152 replies to this topic

[Yellonet]

So, we know the information warfare is coming back (August, with the Cyclops?), and I for one like that very much, it has potential to change a whole lot of how games play out.

So let's have a discussion, what did you think of infowar when PGI last tried it, why was it removed? I don't really remember it, possibly it was mostly during my break from the game.

What can PGI do to make it better and a more important part of the game?

I think this will be a good way to get more lights into the game again, make them get better scouting abilities and so on, as such, targeting bonuses and the like should go up and playing a light scout might bet rewarded more.

I don't think however that all lights should have better sensors than all mediums, all mediums better than all heavies and so on, it should be a role thing, but in general more lighter mechs should be better scouts.
Perhaps the Raven 3L would be a good candidate to be a scout for instance?

Will it be quirks for sensor range, speed and so on, or what will we see to differentiate mechs in this regard?

I look forward to when the team with good light scouts get a better advantage.

How would you want InfoWar™ to be?

[Lynx7725]

I'm going to get flamed but my opinion is that InfoWar has always been in the game. It's just that PGI gave us basic tools and let us go sort it out ourselves... and we conveniently blame PGI for not doing enough, when we can do it ourselves.

I seriously wonder how many people fully understand the use of the targeting system and how it passes information around. Constantly, I see teammates who don't target (and thus spread enemy location info around), which is a foundation of InfoWar.

Improvements to system to aid InfoWar? Well, we can have a module to allow to lock on (and transmit) two enemies at once. We can have a C3 Computer that allows for all visible (not targeted) enemies of units that have a C3 node to be visible to everyone in the network. We can have a module that allows for satellite scans, like in FW (I don't play FW, so I have limited understanding).

I don't find an issue with most players' reaction to enemy locations -- usually people are savvy enough. The problem is that people don't share information, mostly via the targeting system, and as such players can walk straight into ambushes that a "scout" already know of. If we can introduce modules and equipment to help make it easier to spread the info around, team performance (through InfoWar) will likely improve.

[Shevy]

liked the info war idea in general with ecm being a target delay instead of invisibility cloak

disliked dire wolves and other assaults with ~300 -500 m sensor range

[Yellonet]

Lynx7725, on 26 July 2016 - 01:20 AM, said:

I'm going to get flamed but my opinion is that InfoWar has always been in the game. It's just that PGI gave us basic tools and let us go sort it out ourselves... and we conveniently blame PGI for not doing enough, when we can do it ourselves.

I seriously wonder how many people fully understand the use of the targeting system and how it passes information around. Constantly, I see teammates who don't target (and thus spread enemy location info around), which is a foundation of InfoWar.

You are right, but in practice the differences in information is hardly noticable except for ECM or no ECM.
This is why most people don't have to know about how it all fits together, it doesn't really make a big enough difference.
I hope that sensor ranges, lock on speeds and so on get cut A LOT so that mechs that are good on this will have a significant advantage in information, then it will be a game deciding factor and something that players will have to understand and use.

Lynx7725, on 26 July 2016 - 01:20 AM, said:

Improvements to system to aid InfoWar? Well, we can have a module to allow to lock on (and transmit) two enemies at once. We can have a C3 Computer that allows for all visible (not targeted) enemies of units that have a C3 node to be visible to everyone in the network. We can have a module that allows for satellite scans, like in FW (I don't play FW, so I have limited understanding).

I don't find an issue with most players' reaction to enemy locations -- usually people are savvy enough. The problem is that people don't share information, mostly via the targeting system, and as such players can walk straight into ambushes that a "scout" already know of. If we can introduce modules and equipment to help make it easier to spread the info around, team performance (through InfoWar) will likely improve.

Nice ideas, I like that.

Shevy, on 26 July 2016 - 01:30 AM, said:

liked the info war idea in general with ecm being a target delay instead of invisibility cloak

disliked dire wolves and other assaults with ~300 -500 m sensor range

Do you mean you disliked the range being that short, or that long?
For information war to really have a good effect, the differences must be quite big, or they will not be noticeable or usable as an advantage.

