Jump to content

A Set Of Ideas To Keep In Mind When Talking About Ecm

Balance Gameplay General

21 replies to this topic

#1 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 04:07 PM

View PostQuickdraw Crobat, on 17 April 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

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


I said this before, so now I'll say it again.

#2 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 16 September 2014 - 04:16 PM

Indirect fire is pretty easy to do in the board game, its a +1 to +2 penalty to fire depending on what your spotter does. And pretty much your view of how sensors should work is how sensors act when they are interfered with by ECM in the lore.

Our sensors in MechWarrior actually work a lot worse than they are suppose to in Battletech.

Edited by DocBach, 16 September 2014 - 04:21 PM.


#3 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 16 September 2014 - 04:58 PM

ECM isn't the problem,

There are a crap-load of issues with LRMs that make ECM seem like its the cause but it isn't If people would cool their jets and just analyze why LRMs are so frustrating in game, both on the sending and receiving end things would become clear.

#4 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 10:41 PM

Something similar to that is my point neheb- the problem isn't ECM itself- it's kind of a symptom of other balance issues in the game (that may not necessarily seem like balance issues) and it results in other balance issues.

Given that PGI is currently looking at a potential rework of ECM (which they said they weren't going to do, but I guess just means 'we don't plan on it' and not 'under no conditions ever') I think it behooves any attempt to resolve the issues various players have with it to examine everything that relates to it as well.

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me (or just running off on a tangent), neheb, because nothing you said made it clear whether or not you read my opening post here. If you want to be understood, you should probably make your position relative to the point of the topic clearer.

#5 Wolfways

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 6,499 posts
  • LocationIn a shutdown overheated mech near you.

Posted 16 September 2014 - 11:53 PM

View Postnehebkau, on 16 September 2014 - 04:58 PM, said:

ECM isn't the problem,

There are a crap-load of issues with LRMs that make ECM seem like its the cause but it isn't If people would cool their jets and just analyze why LRMs are so frustrating in game, both on the sending and receiving end things would become clear.

Sending: LRM's are so frustrating because ECM completely negates them.
Receiving: Nothing. Unless you count it as being frustrating that you realize you rarely get hit by them and are reminded how much they suck even when they do hit you.

So yeah, imo ECM is the problem. Or LRM's being reliant on the mechs radar is the problem. Either way something needs changed...then maybe LRM's can get the buffs they need.


@Quickdraw Crobat.
Can i ask where you get your info from please? Just that i noticed you said LRM's have less range than an ERPPC yet Sarna gives them the same range: http://www.sarna.net...Equipment_Lists

Edited by Wolfways, 16 September 2014 - 11:56 PM.


#6 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 03:50 AM

View PostWolfways, on 16 September 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

@Quickdraw Crobat.
Can i ask where you get your info from please? Just that i noticed you said LRM's have less range than an ERPPC yet Sarna gives them the same range: http://www.sarna.net...Equipment_Lists


In standard (I'd even go so far as to say virtually all) Battletech play, Extreme range is not a thing. In fact, if you go to the individual weapon pages on Sarna, you won't see any listings for 'Extreme' range. The weapon ranges used by PGI (and also by the vast majority of players who don't also like to play with things like Battlemech-sized riot shields or circular saw launchers) are based on the standard play material- where Minimum, Short, Medium, and Long are the only ranges applicable. Going by that, the ERPPC has a maximum range of 23 hexes to the LRM's 21- or 690 meters for the ER model PPC compared to the 630 meters of LRM range.

I haven't ever actually encountered- in person or through the net- anyone who uses 'Extreme' as a range increment for Battletech. That something like that showed up on Sarna is pretty puzzling. I wouldn't guarantee it's actually a rule somewhere either- Sarna is still a wiki, so it's susceptible to people munging around on pages that are rarely used like that equipment list (most people playing the game have at least one copy of one book somewhere that lists ranges, and besides, any good 'mech sheet has the range increments for the weapons the 'mech mounts printed onto it anyhow).


