104 replies to this topic

[Maaxxx]

Now that we`re going to have the Cyclops, and it`s "improved" sensors, would you like to see more mechs with this kind of perk?

The only one I could think of is the Raven. Also I know that the Sentinel has a good communication system, but I don`t know if that would be translated in a similar fashion.

Besides sensors, some other mechs like the Riffleman and the Jaggermech have better targetting computers lore wise. (That is on the Withworth too)

What other mechs can you think of that have some kind of "electronic advantage " that could have some funcionality in-game?

[Triordinant]

The Black Knight was originally a command 'mech for the Star League Defense Force.

[Afuldan McKronik]

Lots of mechs have better sensor suites. Some have better targetting comps (IS) and some are known for having terrible sensors.

[Raso]

It's not a question of want. We need it. This is exactly the sort of mechanic that can make some of the under performing mechs stand out.

[SpiralFace]

What I would like is for this stuff to actually matter in game.

In its current state, info tech is not really a "thing." Its pretty universal across all mechs, and as we saw in the PTS, even when they TRY to make it a deeper system its for the most part largely ignored because this game ONLY ever comes down to death ball skirmish mode with zero alternatives. So there really is no point to info tech because it already does nothing when the opponents can just ball up and kill the other team by running directly into them.

I want info tech to matter, but as long as the game only boils down to deathball skirmish being the ONLY way the game is ever played, there really is no point to infotech.

[Cy Mitchell]

Raso, on 20 April 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

It's not a question of want. We need it. This is exactly the sort of mechanic that can make some of the under performing mechs stand out.

This is exactly the mechanic that can make an under performing GAME stand out.

[Almond Brown]

Rampage, on 20 April 2016 - 09:24 AM, said:

This is exactly the mechanic that can make an under performing GAME stand out.

The only way to get "InfoWar" to be played more than the "DeathBall" everyone plays now is IF that mode is made more lucrative financially via C-Bill payouts. Now given most of these "Sensor" based Mechs are not Heavies or Assault class (I.S. ATLAS notwithstanding) how does PGI set up a payout scale that is beneficial for ALL?

98% play for the Pew Pew and not any form of Cool Techy ****. That is seen in all Game Modes boiling down to the same thing, payout. Why Cap when it pays ****? Why try and gains max points on some counter when it pays poorly as well (despite even when a Win does add benefit) if enemy Mechs are left on the field.

So what pricing structure could PGI use to allow for more than one play style to be "seen" as useful without butchering the "Kill em All" for max C-Bills payout that is the only one anyone cares about at this time.

Pew pew for C-Bills baby...

Edited by Almond Brown, 20 April 2016 - 09:57 AM.

[Maaxxx]

Yeah, it`s true, how the game is right now, infowar would not be that useful.

[SilentWolff]

Without bigger maps, scouting is pointless as is the "info war"

Edited by SilentWolff, 20 April 2016 - 10:02 AM.

[WhineyThePoo]

Giveth infowar NAOW!

[kapusta11]

Sensor range and locks don't kill mechs.

[HumpingBunny]

The question becomes: Is the reason every game-mode turns into a death ball a result of not having metrics such as electronic warfare? I'm speaking beyond ECM and BAP, by the way. Just thinking out load here - what if electronic warfare were added in the form of specific 'Mechs with an electronic package that:

-allowed for detection of 'Mechs, regardless of visual, out to a certain distance
-once you acquire a target, friendly 'Mechs would gather that target's info faster
-speed up friendly missile locks, if that friendly were within a certain distance of you or if you had a 'Mech targeted for that friendly
-and the list can go on and on

I'm not saying these would be particularly good implementations, I'm trying to make a point that there are many possibilities in the realm of electronic warfare that could make a big difference in the game if they came to fruition. COULD make a difference, I'm saying it WILL - but it would be nice to see some type of change in the matter.

[Koniving]

Would I like info warfare?

Yes.

Would I like PGI's limited scope of it?

Not unless it started to have some real depth. Not complexity, depth.

[Alan Davion]

SilentWolff, on 20 April 2016 - 10:02 AM, said:

Without bigger maps, scouting is pointless as is the "info war"

I'm forced to agree with this statement here.

Comparing most of the public maps with TT maps, our maps would be a 2x2, 2x3, or even 3x3 in terms of footage per side.

To make information warfare really mean something, we would need maps somewhere on the order of 4x4 at the smallest, and 6x6 at the largest, you need to make people spread out, find good positions to scout from, have to /really/ search the map to find the enemies.

This game is comparable to Call of Duty when it comes to the tiny map sizes, when you need stuff like Battlefield which had at least a couple maps that were about a kilometer in width.

Obviously we would need maps to be considerably larger in order to cope with mech speeds from 64.8 kmh on the low end of average, to 170-someodd kmh for those really quick little lights like the Locust, but you get my meaning, or at least I hope you do.

This is especially true when PGI finally gets around to releasing the asymmetrical assault mode with the Union class dropship as the focal point of the map. Those maps will need to be absolutely huge to make it feel right.

[C E Dwyer]

As with many things it depends on how it's introduced and how it effects play.

