189 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Spurowny, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

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

Interesting.

Why do you think that?

[Gremlich Johns]

I am unsure that having a council of players is going to have any more influence over PGI's thought processes than what we have all been trying to do these past 2+ years.

I'd say you are all just going to be pissing up a rope.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 13 September 2014 - 11:20 AM.

[STEF_]

Artgathan, on 13 September 2014 - 04:36 AM, said:

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.

Good point.
But nevertheless, i would like to see implemented a ecm with tt rules AND stuff like null signature system and c3c.
This would implement more interesting dynamics in strategic movements that what we have now.
Also in this way, we could let ecm be an equipment as tt rules.

edit typo

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 13 September 2014 - 11:53 AM.

[Homeless Bill]

Rasc4l, on 13 September 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

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...

Ultimately, it's a distinct possibility, and I think they need to be confronted with that. If ECM just disappeared from the game, LRMs would be king. That's not how it should be. You shouldn't be ****** because no one on your team brought the 1.5 tons of magic.

We'll see how everything plays out, but I think the council is going to have to pick a solution this is palatable to 80% of the community, palatable to PGI, and every other consideration will have to be secondary. Perhaps they'll need to make additional recommendations and comments with the proposal (like "LRMs are feast or famine, and this will push them towards feast; you guys need to fix LRMs").

I want comprehensive. Believe me, I do. I think it's almost a fool's errand at this point, but I'd like to prove that - at least procedurally - we can get this done. We can elect some representatives, have them go through all the ideas and cull them down, and then present their findings to the community. If the vote fails or PGI rejects, whatever. At least we can say, "You gave us a balance problem to solve, we got our **** together, and we made our recommendations. It was too difficult and divisive an issue to get a whopping 80% consensus on, but we are more than capable of tackling issues like this."

[Khobai]

If ECM didnt hard counter LRMs, then indirect LRMs wouldnt need to be as strong. While direct LRMs probably do need to be a little stronger; Artemis certainly could use a buff (Artemis should give a critical hit bonus to LRMs and SRMs).

I think the best solution is to make ECM into a soft counter rather than a hard counter. And then weaken indirect LRMs by increasing their spread and reducing their tracking/accuracy. They definitely need their screenshake turned down too.

That way having ECM is no longer an absolute counter to LRMs. But not having ECM isnt going to put you at the mercy of LRMs either.

Edited by Khobai, 13 September 2014 - 01:10 PM.

[LCCX]

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.

Though that is the case, the point for the moment is simply proving the community can organize itself, get a council, present a proposal, vote on in positively, and start with restrictions like "ECM only" for consideration/discussion.

[Ultimax]

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

I asked Russ just what the scope of this project is so we know immediately just how much is on the table. This was his reply: "Restricted to ECM only - Other systems can be pulled in if absolutely necessary to make the perfect ECM solution work etc."


Important Things

• Diversity of players
  
• Design by republic - not design by democracy
  
• A mature, non-combative leader/mediator for the council
  
• A well-define scope that doesn’t bleed into other systems in the game

I think ECM and Shared Locks/IDF are two sides of the same coin.

They are two sides of the same coin, and cannot be addressed or discussed without one another.

Shared Locks/IDF weigh exactly 0 tons, and provide a teamwide force multiplication tool.

I do not think it is possible to address ECM's functionality without addressing Shared Locks/IDF.

[Osric Lancaster]

I really agree with Rasc4l on this.

Homeless Bill, on 12 September 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

I think it's 100% this. He's giving us exactly what we wanted to show us, "It's not that easy, you morons."

It's like the head chef has tasked us with making a sandwich with the caveat that we may not use bread, vegetables or meat. He can't do it well, you can't do it well. It doesn't mean making a good sandwich is impossible, but that it requires those ingredients.

"Other systems can be pulled in if absolutely necessary to make the perfect ECM solution work etc."

I'd say absolutely necessary applies. I think we push something as close to Rasc4l's original suggestion as possible.

I've made a similar suggestion (badly and without pretty pictures), as I'm sure dozens if not hundreds of others have done because it's the most obvious, logical approach to role and sensor warfare.

Rasc4l I tip my hat to you, that is some fine work.

[L Y N X]

Black Thorns of TSF support this approach HB.

[Wintersdark]

Gremlich Johns, on 13 September 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

I am unsure that having a council of players is going to have any more influence over PGI's thought processes than what we have all been trying to do these past 2+ years.

I'd say you are all just going to be pissing up a rope.

Maybe. Conversely, if we do nothing, then we've got nothing to complain about thereafter. If we just say it's too hard, or don't bother, then PGI has an easy answer from here on out. They can simply sit back and say "Well, you had your chance, and didn't even bother/couldn't get even basic organization going; why should we listen?"

