184 replies to this topic

[Prezimonto]

Sandpit, on 31 December 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

Narc

Fire and it provides friendly missile lock for its duration. Completely negates ECM and lets scouts actually have more use.
Let those little missile hard points on some of the lights be dangerous and a good counter to ECM bubbles. Standing next to your ECM buddy Atlas no longer ensures safety from LRM support mechs
This would change strategies builds and mech usefulness across the board. It would also not involve anything to do with ballistics balance and would immediately offer a ton of changes without actually changing much
Narc is one of those things that needs attention much sooner than later and could use a lot more love

This is a great idea! Totally negating ECM would be a great way to give this over sized piece of equipment a strong purpose. I might also suggest that it needs to have the damage fall-off taken away or set up quite a bit higher. As it stand, I believe the enemy could spray low damage lasers all over the mech (dealing very little actual damage) to have it fall off more quickly.

Bobdolemite, on 01 January 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

didnt think of this at first but improved NARC as described here would be a wonderful sideloaded buff to LRM's

I am typically inclined to believe that LRMS are comparatively weak when measured against almost any other weapon system. The risk reward is insanely high (especially for PUGs) with even a single ECM sometimes negating most of your effectiveness / potential.

Current hard/soft counters

TAG is a shiny red kill me laser pointer, and its worse the smaller the mech is (self tag is worthless with artemis since direct los already provides full buffs)

BAP only negates one ECM and requires hugging range (forcing lights to expose themselves to direct close range fire just to negate ECM)

PPC - Yah okay thats a pretty effective hard counter, but it does need to be constantly re-applied and with cover they can sit back almost indefinitely inside the bubble.

Result: ECM stays active unless one of two rare situations occurs: a coordinated ecm light push or single ECM vs single ECM cancellation. Both of those are usually only temporary fixes at best

IMO if NARC was changed as described LRM's might not need any buffs at all.

If this was applied I would load up my raven 3-l with TAG, NARC, Arty, Sensor Range, Sensor Decay, and Improved UAV and start pugging (thats a scary thought eh, light scout/spotter pugs)

If this was added to NARC, I'd consider re-purchasing a 3L and finally buying the other two as well.

Lykaon, on 02 January 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

An ammo increase wouldn't hurt as long as the NARC beacon still retains a duration of effect.Reapplications of the beacons would be needed.

Now assuming we are stuck with the ECM > all other info warfare tools. Then why not co-op yet another system to become a counter to the bloated ECM feature.Sure make NARC yet another anti ECM.

The design plan for Information warfare is already

Bring ECM= win info warfare

Bring ECM and BAP and PPC and TAG and UAV and etc... to mitigate enemy information warfare victory for having ECM.

May as well keep feeding that monster.

IF NARC totally negates ECM along with providing the normal lock on boosts it might actually let me live with ECM (broken as it is). I would actually pack NARC on a number of my builds, including my A1.

I'd like it even more if they pushed the NARC range out to six or seven hundred as well.

Edited by Prezimonto, 17 January 2014 - 06:47 PM.

[Prezimonto]

Mawai, on 17 January 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

However, at the moment LRMs can be very effective when they hit ... especially in large numbers.

Sure, but so is every other weapon in the game. And most of them are much more effective when not used in large numbers.

[Deathlike]

Prezimonto, on 17 January 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

Sure, but so is every other weapon in the game. And most of them are much more effective when not used in large numbers.

Well... that's only true when your name is not "NARC" or "Flamer" (and more of the former, than the latter).

[Sandpit]

The thing is, it's nearly impossible to buff or nerf "support weapons" like this without nerfing or buffing the weapons that "rely" on them. These ideas for NARC wouldn't "buff" lrms so much as make them more effective. AMS (especially dual AMS) would still be just as effective at negating LRMs as would be seeking cover.

What it effectively does is help provide something that would actually counter ECM in the electronic warfare department. I don't think ECM is "op" by any stretch but there really is nothing that actually counters it in this department.

