rework ABSOLUTELY is dependent on fix for 2 more things:
Fixing "free" C3 style lock on (remove)
Fixing ECM out of lore overreaching effects(free null signature, not allowing any missile lock, REMOVE PLEASE!)

Neh.

HammerMaster, on 31 August 2018 - 08:20 AM, said:

A side note.
Indirect fire is fine. But!
If your not using tag narc, you have to be actively spotting. Not just in LOS.
A new mechanic will have to be generated.
https://bg.battletec...p?topic=17356.0

I would argue that, no, it's not fine. It's what worries PGI so much that they couldn't buff the damn thing. Noobs easy to focus fire, even without LOS, couple with (was) easy locking, now you got noob-wreckers. Had it been balanced for IDF, veterans won't be ******** at it.

[Tesunie]

Sorry, voted no on all of them.

For the first option, I voted no because I don't see how it could be smoothly designed and intuitive. Having every weapon have it's own locking mechanic will probably cause problems, one of which is knowing which actual weapon has achieved lock at a given time. Another problem is just designating which locks do go to what weapons, and how to represent each lock. This goes for lock on times, as well as locking angle from the target. Any separation to the lock on mechanic to make different weapons lock differently either leads to taking a system to gain that benefit on another locking weapon (what Artemis was doing), or having to designate different hud elements for different locking systems (so the SSRMs could be different from your ATMs, etc).

For the second option, I voted no because then IDF LRMs (the strength they pay for dearly in other aspects) would become almost completely removed from the game. Unless you could convince nearly everyone on the team to actually take TAG, NARC or (if added into the game) a C3 Slave/master/advanced system... People would see most of those as waste of tonnage for their direct fire weapon, and would consider it a "drag" on the team to help "a coward hiding behind cover" from 'taking their kill". I already see this in the game as is, with some players intentionally not getting locks to hinder their LRM based allies and to not let them "steal the kill" from them. I only see this option following this path into the deep dark depths of the abyss...

The third option seems like a straight buff to missile weapons to aid in "near misses" or "near hits" (depending upon perspective). Close range ATMs that home in on near misses when blind fired would make them devastating in their 3 damage range bracket. Why even bother locking then? Might even be able to shoot around corners too then... No. I see too much chance for abuse with this concept.


The only option here I could have voted "maybe" for (if it was an option) would have been the first option with each system having it's own locking system. If the issues I presented could be addressed in a logical and effective manner, then it could work well. I'm also concerned with more mechanics in the background producing more pull on connection strengths and possibly adding to hit reg issues as well as possibly taxing people's connection with additional lag... It would have potential and possibility, but I think the problems are probably more of a hindrance than it's potential probably is.


Something I wouldn't mind seeing... Artemis (as it doesn't have lock mechanic affects now) being able to be purchased per launcher, rather than on the whole chassis. AKA: I could take an ALRM20 with two LRM5s; or have Artemis LRMs with normal SRMs. (Also recall, Artemis ammo is different from standard ammo, so different ammo types would also need to be loaded. More options, but has drawbacks.)

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 31 August 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

For the first option, I voted no because I don't see how it could be smoothly designed and intuitive. Having every weapon have it's own locking mechanic will probably cause problems, one of which is knowing which actual weapon has achieved lock at a given time.

Probably by having a hud element saying which weapon is locked like a list of weapons on the side. On the weapon groups, the cooldown meter could show green when locked.

Tesunie, on 31 August 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

Another problem is just designating which locks do go to what weapons, and how to represent each lock. This goes for lock on times, as well as locking angle from the target. Any separation to the lock on mechanic to make different weapons lock differently either leads to taking a system to gain that benefit on another locking weapon (what Artemis was doing), or having to designate different hud elements for different locking systems (so the SSRMs could be different from your ATMs, etc).

Different circles, different names stacking over another beside the reticle, with cooldown meter glowing green when locked on and is able to fire.

And the point of this is to have diferentiating Locks between weapons. Having separate Artemis for separate weapons IS a possibility.

