54 replies to this topic

[Warblood]

Honest question here, whats wrong with ecm, why cant it be left as it is now?
I see a lot of people calling it the "magic Jesus box" but why? Why is it magic?

One would think the technology would and should be this advanced, after all MW is based 1000yrs in future. To me it seem that everyone that has an issue with it is using logic from the 20th-21st century to try and balance it, instead of trying to look at it from a 31st century perspective.

Its like the concept or idea of how its working atm is beyond some people to understand and thus they call it "magic".

Ok, bad example here but think if this for a moment; i send you a 1000yrs back in time or even 100yrs with your laptop, what would people back then think of it if you told them how it works and how you have all this access to information at the tip of your fingers?

Magic jesus box right? Same things happening here.

So my question to you(s) is why shouldn't ecm do what it does for technology thats a 1000 yrs in the future? And why does it need to be balanced around 20th-21st century ideas of how it works in the here and now?

Edited by Warblood, 15 September 2014 - 04:17 PM.

[Mawai]

I don't think any folks are discussing ECM on the basis of "realism" or "how it should work in the real world". The entire game is based on Battletech physics which needs a good helping of "suspension of disbelief" whenever you log in.

The main problem with ECM is that it is a hard counter to two weapon systems .... LRM and SSRM.

Have LRM ... opponent no ECM ... LRM boats are king.

Have LRM ... opponent has ECM ... LRMs do nothing.

It is almost impossible to really balance LRMs in that sort of environment.

They either need to do lots of damage so that when they get a chance to hit through ECM they can do some damage or they need to have a lower damage so that when there is no ECM they are not overpowered. The problem is that LRMs can't be both so they are somewhere in the middle. With ECM, LRMs are subpar but can do some damage and if there is no ECM then LRMs can be OP.

This all results because ECM is a hard counter.

Now lets consider the other abilities of ECM. It can shelter the entire team within 180m so that they are all invulnerable to ECM. No one can get locks and the only way you can even see the other team is if you look very very closely.

Now, ECM probably also made it harder to build MWO aimbots since they can't use the targeting box to reliably aim at the center of an opposing mech.

This was exactly how the game was when ECM was first introduced. It was brutal.

PGI then started to introduce some counters to ECM ... TAG, NARC, PPC disruption, UAV, BAP

TAG draws a straight line all the way back to the spotter ... so they can't spot for long.
NARC has improved but it still weighs a lot and the rewards for using it aren't that good.
PPC ... you have to hit the ECM mech and it is only lockable briefly
UAV ... awesome until it gets shot down
BAP ... essential for SSRM mech ... but limited range means that you have to brawl or skirmish to get in range of enemy mechs

ECM stacking can make it difficult to suppress ECM if they have more than one.

PUG matches have NO control over ECM balance ... each side could have 0, 1 ... 6 ... so you roll dice on match balance when ECM and LRMs are considered.

Redesigning ECM will REQUIRE redesigning LRMs and likely the entire mechanism of locking and sharing targets on a team.

Anyway ... the complaints you see on the forums have nothing to do with how some device should act in real life ... they have to do with 2 things

1) the current design is a broken game mechanic (but I would like to hear from PGI about the reasons for the design choices they made ... there could well be some specific reasons for that design choice that are not obvious to the community)

2) In the Battletech source material ... ECM does not work the way it has been implemented in MWO. MWO ECM actually combines the effects of at least 3 different pieces of Battletech gear ... since the MWO balance started out based on TT values (look at the weapon damage values if not their rate of fire) ... the question becomes why was ECM implemented this way and what can be done to make the weapons and equipment more balanced and fun to play.

[Mystere]

Mawai, on 15 September 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

I don't think any folks are discussing ECM on the basis of "realism" or "how it should work in the real world". The entire game is based on Battletech physics which needs a good helping of "suspension of disbelief" whenever you log in.

Well, I and a few others are of the belief that real physics needs to be added wherever possible.

Edited by Mystere, 15 September 2014 - 04:46 PM.

[nehebkau]

ECM simply needs to have its range dropped to around 50m (maybe 100 but not more). That way it makes it more difficult to have ECM blankets.

Edited by nehebkau, 15 September 2014 - 04:39 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I say change Lock-On, in Relation to ECM (Making it an independent system, meaning that ECM has no influence over getting Locks). So, if we can at least make Lock-Ons independent of ECM's cloak, that could be a good start with making adjustments to ECM and LRMs.

But that would need to include changes to how locks work.

