Jump to content

Our Current Biggest Balance Foible


14 replies to this topic

#1 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 01:12 PM

Hey, time for another really extended Quickdraw Crobat post.

I don’t do these all that often, but hey, you know what? Why not again.

I’d like to address the current greatest issue in the game as far as balance goes. Or at least, what I see as the current greatest issue. Contrary to what you might think, it isn’t ECM or missiles- or rather, it isn’t composed of just one or the other (or both) of those things. Indeed, this is what I consider the root cause of all the issues surrounding both of those (so long as one discounts the hit registration issues going on still around SRMs) and the way they affect gameplay.

In order to figure out the root cause, though, you have to look at all of the results of things and sort of work your way backwards, so that’s what I’m going to do first- I’m going to show how I reached the conclusions I have, so that we’re all on the same page. I know, I know, that’s not how internet arguments are supposed to work and it’s not really how things tend to go on these boards, but it’s how I’m going to do this.

Before anyone bothers posting it:

I understand that a lot of forumgoers are of the opinion that PGI pays no attention here or, at best, will never act on anything anyone says on the forums. Frankly, I don’t think it matters whether or not I believe it. However, if you’re going to post to this thread just to tell me that I’ve wasted my time, don’t bother. If you really think this is a waste of my time, then telling me so not only wastes more of my time, it also wastes your time too. I’m uninterested in reading it, you’re uninterested in saying it- why are you here? If you don’t actually want to communicate anything of value, go do something that you enjoy instead. Everyone will come out of this the better for it.

A bit of preface.

I’m going to commit forum heresy- and I’m going to do it again and again and again- and reference the tabletop game. I want to be clear on this: I am not referencing the tabletop game because I think it’s some incredible paradigm of balance. I’m not referencing the tabletop game because I think it’s ‘better’ than this game. I’m not referencing it because I think this game should be that game. I’m also not referencing it just to troll people.

Regardless of whether or not you or anyone else likes it, this game is based off of the tabletop game. Equipment weights, the entire critical hit slot system, all the location setups, the way engine rating relates to speed, the tonnage of armor, the damage system, these are all pulled from the tabletop game. Weapon ranges and damage/heat values, ammunition per ton, certain weapon behaviors (Gauss rifles exploding), the effects of critical hits on equipment, non-weapon equipment- all of these are based on the tabletop game with varying degrees of adjustment.

Now, I’m the first to admit that the tabletop game has some funny balance issues. In the tabletop, for instance, AC/5s and AC/2s are pretty much worthless. This does not mean that I think these weapons should be worthless, before anyone tries to misquote me as claiming such. I’m just pointing it out as an example of a point where the tabletop game is a little screwy.

But the fact of the matter is that the tabletop game is, like any other game with anything approaching longevity, essentially a decently balanced game. There are some weird outliers, both in terms of hard rules like weapon stats and in terms of ‘softer’ things like how some people design ‘mechs or leverage terrain, but overall the game is actually pretty well put together. Everything in the game has a place, and it fits in that place and does things that no other object does quite the same.

Given that the balance of the tabletop game is at the very least pretty good and the game we are talking about here is based very heavily on that tabletop game, I’m going to reference that game. I am also going to reference that game because, by word of creators, it is the tabletop game that is canon (for those not familiar with the term, it is the source material that is ‘always true’ and ‘always right’, whereas anything else is essentially a spinoff- kind of like how Mario doesn’t actually go go-karting with Bowser). Whether or not it is perfectly accurate to how a thing should operate is irrelevant; what I am looking at is a more general sense of what sort of function a given piece of equipment has and how it compares to other pieces of a similar function or cost.

To Begin

I’m going to start out with the outlying issues that I feel stem to one degree or another from what I’ve arrived at as the core source of the problems we have. I’m going to go element by element, just to try and rein in my tendency to wander off on tangents. I’m also going to take these on in semi-random order- when I get to a thing is in no way indicative of how severe or minor I feel it is, nor whether I am more or less worried about it.

Element 1: LRMs

As things currently stand, LRMs are still in a very strange place. Some people will refuse to use them ‘because they are a no skill weapon.’ Some people will refuse to use them ‘because they are useless.’ Some people will assert ‘they are only useful if you have 40+ tubes.’ And so on and so forth.

In order to address this, I’m going to have to reach to the tabletop game right off the bat. Now, I’m not going to do a rundown of numbers or something, because that would be implying that somehow I feel this game should be the tabletop game, and I don’t think the exact same numeral values are right, because this game flat out interacts differently on an internal basis (nevermind how it interacts with the player). The relevant part of the tabletop game that I want to reference is the purpose of the LRM rack in the game.

In the tabletop game, LRM racks serve two purposes- one of these is a major purpose, and the other is a minor purpose.

The major purpose of an LRM rack in Battletech is to be a long-range weapon alternative to the extremely hot PPCs and Large Lasers, and the heavy and low-damage Autocannon/2 and Autocannon/5, and the extremely heavy and low-ammunition Gauss Rifle. An LRM-15 has the same tonnage as a PPC, but generates roughly 1/3 the heat when fired and has slightly better range at the cost of a little bit of damage (on average). It compares even more favorably to the ERPPC when it comes to heat, but has somewhat poorer range. By comparison to the AC/2 and AC/5, the LRM-15 is precisely between their tonnages and has slightly inferior range, but deals considerably more damage (nearly twice the AC/5 on average and about four times as much as the AC/2 on average). In exchange, it gets far fewer shots per ton of ammunition, and has a much more significant minimum range than the AC/5, while occupying far more space than an AC/2. Compared to the Gauss Rifle, the LRM-15 is weak at about half the damage and less range, but it has about the same number of shots per tonne of ammunition, weighs half as much, and occupies far less space.

