Jump to content

Balancing Ecm With Modules


95 replies to this topic

#1 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:55 AM

Recently it was announced that more capabilities the Beagle Active Probe should have are going to be released as stand alone modules to try to counter the cries for balance against ECM -- however, the extreme cost ratio of modules makes any sort of new module much more expensive in both C-bill cost. Modules also cost a large amount of another currency, GXP, which can only be earned by play time or real money.

PGI has announced that Modules are their end game equipment. By balancing a piece of equipment like ECM, that is available to all players with no cost of GXP with systems that do cost GXP, I propose a simple fix would be to strip most the ability of ECM, then make its more powerful effects available only through modules.

Guardian ECM, when originally purchased, should only have the effects that it was described to have in the base rule set, much like Beagle Active Probe. Beagle Active Probe's current implementation follows the base rules in books like Total Warfare, but it has additional uses described in books like Tactical Operations, such as 360 degree targeting, advanced target info, and sensor range, that are only available in the form of Modules.

By the base, tournament rules found on page 134 of Total Warfare, Guardian ECM would have the following effects:

An ECM suite has an effect radius of six hexes that creates a
“bubble” around the carrying unit. The ECM’s disruptive abilities
affect all enemy units inside this bubble, as well as any line of sight
traced through the bubble. It has no eff ect on units friendly to the
unit carrying the ECM.


Within its eff ect radius, an ECM suite has the following effects
on the following systems. The ECM suite does not affect other
scanning and targeting devices, such as TAG and targeting
computers.

Active Probe: Active probes cannot penetrate the ECM’s area
of effect. The probing unit would notice that it is being jammed,
however.

Artemis IV FCS: ECM blocks the eff ects of Artemis IV fire
control systems. Artemis-equipped launchers may be fired as
normal missiles through the ECM, but they lose the Cluster Hits
Table bonus.

Narc Missile Beacon: Missiles equipped to home in on an
attached Narc pod lose the Cluster Hits Table bonus for that
system if the pods themselves lie within an ECM “bubble.” The
Narc launcher itself (standard and iNarc) is not affected by ECM.

C3 and C3i Computer: ECM has the effect of “cutting off ” any C3-
equipped unit from its network. If a C3 master unit is isolated from
the network because it ventures inside the ECM radius, the entire
portion of the network below it is eff ectively shut off (all units
subordinate to it on the diagram on p. 132). Only those C3 units able
to draw an LOS to the master unit that does not pass through the
ECM radius can access the network. If the master unit that connects
the lances of a company lies inside the ECM effect radius, the link
between the lances is lost, though each lance’s network functions
normally (unless the ECM also interferes with them individually).

At its basic level, ECM exists solely to counter Artemis, Narc, Beagle, and sharing information through C3.

However, much like Beagle, ECM could be improved by purchasing additional Modules based on advanced rules from Tactical Operations to further enhance its capabilities.

Sensor Obscure 1: Prevents enemies farther than 400 meters away from gaining any targeting data against 'Mechs (ie Chassis Variant, Loadout, Damage Readout) in an ECM bubble

Sensor Obscure 2: Prevents enemies farther than 200 meters away from gaining any targeting data against 'Mechs (ie Chassis Variant, Loadout, Damage Readout) in an ECM bubble

Radar Obscure 1: Prevents enemies farther than 600 meters away the ability to detect a 'Mech in an ECM bubble on radar

Radar Obscure 2: Prevents enemies farther than 400 meters away the ability to detect a 'Mech in an ECM bubble on radar

Lock Scrambler 1: Increases the lock time for units firing on 'Mechs in an ECM bubble by 50%

Lock Scrambler 2: Increases the lock time for units firing on 'Mechs in an ECM bubble by 100%

Lock Scrambler 3: Increases the lock time for units firing on 'Mechs in an ECM bubble by 100%, and prevents locks against 'Mechs in an ECM bubble if the firing unit is within the bubble as well ('Mechs with Beagle Active Probe may still lock on inside the bubble, with a 100% lock on time modifier)

Ghost Target Mode: Allows an ECM 'Mech to switch to Ghost Target Mode. Generates false target signatures for the enemy to target to confuse the enemy (Beagle Active Probe can identify Ghost Targets as false signals)

Counter: Allows an ECM 'Mech to switch to Counter Mode: Counters any other ECM effect within its radius

These modules should require the base ECM equipment to be installed on the 'Mech, or the modules have no effect. PGI has made the things ECM is suppose to counter available only in the form of end-game modules, why is ECM itself not part of those end game modules?

Edited by DocBach, 21 February 2013 - 09:35 PM.


#2 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:00 AM

I like it. So I did

#3 StalaggtIKE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 2,304 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:30 AM

This actually does sound very good. Would give the game more longevity as well.

#4 Tombstoner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,193 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:40 AM

End game equipment..... that's such a joke...
I like the OP's idea. it lets players customize the affects for different systems
so things aren't static.

and why o why would they release ECM with out ECCM.

#5 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:43 AM

View PostTombstoner, on 01 February 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

End game equipment..... that's such a joke...
I like the OP's idea. it lets players customize the affects for different systems
so things aren't static.

and why o why would they release ECM with out ECCM.


Pretty much, the base functions of my proposed ECM were ripped right out of the basic rulebook. The Counter ECM mode actually comes from an advanced rulebook, so it was added with modules that give it capabilities described in the advanced rules.

