182 replies to this topic

[ScrapIron Prime]

The real question is not "how does radar deprivation even work" it should be "how is target retention a thing?" Targets are SUPPOSED to disappear behind hills.

And I agree, it used to be a module, not a skill.

Well, for everyone except Morgan Kell.

Edited by ScrapIron Prime, 13 August 2022 - 12:37 PM.

[MPhoenix]

Nightbird, on 13 August 2022 - 12:18 PM, said:

On the contrary, radar doesn't work through buildings and mountains. The fact there is radar retention in the first place is a joke.

Well yeah I'd agree, here in the real world once you have hard cover radar is useless.

However this is MWO and reality, physics and logic left town a long time ago.

[MPhoenix]

ScrapIron Prime, on 13 August 2022 - 12:36 PM, said:

The real question is not "how does radar deprivation even work" it should be "how is target retention a thing?" Targets are SUPPOSED to disappear behind hills.

And I agree, it used to be a module, not a skill.

Well, for everyone except Morgan Kell.

Again reality vs MWO is not a fair fight since reality has to follow rules and MWO doesn't.

That said I can see target retention being less of a 'maintain definite locks' and more of a computer projection of the targets location based on last known direction and speed of motion.

Of course that would mean there's a percentage chance of it extrapolating incorrectly in part or in whole. Missiles fired after the target is in cover should have a percentage chance of missing. Something like 0-80% chance equating to 0-80% of the missiles hit.

[Nightbird]

MPhoenix, on 13 August 2022 - 04:07 PM, said:

Again reality vs MWO is not a fair fight since reality has to follow rules and MWO doesn't.

That said I can see target retention being less of a 'maintain definite locks' and more of a computer projection of the targets location based on last known direction and speed of motion.

Of course that would mean there's a percentage chance of it extrapolating incorrectly in part or in whole. Missiles fired after the target is in cover should have a percentage chance of missing. Something like 0-80% chance equating to 0-80% of the missiles hit.

I would have no problems with this, so once in cover, you can juke the missiles by changing directions after losing the radar lock. What we have today is a very powerful system that absolutely destroys newbies and makes then quit the game. If we can make missiles less effective in low skilled games, I'd be glad see it buffed in T1 games. Right now LRMers want it both ways, to the detriment of the game.

Edited by Nightbird, 13 August 2022 - 04:40 PM.

[caravann]

The production system consisted of not only a separate computer core but an entire second set of sensors.

Including = radar, infrared, visible light and seismic detectors.

Positioned at strategic points around the operating unit. As the unit's native sensor array scanned the surrounding area, this data was retrieved by the Beagle's computer core and cross-referenced with data from its own secondary sensors. If an anomaly was detected the Beagle performed a more detailed sensor sweep of the target area. With this process happening every millisecond, the Beagle was able to verify and even

- Identify threats =

Regardless of local terrain

or electronic warfare interference.

[XDarkPrinceX]

ECM + C/BAP, radar deprivation and if you got the extra weight for it TComps are everyone's best friend. LRMS have their maps still that they dominate on if you are lucky enough to get a coordinating team in matchmaking. Getting max radar deprivation still takes up nodes that you wouldn't otherwise need for whatever current build you are using so its still a trade off. When I use LRM boats I never bothered to put into target decay, I've always relied on BAP+TComp and team mates with tag/narc or finding a better view, ECM is the biggest bane to long range launches if you have no team mates grabbing locks for you radar deprivation isn't the problem.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

there is _no_ way indirect-fire should be buffed.

I could see a buff to no-lock-direct fire and locked-direct-fire, especially in velocity, though.
ideally, we nerf the lock-leeching some more and buff direct-fire a bit. that way, everybody (those not touching lurms and those who use them to DF) is happy.


an Archer with 2xlrm20a at 210meters should be something that at least "concerns" me, and not just food.
at the same time, the idf-leech that ends the match with 99%armor and spams comms for locks should be .."encouraged" to switch to proper lrm-play.

Edited by Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, 14 August 2022 - 06:48 AM.

[LORD ORION]

I tried LRMs after a 2 year break. They are working the same as always. Catch someone with no cover and pad your score.

However, the newly introduced maps seem pretty LRM hostile even when you are playing them "properly" (staying with the main group and shooting at 500m).

Nothing is going to fix LRM effectiveness when Solaris and Vitric come up so often.

Unfortunately LRMs shouldn't be taken in QP anymore even for fun, or you're going to be scoring 0 every 4 matches.

[ThreeStooges]

LORD ORION, on 14 August 2022 - 11:28 AM, said:

I tried LRMs after a 2 year break. They are working the same as always. Catch someone with no cover and pad your score.

