39 replies to this topic

[SpiralFace]

Hey Everyone,

So rather than wait around for committees to be formed, I went ahead and worked on the following outline of changes that I would propose if I was a designer tasked with this. These kinds of proposals have been something that I have a bit of experience in, so just wanted to crack this out and push it to you guys ASAP to at least get a design on the table.

Think of this as only a rough initial outline of my own Idea, not a consensus or a formal proposal of anyone in the community. Feel free to leave feedback and I encourage others to brainstorm out some fully fleshed out ideas as well to see if we can come to a consensus on improving what I think we can all admit has been a sore spot in the game for quite a bit.

I apologize for the Length, but I wanted this to be as comprehensive as I could from the get go. I'm considering this a "liquid" proposal at this time, so if I hear consistent feedback on it, I'll be sure to integrate that here into the initial pitch.

Thanks for your time guys, I know this is pretty long.

CURRENT STATE OF ECM:

CURRENT ECM MODEL:

• Provides sensor cloaking past 1/4^th of a mechs normal detection distance. (200 Meters without sensor range module or BAP.)
  
• At 180 meters blocks mechs mini map target data, Blocks mech from relaying targeting data to team mates, and prevents any form of missile lock from LRM’s and Streaks.
  
• Disrupts TAG locks at 180 meters
  
• Above points means that there is a 20 meter “blind spot” for ECM from 180 meters to 200 where you can target a mech within the bubble and still have targeting data relayed to team mates.
  
• Invalidates Artimis for friendly mechs under ECM
  
• It takes twice as long to obtain missile lock against mechs under ECM (both stackable with other ECM’s and unaffected by counter ECM measures like PPC hits and TAG. Which allow you to target, but the ECM mech still benefits from increased targeting time.
  
• BAP passively counters it at 150 meters
  
• TAG counters it past 180 meters only if you are constantly hitting it with the beam (time is affected by multiple ECMs.)
  
• PPC hits provide a 5 second window for targeting only (countered by another ECM.)

CURRENT ECM ISSUES:

• Hard counters all LRM use, both directly and indirectly. Unless player takes equipment that is more than double the weight of the ECM they are attempting to counter. (Tag / Bap or Narc)
  
• LRMs without extra equipment are almost completely useless due to the threat of ECM.
  
• LRM’s on anything less than a Heavy undesirable due to the weight of equipment needed to deal with ECM.
  
• Information warfare perks are effective at all ranges at all times.
  
• 20 meter “blind spot” way too small for any mech to effectively use.
  
• Soft counters ineffective at providing a counter window long enough to be useful.

PROPOSED DIRECTION OF ECM DESIGN PILLARS:

• ECM should remain a crucial and game changing element for the information warfare aspect of MWO.
  
• ECM should still be effective at countering indirect fire LRM’s and any kind of play mechanic that involves data outside of a player’s physical line of sight.
  
• ECM dynamic should impact direct fire LRM play without invalidating it.
  
• ECM should have effective soft counters through COUNTER PLAY over hard counters through equipment stacking.

I will elaborate on these Pillars in 2 stages. Stage 1 uses mechanics already present to one degree or another in the game today as a basis for their design. And Stage 2 is a single mechanic addition proposal meant to directly address the third pillar.

STAGE 1 CHANGES:
(Tuning to mechanics that already exist in game.)

Reduce Sensor Cloaking from 25% of your total sensor range, to 35% of your total range.

This change is to emphasize more of the ECM “blind spot.” A mechanic already in the game from 180-200 meters. This change would allow targets from 180 meters to 280 meters to target a mech under ecm normally, and have that information relayed to the entire team. But all other ECM benefits would still be in full effect. (Double the time to acquire locks, and reduction in the time it takes to info gather the target.)

The primary goal of this change is to emphasis “counter play” that any mech on the battlefield can accomplish. This gives players a 100 meter “sweat spot” under normal mech sensor circumstances that allows players to lock and relay targeting data to the team members. Mechs under ECM still fully benefit at long range with sensor stealth, and at close range where the ECM disrupts opposing players’ equipment. And as a result shifts the benefit of having ECM to groups looking to engage at long range, or at close range brawling, instead of having ECM be an all-inclusive “catch all” for mechs at all engagement ranges except for that 20 meters.

Additionally, like it currently does, these ranges can be extended / compensated with by adding sensor boosting equipment such as BAP, and Sensor Range module.

