945 replies to this topic

[Bloodweaver]

Gattsus, on 11 September 2015 - 09:29 PM, said:

Just delete seismic from the game. Wallhacks do not promote skill/strategic gameplay.

While true of Seismic's current implementation... It would have absolutely promoted strategic gameplay if it had been implemented as initially described. Seismic signals were supposed to be stronger the faster an enemy moved, and the heavier he was. Sneaking up on enemy using Seismic would still be possible in this case if you were low-weight and moved slowly enough.

What we have instead, is a typically simplistic, binary on/off system, which is a plague that affects sensor mechanics overall in MWO. Were Seismic's mechanics to be changed to be more variable, as initially outlined, it could have added a lot of variety to its use(and counter-use).

[Gorgo7]

Seismic doesn't detect mechs traveling under 40kph. Seismic only works if you are still.
Overall the "binary" system seems to work pretty well.
Personally, I want to see a reduction in ECM first then these peripheral "wants" can be addressed.

[protoKol]

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! Worried that an assault with 600 target acquisition range will not be able to use LRMS? No problem just reduce its Radar radius.

#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.

isn't this true-to-lore stuff you're talking about also relying on command-slave consoles? a feature that mwo doesnt follow lore with either. if you're gonna put one part of electronic warfare true to lore you might as well make the whole targeting system true to lore, as this makes the most sense

I'm sure no one wants command-slave consoles to work true to lore, it would never work

Edited by protoKol, 18 September 2015 - 06:01 PM.

[protoKol]

I do agree with several people in this thread, there needs to me more mechanics involved in combat other than ecm, target or not to target. add more variety in electronic warfare, this is, afterall, this game is more tactical than arcade

[Veigle]

Evening Ladies.

As some might know, I take the roll of Information Warfare more seriously then most. I give up opportunities for big damage, take time to get behind enemies to spot, and try to help the team focus. When I can, I poke the backsides of the big mechs to force them to turn away from the combat. All with the intention of setting up wins rather then personal kills.

The point I am trying to make is that the roll of information in current system HAS been damaged by the overabundance and On/Off nature of ECM. An adjustment in efficacy is necessary and important. I like many of the ideas presented here, especially the following:

Scale the ECM, instead of a bubble.
As it scales, allow overlapping areas of multiple ECM to stack
Information specialist mechs can take a more serious roll in setting up a successful mission
Trade-offs (based on weight) to gain information capabilities. the more serious the ability, the greater the weight.

I think this is moving in the right direction for me at least.

[Gremlich Johns]

Veigle, on 19 September 2015 - 11:56 AM, said:

As it scales, allow overlapping areas of multiple ECM to stack

one big word - harmonics

RF/EM can negate each other if they are operating at the same freqs.

because of that, ECM should NOT be allowed to stack - if anything there should be times when you don't want to use any ECM suite. IRL, if a jammer was detected, it didn't take all that long to DF it and drop a battery six or two on it. It is a technology that, to the trained ear or eye (on an O-scope), yells "HERE I AM!".

just sayin'

[Hydrocarbon]

Veigle, on 19 September 2015 - 11:56 AM, said:

The point I am trying to make is that the roll of information in current system HAS been damaged by the overabundance and On/Off nature of ECM.

Eve Online implements a very good system - you can't fire anything unless you get a lock. The only exception is F-o-F missiles, but they hit the nearest possible target - a rock, a friendly, etc. ECM increases the time it takes to be locked, ECCM reduces lock-on time.

Since most weapons are dumb-fire (user aimed), obviously this won't work. BUT if PGI coded things a certain way, it could be adapted:

No lock = reduced damage
Partial Lock = normal damage (locked w/in ECM bubble or no paper doll showing)
Full lock = increased damage (locked w/paper doll showing, no ECM)

THIS would make info warfare important. A smaller IW mech could pounce on a brawler (high alpha but slow lock time), fire for a few seconds, then fade away - shrugging off point-blank dual gauss to the legs like they were AC2 rounds.

[Duke916]

First time to make an input on the forums since starting to play 2 years ago. I'd like to expand the discussion on information warfare. Understand, MWO is a computer game attempting to emulate a board game. I appreciate the developers' struggles in keeping the Battletech feel and keeping the game interesting to the players and I've been proud of how PGI has handled the balance. Real World physics is neat to discuss, but MWO would be drastically different if we inserted all of today's tech into a board game designed back in 1984 (it's really been 31 years?).

Any intel types,EWOs or EW techs out there pipe in just keep it in the public information domain.

