172 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

Nope, just providing a counter argument with the same rationale as players who insist that ECM is fine.

[Roland]

The op is actually pretty insightful. The issues with ecm do indeed stem from a more systematic problem with the overall sensor model in the game.

Originally, it was kind of neat, but after playing with it for two years, i terms to think that mwo's model is much more shallow than mechwarrior 4's was.

Edited by Roland, 16 January 2014 - 08:31 PM.

[Deathlike]

Roland, on 16 January 2014 - 08:30 PM, said:

The op is actually pretty insightful. The issues with ecm do indeed stem from a more systematic problem with the overall sensor model in the game.

Originally, it was kind of neat, but after playing with it for two years, i terms to think that mwo's model is much more shallow than mechwarrior 4's was.

I'm pretty convinced that ECM is a response to any sort of lurmaggeddon, but the problem was not LRMs, it was always some magic trajectory behavior. Unfortunately, ECM's existence did so much more than just that and then some.

Of course... tutorials... the missing link between people who don't want to have a clue, and people who never knew how powerful ECM still is.

Edited by Deathlike, 16 January 2014 - 09:41 PM.

[Lykaon]

Mystere, on 16 January 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:

Are you telling me that you cannot see mechs at 500m+ and shoot them with energy and ballistic weapons, and unaided by advanced zoom at that?

No,but do not try to tell me that a big red box around a targeted mech is not an advantage for aiming and leading a target.

Do not try and tell me that a lack of passive target ID is not a disadvantage to a side that does not have vs a side with it.

Do not even try to claim that the critical data that accompanies a hard lock is useless.

Ever try to call a focus target on a bearly visable target that is out there somewhere on the horizon as apposed to calling focus on target Alpha.

Is it logical from a game balance perspective to allow a passivley functioning item to 100% negate all LRMs used by the enemy? I mean passivley like it just happens without any thought or action from a player it's just on and presto magic 1.5 ton negates entire mechs and portions of others or if taken from a broader view of game mechanics removes an entire weapon class from effectivness along with the play styles/role that support it.

Back in closed beta (pre ECM) we had this great function for light mechs,These light mechs were spotters for LRM support and were a valuable strategic asset for area denial and suppressive fire.It was not uncommon to find mechs with more mixed builds allowing for more than dedicated LRM boating to be effective.Now? it's Boat or go home and if ECM happens to be prevelent in a match you are dead weight and should have just brought yet another meta build AC/PPC alpha spammer.

ECM in it's present over featured state is damaging to many key ellements of MWo.

Information warfare? no need just stack some ECM and win this aspect of play.

Role Warfare? ECM blatently favors the long range alpha snipefest that I am finding very tedious after months on end.This narrowed meta has reduced startegic/tactical options and role options.

Mech warfare? limited by a continuing trend to refining the alpha spamming meta.Mechs that lack the capacity to play into the meta are becoming rarer and rarer.( I am predicting now that the upcoming tonnage limits on team's overall tonnage will further excelerate the demise of many unpopular mechs 65 tons of missile mech or 65 tons of AC mech? Catapults tossed out Jagers even more popular)

ECM has in my opinion done more to slow develoment in game balance/progress than nearly any other aspect of this game.Gathering metrics is difficult because ECM vastly alters the enviorment the data is derived from.

A match with no ECM = LRM potentency with ECM LRMs are wasted tonnage.This makes LRM data suspect and inconsistant.

A match were all players are unobscured by ECM will be vastly different to a game played with heavy ECM cover on on side but none on the other.What produced the lopsided victory was it one team with tons of a specific mech/weapon system or was it the ECM? no way of knowing the data is corrupted by a major alteration in the enviorment (ECM).

Are you seeing where I'm coming from?

Most of the time when I debate a pro ECM player they never thought about these side effects they generally say something like ACs still work so ...

Never once contemplating possible side effects of ECM use like corrupted metrics that are used by devs to balance game systems.

[Jay Kerensky]

Morsule, on 15 January 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

Why is ECM over powered?

