18 replies to this topic

[Rebas Kradd]

With the current gameplay of MWO, information warfare has no purpose. Everything that can be gained from information warfare is either redundant or available through other means. I have several suggestions to correct this.

1. Double sensor ranges. As long as sensor/acquisition ranges match up with weapon ranges, people will shoot rather than scout. Occasionally I'll see someone post on the forums that it would be "proper" for heavier mechs to be able to acquire targets only out to, say, 600m compared to light mechs scouting to 800m. Or something. What they don't realize is that it will have no real impact on gameplay. 600m is five seconds from being on top of me. The moment I see something without a blue dorito, I'm probably going to be shooting at it without bothering to look at the targeting information. It doesn't really help me with a target under my crosshairs.

But let's say that lights gain the ability to get locks beyond weapons range - say, 1500m. All of a sudden, info warfare is more useful, because it can inform the team while they're still waiting to shoot. A natural pause is created between the arrival of scouting info and the beginning of combat, during which the scouting info can actually be analyzed and employed. Give mediums 1200m, keep assaults and heavies at 600m unless they take specialized equipment, and then the scouting information might find usage. Tweak the numbers if you must, but you get my point.

2. Incentivize scouting. Scouting can become a "beginners' game" for MWO players, allowing new players a role with less combat and more space to figure out the mech and its controls. Jack up the C-bill earnings of scouting so it's a legitimately attractive option and creates a sense of progression.

3. Increase TTK. This is already being done with structure quirks, and it's good for the game. In such an environment, players will stick to cover less and thus have scouting info gathered on them more. And with fights being longer and mechs not so prone to alphas, there will be room to analyze enemy mechs for weak points or which arm is carrying that big gauss rifle. It will matter more.

4. Go with a new design for the next CW maps. The current maps, with their size and the presence of high ground, completely neutralizes any need for scouting. You can just climb a mountain and know exactly where everyone is. Or you can travel for thirty seconds in an assault and run into the enemy team. Under this map philosophy, we will never have the four pillars. But I know, PGI, that the size and funneling-to-the-action nature of the current maps is meant to cater to new, casual, and impatient players who just want to shoot. We need every player we can get, so I accept that the regular-queue maps might not be the place for info warfare.

However CW - the "hardcore" mode anyway - is the perfect opportunity to implement a new map design philosophy that will allow information warfare. I wrote my suggestions here, but basically, give us flatter maps without altitude advantage, with long lines of sight occluded by rolling hills, trees, atmospheric effects, or just strategically placed cover. If 95% of the terrain is accessible, battles will occupy smaller spaces and you'll be able to shake up gameplay without needing to make maps actually bigger (maybe even a bit smaller). Everyone wins.

5. Redesign gamemodes. Part of redesigning maps is also redesigning the modes so that they forcibly break up deathballing and thus make room for scouting. Several suggestions exist on this. The best and simplest idea is probably here.

6. Buff the long-range indirect game. Another problem is that the information offered by targeting acquisition (the stuff in the paperdoll) just isn't all that useful or interesting, especially if it can be passed on by VOIP. But there is another aspect that's overlooked - missile locks. If you're not going to rework LRMs, then buff them into a viable weapon. This makes scouting more valuable, because the locks they hold will actually be fruitful, and because no amount of VOIP or TS can reproduce this aspect of gameplay. Start with a 10kph travel buff on LRMs. You could also consider making arty/air strikes more rewarding for lights, and even implementing the Long Tom or Arrow IV, possibly using direct-to-target mechanics as you see in MWLL.

7. Finally, instead of just benefits, design weapons for information warfare as well. Sensor ghosts, jamming, scrambling opposing team's huds, cutting off their comms (cancel out VOIP for such teams?), hack opponents' missiles...there are many possibilities for a scout's toolbox.

The information warfare game should be a role, not a requirement. Right now it's a requirement, as it's been made a component of overall balance. Make it distinct, don't force fighting mechs into it, and make it varied and incentivized so it's fun and rewarding.

[Mystere]

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2015 - 08:37 PM, said:

1. Double sensor ranges.

Alternatively, don't try to spot the enemy from the front. They can't shoot you if they can't see you.

