86 replies to this topic

[Requiemking]

Void Angel, on 27 March 2019 - 06:39 PM, said:

The supporting story and sidebars can be used to flesh out and suggest game mechanics, but that's not what the people talking about "free C3" are doing. The "free" part is an implicit reference to tonnage, and that means tabletop rules. There has never been a tonnage (or other) cost for just sharing target information, and it has always been a part of Battletech computer games since The Crescent Hawk's Inception. Some people think that eliminating the current target sharing system would make the game more tactical - and they may be right - but irrespective of their opinion, MWO's system is neither a departure from the norm nor a game-breaking tonnage-free C3 system.

Problem is, while target sharing has been a thing for a long time, part of the issue is that it was never explained how this was done. Sure, it could be an automatic network thing, but the fact of the lore description for how C3 and C3i works alongside the massive degradation of technology during the Succession wars makes that explanation hard to believe. It's more likely that the pilot was simply reading data off his sensor readouts via two-way radio or some similar comms system. Taking that into account, it is well within the realms of possibility for PGI to remove automatic target sharing and tie it to C3/C3i, thus necessitating:

1) a shift in the meta towards close-range builds,

2) the requirements for scouts and long-range builds to sacrifice a bit of tonnage and crit space for target sharing.

Would this shake up the game? Yes. Would this anger a few players? Yeah, probably. Would the game be better off in the long run? Most likely, seeing as PUGtatos would have to either come forwards and engage enemies or sacrifice something in their builds to get target sharing.

Edited by Requiemking, 28 March 2019 - 11:15 AM.

[Tesunie]

Requiemking, on 28 March 2019 - 11:14 AM, said:

Problem is, while target sharing has been a thing for a long time, part of the issue is that it was never explained how this was done. Sure, it could be an automatic network thing, but the fact of the lore description for how C3 and C3i works alongside the massive degradation of technology during the Succession wars makes that explanation hard to believe. It's more likely that the pilot was simply reading data off his sensor readouts via two-way radio or some similar comms system. Taking that into account, it is well within the realms of possibility for PGI to remove automatic target sharing and tie it to C3/C3i, thus necessitating:

1) a shift in the meta towards close-range builds,

2) the requirements for scouts and long-range builds to sacrifice a bit of tonnage and crit space for target sharing.

Would this shake up the game? Yes. Would this anger a few players? Yeah, probably. Would the game be better off in the long run? Most likely, seeing as PUGtatos would have to either come forwards and engage enemies or sacrifice something in their builds to get target sharing.

You seem to have not mentioned the other effects of C3 networks... The fact that mechs within the network can shoot at targets as though they were at the distances (for accuracy) from someone else in the network. AKA: Someone could stand at long range ERPPC, but have someone else with sm lasers be in their range and giving the ERPPC mech that close range bonus, despite being in their own long ranges.

It would appear that, by lore and TT rules as far as I know, data was shared through a team even without C3 networks. However, C3 made that data sharing more precise and faster to acquire. This meant that it provided additional benefits beyond "target is over here".

I'd also mention, as far as C3 and this game goes (as much as I'd love to have C3 and those variants that Incorporate it), it'd be hard to explain taking one. Most people would probably "not waste the tonnage" on the gear, as not everyone would take it. This would leave those who do, particularly in solo QP, at a "disadvantage" to those who don't, unless they happen to come across some other people of like mind.

I'd also mention, LRMs could fire indirectly even without C3 (though C3 does make it easier in lore). Without data sharing as is, I don't see how indirect LRMs could be achieved anymore unless others have committed to that C3 network.

Then, do we have Slave and Master units? Now that's another layer of complexity, and another barrier to it's use... Especially if all it's doing (in relation to this game) is target data sharing...

All I see your suggestion doing is killing off indirect fired missiles and forcing people to use only direct fired weapons (or LRMs only as a direct fire weapon), with only premade teams utilizing C3 and indirect... And if that's the case than Indirect fired anything would need to be boosted up to counter it's additional requirements to make it worth trying...


