Jump to content

Info-Warfare Needed


13 replies to this topic

#1 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,373 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 09 February 2019 - 11:29 AM

Information Warfare

TL;DR:
Google Table with Class+Range dependent sensor values:
https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing
Please Note:
My goal for the suggestion is to give sensors much more importance and relevance for long range (any weapon, including LRMs/ATMs).



Introduction:
As you might remember, a long time ago we had a Information-Warfare PTS which was scrapped at the end, because it also included "ghost dmg" for non-lock laser targets.

The Whole idea of Info-War was not polished, but had a promising direction.

I want to touch on the idea again, as we are partially using this in the current LRM-PTS-2 with the range-dependent lock speed.
We NEED Information Warfare as the one missing core pillar of the game.
With this, we can further improve on the other pillars (even Faction Warfare).




Considering the quote of Chris about the downside vs. the current LRM PTS-2 range mechanic:

View PostChris Lowrey, on 10 August 2018 - 02:40 PM, said:


The problem is those things, while nice, don't actively contribute to combat or winning games (unless your looking exclusively at LRM's and ATM's.) And in the Missile weapon's case, it actively gets in the way of self acquired locks for things like LRM's and ATM's for Heavies and Assaults.
...
Which means that unless you have a dedicated support 'Mech to spot for you, your LRM weapon tonnage effectively sits like a useless brick in your build, which simply is not fun to play.

Especially in solo queue where you can't control the team mates you get. So it becomes a fairly niche role application unless we change it to what other games do and make physical LOS dependent on sensor detection. But even then, those mechanics are often very divisive in the games that do utilize them and doesn't really fit into a game defined by walking robots the size of 2-3 story buildings.

Note the bold part of the comment before the current PTS, and we still see this was considered in todays PTS approach.

With this in mind, let's try to build up a mechanic that rewards spending skill points into sensors and teamplay with lighter mechs over long range (LRM) boats soloing.



Suggested implementation of Sensors Strength and Mech Sensor Profile:

0. Base ValuesLets start with some base values (might be different than Live or previous PTS).
  • Base Range = 1000m
  • Base Targeting Delay (before being able to target a mech, red triangle) = 0.5s
  • Base Target Information time (before target information details are shown in your target detail) = 2s
  • Base Missile Lock time (before missile lock is completed) = 2s
  • Base Target Decay (before target is lost after breaking Line-Of-Sight) = 4s


1. Sensor Strength (your targeting base distance)
Lighter mechs usually use better sensors which can target further away (see also affect of Range brackets below).
  • Lights = 100%
  • Meds = 90%
  • Heavies = 75%
  • Assault = 60%



2. Sensor Strength Range Brackets affecing sensor speeds
The closer you are to the target, the better your sensors can track your target.
The sensor ranges are split into 3 brackets giving additional bonus to targeting speeds:
  • Short = 0 - 40% gives 40% better value
  • Med = 40 - 70% gives 20% better value
  • Long = 70 - 100% uses default value (see 1. and 2. above)
Posted ImagePlease note: these 3 Attributes were part of the original Info-War PTS sessions (with different values) as a single matrix tabl.



3. Sensor Profile (your mechs radar profile - how easy it is to track)
Dependent on weight/size, the heavier/larger your mech is, the faster/easier it is to target (targeting info) your mech, and the faster/longer you are able to be locked-on (missiles).
  • Lights = 140% targeting delay, 140% target info, 140% missile lock, 70% target decay
  • Meds = 125% targeting delay, 125% target info, 125% missile lock, 80% target decay
  • Heavy = 110% targeting delay, 110% target info, 110% missile lock, 90% target decay
  • Assault = 100% targeting delay, 100% target info, 100% missile lock, 100% target decay
e.g.
For Med mech targeting another Med mech at Medium range bracket (289-504m):
0.58s targeting delay, 2.31s target info, 1.16s missile lock, 3.46s target decay for Med mech targeting another Med mech at Medium range bracket.

Final numbers to be tested!