Real World Input:

One B-52H, built in 1968,could easily blank out the communications over an entire Mid Western state. Slightly larger than 360 meter diameter circle. It also has systems and operator to "walk off" missiles from it's position. The ECM systems weigh a lot as in hundreds of pound per receiver/transmitter (RT). I saw one tech lift a 280 lb RT in place (5 ft high). After praising him for his "get it done attitude", had to tell him to get help next time.

One jammer aircraft is meant to cover an entire attack formation.

Chaff, flare and decoys can make missiles miss their targets.

Other missiles are not fooled easily.

today's UAVs can fly far above any machinegun type AMS and they are flyable by the operator, they don't just sit an hover at one spot and they provide high res pictures vs red doritos on a map.

Satellites and high altitude aircraft can be used for real time imagery. Hard to hide from them.

Targeting lasers can NOT be seen with the naked eye unless there is a lot of dust to reflect it.

Radar systems are extremely intricate. They can detect a "jamming" signal to give a good operator an idea where the jammer is and thus where the enemy is massed.

Seismic detectors can be scattered all over battlefields before you enter them (so can mines)

We have stabilized gun platforms on most modern tanks today (stays on target through vehicle maneuvers)

Armor can be reactive, reflective or just plate


GAME Suggestions based on some of this real world input:

-targeting lasers should be near invisible unless you are thermal mode (all lasers could be but that would be too much real world)

-We can have recon systems which either fly in a predetermined orbit or are flown by the launcher/pilot. Yes, they should still be limited on dwell time

-air assets could include attack helicopters and fast movers (don't get carried away or there would be no mechs left).

-ECM systems could have more capability (range included) due to weight just like the clan TCs. An Atlas could be able to carry more ECM than a Raven.

-we could have passive and active radar. (passive detects signals, active transmits and receives), mechs advertise their positions when active is on. Jamming would show as a fuzzy ball on the screen.

-give us chaff, flares, decoys to use to fool radar.

-radar is LOS (line of sight) so enemy hiding in a hole or behind a gate would not be detectable.

-Eliminate damage assessment when targeting. I know of nothing real world which can do this or that would tell you what weapons/ammo are onboard.

-larger mechs should have an inherently larger radar signature

-extra "stealth" tech could be applied to any mech but it should not be as good as a mech designed to be stealthy. A Raven should have a tiny radar sig vs an Atlas unless ECM is covering the Atlas.

-we can have different levels of missile sophistication. Same racks, different missiles, perhaps those with better targeting solutions would be either less lethal or each would weigh more. One type of missile could home in on active radar.

-The clan TCs and IS Command Module could also offer ability to combine input from friendly mechs (even for hollow doritos), recon flights, radar and seismic pickups so the pilot with this is in a better position to make calls.

-team comm is best source of information. A jammer should be able jam comms like VOIP but I don't how you could jam Team Speak.

-add ability to make mini map larger/smaller based on range of passive/active radar.

-add mine fields, when they explode, friendlies get good information update on were the enemy is.

-add reflective and reactive armor (pilot installs that which his information tells him is best)

-give Catapults first dibs on any new missiles. Cats are supposed to be awesome missile boats but they don't compete with a Hunchie 4J right now

I should stop

PGI, please do not take this as anything other than input from a wishful thinker. I really enjoy what you've done with the balance, maps, mechs, computer resources needed for game play etc and I know you have a small but talented staff. Pick what you think would work and is feasible in programming.

regards
Duke916

[ChewBaka]

Look at the pub queue now since the challenge event started. Its not like ECM can even hold back the tide of LRM boats crawling out of the woodwork.

If anything, I would say ECM actually needs a buff.

[Tapdancing Kerensky]

Remove beyond visual range LRM guidance systems and make them direct fire only like SRMs.

[InspectorG]

Paul Inouye, on 15 July 2015 - 04:30 PM, said:

Just want to pop in and remind everyone.. this is just the start... more to come and I'll keep y'all updated. We will put this stuff up on PTS before it goes live so you all get a chance to see what the changes do to gameplay.

As far as ECM? 60m, do it! You know you want to!!!


Happy to see 'Infotech' being implemented and i think its a good direction. Using lock-on times as a piece of info war is nice but im confused.

Will there be any penalty for not having a solid lock on a target? Because without some tactics-altering penalty decent players will just forgo locks(sight read like a musician)

50% damage reduction seems to be needed to encourage the use of locks as commanders would have to decide between hitting faster, hitting harder, and Unit composition(away from maximizing firepower).

UAVs would have to be changed, maybe they just give faster locks under their umbrella instead of showing everything?

Another question:

Are you implementing any changes to how Radar is effected by the info-warfare?

The Radar map seems more fundamental than lock-ons and really could be an avenue for role warfare.

Keep up the good work!

