221 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

terrycloth, 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.

They indeed are, both from balancing perspective and from a BT lore perspective. MW/BT game is supposed to have a "holy trinity" of direct fire weapons for every range - missiles/ballistic/energy. Having LRMs as primarily indirect fire weapon throws the balance off for long range configs.
The "unique way" indirect fire weapons you are looking for are Long Tom artillery and Arrow IV missile system, but that's a whole different ball game.

[Livewyr]

Fiero, I recognize you posted a lot more, but this part here is where I disagree.

Fierostetz, on 12 September 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

1. ECM - mitigates locks for LRMs and SSRMS. So what? Take backup weapons with LRMS, ...

The problem with this train of thought is, if LRMs have a caveat "you must bring backup weapons" where other weapons do not, they are automatically unfit. (Especially since that status varies wildly from match to match.)

[Scratx]

Let me add problem _7_, though it's more a natural artifact resulting from design decisions allied with the broken nature of ECM.


Here goes : Matchmaker does not balance the number of ECMs on both teams when generating a match.

[Tombstoner]

When identifying problems with a system i like to look at how it works. This seems like a no brainer but what does ECM effect.
Why don't lrms use cameras and image recognition. whats being stoped or interfered with by the ECM. For this we need to look at real world analogs but in the context of future tech created in the 80's-90's or just make it up. We also need to look at technology in the context of the succession wars: that being incomplete functionality, cobbled together mechs all the way to cutting edge clan tech. this leads too tech levels and maintenance costs. that's too complicated for this discussion.

I don't think using real world analogs as a starting point is a bad thing. That's what the original game developers used, filtered by star wars and other pop culture. One has to ask why BT or MW never had predator style camouflage. its the first thing id install on my mech. The only reason i can think of is mech target acquisition systems are that good, function on multiple sections of the ECM spectrum. meaning if the sensors are in range of a mech it can be detected visually, IR, UV,UHF, VHF, Gama , radar basically the entire electromagnetic spectrum. sound is also part of detection. a 20-100 ton mech moving at 45-150kph is not stealthy.

ECM is basiclly a strobe light sending high powered signals in the em spectrum over whelming sensors making all spectrum except the visible use less. what part of the spectrum matters since moving to a different range and nothing happens to you.
also the signal strength drops off as an inverse square or cube of the distance. that why tv and radio broadcast in mega watts but we receive the signal in miliwats. but we are talking about a ton of future tech powered by a fusion engine.

So i understand ECM to be nothing more then a blinding light in presumably the entier EM spectrum. this means even friendly mechs are affected unless you give mech targeting systems some parts of the EM spectrum free for use and rotate the frequency range to keep the enemy from using it. not going to get into ECCM.

Personally i don't think LRM's are missiles with active targeting systems that's streaks. I regard LRm's to be dumb fired rockets thus not entering into the first TT rules set. It had no guided weapons But there has been so many MW games when guided weapons where becoming more common place the weapon became altered and the lock on was added.

So i see ECM being able to affect C3 systems, active targeting weapons (streaks only because LRM's use cameras). communications and not much else.

That translates into VOIP being cut out but thats easly avoided with TS or ventrillo. skype.

When ECm affects c3 systems it cant grant indirect fire but beagle probes(ECCM) being a hard counter to ECM self only unless in a c3 system. Tag would be personal use only for faster targeting unless the tag user is in a c3 network then it can be used for indirect fire only if you can establish a los link to the LRM user.

[Davegt27]

telling everyone you want to change everything in the game is a subject for another day


so whats the problem with ECM? (or active electronic method to counter enemy radar)


so in this game their three main things

search radar

lockon mode for the radar (with lockon you get range and angle tracking and in this game all kinds of neat info but for killing the major one is range and angle tracking)

ECM or a counter to both search and lockon modes of active radar

so whats the problem with ECM?

or is LRMs the problem?

[Khobai]

I put up an ECM poll in the feature suggestions section of the forums.

