945 replies to this topic

[HammerMaster]

No.
But hey try it anyways.
You insisted on YOUR(PGIl) spin on ECM.
20+ years ago it was written out in the source books.
YOUR(PGI) way is much maligned, overpowered. Dreadful.
But HEY try it YOUR(PGI) way again!

[R2D2FTW]

180m might be too far. 90m is too close. Try 135m.

[Seelenlos]

YOU PGI LOSERS,you must first balance the ELO System.Since that ELO system ****, you are doctoring around on every aspect of your code to make a balance.Well as always, inside the trees it is hard to recognize the jungle.AGAIN, how should a light understand he is a light if he can survive an ac 20 direct hit (the aspect of programming it is yours not the reason why a light should survive in near range).So the example above shows exactly the problem:Lights must get their income and XP from the recon as they are the Scouts (even if they have PPC), the hit and run boys, the last resort mechs to come in near fight at the end of the match.Now you can change the ecm, Bap, the quirks etc, but your understanding of your own game is not there.The only good news for you: the engine is logical, and gives exactly what should happen at wrong tactical positions and wrong strategies (NASCAR).What makes it break is your ideas around the main problem: making the roles "roles".12-12 Warfare, HA HA HA HA, since the clan introduction you can not bring it upon your "heart" to reduce the clan and weight size for the matchmaker.In CWF they drop 12 vs 12, , oh holy PGI, how does your brains function to write such a nice code and still be ...... at the concept you put the engine in !?! You heard of KISS? You should really do it here too.As I wrote it in some other post: the LAME MECH movement you implemented.A light running with 120 km/h still can hit 100%. Sorry do you drink and drive too?And an A/H-Mech with 50 km/h can not hit with his Ac20 / 4x Ac/5 or what ever and make only 5 damage points to a sheath of paper Light?Well, I have pointed these points and i will point them till you change it (some good way), you drop me out of MWO (my wife maybe thank you, my best-friend not), a competitor comes along.These are the points you should concentrate in:1. ELO: first and all:Not Targeting in vicinity -400 ELONot taking at least a TAG or BAP -400 ELODo not counter ECM with ECM -300 ELONot using UAV -100Not using strike -100and so on....- To help people understand what they do:Make the T/L-Leaders VisibleMake a better commanding interface! (Press Shift for HUD and give drop commands with mouse)Do not dropping High-level-ELO and hope they can help teams: again 3 segments: Low - middle -highELO is ONLY influenced by        * match score -  by information warfare  -  damage - kill *- in the above * implementing the following command orders and winning will be very hard to program i think - 2. Change the number and drop weight of the clans, so they must choose taking tonnages or numbers with in CW and PUG3. PUG modes is still separated by clans and IS   OR  make two kind of sign in mode for those like the way it is now.4. Correct the lights code problem: lights are dead near heavies and assaults, no discussion, no explanations. This is not counter strike, this is Battletech.5. Program the mech movements and hit-percentage: slow-middle-fast 90%-50%-10% (you run fast, you hit harder)6. Change the ecm and bap to their original (mech invisibility on map and sight) - the only thing i am not certain about here is: BAP + ECM- should the ones like me get quad-bonuses for intelligence or not :P7. remove the startup-sequence and let the players use the whole time for tactics and planning.These are my experiences and points i found since i play this game for about 3 or more years.I am sorry for the anger, but it is worse not to call bad bad.Sorry, what ever all good/bad/ugly READERS want to tell me or not, i will not read and follow this thread. I am tired of reading good news and become bad gifts every time (a true pessimist).Best regards and wish you success.

Edited by Seelenlos, 17 July 2015 - 05:07 PM.

[Hydrocarbon]

Make friendly ECM interfere with each other, reducing each unit's range.

Otherwise don't nerf it that much. 180m is 102k sq meters, 25k sq meters - that's a HUGE reduction. 120m would be more reasonable, 45k sq meters.



Although...this would certainly help the IS in CW. Our LuRM boats will annihilate the clans.