[arcangelS7]

I'd perfer that they remove the double range they added when the designed the game.

[Mystere]

arcangelS7, on 12 September 2015 - 09:04 PM, said:

I'd perfer that they remove the double range they added when the designed the game.

Well, lasers beams don't exactly cut themselves out when they get out of "range". Bullets don't magically disappear when doing the same. So some form of "damage decay" is good enough.

[Impyrium]

To be honest, if they addressed all of these problems, they would probably fix a vast majority of the core issues the game has. So yes, this would be the best approach IMO rather than just dancing around the outside with sensor quirks. InfoTech is a good idea, just needs a more indepth game to accommodate it.

[Dracol]

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2015 - 08:37 PM, said:

1. Double sensor ranges. As long as sensor/acquisition ranges match up with weapon ranges, people will shoot rather than scout. Occasionally I'll see someone post on the forums that it would be "proper" for heavier mechs to be able to acquire targets only out to, say, 600m compared to light mechs scouting to 800m. Or something. What they don't realize is that it will have no real impact on gameplay. 600m is five seconds from being on top of me. The moment I see something without a blue dorito, I'm probably going to be shooting at it without bothering to look at the targeting information. It doesn't really help me with a target under my crosshairs.

With the PTS having assaults and heavies radar at 500m, mediums at 600m, and lights at 800m, I believe lights can get out to 1000m with BAP and Range module. On forest colony, that 500m advantage through trees might make a difference if the light stays at range, wouldn't you agree?

[StalaggtIKE]

You forgot fixing ECM. All of your suggestions would be nullified the moment ECM enters the battlefield.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 13 September 2015 - 04:11 AM.

[RocketFuelJunkie]

Nail on head has been struck!

These are great ideas and should not be over looked! *glares as PGI*

Quote

7. [color=#959595]Finally, instead of just benefits, [/color]design weapons for information warfare[color=#959595] as well. Sensor ghosts, jamming, scrambling opposing team's huds, cutting off their comms (cancel out VOIP for such teams?), hack opponents' missiles...there are many possibilities for a scout's toolbox.[/color]

I like the idea of different tools for a scout to use to much up an opponents day. Shutting down HuDs, locking enemy weapon systems etc, would make for a new path for light mechs outside of a harrasser. This can futher be used as a way to split MWO ECM into Angle ECM (which could become the ECM now with a higher weight penalty) and Guardian ECm which weighs as much as now but does alot less and could be mech only benefits.

[stjobe]

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2015 - 08:37 PM, said:

The information warfare game should be a role, not a requirement. Right now it's a requirement, as it's been made a component of overall balance. Make it distinct, don't force fighting mechs into it, and make it varied and incentivized so it's fun and rewarding.

This is probably the most important paragraph in a very nice post.

IW should be a role.

It should be a role that lights prefer, because they have a hard time competing in the other role, "deal as much damage as possible at any given time", but it should NOT be forced upon certain chassis.

Every 'mech needs to be able to fight - that's what we're here for. So please, please, please, don't nerf the fighting capability of a 'mech just because it gets some IW quirks. That will only make people not play that variant.

Which is also why the four-pillar balance Paul is trying to implement probably isn't possible; IW can never make up for not being able to kill.

[Rebas Kradd]

Dracol, on 13 September 2015 - 03:55 AM, said:

With the PTS having assaults and heavies radar at 500m, mediums at 600m, and lights at 800m, I believe lights can get out to 1000m with BAP and Range module. On forest colony, that 500m advantage through trees might make a difference if the light stays at range, wouldn't you agree?

At 1000m, the shooting has either already begun (with PPCs, ACs, or LRMs) or is about to begin. Push it further out and incentivize it so that lights are already collecting some info at 1500m and creating a natural pause to use it before any fighting.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Actually, the way to make Information Warfare more of a thing is a little bit harder than what you propose.

Doubling sensor ranges is nice, but it still doesn't quite fix how powerful the mark I eyeball is. It is still a low supplemental item for shooting, and considering how often engagements occur within the current sensor range, doubling that range isn't really that useful (maps aren't that big in other words).