However, the newly introduced maps seem pretty LRM hostile even when you are playing them "properly" (staying with the main group and shooting at 500m).

Nothing is going to fix LRM effectiveness when Solaris and Vitric come up so often.

Unfortunately LRMs shouldn't be taken in QP anymore even for fun, or you're going to be scoring 0 every 4 matches.

My lrm 5 lct disproves your 0 every 4 matches. The lowest damage I've ever done in five years of playing is one damage. Unless you do absolutely nothing including moving your mech out of fear of "collision/ram" damaging either a friendly or enemy mech it is very difficult to have zero damage.

The only way of it being possible is being disco or afk and getting farmed by a light.

[LordNothing]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, on 14 August 2022 - 06:44 AM, said:

there is _no_ way indirect-fire should be buffed.

I could see a buff to no-lock-direct fire and locked-direct-fire, especially in velocity, though.
ideally, we nerf the lock-leeching some more and buff direct-fire a bit. that way, everybody (those not touching lurms and those who use them to DF) is happy.


an Archer with 2xlrm20a at 210meters should be something that at least "concerns" me, and not just food.
at the same time, the idf-leech that ends the match with 99%armor and spams comms for locks should be .."encouraged" to switch to proper lrm-play.

still the matter of how. one idea i had to make atms more useful at range was to make their velocity go up +50 at each range bracket to give them superior max range travel times to lerms without making them stronger in the short range brackets.

doing the inverse, making the lerms slow down the further out they go. this would allow the missiles to be faster in the direct fire mode, locked or otherwise while still maintaining their travel time for max range targets.

idk how possible that is, probibly not a thing you can do with xml edits. you can say the motor burns out at its apogee and glides during the terminal phase.

[Tyman4]

Radar derp and ecm should be flat out removed from the game.
No other weapon system has the counter play be...i took a 1.5 ton piece of equipment OR i disable your attack before it reaches by ducking.
This has been an issue since pgi freaked the hell out about lrmaggedon ages ago.
So instead of moving with speed and precision or actually using scouts in combination with lrms, we have drooling hill humpers everywhere.

Look just try it out as a thought experiment. Make ALL ballistic weapons move the speed of missiles AND let 1in 5 mechs just prevent you from firing at them OR friendlies near them. Oh, and force scatter the damage.

But this is just one thing in a laundry list of stupid.
My personal beef right now is that, I can take a 90 ton super nova or a 100 ton atlas...and the atlas has LITERALLY 2x the armor and structure. Or another ...a 50ton centurion has very nearly the same stats as the supernova...

Now try explaining that to a new player of MWO...or ghost heat...or any of the other illogical bs in this. smh...pgi wonders why people don't pick it up...it's not accessible.

[Andrewlik]

Tyman4, on 17 August 2022 - 01:34 AM, said:

Radar derp and ecm should be flat out removed from the game.
My personal beef right now is that, I can take a 90 ton super nova or a 100 ton atlas...and the atlas has LITERALLY 2x the armor and structure. Or another ...a 50ton centurion has very nearly the same stats as the supernova...

Now try explaining that to a new player of MWO...or ghost heat...or any of the other illogical bs in this. smh...pgi wonders why people don't pick it up...it's not accessible.

"Why can't I fire 15 medium lasers without this ghost heat?" "PvP balancing mechanic, otherwise people would just build mecha to one shot, and that's no fun"
"Why does this Atlas have twice the armor of a supernova?" "PvP balancing mechanic. Atlas has worse weapon mount locations - firing from the hip makes it easy to accidentally shoot the hill infront of you. Atlas is also Inner Sphere, which has less advanced technology, so the devs added 'quirks' so that it balances out compared to clan technology"

I agree that MWO is inaccessible for a variety of reasons, but these are fairly easily explained away as "to balance the game better"

LRMs suffer from the same thing Artillery suffers from in WOT - it's indirect fire. It breaks rules, which makes it feel unfair - artillery I'm real life is unfair, which is why it's used so much. In-game, LRMs have been balanced by introducing ways to play against them - IE break LOS, cover, the "incoming missile" warning system, etc.
It's just with any PvP game like this, buffing the system that works differently causes alot of complaining, so they like to keep it weak

That being said, LRMs are not *bad*, just alot more skill dependent than you'd think an indirect firing lock on weapon would be. That's good game design, though there is room for discussion as to whether they over-adjusted and whether ECM is too dominant.

