84 replies to this topic

[w0qj]

Recently tried putting Targeting Computer TC8 into my MAD-6S.

Literally had to remove a primary weapon to make room for TC8, both in tonnage and critical slots.
(Hint: disaster; don't do this at home, kids! )

Try looking at things this way: In the place of TC8 in your mech, what else can you do with this 8ton and 8x critical slots?
~1x BIG primary weapon
~More ammo
~More DHS
~More armor
~Or a mix of all of the above

So which one would you rather do?
TC8 or more weapon/ammo/DHS/armor?
I choose the latter, hands down

[MechMaster059]

"The current status where they are viable but not an auto-include is a pretty good compromise."

This is a status-quo defending mentality and leads to stagnation in all things. This mentality is why K-mart was overtaken by Wal-mart.

It's highly unrealistic that every mech doesn't carry at least a Mark I computer.

=====

"If large TCs would be a lot better that would unbalance weight classes even more"

This is why I proposed dramatically reducing their weight and slot consumption. The numbers can be changed so that higher mark computers grant a diminishing return of effects to compensate for larger mechs being able to carry larger computers.

I also think it would make sense to rebalance their credit cost to increase in a non-linear manner making them quickly get more expensive for less benefit. I can see a Mark IV+ computer being the 2nd most expensive item on a mech after the engine.

[Nightbird]

TC is meant to improve your effectiveness at range, which it does by improving laser range, crit damage, and velocity (reduces bullet travel time) usually at the cost of less dps over time (DHS). It mostly helps long range builds engaging at 800+ meters as you don't need help hitting under this range and more weapons is better (unless it's some mech build that can't fit more weapons and has tonnage left over). There are enough builds that use them already and I really don't want to see more super long range fights as most people consider them boring. Leave TC as they are, niche for long range maps.

Edited by Nightbird, 07 June 2022 - 07:24 AM.

[MechMaster059]

" I really don't want to see more super long range fights"

Not sure why you automatically assume any changes to TC's would encourage more long range fights. One of the whole points of my post here is for this NOT to happen, for TC's to become more broadly useful to ALL builds, not just long range.

[Gagis]

MechMaster059, on 07 June 2022 - 06:43 AM, said:

It's highly unrealistic that every mech doesn't carry at least a Mark I computer.

Its bad game design if some weapon or equipment is so good you need to always use it

Your statement about realism makes no sense and has nothing to do with what would be good for a game. I think you are just being obtuse after being called out for not having thought why things are the way they are.

[Meep Meep]

LordNothing, on 07 June 2022 - 03:38 AM, said:

i figure it would be physically impossible to put a large targeting computer into a mech capable using every buff it grants. especially if you add a wider array of buffs. i often find myself using tcs on mechs with only one weapon type, an alternative to having a secondary or perhaps tertiary weapons system. trying to build a mech, a tc boat if you will, to give you every possible boost would probibly be too jack of all trades to be meta.

anyway i dont think making it do more will effect very many builds or be op. the builds that currently use it will neither lose nor gain anything. adding lock time buffs or spread reduction for example would not give anything to vomit or ppc boats that they dont already have. if you want to do some kind of mixed build with it, thats possible, but you are going to have to make choices about where your tonnage goes. worst case scenario you make mixed builds meta, and that might be a good thing.

Oh no I'm talking about each weapon type being its own tc to further refine the bonuses so you don't get a bunch that are pointless. So literally an energy tc a ballistic tc and a missile tc. In a way kinda like pre skill tree days when you could mount specific targeted bonuses to your mech. As to the current tc lights can only realistically use the tc1 anyways due to its one slot one ton fit and assaults the only ones to use the big ones due to their huge slot count.

[MechMaster059]

"Its bad game design if some weapon or equipment is so good you need to always use it"

TC's aren't a weapon. At a cost of 0.5 ton and 1 slot, at least 1 JJ is pretty much always useful on a mech to break falls and provide minor maneuverability. Your statement fails.

"Your statement about realism makes no sense"

Every modern tank, combat aircraft, or warship comes with a targeting computer. Another epic fail statement.

No one "called me out" for squat and contrary to your claim I haven't "thought why things are the way they are", this entire thread is an analysis of why things are they way they are and what can be done to fix what appears to be the only component in this game that's poorly implemented.

Edited by MechMaster059, 07 June 2022 - 12:10 PM.

[pattonesque]

MechMaster059, on 07 June 2022 - 09:48 AM, said:

"Its bad game design if some weapon or equipment is so good you need to always use it"

TC's aren't a weapon. At a cost of 0.5 ton and 1 slot, at least 1 JJ is pretty much always useful on a mech to break falls and provide minor maneuverability. Your statement fails.

he said weapon or equipment. TC is equipment

[YueFei]

Yeah, if a piece of equipment is always a must-have, you have not deepened the game, you've just invalidated other choices in the decision-making-space and made the game shallower.