[Pjwned]

You forgot to add under ECM that it's a stealth bubble for all teammates within range and that only 1 person needs to have it active to do so. It's also a very small piece of equipment at only 1.5 tons & 1 critical slot, and it discourages mech variety in a chassis (e.g if you see AS7 it's almost always followed by -D-DC) as well as just in general.

Personally I would put more emphasis on the fact that it's a hard counter to 2 different weapon systems, weapons that already aren't particularly amazing and especially in the case of SSRMs. I know we're just focusing on the problems for right now, but if ECM was more of a soft counter it would be much more reasonable.

[Mothykins]

Could we perhaps get this Pinned? Like, we need official threads for this, and this is a very, very good first step; knowing the problem is key to solving it.

[Scratx]

Davegt27, on 12 September 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

telling everyone you want to change everything in the game is a subject for another day


so whats the problem with ECM? (or active electronic method to counter enemy radar)


so in this game their three main things

search radar

lockon mode for the radar (with lockon you get range and angle tracking and in this game all kinds of neat info but for killing the major one is range and angle tracking)

ECM or a counter to both search and lockon modes of active radar

so whats the problem with ECM?

or is LRMs the problem?

I've seen you ask pretty much the same on another thread. I'll leave you with what I told you there, in case you missed it.

Scratx, on 12 September 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

It's not fun.

It's very cheap to get (if you have a mech capable of carrying it), so it's a no brainer. It's not a joke to say that if you're not carrying ECM in an ECM-capable mech you're doing it wrong. It also does way too much (for the cost, 1.5t is trivial). It makes you and your friends nigh untargetable by lock-on weapons (destroying the viability of Streaks and LRMs, they pretty much are a feast or famine weapon mainly due to this), it (effectively) obsoletes every variant that can't carry ECM if at least one variant on that chassis can take it, it destroys the ability of enemy mechs within ECM range from locking on to anything and on top of that it also interferes with their ability to get targeting information, as well as sending it, to the rest of their team.

Come on. All of this for one and a half tons and two crits. Why wouldn't you take this?

On top of this, MATCHMAKER DOES NOT CARE HOW MANY ECMs ARE ON EACH TEAM.

You don't understand how much unfun ECM can be until you roll into a match where your team has exactly zero ECMs and theirs has at least 4. And you're in an LRM-boat. Good freaking luck not dying horribly with under 200 damage.


Does this neatly explain why the Magic Jesus Box is considered broken by the player base?

And before you say "that's a problem if you're taking LRMs", no, it's not just a problem for LRMs. They're just the ones by far the most impacted because they're basically hard-countered. You can't really shoot them without a lock. Other weapons are also affected by not having the red triangle indicating there's an enemy there, which makes them harder to find (and shoot at).

In any case, a piece of equipment that takes zero skill to use shouldn't just make entire weapon systems nearly useless.

[Clit Beastwood]

Livewyr, on 12 September 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

Fiero, I recognize you posted a lot more, but this part here is where I disagree.



The problem with this train of thought is, if LRMs have a caveat "you must bring backup weapons" where other weapons do not, they are automatically unfit. (Especially since that status varies wildly from match to match.)

The problem with THAT train of thought is, any user can take any one trick pony build and there should be no negatives? LRMs are lazy. I have run them, I run them while I'm eating dinner, or if I'm bored and don't want to pay much attention. A player boating them *knows* about this limitation, yet does it anyways. They are actively choosing to do it. The onus, on this one, is on the player to develop "situational awareness" and "common sense". This is a team game - it's *entirely* sensible to expect players to either have a rounded and functional build, OR work as a part of a team. LRM boats DO have their place - in lower level pugs, and *occasionally* in real drops.

[Livewyr]

Fierostetz, on 12 September 2014 - 06:19 PM, said:

The problem with THAT train of thought is, any user can take any one trick pony build and there should be no negatives? LRMs are lazy. I have run them, I run them while I'm eating dinner, or if I'm bored and don't want to pay much attention. A player boating them *knows* about this limitation, yet does it anyways. They are actively choosing to do it. The onus, on this one, is on the player to develop "situational awareness" and "common sense". This is a team game - it's *entirely* sensible to expect players to either have a rounded and functional build, OR work as a part of a team. LRM boats DO have their place - in lower level pugs, and *occasionally* in real drops.