Therefore, here's what I'd look at first:

With ECM specifically:
ECM no longer prevents locks or slows them down.
Still works against Artemis, and canceling out other spread reducing bonuses.
It will continue to obscure the HUD and deny a Paper Doll (HTAL, hopefully in the future) as it currently functions.
TAG, NARC, PPC shot can reveal a Target, filling the Magic Dorito for Allies and the Paper Doll info just as currently can happen.

Then for the Lock-on mechanism (making it independent):
Holding the reticle/crosshair on a target long enough brings up the 'Lock-On set' reticle independently.
No longer need to acquire a Target lock with the default 'R' with Line of Sight on Target.
ECM no longer blocks locks if player can hold reticle/crosshair on target with Line on Sight on Target.
Target Decay and Radar Deprivation will still be able to modify Target Retention for Locks.
Showing the Paperdoll of a Target should be a separate (independent) mechanism from Locks.
Indirect Fire Lock-On needs a Target to be TAG'ged, NARC'd, and/or revealed by a UAV.

And I could have missed a detail with what I've shared, so please feel free to add to this idea of independent locks!

[Prezimonto]

Mawai, on 15 September 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

2) In the Battletech source material ... ECM does not work the way it has been implemented in MWO. MWO ECM actually combines the effects of at least 3 different pieces of Battletech gear ... since the MWO balance started out based on TT values (look at the weapon damage values if not their rate of fire) ... the question becomes why was ECM implemented this way and what can be done to make the weapons and equipment more balanced and fun to play.

As clear and concise an evaluation of ECM's problems as any I've seen. I would like to point out that the risk/reward of using ECM is exceptionally low due to your point #2.

ECM is so good it makes any mech that doesn't have it in the same chassis series as an ECM carrier obsolete. The "risk" of ECM is essential it's cost of 1.5 tons to equip. It requires no skill to use, provides massive benefits to the team, and no real drawback while inside a match.

To counter it you have to use skill based solutions that counter the effects of ECM against a single target, or get exceptionally close to the ECM carrier and stay close to that mech.

To summarize: The risk/reward of having ECM is off the charts compared to every other piece of equipment in the game. It's not balanced.

[Mystere]

nehebkau, on 15 September 2014 - 04:38 PM, said:

ECM simply needs to have its range dropped to around 50m (maybe 100 but not more). That way it makes it more difficult to have ECM blankets.

Instead of dropping range, remove these ridiculous discrete values and apply the inverse-square law. Why? Because:

Mystere, on 15 September 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

Well, I and a few others are of the belief that real physics needs to be added wherever possible.

[Mawai]

Mystere, on 15 September 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

Well, I and a few others are of the belief that real physics needs to be added where possible.

lol ... I can accept that dream but not the reality as far as Battletech goes.

Battletech is fun but it isn't real

1) Weapon ranges are ridiculously short. Lasers should do damage over much greater ranges. Either atmospheric attenuation is so large that a large laser is ineffective by 900m ... in which case the power in the laser at 100m would be incredible since attenuation would be more or less linear ... or laser attenuation is low in which case the weapon effective range should be much larger.

The same goes for most other weapon systems ... 1000m range for missiles? 270m range for an AC20? Even 660m for a gauss rifle is ridiculous ... it is a kinetic projectile and would not slow significantly over 660m ... and if it did ... it would have even more of a punch at short ranges.

2) Walking 100 ton behemoths ... any idea what the ground pressure under each foot might be and how well the ground would or would not support it?

3) Jump jets ... how much thrust is needed to lift a 90 ton highlander into the air and move it several mech lengths?

4) Electronic warfare ... ECM, ECCM, active and passive sensors, stealth materials ... you can make up just about any fantasy technology but it comes down to the emission and reception of different frequencies of radiation ... light, heat, radio, microwave ... and either hiding a signal in the clutter or disrupting reception electronics (and hardening that same electronics) ... Battletech generally does not get into the details but you can pretty much come up with any balance you like.

5) Stackpoling ... need I say more? Fusion reactors do not blow up in a nuclear explosion. Period In fact the entire concept of a failure of the coolant system and sudden release of heated steam to explain exploding mechs doesn't really hold up well either.

Anyway, bottom line is that Battletech is lots of fun but reality it is not

[Odins Fist]

Warblood, on 15 September 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

"Ecm: Why Cant It Be What It Already Is Now?"

BECAUSE: CRYBABIES

[wwiiogre]

The Reason PGI chose to implement ECM the way they did is they also chose to implement C3 target sharing for free for every mech. C3 is a future tech in Battle Tech. It allows all players in the same lance to see any enemy mech and target it as if they were seeing it. C3 had a master set and 3 slave sets. They only worked for a single lance not an entire 12 man company. They cost tonnage and crit slots. What PGI implemented is better than C3, costs no tonnage and no crit slots and works for 12 players instead of only 4.

