Jump to content

Ecm Dialogue: Part 1. Identifying/solidifying The Problem(S).


221 replies to this topic

#1 Livewyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,733 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:31 PM

Ok, if you are looking at this, you have likely looked at the ECM dialogue thread.

I want to tackle this in 3 parts:

1: Identifying the problems with the subject at hand, according to the community. (Most important set of people regarding ingame content.)

2: Proposing and refining agreeable changes in the interactions of Electronics, and the weapons heavily associated.

3: Putting it up to vote. (This is obvious, but it is going to be heavily dependent on the community to get out word about the topic. We want to please the most possible, and we want the most support we can get in enacting this change.)

Please, respectful posts only. (Hard to be constructive when just identifying problems, but you can still have a constructive air to your posts. Accusations do not fall in this category.)

------------------------------
Onto Part one: (I will edit the thread as appropriate as people put things forth and hash them out.)

Identifying the problems:
I think there are 6 main issues with the information warfare all tied to ECM and eachother.

1: ECM
Provides infinite stealth outside 200 meters.
-This is disruptive to missile which require locks to fire, or fire accurately. (SSRMs/LRMs)
-Gives initiative to the ECM bearing mech in most engagements. (They are not mechanically sensed at all outside 200 meters.)
Active Counters put onus on the countering.
-TAG must stare at target.
-PPC must repeatedly hit it. (multiple ECMs counter the counter.)
-Narc must attach itself to it. (multiple ECMs counter the counter.)
Passive Counters must be close range.
-ECCM must be 180 or so.
-BAP/CAP must be 150m.

2: LRMs
Unlimited Indirect fire with any form of spotting. (Aside from ECM)
-This promotes boating because
--you are allowed to fire from cover with reckless abandon.
-This makes them exceptionally strong at area denial, to the point of making the game campy and stale.
Slow travel speed.
-This makes a direct engagement with direct fire weapons (Energy/Ballistics) virtually impossible. (Especially with Radar Deprivation module) [LRMs] move so much slower than everything else that you can launch them at the opponent, but he can take aim, shoot you with everything he has, and move behind cover before the missiles get there.
Missile Flight path.
-Indirect fire arc is okay. (IMO)
-Direct fire arc is too high. This makes "dumbfire" nearly impossible on a moving target outside 200 meters. (Cannot lead them or the reticle sets the target well behind your opponent and your missiles fly over them even if you timed it correctly.)
Missile Spread: With Artemis, entire salvos can end up in 2-3 torsos... and with 20-60 missiles, that is devastating.

3: BAP/CAP:
Redundant with Sensor range and Target Info Gathering modules.
-They stack, but aside from the shut-down mech detection and ECCM effect, it is lacking for information gathering equipment in Information warfare.

4: TAG:
Targeting assistance is good, but the interaction with ECM causes it to be required to use LRMs.

5: Narc:
Feast or famine.
-With ECM present (currently) it is useless unless it hits the ECM mech itself.
-Without ECM present, it can be a death sentence. (Lasts far too long)

6: Streaks:
Currently ECM shuts down locking.
-With streaks requiring locks to shoot, this makes (current) BAP a requirement to use them reliably.

----------------------------------------

Anything to add or contest?

(remember, this is just problem identification)

Please keep posts respectful, on topic, and purposeful. We are aiming to change it working with PGI.

Edited by Livewyr, 12 September 2014 - 12:39 PM.


#2 IceSerpent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:50 PM

I would add that hard counters in general constitute a bad design and should be avoided if at all possible. The reason why it's a bad design is that it doesn't play well with a random matchmaking - there's no guarantee that a random team will have all necessasy conters and counter-counters that it needs in a given match.

#3 Malleus011

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:57 PM

I might humbly suggest adding to 5. Narc:

-No in-game warning device or indicator.

#4 Tastian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 768 posts
  • LocationLayton, UT USA

Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:01 PM

Identifying the problem (part 1) is a very good idea. Fixing the problems associated with ECM requires fixing other systems as well: Narc, BAP, TAG, C3, and shared target acquisition. I would like to start at the ground level:

Shared target acquisition.

I have no problem with shared spotting. In fact, being able to "see" mechs your team mechs see seems pretty basic. This is especially true in light of the fact that we don't have basic VOIP and basic group pre-setup in the solo queue. And this is also true in the group queue where the groups can't talk to each other or preplan their drops. So, shared information is fine. This is information your group should be able to quickly just tell you.

However.

Shared locks for missile targeting should not be allowed. That's what TAG, Narc, UAV, and C3 is for.



So, can we agree that before we even look at ECM, we have to figure out how targeting and information is shared?

Edited by Tastian, 12 September 2014 - 01:02 PM.


