52 replies to this topic

[Daekar]

I would like to propose some new equipment. All the work and effort for this goes to Livewyr, from whom I have shamelessly stolen it. Please forgive me Livewyr!

The Magnetic Field Generator. (MFG)
1.5 tons, placed MFG hardpoint. (no heat, ammo, recycle)
2 modes:
---Magnetic Field Generation: All incoming ballistic projectiles are deflected harmlessly to the ground in front of all friendly mechs within 180m of the MFG. Also scrambles signals attempting to lock and disrupts enemy electronics within 180m.

---Magnetic Field Disruption: Disrupts a local MFG within 180 meters, cancelling out any effect on Ballistic projectiles and targeting/disruption.

------------------------------------------------------

Ion Disruption Field: IDF
1.5 tons, placed in IDF hardpoint, no heat, no recycle, no ammo.
2 modes:
---Ion disruption mode: Generates an ion field around each mech within 180 meters of the equipment. Ion field scatters incoming laser beams harmlessly in all directions, and scatters enemy targeting signals. Also scrambles electronics on any enemy mech within 180 meters.

---Ion Normalization Field: Stabilizes an ion field around any enemy carrying IDF. (Removing the laser scattering effect and electronics disruption effect from all mechs within enemy IDF umbrella.)

Related equipment/modifications:
UAV :Now applies a Singlepower Magnetic Field Disruption or Ion Normalization Field effect for it's radius.
NARC: Now applies a Singlepower Magnetic Field Disruption or Ion Normalization Field for the mech it is attached to.
BAP: Now applies a Singlepower Magnetic Field Disruption and Ion Normalization Field within 150 meters.
PPC-MFG: Now hit the field and spread around the mech, dealing 5 points of damage spread over all components except the cockpit...Causes Magnetic Field Disruption to the mech it hit, if that mech has the equipment, for 4 seconds.)
PPC-IDF: Now hits the IDF field and overloads the IDF [generator] disabling the field for 4 seconds, and deals 5 points of damage spread evenly around the IDF protected mech.

New Equipment:
Magnatron Beam: 1 ton, 1 critical slot, 1 energy weapon slot. Range: 750 meters
While trained on an enemy mech currently carrying or effected by a local MFG or IDF, the field generated around that mech is disrupted, allowing ballistic projectiles and laser beams to connect as normal.

I think it looks pretty balanced and should normalize the efficacy of each weapon system in line with the partial implementation the devs already have in place. Of course, if these are a bad idea, then so is the current implementation of ECM.

Edited by Daekar, 17 April 2014 - 07:30 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

[Magna Canus]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 April 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

Sooo with you in that sentiment Joe.

[Daekar]

Glad you agree it's crap. Kind of puts some perspective on ECM, doesn't it?

[Danghen Woolf]

While I think that the originator of these ideas has put some work into them, there is technology in the BT universe that does partially what I think they are proposing:

For PPCs: http://www.sarna.net...le_Field_Damper: Prototype 3053
As far as reducing laser damage I go with: http://www.sarna.net...eflective_Armor: 3058
For reduction of missile damage: http://www.sarna.net.../Reactive_Armor: 3063
The reduction of ballistic damage: Ballistic-Renforced Armor: Mid-32nd Century

All-in-all I do not think that we need these items as all are direct fire and are avoidable by using basic situational awareness and available tactical advantages.

Edited by Danghen Woolf, 17 April 2014 - 06:50 AM.

[Daekar]

Danghen Woolf, on 17 April 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

While I think that the originator of these ideas has put some work into them, there is technology in the BT universe that does partially what I think they are proposing:

For PPCs: http://www.sarna.net...le_Field_Damper: Prototype 3053
As far as reducing laser damage I go with: http://www.sarna.net...eflective_Armor: 3058
For reduction of missile damage: http://www.sarna.net.../Reactive_Armor: 3063
The reduction of ballistic damage: Ballistic-Renforced Armor: Mid-32nd Century

All-in-all I do not think that we need these items as all are direct fire and are avoidable by using basic situational awareness and available tactical advantages.

I get the impression that people aren't detecting the irony in the proposed items. Let me spell it out for you: the proposed systems are monstrosities that should, indeed, be nuked from orbit. They are also precisely identical in function to the current implementation of ECM. If one rejects the proposed systems, then by extension one must also reject ECM in its current form to remain logically consistent.

[Danghen Woolf]

I totally get the irony. I think that people will see these and think "OMG! This is great, protection from ballistic, protection from energy, rabble on!" I see that the proposed items are similar in scope to the ECM and TAG, I think that the correlation to them and current ECM effects are not equivalent. The current application of ECM is not great, but these items are worse by magnitudes.

[Daekar]

Danghen Woolf, on 17 April 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

I totally get the irony. I think that people will see these and think "OMG! This is great, protection from ballistic, protection from energy, rabble on!" I see that the proposed items are similar in scope to the ECM and TAG, I think that the correlation to them and current ECM effects are not equivalent. The current application of ECM is not great, but these items are worse by magnitudes.

Please describe for me how they are worse.

