34 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

Before you flip the table, let me explain:

• I would like some mechs to have better sensors than others. For example, mechs such as the Locust 1V or Mist Lynx, which are celebrated scouts in lore, or even mechs such as the Black Knight, whose advanced communications gear is hard to emulate in MWO, they should all have improved sensors.
  
• I would like some mechs to be harder to detect than others. Mechs shouldn't depend so much on ECM to be stealthy. It should be possible for certain mechs to be stealthy just by virtue of their size or profile. For example, your radar should have more difficulty detecting a stationary Locust 1V than an XL400-equipped Kodiak running at full speed.

Here's what I don't want:

• I don't want "Ghost range", the idea that Paul tested out in the latest Public Test, which was thankfully rejected and abandoned. I'm not saying lasers should have less range or do less damage unless you have target lock. That's a separate concept, and it's already been scrapped, so it's a moot point for the purposes of this discussion.

I just want a little more flavour of role warfare in the game, and a little bit of realism, if possible. It would be cool if the Adder, lacking speed or ECM, had an Infotech quirk that made it much harder to detect. Then it could be a more effective CERPPC sniper, for example. I'm not saying it should be invisible, but maybe just hard enough to detect that it could emerge from cover and fire a shot from a distance before being detected by the enemy.

There would be different kinds of Infotech quirks, of course. Some mechs would have better sensor range, some mechs would get paper doll info up faster. And it should have some semblance of realism. One thing I disliked about Infotech in public testing before was that different variants of the same mech had completely different properties. So a JR7-K might be as stealthy as a chameleon with smoke bombs, while the JR7-F was as easy to detect as a Dire Wolf, even though they're the same chassis. That makes no sense.

In a perfect world, there would be a hull down mechanic (i.e. difficult to detect mechs that are partiall obscured by terrain) and also passive / active sensors, but one thing at a time. God, I miss passive / active sensors though. Such a missed opportunity for interesting gameplay. But I digress.

I don't really think MWO needs more mechs, more tech and more weapons to add depth to the game. I think we need a bit more diverse and complex game mechanics, such as Infotech (or Infotech Light, if you will)

Not only would this add a bit more flavour to the game, it would potentially help some of the less popular mechs (e.g. Cicada, Ice Ferret, or most light mechs) without simply giving them godlike weapon and structure quirks. (You could do both, of course)

[FupDup]

The main concern is trying to find the exact point at which a mech with little or no combat power in exchange for sensors can be as useful as a mech that has very high combat power.

For example, what kind of crazy sensors would a Mist Lynx need to not be considered a running joke? I'm being serious here. Even crazy stuff like 1200+ meter detecting might not do it, and most maps don't even have long enough sight lines for that anyways.

I don't think that range of detecting and being detected would be sufficient for most gundams.

I think that stuff like having multiple red doritos locked at a time by only one mech (e.g. let the MLX have 3 doritos or something?) and much longer target decay (so you can peek around, get the dorito, and then scurry away while your team still sees enemy doritos for a few moments) would be the only things drastic enough...

[LordNothing]

didnt pgi mention some infotech plans like 3 town halls ago?

still waiting for those to come to fruition.

[Kumakichi]

Interesting post. I do think lights should get something more out of it. They give up all that tonnage to be a scout. If they are targeting and scouting for the group they aren't shooting much as drawing attention to themselves. I just think they should be rewarded more.

[Alistair Winter]

FupDup, on 21 February 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

The main concern is trying to find the exact point at which a mech with little or no combat power in exchange for sensors can be as useful as a mech that has very high combat power.
For example, what kind of crazy sensors would a Mist Lynx need to not be considered a running joke? I'm being serious here. Even crazy stuff like 1200+ meter detecting might not do it, and most maps don't even have long enough sight lines for that anyways.
I don't think that range of detecting and being detected would be sufficient for most gundams.

In another thread, I proposed a solution for sub-par light mechs. Give them better hardpoints / omnipods and engine cap. I mean, if you give the Mist Lynx 3E in each side torso, then you've gone a far way towards fixing it. MLX-P variant.

