70 replies to this topic

[Queen of England]

Isn't info warfare already a thing? ECM, radar derp, and seismic are all info war components and range from good to mandatory. I see TAG fairly often as well.

[Alistair Winter]

Queen of England, on 22 June 2016 - 09:27 AM, said:

Isn't info warfare already a thing? ECM, radar derp, and seismic are all info war components and range from good to mandatory. I see TAG fairly often as well.

Yes, some people feel like we already have Information Warfare. And some people feel that it's so shallow that it's hardly a pillar. It doesn't match people's expectations and interpretations, as MrJeffers alluded to.

The advantage of having a scout with TAG, NARC, BAP, advanced sensor range, etc, may not necessarily have a big impact on the match at all. They're only rarely force multipliers, as they're supposed to be.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Sorry, enemy orientation will not make the 3 tons of equipment worth it on the D-DC nor will it make mechs with lesser firepower more with it. I will continue to say this until this game dies (because it will never be implemented) but if they want info warfare to be a thing, they need to focus on things like seismic, not taking away sensor mechanics we already have, because good scouting has more to do with eye sight than it does sensors (outside of ECM to at least hide your dorito as a scout)

[Bud Crue]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 June 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

Sorry, enemy orientation will not make the 3 tons of equipment worth it on the D-DC nor will it make mechs with lesser firepower more with it. I will continue to say this until this game dies (because it will never be implemented) but if they want info warfare to be a thing, they need to focus on things like seismic, not taking away sensor mechanics we already have, because good scouting has more to do with eye sight than it does sensors (outside of ECM to at least hide your dorito as a scout)

Emphasis added to quote.

But isn't that exactly the point of why some folks think the direction the new minimap is taking is a good thing? It essentially makes "eyes on the target" of more importance than with the pre-patch minimap since there is no easy way to see precisely where the enemy is in close relationship to you without real eyes on the targets.

I mean if we want it to be thing where you actually want/need a couple of fast movers to spread out, find the enemy, and report back using the command console so that the enemy then appears on the minimap where the scouts designate then yes, the new minimap can be a value for adding that particular role, of "role warfare" to the game. I just think that even if you want that aspect of role warfare, nerffing the functionality of the minimap for everyone is not the way to do it.

Edited by Bud Crue, 22 June 2016 - 10:11 AM.

[Triordinant]

Alistair Winter, on 22 June 2016 - 06:29 AM, said:

The only way to incentivize scouting is to take away some of the information. So instead of bad teams having 6-7 on the information scale, and great teams having 8-9, you will now see the whole scale being used. Bad teams will now be at 1-2, having almost no information available. Mediocre teams will be at about 4-5, good teams at 6-7 and only the teams with awesome scouting will be at 8-9.

I'm really looking forward to Info Warfare and Role Warfare. One of the things wrong with MWO is how deadly lights are. In BattleTech only a godlike pilot would stand a chance in his Locust against an Atlas but in MWO Lights regularly eat Assaults for breakfast. Once the 4 Pillars are in place I hope Lights will be where they belong: lousy at killing 'mechs but amazing for scouting.

[Queen of England]

Alistair Winter, on 22 June 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

Yes, some people feel like we already have Information Warfare. And some people feel that it's so shallow that it's hardly a pillar. It doesn't match people's expectations and interpretations, as MrJeffers alluded to.

The advantage of having a scout with TAG, NARC, BAP, advanced sensor range, etc, may not necessarily have a big impact on the match at all. They're only rarely force multipliers, as they're supposed to be.

TAG and NARC are already quite a bit better and more versatile in MWO than they are in BattleTech. What are they "supposed" to do?

[Mystere]

Queen of England, on 22 June 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

TAG and NARC are already quite a bit better and more versatile in MWO than they are in BattleTech. What are they "supposed" to do?

Just in case you missed it:

Alistair Winter, on 22 June 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

They're only rarely force multipliers, as they're supposed to be.

Information warfare should be a significant force multiplier. Currently, it is next to negligible.

Edited by Mystere, 22 June 2016 - 10:18 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bud Crue, on 22 June 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

But isn't that exactly the point of why some folks think the direction the new minimap is taking is a good thing? It essentially makes "eyes on the target" of more importance than with the pre-patch minimap since there is no easy way to see precisely where the enemy is in close relationship to you without real eyes on the targets.

That really isn't info warfare if it makes eyesight on targets more important, which is the real problem of info warfare in general currently, it can all be done if you have good eyesight, it is at best, supplemental to eyesight, not the other way around.

