189 replies to this topic

[SlXSlXSlX]

Ok. Wow. Well for one strum, you have my respect. This is well written, thought out, and I truely appreciate the time you took to put this together.

Pt. 1 Sounds like youd prefer ecm broken into a few modules, and I can appreciate that. Perhaps the anti lrm part as one, and the info blocking as another. I bet that breaks canon though, which is far beyond me. Are you saying ot get it right they have to break canon, or are you saying something that is ging over my head. Sorry. I feel a little ill equipped when conversing with you, as it is very apparent you know alot more about this stuff that I. I mostly speak from personal in game exp, and vids ive seen of LRM boaters successes.

Pt. 2, I joined during that lrm spam stage, and for 2 days I said I lveo this garage stuff, but get erased by missles every match. Its no fun. For me, ECM was the saving grace that stopped me from walking away the first week I played mwo. I hope that gives you some perspective on where I am coming from.

Pt. 3, if and when you get a new pc, get a desktop, they are way easier and cheaper to upgrade after the purchase. I hope you get one, you deserve to play and enjoy this.

Pt. 4, I totally agree, you can camp spawns, and you can run and gun from afar w the right weapon types, so in sum on pt. 4, I completely agree with you. I feel alot of lrm boaters in this game want to play as campers, though this is just my opinion. Videos I have seen, tend to involve stationary mechs, w lots of lrms, getting huge scores.

[Doc Holliday]

It's not hard to figure out if ECM is overpowered.

If you have two crit slots and 1.5 tons available and ECM is an option, what might you possibly take instead of ECM?

Here is a list containing the possible answers to the question:

[Shadowsword8]

SlXSlXSlX, on 24 February 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

Pt. 1 Sounds like youd prefer ecm broken into a few modules, and I can appreciate that. Perhaps the anti lrm part as one, and the info blocking as another. I bet that breaks canon though, which is far beyond me. Are you saying ot get it right they have to break canon, or are you saying something that is ging over my head.

ECM, as currently implemented in-game, is a mix of 3 TT modules:

- Guardian ECM
- Angel ECM
- Null-signature system

"Game Rules
The null signature system features heat baffles that mask the 'Mech's heat sinks and reduce its infrared signature. However, the baffles restrict the normal venting of heat, meaning the 'Mech generates an additional 10 points of heat while the system is active. The null signature system also incorporates a phased-array sensor system and a sheathed directional communication beacon. Therefore, a 'Mech with this system may not mount any special Targeting and Tracking Systems (including Targeting Computers, C3 equipment, and C3i equipment) or a Satellite Uplink system.
The null signature system does not weigh a significant amount, but does take up one critical slot in each of the BattleMech'***** locations except for the head, for a total of seven critical slots. A critical hit to any of these slots will disable the entire system."

source: http://www.sarna.net...ignature_System


The Guardian ECM Suite was introduced in 2597 by the Terran Hegemony^[1]. Designed to interfere with guided weaponry, targeting computers, and communication systems, the Guardian is typically used to shield allied units from such equipment by emitting a broad-band signal meant to confuse radar, infrared, ultraviolet, magscan and sonar sensors.^[2] Affected systems include Artemis IV, C3 and C3i Computer networks, and Narc Missile Beacons. A Guardian can jam a Beagle Active Probe (or its Clan equivalent), but the probe-equipped unit will be aware of the jamming. The Capellan Confederation expanded the utility of the Guardian even more with the introduction of Stealth Armor.^[3]
The greatest drawback to the Guardian is its limited range, which extends out to only 180 meters.
...
The Inner Sphere Guardian ECM weighs 1.5 tons and takes up 2 critical spaces."

source: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Guardian_ECM


"Game Rules
The Angel ECM Suite represents a great advance in ECM technology from the standard Guardian model. Within its 6 hex radius of effect, the Angel suite completely blocks the following systems on enemy units: Artemis IV, Artemis V, Beagle Active Probes, Bloodhound Active Probes and their Clan equivalents, C3 Master Computers and C3 Slaves, Streak Missile Launchers and Narc missile beacons. Streak missiles may be fired at units affected by the device, but they function as standard missiles.
When using ECCM rules, the Angel ECM Suite counts as two ECM/ECCM units (depending on how it is set) for the purposes of determining the ratio of ECM to ECCM in a given area."

source: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Angel_ECM



As we can see, PGI dropped the ball with twice:

- The first time with the fitting requirements: ECM should take up 9 critical slots, weight 1.5 tons, go down as soon as the mech lose a limb, and generate while active the same heat as a contantly firing PPC.

