632 replies to this topic

[ToriStark]

All needed is introduction of stealth armor to MWO. So not a whole team would be cloaked, only who supposed to...

...as for effect of ECM itself: scrambled target tracker and inability to receive detailed information about.

And for those who used to play in the present conditions of warfare: Yes, lrming is easy. But this is the force, with which all must face and fight. Not simply installing a 1.5-ton device for the entire team. AMS must be viable. ECM should not be ultimate.

Edited by ToriStark, 15 September 2014 - 01:06 AM.

[Cimarb]

Haitchpeasauce, on 14 September 2014 - 11:59 PM, said:

Lots of whine and no crackers...

You are the reason we cannot have good stuff and a happy community. Quit shoving your arm down the horses throat looking for what's under the tail...

[Jakob Knight]

In my own opinion, a dialogue on how ECM should be in MWO has to incorporate several pieces of information. We can look at how it is currently implemented, and derive where it seems to fall short or overperform from that data. We can look at the original documentation from the rules set where it was explained exactly what it did and did not do to determine what parameters the gear was put into the original game to do.

The third piece of information is one that we simply don't have, despite multiple attempts (at least by myself) to do so. We need to know what the Devs intend ECM to be in their product. Is it supposed to be a cloaking system to prevent Scout units from detection at any but short ranges? Is it supposed to be an immunity shield against lock-on weaponry? Is it supposed to be an information denial system to prevent the enemy forces from getting information about their opposition? We just don't know, and the implementation of the system within the game seems contradictory to those goals (an Atlas is not a Scout unit, while Scout units are the least vulnerable to lock-on weapons because of their speed).

With the system being very light in both tonnage and critical space requirements, and having no cost in terms of usage difficulty or heat/energy usage, it makes the case that the system is not intended to be more than a light support system when compared to other support systems such as the Command Console, Artemis FCS, NARC, and so on.

So, the system must be looked at objectively within the scope of what it was originally intended as (a very short-ranged counter system to a few other enhancement systems...C3, NARC, TAG, and Artemis IV only), what the Devs intended it to do in their product (which they have never disclosed), what such a light system should be doing in relation to other systems in terms of cost in mech resources and pilot effort, and compared against its actual effect and performance within the game measured against those.

Until we have the information about the exact role the Devs intend for ECM, though, we will be missing a critical piece of information that will make actual recommendations lack full consideration of all of the facts needed. I would ask, therefore, that the Devs give us the precise intent of ECM within their game before we start trying to make recommendations.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 15 September 2014 - 02:14 PM.

[Stormtempter]

A player council is an excellent idea, but currently the mechanisms in place to hold and elect one aren't in place. We need a robust unit and CW system prior to making a council. Once we have those mechanisms a council can be made, in a similar fashion to how CCP has a player council for EVE Online.

The corps with the most members and most held territory elect members to represent the players, and those elected are authorized to speak on behalf of everyone, since combined, those units who elected them represent the largest portions of the player base.

[MischiefSC]

Stormtempter, on 15 September 2014 - 03:27 PM, said:

A player council is an excellent idea, but currently the mechanisms in place to hold and elect one aren't in place. We need a robust unit and CW system prior to making a council. Once we have those mechanisms a council can be made, in a similar fashion to how CCP has a player council for EVE Online.

The corps with the most members and most held territory elect members to represent the players, and those elected are authorized to speak on behalf of everyone, since combined, those units who elected them represent the largest portions of the player base.

Please read the thread. The player council in question will not be representing anyone, they will not be deciding anything, they will not be voting on anything, or speaking on behalf of anyone really.

[IceSerpent]

Ertur, on 14 September 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

First off, ECM doesn't provide a magical invisibility cloak here, either, aside from your fevered hyperbole. I can see an ECM raven just fine, I just can't get a radar lock on it. ECM just denies the use of radar. Which, derp derp derp, is what RL jammers do, too. Now, did you catch me in any thing wrong with that before?

We're talking about radar, not visible spectrum. So "invisibility" refers to being invisible to a radar. In MWO ECM carrier is undetectable by a radar until it gets in your face, while RL jammer is detectable by virtually anything that can recieve frequency that is being jammed. Two separate receivers will easily triangulate location of the jammer (3 receivers if you care about the altitude).

Quote

Do you see the part I bolded and made bigger this time? You're saying the same thing now. Although you make it sound more exact than it would be. The bearing to a jammer is a pretty fat line, and you can't assume that the jammer is in the exact middle, so the triangulation provides a diamond or squarish shape and not an exact point.

Are you talking about MWO or RL here? IRL precision of triangulation depends on equipment used, there's no inherent margin of error in the concept itself. See GPS for an example of a fairly precise setup.

Quote

Am I going to get into specifics? No. I've forgotten what parts of what I know are classified and what parts aren't. The bottom line is this: ECM can deny the use of radar around the jammer in real life. That's what jamming is for.

It does deny the use of radar, but it doesn't make itself undetectable. That's the major difference between MWO and RL. In MWO ECM carrier itself benefits from jamming and merely "shares" that bubble with nearby friendlies. RL jammer is extremely easy to pinpoint, it practically screams "here I am" in all directions, while masking nearby units from detection.

[nehebkau]

The problem we are going to have is a bunch of in-fighting trying to make ECM super perfect when it's impossible to make it perfect when so much of the game is imperfect!

How about we try a small, easy to implement, but significant change, like reducing ECM range to 50m. With so many things behaving badly the only path to 'good' is taking small individual 'good - enough' steps.

