189 replies to this topic

[SlXSlXSlX]

Wow Merchant,

You dont know the first thing about me, my posts, what I have and have not said, when I started, the history of CB apparently, etc etc etc.. the list goes on. Ill sum your post up in one word.

"Ignorance"

[Strum Wealh]

wwiiogre, on 23 February 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

I have posted many times in many different threads.

Current ECM in MWO is not the ecm that is in this timeline for BattleTech it is effectively Null Sig.

ECM in this timeline does 3 things which have to be toggled not two things.

1. ECM in this timeline stops Narc/Artemis bonus
2. Counter ECM
3. Ghost Targeting which makes it harder to hit, not impossible to get a lock which is what Current MWO does called null sig

Ghost Targeting in BT is countered by BAP and Command Console, Current ECM in MWO has no counter and does two things at the same time.

In BT, ECM can stop Narc/Artemis, counter ECM or Ghost Target, not three settings, none that apply at same time.
In MWO ECM stops Narc/Artemis, Does not allow a lock except within x amount of meters and can counter ECM.

So yeah, ECM as it is in MWO is broken, does not follow timeline and is completely overpowered.

No Where in BT lore or canon does ECM make it impossible to lock on to a target, it just makes it harder to lock on. Only Null Sig makes it impossible to lock on unless within x amount of meters.

So yeah, broken, and a piece of equipment from the future of BT. Not from this timeline. Why have a specific timeline and then choose not to follow it?

Firstly: Guardian ECM is not implementing characteristics of either NullSig or Angel ECM.
The canon abilities of Guardian ECM include...

• Generates an effect bubble with a radius of 180 meters (doubled when in a region characterized by electromagnetic interference; see page 55 of Tactical Operations)
  
• Nullifies the effects of Artemis IV FCSs (TacOps is somewhat unclear as to whether Artemis V is affected to a lesser degree by Guardian (as Artemis V's descriptive text implies some level of effect), or not affected at all by Guardian (in contrast to being affected by Angel ECM, a contrast implied by Angel's gameplay rules))
  
• Nullifies the effects of Beagle Active Probes (but NOT those of Bloodhound Active Probes)
  
• Nullifies the effects of Narc and iNarc beacon pods
  
• Nullifies the effects of C3 and C3i systems (but NOT C3 Boosted systems)
  
• Affects detectability and identification via sensors other than IR, MagScan, and Seismic (see the "ECM/Stealth Modifiers Table" and pages 224-225 of Tactical Operations)
  
• Generates an ECCM bubble capable of negating the ECM effects of a single a single other Guardian ECM Suite or similar system (or one half of an Angel ECM Suite if both components are set to ECM mode)
  
• Generates ghost targets
  
• Allows for the functioning of Stealth Armor and VoidSig (neither of which will operate at all unless either Guardian or Angel is installed)
  
• Affects the effectiveness of enemy automated weapon emplacements (Tactical Operations, pg. 133)
  
• Affects enemy communications systems (including Command Consoles, Mobile HQs, and Satellite Uplinks) and related bonuses (Tactical Operations, pgs. 195/196)

Many of these capabilities are shared with the unnamed Clan-built counterpart to Guardian, as well as the Angel ECM Suite and the ECM component of the Watchdog CEWS.

Guardian ECM does not canonically affect the tracking/accuracy bonus of Streak SRMs.
Guardian ECM does not canonically affect the targeting capabilities/bonuses of Targeting Computers.
Guardian ECM does not canonically affect TAG at all.
Guardian ECM does not affect friendly/allied units at all.
With regard to Guardian ECM and targets outside of the 180-meter radius, there are two opposing rules:

• The basic core rules presented in Total Warfare state (on page 134), "The ECM’s disruptive abilities affect all enemy units inside this bubble, as well as any line of sight traced through the bubble."
  
• The double-blind rules presented in Tactical Operations state (on page 224), "To be affected, the spotting unit must be in the normal operating radius of the ECM/stealth system (note that stealth systems only affect the target unit and do not have a radius of effect, and so are only taken into consideration for the unit mounting that equipment). LOS does not affect this radius. If a spotting unit is within the range of multiple ECM systems, combine the effects of all the ECM systems."
  
• Tactical Operations also states (on page 220), "In a double-blind game, specific rules contradict how equipment (such as the range of ECM and probes) and some situations (determining LOS) are used in standard and advanced-rules game play. These changes enhance the “fog of war” aspects of a double-blind game and increase everyone’s enjoyment of this more realistic game play. Any rules in this section are only for use in double-blind games and should never be used in regular games."

(Finding that third bullet before now would have helped to shorten certain previous conversations... )
Guardian ECM can canonically affect targets outside of the bubble under standard BT rules (provided the line-of-sight of the affected unit's action intersects the ECM bubble), but that aspect is supposed to be removed from double-blind games for gameplay reasons.

What NullSig does (in terms of BT gameplay rules):

• Targeting penalties at non-close range (in BT terms: "While the Null-Signature System is engaged, attacks against the unit at Medium range receive an additional +1 to-hit modifier, while attacks at Long and Extreme Range receive an additional +2 to-hit modifier.")
  
• Nullifies Beagle Active Probe and its unbranded Clan-built counterpart (in BT terms: "Beagle Active Probes and their Clan equivalents cannot locate a hidden unit with an active Null-Signature System...")
  
• Reduces the effectiveness of heat-tracking weapons (in BT terms: "...and heat-seeking weapons (such as Heat-Seeking Missiles) calculate their to-hit modifiers against the unit as though it is 8 points cooler than it actually is.")
  