[Solis Obscuri]

Tbh, I always thought that Information Warfare and Electronic Warfare should be different gameplay elements; the former focusing on scouting and reconnaissance, the latter on blocking or inhibiting certain types of advanced targeting systems (like Artemis IV and NARC beacons) and sensor systems (like BAP) that gave significant advantages over the more "basic" weapon systems of the 31st century. This was essentially how the systems worked in TT rules.

In MWO, we started out with a really interesting information sharing system, which was a big improvement over most previous MW games. There was no "magic radar" seeing through obstacles, and the ability of units to share target info made scouting (and traditional scout mechs) very valuable to a team.

It was an interesting system that encouraged some degree of teamwork even in PUG matches. Not everyone loved indirect-fire and target sharing, but it fit close to TT rules, albeit that LRMs took no indirect fire accuracy penalties (though arguably they are worse in direct fire compared to TT due to slow flight times), and were themselves on a wild balancing see-saw where they could go from godmode to unusable crap on a week by week basis.

The system wound up actually diminishing the role of Information Warfare systems like BAP, however - abilities like seeing location target damage, enemy loadouts, which were originally very valuable tools provided by BAP, became standard sensor functions. (At which point BAP basically became a cheaper but heavier version of a sensor range module).

Then ECM came in and basically became the sole arbiter of whether your team had access to information tools or not, based on whose team hadmore ECM. Also, magic stealth. It was supposed to improve a lot of things, but basically became the "summon bigger fish" solution to several existing balance problems, by making a single bigger balance problem to rule them all.

And because balance was never fixed for the other basic systems in the absence of ECM, and because information warfare was never fully fleshed out or balanced without the presence of ECM, we've been in kind of a **** situation to ever go back and fix the basic functionalities ever since.

I've written pretty extensively on the subject of both information warfare and electronic warfare in the past:
http://mwomercs.com/...-balancing-ecm/
http://mwomercs.com/...doesnt-fix-ecm/
http://mwomercs.com/...47#entry1791947
http://mwomercs.com/...07#entry1960407
(and eventually created sort of a repository discussion on their relationship to missile,s indirect fire, C3 et al which I linked together here: http://mwomercs.com/...e/page__st__140)

But after a certain point I had to acknowledge anything I said was falling on deaf ears from a developmental standpoint.

However, if that has now changed and you really want to fix ECM and create a fleshed-out Information Warfare pillar, reducing the "cloaking device" range isn't what you need to do. You need to get rid of the "cloaking device" feature and rework the information warfare and electronic warfare tools. I've provided a pretty long list in my prior posts, and I can reiterate again how I think things should ideally work:

Spoiler

• Reduce the sensor tools (loadout info, damage info) available for basic scanners and give them back to BAP (this will make BAP much more valuable).
  
• Do not let ECM block direct-fire or indirect-fire locks for LRMs.
  
• Nerf LRM indirect fire by significantly increasing spread in indirect-fire mode (if you can do this for Artemis IV you should be able to do it for everything). This will make NARC and TAG much more valuable.
  
• Have ECM block BAP, NARC, and TAG effects within its 180m range (hell, let it block UAV detection as well). This will make it valuable for electronic warfare, because the systems it blocks are now more valuable.
  
• Break sensors into multiple modes: RADAR, IR, and Magscan
  
• Let RADAR function similarly to the current mode, but increase the delay for target detection somewhat. Make people use their eyes.
  
• IR and Magscan should have reduced ranges compared to RADAR
  
• IR should pick out hot targets more easily, giving it faster detection time and greater range against them.
  
• Magscan should detect larger mechs faster and at greater range, but have trouble detecting small mechs.
  
• Allow ECM to decrease RADAR detection range (for the ECM-equipped unit only) by 75%, as now. Do not let it interfere with IR or Magscan.
  
• Don't let TAG, NARC, UAV, or BAP counter ECM any longer.

The end result of this should be an increased value of advanced electronics such as BAP, NARC, TAG, and Artemis IV, and an increased value of ECM as the counter to these systems. ECM will also remain a useful tool for helping a light 'mech stay stealthy (particulalry if it doesn't build up a lot of heat and make itself visible to IR scanners). However, the information warfare system will no longer be held subject to electronic warfare systems as it it has for the past 2.5 years.