Tesunie, on 31 August 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

For the second option, I voted no because then IDF LRMs (the strength they pay for dearly in other aspects) would become almost completely removed from the game. Unless you could convince nearly everyone on the team to actually take TAG, NARC or (if added into the game) a C3 Slave/master/advanced system... People would see most of those as waste of tonnage for their direct fire weapon, and would consider it a "drag" on the team to help "a coward hiding behind cover" from 'taking their kill". I already see this in the game as is, with some players intentionally not getting locks to hinder their LRM based allies and to not let them "steal the kill" from them. I only see this option following this path into the deep dark depths of the abyss...

People bring things if they are worth bringing, narc-tag, with conjunction of weak-*** LRMs individiually, no wonder it's not being brought.

Now if LRMs were balanced as DF, though with nuance, they could be brought far more often because LRMs would now be powerful, as well as because of necessity because it's the only way to IDF.

As for kill-stealing, well that still depends on where are you looking, such as if you're at QP looking for personal stats, at least LRMs could stand on their own. But on those rather coordinated, it's a boon.

Tesunie, on 31 August 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

The third option seems like a straight buff to missile weapons to aid in "near misses" or "near hits" (depending upon perspective). Close range ATMs that home in on near misses when blind fired would make them devastating in their 3 damage range bracket. Why even bother locking then? Might even be able to shoot around corners too then... No. I see too much chance for abuse with this concept.

Kind of the point really, that being said, ATMs ARE viable in dumb-firing upclose. Locks aren't usually that important when you're 150 meters away from a slow fatass. This system, while i didn't even really voted for it, I just thrown it as a possibility out there.

You see abuse, I see feature.

Tesunie, on 31 August 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

The only option here I could have voted "maybe" for (if it was an option) would have been the first option with each system having it's own locking system. If the issues I presented could be addressed in a logical and effective manner, then it could work well.

The only real problem there is PGI. What issues you raise isn't really an issue, if only PGI has a good track record of not ******* things up.

Like i said, differentiation of locks could take form two fold: cooldown bar at weapons group glowing green -- this is also happening for gauss charge, and individual circles spinning, with weapon names stacking on the sides.

Tesunie, on 31 August 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

I'm also concerned with more mechanics in the background producing more pull on connection strengths and possibly adding to hit reg issues as well as possibly taxing people's connection with additional lag... It would have potential and possibility, but I think the problems are probably more of a hindrance than it's potential probably is.

That's really more of PGI's issue. Unless you're simmilarly looking under the hood of connectivity issues, like PGI could trace theres, I hardly see any point discussing it with you as neither of us, hell I couldn't even comment on it.

Tesunie, on 31 August 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

Something I wouldn't mind seeing... Artemis (as it doesn't have lock mechanic affects now) being able to be purchased per launcher, rather than on the whole chassis. AKA: I could take an ALRM20 with two LRM5s; or have Artemis LRMs with normal SRMs. (Also recall, Artemis ammo is different from standard ammo, so different ammo types would also need to be loaded. More options, but has drawbacks.)

You mean, mixing artemis and non-artemis LRMs/SRMs? I don't see why not. But my first option should enable that.

[Tesunie]

Okay. I'm going to open by saying that I wanted to at least mention why i voted the way I did, especially on the first option. I figured the feedback would be good.

The6thMessenger, on 01 September 2018 - 02:48 AM, said:

Probably by having a hud element saying which weapon is locked like a list of weapons on the side. On the weapon groups, the cooldown meter could show green when locked.

---

Different circles, different names stacking over another beside the reticle, with cooldown meter glowing green when locked on and is able to fire.

And the point of this is to have diferentiating Locks between weapons. Having separate Artemis for separate weapons IS a possibility.

---

The only real problem there is PGI. What issues you raise isn't really an issue, if only PGI has a good track record of not ******* things up.

Like i said, differentiation of locks could take form two fold: cooldown bar at weapons group glowing green -- this is also happening for gauss charge, and individual circles spinning, with weapon names stacking on the sides.