• Retains/"generates" heat (in BT terms: "While active, the system generates 10 points of heat.")
  
• Affects sensors (other than IR, MagScan, and Seismic) to a greater degree than Guardian ECM (in BT terms: see the "ECM/Stealth Modifier Table" on page 223 of Tactical Operations)
  
• Weighs less than ECM, and is bulkier than ECM (in BT terms: "The Null-Signature System does not weigh a significant amount, but takes up 1 critical slot in each of the BattleMech’s locations except the head.")

NullSig would also prevent a 'Mech from mounting Targeting Computers, C3 (and related systems), Stealth Armor, and/or VoidSig.
NullSig does not indicate that it has any effect against Narc Beacons, Artemis FCSs, or TAG.
Additionally, "note that stealth systems only affect the target unit and do not have a radius of effect, and so are only taken into consideration for the unit mounting that equipment"; this statement from Tactical Operations (page 224) seems to indicate that stealth systems like NullSig do not generate a bubble as the ECM suites do.
NullSig's stealth capabilities are mitigated by the Bloodhound Active Probe.

What distinguishes Angel ECM from Guardian ECM:

• Blocks "next-gen" systems that can/do overcome Guardian ECM (in BT terms: "The Angel ECM Suite works like standard ECM, but can also block the Bloodhound Active Probe, Artemis V and C3 Booster Systems...")
  
• Nullifies the tracking/accuracy advantage of Streak missiles (in BT terms: "Streak missiles fired into or through a hostile Angel ECM bubble will not fire if the to-hit roll fails, but on a successful Streak launcher attack, the attacker must roll on the Cluster table as though the launcher were a standard (non-Streak) model.")
  
• Affects sensors (other than IR, MagScan, and Seismic) to a greater degree than Guardian ECM (in BT terms: see the "ECM/Stealth Modifier Table" on page 223 of Tactical Operations)
  
• Functions as two independent ECM suites (in BT terms: "For this purpose, the Angel ECM suite counts as two ECM or ECCM suites, or the player can choose to run the Angel at 1 ECM and 1 ECCM."; "An Angel ECM Suite can be tuned to be 1 ECM or 1 ECCM while it generates ghost targets.")

In many other aspects, however, the Angel ECM Suite functions identically to its predecessor (the Guardian ECM Suite).

What MWO's implementation of Guardian ECM does:

• When a Mech is hidden by a friendly ECM, enemy Mechs will have to come within 1/4 the normal distance (200 m instead of 800 m, by default) for hidden Mechs to show up on their battlegrid and HUD.
  
• When a Mech is hidden by a friendly ECM, the Beagle Active Probe is of no use in extending this range.
  
• When a Mech is hidden by a friendly ECM, it takes twice as long to achieve a missile lock against a hidden Mech.
  
• When a Mech is hidden by a friendly ECM, Narc beacons will stick to hidden Mechs, but they won’t provide their normal bonuses until the Mech leaves the ECM’s range.
  
• When a Mech is hidden by a friendly ECM, Artemis IV does not provide any bonuses against hidden Mechs.
  
• When your Mech is disrupted by an enemy ECM, you will not know where your teammates are, and they won’t know where you are, unless you have direct line of sight to each other.
  
• When your Mech is disrupted by an enemy ECM, you cannot share any targeting data with the rest of your team, and vice versa.
  
• When your Mech is disrupted by an enemy ECM, your Beagle Active Probe ceases to function.
  
• When your Mech is disrupted by an enemy ECM, you cannot achieve any missile locks.
  
• When your Mech is disrupted by an enemy ECM, your TAG laser can still fire but provides no bonuses.
  
• When your Mech is disrupted by an enemy ECM, your battlegrid and targeting information will flicker.

Secondly: BT gameplay rules do provide for the situation where any sensor type, even under ideal conditions, can fail to detect a given target within a given range bracket... or even completely fail to detect a given target in all range brackets.
As specifically stated on page 222 of Tactical Operations: "To make a Sensor Check, the player rolls 2D6. A result of 7 or 8 means the sensor detects any unit within its short range. A result of 5 or 6 means the sensor detects units out to its medium range. A result of 2 to 4 means the sensor detects units out to its long range. A roll of 9 to 12 means the sensor failed to detect any units."

Thirdly: In the translation from BattleTach to Mechwarrior online, the Devs evidently found it necessary to make certain changes in order to make things "make sense".

Example 1: Certain ballistic weapons (AC/2, AC/5, and Gauss Rifle) do not have the minimum range penalties because they have no effective justification - the Gauss Rifle fires a solid slug with no explosive payload, so there is no arming distance and the mass in question hits as hard (or, in actuality, somewhat harder) at close range than further away, and the AC shells have no safety mechanisms analogous to those on LRMs (besides, id the little ~30mm shells fired by a run-of-the-mill AC/2 needed an arming distance, surely the ~200mm shells fired by some AC/20s would need it as well).

Example 2: If the sensors completely fail to detect anything (in BT terms: Sensor Check result of 9 or more; further (and usually adversely) modified by conditions and degrees set forth on both the "Sensor Ranges Tables" and the "ECM/Stealth Modifiers Tables"), it's rather difficult (to the point of impossibility) to get a lock on something that the targeting system cannot "see", is it not?
(And since Streak launchers require a lock in order to fire at all, the inability to get said lock (because the targeting system and the sensors upon which it depends cannot "see" anything onto which to lock) makes using said Streak launchers rather difficult, does it not?)