Ostscout, had the best info gathering systems in the league once, also there is a two seat variant of the Battlemaster ( not sure if this is cannon) that was supposed to have improved sensors, sarna presumes its for a command console, though nothing indicates it needs a second person to operate it

[Koniving]

Cathy, on 20 April 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

also there is a two seat variant of the Battlemaster ( not sure if this is cannon) that was supposed to have improved sensors, sarna presumes its for a command console, though nothing indicates it needs a second person to operate it.

It is canon.

The Battlemaster 2C is the mech in question.

Technically the Command Console is supposed to require a second person to take advantage of the CC's facilities as the bonuses are actually from having someone OTHER than the pilot able to use a command mech's Command Sensor Suite without the distractions of piloting and combat. (The sensor suite itself doesn't change or improve as it is put into a mech that already has the Command Mech designation -- that in itself is what gives a slightly better sensor suite. Any bonuses are from the use of it by someone not managing the mech itself that gives the bonuses). However the other advantage is that should the pilot be incapacitated, the commander can take control of the mech, losing the additional sensor bonuses (due to the distraction of controlling the mech).

"If the secondary MechWarrior is not piloting the 'Mech he can make use of the command and control functions of the Command Console to add +2 to his side's initiative". Basically better reaction time not just for the user but for the entire team. The sensors themselves don't seem improved at all, but this isn't looking into the double blind rules to be certain.

Edited by Koniving, 20 April 2016 - 11:08 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Cathy, on 20 April 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

As with many things it depends on how it's introduced and how it effects play.

Ostscout, had the best info gathering systems in the league once, also there is a two seat variant of the Battlemaster ( not sure if this is cannon) that was supposed to have improved sensors, sarna presumes its for a command console, though nothing indicates it needs a second person to operate it

Koniving, on 20 April 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

It is canon.

The Battlemaster 2C is the mech in question.

Technically the Command Console is supposed to require a second person to take advantage of the CC's facilities as the bonuses are actually from having someone OTHER than the pilot able to use a command mech's Command Sensor Suite without the distractions of piloting and combat. (The sensor suite itself doesn't change or improve as it is put into a mech that already has the Command Mech designation -- that in itself is what gives a slightly better sensor suite. Any bonuses are from the use of it by someone not managing the mech itself that gives the bonuses). However the other advantage is that should the pilot be incapacitated, the commander can take control of the mech, losing the additional sensor bonuses (due to the distraction of controlling the mech).

"If the secondary MechWarrior is not piloting the 'Mech he can make use of the command and control functions of the Command Console to add +2 to his side's initiative". Basically better reaction time not just for the user but for the entire team. The sensors themselves don't seem improved at all, but this isn't looking into the double blind rules to be certain.

If I'm not mistaken, Theodore Kurita used a Battlemaster 2C at some point didn't he? I could very well be mistaken as it's been several years since I read the novels.

Let me check Sarna.net to make sure.

...

...

Theodore isn't listed, but Hanse Davion and Takashi Kurita are... I know Hanse kept his, as he used it to defend Avalon City at one point. Don't know what Takashi did with his mech.

[Alistair Winter]

Yes. I cannot fathom why they created Infotech and then rejected it completely, just because parts of it were broken. It's dumb.

MWO needs it. It won't make or break any mechs, but the game needs every shred of depth they can add to it.

[ChapeL]

The current implementation of "info war" we have in the game is that every mech on your team is linked into a C3 network. ( for free ). That capability is supposed to be a physical piece of equipment with a tonnage attached to it. If we are going to see any headway made into real information warfare, PGI is going to have to remove the current target sharing system ( which was supposed to be a placeholder back in 2011 ).

In order to have what we currently take for granted back we would have to install the appropriate piece of hardware into our machines.

That also creates an opportunity for mechs like the Raven and Cyclops and Black Knight ( and I forget others) to really bring something unique to the table.

[Alan Davion]

Alistair Winter, on 20 April 2016 - 11:14 AM, said:

Yes. I cannot fathom why they created Infotech and then rejected it completely, just because parts of it were broken. It's dumb.

MWO needs it. It won't make or break any mechs, but the game needs every shred of depth they can add to it.

The problem was several fold.

1. They were trying to test too much all at the same time.

2. They didn't post good instructions on how to test everything until several days in.

3. Some of the stuff was just... More nonsensical than PGI's usual weirdness.

Edit: These three things combined caused an overwhelmingly negative response from the forum goers, and probably would have done the same with the people who don't come to the forums if it all had gone live in the state that it was. That's why PGI shelved InfoWar the last time.

Slashing laser range without a target lock for instance. If you want to slash laser range, just make the current "Optimum Range" the "Max Range" and be done with it? All of a sudden, those ER and/or normal Large Laser snipers aren't nearly as effective as they used to be.

So, if PGI plans on having another InfoWar PTS at some point in the future, they need to severely limit the number of things they're trying to test.

For instance, make one weekend, or hell, even a full week, about testing light mechs and their larger sensor radius, the Commando for instance, should have really good sensors. Next weekend/full week, make it mediums, so on and so forth. And to go with it, always post up instructions about what is going to be tested the DAY BEFORE the test actually starts so everyone has time to read, understand and adjust their builds accordingly when the test goes live.

If PGI fixes these mistakes that they made with the last Info PTS when they decide to try again, I could probably guarantee that the reaction will be considerably more positive than the last one was.

Edited by Alan Davion, 20 April 2016 - 11:27 AM.