53 replies to this topic

[heimdelight]

I highly disagree. The game at it's core has too many players dealing too much damage for progressive scanning to ever matter. Time to kill is very low due to very high alphas not only firing once, but 2 more times. That is ~45-84 damage multiplied by 3, just from one 'Mech. You then multiply that by 12.

Also, the game modes are absolute ****, as well as the spawn points for them. There are a shitload of other problems that need to be fixed before we as a community can even possibly know what is best for the game. All I know is that the amount of damage being dealt in short, fast bursts is far too much from too many people for targeting to ever matter.

Firepower, whether it be trading or brawling, is king.

Before reducing map size, try a King of the Hill game mode where the hill moves every 2 mins, and make the next hill spawn in a random direction 700m from the current hill. That way, the hill doesn't randomly get spawned halfway across the map.

This plays out fantastic, especially in the endgame, because if 2 'mechs are left and run away when there is one enemy, the one enemy can stand on the caps and win the game out. Set a max cap number (like 5 mins total on cap), game ends by kills/max cap/time limit. Teams spawn in a group of 12 in opposite directions 1000m from the cap, this all also means all cap points will need to have parameters set for where it can possibly spawn on the map.

[jay35]

FlipOver, on 15 September 2015 - 05:56 AM, said:

Takes 3 minutes to walk into a fight... hmmm and that's a problem, how?

Because the way this arena shooter is monetized, we have to grind out cbills and the result of larger maps is matches take longer on average to resolve which means we are earning less cbills per play session. However many matches you used to complete in a given period of time, it is now reduced. And the more larger revisions of maps they release, the further reduced your earnings will be. It's a stealthy nerf that a lot of people haven't realized yet.

heimdelight, on 15 September 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

I highly disagree. The game at it's core has too many players dealing too much damage for progressive scanning to ever matter.

On the flipside of the in-match experience, if someone has been exposed long enough for even half of the proposed unlocks to be applied to their radar signature and/or mech, they are likely already almost dead so all of those penalties added on to them seems unnecessary.

Edited by jay35, 15 September 2015 - 04:10 PM.

[Livewyr]

As is usual with a Homeless Bill idea, I support it as being much better than the current system/direction.

Not 100% agreement, but 100% support as alternative to what we have now.

[Koniks]

This is simultaneously more complicated and shallow than an active/passive radar system w/ LOS targeting.

[jay35]

Mizeur, on 15 September 2015 - 06:55 PM, said:

This is simultaneously more complicated and shallow than an active/passive radar system w/ LOS targeting.

MW4 Mercs MekTek sensor systems would be a great starting point for what MWO should have. Every piece of equipment interacted with the rest to create a nice layered set of detection ranges.

To quote from a previous post in another thread a while back:

, if they change the functionality of ECM, then as long as they actually added Active/Passive radar functionality alongside that change to ECM, I'd be okay with it. So long as there is some replacement mechanic to avoid lock-on missiles and retain stealth, it's cool. I'd actually prefer the active/passive MW4 Mercs MekTek style radar modes because you lose something in order to gain something. You can shut off your active radar but you lose significant detection range but you gain stealth. And the simple but really well-balanced setup they had for how all the electronics interacted was fantastic for adding variance and depth

.
For that chart:
A = Active Radar mode
B = Beagle Active Probe (or Clan equivalent) onboard
E = ECM onboard
P = Passive Radar mode
SD = Shut Down
And the two columns are the mechs and what they're carrying / their sensors state, and then the range in meters at which they can detect the opposite mech.

So for example, in the first line, a mech with Active Radar, BAP, and ECM could detect a normal active-radar-using target out to 1200m but could only be detected within 650m by that mech. On the second line, we see that adding BAP to the second mech essentially adds 150m to the detection range at which that second mech can see the ECM-carrying, active-radar-using mech. And the chart goes on from there, showing all the various combinations of equipment and radar states.

The actual ranges (the hard numbers) might need some tweaks, but the overall concept was sound and added a bit of depth to electronics and stealth warfare.

[FlipOver]

jay35, on 15 September 2015 - 04:06 PM, said:

Because the way this arena shooter is monetized, we have to grind out cbills and the result of larger maps is matches take longer on average to resolve which means we are earning less cbills per play session. However many matches you used to complete in a given period of time, it is now reduced. And the more larger revisions of maps they release, the further reduced your earnings will be. It's a stealthy nerf that a lot of people haven't realized yet.