All of these weapons, though, are direct-fire, and the LRM rack is intended to be exactly as direct-fire viable as they are. This is your alternative long-range weapon (primary long-range weapon in many cases), and it is supposed to be roughly the same degree as effective- otherwise it would have a different set of advantages and drawbacks. Currently, LRMs are not very direct-fire viable. They are better off than they used to be with the increase to missile travel speed, but it still takes them quite a while in battlefield terms to reach their target. They are not, however, outright bad- which is a good thing. They’re just... inferior.

The other purpose LRM racks serve in the tabletop (remember, we’re talking with vanilla standard ammunition, which is guided by basic missile tracking systems) is as an emergency indirect fire weapon. Ask anyone who plays the tabletop game- while you can use LRMs for indirect fire, they’re really, really horrible at it. Even if you could use other weapons in that game for indirect fire, they’d also be super bad at it.

In order to equate to the difficulty of using LRMs for indirect fire on tabletop, you would have to implement some kind of goofy screen-in-a-screen thing, like the Advanced Zoom box, but anchored to the position of the ‘mech that’s spotting for you, not to your reticle, and showing a miniature version of their view, and then aiming through that (with an instant lock-on that immediately breaks if your targeting reticle leaves the red box inside the view-in-view).

Obviously, this is not what we have currently. Which, if we’re going to be honest, is probably for the better. That sounds like a huge horking buttload of work to do just to add in, and probably wouldn’t be any fun anyways.

The current system has some problems, though. Spotters are amazing, for instance, and if you have even one ally spotting for you who isn’t being dislodged then you can pick your targets more or less at will (more if you’re in voice contact with them, less if they aren’t even paying attention to the chat box) and rain hard-to-avoid fire from above. This lets you deny areas to enemies sometimes, and other times it’ll just let you give someone a really, really bad day. On the other hand, if nobody is spotting or able to spot for you, then something like three-quarters of the time that LRM rack is essentially dead weight (and its ammo only not dead weight because it also explodes). The missiles still travel too slowly to smack the same targets in the same windows of time as autocannons, PPCs, or lasers- particularly not at the longer (600m+) ranges. It can be downright safe to peek out at someone firing on you with LRMs while someone armed with burst-fire weapons or lasers will have your arm off PDQ. This gets really screwy when you throw the module for target lock decay into the mix, let alone Beagle, TAG, or NARC.

In fact, target lock decay is responsible for a lot of the most ridiculous LRM-bombardment situations out there. The lock decay lasts longer than the missile travel times out to anything under around 800 meters, and with the way LRM racks currently hit, this actually inverts the paradigm, making them more powerful for the tonnage than autocannons and large lasers (and possibly moreso than gauss or PPCs, I’m not really sure). All things considered, this is a pretty ridiculous level of effect for a ‘module’ that occupies no tonnage nor critical hit slots and is competing with things like the Hill Climb Module.

Things get even more screwy when you get to ECM, but I’m not actually there yet, so hang on.

Element 2: Beagle Active Probe

Let’s face it, the Beagle is actually pretty weak. It’s pretty clear this is intended to be the go-to counter to ECM. Any ‘mech can mount it, and it cuts through a layer of ECM within its range. (180m, I think? I could be wrong.) It also cuts down missile lock-on waits, which is kinda neat. And it lets you target-lock ‘mechs that are functional but shut down. There are some serious issues here, though.

The range on the Beagle Active Probe is smaller than the range of the ECM bubble. This means that Beagle is not in any way an equal counter to ECM- the Beagle-toting ‘mech has to be closer. Also, while ECM affects ally ‘mechs in its area, the Beagle does no such thing. In fact, if you don’t lock on to your target within the ECM bubble, as far as your allies are concerned you may as well not have that Beagle in the first place.

Beagle does not stack. ECM does stack. This means that it doesn’t matter how many ‘mechs near you have Beagle probes- if two enemy ‘mechs have ECM, you’re just not gonna cut through it, period.

Both of these first two issues are especially severe when you consider the following: ECM weighs one and a half tons and occupies two critical hit slots because it is intended to be the equal counter to, and opposite of, a Beagle Active Probe. Again, this is a reference to tabletop, but it’s an important one- ECM was put into the game to counteract the Beagle Probe. Even if, for whatever reason, we turn the relationship on its head to where it is now (In MWO, the Beagle is primarily present to be a counter to ECM) that still means the tonnages and slot occupations of the two pieces of equipment are meant to be equal because the equipment itself is meant to be equal. Even with just these two first points, we can see that the equipment is not, in fact, equal.

Beagle extends the sensor range of your ‘mech by 200 meters. This is actually really powerful, especially when you consider that the base sensor range on a ‘mech is 800 meters. Suddenly, you can actually lock on to targets out at the furthest reach of your LRM racks. Not the most practical thing in some situations, but it lets you start bombarding targets approaching you that much earlier, which can mean a lot of damage and a lot of difference.

Beagle improves missile lock-on time. Note, this is important: Beagle does not simply counteract the missile lock time increase caused by ECM. Instead, it cuts all missile lock-on times, regardless of whether or not the target is affected by ECM. This is the one way in which Beagle is very, very strong. That improved lock-on time means a world of difference to someone with an LRM rack firing at a sniper who’s peeking out of cover, again in a way that’s exacerbated by the existence of the target lock retention module.

This means that Beagle is at the same time both stronger and weaker than it should be. On the one hand, it simply doesn’t function well as a counter for ECM- although it does counter it. On the other hand, it has a secondary effect that is very powerful (the lock-on time reduction) when used by a mechwarrior who knows how to leverage it.

All of this is worsened by the fact that in Mechwarrior Online, the Beagle Active Probe is an optional rule that literally and directly breaks another rule. Anyone who’s listened to me speak or read me writing about game balance before knows that I consider this a no-no. Specifically, I like to say the following:

If you have introduced a mechanic to your game that exists wholly or primarily to ‘turn off’ another mechanic, then something is broken. Either you have just introduced a broken mechanic, or you are effectively admitting that the mechanic you are ‘turning off’ is broken.