On the other hand, if we do it, even following those restrictions, we get reasonable consensus (even if not 80%) and come up with a reasonable suggestion? Then they've got to at least do as they say, and present any issues they have with it, follow the process they've posted.

If they don't, it's on them. See? Even if it's not going to change anything, we have to do it, to have a leg to stand on later.

[Ultimax]

I'm going to post some dissent.

Rasc4l's proposal is interesting but it has issues.


1) His system is not any friendlier to new players than ECM is. In fact in some ways, it's more complicated.
2) It might even be too complicated for average casual players, players who do not want to invest time to learn the ins and outs of a system like that.
3) I think it is too broad scale for the devs to even remotely consider at this time.
4) While it gives each mech a minor ability to avoid "LRM horror" it fails to address the root cause of LRM horror. Which is the shared targeting system combined with Indirect Fire Mode.

[Ahja]

Two years of nothing and I miss the start of something great. Anyway the consul sounds great lets do it. Go go go.

[MischiefSC]

Okay, so lets do this -

We're presenting our product development ideas to PGI. Let's do this the smart way.

Let's do the 'Dear Santa' version. Changes to ECM, Radar, BAP, TAG, NARC and locking weapons (SSRM/LRMs) that would make everyone happy. If we can come up with something intelligent, viable and that makes everyone (or at least 80%) happy then let's present that. If PGI says 'no way to do that' we scale it back.

You go into this expecting to have to make compromises. That's alright and a good thing. In the development process we can PM what we're looking at to Russ and he can say 'Yeah, we would go that far' or 'That's too much, just do ECM' or the like then we'll change tack.

So what would this look like?

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 13 September 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

If ECM didnt hard counter LRMs, then indirect LRMs wouldnt need to be as strong. While direct LRMs probably do need to be a little stronger; Artemis certainly could use a buff (Artemis should give a critical hit bonus to LRMs and SRMs).

I think the best solution is to make ECM into a soft counter rather than a hard counter. And then weaken indirect LRMs by increasing their spread and reducing their tracking/accuracy. They definitely need their screenshake turned down too.

That way having ECM is no longer an absolute counter to LRMs. But not having ECM isnt going to put you at the mercy of LRMs either.

This, btw, has a lot to recommend it. I would like to see this or something very much like this in the final resolution. This isn't a huge rework of LRMs but some small variables (spread on LRMs on indirect, tightening on direct fire with Artemis, ECM significantly slowing locks but not blocking completely, TAG just making locks way quicker and BAP letting you ignore ECM within range as well as 3D target identification within range.

If we're going to do this, make a council and go through all this effort lets present a 'here's how we'd like IW with ECM to work'. If that's too much we'll scale back but let's do it. Even if it turns into a 'We'll do ECM, if that works we'll move towards the rest'.

IW was and is a big pillar of MW:O. We have some things we want from that. Building a consensus in the community about that and where ECM fits is going to have no drawbacks and be a good thing all the way around.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Okay, I've fast-read through some suggestions here.

I like the idea of Scouts being Scouts and Assaults being assaults from a sensor side of view. So, lets take it this way:

An Atlas equipped with an ECM has a role to cover some kind of advance - which is good, while a Raven with an ECM has the role to scout untetected. Both things are valid and good. So, here is my "partial" proposal, a little bit the adapted version of Rasc4l proposal:

- Active&passive sensors are great - bring them in
- Make other equipment, like the BAP, Adv. Sensor Range module be more than just what they are
- ECM should be a strong asset, but not exclusively mandatory to counter LRMs

Right now, LRMs are an extremely low risk but high reward weapon. ECM does counter it right now and ECM is mostly used to counter LRMs. Streaks are not used, as they lack the DPS of SRMs, now that the hit detection is back for them. So, broadening counters to LRMs would be good. As for now, AMS is empty far too fast. For 1 ton of ammo, its down to zero too fast and more tonnage for that is just a real waste of loadout for any mech. Another part for this could be to introduce the Laser-AMS. Producing heat, but being more effective. Lets say 2 Tons and 2 Slots, which is the same as an AMS right now (with ammo) in slots, but half a ton more in weight. It does not need ammo, but produces heat and should be way more expensive. When the standard AMS is able to shoot down about 5-6 missiles, the Laser-AMS should be able to shoot down 10-12 missiles, for about 0.3-0.4 heat points per shot. This means, that shooting down LRMs with Laser AMS heats up your mech, preventing you from effectively engaging the enemy. So LRMs become a real suppressive fire weapon and do not have to hit the enemy in the first place, but are already an asset when being fired onto the enemy. Either you deal damage, or you heat the enemy mech up. Either way, its good for a 3rd line mech-weapon.