Its OP because the floating Mech Triangle is Over Powered. Without really looking at the environment and looking for a mech all you do is look for triangles. This behavior makes the ECM over powered for any mech with ECM or under the cover of has no floating triangle pointing at it going look what's here! Of course getting sniped a few times by ECM snipers helps to change the behavior.

Changing the triangle would greatly change the impact of ECM - teach players different behavior. How to do this? Removing them completely would probably make sniping extremely over powered. Yet, sniping w/o ECM is not as effective.

Someone else has probably already noted this but did not find it. If so a link o the conversation would be appreciated.

In support for items as mentioned elsewhere hard points need to have slot & tonnage limits. From all I recall of the rpg light mechs - like the spider's arm is not meant to be able to with stand the damage it would withstand every time an ac/2 or higher fired off. Not to mention the weight. Even its torso. There were a few designed like the hunchback to carry ballistic weapons beyond what that weight class would normally support. This should be in the mech design.

Cheers

[Lykaon]

Steel Claws, on 16 January 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

Yeah, the vocal minority have tended at every point to try to inflate what ever they think the issue is and have exagerated numbers slightly.

I don't care if I'm the only person arguing for a rebuild on ECM.Calling your opposition a minority does not invalidate the opinion or the validity of the argument.


As I have said I have yet to debate against a pro ECM poster who even ever considered the full impact of ECM.

Most think ECM is for missile defense and clearly have no clue how to execute information warfare.
The counter argument of MK1 eye balls or Direct fire weapons don't need locks etc is so narrowly focused it smacks of inexperience in strategic and tactical thinking.

Do you know why I have logged nearly 50 hours of all of my matches in an ECM mech? ECM is hands down the most powerful weapon available when used correctly.

To me the LRM shielding is a bonus over the information denial aspects.Yet still I see pro ECM arguments centered on ECM as some sort of Anti Missile System.

ECM is confusion in a can a confused enemy is a divided enemy a divided enemy is a defeated enemy.

There is a reason why my sig. quotes Tsung Su "All warfare is deception" because this is the first step in any victory. Deceive them confuse them defeat them.

I have developed an opinion on ECM based on how succesful I have made it and the ease of doing so.

Edited by Lykaon, 17 January 2014 - 03:29 AM.

[Jay Kerensky]

Lykaon, on 17 January 2014 - 03:26 AM, said:

I don't care if I'm the only person arguing for a rebuild on ECM.Calling your opposition a minority does not invalidate the opinion or the validity of the argument.


As I have said I have yet to debate against a pro ECM poster who even ever considered the full impact of ECM.

Most think ECM is for missile defense and clearly have no clue how to execute information warfare.
The counter argument of MK1 eye balls or Direct fire weapons don't need locks etc is so narrowly focused it smacks of inexperience in strategic and tactical thinking.

Do you know why I have logged nearly 50 hours of all of my matches in an ECM mech? ECM is hands down the most powerful weapon available when used correctly.

To me the LRM shielding is a bonus over the information denial aspects.Yet still I see pro ECM arguments centered on ECM as some sort of Anti Missile System.

ECM is confusion in a can a confused enemy is a divided enemy a divided enemy is a defeated enemy.

There is a reason why my sig. quotes Tsung Su "All warfare is deception" because this is the first step in any victory. Deceive them confuse them defeat them.

I have developed an opinion on ECM based on how succesful I have made it and the ease of doing so.

Yeah! What he said!

[Joseph Mallan]

Mister Blastman, on 15 January 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

Wat?

[Joseph Mallan]

DocBach, on 16 January 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

I would say that the points made against ECM in this thread are pretty well articulated, and in fact the counter arguments of "L2P and use Mk 1 eyeballs" are the ones lacking substance.

The funny part about being me, is I can be in the use Mk I eyeballs camp and still Agree that ECM is in fact OP.

[SpartanFiredog317]

Khobai, on 15 January 2014 - 10:27 PM, said:

I think BAP is just about right for a 1.5 piece of equipment. I mean it really shouldnt be game breaking for 1.5 tons.