Keep that in mind, we’re not done.

Element 3: Target Acquisition Gear

Yeah, TAG is an acronym. Deal with it.

Tag in the tabletop game is a curious little piece of equipment, intended to make missile fire easier.

However.

It only does this in two situations. First, TAG is used to mark targets for Arrow IV artillery missile bombardment guided missiles.

Second, TAG will severely cut the difficulty of firing LRMs (and only LRMs) at the target if and only if the unit firing the LRMs thought ahead of time to obtain and load special TAG-guided missile ammunition. It also doesn’t matter if the firing unit is firing directly or indirectly, which is nice.

The first element is currently a non-issue.

The second element is interesting, because it has nothing at all to do with ECM. Nada. Doesn’t interact at all.

Because TAG does nothing other than this, it weighs one ton and occupies one critical hit slot.

In Mechwarrior Online, TAG has the same resource-occupation as ever, however, it now does two things.

First of all, it reduces lock-on time to a target drastically, and improves missile tracking. This makes sense, as its role is to ‘acquire a target’ and make it easier to hit with LRMs.

However, its second effect is that as long as that little red light is shining on a target, that target can be target-locked even if it’s under ECM.

And here we have the second instance of a mechanic (turning off ECM effects) introduced entirely to turn off another mechanic.

Now, it’s unlikely that someone making a game would introduce two broken mechanics that operate somewhat differently to bypass a third mechanic- it makes much more sense to presume that the mechanic being bypassed is the broken one. At worst, if the first two are broken, it is because the third, bypassed mechanic is broken.

But we’re not done yet.

Element 4: NARC

Sorry to disappoint you, I don’t know what NARC stands for. I’m not sure anyone does. It may have just been a cute little one-off joke (You’re NARCing on the guy so the missiles can find him). That’s not really the point.

In the tabletop game, the position that NARC fills is this: When a target that has been hit with a NARC pod is fired on by a unit with NARC-tracking ammo in its SRM or LRM launchers, more missiles will hit, if any would have hit at all. If the location that the NARC is attached to is destroyed, the NARC pod is assumed to be destroyed too and has no effect anymore.

That’s it. That’s the whole thing. It’s essentially the shoot-and-run-away equivalent of Artemis IV- particularly since as originally intended, the NARC pod is ‘snuffed’ temporarily whenever it’s under an ECM blanket.

This was useful because Artemis relies on line of sight, and so having a NARC pod on the target could help with indirect fire (again, assuming the firing unit would have hit in the first place). Needless to say, NARC was always a bit on the weak side until alternative ammunition was applied.

In order to make NARC relevant, PGI opted to make a NARCed target target-lockable even without line of sight.... which is a hugely powerful effect. To try and counteract this, a time limit was attached to the NARC effect instead of relying on the location the pod is attached to being destroyed. This still left NARC weak, so more recently the timer was extended and, on top of that, NARC became the third ECM-nullifying mechanic.

Hey, look, now we have three mechanics- admittedly attached to bundles of other mechanics- that exist solely to render another mechanic a non-issue.

Might be time to take a look at that.

Element 5: ECM

Electronic Countermeasures. This is where it at least looks like the problem starts.

In the original game, ECM does a few particular things, out to a range of 180m.

First of all, ECM breaks Artemis and NARC. Missiles that are heading across an ECM bubble or at a target in an ECM bubble lose all benefits of Artemis or NARC in the process. This does not affect firing them and expecting to hit in the first place, only the advanced sensors and broadcast electronics used by Artemis or NARC.

Secondly, if there’s a C3 network, ECM interrupts it in the same fashion- linking across the ECM bubble is impossible, and units within the ECM bubble are cut off from the C3 altogether.

Finally, a hidden ‘mech under ECM cannot be found via sensors, and a shut down ‘mech under ECM cannot be found with a Beagle Active Probe.

Naturally, this is different for Mechwarrior online. Here ECM has three major effects on gameplay, and a side effect as well.

For the side effect- ECM doubles the lock-on time for missiles targeting units within the ECM bubble. (I seem to recall this bubble being 250m, but it might be 200m. Either way, larger than Beagle.) This means that any mechanic which cuts through ECM and does not reduce weapons lock-on time is not actually fully countering the effects of ECM. Interestingly, this includes situations where one pilot with Beagle is locked on to a target under ECM and someone else is trying to ‘piggyback’ that target lock for their own LRMs or Streak missiles, since the Beagle lock-on reduction only affects the ‘mech carrying the Beagle. This side effect is, frankly, very strange. It’s one thing to tell the game to ignore another piece of electronics, it’s completely something else to cut the function of a weapon significantly. Particularly since, under current rules, this only affects Streak missiles and LRMs.

The third major effect ECM has on gameplay is that it disallows enemy ‘mechs under the ECM bubble from using their sensors properly. Not only does it prevent a pilot from locking on to targets outside about 100m radius of their ‘mech, it also prevents the pilot gaining any advanced information about those targets (weapons load, damage to locations, etc.).

The second major effect ECM has on gameplay is that enemies underneath the ECM bubble cannot share their target locks with allies and cannot share the target locks of allied ‘mechs either.

The first major effect ECM has is that enemies outside the ECM bubble cannot target lock friendly units within the ECM bubble at all.

Now, this is an incredible value for a two-critical-slot one-and-a-half-ton piece of gear.

And this is where I had my major realization. You see, Elements 2-4 are all mostly ‘broken’ in the sense that they exist to completely (or mostly) turn off the mechanic that is Element 5.

But Element 5, ECM, itself is present to do one thing and one thing only.

ECM exists to break sensors and target locking.

And that means that either ECM is broken....

