124 replies to this topic

[sC4r]

ECM
the ghost target would be very interesting to see
but i think it would be better to not put it onto the current guardian ecm but make a new ecm model that has 2 modes:
1. ghost targets
2. counter mode -> pretty much what current counter mode does disables ecm in ghost/disrupt mode
and this ecm would be mountable on different mechs

also i agree the removing the inability to lock targets with ecm in 180m and insted just increasing the lock time by 3x (if you are outside of bubble then by 2x)
overal yes to this

BAP
interesting idea... but what of the current bonuses bap gives... replace? or add than on top of that?

NARC
no to the beacon stays until armor is striped/section destroyed... i believe now there is limit that beacon stays until certain damage was taken which i find much better but i agree on the fact that it needs to stay active longer + it should leave the target visible on sensors even if LOS is lost

[Trauglodyte]

These are all great ideas because, as we've discussed this before ad nausiem, some of them are mine

[DocBach]

Kristov, thanks for the feedback!

Kristov Kerensky, on 09 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

I like some of the proposals you have here Doc, but I don't actually have a problem with ECM and how it works in MWO, as all it really does is keep 1 weapon system, SSRMs, from working and denies information about the enemy if you are far enough away from it, which is how ECM works in the real world. The TT version of ECM was always a sticking point in our game, a group of people with more then a little real world education in how such things work..yeah..we used almost the same version of ECM as MWO does, house rule, and that was using the pre-Clan Invasion original BTech materials, not the revised CBT stuff that's actually rewritten how ECM works in TT to make it even LESS like it's real world basis.

The large problem with trying to bring real life functions to a game is in real life, the point of warfare is to make it as unfair to the other guy as possible to kill him in a life or death struggle. In a video game, the point is to make the game fun, which comes from balance -- if balance is weighted too far to one side, only one person ends up having fun, like in PGI's "polarizing is good statement," sure, some people believe that the game is great because of a feature, but the rest are leaving the game or reducing their play as their enjoyment of an unbalanced system has caused the point of the game, to have fun, to fail.

An analogy that I like to make is in real war we used ECM on aircraft to carry out strikes with protection against SAM and ground based radar, on the ground we used DUKE and CVRJ ECM systems to protect us from remote detonated IED's; however, the opponents that we killed probably didn't have too much fun fighting a completely imbalanced enemy. They died in incredible numbers.

The same happens in a game where there is no balance and teams are either asymmetrical, as we see in games where one team has much more ECM, or forces everyone to take tons of ECM, which can only be fitted on a couple of different chassis, or take weapon systems revolving around countering ECM, limiting the diversity a player has to choose what he wants to pilot and still be relevant in the game.

Kristov Kerensky, on 09 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

And really, right now, we don't even have all the tools and toys in the game yet, so we can't actually make any judgements on how well things are or are not working. I know people say it repeatedly and people deny it, but this IS a beta, the game isn't even halfway complete on the core features, so we are trying to judge a painting based on seeing only the rough outline sketched onto the canvas and seeing the colors of paint the artist has set up.

We have the core components already included, which are the equipment that have been listed. Any further additions are in the form of modules, which need to be carefully considered and balanced in their own right, as they cost much more than standard equipment in both c-bill cost as well as GXP.

Kristov Kerensky, on 09 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

[...] but I don't like the 'give where ammo is stored' information, that's not really something it should be able to determine in my opinion..but I LIKE the idea none the less

Actually lifted it straight out of the sensor scanning rules from Tactical Operations. With Beagle Active Probe you've got the ability to look at opponents record sheets, which more or less equates to an entire readout of the 'Mech.

Edited by DocBach, 09 April 2013 - 01:35 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

I don't like the notion of "magic radar" that can detect 'mechs through solid obstructions - LOS has to stay a requirement. (After all, scouting the enemy force was the key Information Warfare pillar until jesus-in-a-box ECM came out!)

Otherwise, I think your idea is sound and I like it very much.

Niko Snow, on 09 April 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Moving to Suggestions

Ah, Suggestions - where productive discussions go to die.

[DocBach]

Solis Obscuri, on 09 April 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Ah, Suggestions - where productive discussions go to die.

Yeah, sort of disappointing that this thread gets swept under the rug....

