16 replies to this topic

[Artgathan]

Greetings,

Way back at the dawn of MW:O there existed a Dev Blog about Information Warfare (you can read it here: http://mwomercs.com/...mation-warfare/). It laid out an exciting framework that would help make the battlefield a more dynamic environment. While it can be argued about whether this particular feature was delivered as described, arguing about the "completeness" of Information Warfare is not the purpose of this post. Instead I am here to propose ways to liven up the current version of Information Warfare, as well as suggest a possible implementation for C3 Networks that would make sense within MW:O.

My apologies in advance for the upcoming wall of text.

At it's core, Information Warfare in MW:O is broken down into three components:

• Acquiring a Target
  
• Gaining Information about that Target
  
• Sharing Information about that Target

I will tackle each of these in turn and address the ways in which I think these can be made more dynamic than their current implementation, as well as why I think these are worthwhile changes.

1. Acquiring a Target (Getting the Dorito)
The first stage of Information Warfare is trying to acquire a target. When I say "acquire a target" I mean "make a hollow triangle appear over the mech". In order to lock a target, you much first acquire the target.

Currently in MW:O you acquire any target that is within your sensor range instantly, so long as it is not covered by ECM.

My proposal is to make acquiring a target take time, based on the following factors:

• Radar Deflection
  
• Target Weight
  
• Sensor Strength
  
• Distance to Target

When I say "Radar Deflection" I mean the following, summed up in this image:

The blue circle represents you, the red circle an enemy mech, the green triangle is the area your sensors detect in and the green line is the axis you are currently facing down. In the Left image, the target is more deflected (further from where you're looking - like something in your peripheral vision) whereas in the right image the target is less deflected. In general targets that are more deflected would take more time to acquire (IE: something standing at the edge of your Sensor area would not get acquired right away), whereas targets with almost no deflection would be acquired instantly (so if you put your crosshairs over something, you can acquire it).

Sensor Strength simply refers to the power of your sensors, which is affected by equipment such as BAP, Targeting Computers and Command Consoles (as well as Modules like Advanced Sensor Range). If you have a longer base sensor range, you can acquire deflected targets more quickly.

The distance to target is self-explanatory. It would interact with Radar Deflection (so a distant and deflected target takes more time to acquire than a close and deflected target).

Once a target has been acquired, it remains acquired until it leaves your LOS.

Why make these changes? In the current state of MW:O, flanking maneuvers are extremely difficult to pull off unless the enemy is extremely inattentive or the ground is completely covered. In fact, the only way to reliably move mechs around the edge of the battlespace is under the cover of ECM. These changes would essentially make it so that if you became exposed while moving between two pieces of cover - at the edge of the enemy's sensor range - they wouldn't instantly acquire you as a target. This allows for greater stealth gameplay, as well as putting an increased reliance on situational awareness (since someone can detect you if they look directly at you, having people actually watch the flanks becomes important).

Making these changes also interact with mech size means that Light and Medium mechs will be easier to conduct flanking and scouting maneuvers with, which helps promote role warfare. Bear in mind that if you put your crosshairs over a target within your sensor you, you instantly acquire the target.

2. Gathering Target Information
Once you've acquired a target, you can lock the target by pressing the 'R' key. Once you've locked a target, you begin gathering information about the target. This information is gathered in stages, with the final stage being the displaying of the target's armor status and weapon loadout in the upper right corner of your HUD.

The time it takes to gather information is currently governed by your distance from the target, the presence of ECM, and special equipment you may have equipped (BAP, Target Info Gathering Module, Command Console, Targeting Computer).

I don't think this system needs a particular overhaul, though I would like to see the distance-based times be modified by sensors. For instance, at 500m it takes 3.5 seconds to gather target information, while at 501m it takes 5 seconds. I would like to see any equipment that increases sensor range also affect these ranges. For example, equipping a BAP would mean that you start getting the 3.5 second time at 625m instead of 500.

On the whole I don't have issues with the current implementation of Gathering Target Information. It would be nice to see more modules / equipment that modify these times (for instance, some sort of defensive module that increases the time that it takes for other people to get your information, or a module that gives out 'false' information initially and gives out the 'true' information after) as well as a system where you only get information about the currently visible portion of the target (so if you had half of your mech hidden behind a wall, I could only gather information about the half that is currently visible).

3. Sharing Target Information
Currently, once a player has targeted and enemy mech and gathered that mech's information, any other player on their team can then target that mech to instantly receive the target's information, so long as neither player is under the effect of ECM.

