632 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

There really can't be a conversation on ECMs affect vs. LRM locks without a simultaneous conversation on IDF.


For ECMs effect to be reduced, LRM IDF through shared locks would need to be equally reduced or even removed.

I'm not even sure if making IDF locked to TAG/NARC would even be sufficient, as NARC can be wildly powerful in some cases.


My opinion is that for good or ill, all of these mechanics are too intertwined to re-work only one of them.

Everything would need to be reworked.

LRM IDF
LRM DF
NARC
TAG
ARTEMIS
Active Probe
ECM


I just don't think this is an undertaking that PGI would even be able to give attention to until CW is launched.

[Livewyr]

I was hoping to avoid throwing ideas out there until the possible event of Russ (or Paul) coming into the thread to start a dialogue. (God knows I have put more posts about ECM and its interactions than anything else I have commented on in the Forums.)

I want them to either acknowledge the issues I raised, or dismiss them for whatever reason, before continuing. (Kind of hard to have a dialogue when one group, us, says everything outright based on the initial commentary.)

[Quick n Fast]

lets have pgi make it like this... http://www.sarna.net/wiki/ECM_Suite

Quote

... As it weighed as much as a standard PPC, took up as much room as an Autocannon/5, and had only half the range of the Guardian ....

the larger weight n size will make ppl think twice b4 takin it... that'll show'em,..

Edited by Kahnawake MechMaster Prime, 11 September 2014 - 10:06 AM.

[Warblood]

Kahnawake MechMaster Prime, on 11 September 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

lets have pgi make it like this... http://www.sarna.net/wiki/ECM_Suite



the larger weight n size will make ppl think twice b4 takin it... that'll show'em,..

NO! Im all for lore based items in the game, but i think this would start some serious toxic threads and we don't need anymore of that here. It would make the P2 hate threads look like civil adult arguments.

imo both ecm n lrms need to be reworked.

[Dracol]

Another random idea, what about splitting the null radar sig and the disrupt into two seperate functions.

ECM would then have:

- Counter (same as it is now)
- Disrupt (Enemy within 180 unable to utilize radar - enemies out side of 180 can target normally)
- Null sig (All friendlies within the ECM range can not be radar targeted by enemies outside of 240m)

The affect I believe this would have is make ECM useful for sneaking up on positions, but once within brawl range reducing its ability to cause confusion while protecting allies from more distant targets.

It gives an ECM user a choice when in brawl range: Protect self and allies from long range attacks, or confuse and hinder the brawlers.

It would also reduce the ECM advantage that is caused when multiple friendlies equip them. If two allies are running ECM with one in Disrupt and the other in Null, a counter ECM could negate the closest ECM but the secondary ECM would still be providing its benefit.

Edited by Dracol, 11 September 2014 - 11:07 AM.

[Ultimax]

Kahnawake MechMaster Prime, on 11 September 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

lets have pgi make it like this... http://www.sarna.net/wiki/ECM_Suite



the larger weight n size will make ppl think twice b4 takin it... that'll show'em,..

And then we can require one master c3 per lance and one slave per lance mate.

Everyone interested could pay the tonnage but you'd need a full network of 12 to get the effect we get now at zero weight.


That'll show 'em.

[Mcgral18]

Ultimatum X, on 11 September 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

There really can't be a conversation on ECMs affect vs. LRM locks without a simultaneous conversation on IDF.


For ECMs effect to be reduced, LRM IDF through shared locks would need to be equally reduced or even removed.

I'm not even sure if making IDF locked to TAG/NARC would even be sufficient, as NARC can be wildly powerful in some cases.


My opinion is that for good or ill, all of these mechanics are too intertwined to re-work only one of them.

Everything would need to be reworked.

LRM IDF
LRM DF
NARC
TAG
ARTEMIS
Active Probe
ECM


I just don't think this is an undertaking that PGI would even be able to give attention to until CW is launched.

NARC wouldn't counter ECM, since ECM counters NARC and Artemis within the bubble.

If ECM wasn't so powerful, and if it was kept lore friendly, it would have its limited uses, but not the Magic Jesus Box that is currently is.


Also, if you nerf indirect fire, you'll have to significantly buff direct fire.

Ultimatum X, on 11 September 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

And then we can require one master c3 per lance and one slave per lance mate.

Everyone interested could pay the tonnage but you'd need a full network of 12 to get the effect we get now at zero weight.


That'll show 'em.

Not quite how C3 works.

Any mech can spot, and all the indirect fire-er gets is a to hit penalty. A C3 computer allows you to fire with the same range penalty as the C3 spotter.


In MWO, this would essentially be faster travel speed for indirect missiles.

Edited by Mcgral18, 11 September 2014 - 01:48 PM.

[Ultimax]

Mcgral18, on 11 September 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

NARC wouldn't counter ECM, since ECM counters NARC and Artemis within the bubble.

