70 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

It could be in Hello Kitty Island Adventure as well for all I care, but it's a current-tech piece of equipment missing from MWO that has existed in TT for quite some time.

[MischiefSC]

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

invernomuto asked this in another thread and I thought I'd make a thread about this. Maybe he was being sardonic, but I'll just assume he was asking the question sincerely. And it wouldn't be very surprising if he did. Here's a short history lesson, for all the people who joined MWO late or who forgot all about how it started.


Way back in 2011 and 2012, the Four Pillars was basically how PGI described the game to sell it to the Founders and future customers, from the very start of Closed Beta. The game wasn't ready yet, people didn't know what to expect, people didn't know what the game would be like upon release. And PGI's vision for MWO was the Four Pillars.

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

I don't want to write an extensive history of MWO. Suffice it to say, the development of the game wasn't as smooth as the devs or the players had hoped. First of all, the actual release of the game took longer than expected and didn't really come with any significant new content. MWO upon release was very similar to Open Beta, to be honest. Community warfare (now Faction Play) was promised 90 days after release, and that was a hopelessly optimistic deadline that people have been making fun of for years.


To make a long story short (and I know a lot of white knights will disagree with this, but bear with me), PGI basically ignored Role Warfare and Information Warfare because Community Warfare (CW) became a top priority and took longer than expected. I think PGI wanted CW so badly because MWO is a niche game with a very split playerbase and the 'endless arena deathmatch' of Quick Play didn't appeal to a huge chunk of their target demographic, so they felt that CW was needed to capture the rest of the Mechwarrior fans. Better to finish CW quickly and keep everyone interested, instead of losing all those players now and trying to bring them back later.

In the end, Information Warfare (IW) was reduced to TAG and ECM (basically) and Role warfare (RW) was reduced to "Lights cap bases" In other words, a lot of players felt that MWO didn't really have IW or RW at all.

Here's why I'm starting this thread. <drumroll>

In 2016, we're finally starting to see the Four Pillars being delivered.

A lot of players are asking why some of us are so thrilled about the developments this summer.
"But the rescaling is terrible, just look at my Jenner."
"But weapon balance is crap and power draw won't fix anything!"
"But the game modes are awful, everything is basically just team deathmatch!"

Forget all that for a minute. We're now getting real information warfare. Not just ECM and TAG and "Press R to hold locks". That's not information warfare. We're getting:

• Infotech that determines how easy it is to detect your mech, how easy you detect other mechs, at what range you can detect other mechs, etc.
  
• New minimap where scouts can point out enemies, where we can see teammates asking for help, where we can identify different mech types (heavy, assault, etc) at a glance, where certain upgrades (such as command console) will increase available information (e.g. turning directionless diamonds into doritos so you can see where mechs are going)
  
• Command wheel that both facilitates communication and integrates with the minimap, so your commander can call artillery and call for UAV on specific locations, designate primary targets, etc.

And Role warfare is not longer just "send lights to cap base", we're actually hearing talks about completely revamped skill trees, integrated with the minimap and the command wheel and infotech. Today, the website has the following 4 roles: Scout, Brawler, Support and Assault. In 2012, there were 4 different roles being talked about. Command, Defense, Assault and Scouting. A lot of us were looking forward to this. We were upset that Commanders didn't have anything to do. We were upset there we no separate skills for the Scouts, as promised.


Read this and get a sense of what some of us were expecting to see in MWO:

https://mwomercs.com...-3-role-warfare

http://mwomercs.com/...rmation-warfare

This post is getting too long and too disorganized and I apologize. I wanted to keep it short, but I could probably write 30,000 words about this without breaking a sweat.

TL;DR - Some of us are very excited about the prospect of PGI finally delivering Role Warfare and Information Warfare, as described many years ago. This makes us more excited than PGI buffing PPCs or releasing a new mech pack. It makes us so excited, we're kind of overlooking the fact that rescaling had some nasty side effects (like nerfing light mechs) and that PGI rolled a critical fumble when they tried to update the minimap (especially since it's getting hotfixed this week). We're just really excited about PGI finally delivering what we considered to be the core of MWO, namely the Four Pillars. Even though it's just promises and words are wind - at least it's promises about something we care about, instead of new mech packs and light gauss rifles or whatever.

Jesus, even my TL;DR turned out too long.

I'm too cautious about being optimistic on this. Saw the budding start of this on the PTS a while ago and it got axed. I'd like to see it, I really would..... however success on the level required to really make this fly is not something I've gotten from PGI prior and as such I'm hesitant to gamble on this time being dramatically different.

[Roosterfish]

My question is who is going to play these 'Scouts'?

The end of match rewards give 'Scouts' Doodley Squat while all the rewards got to damage and kills.

[wanderer]

Even now, there's chunks missing left and right from info = reward. If a 'Mech is using info boosting equipment, they should have more chances for and rewards from by using them.