I agree that if this were implemented it would also need a counter something along the lines of decreased HP or a sharpshooter being able to shoot it off of his buddy (SLs would be my first choice as opposed to trusting my teammates try to use an AC20 to swat the mosquito)

[Prezimonto]

Sandpit, on 17 January 2014 - 07:04 PM, said:

I agree that if this were implemented it would also need a counter something along the lines of decreased HP or a sharpshooter being able to shoot it off of his buddy (SLs would be my first choice as opposed to trusting my teammates try to use an AC20 to swat the mosquito)

I actually, kind of like the idea of making the NARC beacon itself have some direct hit points, and make it have a big enough "bump" on the outside of a mech that you can attempt to shoot it off if you're careful. This takes away the automatic deal "x" amount of damage to make it go away. But it might tie up 2 or 3 mechs for 20 seconds while they hunt the thing down and carefully shoot it off.

This would also add tactics to placing the NARC beacon on locations that are hard to see/find/shoot safely. Also a good thing.

Edited by Prezimonto, 17 January 2014 - 07:28 PM.

[Sug]

Sandpit, on 17 January 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

2 Ravens with ECM equip NARC and flank the enemy. They manage to get 6 mechs popped with NARC beacons.

I'm assuming a scenario with competitive 12mans since that is what the game will most likely be balanced around. 60 second NARC timer, no break-on-damage effect.

Of course there's 100's of ways this scenario could go because it's a tactical game. Rather than run around in a circle of they do this but then what if they do this but then they knew that would happen so they did this instead etc etc etc I'll try to be brief but since all 12 mans will bring at least one ECM mech there is really no way for NARCs to be an unbeatable overpowered system.

If the 2 Ravens stick together with a 3.5 NARC cooldown they'd be exposed for at least 10.5 seconds after firing the first shot, under 450m they'd probably be spotted even with ECM, if they have 50% accuracy that's another 7 seconds to be out in the open. By the time they narc the last mech the first mech(s) will only have about 40 seconds left on their narc. Since they flanked the enemy team and at least some of their team is set up to fire LRMs it is reasonable to assume they now are for all intents and purposes either cut off or easily cut off from their team. After narcing the last target the Ravens now have 40 seconds to reposition before narcs start falling off. Taking cover and switching positions would allow non-narced mechs to chase after the Ravens without getting narced on the way.

Even if they remained undetected the next time they pop up they will have most of an enemy team trying to spot them and the previous pursuers close enough to possibly engage. While this is happening the rest of the enemy team will gather under their ECM umbrella and start working their way to where they saw the LRMs launched.

It is just unlikely that all 6 mechs would be in a position where they would be in danger from LRMs unless the entire team walked out into the open with no ECM in which case they would be doomed whether or not the Ravens had Narcs.

Sandpit, on 17 January 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

Those mechs must withdraw from combat and seek cover rendering them "useless" (for lack of a better term) for 60 seconds. That leaves a 10v6 scenario. Those same two Ravens continue to sneak around and pop NARCs onto the same 6 mechs. You get 12 shots/ton so if both mechs carried 2 tons that's 48 rounds. If they only hit 50% of the time that's 24 rounds. That's 4 rounds per mech which comes out to 4 minutes for each mech having to huddle behind cover.

But you can't keep all 6 mechs pinned by LRMS for the whole time unless there are six LRM mechs keeping them pinned down in which case they cancel each other out and it's still a fair fight. Anything but a constant stream of small LRMs, which would get decimated by AMS, and a good pilot will start to move from cover to cover as soon as the incoming missile warning stops since he knows if he's targeted again he'll get another warning and another 5-6 seconds to get make it to cover.

Even if they coordinate their fire more than likely they're out of LOS and can't tell what the best target is anyways. Which means they'd need another mech spotting and coordinating, which adds a time delay, tick tock, narc is gone, and the spotter would have to keep his head poked out and in danger the whole time.

