27 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

my magnum opus regarding ECM

[Zyllos]

The ECM changes listed in this document seem "straight forward" as to be easy to implement for engineers (best type of changes are ones that are minor and easy to implement and perform the requirement for the fix needed).

Here is the list of proposals that I read in your document (which is still living document, thus changing):

Quote

Normal sensor detection range of 800m is reduced to 200 240m for detection of ‘Mechs inside of an ECM disrupt bubble equipped with ECM

This change, which seems good on the surface, still leaves GECM in the state that it is a *must* for any mech that can bring it. At least to me, it seems that way.

The "equipped with GECM" is perfect to let those mechs that like to scout to be able to with GECM cover for itself.

Quote

Prevents the enemy from achieving target locks against itself and any ‘Mech in its projected field

No different than it works now other than only for itself now instead of within a range. Basically stating that GECM will block "targeting" of a GECM equipped mech. This is fine.

Quote

Missile lock times on an ECM protected ‘Mech in line of sight receive a 50% lock on time penalty; Missile lock times on an ECM protected ‘Mech beyond line of sight (indirect LRM fire) receive a 100% lock on time penalty

Seems perfectly fine and valid.

Quote

Target information gathering times on a target inside an enemy ECM field receive a 100% gathering time penalty

Good idea to me.

Quote

Disables the bonuses provided by Artemis, disables bonuses provided by NARC beacon to ‘Mechs inside of an ECM disrupt bubble

Good to me.

Quote

Cannot share or receive targeting information, including information gathered by a TAG laser while inside the radius of Enemy ECM

No difference than now, and seems good.

Quote

Cannot achieve missile locks Missile lock times while inside the radius of enemy ECM receive a 100% lock on time penalty

Just a question, does this mean if the target is 300m out and an GECM mech is within 180m, the player will have a 200% lock on penalty?

Either way, seems valid to me.

Quote

Receive a “Low Signal” message on the mini-map and disables the mini-map from displaying the location of enemies while in the radius of enemy ECM

Nothing new here.

Quote

PPC/ER PPC hits against an ECM ‘Mech can temporarily disrupt an ECM field

I would like to add that PPC should disable GECM for a bit longer, maybe 10.0s? Still good.

Quote

NARC Beacon can “burn” through an ECM field, allowing targeting of a ‘Mech affected by NARC even if it is in an ECM field

This is needed.

Quote

TAG can be used to target ‘Mechs protected by ECM

Nothing new.

Quote

Seismic Sensors can detect movement of ‘Mechs protected by ECM beyond line of sight

Nothing new, I think?

Quote

UAV modules can detect all units regardless of line of sight or ECM coverage within its radius

Nothing new.

Quote

Beagle Active Probe is a hard counter for ECM within its operating range, and can extend the window of detection of ECM ‘Mechs beyond 200 240 meters

This I disagree with.

BAP should never counter ECM. Instead, BAP should allow for non-LOS detection of mechs within it's range. ECM will block this non-LOS detection for those protected by GECM. Seismic is used to counter GECM for non-LOS spotting, but it's only useful while standing still and getting to see were a mech is, not actually allowing for targeting and sharing.

The extended range allowing for detection is a good change and should be included.

Quote

Sensor modules can extend the detection of ECM protected ‘Mechs beyond 200 240 meters

As above, seems good.

Overall, these changes are almost perfectly aligned with what I would expect GECM to be changed to. Allowance of still firing LRMs at those protected by GECM but lock on times are longer. GECM would still facilitate the scouting role by reducing detection range for the mech equipped with it (or ambushing role for those other mechs that can equip it).

I would like to add a few additions that I think are needed along side with the above GECM changes to feel correct:

• LRMs would need to be less spammy (higher cooldowns).
  
• LRMs should fire at bones (just like SSRMs) in swarms of 5 LRMs each.
  
• LRMs speed increases to 250m/s. (AMS increases to match speed)
  
• LRMs take a low trajectory when dumb fired.
  
• LRMs need to be more accurate to reaching targets once a lock is achieved.
  
• LRMs need to lose the requirement for maintaining lock after firing the LRMs but spotted target (triangle indicator) still needs to be maintained for the firer of LRMs.
  