[Solis Obscuri]

DocBach, on 09 April 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Yeah, sort of disappointing that this thread gets swept under the rug....

I'm kind of feeling like threads like the ECM and 3rd-person feedback are functioning like "Free Speech Zones" in major cities - they just funnel the protesters to obscure zones where they can be easily ignored, instead of having them out in public where a tourist might see them and get curious.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

I agree that in it's current implementation, IW is not particularly effective, and that other aspects need to be brought more into balance with ECM.

Adding the NARC and TAG icons to affected enemy mechs helped reduce ECM's impact, until the missile splash damage problem was identified, LRMpocalypse, and the subsequent super-nerf hotfix.

Keeping friendly IFF icons, even when they are affected by ECM, will also help reduce the impact.

The question is, do they want a handful of various tools that each affect matches slightly, or one tool that is grossly out of balance with anything else?

It is just plain wrong that some (myself included) are considering builds specifically designed to counter one 2-crit, 1.5 ton item.

[DocBach]

I'm from the San Francisco Bay Area. When people protest, they do it as publicly possible here.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 09 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

It is just plain wrong that some (myself included) are considering builds specifically designed to counter one 2-crit, 1.5 ton item.

More or less, information warfare items are niche items that should be a benefit to the team, but you shouldn't have a sinking feeling of impending doom if you don't have them.

[Mystere]

Your suggestions might work, if we make several changes here and there ...

On a more serious note, though, non-ECM equipment do need a bit of improvement. But, I think some of your suggestions are a little too much. For example, instead of NARC not having a time limit, have a % chance that the beacon will be destroyed if attachment location is hit.

Another point I am not in full agreement with (but where I am still waffling on) is the part where you say:

DocBach, on 08 April 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

all equipment involved needs to be useful in its own right, and should be self-contained without requiring other equipment or weapons to function

To force team work or better decision making in equipment selection:

• some equipment are not self-contained and therefore need to be paired with another to be very effective against ECM, and/or
  
• some equipment provide some small counter to ECM on their own, but become more effective when used in tandem with something else

Idea #1 might be a bit too harsh for quite a number of people, but might find #2 more palatable.




Also, I really like ECM the way it is right now and as such I disagree with the "nerfs" you are proposing (e.g. moving anti-missle abilities to a third mode). I really want it to be a "very frightful piece of equipment". I don't mind its current "no skill" "no brainer" mode of use (i.e. I could care less about "balanced" "competitive" play -- give "easy mode" to those who want it).

The one change I might agree with is getting rid of it's stacking nature via a set-based intersection solution as depicted in the image below (but extended to N "disrupt" and M "counter" coverage areas):




Finally, you opened a can of worms and as such you might not like what I am about to say next: ECM should be buffed ( ) by giving it the ability to generate ghost targets in disrupt mode -- but let BAP nullify them as a counter -- or provide an "upgrade" for such an extra ability.

Edited by Mystere, 09 April 2013 - 10:13 PM.

[Prophet OFC]

I like a lot of the discussion but after having read through all this I think that some of the attitude might be a little too doom and gloom at this phase in the game. More EW stuff is coming. Lots of great ideas have been kicked around here. I wouldn't presume for a moment that the devs haven't had many of these points in design docs for months and months and discussed their implementation with coders and the rest of the team. There are lots of risks in implementing a lot of the stuff you guys have talked about and I'm sure many people would gripe that implementing new stuff when "I still crash all the time!" and "my UI is till borked 99% of the time" etc and it wouldn't be pretty. These things have to have been considered seriously in some way at some point leading up to now in the dev cycle. Sit tight brothers, we'll see more.

As a brother in arms, in the field, who is just as excited and passionate about the evolution of this game as you I beg you guys to keep having the EXCELLENT quality of dialogue like seen in most of this thread but retain patience and a positive attitude. We all want it the way we think it should be and right NOW, but we're not at the helm of this project. The best thing we can do is continue to have these discussions and do them in a positive and organized way (like most of this thread is) so that we don't discredit our own position.

So I say well done! High five! Sit tight...

[MasterBLB]

Well,it's more or less the same I've proposed,though I have to disagree with some points:
1.BAP working as active radar - this means practically a wallhack.It would have some sense only if all mechs would have active radar allowing just to detect enemies out of line of sight.BAP boost should only allow to get enemies paperdolls and mech types.
2.BAP probe ability - an ability to exactly see exact armor values and ammunition locations alone is so powerful it would make such BAP overpowered.
These would create so powerful device it'd make it practically mandatory,as it gives overwhelming advantage over enemy who does not have BAP.I think one broken equipment is enough.