Non- ECM Equipment tuning:

• TAG counter ECM time is unaffected by additional ECMs in the area
  
• 50% missile lock increase ECM effect is canceled out by TAG. (Thus an LRM carrier locking onto a TAG’ed target should have normal locking times, and not locks increased by the ECM lockon increase.)
  
• PPC Anti ECM effect increased from 5 seconds to 10 seconds, and FULLY disables ECM including the reduction to lock on times.
  
• Artemis is unaffected by ECM provided the target stays within LOS of the firing mech.
  
• Lock times for LRM’s increased by 25% for targets not within LOS of the firing mech.

These changes serve to increase the utility of “Soft Counters.” TAG changes allow TAG to cut through ECM more efficiently and have an immediate effect on how fast mechs with missiles out of LOS can target and “snap fire” at a unit. Rather than having a unit with tag needing to hold lock for 3-5 seconds just to establish a target (before any kind of LRM’s even leave the tubes of mechs with them.)

At 5 seconds, the PPC disabling of ECM is next to useless due to the amount of time that it takes to establish missile lock and allow missiles to find their target. This Change is to provide more of a window for counter ECM play and pushes back the effectiveness of LRM’s targeting someone with a PPC canceled ECM from 200-300 meters to more around the 400-500 meter range before ECM re-activates.

Artemis is described in the fiction as using an infrared laser to help paint targets in LOS to assist in missle clustering. This rewards Missile equipped mechs who stay in LOS of their targets extra efficiency with their LRM’s and lightens how sever ECM counters LRMS.

With all of these proposed changes to ECM in how it operates, we cannot neglect that they are this sever right now due to the threat of indirect LRM spam. Indirect fire LRM’s should be a role and utility of mechs in play, but with an increase to the soft counters and way that ECM plays, LRMs should not get run-away benefits when firing indirectly. Rather, they are still heavily affected indirectly, but can become MORE effective against ECM units by bringing themselves into direct LOS. This keeps indirect LRM fire as a powerful option, but one that takes time and effort to accomplish over the ability to snap fire indirectly with an entire team when a mech pokes his head out for 3 seconds.

Friendly mechs under 180 meters of an enemy’s disrupting ECM no longer appear on Mini Maps and require direct line of sight to see their Blue Arrow.

This change is a bit more involved then the others, but it is targeted to re-inforce ECM’s role on the battlefield as a piece of equipment specialized in information disruption. With most of these proposed changes causing more counter play in the mid ranged engagements, this change is to provide one more tool / incentive to close on enemy mechs to utilize the 180 meter effects of ECM.

STAGE 2 CHANGE:
(A change that will require a new engineering feature set)

*I’m not 100% for this change but I’ll throw it out there for debate with the rest of this as it pretains heavily into the section afterwards.

Sensor Hard / Soft lock states

Primary Goal: Provide a system that allows direct fire LRM’s to still remain functional against ECM targets by expanding the definitions of the sensor locks.

Hard Sensor Lock: Exactly how target lock works in the game right now.

Soft Sensor Lock: When a target is under ECM, you can still establish a “soft lock” on targets within LOS for the purpose of firing direct fire LRM volleys within a reduced sensor range.

A soft lock on a target operates identically to that of a hard lock with the following exceptions:

• Targets in soft lock range do not display red arrows calling out enemy positions or target data.
  
• Acquiring a soft lock target requires you to hit the target lock button when your reticle is in the general vicinity of the target. (The same vicinity it would usually take to begin to acquire a missile lock.) And the target is within 75% of your maximum sensor range (600 meters for unmodified sensors.)
  
• Soft Locked targets are never communicated to team mates, do not show up on mini map, or show up in target info.
  
• Soft locks only allow for a target to be locked on and maintained for the purpose of direct LRM fire.
  
• Missiles take an additional 25% longer to lock for a target under a soft lock (thus its 75% extra time total after the 50% ecm missile lock time is factored in.)
  
• Soft lock targets are never shared with allies. They are targets solely acquired by the player in direct line of site to them. And are lost as any other target lock does once the target is out of LOS (modifiers still apply.)

At its core, this would allow you to gain a lock on a target, for the sole purpose of firing LRMs directly. Allowing ECM to still be utilized as a way of stopping indirect fire cold, but not invalidating a build that utilizes LRM’s without extra equipment. Especially those that are too light to justify the weight needed to carry around that said equipment.

Visually, Soft locks would be represented by the same square bounding box, but with no target feedback offered until a hard lock is established under normal circumstances.

Mockup:



“Why?”

The most important question in all of this.