[Bud Crue]

Andrewlik, on 17 August 2022 - 06:20 AM, said:

"Why does this Atlas have twice the armor of a supernova?" "PvP balancing mechanic. Atlas has worse weapon mount locations - firing from the hip makes it easy to accidentally shoot the hill infront of you. Atlas is also Inner Sphere, which has less advanced technology, so the devs added 'quirks' so that it balances out compared to clan technology"

I don't know man, just looking at weapon mount locations, the Supernova's are pretty crap as well. Given the relative height of the mech models, the Supernova's might be worse than the Atlas.

[Snoopy]

Bud Crue, on 17 August 2022 - 07:34 AM, said:

I don't know man, just looking at weapon mount locations, the Supernova's are pretty crap as well. Given the relative height of the mech models, the Supernova's might be worse than the Atlas.

There is a Direwolf, he wants to line up behind the Supernova

Several mechs (on the IS and clan side) which benefit from low weapon mounts (Cataphract), not all get some benefits (quirks) to compensate for that.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Snoopy, on 17 August 2022 - 08:24 AM, said:

There is a Direwolf, he wants to line up behind the Supernova

Several mechs (on the IS and clan side) which benefit from low weapon mounts (Cataphract), not all get some benefits (quirks) to compensate for that.

And the reverse is (or should be) true. Example... the Battlemaster has about the same side torso armor as the Centurion. (Albeit with twice the structure.) The Battlemaster's side torso mounts are just that good, so it gets less buffs.

[caravann]

One change that I see is an obstacle is NARC being countered by ECM.

IF this would been changed it would be our own fault why we can't see the mech.

Not every mech has ecm but many mechs have missile hardpoints. NARC is used with Lasers as a fire and forget weapon.
What you do is helping yourself and the team.

Some never put a beagle active probe in the mech when information is ammunition and the new players are being punished with unbalanced trial mechs with no Beagle active probe, NARC and a Target computer V meanwhile a customized mech has both and not to mention that the Laser mechs see the opponent at 1300M+ while the other player has a radar at 800m

Beagle active probe counters ECM. There's no way for them to hide behind the ECM, this make the deprivation work since it no longer interact with ECM.

Only because some players don't want to understand how important beagle active probes are in this game doesn't mean we should remove mechanics. PGI has made a bad job at intergrating critical components into the game as beagle active probes on mechs are uncommon. If the players knew how great it is for the team to have mechs with beagle active probes no player would ever play without one since you get to see them at 1000m while they don't.

[ThreeStooges]

caravann, on 17 August 2022 - 08:57 AM, said:

One change that I see is an obstacle is NARC being countered by ECM.

IF this would been changed it would be our own fault why we can't see the mech.

Not every mech has ecm but many mechs have missile hardpoints. NARC is used with Lasers as a fire and forget weapon.
What you do is helping yourself and the team.

Some never put a beagle active probe in the mech when information is ammunition and the new players are being punished with unbalanced trial mechs with no Beagle active probe, NARC and a Target computer V meanwhile a customized mech has both and not to mention that the Laser mechs see the opponent at 1300M+ while the other player has a radar at 800m

Beagle active probe counters ECM. There's no way for them to hide behind the ECM, this make the deprivation work since it no longer interact with ECM.

Only because some players don't want to understand how important beagle active probes are in this game doesn't mean we should remove mechanics. PGI has made a bad job at intergrating critical components into the game as beagle active probes on mechs are uncommon. If the players knew how great it is for the team to have mechs with beagle active probes no player would ever play without one since you get to see them at 1000m while they don't.

No one uses narc for reasons:
1. It has the longest cool down of any thing in the game. What weapons takes longer than seven seconds before you can fire it again?
2. It takes more tons to use plus ammo.
3. Ammo dependent
4. Takes up space.
5. It is short range in a long range meta world.
6. Half the people playing have no idea what it is or does in lower teirs.
7. It has the longest cool down of seven seconds. Even if you find the holy grail of missile cool down stacking with cool down from fire power it still is one of the longest cool downs.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Well that’s just it… a Beagle Probe doesn’t help MY match score, it helps someone ELSE’S match score.

If teamwork was a thing, folks wouldn’t think like that. But here we are. And upping the Match Score reward for tag and narc won’t help, as that will only cause less lethal players to rise faster to the tier of more lethal players.

Quite simply, it’s too easy to disappear quickly from weapon locks. Cap radar dep, increase missile velocities, two things that require only spreadsheet tweaks that might help without over-quirking us into sky cancer land again.