But this thread isn't about fixing the Mist Lynx or the Locust or anything like that. It's just about adding another layer of depth to the game, which - as a bonus - would potentially help smooth out the imbalances a bit. The Mist Lynx wouldn't be much better if it detected enemy mechs twice as fast or if it took enemy mechs 20% longer to get a lock with Streaks, for example. But it would be better.

FupDup, on 21 February 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

I think that stuff like having multiple red doritos locked at a time by only one mech (e.g. let the MLX have 3 doritos or something?) and much longer target decay (so you can peek around, get the dorito, and then scurry away while your team still sees enemy doritos for a few moments) would be the only things drastic enough...

Have you been reading PGI's old plans for role warfare? That is forbidden.

Spoiler

LordNothing, on 21 February 2016 - 12:23 PM, said:

didnt pgi mention some infotech plans like 3 town halls ago?
still waiting for those to come to fruition.

They mentioned it, tried it out. Then went radio silent. And as far as I know, NGNG never asked them about it again. (I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but it's a conspiracy.)

[Dr Hobo]

Don't forget the Crab too.

We have pseudo C3 Slave networks.

I'd like to see a C3 slave equipment added to the game,but I'm not sure how you'd get that in the game.

[Siegegun]

I am behind anything reasonable that would actually implement "information warfare". It might even make some of the "questionable" useful mechs actually viable and mean something.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

InfoTech, as a concept is great, but trying to implement IW without the standard "for tonnage" cost won't work.

This is simple: lights are not the only IW focused 'Mechs out there. There are many 'Mechs in all weight classes that were IW-type 'Mechs: Crab (50 tons), Cyclops (90 tons), even the command Atlas (100 tons); these all had IW variants.

Below is a solution I proposed during the "Great Rebalance"! I think it's great!

Note: All values are tentative and could be changed according to balance needs.

Part One: Hardpoints

• Introduce a new hardpoint for BAP/CAP (or future Active Probe type equipment) to limit the 'Mechs that can carry it.
  
• Introduce a new hardpoint for Sensors in the head of every 'Mech.

Part Two: Sensor Suites

Introduce a set of mountable-to-hardpoint sensor suites for each techline as new equipment.

Inner Sphere:

• Basic: 400m range, 0 tons, 2 crits
  
• Improved: 800m range, 1.5 ton, 2 crits
  
• Advanced: 1200m range, 3 tons, 3 crits

Clan:

• Standard: 500m range, 0 tons, 2 crits
  
• Extended: 1000m range, 2 tons, 3 crits

Battlemech:


Fully swappable sensor suites.

Omnimech:
Sensor suite locked to Head Omnipod. (Not my original idea, was suggested to me; but can't find the post right now )

Part Three: Checks and Balances

This is the final part and the most complex, but it revolves around a simple model:

Baseline -> modifier -> check.

In detail:

• Introduce passive sensors (Passive Mode) and active radar (Active Mode).
  
• Passive Mode only detect 'Mechs in Active Mode (does not detect other 'Mechs in Passive Mode).
  
• Active Mode detects 'Mechs in either Passive and Active Mode.
  
• ECM prevents detection from Active Mode, even when in Active Mode.
  
• BAP/CAP is now toggle-able and detects 'Mechs under ECM (either in Passive or Active Mode) and is considered Active Mode for detection purposes. Other functions unchanged.

So that would mean that:

• Passive Mode could detect an enemy in Active Mode, but not an enemy in Passive Mode.
  
• Active Mode could detect enemies in either Passive or Active Mode, but not if they are using ECM.
  
• Using ECM would allow a 'Mech to run in Active Mode without being detected unless the enemy 'Mech has BAP/CAP.
  
• Using BAP/CAP would allow a 'Mech to detect any enemy, despite whether they are in Active or Passive Mode or using ECM. But it would be considered Active Mode (and could be detected by enemies in Passive Mode) whenever toggled "Engaged"
  
• Using both ECM and BAP/CAP would allow a 'Mech to detect any enemy and would hide the 'Mech from all enemies except those using BAP/CAP.

Conclusion

This system is designed to make Sensor suites meaningful and make IW a viable and internally balancing system.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 21 February 2016 - 04:42 PM.