....or sensors and target locking are broken.

Now, that on its own, would not be enough.... but what else has really severe effects on the game that relates to sensors and target locking?

Well, LRMs for one. Most of the complaints regarding LRMs in a negative light have to do with using sensors to lock on to targets and bombard them.

Also, piggybacking targeting data. This doesn’t sound so bad at first, but then I thought about this:

If I’m around a corner, and my ally has a lock on a target, and I can see where that target is damaged, then I know where to shoot the enemy ‘mech before I even see it, and that pilot may not get to do the same.

Furthermore, pinpoint damage is partly an issue because it’s really easy to see where a ‘mech is more or less damaged, it’s easy to see that very quickly, and it’s easy to take advantage of that information.

Additionally, the fact that all ‘mechs have identical sensors that gather huge amounts of information (where an enemy is, what they are, where they’re going, where they’re damaged, what weapons they have) just by knowing that other pilots on your side can see them gives a huge advantage to anyone paying attention to the sensors. And that same advantage gets exacerbated by the fact that no pilot has to actually pass that information on through any act of their own- it’s just being offered out there at no cost to the pilot.

And that got me thinking about information warfare, the way the game currently works, and what could actually resolve some- or even a lot- of these issues.

So, Sensors are Broken.

That’s right, more or less. The current state of the whole ECM effects tree, many of the issues with LRMs, some of the problems with how pinpoint damage and poptarting are not just viable strategies but ones with overwhelming value by comparison.... they more or less boil down to sensors, or the way we’re allowed to perceive the enemy ‘mechs.

Right now, I would argue that our sensors are giving us too much information. That’s why ECM, even limited to hardpoints on certain ‘mechs, is the way it is right now.

I’m going to return to my game design argument.

Introducing a mechanic that removes, invalidates, or bypasses another mechanic outright is essentially admitting that the mechanic you are bypassing is broken, but you are unwilling to alter or unable to fix it.

ECM bypasses sensors. It was specifically designed to do so for Mechwarrior Online, and that’s a bad thing- not because ECM is broken, but because making ECM broken doesn’t actually solve the underlying issue.

Solve For X

So what would be best to do about this? Well, there’s a chain of changes that I think would go a long ways. Am I absolutely and unequivocally right? Well, no, I’m human, I’m fallible, and I’m certainly not in command of the property or in a position to extensively test these changes and tweak them to ensure they don’t break anything else in turn. But I’m going to lay out the set of changes that I think would be most likely to work.

By ‘work’, of course, I mean ‘improve the overall balance of the game and push it closer to the goals the game’s developers indicated they had while not making the game no longer fun to play’.


The first set of changes I would suggest are to the basics of sensors. Right now, sensors give way too much information. The degree of information being passed between ‘mechs automatically right now should really be reserved for C3 networks and other ways of investing tonnage and critical hit slots for a non-numerical return that are similar. (Targeting computers, C3i, the Command Console, etc.)

Other changes, of course, follow on from this in kind of a cascade.

Sensors

1: Reduce the information normally available to a pilot through sensor use. Turning ‘read that weapons loadout’ off entirely would probably be a bad idea, but it shouldn’t be hard to remove the damage paperdoll from the sensor screen. There are already a lot of visual cues that people can use outside their windscreens (smoke, missing bits of machine, etc.), and not being able to tell at a glance (not even at the ‘mech itself) the condition of a ‘mech would go a long way to giving more room for things like the Beagle or sensor skills and modules.

2: Reduce the value of piggybacked target locks. Let us see the name, the ‘mech chassis (but not precise serial number), and lock for LRM fire, but that’s it. In fact, given that Artemis already doesn’t do anything to a target a pilot doesn’t have direct line of sight on, it shouldn’t be hard to extend that to things like sensor modules and so on. This would make scouting more of a skill, and require more attention to communication from players- always a good thing in a team-oriented game like this. Plus it allows even more add-ons for scouting, like additional skills and modules.

ECM

3: ECM should mostly just do what a two-slot, one-and-a-half-tonne item should do: mung with other advanced electronics equipment. If you’re really in love with improving weapons lock-on times, then fine, but having ECM COMPLETELY BREAK SENSORS is out of line. Instead, have it disable Artemis as though Line Of Sight were broken, and turn off NARC beacons under its ‘umbrella’. This also results in a slight improvement in value to the Anti-Missile System, but I’ll get to that later. Beyond that, just make ECM jam or otherwise mess with other advanced sensor stuff, like the Target Lock Retention or Target Info Gathering modules.

4: Let ECM prevent target lock piggybacking- that is, a 'mech under an ECM bubble can still be target locked, but nobody can gain an indirect lock through an ECM umbrella. This would provide the same protection against indirect LRMs without making LRMs useless, and would to some degree mimic the Beagle-proofing that was part of the original intent of ECM to begin with.

NARC

5: This actually then doesn’t need much of a change. The way it is currently comes out essentially untouched at the end of the sensor tweak mess, and with more people actually able to use LRMs on a regular basis (rather than being a diceroll as to whether or not they’ll be useful) it comes out as a valuable piece of equipment.

Target Acquisition Gear

6: No longer needs to cut through ECM. Still improves weapons lock time, though. Might want to look into a way to keep it from occupying an energy slot? Doesn’t seem too bad a deal regardless, though.

Beagle Active Probe

7: This can now do what it’s supposed to- detect shutdown ‘mechs. Improving sensor range seems neat too, and doesn’t feel like something completely egregious on a piece of equipment that size. Maybe drop the missile lockon time thing if you also remove the opposite lockon time thing from ECM.

