150 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

How have I not already liked this OP?

[nonnex]

Sometimes necroed topics are not that bad.

I like the Idea and the work the OP has done is respectable. I do like. Any news about this?

Edited by nonnex, 10 September 2014 - 05:45 AM.

[Rasc4l]

nonnex, on 10 September 2014 - 05:44 AM, said:

Sometimes necroed topics are not that bad.

I like the Idea and the work the OP has done is respectable. I do like. Any news about this?

Thanks. Bryan said recently he could ask the designers to reply.

[Cyberiad]

The 4 pillars are useless buzzwords that are distorted into bad ideas.

[Why Run]

It simply requires a reworking of the LRM mechanics, which some of you wouldn't like. No more 30% hit rate with LOS shot. Higher LRM damage. ECM changes. It's not a simple change. Furthermore, that mechanic worked in MW4 because the maps were literally HUGE. The smallest maps you started multiple KM apart. The largest, it was 2 minutes to contact. We do not have that.

It would also require rethinking light mechs. It would make the already dangerous Raven3L w/ ECM/ERLLs nearly impervious. It's a very well though out idea, but does not fit with this game's mechanics.

Edited by Why Run, 10 September 2014 - 06:20 AM.

[Summon3r]

Why Run, on 10 September 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

It simply requires a reworking of the LRM mechanics, which some of you wouldn't like. No more 30% hit rate with LOS shot. Higher LRM damage. ECM changes. It's not a simple change. Furthermore, that mechanic worked in MW4 because the maps were literally HUGE. The smallest maps you started multiple KM apart. The largest, it was 2 minutes to contact. We do not have that.

It would also require rethinking light mechs. It would make the already dangerous Raven3L w/ ECM/ERLLs nearly impervious. It's a very well though out idea, but does not fit with this game's mechanics.

+1 to the OP

and this statement here should have long been looked at, small maps are fine but far larger ones are needed so that you can actually a dynamic fluid battlefield where you can actually maneuver your teams/units/stars/lances... yes of course that mean some type of reworking so that lights/veyr fast mechs are not impervious through speed and long range weps alone.

[Iron Riding Cowboy]

I love this idea but... right now the server is telling the client where all the mechs are all the time sooo unless the server keeps from telling your client where the enemy is until they are with in sensor range this will make a known hack a very big problem. 3D radar hack. But with this the sensor targeting well end up working like WoT where the tanks / mechs are invisible until spotted. Because your client do not know where the enemy is tell the server tells your client where they are.

Edited by Iron Riding Cowboy, 12 September 2014 - 08:57 PM.

[ApolloKaras]

Rasc4l, on 10 September 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

Thanks. Bryan said recently he could ask the designers to reply.

now all we need is a reply. I really hope this gets looked at. Everything but being able to see where the ammo is placed, that would be a little over the top but other than that... BRILLIANT

[Rebas Kradd]

I went into much more detail here, but basically, the trinary system we have now (ECM, counters, LRMs) isn't bad at all as role/information warfare. It's also relatively simple to understand (rock vs hard place setup), but still demanding and with room for roles, diversification, and decision-making (ex: LRM boats actually need line-of-sight to really maximize their effectiveness). The real problems hampering them right now are a) small maps and off-kilter rewards, both of which can be tuned independently of a massive design overhaul.

The way I see it, the removal of ECM as a hard cloak is doomed to fail because of player behavior. Patterns of "path of least resistance" will lead people to take a system beyond its intended use. Either you make LRMs godmode and turn the game back into LRMgeddon or, by implementing passive radar, you give everyone something they'll treat as personal ECM. They won't care that they can't lock targets, they'll just switch to energy/ballistics and have at it with similar builds, leaving missile boats nobody to shoot at except each other.

I actually think removing ECM as a hard counter actually takes away more information warfare and role warfare than it offers.

Can anyone really explain to me what the URGENCY is to remove ECM? Because neither "it's not lore" or "I dislike LRMs" are good reasons for a design overhaul. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 12 September 2014 - 06:03 PM.

[Prezimonto]

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2014 - 05:59 PM, said:

Can anyone really explain to me what the URGENCY is to remove ECM? Because neither "it's not lore" or "I dislike LRMs" are good reasons for a design overhaul. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Most people don't want to remove ECM, they want ECM and LRM's retuned. ECM is wildly over powered for it's tonnage as well incredibly low risk/reward play mechanics. I doubt anyone wants to mess with tonnage or crit space, which implies it needs a reasonably large pass at either risk or reward or both in mechanics and playstyle. I also don't think anyone sane thinks LRM's will be fine if ECM loses abilities, and they should also have a balance pass directly with ECM. Likewise, ECM hard counters need to be removed or balanced if ECM becomes less powerful.