[Veranova]

Daekar, on 17 April 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

I get the impression that people aren't detecting the irony in the proposed items. Let me spell it out for you: the proposed systems are monstrosities that should, indeed, be nuked from orbit. They are also precisely identical in function to the current implementation of ECM. If one rejects the proposed systems, then by extension one must also reject ECM in its current form to remain logically consistent.

Nope ECM is fine, it doesn't block you from taking damage or hide you from a team not relying on Red triangles.
It slows lock-on, and prevents locking LRM's at range without a counter. There are also many counters (both ranged and close) to ECM which someone thinking about their team can take, however what you're proposing is just a blanket tool with no appropriate counters.

It's not comparable.

Edited by Veranova, 17 April 2014 - 08:19 AM.

[Daekar]

Veranova, on 17 April 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

Nope ECM is fine, it doesn't block you from taking damage or hide you from a team not relying on Red triangles.
It slows lock-on, and prevents locking LRM's at range without a counter. There are also many counters (both ranged and close) to ECM which someone thinking about their team can take, however what you're proposing is just a blanket tool with no appropriate counters.

It's not comparable.

There is a whole section about the counters. Reading is OP.

[Danghen Woolf]

Daekar, on 17 April 2014 - 08:14 AM, said:

Please describe for me how they are worse.

The dispersion/deflection of energy and ballistic rounds. If I am understanding the original post correctly it is attempting to create an AMS type of system. The disruption effects of the ECM are keeping with the scope of current implementation as well as the effects of PPCs on ECM equipped mechs. As I said before ECM is not perfect in MWO, adding these additional features to the ECM-esque equipment does not mean that by saying they are... uneccessary... I disagree with the current implementation of ECM. The added features described in the equipment are things that just are not really needed. I apologize if I misunderstood the intent of the OP as a comparison of added features to simulate the current ECM effects.

[Veranova]

Daekar, on 17 April 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

There is a whole section about the counters. Reading is OP.

My bad read that bit now.

I would still stand by what I say though. I understand your point, however I think there is space in the game for one weapon system having a counter to it.
LRM's especially need a little something to stop Lermageddon from repeating, and ECM forces spotters to close the range to within 750m's, leaving them open to fire.
Direct fire weapons on the other hand, already require the shooter to have line of sight, meaning they are already open to return fire. Adding counters to direct fire would just create camp-warrior online, whereas ECM right now empowers people to NOT camp by giving them more freedom of movement.

To finish my initial point, having 3 systems in game that can blanket, but also be countered, might be interesting in terms of forcing teamwork. There would be a lot more counters on the field. However I think it would make the game a lot more frustrating on the whole.

Edited by Veranova, 17 April 2014 - 08:36 AM.

[Daekar]

Veranova, on 17 April 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

My bad read that bit now.

I would still stand by what I say though. I understand your point, however I think there is space in the game for one weapon system having a counter to it.
LRM's especially need a little something to stop Lermageddon from repeating, and ECM forces spotters to close the range to within 750m's, leaving them open to fire.
Direct fire weapons on the other hand, already require the shooter to have line of sight, meaning they are already open to return fire. Adding counters to direct fire would just create camp-warrior online, whereas ECM right now empowers people to NOT camp by giving them more freedom of movement.

To finish my initial point, having 3 systems in game that can blanket, but also be countered, might be interesting in terms of forcing teamwork. There would be a lot more counters on the field. However I think it would make the game a lot more frustrating on the whole.

I agree - 3 systems would be frustrating. I advocate removing indirect fire from LRMs in the absence of NARC or TAG, and allowing ECM to nullify NARC and TAG. LRM carriers with LoS could fire regardless of ECM cover. I've got a post in the general section if you're interested.

[Golrar]

I think we can fix the indirect fire problem with LRMs with the implementation of the C3 targeting computer. Only those with said module can target indirectly, and only by sharing targeting info with a similarly equipped friendly. So if a raven took the C3 and the Cat took it, then indirect away. Of course, TAG would still allow LRMs to fire indirectly, that is what it is there for.

However, being somebody who likes LRMs in their current state, and is decent using them LoS with TAG, I notice significant DPS increases when using them LoS instead of indirect, so I tend to fire at targets I can see when I can help it, but I think what some are not realizing is LRM usage is suppression fire, sort of like MGs in the real world. They are used to keep the enemy's head down until friendlies can close the distance. It is not supposed to be a killing system.

I have no problem with the way ECM currently works because it doesn't alter the usage of LRMs as a suppressing weapon system. You can still shoot at an ECM shielded mech, just without guidance, in effect making it a rocket barrage. Until they implement a Long Tom or Arrow IV, LRMs are the only significant artillery in the game.

[Onlystolen]

YES. so a team with one mech of each will block all incoming fire.! prepare slap warrior online!!

Sarna says!?

NO.

Even with counters to them, this has got to be the biggest waste of an idea to this game.

Edited by Onlystolen, 17 April 2014 - 09:32 AM.

[Daekar]

Onlystolen, on 17 April 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

YES. so a team with one mech of each will block all incoming fire.! prepare slap warrior online!!

Sarna says!?

NO.