The primary goal with each and every one of these changes is to reduce the binary nature of ECM. Currently, if you were to chart its effectiveness of ECM’s effects across a 1km range, this is what you would get:



With this model, 0-150 meters sees an opportunity to hard counter through BAP, 30 Meters of unobstructed ECM disruption, followed by a 20 meter “dead zone” where you are out of disruption range, and still within range for your sensors to detect mechs and then from 200 meters out, you are completely countered by ECM unless you bring equipment that is specifically meant to counter its effects.

All with BAP and the extra sensor range doing next to nothing for you to capitalize on the effects of the dead zone. Leaving you with only “hard counters” in the form of TAG, NARC, and UAV’s as your sole lifeline to actually counter the information warfare cloak, and have the ability to have a single weapon system even function.

With the changes proposed here in this post, this chart will instead look like this:



As you can see, ECM remains just as effective at close range, but the full 100 meters of “sweet spot” that you can spot with your average mech opens up a window for basic and indirect LRM fire to happen without any form of specialized equipment needed. Those under ECM still gain the benefits of having a 50% increase to lock times among all the other perks (Stackable with additional ECM surrounding them, but it gives average mechs a “window” to spot and engage ECM mechs in to allow your team to soft counter them through superior positioning rather than requiring a hard counter through specialized equipment.

This only takes you up into 280 meters. Past that, ECM is still effective, but from 280 – 600 meters, you now have a “soft lock” option for mechs with LRM launchers. Which still shields you from target locks and indirect fire, but it allows units with basic LRM launchers to not be completely invalidated on the battlefield. They are still heavily penalized with increased lock times, but are allowed to utilize LRM’s as a direct fire option. Thus preventing a 1.5 ton piece of equipment from invalidating an entire weapon system as a direct fire option. (With their indirect utility still completely invalid past the 280 meter range.)

Past the 600 meter range, the ECM operates as it does now.

All while other soft counters like PPC’s provide enough time to create “windows” for missiles to be used. And the general increase in Indirect firing times counter balancing the changes a bit to allow it to be used as a “utility” but rewards players who utilize them in direct fire situations over those that wish to use them indirectly.



Sorry for the massive post, but I hope that people find some use in this solution and I hope we can all come together and form a better solution to balance out ECM play into something not so binary.

Again, this is my own proposal, not one made with the consensus of the community. Its a liquid document still open for further refinement. Feel free to rip it apart in the name of putting together a better proposal to pitch to the community.

Thanks

-Spiralface

[Snowseth]

Partial x-post from reddit:

Overall, this is a solid suggestion because it would be easy to implement and fits in very well with what we already have.
There will be no Feature Shock from it.

I do disagree with PPC ECCM being 10s. 5s is fine as it is.

Any sort of Sensor Range increase should also increase the Soft Lock range.
This will make Sensor Range modules/equipment even more valuable to LRM boats. Adding one more thing to the 'essential equipment' category, which has been steadily growing.

Edited by Snowseth, 13 September 2014 - 07:20 PM.

[SpiralFace]

Cross response from reddit then:

On PPC: Yeah, I feel the same as well, but I also recommended that Indirect LRM fire should have a general lockon nerf of 25%. So that number is to account for the additional time I added onto the lock on speed of indirect LRM's.

On sensor range increses: Yes, because both the "soft lock" and the "dead zone" ranges are applied based on percentiles of your mech's total radar range, both BAP and Sensor range mod will affect these numbers.

This should add additional value to both BAP and Sensor Range Module with zero changes needing to either of them.

A side bar note base on some reddit responses:

There is concern that these changes would bring out more indirect LRM spam. This is something that I am directly trying to address by integrating a 25% increase to indirect LRM fire lock on times as a GENERAL nerf. I am trying to drastically buff DIRECT LRM fire without equipment through changes like increasing the "dead zone" and integrating the "Soft Sensor Lock" system.

The goal of this is to increase the usefulness of direct fire LRM's while making it "slightly" harder to spam indirect fire LRMs. (which is why I proposed the 25% increase to lock times, and want to have ECM KEEP its 50% increase to lock times even if you are targeting units from the dead zone.)

As mentioned, these values are liquid, so they are open to change if people still feel that these changes are not enough to deter indirect LRM spam.

Edited by SpiralFace, 13 September 2014 - 07:59 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

.

I would just like to point one thing out.

It takes 2-5+ seconds to gain missile locks on targets.

PPC hits disabling ECM for 5 seconds isn't enough time to lock on, fire and have a reasonable chance of hitting something.

PPC hits should disable ECM for 10 seconds or more.

edit -

Also.