Well, one of the stated problems with LRMs is that they can use Indirect fire with wild abandon.

Edited by Livewyr, 12 September 2014 - 06:22 PM.

[Davegt27]

Quote

You forgot to add under ECM that it's a stealth bubble for all teammates within range and that only 1 person needs to have it active to do so.

That’s the purpose of ECM to give you a cloak or mask (stealth)

I must say there are two types of ECM (to keep things simple) one would be small ECM designed to protect a single ship (or Mech in our case) and
Area ECM this would be equivalent to an ECM bird like a EB66 EF111 (these larger ECM are designed to give area coverage for a strike package)

Scratx yeah sorry I had missed your answer
I understand what you’re saying I got taken out by LRMs twice today

But nailing down the specific ECM gripe or problem

1) It’s not fun (I am here to kill mechs)

2) It’s cheap to get (provided you have that special Mech that can even have ECM)

3) It takes no skill to use (not much skill in LRMs either)

4) It’s too powerful it not only protects you but your whole team (regardless of range and sometimes even after your dead)

5) Creates and electronic arms race (hey if he has ECM I want it too)

6) Matchmaker does not look at ECM (if one team has it and the other one does not that can be a very powerful advantage)


Does this sound about right?

Edited by Davegt27, 12 September 2014 - 06:39 PM.

[kilgor]

Since this seems to be more related to issues identifying problems with counter measures, I'll just stick to that.

1. AMS firing at missiles when it has no direct line of site.
2. If a 'Mech has both BAP and ECM equipped, BAP does not counter enemy ECM when the 'Mech's ECM is interrupted
3. ECM stops a 'Mech in direct line of site from being targetable. Understandable about no target info but they should be able to be targeted

[Rebas Kradd]

Livewyr, on 12 September 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

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.

This is the only part that I see as a central problem, and it's the part I disagree strongly with, both as an LRM boater and as a non-missile medium pilot.

1) Boating is not a bad thing by default.

2) Yeah, you can fire from cover with reckless abandon, if you want to take two hours to destroy your target. Highly inefficient spread unless you're carrying both TAG and Artemis, which require line-of-sight and carry weight and space penalties.

3) The LRM-prone combat you're describing is generally useless in urban areas, where cover is plentiful and need not even be sought all that hard. It is only natural that wide-open landscapes should be a hazard for mechs.

4) Speed provides a generous advantage for avoiding in-flight missiles and breaking locks, while assaults, again, should be prone as part of their natural drawback.

5) Missile boats are generally highly prone to close-range attack because of their inability to carry a lot of backup weapons. This is a tradeoff that removes missile boats from the category of godmode. The fact that missile boats do not encounter such harassers even in dense terrain is more a factor of player behavior than bad design.

6) "Hard counters are a bad design" is not a productive statement. We're talking practical realities here, not abstract or theoretical "perfect world" scenarios. Player behavior makes this a non-perfect world.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 12 September 2014 - 06:44 PM.

[Clit Beastwood]

Livewyr, on 12 September 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

Well, one of the stated problems with LRMs is that they can use Indirect fire with wild abandon.

I think your reply is too brief to be clear - LRMs can, at present, be used in indirect fire mode and can damage and kill enemy mechs. I do not see this as a problem. I also do not see a need to change them into a direct fire ballistic alternative. If we tone ECM down substantially, LRMs will need to be toned down as well. I *would* like to be able to aim lrms with a TAG, but it should be a last-resort weapon and not standard operating procedure, should be less effective than ballistics and lasers, and should be a less attractive option than bringing backup weapons. This game *cannot* be balanced easily so that players of all skill levels are happy with it. Without ECM, LRMs are too powerful. Without LRM's, ballistics and lasers are too powerful. It needs multiple game modes - arcade mode so the new guys can go pound lrms into the dirt at 40 meters, and simulation mode, with CW, etc. This damn game needs to settle, stop changing things, and instead of balancing the game for people that won't spend the time to learn... provide training. Imagine that. Make new players qualify in mech classes before they can drop in it. Make LRMs un-equippable until the user does the LRM training module. I don't care, but I don't want people that refuse to try, refuse to learn... to have a say in how the game gets balanced. This isn't T-ball, where a bunch of 6 year olds all get participation trophies.