LRMs

8: Reduce LRM value for targets that aren’t being directly viewed. You already have code in there somewhere that prevents Artemis from taking effect when the launcher doesn’t actually have LOS, this can’t be that hard to pull off. If you want it to come off really smooth, here’s what you do: Have LRMs travel slower and in higher arcs when firing indirectly, and have them travel faster and more straight-line when firing on a target with line of sight. This would make LRMs more valuable direct fire weapons while preventing some of the ridiculous trick shots pulled off by breaking and reacquiring lock, and would make Target Lock Retention modules less deadly while still keeping them valuable and relevant.



As I stated before, this paves the way for a lot of options that can be given to the C3 networks (target info sharing), Targeting Computers (damage map paperdoll), sensor skills (Improving ally bombardments? Detecting weapons loadouts? Locating ammunition? Finding jump jets?), and modules. (Break ‘mech identification? Highlight weakened armor? Retain sensor data?)

And it does this while resolving many issues surrounding LRMs, ECM, and the various ECM counters in a way that could allow ECM to be mounted in any ‘mech while still maintaining an information-driven battlefield. Plus, with less information out there on a baseline level, the information-passing effect of third-party voice clients that often makes premade groups extremely powerful becomes smaller, resulting in a battlefield that, while still uneven, is less so.

Agree? Disagree? Explain your position! Communicate!

Also, eat a piece of fruit. Any kind, pick your favorite. Really, it’ll help make you feel good.

-QKD-CR0

P.S.: I can't find any information anywhere on how to tag a topic, and I definitely couldn't find anything that would let me tag the topic while posting it. If someone could advise me via PM how that is actually supposed to be done, I would greatly appreciate it.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 17 April 2014 - 03:29 PM.


#2 Jakob Knight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • Giant Helper
  • 1,286 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 02:50 PM

Well, I certainly applaud your attention to detail. A very reasoned approach to the issue, and I would be remiss if I did not point out that many of us made many of these points back when ECM was introduced, continuing to do so until it became apparent the Devs were determined that ECM would work a certain way without any change or modification. At that point, many of us simply became resigned that the Devs were going to avoid any changes to ECM (even though they stated it would be tweaked for balance after the initial data was gathered) because it was in a protected status and did the job they wanted (missile immunity and stealth system all in one).

Personal opinions regarding the interaction between LRMs and sensors/ECM tend to become entangled with the poster's favored playstyle in the game (brawlers hate anything that can prevent the battle from being one where mechs simply charge at each other and pound away until someone drops, while snipers hate anything that does not require twitch/boresight aiming to use and can punish a mech that sits in one position too long, and support fire players hate being unable to fight in the game effectively without being forced into a brawling or sniper gamestyle), so it is difficult to find objective viewpoints on it (the argument of LRMs not 'requiring skill' is an old example that is still used today despite countless logical posts that disprove that claim). Certainly, as a veteran of the tabletop game back to almost its inception, I am very aware of how different they are in MWO. I therefore found your post to be refreshingly honest and grounded in reason.

That all said, I cannot fully endorse your suggestions for several reasons, two of which I will highlight.

First, it is important to note that no weapon system in the game exists in a vacuum. LRM and ECM systems and their differences in MWO function in direct comparison to the changes made from the Tabletop (TT) performance of other systems such as autocannons, lasers, and the anti-missile systems. Altering the viability of indirect fire for LRMs directly impacts their overall viability in the game environment when other systems are not also altered to suit. As an example, in your suggested changes, LRMs would be all but forced into a direct-fire role, yet still face the same fatal flaw of slow fire-to-effect time that makes them currently non-viable as direct-fire weapons on the same battlefield next to instant-damage beam weapons and projectile weapons. The end result would be a gross reduction in the effectiveness of LRM-equipped units below what they currently are, and that is not addressed by balancing change suggestions on all other weapons.

Secondly, the data received from sensors on enemy units is so extensive because the resolution of the game environment is so limited to the player. Information that would be obvious to the pilot of the battlemech (and which, in fact was available to the players in the original TT system in most cases) is not rendered in the game due to the huge resources this would require (as an example, an Atlas with its right torso damaged looks pretty much the same as an Atlas with its left torso damaged graphically because the damage rendering on the mechs is not fine enough to distinguish what a pilot would be able to observe in the actual situation the game is simulating). To compensate, the sensor data displayed in the game is designed to provide such detail. Removing or altering this would result in a situation where a pilot that should obviously be able to discern information from the enemy would not be receiving anything beyond the fact that there is an enemy mech in front of them, a notable drop in the reasonableness of the combat environment. Perhaps if the models were enhanced to note each and every change to their status, it would be a good idea, but the increase in game resources required would probably drive the game into unplayability for the majority of players.

For these reasons primarily, I would have to say that your suggestions, while certainly worthy of being looked at, need refining or alteration before they could be considered solutions. I would further add that these changes would probably not be needed to be as extensive if systems in MWO had not been so radically changed from their proper roles. That they were so changed and remain so altered with little (or in certain cases already noted, absolutely no) changes to this point is a fair indication that there are additional factors beyond proper battlefield balance involved in the Devs' choices in this matter. Unless those factors are made known to us (the players concerned with suggesting changes), there is a very real probability our analysis and suggestions will remain unnoticed and unregarded by the Devs (as an example, I have tried repeatedly to get the definitive view of the Dev team on what ECM is supposed to be in their game in order to suggest tweaks, and received only stone-wall silence).

So, in conclusion, I have to say that I cannot support all of your suggestions (particularly the inability of an LRM unit to use a spotter for indirect fire if the target is in any way within or in a position with an ECM field interposed), as I don't think they could be done without a lot more simultaneous changes to other systems/aspects of the game. Nevertheless, I respect your reasons for those suggestions and the hard work you've done to determine them. Certainly, I find them much more agreeable than others I have seen in the past, and would not be entirely against them if they were, indeed, adopted (assuming the entire framework was implemented, as the proposed changes all rely on each other to work).

Edited by Jakob Knight, 17 April 2014 - 03:00 PM.


