26 replies to this topic

[Felix Dante]

I have been reading through some of the older stuff, and specifically I hit upon the Q&A 3 answers posted by the deveopers.

I have a few follow up questions.
While I would love for the develpers to answer these, I don't expect immediate answers any time soon. All people are welcome to chime in of course...

These are mainly for un-crunching my brain after I thought through a few things I read there.

1. I like the idea of Passive and Active Radar toggling. However, if a mech is in passive mode, can it still lock-on with Missiles? Or will it just make it harder to target an enemy? Or will Passive mode prevent the use of Missiles altogether (or just In-direct fire)? Or will missile lock not be affected at all by Toggling Radar modes?

2. Assuming there is a difference in targeting between passive and active Radar with missiles, can you improve missile targeting mid-flight if you Toggle to Active mode just after launching missiles?

3. I'm assuming normal (Direct Fire) targeting is not affected by Active/Passive Radar modes. So if Missiles are affected in this manner, then doesn't that make D-F weapons more useful in the end and over-balance play against those with Missiles? (Do I sound like a Catapult fan? )

4. Can a Scout target for indirect fire while in Passive mode?

5. How long will it take to toggle Passive/Active modes? Is it almost an instant switch? Or is there a short warm-up/cooldown mode before it is toggled and can allow you to toggle it back just in-case it was a mistake?

Whew...
That's it for now...

[SilentObserver]

Aegis Kleais™, on 09 February 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

1. I would think YES you can lock onto a Mech as long as your have LOS/D (Line of Sight/Detection) LRMs can lock onto a Mech as long as they are powered up. (If you spot a Mech who is powered down, you can dummy fire the LRMS. They won't track, but if the Mech doesn't move, a good amount of the LRMs should still had the Mech.

Also, it would nullify LRM effectiveness if enemies who were far away from encounters would just run around in passive and be able to prevent lockon from Mechs who had LOS/D on them, whether they knew it or not.

BUT! If you ask me, if a Mech IS running around in passive AND a salvo is incoming, they should NOT get the warning beeps UNTIL the missiles are within the limited passive radar range. Less time to hide is the risk for running passive.

2. I hope not. You should choose what mode you fire the missiles in; active or passive. Passive radar, IMO, should limit your lockon range (though not dummy fire) to the max range of your radar, since radar helps with guidance of those missiles. To gain a lock in the first place, a Mech would have to be within the range of your radar when you fired the missiles.

3. For me, I hope direct fire (LOS) SHOULD be affected by radar. While passive, you can only lock onto Mechs in your short range. While active, you can lock onto any Mech within active range. The only time I think you should be able to reach a Mech outside your passive radar range while in passive mode is when you attain LOD (via someone else's targeting). Then your weapons are being guided by a teammate, and your radar is not needed.

4. I would hope a Scout could only mark a target for Indirect Fire while in passive if that Mech was within the range of passive radar. To give him the ability to do otherwise, makes him too powerful. He should use his speed to offset an active radar, and only run in active radar when in the attempt of keeping targeting on a Mech.

5. I'm hoping within a second at most.

1. I'm pretty sure he was asking if, when the attacking mech is in passive radar mode, could he achieve a missile lock. My Feeling is that missile lock should only be allowed if the firing mech is using active radar and if he is it doesn't matter what the target mech is doing.

This would include powered down mechs. If you get LOS on a powered down mech you should be able to get a radar lock on it. It really doesn't make sense otherwise.

[SilentObserver]

I agree with everything but the lower left box. I understand why you have it that way but I still think that if i can see a powered down mech, and I am using active radar, i should be able to get a radar lock. On top of that , if he is powered down he obviously wont know the rain is coming till missiles are splashing all over his mech.

Any thoughts on ECM?

[Bluewolf1118]

Powered down mechs shouldn't be emitting an IFF signal, so LRM's (which would use that IFF for lock-on/in-flight targeting) shouldn't be able to identify the powered down mechs as anything more than a mountain of metal or a mech corpse.



*That is assuming that the LRM's wouldn't be radar or laser guided and would instead be radio guided.

Edited by Bluewolf1118, 09 February 2012 - 04:46 PM.

[Paul Inouye]

My picture looks wayyy cooler.

[MaddMaxx]

Paul Inouye, on 09 February 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

My picture looks wayyy cooler.

Dawg, you have to have a pic.

Rules? then the Union showed up?

[Kenyon Burguess]

Aegis forgot the LRM minimum range issues. i'd like to know how thats being handled with the locks, radar on/off discussion

[Felix Dante]

Paul Inouye, on 09 February 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

My picture looks wayyy cooler.

Caught one!


Loved the graph too Aegis!

I also meant to ask how Minimum range was going to work in MWO, but forgot.

Easiest way would be...No target locks within short range?

Thanks everybody. Good discussions and things to think about.

[Ian MacLeary]

Aegis Kleais™, on 09 February 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

If this is the case, I feel the Mech can achieve lock on only 3 situations.