Game Modes aren't necessarily the problem with why scouting isn't a thing, after all in certain mods of MW4, scouting was a thing even in death match. The size and scale of a map has more impact on scouting that game modes, that said it could help.

Something you hint on though in your argument about CW map design is really one of the major sources of why sensors aren't quite as useful as they should be, and it pretty much boils down to the fact that sensors are LOS and the render distance is much further than sensor range. So if you can see to the edge of a 5000m wide map, but sensors only extend half of that distance but you can clearly see the mech, then what use are the sensors?

There are two things that need to happen to make sensors more useful, limit the visibility range in some way (to force scouts to separate from the group a little more), and allow certain sensors the ability to detect targets without LOS like seismic (not all mechs should have this, and range should vary).

On indirect fire of the game, my problem with making LRMs stronger indirect fire options, is that their direct fire useful is always nerfed to compensate, if people want artillery weapons, they need to be strictly artillery weapons and Battletech already has those, PGI just has to figure out a way to bring them in without crit splitting as an option. Arrow IV are the missiles you are searching for, let's avoid making LRMs anymore of an indirect weapon.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 September 2015 - 07:21 AM, said:

On indirect fire of the game, my problem with making LRMs stronger indirect fire options, is that their direct fire useful is always nerfed to compensate, if people want artillery weapons, they need to be strictly artillery weapons and Battletech already has those, PGI just has to figure out a way to bring them in without crit splitting as an option. Arrow IV are the missiles you are searching for, let's avoid making LRMs anymore of an indirect weapon.

This, I agree with the OP on everything else.

[Rebas Kradd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 September 2015 - 07:21 AM, said:

There are two things that need to happen to make sensors more useful, limit the visibility range in some way (to force scouts to separate from the group a little more), and allow certain sensors the ability to detect targets without LOS like seismic (not all mechs should have this, and range should vary).

But the first one goes back to gamemodes, because without proper incentive, scouts have no reason to split off from the pack. They'll just stick close to the deathball and head for the objective.

[stjobe]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 September 2015 - 07:21 AM, said:

On indirect fire of the game, my problem with making LRMs stronger indirect fire options, is that their direct fire useful is always nerfed to compensate, if people want artillery weapons, they need to be strictly artillery weapons and Battletech already has those, PGI just has to figure out a way to bring them in without crit splitting as an option. Arrow IV are the missiles you are searching for, let's avoid making LRMs anymore of an indirect weapon.

Removing the ability of LRMs to fire indirectly is not the answer.

The answer is to increase spread on indirect fire. Then decrease spread, buff speed, and flatten trajectory for direct LRM fire, and allow Narc, Artemis, and TAG all to tighten the spread further.

This means that you've incentivized direct-fire LRMs without removing its indirect-fire role, which you've made easy to counter unless there's a spotter with Narc and/or TAG helping out.

Basically you want the LRM pilot to go "nah, I won't fire at that indirect target, it's a waste of ammo. I'll wait for a spotter or just save my ammo for direct-fire instead".

But please observe that this means buffing direct-fire LRMs. They need to be an attractive alternative to other direct-fire weapons, or people will only take them for their indirect-fire capabilities.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Rebas Kradd, on 13 September 2015 - 07:43 AM, said:

But the first one goes back to gamemodes, because without proper incentive, scouts have no reason to split off from the pack. They'll just stick close to the deathball and head for the objective.

Scouts currently have enough reason to split off from the pack, if they are with the pack, they aren't doing their job. It has nothing to do with game modes. Deathball generally is not how coordinated matches work.

[Davers]

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2015 - 08:37 PM, said:

2. Incentivize scouting. Scouting can become a "beginners' game" for MWO players, allowing new players a role with less combat and more space to figure out the mech and its controls. Jack up the C-bill earnings of scouting so it's a legitimately attractive option and creates a sense of progression.

I would argue that scouting, a role that implies specialized mechs, equipment, and modules compared to loading your mech with medium lasers and SRMs would be an advanced player's role and should have options and abilities that a player with superior game knowledge would be able to do more with than a beginner. Ghost sensor readings, mine laying, Long Distance radar jamming, things like that. I am not sure if you are going to retain new players by telling them their best role is to not fight in a mech combat game.