ECM is now not mandatory to counter LRMs, but can be used for real informational warfare. It can cover your group and prevents detection, but a mech that locks you on, can be locked by LRMs of friendly units. So being in the bubble does not make you save, if a spotter is near you. And this is where Rasc4ls post comes in. Being able to actively lock on a target with your sensors will share the information to your teammates, meaning you can attack mechs under ECM with LRMs, with certain drawbacks like increased lock-on times, higher spread, less tracking-abilities.

The BAP counters those effects to a certain degree. Depending on if you have LOS on the enemy, you already gain benefits, as a direct sensor approach is always better than having someone spotting for you *relaying* that information. Enhanced Sensor range (as a module) now becomes very useful for lights, as well as for LRM-boats. Adv. Target Decay is also a module that should soft count (with a decay similar to weapons fired over their optimum range, but only made with time instead of range) for your Artemis if you lose LOS and TAG/NARC-bonuses.

In general, you want to have LOS in your LRM-boat, if not, you should see your efficiency of having LRMs being dropped by a huge amount. We have enough tools to craft such a mechanic. The same goes for ECM. Being inside the bubble will hide you from enemy lock-ons as well as from enemy missiles like we have it now, but the bubble-range can be increased depending on:
- Your reactor value
- Equipped modules (Adv. Sensor range can also count to your ECM as a positive effect, countering enemies adv. sensor range)

The tonnage should not be a modifier for ECM - only a modifier on how easy it is for enemy sensors to get a lock. This also brings in the use of other sensor modules, beside Target Deprivation. And if we talk about ECM, we should talk about Target Deprivation too. Just saying.

The whole gameplay mechanic needs a re-work, if we start here, as it is affects the whole gameplay, not just one part of equipment. In the end, because ECM is rather rare and costs you valuable Slots and tonnage - even on an Atlas and esp. on a Light mech, it should reap a good amount of benefits. Making is too soft is not good.

Thats it for now, just a little brainstorming.

[Cerlin]

I would like to see rasc4l's changes in first THEN see how ECM is doing.

As I said in another post, ecm has been OP (but with more counters than before) so long that we forget how OP it can be from a new players perspective. I also hate LRM rain and it needs counters too, so if ECM is changed, lrm's will need to have more hard counters than just "cover" such as increasing IS AMS ammo counts (clans get 2 k a ton), and some nerd to indirect fire (but I do love this idea in theory.)

[One of Little Harmony]

I really think 5 people is far too few to represent the community unless it was 5 people who really can weigh opinions and actually consider what they are really saying.

I am a Parliamentarian well versed in Robert's Rules of Order. I will happily volunteer myself as an impartial non-voting non-debating moderator to facilitate discussion. I would also be happy to write bylaws governing the rules of a player council.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Part II:

Another point for making this game more enjoyable is the role warfare. Right now, I see Embers and Spiders tanking more than an Atlas - simply because either their hitboxes are still screwed up or because they are too small for their tonnage. A Spider having 1/3 of the tonnage of an Atlas should have 1/3 of the Volume as an Atlas. We already made adaptions to the TT rules in a massive way to make it ready to be used in live-gameplay, so we can go through this wholeheartedly.

Now, a Spider will not engage an Assault head-on, because it will simply die. I think, the size of Mediums, Heavies and Assaults are already quite balanced. So if we make Lights the size of Mediums (still having the speed of 150 km/h), they change their role - which is the most important thing here:

They do not engage head on, they scout and become really fragile. This is intended. On the other hand, they shall reap massive rewards for scouting - meaning that the information warwafe needs a good chunk of a boost. And I don't mean that in terms of just LRMs, but in a much broader way, like needing a lock on to fire an artillery strike (long tom from base which needs a spotter and not just pressing a button with a 5 seconds timer before the projectile is fired through adapting the long tom cannon and the transition time of the long tom)

This also goes hand in hand with the ECM mechanic. Like I already said, if we want to propose a change here, we have to change a LOT of mechanics to have a fitting gameplay. Changing just onem echanic and leaving other untouched won't change anything. Instead, we need to think out of the box and broaden our view to all possible consequences.

There have been thousands of suggestions being made by the community, I've read a couple of them and quite some of them could have been coded in fairly easily, others not but would have doubled the fun of gameplay. But back to topic:

A council of 5 people sounds good. I create game mechanics myself for other games and think, a team of 5 is a good number. There should also be people sending suggestions to those 5 people (we have a whole subform for those) and I guess, we should take some of them, draft them out and then have a poll of the community to vote them in.

