632 replies to this topic

[jozkhan]

I really want to believe but...

It's a shame that once again this effort of making peace from Russ comes on the eve of another grab deal: Clan Pack II.

80%+ is too high by far and open to manipulation.

Also I agree about voting mechanism needs to be beyond PGI comms on an outside loop.

Edited by jozkhan, 12 September 2014 - 12:52 PM.

[IceSerpent]

GaussDragon, on 12 September 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

You have no idea how much you have just re-energized my faith in you guys. I wish I didn't have plans tonight because I don't want to waste any time putting this into action.

Seriously, thank you.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Thanks Russ!

[Wolfways]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

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?

If i was a cynic, which i am, i would say that you made this post knowing that there's no way a majority of players will be able to agree on how ECM should work (like a majority of players can agree on anything...), giving you the ability to say you at least offered a solution.

Having said that, this is probably the only opportunity many may feel we (the players) will be heard so i might as well offer my opinion.
I do have a question though. Why wasn't GECM implemented similar to how it works in TT?

Seeing as LRM's are directly affected by ECM and this is my main problem with the system I'll just copy-paste something I've said for a long time.

GuardianECM, TAG and Artemis.
Imo GECM in its current form is bad, not only for LRM's but also for the future of information warfare, but i'll stick to my reasons on why it should be changed to how it interacts with LRM's.
GECM is supposed to stop the enemy from gathering information about the mech carrying GECM and allies within 180m, not to stop missiles from locking on. This "feature" needs to be removed.
In PUGs you can't count on teammates to use TAG/NARC and forcing an LRM mech like the Catapult to give up one of its few energy slots which it needs for defense is ridiculous. Not only that but it further reduces the LRM's range to 750m.
The Catapult-A1 can't even equip a TAG!
TAG and Artemis should be options to increase the effectiveness of LRM's, not a requirement in case enemy mechs have a piece of equipment that renders your weapons completely useless.
Imo saying a player using LRM's should have to take TAG and Artemis is like telling a player that uses lasers or AC's that they should only use ERlasers or UltraAC's. Using any T2 equipment should be an option, not a requirement, and not using them should not render that weapon system useless.
GECM was meant as a counter to the advanced technology, not to the actual weapons themselves.

Now onto the weapon itself.

Indirect-fire.
A tricky subject. I can see how it can be seen as overpowered when every mech with LRM's equipped opens fire on the closest enemy mech to be spotted.
I would say that maybe the enemy should only be able to be indirect-fired on if they have a TAG, NARC, or UAV on them, which would also help create a synergy between LRM's and light/medium pilots who wanted to play the role of spotters.
Maybe the missiles could have a bigger spread too.

Direct-fire.
Because the LRM mech has to first acquire a lock and then guide the missiles during the whole flight time this makes the firing mech virtually defenseless as it can't torso twist to spread incoming damage from the enemy, or if targeted by another enemy can't return fire without losing the lock on the current target and wasting its ammo.
Make LRM's fire and forget. The firer has to still get the lock first but after that the missiles will track the target by themselves. Also, because the firer has no influence on the missiles after they leave the launcher then people could not drop and reacquire lock to bypass terrain.

One of the main problems with LRM's is that it is a long ranged weapon that cannot be used at long range. The amount of cover available on the maps; the slow missile speed; and the fact that the target gets a warning that missiles have been fired means that it is almost impossible to hit someone that isn't very far from cover (which my opponents generally aren't) at anything over about 600m range....with a 1000m range weapon! Also, you need to be able to lock onto a target at the weapons maximum range or that range is pointless.
Imo the LRM lockon mechanism needs to be separate from the mechs sensors. You hold the reticule on the target for 3 seconds and lock is achieved. Because you need to keep the reticule on the target this means that minimum range could also be removed for clan LRM's as keeping the reticule on a target at short range will be harder the faster the enemy mech moves.
LRM's also need a range increase to about 1500m, especially as you need to stay facing the target opening your cockpit and center torso to return fire. And they are after all supposed to have about the same range as an ERPPC.
While i do see the validity in a missile warning system, i think that with the way LRM long range effectiveness has been diminished due to map design the warning should be removed. At least then the target would know he has been targeted when the first salvo hits, just like other weapons, and the LRM user would at least get in one hit before the target runs into cover.
If the warning is not removed then LRM's need a speed increase to at least 300m/s.

