221 replies to this topic

[Livebait]

Wolfways, on 13 September 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

Well...i guess i just don't see them that way. I see them (or rather want to see them) as they are in TT. A direct-fire weapon that is as viable as any other weapon, that also has the ability to be fired indirect. Tbh though I'm not bothered if indirect-fire is nerfed.

True but I think not all missiles hit in TT. You have to roll for how many hit. I would like something like this put in just to make things less predictable. But, I think trying to following TT would in general be better than just coming up with something new.

[ApolloKaras]

Livewyr, on 13 September 2014 - 05:33 AM, said:

I am building a Survey (Survey Monkey) in order to gain a picture regarding ECM and LRMs.

Anyone have suggestions on unbiased questions to help nail down the primary feelings and points regarding the two systems?

Putting the pole out there on the Web, doesn't that open it up for tampering?

[BlakeAteIt]

One thing that seems important to me is that the TT rules do not/can not/will not (pick one) translate properly into a sim/shooter, and should be used primarily as a guide or suggestion. It would be nice if everything was lore-compatible, but that lore was written for a very different format than what we are playing. "Stock 'mechs ONLY" sound fun, but there's a reason the trial 'mechs are largely community builds now.

I suggest that to the extent lore-accuracy is a priority, it should be prioritized after "Fun" and "Fair".

Edited by BlakeAteIt, 13 September 2014 - 02:22 PM.

[Livebait]

BlakeAteIt, on 13 September 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

One thing that seems important to me is that the TT rules do not/can not/will not (pick one) translate properly into a sim/shooter, and should be used primarily as a guide. It would be nice if everything was lore-compatible, but that lore was written for a very different format than what we are playing.

I suggest that to the extent lore-accuracy goes, it should be prioritized after "Fun" and "Fair".

I totally agree. That is why in most cases following TT rules would make the game more fun & fair. All this stuff has been hashed out years ago in TT.

[L Y N X]

Attempting without the language BIAS...

Identifying the problems:
I think there are 7 main issues with the information warfare NOT all tied to ECM, but related.

1: ECM
Prevents Sensor/target lock outside of 180m.
This has several effects;

• ECM provides a form of camouflage to mechs, which is important to scouts and snipers,
  
• ECM by itself has an umbrella of 180m which prevents friendly mechs from being electronically detected and locked,
  
• ECM cover prevents targeting data from being collected.
  
• ECM cover prevents LRM's from being fired with guidance (but does not inhibit dumb firing of LRM on stationary targets).

ECM Counters;

• TAG,
  
• BAP/CAP within 150m,
  
• ECM in counter mode (ECCM) within 180m.
  
• NARC
  
• PPC
  
• UAV

2: LRMs

Indirect fire weapon does not require line of sight.
Bonuses for

• LOS+Artemis
  
• BAP
  
• TAG
  
• NARC
  
• UAV (allows drone spotting for LRM boats and temporarily defeats ECM at close range)
  
• Adv Sensor module
  
• Adv Target Decay module

Limited by

• AMS
  
• Cover
  
• Radar Deprivation module
  
• ECM

3: BAP/CAP:

Not Redundant with Sensor range and Target Info Gathering modules, additive.
-They stack, detect shut-down mechs and possess an ECCM effect.

4: TAG:
Targeting assistance is good, the interaction with ECM encourages TAG to be equiped on LRM boats. Adds tracking strength to missiles.

5: Narc:
NARC defeats ECM when it hits a mech within ECM cover, improve missile tracking and lasts for roughly 20-40 seconds depending on pilot skills and modules.

6: Streaks:
SSRM's are not able to obtain a lock on a mech with ECM unless outside of 180m with TAG or inside 150m with BAP, or within 180m with ECM on DISRUPT mode or ECM mech is Narc'd.

7: modules:

• Advanced Sensor Range
  
• Advanced Target Decay
  
• Radar Deprivation
  
• Narc Enhancement

The Radar Deprivation module trumps all other modules (possible exception for Narc)


The above is the current state of these interactive technologies without getting into opinions and biases. Below begins the opinions and Biases...

Is the problem that ECM is too powerful?

I tend to think ECM is the most powerful technology in the game MWO. One simple way to test for a nerf it to remove the umbrella effects and watch the drop statistics shift to 80-90% ECM mechs.

How then should we propose to Balance ECM?

Edited by 7ynx, 13 September 2014 - 02:40 PM.

[BlakeAteIt]

Livebait, on 13 September 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

I totally agree. That is why in most cases following TT rules would make the game more fun & fair. All this stuff has been hashed out years ago in TT.