Personally, I'm not sure how C3 should work in this game. It should provide accuracy bonuses to other allies within the network, and to more than just missiles. This is right where if we had a more proper-ish targeting system that it really would come in handy. According to lore, weapons take time to converge and for the targeting computer to compute weapon calibration as well as "lead" time. AKA: We should have delayed convergence, where the reticle would turn gold when a solid weapons lock is achieved (not to be confused with missile lock).

With this delayed convergence (too bad it doesn't work with HSR), distance could have an impact on convergence speeds (possibly based on individual weapon ranges?). Then, you would benefit from the convergence speeds of the closest C3 networked ally to your target, sharing their enhanced data sharing (but normal sharing would still be as is). (View this similar to indirect missile locks as of current, but you'd get the short lock times of whomever was closest within the C3 network.)

I will say however, this system could never work with HSR, and would also make snap shots (poke and shoot) abilities more difficult/spread more. Lag shields would probably become a thing again, and truly skilled players (because I know the skill question would come up) would need to be good at keeping their reticle on a target long enough to get a solid (or nearly solid) lock. But as stated, I don't believe this system could ever be implemented in this game due to issues of lag and lag compensation.

Of course, also realize I'm going from lore as written in books and by my own interpretation of the TT rules and how they could be related to the book description and this game (without consideration of how hard it would be, lag or other "code or physical" limitations).

[KursedVixen]

Void Angel, on 27 March 2019 - 06:39 PM, said:

The supporting story and sidebars can be used to flesh out and suggest game mechanics, but that's not what the people talking about "free C3" are doing. The "free" part is an implicit reference to tonnage, and that means tabletop rules. There has never been a tonnage (or other) cost for just sharing target information, and it has always been a part of Battletech computer games since The Crescent Hawk's Inception. Some people think that eliminating the current target sharing system would make the game more tactical - and they may be right - but irrespective of their opinion, MWO's system is neither a departure from the norm nor a game-breaking tonnage-free C3 system.

Requiemking, on 27 March 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

In terms of in-game effects, yes, MWO target-sharing system works differently from C3 and C3i. However, MWO's system works exactly the same as C3 is described to work in the fluff, sharing target data between all mechs on the network. The fact of the matter is, the fluff can be just as important for designing mechanics as the actual TT mechanics. One such example is IS vs Clan ACs. IS ACs are closest to how ACs functioned in TT as far as rules go, just one big burst of damage, while Clan ACs behave in much the same way as how ACs were described in the fluff, a rapid burst of rounds from what is essentially an oversized rapid-fire tank cannon.

*C3i

Tesunie, on 28 March 2019 - 12:09 PM, said:

Then, do we have Slave and Master units? Now that's another layer of complexity, and another barrier to it's use... Especially if all it's doing (in relation to this game) is target data sharing...

C3i, my friend, C3i

Remember that a slave c3 cut off from the master from a mech or vehicle carrying ECM loses the benifits,
Thus C3i came around to slightly mitigate this problem, i think they were reverse compatible as well, correct me on that.

Edited by KursedVixen, 28 March 2019 - 12:18 PM.

[Tesunie]

KursedVixen, on 28 March 2019 - 12:12 PM, said:

*C3i


C3i, my friend, C3i

Remember that a slave c3 cut off from the master from a mech or vehicle carrying ECM loses the benifits,
Thus C3i came around to slightly mitigate this problem, i think they were reverse compatible as well, correct me on that.

A C3i (I was simply referring to it mostly as C3 for simplicity) was a slave unit that (as far as I knew) could become a master unit on the fly if needed, but was not designed as a master unit. I also believe it was "resistant" to ECM? Not sure on that last one.

I was mostly pointing out how complex C3 could become, depending upon how it was implemented. I also believe fully that if the current "data sharing" as we have in game was removed and added into the C3 unit (of any kind) only giving data to those in the network... it would obliterate any consideration of indirect fire mechanics in this game. Then again, that does seem to be some people's goals it seems (not saying that about anyone specific here).

