317 replies to this topic

[KuruptU4Fun]

Personally I think that any IW component to this game needs to be implemented as a module and not a component based on an energy or ballistic slot needed to use it. TAG and NARC should have there own launch button based on an "R" targeted mech.

[DocBach]

Vassago Rain, on 29 December 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

I say you should go play tabletop if you're so attached to it, and let me have the videogame all to myself.

This thread isn't about AC ranges, this thread is about how borked Information Warfare is in this real time game, and suggestions from how the units functioned in table top could be used to help fix it. I guess you could use the "keep table top rules on the tabletop" argument and disregard this thread, and maybe we can keep playing the way PGI implemented despite the fact that the majority of posts and polls on these forums show that there is a large population of players dissatisfied with how information warfare on all levels has been implemented by PGI.

[Red squirrel]

Quote

NARC launcher can now be retrofitted to any weapon hardpoint at a cost of 100%

Don't like the idea - should need a missle HP IMHO.

[Vonmere]

I agree totally to this post. In its current iteration ecm is THE game changer in that if you do not have it your wrong. One system should not overshadow every other system and or tactics. Just my two cents.

[Trauglodyte]

One thing to note is that, according to datamined info, we've got a lot of Information Warfare modules coming. From Ohm's list (modules not yet available), we've got:

Vision - Vision mode disruptor; Vison Mode Enchancement
Sensor - Hide Damage, Instant Signal Loss, Oribtal Scan, Adv Sensor Range, Target Info Gathering, Seismic Sensor, Adv Seismic Sensor, Megnetometer
Support - Friendly Defense, Unit Vision Modes, Airstrike Accuracy, Artillery Accuracy, Control Link, Drone, Advanced Drone
Target - Multi Target, Multi Target Rank 2, Targeting Delay, Disrupt HUD, Disable Comms, Target Decay, Target Decay Rank 2, Control Link

It could be that our current issues with ECM and the ineffectiveness of BAP might be solved if/when we get any of these. Of course, these will probably come with Community Warfare and that is a long time away.

DocBach, on 29 December 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

-Provide 360 degree scanning and targeting within a 150 meter bubble

(Total Warfare, pg 129): "An active probe can detect any hidden 'Mech if the concealed unit lies within the probe's range." Like ECM, Beagle projects a scanning bubble of 5 hexes around it, equating to 150m of range

"Shows all units within the range but does not allow for target or info acq" Is this inferring that Beagle can locate the locations of enemies without LOS? That in itself would make it infinitely more useful. Hell, allowing it to target and transmit the information would be godsend for scouts and spotters, who as of now have to completely expose themselves to the enemy.

Essentially, Passive BAP would operate like it does now. Active BAP would be like a sub doing a sonar ping - you'd see everything within the range, except for anything that would be in a cave, but you wouldn't be able to actually target them. If they were within the ECM bubble, you'd see a big old dead space. The drawback, of course, is that when you send out that ping, anyone within sensor range (or another BAP) would pick you up. They wouldn't be able to target you but they'd know where you were.

Red squirrel, on 29 December 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Don't like the idea - should need a missle HP IMHO.

You're probably right. With as bad as NARC is, in general, I was trying to take a stab at how to make it so that more people MIGHT want to take it even if they can't. Having the NARC pod act as a portable C3 comp with a 20s timer is pretty sweet. I can't take credit for that idea, though. But I put it out there.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 29 December 2012 - 02:15 PM.

[DocBach]

Trauglodyte, on 29 December 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Essentially, Passive BAP would operate like it does now. Active BAP would be like a sub doing a sonar ping - you'd see everything within the range, except for anything that would be in a cave, but you wouldn't be able to actually target them. If they were within the ECM bubble, you'd see a big old dead space. The drawback, of course, is that when you send out that ping, anyone within sensor range (or another BAP) would pick you up. They wouldn't be able to target you but they'd know where you were.