[Johnny Z]

This info tech would be a great addition to be used as a balancing factor for mechs like the Commando. Other mechs also of course.

Its to good of an idea for it not to be used at all. Credit to who ever thought it up. This will help with balancing a lot the under gunned mechs. Maybe why the recent balancing was done.

Edited by Johnny Z, 21 February 2016 - 06:06 PM.

[Onimusha shin]

I previously had posted something similar in the PTS sub-forum before. Not getting much response but later on, I thought of...

People/PGI might not like having less effective sensors that took longer to target enemies (compared to the instant doritos we have now), because, most people aren't as situationally aware as the higher tier pilots.

It MIGHT make lights with very high alphas even more OP because they can ambush you even more easily with more radar stealth. Personally, I'm all for it because as we can see, most other weight classes except heavies are not played as often, ESPECIALLY lights.

I'm definitely for giving light mechs or specialized mechs (not by lore please, by weak combat ability instead) more IW-based sensor quirks, and even restoring what PTS 2 & 3 wanted to introduce in terms of sensor range changes.

[Alistair Winter]

There are plenty of good ideas out there, and I'd be very happy to see a more comprehensive variant of IW-gameplay as suggested above. However, the more complex it gets, the further into the future it would be. And I'm arguing that PGI was very close to coming up with a feature that could be implemented in the near future. It's only a matter of tweaking what they have already.

Sensors based on tonnage and crits would be ideal (although I have no idea how it fits in with TT and stock builds and all that), but it's something that would take PGI a long time to do. What I'm suggesting would be much simpler, faster and easier.

Onimusha shin, on 21 February 2016 - 06:13 PM, said:

It MIGHT make lights with very high alphas even more OP because they can ambush you even more easily with more radar stealth. Personally, I'm all for it because as we can see, most other weight classes except heavies are not played as often, ESPECIALLY lights.

Yeah, stealthy mechs was a problem. But it went both ways.

• It was a problem to have light mechs zoom around on Forest Colony with amazing stealth quirks that basically surpassed ECM in some regards, because there was no warning before you got SPL'ed in the back.
  
• It was also a problem for light mechs such as the Firestarter, which PGI deemed to be a brawler in no need of good sensors. This basically meant that Firestarters would run around in a brawl without detecting any enemies at all, unless you stood still for 3 seconds and stared at them. It was pretty close to the old IFF bug in Beta-days, because you'd run around in a brawl and you wouldn't see that huge assault mech before you crashed into its crotch. And by then it was already ggclose.

The big problem in the version of the PTS was that PGI went too far with Infotech. The difference between a 'brawler' light mech and a 'scout' light mech was too much, and the same went for other weight classes as well. That's why I'm suggesting 'Infotech light'. It shouldn't turn a Commando into a stealth-armoured Predator, and it shouldn't turn every assault mech into Mr. Magoo. It's not the solution to all of MWO's problems. It's just another layer of complexity that would go some way to mitigating some problems and smoothing out the imbalances, if only a tiny bit.

[Sergeant Random]

If people consider dorito-delay too scary, maybe set the maximum stealthiness low? Let's say the stealthiest mechs have a 0.5 - 0.75 second dorito delay? Because admittedly, 5s dorito-delay will make the general public be scared of teh evil lights. (I'm not really sure how low the delay should max out - it can at least be nerfed or buffed according to current player sentiment.)

Edit: a max of 2s can be considered extreme yet acceptable compared to the average player reaction time...

Edited by Sergeant Random, 21 February 2016 - 06:53 PM.

[cazidin]

Dorito? Who needs a dorito to aim and shoot at those pesky light mechs?

Also, I just noticed... is... is the Ice Ferret's cockpit/CT... a Gargoyle cockpit/head?

Edited by cazidin, 21 February 2016 - 06:52 PM.

[El Bandito]

I guess this is relevant.

[Johnny Z]

IW could work off the concept that the more weapons charged the higher the signature. This could be a blanket rule that actually works well for the under gunned mechs and the over gunned mechs and makes ballistics like the machine gun more attractive. Easy to explain to.

This combined with mech weight class.

An Arctic Cheddar with the firepower of a heavy running around? Its charged weapons makes it easy for sensors to pick up. Same with the Firestarter. An under gunned Commando that poses no insta alpha strike threat doesn't show up so easy.