[KursedVixen]

Just saying what we have currently is an approximation of free C3i... At least from what I understand as far as i know there is no mention of data sharing aside from C3 that I have seen.

Edited by KursedVixen, 28 March 2019 - 01:29 PM.

[Tesunie]

KursedVixen, on 28 March 2019 - 01:28 PM, said:

Just saying what we have currently is an approximation of free C3i... At least from what I understand as far as i know there is no mention of data sharing aside from C3 that I have seen.

I don't recall any other mention specifically of data sharing, but considering some fluff examples where they could gather more data than we can in the game there must have been some data sharing involved. (Example: Hussar and Crabs had such advanced communication systems that they could pin point enemy units based on their comms chatter, or even from enemy satlinks.)

C3 specifically coordinated mech targeting computers (and sensor nets) to provide better accuracy to all mechs in the network. How that would be represented in this game... I have no idea... (And this is often seen as "target data sharing", but it did more than just that.)

[Requiemking]

Tesunie, on 28 March 2019 - 02:37 PM, said:

I don't recall any other mention specifically of data sharing, but considering some fluff examples where they could gather more data than we can in the game there must have been some data sharing involved. (Example: Hussar and Crabs had such advanced communication systems that they could pin point enemy units based on their comms chatter, or even from enemy satlinks.)

C3 specifically coordinated mech targeting computers (and sensor nets) to provide better accuracy to all mechs in the network. How that would be represented in this game... I have no idea... (And this is often seen as "target data sharing", but it did more than just that.)

Problem is, all those mechs with advanced sensor capabilities became lostech due to the succession wars, and any digital data sharing systems probably followed them. Seeing as, once again, data sharing between pilots is never explained until the invention of C3, the most likely explanation for sharing data prior to C3 is that the pilot would simply read off his sensor readouts to his lancemates via comms.

[Tesunie]

Requiemking, on 28 March 2019 - 09:23 PM, said:

Problem is, all those mechs with advanced sensor capabilities became lostech due to the succession wars, and any digital data sharing systems probably followed them. Seeing as, once again, data sharing between pilots is never explained until the invention of C3, the most likely explanation for sharing data prior to C3 is that the pilot would simply read off his sensor readouts to his lancemates via comms.

You can say that all you want, but just because it's "not described" doesn't mean "it doesn't work that way". There very well could have been target sharing, but it was so "trivial" it may never have been mentioned. Then again, when a mech (even in the succession era) can detect other things through walls, buildings, etc... I mean, they had thermal sensors, night vision, magnetic sensors, seismic sensors, weapons that could shoot backwards (arms and hard mounted), a 360 degree view in a 90 degree display (they could see behind themselves), etc... We've got bare bones of what a mech should be able to see. AP should be able to detect mechs behind objects, even if shut down (if close enough) (then again, ECM should disrupt AP). CAP also doubled as ECM against IS mechs...

I'd also say, this game isn't and never will be an exact translation of everything "lore" or "TT". Many mechanics are just not practical. Some wont work on the game engine itself. Others would be unfair to specific factions (Clan tech for example). Some would degrade game play (sensor ranges that worked rather I could see you or not).

I'd also mention that some aspects of Battletech (if taking from the books) where written a specific way for theatrics. It's more exciting to have targets be shared, but not identified, between mechs. Actually, I recall enemy signatures often being detected and shared between mechs, but often not the mech's designations. AKA: They would tell what other teammates were seeing for targets, but not what each target was specifically unless it was commed over the radio.

Another aspect that supports some form of shared data are how command posts and commanders gathered information. They could gather the active, on the go, battle data from mechs as the fight raged, and deploy forces accordingly. And no, that was before C3 was placed into lore. Without any target sharing at all, that would have been impossible to have such up to date information at a command post. I don't believe that mechs were as "deficient" or "blind" as you seem to be implying.