If ECM wasn't so powerful, and if it was kept lore friendly, it would have its limited uses, but not the Magic Jesus Box that is currently is.


Also, if you nerf indirect fire, you'll have to significantly buff direct fire.

Yes that's what I meant, DF would need improvement.

You can make fun by calling it the magic jesus box but we have weightless gods eye shared lock hive mind as well.

There are two sides to this coin and they are intrinsically linked.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I was under the impression Paul was still working on MW:O?

[DocBach]

I'd love to see Information Warfare get a complete overhaul, but I understand that right now all focus for them is to get CW rolling out.

The people that hate IW enough to quit playing have been long gone since December 2012.

[Prezimonto]

I agree with the OP and most of the following posts on the first page.

Please PGI, can we revisit this topic, even if it's only to discuss ECM's role in the game?

[Koniving]

For the OP's question 2...

"No" would be my personal answer, based on this post.

Quote

Dev Blog 2 - Information Warfare

In this blog we discuss some of the details about Information Warfare and what it means to MechWarrior® Online™. As always we're revealing details that are beta ready.
Contributors include Bryan Ekman, Paul Inouye, and David Bradley.
Overview

At its heart, Information Warfare is about controlling the flow of information on the battlefield.

• Knowing where your enemy is.
  
• Knowing the current status of your enemy.
  
• Understanding your enemy’s intentions.
  
• Sharing information between units.

BattleGrid

The core of information warfare is the BattleGrid, a combination of command center and dynamic battlefield map useable by players during gameplay. The BattleGrid is an extension of the HUD and allows players to quickly review the tactical situation at hand. Players will immediately recognize elements from other successful shooters and previous MechWarrior® products.

• A scalable battlefield top-down map.
  
• Object and waypoint markers.
  
• Friendly and Enemy Unit Markers
  
• Support Units
  
• Orders

Modules – A New Concept

In order to evolve the concept of MechWarrior®, we needed a new layer of customization. After several scrapped ideas, we settled on a module concept. Modules allow players to customize their BattleMech with functionality without having to deal with the existing slots and tonnage rules.
Each BattleMech will come with Module Board. Players can insert modules of their choice, provided they have space. Each module adds a layer of functionality. Modules are linked to the Pilot Tree and are unlocked by training various skills.
Modules are also a very important part of Role Warfare - a topic for a future blog.
Targeting Tweaks

We’ve changed how targeting has worked by layering and controlling what players see and know about the opposing force elements.
Target information is now exclusively Line of Sight/Detection (LOSD). Simply put, if you, a teammate or support unit can’t directly see or detect a target using a module, that target is invisible. Target information decays rapidly. This means if you lose LOSD, you will lose all knowledge that target’s position and current status.
Details about a target are not inclusive, and is now layered based on the type of modules and BattleMech you are piloting. The concept helps emphasizes using specific `Mech and Module combinations to gain and share enhanced targeting information.
Sharing of target information is also no longer inclusive and requires a Module or C3 Master/Slave unit.
Detection

So how do you gather LOSD information? Well there are several ways.

• Direct – You can see the target directly (LOSD).
  
• Radar – Your radar can detect a target in a predetermined arc, also LOSD.
  
• Satellite Scan – Orbital scan of the battlefield, highly efficient however still limited to top-down LOSD.
  
• UAV – Similar to a Sat Scan, but localized to a specific area on the battlefield.
  
• Detectors – Dropped off on the battlefield.
  
• Units – Any non-BattleMech present on the battlefield.

Detection Modes

Each type of detection device may also have different primary or secondary modes of detection as follows:

• Night Vision – Allows players to see more detail in low light situations.
  
• Thermal Vision – Allows players to see heat signatures that can be detected through obstacles.
  
• Magnetometer Assisted – Allows players to detect metal and metal densities which can uncover a BattleMech hiding behind a building.

Some of these modes will not be available at launch, but I want to give you an overview of where we plan to take this concept.
Disruption/Spoofing

With such an emphasis on detection and tracking, we also needed a counter balance, something that players could equip. Using the module system, we allow players to equip Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) devices in the form of:

• Spoofers – Beacons that send out a false target signatures.
  
• Disruptors – Disrupt or block modes, communication, target acquisition and locks.
  
• Surveillance – Allows a player to intercept and decode enemy intel.

We've opened up the Community Q&A 3 thread for your questions, so ask away!

http://mwomercs.com/...rmation-warfare

[Mcgral18]

Ultimatum X, on 11 September 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

Yes that's what I meant, DF would need improvement.

You can make fun by calling it the magic jesus box but we have weightless gods eye shared lock hive mind as well.

There are two sides to this coin and they are intrinsically linked.

I did state what C3 does in my post. MWO doesn't quite have that, but it doesn't have the indirect fire penalties either.

More of a unfinished mechanic than C3.

[terrycloth]

I wonder if you could do C3 right. Have it pop up a picture-in-picture display of a zoom-in from the spotter's POV, sort of like improved zoom, and let you aim at that? Judging cover would be really weird but it could help a lot with long-range sniping. Also with LRMs since you could see whether or not the target was actually going to get hit, or if was about to break lock or get behind cover.

