23 replies to this topic

[Rebas Kradd]

In order to make Information Warfare a winner, it needs to have three qualities. The information needs to be 1) unique, or unobtainable by any other means; 2) naturalistic to a battlefield, and 3) valuable - making an actual difference on how pilots think and act on the battlefield.

Judging by the Ghost Targeting thing from last fall and the minimap changes from this week, it seems to me that PGI is trying to implement information warfare. Below I've offered several examples of how most of the IW concepts have failed to meet the three conditions. In the hopes of not scaring people off with an essay, I've put them behind spoiler tags.

1) Scouting

Spoiler

This fails 1) big time. Why scout when you can use your eyes? Plunk a Raven up on the Alpine hill and you pretty much know where the enemy is, and that's on the big maps. On small maps, every mech inevitably gets an idea of the enemy's location within thirty seconds, because there's just not that much room for the enemy to hide (think Viridian Bog).

2) Mech direction

Spoiler

EDIT: I got schooled on this one. It matters at short-range in a variety of situations. This is a good thing to include in IW.

Fails both 1) and 3). Will knowing the direction a mech is facing really matter to a lot of players? See mech, shoot mech. That's how people think, regardless of the way a mech is facing. Especially when there's a deathball in your face and you have to make fast decisions. A mech can change direction in two seconds anyway. And again, typically there's no question where a mech might be traveling, because in most gamemodes, there's only one objective to travel to. On Skirmish in Viridian, I pretty much know instinctively where a clump of enemies is headed (or will be in the next two seconds): straight towards me. This information is only marginally valuable right now.

3) Ghost targeting

Spoiler

This one fell short of 2). That whole thing was just...weird. What mechanic would explain it?

4) Targeting information

Spoiler

Misses out on 3). How often do you get a chance to really break down an enemy mech's loadout or analyze its weak points? Typically not very often, because six other mechs are shooting at you and you're rushed into just frantically targeting a torso. So it's murderballing and high damage output that often take away the value of targeting information. when you get smaller battles and a chance to actually focus on an enemy mech, this information becomes valuable. But it takes incredible skill just to pull that off - or a map that's better at dividing forces into smaller engagements (like Mining Collective or Viridian Bog).

It's noteworthy that most of these examples had one culprit in common: the nature of the maps and gamemodes. When there's very little space on a map for players to use, and when there's only one objective everyone rushes towards en masse, the questions of "Where is the enemy?" and "Where are they going?" are basically already answered for the player with a pretty high degree of certainty. Knowing the enemy's location, movement, status, or loadout has yet to really make a consistent difference in how pilots think and act, because small maps and single-objective gamemodes lead to deathballing that render that information either irrelevant or already known. It's really this map-mode combination that removes depth and makes the game feel...well, FPS-y.

So, based on the way small maps make information both irrelevant and obtainable elsewhere, it's my assertion that you cannot have both small, quick-action maps and deep, four-pillar-based warfare at the same time. You can have one or the other.

And that's where we run into a problem: a lot of players don't WANT large maps. They want small maps that get them to the action quickly.

Now, I honestly don't fault PGI for starting with small maps for this very reason. Quick action was a design fundamental from the start, though they may not have recognized how it interferes with the four pillars. And I don't think PGI should make every Quick Play map larger. QP is now a nice blend of small, fast furballs (Collective, Bog, HPG Crimson) and larger, more drawn-out battles (Tourmaline, Highlands, the new Frozen City) that actually give assault mechs a drawback (their speed). Keep it that way. Keep the assortment. Making new players walk five minutes to the battle is probably not a good idea.

If you're a hardcore who still wants the four pillars, it needs to be in Faction Warfare. That's where the future of the four pillars should be. Since FW is theoretically the place for players who favor depth and tactics, it makes sense that there's more room there for the larger maps, more open-ended gamemodes, and the resulting smaller engagements that might make information matter again. (see my sig for a proposed mode that would do this.)

