39 replies to this topic

[killa92]

I would simply like to say that this is epic, and I vote Obsidian for Assistant Game Balance Dev.

[DocBach]

Don't split up ECM, just give ECM the three modes it is suppose to have;

Disrupt blocks other electronic warfare devices like Beagle, Narc, Artemis, as well as shrouds information on the chassis such as damage and weapons loadout. Also blocks units within the bubble or on the opposite side of a bubble transmit target information, so spotters need to stay out of the bubble.

Counter disrupts other ECM modules in range.

Ghost Target mode projects false radar signatures the enemy can lock on that makes it more difficult to employ weapons like LRMs. Missile boats will need to cycle through false targets to find the target they are actually trying to shoot, and may even be fooled into shooting at false signatures.

ECM can use only one mode at a time.

There. ECM balanced, still provides a deterrent against missiles, but doesn't make everything invisible or impervious to guided munitions.

Edited by DocBach, 29 January 2013 - 09:14 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

DocBach, on 29 January 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

Don't split up ECM, just give ECM the three modes it is suppose to have;

Disrupt blocks other electronic warfare devices like Beagle, Narc, Artemis, as well as shrouds information on the chassis such as damage and weapons loadout.

Counter disrupts other ECM modules in range.

Ghost Target mode projects false radar signatures the enemy can lock on that makes it more difficult to employ weapons like LRMs. Missile boats will need to cycle through false targets to find the target they are actually trying to shoot, and may even be fooled into shooting at false signatures.

ECM can use only one mode at a time.

There. ECM balanced, still provides a deterrent against missiles, but doesn't make everything invisible or impervious to guided munitions.

http://mwomercs.com/...doesnt-fix-ecm/

[DocBach]

^ pretty much like that, yes.

[Termius]

Very interesting idea and your post was very well written. Personally I doubt this will ever be implemented, it would take a ton of time and work to create this system. But like you said it would add a ton of build diversity and add a nice element to gameplay.

That being said there is no easy fix to the current state of the game and this could 'Potentially' be an option.

Edited by Termius, 29 January 2013 - 09:23 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

DocBach, on 29 January 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

^ pretty much like that, yes.

I am immensely enjoying the "other" discussion, BTW.

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 29 January 2013 - 09:23 PM.

[DocBach]

Does it look authentic? Do people realize how stupid they look when they argue like that?

[Solis Obscuri]

DocBach, on 29 January 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

Does it look authentic? Do people realize how stupid they look when they argue like that?

It looks very close to authentic. And no, I think they just hope to drive off the other party with trolling and dismissive rudeness.

[Dirus Nigh]

Missile boating is not a problem. Standing out in the open trying to slug it out at long range against a missile boat is the problem.

ECM is broken. It does not need the stealth field at long range. Other more dynamic effects in the game would do a much better job of avoiding detection.

More interactive terrain and environmental effects would do a better job and not force the game to resolve around one piece of equipment. Forests and their effects on sensors for example. The density and or area a forest covers should effect sensors. Every thing form delaying to out right blocking target locks, target identification, and updating target information. Environmental effects like electrical storms, heavy fog, dust storms, or the geological properties could interfere with sensors as well.

As it is right now you can use terrain to physically protect yourself from LRM strikes. The developers went so far as to put in a big flashing red sign and verbal warning that missiles are headed your way. This warning pops up the moment they are fired. A player can also install an anti missile system on their mechs. The system works against all incoming enemy missiles. This allows players to overlap their AMS for better protection. It is rather easy to avoid LRM fire altogether.

If you want to balance ECM all that needs to be done is removing the ability to prevent all long range targeting.

[Tolkien]

While I generally prefer turning ECM back into the limited unit it was designed to be (designed by FASA), the devs of this game are probably not going to let go of information warfare as a concept - it could even bring depth and choice to the game if the ECM module is split up and has its hard counters turned into soft counters as the OP suggests.

Then even if a mech could carry all 3 or 4 types of gear they would at least have to pay 4.5-6 tons for the privilege which is at least starting to approach a rational cost:benefit ratio. Right now and even with the new PPC/sensor module effects ECM will remain the best single piece of equipment in the game, by far.