For example:
1. I make a suggestion - it is good and comes under review
2. The review process tells me: Yeah, thats okay, but needs some refinement - we have discussed it and came up with adaptions
3. They show me those, and I can give additional thoughts, as I'm the one who had the idea in the first place
4. Consensus found - idea is approved. The council also finds, it is one of the top 10 suggestions now which are presented in a month
5. 10 suggestions will be posted to an official poll - this procedure is done once a month
6. Lets say, 3 of the 10 suggestions get a 66% majority
7. Those 3 suggestions are now on the to-do-list for the Devs

[GreyGriffin]

I agree wholeheartedly that the community should have a voice in the development of MWO. Battletech has one of the most dedicated, educated, and thoughtful fan bases in the greater gaming community, despite the madness that we may have all seen transpire on these forums.

I also agree that a purely democratic consensus is the road to madness. Such a group needs to be small enough to discuss and consider issues, and present real, tangible, actionable proposals that don't have seventy thousand typos and caveats down to the third footnote.

I also agree that this is a trap. But it's one we have to walk into with our heads high. We have to fight the good fight and die the good death in order to prove to ourselves as a community that we did what we could.

I would love to be considered to participate in this sort of discussion as the PuG/Scrub representative, but I understand that my participation, on the forums and in the game, have declined considerably since Beta.

So with the formalities aside, I think Infowar has to be hurled into the chipper shredder entirely to fix it. It needs a pass unto itself, but other comments do have a point - infowar does not have a large impact on the game until new or different game modes are implemented. So let's narrow the focus to ECM as it functions in a 12v12 deathmatch.

• LRM Umbrella - Its most controversial feature, ECM currently completely negates LRM against friendlies in a broad radius around the carrier.
  
• SSRM Umbrella - As a perhaps-unintended consequence, it provides blanket protection from SSRMs as well.
  
• Targeting Shield - Prevents the 'mech and its allies from being spotted on radar or sensors.
  
• Target Info Time Increase - Prevents the 'mech's targeting info from being revealed.
  
• ECM Countering - Through the dangerous and rarely used Counter mode.

So, how do you bundle all this crap into one and a half tons? How do we turn this into a minimally viable product (i.e. executable by PGI without them claiming too high a cost to implement?)

Tough order.

I recommend splitting its functioning into 2 very different modes from what it has now.

Jam mode would include the following, affecting allies in a 200m radius:

• LRM Umbrella - Arguably the most important feature of ECM, the LRM umbrella is pretty much its raison d'être. I believe that significantly increased lock times against 'mechs under the LRM umbrella is punitive enough. With the advent of Radar Deprivation and the current maps, you can give a significant lock time increase and still have the net effect of significant cover from LRMs. If possible, a wider spread could be created for jammed missiles, sending some of them corkscrewing off into oblivion, since they love jinking with LRM flight patterns.
  
• Streak SRM Umbrella - While I don't think SSRMs should suffer from lack of lock-on, I am almost certain that SRMs and LRMs use the same lock. Increased lock times would affect SRMs as well.

Stealth or Low-Profile mode would function similar to ECM's current Jam mode, with the following features and changes. The radius of its effects would be reduced to approximately 50m, making moving large groups of 'mechs in formation a matter of skill, and exposing them to the dangers of artillery.

• Targeting Shield - This would apply to the 'mech and its close allies. The 'Mech halves(?) the distance at which it can be target locked, and it and its allies must be in LoS for several (4-8?) seconds of exposure to show a dorito. 'Mechs in a stealth ECM field are vulnerable to missile fire if they are targeted with no additional lockon time.

I think this functioning allows ECM skirmishing and a carefully moving flanking lance to spring an ambush under ECM cover, while making it non-trivial to move an entire team under ECM cover. You have to be much more conscious of enemy positioning and aware of enemy scouts, as well as terrain that can be used for sensor cover.

As for the other two functions?

• Target Info Obfuscation - Can work as normal, only affecting 'mechs in the 200m/50m bubble as normal.
  
• ECM Counter - Is clearly the role of the BAP, with without blanket sensor and missile immunity, is no longer mission critical.

... Thoughts?

[Sam Slade]

Rasc14 had a solid idea there; only addition I would make is giving ECM only one mode and making it a blanket effect(friend and foe) unless you have BAP(with BAP you can use active and passive modes as per Rasc14) in which case you share target data with friends in line of sight(even if they are friendly-ECMed). That's when Command Console comes in; with Command Console and BAP you can share target data with team in range(TBD) even if under ECM.

Suddenly we have command mechs

Suddenly we have real scouts

Suddenly we have real support mechs

Hello seriously dangerous LRMS(hello higher powered weapons all over really... battles become more intense without having to become TTK sprints)

This would make ECM use a truly selective thing: in a brawl it could be a real friendly fire danger... tactics time, buy paint time, so many things come of this

Edited by Sam Slade, 13 September 2014 - 08:32 PM.