317 replies to this topic

[KuruptU4Fun]

@Konining, the only complication with your idea on putting ECM in mechs that aren't worth a damn in MW:O. They were ECM mechs before this game was created. To date PGI has not put ECM in a mech that Sarna.net indicates it wasn't already in, with exception of the Stalker STK-3Fb and the Jenner they originally wanted to include, but the community voiced their dislike so they removed it.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 01 January 2013 - 08:33 AM.

[DocBach]

COM-2D Commando never had ECM, CDA-3M Cicada never had ECM, Atlas D-DC never had ECM. Having Ravens be the only ECM 'mech would give it a niche role. If they limited it to the Raven we might only see Ravens for a while, but at least we'd see more than just the D-DC in the Assault class or the Cicada in the medium.

[Felix]

DocBach, on 01 January 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

COM-2D Commando never had ECM, CDA-3M Cicada never had ECM, Atlas D-DC never had ECM. Having Ravens be the only ECM 'mech would give it a niche role. If they limited it to the Raven we might only see Ravens for a while, but at least we'd see more than just the D-DC in the Assault class or the Cicada in the medium.

You know, I completely forgot those mechs werent supposed to have ECM, I even just looked it up in the TROs to check, god PGI are even more of fuckups

[DocBach]

You know something great?

From the Sarna.net bible:

"First introduced in 2400 by the Terran Hegemony, Long Range Missiles are designed to engage the enemy at great distances at the expense of damage dealt. Adapted towards the profusion of electronic jamming on the battlefield and the effectiveness of current armor designs, these missiles are capable of indirect fire and disperse over a smaller area than Short Range Missiles. Inner Sphere LRM launchers achieve this range by firing at a ballistic launch angle, making them less accurate at close range. Clan LRM launchers do not suffer from this effect, in addition to being smaller and more compact, thanks to their technological advantage. LRMs are highly upgradable, able to fire a variety of warheads and benefit from devices such as Artemis IV FCS.[1]"

Sarna agrees that LRM's work like in the rulebooks against ECM, as they've been adapted to electronic jamming.

[Joseph Mallan]

Felix, on 01 January 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

You know, I completely forgot those mechs werent supposed to have ECM, I even just looked it up in the TROs to check, god PGI are even more of fuckups

Your statement though true, was a compromise to every Mech having ECM. There aren't any dedicated ECM Mechs other than the Raven. To be able to test them properly we needed to spread them across all the weight classes. Yet limit them to make them so not everybody is carrying one. It is more of working with what we have. Now making the Stalker-3F ( un available was kinda chitty. It was an assault variant that legitimately has ECM and capable of construction in this time period thanks to the Helm Core.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 01 January 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[DocBach]

Joe, the Stalker 3F isn't a Stalker 3Fb - the b were the Royal variants used during the Star League.

[Koniving]

Back to square one on the original idea -- I think with the exception of the Raven 3-L much to my dismay, the other mechs should have their ECM variant switched anyway. It doesn't need to be on the only Atlas with 3 missile launchers. Or the only commando with 3 missile launchers. It needs to be on the mechs who would minimally benefit from having ECM on their own.

Right now teams flock to the ECM with its cluster of missile launchers.

The ECM should flock to the team, to support the cluster of missile launchers on ~OTHERS~ and support with their not-overly-missile-dependent-arsenals.

---

Also to get us back on the neat topic of ECM alternatives without nerfing it per-sé...

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1683446 For those new and didn't read, that's where the "ghost" target idea was from.

On information warfare in general, what "buffs" are people suggesting? I know that BAP's functionality is inherently incomplete. But what more can be done with NARC?

------

On another topic, we at Zhi-Zhu Mercenary Corporation were talking about the possibility of being able to 'upgrade' the transparent steel cockpit windows with solid armor (allowing us to possibly double the head-armor count). The windows on the upgraded cockpit armor would use digital displays which may not be as clear or may be camera-reliant (can't see when powered down; overheat causes screens to shut down, PPCs cause display disruption, weapon hits cause flickering and ECM causes severe static texture effects on the screen). Although the possibility of having your cameras destroyed came up -- so it may go back to the drawing board. But I like the idea and wonder if it might be attempted in the future. I think Awesomes would especially love it, since its so easy to pop their heads.