Assuming it follows the standard firing difficulty rules set out by Short, Medium, and Long, Extreme range is functionally nonextant anyway- you're looking at a +6 difficulty on 2d6- if your pilot has typical gunnery (4), stands still, and the target doesn't move and there's a completely clear line of sight, that's still a target number of 10- which is a shot difficulty you don't take in the tabletop game unless you are using a non-ammo weapon and can soak more heat than you generate anyway. If your pilot's an amazing shot (Gunnery 2 or 3) you might be able to use it under those same conditions, but the moment the pilot moves (+1) and the target moves more than three hexes (+1)- the equivalent of 33 kph on level open ground- you've lost most of the ground your pilot made up by being a veteran of 20+ years of battlemech combat.

Of course, there are people out there who regularly play only with pilots that have Gunnery and Piloting skill ratings under 3, but those people are playing the game in a way it wasn't designed to be played anyhow- all the math was done assuming a typical pilot of moderate experience is running around with Gunnery 4, Piloting 5. A Gunnery 2, Piloting 3 or 2 pilot is supposed to be someone legendarily good, like Natasha Kerensky or Phelan Kell.


On an interesting note, while a lot of the weapon ranges in MWO are- or were originally- based on these hex*30m numbers for maximum full-damage range, there has been some weird skew. Look at missiles, for example: SRMs keep their exact 9-hex (270m) maximum range, but LRMs have had their 630 turned into 1000. The Medium laser, with the same original range as SRMs, keeps that maximum full-damage range, but the ERPPC's 690 becomes 810 with a maximum 'at least a little damage' range of 1620. Meanwhile, the Small Laser (90m) and the Small Pulse Laser (also 90m) have been boosted to 100 for maximum full damage range, and the Medium Pulse Laser (180m) has been given a 40-meter kick in the seat of the pants.

This is without even looking at Clan weaponry- the clan ERLL with its 750m maximum has misplaced 10 meters somewhere, and similar bits have been removed from other Clan energy weapons. Oddly enough, Clan non-energy weapons don't seem to have had much (or in most cases any) change to the maximum 'effective' range.

I'm sure it all makes sense given balance work, but just looking at it from one set of numbers to the other, it seems bizarre a lot of the time.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 17 September 2014 - 03:54 AM.


#7 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 17 September 2014 - 04:03 AM

Ok you now have met someone that has used Extreme range on TT, on the net.

Hi My name is Joe, Joe Mallan!




Yes, my friends in the BattleCorps have called me the Forest Gump of CBT, Cause the Back story of Joe for the BattleCorps is Joe was a 10th Lyran Guard from the beginning to the end of the Clan invasion. So every engagement Victor, Kai and company were in... Joe was there! As a BattleCorps member that tradition has continued. The BattleCorps will be part of the force liberating Earth from WoB.

#8 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 11:20 AM

Huh. Well, hi, Joe. Could you perhaps tell me- where and when was 'Extreme' introduced as a range increment?

#9 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 18 September 2014 - 06:57 AM

View PostQuickdraw Crobat, on 16 September 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

Something similar to that is my point neheb- the problem isn't ECM itself- it's kind of a symptom of other balance issues in the game (that may not necessarily seem like balance issues) and it results in other balance issues.


Quickdraw personally,
I think constant references back to TT are more harmful then helpful. While they may solve some of the problems, people tend to get stuck in a concrete mindset of "TT DOES IT THIS WAY!" rather than, "TT does it this way, is there anything we can use from there to make our online version better:" I'm not saying you do, but many do. It seems as if TT and cannon adherence is a wedge that is stopping the game from getting better. A lot of what you say makes sense, but I wonder if it might be too complex to implement/drive away less skilled or new players -- Keeping it simple at the cost of TT rules/cannon.

As far as my take on LRMs, its here:
Spoiler

Edited by nehebkau, 18 September 2014 - 07:01 AM.


#10 RF Greywolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 543 posts
  • LocationPA

Posted 18 September 2014 - 07:03 AM

View PostQuickdraw Crobat, on 17 September 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

Huh. Well, hi, Joe. Could you perhaps tell me- where and when was 'Extreme' introduced as a range increment?