This system could use some work to make it more interesting. One change to make is to preferentially share data within lance before allowing it to exit. This would encourage more lance-level coordination, as lance members would have a coordination advantage over non-lance members. That said, the quickest and easiest change would be to make it so that the speed of information sharing is proportional to your distance from the mech that has the target's information when that ally is outside of your LOS (if they are within your LOS, the info sharing should be instant).

Information Warfare Conclusion
I think Information Warfare is currently a moderately interesting and often overlooked mechanic in MW:O. Adding features like those I've suggested are ways to make Information Warfare a more dynamic and involved component of MW:O, which will help create more interesting gameplay.

C3 Networks
For those who don't know, a C3 Network is formed when one or more C3 Slave units are connected to a C3 Master. C3 Master/Slaves are components mounted in a battlemech, similar to BAP. The purpose of a C3 Network is to promote information sharing within a unit of battlemechs.

C3 has interesting possibilities in MW:O. While in TableTop it acts as a fancy targeting computer, that implementation cannot translate to MW:O. Instead, we should focus on making the C3 Network a powerful Information Warfare tool by giving it the following abilities (NOTE: all of the following assume that the user is part of a C3 Network and their allies are also part of the network):

• Allow you to see acquired (unlocked) targets in allied LOS
  
• Receive a second targeting box (IE: on the HUD a second container that can be populated with enemy mech data appears).
  
• Allow the highest-ranking player with a C3 Master to select a 'secondary' target in addition to their primary target. This secondary target populates their second targeting box. All players in the C3 Network receive the secondary target of the C3 Master as their secondary target. All secondary targets are marked in a different color (IE: they have a purple box instead of the red box).
  
• Members of a C3 Network have faster target information gathering if the target lies within an overlapping section of their sensor areas.
  
• Members of a C3 Network have faster target acquisition within their overlapping sensor areas.
  
• Targeting a mech within your LOS acts as TAG against that target for members of your C3 Network
  
• Members of a C3 Network share target information faster
  
• C3 Networks can be disrupted by ECM. If a member of a C3 Network falls under the influence of ECM, they are cut off from the network and lose all associated abilities and bonuses.

When talking about overlapping sensor areas, I mean the following:

The red circle is within the overlapping sensor area of the two blue circles.

Using this implementation, a C3 Network is a useful tool to increase the coordination of a Lance or Company. Most of this could actually be implemented regardless of my proposed changes to the rest of the Information Warfare suite, as the inclusion of a second target monitor would increase lance coordination drastically.

However these are only my humble opinions. What do you think?

[Prussian Havoc]

Excellent post.
Anything that expands the options, features and gives depth to game mechanics is of great value to game play and I welcome it.
Perhaps during the New Year we'll see PGI incorporate aspects of what you detail here into MWO.

[Rebas Kradd]

No offense - it looks like you put a lot of work into your thoughts - but I think this is a prime example of how we sometimes seek to make game systems more complex just for the sake of it, without actually considering its impact on gameplay. Complexity isn't always the same as depth.

* The ideas to speed up targeting were interesting on the surface, but in the end it seems like a lot of work to merely tweak the number of seconds it takes to acquire target info, by maybe a second or two, without players really being able to see the mechanics at work. As such, it's probably a doubtful candidate for serious dev time.

* Making info sharing proportional to allied distance would only further encourage deathballing (again, that's assuming it had any visible impact at all).

* Radar deflection would prevent lock-ons, but it wouldn't prevent enemies from seeing nonfriendly mechs moving around and firing at them. Basically, that idea is merely a nerf to LRM's.

* With TTK so low, I fear that engagements are so quick and frenetic that subtleties like these are buried in the chaos. We'll need larger maps and slower, more spread-out engagements before these suggestions even become noticeable.

Thanks for the post. It's always good to see more thought talent in the community.

[Captain Stiffy]

I'm sure it's a great post and this is probably the first and last time I will ever say this but

It's an action game and it doesn't need TT realism.

[Artgathan]

Rebas Kradd, on 05 December 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:

No offense - it looks like you put a lot of work into your thoughts - but I think this is a prime example of how we sometimes seek to make game systems more complex just for the sake of it, without actually considering its impact on gameplay. Complexity isn't always the same as depth.

* The ideas to speed up targeting were interesting on the surface, but in the end it seems like a lot of work to merely tweak the number of seconds it takes to acquire target info, by maybe a second or two, without players really being able to see the mechanics at work. As such, it's probably a doubtful candidate for serious dev time.

* Making info sharing proportional to allied distance would only further encourage deathballing (again, that's assuming it had any visible impact at all).

