Jump to content

More To Information Warfare Than Ecm?


124 replies to this topic

Poll: More To Information Warfare Than Ecm? (122 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you agree with the OP?

  1. Yes (103 votes [84.43%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 84.43%

  2. No (9 votes [7.38%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.38%

  3. Other (please explain in post) (10 votes [8.20%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.20%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:03 PM

First, the other electronic devices in this game need to be increased in utility -- they should fill a role for the team comparable to buffs in other MMO's. They should not be considered necessary for a victory or the only reason a team wins, but should help the team out. ECM should serve as the debuffer, but not an all out counter. Right now Information Warfare has no means of gaining information beyond some modules, which cost GXP as well as much C-bills as a medium 'Mech, where denying information is all done by one single piece of equipment with a significantly smaller price tag. We need the equipment we have currently to be overhauled where we can actually gain information for ECM to deny.

Secondly, ECM itself still needs more adjusting beyond just limited where it can be placed and removing the IFF jamming ability. Currently, ECM jams sensors, electronics, and missiles all in one single mode without any vulnerabilities. The anti-missile portion of ECM should be moved to a third mode and toned down to where it increases lock on time for missiles rather than an all out counter -- ECM's function needs to be segmented towards specific functions rather than the all-in-one wonder box we have now. 'Mechs should be hindered without counters to ECM, but not completely nullified like in the case of missiles or sensors.

Expanding on the idea of ECM being locked into a hardpoint, perhaps every 'Mech should receive a dedicated "Equipment" hardpoint, some like historically niche builds like the electronic warfare oriented Raven have several. All tertiary equipment that isn't an Upgrade (ie Artemis) can be placed into these hard points. The exclusive AMS hardpoint should also be included in this new equipment list.

Suggested Beagle Active Probe changes:

-- Active radar, can locate and track targets within a 120 meter, 360 degree radius around the 'Mech, including 'Mechs outside of line of sight if they are not shut down or protected by a Guardian ECM suite.

-- Probe ability, pilots can utilize the Beagle Active Probe to gain a more in depth sensor readout of a target to include exact and current armor/structure levels, item placement, engine type, ect. in the form of a windowed readout accessible by a keybind to allow a probing unit detect for weaknesses in the enemy 'Mech such as ammunition stored in a leg with low armor.

-- Counter ECM's proposed Ghost Target third mode

-- ECM in disrupt mode counters Beagle's active radar, probing ability, and ability to discern Ghost Targets
as false targets

Suggested changes to Narc Beacon

-- Remove any time limit for the Beacon's signal.

-- If the Narc Missile Beacon hits a 'Mech's armor, it is active until the armor is stripped from that location. If it hits a location already stripped of armor, it is active until the location is destroyed.

-- Give the Narc Beacon launcher a lock-on effect like LRM's

-- Targets locked by a Narc Beacon can be targeted and appear on radar regardless of line of sight, unless blocked by a Guardian ECM field. ECM only blocks Narc beacon as long as the affected 'Mech remains in the protective radius. 'Mechs carrying Guardian ECM are not affected by Narc.

-- Missile attacks against enemies affected by Narc that are not in line of sight do not receive Beagle's missile grouping benefits

Suggested Changes to ECM:

-- Anti-missile capabilities are moved to a third mode, Ghost Target Mode. Missile attacks against 'Mechs protected by ECM in Ghost Target mode have increased lock on time. Ghost Target mode also adds several false targets to enemy sensors that MechWarriors have to cycle through to find real targets. Beagle Active Probe identifies false targets as Ghost Targets, and nullifies the additional lock on time. Disrupt mode still affects Beagle Active Probe in the 180m ECM radius and counters its ability to nullify the additional lock on time and ability to detect false targets as ghosts.

-- Remove the block out of sensor locking to targets in line of sight; 'Mechs can be targeted but no further information will be shared with the sensors such as 'Mech type, variant type, weapons loadout, or damage readout.

-- Protects against detection by Beagle Active Probe when outside line of sight in Disrupt mode, and protects against sensor probing by Beagle Active Probe while in line of sight.

For Information Warfare to have depth and variety, all equipment involved needs to be useful in its own right, and should be self-contained without requiring other equipment or weapons to function like in the case of PPC being a counter to ECM. There should be thought and consideration in selecting what information warfare equipment to take, rather than a no-brainer choice to picking ECM like we currently have.

Edited by DocBach, 09 April 2013 - 07:15 AM.