Boating LRM's and nothing but LRM's is bad design philosophy. Our goal in restructuring ECM shouldn't be one of appeasement where we reward players who consistently use bad loadouts equipping their mechs with LRM's and nothing but LRM's.

It isn't an unreasonable request that a 1 ton tag, LOS and laser hardpoint be the only things necessary for an LRM boat to defeat ECM.

What we want is to add to the depth of gameplay and make things balanced enough that ECM isn't overpowered and LRM's aren't overpowered.

And that there's a healthy balance between the two that results in competitive and fun gameplay where sometimes LRM's will win and sometimes ECM will win.

And the defining factors are the skill of the pilots, how effectively they coordinate, how smart they are about their loadouts, and so on.

In other words: blah.

.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 13 September 2014 - 08:56 PM.

[SpiralFace]

I Zeratul I, on 13 September 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

Boating LRM's and nothing but LRM's is bad design philosophy. Our goal in restructuring ECM shouldn't be one of appeasement where we reward players who consistently use bad loadouts equipping their mechs with LRM's and nothing but LRM's.

It isn't an unreasonable request that a 1 ton tag, LOS and laser hardpoint be the only things necessary for an LRM boat to defeat ECM.

To this I would say that this is the direct problem with LRMs in general right now.

TAG is a "must have" to unlock and even have any remote chace of using LRM's in a game. Its "easy" to do this on something like a catapult or above, but for many mechs in the medium and light category, that tag could be an extra medium laser for offensive versatility. Additionally, the requirement to expose your mech for such a long duration of time in order to get only a low amount of damage applied to a mech makes it to where anything that is under a heavy frame NEVER wants to even equip LRM's because of the requirement to carry TAG, and the sheer amount of exposure you have to put yourself through if you intend to use the armaments.

The proposed changes give players at least an "out" where TAG is still preferable to break ECM and condones many benefits, but it doesn't become REQUIRED to use LRMs as a functional weapon. In the event of direct fire solutions.

Edited by SpiralFace, 13 September 2014 - 09:05 PM.

[Carrioncrows]

I like what you have here, i just think it needs a slight refinement.

The real issue isn't just ECM it's all electronic warfare that needs reworked. So it's hard to work fixes for ECM without reworking all of EW.

See below.



Sensors, ECM and Electronic Warfare

My suggestion for this is to give all Battlemechs something called a Mech Signature, or M-SIG. The M-SIG represents at what distance your mech can remain undetected and UNTARGETABLE by another Battlemech. A simple version of doing this is to give all mechs a M-SIG of 800. This means that one battle mech could detect another Battlemech at a distance of 800m.

The complicated version is that most mechs would have a M-SIG of 800 but some would have a M-SIG that is greater or lesser than the standard 800. This would be different between Battlemechs but could also be different between variants to help give some Battlemechs or variants a uniqueness to them.

Now the opposite of M-SIG is sensor strength. Sensor Strength represents a Battlemechs ability to detect a Battlemech and target them. For instance a Battlemech with a BAP would have a Sensor Strength of 200 allowing it to see Battlemechs as if they had a M-SIG 200 worse than what they actually have.

So M-SIG is basically your stealth efficiency. The lower your M-Sig the more stealthy you are, the higher your Sensor Strength the more adept you are at sniffing out stealthier mechs.
A M-SIG cannot be reduced to less than 100.


ECM

Many if not most feel that ECM is unbalanced. I feel this way myself, now if we were to incorporate the M-SIG idea above we could then allow ECM to reduce the M-SIG of the mech carrying it but also other friendly Battlemechs with-in that 200m Range to also gain the benefits of it. What this would do is allow ECM to be a great tool but not the “Be-All-End-All” Equipment it is right now, certainly useful but not a requirement as it is now.

ECM would no longer JAM streaks or LRM’s. Though with ECM and Sensors offline a mech could get down to 100 M-SIG, but could still be spotted by a friendly mech under 100m or TAG’d, or NARC’d.

ECM set to counter mode would disrupt an enemy’s ECM and or other abilities such as ECM, Null Sig or any other abilities, the ECCM Counter mode would still only counter one opposing ECM just as it does now.

Sensors

In conjunction with ECM and M-SIG the next step is to allow Battlemechs to turn off their Active Sensors this is done so that a Battlemech can further reduce their M-SIG. Now when a Battlemech turns off their Active Sensors they will no long be able to Target enemy Battlemechs to see the condition of their mech and additionally be unable to lock on with Streak SRM’s and LRM’s. This feature helps put the Stealth or detection on their own hands and alternatively give a further role for scout mechs to discover them.