[Pjwned]

Davegt27, on 12 September 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

That’s the purpose of ECM to give you a cloak or mask (stealth)

I must say there are two types of ECM (to keep things simple) one would be small ECM designed to protect a single ship (or Mech in our case) and
Area ECM this would be equivalent to an ECM bird like a EB66 EF111 (these larger ECM are designed to give area coverage for a strike package)

Scratx yeah sorry I had missed your answer
I understand what you’re saying I got taken out by LRMs twice today

But nailing down the specific ECM gripe or problem

1) It’s not fun (I am here to kill mechs)

2) It’s cheap to get (provided you have that special Mech that can even have ECM)

3) It takes no skill to use (not much skill in LRMs either)

4) It’s too powerful it not only protects you but your whole team (regardless of range and sometimes even after your dead)

5) Creates and electronic arms race (hey if he has ECM I want it too)

6) Matchmaker does not look at ECM (if one team has it and the other one does not that can be a very powerful advantage)


Does this sound about right?

Of course it should do something for you if you have it equipped, what you quoted was me mostly complaining that it benefits potentially your entire team as well.

[Davegt27]

sorry if I came off in the wrong way

now we need to here from the Battle tech table top experts

how does ECM work in the TT game?

[Dracol]

Interesting reading. A lot of variety. To help ID the issues, I have a question for the general community:

ECM has the benefit of allowing mechs not to be immediately picked up by radar once in LOS of an enemy. Visually spotting a mech is required. This was a big departure from prior MW titles and changed how the game feels.

In general principle, should there be a way for a mech to not be auto spotted by radar when in LOS and radar range of an enemy?

[IceSerpent]

Dracol, on 12 September 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

ECM has the benefit of allowing mechs not to be immediately picked up by radar once in LOS of an enemy. Visually spotting a mech is required. This was a big departure from prior MW titles and changed how the game feels.

Not really - in MW4 ECM simply decreased detection range and increased locking time (for teh ECM carrier, no bubble), while BAP did the exact opposite. Essentially ECM carrier vs. BAP carrier was the same as both mechs having neithter.

Quote

In general principle, should there be a way for a mech to not be auto spotted by radar when in LOS and radar range of an enemy?

Yes, as long as draw distance is greater than radar range.

[Lynx7725]

Livewyr, on 12 September 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

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

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.)

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.

What I suggest is that you really keep this limited to the ECM issue. The minute you bring in the LRM crowd you dilute your focus and you get nowhere. The perception of issues with LRMs really don't have much to do with ECM.. With or without ECM, people are still going to eat LRMs. Let's keep LRM discussion separate.

TAG is similar in a sense, since their primary use in game is anti-ECM; I don't actually see it as much nowadays thanks to the NARC improvements. I feel this should move towards more support for artillery (as per in TT), rather than support for LRMs.

So back to the primary, ECM. The problem I see with ECM isn't so much that they hide the unit, it's more that they hide it too well. I can accept that ECM messes with sensors to the point where they don't register, but when you can see an ECM unit strolling along in visual sight... ECM should provide "stealth" to the carrying unit and any in its effective range, but it shouldn't block when in visual range. If a visible ECM mech becomes targetable, a lot of our problems will go away.

As for BAP/ CAP, my perspective is that they are a substitute for modules, not the other way round. If I can spare 1 to 1.5 tons to have the effects of a module, I can save the module slot for some other effect. So in a sense it's not obsoleted by the modules, it allows people who have yet to unlock/ purchase the modules to have a similar effect without investing in it.

My primary NARC issue is that you have no way to know if you've been narc'ed. Otherwise I'm ok with it.