#3 Captain Stiffy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,234 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:03 PM

Posted Image

#4 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 18 April 2014 - 07:16 AM

View PostJakob Knight, on 17 April 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

First, it is important to note that no weapon system in the game exists in a vacuum. LRM and ECM systems and their differences in MWO function in direct comparison to the changes made from the Tabletop (TT) performance of other systems such as autocannons, lasers, and the anti-missile systems. Altering the viability of indirect fire for LRMs directly impacts their overall viability in the game environment when other systems are not also altered to suit. As an example, in your suggested changes, LRMs would be all but forced into a direct-fire role, yet still face the same fatal flaw of slow fire-to-effect time that makes them currently non-viable as direct-fire weapons on the same battlefield next to instant-damage beam weapons and projectile weapons. The end result would be a gross reduction in the effectiveness of LRM-equipped units below what they currently are, and that is not addressed by balancing change suggestions on all other weapons.


Assuming they were to make the other changes and not the LRM changes I listed, yes, this would be the case.

However, I pointed out that LRMs could be programmed to have two different flight paths and two different flight speeds- there are clearly already systems in place to discern whether an LRM lock is direct or indirect, as Artemis IV doesn't take effect on indirectly-fired LRMs. This could be extended further with different tracking rates as well, and so long as the boost to direct fire is greater than the reduction to indirect fire, LRMs can easily become a competetive long-range direct-fire weapon. Autocannon are still of use at their most extreme ranges because leading a target still works- by the same rote, if LRMs have good enough tracking and speed (though less speed than autocannon shells), they become viable direct-fire weapons in similar situations- though not the same situations, much like how an ER Large Laser is sometimes a better weapon for hitting a hide-and-peek enemy than an autocannon, since the damage is instant. Testing, naturally, would be required to figure out what the right speed and tracking strength is, but it could be done.

View PostJakob Knight, on 17 April 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

Secondly, the data received from sensors on enemy units is so extensive because the resolution of the game environment is so limited to the player. Information that would be obvious to the pilot of the battlemech (and which, in fact was available to the players in the original TT system in most cases) is not rendered in the game due to the huge resources this would require (as an example, an Atlas with its right torso damaged looks pretty much the same as an Atlas with its left torso damaged graphically because the damage rendering on the mechs is not fine enough to distinguish what a pilot would be able to observe in the actual situation the game is simulating). To compensate, the sensor data displayed in the game is designed to provide such detail. Removing or altering this would result in a situation where a pilot that should obviously be able to discern information from the enemy would not be receiving anything beyond the fact that there is an enemy mech in front of them, a notable drop in the reasonableness of the combat environment. Perhaps if the models were enhanced to note each and every change to their status, it would be a good idea, but the increase in game resources required would probably drive the game into unplayability for the majority of players.


I'm not sure that it is that obvious- all things considered it would be difficult to classify an individual armor panel on, say, the chest of an Atlas as belonging to one or another torso section and being damaged or undamaged while maneuvering and firing in combat. Additionally, even at Medium graphics settings (though I don't know about Low), individual hit panes on 'mechs actually do have their own graphics for the damaged state. As things currently stand to the best of my awareness, a 'mech component (side torso, arm, leg, etc.) that is not the head has three visual states: undamaged, damaged, and damaged with smoke. These correspond to 'not shot', 'shot', and 'exposed internals'. The game already does this, and I've used it myself when under the effects of ECM to determine where I should be shooting something.

If that's not good enough, it could always be relegated to a trinary system on the paperdoll when the pilot doesn't have a Targeting Computer- Gray for undamaged, yellow for damaged, and missing the frame for lack of armor. This would still take away the extra information (how damaged exactly) while providing enough to equate to the visual data provided at Medium and possibly lower graphical settings.

View PostJakob Knight, on 17 April 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

For these reasons primarily, I would have to say that your suggestions, while certainly worthy of being looked at, need refining or alteration before they could be considered solutions. I would further add that these changes would probably not be needed to be as extensive if systems in MWO had not been so radically changed from their proper roles. That they were so changed and remain so altered with little (or in certain cases already noted, absolutely no) changes to this point is a fair indication that there are additional factors beyond proper battlefield balance involved in the Devs' choices in this matter. Unless those factors are made known to us (the players concerned with suggesting changes), there is a very real probability our analysis and suggestions will remain unnoticed and unregarded by the Devs (as an example, I have tried repeatedly to get the definitive view of the Dev team on what ECM is supposed to be in their game in order to suggest tweaks, and received only stone-wall silence).

So, in conclusion, I have to say that I cannot support all of your suggestions (particularly the inability of an LRM unit to use a spotter for indirect fire if the target is in any way within or in a position with an ECM field interposed), as I don't think they could be done without a lot more simultaneous changes to other systems/aspects of the game. Nevertheless, I respect your reasons for those suggestions and the hard work you've done to determine them. Certainly, I find them much more agreeable than others I have seen in the past, and would not be entirely against them if they were, indeed, adopted (assuming the entire framework was implemented, as the proposed changes all rely on each other to work).



As far as the spotting goes, it's a considerably better situation than currently, where a spotter without special equipment can't even lock a target under ECM, and things like NARC and TAG could theoretically still be able to undercut the ECM effect- that would be for testing/balance work, though.

Thanks for your well-thought-out response, Jakob. Exactly the kind of discussion we need more of around here.

-QKD-CR0

#5 Bobzilla

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 2,003 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted 18 April 2014 - 12:57 PM

I like It. I think ecm preventing indirect fire completely but not los completely is a fair trade. More so if you consider now a spotter can't get a lock without equipment.

#6 rageagainstthedyingofthelight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 306 posts
  • LocationTerra Therma, shut down

Posted 18 April 2014 - 02:41 PM

so.......much.......text.....