BAP

Beagle Active Probe works just as it did before but with one change, that change is a Sensor Strength boost of 200. This means that a Mech with a BAP can detect and Target a mech with a 200m Bonus to M-SIG

See Picture Attached Below:


Here is a list of both Positive and Negative effects that will Impact the M-SIG.

Things like ECM and Sensors off will reduce your M-SIG making you stealthier, alternative if you get hit by a TAG or a NARC they can significantly increase your M-SIG so that you can be detected and targeted from great distances.

ECM: -400 M-SIG
BAP: +200 to Sensor Strength
Sensors Off: -300 M-SIG
TAG: +600 M-SIG
NARC: +800 M-SIG
Heat: +0-100 M-SIG depending on heat level.

Electronic Warfare
Now with the M-Sig system in place the ability and role for scout mechs are even more important, though a Battlemech can now achieve a way to make them stealthier which allows for more dynamic combat and the importance of communication. Now as far as the spotting and transferring target locations as it is now, none of that has changed. That’s all the same, provided you have your sensors online. Which means that spotting is even more important against targets trying to be stealthy.

TARGETING and ARTEMIS

The Time it takes you to target a Battlemech with LRM’s or Streaks is entirely based upon the M-SIG of the Battlemech, the lower the M-SIG the longer it takes to lock on to the target. The Higher the M-Sig the faster you log on.

Additionally due to the change in M-SIG we can now have Artemis function purely off of M-SIG by not only having the lock on feature work but having the Missile Spread based upon M-SIG as well. The lower the M-SIG the bigger your missile spread but the higher the M-SIG of the target the tighter your Missile spread will be. Of course Artemis should once again be able to work indirectly.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

SpiralFace, on 13 September 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:

To this I would say that this is the direct problem with LRMs in general right now.

TAG is a "must have" to unlock and even have any remote chace of using LRM's in a game. Its "easy" to do this on something like a catapult or above, but for many mechs in the medium and light category, that tag could be an extra medium laser for offensive versatility. Additionally, the requirement to expose your mech for such a long duration of time in order to get only a low amount of damage applied to a mech makes it to where anything that is under a heavy frame NEVER wants to even equip LRM's because of the requirement to carry TAG, and the sheer amount of exposure you have to put yourself through if you intend to use the armaments.

The proposed changes give players at least an "out" where TAG is still preferable to break ECM and condones many benefits, but it doesn't become REQUIRED to use LRMs as a functional weapon. In the event of direct fire solutions.

The question is: does TAG being a requirement to using LRM's represent an unreasonable or unfair request?

Are LRM users being asked to bend over backwards and do unnatural things in order to use TAG?

The answer, I think is: no.

Its only 1 ton and a laser hardpoint. That is by no means unreasonable and represents a valid request to utilize LRM's in game.

I think that's the point you're missing.

.

[L Y N X]

If PGI goes this route then I think the rainbow of windows you depict opening up should creep up in small changes such as 220m for blue then 250m for blue and 400m for magenta(purple) then 500m.

I think it is too big a change to hit it all at once. I think people in general should learn to use the systems put in play rather than expect the game to change to suit their own preferred style.

We all saw how effective missiles were during the Tag/Narc Lance challenge. The argument that LRM's are ineffective is vacuous at best and completely false at worst.

Edited by 7ynx, 13 September 2014 - 09:26 PM.

[SpiralFace]

I Zeratul I, on 13 September 2014 - 09:18 PM, said:

The question is: does TAG being a requirement to using LRM's represent an unreasonable or unfair request?

Are LRM users being asked to bend over backwards and do unnatural things in order to use TAG?

The answer, I think is: no.

Its only 1 ton and a laser hardpoint. That is by no means unreasonable and represents a valid request to utilize LRM's in game.

I think that's the point you're missing.

.

I get it. I just don't agree with it.

Having it as you put it: TAG being a requirement to using LRM's doesn't make it a choice, It makes it a requirement.

Tag should exist to supplement LRMs in the same way that Artimis supplements SRM's. But you shouldn't be "required" to equip secondary equipment in order to make the equipment you already have physically work. Because it then shoe horns the design of that equipment to those that can effectively use that said equipment (which in the game as its currently implemented is heavy and assault mechs.)

