189 replies to this topic

[Osric Lancaster]

Ultimatum X, on 13 September 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

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.

More complicated isn't necessarily bad, and from a new play perspective it basically amounts to
a - Small 'Mechs are sneaky.
b - Active radar mode makes me more visible, but lets me lock farther.

That's not complicated nor difficult to learn. It's a hell of a lot more intuitive and rational than say, ghost heat. Also a bit of UI showing your visibility / sensor radius might help there.

Ultimatum X, on 13 September 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

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.

This is basically the same as point one. You're letting yourself be intimidated by the graphs, there's very little to it. hell I wish there was more to it, I've seen similar suggestions that take engine rating into account when determining you radar signature.

Ultimatum X, on 13 September 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

3) I think it is too broad scale for the devs to even remotely consider at this time.

It's basically assigning a visibility / sensor strength value to each 'mech based off their chassis that effects their targetable range. I can't see it being intrinsically harder to implement than trying to gerrymander a good sensor warfare system into one module.

Ultimatum X, on 13 September 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

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.

I sort of agree, but we aren't being given a license to suggest balance changes to LRM functionality, and that's something you'd have to address to fix what you're talking about. No change to ECM is ever going to fully fix that, because if your team drops without ECM, what then?

By shrinking the detectable range of small 'Mechs without ECM, what you are doing is giving them the opportunity to preform their role as scouts. Try scouting in an open map like caustic with a non-ECM light now, and you'll be hosed with fire the moment you poke your nose out. If your normal detectable range was reduced 400 meters however, you'd be able to scout without being immediately detected (much like an ECM 'Mech can do now).

Also consider that it shrinks the area around a 'Mech from which it can receive indirect fire from 800m to whatever that Mech's radar signature range is after ECM/TAG/BAP/IDF modifiers. From the standpoint of the LRM user that means moving in closer to the target or toggling radar, and making you're visibility go up.



@ Homeless

Once you have your committee selected, I'd set up two threads; A thread with a single post from each committee member with their version of what needs to be done, to be modified as needed. Have the OP of this thread link to a second thread for discussion of those ideas. Once you have those ideas in the first thread have crystallized into feature changes, add a poll and allow people to vote on each feature.

However you end up doing it, I think it's important that you define ECM
1 - as you would have it in your ideal system, define what that system would be, and
2 - define ECM as it should be in the current system, and how/why that's different.

For example, in Rasc4l's system you might have it reduce the detection radius of effected 'Mechs by a flat 200 meters, but in the current system you might have it's effect scaled inversely to the affected 'Mech's tonnage.

It's important everyone understands how ECM currently works as well. -

http://mwo.gamepedia...asure_%28ECM%29

Then pose questions like -

- Should the ECM prevent you from sharing target data or sensor info with your team mates if you are inside it's field of effect?
(Personally I think so.)
- Should You be able to get a missile lock on a TAG'd 'Mech regardless of where that 'Mech sits in the ECM bubble map?
(Personally I think homeless (dumb fired or without an active target) missiles should track to the nearest NARC/TAG inside some valid range. Unfortunately we're only looking at changing the ECM system, so that changes my answer to 'yes'.)

Sorry, yadda yadda this isn't the place to discuss this. . . (Let me know when there is a place.)

Oh! One more thing; by making ECM effect lock range instead of being an off switch for target locks you change how it works in a situation of overlapping ECM and BAPs, assuming you decide overlap should have any effect at all. You might just end up saying "ECM effected 'Mechs aren't lockable outside 500m, BAP extends this range to 700m and normal targeting range to 1000m" or. . . something.

/ramblings

You go for broke, Bill.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 13 September 2014 - 08:47 PM.

[Rasc4l]

Homeless Bill, on 13 September 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

Ultimately, it's a distinct possibility, and I think they need to be confronted with that. If ECM just disappeared from the game,

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

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

Very well then, only ECM. In that case, allow this fool to propose something in the line of already existing ECM functionalities:

From the wiki "When a Mech is hidden by a friendly ECM:

Enemy Mechs will have to come within 1/4 the normal distance (200 m instead of 800 m, by default) for hidden Mechs to show up on their battlegrid and HUD."

This should be changed to 1/2 so that the scoutable range to find an ECM mech would change from 180-200 m to 180-400 m. Currently, scouts are required to run too close to enemy ECM bubble if they want to report them to teammates electronically (that ridiculous 20 m band) -> they are killed if they are foolish enough to try to coexist with an enemy DDC at that range. And the scouts should be able to target enemy ECM-covered mechs but slower from this 180-400 range and relay that information to friendly LRM boats.