NARC? Missing NARC damage, NARC KMDD (target suffers majority of damage via missiles), assist bonus (because NARCs deal no damage, you don't get assists for a sneak-and-pod- which you should).

TAG? Thanks to the visible beam, hiding and spotting is nearly impossible. TAG needs to be at least invisible (it's IR, so heat vision only) to normal sensors.

We lack actual remote sensors and only have one-shot UAVs. Add Remote Sensor Dispensers (as a hardpoint on many lights/some mediums/a few heavies) and more chances for UAV-style spotting bonuses, detects, and Counter UAVs as it'll mean scouting lets you build a small sensor network. Unlike UAVs, these are ground based and a bit more limited in range- but they exist in TT and would use the same coding as UAVs.

There's a ton of stuff that can even be done with existing equipment and coding.

Edited by wanderer, 22 June 2016 - 02:16 PM.

[Mystere]

wanderer, on 22 June 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

Even now, there's chunks missing left and right from info = reward. If a 'Mech is using info boosting equipment, they should have more chances for and rewards from by using them.

NARC? Missing NARC damage, NARC KMDD (target suffers majority of damage via missiles), assist bonus (because NARCs deal no damage, you don't get assists for a sneak-and-pod- which you should).

TAG? Thanks to the visible beam, hiding and spotting is nearly impossible. TAG needs to be at least invisible (it's IR, so heat vision only) to normal sensors.

We lack actual remote sensors and only have one-shot UAVs. Add Remote Sensor Dispensers (as a hardpoint on many lights/some mediums/a few heavies) and more chances for UAV-style spotting bonuses, detects, and Counter UAVs as it'll mean scouting lets you build a small sensor network. Unlike UAVs, these are ground based and a bit more limited in range- but they exist in TT and would use the same coding as UAVs.

There's a ton of stuff that can even be done with existing

With regard to UAVs, why not do this?

Edited by Mystere, 23 June 2016 - 06:32 AM.

[Accused]

PGI has a track record. I don't care what they say it's all about what they do.

I remember long ago a mechwarrior whose name I forget, talked about the 5th pillar, community. Those were the days.

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 June 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

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.

Good eyesight OP, plz blind.

Quote

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.

Unless the Command Console equipping rules change, Lights have no access to this. Only Heavies and Assaults have access.

As an aside, this may be tied into whatever they are implementing for the Cyclops, but in the way they are trying to "revamp" this now, I don't think they understand their currently "functioning" subsystems before making said changes (see minimap). I can't really see what PGI "can" do instead of making Information Warfare less effective ("laserlock"), useless (minimap), or ridiculous ("Seismic Wallhack").

[invernomuto]

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

invernomuto asked this in another thread and I thought I'd make a thread about this. Maybe he was being sardonic, but I'll just assume he was asking the question sincerely. And it wouldn't be very surprising if he did. Here's a short history lesson, for all the people who joined MWO late or who forgot all about how it started.

I did not know anything about these design pillars for MWO, thanks for sharing, very interesting!

Edited by invernomuto, 22 June 2016 - 02:05 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

Accused, on 22 June 2016 - 01:56 PM, said:

PGI has a track record. I don't care what they say it's all about what they do.

I remember long ago a mechwarrior whose name I forget, talked about the 5th pillar, community. Those were the days.

The community is NGNG. And NGNG is paid by PGI.

Problem?

Spoiler

[Deathlike]

Alistair Winter, on 22 June 2016 - 02:09 PM, said:

The community is NGNG. And NGNG is paid by PGI.

Problem?

Spoiler

Unexpected trolling. You sir, win the Internets for today.

[Bilbo]

I am convinced that the four pillars will never be able to be satisfactorily delivered to anyone that they may have mattered to in the first place.

[MischiefSC]

Deathlike, on 22 June 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

Good eyesight OP, plz blind.




Unless the Command Console equipping rules change, Lights have no access to this. Only Heavies and Assaults have access.

As an aside, this may be tied into whatever they are implementing for the Cyclops, but in the way they are trying to "revamp" this now, I don't think they understand their currently "functioning" subsystems before making said changes (see minimap). I can't really see what PGI "can" do instead of making Information Warfare less effective ("laserlock"), useless (minimap), or ridiculous ("Seismic Wallhack").

The it to something convergence related. Give a tiny CoF on unlocked targes, pulling to convergence as fast as paper doll fills. Quirks and such affecting convergence speed, essentially making a good spotter vital to winning trades.

You'd need the CoF effect to actually be divergent cross hairs that can be aimed individually so you can still accurately snapshot unlocked targets with a weapon or two. Would also need to be small enough that inside 200m it's largely irrelevant and still manageable at 400m, just not a snapshot with an alpha strike on an unlocked target.