Where I'd like to get feedback from the rest of you is this:

1) What information COULD we cram into Quick Play that would actually matter? That would actually make a difference in how pilots think and act on the battlefield?

2) What information would you like to see in Faction Warfare that would actually matter?

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 22 June 2016 - 01:05 PM.

[PoorDecisions]

Well thought out.

[Wintersdark]

Not bad, but I must disagree wholly on Mech Direction.

Let me propose three not at all uncommon situations.

1) You are in a Jenner IIC, on top of a building. You are bristling with SRM's you want to unload onto an unsuspecting Kodiak. You can't fire at him, it's too steep. You can't even see him well, as he's against the building. If you drop down in front of him, he'll tear your Jenner in half. Drop down behind, and you can kill/cripple him. Which way is he facing?

2) You're under the platform on Crimson Straight. The OpFor is clustered up above. You can pop a UAV up through a hole - which way do you go?if you can see which way they're facing, you can get some very effective pokes. If you can't, you're effectively trapped.

3) You're dancing around buildings - river city, frozen city, Crimson Straight, etc. Do you continue around the building, or reverse direction? If you can see what your opponent is doing, the choice is a lot easier.


Knowing mech direction is EXTREMELY valuable.

[AlphaToaster]

1) What information COULD we cram into Quick Play that would actually matter? That would actually make a difference in how pilots think and act on the battlefield?

Mech heat. I'm sure since we can see steam coming off hot mechs that we would have sensors that could detect this at range. Less sensitive on hot maps, more sensitive on cold maps.

I can envision a smart commander calling for the push at the right moment when he sees enough enemy mechs at a certain heat threshold. "PUSH NOW BOYS, THEY'RE GETTING HOT!", "PUSH NOW, Don't let them cool off!" etc etc


2) What information would you like to see in Faction Warfare that would actually matter?

Mech heat would be helpful here as well. But mostly for FW the same information taken for granted in QP is more valuable here. Scouting the lanes on Sulfur, or finding where the enemy is defending from inside the gate on Boreal. Are they on the hill between the gates? Stacked on the left or right approaches? Are they at the gun? This information would be useful to determine where the commander sends the push once the gate is open.

---------

Off topic,

The OP is really well thought out, but to me it highlights that we need LRMS to be buffed badly. Taking a mech without AMS should be near suicide in QP. LRMS need to be lethal at max range because without it, there's no respect and mechs just run into brawl range. The battle should begin at stand-off ranges and then become more close quarters as the teams move into range. Without LRMS being effective, we only have direct fire long range weapons, and those require LOS.

Give noobies their LRMS, put it on the Git Gud crowd to overcome and adapt. We need lethal LRMs.

Also the whole, murderball up, Press W to win, get in brawl range, is killing any kind of role warfare. If a team sits back in an ambush they're cowards. If a team flanks and goes for base cap, they're cowards. Here it's all about the brawl bruh. So socially there's only a couple different variations of Press W that are considered acceptable with the mwo community. Add that with only a few viable weapon choices and we have a small number of possible variations in strategy.

Edited by AlphaToaster, 22 June 2016 - 11:38 AM.

[PoorDecisions]

AlphaToaster, on 22 June 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:

I can envision a smart commander calling for the push at the right moment when he sees enough enemy mechs at a certain heat threshold. "PUSH NOW BOYS, THEY'RE GETTING HOT!", "PUSH NOW, Don't let them cool off!" etc etc

A smart commander will already know if mechs are hot or not because, you know, they've been firing. If you see a high alpha, you know that guy either can't fire again or is going to take the risk of firing one more alpha to hit 100% or he's going to chain fire or blah blah blah.

Either way. A smart commander doesn't need to see steam on a mech to know that the group of mechs they're in combat with are hot or cold.

That Kodiak brought 4xAC10 and he's just blasted someone in the face? Poof, you know he's hot. That EBJ just alpha'd you with 2xLPL + 6ML? Step out and punish him.

ad nauseam

[Bud Crue]

Good points OP I would add predictable drop zones to the problems inhibiting IW in most QP maps. That is to say, when I see where me and my fellow blues are starting, I know pretty much where the reds are starting as well. That lessons the value of IW specific mechs and mechanisms even further than the already small maps, and other limitations you mention.