#5 Livewyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,733 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:11 PM

View PostTastian, on 12 September 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Identifying the problem (part 1) is a very good idea. Fixing the problems associated with ECM requires fixing other systems as well: Narc, BAP, TAG, C3, and shared target acquisition. I would like to start at the ground level:

Shared target acquisition.

I have no problem with shared spotting. In fact, being able to "see" mechs your team mechs see seems pretty basic. This is especially true in light of the fact that we don't have basic VOIP and basic group pre-setup in the solo queue. And this is also true in the group queue where the groups can't talk to each other or preplan their drops. So, shared information is fine. This is information your group should be able to quickly just tell you.

However.

Shared locks for missile targeting should not be allowed. That's what TAG, Narc, UAV, and C3 is for.



So, can we agree that before we even look at ECM, we have to figure out how targeting and information is shared?


Indeed.

I think I addressed this at least partly (LRMS), but if you would like to state it more concisely for addition, I have little trouble adding it, or at the very least, discussing it.

#6 IceSerpent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:50 PM

View PostLivewyr, on 12 September 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:


Indeed.

I think I addressed this at least partly (LRMS), but if you would like to state it more concisely for addition, I have little trouble adding it, or at the very least, discussing it.


Agreed. How about this general idea (crossing into "solutions" territory):

LRMS:

- can only be fired indirectly at targets affected by TAG or NARC and not covered by ECM
- will definitely need to have speed increased as they turn into mostly a direct fire weapon
- will possibly need to have damage and missile spread adjusted in order to re-balance them
- direct fire lock is not prevented by ECM, just lock time increased (see below)

SSRMS:

- are turned into dumb-fire weapon (same spread as regular SRMs) when affected by ECM

ECM:

- decreases detection range, but not as drastically as it does now. Let's say, by 250m
- still provides "bubble" for nearby teammates, as it does now
- nullifies effects of TAG
- nullifies effects of NARC
- nullifies effects of Artemis
- still counters enemy ECM when in counter mode, as it does now
- does not prevent LRM locks
- turns SSRMs into dumb-fire missiles, same spread as SRMs
- increases LRM lock-on time by a certain amount, let's say by 25%

BAP:

- increases detection range by the same amount as decreased by ECM (i.e. 250m)
- decreases LRM lock-on time by the same amount as increased by ECM (i.e. 25%)

TAG:

- allows LRMs to be fired indirectly at painted target
- is nullified by ECM

NARC:

- allows LRMs to be fired indirectly at target it is attached to
- is nullified by ECM
- needs to have its duration decreased

PPC:

- doesn't affect any electronics

Edit: forgot about Artemis FCS

Edited by IceSerpent, 12 September 2014 - 01:59 PM.


#7 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:57 PM

Some of the ideas I've been throwing around for the last two years; I had a lot more but unfortunately I can't find a lot of them in the archives so this is somewhat abridged (believe it or not):

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.


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.

ECM is pretty much the entire Information Pillar - just about every other IW piece revolves around shutting it off.

ECM is in general a more effective anti-missile system than AMS; it prevents locks against totally radar obscured opponents, it slows locks greatly for targetable ECM protected opponents, and cannot get locks at all if an ECM 'Mech is near it.

ECM is terribly effective against pug players who do not have quick or efficient communications like VOIP or Comm Roses. The "red dorito" is generally the only way players can quickly relate contact to friendly units -- ECM blocks this, thus ECM is devastating against players who cannot coordinate information regarding units shrouded by it effectively -- locations, numbers, conditions, or actions of the enemy are all nearly impossible to convey while under effective fire by typing.

The sensor stealth that ECM provides to an entire unit under its protective bubble is provided in lore by Stealth Armor, which has several penalties and only shields the 'Mech equipped with it from detection; it takes up critical locations throughout the 'Mech, and generates heat while in use.

Many of the counters require skill to counter it (PPC's, NARC), others require re-occurring C-bill or MC costs (UAV) to counter it -- ECM requires no skill to use, ECM only requires a user to purchase it an install it for its effect.

Edited by DocBach, 12 September 2014 - 02:26 PM.


#8 Foust

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 394 posts
  • LocationKentucky

Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:57 PM

I would like to promote the ideas layed out by DocBach HERE

DocBach has nicely defined current state issues as well as future state solutions.

EDIT: Missed it by that much

Edited by Foust, 12 September 2014 - 01:58 PM.


#9 Livewyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,733 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 12 September 2014 - 02:01 PM

Please keep in mind, that suggestions come with part 2:

I just want to identify problems for now, so when suggestions come, they take all of the problems into account.