LRM cooldown should also be increased by around 30% or more and damage increased by the same amount. This will reduce the amount of missile "spam" and the damage increase (but the same dps) would make LRM's more viable for direct-fire.

Also, ammo/ton needs to be increased (for all ammo-based weapons). Battletech mechs, weapons, etc. were designed for a game where battles simulated a few minutes of combat at most, not for a 10-15 minute match and weapons need a lot more ammo.
A stock JM6-S carries 3 tons of ammo. My "stock-weapon" JM6-S needs 9 tons of ammo to last nearly a full match, so imo ammo/ton should be triple the original number, and that's before taking into account double armour.
A stock CPLT-C1 carries 2 tons of LRM ammo. Try playing MWO with that.

[Clit Beastwood]

A o D, on 12 September 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

Also, ammo/ton needs to be increased (for all ammo-based weapons). Battletech mechs, weapons, etc. were designed for a game where battles simulated a few minutes of combat at most, not for a 10-15 minute match and weapons need a lot more ammo.
A stock JM6-S carries 3 tons of ammo. My "stock-weapon" JM6-S needs 9 tons of ammo to last nearly a full match, so imo ammo/ton should be triple the original number, and that's before taking into account double armour.
A stock CPLT-C1 carries 2 tons of LRM ammo. Try playing MWO with that.

Adjust your build? The game's already NEED MORE GUNS centric - making people invest *less* tonnage in "non-guns" would only exacerbate that. Make shots count vs. spray and pray and the ammo levels aren't that bad.

Edited by Fierostetz, 12 September 2014 - 12:58 PM.

[Bilbo]

Fierostetz, on 12 September 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

the mechs that carry ecm (raven3l, spider5d, commando2d) need more weapons or lifted engine caps. The SDR-5d is only viable because of ecm.

You left one out. You sure you want to give the D-DC more weapons, or do you want ECM removed from the mech entirely?

[DocBach]

On Beagle:

Right now the interaction between ECM and Beagle Active Probe have very little to do with gaining or witholding information, they are just linear counters and taxes of each other to employ guided missiles.

We have recently received seismic sensors, which do in fact provide information, but we still lack that capability in Beagle Active Probe, which is suppose to serve as an active, probing sensor.

Suggestion:

Give the Beagle Active Probe similar capability to the seismic sensor; within a 120 meter bubble around the probe the Beagle should be able to detect enemy 'Mechs regardless of line of sight. The difference between seismic and Beagle could be that Beagle can actually allow the sensor targets that the Beagle detects to be targeted. This allows a Beagle Active Probe scout to actually relay hard intel to their team mates.

Further, the Beagle Active Probe also has a probing ability in the expanded Double Blind rules of Battletech in which it can view an opposing 'Mechs record sheet and see all of its information. This could be simulated in MWO by allowing a 'Mech equipped with Beagle Active Probe to scan enemy targets within its 120m radius and see a more detailed readout, that could show the location of items, what equipment it has such as an XL engine, heat level, ect. ECM would shroud a 'Mech from Beagle's ability to gain this information.

The caveat is though Beagle can nullify ECM's denial of missile locks, ECM and its bubble protects their users from being detected by Beagle's increased sensor ability.

Many of the modules such as the consumables have a high-end version and a low-end equivalent available, but the information warfare pieces do not. By giving some abilities to Beagle Active Probe, Seismic would still have a place as it has longer detection range, and is not blocked by ECM. Beagle itself would have its own shortcomings with reduced range, the ability to be blocked by ECM, by having a critical slot and weight requirement, and the ability to be destroyed.