1. Attacking Mech is PASSIVE, has LOS/D and enemy is in PASSIVE range AND powered up.
2. Attacking Mech is ACTIVE, has LOS/D and enemy is within ACTIVE range AND powered up.
3. Attacking Mech is ACTIVE OR PASSIVE, has LOD via team spotter, and enemy is in LRM range AND powered up.

I have to disagree with the powered up aspect. If your target discrimination circuits work in conjunction with your radar, they should recognize a shut-down 'mech as a 'mech, regardless. Now, the system may well tell you, 'Okay, it's a valid target but it's inactive, are you sure you want to lock this?' (using a combination of radar and IR) but you should be able to override that.

Of course, by the same token, 'mechs taken out by combat damage should still show as valid/inactive targets, unless you have good enough sensors to determine that it is, in fact, destroyed. Sort of like, oh, the Scouts 'HUD Detail 1' and 'HUD Detail 2' abilities.

[Mason Grimm]

Aegis Kleais™, on 09 February 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

(snip)

Aegis Kleais™, on 09 February 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

(snip)

Aegis Kleais™, on 09 February 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

(snip)

Aegis Kleais™, on 09 February 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

(snip)

To help envision my meaning....

[Adridos]

See? I'm good.

Or at least I was, before I posted this.


On a "side note", anyone has any idea if they confirmed the minimum range?

[Star Ranger]

this something to think about as player tactics is a major factor and knowing what systems will or would not do is important
thanks for the thought

[Aegis Kleais]

Ian MacLeary, on 09 February 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

I have to disagree with the powered up aspect. If your target discrimination circuits work in conjunction with your radar, they should recognize a shut-down 'mech as a 'mech, regardless. Now, the system may well tell you, 'Okay, it's a valid target but it's inactive, are you sure you want to lock this?' (using a combination of radar and IR) but you should be able to override that.

Of course, by the same token, 'mechs taken out by combat damage should still show as valid/inactive targets, unless you have good enough sensors to determine that it is, in fact, destroyed. Sort of like, oh, the Scouts 'HUD Detail 1' and 'HUD Detail 2' abilities.

Don't worry about not agreeing with anything; it's just my opinion; nothing set in stone. I had always thought that a shutdown Mech does not emit an IFF beacon, and because it is not a moving object anymore, radar would not be able to distinguish it, and as such, not be able to track LRMs to it. As with the safety measures put in place that prevent you from targeting for a lock on a friendly, you would still not be prevented from dumbfiring on the target, be it a friendly or shut down enemy.

Mason Grimm, on 10 February 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

To help envision my meaning....

Hey now, if you look at the time stamps, while I was creating the first and submitting it, the next post (which I addressed afterwards) was made. When there are multiple posts at the time I begin replying to them, I usually use the multi-quote. S'all good!

[Aegis Kleais]

Felix Dante, on 09 February 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

Caught one!


Loved the graph too Aegis!

I also meant to ask how Minimum range was going to work in MWO, but forgot.

Easiest way would be...No target locks within short range?

Thanks everybody. Good discussions and things to think about.

Personally, I would like to be able to lock at any range, and then just monitor my HUD info about how far away the Mech is to ensure that when I choose to fire the weapons, they will be armed by the time they hit.

This would be beneficial to me as well because I can get lock on someone while in a a range that is too close, and maintain the lock so that the moment we have enough distance, I can fire immediately, rather than begin at that point to acquire the lock. Again, just my thoughts. I'm gonna be rockin LRMs pretty often.

[Dihm]

I had to laugh, after seeing you defending yourself for multi-posting and then turn around and multi-post.

Very nice graphic though.

[MaddMaxx]

Aegis Kleais™, on 10 February 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

Personally, I would like to be able to lock at any range, and then just monitor my HUD info about how far away the Mech is to ensure that when I choose to fire the weapons, they will be armed by the time they hit.

This would be beneficial to me as well because I can get lock on someone while in a a range that is too close, and maintain the lock so that the moment we have enough distance, I can fire immediately, rather than begin at that point to acquire the lock. Again, just my thoughts. I'm gonna be rockin LRMs pretty often.

Given that scenario, how do we deal with a enemy that moves in and out of the Min range? You locked at 80M and the enemy moves out to 91M, you fire, and that same instant, the enemy moves back to 89M, do we get a hit or do the LRM's never arm?

LRM's do have flight times right?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 10 February 2012 - 06:48 AM.

[Outlaw Wolf]

Felix Dante, on 09 February 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

I have been reading through some of the older stuff, and specifically I hit upon the Q&A 3 answers posted by the deveopers.

I have a few follow up questions.
While I would love for the develpers to answer these, I don't expect immediate answers any time soon. All people are welcome to chime in of course...

These are mainly for un-crunching my brain after I thought through a few things I read there.