Bud Crue, on 22 June 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

I mean if we want it to be thing where you actually want/need a couple of fast movers to spread out, find the enemy, and report back using the command console so that the enemy then appears on the minimap where the scouts designate then yes, the new minimap can be a value for adding that particular role, of "role warfare" to the game. I just think that even if you want that aspect of role warfare, nerffing the functionality of the minimap for everyone is not the way to do it.

Lights trading 3 tons for something that can be said over comms is silly. At most it should be a convenience method, not a balancing measure which is really the problem with removing current features of infotech.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 June 2016 - 10:23 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

The only way to incentivize scouting is to take away some of the information.

Bull.

The way to incentivize scouting is to add more information and information gathering abilities atop what is the original system, not pulling what existed apart and using it as "incentives" to give meaning to otherwise useless equipment. To reward those information-gathering actions, and make them more organic.

First off, we have AMS hardpoints on everything. We're missing one of the most useful pieces of scouting equipment in the game, the Remote Sensor Dispenser.

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

Add RSD hardpoints to most lights and some mediums. Treat a remote sensor as a ground-bound, reduced-strength (150m) UAV that has to deal with LOS restrictions and can of course be destroyed (by weapons fire or simply by stomping on it, much like the destroyable vehicles and such in Frozen City). Limit the number of active sensors to 2-3 per 'Mech.

Scouts can now both set up picket sensors to guard flanks or detect advances, root out the same in advance by being speedy and observant in destroying enemy sensors, and will be able to constantly add to the data on enemy movements, along with leaving annoying little surprises while making their attack runs or retreats to know if someone decided to chase them- and of course, giving LRMs more targets to shoot at.

Increase NARC bonuses, including rewarding NARC damage like TAG damage and awarding a NARC KMDD if missiles were the dominant damage source of the kill. Again, NARCs also act as information weapons, delivering constant position data on the podded target- even if you're not spraying it down with missiles.

Set TAG to only be visible on heat vision mode. This makes using it to spot targets a much more scoutish-option.

Give Command Console users the ability to "spot" all targets in line of sight- while they may only actually target one, the others show up much like a UAV (no damage readout). Give CC users the "ID by weight option" as well by adding weight info to the red dorito:



Allow CC users a option to designate a single priority target that gets a special target box. Prioritizing a new target removes the old one, and only one target can be so prioritized, regardless of multiple CCs.

Voila, you've just added to info warfare without removing a single thing from general-use HUDs.

[Alistair Winter]

Queen of England, on 22 June 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

TAG and NARC are already quite a bit better and more versatile in MWO than they are in BattleTech. What are they "supposed" to do?

I'm not saying TAG and NARC are supposed to do more things. I'm saying scout mechs need to be more valuable in order to carry their own weight. Scout mechs aren't force multipliers in MWO. You can scout perfectly well with a medium mech brawler, most of the time.

Triordinant, on 22 June 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

I'm really looking forward to Info Warfare and Role Warfare. One of the things wrong with MWO is how deadly lights are. In BattleTech only a godlike pilot would stand a chance in his Locust against an Atlas but in MWO Lights regularly eat Assaults for breakfast. Once the 4 Pillars are in place I hope Lights will be where they belong: lousy at killing 'mechs but amazing for scouting.

Well, first of all, not light mechs are supposed to be scouts. Second of all, light mechs would be really unpopular (and they're already unpopulary) in MWO if they were only scouts that get eaten for breakfast by assaults. Third, you would need to totally redesign the game to make this happen. So... I wouldn't hold my breath on that account.

[Triordinant]

Alistair Winter, on 22 June 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

Well, first of all, not light mechs are supposed to be scouts. Second of all, light mechs would be really unpopular (and they're already unpopulary) in MWO if they were only scouts that get eaten for breakfast by assaults. Third, you would need to totally redesign the game to make this happen. So... I wouldn't hold my breath on that account.

I was always of the opinion that Lights should be something you "summon" like minions in a MOBA. Instead of using a UAV consumable to spot the enemy you'd summon an AI-controlled Raven 3L to do it. Or you could summon a lance of Locusts as a "tripwire" to keep an eye one attack route while your main force went up the other. Of course, you'd need AI to make it work so your advice to not hold my breath is sound.

[wanderer]

Rather than making lights a meaningless ride, better to give lights more info warfare options.

Almost as if I'd just posted some a few minutes ago...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

wanderer, on 22 June 2016 - 10:45 AM, said:

Rather than making lights a meaningless ride, better to give lights more info warfare options.

Almost as if I'd just posted some a few minutes ago...

Even then, lights can't be expected to be only useful for info warfare, they have to have some decent combat capabilities, period. I don't care if you said they should or not, just pointing this out for anyone that says lights should only be used to scout.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 June 2016 - 10:48 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

If a light is going to have a combat role, it's probably going to look like the Oxide - a LOT of damage output. Otherwise the damage-to-lifetime ratio is just too low.