In summary:
MWO's implementation of Guardian ECM is not derived from the Null Signature System (extinct at the point in the BT timeline in which MWO is set) nor the Angel ECM Suite (not yet extant at the point in the BT timeline in which MWO is set).
Furthermore, a number of derivations from BT canon with regard to Guardian's capabilities can be rationally explained as logically following from canonical aspects of Guardian's capabilities.

To those who would argue otherwise: which specific capabilities of MWO's implementation of the Guardian ECM Suite are taken directly from, or are logically derived from, those capabilities of either the Null Signature System or the Angel ECM Suite that are not shared with the canonical Guardian?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 24 February 2013 - 08:06 AM.

[SlXSlXSlX]

Wow that is technical. I will defer to you on this. Thanks for taking the time to put tha all up. I read it all, but think I will have to read it again in a bit to try and absorb it all. I dont even understand the final question.

Seriously, I can tell that took awhile. Thank you.

[Tennex]

other things you could do with the 1.5 tons instead of ECM: None

i got a list for you
number of raven chassis being used.

3L
3L
3L
3L
3L
4X

[Doc Holliday]

Tahribator, on 23 February 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

So, after suffering for two days with my Cicadas I got fed up and bought a Commando 2D for anti-3L purposes. Loaded it up with an ECM and 3 Streaks and on the first game I killed two lights and two Atlases all by myself for 750 damage. I wasn't even trying.

This is clearly broken, there's a HUGE difference between a light with streaks and a light with lasers.

This is why I keep posting that SSRMs are overpowered too and need to be fixed.

[Wildstreak]

@Strum Wealh,

I did read your whole post though I am not quoting it just because I don't like to quote long posts usually. Also I have to list all of SIXSIXSIX's posts that prove him wrong.

I don't know if you intended it or not but provding what ECM is in Tactical Operations only prove the Anti-ECM in MWO argument. TO is advnaced level OPTIONAL rules that should only be played with by consent of all players.

Implementing TO rules into MWO without an OFF selector forces people to play at the advanced level. That violates Basic Game Design 101. People should not be forced to play at an advanced level when:
- they are new to the game.
- they should have the option not to use those rules.

Without the option to turn it off, ECM in MWO is proven to have another problem. This doesn't 'make sense' no matter how it is explained.

Regarding ballistic weapons, there is a plausible explanation why AC2s and AC5s have a minimum range, don't think it was ever put in print but it works. If they removed minimmum range, they ignored that and I am convinced it is a mistake.

Lazydrones541, on 23 February 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Dont forget you can still blind fire your LRMs if the target isnt moving its a handy thing while atlases are standing around pointing fingers.

First, mentioning blind fire seems like another way to force people to play by advanced rules.
Second, there is an explanation why that shouldn't be possible all the time.
Third, I have seen things happening with LRMs in MWO within their minimum range that show there are problems with LRMs.

SlXSlXSlX, on 23 February 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Wow Merchant,

You dont know the first thing about me, my posts, what I have and have not said, when I started, the history of CB apparently, etc etc etc.. the list goes on. Ill sum your post up in one word.

"Ignorance"

Another mistake, assuming I have never read your posts. I have so by typing this you proved you are ignorant. Even here in this topic I have seen from your own posts how arrogant, spiteful and derisive you are among other negative traits. you also make gross assumptions about me after claiming doing it to you was wrong. Not only is that a bad argument, keep reading to see how much I know about CB.

You start this with a long post you expect people to read, and they did, respectfully. You also claimed in your OP you wanted constructive dialogue. Then you respond with these:

SlXSlXSlX, on 23 February 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

Are the only people that want to discuss ECM, the people that cant seem to figure out how to counter ecm?

PS.. the use of caps lock does not help you make your point, it makes people glaze past your post without readng it.

Arrogant assumption of the poster you respond to, you also ignore Caps Lock use for emphasis as opposed to people who use Caps Lock on everything. Use for emphasis is acceptable and 'glazing over' such a post shows no respect to someone who showed it to you. Such a response proves no one should listen to you at all.

SlXSlXSlX, on 23 February 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

...while i mounted a mini-forum war...

Maybe its just me, but I doubt it.

The people that have adapted to mwo with ecm arn't busy in here drowning their tears. They are too busy having fun, playing the game, ecm aside.

Too you all, who consistently cry about ECM, I wish that someday you too win learn how to play with/around it, and start enjoying the greatness that is MWO today, and stop posting in such a "QQ Magoo" fashion.

This shows your posting habits and you don't know or care what a BETA is in addition to not knowing how to argue a subject like an adult and will dismiss anyone who does not agree with you. So much for what you said in your OP about constructive dialogue, now it is clear you come to the forums to look for people to beat up on. You do know there are rules against such posting and you LEGALLY agreed to NOT engage in such behavior such as 'starting mini-forum wars' while posting here?

SlXSlXSlX, on 23 February 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

You should not base a balanced game today, off of some turn based board game from the past. You cant take the rules of BT, and directly apply them to this FPS, and expect it to jsut "work". This is your argument, then you follow with suggested fixes based on the presumption that you are right.

I am sorry, but I disagree 100%. People have also said that LRMs here work nothing like they do in BT. Perhaps not, perhaps so, it really does not matter. This is a modern FPS, and balance, not staying true to the lore of novels, is what matters.

