38 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Prezimonto, on 14 September 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

Actually I think it could be really smart to break up ECM into smaller pieces and you have to pick and choose.

1. An ECM that hides just you from detection, but has a very small field. It shows up on BAP as a 10m circle on the map when in long range of the front cone of a mech with BAP.
2. An intermediate ECM field with around 80 range, enough to hide a lance, performs like our current ECM, with the exception that no one under the field of ECM can acquire locks/target information while it's on. Again BAP can detect it's 80m envelope and display it on the map.
3. A broad ECM field out to 180 m, allows mechs under it to acquire target locks but only doubles the time to lock for enemies to fire LRM/SSRM and to gather target information. Again BAP can display the circle on the map, as long as BAP is outside the range of the field.

All are ECM of some sort, each is much more balanced.

Of course any serious changes to ECM(even Bishop's OP) also MUST involve changes to indirect fire of LRM's... and thereby probably also direct fire of LRMs.

As always... please pick apart any ideas I post.

To Bishop: any change to seriously balance ECM will require some kind of LRM rework. I don't mind if the ECM changes are simple to help pushing them out, but I don't think the downstream effects of changing ECM can be ignored.

Indeed, but one step at a time.

Our "Poor Man's" C3 is the biggest issue I have with LRMs. Spotting for indirect fire is indeed canon, but the efficacy of it, should be highly impacted, without TAG or NARC. Just me having the enemy targeted, should not provide fully telemetry to the rest of the unit, which IRL application would be how C3 would have to be implemented (as giving to hit mods based on my position doesn't really translate)

I think non "lased" spotting should have a much wider spread, and more of an artillery style effect/pattern. Have the missile htis cut in about half.


I would say there still needs other stuff, but not awake enough to articulate yet.

[Bront]

My thoughts:

Disrupt:
1) ECM reduces the range of LOS locks by 50%. So, a mech can lock onto an ECM mech or mech under the ECM Umbrella at 400 M.

2) Provides Radar Deprevation benefits for mechs in the umbrella (instant lock loss with LOS Break)

3) EMC slows down locks on locking weapons by 50% for locking on to friendly mechs under the ECM Umbrella

4) ECM slows down locks on locking weapons for enemy mechs in the ECM Umbrella by 50%, Stacking penalty with #2.

5) Friendly mechs under ECM Umbrella increase info gathering time by 100%.

6) Overlapping ECM Effects to not stack

7) TAGed mechs ignore the effects of ECM (Missiles lock on to the TAG guidance rather than though traditional means)

8) NARCed mechs are always targetable and gain any normal NARC locking bonuses, but ECM still provides locking delays. However, NARC will counter ECM if it hits an ECM enabled mech.

9) BAP can counter 1 ECM automatically if under an enemy ECM Umbrella. BAP enabled mechs ignore the 50% locking penalty for being under an enemy ECM Umbrella regardless.

10) Artemis counters the 50% lock time increase on mechs in LOS (IE, it functions normally)

11) In disrupt mode, ECM generates 1 heat per second. (IE, undoes a standard heat sink)

12) The current "Low Signal" min-map issue is lessoned, as it jumps in and out with data, or data on the mini-map blinks in and out on effected mechs (so, you might not see all your friends or enemies on it at the same time, but they're all on there)


Counter:
1) ECM in Counter mode can counter 1 enemy mech's ECM in the umbrella range.

2) ECM in counter mode may counter 1 UAV in the area if it is not already countering an enemy ECM.

3) ECM in counter mode nullifies any NARC signals under it's umbrella.

4) ECM in counter mode and not countering another ECM or UAV may prevent BAP from countering a friendly ECM.

5) In Counter Mode, ECM does not generate heat unless it is actively countering something, in which case it generates 1 heat per second. If ECM is disrupted in this mode, it does not generate heat.

Off:
1) ECM is off and does not generate heat.

Things that Counter ECM:
1) 1 BAP in range disrupts an ECM mech, making the ECM non-functional. It does this in first come, first serve order (Countering the first non-countered ECM mech till it is no longer in range)

2) NARC on an ECM mech distrupts ECM, preventing it from being used till the NARC falls off.

3) PPC Disrupts ECM on a mech for a short time



So, you get a functional ECM that benefits the team but doesn't make the team invisible even at short ranges, has several counters, and has reasons other than just countering another ECM mech to run in counter mode by offering a counter to NARC and UAVs. ECM also has several drawbacks, including heat generation.

Is it still powerful? Yes. Will it be required equipment on mechs that can carry it? Maybe, maybe not.

Edited by Bront, 14 September 2014 - 07:02 AM.

[Livewyr]

Honestly, the simplest solution to me, though it does not encompass everything I would like to do is:

ECM cuts off target sharing, but not LoS targeting/locks. (As in, if the Jenner can see it, it can target it and lock it -maybe slower- but the Jenner's team mates do not get the shared data.)