My concern is doing the HUD elements in a way that is intuitive and understandable that also doesn't block your ability to see the rest of the game. It would be hard to do in a clear manner that you can see which actual weapons are locking at what times, and keep it clear as to when each weapon has gotten or lost a lock. That weapon group window is really far from the reticle, and it wouldn't be effective to have it all placed there. Just like the little indicators by the reticle wouldn't necessarily by helpful either, as it doesn't distinguish between different weapons within that group, such as if I had mixed LRMs and ATMs together into a single weapon group (needs to be considered, even if we wouldn't want to do it).

With different circles and names indicating the locks, now you have a real issue with HUD clutter. It would need to be done in a fashion to be clear, yet as unobtrusive on other game play so as to actually be helpful. However, I wouldn't mind different lock on times per weapons. Then TAG/NARC could stop helping weapons it isn't suppose to help, and those weapons could have naturally faster lock speeds/tracking. So I'm not disagreeing with you here, I'm only questioning it's practicality, viability and capability within the game more than what benefits it could add.

I will comment, I shoot Gauss (and many other weapons) based on the sounds they make. I charge and shoot a Gauss by the windup sound it makes as it charges. Then it makes another sound when it's ready to shoot again (not to mention intuitive timing after using it for a while). I typically do the same thing with locks, as I just know when they will lock and can shoot as soon as I get it, rather than waiting for the actual red to show up.

It would need to remain intuitive. PGI can do it. It would take time and effort. The problem remains if they could overcome the challenges of a multi-lock HUD in the game, which for the record not many games use multi-locking mechanics and those that I've seen do it can sometimes be a cluster of circles on your screen blocking your view. So it's not an easy challenge to juggle between the mechanic and how it appears and is used by the HUD and in game. (I say this because you know someone would make a build with SSRMs, ATMs, LRMs and ALRMs... just do clutter it up and then complain about it.)

The6thMessenger, on 01 September 2018 - 02:48 AM, said:

People bring things if they are worth bringing, narc-tag, with conjunction of weak-*** LRMs individiually, no wonder it's not being brought.

Now if LRMs were balanced as DF, though with nuance, they could be brought far more often because LRMs would now be powerful, as well as because of necessity because it's the only way to IDF.

As for kill-stealing, well that still depends on where are you looking, such as if you're at QP looking for personal stats, at least LRMs could stand on their own. But on those rather coordinated, it's a boon.

You don't want LRMs to become king DF weapon though because of it's homing ability. It pays for it's homing and IDF capabilities by being weaker in other categories. If you link IDF to just limits of TAG, NARC and/or C3 networks... then IDF would probably completely die out. Then you would be forced to buff LRM direct fire greatly, which could make it king weapon in the game. I don't exactly want any weapon to be king weapon, so I'd rather avoid this.

I present the "Kill Stealing" aspect, as I've already had people complain about it. I've had people refuse to hold locks because I had "some" LRMs on my mech, and then I proceeded to get my own locks (like I normally try to do) anyway, utilizing my mixed build platform to it's effective positions. (The strength of a mixed platform is it's lack of a weakness. You find your opponent's weakness to their build, and you attack according to that. It's more challenging, but I find it effective.)

I personally rather see it "kill securing", but there are people out there who are all about that K/D ratio... and they throw a fit about LRMs taking kills "they don't deserve". I think if you removed/made IDF too difficult (needing special gear), it would just make things worse overall.

Also, as a side effect, without the partial C3 we have now, imagine how little information you would get from teammates when they are engaging an enemy and not telling people where they are. Remember now, without that target sharing, then you wouldn't know where the enemy are when a teammate is locked onto them... removing this feature is kind of a double edge sword. It slices both ways from the lack of intel and indirect fire capabilities.

The6thMessenger, on 01 September 2018 - 02:48 AM, said:

Kind of the point really, that being said, ATMs ARE viable in dumb-firing upclose. Locks aren't usually that important when you're 150 meters away from a slow fatass. This system, while i didn't even really voted for it, I just thrown it as a possibility out there.