#6 Lonestar1771

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,991 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:53 AM

The idea is very sound and would actually benefit all parties, including PGI. It would provide more "end game" content as well as provide more excuses for people to convert MXP to GXP, which directly translates more money for PGI/IGP. It also allows more customization which you can never have enough of.


Doc you should also post this in the feedback/ideas section as well as possibly PM it to every dev you can until someone says stop lol.

#7 Theobald Hauser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 319 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:54 AM

Already proposed there http://mwomercs.com/...e-design-ideas/

And by the way, BAP already gives 25% sensor range, along 25% info gathering and shutdown targeting.

#8 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:56 AM

View PostAmarius, on 01 February 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

Already proposed there http://mwomercs.com/...e-design-ideas/

And by the way, BAP already gives 25% sensor range, along 25% info gathering and shutdown targeting.


Beagle gives the basic functions it has in the description from Total Warfare --but not the advanced features it has from Tactical Operations. Those are only available by module (and do not require Beagle to be installed to be used).

#9 Lonestar1771

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,991 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:03 AM

View PostAmarius, on 01 February 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

Already proposed there http://mwomercs.com/...e-design-ideas/

And by the way, BAP already gives 25% sensor range, along 25% info gathering and shutdown targeting.


Nothing wrong with having multiple lines of thinking on the same idea. It just reinforces the fact that there are better ways to do things than the way PGI did it.

#10 Zeh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:03 AM

Great post.

#11 Thorstine

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:03 AM

First, I do like the modules idea for BAP and ECM. However, I think everyone that keeps pointing to TT rules needs to stop. PGI is not listening to any arguments that involve TT rules as they have already broken them. PGI does need to figure out how to re-balance all the equipment if they have not already done so. It would be nice if they posted what they have on the drawing board so we as the players could at least understand where they are going with the balancing issues.

#12 Pachar

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:13 AM

This proposition is yet another fantastic idea that would BALANCE ECM. Please implement something like this.

#13 Lonestar1771

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,991 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:26 AM

View PostThorstine, on 01 February 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

First, I do like the modules idea for BAP and ECM. However, I think everyone that keeps pointing to TT rules needs to stop. PGI is not listening to any arguments that involve TT rules as they have already broken them. PGI does need to figure out how to re-balance all the equipment if they have not already done so. It would be nice if they posted what they have on the drawing board so we as the players could at least understand where they are going with the balancing issues.


Why should people stop pointing to things that have everything do with this game and have been refined for over 20 years? There are a lot of things that can be useful and carry over from TT in a way that is fun AND balanced. They don't need to re-balance all the equipment, they just need to have consistency and bring some things back in line with everything else.

#14 Theobald Hauser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 319 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:28 AM

View PostLonestar1771, on 01 February 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:


Nothing wrong with having multiple lines of thinking on the same idea. It just reinforces the fact that there are better ways to do things than the way PGI did it.


Yeah, but it does show that people don't care and don't read suggestions.
Why would the devs care then ? How would they even see it, buried under two dozen of the same rants and ten dozen of useless pointless requirements ?

Edited by Amarius, 01 February 2013 - 10:28 AM.


#15 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:32 AM

View PostAmarius, on 01 February 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:


Yeah, but it does show that people don't care and don't read suggestions.
Why would the devs care then ? How would they even see it, buried under two dozen of the same rants and ten dozen of useless pointless requirements ?


This is GD - devs don't read GD, and players don't read suggestions.

#16 Mercules

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 5,136 posts
  • LocationPlymouth, MN

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:33 AM

You have to consider the Double Blind rules for ECM as well. PGI did, but then got them wrong.

#17 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:35 AM

View PostMercules, on 01 February 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

You have to consider the Double Blind rules for ECM as well. PGI did, but then got them wrong.


The double blind rules are what actually inspired the modules - Double blind rules give ECM the effect of hiding sensor scanning from you - ie, sensor obscure module. ECM could also make it more difficult to role for a sensor spotting check, as reflected by proposed modules Radar Obscure and Lock Scrambler.

#18 Thorstine

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:36 AM

View PostLonestar1771, on 01 February 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:


Why should people stop pointing to things that have everything do with this game and have been refined for over 20 years? There are a lot of things that can be useful and carry over from TT in a way that is fun AND balanced. They don't need to re-balance all the equipment, they just need to have consistency and bring some things back in line with everything else.


Because this is not a turn based game. Even though things have been refined over 20 years does not mean that it is applicable to a real time game. Look at how heat management plays such a big role or mech xp. Really the biggest problem is that no one knows how things are going to be balanced and for everyone to post "XXX" is broken is ignorant because they don't know what the whole picture looks like. I do agree that some things seem to be a bit unbalanced for now being Beta an all but what does everyone expect.

#19 Tennex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 6,619 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:37 AM

cool suggestion. only problem i can see with it is that opponents have no way of knowing what kind of ECM you are carrying

#20 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:37 AM

View PostThorstine, on 01 February 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:


Because this is not a turn based game. Even though things have been refined over 20 years does not mean that it is applicable to a real time game. Look at how heat management plays such a big role or mech xp. Really the biggest problem is that no one knows how things are going to be balanced and for everyone to post "XXX" is broken is ignorant because they don't know what the whole picture looks like. I do agree that some things seem to be a bit unbalanced for now being Beta an all but what does everyone expect.


The rules for ECM and information warfare are completely transferable to the board game, with very little variation. The problem isn't that they couldn't be implemented, its PGI chose not to.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users