317 replies to this topic

[Orzorn]

DocBach, on 30 December 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I believe ECM should counter TAG's ability for your team mates if you are in the bubble - it should still work for your missiles, but since your information transmissions are being scrambled by TAG, you wouldn't be able to send that target data out to friendlies.

Ah, good point. I had forgotten about that.

Yes, then in that case, the effect of blocking "c3" (which is basically what we already have) would have the indirect effect of blocking TAG, but only for your allies, since you can't transmit the data to them, but it'd still work fine for you.

Edited by Orzorn, 30 December 2012 - 09:44 PM.

[Orzorn]

KuruptU4Fun, on 30 December 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Personally I think that if NARC is going to only work for 20 seconds, then it should work despite ECM for that time.

I think it would be fine for ECM to counter NARC. First off, ECM would be used a bit less if it wasn't so powerful, at least in 8 mans it would. Also, NARC would have the benefit of no-LOS lock-ons, which would be pretty darn powerful. It would be okay if ECM was around to put a damper on that kind of power.

Remember that being able to lock on doesn't just help missiles, it means that a NARC'd target is a marked mech. Everyone sees its position, and that makes it easier to hunt, regardless of whether you use missiles or not.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Consider this though Orz, a NARC beacon is only 20 seconds. A volley of missiles from 800 meters takes 10 seconds to reach their target. If the beacon stops while missiles are in air then they dead fall just like if you lost LOS anyways.

[ltwally]

Felix, on 30 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

PGI, hire this man immediately!

Hahah. I already recommended him for the job of Project Lead.

[ltwally]

KuruptU4Fun, on 30 December 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

I see your point, but the gen pop players PGI is trying to get don't know Battletech or the TT rules. One thing will happen, word will spread here and thru in-game chat, then ECM will be everywhere and then it will never leave.

Highly speculative. But if you nerf it down to sane levels first, it really won't matter. Once it no longer disrupts basic sensors or prevents missile lock... it's not such a bad piece of equipment.

Personally, I speculate that even if it is available to any and all, once it's down to sane levels, it will not be as prevalent as it is now.

Quote

ECM has obsoleted specialty equipment already, so which is the better master to serve? Improve the obsolete or nerf the overwhelming?

Uhm... I vote for sane, balanced equipment. Under that guise, ECM's value would be conditional, as is the value of other equipments, such as AMS, Artemis, Beagle, Narc and TAG.

Each tool should have its use, and its use should define its role. Balance the tool, and their roles become balanced, as does their prevalence.

Quote

But the question arises, if Garth sees our point and agrees to look into it. What do we as an educated community suggest? Make NARC/ BAP work as they should and remove the "Streak Block" ECM feature completely?

Pretty much.

I'd profer some changes from TT as follows:

Beagle: Increase Beagle range, give it the ability to paint a general direction on where ECM is coming from (accurate to, say, 45 degrees?), and give it the ability to warn when it senses the presence of distant ECM.

Narc: Better range, seaker-head (ala S-SRM style), longer duration, possibility of being knocked of when the target is hit, able to broadcast target location for indirect missile fire even if no spotter present. (That last is actually TT, as is the duration.)

ECM: Slow down missile locks, not prevent them.

I feel all of those changes would be good and balanced -- however, if PGI were to implement them, I'd recommend doing them slowly, testing how they effect things, adjusting as necessary, and then adding other perks.

[ltwally]

DocBach, on 30 December 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

I think TAG and NARC are fine being included as lasers and missiles. Perhaps, though, Beagle and ECM should fit their own Electronic Warfare hard point - some 'Mechs like the Raven would include multiple hard points so they could carry both Beagle or ECM, others might just carry one so they could carry one or the other.

Of course though, ECM would need to be toned down and Beagle given some sort of boosts for anybody to want to take Beagle. I think 360 degree radar through cover and concealment might be worth the critical and 1.5 tons for a spotter if they ever remove the cloaking device out of ECM and you might even see some team players prefer taking it over an ECM suite.

My thoughts? (They might be good, they might be bad. I make no promises...)

Beagle: Should be an "upgrade" (eg. Artemis) that consumes space in the Head and weighs 1.5 tonnes. It should be available to all light mechs and to the Cicada. Increase its range and functionality (not insanely. Just enough that it's actually worth its weight), but also increase its pricetag.
Why? Because I think of it as a scout tool. Any mech that has sufficient speed / small-size to fulfil the scout roll should have it available, and the rest should not.