[Rebas Kradd]

Davers, on 13 September 2015 - 08:15 PM, said:

I would argue that scouting, a role that implies specialized mechs, equipment, and modules compared to loading your mech with medium lasers and SRMs would be an advanced player's role and should have options and abilities that a player with superior game knowledge would be able to do more with than a beginner. Ghost sensor readings, mine laying, Long Distance radar jamming, things like that. I am not sure if you are going to retain new players by telling them their best role is to not fight in a mech combat game.

A lot of lights don't want to be in a 12v12 deathbrawl between Dire Wolves, and I don't blame them. If that's their alternative, I think a lot of them would love to scout. At least it would be an option.

It's worth asking, though, how many people really want to scout. I'll wager it's a relatively small group of hardcore nerds. So we have to ask ourselves...how many people really wanted the four pillars, and how many people just want mech combat?

[Davers]

Rebas Kradd, on 13 September 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:

A lot of lights don't want to be in a 12v12 deathbrawl between Dire Wolves, and I don't blame them. If that's their alternative, I think a lot of them would love to scout. At least it would be an option.

It's worth asking, though, how many people really want to scout. I'll wager it's a relatively small group of hardcore nerds. So we have to ask ourselves...how many people really wanted the four pillars, and how many people just want mech combat?

The 4 Pillars is about mech combat- how mechs interact with the battlefield. Right now as the game stands there is no need for scouting, and light mechs armed to the teeth can do scouting just as well as a mech with sensor modules, BAP, NARC, and what have you. PGI's infowar seems confined to paper dolls and target locks, and I think that is a rather limited and nearly pointless focus. Instead of Scouting, let's call it Recon and give Recon mechs stuff to do that isn't 'have ECM, hide in a bush, press R, Profit'. I would love to have light Recon mechs find and mark hidden minefields so a heavy mech with a minesweeper could clear it and things like that. Personally, I don't think assault mechs are 'punished' enough for their slow speed/high firepower and would like to see 'strategic speed' be more important in the game. I would love to see real objectives that forced more lance on lance combat, and the actual need to scout to see where the enemy was deploying their forces rather than the usual 'Meet at the same place and brawl'. I always played scenarios with objectives in Battletech.

But most players don't really want depth. They want to have one large mech that is equally good in all situations and just fight all the time. You see that whenever an assault pilot complains that light mechs should not be able to kill him, or when players get mad their base got capped in Assault. I would like to see matches be longer as well, which is unpopular because everyone is just grinding out Cbills to buy the next mech rather than just enjoying playing with the mech they brought into the match.

Sorry if I got into a rant here.

[Kmieciu]

Rebas Kradd, on 13 September 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:

A lot of lights don't want to be in a 12v12 deathbrawl between Dire Wolves, and I don't blame them. If that's their alternative, I think a lot of them would love to scout. At least it would be an option.

Nobody wants to be in a deathbrawl between 2 Dire Wolves. Not even a third Dire Wolf!
Right now, fast lights are great as flankers. Thanks to weapon quirks, they shoot fast, have better range and better heat efficiency. When I use a Locust-1E, I know it has the potential to do the highest damage in a match. It is so fast and agile that you can pump the damage at maximum possible rate while changing positions non-stop. Driving one is an intoxicating adrenaline rush.

Take away it's weapon quirks and we're back to then it was released: a DOA mech that brings nothing new to the table. No amount of skill can overcome the meager 7 TrueDUBz. Locust is so fragile, it needs both agility and firepower.

Davers, on 13 September 2015 - 09:12 PM, said:

Personally, I don't think assault mechs are 'punished' enough for their slow speed/high firepower and would like to see 'strategic speed' be more important in the game.

Right now, slow assaults are IMHO too punished. Mechs like Atlas, Highlander and Awesome (except 9M and PB) are slow and under-gunned, compared to Jagermechs or Thunderbolts. Fast assaults do fine, because they are used as bigger heavies.
The only mech that is slow, yet powerful is the Direwolf. In comparison, King Crab does not feel like it has enough firepower to offset it slow speed and wide profile.

Edited by Kmieciu, 14 September 2015 - 12:04 AM.