Extreme range was introduced in tech 3 (Maximum Tech sourcebook). Tech 3 was always considered optional and introduced very interesting ideas. XXL engines, Shoulder Turrets, Torso Mounted Cockpits, just to name a few.

#11 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 18 September 2014 - 07:39 AM

View Postnehebkau, on 18 September 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:


Quickdraw personally,
I think constant references back to TT are more harmful then helpful. While they may solve some of the problems, people tend to get stuck in a concrete mindset of "TT DOES IT THIS WAY!" rather than, "TT does it this way, is there anything we can use from there to make our online version better:" I'm not saying you do, but many do. It seems as if TT and cannon adherence is a wedge that is stopping the game from getting better. A lot of what you say makes sense, but I wonder if it might be too complex to implement/drive away less skilled or new players -- Keeping it simple at the cost of TT rules/cannon.

<Lengthy quote about LRMs here>


This is a good point, and part of what I've been saying. You can't just change ECM, part of why it is the way it is is that other things are different.

Our current sensor setup in the game is much more comparable to what you would get in tabletop if every 'mech was linked- for free- into a C3 network with every other 'mech it's teamed up with. So it only makes sense that with sensors working that way you have to have ECM cut off more of the capability (and also alternate ways to truncate that ability- such as Target Lock Derp Evasion as a module).

The problem here is that ECM takes up two slots and one and a half tons- and unless its effect is brought more in line with the power of the effect it has in tabletop- which is based on that tonnage and slot occupation- it's too strong for its cost. This is also why it had to be assigned a hardpoint instead of being left as an 'anyone can have' piece of equipment.

In order to bring the strength of its effect in line, the strength of the capability it's affecting (sensors themselves) needs to be adjusted.

At the same time LRMs need adjustment too, as the weapon most strongly affected by the sensor issues- hence my advisement that LRMs be given a much more level flight path and a faster travel time when launched direct-fire, as well as not requiring the firer to maintain target lock after launch on a direct-fire shot in order to have the missiles follow the target. However, to keep indirect fire from becoming as overwhelmingly powerful as before, the indirect flight path, travel time, and lock-maintenance requirements should really stay about the same.

As indirect-fire weapons, I think LRMs are more or less fine right now. Losing and regaining target lock after launch does screwy things, but that's it's own issue to look at. As direct-fire weapons, though, they leave heaps to be desired- which is wrong. Their tonnage and slot-occupation costs, which were determined in tabletop, were based on the idea that, used for direct fire, this was a roughly equitable alternative to long-range energy and ballistic weapons. Demonstrably, outside a few corner cases, they just aren't a viable alternative in MWO.

Overall, it's a sensor-operations issue, though, as everything to do with sensors, from the mighty ECM on down to the lowly 360 Lock Retention module, and including the base function of sensors themselves, is a bit screwy right now.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 18 September 2014 - 07:40 AM.


#12 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 18 September 2014 - 07:58 AM

View PostQuickdraw Crobat, on 18 September 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

Overall, it's a sensor-operations issue, though, as everything to do with sensors, from the mighty ECM on down to the lowly 360 Lock Retention module, and including the base function of sensors themselves, is a bit screwy right now.


We can agree 100% on that. One thing I don't understand is why passive radar (on/off) is such an issue in MWO.

One funny aside: Did you notice that radar dep. breaks lock in the middle of Terra when mechs walk behind the guide-wires holding up the structure. I laughed at that.

Edited by nehebkau, 18 September 2014 - 08:01 AM.


#13 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 18 September 2014 - 03:41 PM

Well, those guide-wires are solid obstacles. You get similar problems trying to shoot across the cauldron at enemy 'mechs- if your line of fire (which can be tricky with some weapon mount locations) crosses those suspension cables, you just shot nothing at all really hard.

This applies to anything that is a solid obstacle if it happens to be wide enough to block a significant part (seems like ~70%) of a given enemy- this leads to other weird moments, like losing lock in CV because of random bits of pipe, or certain smokestacks or antennae in River City or Crimson Straits.

