77 replies to this topic

[HammerMaster]

Aidan Crenshaw, on 24 April 2019 - 09:40 PM, said:

You should stop with the C3 nonsense. What we have is nowhere near actual C3 performance. You might want to recheck your facts and look up what a C3 network on TT does.

Sure about that?
Like our current out of Los locks and out of Los target info sharing?
Nonsense indeed.

[Nesutizale]

I don't rember the C3 rules completly but what we have now pretty much is what the C3 was meant to do....sharing informations with a team of 4 or when you have slaved more in an entrie team.

So basicly we have a C3 network for free. Thinking about it, it might actualy be interesting to see how the game would change if you don't have that kind of information sharing or on the other side, what could the C3 improve what we have now?

[Aidan Crenshaw]

Please, have a read on what C3 actually does.
And no, indirect fire is none of it's features, indirectly, at best.

[Nesutizale]

Lore: allows linked units to share radar and targeting data on the lance or company levels.

Rules: When a unit has an enemy within line of sight, all units within the same C3 network will be able to target the spotted enemy using the best range modifier available to the closest spotting unit.
C3 Master Computer can also duplicate TAG functionality for use with homing weapons.
All of these bonuses are negated if the connection between the master and slave unit is disrupted by an ECM field, except for the TAG functionality of the master. This can mean a unit is within the ECM field, or the line of sight between slaved units and the master passes through an ECM bubble.

From the lore perspective we all have free C3 as we all share radar and targeting data.

As from the rules perspective. We don't have range modifiers, so thats pretty useless to us.
The next best thing we have is that target lockon time is now dependet on the closest unit, IIRC. That is pretty much what the C3 is supposed to do, also limited to 4 units except someone has double C3M units for a larger group.


I think it pretty much save to say that we allready have C3 for free. Take that away so that every player only can lock on what he sees and only sees what his personal radar shows...man that could get ugly.

[HammerMaster]

Nesutizale, on 25 April 2019 - 05:25 AM, said:

.man that could get ugly.

Yes please.
Then having beagle, command console and battle computer would actually mean something and not be useless placeholders.

[Thorn Hallis]

If they aren't able to implement split weapons directly they could instead implement two-part weapons. LBX20 1/2 with 9 slots and LBX20 2/2 with 3 slots. Can only be put together in a 'Mech.

[FupDup]

Y E O N N E, on 24 April 2019 - 11:09 PM, said:

Enjoy Piranhas killing you in a couple seconds on armor breach with yellow structure remaining in all torso compartments.

Actually no, since Machine Guns don't have any critical hit bonuses in the "lore" values referenced by this thread. They would just have 0.2 DPS, which would be kinda sad (even when accounting for armor and structure getting reduced back to TT levels).

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Crit splitting is already in the game, after a fashion. Endo and Ferro both are able to shift a fixed number of reserved slots around, and mounting ACs or PPCs in the arm of an Omnimech already removes actuators. Therefore, both pieces of code necessary to implement crit splitting are already in the game.

The game already is able to compare the number of crits in a component against the available crits in the mount location, or it already wouldn't be able to handle refusing the player's attempts to mount things they don't have sufficient crits for. Since it can do that, that means it knows how many crits it needs, how many are available... and therefore how many would be left over and require splitting.

When an outsized weapon is mounted in a location, the game would check which location, remove/disable arm actuators if needed, and reserve the appropriate number of crits in the adjacent location as locked crits, throwing up an invalid notice and failing to mount if there are too few crits available in that location, or if the player tries something illegal like arm-mounted HGauss.

The only real hurdle to implementing crit splitting is figuring out how the game should decide where the spillover crits go. I don't remember how TT decided that, or whether the game let the builder decide within reason. Ideally, it would just use the damage transfer priority model for arm and side torso mountings (Arm->ST->CT), and reverse it for CT mounts.

Edited by WrathOfDeadguy, 25 April 2019 - 08:32 AM.

[Prototelis]

Bloodwitch, on 24 April 2019 - 11:27 PM, said:

Lore builds wouldn't be half as bad if not for MWO's double armor values.

lol, right. They'd be twice as bad.

HammerMaster, on 25 April 2019 - 06:14 AM, said:

Yes please.
Then having beagle, command console and battle computer would actually mean something and not be useless placeholders.

No, then they'd be a mechlab tax for functional radar.

Mechlab tax bad. Free C3 good.

Edited by Prototelis, 25 April 2019 - 09:04 AM.

[evilauthor]

Nesutizale, on 25 April 2019 - 05:25 AM, said:

Lore: allows linked units to share radar and targeting data on the lance or company levels.

Rules: When a unit has an enemy within line of sight, all units within the same C3 network will be able to target the spotted enemy using the best range modifier available to the closest spotting unit.
C3 Master Computer can also duplicate TAG functionality for use with homing weapons.
All of these bonuses are negated if the connection between the master and slave unit is disrupted by an ECM field, except for the TAG functionality of the master. This can mean a unit is within the ECM field, or the line of sight between slaved units and the master passes through an ECM bubble.