Edited by Koniving, 01 January 2013 - 11:54 AM.

[Apoc1138]

DocBach, on 01 January 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

You know something great?

From the Sarna.net bible:

"First introduced in 2400 by the Terran Hegemony, Long Range Missiles are designed to engage the enemy at great distances at the expense of damage dealt. Adapted towards the profusion of electronic jamming on the battlefield and the effectiveness of current armor designs, these missiles are capable of indirect fire and disperse over a smaller area than Short Range Missiles. Inner Sphere LRM launchers achieve this range by firing at a ballistic launch angle, making them less accurate at close range. Clan LRM launchers do not suffer from this effect, in addition to being smaller and more compact, thanks to their technological advantage. LRMs are highly upgradable, able to fire a variety of warheads and benefit from devices such as Artemis IV FCS.[1]"

Sarna agrees that LRM's work like in the rulebooks against ECM, as they've been adapted to electronic jamming.

Missing the point that in tt, lrm's don't lock on like they do in mwo, you need extra kit or warheads to let them lock on, so in mwo we have free locking on equipment with any lrm launcher and ecm counters this free item, just like it counters the free c3 we all have

[KuruptU4Fun]

Though in order to actually have C3, TAG and VoiP would be needed in that package. ECM would then block the TAG inside the bubble and blast static over the VoiP system for the mech that was in the bubble.... Which would actually be kinda cool.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 01 January 2013 - 12:51 PM.

[Orzorn]

KuruptU4Fun, on 01 January 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Though in order to actually have C3, TAG and VoiP would be needed in that package. ECM would then block the TAG inside the bubble and blast static over the VoiP system for the mech that was in the bubble.... Which would actually be kinda cool.

It would if 3rd party VoiP didn't exist. Doing that with ECM would only drive people away from an already pathetically under-used VoiP system.

[DocBach]

Apoc1138, on 01 January 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Missing the point that in tt, lrm's don't lock on like they do in mwo, you need extra kit or warheads to let them lock on, so in mwo we have free locking on equipment with any lrm launcher and ecm counters this free item, just like it counters the free c3 we all have

Where does it say that LRM's don't lock on in the table top? They don't lock on perhaps like a Streak, but they've been described in much of the fluff as having an internal guidance system - meaning it locks to a target and guides itself in.

The extra kit and warheads just guides them in better, as reflected by the improved Cluster Hit Table bonus.

Edited by DocBach, 01 January 2013 - 01:01 PM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Orzorn, on 01 January 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

It would if 3rd party VoiP didn't exist. Doing that with ECM would only drive people away from an already pathetically under-used VoiP system.

Actually if it blasted static over the music/ effects and dialog volume it would also effect 3rd party VoiP (to a degree)

[Orzorn]

I don't believe whether LRMs lock on or not is the issue, but rather whether an effect is healthy for gameplay or not.

Is if fair for ECM to affect missiles like it does, and to devalue AMS? Is it fair to need TAG to get a locking effect? Is it wrong to expect a missile user to be able to dumb fire their missiles effectively?

These are the sorts of questions we should ask when asking whether ECM should affect missiles, and, by extension, whether it should have a radar scrambling effect OUTSIDE of the bubble, because that effect is actually what causes LRMs not not be able to lock on.

As far as I'm concerned, ECM should not affect the radar outside of its bubble, and thus, LRMs should be able to lock on, indirectly or directly. However, because of ECM's bubble effect on C3 networks, if your spotter enters the bubble, you'd lose the lock. If you enter the bubble, it doesn't matter since you're too close to the guy for LRMs to be effective anyways, although if you tried to fire on someone outside of the bubble you couldn't lock, because of the radar scrambling effect within the bubble.

Basically, LRMs work just fine until the ECM gets in your face.

SSRMs are unaffected.