[Karl Streiger]

• Bigger maps
  
• Multiple Objectives
  
  • So scouting becomes important just to know where the main body of the enemy is marching
• more weapon range and better zoom modules or zeroing limited to information gathered
  
• artillery and LRM support system that need actions by the spotter - not by the LURMer
  
• electronic warfare rehaul

[Lynx7725]

Yellonet, on 26 July 2016 - 01:36 AM, said:

You are right, but in practice the differences in information is hardly noticable except for ECM or no ECM.
This is why most people don't have to know about how it all fits together, it doesn't really make a big enough difference.
I hope that sensor ranges, lock on speeds and so on get cut A LOT so that mechs that are good on this will have a significant advantage in information, then it will be a game deciding factor and something that players will have to understand and use.

There are some subtle parts about the targeting system that most people don't bother. Like, some equipment would speed up the paper doll appearing (BAP), which would also negate ECM close in, which allows for info sharing within the team.

Or that only that one targeted mech is transmitted to the rest of the team -- spectating in Solo queue often had people just putting pipper on untargeted mechs trying to kill things by hammering the thickest armour, while targeting something somewhere else.

Or that targeting is on LOS only (excepting targets transmitted by other teammates), so if you can see a triangle you can shoot the bugger -- or that just getting out of LOS of one shooter doesn't mean you lost lock.

All these form the basis of InfoWar, so if people are not bothered to learn, they can't really talk about InfoWar.

800m for a combat unit is awfully short, even accounting for intrinsic ECM. In WW2, 500m was considered short for tank warfare, and in the Russian steppes, combat ranges can be in 1+ KM -- and that's with just optics.

Perhaps what would be better is for a "sensor size" attribute per Mech, which would impact how far out you can be detected. Say, open, 800m, for Heavy. 900~1000m for Assault. 500m for lights. This is so that light mechs can sneak around and more safely target the heavy mechs, while making it necessary to have skirmish screens of mediums and lights to keep light scouts away. We can also have modules to improve or affect detection and sensor size, and certain mechs can be quirked to have larger or smaller sensor images. ECM can then be used to affect either detection or sensor, and potentially if/ when the Chameleon system is implemented, that can be practically roped in.

We can also have maps that suppress or enhances detection, or weather such as solar flares that impacts detection mechanics.

[XX Sulla XX]

Honestly info tech is much better suited to single player when it comes out. Unless you do something extreme most people are not going to like then it will tend to stay death match with some tweaks. I think trying to blend what two groups of players want is one thing causing so much trouble.

[Signal27]

Frankly, I'm really cynical about infowar. Because no matter what system PGI comes up with, if a lot of players still can't be bothered to target a mech to pass out information with what little infowar we have now, they're probably going to completely ignore however the new one will work as well.

Edited by Signal27, 26 July 2016 - 02:59 AM.

[NeoCodex]

They could have done a lot more with this from the start as it was suggested, different lock on times and sensor ranges per mechs could give some special mechs like Rifleman and Shadow Cat unique abilities instead of just slapping on crazy weapon and agility quirks on everything that makes no sense (and agility should be locked to engines).

Make Guardian ECM what Guardian actually does and make a seperate version of Angel ECM (what we have now) that only a few special Mechs can equip, but for Guardian we could reduce range at which you can be locked on like it worked in MW4, specialist mechs like Shadow Cat could have this effect improved, some could have further decreased detection range, longer lock on time, both, or unique ability not to be able to share your targeted ECM mech with the team.

Light mechs could differentiate between skirmishers, actual scouts with improved detection sensors, ambushers with improved stealth and long range pokers with sensors optimized for long range weapon lock on. Just examples from top of my head that took no brainstorming to make up.

[Rhaythe]

Good.

[Darian DelFord]

Shevy, on 26 July 2016 - 01:30 AM, said:

liked the info war idea in general with ecm being a target delay instead of invisibility cloak

disliked dire wolves and other assaults with ~300 -500 m sensor range

The problem is a locust should NOT have the same sensor profile as an atlas... currently it does.

You should be able to detect an assault mech much further out than a light mech.

THis would also hopefully allow them to actually buff LRM's a bit more to make them actually useful as well as a few other things

[Novakaine]

Press the damn "R" key.

[Darian DelFord]

Novakaine, on 26 July 2016 - 04:50 AM, said:

Press the damn "R" key.

You just want free targets ;pp

[Bud Crue]

As long as we play on the current maps, with a mechanism that tells you where the enemy is starting at even if you've never played before (wave to the drop ships) I can't see info war being that big of a deal.