• Target sharing should only happen after having targeted a mech for 5.0s. (another tier in the IW part)
  
• BAP can detect a mech within it's range, regardless of LOS. (as above)
  
• SSRMs need a separate target scheme (so Artemis doesn't effect it).
  
  • SSRMs only lock at their specified range (270m for IS/360m for Clan).
    
  • SSRMs fire at bones in a pair of SRMs.
    
  • SSRMs lock on speed is 0.5s, which produces a "tick".
    
  • When SSRMs are fired, each launcher requires a "tick" and is fired in order of weapon groups (top to bottom).
    
  • Use an "X" style lock on graphic and new sound for a "tick".
    
  • All "ticks" are lost if lock is not regained after 1.0s.

The above changes are absolutely needed along side the GECM changes so all of IW and it's related equipment feel balanced with each other.

LRMs will become more accurate due to increased speeds and no need to retain locks (but the target still needs to be spotted, either by direct LOS or shared). Their damage will be more consistent in damage against targets of all sizes due to targeting bones in swarms of 5 LRMs each. This also makes small launchers and large launchers act in the same manner as larger launchers just shoot more swarms of 5 LRMs, which act no different than a LRM/5.

Sharing targets requires longer targets, which will help facilitate BAP for scouting by gaining target information (which sharing now becomes a part of) quicker. BAP itself is better by allowing for non-LOS spotting in a short distance.

SSRMs will be separated from LRM locks. Their locks are much faster for small bursts but require longer locks for high amount of SSRM launchers. Each grouping of SSRMs will be a bit more consistent in damage as they group in 2 SSRMs each (pair) per bone target. Larger launchers just fires more pairs per firing.

I understand this is MUCH more expanded, beyond GECM. But it is basically needed as all these weapons interact with each other in ways that make it hard to disconnect them and be able to change them one at a time without causing issues.

These changes proposed also leads the opening for C3 and AECM.

Edited by Zyllos, 16 September 2014 - 12:44 PM.

[DocBach]

Zyllos, on 16 September 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

BAP should never counter ECM at any range. Instead, BAP should allow for non-LOS detection of mechs within it's range. ECM will block this non-LOS detection for those protected by GECM.

The extended range allowing for detection is a good change and should be included.

Thanks for taking the time to read it all -- it's a pretty long document. I'm going to reply in pieces to individual feedback first, this one as its one of my favorite subjects. I'm totally displeased how Beagle is handled in MechWarrior Online and wish it had an actual role in gathering information beyond standard sensor buffs exactly how you describe. I left it in place as a counter to ECM solely because without that function it barely does anything, and a passive system cancelling another passive system is an OK system.

By OK I mean just adequate.

Zyllos, on 16 September 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

This change, which seems good on the surface, still leaves GECM in the state that it is a *must* for any mech that can bring it. At least to me, it seems that way.

The "equipped with GECM" is perfect to let those mechs that like to scout to be able to with GECM cover for itself.

ECM still remains a remarkable piece of equipment with these changes -- this still lets that last little Raven hide for the last five minutes of the game. If I have a 'Mech that can bring, I would with this change and likely any other change to the system because it is that much of a force multiplier even if it is adjusted or scaled back.

Zyllos, on 16 September 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

Just a question, does this mean if the target is 300m out and an GECM mech is within 180m, the player will have a 200% lock on penalty?

Either way, seems valid to me.

Yes, being actually inside of the ECM bubble would be cumulative with other missile penalties if the targets outside the ECM bubble the player was in was inside a different enemy ECM bubble. If the target the player is shooting at is not protected by ECM, it receives just a 100% lock on penalty.

Edited by DocBach, 16 September 2014 - 12:53 PM.

[Zyllos]

DocBach, on 16 September 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

Thanks for taking the time to read it all -- it's a pretty long document. I'm going to reply in pieces to individual feedback first, this one as its one of my favorite subjects. I'm totally displeased how Beagle is handled in MechWarrior Online and wish it had an actual role in gathering information beyond standard sensor buffs exactly how you describe. I left it in place as a counter to ECM solely because without that function it barely does anything, and a passive system cancelling another passive system is an OK system.