Edited by InspectorG, 20 September 2015 - 06:39 AM.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

Veigle, on 19 September 2015 - 11:56 AM, said:

Evening Ladies.

As some might know, I take the roll of Information Warfare more seriously then most. I give up opportunities for big damage, take time to get behind enemies to spot, and try to help the team focus. When I can, I poke the backsides of the big mechs to force them to turn away from the combat. All with the intention of setting up wins rather then personal kills.

The point I am trying to make is that the roll of information in current system HAS been damaged by the overabundance and On/Off nature of ECM. An adjustment in efficacy is necessary and important. I like many of the ideas presented here, especially the following:

Scale the ECM, instead of a bubble.
As it scales, allow overlapping areas of multiple ECM to stack
Information specialist mechs can take a more serious roll in setting up a successful mission
Trade-offs (based on weight) to gain information capabilities. the more serious the ability, the greater the weight.

I think this is moving in the right direction for me at least.

I like it. I'd like to add something that just occurred to me tonight...

Modules! We have weapon modules, even for things that aren't exactly weapons. AMS and NARC come to mind. Why not ECM?

Say we DO eventually nerf the ECM range down to 60m. Say we also add a module that can increase the ECM's range in increments, much like with weapons. Say, 5m per step by 5 steps, for a 85m ECM 'bubble'. The module would occupy a WEAPON MODULE slot, so in order to carry it, one would have to sacrifice quirking/buffing a weapon, or sacrifice adding some other mech benefit like Seismic Sensor. This COULD potentially help cut down on the "OMG OP AF" talk, as a HBR (for example) toting ECM and some ERLLs might not get the room for both, and would have to choose between being a more viable ECM cover for its team or being more viable at long range with those ERLLs. This could (again, COULD, not ABSOLUTELY WILL BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT GAME BALANCE) help separate players into more role-oriented mech loadouts, and thus help us role warriors distinguish ourselves.

A second ECM module possibility? One that further degrades BAP counter range against ECM in increments of 2.4% or 3%. Fancy a RVN-3L(C) toting both of those ECM modules and playing EW escort to assault mechs. Think about it.

This, along with the above idea about range layers/tiers for various effects of ECM, offers up some interesting possibilities. AGAIN, I'm no knowitall. But I feel fairly strongly that forcing players to choose between more team-effective ECM and more offense-effective weapon/mech modules will help define the roles more clearly, and will create opportunities to better reward the EW/IW warfare roles.

Edited by TheRAbbi, 23 September 2015 - 07:50 AM.

[Aidan Pendragon]

PGI: There is now TOO MUCH ECM IN THIS GAME. You made every new 'Mech have an ECM-carrier variant, and look at the results: try being a PUG up against another team that has multiple ECMs, when your own team doesn't know how to counter. Or, try shooting (slow) LRMs at a team that you can't lock on, that's busy coring your CT while you have to point straight at them. It's doubly ironic that the (very good) new Academy has a detailed tutorial on targeting enemies and finding their weak spots, but most new players will be unable to do this very basic mechanic because of all the ECM. Forget a range nerf; you need to change how ECM works so it's no longer a magic cloaking device. (While you're at it, make Radar Deprivation an anti-Target Decay module, instead of a 2nd cloaking device). Info warfare? More like no info warfare.

[Jungle Rhino]

I'd love to see ECM work so that you see the targetting reticles but they jump around - basically giving spoof targets. Actually it would be cool if there was a spoof mode that painted a false target triangle near the mech generating it. This would disappear if targetted and pop back up in a different location!

[Helene de Montfort]

in case someone is interested in the actual lore from battletech tactical handbook

[Pragr]

ECM from logical point of view

First let me tell you I have limited knowledge of mech lore. What I could find on sarna.net about Guardian ECM:

“The Guardian ECM Suite was introduced in 2597 by the Terran Hegemony[1]. Designed to interfere with guided weaponry, targeting computers, and communication systems, the Guardian is typically used to shield allied units from such equipment by emitting a broad-band signal meant to confuse radar, infrared, ultraviolet, magscan and sonar sensors”.

It’s relatively simple description unless you think about it in more details. It interferes with every enemy measures of detection and data acquisition, but HOW. Actually the only way this could be done is to by emitting electromagnetic waves, disturbing enemy radars/communication/electrooptical systems. Sounds good for first but there is one problem. By emitting such waves, the ECM source becomes big, bright beacon. It’s like the ECM equipped mech would be perma-NARCed. You can imagine it like you would be on the sea, know there is enemy somewhere but can’t see him. But there is a big fat smoke screen on your port, with clearly visible source. So while the smoke itself covers the number and movement of your enemy, you know his location and you can aim on the smoke generator. Why is it impossible to lock any kind of guided missiles in game (not talking about lore) on such strong target and send it to hell? The only explanation I could imagine is, that whoever developed such device in lore has no idea about electronic warfare basics.

