Jump to content

Roland's Treatise On Ecm And Sensors

Gameplay General Metagame

220 replies to this topic

#1 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 09:51 AM

(There are some tables in this post... if they get screwed up by the forum software, I'll fix them in a little while)

As there is an ongoing discussion regarding some notion of a player council, I've decided that I'm not really that into the drama surrounding such a thing. If put on it, so be it, but I'm kind of beyond caring about a "pre-meeting meeting" to vote about who goes on a ballot to be voted on.

That being said, I've been considering a rework of the sensor system for quite a while, and as such I've put together the following proposal for consideration. Folks can do with it as they see fit. Feel free to offer suggestions for improvement, etc.

The ultimate goal of this proposal is, above all else, to increase the fun level of the game for all involved. If we lose sight of that goal, then we miss our mark, because we are designing a game here. The point of games is to have fun.

In order to try and make things more fun, I'm presenting some systems which focus on two areas They attempt to add depth by making things like sensor detection a more nuanced process, while still being reasonably easy to understand for players. They also attempt to create a more consistent gameplay experience, with less volatile fluctuations from match to match in terms of certain weapons or mechs shifting wildly from underpowered to overpowered based on factors outside the shooter's control.

Further, on top of all of that, I've attempted to constrain my ideas based on technical feasibility. I believe that everything I'm suggesting can be implemented without significant issues, as they all are essentially repackaging of features which we have already seen in MWO throughout its development timeline. This is important, because no matter how great an idea is, it's pointless if it requires 80 thousand man-hours to implement.

Finally, I believe that the type of system proposed here is extensible, potentially facilitating development of a number of additional systems to add complexity and depth at a future date (although these future systems are not discussed here).

This proposal consists of the following major sections:
  • Weight based detection range for mechs (Larger mechs are easier to detect than smaller ones)
  • Non Line-of-Sight radar
  • Introduction of active and passive detection modes
  • Changes to ECM and BAP to focus primarily on detection range modification
  • Changes to LRM's to be more easily balanced with other weapon types, more consistently performing in all situations, and thus less frustrating for both shooters and targets
With all of that laid out, let's get to it.



Weight Based Detection Range

The first major change I would make to the sensor system is to modify the detection range of mechs based upon their weight. Put simply, the heavier a mech is, the easier it is to detect it on radar.

Others have previously suggested that weight class have an impact on detection range, but I'm going a bit further here and suggesting that it be related to the actual weight of the mech itself, as this helps address a common issue that we see, where lighter mechs in a class (like the locust) lack purpose.

This provides a significant benefit, in that lighter mechs suddenly have a reason to exist, which is sorely missing from the current game. Again, what I'm saying here is not simply that LIGHT mechs will have a reason to exist (although they are sorely under-represented in the overall player population, as evident by their consistently low drop counts, often dropping into single digit percentages). But rather LIGHTER mechs will have a benefit. So in any given weight class, the lighter mechs will have some stealth benefit that will help to counter their relative lack of tonnage compared to the heavier mechs in their weight class.

I'm thinking that the base range at which a mech could be detected by a mech with it's active radar on would be 1000m - (5 x (100-MechTonnage))

Note, that modifier of 5 could be tweaked down, in order to reduce the amount that weight affects detection range if we wanted for balance reasons. However, I think that number seems to result in a pretty good detection gradient across mechs.

So you'd have the following example detection ranges:
Atlas 1000m
Awesome/Victor 900m
MadCat 875m
Hunchback 750m
Jenner 675m
Locust 600m

So we see a number of advantages with this system. First, the medium weight class suddenly has some significant utility. The hunchback's sensor advantage over a 75 ton heavy chassis is non-trivial, at 125m. That's enough time for a pilot to say, "Whoa, I don't think I want to walk right in front of that guy," and plan a more prudent avenue of attack. Yet at the same time, he's not magically invisible to sensors. Indeed, it's possible that another, lighter mech actually already has HIM on sensors.