It feels especially egregious in maps where the visuals of the terrain don't seem to match the hitboxes of the terrain well enough- crystals in Tourmaline and damn near everything in HPG are the worst offenders, particularly since the big fat supports under the dish will block shots that visibly should be hitting.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 18 September 2014 - 03:44 PM.


#14 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 19 September 2014 - 07:14 AM

I've noticed that when a post starts to make sense and people agree with what is being said it dies...

Edited by nehebkau, 19 September 2014 - 07:21 AM.


#15 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 19 September 2014 - 09:46 AM

Yeah, it's kind of weird. If you want your topic to stay up you have to either spark controversy/argument with spurious, incomplete, or just plain bad logic/points, or bump it continually.

Fortunately, I don't mind bumping it too much...

#16 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 19 September 2014 - 11:00 AM

The problem I have with your idea is the premise is based on false information. Our sensors are actually nerfed from battletech, and we don't have the free c3 you mention.

Sensors require line of sight in mwo where they could detect outside Los in battletech, and spotters must maintain targeting while either evading fire or remaining undetected. ECM can completely block out sensor detection which by extension blocks out missiles. The problem is ECM isn't suppose to be a counter for missiles in lore because visually spotted units in lore could make missile attacks against ECM shrouded enemies without penalty.

#17 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 19 September 2014 - 11:44 AM

We do, in fact, have the free C3. If I lock a target, and you are on my team, you not only know where that target is (all you need for indirect fire), you suddenly know everything about it short of its paint job and torso twist- a few instants' observation will give you its heading, and everything else is just handed to you. This kind of tromps on the demesne that the C3 network is supposed to have.

ECM isn't supposed to be a counter for missiles because it's not supposed to interfere with the standard lock-on mechanisms that they use- it also isn't supposed to affect TAG at all (and TAG in turn is not supposed to affect or be affected by it). On top of that, it's not supposed to prevent Streak missiles from firing- the fact that it has this ability in MWO is a very strong deterrent to non-ECM-carrying light 'mechs, since lights are most at risk from Streak barrages- and it's not supposed to affect the difficulty of acquiring lock-on.

The tonnage and critical slot costs of ECM are for an item that prevents the use of advanced electronics against the bearer- not an item that protects the bearer and all allies from multiple forms of attack (indirect LRM fire, direct LRM fire while moving, Streak SRMs) and prevents standard information sharing. (Hey, there's a [model] there, and it's headed [direction].) However, adding some kind of effect to it has become warranted by the raw strength currently afforded through 'standard' sensors.

Yes, standard tabletop sensors are supposed to extend all directions regardless of line of sight. But they're also only supposed to tell 1) The general type of 'mech- size, approximate class, etc. 2) Where that 'mech is. If they gave the information that we get in this game, the Clan invasion wouldn't have worked out nearly as well for the Clans- there would be sensor records of the 'mechs and their anomalous readings and everything would have been pinned down as to 'what it is' rather quickly, instead of 'well there were these strange 'mechs that looked different and they were shooting way better'.

LRM indirect fire in tabletop requires a spotter because otherwise you're forced to shoot indirectly at the hex the target is in- and when the 'mech is 10-13 meters tall and the hex is 30 meters wide... well, chances are poor for much damage. Even with a spotter, you're taking penalties- +1 to target difficulty for indirect fire, you use the spotter's cover penalties for line of sight, and if the spotter does anything along the lines of shooting its own weapons, both the LRM launch and every single attack made by the spotter all take an additional +1 difficulty boost.

This doesn't parse well into a simulation/FPS like MWO, and I acknowledge that. I don't think that sensors should be converted to all-directions through-terrain, I don't think that LRM indirect fire should be penalized if the spotter shoots, and I don't think C3 making it easier to shoot something because an ally who can also see it is closer to the target makes any sense in this format of game.

However, at the same time, we're getting far too much information and benefit from sensors as they currently exist. Given the existence of pin-point accuracy and how that interacts with location-based armor, it makes a lot of sense to remove or at least reduce the detail of the paperdoll for enemy 'mechs. Having full detail on the armor and internal structure condition of an enemy makes it -much- easier to tear out a damaged vital location and end the fight quickly. At the least, that detail level should be turned down- if it can be binary (armor/no armor and structure/no structure), that would probably be best- while it shouldn't be beyond basic sensors to tell if internals are exposed, removing that precise damage information suddenly increases time to kill on the battlefield and reduces the strength of the basic sensors.

