95 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

Now nobody will see it though. I posted it in GD because players actually read and comment it there

[RobarGK]

Please let this happen.

[Caleb Lee]

DocBach, on 03 February 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

Well, Beagle really wasn't meant to counter ECM, in fact it's almost completely the other way around. But most of the features it should have (with the exception of the best one, which is radar that "saw" through obstructions like terrain and buildings) given to modules.

Narc seems to have had some of its function given to modules as well - protection from target decay is a real time way to simulate the rule Narc has where it can allow a 'Mech to fire at a target indirectly without line of sight or a spotter if the target has been marked with a beacon.

All of these other electronic warfare components are split into modules that don't even require the system they were taken from to equip, but ECM has everything it should and more. It just seems like a weird decision that ECM not only has all it had in the basic rules, plus everything it has from the advanced rules, plus functions that seem to be inspired by the fluff from sarna.net.

I'll defer to people that actually played TT and know the handbooks in and out. This is one of my favorite genres of games and I've played most of the MW games and have read through till about the Twilight of the Clans series.

As a gamer, I can tell you that ECM needs to either be reduced so that only one ECM in an area takes effect and can be countered by an enemy ECM or whatever TT rules say regardless of how many a team has. So far out of the novels I've only seen/read in one book where a Raven had Guardian ECM and that was all that was used. I've read about 60-70 of them so far. In prior MW games (not always the best example) it seemed like ECM reduced lock on range and BAP extended that range so they balanced each other out. Paper/Rock/Scissors type thing.

My biggest complaint with ECM on here is that it denies target designation completely unless you are in point blank range or can TAG continuously reducing teams ability to coordinate. My second biggest complaint is the sheer prevalence of ECM, and most of it's features that they've bundled in were incredibly rare.

Fixes? Dunno...

1) Your module idea requires them to invest more and sacrifice a little bit in capability.
2) LOS within normal lock on range should allow the target ID to show up no matter what. That way at least you can say TAG Alpha and everyone focus on it. That also allows snipers to pick apart a particular DDC at range for example. We don't play together enough to have the coordination that ECM so conveniently denies any team with 1 less ECM mech. Heck, make it a targeting module if you must but an easy or automatic counter needs to be in place soon.
3) Make it so 1 ECM mech can counter any other ECM mechs within it's area and not require +1 to do so. All multiple ECM mechs would do is to increase the area coverage or jamming, at least you could target a specific mech at that point until the enemy team destroys your own ECM.

Maybe we'll see some variety again instead of 6 DDC and 2 3L.

[Scyther]

A good game should be a series of interesting choices, with tradeoffs, that gives players options and flexibility.

A good game should have very few (if any) mechanics that interfere with fundamental aspects of gameplay (such as wiping out your battle map, or disabling your weapons) without balancing those with a SIGNIFICANT tradeoff/cost.

When a module breaks both of these guidelines - ie, it is so powerful that it is never a choice, simply a 'if it fits, use it' no-brainer, even to the extent of causing people to run mostly the mechs that can fit it; it has very little cost or downside; AND it breaks basic game functionality for ENTIRE TEAMS, then something is drastically unbalanced.

I suspect that PGI simply doesn't have anyone who wants to step up and say "Yeah guys, we all agreed this is the way it should work and it would be like, really cool, but lets face it, we boned up on this one". It can be pretty hard in a professional environment to do that.

I am not sure if the OP's suggestion is the 'best' solution to bringing ECM into line, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.


Badger

[VonRunnegen]

I like this idea!

For the people suggesting it just delays the problem / makes it pay to win - surely buy being split into so many modules it forces players to not take all of it, thus reducing the total power of the ECM and making mechs more unique? Especially with counter mode stopping all of the effects its a big investment of GXP & limited module slots for something that might be nearly useless.

[StalaggtIKE]

VonRunnegen, on 04 February 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

I like this idea!

For the people suggesting it just delays the problem / makes it pay to win - surely buy being split into so many modules it forces players to not take all of it, thus reducing the total power of the ECM and making mechs more unique? Especially with counter mode stopping all of the effects its a big investment of GXP & limited module slots for something that might be nearly useless.