Thinking Active/Passive modes might just muddle stuff up and complicate stuff - if it was always on but could detect stuff beyond LOS 150m range it could be blocked by ECM, or detected by another Beagle Active Probe. Though having it detectable by standard sensors makes it a bit vulnerable to non-EW 'mechs, it seems like it would put too much of a disadvantage to a system that could allow scouts to scout better with cover.

[Trauglodyte]

Well, having it be active/passive adds a bit more to the complexity in the same vein as ECM/ECCM. But you're right, it might end up muddying things up more then necessary. On the other hand, if it was detecable by other BAP units (I should have put in that it would only be detectable by other BAP units and not normal sensors- my mistake), having the ping on full tim would make it a little hazardous when you do scout. That was the point of being able to turn it on and off. Anyway, BAP has potential, its just the the way they put it in is so lackluster. If they could beef up BAP and make NARC more desirable (the portable C3 idea was pretty sweet whoever suggested it), you might not need to nerf ECM. Granted, sensor range getting cut down to 25% is way too harsh. But, given better gimmicks to fight it, the rest of the current ECM package wouldn't be so bad.

[Joseph Mallan]

DocBach, on 28 December 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

Streak missiles need to have their groups opened up to where its rare for them to hit the same location on a 'Mech, and hit in places other than the torso. Making ECM 'Mechs unlockable was a terrible cure for symptoms of Streaks and LRMs being broken. PGI pretty much crippled a huge component of strategy in this game to fix people's cries of Streaks and LRM boats and it really has made MWO a shallow version of what it could be.

A small addendum. Guardian ECM does NOT stop SSRMs. Angel ECM blocks the guided effect of SSRMs but said launchers are allowed to fire as a standard SRM launcher. In this effect our Guardians are over powerful, and what will our Angel ECM get to compensate for its greater mass?

[Vassago Rain]

Joseph Mallan, on 29 December 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

A small addendum. Guardian ECM does NOT stop SSRMs. Angel ECM blocks the guided effect of SSRMs but said launchers are allowed to fire as a standard SRM launcher. In this effect our Guardians are over powerful, and what will our Angel ECM get to compensate for its greater mass?

We'll never have angels, because that doesn't happen until 10 years into the setting.

[PiemasterXL]

Vassago Rain, on 29 December 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

We'll never have angels, because that doesn't happen until 10 years into the setting.

Yup. plus world's gonna end on dec 21.................... oh.................. nevermind .

[Joseph Mallan]

I intend to be Fighting towards Huntress in 10 years... Where will you be?

[PiemasterXL]

Either six feet under or working in a call-center.

Edited by PiemasterXL, 29 December 2012 - 03:14 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

Aren't call centers worse than being dead?

[DocBach]

ECM jams call centers.

[DocBach]

I'm hoping all this stuff has already been discussed way before in PGI's offices, and that the information warfare and electronic warfare equipment we have right now are just half-finished place holders.

[SgtDiesel]

/agree

[ltwally]

+1 to the original post.

Well thought, well worded. PGI should make you the project lead.

[DocBach]

ltwally, on 30 December 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

+1 to the original post.

Well thought, well worded. PGI should make you the project lead.

All I did was open a couple books and read what it said. I didn't make this stuff up, FASA did back in the 90's.

[ltwally]

Treckin, on 28 December 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

While I disagree that TT rules are relevant here besides in a nostalgic sort of way, the theory crafting they have in MWO at the moment is complete rubbish.

One example would be ranges of weapons/sensors... Right now its an incoherent jumble.

Anything more organized then what they have would be a step up IMO.

As it is the mechanics of the new "game mode" are a perfect example of PGI's ongoing struggle to make things fun.

Remember that mimicking TT will not magically make any game fun...

I believe most peoples desire to see more adherence to TT rules is really just an expression of disappointment with the current theorycrafting/game mechanics.

I'm replying as I read, so if I'm a bit late, I apologise.

I believe TT is a good starting point. It should not be the final destination. The final destination should be funville. All roads should point there. Balance is a major highway on the road to funville, and so it should have some serious attention paid to it.

End of metaphor.

[MadcatX]

When in ECM range, MW:O automatically mutes your mic.