Changing this already brings ECM mechs closer to normal mechs regarding their sensor image and greatly reduces the on/off nature.


"It takes twice as long to achieve a missile lock against a hidden Mech."

Should be 3x as long now that the ECM covered mechs are visible from 400 m. But should not concern TAG, which should target ECM covered mechs just as well as normal mechs. Pilots using that should be rewarded, because they're easily receiving some nasty pinpoint focus fire in addition to being LRM-spammed for their efforts. The other option is to instead make TAG laser invisible as it should be.


"Narc beacons will stick to hidden Mechs, but they won’t provide their normal bonuses until the Mech leaves the ECM’s range."

Should be changed to: Narc beacons will stick to hidden mechs and completely negate their ECM bonuses. Other hidden non-ECM mechs in the bubble are fine. If ECM mech is narced, the ECM is disabled and the whole ECM bubble is nullified but only for 1/2 the default NARC duration.

-> Creates a scouting subgame for NARCing lights "fish the ECM mech", where they are able expose enemy ECM-bubble if played correctly. If they miss and hit a non-ECM mech, they'll still expose someone. With proper XP and especially C-Bill rewards, we no longer have single digit light queue, because scouting works at least a little.

To sum it up, 3 little tweaks to existing ECM functionality to "spread" the Information Warfare a little:
- ECM visibility changed from 180-200 m to 180-400 m (the most important and because there already is such visibility windows built into the game, that's why I didn't think my proposal would be so difficult to do)
- Missile locking time to ECM changed from 2x as difficult to 3x. Negated for TAG.
- ECM-covered non-ECM mechs can be NARCed, which negates the ECM effect, NARCed ECM mechs have their ECMs completely disabled for 1/2 normal NARC duration.

Edited by Rasc4l, 13 September 2014 - 11:14 PM.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

I think, we should include the LOS-factor too.

An LRM boat standing behind a rock and waiting for everyone else to do all the work got the least amount of risk, thus is should yield the lowest rewards of all, meaning for Mechs spotted under ECM:
- It takes a lot of time for the LRM-boat to lock on
- The missile spread is huge
- Tracking-abilities of missiles are poor, thus medium mechs could evade a lot of lrms just by going to max speed

If a NARC is used on the non-ECM mech inside a bubble:
- Same effects as above, but with a slightly better tracking ability and slightly less spread

If TAG is used from the Spotter:
- Same effects as NARC

If TAG is used by the LRM-boat against an ECM covered mech(LOS):
- All systems nominal

etc.

You get for every instance in the matrix some kind of bonus/malue, including the following factors if you play an LRM boat
Do I spot myself (LOS, TAG) or did someone else did the job? Is the enemy Mech NARCed? Do I have Artemis? Am I close enough for locking-on the enemy mech myself or am I still dependent on the spotter? Is the enemy Mech under ECM or even double ECM?

You get the idea. There are several aspects of sensor throughput and lock-on-systems that are not or only plainly covered by the game mechanics right now. With a certain matrix of "states", we can create a much more sophisticated and more intuitive background for all that.

Still, we discuss a lot of LRM-boating here in the ECM topic. I guess you already noticed, that this is not what informational warfare should be all about, right? So adding additional information should be nice too. Having more details than just a paperdoll, showing which weapons are charged, how much ammo is left, how hot the enemy mech is... there is a bunch of stuff we can include.

[DocBach]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 14 September 2014 - 02:58 AM, said:

I think, we should include the LOS-factor too.

So adding additional information should be nice too. Having more details than just a paperdoll, showing which weapons are charged, how much ammo is left, how hot the enemy mech is... there is a bunch of stuff we can include.

While your whole post was high quality, I'd like to highlight the quoted section and point out that the probing ability that beagle is suppose to have should do just that.

[nonnex]

Holla Bill,

I'm much with you regarding this "experiment" and your viewpoint about it. Therefore I would like to ask If you where able to bring order to the first chaos and how the work is going on this?

Because to dont *** up this it is essentially to have some structure and ppl who gets forward and organize.

Edited by nonnex, 14 September 2014 - 04:29 AM.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Yes, we need a structure. Also: The council of x people is somewhat representative, but does not necessarily has to do all the work "alone". There are many people with a lot of insight and experience around here, which are more than 5 people. So I guess, I want to see some sort of system that strives for bringing in competence - or at least is able to recognize valid ideas/proposals that do not come from the x council members. Nevertheless, those people would get voted (I guess) and thus should represent a "common sense" of the community.