Likewise, even the lowly locust has utility suddenly.... It still can't really carry weapons or armor, but it can out-scout anything at this point. Even against another light mech like a Jenner, the Locust has a narrow buffer zone of 75m that he could potentially work to hold contact without being detected.

Now, in discussions with others about this idea, it was suggested that this gradient of sensor detection ranges may be too complex to keep in mind, compared to more static detection ranges in a game like Mechwarrior 4. However, I think that the system is actually pretty easy to grasp once you realize that it boils down to one fairly simple rule:
All else being equal, you will see a heavier mech before it sees you.

Non Line-of-Sight Based Radar

To further support this notion of scouts, I'm proposing a return to a more omni-directional, non-LOS based radar system as seen in prior Mechwarrior titles.

The reason for this is that the requirement of a direct LOS on a target in order to see it means that it's very difficult, if not impossible, for a mech to truly just scout an enemy force. In order to perceive them on sensors now, he must have a direct line of sight to them. This means that he's exposed to direct fire, and is thus directly engaged in combat in order to gather any intelligence on the enemy forces. This kind of reduces the ability to be stealthy, since for many light scouts, if they stop they are going to get one-shotted. So they need to be moving around constantly, explicitly without cover between them at the mechs they are scouting.

Back in MW4, I routinely ran as a scout for my lance. Scouting in that game was in many ways much more complex and more rewarding than in MWO, because it was all about using sensor ranges in addition to your eyes to locate the enemy without them seeing you.

A large part of this centered around staying under cover and not exposing yourself, while still achieving sensor coverage over areas. You could scout a valley on the other side of a mountain ridge by running along the ridgeline but not popping up over the top... unless you wanted to check briefly to see visually whether there were mechs that were undetectable based on range.

MWO's vision based radar system kind of negates a lot of this, as detection is based specifically upon not having anything between you and your target. This means that in MWO, regardless of your sensor suite or mech, if you can detect a mech, then he can see you. The only thing that actual detection ranges do in MWO is effectively determine missile lock capabilities by providing the magic taco chip, and this is a big problem. Sensors need to be providing situational awareness, not merely a mechanism for locking missiles.

As such, I'd propose going back to an omni-directional radar system which ignores terrain and provides a sensor sweep around a given mech. This is certainly achievable from a technical perspective, as they effectively had it with the Seismic sensor.

The result of this change is that, coupled with the weight based detection ranges noted above, mechs are able to really use their sensors in a tactical manner. The player will know with some degree of certainty (again, fostering the notion of consistence between player expectations and what he experiences) what his exposure level is and what is around him. It'll help facilitate the type of scouting I described above, where a scout can use his sensors to observe regions without necessarily exposing himself to direct fire.

This in turn enables a significant amount of tactical movement, as both sides end up having potentially improved situational awareness which they can use to base their maneuvering on. I say potentially, because combined with the variations in detection range based on weight class, the overall picture of the battlefield will vary significantly based upon how mechs are utilized and positioned. Scouts become extremely important.

(Note, the more observant of you may be noting that with such a system, if we were to leave LRM's as they are, this would be devastating as folks could hold locks and pound you with missiles, without you even being able to shoot the spotter... don't worry, that's addressed later with the LRM changes)

Active and Passive Sensor Modes

In addition to the weight based detection ranges mentioned above, I propose adding in an ability for all mechs to toggle their radar between active and passive modes. As an actual mechanism in game, I'd suggest a simple keybind, such as currently used for toggling the ECM mode. Indeed, you could probably just use that keybind itself, as my suggestion for ECM implementation does not require ECM toggling.

The idea of this will be familiar to anyone who played prior mechwarrior titles. You can run active radar and extend the range at which you can detect enemy mechs, but in doing so you also extend the range at which you can be detected by enemy mechs. Or, you can go into passive mode and be "flying blind", but greatly reduce the range at which you can be detected by other mechs.