#2 Roadbeer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationWazan, Zion Cluster

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:07 PM

This is serious business and I'm glad it has a poll.

The thing I like about most of this is, not only would it flesh out IW, but would help in RW to such an extent that it would coax the Lone Wolfs out of their GROPO Cannon Fodder builds and into more niche roles.

I would even go further with NARC and allow it to punch through 1 ECM cloud.

Edited by Roadbeer, 08 April 2013 - 06:11 PM.


#3 Mahnmut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Infernal
  • The Infernal
  • 107 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:05 PM

This would be a deeper and much more interesting implementation of information warfare. If only the devs could see past their 1-dimensional version which is completely ruled by a single piece of equipment.

#4 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:07 PM

View PostRoadbeer, on 08 April 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:


I would even go further with NARC and allow it to punch through 1 ECM cloud.


More or less the Narc needs to be countered by ECM for it to stay in balance and not become OP in its own right. The ability to be tracked regardless of LOS puts you at a whole lot of risk. The proposed changes are more for Narc to become an information tool rather than enhanced missile guidance like it currently is.

The biggest problem I see with Information Warfare is its all based upon what ECM can hide, rather than what other things can find. There is no information gathering beyond standard sensors, just information denial.

Edited by DocBach, 08 April 2013 - 07:26 PM.


#5 Davers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanada

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:25 PM

ECM was developed to counter Tag, Narc, and BAP. But with the state of those weapons in MWO you have to wonder why they bothered. :)

#6 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:35 PM

If the first no voter could explain their reasoning behind it with some feedback, it'd be awesome.

#7 Vellinious

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 254 posts
  • LocationCorn field

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:36 PM

I initially voted no, because I didn't agree with some of the OP's post. BUT....I changed it to yes, because I think he's on the right track, even though I think he's off base on some of it.

#8 Merky Merc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 871 posts
  • LocationRidin down the street in my 6-4

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:39 PM

I didn't vote. But the maps and gamemodes generally limit any possibility for "information/electronic warfare" to ever have a serious purpose.

If there are a limited amount of areas for the conflict to reasonably occur on any given map, and a limited amount of enemies to ever have to face then there is no real reason to need more than "I'm getting jammed in D4" or "5 Bad guys with a DDC in G6".

I do wish TAG had the same range as LRMs and I have no idea why a LOS targeting laser would be blocked by ECM, but idk if that's what you're asking.

#9 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:40 PM

Feedback is appreciated, if you don't agree with all points by all means please voice opinions/concerns/ect. If you don't feel like a yes is warranted, I included the choice to vote other.

#10 Aeolus Drift

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 138 posts
  • LocationStillwater, OK

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:47 PM

Well written, and curse you good sir. A lot of what you have suggested are things I've been thinking for the game myself. Now my own hypothetical topic on this matter will be unoriginal thanks to your cleverly scripted post. JK, props to you, I hope the devs will pay attention to this idea.

#11 Ranek Blackstone

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 860 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:52 PM

View PostDocBach, on 08 April 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:



More or less the Narc needs to be countered by ECM for it to stay in balance and not become OP in its own right. The ability to be tracked regardless of LOS puts you at a whole lot of risk. The proposed changes are more for Narc to become an information tool rather than enhanced missile guidance like it currently is.

The biggest problem I see with Information Warfare is its all based upon what ECM can hide, rather than what other things can find. There is no information gathering beyond standard sensors, just information denial.


There will be a UAV and Spy sat consumables that will be able to counter ECM on a map wide scale. The big problem with ECM in the information pillar is we've been playing with it before the rest of the pillar was ready if only so we'd have SOMETHING IW related to use.

Now, I do think that Beagle needs a buff. So I'm thinking BAP lets you use active radar. Flip it on like it's an ECM unit, and you'll "spot" every mech with in LoS of your mech at the expense that they'll KNOW they've been spotted (Betty yells out "Active probe detected" or something like that). Active probes are NOT subtle things remember. That PING noise subs make carries for hundreds of miles and the poor sods who get hit with it KNOW they've been hit. Mechs currently in ECM coverage would get target marker of a different color to show that BAP has found something, but the ECM is preventing the BAP from seeing what it is, which would let you target it, but not get missile lock, or any other form of target data beyond range.

#12 Artgathan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,764 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 08:02 PM

I like the buffs to the BAP and NARC, I don't like the changes to ECM - I voted no.

