189 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

I'm torn on this whole idea as it does allow the "you wanted it, you got it, you're to blame for breaking it" game to be played. That said, I'm not convinced it's a BAD idea.

I do know the "Superduper Majority" bar is extremely stringent and probably impossible to achieve.

[Pht]

Homeless Bill, on 12 September 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

... Based on these replies, the PC should meet and discuss the proposals, but not make any decisions. The PC should identify those proposals that are most worth considering, and then set up a meeting with the community members who submitted the proposals.

eh ... choosing which are worth considering is a decision making process that vets ideas out from the very start.

Perhaps it's best to say that the PC WILL make the decision of what THEY will consider. Also probably good to point out that just because the PC doesn't give you a chance doesn't mean you're utterly w/o any chance of action; it just means you're on your own for the time being.

Quote

This meeting could even be an open meeting streamed on twitch (or another streaming site), where the balance issue is discussed, concerns are aired, proposals are criticized, etc. The PC can also gather community input, such as via polls, when needed to narrow down the options of the best path forward.

"Open minded" is fine as long as people admit that their minds have to be made up on certain points, which means probably the first thing the PC should do would be to figure out what each individual means by "balance" and attempt to settle that first. W/O at least a simple-majority (better a super-majority) agreement here, no discussion in the PC will follow a stable format. It'll be random. What the PC agrees upon as a definition of good "balance" should be made public, so people know what they're getting.

If a group of players can not be open about everything they do except the developers private interactions with the, there's no point in making a PC.

[Haji1096]

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 going to be incredibly difficult to hit any sort of consensus, but that's why I want to organize this as efficiently as possible. It's a hell of a hill to climb, but we can do it. We've at least got to show that we can competently form a council and put out a proposal. Even if the community or they reject it, we have to be able to do that much.

It will be tough to reach a consensus, but its better to attempt to take ownership and make the game better instead of just complaining all the time. Even if we fail.

In my mind, the problem/or lack thereof with ECM must be defined at all levels of play.

ECM causes X,Y,Z in Solo queue
ECM causes X,Y,Z, in group queue

Then you have to ask the question:
1. "What is the ideal solution(s) ?"
2. "What are the advantage(s) and disadvantage(s) of each one ?"
- "How would it effect gameplay at all levels ?"
- "Are the mechanics of proposed solution(s) simple to grasp by a new player ?"
- "Are there edge cases where the new ECM solution(s) would be over powered ?"
3. "Are these solutions technically feasible ?" <- Probably not relevant for the player council, but will be for PGI.
4. Is there a way to test a solution ?

Edited by Haji1096, 15 September 2014 - 06:38 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Gas Guzzler, on 12 September 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

I think Russ is also trying to show us how difficult it is to all come up with a solution to ECM that everyone is happy with.

Best you can hope for is MOST being happy with it. All will likely never happen.

[SI The Joker]

Welcome to Mechwarrior Online: United Nations

Where folks do a lot of posturing and talking but in the end don't agree on much outside of there being "issues" to agree upon.

[Joseph Mallan]

SI The Joker, on 15 September 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

Welcome to Mechwarrior Online: United Nations

Where folks do a lot of posturing and talking but in the end don't agree on much outside of there being "issues" to agree upon.

Whoa!

[Tkhaw]

SI The Joker, on 15 September 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

Welcome to Mechwarrior Online: United Nations

Where folks do a lot of posturing and talking but in the end don't agree on much outside of there being "issues" to agree upon.

So true!

Regardless of the opposition, I hope the taskforce/council/advisory...(whatever name it is, its still the same!) to forge ahead and come out with options that could be put into a poll (best incorporated into the UI)

Either way it has to be done

[DEN_Ninja]

Okay Dokay, since this thread exists I am going actually put down my ideas for ECM.

ECM;

Spoiler

I think that ECM should work as outlined in Battletech because it works as a reasonable support tool.
Range: 200* over the original (180m)
Jams: UAV, NARC, TAG, BAP, Artemis guidance.
Locking; Does not disable hard locks.
Targeting; Does not slow targeting.

This makes ECM a valuable tool to support the team to shield them from the external LRM support tools. There is a reason for this.

LRMS;

Spoiler

LRM's need a fundamental change. This is a given. I believe this every one bit is because LRM's can provide indirect fire support without having to use any external support.

LRM's need to be separated into two firing modes. Indirect and Direct.

Indirect is the mode that has a parabolic arc firing pattern. Indirect REQUIRES external sources to gain lock and targeting. Mechs behind cover can not be fired on even if you see the edge of them because the indirect mode can not find a firing solution with the external source. The external sources include TAG, NARC, and UAV. Indirect LRM's can not be dumbfired.

-If the external source is lost then the LRM's will splash at the last known location AT THE TIME of the external source being lost. It does not continue tracking because it has LOST all data for the firing solution.