The only weapon balance passes BT's had since the 90's are the adding and changing of battlevalues. BT isn't really balanced as it sits, and is totally different than a video game anyway. What balance is has also includes things like campaign budgets, slavage, and roleplaying. Very few 'mech loadouts are optimized. It has nothing like quirks (in the core rulebooks, yes something similar exists in some add-on I can't think of the name of right now - even then it's for single 'mechs), and Clans are so ridiculous I don't even know where to start.

BT can't really be directly used for a 1st or 3rd person game. Strategy games, sure.

EDIT: This may quickly veer off topic, if you want to keep going, hit me up in PMs or we can do a different thread.

EDIT 2: I have an old-old copy of BT laying around somewhere if I need to look this stuff up. I think there was a pass in there somewhere between BattleDroids and BattleTech, but I'm not sure if that counts.

Edited by BlakeAteIt, 13 September 2014 - 02:59 PM.

[Livebait]

BlakeAteIt, on 13 September 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

The only weapon balance passes BT's had since the 90's are the adding and changing of battlevalues. BT isn't really balanced as it sits, and is totally different than a video game anyway. What balance is has also includes things like campaign budgets, slavage, and roleplaying. Very few 'mech loadouts are optimized. It has nothing like quirks (in the core rulebooks, yes something similar exists in some add-on I can't think of the name of right now - even then it's for single 'mechs), and Clans are so ridiculous I don't even know where to start.

BT can't really be directly used for a 1st or 3rd person game. Strategy games, sure.

EDIT: This may quickly veer off topic, if you want to keep going, hit me up in PMs or we can do a different thread.

EDIT 2: I have an old-old copy of BT laying around somewhere if I need to look this stuff up. I think there was a pass in there somewhere between BattleDroids and BattleTech, but I'm not sure if that counts.

Well sure...weapons fire rate, damage front loading, convergence and a few other elements do not directly transfer over. But there are things that are obvious. ECM I think is one of the items that can work as TT. I know not all things can be transferred over. BV I think would be something that could work but who knows. We'll see what happens.

[Fut]

DocBach, on 12 September 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

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.

Maybe I'm not fully understanding your explanation, but I think it would be difficult to lead targets if the ballistic's speed could possibly be different for each shot you take, depending on how the C3 is working at any given time.

[Runs With Scissors]

@Livewyr: Great job identifying the issues. While there's before 80% of ppl will agree with a solution we have to identify what the main problem(s) are.

IMO the biggest problem is the cloaking field. such a big benefit for so little investment in tonnage and no downsides to use unlike TAG, NARC or BAP.

[BlakeAteIt]

I'm kicking around an idea where the various parts of the overall targeting ecosystem interact, but I'm not going to propose it until 1) it's mature enough to bother with, and 2) I figure out if Russ/PGI would be interested in a more complete solution at the expense of taking longer to implement.

EDIT: I hate whoever decided that a b followed by a close parenthesis should be an emoticon.

Edited by BlakeAteIt, 13 September 2014 - 04:42 PM.

[Runs With Scissors]

BlakeAteIt, on 13 September 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

I'm kicking around an idea where the various parts of the overall targeting ecosystem interact, but I'm not going to propose it until 1) it's mature enough to bother with, and 2) I figure out if Russ/PGI would be interested in a more complete solution at the expense of taking longer to implement.

EDIT: I hate whoever decided that a b followed by a close parenthesis should be an emoticon.

ha this happed to me b4 too, had to change mine to numbers, lol

[DocBach]

BlakeAteIt, on 13 September 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

One thing that seems important to me is that the TT rules do not/can not/will not (pick one) translate properly into a sim/shooter, and should be used primarily as a guide or suggestion.

I don't believe this is true. The lore explains pretty simply what certain weapon systems are suppose to be able to do;

LRM's in this game universe are suppose to be able to be fired indirectly with a spotter

LRM's have several buffs in the form of Artemis and NARC

Beagle is an active probing radar that can detect anything in its range and get a more in depth readout of a 'Mech (precise damage, weapon/ammo location, engine type, etc)

ECM prevents Beagle from detection and probing, and debuffs missile buffs -- ECM has a third mode called Ghost mode that sacrifices protection from Beagle, NARC and Artemis, but makes it harder for 'Mechs to get locks on ECM Ghost protected 'Mechs. As we don't have C3 in the game we can say that it also can block target sharing from friendly units inside or on the other side of its bubble.

This is more simple and balanced than the current system we have in the game, where currently almost all of the other pieces serve mainly to turn of ECM. This has caused its own balance issues -- for instance, currently when a player is NARC'd they need to pretty much shelter in place behind a tall rock for the duration of the NARC.