That is the simplest change I think, but it will certainly break the most overpowered effect of current ECM.

[PappySmurf]

Leave ECM alone all you bishop and many others have done is let PGI off the hook once again by Claiming ECM is such a terrible problem it needs fixed when so many more pressing issues with the game go unresolved like maps, New game modes of play, social aspects of the game and previous bug fixes.

So I say and many others RUSS leave ECM alone its not that big of a deal right now and you and your staff concentrate on Content which is long over due.

[Prezimonto]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 September 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

Indeed, but one step at a time.

Our "Poor Man's" C3 is the biggest issue I have with LRMs. Spotting for indirect fire is indeed canon, but the efficacy of it, should be highly impacted, without TAG or NARC. Just me having the enemy targeted, should not provide fully telemetry to the rest of the unit, which IRL application would be how C3 would have to be implemented (as giving to hit mods based on my position doesn't really translate)

I think non "lased" spotting should have a much wider spread, and more of an artillery style effect/pattern. Have the missile htis cut in about half.


I would say there still needs other stuff, but not awake enough to articulate yet.

I completely agree. I am beginning to wonder if we wouldn't be better off tackling this along with information warfare and/or wait for PGI to come up with a deeper idea set for information warfare. ECM shouldn't be the beginning or end of information warfare and to balance it's place in the system it'd be nice if the system had enough depth that ECM ISN'T the focus of IW with really one one step before hand (Hit R) and one step after... use ECM counter.

[VanillaG]

Everything that DocBach said plus add in a Radar Deprivation effect for mechs under the ECM umbrella.

[Rasc4l]

Bront, on 14 September 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

My thoughts:

Disrupt:
1) ECM reduces the range of LOS locks by 50%. So, a mech can lock onto an ECM mech or mech under the ECM Umbrella at 400 M.

This is the crucial part and I fully agree. The rest of your thoughts were very good as well and very much in line with mine and only centered around ECM so they should work for PGI as well.

[Bront]

PappySmurf, on 14 September 2014 - 07:02 AM, said:

Leave ECM alone all you bishop and many others have done is let PGI off the hook once again by Claiming ECM is such a terrible problem it needs fixed when so many more pressing issues with the game go unresolved like maps, New game modes of play, social aspects of the game and previous bug fixes.

So I say and many others RUSS leave ECM alone its not that big of a deal right now and you and your staff concentrate on Content which is long over due.

Most ECM changes require little dev time (just changing numbers), so this hardly takes away from more pressing gameplay issues, but ECM is by far the most debated and generally overpowered item in the game. So much so that the mechs they limited it to are the top mechs in their weight class and among their chasis (Non DDC Atlas's are rare, non 5D Spiders are rare, non 2D Commandos are pretty much unseen outside of the hero, same with the Cicada 3M and Raven) and PGI has resisted putting in any new ECM Variants.

[Bront]

Rasc4l, on 14 September 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

This is the crucial part and I fully agree. The rest of your thoughts were very good as well and very much in line with mine and only centered around ECM so they should work for PGI as well.

The big difference is that a 50% reduction vs a hard 400m means any increased sensor range gear still improves this number, offering some role warfare opportunities (You know, scout taking a Beagle, using the sensor range module, etc)

[Rasc4l]

Bront, on 14 September 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

The big difference is that a 50% reduction vs a hard 400m means any increased sensor range gear still improves this number, offering some role warfare opportunities (You know, scout taking a Beagle, using the sensor range module, etc)

Yes you are right of course they should be counted in. The way I wrote it was overly simplistic.

[Bishop Steiner]

PappySmurf, on 14 September 2014 - 07:02 AM, said:

Leave ECM alone all you bishop and many others have done is let PGI off the hook once again by Claiming ECM is such a terrible problem it needs fixed when so many more pressing issues with the game go unresolved like maps, New game modes of play, social aspects of the game and previous bug fixes.

So I say and many others RUSS leave ECM alone its not that big of a deal right now and you and your staff concentrate on Content which is long over due.

seriously dude, all you are doing is impeding forward progress. Sorry you disagree with people trying to move ahead, but you need to deal with it.

[Prezimonto]

PappySmurf, on 14 September 2014 - 07:02 AM, said:

Leave ECM alone all you bishop and many others have done is let PGI off the hook once again by Claiming ECM is such a terrible problem it needs fixed when so many more pressing issues with the game go unresolved like maps, New game modes of play, social aspects of the game and previous bug fixes.

So I say and many others RUSS leave ECM alone its not that big of a deal right now and you and your staff concentrate on Content which is long over due.

Russ stated that they're using ECM as a test case to see if the community can organize and agree to reasonable solutions they want to have. He openly admitted that if it works they're willing to start looking at other issues through this process. So lets get this done, and then move along to something that perhaps you think is even more important.