[TheArisen]

So I'm willing to entertain the idea of buffing TCs, I'm with NB in my desire to not to have combat turn into an extreme range poke fest more than what we have now.

So what kind of buff would you propose that wouldn't make TCs OP or increase engagement range? Maybe something for brawlers?

[MechMaster059]

I notice you both ignored my example of equipping 1 single JJ on every mech.

This line of argument that making it easy for every mech to mount at least a Mark I computer would make the game shallow is sophistry and doesn't apply in this case because a TC is an auxiliary component that provides a shallow boost to many different stats, some of which have little impact such as boosting Zoom 1 and 2.

The circumstance you're talking about would be if one weapons system was so good that players felt compelled to equip it to the exclusion of everything else. For example, if SRMs dealt 4 damage instead of 2 that would make them capable of delivering a monster amount of damage and suddenly you'd see light/fast mech builds all over the place stacking SRMs to the exclusion of all other missile types and even other weapon classes such at lasers and ballistics.

A TC that provides a mild and generic benefit like +1.5% crit to ALL weapon systems wouldn't have this impact, it wouldn't make players choose 1 weapons system over another or one playstyle over another.

Edited by MechMaster059, 07 June 2022 - 07:32 PM.

[MechMaster059]

"So what kind of buff would you propose that wouldn't make TCs OP or increase engagement range?"

I think Meep Meep's idea of specialized TCs by weapon class is important to solving the issue. I think a generic TC is necessary as well so that mechs with different types of weapons don't feel compelled to mount 3-4 different TCs. My current mech is equipped with an ER LARGE LASER, an MRM 20, a RAC5, and an AMS. I don't have a choice in that, those are how the weapon slots on the mech are laid out so there's a place for a TC that provides broad based benefits.

That being said, I consider the RAC5 to be the main armament on my mech and there are mech builds out there with only 1 weapon system so there's an opportunity for specialized TC's to provide benefits unique to these different weapons and off-load those benefits from generic TC's so as to prevent generic TC's from having to cover too many bases.

With regards to your desire to create TC's that boost brawlers, a simple example could be a missile TC that gives the following benefits:

Missile TC:
+0.25 seconds lock duration to LRM, ATM, STREAK
+5% speed to LRM, ATM
-5% spread to MRM, STREAK
+10% range to SRM
+5% damage to all missiles

This gives each missile type a little something of what it needs to do better at it's job without favoring one missile type over another.

Edited by MechMaster059, 07 June 2022 - 07:34 PM.

[TheArisen]

MechMaster059, on 07 June 2022 - 07:21 PM, said:

"So what kind of buff would you propose that wouldn't make TCs OP or increase engagement range?"

I think Meep Meep's idea of specialized TCs by weapon class is important to solving the issue. I think a generic TC is necessary as well so that mechs with different types of weapons don't feel compelled to mount 3-4 different TCs. My current mech is equipped with an ER LARGE LASER, an MRM 20, a RAC5, and an AMS. I don't have a choice in that, those are how the weapon slots on the mech are laid out so there's a place for a TC that provides broad based benefits.

That being said, I consider the RAC5 to be the main armament on my mech and there are mech builds out there with only 1 weapon system so there's an opportunity for specialized TC's to provide benefits unique to these different weapons and off-load those benefits from generic TC's so as to prevent generic TC's from having to cover too many bases.

With regards to your desire to create TC's that boost brawlers, a simple example could be a missile TC that gives the following benefits:

Missile TC:
+0.25 seconds lock duration to LRM, ATM, STREAK
+5% speed to LRM, ATM
-5% spread to MRM, STREAK
+10% range to SRM
+5% damage to all missiles

This gives each missile type a little something of what it needs to do better at it's job without favoring one missile type over another.

Well I'd probably hold off on a dmg buff but the idea of specialized TCs is cool, if a bit too much for what resources the current team has so a plausible buff idea would need to address TCs as they are now. There's also the fact Clan TCs are better so a Clan TC1 is like an IS TC2 and of course that means they'll be paired with Clan weapons.

[LordNothing]

Nightbird, on 07 June 2022 - 07:20 AM, said:

TC is meant to improve your effectiveness at range, which it does by improving laser range, crit damage, and velocity (reduces bullet travel time) usually at the cost of less dps over time (DHS). It mostly helps long range builds engaging at 800+ meters as you don't need help hitting under this range and more weapons is better (unless it's some mech build that can't fit more weapons and has tonnage left over). There are enough builds that use them already and I really don't want to see more super long range fights as most people consider them boring. Leave TC as they are, niche for long range maps.

mostly this, but i dont see any harm in adding things like reduced missile/ballistic spread, increased lock speed, etc. none of this will affect energy sniper performance. it already does that well.