[Void Angel]

Requiemking, on 28 March 2019 - 11:14 AM, said:

Problem is, while target sharing has been a thing for a long time, part of the issue is that it was never explained how this was done. Sure, it could be an automatic network thing, but the fact of the lore description for how C3 and C3i works alongside the massive degradation of technology during the Succession wars makes that explanation hard to believe.

This is a classic argument from silence, followed by a fallacious appeal to probability. And regardless of whether revamping the target data sharing system that we have would be good for the game, simple sharing of target information is emphatically not why C3(i) cost tonnage, which is central to the implicit argument being made by the "free C3" crowd. C3 helped you hit things (and duplicated TAG.) That is, in game terms, the only thing it did. Appealing to what the flavor text doesn't say absolutely does not strengthen that invalid argument - quite the opposite, in fact.

KursedVixen, on 28 March 2019 - 12:12 PM, said:

C3i, my friend, C3i
Remember that a slave c3 cut off from the master from a mech or vehicle carrying ECM loses the benifits,
Thus C3i came around to slightly mitigate this problem, i think they were reverse compatible as well, correct me on that.

Ah, I see what you mean - the C3i system was released after I stopped collecting sourcebooks (because I realized that while I was having fun reading them, I wasn't actually playing the game any more.) "C3i" is actually an updated military abbreviation for "Command, Control, Communication, and intelligence," so I thought that's what you were referencing. =)

[KursedVixen]

Void Angel, on 28 March 2019 - 10:50 PM, said:

This is a classic argument from silence, followed by a fallacious appeal to probability. And regardless of whether revamping the target data sharing system that we have would be good for the game, simple sharing of target information is emphatically not why C3(i) cost tonnage, which is central to the implicit argument being made by the "free C3" crowd. C3 helped you hit things (and duplicated TAG.) That is, in game terms, the only thing it did. Appealing to what the flavor text doesn't say absolutely does not strengthen that invalid argument - quite the opposite, in fact.

Ah, I see what you mean - the C3i system was released after I stopped collecting sourcebooks (because I realized that while I was having fun reading them, I wasn't actually playing the game any more.) "C3i" is actually an updated military abbreviation for "Command, Control, Communication, and intelligence," so I thought that's what you were referencing. =)

no it's an improved c3 computer that serves as master and a slave as needed to mitigate the effect of ECM because with the orginal C3 computer system an ecm mech could not only jam a single c3 slave ,but if the ecm hit the master ALL units in the network would lose the connection, The Society (A secret group of clan scientist angry at the warrior caste) even made use of a primitive c3 system ,because their pilots weren't very good

[Charles Sennet]

admiralbenbow123, on 15 March 2019 - 05:08 AM, said:

The whole map consists of hills. Just learn to not expose if you are not a long range mech.

Doesn't help if you are NARC'd and, if its Faction Play where players know the map in advance, you can bet for at least one NARC-er to be on the field with 9-10 of his LURM-boat buddies laughing as they do incredible DPS at 1000m never having to expose themselves.

Yeah, that's a balanced system of counters. Thank Kerensky for AMS buffs.

[Tesunie]

Charles Sennet, on 30 March 2019 - 05:13 AM, said:

Doesn't help if you are NARC'd and, if its Faction Play where players know the map in advance, you can bet for at least one NARC-er to be on the field with 9-10 of his LURM-boat buddies laughing as they do incredible DPS at 1000m never having to expose themselves.

Yeah, that's a balanced system of counters. Thank Kerensky for AMS buffs.

As counter point, you could bring in a whole list (know the map is coming, suspecting the other team of doing LRMs) of ECM, AMS and long range builds (or even short range if really desired, but I would imagine sniping would be more viable). Someone get's NARCed, okay. There's more ECM around them (provided you remain together) to block the NARC. Not to mention AMS shoots at NARC, enough AMS could (in theory) destroy the NARC before it lands.