You can make IW a useful balancing tool with skill mitigated convergence limitations that increases TTK, fixes megaweapon build issues and adds depth, role warfare and more strategy without gimping skill in favor of rng.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 22 June 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

The it to something convergence related. Give a tiny CoF on unlocked targes, pulling to convergence as fast as paper doll fills. Quirks and such affecting convergence speed, essentially making a good spotter vital to winning trades.

You'd need the CoF effect to actually be divergent cross hairs that can be aimed individually so you can still accurately snapshot unlocked targets with a weapon or two. Would also need to be small enough that inside 200m it's largely irrelevant and still manageable at 400m, just not a snapshot with an alpha strike on an unlocked target.

You can make IW a useful balancing tool with skill mitigated convergence limitations that increases TTK, fixes megaweapon build issues and adds depth, role warfare and more strategy without gimping skill in favor of rng.

As far as PGI is concerned - this kind of thing is Lostech due to their terrible netcode, which for some reason is worse this patch than any other patch to date.

[Major Tomm]

Passive Sensors, as in Battle Tech?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Deathlike, on 22 June 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

As far as PGI is concerned - this kind of thing is Lostech due to their terrible netcode, which for some reason is worse this patch than any other patch to date.

Not to mention bad as I've explained in every large convergence thread, it hurts mechs with bad convergence more than it does mechs with clustered hardpoints. I'm still not sure why people are so against making information warfare more about the "wallhack" sensors, if you want information warfare to matter, that's the only way to do it without directly tying it to how damage is dealt (whether it be ghost range or convergence). I guess the better way to phrase that, is why are we so adverse from putting actually useful information into the information portion of information warfare?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 June 2016 - 02:50 PM.

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 June 2016 - 02:49 PM, said:

Not to mention bad as I've explained in every large convergence thread, it hurts mechs with bad convergence more than it does mechs with clustered hardpoints. I'm still not sure why people are so against making information warfare more about the "wallhack" sensors, if you want information warfare to matter, that's the only way to do it without directly tying it to how damage is dealt (whether it be ghost range or convergence). I guess the better way to phrase that, is why are we so adverse from putting actually useful information into the information portion of information warfare?

Well, making a Pretty Baby worse than say a Wolverine-6K's right arm isn't that hard (PGI will do it anyways), but it's something to think about.

I was totally anti-Laserlock (mostly due to the implementation - it should've been applied ONLY to max range, not optimal range), and while I agree we can be creative in this area - we'd have to go over every nuance... AND expect PGI to balance it properly (which guarantees this won't happen).. that's what makes the entire discussion frustrating.

Edited by Deathlike, 22 June 2016 - 02:58 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 June 2016 - 02:49 PM, said:

Not to mention bad as I've explained in every large convergence thread, it hurts mechs with bad convergence more than it does mechs with clustered hardpoints. I'm still not sure why people are so against making information warfare more about the "wallhack" sensors, if you want information warfare to matter, that's the only way to do it without directly tying it to how damage is dealt (whether it be ghost range or convergence). I guess the better way to phrase that, is why are we so adverse from putting actually useful information into the information portion of information warfare?

Because if IW doesn't directly affect weapon performance it will be directly inferior to weapon performance. Big stompy shooty robots is pretty focused on the shooty bit. Same reason I'd rather have a 2lpl Raven than a tag/narc Raven. It'll take me a few matches to get used to no map or Doritos and if my weapons work the same I'll be doing exactly what I did before.

IW without a direct impact on weapon performance is just fluff. We saw that in PTS for IW #1.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MischiefSC, on 22 June 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

Because if IW doesn't directly affect weapon performance it will be directly inferior to weapon performance.

No it wouldn't, because we all know how awesome and useful seismic is, sacrificing a bit of firepower to know an enemy is around a corner is very useful, especially when you don't have to expose your mech to find this out.

MischiefSC, on 22 June 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

IW without a direct impact on weapon performance is just fluff. We saw that in PTS for IW #1.

We saw that with IW #1 because they did the same thing they are trying to do here, making information more scarce to make it more important (which doesn't work), rather than actually giving us important information (positions of mechs).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 June 2016 - 03:52 PM.

[Ted Wayz]

You can take the same examples of changes and say they are moving away from the four pillars and are more in support of trying to make this an e-sport platform. And I am pretty sure the case would be more believable.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 June 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

No it wouldn't, because we all know how awesome and useful seismic is, sacrificing a bit of firepower to know an enemy is around a corner is very useful, especially when you don't have to expose your mech to find this out.


We saw that with IW #1 because they did the same thing they are trying to do here, making information more scarce to make it more important (which doesn't work), rather than actually giving us important information (positions of mechs).

So you'd take a Commando over a Jenner 2C for that?

If it's that powerful and effective to bridge the gap between them. So you have super-seismic and even more info that we have currently? Via more power creep? I admit I'm pretty cagey about that.