Little by little, step by step. Forget a perfect ECM implementation -- we can't do it until other game mechanics are in a better state.

[MischiefSC]

nehebkau, on 15 September 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

The problem we are going to have is a bunch of in-fighting trying to make ECM super perfect when it's impossible to make it perfect when so much of the game is imperfect!

How about we try a small, easy to implement, but significant change, like reducing ECM range to 50m. With so many things behaving badly the only path to 'good' is taking small individual 'good - enough' steps.

Little by little, step by step. Forget a perfect ECM implementation -- we can't do it until other game mechanics are in a better state.

This suggestion has a lot to recommend it.

Do we go for the Christmas List of changing ECM and LRM/Streak/BAP/TAG balance or do we start with a simple ECM change?

[Rushmoar]

I would like the ECM not be able to stack. once a UAV goes UP it can see all in its radius no matter how much ECM is in the area. Also, what if normal ECM range was say 120 meters and 1 needs to use a module to get its current 180 meters. This was it at least will give up a mech slot to be where it is now.

ECM is the only equipment I can think of that denies information. How bad do you want it nerfed? I get that it is a hard counter to LRMs and they have some weaknesses on their own but, to be able to fire from cover is huge, 1000 meter range is huge. And its the easiest weapon to use in game.

This game is suppose to be on informational warfair. I would like to see more equipment being use and not just weapons and engine size be all that is to this game. I would like C3 slave units added to the game and function this way. 1st, it has the ability to see only the mech it's trying to target in an ECM bubble. If the spotter has a C3 it can let any one with a C3 aquire lock and shot indirectly. Don't add the C3 master. Just use the command chair equipment. And as long as the command chair is in game, any one can use indirect fire.

Cheers.

[Stormtempter]

MischiefSC, on 15 September 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

Please read the thread. The player council in question will not be representing anyone, they will not be deciding anything, they will not be voting on anything, or speaking on behalf of anyone really.

I don't want to read all 31 pages of a thread. Also, if the council in question isn't representing anyone, then change the question or the council so that it does.

[MischiefSC]

Stormtempter, on 15 September 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

I don't want to read all 31 pages of a thread. Also, if the council in question isn't representing anyone, then change the question or the council so that it does.

Been discussed repeatedly. Here's the thread for it. Not wanting to derail this thread.

[Mystere]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!.

Quote

It doesn't even necessarily need to be ECM, in fact I might suggest we choose something easier to start with in order to again prove the process and succeed at something.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 15 September 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!.

So... we just wait now?

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 15 September 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

So... we just wait now?

No, silly. We pick a simpler problem as Russ and others have suggested.

Edited by Mystere, 15 September 2014 - 06:30 PM.

[nehebkau]

MischiefSC, on 15 September 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

So... we just wait now?

Well there is no harm in still talking about the issue....

In another thread i suggested changing the range of ECM to 1 meter, basically removing it as group effect. I figure that this change is probably a simple change to a constant value somewhere in the code. I bet it is a change that could be done in a flash and, if necessary, changed again quite quickly. Then the only mechs that would have the 'magic jesus' protection would be some ~30t paper-thin armor mechs and one, giant, lumbering 'kick me I'm slow and fat' mech.

The change could be made and we can play 'lets see'

maybe the next change would be to increase BAP range to 180 m or 200m (min LRM range?) Small tweaks

Edited by nehebkau, 15 September 2014 - 06:31 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 15 September 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

No, silly. We pick a simpler problem as Russ and others have suggested.

He's said to wait while he puts together what.

What is a simpler topic than ECM though?

Oh snap.

Is it can it be PULSE LAZORS?!?!

[Haitchpeasauce]

I'm interested to see what the player council comes up with.

Whatever change is made, it's best to have small changes adding up to a larger goal. A single large change could throw the game too far out of balance.

[Kmieciu]

MischiefSC, on 15 September 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

He's said to wait while he puts together what.

What is a simpler topic than ECM though?

Oh snap.

Is it can it be PULSE LAZORS?!?!

Fix small and medium pulse lazorz? That's an easy one.
Decrease the cooldown so that 1 MPL has the same DPS as 2 ML, but at the cost of higher HPS.
2xML - MPL
2 tonnes - 2 tonnes
2.5 DPS - 2.5 DPS
2 HPS - 2.5 HPS

[Winter Frostfire]

imo i think ecm right now is fine. but to be objective on this, this is my take on this:

i dont really like missile boat builds, but i think its the one that ECM affects the most. these are my points for this:

1. LRM + Artemis should be able to lock on. only those with LRM without Artemis, since its basically manual triangulation of a mech's coordinates (though it has to be longer than your normal lock-on.
or
2. LRM + Artemis should have a manual override, meaning itll function just like a normal LRM. at the expense of longer lock-on time.
3. Streaks should be able to lock-on, albeit double the time than your usual lock-on.
4. Increase seismic module range as well. at these weight values, a 270m-300m radius would surely be felt.

and lastly, this is were modules should come in play. there should be a module to cut short the lock-on time.

[Neutron IX]

Question.

IF ECM is truly as overpowered as it seems to be perceived that it is, why then do so many of us forgo its use entirely by piloting mechs that aren't even capable of equipping it?

I have played games, even tonight that had anywhere from roughly 0 to 5 ECM equipped mechs, MAAAAYYYYBBBE 6, but to my knowledge, I can't recall ever seeing a match that had even a 50% ECM equip rate present, much less the same preponderance of equip rates that Pop-Sniping used to enjoy, or that LRMs currently enjoy.

So why are we so hung up on ECM right now?

Just curious.