This part of IW could be based entirely off alpha strike total and mech weight(size).

Does this part of IW already work like this? I was in test but have no idea the details that were used and not much experience with it.

Edited by Johnny Z, 22 February 2016 - 03:31 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

This system is designed to make Sensor suites meaningful and make IW a viable and internally balancing system.

But if you have good eyesight you can see enemy mechs WAY before your sensors can even detect them. So how does anything you propose help make sensors worthwhile?

scouting/detection is quite frankly not a useful role in this game because I can see enemy mechs from across the map without sensors.

Sensors need a much more important function than just detection. Sensors need to directly impact how much damage mechs do.

Quote

I'm not saying lasers should have less range or do less damage unless you have target lock. That's a separate concept, and it's already been scrapped, so it's a moot point for the purposes of this discussion

Thats exactly what they need to do. Except with ALL weapons. All weapons should do less damage unless you have a sensor lock. Then theres actual incentive to get sensor locks.

Quote

The main concern is trying to find the exact point at which a mech with little or no combat power in exchange for sensors can be as useful as a mech that has very high combat power.

The ONLY way that can happen is if damage and sensors are somehow intertwined. For example if weapons suffer -30% damage without a sensor lock and need a sensor lock in order to do full damage to a target.

Unless PP implements some kindve intertwined damage/sensor system then doing more damage is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS going to trump sensor range. Even if your sensor range is infinite, it would still be inferior to
doing more damage.

For infotech to matter at all it has to effect damage output. Theres no other way to do it.

Scouting will NEVER be a thing in this game because you can see enemy mechs at long range without sensors. So the only possible use sensors could have is affecting damage. Mechs with high infotech would be responsible for obtaining and holding locks to maximize their team's damage.

Edited by Khobai, 22 February 2016 - 03:41 AM.

[Johnny Z]

Khobai, on 22 February 2016 - 03:20 AM, said:

The ONLY way that can happen is if damage and sensors are somehow intertwined. For example if weapons suffer -30% damage without a sensor lock and need a sensor lock in order to do full damage to a target.

Unless PP implements some kindve intertwined damage/sensor system then doing more damage is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS going to trump sensor range. Even if your sensor range is infinite, it would still be inferior to doing more damage.

For infotech to matter at all it has to effect damage output. Theres no other way to do it.

Scouting will NEVER be a thing in this game because you can see enemy mechs at long range without sensors. So the only possible use sensors could have is affecting damage. Mechs with high infotech would be responsible for obtaining and holding locks to maximize their team's damage.

I see where this is going and I also know some players use shaders to make mechs more visible and all the rest of it. But this would effect any locked damage and still makes mechs tougher to spot effecting damage.

A straight up improvement to whats in game now no question.

I thought less damage on unlocked targets was a good idea to. Not sure what the problem was with it. Even making it 5 % would be an improvement.

Edited by Johnny Z, 22 February 2016 - 03:39 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

But this would effect any locked damage and still makes mechs tougher to spot effecting damage.

right but it makes more sense just to have a damage penalty without a sensor lock.

either have a flat -30% damage penalty if the target your shooting at isnt locked. Or maybe do something like weapons cant do damage past their optimum range unless the target is locked.

the point is there needs to be a STRONG incentive to get sensor locks. And have sensors effect damage directly is the only way to do that.

[Johnny Z]

Khobai, on 22 February 2016 - 03:38 AM, said:

right but it makes more sense just to have a damage penalty without a sensor lock.

either have a flat -30% damage penalty if the target your shooting at isnt locked. Or maybe do something like weapons cant do damage past their optimum range unless the target is locked.

the point is there needs to be a STRONG incentive to get sensor locks. And have sensors effect damage directly is the only way to do that.

Any reduction in damage at all is a strong incentive.

[Khobai]

Quote

I thought less damage on unlocked targets was a good idea to. Not sure what the problem was with it.

The problem was that PGI tried to apply it to lasers only. When it should have been applied to EVERY weapon in the game.

I think the idea wouldve been accepted by the community had it affected all weapons equally rather than just selectively nerfing lasers.