You see abuse, I see feature.

I see too much ability to abuse and not enough feature to make it worth it. Imagine SRMs that "almost miss" now slamming into the target mech on the side that "almost missed". It would lead to more missiles hitting and taking out arms or side torsos. Depending upon the tracking, you might see missiles curve around a corner to hit a target. Or MRMs might become a "scouting" weapons, shoot next to a building, if they curve, an enemy is behind it (possibly getting hit by them even). How about possible trick shots to maybe get rear shots? Get slightly to the side of a mech and shoot beside your target, now your missiles track and turn, some/most hitting the rear of that side rather than the front you are already facing (which is already a problem on some mechs).

I'm standing as a resounding no on this. I just don't think it would be worth the risk... Leave SSRMs as the homing missile. If anything, they could maybe drop the locking mechanic for this system, but even then I don't think it would be wise.

The6thMessenger, on 01 September 2018 - 02:48 AM, said:

That's really more of PGI's issue. Unless you're simmilarly looking under the hood of connectivity issues, like PGI could trace theres, I hardly see any point discussing it with you as neither of us, hell I couldn't even comment on it.

I present it as a possible issue. Remember, the more information that is transmitted and received, the more chances of packet loss and the more bandwidth needed for the information transfer. This means the increased possibility of more lag, larger crashes and other assorted issues. Could it come up with any of these suggestions? Maybe. The more HUD elements (for example) might add too much stress to the system, and thus could produce some lag issues. On the other hand, it may be a small change and result in no issues. I wouldn't know, I just present the possibility.

The6thMessenger, on 01 September 2018 - 02:48 AM, said:

You mean, mixing artemis and non-artemis LRMs/SRMs? I don't see why not. But my first option should enable that.

Artemis is, in theory, only suppose to improve LRM and SRM spread. TAG/NARC is only suppose to improve LRM spread and be able to call in homing Arrow IV missiles (which we don't have). None of these inherently are suppose to improve lock speeds, not that lock speeds are a thing in TT BT. However, I would imagine if it was suppose to, it would have increased your chances of hitting, similar to pulse weapons.

Now, I know this game isn't TT and not everything will transfer over perfectly (and in fact, I don't expect it to). However, looking at the source material leads me to believe that Artemis, TAG and NARC shouldn't affect lock on speeds anyway, just spread/tracking and how you can lock things. Then again, so should LoS.

Also, by the rules I can read (Sarna: "Though extremely useful for improving a missile launcher, there is one major obstacle to their use: if any standard missile launcher is equipped with an Artemis system, every launcher of that type must have its own Artemis IV attached."), you should be able to mix Artemis LRMs with normal SRMs and vise versa. So having this as an upgrade per launcher type applicable (LRMs/SRMs) would make a lot of sense and even open up more diversity. I think it could be a good thing in this game.

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

My concern is doing the HUD elements in a way that is intuitive and understandable that also doesn't block your ability to see the rest of the game. It would be hard to do in a clear manner that you can see which actual weapons are locking at what times, and keep it clear as to when each weapon has gotten or lost a lock. That weapon group window is really far from the reticle, and it wouldn't be effective to have it all placed there. Just like the little indicators by the reticle wouldn't necessarily by helpful either, as it doesn't distinguish between different weapons within that group, such as if I had mixed LRMs and ATMs together into a single weapon group (needs to be considered, even if we wouldn't want to do it).

With different circles and names indicating the locks, now you have a real issue with HUD clutter. It would need to be done in a fashion to be clear, yet as unobtrusive on other game play so as to actually be helpful. However, I wouldn't mind different lock on times per weapons. Then TAG/NARC could stop helping weapons it isn't suppose to help, and those weapons could have naturally faster lock speeds/tracking. So I'm not disagreeing with you here, I'm only questioning it's practicality, viability and capability within the game more than what benefits it could add.