Just reiterating what you've already stated. Here is a list of module count for fully mastered ECM mechs:

• COM-2D - module count = 3
  
• SDR-5D - module count = 3
  
• RVN-3L - module count = 4
  
• CDA-3M - module count = 3
  
• AS7-D-DC - module count = 4

As you can see both the RVN-3L and AS7-D-DC have 4 slots, meaning they could essential rebuild the current ECM. The good news is it would be watered down a bit. They also would miss out on other popular modules, such as 360 target and sensor range. This proposed changes would make heavily investing into ECM have a bit a trade-off; something it is currently lacking.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 04 February 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[DocBach]

Since this has a gold star now, can a dev come comment on it?

[Antarius]

if something is to strong, you dont solve the problem if you only give it to some (thise who use all there module slots for ECM).

if it is balanced you can make a module out of it if you only want to gave it to those who wanna specialize



best idea to solve the ECM-issue i seen so far was here (even if i believe its to big to get into the game)

Edited by Antarius, 04 February 2013 - 11:03 AM.

[DocBach]

Well - patch day. Lets see if the Advanced Sensor module and PPC buff is satisfactory enough to balance ECM.

[Gaan Cathal]

StalaggtIKE, on 04 February 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

As you can see both the RVN-3L and AS7-D-DC have 4 slots, meaning they could essential rebuild the current ECM. The good news is it would be watered down a bit. They also would miss out on other popular modules, such as 360 target and sensor range. This proposed changes would make heavily investing into ECM have a bit a trade-off; something it is currently lacking.

This is actually one of my biggest concerns with the current ECM debate. ECM is clearly somewhat over-tuned at the moment, but bringing it back into line needs to happen without entirely invalidating electronic warfare as a mech role. Coming from Eve, which has a very well rounded E-WAR game, I would love to outfit my 3L with the full e-war shenanigans it normally carries. But I simply can't justify the weight effectively lost by carrying BAP and to a lesser extent TAG (and lets not even mention NARC).

DocBach, on 05 February 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Well - patch day. Lets see if the Advanced Sensor module and PPC buff is satisfactory enough to balance ECM.

I don't see it doing much except mitigate complaints from a section of those currently 'suffering' from ECM (that is, the short/mid rangers). That said I've never felt that the PPC change was much of a nerf to ECM so much as a nice side effect for the PPC.

[Pachar]

http://mwomercs.com/...28#entry1812228
The wording is kinda weird, but it makes me think all we're getting today is the PPC thing. So we'll see how part of it affects everything.... and get the rest on feb 19th.

@gaan cathal I don't think we want to invalidate electronic warfare as a role, just cause people to actually make a choice with ECM. As lots of us have said, it's currently not a choice, it's a matter of "can I run it? if yes then load it on, I'll sacrifice whatever else to make sure I run it." Just like you currently are making the choice to not run beagle or tag I'd personally like to see many people not run ECM because they chose that it wasn't quite good enough to choose over other options.

Someone earlier said that if you have tag you should be able to shoot your ssrms. I'd have to agree. If a person has tag on their mech and ssrms and they tag their target then they should be able to fire (if that isn't currently the case). Though I would have to dissagree that others should be able to fire at said target as the targeting information isn't able to be relayed to anyone else through the jamming of the ECM field.

I'd also have no problem with someone piecing together ECM in it's current iterration by using up all of their module slots as that would require they put on the 2 slot 1.5 ton ECM plus the 1 slot 3 ton Module plus use all of those modules instead of equiping other module abilities like zoom or 360 targeting.

So yeah, please do this or something like it devs. Because ECM in it's current form is either broken, or at least badly bent.

[Gaan Cathal]

Pachar, on 05 February 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

@gaan cathal I don't think we want to invalidate electronic warfare as a role, just cause people to actually make a choice with ECM. As lots of us have said, it's currently not a choice, it's a matter of "can I run it? if yes then load it on, I'll sacrifice whatever else to make sure I run it." Just like you currently are making the choice to not run beagle or tag I'd personally like to see many people not run ECM because they chose that it wasn't quite good enough to choose over other options.


...


I'd also have no problem with someone piecing together ECM in it's current iteration by using up all of their module slots as that would require they put on the 2 slot 1.5 ton ECM plus the 1 slot 3 ton Module plus use all of those modules instead of equipping other module abilities like zoom or 360 targeting.