This is the reason that PGI had to implement Stealth Mode ECM, which again is future tech in Battle Tech. It is not part of ECM, it takes up crit slots and uses 10 heat while it is on. PGI did not implement this tech correctly, so to fix the broken game design decision above, they also added another broken game design decision with stealth/ecm.

Then as follows poor game design/balance decisions a veritable cascade effect happens because One is OP, followed by another OP, followed by more OP, etc.

Many here on the forum have given PGI many great ideas on how to fix this problem. Even using current game programming.

The obvious fix is to get rid of target sharing. Except for when an enemy is being hit by TAG or Narc or BAP or UAV. This would actually make those systems so important and go along way towards the goal of role warfare giving light mechs a much needed job. To scout out the enemy but also to bring the enemy under the use of the above systems.

Or you good just make ECM not stealth and just cause it to delay lock on times. Say any mech under ECM takes 6 seconds to lock. If you target a mech with ECM coverage and you have BAP then reduce time by 3 seconds. If you have Command Console reduce by 4 seconds. Narc and TAG also reduce target times as well as UAV.

So much could be done that would make the game more tactical and involve more roles for every mech.

Now LRMs of course would also need to be rebalanced.

Chris

[ImperialKnight]

Actually regarding the weapon systems, the effective ranges in the lore are determined by targeting systems. Clan weapons can hit further not because they are better but because of better targetting systems. A Medium laser is still going to hurt beyond 540m in lore unlike MWO, IF you manage to hit by blind luck

Mawai, on 15 September 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

lol ... I can accept that dream but not the reality as far as Battletech goes.

Battletech is fun but it isn't real

1) Weapon ranges are ridiculously short. Lasers should do damage over much greater ranges. Either atmospheric attenuation is so large that a large laser is ineffective by 900m ... in which case the power in the laser at 100m would be incredible since attenuation would be more or less linear ... or laser attenuation is low in which case the weapon effective range should be much larger.

The same goes for most other weapon systems ... 1000m range for missiles? 270m range for an AC20? Even 660m for a gauss rifle is ridiculous ... it is a kinetic projectile and would not slow significantly over 660m ... and if it did ... it would have even more of a punch at short ranges.

2) Walking 100 ton behemoths ... any idea what the ground pressure under each foot might be and how well the ground would or would not support it?

3) Jump jets ... how much thrust is needed to lift a 90 ton highlander into the air and move it several mech lengths?

4) Electronic warfare ... ECM, ECCM, active and passive sensors, stealth materials ... you can make up just about any fantasy technology but it comes down to the emission and reception of different frequencies of radiation ... light, heat, radio, microwave ... and either hiding a signal in the clutter or disrupting reception electronics (and hardening that same electronics) ... Battletech generally does not get into the details but you can pretty much come up with any balance you like.

5) Stackpoling ... need I say more? Fusion reactors do not blow up in a nuclear explosion. Period In fact the entire concept of a failure of the coolant system and sudden release of heated steam to explain exploding mechs doesn't really hold up well either.

Anyway, bottom line is that Battletech is lots of fun but reality it is not

[Mystere]

Mawai, on 15 September 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

lol ... I can accept that dream but not the reality as far as Battletech goes.

Battletech is fun but it isn't real

1) Weapon ranges are ridiculously short. Lasers should do damage over much greater ranges. Either atmospheric attenuation is so large that a large laser is ineffective by 900m ... in which case the power in the laser at 100m would be incredible since attenuation would be more or less linear ... or laser attenuation is low in which case the weapon effective range should be much larger.

The same goes for most other weapon systems ... 1000m range for missiles? 270m range for an AC20? Even 660m for a gauss rifle is ridiculous ... it is a kinetic projectile and would not slow significantly over 660m ... and if it did ... it would have even more of a punch at short ranges.

2) Walking 100 ton behemoths ... any idea what the ground pressure under each foot might be and how well the ground would or would not support it?

3) Jump jets ... how much thrust is needed to lift a 90 ton highlander into the air and move it several mech lengths?

4) Electronic warfare ... ECM, ECCM, active and passive sensors, stealth materials ... you can make up just about any fantasy technology but it comes down to the emission and reception of different frequencies of radiation ... light, heat, radio, microwave ... and either hiding a signal in the clutter or disrupting reception electronics (and hardening that same electronics) ... Battletech generally does not get into the details but you can pretty much come up with any balance you like.

5) Stackpoling ... need I say more? Fusion reactors do not blow up in a nuclear explosion. Period In fact the entire concept of a failure of the coolant system and sudden release of heated steam to explain exploding mechs doesn't really hold up well either.

