Jump to content

Pgi & Paul: How To Deliver 2/4 Of The Core Pillars Of Mwo

Balance

150 replies to this topic

#1 Rasc4l

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 1
  • 496 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 12:31 PM

PGI has originally said that the core 4 pillars of MWO are:

1. Mech Warfare – The embodiment of Mech to Mech combat.
2. Role Warfare – The ability for player’s to customize their experience to suit their own style of gameplay.
3. Community Warfare – The ability to let the players take part in epic combat for territorial control.
4. Information Warfare – Bring a new element to the battlefield that incorporates information technology to help control the fight.

Out of those 4 core pillars, PGI has effectively delivered the very first, which is Mech Warfare i.e. we have mechs to fight with. PGI is about to deliver another one this year, which is the Community Warfare, big thing. What if I told you that 2 additional pillars can be delivered with very small additions (insert Morpheus meme here), Information Warfare and Role Warfare?

This plan revolves around a very simple core idea. Tinkering with the range when your mech becomes detectable for the enemy and when you can detect enemy mechs. Currently, this range is 800 m by default for both ways. Adjusting this number will make lights less detectable while making them detect enemies at longer ranges, which fullfills their purpose as scouts. This proposal is compatible with how ECM and BAP currently works although modifying their roles further allows true information warfare. Thus, implementing this makes a solid ground onto which build further details and clan information warfare. Table 1 lists proposed scanning and detection ranges.

Another aspect of the proposal is ACTIVE and PASSIVE radar modes. These are separate from ECM disrupt/counter modes and present in all mechs. By switching your mech into a passive scanning mode decreases the sensor profile at the expense of scanning range. Heavier mechs are easier to detect at longer ranges but even they can try to hide with this mode. Giving mechwarriors control over their sensor profile will relieve LRM complaits, because in addition to the usual "L2UseCover", people can actually try to do something actively themselves to avoid LRM-horror. Giving mechwarriors an active way to discourage LRM storms will simultaneously make LRMs open for possible boosts to make them truly viable in competitive matches, because LRM-balance in general has to less go according to the lowest common nominator.

Posted Image

For example, a locust is running in active mode with 1000 m scanning range and the risk of detection starts at 450 m. If it switches to passive radar mode, it is visible only at 250 m, while still being able to scan up to 650 meters. In contrast, highlander in active mode scans enemies up to 800 m (like now) but is scannable himself to 900 m due to size. Switching to passive radar will cut his own sensors in half and he can only see up to 400 m while he remains visible to the enemy up to 750 m. In this manner, Information Warfare also delivers Role Warfare, because locust is now a useful scout, which is not easily detected.

How are then situation resolved, where an enemy mech is already inside your scanning range but would not basically be visible yet due to its lower sensor image? For example, I'm walking in my atlas with 800 m detection range and I see a Blackjack at 700 m, which is outside BJ's own 650 m sensor image. Here, until I reach 650 m, I should be able to detect the BJ halfway to 725 m (between 650 m and 800 m) but the sensor signal should be breaking and sporadic a bit like during ECM disruption but not so bad. If the BJ pilot swithes to passive radar mode, his sensor image drops to 475 m and he becomes invisible to me and I can only see him starting at (800-475)/2=638 m. On the other hand, he can see me lumbering just fine.

In these figures, you can see how scanning range and detection range change with tonnage in active (A) and passive (P) modes:


Posted Image


Finally, to give BAP the properties it deserves, BAP and Target Info Gathering (TIG) module should have the effects listed in Table 2. They should allow the scouting of vital information from the enemy mech but this takes time and should not happen at max range:


Posted Image

To show how this information can easily be shown, I made a quick mockup. Yellow dots are ammo:

Posted Image


EDIT: fixed image, typos, added a paragraph to explain what happens when mech inside your detection range has a lower sensor image than your range (meet halfway).

Edited by Rasc4l, 03 June 2014 - 09:11 AM.


#2 CeeKay Boques

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 3,370 posts
  • LocationYes

Posted 29 May 2014 - 12:35 PM

I could not expand that small pic into legibility, but it looks impressive. I'm all about radar modes.

#3 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 12:36 PM

You're basically proposing that they use the sensor model that was used in Mechwarrior 4. We've made the same proposal numerous times.

#4 Rasc4l

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 1
  • 496 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 12:50 PM

View PostRoland, on 29 May 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

You're basically proposing that they use the sensor model that was used in Mechwarrior 4. We've made the same proposal numerous times.


Yeah many things have been proposed multiple times. Just tried to put together as simple way of giving us the Thinking Man's Shooter as I could.

Oh and forgot to mention that for friendlies, the normal detection range of 800 m should apply to avoid FF among PUGs.

#5 Bhael Fire

    Banned - Cheating

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,002 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationThe Outback wastes of planet Outreach.