Just the need for all the counters to ECM should indicate how overpowered the single is in the game. It's power also stifles the addition of other mechanics/items that WILL make IW a deeper more rewarding experience.

[Jetfire]

I want this soooo bad for the game.

[Rebas Kradd]

Prezimonto, on 12 September 2014 - 06:14 PM, said:

Most people don't want to remove ECM, they want ECM and LRM's retuned. ECM is wildly over powered for it's tonnage as well incredibly low risk/reward play mechanics. I doubt anyone wants to mess with tonnage or crit space, which implies it needs a reasonably large pass at either risk or reward or both in mechanics and playstyle. I also don't think anyone sane thinks LRM's will be fine if ECM loses abilities, and they should also have a balance pass directly with ECM. Likewise, ECM hard counters need to be removed or balanced if ECM becomes less powerful.

I guess I just disagree with all this. The chief drawback for ECM is putting it on only five mechs that are either vulnerable and reliant on speed, or a big, hulking, recognizable Atlas. I am constantly getting sought out and harassed just for being in a DDC. Being an ECM mech makes you an asset to be protected, and therefore a target. Is that not a valid drawback that enriches the game?

Also, I am really not concerned about measuring effectiveness vs. tonnage. I'm concerned about practical realities on the battlefield. Most errors in balance assessments in MWO come in prioritizing abstract methods of balance over practical ones. Making one Raven variant better than another, for example, is a small consideration next to finding some defense against an inevitable and overwhelming LRM swarm generated by player behavior.

Also, consider the simplicity of the current setup. People gripe about its binary nature (it's actually trinary, as the demands of the counters basically create a third prong, i.e. more role warfare), but there's something to be said for simplicity when it comes to new player familiarization. Missiles rule at long distance and in the open field. Sensors can cloak enemy forces. Those are the rock and hard place; find a way to penetrate. And it's not nearly as hard a binary setup as some say; certain environments don't favor LRM usage at all. The ones that do, would be expected to.

Most of the alternative setups I've seen (usually involving passive radar) sound much more complicated than this and, while it may satisfy sim nerds, only mystifies a game already struggling to retain new players. People are complaining about the complexity of Ghost Heat, but want some system that requires a whole OP of graphs?

I dunno, I just think the whole debate is centered around an irritation with LRMs that I've personally found plenty of ways to solve, even without ECM. I really hope the current system is retained, to be honest with you. Perhaps more push-pull can be found within it.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 12 September 2014 - 07:12 PM.

[XX Sulla XX]

Quote

You're basically proposing that they use the sensor model that was used in Mechwarrior 4. We've made the same proposal numerous times.

Ya I know I have suggested it before. I always liked the active passive model of MW4.

[Rasc4l]

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2014 - 05:59 PM, said:

I went into much more detail here, but basically, the trinary system we have now (ECM, counters, LRMs) isn't bad at all as role/

-> "This leaves missile boats to target...just missile boats. Or dying off. They're also given the inadvertent role of scout, since only they have active radar. That's not what role warfare intended."



The way I see it, the removal of ECM as a hard cloak is doomed to fail because of player behavior. Patterns of "path of least resistance" will lead people to take a system beyond its intended use. Either you make LRMs godmode and turn the game back into LRMgeddon or, by implementing passive radar, you give everyone something they'll treat as personal ECM. They won't care that they can't lock targets, they'll just switch to energy/ballistics and have at it with similar builds, leaving missile boats nobody to shoot at except each other.

I added to the above quote a line from that reddit link, which includes the same misunderstanding. I don't really understand how you come to the conclusion that missile boats suddenly wouldn't have "anyone else to target than other missile boats". Passive radar in my proposal simply means lowered ranges, not ECM capabilities. If, for example, a light/medium was scouting and found an enemy and started to brawl, both would be able to target each other normally at those close ranges and target them for friendly LRM-boats even if they both kept their radars on passive after the encounter. And now that SRMs work effectively, I don't see people dropping their 4xASRM6 griffins so also in that regard I don't agree nor really understand your conclusion of imminent ballistic+laser meta.

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2014 - 05:59 PM, said:

I actually think removing ECM as a hard counter actually takes away more information warfare and role warfare than it offers.

Can anyone really explain to me what the URGENCY is to remove ECM? Because neither "it's not lore" or "I dislike LRMs" are good reasons for a design overhaul. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In my proposal ECM was not actually removed, just changed. The sensor image and radar capabilities of ECM mechs were just brought a bit closer to non-ECM mechs, which already alleviates their OPness much. The proposal was meant to work so that it still works together how ECM and BAP are today and they can then be modified further without the game being broken in-between.

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

I guess I just disagree with all this. The chief drawback for ECM is putting it on only five mechs that are either vulnerable and reliant on speed, or a big, hulking, recognizable Atlas. I am constantly getting sought out and harassed just for being in a DDC. Being an ECM mech makes you an asset to be protected, and therefore a target. Is that not a valid drawback that enriches the game?