#10 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 12 September 2014 - 02:08 PM

Editing my post wait one

#11 terrycloth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 769 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 02:13 PM

I don't think indirect-fire LRMs are a problem. I think it's the point of the weapon and a unique way to handle it compared to every other weapon. Anything that makes LRMs work more like everything else is a bad change.

I think the problems are
(1) There's no indication of whether the indirect target is under cover or not. You should be able to tell this before firing.
(2) Losing lock after the missiles launch stops them from tracking, which implies that the missiles are being continuously guided by the firing mech, but
(2a) Locking on to a new target doesn't re-target your missiles already in flight, which sort of contradicts the conclusions drawn from (2).

So, basically... I'd say have direct-fire missiles work like Streaks -- with LOS the missiles' own sensors should be able to home in.

Indirect-fire missiles should fly towards whatever you currently have targeted, even if it wasn't their original target. This makes sporadic tagging more usable.

#12 Mercules

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 5,136 posts
  • LocationPlymouth, MN

Posted 12 September 2014 - 02:21 PM

Half of the issue with ECM is that LRMs do not work correctly according to TT. By extension of that ECM then becomes a hard counter to LRMs instead of a useful tool.


ECM by Double blind rules should limit mech sensors when the mech overlapping with the ECM field. Instead of "I can't get a lock." It should almost be a flicking lock where you can't HOLD a lock but you can still have it flicker a bit. ECM wouldn't then be invisibility against lock on like it is but more what the TT Double Blind rules imply. The mech carrying ECM could still be "immune"

It should increase lock times even for TAGged mechs. LRMs indirectly fired should spread a great deal. So a close formation under indirect fire might actually have 2 members standing near each other hit by a few missiles each from an LRM 20 launch.

Indirect/Direct for LRMs should be a toggle. Direct has a more shallow slope and faster missile travel time.

Otherwise I like a lot of DocBach's ideas and I think we can say that there are two main issue with ECM.


1. It makes mechs totally invisible to sensors. Partially/intermittently invisible would keep with the flavor and be more balanced.

2. LRMs are not correct which simply adds utility to ECM it shouldn't have.

#13 Sprouticus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,781 posts
  • LocationChicago, Il, USA

Posted 12 September 2014 - 02:23 PM

View Postterrycloth, on 12 September 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

I don't think indirect-fire LRMs are a problem. I think it's the point of the weapon and a unique way to handle it compared to every other weapon. Anything that makes LRMs work more like everything else is a bad change.

I think the problems are
(1) There's no indication of whether the indirect target is under cover or not. You should be able to tell this before firing.
(2) Losing lock after the missiles launch stops them from tracking, which implies that the missiles are being continuously guided by the firing mech, but
(2a) Locking on to a new target doesn't re-target your missiles already in flight, which sort of contradicts the conclusions drawn from (2).

So, basically... I'd say have direct-fire missiles work like Streaks -- with LOS the missiles' own sensors should be able to home in.

Indirect-fire missiles should fly towards whatever you currently have targeted, even if it wasn't their original target. This makes sporadic tagging more usable.



#1 would be impossible to track with reliability.
#2 is a problem of sorts. Certainly it could be used as part of the solution.
#2a is iffy. If you fix #2, #2a is a non issue.



My suggestions:

Tastian is correct, a rework of the ability to acquire targets is a good step. It also give PGI a reason to use C3. If you have a C3 slave, your targets could be used a IDF locks, that kind of thing.

My suggestions as to problems with the sensor system


1) There is no soft counter to it (passive mode with reduced range for example)
2) ECM is a hard counter to it (hard counters are bad)
3) ECM impacts multiple allies

#14 Livewyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,733 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 12 September 2014 - 02:27 PM

View Postterrycloth, on 12 September 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

I don't think indirect-fire LRMs are a problem. I think it's the point of the weapon and a unique way to handle it compared to every other weapon. Anything that makes LRMs work more like everything else is a bad change.

I think the problems are
(1) There's no indication of whether the indirect target is under cover or not. You should be able to tell this before firing.
(2) Losing lock after the missiles launch stops them from tracking, which implies that the missiles are being continuously guided by the firing mech, but
(2a) Locking on to a new target doesn't re-target your missiles already in flight, which sort of contradicts the conclusions drawn from (2).

So, basically... I'd say have direct-fire missiles work like Streaks -- with LOS the missiles' own sensors should be able to home in.

Indirect-fire missiles should fly towards whatever you currently have targeted, even if it wasn't their original target. This makes sporadic tagging more usable.


It is difficult to discuss this without going into solutions, but:
The problem with their current IDF ability, is that it is way too easy.