Targeting Delay:
Posted Image

Target Info Gathering time:
Posted Image

Missile Lock on time:
Posted Image

Target Decay time (retention):Posted Image



4. Equipment: ECM/Command Console/Targeting Computer/Narc/Tag affecting Sensor Strength stats
ECM (see InfoWar PTS) no longer being a on-off lock counter, but just manipulating the above stats. (e.g. 50% reduced lock on speed)
  • ECM = -50% sensor profile
  • Command Console = + 20% range on Range Bracket distribution, +10% Sensor Strength
  • Targeting Computer = +2% Sensor Strength and +3% Range Bracket. per level (1-7)
  • Narc = +20% sensor profile on target
  • Tag = + 25% Sensor profile on target
  • BAP = +25% Sensor Strength
  • Artemis = -15% Missile Lock Time (and existing spread bonus)


6. Skill tree skills and Quirks for the above
Mech quirks and Skill tree skills can be used to boost each of the mentioned values separately (e.g. Sensor range, Target Decay..) or globally (e.g. Sensor Strength).
  • Sensor Strength +5 to 25%
  • Sensor Profile -5 to -20%
  • Sensor Strength Range bracket (short/med/long) +5 to +20%
  • Target Info Gathering (TIG) +5 to 25%
  • Target Decay (TD) -5 to -20%
  • Target Deprivation (TDep) -10 to -50%
  • Sensor Range +5 to 25%

All values are multiplicative.


Example:
The mentioned Medium mech above now uses a TAG (+25% stronger Target Signature), effectively changing the Target Mech Class multiplier by 25% (from 80% to 100% for Range and Decay, from 125% to 100% for the rest):

For the Med mech targeting another Med mech at Medium range...
The medium range bracket of the target goes up from 80% (for medium target) * 360-630m to 100% (80%*1.25 for Medium target * TAG) * 630m = 360-630m.

The TAG also improves the other values:
From 0.58s targeting delay to 0.46s,
From 2.31s target info to 1.85s,
From 1.16s missile lock to 0.93s,
From 3.46s target decay to 4.32s.


Example 2:
The above Medium mech now also adds a BAP (+25% more Sensor Strength) to his TAG from before, effectivly changing the Bracket multiplier (here Medium range) from 120% to 150%:

For the Med mech targeting another Med mech at Medium range...
The Range brackets go from 40% (short), 70% (med) and 100% (long) to 50%, 87.5% and 125%.
The range brackets of the medium target now goes from 450/788/1125,

The TAG+BAP also improves the other values further:
From 0.58s targeting delay to 0.46s (TAG) to 0.37 (plus BAP),
From 2.31s target info to 1.85s (TAG) to 1.48 (plus BAP),
From 1.16s missile lock to 0.93s (TAG) to 0.74 (plus BAP),
From 3.46s target decay to 4.32s (TAG) to 5.4 (plus BAP).


Example 3:
The above Medium mech is fighting a Medium mech with ECM (-50% Signature),
effectively changing the Target Mech Class multiplier by -50% (from 100% to 50% for Range and Decay, from 100% to 150% for the rest):

For the Med mech targeting another Med mech at Medium range...
The Range brackets go from 450/788/1125 to 225/394/563m.

The TAG+BAP also improves the other values further:
From 0.37s (TAG+BAP) targeting delay to 0.19 (plus ECM),
From 1.48s (TAG+BAP) target info to 2.22 (plus ECM),
From 0.74s (TAG+BAP) missile lock to 1.11 (plus ECM),
From 5.4s (TAG+BAP) target decay to 2.7 (plus ECM).


For reference some older posts:
Spoiler


#2 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,373 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 11 February 2019 - 10:39 PM

Let me know if this has too much detail, or you have no interest in such a change (being because it's not enough benefit, or going into wrong direction than youd like).
Thanks.

#3 OZHomerOZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 1,932 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 11:32 PM

Most people dont press R

The R key is information warfare but people dont use it

Im against changing the game for changes sake

Can you give me your advantages in a nut shell, say one paragraph

Thank you

(Soz I dunna if its just me but wall of texts make my eyes glaze)
So I suggest a TLDR at the top of post not the end. Spark my interest den I may read the rest.

Just my opinion

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 11 February 2019 - 11:35 PM.


#4 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,373 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 11 February 2019 - 11:55 PM

Kanajashi posted a video of his own ideas for Info-Warfare here:


Touching on LRM fire-and-forget point:
- I like LRMs having a fire-and-forget fire mechanic, but I would use a lower tracking strength when not keeping the lock and have a high tracking strength when still keeping the lock (as you help the guidance).
This would allow both while rewarding lock-keeping.

Most of the range/sensor mechanics are similar/equal to the above mentioned details.
And I'm happy that Kanajashi is also suggesting this old goodie that was stopped (because of the laser-ghost-dmg-without-lock).

Only big addition on top is the convergence dependent on lock.
If we are talking about convergence also, I'd even just keep it a straigt line without any convergence, so you can estimate the wide shot (left/right) of your arms and count it, if skilled enough, by leading one way or the other.