[Zordicron]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 September 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

Indeed, but one step at a time.

Our "Poor Man's" C3 is the biggest issue I have with LRMs. Spotting for indirect fire is indeed canon, but the efficacy of it, should be highly impacted, without TAG or NARC. Just me having the enemy targeted, should not provide fully telemetry to the rest of the unit, which IRL application would be how C3 would have to be implemented (as giving to hit mods based on my position doesn't really translate)

I think non "lased" spotting should have a much wider spread, and more of an artillery style effect/pattern. Have the missile htis cut in about half.


I would say there still needs other stuff, but not awake enough to articulate yet.

http://mwomercs.com/...e/page__st__480

This wall of post I made yesterday goes into detail about the efect of missile spread and how it would open doors for ECM changes, as well as how it would benefit gameplay overall(some more explaination in my second post in that thread just a small bit down farther)

[Lockon StratosII]

Changing the way ECM works should be followed by changing the way LRMs (and to a lesser degree SSRMs) work because at this point they are inseparable entities. I think even Bryan himself in ECM council thread said that changing ECM could lead to changing one more item that it interacts with (probably implying to LRMs). So my proposal is to first change LRMs, first by nerfing their indirect fire, followed by buffing direct fire capabilities to offset that nerf:

indirect fire: a mech cannot get a lock on an enemy mech that is out of his line of sight UNLESS that mech is NARCed, TAGed or UAV probed

direct fire: NOTHING will prevent a mech from obtaining a lock on enemy mech that is within his line of sight which would be followed by increase in missile speed and/or damage

Disclamer: this is how LRMs work when there is no ECM in equation

Now ECM (disrupt):

UAV within 180 meters from enemy ECM will not transmit any data to the rest of the team (no IFF, no magic red dorito, no paperdoll, no locks, outside of 180 meters all normal functions)

NARC missile planted on enemy mech which is within 180 meters from friendly ECM (or enemy ECM relative to NARC missile) will not transmit any data to the rest of the team (no IFF, no magic red dorito, no paperdoll, no locks, outside of 180 meters all normal functions)

mech TAGing enemy mech will not transmit data if enemy ECM is within 180 meters (outside of 180 meters all normal functions)

mech within 180 meters from enemy ECM will not transmit any data to the rest of the team except his own IFF (no magic red dorito, no paperdoll, no locks, outside of 180 meters all normal functions)

mech within 180 meters from enemy ECM will lose friendly and enemy positions on minimap except his own (LOW SIGNAL should only appear if the mech has BAP equiped, friendly doritos are still visible on your screen)

mech carrying ECM will have his IFF (red dorito) delayed for 2-3 seconds when entering enemy line of sight

all friendly mechs within 180 meters from ECM (except for the ECM carrier) will have a 50% increase in time needed to be locked on by enemy mech if he can obtain a lock (line of sight or NARC TAG, UAV with corresponding conditions mentioned above for indirect firing)

ECM (counter): disables ALL enemy ECMs in disrupt mode within 180 meters

Now a little explanation if needed for the changes above:

LRMs become more powerful in direct fire because nothing can prevent them from firing (well except for cover but that goes for any weapon), but require teamwork to be effective in indirect fire mode (spotting becomes a necessity and a skill rather than pop UAV, wait...profit: do you want to play it safe and pop UAV/NARC, get out and risk your targets going into umbrella thus not giving locks for LRMers on your team or you wanna risk it and play a TAG game where you have to expose yourself but also keep distance so you could transmit data to the rest of the team)

ECM:
The 2-3 second delay for IFF when in line of sight of enemy mech could mean a lot for the spotter mentioned above for getting from cover to cover undetected or fighting in urban environment but would not have a big impact on LRMs because that ability is granted only on the carrier and if your target would get from cover to cover in under 4-5 seconds you are better not firing LRMs at all. Also a nice peek into the stealth armor down the road (maybe adjust it to 1-2 sec if needed)

Increase in lock on time for missiles is there so there is actually a reason for teammates to stick near ECM carrier (had slow mechs in mind here like DDC but not to make it end all be all defense from missiles,it will help a little but will not protect you from harm). This doesn't apply to ECM carrier because he has delay to IFF to offset that

Enemy mechs within ECM range cannot transmit data except for their IFF to their allies and have their radars scrambled is because that is what ECM does by definition, scrambles electronics (they would effectively have useless minimap and their team would not benfit from their data because they cannot relay it to them but they would still see friendly "doritos" on their screen when they would look at their direction (maybe losing friendly position is a bit too much)

Was thinking about adding some more detail on how to make better BAP-ECM interaction but that is for some other time

[Geck0]

I think there are a couple assumptions that are being made by everyone and we we should come together on some of them to better focus the ECM discussion.