* Radar deflection would prevent lock-ons, but it wouldn't prevent enemies from seeing nonfriendly mechs moving around and firing at them. Basically, that idea is merely a nerf to LRM's.

* With TTK so low, I fear that engagements are so quick and frenetic that subtleties like these are buried in the chaos. We'll need larger maps and slower, more spread-out engagements before these suggestions even become noticeable.

Thanks for the post. It's always good to see more thought talent in the community.

The time it takes to gather info can make a difference in a fight - with the right equipment you can get your info gathering time down to less than a second, meaning that in the space of a normal laser's burn time you can adjust to fire on a weak component. I think not having information makes a big difference in a fight since you're essentially fighting blind - you can't even be sure where your shots are landing on the opponent (although you can guess).

The changes to target info gathering time are principally to boost the ability of mechs to scout - if I carry BAP I can start getting the 'faster' info gathering times from further away. It's a small difference, but one that can help. Note that the code for this (gathering time based on distance) is already in the game - I'm just suggesting a tweak to it.

I agree that making info sharing dependent on distance would encourage death-balling, but remember that I suggested that the time only depends on distance if your allies are out of your LOS.

With regards to the 'it hurts LRMs' comment - no, it doesn't. Since putting your crosshairs over the enemy instantly gets you a target acquisition, all you have to do is turn to look at the enemy. Since you can't start getting a lock if you haven't already done this, it results in no net change for LRMs.

Subtleties like these may certainly get buried in the chaos of a brawl. However in CW teams may certainly exercise more "strategic" gameplay that is executed at a slower pace, allowing for things like reconnaissance to really shine.

Captain Stiffy, on 05 December 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

I'm sure it's a great post and this is probably the first and last time I will ever say this but

It's an action game and it doesn't need TT realism.

My suggestions have nothing to do with TT realism.

[MechWarrior5152251]

Maybe ECM should prevent targets within 180m from sharing any data?

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

In the interests of saving myself work, I'll quote myself from a thread on pretty much this same topic that I posted in yesterday.

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 04 December 2014 - 11:14 PM, said:

Assuming that electronic warfare otherwise remains largely unchanged, then the current system for "dorrito chips" is fine.

That said, ewar needs a complete rework anyway, and doing so would give PGI the opportunity to tweak how some of the more basic functions (like the "dorrito chip") function. I'd love to see a more complicated and in-depth detection algorithm based on things like sensor state (active/passive), extra signals (BAP/ECM), target size (base in on movement profiles, or on weight class, or on some extra measure based on relative model size), terrain (clear, rolling, sharp [hard angles are harder for the sensors to compensate for]), etc.

My ideal for a scout that wants to avoid detection would be to have it be a small light (tiny sensor profile) running in passive sensor mode (lower active emissions) without BAP or ECM (so no extra emissions) manuevering amongst buildings or rocks. Such a mech should be very hard for enemy sensors to detect, since it's basically running in silent mode (no emissions besides whatever heat it generates by walking/running) and has a low sensor profile obscured by highly interfering terrain.

ECM would no longer be an invisibility shield, since after all it's transmitting a huge amount of energy (that's how ECM works), making it light up your sensors like a christmas tree from quite a distance (easier to detect even outside its effective jamming range). Instead, ECM would be an active countermeasure to certain enemy systems (you'd use it to scramble enemy BAP in an urban battle, or to make enemy LRMs harder to use [but it should not make them impossible to use]). BAP would be an active sensor system used for close-in omni-directional line-of-sight-independent detection, ideal for very rough terrain and urban settings but not great for open field engagements.

All of this would make your sensor state a matter of tactics, as well as your choice of terrain, and whether you want to have your ECM or BAP turned on or off at a given moment. It'd open up a huge number of refined tactical options both to individuals and to teams, while reducing or eliminating many of the issues that have plagued MWO for quite some time (ECM invisibility mode being the big one).

As for target sharing, I'd be happy to change LRM indirect fire into a grid-based weapon, with TAG and NARC being necessary for teammates without line of sight to target somebody. To replace the "dorrito chip" triangles for scouts flagging a target, have a hot key that pings the battlegrid and the radar minimaps of your team to say that you see hostiles there.

As for the hollow "dorrito chip" showing up when a mech appears on your sensors, it'd be fine to keep it the way it is if all the aforementioned changes were made. An Atlas running an ECM and with active sensors walking in the open would show up at extreme range (maybe over a kilometer or two away), while a Jenner in passive mode without any extra emission sources hiding in some rocks would have the "dorrito chip" appear only once you got quite close (maybe even well inside BAP range, which would encourage people to bring BAP for just those occasions, since a BAP would see everything inside its radius, unless hostile ECM were present to jam it).