Making the suggested change to Beagle would give players the ability to participate in information warfare by having equipment available that isn't prohibited by massive GXP costs, and increase the ability to provide the role for actual gathering and sharing of information (much like ECM shares protection) which the advertised Information Warfare pillar is sorely lacking.

On C3:

We don't have C3 at all. Not free C3, no C3. C3 shares all sensor information between networked units and enhances accuracy for units in a network based on the spotters proximity to the target. Currently, we can only share targets we have actively selected - with C3, units on a network would be able to scan through any sensor contact the spotter could target even if they didn't have it selected.

From the TechManual:

"BattleMechs are also not islands unto themselves. They can
share sensor data to some extent, allowing greater sensory
performance than a single ’Mech can achieve. The specialized
equipment of a C3 system takes this to new heights with direct
battlefield applications, but all BattleMechs can at least
receive basic sensory data from a unit mate."

Right now, Clan targeting computers provide bonuses to targeting for a single user scaled by tonnage. As Clan warriors in lore are generally honor seeking for themselves and less "team players," the counter Inner Sphere system should be the opposite, team centered. C3 in the board game increases accuracy of members of a network at long range based on the proximity of a C3 spotter; 'Mech in a C3 network in MWO could enjoy similar, scaled bonuses like a Clan targeting computer based on the proximity of a C3 spotter -- the closer the spotter is to enemies, the faster C3 networked 'Mechs can gain locks for LRM's and the quicker ballistic/PPC projectiles move, and longer range for lasers similar to Clan targeting computers.

On ECM:

ECM right now is still so overpowered almost every other Information Warfare tool in the game works to defeat it rather than serve a unique purpose. We were promised a deep Information Warfare pillar where we'd have several different pieces of equipment that all provided an edge over our opponents and the other equipment, working against each other. What we got was ECM, ECM, and ECM, partially because of the fact that it was implemented with way more features then it ever had in any iteration of Battletech or MechWarrior, partially because implementation of other pieces of Information Warfare is so lackluster; ECM needs to be toned down and other components like Beagle and Narc need to be toned up.

The main problem with ECM is not entirely its function, its the fact that it functions without any sacrifice or real input on the player's behalf.

Taking a page from lore (expanded rules in Tactical Operations), ECM should gain a third mode called "Ghost" mode - this will serve as ECM's anti-radar mode.

Running in Disrupt Mode, ECM would lose most of the sensor immunity it currently has and serve to block more advanced electronics such as Artemis and NARC (which would no longer counter ECM). It would also block the function of the previously mentioned C3 and proposed Beagle changes, meaning that units protected by ECM would not be visible to Beagle's ability to detect 'Mechs from behind cover. 'Mechs protected by ECM in Disrupt mode would still be able to be targeted by the enemy; however, they would not be identified by anything other than an alpha numeric targeting designation (A, B, C, etc), and the damage readout would not be shown.

References:

(Technical Readout: 3050 Revised, pg 196)
"The Guardian emits a broad-band signal that interferes with all sonar, radar, UV, IR, and magscan sensors, thus protecting all units in a radius of up to 180 meters by projecting a "cloak" to its enemies. Enemy long-range sensors can find vehicles and 'Mechs within the curtain, but the Guardian obscures the reading and prevents identification. By the time the enemy enters visual range, sensors can sometimes override the jamming, but by this time most pilots rely on their own eyes to track the opposition."


(Maximum Tech, pg 54) "Though ECM systems can prevent a sensor probe from identifying a unit, they produce powerful distinctive electronic signatures."

(Technical Readout 3050: Revised, pg 196) "Enemy long-range sensors can find vehicles and 'Mechs within the curtain, but the Guardian obscures the reading and prevents identification."

So sensors know something is out there and can target it and even lock on to it, it just can't identify it or provide target information like the paper doll.

(Total Warfare, pg 134): "The ECM does not affect other scanning or targeting devices such as TAG and targeting computers"

(Total Warfare, pg 134): "ECM blocks the effects of Artemis IV fire control systems. Artemis-equipped launchers may still be fired as normal missiles through ECM." and "Missiles equipped to home in on an attached Narc pod lose the Cluster Hits Table bonus for that system if the pods themselves lie within the bubble. The Narc launcher itself is not affected by ECM."