- The second time by allowing some mechs to have all three systems at the same time. I never player TT, but I doubt Angel and guardian ECM were allowed in the same mech.

[Doc Holliday]

[redacted]

Everything else, you're dead wrong about. I don't know anyone who runs an ECM-capable mech without ECM, and neither do you. I'm certainly not trolling (though I'm not surprised you don't understand that, or why) and I'd say you're trolling here, but I'm pretty sure you're not capable of it.

As for what mechs I ran (back before I quit until they fix ECM), I used mostly brawlers. LRMs bore me. Then I got a couple ECM mechs (the Cicada and the Commando) and was promptly disgusted at how overpowered they were. I quit soon after because of it. I'll be back once they balance ECM. In the meantime, I am boycotting because something this broken doesn't deserve anyone's time.

Edited by miSs, 25 February 2013 - 12:38 PM.
responding to deleted content

[SlXSlXSlX]

Seriously spent on this issue for now.

Nerf it mb, if so not so much, lrm spam is bad enough today, god we dont wanna go back to lrm online...

I know thats what you anti-ecm guys (mostly) want.

Doc Holliday, on 24 February 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

[redacted]

Everything else, you're dead wrong about. I don't know anyone who runs an ECM-capable mech without ECM, and neither do you. I'm certainly not trolling (though I'm not surprised you don't understand that, or why) and I'd say you're trolling here, but I'm pretty sure you're not capable of it.

As for what mechs I ran (back before I quit until they fix ECM), I used mostly brawlers. LRMs bore me. Then I got a couple ECM mechs (the Cicada and the Commando) and was promptly disgusted at how overpowered they were. I quit soon after because of it. I'll be back once they balance ECM. In the meantime, I am boycotting because something this broken doesn't deserve anyone's time.

LOL, ok doc. The change X or I quit argument is always so well respected and successful.. I hope your LRM boat rusts and you fall in love with hawken.

[Para B]

SlXSlXSlX, on 24 February 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

ECM, is for noobs.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[SlXSlXSlX]

Para B, on 24 February 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

Obvious troll is obvious.

You guys are so far gone, saturated with the ecm has ruined my game koolaid. Anti-ECM'ers, theres are lasers, ballistics, and short range missles. You ought try them out sometime.

[Fiachdubh]

They actually let you use that name? I am curious to see if they will do anything about it, not that it bothers me or anything, just curious.

Also I disagree entirely with your post.

[Skoll Lokeson]

DocBach, on 23 February 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

[...] MWO has it backwards.

Yes. If the other Advanced Electronics were worth countering the ECM would be worth 2t just to counter them (as it's supposed to IMO). That way we could have some not so dumbed down Electronic Warfare with some actual skill and tactical depth involved (on both sides).

For me ECM is like Rivercity Night (or a bug). It restricts how I play the game, but without adding any real depth, skill based challenge or fun. It's just an obstacle to be worked around. Personally I counter it in the Mechlab. Which to me, just proves how poorly the ECM works as a game mechanic for a multiplayer game.

Sorry for the rant. Just not a big fan of the MWO deus ex machina ECM.

[Zydroks]

If ECM is balanced make it available for all mech's.

[Fiachdubh]

Zydroks, on 25 February 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

If ECM is balanced make it available for all mech's.

In the canon only certain mechs are able to take ECM. This gives a useful role to some mechs that otherwise would be pointless. That is not to say that PGI should always stick rigidly to canon because it is not always appropriate but I think in this case ECM and in the future other relevent equipment should be confined to specific chassis to make them more useful.
The whole point of the Raven was that it was built around ECM and BAP, it is its reason for existing.

Edited by miSs, 25 February 2013 - 09:58 AM.
quote clean-up

[SlXSlXSlX]

Zydroks, on 25 February 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

If ECM is balanced make it available for all mech's.

Not a bad idea. I still wont use it though. Once you can work around it, you can work around it, or a lack of carrying it, by comparison.

Nice thing, i see a DDC with ECM, I can pretty much guarantee he cant out DPS me, I have two more DHS than him, or he has less weapons, or armor.. you dig?

Tends to compel me to engage, like im some giant walking tank, usually causes me to smile.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 25 February 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

I can tell by your typing errors which you don't fix, that you are sitting at your computer and your heart is thumping a billion times a second because you think you are being so cool by making this thread.