I understand that, but I never said PGI shouldn't increase the C-Bill and XP awards if the matches were to be longer.

[Homeless Bill]

SniperCzar, on 15 September 2015 - 07:17 AM, said:

I think we could simplify the whole system into three broad levels. Visual profile, acoustic profile, and sensor profile.

Works for me. Any version of this where some sort of serious buffs were applied to scouting would work for me.

Sarlic, on 15 September 2015 - 07:18 AM, said:

I don't see why PGI would listen. There has been tons of proposals on sensor range/passive/active radar and yet none of them have been implented. Ongoing since 2012.

I like all the idea's but it's a waste of your time.

I just like writing about game design. It's been awhile, I got inspired, and it is what it is. I'm under no illusion that I think they'll read it let alone implement it.

Malleus011, on 15 September 2015 - 08:23 AM, said:

A couple questions - how could a Command Console (finally) become useful in this system? How would a Targeting Computer fit in? UAV consumable?

it seems like the information gathered should decay over time.

Populating the team roster with enemy 'mechs would be an awesome addendum to this

What sort of ranges are we thinking of for scanning? The standard 800 meters? Would a mech know it was being scanned? Would it only get an alert when a certain level was tripped?

UAV and NARC would do what they always do - provide indirect locks. A lot of people are misunderstanding the last level. I was just thinking about a non-targetable marker - not full locks. Command Console, Targeting Computer, and C3 could all be implemented in a more sensible, useful way with unique tie-ins.

I agree with decay as stated in my other reply. I omitted it for simplicity and perhaps that wasn't the best choice.

Populating the roster is the what I mean when I say the chassis information appears on the scoreboard in the first scan level. That first scout bonus was actually the idea I have been begging for them to implement for a long time and expanded on to come up with this system.

Hobo Dan, on 15 September 2015 - 09:26 AM, said:

I’d love the chance to run it on Test.

#PGIpls

Alexander Garden, on 15 September 2015 - 09:30 AM, said:

Need to move this over to the re-balance sub-forum.

#PGIpls =[

Davers, on 15 September 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

While I think I agree with everyone of your observations about the game, it seems your solution centers around the very things you said competitive players are unaffected by.

I'm fine with swapping out bonuses to something that would more seriously affect competitive play, such as critical hit chance, damage, etc. I realize that as proposed it isn't oriented at high-level play. It would be better than what we have, but really the game has way bigger issues than infotech in terms of competitive balance. Clan vs IS weapon balance, real game modes, and map / spawn adjustments are what the competitive scene needs more than anything.

[Duke Nedo]

Great concept!

Have a few doubts in practice... as it is now, a scout that actually scouts and just give a visual on the entire enemy team can be very powerful too, but how often do you see anyone do that in puglandia? Because of little rewards I guess, that spotting LCT-1V rather fires his 1 ERLL once and runs behind cover than continuing spotting...

May be difficult to balance properly, in regard to the MM's capability to create good matches... would/should 11 fighers+1 spotter be equal to 12 fighers?

Being singled out a get huge negative things being stacked up against you will be extremely frustrating for everyone outside the competetive level. A match could quickly become ruined because you're unlucky, while all is working as intented. Could create un-fun... which is never good.

Anyways, sorry for sounding pessimistic, in principle I think it's a great concept!

[LCCX]

All information warfare boils down to:

• What can you sense?
  
• What can you hide?
  
• What can be done with that information?

There is no credible way to make sensing and hiding sufficiently important for a meaningful, dedicated scout role to be viable without substantially improving #3 - what can be done with the information. This [Homeless Bill's] suggestion acknowledges that and directly attempts to solve the root problem. For that, all thumbs up. There would be plenty of tweaking needed to come up with a final, well balanced system (as is acknowledged by Homeless Bill already), but I think that seeing proposals for improving this suggestion, as opposed to outright replacements or rejection of it, shows its strength and quality.

Considerations:

• Doritos are frequently the only way to effectively share enemy location information with a PUG team, and people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have to play with the volume off can still receive the information.
  