'Mechs protected by ECM in disrupt mode do not have any effect on missile lock on speed; Missiles will lock on targets the same speed as unprotected ECM 'Mechs as Disrupt mode does not have an effect against standard missiles.

In disrupt mode ECM should have the following abilities:
-Disrupt Beagle's ability to detect shut down 'Mechs (Total Warfare, pg 134)
"Active probes cannot penetrate the ECM's area of effect. The probing unit would notice it is being jammed, however"


-Negate the tight groupings of Artemis-enhanced missiles (Total Warfare, pg 134)
"ECM blocks the effects of Artemis IV fire control systems. Artemis-equipped launchers may be fired as normal missiles through the ECM, but they lose the Cluster Hits Table Bonus"


-Negate the tight groupings of Narc-enhanced missiles, as well as prevent indirect fire on a Narc'd 'Mech without LOS (more on this later)
(Total Warfare, pg 134): "Missiles equipped to home in on an attached Narc pod lose the Cluster Hits Table bonus for that system if the pods themselves lie within the bubble. The Narc launcher itself is not affected by ECM."

-Prevent spotters in the ECM bubble, or on the other side of, with line of sight passing through a bubble from transmitting target data to team mates outside the bubble
(Total Warfare, Pg 134) "ECM has the effect of cutting off any C3 equipped unit from its network."

This is dependent on the addition of C3 to Information Warfare with the ideas presented previously in this post.

Ghost mode:

Ghost mode would be a new function of Guardian ECM; Tactical Operations gives a +1 penalty to fire against 'Mechs protected by Ghost mode, this will also serve as a standard sensor negating mode.

When running in Ghost mode, ECM loses the ability to counter Beagle, Artemis, Narc and C3 spotting. 'Mechs protected by Ghost mode can only be targeted at reduced sensor ranges (600m instead of 1000m), so use of movement under cover is required to remain undetected by sensors fully. 'Mechs trying to get a lock on against 'Mechs in Ghost mode suffer the current longer lock on penalty. Enemy 'mechs inside the 180 meter active radius of an enemy 'Mech in Ghost mode also suffer from static on their minimap, which intensifies the closer the unit is to the enemy in Ghost Mode.

This would be an anti-missile system, but not a hard counter like it currently serves. The anti-radar component would nullify sensors, but not completely defeat them, and its effect on the mini-map radar would not affect units outside of its 180 meter operating bubble.

Counter:

Counter mode would remain unchanged, but would counter ECM regardless if it is running in Disrupt or Ghost mode.

(Tactical Operations, pg 99): "An ECM suite can be tuned to act as electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) in order to negate enemy ECM systems."

Edited by DocBach, 12 September 2014 - 01:32 PM.

[BlakeAteIt]

GaussDragon, on 12 September 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Trying to get that started already http://www.reddit.co...s_olive_branch/

Cool! I hope that many units and communities are doing the same. To keep everyone on he same page, let's try to use these forums as much as possible, so that all players can watch the conversation unfold, and participate.

Off-site communities could be good for refining ideas that are not ready for public display yet, but it might be wise to try to try and keep the lines of communication open here as well.

[Wolfways]

Fierostetz, on 12 September 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

Adjust your build? The game's already NEED MORE GUNS centric - making people invest *less* tonnage in "non-guns" would only exacerbate that. Make shots count vs. spray and pray and the ammo levels aren't that bad.

You missed the "stock" parts in my post

[General Discussion Kerensky]

I am cautiously--very cautiously--optimistic. I am optimistic enough to change my sig to show you the kind of money I'm willing to spend if this is an honest effort and if the game becomes fun again.

However, I fear this is an excuse that will be held up and pointed at while someone says: "Sorry, you couldn't reach 80% of [undefined metric for judgement], it's clear the players don't know what they want." PGI has a long way to go to re-earn my trust, and while I really want to believe this offer is genuine and a positive step forward for the game and its community, it will take effort from PGI to maintain. Just like Mechwarrior Online will take effort to maintain.