Thats not to say that LRM's should be good "without" tag. The goal of the proposal is to provide them with an option to allow them to physically function without it. (It still opperates at a much reduced efficiency with out it.) As opposed to bringing around essentially a "bricked" weapon system into battle. Because not all mechs have the hard points or the options to utilize TAG, and with zero options to physically use LRM's if your tag is blown out, having at least some way of having your weapon WORK at least creates valid scenarios for bringing it into battle with or without the additional equipment. Providing more CHOICES to the player rather then shoe horning them into equipment and additional hard points just to physically use the weapon.

A big example of this are mechs that simply want to equip a single LRM 10 or 15 as part of a more rounded build but can't right now because you are pretty much REQUIRED to bring TAG along, even if you just want a single launcher as a supplemental weapon rather then a main armament.

Edited by SpiralFace, 13 September 2014 - 09:53 PM.

[SpiralFace]

7ynx, on 13 September 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

If PGI goes this route then I think the rainbow of windows you depict opening up should creep up in small changes such as 220m for blue then 250m for blue and 400m for magenta(purple) then 500m.

I think it is too big a change to hit it all at once. I think people in general should learn to use the systems put in play rather than expect the game to change to suit their own preferred style.

We all saw how effective missiles were during the Tag/Narc Lance challenge. The argument that LRM's are ineffective is vacuous at best and completely false at worst.

No disagreements there. Until these kinds of changes are physically placed into the game, there is really no telling what is "too little," or "too much." Rather, this is just a "pie in the sky" idea that is easily scale able if they did decide to implement it. (Part of the reason why I branched off the new system proposal from the tuning of systems already present in the game.

The rainbow of changes comes more as a "cause and effect" to preemptively go after concerns people may have. As you can't just increase the dead zones and ability to target mechs under ECM without also addressing the issue of mass indirect LRM fire which would be the natural beneficiary of those kinds of changes unless you integrate others to address those.

As to the LRM changes, I think the challenge more then highlights the issue. Which is that the current missile system is entirely too binary.

Purring that said lance challenge, my lance and I rolled in 3 Brawler DDC's, broadcast out to people that we where going to charge right up into the thick of the LRM heavy team, and then just rolled them to one of the easiest weekend events that I played.

As mentioned, I do intend to try to keep the indirect spam down by increasing the times to lock in addition to keeping things like increased lock times within the "dead zone" that makes indirect fire harder in some ways then it is now.

What I'm mostly trying to target through these changes, is helping out direct fire LRM's as the system is so binary right now, that you either run HARD ECM counter weapon like Narc to be effective, or your weapons end up being useless bricks because you don't have counter ECM options and there is literally NOTHING you can do about it. Which is the poor design that many people want to see changed.

To that end, I wouldn't mind scaling up the already listed General indirect missile lock nerf of 25% to something more drastic to make up for the gains made by direct fire LRMs (which need the help in their current state.) What do others think of that?

Remember this is just an outline for an overall change in dynamics. If one system goes too far or not far enough, it can always be changed.

[SpiralFace]

Carrioncrows, on 13 September 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

I like what you have here, i just think it needs a slight refinement.

The real issue isn't just ECM it's all electronic warfare that needs reworked. So it's hard to work fixes for ECM without reworking all of EW.

I like Idea's like what you posted carrion, but the issue I always see with these kinds of ideas is that it is a total rework of what they have. Which limits its feasability without a complete teardown of most of the game.

Most of what I propose here is trying to keep most of the design changes in on things that are already in the game to hopefully help with feasibility when it comes to integrating into the current system.

To that end, I think there is room through the module and the quirk systems to get a rough idea of what you are attempting to do. For example, a raven might have a quirk that reduces the sensor range it can be targeted at as a frame quirk rather then the result of a full system re-write. (Its something that is feasible given that ECM already works off of reduced detection range percentiles.)

The other issue is also is that kind of discussion in the scope of what Russ has agreed to concider. As I believe that he would like to see the conversation limited to ECM as much as possible. (I feel I'm already pushing that envelope with my own proposal.)

Again, I like these kinds of systems. I just don't know if trying to work it into this is the way to go at this time. (especially when we need 80% buy in.)

Would you see a system like this being better then what we have if we wouldn't be able to get a full system re-write in?

[Mystere]

I Zeratul I, on 13 September 2014 - 09:18 PM, said:

The question is: does TAG being a requirement to using LRM's represent an unreasonable or unfair request?
Are LRM users being asked to bend over backwards and do unnatural things in order to use TAG?
The answer, I think is: no.
Its only 1 ton and a laser hardpoint. That is by no means unreasonable and represents a valid request to utilize LRM's in game.
I think that's the point you're missing.