DocBach, on 08 April 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

-- 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.

This makes no sense if the reporting mech is outside ECM umbrella.If its scanners can obtain exact info about an enemy then what keeps it from sharing with lancemates?

Considering above,I chose 'Other' option

Edited by MasterBLB, 10 April 2013 - 04:15 AM.

[DocBach]

MasterBLB, on 10 April 2013 - 04:14 AM, said:

Well,it's more or less the same I've proposed,though I have to disagree with some points:
1.BAP working as active radar - this means practically a wallhack.It would have some sense only if all mechs would have active radar allowing just to detect enemies out of line of sight.BAP boost should only allow to get enemies paperdolls and mech types.
2.BAP probe ability - an ability to exactly see exact armor values and ammunition locations alone is so powerful it would make such BAP overpowered.
These would create so powerful device it'd make it practically mandatory,as it gives overwhelming advantage over enemy who does not have BAP.I think one broken equipment is enough.


This makes no sense if the reporting mech is outside ECM umbrella.If its scanners can obtain exact info about an enemy then what keeps it from sharing with lancemates?

Considering above,I chose 'Other' option

Actually, there is an announced modules called magscan which is suppose to be a vision mode that lets you see through walls like the wall hack -- Beagle would allow you to see radar signatures that aren't protected by ECM which makes them sort of a yin and yang system; one allows you to locate 'Mechs beyond usual radar proximity, the other hides detection from that advanced radar.

I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said shared; I mean you can detect an enemy, but not receive information on it. It'd just be a red box that is lockable by weapons with a target designation. You can still share that target information with friendlies, what you cannot share is damage readouts, chassis type, ect, because you yourself cannot read them when an enemy is shrouded with ECM.

Edited by DocBach, 10 April 2013 - 08:08 AM.

[Joshua Thorne]

Interesting and balanced. Wholeheartedly approved.

[DocBach]

Mystere, on 09 April 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

Also, I really like ECM the way it is right now and as such I disagree with the "nerfs" you are proposing (e.g. moving anti-missle abilities to a third mode). I really want it to be a "very frightful piece of equipment". I don't mind its current "no skill" "no brainer" mode of use (i.e. I could care less about "balanced" "competitive" play -- give "easy mode" to those who want it).

So admittedly, not giving any regard to systems like balance, would you support a new weapon that did as much damage as say an AC/20 with the range of a gauss rifle, the rate of fire of a machine gun, and the heat of a small laser that weighed say, three tons that aimed itself? It'd be incredibly frightful indeed and pesky factors like balance certainly would be ignored like you prefer.

[MasterBLB]

DocBach, on 10 April 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

Actually, there is an announced modules called magscan which is suppose to be a vision mode that lets you see through walls like the wall hack -- Beagle would allow you to see radar signatures that aren't protected by ECM which makes them sort of a yin and yang system; one allows you to locate 'Mechs beyond usual radar proximity, the other hides detection from that advanced radar.

Even so,such effects have to be introduced into a FPS type game with great care.But I agree at the point BAP needs to be made useful and nice to have device.

DocBach, on 10 April 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said shared; I mean you can detect an enemy, but not receive information on it. It'd just be a red box that is lockable by weapons with a target designation. You can still share that target information with friendlies, what you cannot share is damage readouts, chassis type, ect, because you yourself cannot read them when an enemy is shrouded with ECM.

Ah,now I see.Thanks for clarification.I proposed something similar,all data can be obtained but with a bit of delay (see my link)

[Mystere]

DocBach, on 10 April 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

So admittedly, not giving any regard to systems like balance, would you support a new weapon that did as much damage as say an AC/20 with the range of a gauss rifle, the rate of fire of a machine gun, and the heat of a small laser that weighed say, three tons that aimed itself? It'd be incredibly frightful indeed and pesky factors like balance certainly would be ignored like you prefer.

All I've said is only in relation to ECM and PGI's vision with regard to it, nothing more. Any other new "system" will have to be evaluated separately.