If you follow high level play (And to me one of the fastest ways to see if something is balanced is to look at upper level play) you will see LRM's are all but unseen at that level of play. This is because an organized team can deal with the limitations of the weapon easily. So much so that ECM isn't even a concern. Sure its used but its not a serious drop deck consideration and it certainly isn't used to counter LRM's. The environment in general PUG play makes them a concern in the beginning but players become better they become more of an annoyance.

With that being said , when we look at ways of making ECM better for the game our primary concern shouldn't be how to help LRM's be more effective as a weapon. ECM isn't preventing this (not by and large at least), the way the weapon works is. That's another discussion for another day.

• ECM's biggest threat to balance is that it prohibits basic game mechanics.
  
• This results in ECM having to have multiple counters instead of ECM being the counter to them.
  
• ECM would be better served by countering relevant functions of equipment that are placed on enemy mechs.
  
• See my original suggestion in this thread for an idea based around this notion here.

[UrsusMorologus]

First issue is that they used ECM to balance some variants, IE ~heres this awesome thing that makes up for missing other things. That approach basically required ECM to be awesome so it could serve that purpose. IMO this was the big mistake and must be corrected. Therefore, I would suggest finding ways to dilute ECM effectiveness to the point where it can be used on all varients of a chassis (not all chassis).

The other problem is a rudimentary design error, in that it provides a full-time immunity against some other gameplay elements. No gameplay element should provide immunity (except possibly on very short duration), instead they should provide buffs and debuffs that allows for counterplay.

The third thing here is that they have made it very strong to the point where multiple counters are needed to overcome and even then you still might not be able to stack the counters (as happens with multiple ECMs in a group).

With all that in mind, I would start by revising the counters, and then work backwards to a better ECM. Beagle should provide improved LOS lock-on and data-collection, with some passive detection (use the seismic reveal mechanic). Artemis should provide a self-buff to guided missiles, making guided missile systems "more expensive" in tonnage than non-guided missiles. TAG and NARC provide shared buffs for data-collection and target lock-on times (vs the self-buffs for Artemis and Beagle) but require the user to get closer, so most people are still better off slotting the self-buffs, and TAG/NARC become extra buffs for team-play options. Once that is done, I would change ECM to simply add opposing debuffs for the other buffs. For example, if something reduces guided missile lock-on time by 25%, then ECM should increase guided missile lock-on time by 25%. Multiple ECMs should stack in the same way that Artemis+TAG would stack. And then ECM should become available to all types of a chassis so that they are more common.

edit--forgot to add, should take the opportunity to improve the Command Console thing at the same time as the other electronics are being reworked/rebalanced

Edited by UrsusMorologus, 15 September 2014 - 08:12 AM.

[DocBach]

Rasc4l, on 14 September 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

To DocBach: I didn't spend time enough to read through your fine proposal so that I would understand into what kind of situation it places us but I was informed by Homeless Bill that we're gonna have to keep it really simple and ONLY ECM. If 80 % of some player population has to accept it then we can't have many variables so that each one really understands it and 80 % agrees on it.

More or less, my proposal doesn't add any new mechanics (such as active/passive radar) to the game that are not already in the game -- it changes ECM and because of this the way some pieces of equipment that directly interact with ECM must be changed as well.

[Targetloc]

I think the stealth effect of ECM is the biggest issue, and also completely in contradiction to the canon material.

Stealth Armor and Null Sig System are the canon systems for allowing a single mech to be untargetable except at short range.

• ECM should increase the time it takes for target info gathering and missile locks, but shouldn't prevent you from locking on.
  
• ECM should counter bonus electronics: Artemis, BAP, Seismic, Target Retention, SSRMs**
  
• BAP should be improved to make it worth countering, like it was in TT. The current system is backwards. You didn't take BAP to counter ECM. You took ECM to counter BAP, because BAP was dangerous.

**SSRMs under ECM are supposed to be able to be dumb-fired like regular SRMs according the rules. At least then it's not a hard counter.



Making BAP good in a world where it's not solely there to counter OP ECM:

• The TT BAP let you see the enemy mech's record sheet. You know every little detail from their current heat to their armor values. That's too much info to relay in-game, but 3 things would still make BAP beast mode and worth bringing ECM to counter it.
  
• BAP displays a prominent XL icon next to the paper doll if the enemy mech has an XL engine.
  
• Ammo icons display on sections that contain ammo.
  
• Show the target's heat level in the vertical space between the weapons list and paper doll.

I like the idea of being able to make your mech harder to detect with a passive/active radar system or other items, but I want to keep it away from ECM.

Edited by Targetloc, 14 September 2014 - 12:09 PM.

[Zolaz]

Seems to me that ECM in a Battle Tech game should behave like ECM. It shouldnt be that make ECM Guardian Suites.

http://www.sarna.net...rdian_ECM_Suite