SpiralFace, on 13 September 2014 - 09:30 PM, said:

Having it as you put it: TAG being a requirement to using LRM's doesn't make it a choice, It makes it a requirement.

I have a different viewpoint ...

In a team full of John Rambos, TAG and/or other ECM counters are more or less a requirement if you do not want to risk being ineffective. On the other hand, on a good team, you should have the support you need to get your job done

[Carrioncrows]

SpiralFace, on 13 September 2014 - 09:53 PM, said:

I like Idea's like what you posted carrion, but the issue I always see with these kinds of ideas is that it is a total rework of what they have. Which limits its feasability without a complete teardown of most of the game.

Most of what I propose here is trying to keep most of the design changes in on things that are already in the game to hopefully help with feasibility when it comes to integrating into the current system.

To that end, I think there is room through the module and the quirk systems to get a rough idea of what you are attempting to do. For example, a raven might have a quirk that reduces the sensor range it can be targeted at as a frame quirk rather then the result of a full system re-write. (Its something that is feasible given that ECM already works off of reduced detection range percentiles.)

The other issue is also is that kind of discussion in the scope of what Russ has agreed to concider. As I believe that he would like to see the conversation limited to ECM as much as possible. (I feel I'm already pushing that envelope with my own proposal.)

Again, I like these kinds of systems. I just don't know if trying to work it into this is the way to go at this time. (especially when we need 80% buy in.)

Would you see a system like this being better then what we have if we wouldn't be able to get a full system re-write in?

True, which is why I like your changes. And Approve.

But, as a caveat to keep everyone's mind on the future that this isn't the be all end all and we should strive for remaking all EW.

[ApolloKaras]

Well thought out post, and your eager too lol.

You want to post the first part of your argument here:

http://mwomercs.com/...43#entry3716343

We need to get everyone on board folks, we have threads everywhere about everything, and this is starting to look more like a fire drill. Need one thread to rule them all for each part.

Indirect LRM fire is really only an issue if you have a UAV over your head or your narc'd. These counters will still work under your system, If I'm outside 600m.

One question that I have, and I need this answered before I can really comment. Example: say MechaMan is in a Catapult A1, he's outside the caldera on Caustic Valley. 500 Meters away from him in the Caldera is a Kit Fox with ECM, within his bubble he has 4 mechs. A spider runs into the fray and pops a UAV, can Mecha still launch indirect fire?

Example 2: Same situation instead of the spider launching a UAV he's tagging, I'm assuming Mecha can launch indirect fire now as well - to only the target being tagged correct?

EDIT: In both examples there is no LOS

Edited by Saxie, 13 September 2014 - 11:39 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

SpiralFace, on 13 September 2014 - 09:30 PM, said:

I get it. I just don't agree with it.

Having it as you put it: TAG being a requirement to using LRM's doesn't make it a choice, It makes it a requirement.

Tag should exist to supplement LRMs in the same way that Artimis supplements SRM's. But you shouldn't be "required" to equip secondary equipment in order to make the equipment you already have physically work. Because it then shoe horns the design of that equipment to those that can effectively use that said equipment (which in the game as its currently implemented is heavy and assault mechs.)

.

LRM boats needing TAG to counter ECM doesn't shoehorn loadouts or equipment design anymore than cars needing windshield wipers to drive in the rain shoehorns equipment or design.

An LRM boat equipping TAG is a simple and fundamental aspect of good build philosophy.

If someone drops in an LRM boat without tag (or a spotter) they shouldn't expect to be effective against ECM.

And, they shouldn't expect a policy of appeasement whereby ECM is nerfed to a point where its completely useless against LRM's, and TAG is no longer necessary. Which is what you seem to be suggesting.

.

[stjobe]

I Zeratul I, on 13 September 2014 - 09:18 PM, said:

The question is: does TAG being a requirement to using LRM's represent an unreasonable or unfair request?

Are LRM users being asked to bend over backwards and do unnatural things in order to use TAG?

The answer, I think is: no.

Its only 1 ton and a laser hardpoint. That is by no means unreasonable and represents a valid request to utilize LRM's in game.

Riddle me this:

How many TAG lasers can you fit on a CPLT-A1?

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

stjobe, on 14 September 2014 - 12:16 AM, said:

Riddle me this:

How many TAG lasers can you fit on a CPLT-A1?

.

To be clear - a CPLT-A1 lacking laser hardpoints & being unable to equip TAG isn't an ECM issue.

Its not something that shows ECM is flawed or needs adjusting.

What it means is battletech tabletop rules and statistics weren't created for an FPS game & could use tweaking in some instances.