In short, I was saying that electronic warfare (or information warfare, really) needs a rework, and that PGI could use that opportunity to fix some broken or missing systems (active/passive sensors are on their wishlist, and ECM has been trouble since they first added it). It wouldn't be too terribly hard to include target info gathering times that vary based on relative signal strength and other factor (ECM might make a mech show up much sooner on radar, but it'd radically slow target info gathering and lock-on for anyone under its envelope, including the user).

Your ideas for how to implement C3 are interesting, but it won't be coming along until a good while from now, even if PGI does a sizeable timeline jump after the first few months of CW proper.

[Monkey Lover]

I would like to see something done/added. Getting locks is way to easy. Knowing how bad the enemy mechs right arm is doesnt seam right. Sharing locks from one side to map to the other without other mechs knowing the boardcsting mechs location isnt cool to me. I would like to see more. Lets make teams happy to see a locust.

[Barantor]

I like some of the proposed ideas and think they could add in an element of scouting that we really haven't had before.

In regards to C3 network sharing I would want it to be something like this.

Scout in my lance spots a target, targets them with R and gets some info on them since they didn't see my scout.

My lance, since they are within 300M? or so of them gets the same info as our scout, for free as long as we target the same target.

If another lance that is within 300m? of our lance has a C3 computer equipped, they can also target our target and relay the same info to their lance, thus allowing 2 lances to use one scouts target info. (might be better to just make it line of sight to prevent death ball)

I like making the game more complex, I think it adds to the game.

[Artgathan]

911 Inside Job, on 06 December 2014 - 07:03 AM, said:

Maybe ECM should prevent targets within 180m from sharing any data?

I believe it already does that - if you're under and ECM bubble and I'm not, I can't see what you're targeting. Unless you meant to have it disrupt sharing if there's an ECM mech standing between two mechs sharing data (even if they're not necessarily inside the bubble)? That could be interesting.

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 06 December 2014 - 08:14 AM, said:

In the interests of saving myself work, I'll quote myself from a thread on pretty much this same topic that I posted in yesterday.

In short, I was saying that electronic warfare (or information warfare, really) needs a rework, and that PGI could use that opportunity to fix some broken or missing systems (active/passive sensors are on their wishlist, and ECM has been trouble since they first added it). It wouldn't be too terribly hard to include target info gathering times that vary based on relative signal strength and other factor (ECM might make a mech show up much sooner on radar, but it'd radically slow target info gathering and lock-on for anyone under its envelope, including the user).

Your ideas for how to implement C3 are interesting, but it won't be coming along until a good while from now, even if PGI does a sizeable timeline jump after the first few months of CW proper.

Interesting ideas, though I don't think I agree with you about ECM. I realize that is how it functions in reality, but I think for the purposes of the game we may be better served by having a piece of gear that guarantees stealth unless someone does something to counter it.

I left out a discussion on Passive/Active sensors and specific pieces of gear because I wanted to focus on ways in which a rework of our current basic sensors could make the Information War more interesting and dynamic.

As for C3 not being in the timeline - it's my understanding that C3 was introduced in 3050.

Monkey Lover, on 06 December 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

I would like to see something done/added. Getting locks is way to easy. Knowing how bad the enemy mechs right arm is doesnt seam right. Sharing locks from one side to map to the other without other mechs knowing the boardcsting mechs location isnt cool to me. I would like to see more. Lets make teams happy to see a locust.

I'm not sure what you mean by "knowing how bad the enemy mech's right arm is"? Are you referring to the current model or my suggested changes? I agree that buffing role warfare would be awesome.

Barantor, on 06 December 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

I like some of the proposed ideas and think they could add in an element of scouting that we really haven't had before.

In regards to C3 network sharing I would want it to be something like this.

Scout in my lance spots a target, targets them with R and gets some info on them since they didn't see my scout.

My lance, since they are within 300M? or so of them gets the same info as our scout, for free as long as we target the same target.

If another lance that is within 300m? of our lance has a C3 computer equipped, they can also target our target and relay the same info to their lance, thus allowing 2 lances to use one scouts target info. (might be better to just make it line of sight to prevent death ball)

I like making the game more complex, I think it adds to the game.

The situation you've described is currently how sensors function - if you've targeted a mech and gotten it's information and then I target that mech too, I instantly get all the information (because you already have it). The reason I suggested have the second targetting box for members of a C3 Network is that it instantly ensures that everyone is targeting the same thing, and shares that information out. If two members of a C3 Network both targeted a mech as their non-C3 target, they would also share the information instantly.