However, that's a hell of a lot to rework; on a simpler note, I think this short list would make things more functional in hte near term:

• Do not let ECM prevent sensor detection in it's 180m radius
  
• Do not let ECM interfere with LRM direct-fire
  
• Give ECM the ability to block target info gathering such as location damage displays and loadout info within its 180m radius
  
• Continue to allow ECM to block LRM indirect-fire locks

[TheSteelRhino]

Feel free to nerf Ecm away...but to keep missiles from getting ...stupid...how about a buff to ams. I'm thinking improve their effectiveness vs streaks as well.

[Voivode]

LRMs need the following in conjunction with this:

1) Buff to speed.

2) Nerf to lock on time

3) Increase of cooldown time.

Then we'll be talking

[Xetelian]

ECM should stay as is until there is a overhaul of LRMs and ECM.

Currently that bubble is the only reason to take an ECM variant and this hurts the IS more than the Clans.

[Idealsuspect]

Reducing ECM bubble will make it a must have .... Anyway my hellbringers are ready for duty.

For me ECM should be a magic bubble under everybody look like "hollow" to long range radar but where every radars ( friends too ) are blind and also ECMed people have to play without lots of usefull infos ( red triangle ) and even theirs streak or lrms are unplayable if they don't cut ECM for get a target and touch it..

Also use this sort of ECM is tacticly more dangerous but in skilled hand it's more powerfull and all people will have to improve theirs pilots skill for counter or use this.

But simply reducing ECM will push more smart people to drop with ECM mechs also play less sort of mechs and also less sort of loadout...
In fine make the gameplay poor like in CW clan side in fact >>> Big fail in sight

Edited by Idealsuspect, 17 July 2015 - 08:55 PM.

[Aim64C]

Tina Benoit, on 15 July 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

Hello MechWarriors,

Please share your feedback on this thread regarding Paul's discussion on ECM changes.

Paul and I have very different ideas of "fundamental change."

See, he mentions the real problem: "Was never meant to be a magic bubble. . ." and then completely misses it by talking about range.

Frankly, I'm curious if I can have his job. You guys have so much more potential if you'd actually aim higher than something that is minimally viable. Perhaps you guys who work for/with him feel the same.

Or maybe it's an easy job with tons of paid vacation and who would complain about that?

Anyway - the problem is that ECM is a "magic bubble."

Why is it this way? Well, a few reasons. First, ECM doesn't quite deliver the same "oomph" if we were to implement it per battletech rules. Per battletech rules, it protects friendly 'mechs from the effects of Artemis IV, C3/C3i and NARC. An ECM-equipped 'mech could also choose to jam a 'mech with BAP, but the 'mech with BAP would be aware that it was being jammed.

So. How do you translate that into MWO to make it somewhat valuable?

For starters, BAP is rarely used outside of assisting with missiles. Since sensors only have line of sight capability in MWO, the use of a BAP for anything other than pairing with LRMs is relatively moot, since we can usually see that far, anyway. So there really isn't much point in being able to jam it.

Artemis IV interruption, also, isn't much to get excited about, since Artemis only works with line of sight that must be maintained throughout the missiles' entire flight, there's not much advantage to this effect unless the behavior of missiles is substantially altered.

The benefits of C3 and C3i were that they allowed a 'mechs within the network to fire as if they were any other 'mech in the group. If I am 120 meters from a target, then my C3 linked team can fire with a to-hit modifier as if they were at 120 meters and as if they had only moved as far as I had moved during my previous turn. That means someone sitting back at extreme range with a weapon (that will still deal full damage) can fire as if they were much closer. Standard C3 systems, also, functioned as a TAG.

This makes ECM relatively useful within tabletop for countering the power of a combat datalink.

Since giving C3 those kinds of translated advantages in a MechWarrior game would be somewhat difficult, it is not so easy to see the advantages of ECM. What comes to mind, for myself, is to allow a 'mech with ECM to be detected per normal unless it gets within 180 meters of an opposing 'mech, at which point, it disables information sharing (making it less of a 'magic bubble' that shields its allies and more of a 'bubble of silence').