Let's assume that the ranges given previously are the "base" ranges for mechs being detectable, while they themselves are in active radar mode, by another active mech.

Flipping into passive radar mode will cause the following to happen:
The range at which you can detect enemy mechs is reduced by 60%
The range at which you can be detected by enemy mechs is reduced by 40%

To give some example numbers, We can take the previously listed example mechs and put together the ranges that they will be detectable in various combinations of sensors.

Posted Image





So this, combined with the previously described changes, create a fairly wide variety of sensor options for a given player, which in turn enables a variety of tactics and playstyles.

This helps temper the changes of the radar model to an omnidirectional, non-LOS model, by enabling mechs to choose to be stealthy by running in passive mode, and thus greatly reducing their detection by enemy mechs who may be fairly close.

As we see, a tiny locust running in passive mode reduces his radar footprint down to a fairly tiny 360m, so that he could get almost on top of enemy mechs and not be noticed. Of course, at the same time, he won't actually see anything lighter than an 80 ton assault mech on his radar, even if they're running in active mode at that range. So he could theoretically sneak up on an active atlas while running in passive mode and detect him unnoticed, but if there happens to be a hunchback standing there too, he won't see him until he's within 300m, which is inside the hunchback's range of detection on the locust.

What this will enable is that mechs will be able to go passive and choose to rely much more directly upon their line of sight, so the type of gameplay we have currently is still possible. That is, you will still be able to sneak around under cover as we do today. You can go through a tunnel on forest colony or frozen city, and still be relatively undetectable unless someone is sitting right there next to the tunnel.

What's nice about this as well, is that it tends to enable a more interactive sensor experience for the player. Under such a system, a scouting mech tends to constantly be flipping back and forth between active and passive mode... running passive most of the time to minimize the liklihood of his detection, while periodically flashing active to get a quick snapshot of what is around him, and then going passive again.

Likewise, on the receiving end of this, enemy mechs will end up getting a quick flash on their radar, but often not know exactly WHERE it was unless they just happened to be looking at their own radar at that exact moment. Since the radar is omnidirectional and not just LOS, the detection is not going to be guaranteed to pop up right in front of them... This creates a situation where players report things like, "I had a flash contact, but I didn't get a bearing on it." This in itself heightens the level of suspense in the game, improving the overall experience.


Changes to BAP and ECM

Now we get to the original issue, which is ECM. Hopefully folks understand at this point how these two systems don't really exist in a vacuum. They are components of the overall sensor system in game, and this whole package needs to be considered holistically, to deliver on the notion of "information warfare".

In this system, most of the depth of the sensor system is derived from the previously described changes. As a result, both ECM and BAP can largely be simplified.

The way I'm considering it is a fairly straightforward modification of detection range with these pieces of equipment.

BAP increases a mech's ability to detect other mechs by 25%.
ECM reduces a mech's detection range by other mechs by 25%.

Effectively, the two systems cancel each other out.

I remove all impact of these systems on missiles. ECM is no longer a shield that protects you against missiles, or disrupts other mechs' abilities to lock missiles. It still offers some protection, in that it makes you harder to detect, but the effect is much less overt. It's merely a subtle reduction in the range at which someone can lock you up and fire on you.

Also, I would remove the ability for these systems to affect other mechs. They will only impact the carrier directly. Thus, ECM is useful for scouts, primarilly operating away from their main lance.

This brings up another interesting implication of all of these changes.

In the system proposed here, since different mechs have different detection ranges, based on their size and their equipment, this provides some incentive to spread forces out a bit more to gather information on the enemy forces. That is, it's not necessarily a great idea to have everyone clustered together in a giant blob, because doing so effectively makes the whole body as detectable as the biggest mech.

But at the same time, the same strengths that come with consolidated forces continue to exist. So you end up with a tradeoff of different strengths. You can spread out your forces and be more likely to get detections on enemy forces early enough to re-deploy your own, but risk getting isolated sections of your team caught by enemy forces while too far away from friendlies to get support.