ECM: Should be seriously nerfed, but available to all mechs. Leave its space/weight as-is. Once it's nerfed down to TT / sane levels, its current price should be about right.

Narc/Tag: Leave their weight/space/type alone. Narc needs adjusting so it's actually useful, as has been previously discussed.

[DocBach]

Looking how everything has been implemented, it feels like the devs made everything based on the Sarna descriptions of the equipment rather than the effects the equipment had in the ruleset. For instance the description of Beagle says:


The Beagle Active Probe (BAP) is a suite of enhancement technology that, when attached to general electronic sensors, enables the equipped unit to detect and classify other battlefield units -with the exception of conventional infantry- whether they are camouflaged or even shut down.[1] The probe was first introduced by the Terran Hegemony in 2576 and subsequently lost in the Succession Wars by 2835. It was recovered in 3045 by the Capellan Confederation. The Clans never "lost" the technology, but dispensed with the "Beagle" surname when they polished the concept.[2]
In addition to the ability to detect and classify targets at longer range, the Beagle includes a memory unit that records the events of a battle and allows for later playback. This includes the ability for the user to "re-fight" the battle by making different tactical decisions, which are then analyzed and implemented by the system, allowing for the resulting consequences to be observed.[3]

The only effects Beagle has in MWO is detecting hidden units and a little bit enhanced range, none of the other pertinent benefits it should receive from the actual game were included.

For Narc:


Causing quite a stir when it was introduced in 2587, the Narc system offered a radically different way of improve missile target acquisition. The Narc launcher fires special missiles called pods, which have a powerful homing beacon behind a magnetic head.
The reason the Narc system is superior to the similar Artemis IV FCS is that the target lock is never broken because the homing beacon is attached to the target, and that other friendly 'Mechs can fire missiles equipped to follow the signal without carrying their own Narc beacons.
However the Narc system is not without flaws, the main one being its short range. Narc equipped LRMs have double the range of a Narc pod, requiring either a dedicated spotter to close and tag enemies with Narc pods or for the launching 'Mech to close, tag and pull back to fire, a less than ideal arrangement. Also SRMs and LRMs equipped to track the Narc homing signal cost twice as much as standard munitions. These disadvantages led to the creation of alternate Narc ammunition such as the Explosive Pod to give the launcher more tactical flexibility and the Improved Narc Missile Beacon offering increased the range.

The Sarna description doesn't describe how the Narc makes indirect fire possible without a spotter or line of sight. It just says that it is similar to Artemis, which for all intensive purposes it turns all missile launchers into the game into Artemis enhanced systems for a couple of seconds.

It's like they were writing an essay for an English major study and instead of using books written by subject matter experts like the actual compendiums and rulebooks, they used a wiki for all their sources.

[KuruptU4Fun]

TAG seems to be fine in it's current state.

NARC is a Non-LOS component and needs to be able to work above ECM for the short time it's designed to.
With the exception that a NARC beacon shot onto an ECM carrying mech should not work. A nerf back down to
15 seconds would be justified as well. NARC needs to work independently of all other IW systems and not
allow buffs to Artemis enabled missiles.

Artemis seems to be working as needed in the game as an enhancement to missile stats when LOS is had.

BAP needs to work as stated in the wiki. By detecting and classifying mechs whether they are camouflaged
or shut down. Though unless someone is either using TAG; NARC or a Command Console, that information
should not be shared over the map to assist in targeting.

C3 Master/Slave system should be implemented soon. Since ECM effects C3 (which is basically a TAG/
Comm Console/ and VoiP combined) any slave system can't communicate outside an ECM bubble to the master
unit. The master getting caught inside an ECM stops comm to the slaves. Having static blast over all the
volumes while this happens would be a cool side effect, and using a 3rd party VoiP would still be affected.

[DocBach]

If ECM was toned down to where the rulebooks say it should be, I'd say TAG should be brought back to its original 450 meter range. It's made for spotter to spot for LRM boats, but since PGI implemented ECM and "fixed" TAG I see way more LRM boats trying to spot for themselves with TAG. One of the pillars of information/role warfare is scouts and spotters and right now they aren't useful at all.