The real problem is PGI's approach, this will allow them to individually buff or nerf weapons based on locks, so that's a big plus in practicality.

As for the hud clutter and intuitiveness, I really can't help you that far. I mean by intuitive, what are your standards for it? To me, It's already intuitive enough to have green stuffs on their recycle bar, to have the weapon names upon the hud.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

I will comment, I shoot Gauss (and many other weapons) based on the sounds they make. I charge and shoot a Gauss by the windup sound it makes as it charges. Then it makes another sound when it's ready to shoot again (not to mention intuitive timing after using it for a while). I typically do the same thing with locks, as I just know when they will lock and can shoot as soon as I get it, rather than waiting for the actual red to show up.

You mean like the lock-on click sound?

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

It would need to remain intuitive. PGI can do it. It would take time and effort. The problem remains if they could overcome the challenges of a multi-lock HUD in the game, which for the record not many games use multi-locking mechanics and those that I've seen do it can sometimes be a cluster of circles on your screen blocking your view. So it's not an easy challenge to juggle between the mechanic and how it appears and is used by the HUD and in game. (I say this because you know someone would make a build with SSRMs, ATMs, LRMs and ALRMs... just do clutter it up and then complain about it.)

I'm not really that confident in PGI, that being said I don't see why my idea gets booted off because of it. That only means PGI needs to improve to be able to properly implement the needed ideas.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

You don't want LRMs to become king DF weapon though because of it's homing ability. It pays for it's homing and IDF capabilities by being weaker in other categories. If you link IDF to just limits of TAG, NARC and/or C3 networks... then IDF would probably completely die out. Then you would be forced to buff LRM direct fire greatly, which could make it king weapon in the game. I don't exactly want any weapon to be king weapon, so I'd rather avoid this.

I honestly don't see the relationship between balanced-by-DF to King-of-DF. All it means is that it would be completely better off than before, but still not as good as other weapons. Is the grey area really hard to imagine?

Not to mention that, how are you sure that IDF would die out? With being balanced by DF, it would be way more powerful than before, and the need of TAG/NARC for IDF would mean that they have to bring those for IDF and therefore dedicated spotters would be valuable. They have the incentive to bring TAG/NARC for IDF because LRMs is now powerful for DF and would be even more powerful for DF.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

I present the "Kill Stealing" aspect, as I've already had people complain about it. I've had people refuse to hold locks because I had "some" LRMs on my mech, and then I proceeded to get my own locks (like I normally try to do) anyway, utilizing my mixed build platform to it's effective positions. (The strength of a mixed platform is it's lack of a weakness. You find your opponent's weakness to their build, and you attack according to that. It's more challenging, but I find it effective.)

I personally rather see it "kill securing", but there are people out there who are all about that K/D ratio... and they throw a fit about LRMs taking kills "they don't deserve". I think if you removed/made IDF too difficult (needing special gear), it would just make things worse overall.

This is literally for spotters, and if that's not available you could at least have brought your own NARC. And as far as I'm concerned, those people are ********, you get to a competent team that works as one, that's not really an issue.

Even about kill-stealing, hey at least DF is good. IDF is supposed to be just the feature for NARC/TAG.

No, it would not make things worse over all, it makes things better with, but worse for the background Lurmers.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

Also, as a side effect, without the partial C3 we have now, imagine how little information you would get from teammates when they are engaging an enemy and not telling people where they are. Remember now, without that target sharing, then you wouldn't know where the enemy are when a teammate is locked onto them... removing this feature is kind of a double edge sword. It slices both ways from the lack of intel and indirect fire capabilities.

I didn't said that remove C3, I said remove IDF ability without NARC/TAG. Please stop putting words on my mouth.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

I see too much ability to abuse and not enough feature to make it worth it. Imagine SRMs that "almost miss" now slamming into the target mech on the side that "almost missed". It would lead to more missiles hitting and taking out arms or side torsos. Depending upon the tracking, you might see missiles curve around a corner to hit a target. Or MRMs might become a "scouting" weapons, shoot next to a building, if they curve, an enemy is behind it (possibly getting hit by them even). How about possible trick shots to maybe get rear shots? Get slightly to the side of a mech and shoot beside your target, now your missiles track and turn, some/most hitting the rear of that side rather than the front you are already facing (which is already a problem on some mechs).

