163 replies to this topic

[ICEFANG13]

General Taskeen, on 09 May 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

Never!

General "William Wallace" Taskeen - I am General "William Wallace" Taskeen. And, I see a whole army of my fellow player's, here in defiance of tyranny. You've come to voice our opinions as freemen, and freemen you are. What will you do without freedom?! Will you voice your opinion? Will you fight?

Player - No... we will give up... and we submit to PGI.

General "William Wallace" Taskeen - Aye. Voice your opinion and you may die. Give up and you'll have a little fun, at least a while. And, dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days of beta from this day to that for one chance -- just one chance -- to come back here and tell the Devs, that they may take our fun away, but they'll never take our freedom!

[Trauglodyte]

I don't really get the big hate on ECM. I'm not a fan of it but I understand why it works the way it does, even in contrast to TT, and why PGI is running it the way they are. I don't like the pure anti-lock on missiles but I get it: Not sure that an F-15E Strike Eagle is going to do so well locking on a EA-18G Growler (Hornet ECM variant). Granted, the F-15E has the option of using infrared missiles (advanced Sidewinder) which isn't an option that we have in game. The point is that active radar that gets countered with electronic warfare isn't going to catch a lock.

I would have preferred that ECM act as a debuff as opposed to a hard counter. The problem with that, though, is that I don't know that PGI has the coding to do it right. Say, for example, that ECM causes an additional 3s on locks. That's fine for the innitial lock and fire but what about susequent volleys? Because you're not within the bubble, you're not really affected by ECM (ie, you don't get the "low signal" debuff) which means that the 3s added to lock would mean nothing as long as you were able to maintain lock. And you can't force LRMs and Streaks to relock after each volley because it could be 8s or more between firing and missiles landing or as short as 1s depending on the range. As LRMs and Streaks utilize the same lock coding, you'd nerf one and destroy the other.

What we have isn't canon but canon didn't actually make sense based on actual real life combat systems.

[Gremlich Johns]

PGI also does not understand electromagnetic interference (EMI). Since the IS has basically the same technology level, the radar and ECM all function on the same frequencies. Ergo, when an ECM mech has its suite turned on to "disrupt", EVERYBODY within the effective radius is affected - EVERYBODY, not just the opposition. The BT writers ALSO did not do their research or try to understand EMI. None of the ECM mech's friendlies have hardening to my knowledge and so should have the same limitations as the intended opponents. BAP? Whole other issue - it permits more rapid targeting for both the carrying mech AND the opposing mechs.

One other thing, the ECM Spider does not show until much later in the timeline (during Jihad as the -7Kr). Like we need more ECM shileding everybody on one side.

[AC]

CancR, on 28 March 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

It's really simple. We are sick of ECm being a Frankenstein of all the ecm suites, which, surprise, surprise, is broken.

If you want to have ecm be all the ecms, then also make it the 4.5 tons, requiring a command console, and taking up 4x the slots.

Guardian ECM should only
-Increase lock on time for missiles
-Decrease range where you can detect mechs
-In air missiles lose lock at random intervals (Which can be negated by target decay)
TAKE OUT
-Null Sig
-no missile locks

ECM was a OP solution to an OP problem, and now its time to start rolling back mistakes and actually start balancing the game in a sustainable way.

PGI to too proud to admit their mistakes. We will have to live with ECM OP forever most likely....

[Lykaon]

John MatriX82, on 28 March 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

I do agree, ecm should go away from what is now, and be only passive, denying lock on or radar detection up to a certain range, to be an alternative to AMS and to allow undetected infiltration to enemy lines.

I have to say I disagree with both of these statements.

First ECM should never have been a alternative to AMS.Why would you ever use 1.5 tons and 2 criticals for AMS when ECM simply prevents the missiles from locking in the first place.No one in their right mind would choose the ammo dependent AMS (that also adds explosive ammo to your worries) over and infinate anti lock device that can be placed anywhere where AMS must be allocated to a designated hardpoint.
ECM is not an alternative it's what made AMS exstinct.

Secondly,ECM is in no way shape or form subtle or stealthy.ECM should not allow anything to infiltrate anywhere.In principle ECM functions by being "louder" than everything else.An ECM functions by emmiting a massive amount of "noise" that is so loud other systems reliant on transmittions will be hampered in function.
Think of it like this,two people are talking when all of a sudden some dude with a megaphone starts shouting in their direction.The coversation becomes quite difficult and I am pretty sure they know exactally where the jerk with the megaphone is comming from.


The core issue with ECM is ECM was introduced as countermeasure for support electronics like BAP,Artemis and NARC.This is the functionality of ECM in the source material.

What happened over here in MWo was ECM was introduced before we had any potency in our support electronics so ECM was granted super powers to compensate for a lack of functionality due to under featured support electronics.

Who really ever thought OMG we need to counter act the enemy BAP or NARC? Nobody! BAP and NARC were hollow shadows of functionality when ECM was added and honestly they have remained such.Nearly useless and under utilized.