ECM really does need a nerf. It needs to be seperated into two systems: ECM and NSS. Null Signature System should be the only way to gain 75% sensor stealth.

So basically:

NSS (can only be equipped by mechs that can use ECM)
-gives you 75% sensor stealth (detected at 200m)
-comes with built-in ECM
-takes up 1 crit in each location on your mech as well as some tonnage
-generates moderate heat when activated

ECM (can only be equipped by mechs that can use ECM)
-negates artemis, narc, tag, bap, etc...
-can switch to counter ecm mode
-doubles lock-on time of missiles (but no longer prevents missiles from locking on completely)
-no longer reduces sensor detection range

BAP (can be equipped by any mech)
-increased sensor range and detailed info speed
-counter ecm mode
-lets you detect shutdown enemy mechs
-lets you deploy upto 2 stationary sensor probes (bap lets you do this in battletech)

Additionally there should be active and passive sensor modes. Active sensor mode would be the same sensor mode we use currently. While passive sensor mode would turn off your active sensors (i.e. no red triangles or red boxes and cant target enemies at all) but also significantly decrease the range you can be detected at (id say 400m would be fair for passive sensor mode). Passive sensor mode would be like ghetto NSS for mechs that cant use NSS/ECM.

In 2 minutes ive balanced information warfare better than PGI could in a year...

.... PGI .... Fire somebody, doesn't matter who, and hire this guy.

[qki]

this again? ECM is hardly the bogeyman it used to be.

[Khobai]

Quote

Nope, just providing a counter argument with the same rationale as players who insist that ECM is fine.

Like I said before. Even if you think ECM is balanced, its still impossible to deny how boring it is to have information warfare revolve already one piece of tech that also happens to be its own best counter. This game deserves better.

Quote

The op is actually pretty insightful. The issues with ecm do indeed stem from a more systematic problem with the overall sensor model in the game.

Originally, it was kind of neat, but after playing with it for two years, i terms to think that mwo's model is much more shallow than mechwarrior 4's was.

It is shallow. Mechwarrior 4 had ECM, BAP, and active/passive sensors... all of which interacted with eachother. MWO just has ECM, which counters everything, and doesnt even have active/passive sensor modes.

MWO: enemy is using...
No ECM = detected at 800m normally, 1000m with BAP or ASM, and 1200m with BAP
ECM = detected at 200m, 250 with ASM

MW4: enemy is using...
No ECM + Active Sensors = detected at 800m and 1200m with BAP
No ECM + Passive Sensors = detected at 500m and 600m with BAP
ECM + Active Sensors = detected at 500m
ECM + Passive Sensors = detected at 500m (passive sensors and ecm didnt stack)

You can see how much more complex the interactions are in MW4. Plus MW4 had equipment like the IFF Jammer which caused chaos, because you couldnt tell if a mech was on your team or the enemy team, unless they fired at you, or you got close enough to see their paint job.

Also MW4 didnt have uber stealth, you could always detect a mech at 500m with active sensors. Thats not to say MWO cant have uber stealth, but it needs to come from NSS, not from ECM.

Edited by Khobai, 17 January 2014 - 05:45 AM.

[Jay Kerensky]

Khobai, on 17 January 2014 - 05:07 AM, said:

Like I said before. Even if you think ECM is balanced, its still impossible to deny how boring it is to have information warfare revolve already one piece of tech that also happens to be its own best counter. This game deserves better.




It is shallow. Mechwarrior 4 had ECM, BAP, and active/passive sensors... all of which interacted with eachother. Where in MWO ECM just counters everything and we dont even have sensor modes.

Yeah f*ck this Sh*t

Do some mech warrior stuff and make this game real MWO.

I've had lots of red wine! That should make PGI do stuff and give em a shot in the butt.