[Apoc1138]

DocBach, on 01 January 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Where does it say that LRM's don't lock on in the table top? They don't lock on perhaps like a Streak, but they've been described in much of the fluff as having an internal guidance system - meaning it locks to a target and guides itself in.

The extra kit and warheads just guides them in better, as reflected by the improved Cluster Hit Table bonus.

In tt do you get to roll to hit, see that you were going to miss and then re-lock on and missile travel horizontally from where they were about to hit the ground and then hit the mech you fired at in the next round?

[KuruptU4Fun]

@ Orzom, I agree that ECM should not block locks outside of that bubble, though it should negate the Artemis effect of narrowing down the AoE. Having AMS still does what it's designed to do against missiles, as does cover and concealment. Everything else you state I agree with.

[DocBach]

Apoc1138, on 01 January 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

In tt do you get to roll to hit, see that you were going to miss and then re-lock on and missile travel horizontally from where they were about to hit the ground and then hit the mech you fired at in the next round?

Perhaps that happens. There's a lot you could imagine happening in the middle of a round as it simulates everything happening at once over a set time sequence. Just like movement - a 'Mech moves eight hexes in the board game - is he always moving in an absolute straight line because the miniature is, or is he weaving and serpentining through the hexes to get that +2 targeting modifier?

[Koniving]

Orzorn, on 01 January 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

I don't believe whether LRMs lock on or not is the issue, but rather whether an effect is healthy for gameplay or not.

Is if fair for ECM to affect missiles like it does, and to devalue AMS? Is it fair to need TAG to get a locking effect? Is it wrong to expect a missile user to be able to dumb fire their missiles effectively?

These are the sorts of questions we should ask when asking whether ECM should affect missiles, and, by extension, whether it should have a radar scrambling effect OUTSIDE of the bubble, because that effect is actually what causes LRMs not not be able to lock on.

As far as I'm concerned, ECM should not affect the radar outside of its bubble, and thus, LRMs should be able to lock on, indirectly or directly. However, because of ECM's bubble effect on C3 networks, if your spotter enters the bubble, you'd lose the lock. If you enter the bubble, it doesn't matter since you're too close to the guy for LRMs to be effective anyways, although if you tried to fire on someone outside of the bubble you couldn't lock, because of the radar scrambling effect within the bubble.

Basically, LRMs work just fine until the ECM gets in your face.

SSRMs are unaffected.

There's a few good points here, but some things to remember. We're not actually using radar or sonar. Regardless of what they call it, we're effectively using "sensors." Scanning beams if you will, that rely on being able to get line of sight connection with enemy power sources. (The only reason you get non-LOS readings is that the computers are meant to be communicating back and forth between allied units. Although in larger games, separate units on the same side would likely have separate frequencies communicating their own shared data. Not certain.) These beams do not shoot backwards without special toys. So you have, in essence, this big >) shaped wave coming from your mech (the > represents the gap in the back) with which to scan for targets. The reason our readings are "supposed" to be messed up is that static garbles the signals being fed back from our scanning beams.

Realistically if it can do that it should also scramble Tag regardless -- but that would be making too much sense.

The rule book, when summarized, essentially says that the signal disables our advanced tools. Artemis, C3, communications between computers, etc. It does not say that we can't use our missiles, but we lose all the advanced benefits of any equipment. To be precise I think there might be a difficulty roll of some sort depending on who you're playing with. Long story short, your ability to read the target is affected at distance. Quite possibility the ability to lock on. However "sensors can override this jamming" (basically garbled signals) but usually once that happens he is already within your visual range. For me visual range is over 1,000 meters. So within 500 is more than fair leeway for them. (If someone wants, find in the book how many hexes away the sensor override range is. Remember 1 hex = 30 meters.) It also says we can still lock and fire missiles at an ECM jammed target without the mention of requiring TAG.

Actually as much as I like the ghost idea, there's an even simpler way of getting the same effect without the visual fun. The most logical method would be to decrease how many missiles will go directly for the actual target. Or to put it in another way from Final Fantasy 8, increase the "error/miss ratio" so the missiles are MUCH more likely to miss.