Having full detail on the enemy loadout doesn't make much sense either. Externally, there just isn't that much difference between an AC/2 and an AC/5, nevermind the various sizes of laser which all use the exact same firing port shape and size (try loading up a variety of lasers into the HBK-4P and you'll see what I mean). Given that, it's kind of ridiculous that our current sensors tell us the exact loadout of any given 'mech as though they were somehow X-raying through the laser- and PPC- blocking armor and checking out all the details of the systems within. You can even get that info through ECM just by wandering into the ECM bubble- while you lose the ability to maintain target lock long enough to gain a weapons lock, the locked target data flickers- it doesn't vanish entirely.

Leaving these bits of info out of standard sensors gives a lot more options for modules appropriate for scouts and snipers- scouts with 'deep scanning' modules could determine the equipment loadout, snipers with 'damage analysis' modules could get a rough estimation of the degree of damage to armor panels (the colors on the paperdoll we have currently), and so on and so forth. TAG could even return to its original purpose as a piece of spotting equipment rather than an ECM-cutting razor (and maybe stop needing an energy weapon hardpoint to be almost literally a laser pointer).

Beyond that, this would also leave room for the C3 network to be an actual thing by sharing module-garnered data, ECM could be hauled back to the point where it does what it's supposed to- counter other high-end electronics that operate purely electronically (no, it should not have any cross-interference with TAG, radio/em waves can't really scramble a laser pointer- for any practical purposes- and besides, ECM isn't costly enough to cover that also), and Active Probes could also stop doing strange things (like reducing missile lock-on times).

This would also help bring the AMS back to where it should be, assuming the peripheral-fire effect is looked at carefully (I do understand the idea of the AMS indiscriminately shooting at any enemy missiles within range no matter the target, but it does weird things sometimes).

There's a lot of stuff that comes together here, and it really isn't just as simple as 'change ECM'- ECM interacts with so many other systems- and by systems I mean sets of operations and rules in the game- that you can't act as though it were an isolated thing.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 19 September 2014 - 11:48 AM.


#18 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 19 September 2014 - 12:25 PM

View PostQuickdraw Crobat, on 19 September 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

We do, in fact, have the free C3. If I lock a target, and you are on my team, you not only know where that target is (all you need for indirect fire), you suddenly know everything about it short of its paint job and torso twist- a few instants' observation will give you its heading, and everything else is just handed to you. This kind of tromps on the demesne that the C3 network is supposed to have.

ECM isn't supposed to be a counter for missiles because it's not supposed to interfere with the standard lock-on mechanisms that they use- it also isn't supposed to affect TAG at all (and TAG in turn is not supposed to affect or be affected by it). On top of that, it's not supposed to prevent Streak missiles from firing- the fact that it has this ability in MWO is a very strong deterrent to non-ECM-carrying light 'mechs, since lights are most at risk from Streak barrages- and it's not supposed to affect the difficulty of acquiring lock-on.

The tonnage and critical slot costs of ECM are for an item that prevents the use of advanced electronics against the bearer- not an item that protects the bearer and all allies from multiple forms of attack (indirect LRM fire, direct LRM fire while moving, Streak SRMs) and prevents standard information sharing. (Hey, there's a [model] there, and it's headed [direction].) However, adding some kind of effect to it has become warranted by the raw strength currently afforded through 'standard' sensors.

Yes, standard tabletop sensors are supposed to extend all directions regardless of line of sight. But they're also only supposed to tell 1) The general type of 'mech- size, approximate class, etc. 2) Where that 'mech is. If they gave the information that we get in this game, the Clan invasion wouldn't have worked out nearly as well for the Clans- there would be sensor records of the 'mechs and their anomalous readings and everything would have been pinned down as to 'what it is' rather quickly, instead of 'well there were these strange 'mechs that looked different and they were shooting way better'.