Posted 29 May 2014 - 12:59 PM

I only read a small part, but I really like what I did read. I think shortening the range of radar is a fantastic idea. It would make light mechs even more crucial to passing on target info and give them an even more important role in keeping targets locked for LRMs. Then they could give scouting mechs a c-bill bonus according amount of time they transmitted target info during the match.

Also, it would make camo patterns/colors actually be useful instead of just as vanity items, because there wouldn't be a constant red box drawn around each mech. Players would actually have to rely on their naked eyes more.

#6 Rasc4l

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 1
  • 496 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 01:16 PM

View PostBhael Fire, on 29 May 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

I only read a small part, but I really like what I did read. I think shortening the range of radar is a fantastic idea. It would make light mechs even more crucial to passing on target info and give them an even more important role in keeping targets locked for LRMs. Then they could give scouting mechs a c-bill bonus according amount of time they transmitted target info during the match.

Yes that is indeed the point. Because the overall visibility of mechs would be less, all mechs are no longer targetable by default. This removes the LRM-storms n00bs whine about or at least decreases them to an extent to make them tolerable. Because acquisition of information of enemy movements is made more valuable, this kind of groundwork might make it possible to even buff LRMs a little. This kind of IW should also increase the usage of UAV.


View PostBhael Fire, on 29 May 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

Also, it would make camo patterns/colors actually be useful instead of just as vanity items, because there wouldn't be a constant red box drawn around each mech. Players would actually have to rely on their naked eyes more.

Good point. If camo really mattered, I might buy them.

#7 Bhael Fire

    Banned - Cheating

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,002 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationThe Outback wastes of planet Outreach.

Posted 29 May 2014 - 01:33 PM

You know, the more I think about this, the more I think they should implement it right now...or ASAP. Even if it's only on the PTS for a day or two.

I'm really curious to see how it affects the way people play.

#8 NeonKnight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Patron Saint
  • The Patron Saint
  • 567 posts
  • LocationSurrey, BC, Canada

Posted 29 May 2014 - 01:37 PM

I endorse this Thread!

Paid for by the NeonKnight LRM fund.

#9 Rasc4l

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 1
  • 496 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 01:40 PM

View PostBhael Fire, on 29 May 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

You know, the more I think about this, the more I think they should implement it right now...or ASAP. Even if it's only on the PTS for a day or two.

I'm really curious to see how it affects the way people play.


Me too. :ph34r:

Part of the whole point is that it should be very simple to implement, because it revolves only around a couple of variables, which used to be universal for all mechs but instead would become mech-specific.

#10 Chrithu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 1,601 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 29 May 2014 - 01:41 PM

I like. Let's do it.

Edit: Just found a share on twitter button at the bottom of the page. Let's share it with Russ, Brian and Paul directly.

Edited by Jason Parker, 29 May 2014 - 01:44 PM.


#11 CtrlAltWheee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 609 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 01:43 PM

The ideas for TIG/BAP are fun. Engine type, heat, and module info would really change the game in a way that sounds great. When module types come into play (sensor slot, weapon slot, etc) and we have dedicated scouting mechs with 2x sensor slots... this would add flavor.

#12 Bryan Ekman

    Creative Director

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 1,106 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 29 May 2014 - 02:01 PM

From the radar mechanic POV, I do like the concept. It does not remove visual targeting from the mix, and VOIP player will still be able to manage targets effectively despite not having a lock. From an LRM POV it has merits. This model has been discussed a few time before as mentioned, and I'll see what the team thinks about it.

#13 Rasc4l

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 1
  • 496 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 02:06 PM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 29 May 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

From the radar mechanic POV, I do like the concept. It does not remove visual targeting from the mix, and VOIP player will still be able to manage targets effectively despite not having a lock. From an LRM POV it has merits. This model has been discussed a few time before as mentioned, and I'll see what the team thinks about it.


Thanks for participating in the discussion! I'm happy to hear this idea is given further consideration. :ph34r:

#14 SirLANsalot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,540 posts
  • LocationWashington State

Posted 29 May 2014 - 02:08 PM

I think you got a few of your thinks inverted.


Passive/Active Radar works both ways, and not based on size, because then it becomes pointless for the big boys to use it if they wanted to.


Basically make it work for anyone all at the same range. E.G. Active now is 800m detection, Passive would be 450m Detection, both ways. Meaning I can see you (target) at 450, and you can do the same to me (if you were running passive and I was running active). Modules like BAP Override that and if I have BAP and you are running passive, I will be able to pick you up at 600-700m still despite you running passive sensors. Add in the Sensor Range Module and were back to 800m detection even if your running passive and I am running full on sensors trying to look for you.


No silly charts, no size this or that, just a straight up SIMPLE SYSTEM that everyone can remember on the fly.


Remember kids, Keep It Simple Stupid!