#7 Jakob Knight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • Giant Helper
  • 1,286 posts

Posted 19 April 2014 - 05:04 AM

View Postrageagainstthedyingofthelight, on 18 April 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

so.......much.......text.....


When you are talking about redesigning a large part of the game, you have to cover alot. If you don't, you leave more and more blindspots that come to bite you when you actually try to put it in place (as we've seen in some changes to MWO to date).

Sorry if this taxes your ability to read, but this is actually pretty small compared to the job it's tackling. While I can say 'everything would be fixed if they just removed the ability of ECM to have effect beyond it's maximum effect range '(and have), this doesn't cover the viewpoint of the scout pilots who like that ECM gives them immunity to detection and lock-on at almost infinite ranges, so I'd have to comment on that. Pilots who think the game should be rock-em-sock-em-robots without any thought needed like that ECM gave them cover from LRMs, so I'd have to comment on that too. And so on.

If you are going to make a serious suggestion and a serious attempt not to seriously introduce problems into the game with it, then you need serious analysis and explanation. Not for the phone-text crowd, I'm afraid, as anything worthwhile requires effort to be expended to do right.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 19 April 2014 - 05:08 AM.


#8 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 04:05 PM

Reviving this.

Apparently we're looking at potential ECM changes in the future.

I want to make sure this is visible for whenever something may happen about that.

I think it's very important to be aware that what we're looking at here is a chain of balance issues, and not a single mechanic posing a balance issue on its own.

-QKD-CR0

#9 Leopardao

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Korpral
  • Korpral
  • 90 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:28 PM

View PostQuickdraw Crobat, on 17 September 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

Not letting this go. Just not.


lol

I agree with the bulk of your points

The real problem is going to be if PGI can actually "Design" any working mechanics and give everything a place and purpose.

For example I agree that we receive too much information, but information should be available at a cost.

The target information box
  • Basic Sensors: After 5 seconds receive mech Variant, After 10 seconds receive loadout. This information once collected does not need to be recollected later and is good for the match.
  • BAP: You have the ability to see the targets paper doll damage information. This is updated every 5 seconds you maintain sensor lock on the target and when relocking a target later you see the last updated information for the target. ECM would prevent you from gaining updated information.

Sensor Information Sharing
  • Basic indirect targeting: You only gain the targets "Letter" designation and indirect LRM fire suffers a "penalty" to concentrate fire on the target.
  • C3 slave/master computer (basic): If you are equipped with this unit you share all information you collect with your teammates that are targeting your target, this information comes with a 5 second delay. If you only have basic sensors this grants the basic information, if you have a BAP you grant the BAP information. For balance purposes the 1 ton slave can be equipped on lights/mediums and the 5 ton master can be equipped on heavies/assaults. If a mech is within an active ECM field it may neither receive nor send C3 information.
  • C3 slave/master computer (special): As a scouting tool an additional feature could be added to the C3 computer. Mechs equipped with a C3 computer also generate Yellow triangles for enemy mechs they have detected but arn't currently targeting. These Yellow triangles generate no information and are not viable lock on targets for LRMs, they are just there to help allies understand where the enemy is.

Battlefield Command & Control
  • This idea is for the purpose of suggestion an alternate use of the Command Console.
  • Personal: The command console generates Grey triangles representing the last location you detected an enemy mech that includes any information you collected so far when targeted and transfers target automatically to the actual target when reacquired.
  • Command Console + C3 Master: You share your Grey triangle information with your entire team, also any team member equipped with a C3 slave/master has their information networked into yours for generating grey triangles and updating information on those targets. If you are within an ECM field allies lose information on your grey triangles and you do not gain information from allies for updating grey triangles.
  • Is this idea OP: Answer No. Why: because of the tonnage involved; if an entire team worked towards using this (standard 4x3) you would have 6 tons of C3 slave computers, 30 tons of C3 master computers and 3 tons for 1 Command console for a total of 39 tons worth of information gathering and that just generates basic information. If you include BAP for advanced information your looking at a minimum of 1.5 tons for 1 BAP up to 18 tons for the entire team equipped with BAP.
  • This also becomes a unique advantage for IS teams as the Command console and C3 computers would be available (for now time wise) only for IS mechs.

Module Considerations
  • Target Information Gathering: This module would gain additional use not only in allowing you to personally collect information more quickly as a scout, but could be used to also speed up the rate at which you collect information from allies.

Edited by Leopardao, 17 September 2014 - 01:37 PM.


#10 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 18 September 2014 - 07:44 AM

Some interesting ideas, Leo.

But I think it bears repeating:

Beagle exists (primarily) to counter ECM, not the other way around.

Having Beagle give you info unless ECM is present twists that relationship in unpleasant ways.

#11 Leopardao

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Korpral
  • Korpral
  • 90 posts

Posted 18 September 2014 - 02:35 PM

Ah sorry sorry

I'm of the camp to rework ECM more to it's original intent in that ECM counters special equipment but not standard sensors.

Why

Well because battletech already has the Angel ECM which does what MWOs Guardian ECM does now.

#12 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 18 September 2014 - 03:46 PM

In which case, you should be for not having ECM stuff up Beagle- the original intent was that ECM would protect you but Beagle could counteract it (and certain other methods of concealment). Disrupting C3 networks and improved guidance (Artemis, NARC) was actually a side effect- the primary intent was that a 'mech with ECM wouldn't show up on sensors while hiding (such as in a forest or behind a building) just as though it were shut down.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 18 September 2014 - 03:47 PM.


#13 ExAstris

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 427 posts

Posted 20 September 2014 - 03:46 PM

ECM is, and always has been, the worst decision ever to make it into this game.

The complicated reasoning can be found in the links in my sig (which are a bit out of date, but the basic point is still there), but the basics of it boils down to the observation of the OP. Basic sensor information in this game is incredibly powerful. I disagree with the OP that the sensor information base itself should be nerfed. The base sensor system was fine in Closed Beta when there was no ECM, and the base sensor system is fine now.