ECM is supposed to be the way it is - without ECM in it's current form there is no information warfare: there are only mechs within radar range and mechs outside radar range. We will be getting more equipment to deal with ECM - there's no need to say the system is broken when you've only seen a tiny part of the system (not the OP in particular, but just everyone who complains about ECM).

#13 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 08 April 2013 - 08:33 PM

The problem with modules to counter ECM such as enhanced sensor modes like magscan and seismic is the fact that there is a large inequality of pricing between the ECM and modules. Modules cost many hours of real time to obtain GXP, or real life money.

I would argue the opposite of Artgathan; ECM in its current form, and allowed to stay in its current form destroys information warfare, especially if the counters we get are in the form of modules.

As for ECM being how its suppose to be, the suggested changes I list come straight from the rules in Tactical Operations, where ECM has no affect on sensors outside of the operating radius of 180 meters beyond as I described, obscuring information but not outright blocking it. Ghost Target mode is another addition from Tactical Operations; while running in Ghost Target mode enemies firing upon ECM protected 'Mechs get a +1 target modifier, simulating additional lock on times and locating actual targets.

All 'Mechs have stealth inherent if they remain in cover and concealment; Beagle allows a 'Mech to penetrate cover and concealment, ECM provides protection from that. ECM is not suppose to be a substitute for stealth and allow 'Mechs to ignore the fundamentals of stealth by standing in the open or parading down a key avenue of approach.

The proposed change to ECM still withholds quite a bit information from sensors such as what kind of weapons the enemy has (Do I attack it close up, or do I try to engage long range since that thing has twin AC/20's?) what the target's armor condition is (are you shooting at fresh armor that your friends have ignored?), what variant it is (some variants traditionally carry XL engines that could be targeted as a weakness).

The analogy I think works best for the MMO crowd is buffs and debuffs; ECM in disrupt debuffs Beagle and sensors, ECM in ghost target debuffs sensors to a different extent as well as missiles, but in no case should it completely make systems completely useless, requiring additional equipment to counter it. You should be at a disadvantage fighting it, not in an impossible situation like solo players with guided weaponry find themselves.

Edited by DocBach, 08 April 2013 - 08:45 PM.


#14 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 09 April 2013 - 06:27 AM

Guess everyone's too up in arms about machine guns to care about a feature that's already pushed most people who cared about it from the game, eh?

#15 Roadbeer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationWazan, Zion Cluster

Posted 09 April 2013 - 07:10 AM

It's ok, they got all the MG threads condensed, you're back on page one :D

#16 hammerreborn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,063 posts
  • LocationAlexandria, VA

Posted 09 April 2013 - 07:22 AM

I'm the other:

I fully agree with the BAP (though I would also add it gets all sensor modules in 1 (as well as their effects like the sensor range vs ECM), including target decay which your proposal currently lacks) changes. BAP should be a 1.5 ton investment to free up your module slots for airstrikes and the like.

I don't think anything will make NARC desirable, but those are fine changes.

Don't need changes to ECM.

#17 Nicholas Carlyle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 5,958 posts
  • LocationMiddletown, DE

Posted 09 April 2013 - 07:24 AM

I think I'm going to tweet this thread to Bryan and Paul once a day until they do something.

#18 DocBach

    Member

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

Posted 09 April 2013 - 07:26 AM

Beagle sort of already has target decay with it being able to locate units beyond line of sight. I'm actually thinking because its an active radar it make it easier to detect, so it has the effect of a target decay module for the enemy - its still detectable out of line of sight for a second or two because of its active radar signature.

#19 Nicholas Carlyle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 5,958 posts
  • LocationMiddletown, DE

Posted 09 April 2013 - 07:36 AM

Tweet's sent!

Day 1...complete.

#20 Roadbeer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationWazan, Zion Cluster

Posted 09 April 2013 - 07:37 AM

View PostDocBach, on 08 April 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:


More or less the Narc needs to be countered by ECM for it to stay in balance and not become OP in its own right. The ability to be tracked regardless of LOS puts you at a whole lot of risk. The proposed changes are more for Narc to become an information tool rather than enhanced missile guidance like it currently is.

The biggest problem I see with Information Warfare is its all based upon what ECM can hide, rather than what other things can find. There is no information gathering beyond standard sensors, just information denial.


Ok, I see your point with that.

So, my next thought on the topic.

What do you feel about having the modules that mirror BAPs effects, stacking with BAP?

I mean, you're investing quite a bit on those modules.

I ask this because I remember a post saying that they do not stack, but I don't recall seeing anything that it's changed.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users