Bringing 60+ tubes on a mech is little issue because you can sit back and fire with abandon, do not have to defend yourself as much when you are sitting behind a hill taking advantage of inherent spotting just while your team is fighting.
It promotes excessive camping and boating. (Along with the slow missile speed.)

#15 AssaultPig

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 907 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 02:29 PM

ECM provides utility far out of proportion to its size/weight, to the extent that it's essentially mandatory on any mech that can fit it. Its utility needs to be reduced until it is more in line with equipment of similar weight/size.

Changes I propose:

1) ECM should not affect lock on times. If I (or a teammate) can target a mech, I should be able to lock onto it.

2) ECM should not 'stack.' If I carry equipment specifically to counteract ECM (TAG, BAP etc), I should be able to do so.

These changes would eliminate one of ECM's most imbalanced advantages while maintaining its utility as a stealth/scouting aid.

#16 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 12 September 2014 - 02:29 PM

Large LRM boats could be penalized in other ways -- as much as ghost heat isn't a popular decision, it mitigated the effectiveness of mass grouped direct fire weapons. Something like a "ghost lock" mechanic that penalized 'Mechs firing from out of line of sight with increased lock times based on the amount of locking weapons could help mitigate hull-down LRM spam.

Information warfare pieces like NARC or C3 could mitigate the penalty.

Edited by DocBach, 12 September 2014 - 02:30 PM.


#17 terrycloth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 769 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 02:53 PM

I sort of like the ghost-lock idea if the problem is massive boating (although I think a support artillery mech should be viable). If your mech's sensors are guiding the missile, then at some point they'll be saturated and you won't be able to fire more until some of your existing missiles impact. You'd want the limit to be pretty high, though, and the penalty not absolute.

#18 Radiant Mass

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 29 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 03:04 PM

While changing ECM from its current state would be a step in the right direction, the game will still be far from balanced. Again I will say my proposal. It covers more than just the ECM problem.

-The Fundamentals-

-Convergence-

Arm Lock must be removed entirely. If not possible, the mechanics must be changed so the arms on a Mech are not totally fixated dead center to the Center Torso's cross hairs. This means that the arm cross hair would stray a small distance from CT's cross hair. Basically having a more restricted arm movement. The point to this it to maintain damage spread between the arms and CT.

Another issue is the cross hairs them selves. As a Mech moves, the cross hairs remain dead center in the HUD. This must be changed so that the cross hairs follows the Mech's every bob and weave as it moves. This in turn will spread the damage across a targeted Mech 's chassis. This is what we have now when we enter third-person view but not as elaborated.

-Sized Hard Points-

To maintain a balanced game, this must be implemented. Not only will it bring balance to Mech builds, but it will open up opportunities for un used Mech chassis, a key to make role warfare viable.

Sized Hard Points will allow and disallow the instalment of certain weapons for a Mech depending on it's Chassis.

This also must result in the removal of the current heat penalty system since cramming many large weapons together will be non existent for all Mechs and only those who were built around such weapons will be allowed to do so. Having the penalties will make those specific Mechs unviable (one example being the "Awesome" AWS-8Q).

The Sized Hard Point System:

Class 1- Used only for small weapon systems.

-IS-
Class 1 Weapon Systems:
Energy: TAG, Flamer, Small Laser Family, Medium Laser Family.
Ballistic: Machine Gun, AC 2.
Missile: NARC, SSRM 2, SRM 2, SRM 4, LRM 5

-CLAN-
Class 1 Weapon Systems:
Energy: TAG, Flamer, Small Laser Family, Medium Laser Family.
Ballistic: Machine Gun, AC 2 Family.
Missile: NARC, SSRM 2, SRM 2, SSRM 4, SRM 4, LRM 5


Class 2- Used only for average sized weapons. Can accommodate Class 1 weapons of its respective type.
-IS-
Class 2 Weapon Systems:
Energy: Large laser Family.
Ballistic: AC 5, UAC 5.
Missile: SRM 6, LRM 10

-CLAN-
Class 2 Weapon Systems:
Energy: Large laser Family.
Ballistic: AC 5 Family
Missile: SSRM 6, SRM 6, LRM 10


Class 3- Used only for large and heavy weapon systems. Can accommodate any Class 1 and 2 weapons systems of their respective type.

-IS-
Class 3 Weapon Systems:
Energy: PPC, ER PPC.
Ballistic: AC 10, LB 10-X AC.
Missile: LRM 15

-CLAN-
Class 3 Weapon Systems:
Energy: ER PPC.
Ballistic: AC 10 Family
Missile: LRM 15


Class 4- Reserved for the largest and heaviest weapon systems and can accommodate all other Class sizes.