That's what happens in the real deal with a single non-American missile (and some American ones, but never any that I had since ours had an "Abort mission" safety programmed in should it lose target or get confused as to what or where its target is. Too many civilian areas). The missile will try to go for one of the many "confused" false targets it registers because at least one of them is the real deal. You fire 20 missiles. Some will go for the false targets. Some will hit the real thing. Just not as many that would without the ECM jamming. Even on Battlefield (although the ECM chaff jamming Javelins is bull and wouldn't happen in real life) the missiles still have a chance of hitting. It handles the issue by increasing how much the missile veers off so that when combined with evasive, you had a strong chance.

As it is, AMS isn't even necessary so long as you have ECM or ECM coverage. And if they put a beam on you, move out of sight. Pfft? Beams. Commando is ninja, your beams no work on me sucker! O_O! Whooooooooo-aaaaaaaaahhhh-chaa!

Mechs would have a reason to wear both ECM and AMS if we could still hit them. That's all we really want. They can wait until stealth armor to be invisible to sensors. Give me a flickery faint target and a huge miss ratio without being forced to use tag to mark them and that's fine. I'll even take a 450 meter range tag and no NARC / BAP buffs (but seriously BAP's functionality needs to be completed).

Edited by Koniving, 01 January 2013 - 06:24 PM.

[Percival Hasek]

DocBach, on 28 December 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

<snip>

Home run; you nailed this. Failure to do this, to any less degree, is, in my viewpoint, a failure by PGI, pure and simple.

KuruptU4Fun, on 01 January 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Though in order to actually have C3, TAG and VoiP would be needed in that package. ECM would then block the TAG inside the bubble and blast static over the VoiP system for the mech that was in the bubble.... Which would actually be kinda cool.

Having it effect VoiP would be epic......as in one of the worst ideas ever known in gaming.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Percival Hasek, on 01 January 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Having it effect VoiP would be epic......as in one of the worst ideas ever known in gaming.

Personally I like immersion.

[Trauglodyte]

Sorry for being a lil late in the convo, New Years was a beast this year. YIKES!!!

Anyway, regarding LRMs and SRMs, you're right Koniving about when I came into the game (1st week open beta) so I do appreciate the history lesson of LRMs/SRMs. I still advocate dropping the damage down to TT values for a couple of reasons:

- LRMs don't miss like they do in TT; if your missiles land, all 5/10/15/20 land unless TT where you're unlikely to hit with 100% of them.

- SRMs do miss and yet are called missiles and not rockets (the difference being that missiles have guidance systems and rockets don't)

- Streaks bend the rules of physics with their insane ability to turn 90 degrees AND the system is on the C3 LRM link so you can acquire a link through LOS as long as someone else has a bead on them

Now, I don't mind how LRMs operate. And, I'd say that since I came in at the onset of open beta that the only LRM boats that you had were the Catapult, Awesome, and Atlas missile versions. With the addition of the Stalker, everything has gotten worse.

My point, though, is IF you were to match damage to TT, you'd have to buff the missiles in other areas. The biggest hinderance to both the LRM and SRM is the fact that it takes an eternity to get to the target. Being able to take cover is too convenient when the velocity is 100m/s for LRMs and 300m/s for SRMs. LRMs have the same speed as AMS and MGs which makes NO sense and the AC/20 travels 3x as fast as the SRM. This, again, feels like the whole ECM debacle in that they feel more comfortable doing more damage for the weapons as opposed to making them more user friendly. If LRMs and SRMs were faster, the lower damage wouldn't matter because they'd have a higher probability of landing. Nobody says that you should take cover to avoid getting hit with a 2000m/s PPC bolt.

Like I said in an earily response in this post, ECM and Missile imbalance are moving in a linear direction and both towards an area of imbalance. They can't get LRMs to a good spot so they add in broken ECM. If you have tons of missiles and no ECM, you're humped. If you don't have ECM and the other team does, you're humped. If you have LRMs and ECM but the other team has more, you're humped. And so the cycle continues.