To be honest, I shouldn't be making a choice about not carrying TAG/BAP on my 3L. That said I agree in spirit, I just think that you shouldn't be taking a 3L except for EWAR purposes. Without all that gubbinz it should be (and is, in fairness) a bad Jenner. Part of this problem of course is that the TAG/NARC are designated as weapons, not equipment when they'll never really be worth more than an MLAS or SRM2, respectively. If we had equipment hardpoints the whole thing would be very different.

Your points on dedicating module slots to ECM/EWAR I agree with in general terms, though they're a little universal unless you hang them off the ECM core module.

[Yakumo]

I agree with spiltting the ECM abilities into module upgrades. The issue I see with that is people will just upgrade to those modules and then we would be back to having the same broken ECM system again.

[Gaan Cathal]

Yakumo, on 05 February 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

I agree with spiltting the ECM abilities into module upgrades. The issue I see with that is people will just upgrade to those modules and then we would be back to having the same broken ECM system again.

The general logic of the 'modules for ECM' approach is not to make ECM less powerful (although you could combine it with some downtuning of specific elements as they are split up) but to make it cost more in terms of fitting. 1.5 Tons vs 1.5 tons + 4 module slots, essentially.

Edit: Thought. What would folks who advocate splitting ECM functions into modules think about having the modules be 'general EWAR' types, with the aim of increasing the value of concentrated EWAR on a dedicated mech (which would reduce it's combat effectiveness because 3 tons for ECM+BAP, laser for TAG, launcher for NARC, etc)?

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 05 February 2013 - 04:47 PM.

[Geadron Kane]

Not to mention that "disrupt" does not mean "jam". Guardian ECM is a counter to C3, Tag, Beagle Active Probe and Artemis not the other way around. ECM should not be a cloaking device but should reduce damage/accuracy much like AMS but without having the pesky ammo that might pop off a limb or core you.

If you want to keep the ECM the way it is BAP should be its counter. Equipment that has no equivalent counter unbalances the game system (rock paper scissors). Yes there is Tag but it requires the user to paint the target manually vs something that is turned on or off.

[Strum Wealh]

Overall, I agree with Doc.

Though, about the only qualm I have is the notion of the other two modes - Ghost Target Generation and ECCM/Counter - as modules rather than as base capabilities.
(Though, I'm also of the opinion that the Command Console should also have the option of map-wide ECCM capability (via the link to a SciSat, as described in TacOps) at install.)

Also, it seems that all of the modules proposed in the opening post are directly related to Guardian's normal/Disrupt mode.

As a modification of Doc's idea, what if Guardian had the three modes - Disrupt, Counter, and Ghost Targeting - as mutually exclusive states that were accessible at install, and each state had a separate set of modules that became active only when the installed ECM suite was switched into the correct mode?

[Gaan Cathal]

Strum Wealh, on 05 February 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Though, I'm also of the opinion that the Command Console should also have the option of map-wide ECCM capability (via the link to a SciSat, as described in TacOps) at install.

So a lone 3ton module to totally overwhelm the 1.5ton module for which the balance issue is it being totally overwhelming?

Edit: For the record, I agree with your main point that the core module should provide ECM and ECCM at minimum. The Ghost-Targetting element also seems appropriate as a 'core' ability - bearing in mind these modes are mutually exclusive.

One thing I would like some clarification on, however - one of the major complaints I hear r.e. ECM is that it interferes with minimap hostile indicators and R-target-provided info appearing to friendlies, but my understanding was that that was essentially a 'free' C3 system in all our mechs. That being the case, wouldn't the canon ECM mode still do that? Or am I off track here?

My only (vague) concern with the actual OP proposal, is the sheer number of module slots. An electronics platform should really be engaging in BAP/TAG based 'aggressive' ewar as well as ECM. It just seems like it might be sacrificing info-war ability for ecm or vica versa when it should be sacrificing firepower.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 05 February 2013 - 08:34 PM.

[DocBach]

There's only one reason I propose splitting the ECCM from the base ECM equipment - Beagle got all of its added ability removed and added as modules. At the base level, Guardian ECM just blocking Artemis, Narc, and Beagle is not too big of a deal, certainly not one most people would even be concerned with countering. With the modules and limited number of slots, players will have to decide if they want to run their ECM offensively, or defensively, or run all ECM slots and give up any other type of modules.

[Strum Wealh]

Gaan Cathal, on 05 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

So a lone 3ton module to totally overwhelm the 1.5ton module for which the balance issue is it being totally overwhelming?