-IS-
Class 4 Weapon Systems:
Ballistic: Gauss Rifle, AC 20
Missile: LRM 20

-CLAN-
Class 4 Weapon Systems:
Ballistic: Gauss Rifle, AC 20 Family
Missile: LRM 20


-INNER SPHERE Mech List with the Sized Hard Point System-
Spoiler

-CLAN Mech List with the Sized Hard Point System-
Spoiler

-EQUIPMENT-

-ECM Changes-

ECM must be changed from a radar stealth field, information and guided missile denial system to an information denial system and guided missile counter measure.

This means ECM will no longer make the user and those around them incapable of being targeted. Instead ECM will deny those who are targeting the user from transmitting their location information as well as an increase to target information gathering and missile lock-on times. Those within the 180m bubble will still receive the benefits but at reduced effectiveness, specifically target info gathering and missile lock on times.

The systems that denied or bypassed ECM are also to be changed back. UAV, NARC, and Beagle Active Probe will no longer disable and or bypass ECM.
BAP will instead allow the user who has it installed to detect an ECM user. This means that those who do not have BAP installed will not receive the "Low Signal" warning and cannot identify which mech is transmitting the ECM signal.

PPCs and another ECM however will still be capable to disrupting an enemy ECM.

ECM will also change how missiles behave. Instead of denying a lock on to LRMs and SSRMs, ECM will disable LRM and SRM ARTERMIS IV equipped enhancements turning them in to standard LRMS and SRMs. While on the other hand, standard LRMs and SSRMs will remain the same, but the moment they enter the ECM field their flight pattern will be scrambled and become erratic, leading to an increase to missile spread or even a possible miss on some missiles.

-Balance to Weapons-

All weapons must have an increase to their reload times. In turn most of the weapons values must change in order to reflect this change.

-The problem with "Pinpoint Frontloaded Damage"-

This flawed weapon mechanic that defines both Clan and IS Gauss Rifles, and IS PPCs is something that must be dealt with. This feature not only invalidated Lights and Medium mechs when pitted against larger mechs, but also reduces the kill times for larger mechs considerably.

A recent mechanic found only on the Clan ER-PPC makes it's damage spread across three sections of a targeted enemy mech. While it indeed reduced the total front loaded damage it is still quite considerable, and this feature is not found on the IS PPC. One way to remove the "FLD" property of the PPC family is by converting the weapon to function similarly to either a laser or a pulse laser. If the properties are made, it can be made to have a short beam duration equal to a pulse laser. This will allow the pilot who is being fired upon to have a chance to spread the damage across other sections.

Gauss Rifles are a different story. Even with the proposed Sized Hard Point system, there would still be mechs capable of loading up to two of these. The latest limitation of having a mech fire only two at a time was a step in the right direction, yet it would still mean that a targeted opponent would receive a whopping 30 points of damage.

In order to spread this massive damage the weapon needs to fire in bursts as well. It wouldn't be far fetched if the weapon could fire multiple slugs out of it, this would give reason to having to charge the weapon. This would mean that both IS and Clan Gauss Rifles would fire four slugs in .75s, each one dealing 3.75 pts. of damage.

An increase to the cool down of these weapons to seven seconds should make it less of a hassle in addition to limiting a mech to firing only one of each (PPC/Gauss Rifle) at a time instead of two.

Autocannons:

The addition of Clan weapons introduced a much needed balance feature of burst fire auto cannons. While it was a step in the right direction, the Inner Sphere Autocannons must have this feature implemented to them.

As to make both factions AC weaponry feel different, the general rule of having Clan weapons having extended damage over time should be in effect.

Standard Burst Fire mode models for Inner Sphere:

AC 2: Fires a burst of four rounds dealing 0.5 damage in 0.25 seconds each.
AC 5: Fires a burst of four rounds dealing 1.5 damage in 0.25 seconds each.
AC 10: Fires a burst of four rounds dealing 2.5 damage in 0.25 seconds each.
AC 20: Fires a burst of four rounds dealing 5 damage in 0.25 seconds each.

Standard Burst Fire mode models for Clans:

AC 2: Fires a burst of eight rounds dealing 0.25 damage in 0.19 seconds each.
AC 5: Fires a burst of eight rounds dealing 0.625 damage in 0.19 seconds each.
AC 10: Fires a burst of eight rounds dealing 1.25 damage in 0.19 seconds each.
AC 20: Fires a burst of eight rounds dealing 2.5 damage in 0.19 seconds each.

If and when manufacturers are added, more types of burst fire models could exist.

Ballistic Arcing:

Current ballistic arcing barely exists for auto cannons. To further define auto cannons from other weapons, an increase to the ballistic arcing on them must be added.

To make this feature user friendly, auto cannons would begin their ballistic arc once they reach their maximum range and then begin to drop to the ground for every meter on their path to the maximum effective range.