But just as a heads up, I've reported a few of your posts for the trolling. I'm hoping the mods just close this joke of a thread, because you really do not seem capable of properly debating your stances on ECM.

Grow up and stop insulting people when you can't make a proper counter-point.

You can tell by my typing errs im tabbed out as my match loads usually, trying to fit 3 mins of typing into a 60 second window. Glad youve reported my posts, were you a hall monitor in HS too? That they have not shut them down, says perhaps it is you, who is the troll.

Your post did amount to a personal attack, and wholly lacked in substantive arguments after all.

[MaddMaxx]

How's about this. Any Mech carrying ECM cannot fire its missiles, Streaks (Srm's are immune and Lrm's have a min.) at any target, inside of its 180m bubble.

Sort of a "reverse" of how ECM prevents others from firing into the bubble except within the stated (recently increased due to modules) "band" of target-able space.

So, in essence, give the ECM a 90m "band" or window, for "outgoing" launch functionality for the Streak+ECM carries.

Would cut down on the Streakers rushing in, unloading and rushing back out like they do. Make it more a "circle into range", fire and then run off. LOL

Edited by MaddMaxx, 25 February 2013 - 09:34 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Shadowsword8, on 24 February 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

ECM, as currently implemented in-game, is a mix of 3 TT modules:

- Guardian ECM
- Angel ECM
- Null-signature system

"Game Rules
The null signature system features heat baffles that mask the 'Mech's heat sinks and reduce its infrared signature. However, the baffles restrict the normal venting of heat, meaning the 'Mech generates an additional 10 points of heat while the system is active. The null signature system also incorporates a phased-array sensor system and a sheathed directional communication beacon. Therefore, a 'Mech with this system may not mount any special Targeting and Tracking Systems (including Targeting Computers, C3 equipment, and C3i equipment) or a Satellite Uplink system.
The null signature system does not weigh a significant amount, but does take up one critical slot in each of the BattleMech'***** locations except for the head, for a total of seven critical slots. A critical hit to any of these slots will disable the entire system."

source: http://www.sarna.net...ignature_System


The Guardian ECM Suite was introduced in 2597 by the Terran Hegemony^[1]. Designed to interfere with guided weaponry, targeting computers, and communication systems, the Guardian is typically used to shield allied units from such equipment by emitting a broad-band signal meant to confuse radar, infrared, ultraviolet, magscan and sonar sensors.^[2] Affected systems include Artemis IV, C3 and C3i Computer networks, and Narc Missile Beacons. A Guardian can jam a Beagle Active Probe (or its Clan equivalent), but the probe-equipped unit will be aware of the jamming. The Capellan Confederation expanded the utility of the Guardian even more with the introduction of Stealth Armor.^[3]
The greatest drawback to the Guardian is its limited range, which extends out to only 180 meters.
...
The Inner Sphere Guardian ECM weighs 1.5 tons and takes up 2 critical spaces."

source: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Guardian_ECM


"Game Rules
The Angel ECM Suite represents a great advance in ECM technology from the standard Guardian model. Within its 6 hex radius of effect, the Angel suite completely blocks the following systems on enemy units: Artemis IV, Artemis V, Beagle Active Probes, Bloodhound Active Probes and their Clan equivalents, C3 Master Computers and C3 Slaves, Streak Missile Launchers and Narc missile beacons. Streak missiles may be fired at units affected by the device, but they function as standard missiles.
When using ECCM rules, the Angel ECM Suite counts as two ECM/ECCM units (depending on how it is set) for the purposes of determining the ratio of ECM to ECCM in a given area."

source: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Angel_ECM

False - MWO's implementation of Guardian ECM does not incorporate any of the unique characteristics of either the canonical Null Signature System or the canonical Angel ECM Suite.
My previous posts in this very thread (see here and here) already explained this, in substantial detail.

Shadowsword8, on 24 February 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

As we can see, PGI dropped the ball with twice:

- The first time with the fitting requirements: ECM should take up 9 critical slots, weight 1.5 tons, go down as soon as the mech lose a limb, and generate while active the same heat as a contantly firing PPC.

- The second time by allowing some mechs to have all three systems at the same time. I never player TT, but I doubt Angel and guardian ECM were allowed in the same mech.

The first point describes elements that would be more characteristic of NullSig or VoidSig than of ECM (which we already know ECM is not).
Additionally, we can be rather sure that the Devs are not going to change the weights or volumes (critical space requirements) of any items, as this would adversely affect the canon loadouts being used as Trial 'Mechs and time-of-purchase builds.

