10 replies to this topic

[MechPorn]

Issues with ECM that I see:

1. One team has a lot of ECM ‘Mechs and other team has maybe one, or none.
2. Not all ECM deprivation tactics work when you have more than one ECM in the area.
3. Multiple ECM ‘Mechs in the area counter some of the ECM counters.

Possible Solutions:

1. Limit ECM to one per weight class (Community Warfare) in a match or 1 per four people (PUGS).
2. If there is another friendly ECM within the range of 180 meters of another, they counter each other.
3. Remove the ECM Counter from ECM and place it on BAP and the command console.
a. Add a side effect to countering ECM, that the ‘Mech is targetable by enemies with, and without, line of sight for 400 meters.

Edited by TB Xiomburg, 18 September 2014 - 02:58 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

TB Xiomburg, on 18 September 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

Issues with ECM that I see:

1. One team has a lot of ECM ‘Mechs and other team has maybe one, or none.
2. Not all ECM deprivation tactics work when you have more than one ECM in the area.
3. Multiple ECM ‘Mechs in the area counter some of the ECM counters.

1. That's not an ECM issue. Its an issue of mech and equipment allocation which has absolutely nothing to do with ECM.
2. TAG works fine under all conditions as does UAV. More than enough.
3. How is that a problem?

[Zack Esseth]

Or we make ECM do what it was intended, increase lock on time and info gathering. Cancel Artemis, narc and tag. Someone a while back had a fantastic post about changing the way sensors worked, wish I could find that again. Basicly saying that mechs had a cross section signature based on weight and size with the locust only being completely detectable by an Atlas with Active radar withing 400 meters assuming the locust was also in active mode. Then ECM would cut that range down to 300.

[MechPorn]

I Zeratul I, on 18 September 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

3. How is that a problem?

1. One team has a lot of ECM ‘Mechs and other team has maybe one, or none.

[F4T 4L]

Zack,

How would your suggestion add more depth to the game?

What we have now is superior to your suggestion, IMHO.

[MechPorn]

F4T 4L, on 18 September 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

Zack,

How would your suggestion add more depth to the game?

What we have now is superior to your suggestion, IMHO.

I have only read a few other ECM proposals and had this sitting on the back burner for about a year.

[Zack Esseth]

F4T 4L, on 18 September 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

Zack,

How would your suggestion add more depth to the game?

What we have now is superior to your suggestion, IMHO.

Different mechs in the guys post on redoing ecm and sensors had different sensor ranges. Lights like Spiders and Locust who are more intended for scouting had more sensor rage stock. So locust had 1200m sensor range and Atlas had 800. Made it more important for scouts to well, scout. On top of that, mechs had Cross sections, like I said in my earlier post. Further making lights better at scouting.

My suggestion to these changes to sensors and ecm will help bring LRMS back into balance. Right now, LRMS are either really bad, or crazy good because ECM is such a wild card. I will try and find that post that guy had made and link it. It was amazing and got attention from pgi even as a possibility.

[Aresye]

People argue against lore and all that jazz, saying how tabletop doesn't transfer over well to realtime games.

I can see this argument in regards to the way weapons deal damage, or how aiming works, but when it comes to sensors, sensor ranges, and other non-combat related balancing that isn't determined by a dice roll, there's no reason why it shouldn't work. It's designed into the TT as hard rules, and therefore can be implemented in realtime games as the same hard rules.

You have Artemis. They have ECM. Your Artemis doesn't work. End of story. There's no rolling of dice or player skill to take into account. It either works, or it doesn't (aka: Hard Rule).

[Zack Esseth]

Found it. This is the best thing I have seen anyone write on how to implement sensors and ECM properly.

http://mwomercs.com/...pillars-of-mwo/

[terrycloth]

To better match table top (and still have something playable), you could...

Only put doritos over mechs that someone has targetted. So everyone gets 'ecm stealth' if people aren't paying attention. Dorito-less mechs are still targetable as normal though.

Increase the normal lock-on time to current ECM lock on time, at least for indirect fire.

Make BAP reduce lock-on time drastically (to current levels with it equipped) and also make untargetted mechs get a Dorito like they do now.

Make ECM in disrupt mode cancel those bonuses, along with Narc and Artemis.

So a scout or LRM mech would want BAP, and a scout might also want ECM but it wouldn't be as overwhelmingly necessary since it would only help against people with BAP. ECM mechs could still be targeted but it would take a long time to get locks since they jam all the lock-speeding equipment. Combine that with LRMs being fire-and-forget but needing to re-acquire locks after each salvo, and ECM would be effective against LRMs but not total immunity.

[Mystere]

TB Xiomburg, on 18 September 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

1. Limit ECM to one per weight class (Community Warfare) in a match or 1 per four people (PUGS).

Equipment-based matchmaking is a road that leads to nowhere.

Students of the Banzai Institute of Advanced Armored Warfare should know better, lest they be expelled.