Sandpit, on 17 January 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

Now that's an extreme example but you did ask for a 12man type scenario so I'm going with a min/max type scenario.

I did and it is. ty.

Sandpit, on 17 January 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

Granted I'm sure the rest of the team would help and those 2 Ravens wouldn't just nonchalantly run amok and fire off NARC all game long but with a 1 minute timer on it, the NARC COULD effectively render mechs ineffective for half a match.

It's extreme enough that it's almost like saying a mech with a single PPC could destroy an entire team single handedly

...if the other team stood still and missed 100% of their shots.

Sandpit, on 17 January 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

Most matches also have a snowball effect. Once a team is at a disadvantage of about 3-4 mechs it begins to become what most refer to as a stomp. So even if you only knocked 2 or 3 mechs out of the fight for 3-4 minutes and the rest of your team manages to take out 1-2 enemy mechs you're now going into the whole snowball situation.

That is true but could be said about anything that happens to give one team a moment's advantage early in the match. It's only a problem if there are zero ways to recover or your team doesn't correct the situation.

It's possible a minute might be too long. I don't think so but who knows. Damn if only there was some way a small value in the game could be changed for a short amount of time in an easily reversible fashion. I guess we'll just have to wait for technology to catch up to my mad vision of programming in the distant future.

Edited by Sug, 17 January 2014 - 07:37 PM.

[Sandpit]

Prezimonto, on 17 January 2014 - 07:14 PM, said:

I actually, kind of like the idea of making the NARC beacon itself have some direct hit points, and make it have a big enough "bump" on the outside of a mech that you can attempt to shoot it off if you're careful.

That's exactly how I picture it. It could be shot off. It would also be large enough where you wouldn't need 4x time zoom at 20 meters to hit it but small enough where you're not just going to knock it off at 400 meters while that your teammate is running by. It would also mean precision placement of the NARC would be mire important.
If I'm trying to shoot it off of your leg I may not be nearly as cautious as compared to shooting it off of your cockpit

[Sug]

Prezimonto, on 17 January 2014 - 06:23 PM, said:

Totally negating ECM would be a great way to give this over sized piece of equipment a strong purpose. I might also suggest that it needs to have the damage fall-off taken away or set up quite a bit higher.

I'd like it even more if they pushed the NARC range out to six or seven hundred as well.

If it punched through ecm, or disabled ecm when shot at an ecm mech, then the current 20 second timer would probably work. Realistically you'd probably be able to get 2-3 salvos off in that timeframe that have a chance to hit. I still think the break-on-damage should be removed in any case.

700m would be a tough shot on a moving target with that slow projectile speed. At that distance TAG is probably a better option.

Edited by Sug, 17 January 2014 - 07:30 PM.

[Prezimonto]

Sandpit, on 17 January 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

That's exactly how I picture it. It could be shot off. It would also be large enough where you wouldn't need 4x time zoom at 20 meters to hit it but small enough where you're not just going to knock it off at 400 meters while that your teammate is running by. It would also mean precision placement of the NARC would be mire important.
If I'm trying to shoot it off of your leg I may not be nearly as cautious as compared to shooting it off of your cockpit

Or crotch. I could see the crotch being a good, inset, place to stick the things. It's also hilarious.

[Sephlock]

FupDup, on 12 January 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

They're total beastmode, you just can't go total spaz-attack with them like when they only generated 8 heat.

On the other hand, I am seriously nostalgic for the (pre-stalker) days when I could take my Awesome with 6 ppcs out and chain fire them.

It wasn't terribly effective and I had to run and hide while I cooled down, but I could JUST BARELY manage it without shutting down, and it was fun as hell to do.

Plus I could occasionally alpha an enemy light and watch it DISINTEGRATE.

That was GLORIOUS!

