189 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

lockwoodx, on 12 September 2014 - 10:51 PM, said:

Thanks! I was a sponsored game critic for over 6 years so I'm much better at picking things(and people) apart than offering genuine solutions. I'd rather attack the logic of a problem and break it down into simpler elements so that players and professionals who generally come up with better overall ideas have an easier time at it, tho people don't like having their ideas critiqued which more often than not leads to conflict when flaws are pointed out. When I'm bored tho I can come up with some pretty whacky things just to get people to think, regardless if the ideas have merit or not. This helps the process of elimination along until a viable solution can be found that benefits the overall bigger picture.



Considering what led up to PGI "ramping" up the communication, it's a valid (all be it slanted) question.

Its a good skill TBH - throwing out weird ideas allows one to think creativly even if its not a viable solution it can open up new avenues of thinking. Kind of 6 thinking hats style

[Spurowny]

Homeless Bill, on 12 September 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

I honestly think his offer is simply meant to demonstrate that the forums are out of their minds, no consensus is possible, and so you should just let them do their jobs.

I agree with this assessment

I however don't agree that ECM needs changing.
I believe its current implementation is just fine

let them do their jobs

[EvilCow]

I agree with OP in general, I also like the names proposed in this thread.

What about let people candidate themselves or others then make a poll in order to select 5 of them? in order to avoid sock puppets:
1)No recent accounts.
2)At least 100 posts.
3)Registered in CW.

Then let this council be for like 6 months.

I also suggest to finalize a set of acceptable solutions and then let the devs make their pick based on their knowledge of the game and technical difficulties.

Edited by EvilCow, 12 September 2014 - 11:07 PM.

[Sarlic]

Need more then 5. Either 10 or 12.

5 is not enough.

And these 10 or 15 players must talk each other in person on a meeting. Not only digital posting or e-mailing.
And lastly: it's a ALOT of extra work being a member of the council, where are you going to get that extra time?

Basically your taking the lead designer it's job. So what's the use if he does not listen at all? Then your council means nothing.

Although i like the idea.

Edit: how did i end up in the wrong thread?

Edited by Sarlic, 12 September 2014 - 11:14 PM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Homeless Bill, on 12 September 2014 - 03:08 PM, said:

Oh my gawd did they take away the ability to add polls??? How the **** are we supposed to do anything? I give up already...

You can in the suggestion forum. They locked the others like a year and a half ago when they first reorganized the forums

[Asmudius Heng]

Sarlic, on 12 September 2014 - 11:07 PM, said:

Edit: how did i end up in the wrong thread?

Gross incompetence...

j/k

I disagree, too many causes issues a smaller group is better - but with a larger group of people willing to be civil as a sense check and review.

I do agree its best they talk on teamspeak along with some sort of collaborative documents etc

[TheCaptainJZ]

I do not want a permanent council for anything. Too easy for it to be influenced and political. I am also sorta against the idea of an elite group at all, but there does need to be some sort of focus group that is spearheading this process. It's just a necessity. The people posting all this stuff and in support of the idea of presenting a plan to PGI are the obvious choices. They need to be level-headed and not have their own progatives to pursue, but they must reach out and listen to the different facets of the community.

As for a baseline, I think it's fairly clear that we need to start looking at ECM from the TT rules (which I am not familiar with as I've never played TT). That has to be the baseline that Homeless Bill is asking for. Also, the focus group needs to find or needs players to send them their ideas for ECM keeping the scope in mind. There should be a thread just to submit proposals. Some of these have been debated to death already, but I think we need to start over with the debate. Not necessarily the ideas, but the debate about them.

I'm in full support of this endeavor but I don't think I'm the one to be on a council. I'm a casual player who mostly likes to help in the New Player section. I'd like to think I'm pretty unbiased and neutral and I often see value in each side of an argument (in short, I'm one of those on the fence type of people). I realize no one knows me and I'm not really looking to be a major part of this but that is the kind of people you need to be part of this.

Edited by TheCaptainJZ, 12 September 2014 - 11:30 PM.

[Sam Slade]

It's so simple:

1). ECM effect applied to ALL mechs in range, both friendly and hostile.

2). Introduce active/passive radar with a super simple change to sensor range, missile lock times and radar signature; switching becomes a simple toggle and DOES NOT require a rework of the entire system.

3). Restrict BAP to a limited range of mechs and allow active radar abilities in passive mode when BAP and ECM are on the same mech(only with both).

No major changes required to the existing system... Just alterations of some values... easy


THE COUNCIL: This will be used as a crude patsy to cover for a lack of action on real customer concerns and the designers failure to address long standing complaints, issues and undelivered promises.

Edited by Sam Slade, 12 September 2014 - 11:45 PM.

[The Great Unwashed]

Some ECM ideas to consider

• Make ECM an intermittent effect; like static on a bad phone line. For most of the time it works, but you see the ECM mech pop up on radar from time to time. Long enough to be noticed, but too short to get a solid lock for missiles and barely long enough for a paper-doll readout.
  