As to CW...do keep in mind that given CW is at a state where PGI feels it is ready to be advertised, I highly doubt we will be seeing any drastic changes there to encourage development of IW or anything else for a good long while. Like Russ said last month, small incremental changes from here on out. I don't see such changes as being sufficient to add any real IW to the mode...and if it isn't of value in CW it isn't likely to be of much value in QP either.

[Snowbluff]

Chromehounds and Armored Core 5/VD handled "info war" a little better, IMO.

Chrome Hounds had it so you couldn't communicate at all if you didn't have COMBAS and weren't in the area, and you had no radar (only a kind of crappy sonar) if you didn't have a Commander Type mech with heavy radar equipment networked in.

Armored Core, the way you spotted mechs way using recon pods (which could either follow the mech or be launched into the ground, depending on which kind of pods you carried). If your recon pods could see an enemy, you whole team could lock onto scan them to see which or their weapon did the most damage. If you had an operator in your team, he could monitor your pods as the only guy with a map and give orders to the team with that information.

It's not like it's terrible in MWO. I find scouting super helpful. Just today I got like 20 spotting assists in my Locust. Having the direction was super handy, and so is being able to target the weakpoints of an enemy.

[wanderer]

This is Planetside 2.



Why are we even arguable about something as simple as showing enemy unit facing on a map being something that should require added equipment? It's a basic function of any modern vehicle shooter.

[fat4eyes]

One big piece of information that would really be useful is weapon ranges. If some sort of display on the minimap showed the optimum range of most of a mech's firepower (maybe just a small indicator showing if a mech is mostly short, medium or long range), it would make it much easier to pick the right way to attack them.

[Weeny Machine]

An easy way of info warfare would be radar detection levels:

Lights - are spotted very late
Meds - are spotted late
Heavies - are spotted normally
Assaults - are spotted normally (yeah, not penalize the fatties even further)

Then sensor suits of the classes could also be fixed:
Light scouts mechs with bad loadout - very good sensor suit etc

That way you don't need bloated weapon buffs to balance mechs

[PoorDecisions]

fat4eyes, on 22 June 2016 - 11:58 AM, said:

One big piece of information that would really be useful is weapon ranges. If some sort of display on the minimap showed the optimum range of most of a mech's firepower (maybe just a small indicator showing if a mech is mostly short, medium or long range), it would make it much easier to pick the right way to attack them.

When you lock a target, you can see its entire loadout. That information should not clog up the minimap.

Edited by PoorDecisions, 22 June 2016 - 12:10 PM.

[Pjwned]

Rebas Kradd, on 22 June 2016 - 10:43 AM, said:

Fails both 1) and 3). Will knowing the direction a mech is facing really matter to a lot of players? See mech, shoot mech. That's how people think, regardless of the way a mech is facing.

It does matter if you're trying to flank somebody since getting the jump on them from behind matters a lot in a proper flank, as I can say from personal experience.

[Nemesis Duck]

Rebas Kradd, on 22 June 2016 - 10:43 AM, said:

And that's where we run into a problem: a lot of players don't WANT large maps. They want small maps that get them to the action quickly.

Burn the witches! Large maps degrade into smaller maps as the match progresses, with the added bonus of expanded battlefield options.

AlphaToaster, on 22 June 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:

Give noobies their LRMS, put it on the Git Gud crowd to overcome and adapt. We need lethal LRMs.

LRMs should never have been this powerful. They should have been a carryover from other types of warfare, such as sieges or attacking mobile artillery, but less effective against agile heavily armoured mechs. SRMs should be the mechs nightmare, get in close and supress the enemy with rate-of-fire.

Russ talks about making this a competitive e-sport game, well then put less emphasis on rewarding low skill play and make aiming and trigger discipline (not overheating while brawling) remain king.