LRM indirect fire in tabletop requires a spotter because otherwise you're forced to shoot indirectly at the hex the target is in- and when the 'mech is 10-13 meters tall and the hex is 30 meters wide... well, chances are poor for much damage. Even with a spotter, you're taking penalties- +1 to target difficulty for indirect fire, you use the spotter's cover penalties for line of sight, and if the spotter does anything along the lines of shooting its own weapons, both the LRM launch and every single attack made by the spotter all take an additional +1 difficulty boost.

This doesn't parse well into a simulation/FPS like MWO, and I acknowledge that. I don't think that sensors should be converted to all-directions through-terrain, I don't think that LRM indirect fire should be penalized if the spotter shoots, and I don't think C3 making it easier to shoot something because an ally who can also see it is closer to the target makes any sense in this format of game.

However, at the same time, we're getting far too much information and benefit from sensors as they currently exist. Given the existence of pin-point accuracy and how that interacts with location-based armor, it makes a lot of sense to remove or at least reduce the detail of the paperdoll for enemy 'mechs. Having full detail on the armor and internal structure condition of an enemy makes it -much- easier to tear out a damaged vital location and end the fight quickly. At the least, that detail level should be turned down- if it can be binary (armor/no armor and structure/no structure), that would probably be best- while it shouldn't be beyond basic sensors to tell if internals are exposed, removing that precise damage information suddenly increases time to kill on the battlefield and reduces the strength of the basic sensors.

Having full detail on the enemy loadout doesn't make much sense either. Externally, there just isn't that much difference between an AC/2 and an AC/5, nevermind the various sizes of laser which all use the exact same firing port shape and size (try loading up a variety of lasers into the HBK-4P and you'll see what I mean). Given that, it's kind of ridiculous that our current sensors tell us the exact loadout of any given 'mech as though they were somehow X-raying through the laser- and PPC- blocking armor and checking out all the details of the systems within. You can even get that info through ECM just by wandering into the ECM bubble- while you lose the ability to maintain target lock long enough to gain a weapons lock, the locked target data flickers- it doesn't vanish entirely.

Leaving these bits of info out of standard sensors gives a lot more options for modules appropriate for scouts and snipers- scouts with 'deep scanning' modules could determine the equipment loadout, snipers with 'damage analysis' modules could get a rough estimation of the degree of damage to armor panels (the colors on the paperdoll we have currently), and so on and so forth. TAG could even return to its original purpose as a piece of spotting equipment rather than an ECM-cutting razor (and maybe stop needing an energy weapon hardpoint to be almost literally a laser pointer).

Beyond that, this would also leave room for the C3 network to be an actual thing by sharing module-garnered data, ECM could be hauled back to the point where it does what it's supposed to- counter other high-end electronics that operate purely electronically (no, it should not have any cross-interference with TAG, radio/em waves can't really scramble a laser pointer- for any practical purposes- and besides, ECM isn't costly enough to cover that also), and Active Probes could also stop doing strange things (like reducing missile lock-on times).

This would also help bring the AMS back to where it should be, assuming the peripheral-fire effect is looked at carefully (I do understand the idea of the AMS indiscriminately shooting at any enemy missiles within range no matter the target, but it does weird things sometimes).

There's a lot of stuff that comes together here, and it really isn't just as simple as 'change ECM'- ECM interacts with so many other systems- and by systems I mean sets of operations and rules in the game- that you can't act as though it were an isolated thing.


Are you familiar with the Tactical Operations rule sets or the Tech Manual book? It explains how Battlemech systems work in detail -- 'Mechs can share sensory information with other 'Mechs without C3. What C3 does is allows a complete integration of 'Mechs sensory systems and then the master computer calculates targeting data for each 'mech so that they can engage targets that are spotted at the range of the spotter.

For instance, currently, we can only share the information of one 'Mech at a time, the one that we have actively targeted. This is supported in the base rules that say only one 'Mech can be spotted for at a time -- our targeted 'Mech is the single spotted 'Mech. C3 would let us share whatever we had on our sensors regardless of it was targeted or not, and on top of it, allow other ' Mechs to shoot at it with the range penalty of the spotter. This could be implemented in real time a couple of different ways -- quicker lock on times for 'Mechs in the network based on the spotter's distance, and perhaps even taking function from the Clan TC in MWO where weapons receive boosts to projectile speed to increase their accuracy, scaled to the distance the spotter is to a target. Either way, Tech Manual says even without C3, 'Mechs can share information.