Even with counters to them, this has got to be the biggest waste of an idea to this game.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnd you missed it. The point was to illustrate balance issues with ECM.

No wonder more Americans don't enjoy British comedy... it would all go right over their heads.

Golrar, on 17 April 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

I think we can fix the indirect fire problem with LRMs with the implementation of the C3 targeting computer. Only those with said module can target indirectly, and only by sharing targeting info with a similarly equipped friendly. So if a raven took the C3 and the Cat took it, then indirect away. Of course, TAG would still allow LRMs to fire indirectly, that is what it is there for.

However, being somebody who likes LRMs in their current state, and is decent using them LoS with TAG, I notice significant DPS increases when using them LoS instead of indirect, so I tend to fire at targets I can see when I can help it, but I think what some are not realizing is LRM usage is suppression fire, sort of like MGs in the real world. They are used to keep the enemy's head down until friendlies can close the distance. It is not supposed to be a killing system.

I have no problem with the way ECM currently works because it doesn't alter the usage of LRMs as a suppressing weapon system. You can still shoot at an ECM shielded mech, just without guidance, in effect making it a rocket barrage. Until they implement a Long Tom or Arrow IV, LRMs are the only significant artillery in the game.

*facepalm* Not supposed to be a killing system. Did you really type that? So BattleTech is FILLED to the GILLS with mechs that carry only or almost only LRMs and those aren't supposed to kill things?

I'd post that picture of Captain Picard double-facepalming, but it's not even really necessary.

[Veranova]

Daekar, on 17 April 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

I agree - 3 systems would be frustrating. I advocate removing indirect fire from LRMs in the absence of NARC or TAG, and allowing ECM to nullify NARC and TAG. LRM carriers with LoS could fire regardless of ECM cover. I've got a post in the general section if you're interested.

Actually you've got me on your side there, although I think ECM should still hide you at range, there should be a longer range where you can lock without assistance, with line of sight. 750m would be the most sense because it's also Tagging range, but maybe 500m would be best to make it a risk for the LRM 'mech.

Still I don't think ECM is broken how it is right now, I'm happy personally. Some tweaks might be good at some stage, but there are more glaring issues in my eyes at this point. The balance is still a little lopsided to Poptarts and big 'mechs, so I'd personally like to see that that work finished first.

Edited by Veranova, 17 April 2014 - 10:17 AM.

[Onlystolen]

Daekar, on 17 April 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnd you missed it. The point was to illustrate balance issues with ECM.

No wonder more Americans don't enjoy British comedy... it would all go right over their heads.

Good thing im not america.

Always assuming you know what you're talking about. LOL but you're also wrong i like British humor, this is very humorous.

Edited by Onlystolen, 17 April 2014 - 10:43 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Did people miss the point of this thread? Its satire, and very well done at that. I mean who wouldn't want a Lightsaber for their Mech that shut off other types of weapons too. Brilliant!


At its base, LRM's are blocked by an ECM Mech standing right in front of me. Meaning that ECM Mech is totally shielded from any LRM fire in LOS. While at the same time, that ECM Mech can fire its LRM's.

It seems the kids of MWO have been taken full hostage of PGI's Stockholm Syndrome. In TT, and in any Mech Warrior game ever made ECM did not save you from being target-locked by LRM's in LOS.

That's called better balance, otherwise how did any stock Mech ever fire its LRM's or SSRMs at an ECM equipped Mech in its LOS in BattleTech?

And all the other stuff people should know better and know exactly what it did.

NARC - Allowed IN-direct fire of LRM's (firing over obstacle), and also gave bonus tracking to SRM's (in previous games, this was interpreted as a quasi-lock on/fire and forget for regular SRM's as long as the target was NARC'ed)
TAG - For directing fire of Arrow-IV Indirectly, and for LRM missiles indirectly, and Semi-Guided LRM munitions in 3057
ECM - Blocked NARC beacon's.

Also for LRM and SRM missiles to work in conjunction with NARC, it required the munitions to be "narc" capable, which cost 2x the normal amount of the munitions.



Anyways, I don't care anymore. The truth is in the details and it will stay programmed in a shallow, non-information warfare format. That's just how it is.

Once April 29th comes, I will be playing and setting up stock Matches exclusively. And ECM will be banned from use since it ruins stock mechs from operating their limited loadouts, that simple.

Edited by General Taskeen, 17 April 2014 - 11:56 AM.

[Daekar]

General Taskeen, on 17 April 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

Did people miss the point of this thread? Its satire, and very well done at that.


At its base, LRM's are blocked by an ECM Mech standing right in front of me. Meaning that ECM Mech is totally shielded from any LRM fire in LOS. While at the same time, that ECM Mech can fire its LRM's.

It seems the kids of MWO have been taken full hostage of PGI's Stockholm Syndrome. In TT, and in any Mech Warrior game ever made ECM did not save you from being target-locked by LRM's in LOS.

That's called better balance, otherwise how did any stock Mech ever fire its LRM's or SSRMs at an ECM equipped Mech in its LOS?

It seems satire is lost on people. What would they make of A Modest Proposal, I wonder?

Edited by Daekar, 17 April 2014 - 11:59 AM.