Agree with Narc and Artemis, though I'm not sure what a decent time frame for its boost would be, probably in my mind somewhere around 30 seconds. Its long enough for someone to have to find cover and sweat it out, and makes it scary enough to where wanting to take an ECM is a good idea, but not necessarily a necessity.

The problem with that wiki, is that it doesn't go over the fact that beyond finding hidden units and increasing sensor range -- according to the various Battletech rulebooks, the Beagle provides a unit with a 150m, 360 degree bubble sort of like ECM in which it can detect any unit, other than conventional infantry, to include units outside of line of sight, and it also has the ability to know that it's being jammed, so it could be used to figure out the boundaries of an ECM field - the wiki doesn't go into any of those details, however.

That's part of the problem, I think. People are using an unofficial wiki as their sole source of information on the universe and some of the different information we have from so many different sources gets muddled up.

As for C3, I'm not sure how they plan on implementing it, but you could say we already have a soft version of it with our information sharing as is.

[Zoberraz]

A brilliant topic. I couldn't hazard a guess better than what has been already written on the subject so far - but I'm entirely in agreement that Information Warfare is presently fairly borked. Not to mention I felt it was actually stronger and more valuable before they brought ECM in.

Not because I couldn't adapt to ECM. More because it felt more 'right'.

Edited by Zoberraz, 31 December 2012 - 11:13 AM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

I agree Doc, the wiki isn't the rulebook. I don't have them otherwise I'd use them as source material. What info I have is obviously piece mail and I would also agree what happens in the TT isn't going to work in here. I just want there to be metagames both on and off the field. The mechlab is a wonderful tool, I think CW will be as well, but currently the IW metagame needs a serious tweak.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 31 December 2012 - 11:41 AM.

[Koniving]

I just had the strangest message requesting me to repost something I put into another ECM thread to here.

It seems that DocBach has also had similar interpretation of what the ECM should and/or could do. This is especially true on the topic of "ghost targets" instead of no targets. That said, I'll copy what I said and clean it up to be a bit clearer.

Keep in mind what I wrote were my own extrapolations based on real-world MLRS (targeted rocket artillery and some electronic information warfare) experience and the data I was able to find on Battletech's Guardian ECM Suite. From what I read in this forum by DocBach, some of my speculations and hypothesis have been validated. But some of it has been invalidated.

I still think it is worth reading and considering.

Koniving, on 31 December 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

"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."
(2.0, 2.1 Technical Readout: 3050, p. 197)

Okay so from that we can read ECM shields nearby mechs with broad-band signals. It "confuses" sensors and advanced equipment. Therefore, if you're in the bubble the effect it has then expect to have a full force jamming you. That's fine and the current display effects are good.

If you are outside of the bubble then it makes sense that scanning into said bubble should be difficult. Key word "difficult," not nil and void. That is what stealth armor will be for; to protect you from being scanned. That is not the role of ECM. Until we have stealth armor, if you can see them then you should at least be able to get a confusing signal hit to team mates. One that flickers and is hard to target, but still visible. An incomplete flickering triangle might be sufficient or a general area on the minimap. Dancing ? mark. Anything.

After all it is stated to "Confuse" sensors. Not completely dismiss them.

"Sensors can sometimes override this jamming, though by that point the enemy unit is already within visual range and can track the opposition with their own eyes." (2.0, 2.1 Technical Readout: 3050, p. 197)

Let's analyze that for a moment. I can visually see mechs moving at about 1,000 meters out or more even in the blurry conditions of Caustic Valley. That's at very high settings and a screen resolution of 1360x768. So let's cut that distance in half and suppose within 500 meters should be enough to cut through jamming with sensors on direct line of sight. Keep in mind it would not be with 100% accuracy. You might not be able to lock missiles on them, but at the very least we should get a sensor target square or node to track them with and share location info to other team mates. (The enemy is in this area but we can't target him.)

Tag may not have needed its boost if ECM actually confused sensors instead of dismissing them.

Now let's continue this hypothesis. Say 500 meters and the mech is in line of sight. The jamming should be fairly overwritten by sensors plus visual confirmation. Worst case scenario, I should be able to have at most 5 targets for that single ECM-equipped mech in my sight, and have to sift through the false targets on my targeting computer (by pressing R until the correct one is locked) to fire upon the real thing with LRMs.