Additionally, these systems ONLY work when a mech is in Active Radar Mode. That is, passive detection ranges for passive mechs are always the same as those described previously. ECM will make an active mech less detectable, while BAP will make an active mech more capable of detecting other mechs.

This then puts BAP on par with ECM in terms of utility in many ways. As a result of this, I would suggest making similar restrictions to BAP, enabling only certain mechs to carry it (generally mechs which carried in in their stock configurations, similar to how we deal with ECM mechs now).

What you'll see is that certain mechs, like the Raven, will become exceptionally good at scouting, as they will be able to run both BAP and ECM, allowing them to run active all the time and only really be matched in terms of detection by other mechs carrying the same combination.

And yet, at the same time, these mechs are not the uber-powerhouses that they were back when ECM was originally introduced, because the systems don't really play a direct role in terms of combat.

To grasp the difference here, we need to consider the primary reason why ECM was so powerful on a mech like the Raven is that it enabled the raven to carry SSRM's (which were extremely powerful then), while countering the ability for OTHER mechs to use SSRM's on the raven.

Given that we've removed ECM's ability to disrupt missile locking, this issue tends to go away. The ability to carry ECM and BAP is still advantageous, to be sure, but that advantage is largely confined to scouting and information gathering, and thus only indirectly impacting combat. Neither of these systems will directly prevent the usage of any other system or weapon any longer.

With these change to BAP and ECM, we get the following changes to the table presented previously.

Note, I've added some rows with ECM enabled mechs, namely the Atlas and the Raven. I've added the DWolf in as an example of a non ECM equipped 100 ton mech to compare to the atlas.

Posted Image



Another point to note here, is that the way effects are applied goes as such:
Target State (Active or passive) > ECM > BAP
The result of this is that BAP doesn't exactly cancel out ECM, since it's increase of range is applied afterwards. So, the 25% increase you're getting isn't quite as large as the 25% reduction the ECM originally applied. So, even against BAP mechs, ECM still has some utility (although lessened).

Some other implications here. ECM is, essentially, reducing the radar footprint of the mech to that of a mech half its size. An ECM equipped atlas, for instance, is equivalent to a hunchback in terms of detectability.

Changes to Long Range Missiles

The final section of this proposal includes an overhaul of the LRM weapons systems. I think many folks agree that LRM's have been a consistent source of balance issues. This isn't because they are necessarily under or over-powered, but rather because they function in such a way as to make their performance extremely inconsistent across different matches. Against some opponents they are like the hand of God, crushing targets who have virtually no way to counter attack. Against others, they are a complete waste of weapons tonnage. Very rarely do LRM's ever seem balanced to all parties involved. The result of this is a weapon system which will often be a source of frustration for either the shooter or the target.

A big part of this has already been addressed above, by the removal of ECM's ability to affect missiles. With that change, LRM's can no longer be automatically negated by a 1.5 ton piece of equipment.

However, the overall impact of allowing LRM's to target mechs without LOS results in some major balance problems. Getting pummeled by LRM's from a mech behind cover is really quite un-fun.. And with sensors able to gain detections through terrain, this would be greatly magnified, as you could potentially be spotted by someone who is under cover.

In order to address this, I would make LRM's require a direct LOS in order to fire on a target. That is, you would be required to not only hold the target yourself to lock missiles on it, but you would actually have to expose your mech to return fire to get the lock.

The exception to this rule will be TAG and NARC. If a mech is tagged or Narc'ed, then that mech will then be able to be targeted indirectly, as is the case today. Effectively, if a mech is tagged or narced, it's as though every mech has a direct LOS to that target.