[Malleus011]

I applaud OP's optimism and I hope you are right. However, I'm in a Reaganesque 'trust but verify' place regarding PGI development. They haven't earned more confidence.

They are also terrible at communication. Even previewing the new minimap during development, and telling us where they hoped to go with it, would've helped defuse another 'burn the forums down, it's the only thing that gets their attention' moment.

I don't feel like we have Role Warfare because, in most games and modes, a team isn't harmed at all for a lack of role diversity. No recce mech? No big deal. Nothing with jump jets? You don't need them. No LRM fire support? You're probably better off. No rapid-response mediums? No problem. All heavies and assaults with massive direct fire alphas? Optimal. That means we really have one role - direct combat - and it's also doubling as the 'mech combat pillar. We really need role warfare that matters in the game and rewards those who perform it.

We don't really have Information Warfare; we have pretty generic sensors on all 'mechs, one jammer that was OP for years, one semi-useful anti-jammer, and one semi-useful laser designator, both of which are not 'must haves'. Command Console is a boat anchor. Yes, the directions that are 'in development' sound good, but how long are we talking here? One year? Two? For what functionality? All that said, your premise is correct - we have too much information, and unless they alter the maps, missions, and force compositions (and roles) then they can't really fix it. Doing so will cause complaint among the playerbase - they should communicate with us first so we know what they're up to. We really need more fog-of-war so InfoWar will be fun, interesting, and rewarding to those who specialize in it.

Community Warfare has been 'delivered' as a pillar, but in a highly unsatisfying form that most of the community avoid because it isn't really fun (just look at the feedback their CW video spot is getting). CW needs to deliver the depth they initially forecast it would have - which may require changes to things like R&R - and be reworked to actually be immersive and fun. Until CW is fun, it's pretty much the same as not having delivered it.

So, here we are, still with a combat pillar and several bits of scaffolding holding up the entire game. Years later.

Trust but verify.

[wanderer]

I don't expect lights to be neutered for being useful info warfare- although I do expect them to invest tonnage in equipment that enhances their info gathering abilities. That Raven may be carrying medium lasers and an SRM launcher instead of twin ERLL/LPLs, but it'll still be able to deal meaningful damage.

And they need to definitely be rewarded more for many of those actions, as again noted above.

[Rebas Kradd]

Malleus011, on 22 June 2016 - 10:57 AM, said:

I don't feel like we have Role Warfare because, in most games and modes, a team isn't harmed at all for a lack of role diversity. No recce mech? No big deal. Nothing with jump jets? You don't need them. No LRM fire support? You're probably better off. No rapid-response mediums? No problem. All heavies and assaults with massive direct fire alphas? Optimal. That means we really have one role - direct combat - and it's also doubling as the 'mech combat pillar. We really need role warfare that matters in the game and rewards those who perform it.

We don't really have Information Warfare; we have pretty generic sensors on all 'mechs, one jammer that was OP for years, one semi-useful anti-jammer, and one semi-useful laser designator, both of which are not 'must haves'. Command Console is a boat anchor. Yes, the directions that are 'in development' sound good, but how long are we talking here? One year? Two? For what functionality? All that said, your premise is correct - we have too much information, and unless they alter the maps, missions, and force compositions (and roles) then they can't really fix it. Doing so will cause complaint among the playerbase - they should communicate with us first so we know what they're up to. We really need more fog-of-war so InfoWar will be fun, interesting, and rewarding to those who specialize in it.

Fog of war. Excellently put.

PGI needs to get that in there, see what other already-existing nuances of RW/IW (there are some) become more relevant, then fill in the rest.

[Appogee]

Like Lot's wife, the four pillars have become Pillars of Salt, fnar fnar!

[Appogee]

People shouldn't complain. PGI even added a FIFTH pillar!

Alistair Winter, on 22 June 2016 - 06:07 AM, said:

PGI's vision for MWO was the Four Pillars.

• Mech warfare
  
• Information warfare
  
• Role warfare
  
• Community warfare

• Dev vs Playerbase warfare

[Snowbluff]

wanderer, on 22 June 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

Bull.

The way to incentivize scouting is to add more information and information gathering abilities atop what is the original system, not pulling what existed apart and using it as "incentives" to give meaning to otherwise useless equipment. To reward those information-gathering actions, and make them more organic.

First off, we have AMS hardpoints on everything. We're missing one of the most useful pieces of scouting equipment in the game, the Remote Sensor Dispenser.

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

Oh like in Armored Core 5?