One thing I've stumbled upon: Most of the people proposed are from the US. What about the EU? I've noticed, that the style of playing is different between thos two big parts of the community. When playing at EU times, I see far more direct fire mechs and once the US wakes up and I'm still playing, there is a sudden peak of LRM boats on the servers. So please - incorporate those aspects too.

[nonnex]

because they are writing in english does not mean they are US A lot of NA ppl. are contributing right now. I'm not native too and I used to know a lot of other NA's that are involved right now. So, thats a minor problem I think.

Edited by nonnex, 14 September 2014 - 08:23 AM.

[M a y h e m]

Sounds good Bill, polling should be done offsite as we want a diverse user base.

http://strawpoll.me/

http://www.letspoll.com/

http://www.micropoll...de/features.jsp

https://www.surveymo...m_source=header

https://www.surveymo...count_Join.aspx

AV

Edited by Alaric VISIGOTH, 14 September 2014 - 08:34 AM.

[Snowseth]

Off-site polling could risk poll rigging.

Didn't Russ say he's going to open up a poll (Tuesday?) for this sort of thing?

I'd say an mwomercs poll plus an off-site poll would be good.
If the numbers are similar, then it's good.

[ApolloKaras]

Alaric VISIGOTH, on 14 September 2014 - 08:32 AM, said:

Sounds good Bill, polling should be done offsite as we want a diverse user base.

http://strawpoll.me/

http://www.letspoll.com/

http://www.micropoll...de/features.jsp

https://www.surveymo...m_source=header

https://www.surveymo...count_Join.aspx

AV

I would always think that it would open it up for tampering

[Aym]

I am sincerely concerned about the viability of balancing ECM in a vacuum, ie w/out substantive changes to LRMS, BAP, Streaks, etc.
I have heard great things about Eve's player council, but as a non-Eve-player I have no experience with it to judge by. Is that where the 5 person suggestion comes from? If not then why not 7? I know it can be difficult to reach consensus but 5 is a small number to "reach out to the community" as this council is supposed to do.
That said a player council has been asked for since Closed Beta and I'm glad it's finally being addressed, just hope the idea isn't scrapped or the council ignored if the ECM 80+% fix fails to materialize given the concerns already listed.

[EvilCow]

Please keep polls on this forum, stakeholders are here.

[Homeless Bill]

Updated with something I probably should have put there when Russ said it in the first place...

[Bigbacon]

this kind of stuff can only end poorly...because those representing the counsel end up being the power players and the rest of us little folk will have to deal with the crap they force into place.

Same with any governing body.

[nonnex]

Bigbacon, on 14 September 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

this kind of stuff can only end poorly...because those representing the counsel end up being the power players and the rest of us little folk will have to deal with the crap they force into place.

Same with any governing body.

not true everyone can contribute and participate... just do it, instead of mark the poor minority, which you are not if you "contribute"

Edited by nonnex, 14 September 2014 - 04:11 PM.

[Mystere]

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

UPDATE FROM RUSS

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."

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.

Well, there is no "if" as far as I am concerned, and it seems I am not alone.

Having said that, the only ECM-only suggestion I will grudgingly ( ) offer can be found here. But, frankly, I would rather that BAP, TAG, and UAV all be subjected to the same treatment.

[Mystere]

Artgathan, on 12 September 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

I see a lot of people "campaigning" to be on this council without actually mentioning what they'd like to see done to ECM to "improve" it.

Damn these politicians! Even MWO is not safe from their non-committal but still grubby little fingers!

[Ultimax]

Osric Lancaster, on 13 September 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

More complicated isn't necessarily bad, and from a new play perspective it basically amounts to
a - Small 'Mechs are sneaky.
b - Active radar mode makes me more visible, but lets me lock farther.

Part of the complaint lodged against ECM is that it is new player unfriendly.

In that respect, this system is no better.

Also, I don't think new players will be able to remember and utilize their active and inactive radar modes at all.

Just as there are new players now who do not even realize you can use ECM to disrupt enemy ECM.

The number of times I have been spectating and had to tell some Raven or DDC on my team who was hunting that last light mech to switch modes is staggering.

Osric Lancaster, on 13 September 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

This is basically the same as point one. You're letting yourself be intimidated by the graphs

I'm not intimidated by it.

I'm telling you that it is likely beyond the ability of the casual player to understand, remember and utilize.