However, the obvious imbalance comes from ECM. Having one completely denies information about yourself and teammates which prevents:

1. Enemies that don't have LOS, or don't notice you even when you are in LOS, from knowing you are even there. Thus they cannot change their position or engagement strategy to compensate for position data the ECM users will have.

2. Enemies that do become aware of your position from easily informing their teammates. Outside of 12mans and the up-to-four in premades, the vast majority of players will never know about what players who glimpse ECM mechs are aware of. Text is too slow. There is no spotting function. Only massed team movements are ever reported, and even then chat isn't always read. And even when it is, its hard to know how to respond given the variability in player reporting vs the consistence of your radar and minimap.

3. Enemies who are aware of your position from knowing your mech's armor status and weapons loadout. While the latter has been mildly mitigated by weapon visualization at close range, its still incredibly difficult at range to decipher, and is not nearly as important as knowing where your enemy is hurt. Being able to slice into a damage section vs wasting ammo/heat on a fresh one is repeatedly a factor in defeating non-ecm mechs in my ecm mechs.

4. Enemies from obtaining a nice targeting box at all. Even beyond the brutal power of #1 on this list, having a nice box around an enemy makes it visually very easy to track its center of mass and time your shots to hit that target. Tracking with lasers makes this especially clear as the weirdly bobbing torso of a 2X or 4X is easier to drill with lasers than that of the 3L.



and we haven't even gotten to what ECM does to the rest of the game...

1. Inherent mech imbalance. ECM automatically makes your mech a vastly better and more valuable combatant.

2. Completely borks with lock-on missile balance. (seriously, LRMs and SSRMs were balanced just fine back in Closed Beta when there was no ECM)

3. All the counters are soft counters (either only partially cancel its effects or require repeated application)

4. All the counters require more skill to use than ECM (aiming tag/narc, finding the ECM and staying within range with BAP, finding and running under and launching an expensive one-off UAV, etc).

5. All the counters have more expensive mounting costs than ECM (either in tonnage, as a weapon hardpoint, or as an expensive one-off consumable)

6. All the counters can only be applied after finding, identifying, and exposing yourself explicitly to the enemy ECM mech. Doing just that is what ECM makes so hard in the first place, no one on your team who isn't setup to counter ECM is going to let you know where that guy is to go and counter him. Hence ECM has a major advantage even when potential countering units are on the field.

7. Actually employing a counter (almost always) requires extremely risky exposures that grant your enemy the advantage. You have to maintain LOS with tag. Narc won't broadcast over multiple ECMs and is incredibly hard to hit lights with (meaning you won't break cluster coverage, nor expose scouts/harassers often, the exact two situations you most need your counter to work). You have to be in the thick of things with your enemy to use BAP or C-ECM or UAV, meaning you have to get into the middle of their group, which is suicide.



There are probably other things I'm forgetting. Its amazing something so blatantly terrible has lasted so long, and the majority of all the posts I've ever made have been towards trying to rectify this egregious design.


Conclusion - Whether the OP is right about basic sensor information being excessive or not is actually a matter of flavor, not balance. The game would change if we altered basic sensor info, but it would still be an even change for everyone (save perhaps LRMs, which could undergo a rebalance to the new information flow). ECM however, will remain as absurdly overpowered as ever so long as it retains the ability to block basic sensor information all together. (only if we scaled back basic sensor info and sharing to zero would ECM fail to be effective, and even with sensor sharing turned off entirely, ECM would still be a bargain for what it does)



Solutions:

1. Remove ECM's sensor negating field entirely. It can keep its lock-time-nerfing and missile-cluster-nerfing and info-gather-nerfing properties. Those are appropriate benefits for the tonnage and crits.

2. Add an actual hard counter. Ex: Let BAP straight out cancel all ECM in its LOS.

3. Let all mechs carry ECM (lol, it would fix the 'balance problem' but then it just becomes a tax).

4. Let MWO die so we can get a company that understands just how powerful information is in slower-paced games were positioning is strategic and coordination via position data is a keystone to victory.



Note: Still haven't given a dime to this game since ECM went live. Still don't intend too until ECM receives a more severe revision than the half-assed pseudo-counters we've been given so far.

Edited by ExAstris, 20 September 2014 - 03:47 PM.


#14 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 21 September 2014 - 09:43 AM

Funny enough, while I don't agree with your reasoning, I agree with points 1, 2, and 3 of your solution- I just don't think they're all that need changing in the collision of mechanics that is sensor/ECM/Probe/NARC/TAG/LRM interactions. Certainly some stuff to think about there.

#15 Leo Kraeas

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22 posts

Posted 24 September 2014 - 02:16 AM

First off: I stumbled into this thread by accident. A title revision may be in order if you want visibility approaching the upcoming ecm revisions. I recently had a stimulating conversation about c3 and it's effects on the clan invasion. The short version is that c3 was a major factor in many inner sphere victories, so much so that the systems are deemed worth the tonnage nearly 100% of the time. C3 would easily be a system teams would buy into. So yes, current sensor gameplay is grossly overpowered when its cost is 0. This also gives clan mechs a huge boon that, frankly is not canon with the timeline. Furthermore ecm currently does do what angel ecm should/will do which also is not canon. A reversion to tag, narc, ecm, bap, etc is a good idea, but the implementation is likely going to be time consuming and complex. A change of this scale would require a lot of changes to core elements and a revision in user end experience. Ultimately many players would never be able to distinguish this change, (watch people play. It becomes apparent that many players don't take advantage of the large amount of free information. ((at least at a conscious level))) and would largely be unaffected. In fact directional data, designation and iff are about all many players would truly need. This is a farce of course, as it creates the illusion that mwo is simply another shooter instead of a simulator.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users