Or we can continue to moan about the map, even in FP when you know it's coming up and could select an counter deck, and present every "it's horrible because of this" situation possible. I mean, if we are doing that; I want Solaris City, Crimson Straights and HPG removed because they have areas that have LRM umbrellas or tall buildings that make LRMs impossible (in actuality, just more difficult, but you didn't hear that with this "doom and gloom" segment) to land on a target, especially when fired only indirectly (which is still one of the worst ways to use them, but you still don't hear this part, okay). I want (not really) those maps removed from the game because they are horrible brawl fests and boring.

[Void Angel]

Charles Sennet, on 30 March 2019 - 05:13 AM, said:

Doesn't help if you are NARC'd and, if its Faction Play where players know the map in advance, you can bet for at least one NARC-er to be on the field with 9-10 of his LURM-boat buddies laughing as they do incredible DPS at 1000m never having to expose themselves.

Yeah, that's a balanced system of counters. Thank Kerensky for AMS buffs.

If it's faction play, you're responsible for your team composition, aren't you? Especially you should have AMS and ECM - and a screening force of fast Mediums or Lights. At that point, it's a matter of maneuver and counter-scouting while your main body goes after their LRMs. It is possible to get a team mix where your team just doesn't have the options it needs to defeat an LRM-heavy team on the other side, of course. But that team mix is where you have no scouts or mediums to deal with their spotters, but this is rare in quick-play - and in faction play, that's your fault, not the map's.

PS: "But they can NARC me and I can't do anything" is more a statement of tactical incompetence than a viable objection to the arguments presented.

[Charles Sennet]

Void Angel, on 30 March 2019 - 10:28 AM, said:

If it's faction play, you're responsible for your team composition, aren't you? Especially you should have AMS and ECM - and a screening force of fast Mediums or Lights. At that point, it's a matter of maneuver and counter-scouting while your main body goes after their LRMs. It is possible to get a team mix where your team just doesn't have the options it needs to defeat an LRM-heavy team on the other side, of course. But that team mix is where you have no scouts or mediums to deal with their spotters, but this is rare in quick-play - and in faction play, that's your fault, not the map's.

PS: "But they can NARC me and I can't do anything" is more a statement of tactical incompetence than a viable objection to the arguments presented.

Your criticism is heavy-handed and out of context... My comment was in response to the post about 'just find cover' and why that is not always possible. In FP 2-3 NARC-ers CAN and HAVE many times mitigate enough ECM to render it useless. Thankfully AMS has been buffed (and missile health de-buffed) so that AMS is now a truly viable counter. STILL, however, there is an issue of choice discrepancy... Chasis that can mount LURMs is far more numerous than chassis that can mount ECM or AMS counters. For AMS Clans especially see this in that only 7 chassis can mount double AMS or greater (and zero assaults) as opposed to IS which has 22 chassis that can do this (8 being assault). Clan AMS is further limited in that most AMS Omnipods break otherwise good builds. AMS imbalance between the factions deserves its own post so will take that discussion elsewhere...

[Tesunie]

Charles Sennet, on 31 March 2019 - 02:28 PM, said:

Your criticism is heavy-handed and out of context... My comment was in response to the post about 'just find cover' and why that is not always possible. In FP 2-3 NARC-ers CAN and HAVE many times mitigate enough ECM to render it useless. Thankfully AMS has been buffed (and missile health de-buffed) so that AMS is now a truly viable counter. STILL, however, there is an issue of choice discrepancy... Chasis that can mount LURMs is far more numerous than chassis that can mount ECM or AMS counters. For AMS Clans especially see this in that only 7 chassis can mount double AMS or greater (and zero assaults) as opposed to IS which has 22 chassis that can do this (8 being assault). Clan AMS is further limited in that most AMS Omnipods break otherwise good builds. AMS imbalance between the factions deserves its own post so will take that discussion elsewhere...

If you brought nothing but ECM mechs and stayed together, it would be incredibly difficult for a NARCer to NARC enough of you to punch through the ECM (That would be theoretically 12 mechs NARCed, realistically probably 8 NARCed). Add AMS to the mix, especially the new AMS...