Now, instead the criticism I offer you my idea, how the ECM should work. In general it’s just a copy of how it works in nowadays warefere.

Area ECM cover. Such device (in fact package of different devices) is big and heavy. If you want to cover a decent area with ECM you simply need literally tons of equipment. And I’m talking about fighting against radars only not talking about visual/infrared measures of detection. So such device shall be heavy. Damn heavy. My idea is from five to ten tons and similar size in slots (5-10). Thus such equipment should be reserved to heavy/assault mechs.
“Personal” ECM. The weight and size could be the same as the ECM module we have in game now, but it covers the carrier only.

How this could cope with missiles? I’m using the current LRM limits as base. First non-ECM target. LRMs has maximum range 1 000 m and target can be locked with no problem at even greater range as soon as it’s spotted by launcher or any other teammates. Once target disappeared from sight, the lock is broken and missiles hit the last known position. It’s almost the same what we can see in game now.

What happens in case of ECM cover. Target is unlockable by radar and no detail information are provided. But if the mech equipped with ECM get closer than 400 m or 500 m, red triangle appears on your HUD with no detail information and with no need to LoS. This simulate the situation when your surveillance equipment detect the ECM transmitter (again, detection of such device is stupidly easy). Under such conditions, you can lock your missiles on this target and they would be guided by ECM working similar to NARC. Before all the scream let loose just take a breath or two. Range of 400 m to 500 m means, that IS missiles would be effective in 200 m to 300 m span. Quite short distance before the lower limit becomes valid.

As a bonus, if the ECM would work this way, it’ll offer more tactical use than the current “no-brain” use. Moreover, the AMS system will be handy again, since you’ll need to cover at least the area ECM carriers.

Now, you can rip me off

PS: I DON’T HAVE A SINGLE LRM BOAT MECH.

Edited by Pragr, 30 September 2015 - 02:56 AM.

[TWIAFU]

IraqiWalker, on 16 July 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

Quoting Paul:

This change to ECM is a first pass


So people, calm down for crying out loud. Step 1 seems to be shrink the range. Okay, what's step 2? 3? or 4?
How about we all wait and see what comes next, before we all start panicking.

That would be the sane and logical thing to do.

However, this is the interwebs and a video game forum, sooo....


It's time to freak the fu*k out!

[Pragr]

TWIAFU, on 30 September 2015 - 03:24 AM, said:

That would be the sane and logical thing to do.

However, this is the interwebs and a video game forum, sooo....


It's time to freak the fu*k out!

You're wrong. It's just developer's statement before the job is done There are basically two stages of such developer's speach:

First stage: something is announced and any discussion about that thing is usually thrown out with comments like "Don't panic. You not even see how it would work but you're making your comments and criticism so far".

Second stage: when job is done and it's not working well there is a time for statement like "Criticise the other people's job post facto is easy. You should said your opinion when the work was in process".

We are in stage one at this moment. I'm looking forward to see the stage two

EDIT: This is not directly connected to PGI. This is general fact.

Edited by Pragr, 30 September 2015 - 04:00 AM.

[Arkhangel]

and, in all honesty.... my god.... cover exists. learn to use it cover tends to stop missiles a hell of a lot better than ECM. a good LRMer can still dump missiles on a mech they don't have lock on. can't do that if you have a cliff, hill or skyscraper in the way (or a handy bridge/overhang).

this game should be about positioning and tactics, not "hide under a blanket to win"


hell, if anything, the smaller ECM bubble will also make ECM mechs more effective scouts/flankers. 75% of the time, the enemy team is tipped off you're doing a flank because an ECM light got too close....but with the reduced bubble, they'll pretty much have to be on top of you for you to notice, and that's likely to be too late.

Edited by Arkhangel, 30 September 2015 - 11:29 PM.

[Ulfgar Snorrison]

Ulfgar Snorrison, on 30 August 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

Forty-four pages and counting. Wow. Looks like we care. And for all that Mr. Paul said about the this and that of the ECM, any actual change is still in the realm of sometime, someday, 'we have a plan'....Dear PGI, more and more of your playerbase is nearing our retirement ages. Once on fixed incomes we won't have as much money for games like yours. I just saying you might want to hurry things along a bit.

Well, I'm back to check up on things. Did I miss anything? Did any change in ECM actually happen? Are they going to? Did Mr. Paul ever get the smell of 'red herring' off his hands? Will this old viking ever find happiness in a world he never made? Tune in next year. Same forum time. Same forum place.