#5 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,373 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 12 February 2019 - 12:01 AM

View PostOZHomerOZ, on 11 February 2019 - 11:32 PM, said:

Most people dont press R

The R key is information warfare but people dont use it

Im against changing the game for changes sake

Can you give me your advantages in a nut shell, say one paragraph

Thank you

(Soz I dunna if its just me but wall of texts make my eyes glaze)
So I suggest a TLDR at the top of post not the end. Spark my interest den I may read the rest.

Just my opinion


My TLDR is already at the top, but alas very short (google table link).

In short:
- Using different sensor ranges and detection ranges allow smaller mechs (especially mediums) to have better option to play as spotter and hit&run because they are not detected as easy, but can detect further away.

- Heavier mechs also get less out of sensors without skills by default and have better synergy when combined with smaller mechs providing these details.

- Having these limits and advantages also provide more benefits to skills and quirks boosting them, to give these more reward when used.

Hope this sums it up short enough :)

#6 OZHomerOZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 1,932 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 05:51 AM

I think a fire and forget mechanic is a bit much for a weapon that guides for you, gotta track that target a bit
Now TAG guided Lrm I could dig

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 12 February 2019 - 05:51 AM.


#7 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 9,752 posts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 12:24 AM

copy living legends verbatim. that is all.

#8 Rinkata Prime

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 281 posts
  • LocationSoviet Union

Posted 13 February 2019 - 02:54 AM

View PostLordNothing, on 13 February 2019 - 12:24 AM, said:

copy living legends verbatim. that is all.

And MWLL 1600 meters range for machineguns please!!!

#9 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 9,752 posts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 03:08 AM

View PostRinkata Prime, on 13 February 2019 - 02:54 AM, said:

And MWLL 1600 meters range for machineguns please!!!


yea but in ll you could use them for their intended purpose, splattering battle armor. battle armor was really effective and most mechs had a couple mgs to deal with them (though srms were a lot more effective). they posed little threat to mech armor.

im mostly referring to electronic warfare scheme they used, which was excellent. first of all it gave lights more useful things to do that backstabbing assaults (in mwll if you were able to get an assault you were already one of the top players in the match). lerms were very powerful, enough to make everyone switch their sensors to passive mode. you had to have c3 squirrels doing the spotting. if you were doing the lerming, you might stand in the shadow of an aecm mech so you could run active to get targets. also you didnt need to get locks when you had narcers and taggers up front guiding them in.

Edited by LordNothing, 13 February 2019 - 03:32 AM.


#10 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,373 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 13 February 2019 - 11:29 AM

It's ages since I played MWLL, could you elaborate the system a bit more?

I only remember active/passive radar and that Arrow/LRMs were automatically homing into the next TAG target or something.

#11 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 4,998 posts

Posted 10 April 2019 - 03:09 PM

Needs more tied to it for them to consider it worth the work. If say crits were greatly reduced when not locked on. Perhaps with a buff to component health it would make getting sensor locks more valuable. It would make the inclusion of MGs in builds worthwhile.

#12 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,373 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 11 April 2019 - 08:48 AM

View PostMechaBattler, on 10 April 2019 - 03:09 PM, said:

Needs more tied to it for them to consider it worth the work. If say crits were greatly reduced when not locked on. Perhaps with a buff to component health it would make getting sensor locks more valuable. It would make the inclusion of MGs in builds worthwhile.

The main reason why the Info-Warfare PTS4.0 was "hated" by players and then scrapped by PGI until now was that on 4.0 they tied Laser damage/range to locks.
So if you fired some lasers without lock you did only 60% dmg (or range, dont remember).
That was a KO for the PTS and hence might not be a good idea if we want Info-Warfare again.

Having convergence when locked (if we could have convergence at all) would at least make sense, as the computer is aiming your weapons to the locked target.

Anyway, the idea of Crits might be an alternative that has enough logic for players, but if its enough "worth" for the implementation?
MG builds at least would not be affected much by the whole sensor range/speed thing like long range weapons.

#13 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 4,998 posts

Posted 11 April 2019 - 08:59 AM

Convergence being tied to locks would definitely make sensor locks more valuable. Though I suspect some comp people would be upset with the idea of their shots not going exactly where they want. Seems to be the impression I've gotten every time convergence changes are brought up. Then again focusing on what the comp scene wants hasn't really gotten us anywhere.

But PGI has never entertained the idea of trying convergence changes. Could be a technical issue on their part.

#14 OZHomerOZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 1,932 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 12:47 AM

Neglecting match maker is what has not gotten us any where IMO





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users