102 replies to this topic

[pwnface]

Gas Guzzler, on 18 April 2016 - 08:51 AM, said:

What's funny is scouting is incredibly important in higher level group queue matches and competitive matches.

You want to see more Commandos/Mist Lynxes used? Give them 600m radar without LOS (no missile locks though, just positional).

I once started a thread suggesting that BAP should do exactly this.

BAP should be locked to certain mechs the same way ECM is.
BAP should give a 250m-360m "UAV" vision that doesn't require line of sight.
Targets marked by BAP only are not targetable for LRMs.
BAP and ECM cancel each other out, meaning if they are within each other's radius' they both have ZERO effect.

This makes BAP much more valuable as a piece of equipment rather than being used 99% of the time as anti-ECM only.

[SteelBruiser]

Gas Guzzler, on 18 April 2016 - 08:51 AM, said:

Regardless of his word choice, the objective points he makes are 100% correct.



What's funny is scouting is incredibly important in higher level group queue matches and competitive matches.

What is so ironic is how often people whine about no role warfare and the lack of importance of scouting when they wouldn't know what good scouting was if it hit them in the face. Matches can be won or lost on information about enemy positioning and mech loadouts, or lack thereof.



This right here would be awesome, and the epitome of information warfare.

You want to see more Commandos/Mist Lynxes used? Give them 600m radar without LOS (no missile locks though, just positional).

Yup, many folks have no clue what scouting is and some don't care to know. Had a match yesterday on Polar Highland and during the drop the message "Stay together, don't leave the assaults behind" popped up three times. After drop, I and two other lights took off to scout, one left, one right and one up the middle. Then over VOIP we heard, "that's right, don't listen, just take off and die" with several expletives to highlight his disdain for our actions. I said it's called scouting so we can better direct the team to the enemy. He replied, "It's called glory hounding and dying needlessly. We don't need scouting they'll find us soon enough". We ignored him, found the enemy and lead them back to our team. And yes, the whiner was an assault pilot. I have nothing against assaults, I run my KGCs every chance I get, just self interested whiners. Staying together is good advice but not to the extent of being tactically blind. Waiting for the enemy to start shooting is not a good way to find out which way to point your weapons.

When I'm in my KGC, I like to have one light or medium with us as the rest of the team moves ahead to setup the firing line. The big guys only need one or two support mechs to help keep the skeeters off their backs during the trip, not the whole dang team. And we do truly appreciate those escorts, believe me.

As stated above, the outcome of a match is dependant on the timeliness of good tactical information which, in this game, is normally provided by the lights.

Are most lights obsolete? I haven't driven all of them yet so I don't know. I have run Ravens', Locusts and Jenner IICs and so far I've found purpose and success for each. Granted, some are more labor intensive than others, but they can still be pushed to complete various tasks. As I run the other lights I may change my opinion but at present I believe there are more limitations provided by the pilots than inherent in the mechs.

[Khobai]

Quote

It might be the easiest way, but it is also terrible game play and way too similar to the crap they tried on the test server awhile back that was pretty damn near universally despised.

It was despised specifically because it singled out lasers and made them weaker than other weapons. it also made ECM reduce laser damage which made absolutely no sense.

had it affected all weapons equally, and if ECM stealth was completely removed like it should be, it wouldve been better received

again... theyre totally different ideas.

Edited by Khobai, 18 April 2016 - 11:59 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

had it affected all weapons equally it wouldve been better received

lolno, it would've been hated even more.

Had they not added the range based on lock crap, the other sensor changes may have been better received.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 April 2016 - 11:59 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

lolno, it would've been hated even more.

and youre basing that on what? your own opinion? honestly you cant say the idea would be despised if it was never tried... its baseless speculation. And yes its totally different than what was on the test server.

also I dont see you coming up with any suggestions to make sensors actually matter. my idea would actually work; players would be forced to use sensors in order to do full damage past 800m (under 800m it would still be easy to get sensor locks). It would fix the long range poking meta as well as make sensor warfare way more important.

Edited by Khobai, 18 April 2016 - 12:10 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

and youre basing that on what? you cant say the idea would be despised if it was never tried. its baseless speculation.