[Sandpit]

Sug, on 17 January 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

It's possible a minute might be too long. I don't think so but who knows. Damn if only there was some way a small value in the game could be changed for a short amount of time in an easily reversible fashion. I guess we'll just have to wait for technology to catch up to my mad vision of programming in the distant future.

I see what you did there

I agree to an extent. I have also seen a few times where the community was up in arms about something, begging for something, complaining about something, etc. only to see one of the dev team post about either working on the exact same thing or something very similar.
I'd love it if they had the test server up more often for this kind of stuff but it is what it is at the moment unfortunately. I still think 60 seconds is just too long. I'd start at 30 seconds and go up if needed. It's always much better to start low and go up as opposed to the other way around (LRMpocalypse anyone?)

[Sug]

Sandpit, on 17 January 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

It's always much better to start low and go up as opposed to the other way around (LRMpocalypse anyone?)

It's more of the dev's MO to overbuff the {Scrap} out of something and then slowly nerf it several times over the next year or so.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 17 January 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

I see what you did there

I agree to an extent. I have also seen a few times where the community was up in arms about something, begging for something, complaining about something, etc. only to see one of the dev team post about either working on the exact same thing or something very similar.
I'd love it if they had the test server up more often for this kind of stuff but it is what it is at the moment unfortunately. I still think 60 seconds is just too long. I'd start at 30 seconds and go up if needed. It's always much better to start low and go up as opposed to the other way around (LRMpocalypse anyone?)

Trying things out... hmm.. what a novel concept.

The thing is, I wonder if this poor balance tends to not lean towards incompetence, but closer to intentional. If people have actually tracked balance and particular changes that occur in this game in conjunction with a mech release and/or sale... I believe there is a correlation.

For instance, the UAC5 buff coincided with a future sale of the Ilya+Firebrand (it is also notable that the UAC5 jam reduction was adjusted soon after, but still "favorable" than it was before - only other thing that changed was cooldown). JJ cockpit shake reduction came with the release of the Victor. Massive Streak damage buff came with the release of the new Catapult A1 Champion. These things are "less than coincidences" IMO, and...

/sigh

It's hard to want to keep track of these things anymore... it's depressing.

Edited by Deathlike, 17 January 2014 - 07:38 PM.

[Sug]

Deathlike, on 17 January 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

it's depressing.

[Sephlock]

Deathlike, on 17 January 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

Trying things out... hmm.. what a novel concept.

They DO try things out though- things like the Jenner Oxide, or true 2.0 DHS... it's just that they decide before we ever see them that they're too good.

[Deathlike]

Sephlock, on 17 January 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

They DO try things out though- things like the Jenner Oxide, or true 2.0 DHS... it's just that they decide before we ever see them that they're too good.

Can I summon the 3 second Jenner or the 6 MG Spider from lore?

Because, that's what PGI lore tells me.

[Sug]

Sephlock, on 17 January 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

They DO try things out though- things like the Jenner Oxide, or true 2.0 DHS... it's just that they decide before we ever see them that they're too good.

They can't say both "We need to collect months of metrics before we decide to make changes" AND " We tried it out internally and this is what works"

And internal testing ...yeah, not to blanket the entire piranha staff with one statement, but, trying to be nice....maybe some of you possibly are not the greatest players in the game? Because you don't have the time to devote because you're working? *voice getting higher* Maybe you don't follow the current Meta? Because you don't follow the crowd? You're a loner, a rebel? *higher* You like to play the game your own way? Hmmm? No minmaxing for you? *higher* Got ideas of your own maybe? Maybe gonna walk down that lonesome road? All by yourself? *higher* Maybe gonna keep using Quckdraws? Hmmm? *higher* Maybe an Awesome or two? *higher still* Maybe play a few rounds in your Treb before you get back to working on your novel?


There we go. Nailed it.

Edited by Sug, 17 January 2014 - 08:35 PM.