Osric Lancaster, on 13 September 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

I sort of agree, but we aren't being given a license to suggest balance changes to LRM functionality,

No, we have not been given a license to suggest balance changes to LRM functionality.

Russ mention that it is limited to ECM, pulling in other systems only if absolutely necessary.






My opinion is unchanged, that there can be no proposal to fix ECM without Shared Locks/IDF being dealt with.


I've also outlined what I feel is at the root of the issue between these intrinsically locked mechanics.

http://mwomercs.com/...hared-locksidf/

Edited by Ultimatum X, 14 September 2014 - 06:05 PM.

[LORD ORION]

ECM- Defensive 180m umbrella
Decrease detection range 50%
Increase lock time 100%
Renders useless Artemis, BAP, NARC, Streaks

ECM- Offensive Mode 180m
Any enemy mech in the 180m range cannot lock a target
Any enemy mech in the 180m range cannot use chat
Any enemy mech in the 180m range disappears off friendly radar

ECM- Offensive Beam mode
-ECM can be assigned a weapon group
-Firing ECM as a weapon disables the umbrella bonuses (you can fire the beam regardless of the mode you are in)
-Fires like a tag beam (750m) from the ECM location,
-Nullifies defensive mode ECM if it hits an ECM equipped mech (to clarify it has no effect on mechs in the umbrella, it only nullifies the ECM equipped mech if it hits)

-Offensive ECM and Defensive ECM counter each other out at a 1/1 ratio. That is to say, defensive and offensive Umbrella bonuses are removed.
-Overlapping enemy ECM in the same mode provides their umbrella bonuses as normal. (eg: 2 ECM mechs on opposing teams running Offensve mode ECM will blind each other)

1) That's right, you are eventually going to be locked at 600m and you deserve to die if you are stupid.
2) Jamming enemy at close range is not auto-magic anymore, you must switch to offensive ECM and give up your defensive bonuses
3) If you stand in the open with ECM (looking at you Derpy DDCs) you are going to get hit by an offensive ECM beam, you are going to die and your team is going to die.

ECM fixed

Now all we need is an LRM discussion
2 firing modes
Direct Fire and Indirect fire

Direct Fire Mode = Low arc, fast speed, fast track, only locks on your line of sight, cannot be locked by a friendly spotting for you
Indirect Fire Mode = High Arc, low speed, slow track, can be locked by your line of sight, or be spotted by a friendly with a lock

If you are not smart enough to use the correct mode, do not use LRMs

Edited by LORD ORION, 14 September 2014 - 08:16 PM.

[1453 R]

I don't know if it's been mentioned somewhere else before, but I just had a thought I felt was pertinent enough to the discussion to warrant me cluttering up the thread a bit more.

Currently, from my read on it there's a good bit of resistance to the notion of 'ECM Only' that Russ laid down. This is understandable; ECM is currently a very tricky piece of equipment upon which an unhealthily large portion of game balancing rests upon, and it seems ludicrous on the face of it to expect that a change to JUST ECM would be anywhere nearly enough.

But...

We've been screaming at Piranha to work in incremental balance measures for a long time. Little things, tested one at a time and adjusted rapidly at need, rather than gigantic "ALL DA LEVERZ" meta-shift balance changes. Now that we have our crack at ECM, a lot of proposals I've seen in recent days are for sweeping, multi-system redos of the entire Information Warfare pillar, much more game-changing and ALL DA LEVERZ-y than anything Paul's ever done.

I honestly think Russ may have the right of it. What we should be focusing on isn't so much The One Proposal to fix IW in one shot, but on a proposal that puts ECM, and ECM alone, roughly where we want ECM, and ECM alone, to be. After that? Additional balance changes will come. They'll have to, because a critical piece of the balance landscape will have changed. Will there be a period of chaos, uncertainty, and civil unrest? Of course there will - but the shakedown afterwards when everything settles back into place will be a far better proposition than what we've got now.

If we can keep ourselves laser-focused down on ECM alone, exert what self-control we have available to us to just leave the rest of it be, then not only do we have a better chance of pushing ECM changes through, but we'll have a much better chance of Russ letting us do this whole shebang a second time, and/or a third, or a fourth, or however often it works, in regards to other, future balance issues.

Such as, Iunno...Information Warfare currently being effectively nonexistent?

I suppose I'm simply counseling baby steps. Stick within our given guidelines this time, and we're more likely to be given looser guidelines and a broader potential focus to work on next time. if we can do this one step at a time, instead of all at once, then we'll end up in a much better place for it.