Yeah I also like to drive the DDC. It's actually my favorite. But let's face it, it's OP. Wouldn't even dream of driving the others. Just like I wouldn't even dream of driving the other spiders than 5D. If your gaming behaviour is similar to mine with these mechs, you should inherently understand the answer to the question "What's wrong with ECM?". It just does too much on the battlefield for its tonnage and slots. If it didn't, it could be released for all mechs.

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

Also, consider the simplicity of the current setup. People gripe about its binary nature (it's actually trinary, as the demands of the counters basically create a third prong, i.e. more role warfare), but there's something to be said for simplicity when it comes to new player familiarization. Missiles rule at long distance and in the open field. Sensors can cloak enemy forces.

Yeah it doesn't get much more simpler than this. That's IMHO the problem. I don't believe for a second that the problem with new player retention would be "because the game is so hard". There are completely other factors at play there, which are beyond the scope of this topic. If you happen to remember the 3PV poll with 3500 votes with 90 % saying no, it is obivous that the average BT/MW fan is more looking for the thinking man's shooter than the latest console shooter.

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

Most of the alternative setups I've seen (usually involving passive radar) sound much more complicated than this and, while it may satisfy sim nerds, only mystifies a game already struggling to retain new players. People are complaining about the complexity of Ghost Heat, but want some system that requires a whole OP of graphs?

Hehe it doesn't *require* "a whole OP of graphs". I just wanted to present an inherently simple idea in the simplest way possible and with the human brain that usually means something graphical. Don't let my 2 hours in excel overwhelm you, the basic idea is rather simple. That's why it's doable.

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

I dunno, I just think the whole debate is centered around an irritation with LRMs that I've personally found plenty of ways to solve, even without ECM. I really hope the current system is retained, to be honest with you. Perhaps more push-pull can be found within it.

Protip: LRMs are not a problem, because they are easy to counter and that's why they are not used by the competitive scene i.e. people who really know how to drive mechs. People who don't, i.e. noobs, usually employ disfavorable tactics and they get LRM-spammed to death 5-matches in a row and don't know why. My proposal caters both playergroups because LRMs would become more of a skill weapon because target acquisition becomes a less trivial matter. This would save the noobs from LRM-storms and make it possible to buff LRMs further so that maybe one day they could be treated as a real weapon.

Edited by Rasc4l, 13 September 2014 - 06:45 AM.

[Ultimax]

OK, so let me post some things that I think this system does not adequately cover/do:




1) This system is not any friendlier to new players than ECM is. In fact in some ways, it's more complicated.
2) It might even be too complicated for average casual players, players who do not want to invest time to learn the ins and outs of a system like that.
3) I think it is too broad scale for the devs to even remotely consider at this time.
4) While it gives each mech a minor ability to avoid "LRM horror" it fails to address the root cause of "LRM horror". Which is the shared targeting system combined with Indirect Fire Mode.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 13 September 2014 - 02:56 PM.

[Aleriez]

I would like to see that ECM works similar to ENDOSTEEL - with a small change. ECM is therefore an upgrade and available to all mechs but consumes internal structure and weight depending on the total tonnage of the mech.

One could even distinguish between personal ecm and bubble ecm...

If you need 14 internal slots and 10% of the mechs maximum weight to field a bubble ecm, then it would be a hard choice between weapons and utility.

gz

Edited by Aleriez, 13 September 2014 - 11:50 PM.

[ApolloKaras]

Aleriez, on 13 September 2014 - 11:42 PM, said:

I would like to see that ECM works similar to ENDOSTEEL - with a small change. ECM is therefore an upgrade which consumes internal structure and weight depending on the total tonnage of the mech.

gz

That is kinda flying in the face of Canon. Besides if you balance the ECM you don't need to make it changes this drastic...

[Alex Warden]

Rasc4l, on 02 June 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

I think the basic targeting graphics on the HUD could be toned down like this:

i would like that, but i would switch the "mech type (hbk-4p)" with the range in your example... my opinion

Edited by Alex Warden, 13 September 2014 - 11:55 PM.

[The Shredder]

Liking this thread. Also enjoyed seeing some administrative feedback. The neat thing is, this whole thing could be set up to make such thing easily adjustable, as time and play-testing calls for adjustment. Add a defined section in the code for sensors, and all they would have to do to adjust is change a number. It would also help bring back the purpose-built mech. On top of which, I think it would make public matchmaking a lot better.

And by the way: Nice charts!

[Aleriez]

Alex Warden, on 13 September 2014 - 11:55 PM, said:

i would like that, but i would switch the "mech type (hbk-4p)" with the range in your example... my opinion

This and maybe the sector ("B3") where the target is.