Why, is there anything in TT or the BT universe that closely resembles the weapon you just described? And if such a very frightful weapon did exist, and PGI decides to also implement it, what will be available to fight against it? As long as there are reasonable ways to defeat it (just as I think there are currently reasonable ways to defeat ECM), then it just might get my seal of approval.

Below is an excerpt from a book that, like many of my books, I accidentally stumbled upon. It might give you an insight on my way of thinking ( ):

Soviet technology often had minimal impact on the Mujahideen guerrilla. Many Mujahideen tactics were virtually unchanged and still effective from their combat with Great Britain in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Soviet high-performance aviation posed a direct threat to the civilian populace of Afghanistan, but, the Mujahideen learned how to avoid or misdirect high-performance aircraft. However, the Soviet transport helicopter and helicopter gunship proved to be major concerns to the Mujahideen. Helicopters, and later the SU-25 close air support aircraft, were potent systems in the Soviet arsenal that the Mujahideen respected and feared. Soviet transports could land raiding parties deep in Mujahideen areas while gunships and close support aircraft could attack any opposition.Throughout the war, the Mujahideen had difficulty countering heli-borne insertions, but they did learn that planning, drills and air defense ambushes could help alleviate the heli-borne threat.

(emphasis is mine)

The book is "The Other Side of the Mountain: Mujahideen Tactics in the Soviet-Afghan War".

Edited by Mystere, 10 April 2013 - 09:06 AM.

[General Taskeen]

The same Mujah that CIA still funds and coddles, and then dupes the public into believing sending troops to fight an unwinnable war against an enemy that is continually fostered by shady backdoor deals. Hell, the U.S. government is getting caught red handed funding Al Qeada in Syria. Hyprocisy at its finest, just like PGI's hypocrisy.

Oh wait, I forgot we are talking about ECM balancing.

[DocBach]

Mystere, on 10 April 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

All I've said is only in relation to ECM and PGI's vision with regard to it, nothing more. Any other new "system" will have to be evaluated separately.

Why, is there anything in TT or the BT universe that closely resembles the weapon you just described? And if such a very frightful weapon did exist, and PGI decides to also implement it, what will be available to fight against it? As long as there are reasonable ways to defeat it (just as I think there are currently reasonable ways to defeat ECM), then it just might get my seal of approval.

Below is an excerpt from a book that, like many of my books, I accidentally stumbled upon. It might give you an insight on my way of thinking ( ):

Throughout the war, the Mujahideen had difficulty countering heli-borne insertions, but they did learn that planning, drills and air defense ambushes could help alleviate the heli-borne threat.

(emphasis is mine)

The book is "The Other Side of the Mountain: Mujahideen Tactics in the Soviet-Afghan War".

There are several weapons related to the weapon I propose; the AC/20, Gauss rifle, machine gun and small laser are all in the game, I'm just combining their effects much like PGI included the affects of Stealth armor, null signature, and Angel ECM with the Guardian ECM. Of course, we could give it a weakness, but only after months of careful deliberation we'd decide that its so powerful it can only be mounted in the right arm of the five 'Mechs we've allowed to carry it.

As for asymmetrical warfare, do you think the muj fighters had fun in their mortal struggle against a superior, modern army? They developed uncoventional tactics as a means of survival, not entertainment - which is the point of a game. Most players, especially the demographic attracted to a free to play game, want to have fun, not fight a guerilla war against an unbalanced enemy.

[Mystere]

DocBach, on 10 April 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Most players, especially the demographic attracted to a free to play game, want to have fun, not fight a guerilla war against an unbalanced enemy.

The key word is "most". Let the "competitive" players have their Solaris and other tournaments governed by "balanced" rule sets (which I myself will also join). But in addition, especially in the context of Community Warfare, I want to "fight a guerilla war against an unbalanced enemy". That is also one of the reasons why I am waiting for the arrival of the Clans.

[StalaggtIKE]

StalaggtIKE, on 10 April 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

When can we expect to see more information and improvements toward Information warfare? It currently feels a bit one dimensional and too focused on ECM. Thanks!

DocBach, on 10 April 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

Are there any plans of increasing the function of other information warfare tools such as Beagle Active Probe or the Narc Beacon?

Perhaps from our questions, in AtD36, we can get some answers and hopefully results regarding the currently gimped IW meta game.