1. I like the idea of Passive and Active Radar toggling. However, if a mech is in passive mode, can it still lock-on with Missiles? Or will it just make it harder to target an enemy? Or will Passive mode prevent the use of Missiles altogether (or just In-direct fire)? Or will missile lock not be affected at all by Toggling Radar modes?

2. Assuming there is a difference in targeting between passive and active Radar with missiles, can you improve missile targeting mid-flight if you Toggle to Active mode just after launching missiles?

3. I'm assuming normal (Direct Fire) targeting is not affected by Active/Passive Radar modes. So if Missiles are affected in this manner, then doesn't that make D-F weapons more useful in the end and over-balance play against those with Missiles? (Do I sound like a Catapult fan? )

4. Can a Scout target for indirect fire while in Passive mode?

5. How long will it take to toggle Passive/Active modes? Is it almost an instant switch? Or is there a short warm-up/cooldown mode before it is toggled and can allow you to toggle it back just in-case it was a mistake?

Whew...
That's it for now...

Having some experience with weapons and fire control systems, if they wanted to utilize something realistic while keeping to the way Active / Passive radar has worked in previous MW releases then I believe it would work as follows;

1. Locking would require the contact to actually be within the radars range and show up. This is because it has to have an active track that encompasses Movement / IFF / Range etc -- something just LOS does not determine.

2. No -- Missiles require a lock and therefore going passive to active wouldn't change anything.

3. Not necessarily, because if you always run around in passive, you require to get much closer to an enemy and have a chance of not seeing him either, and since a Fire Support mech does not usually roam around on his own, chances are you walked into 2-3 possible heavies by yourself.

4. As long as the scout has a C3 Master unit and can achieve a target lock, any unit with a C3 Slave can use his targeting information for indirect fire. (This also helps balance topic 3.)

5. All of the other games had an instant switch -- real radars today while not exactly Passive / Active settings, do have the ability to change the outputs and pulse frequencies to modify the picture which does include range, and these features are all seamless transitions, therefore I would say instant would be the logical choice.

[Aegis Kleais]

MaddMaxx, on 10 February 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

Given that scenario, how do we deal with a enemy that moves in and out of the Min range? You locked at 80M and the enemy moves out to 91M, you fire, and that same instant, the enemy moves back to 89M, do we get a hit or do the LRM's never arm?

LRM's do have flight times right?

Well, I previously went under the assumption that 150m would be the minimum range before arming, so in essence, you're asking what would happen if the person was 1m within "LRMs don't arm", fired and the target then moves to a distance that the LRMs would arm by, right?

Basically, the game ignores locking status and just looks at the game distance the LRMs fly. Once they reach the minimum range, they arm. You can still fire LRMs without lock at a range where they wouldn't arm by the time they hit; this would be wasteful and it would be better for the pilot to watch the distance to target and ensure that the chances of the LRMs flying that range before impact are assured (which is less likely if the target is quickly closing distance with you).

LRMs do have flight time. The game is responsible for arming the missiles once they reach min range. There could even be perks where your LRMs arm sooner than normal for those who find themselves needing LRMs in close range often. In short, the lock status has nothing to do with the arming distance. It just has to do with whether the LRMs track on the target. If you have lock, the LRMs track, if you don't, it's a dummy fire, and the LRMs attempt to head to the location your diamond reticule was at the time you fired, but they won't track any enemies.

Edited by Aegis Kleaisâ„¢, 10 February 2012 - 07:11 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Aegis Kleais™, on 10 February 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

Well, I previously went under the assumption that 150m would be the minimum range before arming, so in essence, you're asking what would happen if the person was 1m within "LRMs don't arm", fired and the target then moves to a distance that the LRMs would arm by, right?

Basically, the game ignores locking status and just looks at the game distance the LRMs fly. Once they reach the minimum range, they arm. You can still fire LRMs without lock at a range where they wouldn't arm by the time they hit; this would be wasteful and it would be better for the pilot to watch the distance to target and ensure that the chances of the LRMs flying that range before impact are assured (which is less likely if the target is quickly closing distance with you).

LRMs do have flight time. The game is responsible for arming the missiles once they reach min range. There could even be perks where your LRMs arm sooner than normal for those who find themselves needing LRMs in close range often. In short, the lock status has nothing to do with the arming distance. It just has to do with whether the LRMs track on the target. If you have lock, the LRMs track, if you don't, it's a dummy fire, and the LRMs attempt to head to the location your diamond reticule was at the time you fired, but they won't track any enemies.

Apologies, wrong weapon. 180m (6 hexes) seems to be the IS min. for LRM's.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 10 February 2012 - 07:20 AM.

[Aegis Kleais]

MaddMaxx, on 10 February 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

Apologies, I thought the Min distance for Lock on LRM's was a known value. I missed the bit where it waqs changed to 150m under the rules.

It'll be known once the game is out. I was just assuming, for sake of explanation, that it was 150m. I think SSRMs would have lock ability, but no minimum arming distance, since they are designed for short-range encounters. I think I'm in speculation overdrive right now just off of sheer anticipation for this game