I think you're just making your own problems on this one. I mean if you don't want to get rear shots, then simply put a cone than a bubble, that way it only really homes on the target in front. If you don't want it curving, same thing, have the missile proximity tracing with LOS from the missile. That simple.

Yeah, you're overthinking it.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

I present it as a possible issue. Remember, the more information that is transmitted and received, the more chances of packet loss and the more bandwidth needed for the information transfer. This means the increased possibility of more lag, larger crashes and other assorted issues. Could it come up with any of these suggestions? Maybe. The more HUD elements (for example) might add too much stress to the system, and thus could produce some lag issues. On the other hand, it may be a small change and result in no issues. I wouldn't know, I just present the possibility.

I'd rather test it first.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

Artemis is, in theory, only suppose to improve LRM and SRM spread. TAG/NARC is only suppose to improve LRM spread and be able to call in homing Arrow IV missiles (which we don't have). None of these inherently are suppose to improve lock speeds, not that lock speeds are a thing in TT BT. However, I would imagine if it was suppose to, it would have increased your chances of hitting, similar to pulse weapons.

But the problem is that, MWO is not TT, it's not meant to completely translate well with the changes in mechanism.

The lock-speed is important, because it allows the homing missiles to be used in the front than rear more efficiently. The current nerfs to LRMs discouraged frontline use than background use, ironically they wanted LRMs to be deadweight yet they discouraged the use thats precisely the best way to use LRMs.

If you know that this aint TT, then what's the use of that block of argument?

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

Also, by the rules I can read (Sarna: "Though extremely useful for improving a missile launcher, there is one major obstacle to their use: if any standard missile launcher is equipped with an Artemis system, every launcher of that type must have its own Artemis IV attached."), you should be able to mix Artemis LRMs with normal SRMs and vise versa. So having this as an upgrade per launcher type applicable (LRMs/SRMs) would make a lot of sense and even open up more diversity. I think it could be a good thing in this game.

Then just allow SRM-LRM mixing. Why is that an issue?

[Tesunie]

(I appologize now if things are disjointed. Was highly distracted while I was typing this out.)

The6thMessenger, on 04 September 2018 - 03:11 PM, said:

The real problem is PGI's approach, this will allow them to individually buff or nerf weapons based on locks, so that's a big plus in practicality.

As for the hud clutter and intuitiveness, I really can't help you that far. I mean by intuitive, what are your standards for it? To me, It's already intuitive enough to have green stuffs on their recycle bar, to have the weapon names upon the hud.

---

You mean like the lock-on click sound?

---

I'm not really that confident in PGI, that being said I don't see why my idea gets booted off because of it. That only means PGI needs to improve to be able to properly implement the needed ideas.

I'm not against your concept due to what it can bring to the table. It could work well. I voted no only because there is no explanation on how it might be implemented in a manner that doesn't clutter your screen and remains easy to use. If you have different lock "rings" with names, I'd be concerned that the names/rings might obstruct the screen. It needs to be visible, without being obstructive. Present me with something to address this concern, and I'd very likely change my vote on option 1. Basically, I'm just on this side of "no", ready to fall into "yes" but just not there yet.

And yes, I'm talking about the lock on click sound. That is another issue that may need to be addressed. Each lock system may need their own identifiable sound for better viability.

The6thMessenger, on 04 September 2018 - 03:11 PM, said:

I honestly don't see the relationship between balanced-by-DF to King-of-DF. All it means is that it would be completely better off than before, but still not as good as other weapons. Is the grey area really hard to imagine?