-Missile Weapons-

New launching mechanic:

With the addition of Clan LRMs, staggered fire is now possible. Although only the C-LRMS have this feature, it should be a feature on all missile based weapons (SRM and SSRM).

To maintain a difference between both IS and Clans, Inner Sphere launchers should fire in salvos:

LRMs will fire in sets of Fives.

SRM and SSRMs will fire in sets of Two.

All Clan missiles should fire in a stream.

Further LRM changes:

The way the LRMs pick their targets must change to the same way SSRMs pick their target but not as randomized. Meaning each missile will have a designated target upon successful lock on.

This should apply to both Clan and IS.

LRM Damage Spread:

Standard:
LRM 5: 1 L. Arm, 1 R. Arm, 1 L. Torso, 1 R. Torso, 1 C. Torso.

LRM 10: 1 L. Arm, 1 R. Arm, 1 L. Leg, 1 R leg, 2 L. Torso, 2 R. Torso, 2 C. Torso.

LRM 15: 2 L. Arm, 2 R. Arm, 1 L. Leg, 1 R leg, 3 L. Torso, 3 R. Torso, 3 C. Torso.

LRM 20: 3 L. Arm, 3 R. Arm, 2 L. Leg, 2 R leg, 3 L. Torso, 3 R. Torso, 4 C. Torso.


With ARTERMIS IV FCS:
LRM 5: 2 L. Torso, 2 R. Torso, 1 C. Torso.

LRM 10: 1 L. Arm, 1 R. Arm, 3 L. Torso, 3 R. Torso, 2 C. Torso.

LRM 15: 2 L. Arm, 2 R. Arm, 4 L. Torso, 4 R. Torso, 3 C. Torso.

LRM 20: 3 L. Arm, 3 R. Arm, 5 L. Torso, 5 R. Torso, 4 C. Torso.

There would be 1% chance for each missile to be assigned a lock on to the Head when lock on is achieved, with our without ARTERMIS IV.

Dumb fired LRMs will follow their arcing and straight flight pattern corresponding to their launcher.

-New Weapon Values based on the proposed changes-

-INNER SPHERE-

Energy Weapon Values:














































































WEAPON DAMAGE HEAT RANGE MAXIMUM RANGE COOLDOWN DURATION
SMALL LASER 3 1 100 200 2 1
SMALL PULSE LASER 3.5 2 100 200 1.5 0.5
MEDIUM LASER 5 4 270 550 3 1
MEDIUM PULSE LASER 6 5 200 400 2.5 0.5
LARGE LASER 8 8 450 900 4 1
ER LARGE LASER 8 12 675 1,350 4 1
LARGE PULSE LASER 10 10 350 700 3 0.5
PPC 10 10 90-540 1,080 7 -
ER PPC 10 15 810 1,500 7 -
FLAMER* 0.70 3* 90 90 -

*Flamer's lack of reload keeps it where it stands now with the exception that it will produce 1 heat units per 0.5 seconds on the target and 3 heat units per 0.5 seconds on the user

(regardless if the weapon is hitting a target or not). This should prevent stun locks.

Standard Burst Fire Auto Cannons:











































WEAPON DAMAGE HEAT RANGE MAXIMUM RANGE COOLDOWN DURATION
AC/2 0.5 1 720 1,440 2 1
AC/5 1.5 1 620 1,240 3 1
ULTRA AC/5 1.5 1 600 1,200 3 1
AC/10 2.5 3 450 900 3 1
AC/20 5 7 270 540 4 1


LB-X (Damage per pellet):













WEAPON DAMAGE HEAT RANGE MAXIMUM RANGE COOLDOWN
LB10-X 1 X 10 2 540 1,620 3


Missile Weapon Values:























































WEAPON DAMAGE HEAT RANGE MAXIMUM RANGE COOLDOWN
SSRM 2 2 PER MISSILE 2 270 270 2
SRM 2 2 PER MISSILE 2 270 270 2
SRM 4 2 PER MISSILE 3 270 270 2
SRM 6 2 PER MISSILE 6 270 270 3
LRM 5 1 PER MISSILE 2 180-1,000 1,000 3
LRM 10 1 PER MISSILE 4 180-1,000 1,000 3.5
LRM 15 1 PER MISSILE 5 180-1,000 1,000 4
LRM 20 1 PER MISSILE 6 180-1,000 1,000 5


-CLANS-

Energy Weapon Values:
































