[LordNothing]

Meep Meep, on 07 June 2022 - 08:27 AM, said:

Oh no I'm talking about each weapon type being its own tc to further refine the bonuses so you don't get a bunch that are pointless. So literally an energy tc a ballistic tc and a missile tc. In a way kinda like pre skill tree days when you could mount specific targeted bonuses to your mech. As to the current tc lights can only realistically use the tc1 anyways due to its one slot one ton fit and assaults the only ones to use the big ones due to their huge slot count.

seems like an unnecessary nerf to mixed builds though. if somehow you manage to fit an 8t targeting computer, and manage to use all the buffs (including new ones to extend use cases), then the worst case scenario is a very interesting meta (and some very unorthodox builds).

if you are worried about leaving buffs on the table, thats not a problem. you either accept it as part of the cost (the current tc users would, due to the benefits it grants) or find a way to utilize them. i leave mech quirks on the table all the time and its usually because i had to axe something in the min-maxing process. i figure tcs would be like that.

Edited by LordNothing, 07 June 2022 - 10:36 PM.

[Nightbird]

We're not having a talk about how to make TCs benefit kitchen sink builds are we?

Try TC8 with 3ERPPC Awesome, it's fun in FP.

[Meep Meep]

LordNothing, on 07 June 2022 - 10:04 PM, said:

seems like an unnecessary nerf to mixed builds though. if somehow you manage to fit an 8t targeting computer, and manage to use all the buffs (including new ones to extend use cases), then the worst case scenario is a very interesting meta (and some very unorthodox builds).

Its just a rough idea and I don't see why you wouldn't be able to mount one of each if you have the tons and slots. Certainly the current tc setup isn't optimal as most of them are never used. Mostly its either the tc1 because you can't really fit anything else or one of the huge tc for a specialist build.

[PocketYoda]

Targeting computers are by and large just dead weight unless you are a super sniper.. Most people tend to not use them.

[LordNothing]

Meep Meep, on 07 June 2022 - 10:23 PM, said:

Its just a rough idea and I don't see why you wouldn't be able to mount one of each if you have the tons and slots. Certainly the current tc setup isn't optimal as most of them are never used. Mostly its either the tc1 because you can't really fit anything else or one of the huge tc for a specialist build.

its the intermediate size comps that dont get no use as you either go for the first one or the biggest one. maybe if we just buff those. give tc 2 and 3 those some buffs to brawly weapons, ballistics, etc as those are going to have the least room for tcs. 4s and 5s might give you some buffs to missile weapons. people spend that on surplus ammo that seldom gets used. and it would be worth it if you could land more missiles accurately or be better at clearing ams (missile health buffs). the tc1 can have a bunch of extra buffs for light weapons so lights can use it.

Edited by LordNothing, 07 June 2022 - 10:49 PM.

[MechMaster059]

"if somehow you manage to fit an 8t targeting computer"

Under no circumstances going forward do I see 8 slot, 8 ton TC's viable. That automatically guarantees Lights can't use them and it breaks immersion by being totally unrealistic. (Balance and gameplay are always #1 but immersion matters too.)

I'm thinking of writing another post, a proposal post if you will, that would make TC's viable for all mech types and styles of play. Meep Meeps's specialized TC's will definitely be a part of this. I don't see how this situation can be adequately resolved without them.

Some ideas I'm bouncing around in my head:

General Targeting computer: I - V (Mark V is the max)
They all take only 1 slot. Weight starts at 0.5 tons and goes up in 0.25 ton increments. (Yup 1/4 tons, people can add/shave off 10 armor points or mix and match multiple TC's to deal with 1/4 tons)

This keeps the weight range between 0.5 - 1.5 tons, light enough for all mechs to mount at least 1 kind of TC. These weights are high enough to discourage players from going hog wild and stuffing 3-4 different TC's into their mech.

Comstar cost significantly increased:
Mark I: 40,000
Mark II: 85,000
Mark III: 135,000
Mark IV: 190,000
Mark V: 250,000

Duplicate these numbers for Missile/Energy/Ballistic/AMS TC's. (A total of 5 different types of TC's.)

The goal here is to make it very easy to mount at least 1 TC, very common for players to mount 2 TC's and discourage players from mounting more than 3 different types of TC's.

Obviously with these greatly reduced slot sizes and weights, TC's can no longer give ridiculous buffs like +40% ballistic projectile speed. (Another totally unrealistic number that breaks immersion) I really don't think people need to worry about a TC rework empowering sniper builds, quite the opposite in fact.