Not to mention that, how are you sure that IDF would die out? With being balanced by DF, it would be way more powerful than before, and the need of TAG/NARC for IDF would mean that they have to bring those for IDF and therefore dedicated spotters would be valuable. They have the incentive to bring TAG/NARC for IDF because LRMs is now powerful for DF and would be even more powerful for DF.

---

This is literally for spotters, and if that's not available you could at least have brought your own NARC. And as far as I'm concerned, those people are ********, you get to a competent team that works as one, that's not really an issue.

Even about kill-stealing, hey at least DF is good. IDF is supposed to be just the feature for NARC/TAG.

No, it would not make things worse over all, it makes things better with, but worse for the background Lurmers.

---

I didn't said that remove C3, I said remove IDF ability without NARC/TAG. Please stop putting words on my mouth.

It was implied that by removing indirect fire, you'd most likely be removing the target lock piggyback ability currently in the game.

My question here I think is going to be "describe how this would work?" Right now, if you can lock it, then you can get a missile lock. how long after TAG goes off target would you be able to maintain a missile lock? If NARC is turned off from ECM, does that instantly lose IDF lock?

Then, the follow up question: How would you boost LRMs to make them viable for direct fire, keeping in mind it's homing mechanic?

As far as if IDF would die, it would be gone for the most part. you'd have some teams that might specialize for it, but as an average you'd find very few people taking TAG or NARC in QP. So yes, I do believe it would all but kill off IDF from the game if you locked it to requiring TAG and NARC to funtion. (But I wouldn't complain about the ability to introduce C3 into the game as well as C3 variants.)

The6thMessenger, on 04 September 2018 - 03:11 PM, said:

I think you're just making your own problems on this one. I mean if you don't want to get rear shots, then simply put a cone than a bubble, that way it only really homes on the target in front. If you don't want it curving, same thing, have the missile proximity tracing with LOS from the missile. That simple.

Yeah, you're overthinking it.

When considering balance, you need to think of any possible way it can be abused or manipulated. If it's an acceptable mechanic (such as "scouting" with LRMs and watching for signs of AMS shooting to locate enemies), than it's a go. Otherwise, it needs to be reconsidered.

In this case, missiles are already considered reasonably good, especially MRMs and SRMs. There isn't much reason (as far as I know) to adjust/boost those weapons at this time with some kind of semi-homing ability.

The6thMessenger, on 04 September 2018 - 03:11 PM, said:

I'd rather test it first.

Absolutely.

The6thMessenger, on 04 September 2018 - 03:11 PM, said:

But the problem is that, MWO is not TT, it's not meant to completely translate well with the changes in mechanism.

The lock-speed is important, because it allows the homing missiles to be used in the front than rear more efficiently. The current nerfs to LRMs discouraged frontline use than background use, ironically they wanted LRMs to be deadweight yet they discouraged the use thats precisely the best way to use LRMs.

If you know that this aint TT, then what's the use of that block of argument?

TT is the source material. We should look at it for inspiration and consider how it could be best implemented into this game format, while also being willing to disregard other parts that might not be feasible.

Basically, it's the lore aspect of the game that makes this BT rather than some other mecha-shooter. It would be like playing a game based on the Court of King Author with machine guns and laser rifles... It wouldn't be a mid-evil era game anymore. (Take to the extreme.)

So, observe and reference to TT, but not hold strictly to it to the point it kills the game's potential.

The6thMessenger, on 04 September 2018 - 03:11 PM, said:

Then just allow SRM-LRM mixing. Why is that an issue?

More so an added suggestion related to missiles than an issue.

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

I'm not against your concept due to what it can bring to the table. It could work well. I voted no only because there is no explanation on how it might be implemented in a manner that doesn't clutter your screen and remains easy to use.

I didn't included it initially, mainly because it's an open system. People can have their own idea of what is intuitive. It's just a barebones concept, it's meant to be vague so that the ideal is automatically assumed.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

If you have different lock "rings" with names, I'd be concerned that the names/rings might obstruct the screen. It needs to be visible, without being obstructive. Present me with something to address this concern, and I'd very likely change my vote on option 1. Basically, I'm just on this side of "no", ready to fall into "yes" but just not there yet.