That said if they take away the minimap functionality again and make that the default, and also remove UAVs then maybe info war will have an impact, but in the current game with the tools we have...no. Apropos, it bogles me that based on Russ's comments -post minimap fiasco- that they actually hope to make infowar a thing by nerfing existing functionality. Great.

As to the Cyclops, how many of you run a sensor range module now? The extra 25% range that the Cyclops is advertised as providing is the same thing, so why is this somehow a "game changer" for people? I don't get it.

Edited by Bud Crue, 26 July 2016 - 04:52 AM.

[KodiakGW]

Novakaine, on 26 July 2016 - 04:50 AM, said:

Press the damn "R" key.

Agree completely. People don't press the "R" key after playing this game how long? What will happen to those of us who do press the "R" key when we cannot target anything becuase we took a certain set of Omnipods that cuts our target range to 400m?

That's right, we'll leave and never come back.

[Lostdragon]

There were some intriguing ideas in the info warfare test, but I don't think many of the numbers were realistic. I think it would be good to have some sort of accuracy penalty for not having a target selected and to set weapon convergence to the range of the selected target so your ballistic and PPC shots don't miss wildly because they were converged at 1000m behind your moving target.

Active and passive sensors also need to be a thing.

Edited by Lostdragon, 26 July 2016 - 06:40 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

We never had InfoTech / InfoWar, except in public testing. To say that MWO has InfoWar right now is like saying that every team-based FPS had InfoWar.

That being said, here's what PGI needs to get right for InfoTech part deux:

• All light mechs need to be harder to detect. This will work as a much needed universal buff to light mechs, it will alleviate the need for ridiculous agility and weapon quirks, and it will feel realistic. 100 ton Dire Wolves should be easier to detect than 20 ton Locusts, even the "heavily armed" LCT-1E.
  
• No light mechs should have sensor penalties. PGI tried to peg Firestarters as "combat mechs" and give them heavy sensor penalties to create role warfare. This resulted in Firestarters running around at 150 kph without seeing jack sh*t in the middle of a brawl. It was like being under perpetual ECM from 2012. Sensor penalties are ok if you're a 6xcUAC5 Dakka Wolf. You can find a way to work around it. But sensor penalties on SPL light mech brawlers is dumb.
  
• There should generally be less variation within the same weight class and for the same chassis. Example: The difference between a Hunchback and a Shadow Hawk should not be insanely huge. There should be a clear trend from light mechs to medium mechs to heavy mechs to assault mechs, with minor variations. You can't make the Victor twice as stealthy as an ACH just as a shoe-horn solution to making the Victor balanced again. There needs to be some kind of logic. And similarly, just because the CDA-2A is much better than the CDA-3C, doesn't mean that the former should be heavily penalized, running around like a blind albino elephant, while the latter is some sort of psychic ninja stealth scout. That makes zero sense.
  
• For new players, there needs to be an easy way to understand InfoTech quirks. Ideally, there should be information about this in the UI and the Tutorial, instead of just relying on new players to read old patch notes or study the tiny box with information about quirks in tiny letters. (I really doubt they will do any of this though)

Lostdragon, on 26 July 2016 - 05:25 AM, said:

Active and passive sensors also need to be a thing.

Yep.

[Pjwned]

I'm not expecting anything worth a **** because PGI had something decent going (for once) when they tried to address info warfare during the "great mech rebalance" several months ago, but then they [Redacted] the entire thing and didn't follow through at all with what they said they wanted to do and there's no sign of them trying to go back to a system that could have been actually good, so I expect a [Redacted] with this next revision.

Edited by draiocht, 27 July 2016 - 09:32 AM.
inappropriate language

[Weeny Machine]

Just because the Cyclops gets a special ability, it doesn't mean info warfare comes back. They screwed it up once and I doubt they can make it happen.

[Yellonet]

KodiakGW, on 26 July 2016 - 05:02 AM, said:

Agree completely. People don't press the "R" key after playing this game how long? What will happen to those of us who do press the "R" key when we cannot target anything becuase we took a certain set of Omnipods that cuts our target range to 400m?

That's right, we'll leave and never come back.

Yup, as we all know, can't shoot it if there's no doritio... yup.

Bush Hopper, on 26 July 2016 - 06:02 AM, said:

Just because the Cyclops gets a special ability, it doesn't mean info warfare comes back. They screwed it up once and I doubt they can make it happen.

I thought they said that it was coming back with the Cyclops...?