[Kalam Mehkar]

AlphaToaster, on 22 June 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:

Give noobies their LRMS, put it on the Git Gud crowd to overcome and adapt. We need lethal LRMs.

I'm pretty sure that's already happened.

LRMs are lethal to those that don't know how to counter them (many of these players also fall into the "noob" category for obvious reasons). And even Git Gud groups can fall victim to an organized LRM group occasionally if they are unprepared and complacent. That doesn't happen often though because they know how to counter LRMs quickly even when caught flat-footed.

Also, most LRM users simply use them wrong. Sitting back at near max range expecting other players to risk themselves by getting closer and getting angles to provide locks. LRMs are far more dangerous at closer ranges when you can put Artemis and your own target gathering to use. Most LRM players I see are afraid to do this. Git Gud with LRMs?

(Sorry, don't mean to be too snarky (well, a little because this is the Internet and all ))

[Pjwned]

Kalam Mehkar, on 22 June 2016 - 12:23 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure that's already happened.

Not really, ECM is still a major obstacle to that due to ECM being far too good for what it is and it's extremely unbalanced as well as making LRMs a lot less effective than they should be; AMS should be the primary defense against LRMs.

Quote

LRMs are lethal to those that don't know how to counter them (many of these players also fall into the "noob" category for obvious reasons). And even Git Gud groups can fall victim to an organized LRM group occasionally if they are unprepared and complacent. That doesn't happen often though because they know how to counter LRMs quickly even when caught flat-footed.

They're good against terrible players and not good against players who aren't braindead.

Whoa...so this...is the power...of LRMs...

Quote

Also, most LRM users simply use them wrong. Sitting back at near max range expecting other players to risk themselves by getting closer and getting angles to provide locks. LRMs are far more dangerous at closer ranges when you can put Artemis and your own target gathering to use. Most LRM players I see are afraid to do this. Git Gud with LRMs?

(Sorry, don't mean to be too snarky (well, a little because this is the Internet and all ))

There can be a time and place for LRMs to be fired from really far away like that, but yes a lot of players (though not all by any means) are far too cowardly when they put on LRMs and expect everybody else to do their job of acquiring targets; even if players git gud at LRMs though that doesn't mean LRMs are in good shape with how unbalanced ECM is.

Edited by Pjwned, 22 June 2016 - 01:14 PM.

[wanderer]

Quote

LRMs should never have been this powerful.

I'm a missile maven and you just opened your mouth to let out a big ol' noob.

LRMs kill people in spite of being mediocre, and they're only powerful against stupid.

Heck, half the fun I get is in the infuration that results from me putting down good players with a clearly inferior weapon system to the dakkaboats and laservomiters are packing.

[Rebas Kradd]

Wintersdark, on 22 June 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

Not bad, but I must disagree wholly on Mech Direction.

Let me propose three not at all uncommon situations.

1) You are in a Jenner IIC, on top of a building. You are bristling with SRM's you want to unload onto an unsuspecting Kodiak. You can't fire at him, it's too steep. You can't even see him well, as he's against the building. If you drop down in front of him, he'll tear your Jenner in half. Drop down behind, and you can kill/cripple him. Which way is he facing?

2) You're under the platform on Crimson Straight. The OpFor is clustered up above. You can pop a UAV up through a hole - which way do you go?if you can see which way they're facing, you can get some very effective pokes. If you can't, you're effectively trapped.

3) You're dancing around buildings - river city, frozen city, Crimson Straight, etc. Do you continue around the building, or reverse direction? If you can see what your opponent is doing, the choice is a lot easier.


Knowing mech direction is EXTREMELY valuable.

These are good points. I hadn't really been thinking about its value in close-range combat.

PoorDecisions said:

A smart commander will already know if mechs are hot or not because, you know, they've been firing.

This is true, but that doesn't mean it can't be made another option.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 22 June 2016 - 01:14 PM.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

I like the ideas I have seen in the thread, I would say if you yourself have Line of Sight on a mech you should have it's facing displayed on your radar, the sharing I am cool with being limited to command mechs (fair number of them) and it would make scouting as well as role warfare more of a thing.