Its based on the fact that those who disliked the laser idea didn't dislike it because it was only on lasers, they disliked it because it was un-intuitive and badly thought out. You suggesting that affecting all weapons instead of just lasers would be better received is just as baseless, throwing that accusation is a double-edged sword just fyi.

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

also I dont see you coming up with any better ideas to make sensors matter

You mean like suggesting that mechs that are meant to be more sensor oriented getting better versions of seismic essentially, plus what pwnface suggested, and the removal of seismic as a module?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 April 2016 - 12:05 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

and youre basing that on what? your own opinion? honestly you cant say the idea would be despised if it was never tried... its baseless speculation.

also I dont see you coming up with any suggestions to make sensors actually matter.

This one was easy to find:

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 April 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

If you want info warfare to be an aspect, focus on the importance of positional data and making some sensors not simply LOS based.

And yeah, the ghost damage idea was bad. Make sensors sense things, not boost damage/range output.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 18 April 2016 - 12:06 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

It would fix the long range poking meta

This really isn't that big of a thing outside of 1-2 maps for 8v8. 12v12 maybe adds one or two maps on top of that list, otherwise mid-long is the strongest for the average drop weight, especially in PUGs.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 April 2016 - 12:07 PM.

[pwnface]

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

It was despised specifically because it singled out lasers and made them weaker than other weapons. it also made ECM reduce laser damage which made absolutely no sense.

had it affected all weapons equally, and if ECM stealth was completely removed like it should be, it wouldve been better received

again... theyre totally different ideas.

I think applying the reduced damage on no target lock to all weapons would be more FAIR but I don't think more people would like it. It was a bad mechanic to have in the game no matter what weapons you apply it to.

[Gas Guzzler]

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

It would fix the long range poking meta as well as make sensor warfare way more important.

Oh gosh, the long range (800+m) poking meta that is so prevalent, all the time. Like 25% of the time, so terrible.

I think I see more LRMs day to day (even in tier 1) than I see ER LL in the solo/group queue.

[pwnface]

I wish there was a "seismic decoy" consumable module that you could use that would just spam seismic pings in a location for like 10 seconds. This would be great for throwing off enemy seismic detection of your teams movements.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

pwnface, on 18 April 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

I wish there was a "seismic decoy" consumable module that you could use that would just spam seismic pings in a location for like 10 seconds. This would be great for throwing off enemy seismic detection of your teams movements.

This is an example of actual info warfare equipment that could actually change things, because non-LOS sensors are easier to mess with sense you don't have sight to actually confirm whether it is a false-positive or not.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 April 2016 - 12:11 PM.

[Darian DelFord]

I am all for making sensor's better

If your an assault you sensor profile is detected up to 1000 meters if in LOS

If your a Heavy your sensor profile is detected up to 800 meters if in LOS

If your Medium your Sensor profile is detcted up to 500 meters if in LOS

If your a light your sensor profile is detected up to 400ish meters if in LOS

There sensors matter.

A locust should not have the same sensor profile as an atlas.

Edited by Darian DelFord, 18 April 2016 - 12:15 PM.

[pwnface]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 April 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

This is an example of actual info warfare equipment that could actually change things, because non-LOS sensors are easier to mess with sense you don't have sight to actually confirm whether it is a false-positive or not.

Imagine this in a competitive drop...

Team 1 sends it's 2 lights 2 mediums to a forward position and deploys "decoys".
Team 2 sends it's 1 BAP/Seismic equipped mech to scout and picks up 8 pings/doritos and yells out "whole team here"
Team 1 heavy and assault lance pops out from a different angle and lands a bunch of free damage.
Team 2 turns to deal with the surprise attack from Team 1.
Team 1 lights and mediums immediately move to flank Team 2 who now have their backs turned on the faster moving lance.

This is information warfare to me.

This is a lot more interesting to me than "press R for locks guys..."

Edited by pwnface, 18 April 2016 - 12:16 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

pwnface, on 18 April 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

Imagine this in a competitive drop...

Team 1 sends it's 2 lights 2 mediums to a forward position and deploys "decoys".
Team 2 sends it's 1 BAP/Seismic equipped mech to scout and picks up 8 pings/doritos and yells out "whole team here"
Team 1 heavy and assault lance pops out from a different angle and lands a bunch of free damage.
Team 2 turns to deal with the surprise attack from Team 1.
Team 1 lights and mediums immediately move to flank Team 2 who now have their backs turned on the faster moving lance.