By OK I mean just adequate.

Maybe your right. BAP counters ECM and provides non-LOS target at short ranges maybe pretty good and encourage more use of it?

Problem is that I am TOO much of a stickler to the TT rules.

Quote

ECM still remains a remarkable piece of equipment with these changes -- this still lets that last little Raven hide for the last five minutes of the game. If I have a 'Mech that can bring, I would with this change and likely any other change to the system because it is that much of a force multiplier even if it is adjusted or scaled back.

The longer I thought about this after typing up my post, the longer I see that any mech that can equip GECM, should.

Again, it's another thing I am kinda mad about the COM-2D and CDA-3M getting it as they normally never had it. And these are two mechs that I have builds for that do not utilize GECM and I get a lot of flack on playing them without GECM.

Especially the CDA-3M, why not the CDA-3C or CDA-2B? They are used less thus if we are just going to throw GECM on something, add it to less used variants.

Quote

Yes, being actually inside of the ECM bubble would be cumulative with other missile penalties if the targets outside the ECM bubble the player was in was inside a different enemy ECM bubble. If the target the player is shooting at is not protected by ECM, it receives just a 100% lock on penalty.

Just checking.

[Procyon Alpha]

So it's still a. Jesus box for 1.5 tones? Why can't it be like TT?

[KamikazeRat]

DocBach, on 16 September 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

my magnum opus regarding ECM

said it in another thread, going to say it here...
+1 on this proposal. minor changes may be needed after implemented, but this is a clear(albiet long-winded ) simple change to how ECM behaves.

i may shout this plan from the rooftops when the time comes

Edited by KamikazeRat, 16 September 2014 - 02:10 PM.

[DocBach]

Yeshua Kerensky, on 16 September 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

So it's still a. Jesus box for 1.5 tones? Why can't it be like TT?

Did you read the document? I lay out exactly what ECM does in the TT and outline how it could be translated into MWO.

Edited by DocBach, 16 September 2014 - 03:28 PM.

[Malleus011]

Doc,

Excellent, well thought out, well documented proposal. If this was up for a vote, I would support it as a fix.

That said, I still think granting *any* 'mech Stealth is too powerful for the 'cost' of mounting ECM; and agree with the point that GECM is still a 'must take' choice even with this fix. I'd like to see the Stealth feature entirely removed (and replaced with something more like the system mentioned here: http://mwomercs.com/...pillars-of-mwo/ - which would give Scouts a real role independent of ECM.

[DocBach]

I'd like to see a complete revision of Information Warfare -- unique sensor profiles would be awesome -- this was sort of more trying to write something up that didn't make any huge changes to everything like the addition of active/passive sensors -- something less complicated is easier to put in, and fix if it breaks.

[stjobe]

I apologize in advance for only skimming the document; it's late and I really should be sleeping.

From what I could gather it is a well thought-out proposal, my only issue with it is that it seems like ECM would still do rather too much than what it's supposed to (even though you've cut off the most egregious overpoweredness of it); it really shouldn't grant any "stealth" at all, optional TacOps rules notwithstanding.

My (very much shorter, and not remotely as well-argued) proposal is this:

* Make LRMs spread way more when fired indirectly (50 - 100% wider spread)
* Make Artemis (when in LoS) and Narc (even without LoS) tighten missile spread.
* Make ECM hard counter Artemis and Narc
* Make ECM only extend lock-on time by 50 - 100% to 'mechs within its radius. No more total blocking of target locks.

This way, ECM is just a counter to Artemis, Narc, and our version of C3, as it should be.

Additionally, to round out the other T2 EW equipment:

* Make TAG tighten artillery strikes instead of LRMs (as it actually is just a spotting tool for Arrow IV artillery).
* Make ECM counter BAP against any 'mech inside its radius besides the ECM carrier.

This makes TAG do what it's supposed to, and also makes ECM a counter to BAP (as it also should be).

I think that's not all too far off from what you're suggesting, but it sticks a bit closer to the Total Warfare and Tech Manual rules on what ECM should and should not do.

Edited by stjobe, 16 September 2014 - 03:15 PM.