I do however agree deeper InfoTech should be for Faction Warfare, mainly due to quickplay is, well, quickplay. Scouting should be the first experience with Faction Play and have all the infotech bells and whistles with differing detection range and everything else, kid of like sim mode for War Thunder.

However, I still do like the lack of directional information for enemy mechs, I would like ally mechs to have directional facing and weight displayed at all times while enemy directional information is only shown if you have line of sight within a certain range (say, 500m, or maybe 2/3rds detection range and full detection range if the mech has specialized electronics like the Rifleman or any command mech or mech meant for recon like the Raven 3L) and others should only get it if a command mech has the mech targeted. This would help promote variety of mechs being played (and get the under performers buffed and given a niche) as well as this would give some rolewarfare that people have been asking for ages for. Outside of that, Faction Play maps need a massive change to make this all work, as it is, you know where your enemy spawns, they only get 2 (and in one case three) options of where to be, this makes infotech useless if not worse, a hindrance.

Edit to add: As for seeing targets outside of sensor range I like the idea of visual without contact, but, at the same time to make that work you would have to have a communication max distance between allies because if a player doesn't see a blue symbol over a mech it is obviously an enemy so no need to watch their fire, it is just weapons free.

Edited by Moonlight Grimoire, 22 June 2016 - 01:09 PM.

[invernomuto]

IMHO a good IW implementation needs a radical redesign of the sensor / targeting mechanics.
With the current system:

• information about the enemy position and direction is shared immediately between team members as soon someone has LOS on an enemy and press "R". The enemy mech became "targettable", regardless of the distance, by anyone as soon the information is shared (immediate sharing of the information);
  
• After targeting the enemy mech, you can get enemy mech ID and damage information after a delay... Again, regardless of distance, you need only to have a lock.
  
• ECM / UAV / TAG / sensors module / etc essentially influence 1) or 2)

IMHO a good information warfare system need to redefine point 1) and 2) to be successfull:



1) information about the target is not shared immediately on all team members on the battlefield. Information is shared by each mech only within a certain radius. This radius depends on equipments and role assigned to certain mech variants (eg, scout, command, etc). Command mech and scout have better radius and could pass the information, e.g., to all friendly mech from 500 mt of their position, while a brawler could pass this information only 100 mts away. The info could be retrasmitted by each mech to all friendly mech in range. If you are away from this radius, you get none, you have to rely on voice or indications on the minimap (via command wheel)

2) type of information shared. Each mech has different sensors range and each mech has a different sensor signature (so, e.g., a light could be more difficult to "spot" by the sensor suite compared to a big assault mech). At a certain range you have only a "generic lock" with no other info. You can still fire missiles (but damage is very spread), but you do not have an ID or damage status for the enemy mech. When you get closer, you get ID, direction, damage status and better lock for missiles.
Obviously command mech or scout with special equipment could gather this information form a greater distance than a brawler.

My 2 cents.

Edited by invernomuto, 22 June 2016 - 01:17 PM.

[Darth Hotz]

Bush Hopper, on 22 June 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

An easy way of info warfare would be radar detection levels:

Lights - are spotted very late
Meds - are spotted late
Heavies - are spotted normally
Assaults - are spotted normally (yeah, not penalize the fatties even further)

Then sensor suits of the classes could also be fixed:
Light scouts mechs with bad loadout - very good sensor suit etc

That way you don't need bloated weapon buffs to balance mechs

Exactly! Add this:

Light sensors spot very early

Medium sensor spot early

Heavie sensor spot normal

Assault sensors spot late

Full damage only when target is spoted and locked by someone

Fair share of cbills and xp for spotting and locking

Lights would suddenly get the job they were build for and dont need to have damage pumping loadouts that make many assaults shiffer and the game would become way more tactical than it is right now.

I know that they tried something like this on the test servers some time ago and I dont understand why they did not try to get this simple concept working.