From the lore perspective we all have free C3 as we all share radar and targeting data.

Not quite. If we really had free C3, then every mech could act as a UAV and provide enemy location data to the rest of the company for EVERY enemy they can see, not just the one they have targeted. I bolded the relevant portion in your quote.

So if a mech were to peek over a hill and see the entire OpFor, then all his buddies still out of line of sight would see red icons marking the entire OpFor if they had proper C3. In MWO though, the people out of line of sight would only see the one mech that the spotter locked on to... assuming he even bothered to hit the R key!

We don't have proper C3, What we have is a half assed version of it to model spotting for indirect LRM fire.

[HammerMaster]

Prototelis, on 25 April 2019 - 09:02 AM, said:

lol, right. They'd be twice as bad.


No, then they'd be a mechlab tax for functional radar.

Mechlab tax bad. Free C3 good.

Ok.
Wonders why I say
^Hates BattleTech.

[Mystere]

HammerMaster, on 25 April 2019 - 11:38 AM, said:

Ok.
Wonders why I say
^Hates BattleTech.

[Prototelis]

^Wonders why people say they don't understand the difference between an action game and a board game.

[Bloodwitch]

Prototelis, on 25 April 2019 - 02:45 PM, said:

^Wonders why people say they don't understand the difference between an action arcade game and a board game.

Fixed that for you, npnp.

[Prototelis]

Arcade game and Action game aren't mutually exclusive terms. However this game is far from being an arcade game.

MW4, by far, was more arcadey than this is.

[HammerMaster]

Prototellis Arcade
Me Lore

[Bowelhacker]

If you want a game that cleaves hard to the lore just go play the tabletop.

[Prototelis]

HammerMaster, on 25 April 2019 - 03:18 PM, said:

Prototellis Decent gameplay
Me boardgame mechanics that don't have a place

.

[Bloodwitch]

Bowelhacker, on 25 April 2019 - 06:33 PM, said:

If you want a game that cleaves hard to the lore just go play the tabletop.

Battletech Tabletop
Battletech Boardgame
Battletech RPG
Battletech Tactical Videogame
Megamek fanmade digital Tabletop
Mechwarrior Living Legends fanmade battletech simulator (despite the mechwarrior name, actual battletech simulator)
Last one is particular interesting. As far as i am aware it is close to Tabletop values (lore builds) and you still get deleted fast if you run into 1-3 guys with proper aim.

Prototelis, on 25 April 2019 - 09:24 PM, said:

Prototellis Decent gameplay
Me boardgame mechanics that don't have a place

Yeah, you! Maybe, just maybe about 5% of MWO's population can actually aim.
The vast majority of the populaton come with the all time classic statements such as

"i take an LB-X, at least i hit something"
"Streaks don't miss"
"chainfire improves hit-chance"

Honestly, in Tabletop, a medium laser rolls for hit or miss.
Might be a total miss, might hit a single component.
Note "A SINGLE COMPONENT".
In MWO, the average mech jog is somehow able to hit up to 8 components with a single medium laser burn (and still misses a bit left or right)
I am willing to proclaim that Tabletop hitreg mechanic are vastly superior then the average MWO pilot aiming skills.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

We-l-l-l-l... that's not the whole story, though, is it?

In MWO, a pilot firing one medium laser can rake that laser fire all over the enemy 'Mech, but a brace of lasers (say, a HBK-4P's stock 8xML) fired together will all hit the same target and are thus limited only by the skill of the pilot. Sure, those lasers could spread all over the enemy... but they could also dump all their damage into one component, if the pilot has a steady hand.

In TT, a pilot firing all eight of that same HBK-4P's medium lasers... can also end up splattering fire all over the enemy 'Mech, because each ML rolls its own hit location. Instead of 8x5 damage spread over the whole enemy in one burn, it's 8 individual instances of 5 damage also spread all over the enemy after eight separate hit rolls. Or, y'know, each laser could just roll a miss independent of the others and do nothing at all except generate waste heat. You have to be lucky on the order of winning the lottery while being bitten by a shark and struck by lightning for all of those hit rolls to land the same component in the same turn.

As long as the primary limitation is heat rather than accuracy there isn't much reason not to chainfire those lasers. You'll end up with the same chance of dealing meaningful damage with each one anyway if hits are based on per-weapon rolls. In a shooter, though, the alpha strike is king because chainfire does harm your ability to put meaningful damage on-target. 8xML fired one at a time may give you a greater chance of placing some damage on your target each firing cycle, but it is an objectively poor choice compared to learning how to shoot and putting all 40 damage in one component in one shot.

TT mechanics do not translate well to games where targeting is based on player skill rather than dice rolls serving as a stand-in for the actions of a third-party (non-player) pilot.