As for a notation on AMS, every mech in the game has access to AMS, even if it's just a single one. Only mech that is the exclusion to this rule is the Cicada Hero 5X. Then you have some that can take multiple AMS. As a note here, I have a Nova with Dual AMS and only one ton of AMS ammo. Before this patch, I was able to shoot down around 300 missiles before running out of ammo. Now I shot down over 600 missiles before the ammo runs dry. AMS got that much of a boost it seems...

[Void Angel]

My criticism is hardly out of context, as we are talking about the map, not any specific game mode - and speaking of context, your comment was actually in response to someone's objection that "the whole map consists of hills." That principle is actually the entire point of why threads like this "shpuld" not exist. A NARC 'mech can be countered, particularly if your team is paying attention and selects a map-appropriate deck. If there's an issue with this, it's with the LRM/NARC interaction, rather than the map - and as you yourself pointed out, AMS has been dramatically enhanced.

Conversely, while many people will run LRMs in quickplay as a standard build (and then vote for Polar,) rolling with a dedicated NARC rig is vanishingly rare. You're mixing arguments that apply to faction warfare or quickplay, but those modes are quite different from each other. You can't have it both ways: either we're talking about specific interactions with faction warfare, or we're talking about the map in general.

Regardless, If your opponent is map-decking you in Faction Play and you're not counter-decking them (or even just running your own LRM deck and getting down with the sickness,) that's not the map's fault - and if you're in QuickPlay where most of the game happens, there are things you can do to take out or discourage that NARC 'mech. He's not an invisible ghost warrior, and NARC isn't a magic bullet. But if you insist on "coming at them in the usual way," if I may bastardize the quote, you're going to get pounded.

[Sparky424]

The idea of different maps is to make use of all weapon systems. I like the virity you have to play these map different this is good. Hay wait you know what we need GPS target systems. Here's the thing do the same thing get the same result. It requires one to try different tatics. Nothing wrong with the map it's you not wanting to have to play different.

[Valley Pirate]

PGI, I will pay you $100, no joke, to just remove this god damn map. It gets picked WAY too much, for what stupid reason I can't tell. It's AWFUL.

[Void Angel]

Perhaps you "shpuld" adapt to the map, then?

PS: People vote for it because they like long range engagements for their builds, and they think of the map as long-ranged.

[CrimsonEye]

Danjo San, on 19 March 2019 - 02:15 AM, said:

to reduce lock on time you need to invest in either Tag 1t, Command Console 3t, Beagle Active Probes 0.5-1.5t and Targeting Computers 1-7t. Skill Tree as well ... Target Decay, Missle Spread are a must have.

For your Atlas to lose 2 Components and damage your CT, as you say, over the duration of 5 seconds, requires the LRM Boat to aquire a lock and the missiles to travel.
I went on Polar Highlands Testing Grounds, with an unskilled Catapult, Stock Loadout = 0 Investment required. The non-moving Atlas is in K11, I went to L12, there is a small trench that obstructs line of sight and when you move just right you are able to simulate your 5 second transition from cover to cover, while hitting the Atlas from the side to blow off your arm first, then ST and then damage the CT
I did several trial runs, the most I could come up with over a strict period of 5 seconds, was 6% Damage. 7% when I opened the launcher doors before firing.
However to blast off the left arm and the left side torso it required a total of 33% DMG and using up all of the Catapults Ammo for the two LRM15 launchers.
So lets do the math here LRM30 does 6% in 5 Seconds, which means to be able to do 33% in 5seconds I need 165 LRMs.
Thus requiring at least one lance of Mechs focussing and firing their missiles at roughly the same time... This sounds like something I have heard before. What was it called again? gathered missiles? combined target? focus rockets?
Focus Fire!! That's it... I wonder if this works with other weapons as well...

it's called group fire. that's the problem with polar highlands now, lots of missile boat gather together, and you are done for.