You are right in ascertaining that missiles are not affected by ECM in the lore. This is a result of Battletech allowing you to shoot at any target that is visually spotted without penalty, regardless of ECM (unless the ECM is in ghost mode, which incurs a +1 penalty). In MWO, visually spotted 'Mechs inside ECM can only be dumb fired against, severely limiting their abilities -- like you said, Streak missiles are completely hard countered.

ECM in MWO came at a time where splash damage did wild multipliers of damage to 'Mechs dependent on their hit box geometry and missiles were incredibly unbalanced -- much worse in damage, spread, and angle of attack then they are now, with streaks guided directly to the CT. Also, you are correct in the fact that TAG isn't effected by ECM. In fact, TAG in Battletech does not even affect the abilities of LRM's until the FWL releases semi-guided LRM's in the late 3050's -- TAG is suppose to guide artillery shells, which would have been an awesome feature to include when they added artillery consumables.

According to Tactical Operations, 'Mechs sensors are capable of scanning enemy 'Mechs and getting updates on their conditions and chassis type. This has a 100% margin of success as long as the scanning 'Mech does not have sensor damage or the 'Mech being scanned is in an ECM field (then the player has to roll higher than an 8 on 2D6).

As for indirect fire LRM's, they are dependent on multiple factors in MWO which simulate the harder to hit penalties of the board game -- 'Mechs have to keep targets locked, and unless they use a module, must keep them in their forward arc, meaning any sort of evasion on the part of the spotter can cause the entire flight of missiles to miss. Indirect fire is pretty much only overpowered against enemies who forgo the fundamentals of cover and concealment, or who have placed themselves in a bad tactical location.




The easiest way to fix ECM in MWO is to remove the LRM's inability to lock against enemies inside ECM. If they put in a method to target enemies under the reticle that are visibly spotted in LOS within sensor range, with a massive penalty to target information gathering time, pretty much ECM would work exactly how it is described by the lore and supported by the expanded rules in tactical operations.


You can read this link (warning: its long)

for a longer explanation on ECM https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Edited by DocBach, 19 September 2014 - 12:30 PM.


#19 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 19 September 2014 - 02:53 PM

View PostDocBach, on 19 September 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:


Are you familiar with the Tactical Operations rule sets or the Tech Manual book? It explains how Battlemech systems work in detail -- 'Mechs can share sensory information with other 'Mechs without C3. What C3 does is allows a complete integration of 'Mechs sensory systems and then the master computer calculates targeting data for each 'mech so that they can engage targets that are spotted at the range of the spotter.


I have the Tech Manual- but I haven't really had a chance or reason to fully peruse it since getting it- much to my displeasure.

In this case, I'm mostly referring to the ability to see -everything-. Much of my knowledge of tabletop could be considered dated, I'm aware, but I generally haven't seen much to indicate that that has resulted in much discrepancy.

I know 'mechs can share sensor data without C3, but the- I want to say 'precision capacity', but that doesn't really mean what I want to mean. The ability to piggyback target locks that we currently have seems more like C3 than standard methods.


View PostDocBach, on 19 September 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

For instance, currently, we can only share the information of one 'Mech at a time, the one that we have actively targeted. This is supported in the base rules that say only one 'Mech can be spotted for at a time -- our targeted 'Mech is the single spotted 'Mech. C3 would let us share whatever we had on our sensors regardless of it was targeted or not, and on top of it, allow other ' Mechs to shoot at it with the range penalty of the spotter. This could be implemented in real time a couple of different ways -- quicker lock on times for 'Mechs in the network based on the spotter's distance, and perhaps even taking function from the Clan TC in MWO where weapons receive boosts to projectile speed to increase their accuracy, scaled to the distance the spotter is to a target. Either way, Tech Manual says even without C3, 'Mechs can share information.


