8 replies to this topic

[Greyhart]

Ok I am bored at work.

There is a lot of discussion on LRM being over powered or under powered. Then there are the changes to ECM and information warfare.

These appear to me to be parts of a whole but people generally discuss them in isolation.

Considering that we will continue to have NARC, ECM, TAG, AMS, LRM, SSRM, SRM, BAP, Artamis, radar how should they all interact to make them different and useful in most circumstances?

My understanding of the current situation is as follows (general understanding please feel free to expand the details):

ECM: Disrupt: Bubble of 90m where the Mechs can't be targeted.
counter: Counter ECM within 90m

BAP: Counter 1 ECM within an area. Quicker lock on

TAG: Counters ECM on one Mech and quicker lock on

NARC: Counters ECM on one Mech and quicker lock on.

LRM: with out lock on can be fired but hits ground rather than flying straight. But with lock on will head for target.

SSRM: won't fire without lock on.

AMS: stops x% of missiles.

Artamis: tighter spread of missiles.


Current problem:

multiple ECM makes LRM, SSRM useless and difficult to counter. Using EMC requires no great skill.

Ok just to spit ball and get discussions going:

1. ECM could be used like a weapon, passively it stops the carrying mech from being targeted. But hold fire button to charge a pulse that will hide mechs in a bubble but highlight the ECM mech. The pulse will also throw off any missiles in the air off their target.

2. LRMs fire straight ahead if there is no lock.

3. BAP Hold and charge like ECM to counter ECM effect but light up BAP mech and easier to get lock.

4. NARC cut trough ECM for one mech and disrupts the radar on that Mech.

5. TAG cuts through ECM and quicker lock on.

[Kodyn]

Why make a new thread for a topic that probably has more threads than any other topic in the history of this game, including several already on the front page of these forums?

Not trying to be a ****...but really, bit excessive on these.

[Greyhart]

I thought I had addressed this. But clearly not.

Whilst you find this all over the place. they are rather bitty discussions on one aspect of it. Usually complaining that X is wrong but not addressing all of the aspects in the game.

Generally when something is suggested it degenerates in to x won't work or Y is fine.

I want to encourage an overall discussion on the aspects with various ideas for solutions.

Also being bored at work makes me rather egotistical

[Willard Phule]

So, since we're OBVIOUSLY talking about the solo queue here (ECM isn't as big a deal in CW, where people actually know what they're doing), there is one thing you failed to address.

New players.

See, PGI has decided that coming up with an interactive tutorial is beyond their current coding capabilities....so, they set the Solo Queue up as their training grounds. The better you are, the higher your Elo, the more new players you have to carry each match.

So...new players. They love their "fire and forget" systems....probably because they can't unzoom without looking at their hands. So...don't change ECM. Screw the new players over until they figure out how to operate like we did.

[Novakaine]

Command Console BAP and Narc are a joke.
And my tag laser flashes like a strobe light in a multiple ecm environment.
Which we have because every freaking other mech has ecm on it.
Give me the Stalker-3Fb then I'll be happy.
ECM is for pansies.

[Greyhart]

So how would you solve the problem?

how would you balance LRm and ECM,BAPs etc

Oh yes and where would anyone find a comprehensive account of what each system does?

Edited by Greyhart, 27 July 2015 - 04:47 AM.

[Lugh]

Novakaine, on 27 July 2015 - 04:40 AM, said:

Command Console BAP and Narc are a joke.
And my tag laser flashes like a strobe light in a multiple ecm environment.
Which we have because every freaking other mech has ecm on it.
Give me the Stalker-3Fb then I'll be happy.
ECM is for pansies.

I am a Huckleberry not a pansie.

[Sir Wulfrick]

A couple of observations:

1. LRMs will always be nearly impossible to balance. They tend to be horribly OP weapons of doom against new players who don't understand how to avoid them, don't understand the maps yet etc. but are nearly useless against seasoned veterans. I'm not sure that there is a way to make them effective for one group without making them either drastically OP or totally useless at the other end of the scale.

2. MWO needs a proper simulation of an actual radar system. All the previous Mechwarrior games had this to some extent. I'm wondering if it would be possible for the game engine to actually calculate what a mech radar system of given characteristics ought to be able to detect based on terrain, enemy mech radar-cross-section, radar scan zones, pulse repetition frequency and so on. Some of the better flight sims are just starting to model this. At the very least mech radar systems ought to have passive and active modes, narrow & wide scan zones etc.

3. Were point 2 to be implemented, this would have an immediate effect on the employment of ECM and other tools such as BAP. ECM, whatever characteristics it ought to have, would stand out like the proverbial sore thumb on a passive radar scan, as would a transmitting BAP unit so though both would give their respective benefits they would also serve to highlight the position of the mech using them.

4. It'd be nice to see magnetic anomaly vision mode making a return. This could be particularly useful in low-visibility urban maps.

5. Of course to properly take advantage of an overhauled information warfare system the maps would probably have to be bigger so that the entire information warfare system would not be simply made useless by the fact that both teams of mechs are immediately visible to each other, thus inviting the standard visually-aimed gauss & laser vomit exchanges that we have now. Imagine the possibilities of light mechs with null signature systems and stealth armour, running passive radar, carrying out actual reconnaissance for the main force of heavies & assault mechs. Of course lights would have to be equally rewarded for scouting & reconnaissance as heavies & assaults are for killing enemy mechs, but we'd finally have a modicum of actual role warfare!

Edited to add:

A couple more thoughts on LRMs:

1. I wonder if LRMs could have a limited ability to re-acquire targets if the launching mech loses lock on the target? Let's say that each full salvo from a single launcher is 'lead' by an invisible (can't see it, can't be destroyed) lead missile that models some sort of seeker head. If the launching mech loses lock on the target the leading missile can re-acquire lock as long as the target remains within the gimbal limits of the seeker head. If the target goes out of the view of the seeker head then that missile salvo goes ballistic and impacts whatever is in it's way, or self-destructs on reaching maximum range. It'd be nice to model seeker-heads on all the missiles but I doubt this would be possible within game engine performance characteristics, hence the idea of having an invisible 'leading' missile per salvo per launcher.

2. I'm also wondering if LRMs could have some sort of home-on-jam selectable mode. It would have to be very inaccurate to avoid making ECM pointless but could throw a bone to LRM mechs. If we ever get a Longbow in MWO it will need something to keep it effective against the sea of ECM. I would be very cautious about a HOJ mode for LRMs though - if it were done badly it would make ECM nearly pointless and we would have another Lurmageddon

Edited by Sir Wulfrick, 27 July 2015 - 05:23 AM.

[Greyhart]

yes the entire information warfare thing makes changes to many parts of the game.

I'd like to see changes to radar as well. Could be that in order to get a lock the LRM boat has to have active radar on, making them a target.

The vision modes need working on. I think the way to make them balanced is to have each map present problems i.e. in river city the buildings should be emitting heat making it more difficult to see mechs.

I don't have comprehensive answers to these things. I am interested in peoples ideas.