Now if we had some functionality to BAP and NARC that merited concern and thus a desire to bring a countermeasure we could have a useful and desireable ECM without all the malarky superpowers ECM has now.

[Odins Fist]

CancR, on 28 March 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

"We are sick of ECm being a Frankenstein of all the ecm suites, which, surprise, surprise, is broken."

Who the "F" is WE..??? You got a mouse in your pocket or something..???

Get a grip, you are not "WE".

[CancR]

Odins Fist, on 09 May 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Who the "F" is WE..??? You got a mouse in your pocket or something..???

Get a grip, you are not "WE".

I have 89 mice in my pocket.

Edit:91 now.

Edited by CancR, 09 May 2013 - 05:48 PM.

[skullman86]

I would take this over PGI's proposed changes to the system and its future "counters". This makes ECM a lot less of a necessity, it makes the current BAP look a lot less underpowered, and modules will still have uses outside the base stat increases.

Edited by skullman86, 09 May 2013 - 06:24 PM.

[Kaspirikay]

Hi guys what's going on in this thread

[MadcatX]

Eyes. Learn to use them. No, not learn to play, learn to look.

If an Atlas or any other slow-moving mech sneaks up on you... I don't care if it has ECM or not... If neither you or your team was able to literally see an Atlas "stealthy" sneaking up on someone... well, ECM isn't the problem.

There are many things that I'm not a big fan of about ECM, but at the very least it promoted battlefield awareness that required more then a cursory glance of the radar.

[CancR]

we are at 96 likes! Great work ever one WE ARE SO CLOSE!

[DocBach]

MadcatX, on 09 May 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

Eyes. Learn to use them. No, not learn to play, learn to look.

missiles can't hit even if I can see the bad guys, sorry.

[Kaijin]

Odins Fist, on 09 May 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Who the "F" is WE..??? You got a mouse in your pocket or something..???

Get a grip, you are not "WE".

If I had to guess, "WE" are players who enjoy a variety of effective weapon systems in the game, and do not consider different types of crosshairs indicative of the skill required to move a mouse around and click the buttons.

[El Bandito]

I'm sure PGI will cave in...in the unforseeable future.

[Kibble]

all this talk and pgi won't change it. Get over it. No mistakes will be admitted.

[Blanzalot]

FIX ECM, Your game is dying out. We can play other games like WOT or War Thunder, hell even Navy Field 2. I invested cash in this company, please listen to your player base.

[Livewyr]

So far the closest they've gotten to admitting an actual mistake was the change to Coolant flush.

Apparently, not sure about this, but I think PGI is worried that the players will make fun of them and abandon the game if they admit their judgement mistakes....

[Stomp]

Wicksman, on 17 April 2013 - 01:33 AM, said:

It's amazing how few ECM's you see in an average drop considering how overpowered people seem to think it is.

The way its being described here there should be around 14 mechs with ECM in every drop.... But there isnt? Why isnt there?

In fact I've been strolling around in a streakcat for my last few drops and havn't had any real issues avoiding ECM........ People have adapted, move on.

If by adapted you mean give up on LRMs... then yes. People have adapted.

[Kyone Akashi]

ECM shouldn't affect lock-on weapons in any form or shape. It's just not what it does in the original game, and I don't see how changing this made MWO a better game. I think most people would agree that it was more fun before this form of ECM was introduced?

Copying my opinion from the focus thread:


Disable the Mechs under ECM automatically showing up as blips on enemy sensors. Take them out of the targeting rotation so they are not "accidentally" discovered just by cycling through R. Yet make them still targettable if a player holds the crosshair over their physical profile and holds R for a second or two - representing the player manually telling his computer that there's something there and the electronics should do a visual lock. Missile weapons continue to function as normal.

In addition to affecting BAP and Artemis, it should also actively jam sensors and communications with the following effects:

• jam minimap of enemy 'Mechs in jamming range
  
• prevent enemy 'Mechs in jamming range from exchanging sensor data with their team
  
• disable friend/foe identification of enemy 'Mechs in jamming range, having the pilots rely on visual identification

Ironically, the last point is exactly what's being removed with the planned change. I would have vastly preferred the devs addressing concerns regarding teamplay with the following supporting features:

• every few seconds, let the true ID of the 'Mechs show, representing the sensors temporarily overcoming the jamming (can be improved via modules)
  
• the jamming 'Mech has a high chance of being highlighted as such (red "<ECM>" marker), as the sensors manage to track the source of the incoming signal storm, thus allowing jammed opponents to more easily kill the jammer rather than panicking and shooting everybody

I believe that this way, we could actually have an ECM that would be used for scouting and/or sneaking up on the enemy rather than as the offensive weapon-disabling tool it is now. And in this shape, it'd become "just" a role- and tactics-dependent edge rather than something that dominates the battlefield, thus also allowing it to be fielded on any 'Mech should the pilot feel so inclined.

Stomp, on 11 May 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

If by adapted you mean give up on LRMs... then yes. People have adapted.

... or stopping to play non-ECM-Lights.

Though admittedly I've grown to like my CN9-AL.

[CancR]

105 likes! Way to go Mech Warriors!