Now, the requirement for direct LOS (excepting Narc and Tag) itself would be crippling to LRM's as they exist today, because in a direct firefight LRM"s have many disadvantages. To counterbalance this, the second change I would make to missiles would be that I would revert them to their original mechanic they had in closed beta, where missiles continue to track a target once fired, without the shooter needing to hold lock. This has an important impact, in that it makes LRM's much more useful in terms of direct combat, in that a shooter does not need to just continue staring at a target to hold a lock. LRM carriers can engage in normal combat, spreading and soaking damage just like everyone else. This has the effect of making it so that LRM's will become more compatible with other direct fire weaponry, enabling mechs which are effective with a mix of LRM's and other weaponry.

Further, I suggest making it such that LRM's do not actually need a radar lock to fire on a target. That is, if you can directly see an enemy mech, you can lock LRM's onto it regardless of whether it's within radar detection range. So at no point are you stuck in a situation where those LRM's are useless. If you can see a mech, and it's within range of your missiles, you can hit it.

Thus, under such a system, a shooter could have targets on radar, either through his teammates relayed contacts or his own radar system. However, he would need to position himself in such a fashion as to get direct LOS on those targets to start raining down LRM's onto them. But once in position, he would only need to expose himself for as long as it took to get a missile lock (a second or so), unleash his missiles, and then he would be free to duck down behind cover.

The target gets an opportunity to fire on the LRM shooter, while the LRM shooter is guaranteed to be able to use his missiles. What's more, he knows that if he fires those missiles, there's a quite good chance of them actually hitting the target. Overall, neither player is put in a position where he feels powerless, or his weapons feel useless.

Also, given that LRM's are then used in a situation which is a bit more similar to other weaponry, this should make them easier to balance.



Ok folks, I think that's all I got. Do as you will with it.

Edited by Roland, 17 September 2014 - 10:00 AM.


#2 Malleus011

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 09:55 AM

I think this is a great proposal, and would happily support it.

The only thing I think you might've left out (or I missed) was ECM interacting with NARC and Artemis.

#3 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:03 AM

Interesting.

Do have a question, is the point of the ECM council to propose their own ideas, or to collate and present the communities in a cogent manner though? Cause, no knock on this here, but boy howdy is that gonna be a mouthful.

I am actually rereading it to see what salients I missed.

Only thing I will note, is IMO, the lack of God Radar means scouts actually have to scout. It's more difficult, but also more in the spirit of TT, which I like, whereas I always felt MW4 and other iterations radar, actually lessened the need of scouts due to it acting as an "early warning system".

#4 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:17 AM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 17 September 2014 - 10:03 AM, said:


Only thing I will note, is IMO, the lack of God Radar means scouts actually have to scout. It's more difficult, but also more in the spirit of TT, which I like, whereas I always felt MW4 and other iterations radar, actually lessened the need of scouts due to it acting as an "early warning system".

A big part of this hinges upon the notion of weight based radar footprints, and the ability to flip between active and passive modes to modify your own detection range and footprint.

Scouting in MW4 actually had a far more in depth environment for scouting than anything in MWO to date, in my opinion. While LOS was not required for a lock, you were constantly flipping active and passive back and forth, and trying to manage your range from targets to maximize your SA while minimizing theirs.

In the system I'm presenting here, it would go a great deal further, as different mechs would have such different radar footprints.

#5 Dolph Hoskins

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Territorial
  • The Territorial
  • 499 posts
  • LocationThe Machine

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:19 AM

Dang, this is some good stuff.

If all of these systems were cross regulated to work in this way I would love the radar stealth element of the game. Not quite sure how all of the lrm suggestions would work out through extensive play but they sound pretty solid since scout/spotting mechs would be able to do their job better due to the proposed radar and sensor mechanics.

Aside from # tweaks which I would assume are always up for contention this is the information warfare I'd like to see in the game.
You have my vote.

#6 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:21 AM

View PostRoland, on 17 September 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

A big part of this hinges upon the notion of weight based radar footprints, and the ability to flip between active and passive modes to modify your own detection range and footprint.

Scouting in MW4 actually had a far more in depth environment for scouting than anything in MWO to date, in my opinion. While LOS was not required for a lock, you were constantly flipping active and passive back and forth, and trying to manage your range from targets to maximize your SA while minimizing theirs.