Direct is the mode that is a straight line trajectory thats stays parallel to the ground. It can make SMALL course corrections something 5* degrees at best. Direct can be fired dumbfired or fired with locks. Direct does not require line of sight. Why you ask? If you lock onto something behind a hill and LRM's fire straight it is going to hit the hill. They don't and won't act like indirect LRM's.

Artemis, TAG, BAP, NARC, UAV;

Spoiler

Artemis works as thus;
It increases time to lock slightly for an increased boost in LRM flight speed and spread. This will come with a slight LRM speed decrease.

TAG works as thus;
Provides an external source for LRM's and SSRM's but is countered or ineffective on mechs within the ECM sphere.

BAP works as thus;
Same bonuses but no longer counters ECM.

NARC works as thus;
Provides an external source for LRM"s and SSRM's. Increased time to Lock and Target. Set Beacon Health to 20*. Countered by ECM.

UAV works as thus;
Provides an external source for LRM's and SSRM's. Countered by ECM. However continues providing targeting data. LRM's can not lock indirectly.

Information Warfare;

Spoiler

Decrease total sensor range on ALL mechs with exception with quirks on scout and specialty mechs. Set the default sensor range on mechs to be something like 500*m.

Make it so you can only share targeting data on mechs in your sensor range. You can not 'chain' mechs to form a sensory grid that shares all information.

C3/Command Console;

Spoiler

Ah the big ol' problem. As is it is a piece of crap. Not worth the tonnage or slots.

Make this a deployed piece of equipment. You have to place 3 slave units to three mechs. These mechs will provide Targeting and Lock data. If the mechs are under enemy ECM then they stop providing this data. Command Console makes the slaved mechs as External Sources.

* values are to be determined or changed values
______________________________________________
There a little pieces I am missing but that is it for now. brb

Edited by Tichorius Davion, 15 September 2014 - 07:33 AM.

[Verdic Mckenna]

I'll be honest with you Bill. I've never heard of you and i've been here since the original concept trailer. I don't like people speaking for me - and I think the developers deserve their space and a certain amount of discretion. However - the fact you're trying to keep this thread organized - and the way that you have - tells me that you might be a decent human being. Here's hoping that inclination isn't misplaced. For the record - i'm still 100% against this - and I think Russ is 100% correct. This job is hard - and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

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 going to be incredibly difficult to hit any sort of consensus, but that's why I want to organize this as efficiently as possible. It's a hell of a hill to climb, but we can do it. We've at least got to show that we can competently form a council and put out a proposal. Even if the community or they reject it, we have to be able to do that much.

[Shae Starfyre]

If we think that PGI cannot take into consideration all factors that play into ECM, and want to address just the piece of equipment and how it works, this is my proposal.

It does exactly what it does now for the equiped mech.

For any other mech under it's influence the protection affords the following:

Normal ECM should be used for only the mech it is equiped on in its normal mode (strong protection for that mech - works as it always has, no radius; mech centric), counter, does what it always does, umbrella allows for the following.

a.) extends a limited ECM out to the radius we see today
b.) prevents shared line of sight targeting methods with all mechs under the umbrella including the centric ECM (his ECM is no longer in a strong/fortified mode)
c.) for mechs who have line of sight, target aquisition reduced by 50%
d.) all other counters do exactly what they always have done; basically removing any of the quirks suggested.

That's it; see how that plays out for a while.
This doesn't grossly change any other mechanic, and provides great protection to solitary mechs benefiting them individually, and yet, has the ability to have a group effect that mimics ECM but is not over powered allowing for lone wolfs and teams to engage more dynaically.

Edited by Aphoticus, 15 September 2014 - 07:55 AM.

[Mystere]

SI The Joker, on 15 September 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

Welcome to Mechwarrior Online: United Nations

Where folks do a lot of posturing and talking but in the end don't agree on much outside of there being "issues" to agree upon.

Pfft! That's not lore-friendly. Let me try something else ...

[Palace grounds, Unity City, Tera]
Good morning Lord Stefan Amaris. The First Lord would like to see you now in the Audience Chamber.











< >

Edited by Mystere, 15 September 2014 - 08:06 AM.

[Ultimax]

Kjudoon, on 14 September 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

I do know the "Superduper Majority" bar is extremely stringent and probably impossible to achieve.

Good?

It should be incredibly difficult to achieve, because not everyone always agrees with what a few vocal players are constantly pushing.


To be honest, I'm really not sure why so many people are frothing at the mouth about ECM to begin with.

Yes it's strong, it's also limited on what mechs can bring it.

In a funny twist, most of the same players constantly complain about TTK being too low, and yet ECM does exactly this for your team - it increase TTK through denying paper doll info, denying attrition damage from LRMs, and denying clear positioning info without being countered.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 15 September 2014 - 08:47 AM.

[Kensaisama]

ECM needs to be reworked period, any tweaks done otherwise is like trying to stop a hemoraging wound from bleeding by applying gauze bandages on it loosly.

To many bad design decissions messed up the whole information warfare aspect of the game in my opinion. I know it could have been done better and smarter.