WEAPON DAMAGE HEAT RANGE MAXIMUM RANGE COOLDOWN DURATION
ER-SMALL LASER 5 2 180 360 2 1.75
SMALL PULSE LASER 5 2 180 360 1.5 1
ER-MEDIUM LASER 7 5 450 900 3 1.75
MEDIUM PULSE LASER 7 5 400 800 2.5 1
ER-LARGE LASER 10 12 890 1,780 4 1.75
LARGE PULSE LASER 10 12 600 1,200 3 1
ER-PPC 15 15 810 1,620 7 -
FLAMER* 0.70 3* 90 90 -


Standard Burst Fire Auto Cannons:
































































WEAPON DAMAGE HEAT RANGE MAXIMUM RANGE COOLDOWN DURATION
AC/2 0.25 1 900 1,800 2 1.52
ULTRA AC/2 0.25 1 810 1,620 2 1.52
AC/5 0.625 1 720 1,440 3 1.52
ULTRA AC/5 0.625 1 630 1,260 3 1.52
AC/10 1.25 3 540 1,080 3 1.52
ULTRA AC/10 1.25 3 540 1,080 3 1.52
AC/20 2.5 7 360 720 4 1.52
ULTRA AC/20 2.5 7 360 720 4 1.52


LB-X (damage per pellet. All will fire 10 pellets. LB20-X will fire 20 pellets):































WEAPON DAMAGE HEAT RANGE MAXIMUM RANGE COOLDOWN
LB-2X 0.2 x 10 1 900 1,800 2
LB-5X 0.5x 10 1 720 1,440 3
LB-10X 1 x 10 2 540 1,080 3
LB-20X 1 x 20 6 360 720 4


Missile Weapon Values:



































































WEAPON DAMAGE HEAT RANGE MAXIMUM RANGE COOLDOWN
SSRM 2 2 PER MISSILE 2 360 360 3.5
SSRM 4 2 PER MISSILE 3 360 360 5.25
SSRM 6 2 PER MISSILE 4 360 360 7
SRM 2 2 PER MISSILE 2 270 270 2
SRM 4 2 PER MISSILE 3 270 270 3
SRM 6 2 PER MISSILE 4 270 270 4
LRM 5 1 PER MISSILE 2 180-1,000 1,000 3.25
LRM 10 1 PER MISSILE 4 180-1,000 1,000 3.75
LRM 15 1 PER MISSILE 5 180-1,000 1,000 4.25
LRM 20 1 PER MISSILE 6 180-1,000 1,000 5


-THE HEAT SYSTEM-

- Heat Management-

Currently, the only penalties to heat is an instant shutdown when going beyond the, some what forgiving, heat threshold and damage over to the internal structure of a mech when shut down due to overheating. This needs to be addressed. As it apparently stands, the heat threshold increases with every added heat sink. This has to be changed so that the threshold is static.

As demonstrated in this graph based on in game numbers there is one essential component missing from the Heat System:

%20http://www.jobi.org/images/HeatScales.jpg%20

Heat penalties are key in avoiding constant alpha striking currently plaguing the game. Following the chart, one can take in to account the following penalties:

Fixed modifiers on speed. Increasing with heat generated.

Fixed modifiers on torso and arm movement/convergence. Increasing with heat generated.

Chance of ammunition explosion upon reaching: 65% heat on single heat sinks, 87% heat on double heat sinks.

-New Numbers for Heat Sinks-

For heat sinks to work properly under the new system the numbers must reflect it.

As it stands now, Single Heat Sinks dissipate 1 heat over the course of 10 seconds, resulting in a heat dissipation of 0.10 heats per second. This is fundamentally flawed, both for the current game and this proposed system.

For the heat sinks to work the numbers must be raised to reflect the re-fire rate of weapons. The new numbers are as follow:

Single Heat Sinks:
1 heat over 5 seconds. A 0.20 heat dissipation per second value.

Double Heat Sinks:
2 heat over 5 seconds. A 0.40 heat dissipation per second value. An alternative to Double heat sinks following the current model that can also work could be 1.75 heat over 5 seconds, a

0.35 heat dissipation per second value.

The values are the same weather the heat sinks are part of the engine or not.

-Comments-

This feedback arose from hours of game play experience in MW:O since closed beta, current and past user feedback and the hope to fix the balance problems on the only modern Mech Warrior simulator game.

These changes were made to complement one another. One can't work without the other. So in order for this proposal to work, most, if not all of these must come out together.

Sources:

Mech and weapon stats:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne.../#module_normal

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Main_Page

Heat Sink info:

http://mwomercs.com/...eat-management/

Discussion of Heat System:
http://mwomercs.com/...os-heat-system/

#19 VanillaG

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,115 posts
  • LocationIn my parent's basement

Posted 12 September 2014 - 03:11 PM

The issue with LRM and SSRMs is that ECM prevents a lock unless within 150m with a BAP or counter ECM. All of that other text about indirect fire has nothing to do with ECM but how LRMs work. It really should be focused down to how ECM and LRMs/SSRMs interact.