The second point is based on an inherently (and demonstratably) false premise (namely, that MWO's ECM suite incorporates any non-shared elements of either NullSig or Angel) - and is thus, itself, false.

[Rakashan]

SlX, there are a couple of camps in the anti-ECM discussion and I'm not sure one of them is being well represented here (although I have seen hints about it).

My problems with ECM have to do with its cost and ease of use. I don't mind driving against a mech that uses ECM but I mind that it costs so little to use for what it does. The list of weapons and systems (including inherent systems like IFF) which are countered by ECM is large. Compare it to other systems like AMS which affect a much smaller list and are also less effective as a counter for the same weight and space. Compare it to TAG which requires that you maintain LoS (allowing return fire), have a visual cue to incite return fire and require maintaining a target lock the whole time as well while ECM is simply mounted on a mech and forgotten.

The counters to ECM (aside from ECM itself) are all as expensive or more expensive than ECM in terms of finite resources like weight and space (12,500 GXP for Advanced Sensors just to expand the target range by 50m which then eats a module slot?) and require more skill and risk to use (LoS must be maintained). The meta is going to heck because ECM is a no-brainer. People have to justify why they don't have ECM on a chassis if it could possibly mount it, not the other way around. There are people who refuse to use it, but they are the exception, not the norm.

THAT is my problem with ECM. I wouldn't mind playing against mechs with the same list of defenses if it was taking up all their Module slots. If they had spent 20,000 gxp to unlock it. If there was any reason at all to even consider not mounting it.

Compare to AMS. I use AMS on some mechs but not on every chassis that can mount it. It's situational and I make decisions based on mech performance (e.g. would a heatsink be more use) and role. ECM does not get that consideration. It is either mounted or detested as a cheesy crutch.

[Tetrabor]

How to fix ECM, Ravens, and Pretty Babys:

Bring back Tripping.

Bad ECM Raven pilots trip over big mechs then get shot up on the ground. Centurions and Pretty Baby get a new role of running over lights. Everyone is happy.

Edited by Tetrabor, 25 February 2013 - 01:42 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Merchant, on 24 February 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

@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.

The rules in additional rules in TacOps are indeed optional... in TT.
For better or worse (moreso the former, IMO), the Devs have exercised the option of incorporating those aspects into MWO.

And, as with many video games, the "consent" argument for the players boils down to 1.) agreeing and adhering to the TOS, and 2.) choosing whether or not to be involved in the game and its attendant "community".

To continue the TT analogy: MWO is the game on the table and the Devs are the GMs, and they insist on using the advanced rules (to the point of it being non-negotiable - "This isn't a democracy", one might say). As a player, choosing to play at their table would necessarily mean consenting to play it their way (that is, under the advanced rules), whereas not consenting would generally mean not playing at their table.
Of course, there are the other tables (MW2, MW3, MW4, and MWLL), but they're all looking kinda barren and have their own rules that they will likewise insist (to the point of non-negotiability - again, "This isn't a democracy.") be followed (e.g. MWLL's lack of a MechLab equating to "GM-prebuilt 'Mechs only - no exceptions", or the prohibitions against targeting an opponent's legs practiced by some MW3 player groups).

Whether you or I or any other player agrees with it or not (and to what degree(s)) is something that we're free to argue back and forth until we're blue-in-the-face, and whether the GMs (Devs) elect to accede to any player-made requests (or elect not to do so, should that be the case) is their perogative, and theirs alone.
Our choice as players is to ultimately either 1.) "go with the flow" or 2.) "go somewhere else".

It's not an issue of "Basic Game Design 101" dictating that every option under the sun should be available - in fact, some might even argue that the truth is actually quite the opposite.

Quote

The magic circle is the term for the contract between game designer and player. It is the suspension of disbelief on behalf of the player to engage with the crafted experience from the designer. The rules and boundaries accepted to play the game is the magic circle. Board games have literal boundaries. On the Monopoly board you are forever going around in circles regardless of how much property or money you gain. There is no world outside the play spaces on the rim of the board. The chessboard is 64 squares and nothing beyond that. Likewise in Monopoly you can only move as far as the die roll says you can, no more no less and only during your turn. In Chess a bishop must stay on his own colored squares and can only move in direct diagonal paths for as long as it can uninterrupted. Why? Because the game’s rules say so and for no other reason. Is there anything physical from stopping the player from moving their piece one extra space to stop from paying rent, or having the bishop jump over another piece like a Knight. No. All there is are the rules and the understanding to play the game you have to follow those rules and stay within the boundaries.