In the system I'm presenting here, it would go a great deal further, as different mechs would have such different radar footprints.

I get that. I also have to ask, in regards to implementation, how realistic you think it is that this would be done? It seems like a massive amount of work and changes, which IMO, severely hampers it's likelihood of use? Not saying we should always take the "easy" way, but sometimes we seem to lean toward full surgery, when less invasive options would suffice.

It's not that the proposal itself is bad, wrong, etc, so much as it seems very unlikely to achieve fruition. Unless I am grossly overestimating the amount of extra code work, and the processing needed after, to implement. (Which is quite possible)

If it is indeed realistically, and easily implementable, and doesn't have negative effects like increased draw calls to feed that radar data, and such, then yeah, I like it.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 September 2014 - 10:22 AM.


#7 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:27 AM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 17 September 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

I get that. I also have to ask, in regards to implementation, how realistic you think it is that this would be done? It seems like a massive amount of work and changes, which IMO, severely hampers it's likelihood of use? Not saying we should always take the "easy" way, but sometimes we seem to lean toward full surgery, when less invasive options would suffice.

It's not that the proposal itself is bad, wrong, etc, so much as it seems very unlikely to achieve fruition. Unless I am grossly overestimating the amount of extra code work, and the processing needed after, to implement. (Which is quite possible)

Frankly, as I mentioned in the proposal, I specifically tried to limit it to things that should be reasonably easy to implement.

Most of these changes are merely modifications of sensor detection ranges, which we already know is possible (as certain systems already do this).

So, in this way, this should be relatively simple to implement. Most of the change would be localized to the section of code where detection ranges are already being determined. Currently, this already takes into account the detector and the detectee, as both targets CURRENTLY have the ability to modify that detection range.

These changes would effectively just change the equation used to determine that detection range, and an addition of a boolean flag to track whether a mech is active or passive.

In terms of changing the locking mechanism to require a direct LOS, again that doesn't seem like a huge change.

The Missiles tracking through their entire flight, as I mentioned, is actually a reversion to a prior state, so it's certainly possible. They used to work that way originally.

#8 keith

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:29 AM

View PostRoland, on 17 September 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

A big part of this hinges upon the notion of weight based radar footprints, and the ability to flip between active and passive modes to modify your own detection range and footprint.

Scouting in MW4 actually had a far more in depth environment for scouting than anything in MWO to date, in my opinion. While LOS was not required for a lock, you were constantly flipping active and passive back and forth, and trying to manage your range from targets to maximize your SA while minimizing theirs.

In the system I'm presenting here, it would go a great deal further, as different mechs would have such different radar footprints.


i will agree 100% with roland here. i had way more trouble with groups/radar in MW4 then this game. it could have been the size of maps or how the maps were made. in MW4 u did the crtl r dance. need to throw off an enemy while going into hills go passive. city fights.... ecm mechs were not the devil, because bap countered them to a decent range. last but not least u could see on the maps most of the time so u had to use cover to be sneaky and call out real directions. call outs in MW4 were mechs at 154 at 900m in MWO its mechs are on the left side behind the building.

#9 Mechteric

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 7,308 posts
  • LocationRTP, NC

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:38 AM

Actually I kinda like the LOS based radar aspect of MWO compared with the previous Mechwarriors (didn't MekTek even make MW4 use LOS based radar unless you had BAP?). But I definitely agree with your other bullet points.

#10 Carrie Harder

    Clone

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 678 posts
  • LocationCarrying pugs up Mount Tryhard

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:39 AM

View PostCapperDeluxe, on 17 September 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

Actually I kinda like the LOS based radar aspect of MWO compared with the previous Mechwarriors (didn't MekTek even make MW4 use LOS based radar unless you had BAP?). But I definitely agree with your other bullet points.