So, instead of digging right in to the trickiest piece of equipment in the game, why not start the community off with a softball by asking your players whether or not we want to keep Ghost Heat as a balancing tool?



Edit: Oh, and start listening to your Secret Squirrels. Don't fire them just because they tell you they find something unfun. If your testers aren't allowed to test, they're useless both to you and to the community.

Edited by Kiyoshi Mizumura, 12 September 2014 - 01:05 PM.

[Rasc4l]

Here's a thread about Information warfare in general:

http://mwomercs.com/...pillars-of-mwo/

If that were done, ECM wouldn't be so OP as it is today but could still be modified further if need be.

[TrentTheWanderer]

Seriously though, all snark and incredulity aside, after several years of bait-and-switch style customer abuses, broken promises, broken deadlines, and all manners of poor faith, why should any member of the community believe that you would honestly intend to do a course correction and engage in a healthy community/developer relationship now?

And if you DO honestly intend to build and honor a constructive relationship with the community after maintaining an iron curtain for so long, what possible combination of conditions could have developed that have lead to this change of heart? If the problems that have lead to you considering engaging with us now are resolved, will you revert to the past status quo of blind obstinance and derisive scorn that has built PGI its current reputation?

I, for one, would love to see a carefully crafted MechWarrior title this decade, and it's entirely possible that with community intervention and a mutual respect between developers and community members it can be accomplished. To this date, I haven't seen any indication that PGI as it currently exists can be the developer to accomplish that goal.

I've bought in on the idea of MechWarrior Online that was pitched in the Founder's campaign, and even again to the excitement that came with the Phoenix program. Here we are, many years later, still waiting for parts of the product that were promised time and time again- despite not even having entered the most preliminary development phase. If you are willing to take our money in exchange for hot air and hopes and dreams, why should we now believe that you are above pitching this idea purely for the purpose of taking our time for the same?

The most difficult to swallow part of this for me is that the community has been trying to drive this kind of a relationship the whole way. In the closed beta I used to talk to Paul on a regular basis about how group dynamics were affecting gameplay, and joking about builds like the 5-Flamer 4H. After those doors were shut we still contributed on the forums, and the community was constantly in an active state of brainstorming. After so many missed deadlines and broken promises, some of us were finally getting ready to sound the alarm, and we didn't start doing so by slinging accusations and ad-hominems, but by asking temperate and even-handed questions- often enough answered with thinly veiled insults and disdain.

Eventually these kinds of inquiries led to the large community activism projects (like #saveMWO) which inspired even more vitriol from the development team and community alike. Some of those players and customers who felt the most empowered to try to contribute productively to the developer/community effort have since been unilaterally banned, often without explanation or warning. After what i'm certain is literally thousands of man-hours of community organizing and management to attempt to inspire some level of cooperation between the customer and merchant here, what tangible indicator do we have that anyone at PGI is willing to take any sort of productive effort at face value in a way that could result in a positive outcome?

Obviously i'm a skeptic, but i'm not a bitter skeptic. Answers to these questions could convince me that PGI wants to make the game they've sold us, even if I may have lingering doubts regarding their ability to do so. I'd be glad to see something productive come out of this, and Russ, I really do hope that you are sincere. If so it could mean good things for the state of the product and the health of the Battletech/MechWarrior community in general.

Edited for usage and mechanics.

Edited by TrentTheWanderer, 12 September 2014 - 01:10 PM.