With video games, the rules and boundaries are very much enforceable and unbreakable within the game itself. The code enforces what you can and cannot do, where you can and cannot go. Yes cheat codes can get around them, but they were also programmed in.

What you're touching on is more of an issue of "player entitlement vs GM/Dev prerogative" - and the latter will always trump the former with regard to game design and gameplay decisions (even in those cases where they more-or-less agree).
That's not to say that they are (necessarily) indifferent or tyrannical - it's just that, when all is said or done, the opinions and desires of the GMs/Devs have a more significant and more tangible effect on the evolution of the game than that of any player, or even of the whole player base.

Which, finally, brings us back to ECM:
If it changes, it is because the Devs have decided that they want it changed in the manner in which it has changed.
If it does not change, it is because the Devs have decided that they do not want it to be changed.
Our choice as players is, "Do we disagree strongly enough with the current ECM implementation not to play this game, as it is? And do we care enough to lobby for "reasonable" change(s) to the ECM implementation, even if there is uncertainty as to whether said change(s) might ever happen?"

Merchant, on 24 February 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

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.

What might that "plausable explanation" be?

As previously noted, it wouldn't make sense for the lighter ACs' shells (described in the fluff as typically being on the order of 30-90mm) to need an arming distance when the larger ACs' shells - carrying a far larger and more powerful explosive charge - do not.
And Gauss Rifle slugs are solid, melon-sized chunks of nickel-ferrous alloy - they have no explosive charges to arm.

Nor is the barrel of an AC/2 (a 6-ton weapon) so long or so heavy that it should have significant trouble with targeting a nearby (within 120 meters [4 hexes]) opponent - especially when the heavier Large Pulse Laser (a 7-ton weapon), ER-PPC (another 7-ton weapon), and RAC/2 (an 8-ton weapon) have no issue doing so, and doubly so when the 15-ton Gauss Rifle doesn't experience the same issues until an opponent is within 60 meters [2 hexes].

So, it's not an actuation/"bring the gun to bear" issue, nor is it an arming distance issue, nor is it an issue of barrel length and "getting under their guns"...

As a side note:

• LRMs have gameplay rules for negating their minimum range (explicitly stated to be an arming distance - "The minimum range of LRMs and ATMs in the standard rules reflects the time it takes for the internal guidance systems to lock on to targets and for the explosive payloads to arm.") through "hot-loading" (Tactical Operations, pg. 102).
  
• PPCs have gameplay rules for negating their minimum range (explicitly attributed to components called "field inhibitors" - "The field inhibitors restrict the dangerous charged-particle feedback produced when a PPC is fired, but also prevent the weapon from firing accurately at targets closer than minimum range.") through disengaging the field inhibitors (Tactical Operations, pg. 103).
  
• Artillery weapons are technically capable of ignoring their minimum range requirements by making a "Point-Blank Attack", which includes stringent limits on what shell types can be used and when it can be done (Tactical Operations, pg. 185).

Autocannons and Gauss weapons do not have analogous rules in TacOps.

[Doc Holliday]

Strum Wealh, on 25 February 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

Snip

Quite right. And as a result, I have exercised my option to walk away from their "table" until such time as they use their prerogative to change the rules to a state I find acceptable. If they choose not to, my absence from their table will most likely become permanent.

[SlXSlXSlX]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Quite right. And as a result, I have exercised my option to walk away from their "table" until such time as they use their prerogative to change the rules to a state I find acceptable. If they choose not to, my absence from their table will most likely become permanent.

Doc, why are you still here. You know, every time someone says fix X or I quit, or I wont play till X changes, everyone disregards the rest of their posting, and labels them a..... "poor sport" right?

I hope you come back, I wanna get my DDC sans ECM, and show you what an extra 2 DHS's can do.. KA BOOM!

[Doc Holliday]

SlXSlXSlX, on 25 February 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

Doc, why are you still here. You know, every time someone says fix X or I quit, or I wont play till X changes, everyone disregards the rest of their posting, and labels them a..... "poor sport" right?

I hope you come back, I wanna get my DDC sans ECM, and show you what an extra 2 DHS's can do.. KA BOOM!

Your trolls just keep getting more and more pathetic.