Except it is not 'in the past' it has been refined and changed over the years. If you were as 'great' as you claim, you would have known that.
http://bg.battletech.com/
The rules used today in TT are not those from the beginning, I KNOW this because I played it from the beginning before computers existed along with previous MechWarrior shooters, MechCommander and some other computer versions of BattleTech that included shooters. I played it for a long time including through rules changes so I know it is not the original BattleTech. I know the fundamental mistakes they made over the years (creating the Clans was Big Mistake #2). More ignorance from you.

SlXSlXSlX, on 23 February 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Sir,

I dont know the first thing about BT, nor do I care to at this point, you guys make the whole scene seem toxic. I am simply talking about balance in the present meta. When you experienced BT guys come in here quoting manuals, and arguing about rule sets or whatever, it falls on deaf ears. Is the game balanced? Or is it not? This is the question, and no amount of reference to BT lore form long ago will change the relevancy of this question.

Then clearly no one should care about anything you say because you are the toxic one. You proved it in your own posts. You also clearly don't know what balance is. You also admit to not knowing CB then claim I don't? PLEASE SPARE PEOPLE READING YOUR POSTS SHOWING HOW FOOLISH YOU ARE. (bolded for emphasis, live with it . )

I have been involved in many games over the years including shooters and know I have a better idea on game balance including in shooters than you and some others supporting the broken ECM system in MWO. You guys have no clue what the HECK you are posting about, proven by the many posts I see from you and others.

The summary of all your Pro-ECM posts is that you are ignorant and want an unbalanced game that favors you stomping on people. Too easy to prove, I simply have not typed it all out because I don't waste time speaking to some thick skulled ignorant person like you and there are plenty of topics on the subject on these forums.

There is proof ECM is broken that has not been presented, the only reason is because ignorant cowards like yourself, Zaptruder, Vassago Rain, Grraarrgghh, Fergrim, Tikkamasala and maybe a few others whose names I don't have yet refuse to face those truths. Don't try to fight 'mini forum wars' not only because it violates the posting rules you agreed to, but because all your guns are unloaded. I don't start wars but will finish them without breaking CoC.

Go back and hide now.

[Koshirou]

It's really rather simple:

If all Mechs could mount ECM, and it still was 1.5 tons and 2 criticals, do you think there would be any players with any ability to customize their Mechs at all who would not mount ECM?

Yeah, me neither. Something that is so useful that everybody would use it if there were no arbitrary restrictions on who can - and yet so powerful that there need to be some restrictions on its use - is obviously unbalanced. Simple as that.

Edited by Koshirou, 24 February 2013 - 11:22 AM.

[Rakashan]

I didn't see anyone ever answer you about IFF. It's not a BT concept.

http://en.wikipedia....n_friend_or_foe

[wwiiogre]

strum,

great post,

problem current MWO ecm has very little to do with BT ecm of this timeline, period and gets way more abilities and has fewer counters and stops complete weapon systems or hinders them so severely that they are near worthless to play unless your team brings more ecm than the enemy team. Which means it is not balanced and broken.

and BT ecm does not stop anyone from targeting or firing on the mech or any other mech near it. It also has no effect on TAG whatsoever which current MWO ecm stops tag that is inside the bubble, which is complete horse hockey

Ghost Targeting which apparently is what the current MWO ecm does to stop targeting is affected by BAP and command console. Page 102 of Tactical Operations

Once again Ghost Targeting and Null sig do the same thing, Null sig does not take a pilot skill roll, which means it always works, while ghost targeting was based on the pilots skill, what he rolled on 2d6 and did not always work. Thus my reference to current ecm as null sig since it gives the benfits of table top ghost targeting but always works.

And currently MWO ecm does what Angel does by allow ghost targeting and ecm at the same time instead of either/or so yeah out of timeline.

Note Angel ECM is from 3057
Null Sig is considered lost tech and has no current in game time. Meaning it is not available except as an experimental rule

So my statement still stands. Current ECM in MWO uses ghost targeting. Ghost targeting is not automatic and is affected by BAP and Command Console and is its own separate toggle for ecm/eccm/ghost targeting while Angel ECM from the future of MWO allows ecm + ghost targeting or eccm + ghost targeting but is not automatic. Only Null sig gives the automatic advantage and even it has limitations unlike current MWO ECM.

Chris

[wwiiogre]

come on, response please, bump

[Gammanoob]

The problem with ECM is that it is so good there is no reason not to take it, there is nothing else in the game that is as light but makes such a gigantic difference.

Worse of light mechs it leads to the dreaded ECM + SSRM2s is win, situation, where really for maximum efficiency it is best to use a Raven 3L with streaks to destroy any other light mechs.

Even AMS in the days of "LRM Death Rain" was not as powerful.

Edited by Gammanoob, 24 February 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[DocBach]

All ghost targeting does is give a plus 1 to hit -- it'd probably be something like longer lock on times.

Would like to see it be more interactive like target spam on your radar that you had to determine was real or not. confuse the radar operator, not the radar itself.

[SlXSlXSlX]

@ Merchant... wow man. You wow me often. That is alot of effort to show how terrible I am. Kudos.

Still, showing im a terrible poster, does not mean ECM is broken, it only means im less well versed in the arts of peaceful postery than say, some others.

Attack me all you want, and quote BT manuals all you want, but what we are after here is a balanced game. Neither of these changes whether MWO is balanced. I, a user of ballistics mostly, think ECM is the saving grace from this becoming LRM spam online. I am not the only one either. No matter how much you try to characterize me in a negative light, the argument remains.

As I have recently revised my position on ECM, perhaps you care to address my revised position. ECM imho is ok, but if you want ot nerf it some, then fine. What I do not want, is missle warrior online. I am not alone.''