Aside from boosts to projectile speed not really quite equating to increased accuracy, this makes sense. I'm afraid I'm a bit offbased by modern spotting rules- the older indirect fire LRM rules also mandated using spotter movement penalties if I recall correctly, which was a huge issue. I like your thought on C3 function, specifically the increased lock-on speed.

View PostDocBach, on 19 September 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

ECM in MWO came at a time where splash damage did wild multipliers of damage to 'Mechs dependent on their hit box geometry and missiles were incredibly unbalanced -- much worse in damage, spread, and angle of attack then they are now, with streaks guided directly to the CT. Also, you are correct in the fact that TAG isn't effected by ECM. In fact, TAG in Battletech does not even affect the abilities of LRM's until the FWL releases semi-guided LRM's in the late 3050's -- TAG is suppose to guide artillery shells, which would have been an awesome feature to include when they added artillery consumables.


I'm afraid I wasn't around at the time that ECM was introduced. I would like to note that currently, TAG is affected by ECM- specifically, a 'mech with TAG inside an enemy ECM bubble cannot TAG things that are also in the ECM bubble (and may not be able to TAG anything). I've seen this directly in action. I don't know why it is that way, but it is. It's kind of ridiculous, given that TAG is just a laser (and not even one focused enough to deal any damage, significant or otherwise) on a particular frequency.

View PostDocBach, on 19 September 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

According to Tactical Operations, 'Mechs sensors are capable of scanning enemy 'Mechs and getting updates on their conditions and chassis type. This has a 100% margin of success as long as the scanning 'Mech does not have sensor damage or the 'Mech being scanned is in an ECM field (then the player has to roll higher than an 8 on 2D6).


Conditions and chassis type- so long as the chassis is a known chassis- I will buy. But this doesn't mention equipment. Even if you grant the locational damage (which, again, given the preponderance of pinpoint precision we have in this game, I think it should not be granted as a balance issue, not as a lore issue), nothing says that the sensors can detect all equipment and its types. Granted, we don't get to see heat sinks, Active Probes, or CASE, but I don't think we should be able to discern type of laser, type of autocannon, or type of PPC. Even having the sensors autodetect the missile type is pushing it, considering that- just for an example- the left arm missile mount on a CTF-2X looks exactly the same with an LRM-20 and an LRM-15 mounted together as it does with a pair of SRM-4s (or just one SRM-4). In fact, 'chassis type' doesn't even cover variants- although that should be obvious in some cases by profile (difference between a JM6-A and a JM6-DD) in others there's no actual difference in shape (QKD-4G and QKD-4H without the second left torso missile rack).

This should lean more on player judgement- look at the thing, see what it looks to be launching/firing/zapping out, decided priority level. This would trend the game more towards thinking and less towards reflexes without pushing it too far (after all, one enemy down is still one enemy down and less incoming firepower).

View PostDocBach, on 19 September 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

As for indirect fire LRM's, they are dependent on multiple factors in MWO which simulate the harder to hit penalties of the board game -- 'Mechs have to keep targets locked, and unless they use a module, must keep them in their forward arc, meaning any sort of evasion on the part of the spotter can cause the entire flight of missiles to miss. Indirect fire is pretty much only overpowered against enemies who forgo the fundamentals of cover and concealment, or who have placed themselves in a bad tactical location.


Which is why I'm not advocating any reduction to indirect fire with LRMs, and instead improvements to their direct-fire capabilities.

View PostDocBach, on 19 September 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

The easiest way to fix ECM in MWO is to remove the LRM's inability to lock against enemies inside ECM. If they put in a method to target enemies under the reticle that are visibly spotted in LOS within sensor range, with a massive penalty to target information gathering time, pretty much ECM would work exactly how it is described by the lore and supported by the expanded rules in tactical operations.


You make sense. I don't agree with you that this is all that needs to be done concerning ECM- but I do agree with you that it's something that needs to be done.

#20 LORD ORION

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 1,070 posts

Posted 21 September 2014 - 09:45 AM

ECM jamming enemy units in the 180m range, while retaining the defense bonus for the carrying mech, is a stupidly broken game design mechanic.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users