[Monkey Lover]

Artgathan, on 06 December 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "knowing how bad the enemy mech's right arm is"? Are you referring to the current model or my suggested changes? I agree that buffing role warfare would be awesome.

I mean when you lock onto a mech you know everything about it right away. Somehow my mech knows there is no armor on the rare of a mech when its facing me. Personally I like to see data collecting of mechs take time. IA light locking onto an assault should be rewarded for sitting thier scanning it. Locating it has no armor on the legs after scanning it for 30 seconds would be a benfit to an teammates assault who would not have the time to do this. Lock time modules could start being some use if they cut this down. So ,Right along the lines of your ideas I like them.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 06 December 2014 - 11:26 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Captain Stiffy, on 05 December 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

I'm sure it's a great post and this is probably the first and last time I will ever say this but

It's an action game and it doesn't need TT realism.

You saying TT isn't an Action game?

[Captain Stiffy]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 December 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

You saying TT isn't an Action game?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. It's more of a strategy game.

[Barantor]

If there were ever a C3 console or hell even on the Command Console it would be neat to have it 'record' the last data it received on a mech.

I.E. My scout has spotted a catapult with only one arm and my CC or C3 records this, so anytime I target that mech it remembers that, even if it isn't my scout "seeing" it. When I get new updates on the condition either through a C3 network or seeing it myself, it updates the information.

I don't like having to remember it myself when these are supposed to be computers keeping track of that, it should remember the last thing it knows about a target rather than having to reacquaint itself with the target each time.

[kapusta11]

About what "information" are you talking about? Wether it's covered by ECM or not, you either see your enemy or you don't. If you're talking about LRMs, they are pretty **** up to begin with. They work differently in TT, ECM work differently and C3 units can't be simulated in MWO, you just can't use teammate's "to hit" modifier.

[Quaamik]

The OP put a lot of thought into this. But I think most of it would be lost in the way the game is played.

Truthfully, how many actually pay attention to how much damage, and where, an enemy mech 400 meters away has that is being fired on by three of their teammates? Probably almost no one - they just heap their fire on also and try to get hits (any hits). So tweaking how fast thy get info about that mech won't make a difference.

The decreased chance of a radar spotting / ID'ing an enemy mech at the edge your vision, or longer time to do it, might improve flanking. Then again, it might just make the fast light mechs even more powerful. Making smaller mechs harder for radar to spot would (IMHO) make light mechs too powerful.

I do see an advantage of sharing info among the lance first (or only). But only if there is NO C3 computer to get around it. If targeting info, including the location of a enemy is only relayed within a lance, it would slow / stop the LRM spam that comes from 8 LRM equipped mechs targeting one poor sap. If C3 was available as an add on to the mech to counter it, it would either be a "must have" for every mech, or useless - depending on how well the system deprived mechs without it of information.

[Artgathan]

kapusta11, on 06 December 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

About what "information" are you talking about? Wether it's covered by ECM or not, you either see your enemy or you don't. If you're talking about LRMs, they are pretty **** up to begin with. They work differently in TT, ECM work differently and C3 units can't be simulated in MWO, you just can't use teammate's "to hit" modifier.

I would suggest reading the OP before trying to have an opinion about it. Your question is answered there. Furthermore the OP isn't about LRMs or how things work in TT.

Quaamik, on 06 December 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

The OP put a lot of thought into this. But I think most of it would be lost in the way the game is played.

Truthfully, how many actually pay attention to how much damage, and where, an enemy mech 400 meters away has that is being fired on by three of their teammates? Probably almost no one - they just heap their fire on also and try to get hits (any hits). So tweaking how fast thy get info about that mech won't make a difference.

The decreased chance of a radar spotting / ID'ing an enemy mech at the edge your vision, or longer time to do it, might improve flanking. Then again, it might just make the fast light mechs even more powerful. Making smaller mechs harder for radar to spot would (IMHO) make light mechs too powerful.

I do see an advantage of sharing info among the lance first (or only). But only if there is NO C3 computer to get around it. If targeting info, including the location of a enemy is only relayed within a lance, it would slow / stop the LRM spam that comes from 8 LRM equipped mechs targeting one poor sap. If C3 was available as an add on to the mech to counter it, it would either be a "must have" for every mech, or useless - depending on how well the system deprived mechs without it of information.

I think the subtleties of these systems would definitely be lost in PUG play. However these changes are really geared towards increasing the dynamic nature of coordinated team fights. I don't know if you've ever had the chance to experience large-scale group play, but things like targeting specific enemy components (because someone else in the group called out the fact that the Atlas' right torso is almost burned out) happen very frequently.