That would make it relatively useful for sneaking up on and silencing scouts or advance parties - but that requires something above and beyond and arena shooter.

Combating narc would be an added bonus - but this also requires we do something more than an arena shooter to really be all that useful.

What it all boils down to is that many of the functions of ECM, as they have been implemented, are attempts to make the equipment relevant within a shallow arena shooter when it would, otherwise, be a relatively moot piece of equipment if it functioned according to lore.

The 'magic bubble' that protects against detection and lengthens LRM lock-on time is Paul's creation in the first place (if memory serves me correctly). I would even argue that the reason it was created as such was to try and make some kind of 'information warfare' aspect of an improperly developed game that gave players limited need to worry about information in the first place.

So, when his suggestion is to simply reduce the size of said magic bubble, I don't disagree that it will improve the game... but do disagree that it is the correct action to take or that it represents some 'fundamental change' to ECM.

A 'fundamental change' would be something that alters what ECM is and how it works. Simply making it a smaller version of what it is just changes its relative impact.

It, also, doesn't really add anything to the game or make any kind of preparation for an expanded experience.

But it does make the game a slightly more viable arena shooter within a market that is relatively crowded and competitive. ECM would just be considered to be too powerful and imbalanced by the steam community, and so it is time to finally do something about it to meet the minimum standard.

Frankly, I kind of feel sorry for you guys. The man sits atop a budget several times over my net worth, has a team of talented people to call upon, and this is what he does with it all. I can be envious of the position, but not the man. It is a shame that the people he works for will never meet their potential under him.

The most simple answer I can condense it down into is thus:

The biggest problem with ECM is that there is no avenue through which information warfare can be properly developed within MWO as a product of its focus on its simplistic arena format that inherently reduces the need for information. Unless and until the game is designed to allow aspects of information warfare to develop within a battlefield, ECM other than a 'magic bubble' that is also useful will be impossible to realize within the game's framework.

[HammerMaster]

^^ Agreed.

[Veev]

Gumon Choji, on 17 July 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

Paul here is the issue. ECM blocking info gathering and visuals on seen mechs makes it too strong. But without it missiles are too strong. Have ECM only effect missiles lock and lower the range slightly will fix the issue. Again this is the only reliable anti missile tool when 3 boats are on the field. Let me see the mech painted but no lock is a good solution as it makes ECM a role not a super power.

90m may be ok but seriously let us target and not get locks. then 180 is ok.

As a side note if your company ruined the quirked mechs I love I will want my money back And having dropped over $500 on imaginary items I think it is reasonable to request this. Though I do like the direction the game has moved over the last 3 months. i just do not want to lose things I have worked hard to earn in cash and hours. The balance of some of the mechs have really been based on the existing quirks.

AMS - Equip em and load up plenty of ammo, the other option is use cover. AMS should be the counter to missiles. It should never have been ECM.

Edited by Veev, 17 July 2015 - 09:35 PM.

[NKAc Street]

actually ecm should be an individual mech, why worry about complaining over nerfs, do it and own it,

[EvilCow]

Too little too late.

You should have implemented that great suggestion from Roland about a year ago.

Sorry for interrupting, back to not giving a "$£".

[huskinater]

Maybe I'm biased because it was on the front page, maybe I'm biased because of the sheer volume of approval, and maybe I'm biased because I kinda think it could work, but I really like what Tennex posted.

[White Bear 84]

IL MECHWARRIOR, on 16 July 2015 - 02:06 AM, said:

ECM change
YES

complete quirk change

NO

reason:
actually in IS CW, in order to achieve best performance and get minumum 3 k damage per game, i switch 6-8 drop decks.
mechs, equipment, modules and engines are overpriced.
if you keep changing what mech is good and what mech is not, people simply will not have the proper mechs to play cw.

for example, when you put your first quirk pass, i spent 300 million c bills in order to have the perfect drop in each map.

people do not have all this money.

NEW COMPLTE QUIRK OVERHAUL = CW POPULATION GOES DOWN

So would you be mad if I suggested that ECM becomes a paid module?