• PPC hits disable the ECM for a while. ECM should take a few points of damage from PPC hits no matter the armor on a mech, 4D for a hit on the right section, 2D for any other part. Not enough to be taken out by a single 2PPC shot but enough to make your worry and give PPCs something else to do besides sitting on shelves. Perhaps armor can reduce the effect somewhat to give the Altas ECM more longevity but not much.
  
• ECM does not take damage in Counter mode so a good pilot can turn it off once the PPC bolts start flying.
  
• ECM takes 5 seconds to charge when going from Counter to Disrupt to add another penalty for switching. A module can remove 25% from this time for more role-oriented play.
  
• The ECM field becomes weaker when the mech is at high heat levels. ECM takes damage from overheating. After a shutdown, the ECM needs the same 5 seconds to charge (all energy should recharge after shutdown, but soit)
  
• Own PPC fire disables/weakens the ECM field for a few secs especially when the ECM and PPC are in the same mech section. Perhaps a PPC bolt flying very close to the ECM should have an increase in ECM static (most briefly).
  
• Walking around with such a large jamming device should have consequences for the mech carrying it. Having ECM reduces your own radar range, getting a lock and info takes longer, your paper doll model and Hud show a constant static. This is the penalty for ECM as a defensive measure. Effect is gone when going in Counter mode.
  
• BAP and ECM stack to counter the disadvantages of having ECM and mech radar range is restored to normal mech range. The effect is stronger (normal BAP radar range) when the BAP and ECM are integrated (option for the player by adding a checkmark, cannot be changed during play. Perhaps this is a Cbills upgrade like Artemis) but the BAP now shares PPC damage done the to ECM. Real scouts once more can carry BAP and ECM for better role-oriented play or you need you pay tons and slots for counter the disadvantages by ECM for the Altas and, hopefully, Hellbringer.

Edited by The Great Unwashed, 13 September 2014 - 02:55 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Im in the camp that thinks ECM can't truly be fixed without a redesign of information warfare in general.

ECM, BAP, Sensors (range active/passive) i have a broad idea that i won't have time to post today because it will be lengthy and probably feature spoiler tags to separate it out i have work in an hour .
But i'll try and get it up over the next day or two.

Edited by DV McKenna, 13 September 2014 - 02:59 AM.

[Asmudius Heng]

DV McKenna, on 13 September 2014 - 02:54 AM, said:

Im in the camp that thinks ECM can't truly be fixed without a redesign of information warfare in general.

ECM, BAP, Sensors (range active/passive) i have a broad idea that i won't have time to post today i have work in an hour .
But i'll try and get it up over the next day or two.

I posted something in open beta I think really comprehensive but I don't think I can even be bothered finding it again better to start anew ... Will be interested to see your thoughts though because you are 100% correct we cannot stop at ECM

[DocBach]

Yep ECM is just the most visible component of an incomplete and shallow information warfare design pillar.

[Ulric Kell]

I'm a realist, so it will be very hard for me to accept any type of solution/change without actually delving into Radar, which is the underlying system that needs a root change to make ECM more like what it should be.

Either way I'll support the community.

[Artgathan]

Stefka Kerensky, on 12 September 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

Sorry, Artagatan, but there is not a rule testing that ecm should cover friendly units.
You are referring to ecm as it miraculously gifts stealth armor or null signature system for all its teammate
Now, I would like these and many other features implemented here in mwo, of course.
But, ECM is not working properly, now.

Most of this game is "not working properly" compared to TT. An AC/2 is capable of dealing over 28 damage in 10 seconds, which - in TT terms - would make it an AC/28. Heat is completely different. Even mobility is totally different - if a player wants to execute a 180 degree turn as fast as possible with an Atlas in TT, they have to stand still for 10 seconds. (IE: top speed is dictated by turn speed. In MW:O it is the inverse: your turn speed is dictated by your top speed). Actuator critical hits do nothing. We can converge weapons on the same panel of armor without special equipment. LRMs fly in giant clusters instead of groups of 5. SRMs do not track targets. Jump Jets are nowhere near their TT utility.

Implementations must be different for a turn-based tabletop game and for a real-time first person shooter. The current implementation of ECM is a good one. The problems associated with it can be tackled in different ways.

Having Passive/Active Sensors, LRMs that lock via LOS targeting (rather than needing the red box), Fire-and-Forget LRMs (DIRECT-FIRE ONLY)... These are all things that would help balance ECM without needing to change ECM itself. Most of the playerbase targets ECM - mistakenly believing it is the cause of the problem when it is only a symptom.

Consider:

If ECM doesn't have stealth Information Warfare becomes "I see you and can target you" or "I can't see you and can't target you". Totally binary. If ECM doesn't have "blanket" stealth teams can't execute team movements as effectively (as I mentioned before it makes it completely impossible to maneuver unless there's complete cover the entire way to the objective).