[Ultimax]

Mcgral18, on 11 September 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

I did state what C3 does in my post. MWO doesn't quite have that, but it doesn't have the indirect fire penalties either.

More of a unfinished mechanic than C3.

Yes, you did state what it does. Sorry I had responded before you put that portion in.

Part of it also goes beyond target locks.


We have quite a lot of information gathering tools; shared locks for IDF, proximity/LoS, seismic, UAV.

On the other hand the ability to conceal information is actually pretty non-existent outside of ECM.

Outside of hiding in some remote corner of Terra Therma or Alpine, really you have minimal options to counter the information gathering the other team has just by showing up.

So while it's not a perfect system, at least in that regard ECM functioning as a stealth effect is something that almost wouldn't exist otherwise.

[Kjudoon]

Kahnawake MechMaster Prime, on 11 September 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

lets have pgi make it like this... http://www.sarna.net/wiki/ECM_Suite



the larger weight n size will make ppl think twice b4 takin it... that'll show'em,..

With the current abilities and power of the ECM, it SHOULD weigh that much and take up that much space. I suspect you meant this as a joke, but if we let ECM sit status quo in functionality, this should be done. Choose between weapons or ECM.

Of course, you should enhance rewards for countering ECM and providing cover for other mechs.

[Ahja]

ECM was a big mistake from the start. It had changed the entire game experience and seemingly was only implemented to quick fix a badly thought out targeting system. Its why we dont have command consoles as we are all ready C3-ed. You are not going to see any change on this as now it would through the entire game into chaos to remove it. ECM in the BT/MW game was not as overwhelming a game changer as this ECM PGI made up.

[Ultimax]

Kjudoon, on 11 September 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

With the current abilities and power of the ECM, it SHOULD weigh that much and take up that much space. I suspect you meant this as a joke, but if we let ECM sit status quo in functionality, this should be done. Choose between weapons or ECM.

Of course, you should enhance rewards for countering ECM and providing cover for other mechs.

My experience in the group queue during the last lance challenge tells me this would be an awful idea.

There was such a ridiculous amount of massed LRMs/NARC/TAG in almost every match that my friends and I started dropping with minimum one ECM unit and sometimes two to at least guarantee we couldn't NARC'd and evaporated from the field.

A "couple" of LRM boats is something you can work around without ECM, but when you have massed LRMs on teams and multiple spotters encourage to bring NARC/TAG the threshold gets crossed where you really want some ECM if you are not in 8+ or full 12 mans.




I think if ECM didn't exist, or if it were so heavy as to be a major build commitment - I think we would see much more LRM flooding in a variety of scenarios.



On the flip side, when I'm the one with the LRMs, I don't really ever groan about ECM.

Countering it isn't that big of a deal, and I always bring back up weapons for situations where LRMs aren't ideal (Terra Therma comes to mind).

[DocBach]

Ahja, on 11 September 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

ECM was a big mistake from the start. It had changed the entire game experience and seemingly was only implemented to quick fix a badly thought out targeting system. Its why we dont have command consoles as we are all ready C3-ed. You are not going to see any change on this as now it would through the entire game into chaos to remove it. ECM in the BT/MW game was not as overwhelming a game changer as this ECM PGI made up.

NO, we don't have C3.

C3 in the board game is a complete sharing of sensors, and lets a unit connected by C3 get the same targeting bonuses for range based on the proximity of a spotter, allowing 'Mechs in a network at long ranges to shoot as if they were in short range.

Probably the best idea to implement C3 in MWO would be to take a page from the Clan Targeting Computers and have bonuses scaled to how close C3 'Mechs are to an enemy; the closer the spotter, the faster projectile speed to make fire against it from long range more accurate.

[Russ Bullock]

Okay how about this, this is what many of you have been waiting for:

Well first a question: Do you think you the community can come to an agreed upon consensus? One in which if the changes are implemented everyone says great job PGI on listening to us now we feel great about ECM and your ability to listen to feedback?

If the answer is Yes then I suggest the following:

You the community decide how your going to present a proposal, nominate a peer that you feel has the best handle on this, put together your own player council whatever you like but present a proposal that your peers vote on. The vote would likely need to be far greater than just 51% in favor. Perhaps something more like 80+%

At that point PGI will analyze the proposal, if we see any technical problems or balance problems that we feel perhaps you didnt see, we will point those items out to you. Then if necessary you can adjust your proposal and put it to a vote again, if successful PGI will again analyze and repeat if necessary until we have a final design solution for implementation.

PGI will then communicate how long it will take to implement with full explanation as to why, and we will patch the changes in upon the agreed upon delivery date. Once complete if this whole process has gone smoothly and civily we will proceed with doing things like this far more frequently or at least for other areas of the product that are controversial.

What do you say?