[Solis Obscuri]

I tried to put up an alternate proposal to balance ECM with alternate sensor modes, each with its own sets of strengths and weaknesses.
http://mwomercs.com/...-balancing-ecm/
Sadly, I didn't remember to add enough troll bait so it's slowly sinking to the bottom of the forums.

[CancR]

Would you like some of mine?

[Tarteso]

It's easy to balance ecm, LRMs and most of the problems in this game by just applying the BT rules. LRM boating is (or was) so popular because of the shared targets which equals to every mech having "free" C3 master/slave systems onboard. Fix this and voilá: add C3 system as a new component. Do ecm BT canon and voilá.

PGI, the first time you put something in the game, go BT rules and then fix the game balance issues if any. Other way is bad idea, IMO.

[Dirus Nigh]

Tarteso, on 30 January 2013 - 12:34 AM, said:

It's easy to balance ecm, LRMs and most of the problems in this game by just applying the BT rules. LRM boating is (or was) so popular because of the shared targets which equals to every mech having "free" C3 master/slave systems onboard. Fix this and voilá: add C3 system as a new component. Do ecm BT canon and voilá.

PGI, the first time you put something in the game, go BT rules and then fix the game balance issues if any. Other way is bad idea, IMO.

They did use BT rules for shared targeting They are called spotting for indirect fire. This is what is happening when you share active target data with team mates. This is not a free C3 network. At the very least a C3 network would relay both actively targeted and passively detected units.

[ObsidianSpectre]

Termius, on 29 January 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Very interesting idea and your post was very well written. Personally I doubt this will ever be implemented, it would take a ton of time and work to create this system. But like you said it would add a ton of build diversity and add a nice element to gameplay.

I can't look at the code to say for certain, but I don't think it'd be too difficult to implement. Most of the features required for this are already in the game, and so most of the work should just be in refactoring the code. The missile lock thing is the only really new thing here, and even that functionality should be pretty easy to do. I'm not trying to say they could roll the whole thing out in the work, the UI change to indicate lock count at least will take a bit, even if everything is as easy to do as I think it is. But it shouldn't be six devs for six months, either.

[StalaggtIKE]

Tolkien, on 29 January 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

While I generally prefer turning ECM back into the limited unit it was designed to be (designed by FASA), the devs of this game are probably not going to let go of information warfare as a concept - it could even bring depth and choice to the game if the ECM module is split up and has its hard counters turned into soft counters as the OP suggests.

I actually like the idea of information warfare (IW). However, ECM has no place in IW. It supposed to be just that, a counter to electronics.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 30 January 2013 - 10:05 AM.

[CancR]

There needs to be a few things about ECM that need to change because PGI is unable to provided a MW game in these sense of it's more like Mechassault then mech warrior.

1) Smaller maps=Smaller ECM bubble. It's pretty simple. The ECm bubble is based on how big the maps are. Since we can't have nice large maps, we cant have ECM still cover the same amount of area.

2) Take out no missile locks for increasing missile lock time.Pretty self explanatory. ECM never full on prevented missile locks... Shouldn't start now.

3) Make ECM null the bonus of BAP and such. That is what the ECM is really for.

[Bobzilla]

Great idea.
The idea of a scout having to decide to take ECCM to spot and relay info, or tag and shroud seems neat.

[Corvus Antaka]

imho the "bubble" that protects friendlies should only exist if an ECM mech links up to a mech with command console, or takes a 10,000,000 cbill module to extend the range of the ECM to create a smaller, say 120m bubble.

the jamming of LRM/SSRM inside 180m is a good feature, it should stay, but if a mech has a BAP that should cut the jamming range down to say, 90 meters. Now you've a 90m-250 range to hit an ECM mech instead of the current 70 meter window. BAP should be able to detect mechs in an ECM bubble...at the very least the bubble itself, "something" is out there.

[Stickasylum]

I like the idea of ECM simply increasing lock time (rather than blocking lock). Even without the other ECM changes, making ECM add a fixed amount to lock per active disrupt (i.e. 1x, 2x, 3x) etc. would help make light builds w/o ECM actually viable w/o destroying ECM's utility. For light battles, the current hard system basically lets the light squad with more ECM roll the light squad with less.