Probably aside of weapon names, it could take form of which weapon group that is assigned that could be fired. It could either go for 1,2,3,4,5,6.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

And yes, I'm talking about the lock on click sound. That is another issue that may need to be addressed. Each lock system may need their own identifiable sound for better viability.

I don't see why not.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

It was implied that by removing indirect fire, you'd most likely be removing the target lock piggyback ability currently in the game.

Wrong. There's missile lock, and then there's target lock. Missile Lock is the one with the circle, target lock is just the square.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

My question here I think is going to be "describe how this would work?" Right now, if you can lock it, then you can get a missile lock. how long after TAG goes off target would you be able to maintain a missile lock? If NARC is turned off from ECM, does that instantly lose IDF lock?

"Describe How it Works" - You know how you can't get Target Lock when there's no LOS? Like that. But now you also cannot get missile lock without LOS/NARC/TAG

"How long after tag does go off target would you be able to maintain a missile-lock?" - depends on implementation, I say 3 seconds of refreshing TAG debuff, simmilarly it could take form of "fire-and-forget" in which you don't have to retain missile lock at all, and will automatically get-retain missile-lock so long as TAG is active. Basically TAG allows the spotter to hold the missile-lock for another.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

Then, the follow up question: How would you boost LRMs to make them viable for direct fire, keeping in mind it's homing mechanic?

1.5-2.0 (magic num us 1.7) damage/missile, 240m/s base LRM speed, but 2x CD lessens PTSD, but allows effective skillful landing. It's less suprressy but you can always chainfire. Normalize spread to 4.5.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

As far as if IDF would die, it would be gone for the most part. you'd have some teams that might specialize for it, but as an average you'd find very few people taking TAG or NARC in QP. So yes, I do believe it would all but kill off IDF from the game if you locked it to requiring TAG and NARC to funtion. (But I wouldn't complain about the ability to introduce C3 into the game as well as C3 variants.)

Being gone for the most part is fine, so long as NARC/TAG is still relevant, likewise LRMs are now effective on their own. The problem is you still think that IDF is the component of LRM, rather now IDF is the component of NARC/TAG through LRMs. By making NARC/TAG specialize on the IDF component, they have their own niche, their own thing that people will go after.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

When considering balance, you need to think of any possible way it can be abused or manipulated. If it's an acceptable mechanic (such as "scouting" with LRMs and watching for signs of AMS shooting to locate enemies), than it's a go. Otherwise, it needs to be reconsidered.

True. But that is a rather vague statement. If you're implying abusable, well specify the abuse.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

In this case, missiles are already considered reasonably good, especially MRMs and SRMs. There isn't much reason (as far as I know) to adjust/boost those weapons at this time with some kind of semi-homing ability.

Honestly, I agree, I mean I even voted against it, but where is the abuse on that? I just threw it into the ether, mainly because i think it has a potential for something. Perhaps it could take form of an Artemis-Only buff in which instead of decreasing spread, it simply provides a slight amount of homing to missiles. Like wise you don't have to put proximity-tracking on every missiles, you could just exempt MRMs from this.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

TT is the source material. We should look at it for inspiration and consider how it could be best implemented into this game format, while also being willing to disregard other parts that might not be feasible.

True, but blindly following it won't lead us anywhere an FPS game should.

Tesunie, on 04 September 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

Basically, it's the lore aspect of the game that makes this BT rather than some other mecha-shooter. It would be like playing a game based on the Court of King Author with machine guns and laser rifles... It wouldn't be a mid-evil era game anymore. (Take to the extreme.) So, observe and reference to TT, but not hold strictly to it to the point it kills the game's potential.

I agree, but the problem is that, TT should be just an inspiration, what the weapon system cant or can do, should be left to what would fit the current mode of game is best. Simply dismissing something due to not being lore with little though is just asinine.