9 replies to this topic

[Mechteric]

I had some ideas generated by one of those crazy LRM nerf threads that I think warranted its own thread for discussion (since nerf threads tend to go off the deep end). I think the following concise key points if introduced into the game would make the game have more strategic depth without introducing confusing behaviors.

• GECM should not provide Angel ECM radar cover to nearby friendlies (but should continue to interfere with Narc transmission on nearby friendlies, and interfere with lockons of nearby enemies as they currently do).
  
• Angel ECM should be created as a new ECM device that can be slotted into the ECM slot as an alternative to GECM. Angel ECM gives friendly mechs "ECM radar coverage" but the user of the Angel is not covered. Angel ECM does not interfere with lockons of nearby enemies.
  
• Passive radar mode should be added to the game, this would allow even non-ECM mechs to not be targeted outside of around 400 meters when passive (more if BAP/Radar Range module equipped or TAG or friendly who is closer and relays the target), at the cost of not being able to detect active mechs on the radar themselves outside of that 400 meters or other passive mechs at 250m (or not at all).
  
• Narc beacons should be destroyed by EMP, that is if the mech that is Narced gets hit by any PPC.
  
• When you are Narced, you should have an indicator on the HUD much like when you are being countered by ECM.

If these were implemented I feel the Information Warfare aspect of the game would be greatly improved and more fun!

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 11 August 2014 - 06:48 AM.

[Agent of Change]

By Loki's flexible sexuality! Capper I agree with you.

[Sarlic]

Fine idea's but could you please post this in Feature Suggestion?

Also i would consider roles far more important then other things. Esoecially in CW. We dont have any clear roles now to take as a Battlemech.

Edited by Sarlic, 11 August 2014 - 06:55 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Good ideas, similar stuff has been posted for like two years now. But if they happen to listen to yours, more power to you.

[Mechteric]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 11 August 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:

Good ideas, similar stuff has been posted for like two years now. But if they happen to listen to yours, more power to you.

One can only hope something sticks if you throw em out enough!

[Mechteric]

I was just thinking that even if they only implemented Passive Radar mode (or just introduced it first then decided what to do about ECM), that alone would be a huge addition to the game in terms of strategy and tactics. Things would play out very differently since almost everyone would get that nearly ECM level of radar invisibility at range, which is pretty much the biggest single advantage ECM currently provides.

[Noesis]

The simplest and biggest Information warfare tool would be a module that allows a scout to place a pinged image or vibrating dot on the map temporarily and that also places an computerised wireframe image on the hud but essentially appearing on the map as a virtual presence and also making some kind of tolerable ping noise. This would be based on a line of sight tool with the distant point on the map being under the torso reticle.

This then allowing scouts to quickly provide the attention to a specific point on the map as an information tool. Ideally then recognising a presence of where the enemy might be or for other purposes if comms are in use. You could also allow such functionality to be given to the command console. Or to make C3 slightly relevant require a CC equipped mech to pick up these pings.

Other possible potential then with the CC or module equipped mech than allowing the possibilty to launch strikes on the pinged position. Though this only an optional idea to the "information" tool.

It would certainly allow the scouting role to have more of a significant presence if this module was say made exclusively to lights.

[Zyllos]

Much of what you have stated, Capper, is related to what I suggested in the Feature Suggestion subforum: http://mwomercs.com/...weapon-changes/

[Peiper]

Zyllos, on 13 August 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

Much of what you have stated, Capper, is related to what I suggested in the Feature Suggestion subforum: http://mwomercs.com/...weapon-changes/

I see your ECM ideas and raise you: http://mwomercs.com/...les-considered/

I beat you both to these ideas a year and a half ago. If they didn't consider those ideas then, what makes you think PGI is capable of reformation?

[WmLowFlyer]

PGI will never rework ECM/Information warfare because

-Someone at PGI came up with the ECM abomination and its their pet project
-They will mostly likely come to the conclusion reworking this massive chunk of the game will not generate revenue
-They are incapable of doing so either due to laziness or lack of common sense