Anyway, bottom line is that Battletech is lots of fun but reality it is not

You totally missed the part where I said "wherever possible".

Edited by Mystere, 15 September 2014 - 04:59 PM.

[nehebkau]

Praetor Knight, on 15 September 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

I say change Lock-On, in Relation to ECM (Making it an independent system, meaning that ECM has no influence over getting Locks). So, if we can at least make Lock-Ons independent of ECM's cloak, that could be a good start with making adjustments to ECM and LRMs.

But that would need to include changes to how locks work.

Therefore, here's what I'd look at first:

With ECM specifically:
ECM no longer prevents locks or slows them down.
Still works against Artemis, and canceling out other spread reducing bonuses.
It will continue to obscure the HUD and deny a Paper Doll (HTAL, hopefully in the future) as it currently functions.
TAG, NARC, PPC shot can reveal a Target, filling the Magic Dorito for Allies and the Paper Doll info just as currently can happen.

Then for the Lock-on mechanism (making it independent):
Holding the reticle/crosshair on a target long enough brings up the 'Lock-On set' reticle independently.
No longer need to acquire a Target lock with the default 'R' with Line of Sight on Target.
ECM no longer blocks locks if player can hold reticle/crosshair on target with Line on Sight on Target.
Target Decay and Radar Deprivation will still be able to modify Target Retention for Locks.
Showing the Paperdoll of a Target should be a separate (independent) mechanism from Locks.
Indirect Fire Lock-On needs a Target to be TAG'ged, NARC'd, and/or revealed by a UAV.

And I could have missed a detail with what I've shared, so please feel free to add to this idea of independent locks!

It is impossible to make big sweeping changes and maintain some balance. YOU NEED TO MAKE SMALL CHANGES! Lets start with simply, easily, reducing ECM range and see how that works. Sheesh!

[Nothing Whatsoever]

nehebkau, on 15 September 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

It is impossible to make big sweeping changes and maintain some balance. YOU NEED TO MAKE SMALL CHANGES! Lets start with simply, easily, reducing ECM range and see how that works. Sheesh!

Why do you feel that making Locks independent of ECM is a big sweeping change?

Edited by Praetor Knight, 15 September 2014 - 05:07 PM.

[100 Tonne]

my problem is that it does too much for what it is. If it was like 7 tons and 7 crits it would be fine.

[Lyoto Machida]

Odins Fist, on 15 September 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

BECAUSE: CRYBABIES

Cue "Participation Trophy" speech.

[Mystere]

Warblood, on 15 September 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

Honest question here, whats wrong with ecm, why cant it be left as it is now?

Well, now it can be.

[4th paragraph, 1st sentence]

[Mawai]

Praetor Knight, on 15 September 2014 - 05:06 PM, said:

Why do you feel that making Locks independent of ECM is a big sweeping change?

... because it is?

The post he was replying to was talking about revising the targeting system by removing relayed locks except when eletronic warfare like BAP, TAG, NARC are used.

This will completely change the balance of LRMs.

LRMs will not get relayed targets ... they will have to have line of sight to fire. On some maps with short sightlines and lots of cover, LRMs will be more useless than they are now.

On the other hand, you will need to pray for a narced target since it will become the ONLY target visible to every LRM on the opposing team. NARCed targets will not last long unless they can hide.

In addition, the mini-map will be much less revealing ... only a player who actually sees opponents will get them on the mini-map and with the limited in-game communications tools this will likely mean more folks peeking around corners to see what is there.

Anyway, all of the back and forth and exchange of ideas on these topics is great ... there is a wide range of opinion on what can, should, should not, must and must not be done

The biggest issue is that both sides are correct ...

1) Good balance is usually achieved by taking small steps and assessing the impact
2) ECM requires big changes because it impacts so many systems ... it would have been better if the design was different in the beginning ... at this point the question becomes not only where you might like to see ECM (and every other game aspect it impacts) be at the end ... but also what path of changes you might chart to get there.

[Livewyr]

ECM should not stay the way it is because it makes LRMs too binary and unreliable. (For one of many reasons.)

How many LRMs do you see in competitive matches? none. They are too unreliable, and they are too binary.
Unreliable = ECM makes you spend more time trying to target opponents and/or countering the ECM.
Binary = Very strong in IDF (as long as there is no ECM) Borderline pointless in direct fire engagements, especially with ECM.

[SaltBeef]

SARC: What many Fail to understand when they have the BOX of ELIGHTENMENT attached to their mech SARC: is that it has 2 modes... DISRUPT and COUNTER used in conjunction with the J key unleashes powerful tracking abilities.