[Deathlike]

Sug, on 17 January 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

They can't say both "We need to collect months of metrics before we decide to make changes" AND " We tried it out internally and this is what works"

And internal testing ...yeah, not to blanket the entire piranha staff with one statement, but, trying to be nice....maybe some of you possibly are not the greatest players in the game? Because you don't have the time to devote because you're working? *voice getting higher* Maybe you don't follow the current Meta? Because you don't follow the crowd? You're a loner, a rebel? *higher* You like to play the game your own way? Hmmm? No minmaxing for you? *higher* Got ideas of your own maybe? Maybe gonna walk down that lonesome road? All by yourself? *higher* Maybe gonna keep using Quckdraws? Hmmm? *higher* Maybe an Awesome or two? Maybe play a few rounds in your Treb before you get back to working on your novel?


There we go. Nailed it.

Instead of giving the obvious response to this, I'll give you this instead.

You know how there are scales of justice AND that justice is blind?

Well, let's replace justice with balance, and everything suddenly makes sense.

That's the basic screenplay for National Treasure X: The Secret Up North.

[Sandpit]

They need months of data on things they approve after private small testing groups. If something makes it past that without destroying balance and the game in general then it can move on to live testing on a larger scale to see what happens when the min/max crowd gets ahold of it.
If it is completely unbalanced in a small test group then it's only going to be worse on a larger scale. It's the same principle of the alpha/beta/launch process.
Alpha testing is small, highly regulated, and selectice.
Closed Beta is slightly larger with things that made it past alpha
Open Beta moves to an even larger scale and things become even more refined
Live launch moves to full scale testing of the things that made it past the previous stages. This is where you really find out where imbalances happen in my opinion. This is where you take out the control groups and let everyone have a whack at breaking your system. Then refine things as needed

For new implementation after going live you have small private tests to see how something will affect the game overall. If it proves to be unbalanced at that point, it gets scrapped or buffed or nerfed until it balances at this stage. Once it feels like it's i a good spot you generally put it out there for public consumption long-term and collect data from every player and group.

In this case I would imagine they want to see how it affects things in 12mans, pugs, premades, casual, and competitive.

This is also why I think many of the complaints we get from small portions of the player base go unheeded. If only a small portion such as the min/max crowd find an imbalance that only affects their specific section while the rest have only minor imbalances or no imbalance at all you're not going to see much if any change.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 17 January 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

They need months of data on things they approve after private small testing groups. If something makes it past that without destroying balance and the game in general then it can move on to live testing on a larger scale to see what happens when the min/max crowd gets ahold of it.
If it is completely unbalanced in a small test group then it's only going to be worse on a larger scale. It's the same principle of the alpha/beta/launch process.
Alpha testing is small, highly regulated, and selectice.
Closed Beta is slightly larger with things that made it past alpha
Open Beta moves to an even larger scale and things become even more refined
Live launch moves to full scale testing of the things that made it past the previous stages. This is where you really find out where imbalances happen in my opinion. This is where you take out the control groups and let everyone have a whack at breaking your system. Then refine things as needed

For new implementation after going live you have small private tests to see how something will affect the game overall. If it proves to be unbalanced at that point, it gets scrapped or buffed or nerfed until it balances at this stage. Once it feels like it's i a good spot you generally put it out there for public consumption long-term and collect data from every player and group.

In this case I would imagine they want to see how it affects things in 12mans, pugs, premades, casual, and competitive.

This is also why I think many of the complaints we get from small portions of the player base go unheeded. If only a small portion such as the min/max crowd find an imbalance that only affects their specific section while the rest have only minor imbalances or no imbalance at all you're not going to see much if any change.

If only they prevented previous lurmaggeddons, then I'd believe you.

I remember explicitly that Paul said that it took "a month" from them to do a balance related change. The thing was that I wouldn't mind giving you that kind of time, if the numbers/results came out reasonably enough. On the other hand, the LPL was changed due "normalizing" the values, thus leaving it in a state of mock usefulness for those that are considered "competitive".

So, I don't know what to tell you other than... they are woefully inconsistent in such methodologies.