#20 Clit Beastwood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,262 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 12 September 2014 - 03:11 PM

View PostLivewyr, on 12 September 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

Ok, if you are looking at this, you have likely looked at the ECM dialogue thread.

I want to tackle this in 3 parts:

1: Identifying the problems with the subject at hand, according to the community. (Most important set of people regarding ingame content.)

2: Proposing and refining agreeable changes in the interactions of Electronics, and the weapons heavily associated.

3: Putting it up to vote. (This is obvious, but it is going to be heavily dependent on the community to get out word about the topic. We want to please the most possible, and we want the most support we can get in enacting this change.)

Please, respectful posts only. (Hard to be constructive when just identifying problems, but you can still have a constructive air to your posts. Accusations do not fall in this category.)

------------------------------
Onto Part one: (I will edit the thread as appropriate as people put things forth and hash them out.)

Identifying the problems:
I think there are 6 main issues with the information warfare all tied to ECM and eachother.

1: ECM
Provides infinite stealth outside 200 meters.
-This is disruptive to missile which require locks to fire, or fire accurately. (SSRMs/LRMs)
-Gives initiative to the ECM bearing mech in most engagements. (They are not mechanically sensed at all outside 200 meters.)
Active Counters put onus on the countering.
-TAG must stare at target.
-PPC must repeatedly hit it. (multiple ECMs counter the counter.)
-Narc must attach itself to it. (multiple ECMs counter the counter.)
Passive Counters must be close range.
-ECCM must be 180 or so.
-BAP/CAP must be 150m.

2: LRMs
Unlimited Indirect fire with any form of spotting. (Aside from ECM)
-This promotes boating because
--you are allowed to fire from cover with reckless abandon.
-This makes them exceptionally strong at area denial, to the point of making the game campy and stale.
Slow travel speed.
-This makes a direct engagement with direct fire weapons (Energy/Ballistics) virtually impossible. (Especially with Radar Deprivation module) [LRMs] move so much slower than everything else that you can launch them at the opponent, but he can take aim, shoot you with everything he has, and move behind cover before the missiles get there.
Missile Flight path.
-Indirect fire arc is okay. (IMO)
-Direct fire arc is too high. This makes "dumbfire" nearly impossible on a moving target outside 200 meters. (Cannot lead them or the reticle sets the target well behind your opponent and your missiles fly over them even if you timed it correctly.)
Missile Spread: With Artemis, entire salvos can end up in 2-3 torsos... and with 20-60 missiles, that is devastating.

3: BAP/CAP:
Redundant with Sensor range and Target Info Gathering modules.
-They stack, but aside from the shut-down mech detection and ECCM effect, it is lacking for information gathering equipment in Information warfare.

4: TAG:
Targeting assistance is good, but the interaction with ECM causes it to be required to use LRMs.

5: Narc:
Feast or famine.
-With ECM present (currently) it is useless unless it hits the ECM mech itself.
-Without ECM present, it can be a death sentence. (Lasts far too long)

6: Streaks:
Currently ECM shuts down locking.
-With streaks requiring locks to shoot, this makes (current) BAP a requirement to use them reliably.

----------------------------------------

Anything to add or contest?

(remember, this is just problem identification)

Please keep posts respectful, on topic, and purposeful. We are aiming to change it working with PGI.


1. ECM - mitigates locks for LRMs and SSRMS. So what? Take backup weapons with LRMS, and change how TAG works (see 2 below). Also, let SSRMS fire as normal SRMS when they're unable to lock. Increase PPC ecm counter to however long it takes to lock and fire 1 volley of LRMS. with artemis and target info gathering, I can get a volley off before I lose the lock. I don't have a problem with needing to carry bap - it only counters missiles, and LRMS are one of the easiest weapons to use in the game in general-level play and below. Letting us dumbfire streaks (maybe with a wider spread and no artemis benefit?) would at least partially mitigate ECM's effects on ssrms. It hurts the SSRMS without completely stopping them.

2. LRMS and SSRMS... are easy weapons to use and insulate the user from return fire when used indirectly. Maybe no indirect fire without tag or narc. Again, recommend making it so that the lrms follow a TAG laser when no target is available.

3. If 1-2 get implemented, 3 is kinda moot.

4. It's light - if lrms would travel wherever a TAG pointed when nothing is targeted, that would be a welcome change. Might wind up a troll-tactic.

5. Implement 1 and 2, and shorten narc duration.

6. Make 'em dumb fire-able, with a wider spread than normal srms and their normal long cooldown. If user does not like, user can learn to aim.





7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users