My team mates who also get this data but cannot see the ECM-equipped 'Mech have a strong chance of firing at one of the four false targets. I'd say a 1 out of 3 up to a 1 out of 5 chance is plenty fair to both sides. It is a very simplified version of what real ECM winds up doing to missile lock-ons. While American surface-fired missiles are programmed to try and divert for an aerial detonation when confused, (a contingency to avoid civilian casualties as the kind of missiles I was responsible for were for strategic strikes upon mobile targets that sometimes were in urban areas), it is very likely that Battletech universe missiles are programmed to chance a false hit rather than abort given the way the rule book works this out.

We have dummy targets and confusion as to which one is the real target. (Each player may see a different set of "false" targets to further assist in generating the genuine confusion.) Now this is where tag would come in at 450 meters by helping to isolate the correct target so that team mates are not firing on dummy sensor targets created by the ECM-equipped mech. Tag is essentially a soflam and can only mark a proper target, after all, so we as the distant LRM-equipped mechs will target the one with the tag signal -- but with the ghost images will already know the general area to be looking. Since ECM uses signals to jam and not chaff, Tag will work against ECM at range and be effective through the bubble. However given the way "Tag" communicates, you cannot broadcast the information about Tag to your lancemates if you are within the bubble (since a real soflam requires line of sight, and TAG relays the information to team-mates via computer signals).

Voila. Tag just got cooler without a 750 meter buff, ECM just got reasonably more balanced without actually nerfing it (since it's now a step closer to the real intentions), and we're all set. Even better, the game just got more interesting graphically and increased our immersion.

The ghost target idea is a fact of what happens when real life ECM attempts to affect targeted missiles. It confuses missiles already in the air. Missiles not yet fired wind up having a strong chance of seeing multiple targets when in fact there is only one. ECM in real life cannot deny the existence of a target by cloaking it. Instead different methods have a few interesting effects. Some create false locations of said target by making it appear closer or farther than it really is (displacement), some generate clones (ghosts), some generate "Friendly" IFF readings. There's plenty more. But in no case can ECM generate the impression that "there is no target." Therefore it cannot deny the existence of a target. ECM in Battletech cannot deny the existence of a target either. So why in MWO does ECM deny the existence of a target unless tagged or ridiculously close?

I realize that it is simpler to implement in than adding in false targets and a bit more code. But that is not how it works.

The fact that DocBach has found the capability of Guardian ECM creating ghost images (admittedly by a toggle switch) in the rule books further iterates that ghost-targets are much closer to the original intentions than "Wow I have ECM, it's a CLOAKING DEVICE! I'm 300 meters in front of you, clearly in your sight, and you can't target me or see me! MWAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!"

------

Before that epiphany and research, however, this was my original idea for how to balance ECM. Changing which mech variants carry them to the ones with the LEAST missile slots.
http://mwomercs.com/...43#entry1679943

And this post I quoted, in its original unaltered form,
http://mwomercs.com/...04#entry1683004

Edited by Koniving, 31 December 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

If ECM can create ghost signatures that only LOS can disavow then I'm cool with that.

[DocBach]

Ghost signatures might not even have to be placed, it could be just random targets that pop up when the opponent is hitting R.

It could be like, "Target Alpha!"

"...which one??"

[KuruptU4Fun]

DocBach, on 31 December 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Ghost signatures might not even have to be placed, it could be just random targets that pop up when the opponent is hitting R.

It could be like, "Target Alpha!"

"...which one??"

Hahahahah, that would be slick.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Then a counter would be a drone that can look top down within 4 squares and narrow down the ghost profiles

[DocBach]

KuruptU4Fun, on 31 December 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Then a counter would be a drone that can look top down within 4 squares and narrow down the ghost profiles

Allowing Beagle to sort through the mess would make it a useful counter to ECM, too.

Edited by DocBach, 31 December 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[Lonestar1771]

That game sounds way more fun than MWO.

[KuruptU4Fun]

DocBach, on 31 December 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Allowing Beagle to sort through the mess would make it a useful counter to ECM, too.

Could BAP sort it out over time? I'm sure it would. Would I use GXP to buy modules to speed that process up? Oh hell yes.

[ltwally]

DocBach, on 31 December 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Allowing Beagle to sort through the mess would make it a useful counter to ECM, too.

Agreed.

Personally, I am also a fan of Pilot Modules for little things like sorting out ghost mechs and such.

Especially if BAP were limited to light mechs, where I think it belongs. But that's just me and my wacky ideas.