[Tyman4]

Andrewlik, on 17 August 2022 - 06:20 AM, said:

"Why can't I fire 15 medium lasers without this ghost heat?" "PvP balancing mechanic, otherwise people would just build mecha to one shot, and that's no fun"
"Why does this Atlas have twice the armor of a supernova?" "PvP balancing mechanic. Atlas has worse weapon mount locations - firing from the hip makes it easy to accidentally shoot the hill infront of you. Atlas is also Inner Sphere, which has less advanced technology, so the devs added 'quirks' so that it balances out compared to clan technology"

I agree that MWO is inaccessible for a variety of reasons, but these are fairly easily explained away as "to balance the game better"

LRMs suffer from the same thing Artillery suffers from in WOT - it's indirect fire. It breaks rules, which makes it feel unfair - artillery I'm real life is unfair, which is why it's used so much. In-game, LRMs have been balanced by introducing ways to play against them - IE break LOS, cover, the "incoming missile" warning system, etc.
It's just with any PvP game like this, buffing the system that works differently causes alot of complaining, so they like to keep it weak

That being said, LRMs are not *bad*, just alot more skill dependent than you'd think an indirect firing lock on weapon would be. That's good game design, though there is room for discussion as to whether they over-adjusted and whether ECM is too dominant.

Freaking 10 years in and people still say these stupid non-arguments.

PVP "balance" is a unicorn. It doesn't exist. Something will ALWAYS be meta, or something people think is out of balance. Just look at daka and laser vomit hill humpers.
Minimal exposure for maximum dps. There are 700 different ways you could adjust for "pinpoint damage" none of which have made a hill of beans of difference because we still have 2ppc 2 gauss snipers all over the place and ALL their weapons perfectly converge regardless of placement.

...seriously?...the atlas weapon mounts are SO bad they need 180+ front CT armor? and the supernova has 100? I can't even take you seriously. The IS CLAN difference in weapons has already been addressed by making them damn near on par with each other due to INSANE heat a burn time penalties to clan. It is to the point that the atlas can just close distance from 600m out and just kill you. No, this is PGI saying we need to make the iconic mech stronger, balance be damned. And it's all over the place. The timberwolf has less armor than a centurion...and it's 25 tons heavier. It's a child's response to trying to balance something. Instead of letting something be stronger than something else, they have to go massage the numbers.

Sorry for being unclear. It's inaccessible because when a new player asks me "why does 7 medium lasers overheat me, but 6 is ok?" The answer is "because PGI thought 6 was fine". Literally. And the forums have provided a litany of possible solutions, all of which were ignored. It's not something intuitive from the system or explained in any good way. Personally I think a "size" restriction on the slot or a "power draw" system would make the most sense, but oh well...

The system for locks removes entirely 1 leg of weaponry they could use actually make the game play dynamic. I literally just got out of a match in a timby with 4 strk 6's to deal with lights. A locust with stealth comes up and I can't get lock. Even with active probe. When I hit him with ppc to get the lock open. He ducks a hill and INSTANTLY I lose lock. That is not counter play. That is a hard counter. Y? Because I had literally 15 tons of equipment ammo and tech to specifically try to deal with a light mech with close range gear, and I'm unable to use ANY of it because of a PASSIVE armor choice. That is absolute dogshit game design. It is to the point that you are ACTIVELY hurting your team and chance to win by bringing lrms.

No, it doesn't break any rules. What is does is force players to play around it. Just like you are forced to respect long LOS areas because snipers are dangerous. LRMs force players to avoid areas without vertical cover. It forces players to actually care about flanking lights that DON'T come in to backstab because of passing locks. It forces players to THINK about where they are going and when. Above all it breaks the "chest high walls" game play loop which I despise with a fiery passion. This isn't supposed to slow lumbering Call of Duty. This is supposed to be a war simulator with stompy bots.

Notice that no one has a problem with AMS? That's because its a legit work around. ECM and radar derp just remove you from the game if you don't have the right set up...if there even is a right set up.
Those 2 alone counter, narc, tag, LOS, and active counter (which doesn't work at range anyway)

No, lrms are categorically bad. You are rolling the dice on :
1) do I get a map where LRMs are usable
2) do I have opponents that didn't bring low tonnage counter equipment
And IF i get both of those you now need to still play smart and coordinate with the team to get actual significant work done.

Compared to sniper
1) just show up and aim.(maybe take hi ground)

[caravann]

That's why I'm telling that NARC shouldn't be countered by ECM because you have no way to prevent a mech from vanishing from the radar since all it takes is another mech with ecm to remove the tracking.

LRM5 soft locked to 20 tubes is odd when you can have 30 tubes of lrm10.

LRM10's have the same spread of a LRM5 and only difference is that LRM5 weight slightly less.
It doesn't matter much since extra tonnage only goes to ammo and not actual firepower.

People had issue with AMS being too powerful that I could tank a catapult with two AMS before they changed it back.

I recall someone making a comment why there's a thunderbolt standing in the open while a rain cloud is over its head.