[Homeless Bill]

Verdic Mckenna, on 15 September 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

I'll be honest with you Bill. I've never heard of you and i've been here since the original concept trailer.

Thank god someone hasn't. I was beginning to think I'd shitposted every last ounce of anonymity I had away.

I definitely understand that you don't want this turning into a way to bypass you or the rest of the community, and that's not what I'm shooting for. I just think that straight democracy and forums are too messy to self-organize. Having a group of people that makes sure the ball is moving forward is what I'm going for. Ideally, all they're going to be doing is collecting all the ideas, discarding the implausible ones, and then fostering a productive discussion about the rest. These people won't be deciding anything for you.

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

What that means is that [2]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.

Just in case no one else has pointed it out, Russ' comment [1] and your interpretation [2] are in conflict.

[Homeless Bill]

Mystere, on 15 September 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:

Just in case no one else has pointed it out, Russ' comment [1] and your interpretation [2] are in conflict.

People keep saying that, but I personally think it's a mistake to just ignore what he said. Tweaking LRMs along with ECM is one thing; "comprehensive" is another. I get that everyone wants to shoot for the moon, but I'm trying to be a realist here. Walking away with nothing because we got greedy would be a truly infuriating failure, and I won't pretend that I'm not worried about that very possibility.

[Wolfways]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 September 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

Best you can hope for is MOST being happy with it. All will likely never happen.

I very much doubt many would be happy with removing the anti-lock feature of ECM because they're used to it now. If PGI hadn't screwed it up in the first place there'd be a lot less players using ECM as an LRM umbrella crutch.
But at least this way PGI can say they are giving players what they want, even if those players don't have a valid reason, right?

[Gwaihir]

Posting here too because there's a lot of these threads floating around.

IceSerpent, on 12 September 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

I would add that hard counters in general constitute a bad design and should be avoided if at all possible. The reason why it's a bad design is that it doesn't play well with a random matchmaking - there's no guarantee that a random team will have all necessasy conters and counter-counters that it needs in a given match.

I haven't gone through this whole thread yet, but this is the very crux of ECM's issue. It's always been a totally binary thing. Either you have it, and are (generally) immune to missiles (This was a HUUUGE DEAL back when streaks were the only way to reliably kill lights because of the lag shield pre HSR), or you don't and are totally vulnerable.

I'm a fan of adjusting ECM to match it's TT effects more closely, which happily also makes more choice involved and no hard countering.

• Keep the default mode as a way to make missiles less effective. Disable artemis and NARC bonuses, as well as giving missiles a wider spread. Net effects, fewer missiles will hit a unit covered by ECM, but they're not totally useless "On/Off" Missiles can still be locked against ECM targets, they just do less and more spread out damage.
  
• Add ghost target mode: Roll all the sensor/info denial tools in to this mode of operation. Reduced detection range, and when detected you get no target info as far as armor/weapon loads/mech variants. Also cuts off the built in MWO C3/target info sharing effects.
  
• ECCM. Plain old counter mode, needs no changes.

BAP's a harder choice since it's not really intended to directly counter ECM. Another ECM in counter mode should be that tool. I'd make BAP better for scouting and info gathering, as is thematically appropriate for it. Let a BAP equipped unit detect and target mechs through line of sight blockers from 150 meters away, as well as the ancilliary effects of allowing faster target info gathering and increasing general detection range and so on.

I know I've read some posts from others suggesting this same sort of thing, but there's so many scattered threads about the feedback stuff that I don't remember where it was. So yea! +1 or whatever. I don't think you need a comprehensive weapon re-balancing solely over this ECM change (Weapons are a whole nother bigtime can of worms).
Bottom line, make it a more meaningful choice in use, and stay away from binary hard counters, keep things simple for now. If we get the process going then we can start looking in to more comprehensive systemic issues and iterations.

[Mystere]

Homeless Bill, on 15 September 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

People keep saying that, but I personally think it's a mistake to just ignore what he said. Tweaking LRMs along with ECM is one thing; "comprehensive" is another. I get that everyone wants to shoot for the moon, but I'm trying to be a realist here. Walking away with nothing because we got greedy would be a truly infuriating failure, and I won't pretend that I'm not worried about that very possibility.

On the contrary, no one is ignoring what he said. People are actually paying attention to everything he said (i.e. the "if absolutely necessary" part). As such, there are those saying that "Yes, bringing in other related things is absolutely necessary."

[Homeless Bill]

Mystere, on 15 September 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

On the contrary, no one is ignoring what he said. People are actually paying attention to everything he said (i.e. the "if absolutely necessary" part). As such, there are those saying that "Yes, bringing in other related things is absolutely necessary."

If you don't see the inverse relationship between number of systems touched and likelihood of success, I can't help you. I'm not arguing it's a hard rule; I am suggesting that the more surgical we can make it, the better our chances are.

People need to think politically about this - not just about the design aspects. Something that's 50% better and can get the votes is better than something that's 100% better and can't. I'm just asking people not to turn this into a microcosm of Congress.