MekTek tried to very late in the mod's lifetime, but the "Old Guard" didn't really like it...

#11 Quicksilver Aberration

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nightmare
  • The Nightmare
  • 11,811 posts
  • LocationKansas City, MO

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:42 AM

My one problem with this proposal is that ECM/BAP strictly affects sensor range and nothing else.

In the days of MW4, ECM/BAP were great on scout mechs and the occasional command mech (this one depended on DC preference) but outside certain missile boats, ECM/BAP could be passed on. This isn't to say that ECM/BAP should always be equipped, but it should have more incentive to mechs outside scouts.

I remember at one point I stopped running ECM on all my non-scout mechs simply because it made me visible to scouts outside of passive detection range, so I found myself running passive for most of the match anyway, it just made it a little bit of a pain to support units once the main engagement began. This is the situation I'm driving at, because it is somewhat of a bad situation when it makes it required equipment for any scout mech, but not so much anything else.

Other than giving ECM/BAP additional functionality (or maybe even give it different 'modes'), I would love to see this implemented.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 17 September 2014 - 10:43 AM.


#12 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:42 AM

View PostCarrie Harder, on 17 September 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

MekTek tried to very late in the mod's lifetime, but the "Old Guard" didn't really like it...

I think that a big part of the reason why the LOS radar is limiting is that it reduces radar to the point where it's less of a sensor, and more of just an information relay system.

I mean, if I have direct LOS to a target, then I don't really need radar to detect him.. I can just see him with my eyes.

The omnidirectional radar that ignores terrain ends up giving you two separate layers of sensor information... you are using both your eyes and your radar more often, and you're using them in different ways.

#13 Murphy7

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,553 posts
  • LocationAttleboro, MA

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:45 AM

That looks really well put together, well done Roland.

#14 Redshift2k5

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Stone Cold
  • Stone Cold
  • 11,975 posts
  • LocationNewfoundland

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:48 AM

I'd like to see some of this done in stages. I'm not sure if we need more complex active/passive sensor modes.

I AM a BIG fan of adjusting mech detectibility at range, and I discussed a similar approach elsewhere. I would like to see more factors than merely size at play, but weight is probably a pretty good rough approximation of all the other factors anyway. I'd like to see ECM work by lowering the signature by some percentage as opposed to 100%, with weight classes being easier to detect the heavier they get.

#15 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:52 AM

View PostRedshift2k5, on 17 September 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

I'd like to see some of this done in stages. I'm not sure if we need more complex active/passive sensor modes.

I AM a BIG fan of adjusting mech detectibility at range, and I discussed a similar approach elsewhere. I would like to see more factors than merely size at play, but weight is probably a pretty good rough approximation of all the other factors anyway. I'd like to see ECM work by lowering the signature by some percentage as opposed to 100%, with weight classes being easier to detect the heavier they get.

While it could potentially be done in stages, we would have to be careful because certain parts are dependent upon others, or you may get in a position where things are REALLY messed up... for instance, if you could detect targets through terrain, but left LRM's as they are today, then things would be really broken.

Additionally, the switching between active/passive isn't really that complex, and adds a lot of interactivity to sensor management, making it more interesting and fun (at least in my experience).

#16 Lemming211

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationDetroit

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:59 AM

View PostRoland, on 17 September 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

Frankly, as I mentioned in the proposal, I specifically tried to limit it to things that should be reasonably easy to implement.

Most of these changes are merely modifications of sensor detection ranges, which we already know is possible (as certain systems already do this).

So, in this way, this should be relatively simple to implement. Most of the change would be localized to the section of code where detection ranges are already being determined. Currently, this already takes into account the detector and the detectee, as both targets CURRENTLY have the ability to modify that detection range.

These changes would effectively just change the equation used to determine that detection range, and an addition of a boolean flag to track whether a mech is active or passive.

In terms of changing the locking mechanism to require a direct LOS, again that doesn't seem like a huge change.