Go look at teh youtube vid a guy put up called a day in the life of an LRM boat, it is so easy. If there werent obstacles in the way, such as ECM, it would be worse.

To show I really think ECM is a non-issue ive been running a DDC I recently bought, sans ECM, and will continue to do so. I do use cover, I do flank, and to me ECMs benefit is so marginal, I think I can do as well without it. I am and have been doing fine, without it.

But for many, their reluctance to pull out there stalkers with 100 LRMS is bc of ECM, and I think that is a good thing for everyone.

Keep attacking me though, im fine with that. I get it alot on here.

Edited by SlXSlXSlX, 24 February 2013 - 01:01 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

wwiiogre, on 24 February 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

strum,

great post,

problem current MWO ecm has very little to do with BT ecm of this timeline, period and gets way more abilities and has fewer counters and stops complete weapon systems or hinders them so severely that they are near worthless to play unless your team brings more ecm than the enemy team. Which means it is not balanced and broken.

and BT ecm does not stop anyone from targeting or firing on the mech or any other mech near it. It also has no effect on TAG whatsoever which current MWO ecm stops tag that is inside the bubble, which is complete horse hockey

Ghost Targeting which apparently is what the current MWO ecm does to stop targeting is affected by BAP and command console. Page 102 of Tactical Operations

Once again Ghost Targeting and Null sig do the same thing, Null sig does not take a pilot skill roll, which means it always works, while ghost targeting was based on the pilots skill, what he rolled on 2d6 and did not always work. Thus my reference to current ecm as null sig since it gives the benfits of table top ghost targeting but always works.

And currently MWO ecm does what Angel does by allow ghost targeting and ecm at the same time instead of either/or so yeah out of timeline.

Note Angel ECM is from 3057
Null Sig is considered lost tech and has no current in game time. Meaning it is not available except as an experimental rule

So my statement still stands. Current ECM in MWO uses ghost targeting. Ghost targeting is not automatic and is affected by BAP and Command Console and is its own separate toggle for ecm/eccm/ghost targeting while Angel ECM from the future of MWO allows ecm + ghost targeting or eccm + ghost targeting but is not automatic. Only Null sig gives the automatic advantage and even it has limitations unlike current MWO ECM.

Chris

It would seem that there is an issue regarding conflation of capabilities.

All ECM Suites, the Command Console, and Communications Equipment (provided one has 7+ tons of it) are capable of generating "ghost targets" - that is, it creates "false radar returns" (something like the "double range echo" phenomenon encountered in reality).

Quote

A double range echo is a false echo that will sometimes appear on the same bearing as a target, but at twice the range of that target. These echoes are most evident when the target ship is on a parallel course, close abeam, and large. If the real echo appears at 800 yards and the double range echo appears at 1,800 yards, the correct range of the target will he the difference between the two, or 1,000 yards.

That is, the ghost target ability gives the illusion that

• the unit carrying the ghost-generating ECM Suite is somewhere other than where it actually is,
  
• there are more targets present than actually exist (e.g. a single ECM-equipped 'Mech appearing on radar as a whole Lance, or even a whole Company), or
  
• a combination of (1) and (2).

In BattleTech (that is, TT), both of whether one can proprtly generate ghost targets and whether one can distinguish between the ghost targets is determined by a Piloting Skill Roll (described on page 101 of Tactical Operations).
As discovered with the UAC/5 unjam process (with the fact that they can unjam, and that BT canon distates that they shouldn't be able to do so at all, being another discussion at another time ), simulating such pilot tasks in a useful and non-circumventable way has proven to be impractical (for now), so it would make sense to partially or fully automate such processes from a gameplay standpoint.
As noted, Active Probes (both Beagle (and its Clan counterpart) and Bloodhound) and Command Consoles can also assist in seeing these "ghosts" for what they are, thus allowing them to pick out the real target (represented as bonuses to the to-hit roll against a ghost-generating opponent).
Additionally, ECCM fields (created by ECM Suites in ECCM/"Counter" mode, Communications Equipment (provided one has 7+ tons of it), and Command Consoles (provided it can link to a Scientific Satellite)) can interfere with the ability to generate the ghost target effect.

This is separate and distinct from the ECM Suites' ability to interfere with the effectiveness of sensor spotting (up to and including Guardian's dramatically increasing (from ~27% to ~92%) the likelihood of the sensors' complete failure to detect ECM-obscured units), and the ability to interfere with the functionality of Active Probes, Artemis systems, Narc and iNarc beacons, and C3 systems - both of which are in effect for as long as the ECM Suite is both operational and in ECM mode.

Currently, MWO's ECM does not have the ghost target functionality, but it does have the ability to interfere with sensor scans.
Part of the issue is, as noted in my previous post, is that the Devs have combined the sensor interference ability (from TacOps) and the LOS effects (from pages 134-135 of Total Warfare).
Both of those elements, by themselves, are fully canonical - the combination of the two elements, however, stands in contrast to said canon.

Quote

With regard to Guardian ECM and targets outside of the 180-meter radius, there are two opposing rules:

• The basic core rules presented in Total Warfare state (on page 134), "The ECM’s disruptive abilities affect all enemy units inside this bubble, as well as any line of sight traced through the bubble."
  
• The double-blind rules presented in Tactical Operations state (on page 224), "To be affected, the spotting unit must be in the normal operating radius of the ECM/stealth system (note that stealth systems only affect the target unit and do not have a radius of effect, and so are only taken into consideration for the unit mounting that equipment). LOS does not affect this radius. If a spotting unit is within the range of multiple ECM systems, combine the effects of all the ECM systems."
  