If we take away ECM stealth, but leave in missile lock penalties, LRMs are still pretty useless against ECM (less so than currently, but there's not enough of a difference for it to be worthwhile).

Let me re-iterate:

ECM itself is not the problem. Missile Locks mechanics and Information Warfare are the problem.

[Kaeseblock]

Tumbs up Homeless Bill, this process really sounds good

I suggest two additions:

• Creating a thread for the community to submit initial ideas for an ECM concept
  
• creation of a single document containing the initial ideas submitted

Both can be done parallel to forming the council.

This way the council has a solid base of information once it has to decide on the initial concept (Or maybe they decide to open a poll to decide which concept should be used as the initial one. I'd be fine with that too )

Edit: Fixed a typo

Edited by Kaeseblock, 13 September 2014 - 05:53 AM.

[Tekadept]

Just wondering how are the silent majority (who reigned supreme in every other decision) going to weigh in on this matter / be represented?

My feed back on the process? It sounds way to tryhard, I just hope nobody takes this "to seriously" and loses sleep over it. Throughout the whole process it should be kept in mind the thought process the "design by republic" comes up with is being presented to a "dicatorship".

With the constraints provided, what is the point? to fix ECM you need to look at a lot more of the other integral systems to at least a small degree. IMO its trying to balance "tone, paper, scissors,well" Without being able to change what counters what.

Edited by Tekadept, 13 September 2014 - 06:15 AM.

[Screech]

I really don't think you can "fix" ECM by only addressing ECM. But if you were going to go this route the first thing you would need to do is remove them chassis restrictions on it and then balance it from there.

[Dark Jackal]

DV McKenna, on 13 September 2014 - 02:54 AM, said:

Im in the camp that thinks ECM can't truly be fixed without a redesign of information warfare in general.

ECM, BAP, Sensors (range active/passive) i have a broad idea that i won't have time to post today because it will be lengthy and probably feature spoiler tags to separate it out i have work in an hour .
But i'll try and get it up over the next day or two.

Yes, AND, there is this e-sports consideration that went into ECM which is in part why there has been a drastic change from the outset of ECM than the TT ever did with this item.

[DocBach]

Screech, on 13 September 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

I really don't think you can "fix" ECM by only addressing ECM. But if you were going to go this route the first thing you would need to do is remove them chassis restrictions on it and then balance it from there.

Though I would prefer to see other Information Warfare pieces gain more functions and more in depth interaction between the various components, this proposed change below changes just ECM:

If ECM is going to continue to provide stealth effects, I would say a reduction in the amount of stealth it provides for 'Mechs in the open. If an ECM 'Mech is in direct line of sight of friendly 'Mech sensors, perhaps instead of the 200m flat cap, incremental detection ranges for different weight classes could make things a bit more balanced;

For instance standard sensors can detect enemy 'Mechs in the open 800m away;

ECM protected assault 'Mechs can be detected within 700m
ECM protected heavy 'Mechs can be detected within 600m
ECM protected medium 'Mechs can be detected within 500m
ECM protected light 'Mechs can be detected within 400m

Enemy 'Mechs in the vicinity of an ECM bubble have a penalty to lock on, but are not completely unable to lock like currently.

Detected ECM 'Mechs have a longer lock on penalty for indirect fire attacks, but less of a penalty for LRM attacks from direct line of sight.

ECM protected 'Mechs that are targeted have a longer time to gain targeting information each time the 'Mech is selected, still giving it an ability to shroud information like damage condition and weapons load out.

This solution removes the complete sensor lock out we currently have, but still provide protection in the form of longer lock times from LRMageddons -- just not a complete hard counter.

ECM would still provide some defense from sensors, but requires players utilize fundamentals like cover and concealment better instead of relying on ECM to move through direct line of sight without consequence.

Edited by DocBach, 13 September 2014 - 10:33 AM.

[Rasc4l]

Homeless Bill, on 12 September 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

What that means is that comprehensive solutions are off the table. Re-working sensors, range, active/passive radar, LRMs, etc, are all things that I believe should happen. I do love Rasc4l's proposal in all honesty, but it's simply not something they'll even consider by the sound of it.

They've laid out the terms of what they're willing to offer, so we simply have to work with what we were given. I highly recommend you to start gathering your favorite ECM-only changes.

Thank you. However, I don't think it's possible to just change (nerf) ECM without causing horrible LRMgeddons. This is exactly what my proposal tries to avoid. And again, you can skip the extra stuff in my OP, if we just do the basic thing with detection ranges with active/passive modes we have basically a whole new IW, where ECM only plays a lesser role. I can't believe finding that place, where it says "800 m" for normal range is that difficult and extending it a bit further is a complex solution...

I mean if we're only allowed to work with ECM's current parameters what can we do? Decrease missile lock time penalty 5 %? :) A "realistic" solution would be to remove the bubble altogether and make it work only for the ECM-mech -> LRMageddon in current meta, wont work. Would work with passive/active radar though as everyone would have their own defense i.e. the option to put their heads down...