The Missiles tracking through their entire flight, as I mentioned, is actually a reversion to a prior state, so it's certainly possible. They used to work that way originally.


I'm going to offer my idea, in support of your LRM-LOS-loc concept. If instead of requiring a LOS lock, you reduce the ballistic arc of the LRMs to something more linear (though I don't believe it should be 100% linear) the need for LOS-lock for balance sake might be eliminated. Both mechs would still need to be exposed to one another to effectively use (and be hit by) LRMs. Your tracking idea would stand as well. I think the changes required to the game would be minimal, but I'm not a programmer.

#17 Dolph Hoskins

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Territorial
  • The Territorial
  • 499 posts
  • LocationThe Machine

Posted 17 September 2014 - 11:07 AM

View PostLemming211, on 17 September 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:


I'm going to offer my idea, in support of your LRM-LOS-loc concept. If instead of requiring a LOS lock, you reduce the ballistic arc of the LRMs to something more linear (though I don't believe it should be 100% linear) the need for LOS-lock for balance sake might be eliminated. Both mechs would still need to be exposed to one another to effectively use (and be hit by) LRMs. Your tracking idea would stand as well. I think the changes required to the game would be minimal, but I'm not a programmer.



Kinda funny, the fact that Roland DID NOT mention changing the lrm flight path is why I felt good about his lrm ideas. :)

In regards to any one or few aspects of this treatise being implemented in parts, I would say that the radar footprint concept for varying mech weights would be the first and foremost feature. True it is something aside from ECM, but in a sense it does correlate to what ECM brings to the battlefield. The fact that light mechs would be harder to detect at moderate ranges and big mechs would be like a homing beacon would have a direct relation to the current ECM curtain element that people are dealing with.

With the radar footprint properly implemented and getting away from LOS radar all things ecm and lrm could be tweaked more effectively in key performance areas.

#18 Lemming211

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationDetroit

Posted 17 September 2014 - 11:16 AM

View PostThe Ripper13, on 17 September 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:



Kinda funny, the fact that Roland DID NOT mention changing the lrm flight path is why I felt good about his lrm ideas. :)

In regards to any one or few aspects of this treatise being implemented in parts, I would say that the radar footprint concept for varying mech weights would be the first and foremost feature. True it is something aside from ECM, but in a sense it does correlate to what ECM brings to the battlefield. The fact that light mechs would be harder to detect at moderate ranges and big mechs would be like a homing beacon would have a direct relation to the current ECM curtain element that people are dealing with.

With the radar footprint properly implemented and getting away from LOS radar all things ecm and lrm could be tweaked more effectively in key performance areas.


I believe that the whole system, as proposed, would resolve the majority of my complains regarding LRMs. I'll take what I can get. I just additionally feel like they shouldn't be functioning as artillery, that's what Arrow IV is for.

Roland's idea of lock-on to fire, but also blind fire is confusing though. I'm not even clear on which situations warrant each. Reducing the elevation of the flight path would mean that current targeting mechanics would not need to be changed. An added bonus, semi-linear flight paths would allow for more potential firing opportunities. Like a long range, slow moving shotgun; in open ground salvos could be timed to hit a target in motion before lock-on was achieved. Or with stream fired LRMs, a salvo could be swept across multiple targets. I just really hate the concept of firing 20 artillery rockets. Even worse is the linear travel after the target is missed.

Edited by Lemming211, 17 September 2014 - 11:29 AM.


#19 Lootee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 1,269 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 11:17 AM

I say go for it. Can't end up any worse than the mess we have now.

#20 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 17 September 2014 - 11:18 AM

View PostLemming211, on 17 September 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:


I believe that the whole system, as proposed, would resolve the majority of my complains regarding LRMs. I'll take what I can get. I just additionally feel like they shouldn't be functioning as artillery, that's what Arrow IV is for.

have you read "indirect LRM fire" rules in Btech?

LRMs were acting as poor man's artillery before there WAS Arrow IV





7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users