• A scout on Teamspeak can poke out and back and THEN report what they saw.

Thoughts:

• Much more generous use of doritos and sensor blips would substantially close the gap between voice-comms and voiceless teams. I don't think that it gives any additional advantage to anyone unless that information would not have been communicated (i.e. uncommunicative scout).
  
• Much more generous provision of mech chassis identification could help newer players more quickly learn what everything is (there are a LOT of mechs now, and many of us got to learn them one at a time). Again, I don't think that gives an advanced player any information they did not have before.
  
• I'd really like to see sensors target ALL enemy mechs within range and line of sight. It would help communicate to the team via doritos (instead of spamming R to attempt to communicate the number of enemies located), it would not require that newbs learn to press 'R' to share information as well as to receive/use it, and it would decrease the difference in scouting usefulness between voice-comms and voiceless teams.
  
• Letting ECM retain its all-or-nothing "hide doritos and outright prevent target locks" features leaves it most powerful against the least experienced players (who aren't communicating information on enemies by voice and haven't learned to leave their LRMs at home to gather dust). Implementing a system like the one suggested here by HomelessBill would offer a design opportunity to let ECM decrease scanning rates and BAP increase them rather than the all-or-nothing approach. Furthermore, then "defeat ECM" would no longer have the same strength.

----------

MHO, the suggested "permanent X" levels are overpowered and, beyond that, don't make a lot of intuitive sense.

IMHO, letting multiple mechs simultaneously scan a target to scan is overpowered - even more "no, YOU go first" when it's time to push, and disincentive to brawl where multiple enemies can see you.

As Mu0nNeutrino pointed out, many of the suggested scan level benefits are "debuff sneaky".

If scanned level decays, then that will incentivize hiding for the sake of reducing scanned level. Without significant scanned level decay, then what Mu0nNeutrino said re: snowballing.

• How about if targets get scanned at an increased rate (double?) up to their previous maximum scanned level so that there is still some durable advantage to scanning someone a bunuch, but there can still be a steep scanned level decay (<5 seconds for 100% to 0%)?
  
• How about more "take more damage" and less "debuff sneaky" levels? I particularly like the "increase crit chance" suggested by Gonzotron5000 and "reveal heat level" suggested by astrocanis.

Edited by LCCX, 16 September 2015 - 08:27 AM.

[pyrocomp]

LCCX, on 16 September 2015 - 08:23 AM, said:

• How about more "take more damage" and less "debuff sneaky" levels? I particularly like the "increase crit chance" suggested by Gonzotron5000 and "reveal heat level" suggested by astrocanis.

I'd say that the crit chances for unscanned targets should be lowered in the first place.

[Koniks]

Active/passive radar is better because the only 3 things from the sensor system that really matter are your bonuses at 10% 80% and 100%. Knowing where mechs are, what they are, and giving them a designation.

And of those the first is by far the most important. Your change doesn't alter the underlying mechanic of LOS + R = target location and info. Which means ECM and cover are the only choices that matter.

Having to choose between active radar giving away your position to see the enemy position, or passive to hide your position but only get enemy position through LOS or very close range, with ECM and active probe affecting distances, TIG and lock times, provides a lot more choices and strategy.

It turns scouting and information denial into an active decision other than in the mechlab and whether to hit R once you've got LOS. You can still apply bonuses to LOS targeting but that's frosting, not cake.

Edited by Mizeur, 16 September 2015 - 01:30 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

pyrocomp, on 16 September 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

I'd say that the crit chances for unscanned targets should be lowered in the first place.

well - as you know there is some equipment not yet implemented.... the C3 network.


you don't share target information with your team without C3.

without C3:

a target is spotted information like "designation - for exampel Hotel; type AS7-D; and location are shared." and visible on the map.
They red spots on the map don't vanish instantly - so its possible to track enemy movement for a while - even if you did not have looked on the map while the targets where visible.

each mech gather intel on enemy mechs on his own - maximum level maybe 50% - for each with different "bonus possibilitys"

with C3
- all target data is shared - maximum is 100% - you got some really good bonus options like increased critical damage etc.

[Inflatable Fish]

OP gets my stamp of approval.

[Quardak]

Dumbs up.

The Idea is great. Permanent Boni are not so good. But your Scanned level can decrease when you move into cover...