- Actually no it won't. What will happen is this is the only mech warrior game around and I will keep paying through the *** for cr*p gameplay and bull sh*t rules, just so I can stomp around in my mechs and shoot people,

Way to go PGI, you know I am your b*tch. Give it to me hard baby and treat me mean so I keep coming back!

[wanderer]

SpartanFiredog317, on 17 January 2014 - 05:00 AM, said:

.... PGI .... Fire somebody, doesn't matter who, and hire this guy.

Not to mention it, but at this point NSS is extinct (save for a few ComStar relics).

The "invisible man" isn't Battletech- even if you can't hit it, you can still spot it if it's in LOS. And that's the kicker with ECM. Right now, one ECM can conceal two lances of 'Mechs to the point where most people at range would only think "Hey, he sucked dying to two 'Mechs" when in reality, you just experienced an 8v1 and croaked in seconds. We don't need super-stealth ECM. Having it hose the other electronics? Cool with that. Reduce sensor range somewhat? Sure. Blank out entire forces with a single ECM? No.

[Khobai]

Quote

Not to mention it, but at this point NSS is extinct

Angel ECM isnt supposed to exist either, but it does. The precedent for tech existing that shouldnt has already been established.

[wanderer]

Khobai, on 17 January 2014 - 05:46 AM, said:

Angel ECM isnt supposed to exist either, but it does. The precedent for tech existing that shouldnt has already been established.

Nothing at the moment mounts Angel ECM, just overpowered "Guardian" ECM. Don't go down that track, for along it lie things like Capellans in stealth-armor and worse.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 17 January 2014 - 05:54 AM, said:

Nothing at the moment mounts Angel ECM, just overpowered "Guardian" ECM. Don't go down that track, for along it lie things like Capellans in stealth-armor and worse.

That's his point. Our Guardian ECM is also filling the role of Angel ECM.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

It's not overpowered, but it makes it so your team can't see what you see unless you tell them it's there, are shooting at it or tagging it to death. That is what makes ECM deadly is your own teams capability to process the battlefield and move accordingly. IMO

most OP 'mech does not have ECM and it isn't required, just helpful, It's much easier to shoot at something when you hear the blip and point for the middle of the box. That's about it.

Edited by M4NTiC0R3X, 17 January 2014 - 06:07 AM.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

wanderer, on 17 January 2014 - 05:43 AM, said:

We don't need super-stealth ECM. Having it hose the other electronics? Cool with that. Reduce sensor range somewhat? Sure. Blank out entire forces with a single ECM? No.

With the changes to BAP I feel it's fair, however, you're on to something when you make me think ' what if ECM only worked for your lance? '

Such silly thoughts

* That would be really funny watching separate lances all like ' get away from me your killing my chi ' lol

Edited by M4NTiC0R3X, 17 January 2014 - 06:14 AM.

[Mawai]

ECM is broken and unbalanced - folks can argue about it but it is THE best investment for 1.5 tons and 2 critical slots in the entire game. The blanket coverage effects of ECM are a force protector and multiplier that can completely negate the threat of opposing lock-on weapons (LRM and streaks) unless the opponent has a counter equipped.

PGI gradually added counters to ECM ... finally making BAP a counter to ECM (which makes sense in MWO) but in BattleTech it was the other way around ... ECM countered the effects of BAP. At the moment, ECM is still overpowered and unbalanced but there are sufficient counters between BAP, PPC and TAG that folks can get by.

However, there have been countless good suggestions from the community to rebalance ECM, Guardian ECM, Angel ECM, null signature systems, BAP, as well as active and passive sensors ... suggestions that would do much better than the "hammer" implementation of ECM that PGI chose to put in place. These suggestions give options and variety and avoid having one item overpowered compared to the others ... it also gives players the option to run dark and be harder to detect at the expense of having less information themselves. These ideas have been suggested since PGI implemented their idea of ECM .. if not before that.

Personally, I have given up hope that PGI will ever properly address some of the more poorly designed game elements like ECM. They just seem to have no interest in doing so ... (or at least their team is so small that it will be 2018 before they can get around to it ...).