ECM traditionally is suppose to be the counter to NARC -- because ECM was so over-reaching, the opposite is true in MWO, and now there is no counter to NARC. Information Warfare needs to have a balance of power of buffs and debuffs through interaction with the various pieces of equipment, rather than complete hard counters like we currently have.

[BlakeAteIt]

DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

LRM's have several buffs in the form of Artemis and NARC

Beagle is an active probing radar that can detect anything in its range and get a more in depth readout of a 'Mech (precise damage, weapon/ammo location, engine type, etc)

ECM prevents Beagle from detection and probing, and debuffs missile buffs -- ECM has a third mode called Ghost mode that sacrifices protection from Beagle, NARC and Artemis, but makes it harder for 'Mechs to get locks on ECM Ghost protected 'Mechs. As we don't have C3 in the game we can say that it also can block target sharing from friendly units inside or on the other side of its bubble.

So it has a mode that debuffs LRM buffs, and counters BAP, and a mode that does not counter LRM debuffs, but does make it harder to get a lock? If I remember correctly, NARC and Artemis, among other things, manipulated the LRM table, which is pretty much "tightening up missile spread". This would give you a choice between getting hit with fewer missiles, or it taking a little longer to get hit with more missiles, unless someone brought a TAG.

Unless I misunderstand your post, this would make ECM an okay missile counter, but not conceal your location (baring edge cases where you are inside BAP range, but outside of LOS). That makes pushes it towards being a good strategic asset, but not much for tactical use like surprise attacks.

I'll have to think about if I like that.

[Pjwned]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

I totally disagree. You seem to be coming from an eSports perspective, where everything has to be "fair" and "equal". That's fine.

I, on the other hand, like uncertainty and the potential adversity that brings. If the players are good, they will be able to compensate for their equipment deficiencies with skill and teamwork.

I'm here to play "A BattleTech Game". "Fairness" and "equality" are the last things on my mind.

There's no valid reason to need hard counters in a competitive game, and last I checked ECM worked a lot differently in every other Battletech game.

As far as making up for equipment deficiencies with skill & teamwork, from my perspective if you need hard counters then it's you that needs unbalanced equipment to make up for lack of skill in a competitive game.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 13 September 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

There's no valid reason to need hard counters in a competitive game, and last I checked ECM worked a lot differently in every other Battletech game.

Again, that's probably coming from an eSport perspective. I'm not here for that.

Pjwned, on 13 September 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

As far as making up for equipment deficiencies with skill & teamwork, from my perspective if you need hard counters then it's you that needs unbalanced equipment to make up for lack of skill in a competitive game.

Alternatively, people might actually like the challenge of digging right into the enemy blob to take out that ECM carrier. I do.

I don't know about the rest of you though.

Edited by Mystere, 13 September 2014 - 08:22 PM.

[Pjwned]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

Again, that's probably coming from an eSport perspective. I'm not here for that.

I'm not really into the eSports crowd much, I just enjoy a competitive game when it has a number of options, but the important part is that it's still balanced.

Quote

Alternatively, people might actually like the challenge of digging right into the enemy blob to take out that ECM carrier. I do.

I don't know about the rest of you though.

I enjoy a challenge when it's fair, I don't think ECM makes things very fair unless you happen to bring hard counters to it, and that just seems dumb. I don't want ECM to be useless, I want it to be more fair when it's present and not have it be "bring ECM counters or you're screwed."

I also personally don't really enjoy the blob mentality and that ECM encourages it even more, I just find it lame and uninteresting and stifling to variety, so to me part of the problem is that it affects your entire team if they're piled on top of you.

Edited by Pjwned, 13 September 2014 - 08:44 PM.

[Hoax415]

I think this thread was a great idea and very poorly executed by most replies.

Here's as simple and short as I think I can make a very complex issue (ECM).

Problem:
Instead of being something useful and strong especially in organized groups who are intelligently taking advantage of it. ECM feels like a godmode difference maker especially in solo queue pugs. To distill that further it feels like not having ECM means your team is doing something fundamentally wrong.

That's as simple and concise as I can state the "problem".

[Lynx7725]

Given the varied response, I think we first need to establish whether the community at large feels there's a need for ECM changes, and the extent of those changes.

[ApolloKaras]

Mods: Is there a way we can sticky this?

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 13 September 2014 - 08:42 PM, said:

I'm not really into the eSports crowd much, I just enjoy a competitive game when it has a number of options, but the important part is that it's still balanced.

Balance as in "each team has access to the same/similar equipment" is good enough for me. My simple rationale is that MWO is a team-based game.