• Tactical Operations also states (on page 220), "In a double-blind game, specific rules contradict how equipment (such as the range of ECM and probes) and some situations (determining LOS) are used in standard and advanced-rules game play. These changes enhance the “fog of war” aspects of a double-blind game and increase everyone’s enjoyment of this more realistic game play. Any rules in this section are only for use in double-blind games and should never be used in regular games."

(Finding that third bullet before now would have helped to shorten certain previous conversations... )
Guardian ECM can canonically affect targets outside of the bubble under standard BT rules (provided the line-of-sight of the affected unit's action intersects the ECM bubble), but that aspect is supposed to be removed from double-blind games for gameplay reasons.

That MWO's ECM suite can hinder the use of Streak missiles and the use of LRMs' guidance systems is a non-canon logical extension of its canonical ability (as described on pages 222-225 of Tactical Operations) to interfere with the sensors upon which those systems rely, and the non-canonical combination of that sensor-interference ability and its canonical ability to interfere with targets outside of its bubble if the LOS of the target's action intersects the bubble (Total Warfare, pg. 134).
The logic chain likely looks something like this:

• "If the targeting system is wholly dependent on sensor information to locate a lockable target", and
  
• "If the targeting system must establish a lock against a loclable target for guided weapons to take effect", and
  
• "If LRMs require a lock against a lockable target in order to track said target", and
  
• "If Streak Missiles require a lock to fire at all", and
  
• "If ECM adversely and severely affects the sensors' ability to locate a lockable target", then
  
• "ECM is capable of preventing the targeting system from establishing a lock against a lockable target", thus
  
• "ECM is capable of preventing weapons that rely on a lock to take effect from being used effectively (if at all) against itself."

Note that "being invisible to sensors" (what ECM's "ECM mode"/"Disrupt mode" does) is not the same "being the proverbial (and visible) needle in a (visible) haystack" (what ECM's "Ghost Target Generator" ability would/should do).

Ergo, the statement "Current ECM in MWO uses ghost targeting" is demonstratably false.

Furthermore, Angel differs from Guardian in that the former (that is, Angel) can actually run in ECM mode and Ghost Target Generator mode at the same time (as it is essentially two ECM units in one package) while the latter (that is, Guardian) can only do one at a time (and, in MWO, cannot (yet?) do the latter at all).

Moreover, NullSig ("an elaborate series of passive and active electronic countermeasures and heat baffles that combine to mask a BattleMech’s heat and electromagnetic signature"; page 336 of TacOps) and the Capellan Stealth Armor derived from it ("a
complex system of heat baffles and layers of radar- and EM-absorbent materials that - while about as bulky as ferro-fibrous armor - provides the same physical protection as standard armor. Limited exclusively to BattleMechs, this system requires the use of a Guardian ECM suite to function, but when activated, the ’Mech becomes virtually invisible to hostile sensors and EW devices."; page 206 of TechManual) can perform some comparable functions (such as negating the effectiveness of BAP), albeit through different means (and without the effect bubble) and in addition to additional and non-shared functions (such as ECM's lack of effect against heat-seeking weapons and, ostensibly, thermal sensors).
However, that they can do some of the same things no more makes ECM and NullSig "the same" than late-model stock cars and modern F1 racers are "the same" because both happen to be "single-seat, four-wheeled racing cars that drive multiple laps (with the occasional pit stop) around ovoid tracks".

Finally, I shall repeat my yet-to-be-answered question: "which specific capabilities of MWO's implementation of the Guardian ECM Suite are taken directly from, or are logically derived from, those capabilities of either the Null Signature System or the Angel ECM Suite that are not shared with the canonical Guardian?"

[SlXSlXSlX]

Strum,

I am thoroughly unqualified to answer that question.

"Finally, I shall repeat my yet-to-be-answered question: "which specific capabilities of MWO's implementation of the Guardian ECM Suite are taken directly from, or are logically derived from, those capabilities of either the Null Signature System or the Angel ECM Suite that are not shared with the canonical Guardian?""

In fact, I barely understand it. Let me ask you this though.

Do you like to use alot of LRMs?

[Strum Wealh]

SlXSlXSlX, on 24 February 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

Do you like to use alot of LRMs?

I haven't been able to play recently (as find myself in need of a new a new computer, and am currently using a netbook for my computing needs ), So I've decided to keep myself involved (and, I admit, amused ) by being more active on the forum.

To answer the question: I would say that LRMs (generally not boated) were used with some regularity.
So, I wouldn't say "a lot" (over the course of my personal experience with the MW series, my favorite weapons have long been PPCs ), but their use is not alien to me and I would have no qualms about using them where and when it feels useful to do so.

(I'm also one of those strange people that equipped all of the electronics (yes, even the "Advanced Gyro") on all of the 'Mechs in MW4, and equipped each 'Mech in MW3 with twin AMS, BAP, ECM, CASE, a Targeting Computer, and a full (or nearly so) complement of armor. So, make of that what you will... )

[Lykaon]

SlXSlXSlX, on 23 February 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

I think to constructively discuss ECM we need to understand the issue. I have compiled 4 lists of data based on extensive research.

Weapons ECM stops without a counter.

LRM 5
LRM 10 (tbh im not sure if there is an LRM 10, I truely never look at the LRMs)
LRM 15
LRM 20
SSRM
Radar (didn't know this was a weapon)

Weapons ECM does not counter.