Well, what the book (Tactical Operations, page 195) actually says with specific regard to Scientific Satellites (one of six different types described) is:
"The sensors that monitor the various types of energies produced by a planet can be turned into a large scale ECCM suite (see ECCM, p. 100) or Ghost Target generating suite (see Ghost Targets, p. 101), for the controlling player’s side; the controlling player must nominate which effect will be used and it occurs for the duration of the use of that satellite (i.e. you cannot switch between abilities). For an ECCM, a scientific Satellite equals a single ECCM suite, but it covers the entire playing area. For Ghost Target generation, the controlling player must make the standard Piloting Skill Roll at the start of each turn, but at a +4 modifier in place of the standard +2; like the ECCM field, it covers the entire playing area."

As to implementation, my opinion would be that the Console's SciSat-derived ECCM should be able to nullify any ECM field that is not supported by another ECM field within 180 meters of the first. However, it two or more enemy ECMs form overlapping bubbles (such that each enemy ECM generator would actually be within the others' bubbles), then the ECM effect should prevail.

As such, the Console (together with the SciSat) would be able to defeat any ECM suite one-on-one, but the opponents would be able to utilize their ECM suites in spite of the Console and its SciSat by remaining clustered together (which limits their mobility and tactical options).

Also, it should be noted that the Command Console is fully described in TacOps; its basic rules are the advanced rules, so it doesn't separate so cleanly as certain other items (like Beagle and Guardian).

Gaan Cathal, on 05 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Edit: For the record, I agree with your main point that the core module should provide ECM and ECCM at minimum. The Ghost-Targetting element also seems appropriate as a 'core' ability - bearing in mind these modes are mutually exclusive.

One thing I would like some clarification on, however - one of the major complaints I hear r.e. ECM is that it interferes with minimap hostile indicators and R-target-provided info appearing to friendlies, but my understanding was that that was essentially a 'free' C3 system in all our mechs. That being the case, wouldn't the canon ECM mode still do that? Or am I off track here?

"BattleMechs are also not islands unto themselves. They can share sensor data to some extent, allowing greater sensory performance than a single ’Mech can achieve. The specialized equipment of a C3 system takes this to new heights with direct battlefield applications, but all BattleMechs can at least receive basic sensory data from a unit mate."
(TechManual, pg. 39)

As it happens, all 'Mechs are canonically able to share at least some data with each other by default, while C3 should provide them with the ability to share more data as well as actually assist each other with targeting (implementable as bonuses to convergence speed and/or decreased missile spread, perhaps... ):
"As long as effective weapon ranges and lines of fire permit, a member of a C3 network can essentially strike at a target with the same accuracy as the nearest friendly network member. Moreover, units that mount a C3 master computer—with the other network members using slave nodes—can use the computer’s coordination as an improvised TAG system."
(TechManual, pg. 209)

[Pachar]

I personally couldn't get behind any battlefield wide anything. My reasoning being that it would be quite a serious advantage, so what could possibly be the cost that would make a person consider not taking it. I know if all it took was 3 tons 1 crit and 1 module slot I'd do it every time and be thankful that I'm doing something to all 8 enemy mechs. I don't see any possible way to balance something that can affect every single enemy mech no matter where they are. Also from a logical point of view, (which I know may not be the best of arguments on a battle mech forum) but hear me out. Who would rank high enough to warrant a satelite?, or if everyone ranks high enough then are we arguing that there could be up to 16 sattelites that all just so happen to be in the right position in the same 15 minute window over the same location of a planet and none of them have collided with each other?
And to clarify on my previous post I don't think that ECM even in it's current itteration would be OP if it took, the ECM system 2 slots 1.5 tons, the Command Console 1 slot 3 tons, the use of the slots in that CC. That's 3 slots and 4.5 tons which is significant but not out of the question, but it would make you ask whether or not that was something you wanted to do. Then for added use you add the BAP, and the TAG, that's another 3 slots and 2.5 tons (combined). OK you are an EWAR machine of doom, but your other systems would take a giant hit which again is OK with me. I just want there to be significant losses to firepower if you're going to be running all of that equipment. 6 slots 7 tons enough tonnage for a PPC or large pulse laser, and enough slots for most missile system plus their ammo. Sounds like a person would need to think and make a choice, my only goal.

Edited by Pachar, 06 February 2013 - 07:13 AM.