#justkidding...

Edit: Seriously Paul.. ..just.kidding.

Edited by White Bear 84, 18 July 2015 - 12:57 AM.

[bad arcade kitty]

White Bear 84, on 18 July 2015 - 12:55 AM, said:

So would you be mad if I suggested that ECM becomes a paid module?

a consumable like uav

[White Bear 84]

bad arcade kitty, on 18 July 2015 - 01:01 AM, said:

a consumable like uav

That cost's twice as much..

Edited by White Bear 84, 18 July 2015 - 01:21 AM.

[WintermuteOmega]

Since we have more and more ECM capable Mechs, the range reduction makes sense to me. 2 or 3 Bubbles can make 12s practically invisible, which is not only bad for LURMS (which i don't play that often) but also make Tageting already vulnerable areas impossible, due to not being able to lock targets at all.

On a sidenote/the whole Seismic topic: I know PGI has it's hands full with making mechs, revising Quirks, updating maps and all that. But please, when you are done with some of the stuff, revise the EXP & Modules system. As ppl said, there are no modules i use instead of Seismic, Radar Deprivation and in some cases Advanced zoom (Sniper) or Target decay (Lurmer).
There have been thrown ideas around, how to update the modules and EXP models. Then there would be also much more room for Role-Warfare and ECM Buffs, Counter-ECM modules and so on and so forth. With a good modules system, the possibilities would be almost limitless and the mech designs would be much more unique. There is sooo much wasted potential in the actual system it really makes me a sad panda

[WintermuteOmega]

Tennex, on 15 July 2015 - 02:47 PM, said:

Heres a suggestion to information warfare/fixing ECM
Give all mechs Seismic Sensor by default as a "Radar"

Almost all mechs equip the module seismic sensor. It has become the de facto Radar of Mechwarrior Online. (don't freak out. Think of this change as just Seismic Sensor with more integration into Role Warfare)
Summary of what changing seismic sensor to Radar will do for the game :

• Active/Passive Radar
  
• True to lore implementation of ECM. That doesn't break all missiles
  
• Visual/Missile Targeting is the ONLY mechanic of Information Warfare right now. This change will fix that
  
• True to lore implementation of whatever the hell radar tech you can think of
  
• Null Sig

And here is the how:



By actually having a Radar mechanic you are are able to implement features that are true to lore.
Meanwhile the Radar(seismic sensor) portion of the game is still kept separate from the Missile Lock/Visual Lock portion of the game. What this mean is:

#1 Just because you see mechs on your Radar(seismic sensor) doesn't mean you can lob LRMs at them. Just because you see them on Radar, doesn't mean you can have damage information on them. (A problem the developers sought to get rid of from the old game.)

#2 Lore ECM: Having a separate Radar and Missile targeting system means that ECM can have the Radar jamming portion of its function (invisible from Radar, jams enemy's Radar), without the missile targeting interference. I.E true to lore and does not break an entire 1/3 of the weapons.


#3 You can tune/adjust a mech's Radar capability without hindering its Missile/Visual Targeting ability. I.E if you lower the Missile Targeting range from 1000 you can no longer effectively use LRMS. Whereas if you lower the Radar radius there is no effect on viability of Missile weapons. Worried that giving light mechs 2x Visual/Missile Lock will wreck the game? Worry no more, giving light mechs 2x Radar range is fine and encouraged!

#4 Passive/Active Radar! Turn off your own Radar(Seismic Sensor), and other mechs will not see you on their Radar. This means mechs will still be able to sneak around, and have that stealth gameplay.



Heck, devs can add Null Sig if they wanted to if it no longer has functionality overlap with ECM. Miss your Sniper Raven? Slap that Null Sig onto a Rave, turn on Passive Radar and it works just like ECM does now without the broken umbrella.

I like what you are saying. I always found it weird, that "Radar-Range" doesn't really matter ingame, and that as soon as one Mech is targeted, hundreds of Lurms can be deployed from a nice safe distance.
But knowing PGI, they shy away from game altering changes and usually just make makeshift additions to the existing changes. So i would hold my hopes up.