This is information warfare to me.

This is a lot more interesting to me than "press R for locks guys..."

Inb4 "most matches aren't competitive drops so none of this is valid, you e-sport atrocity to BattleTech you"

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

pwnface, on 18 April 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

Imagine this in a competitive drop...

Team 1 sends it's 2 lights 2 mediums to a forward position and deploys "decoys".
Team 2 sends it's 1 BAP/Seismic equipped mech to scout and picks up 8 pings/doritos and yells out "whole team here"
Team 1 heavy and assault lance pops out from a different angle and lands a bunch of free damage.
Team 2 turns to deal with the surprise attack from Team 1.
Team 1 lights and mediums immediately move to flank Team 2 who now have their backs turned on the faster moving lance.

This is information warfare to me.

This is a lot more interesting to me than "press R for locks guys..."

There's a lot they could add to this game if they just look at modern maneuver warfare:
-smoke launchers
-IR strobes
-blackout sensors
-active/passive transmission
-jammers

Then they could add seismic decoys and radar decoys.

There's a lot information warfare and having "hit R to have lasers do full damage" is not information warfare.

[WarHippy]

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

It was despised specifically because it singled out lasers and made them weaker than other weapons. it also made ECM reduce laser damage which made absolutely no sense.

had it affected all weapons equally, and if ECM stealth was completely removed like it should be, it wouldve been better received

again... theyre totally different ideas.

As someone who tried it out heavily on the test server all I can say is you are wrong. There was a lot of fear they would also implement that crap on the other weapon systems as well so no I really don't think it would have been better received. That being said while the ideas are different they are very similar in final outcome which is crappy game play. There are better less obnoxious ways of putting more emphasis on scouting without resorting to gimmicky ghost damage style mechanics. Adding more tools to choose from for providing info the team can actually use like the above mentioned BAP change would be a far better option than what you are suggesting.

[wanderer]

Quote

I think giving lights a sensor that turns them in to a half range UAV would be good ( like a ecm bubble), they could hide around the enemy and give free targets for there team. Or hang around assaults and pick up other lights flanking before they get their rear armour shredded.

http://www.sarna.net...ensor_Dispenser

And honestly, changing convergence without a sensor lock is something I've been suggesting for months. Damage spread matters.

[WarHippy]

Darian DelFord, on 18 April 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

I am all for making sensor's better

If your an assault you sensor profile is detected up to 1000 meters if in LOS

If your a Heavy your sensor profile is detected up to 800 meters if in LOS

If your Medium your Sensor profile is detcted up to 500 meters if in LOS

If your a light your sensor profile is detected up to 400ish meters if in LOS

There sensors matter.

A locust should not have the same sensor profile as an atlas.

That is very similar to what I have suggested in the past. Ignoring the ghost damage nonsense from the test server I always felt they did the sensor stuff kind of backwards. To quote myself from another thread last week.

"The sensor stuff I think they just did it backwards, and made it a little convoluted in typical PGI fashion. However, instead of each individual mech having its own sensor range(some of which were just silly given the default weapon load outs of some of the mechs) I think it would have been better if they all had more or less the same sensor range(some exceptions), but with different ranges at which they themselves can be detected. You could make a system like that as simple or as complex as you wanted without causing some of the problems we had on the test server.

Example of a simple version of what I am talking about:
Assault mechs detectable within 850m
Heavy mechs detectable within 650m
Medium mechs detectable within 475m
Light mechs detectable withing 325m

Obviously you could break that down more based on individual mech weights and roles, and quirks could play a role in determining detection range. This also opens up options for modules and new skills in proper skill trees, and takes away the need for ECM to function the way it currently does. Heck, even the command console could play a more interesting role in that environment."

Add in new tools like the above mentioned BAP changes and you have a much more interesting and dynamic environment in my opinion.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

wanderer, on 18 April 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

And honestly, changing convergence without a sensor lock is something I've been suggesting for months. Damage spread matters.

So does making already bad mechs worse.....

I have no problem with allowing you toggle convergence between your crosshairs and a locked target (would make poking more interesting for those with solid mounts), but not for removing convergence without lock, again, that isn't really info warfare just like ghost range/damage.