AC2
AC5
UAC5
AC10
AC20
SL
SPL
ML
MPL
LL
LPL
ERLL
PPC
ERPPC
SRM
My eyeballs when I use heat vision

Counters to ECM

Tag
PPC
Death
ECM- Disrupt

Weapons ECM counters despite application of counter ECM measures

(Someitmes a few of teh counters dont work, or require aiming skills/certain distances to apply them. So I will add "ineptitude".)

- Inept usage of counter measures available.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Now im no BT expert (not much for star based novels with giant alien birds), so you will have to excuse me if my results are partial/incorrect... but I think I got it about right.

Did I miss anything?

Provided the list is right, I think we can constructively discuss how wonderful/or terrible ECM is now.

So.... What do you think?

XD

(Updated for DocBach)

Doc, I was trying to go based on mechanics. If you dont want to type to your team to get intel, and wish to solely rely on in game data feed, that is your folly.

Note: Unless someone explains otherwise how do modules come into play??

What is IFF... seriously break it down for us non BT'ers.

I feel ECM is an out of control over inflated monstrosity of a game feature.This opinion I gathered after exstencive play testing with ECM,observations of ECM in gameplay and educated theorycraft on the far reaching effects of ECM as it is currently implimented.

My biggest concerns on the ECM issue is how ECM manages to influence nearly every aspect of how mechwarrior online is played.

Mech selection is effected by ECM.Since ECM is chassis specific ECM use is limited to ECM equipable chassis.ECM is a desireable feature thus these ECM mechs become desireable chassis based more on ECM than chosen playstyle/Aesthetics/hardpoints/weight class etc.ECM limits player choice to some degree due to this feature.

Weapon loadouts are effected by ECM.Since ECM hard counters LRM and Streaks ECM influences the decision to use these weapons.PPCs and TAG counter ECM so these items are influenced by ECM use.
Not only is the choice of chassis effected by ECM but now what I put into the chassis is also effected by ECM.

Tactical deployments and target selections are influenced by ECM.When manuvering one must be concerned about friendly ECM (are you covered) and hostile ECM (am I effected).When selecting targets one must be mindful of ECM do I prioritize ECM equiped mechs? If I have LRMs I must ignore uncountered ECM.
So not only does ECM influence what mech I pilot and what loadout I put in it ECM also effects how/where I pilot it and who/what I should shoot at.

Strategic choices are impacted by ECM as well.When assembling a competitive 8 man team ECM is a front running concern.Do we have enough ECM?Do we have the means to counter enemy ECM use? Once we deploy how do we manuver to maximize our ECM or minimize enemy ECM?
So now ECM influences what mechs to use,what items to equip on those mechs,how to manuver with those mechs,and what to shoot at with those mechs but also the overall technique by which you execute all of the above is influenced by ECM.

This leads to a handful of competive group builds using a handful of competive mech designs executing a handful of ECM influenced strategies...BORING!


ECM infuences way to much to healthy for the game.

[KuruptU4Fun]

OK, let me make this explanation as simple as possible, because I've made it before and been able to keep it short and sweet.

Odds are there will be no more hard counters to ECM (other that ECCM), though the list of soft counters is growing. I'd bet the last one will be when they implement collisions. Balance in a game is not made by creating a hard counter to another hard product, that minimizes options and tactics. This game (and every other successful MMO) is looking to achieve "imperfect balance" to make some longevity and enjoyment to the game.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 24 February 2013 - 04:56 PM.

[SlXSlXSlX]

Strum Wealh, on 24 February 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

I haven't been able to play recently (as find myself in need of a new a new computer, and am currently using a netbook for my computing needs ), So I've decided to keep myself involved (and, I admit, amused ) by being more active on the forum.

To answer the question: I would say that LRMs (generally not boated) were used with some regularity.
So, I wouldn't say "a lot" (over the course of my personal experience with the MW series, my favorite weapons have long been PPCs ), but their use is not alien to me and I would have no qualms about using them where and when it feels useful to do so.

(I'm also one of those strange people that equipped all of the electronics (yes, even the "Advanced Gyro") on all of the 'Mechs in MW4, and equipped each 'Mech in MW3 with twin AMS, BAP, ECM, CASE, a Targeting Computer, and a full (or nearly so) complement of armor. So, make of that what you will... )

Ive never played another mech title, so I do not know what to make of that. Company of heros was good, so was command and conquer generals.... but im not sure that is relevant.

Lets talk turkey.

Do you think ECM is game breaking?

Do you want this game to be primarily a LRM fest?

Why dont you get a new PC?

Do you consider people that rely solely on long range weapons to be campers, or pro?

_____________________________________________

@lykaon:

My ducl ac5, dual uac5 phract 4x did not req'r consideration of ecm, when it was built.

Also, it seems you assert not being able to engage everything, and everyone you want, when you want, with LRMs is a bad thing. Is this your position?

_____________________________________________

@Kurupt

Does a stalker with 100 LRMs limit the tactical options of a pub player?

Does a 4 man of splat cats limit the tactical options/build options of a pub player?

You assert that popular MMOs have perfect imbalance. It seems since ECM introduction, and much later and recently ELO introduction, the games popularity has grown. Does this defeat your argument?

Edited by SlXSlXSlX, 24 February 2013 - 05:03 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

SlXSlXSlX, on 24 February 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Do you think ECM is game breaking?