Oh and remember that LRMs cannot be used if you, the LRM mech, are running Passive Sensors, LRMs require active sensors to work.

Edited by SirLANsalot, 29 May 2014 - 02:11 PM.


#15 Rasc4l

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 1
  • 496 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 02:27 PM

View PostSirLANsalot, on 29 May 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

I think you got a few of your thinks inverted.


Passive/Active Radar works both ways, and not based on size, because then it becomes pointless for the big boys to use it if they wanted to.

You are quite right that I got certain things inverted and realistically speaking, radar range shouldn't be based on size too much. However, the current game balance screams for a buff for light/medium mechs (they are many times found in the 10-15 % range in matchmaker) and providing Role Warfare through Information Warfare is a perfect excuse to fiddle with realism for the sake of game balance.

Setting the base IW like this allows enhancing Role Warfare more by checking the lore which heavy/assault model had extra good sensors and settings the mech sensor scanner range accordingly.


View PostSirLANsalot, on 29 May 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Basically make it work for anyone all at the same range. E.G. Active now is 800m detection, Passive would be 450m Detection, both ways. Meaning I can see you (target) at 450, and you can do the same to me (if you were running passive and I was running active). Modules like BAP Override that and if I have BAP and you are running passive, I will be able to pick you up at 600-700m still despite you running passive sensors. Add in the Sensor Range Module and were back to 800m detection even if your running passive and I am running full on sensors trying to look for you.

If a plan like this is indeed too complicated then I guess even simplified 800/450 for all might work for scanning. However, sensor image should still be lower on locusts and the like and be based on size more or less. But I would much prefer also scanning to be unique for mech models.


View PostSirLANsalot, on 29 May 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

No silly charts, no size this or that, just a straight up SIMPLE SYSTEM that everyone can remember on the fly.


Remember kids, Keep It Simple Stupid!

Sure but not too stupid. I like the idea of making the mechs more unique.

View PostSirLANsalot, on 29 May 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Oh and remember that LRMs cannot be used if you, the LRM mech, are running Passive Sensors, LRMs require active sensors to work.

Agreed.

#16 Targetloc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 963 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 02:31 PM

It's always been a solid idea, but I'd make one notable adjustment.

Base the range that a mech is detectable at partially on it's engine rating.

Right now there's no love for small engine lights or mediums. Mechs like the Blackjack and Panther don't really work in the current system, and at every weight class people try to maximize their engine to a point.


Make smaller, slower mechs even harder to detect so that it's easier for them to sneak into range, or act as stealthy snipers.

#17 Scandinavian Jawbreaker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,251 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationFinland

Posted 29 May 2014 - 02:33 PM

View PostSirLANsalot, on 29 May 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

I think you got a few of your thinks inverted. Passive/Active Remember kids, Keep It Simple Stupid!

In a thinking man's shooter :ph34r:

I really like the ideas OP posted. Those additions would buff the Locust, which is just plain bad, unfortunately :D

#18 Dracol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Steadfast
  • The Steadfast
  • 2,539 posts
  • LocationSW Florida

Posted 29 May 2014 - 02:40 PM

View PostSirLANsalot, on 29 May 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Oh and remember that LRMs cannot be used if you, the LRM mech, are running Passive Sensors, LRMs require active sensors to work.

I enjoyed the gameplay of MW4 with its sensor system. However, with this proposal, it would be another advantage for direct fire mechs.

Reducing the sensor range in general, imho is not a bad idea.

#19 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,432 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 29 May 2014 - 02:49 PM

Great post about a great idea.

Size should matter and this is what it should look like.
+1k

#20 Rasc4l

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 1
  • 496 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 02:53 PM

View PostTargetloc, on 29 May 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

It's always been a solid idea, but I'd make one notable adjustment.

Base the range that a mech is detectable at partially on it's engine rating.

Right now there's no love for small engine lights or mediums. Mechs like the Blackjack and Panther don't really work in the current system, and at every weight class people try to maximize their engine to a point.


Make smaller, slower mechs even harder to detect so that it's easier for them to sneak into range, or act as stealthy snipers.

Making the engine the detectability parameter instead of mech tonnage sounds like an ok idea. I would still keep with my proposal though because it already provides what you yearn for: light mechs that can sneak on enemy. Locust@passive has an image of 250 m and 450 m at active, which should already make it a good scout. The primary light, Jenner, has similar values at 400/575 m. This is still clearly less than heavier mechs to make it a good scout but still higher than locust to give locust an edge (locust is only 57 % of jenner's mass).

Also, the biggest engines may not end up being in biggest mechs and do XL ppl need more problems, really? And because the numbers I have put up are more or less arbitrary, I'd rather adjust them to our ends than chain the sensor image to a new parameter, which e.g. may not always properly reflect the mechs physical size, which also should be considered.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users