[Prezimonto]

Khobai, on 12 September 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

As far as ECM goes I would like to see the following changes:

1) ECM no longer gives stealth to friendly mechs and only stealths the mech its equipped on (ECM would still increase missile lock-on time for nearby friendly mechs though).
2) LRM balance pass: mostly with regard to indirect LRMs being too accurate and LRM screenshake being too high.
3) Passive sensor mode added to the game so mechs without ecm still have a way to gain stealth (but with the disadvantage of not being able to target enemy mechs or share sensor information with allies).
4) Possible addition of other stealth equipment like NSS and stealth armor.
5) Balance pass on all the counters to ECM (if ECM is significantly weakened it no longer needs 6 different counters)




Yeah weve discussed this before in another thread. If I recall what I suggested was along these lines:

1) All IS mechs would get C3 slave computers for free.
2) IS mechs could optionally equip a C3 master computer (5 tons and 5 crits)
-C3 master computers would give all IS mechs in the same lance the equivalent of a level 2 clan targeting computer.
-C3 master computers would also come with an integrated TAG
-C3 networks could be jammed by ECM (likewise if the master computer is destroyed the bonuses are lost)
-Command Console would also buff nearby IS mechs.

Essentially clan mechs would be more powerful individually while IS mechs would be more powerful collectively and have to rely more on teamwork.

I can 100% get behind this idea set. Nothing in here is bad.

[buttmonkey]

Guys stop spamming this thread with ideas/solutions. Russ already made it clear he will not listen unless we get a council together first and nominate a rep. lets focus on thhat...

[Clit Beastwood]

Bilbo, on 12 September 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

You left one out. You sure you want to give the D-DC more weapons, or do you want ECM removed from the mech entirely?

If you add weapons to the DDC I don't see how you'd do it without mitigating the existence of one of the other atlases (atlai? did we ever get confirmation on the appropriate pluralization?)

Wolfways, on 12 September 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

You missed the "stock" parts in my post

Yeah, I saw it, and then said "adjust the build" - the stock builds are almost all horrible [for the game we play]. Thats why we can customize them. If you choose to leave a mech stock, then you deal with the result. You made a conscious decision, knowing the results.

Edited by Fierostetz, 12 September 2014 - 01:13 PM.

[General Discussion Kerensky]

Fierostetz, on 12 September 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

If you add weapons to the DDC I don't see how you'd do it without mitigating the existence of one of the other atlases (atlai? did we ever get confirmation on the appropriate pluralization?)

Atlas is a proper noun. The plural of Atlas is Atlases.

Edited by Kiyoshi Mizumura, 12 September 2014 - 01:13 PM.

[Bilbo]

Prezimonto, on 12 September 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

I can 100% get behind this idea set. Nothing in here is bad.

Which IS mech do you suppose can afford the weight and crits for that C3 master? How many people do you believe would be willing to give up the speed/firepower/heatsinks to equip it?

[Gas Guzzler]

I think you guys need to think of a standard list of attributes for ECM/TAG/ IW in general and have everyone list out how they think each will function.

Then put these values into some organizing document to look at it and compare and contrast and try to work out what final functions we want out of ECM/TAG/BAP/C3/etc...

Having everyone put their opinion in a huge block of text is going to muddy up the process a lot and make it take a lot longer than it needs to.

[Dark Jackal]

Livewyr, on 10 September 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

ECM sensor block range: Infinite.

Ah yes, the Cloak of Wretchedness and Despair! Good luck taking a LRM boat unaugmented. LOS is basically dumb fire and hope the guy at the other end doesn't move!

[Prezimonto]

Heffay, on 12 September 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

Not sure if it's been brought up before, but if you're going to do a poll I recommend getting a polling tool included in the game client. Maybe query a percentage of people who log in that are out of the recruit stage, with a link back to the forums where a Comnet thread is posted for the discussion so people can review.

That way you get a view of the player base, not the forum base. It's a significant distinction.

Don't forget the "don't give a F" option.

This is another good idea. Star Conflict does this and provides a small in game cash bonus for participating in the vote. If the community can put together an actual idea set, putting the vote to the community THROUGH the client would be a much better way to get a broader idea of opinion. It's validity would then hinge on how well the average player understands the underlying mechanics of the game.

[Clit Beastwood]

Kiyoshi Mizumura, on 12 September 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

Atlas is a proper noun. The plural of Atlas is Atlases.

This was tongue-in-cheek - I remember an NGNG discussion about it on-stream, but I don't remember the outcome