[TLBFestus]

Read it.

Nice thing about this is IF its a relatively simple change for the Devs there is nothing holding back from trying it. It can always go back to it's current incarnation after a patch.

[KamikazeRat]

TLBFestus, on 16 September 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

Read it.

Nice thing about this is IF its a relatively simple change for the Devs there is nothing holding back from trying it. It can always go back to it's current incarnation after a patch.

this, is pretty much why i like it so much, (that and some of the additional variables that can then be tweaked after its implemented). many other proposals are needlessly complicated (detailed, thought out, but complicated) and the devs will look at it and groan at all the work they have to do.

[DocBach]

stjobe, on 16 September 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

I apologize in advance for only skimming the document; it's late and I really should be sleeping.

From what I could gather it is a well thought-out proposal, my only issue with it is that it seems like ECM would still do rather too much than what it's supposed to (even though you've cut off the most egregious overpoweredness of it); it really shouldn't grant any "stealth" at all, optional TacOps rules notwithstanding.

Although I'd rather see stealth saved for Stealth Armor (which has so many downsides to make up for the Stealth effect), I realized that the stealth mechanic created a whole role for snipers we couldn't have if it was removed.

[stjobe]

DocBach, on 16 September 2014 - 03:27 PM, said:

Although I'd rather see stealth saved for Stealth Armor (which has so many downsides to make up for the Stealth effect), I realized that the stealth mechanic created a whole role for snipers we couldn't have if it was removed.

It also retains the (arguably) most bothersome aspect of ECM. I don't know if having the "hidden sniper" role makes up for that; I'm leaning towards not.

[DocBach]

stjobe, on 16 September 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

It also retains the (arguably) most bothersome aspect of ECM. I don't know if having the "hidden sniper" role makes up for that; I'm leaning towards not.

It leaves the door open for that last ER Large laser raven to run circles around the map, yes -- but a whole lot of players enjoy playing that role and I'm not going to be the guy who says their chosen way of playing doesn't deserve a place in this game.

[Malleus011]

I'd prefer they play their sniper by using a small 'mech at very long range, which can be done with sensor ranges that vary based on size (plus perhaps active/passive and all that). I'd much rather have that than 'equip ECM, be invisible'. But that's just my opinion.

[Deathlike]

It's a nice document DocBach... there is a slight inaccuracy. NARC countering ECM was the last counter made against ECM.. it wasn't one of the first.

Anyways, maybe it's the time of night or something where I'm not thinking too clearly, but I don't actually like the NARC reversion change to ECM... I can agree that it should remove the targeting bonus, but the ECM countering ability kinda needs to stay I think. Although, with the fundamental changes to Target Info Gathering and Lock Times, I guess I could be OK with that... but I would like to see it played out first before making a final determination there.

[Khobai]

DocBach- You didnt mention it in your essay, but ECM currently decreases detailed target info gathering speed by 25% for all affected mechs. Its one of the effects of ECM thats often overlooked.

And I definitely agree with ECM only granting stealth to the mech its equipped on. Thats always been the best fix for ECM. Its still extremely powerful for 1.5 tons but no longer gamebreakingly so.

Edited by Khobai, 16 September 2014 - 09:25 PM.

[DocBach]

Deathlike, on 16 September 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

It's a nice document DocBach... there is a slight inaccuracy. NARC countering ECM was the last counter made against ECM.. it wasn't one of the first.

Anyways, maybe it's the time of night or something where I'm not thinking too clearly, but I don't actually like the NARC reversion change to ECM... I can agree that it should remove the targeting bonus, but the ECM countering ability kinda needs to stay I think. Although, with the fundamental changes to Target Info Gathering and Lock Times, I guess I could be OK with that... but I would like to see it played out first before making a final determination there.

I didn't really list the counters in any specific order, but I could arrange them chronologically. And yes, those base penalty times could definitely serve to be adjusted if they're found to be too much or too little.

[Jacob Side]

Only suggestion I have is for LRM's fired at Mechs in the ECM field is that they suffer a slight increase in spread.
Granted lore says that they function just fine but I feel that LRM's need just a slight counter for crossing into the ECM field