Personally (and perhaps paradoxically), I would say that ECM in its current state can indeed be a "game-breaker", with the caveats that I.) this is not an inherently bad thing, and II.) it is not in and of itself inherently "broken".
That is, the installation of ECM in the current can and does substantially increase the effectiveness of certain 'Mechs and loadouts beyond what some might expect (e.g. the classic example of an ECM-equipped Light 'Mech being able to engage and destroy an Assault 'Mech of 3-4 times its mass).
However, being truly "broken" would, IMO, imply that 1.) the difference in capability is necessarily and wholly insurmountable, 2.) this is not an intentional state of affairs, and 3.) the current environment represents the feature-complete state of MWO.

Point (1) is demonstrably not the case - ECM-equipped 'Mechs (if and when played intelligently) may be more difficult to destroy under certain conditions (such as long-range bombardment) than an otherwise-identical non-ECM-equipped 'Mech, but ECM in and of itself does not confer actual invincibility (except in extreme conditions - such as if/when all of one's opponents are armed solely with Streak missile launchers and absolutely nothing else).

Point (2) is, IMO, arguable - I would be unsurprised if implementing ECM as it is at the point in time at which it was implemented was at least in part a response to the catcalls and outcry (mainly through November and December 2012) of MWO being "LRMWarrior Online" (I invite you to run a search with the specific string, site:mwomercs.com "lrmwarrior online", and have a look at some of it).
However, between considering the amount of work it must have taken to code all of the interactions and effects, as well as the outline of (rather extensive) sensor and detection capabilities (including multiple sensor modes, UAV platforms, and a description of "detectors" that seems to allude to the ability to equip remote sensor dispensors) featured in Dev Blog 02, I would actually be surprised if the current ECM implementation isn't reflective of how PGI hadn't always intended for it to be.

Point (3) follows from point (2). That is, ECM seems to be but one piece - an important and perhaps even central piece, but a single piece nonetheless - of a far more extensive information warfare system than has been featured in the previous MechWarrior games (at least, from MW2 forward).
In this, I refer again to Dev Blog 02, Ask the Devs 17 (in which it is stated that there exist plans for the implementation for special munitions), an my response in another thread that touch on my views on where (I hope) information warfare in MWO is ultimately going: to a state where "information warfare" is complex and involved, to the point of being very-nearly a complete game unto itself, and certainly to being far more than "equip these modules and turn off your radar".
And I suspect (and, dare I say, believe) that ECM-as-is, for all the teeth-gnashing it is causing right now, is one of the centerpieces of that "extensive InfoWar system" scenario.

SlXSlXSlX, on 24 February 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Do you want this game to be primarily a LRM fest?

As noted above, there was a period during the latter portion of the previous year where it was widely considered to be exactly that.
To answer the question, my personal preference (as "wishy-washy" as I know it will sound) would be to see MWO, once it reaches "completeness", have a place for both the long-range and close-range playstyles (among others), as well as to present situations where one would/should be clearly preferable to the other. As such, I suppose I would prefer that MWO not "be primarily a LRM fest"... outside of certain maps and game modes that might intentionally encourage such a strategy.

SlXSlXSlX, on 24 February 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Why dont you get a new PC?

Because I would rather not just go out and buy a computer unless and until 1.) I can affort to buy one where (barring something utterly revolutionary, like the emergence of affordable consumer-grade quantum computers ) I won't have to replace or upgrade it or any of its constituent components for a period of at least 5 years, and 2.) I can do so and not feel as though I am being fiscally irresponsible.

SlXSlXSlX, on 24 February 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Do you consider people that rely solely on long range weapons to be campers, or pro?

The most honest I feel I can give (as much as I know it's going to sound like a cop-out, at least initially) is "neither".

To the best of my knowledge, there are no large-and-organized for-cash (to the point that one could potentially earn a significant portion of their living expenses through participation) Mechwarrior tournament circuits in the same way that such circuits exist for, say, League of Legends or Super Smash Brothers or StarCraft or Quake. Thus, arguably, there is no such thing as a "pro" MechWarrior player.

Being a "camper" necessitates remaining relatively stationary, but does not necessitate being at long range.
As an example, someone who sits behind a spawn point at close range and kills opponents as they respawn is still a camper, regardless of the range.
By contrast, someone who fights from only long range but does not remain in one location (or a relatively limited area) - for example, by engaging in a kilometer-radius dircle of death (if the terrain permits it) or leading a slower target armed for "brawling" on a chase while picking away at them from range with lighter ACs - isn't camping.
Nor, frankly, is being a "camper" always and necessarily a bad thing - a sniper tasked with picking off targets as they come along a certain path, and who establishes their "sniper nest" a kilometer away with a clear LOS to a chokepoint on that path is arguably camping - but not doing so in a way that is necessarily outside of the boundries of what might generally be considered "fair play" (unlike the back-stabber in the above example).

In a game like MechWarrior, where shorter-ranged weapons can have advantages in terms of weight (allowing more of them to be equipped, or for the savings to be devoted to other purposes such as speed or armor increases) and/or recycle time and/or per-salvo damage (AC/20 vs AC/2, or even AC/20 vs Gauss Rifle) and/or other factors, relying solely on long-range weapons when one cannot guarantee that one will always (or nearly so) be able to use those weapons at range (especially with a factor like MWO's randomized map system in place) is (and, IMO, should be) a risky proposition.
Likewise, relying solely on short- or medium-range weapons when one cannot guarantee that one will always (or nearly so) be able to close with a target without being picked-offed by long-range fire is (and, again, should be) also a risky proposition.


Your thoughts?