Some mechs with missile hardpoints could use a single additional laser hardpoint on the head. Just enough slots for tag, a medium or small laser. Not enough slots to equip a large laser or PPC and drastically alter the balance of things. I think we can all agree on that.

Does it mean ECM is broken? No.

.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 14 September 2014 - 12:32 AM.

[stjobe]

I Zeratul I, on 14 September 2014 - 12:30 AM, said:

To be clear - a CPLT-A1 lacking laser hardpoints & being unable to equip TAG isn't an ECM issue.

You said being forced to mount a TAG wasn't an unreasonable requisite for using LRMs.

The CPLT-A1 is a very real example that it IS an unreasonable requisite; the CPLT-A1 lacks energy hard points and cannot mount a TAG, yet it is the quintessential missile boat with no less than six missile hard points.

It cannot mount anything but missiles; ergo you cannot require anything other than missiles to be mounted to be effective with those missiles.

I Zeratul I, on 14 September 2014 - 12:30 AM, said:

Its not something that shows ECM is flawed or needs adjusting.

What it means is battletech tabletop rules and statistics weren't created for an FPS game & could use tweaking in some instances.

Yes, and following TT rules and lore is better in some instances. Please note how Guardian ECM doesn't stop LRMs from achieving hard lock in TT - adding that feature to its capabilities in MWO is the whole root and source of its current woes.

I Zeratul I, on 14 September 2014 - 12:30 AM, said:

Some mechs with missile hardpoints could use a single additional laser hardpoint on the head. Just enough slots for tag, a medium or small laser. Not enough slots to equip a large laser or PPC and drastically alter the balance of things. I think we can all agree on that.

There are no sized hard points in MWO (although I do agree having such would be a godsend). If you can mount a TAG, you can mount a PPC, a LL, or whatever energy weapon.

Either way, the CPLT-A1 has zero energy hard points.

I Zeratul I, on 14 September 2014 - 12:30 AM, said:

Does it mean ECM is broken? No.

It means that requiring TAG to be mounted to be able to use LRMs is an unreasonable restriction.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

stjobe, on 14 September 2014 - 12:55 AM, said:

You said being forced to mount a TAG wasn't an unreasonable requisite for using LRMs.

The CPLT-A1 is a very real example that it IS an unreasonable requisite; the CPLT-A1 lacks energy hard points and cannot mount a TAG, yet it is the quintessential missile boat with no less than six missile hard points.

It cannot mount anything but missiles; ergo you cannot require anything other than missiles to be mounted to be effective with those missiles.


Yes, and following TT rules and lore is better in some instances. Please note how Guardian ECM doesn't stop LRMs from achieving hard lock in TT - adding that feature to its capabilities in MWO is the whole root and source of its current woes.


There are no sized hard points in MWO (although I do agree having such would be a godsend). If you can mount a TAG, you can mount a PPC, a LL, or whatever energy weapon.

Either way, the CPLT-A1 has zero energy hard points.

It means that requiring TAG to be mounted to be able to use LRMs is an unreasonable restriction.

.

If mounting TAG is unreasonable.

Its not because ECM is broken or needs fixing.

Its due to reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with ECM.

Its not necessary to kill ECM just because a few mechs lack TAG hardpoints.

...

edit -

So, really, all this time people were mad because catapult A-1's lacked a TAG hardpoint.

Then rather than ask for a TAG hardpoint, they thought the rational thing to do is to kill ECM?

lol... That just shows the mentality of posters on this forum.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 14 September 2014 - 01:18 AM.

[stjobe]

I Zeratul I, on 14 September 2014 - 01:15 AM, said:

If mounting TAG is unreasonable.

Its not because ECM is broken or needs fixing.

Its due to reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with ECM.

Its not necessary to kill ECM just because a few mechs lack TAG hardpoints.

...

edit -

So, really, all this time people were mad because catapult A-1's lacked a TAG hardpoint.

Then rather than ask for a TAG hardpoint, they thought the rational thing to do is to kill ECM?

lol... That just shows the mentality of posters on this forum.

TAG should be a boost to LRMs, not a requirement for its use.

Guardian ECM should be a counter to Artemis, NARC, BAP, and C3, not a blanket shield from missiles.

PGI got the T2 EW equipment implemented almost exactly opposite of what they're supposed to be; because of the ECM implementation blanket shielding 'mechs from LRMs (and SSRMs), they had to implement the other gear as counters to it - when it actually is supposed to be ECM that is a counter to them in the first place.