221 replies to this topic

[Verdic Mckenna]

I'm still not convinced that ECM is a problem as it stands. There is a ton of ego floating around here with people who think they have better ideas - and at the end of the day there is a vocal minority complaining about ECM.

If I have to give constructive feedback regarding ECM it's that BAP should more effectively neutralize ECM. There shouldn't be a multiple counter effect going on. 3 ECM vs. 1 BAP = No effect. I think removing that alone would remove a ton of bad decisions in a loadout. We might see fewer ECM in public queue on the off chance that someone is smart and takes a BAP. In competitive team matches it simply becomes "mutually assured destruction." Both sides bring a BAP and an ECM as an assumed precaution. The way any real warfare would take place anyways. Every side will bring it's "Stealth" gear. And every side will bring their best "Detection" gear. Those who make the simple mistake of poor preperation will be ruled by the other side. It's the jungle.

This is not a tabletop game. And it should NOT be ruled by tabletop rules. I'm sorry. One quarter of the games population should not be making the other three quarters abide by archaic board game rule sets. That's insanity in a game that relates to skill and not luck. If we start using "Hit tables" with "random rolls" then what's the point? Isn't that what Tactics was for?

Edited by Verdic Mckenna, 15 September 2014 - 05:43 AM.

[DocBach]

Verdic Mckenna, on 15 September 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

I'm still not convinced that ECM is a problem as it stands. There is a ton of ego floating around here with people who think they have better ideas - and at the end of the day there is a vocal minority complaining about ECM.

This is not a tabletop game. And it should NOT be ruled by tabletop rules. I'm sorry. One quarter of the games population should not be making the other three quarters abide by archaic board game rule sets. That's insanity in a game that relates to skill and not luck. If we start using "Hit tables" with "random rolls" then what's the point? Isn't that what Tactics was for?

Yeah I guess when more people think ECM makes the game much less fun than people who think it makes the game more fun or much more fun they are part of the minority.

You do understand that just about everything in this game is based on a table top game translated into real time, right?

[Killstorm999999]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 15 September 2014 - 04:42 AM, said:

I like the idea of having an incoming swarm of LRMs only hitting 10% because they spead so much under the influence of ECM.
There were other suggestions on how to approach the "boating" with a hard-counter on trackable missiles. For example, a Mech can only guide 40 missiles and every missile above that will invoke a loss in the overall tracking ability of all missiles, leading to a huge spread that may miss even on full-lock-on. While I don't like hard-caps at all, as mechs scale in this game from 20-100 tons with different hardpoints, modules and we already have lore mechs with more than 40 missiles per salvo, this idea is not thought to the end, but I like the idea of "more missiles, more spread".

Yeah, more missiles, more spread. I don't think there should be an arbitrary limit of 40 missiles, and I think its reasonable to assume that the missiles could guide themselves to their target, so the mech has nothing to do but provide targetting information. But this being said, if you are firing obscene amounts of missiles, they will have to spread out or risk colliding into each other. So firing all your tubes at once might not be a good idea, but perhaps staggering your fire would decrease the negative spread effects. (like if you fire 20 of your 60 tubes, the missiles will spread in the way 20 missiles should, not 60).

[Karl Streiger]

Verdic Mckenna, on 15 September 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

This is not a tabletop game. And it should NOT be ruled by tabletop rules. I'm sorry. One quarter of the games population should not be making the other three quarters abide by archaic board game rule sets. That's insanity in a game that relates to skill and not luck. If we start using "Hit tables" with "random rolls" then what's the point? Isn't that what Tactics was for?

Right - it should not be measured by tabletop rules - but that did happen - almost all facts and figures in MWO are derivates from TT. And we are still missing a huge chunk of important features.

OK - just a few words:
ECM in TT disrupt C3 networks
C3 networks means target information sharing

in MWO we have C3 for free (we don't shot better, but we see what our team sees)
to "disrupt" this "cheap" C3 - we have ECM that disables the ability of a Mech to "lock" on a target - > no lock - no target sharing. (problem solved?)

No - you have a package of multiple "additional" tools that help you to counter ECM. (With some flaws - NARC vs 2 ECM, BAP vs 2 ECM....)
And you have some tools that make no sense at all - why is a TAG able to "lift" ECM Cover? How does the TAG is able to make a difference between rock and Mech - if my motion sensors can not?
How is UAV able to counter ECM?

Anyhow the tons of "ECM" Counters helps that ECM isn't as OP as it was shortly after the introduction in December 2012 - but its still far from balanced or intuitive (ECM should disrupt electronic warfare equipment - and not electronic warfare equipment disrupts ECM)

[StalaggtIKE]

The biggest issue with ECM is:

• confusion placed upon new players
  
• disruption of coordination on pubs
  
• exacerbating issue of no friendly IFF bug
  
• non-parity of detection (stealth could and should be allowed for several more chassis)

The following fix would:

• Do not have ECM block the red doritos at any range period.
  
• Only block targeting as it does now.

With the red doritos in place, this will allow pugs and newbies the ability to find the enemy without extensive communication, ie TS or chat. It would cut back on half of your team chasing one stray light on other side of the map, while the rest of the ghosted enemy comes crashing down on your front line.


With ECM losing the potential for hiding an entire team, Pug matches will naturally be more organized, or at least focused. Less friendly fire due to confusion. More ECM mechs can be introduced.

Though I would prefer a whole Information Warfare overhaul, such as Rasc4l’s proposal, this simple fix would make me happy is:

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 15 September 2014 - 07:36 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Karl Streiger, on 15 September 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

Right - it should not be measured by tabletop rules - but that did happen - almost all facts and figures in MWO are derivates from TT. And we are still missing a huge chunk of important features.

OK - just a few words:
ECM in TT disrupt C3 networks
C3 networks means target information sharing

in MWO we have C3 for free (we don't shot better, but we see what our team sees)
to "disrupt" this "cheap" C3 - we have ECM that disables the ability of a Mech to "lock" on a target - > no lock - no target sharing. (problem solved?)

No - you have a package of multiple "additional" tools that help you to counter ECM. (With some flaws - NARC vs 2 ECM, BAP vs 2 ECM....)
And you have some tools that make no sense at all - why is a TAG able to "lift" ECM Cover? How does the TAG is able to make a difference between rock and Mech - if my motion sensors can not?
How is UAV able to counter ECM?

Anyhow the tons of "ECM" Counters helps that ECM isn't as OP as it was shortly after the introduction in December 2012 - but its still far from balanced or intuitive (ECM should disrupt electronic warfare equipment - and not electronic warfare equipment disrupts ECM)

I see the issue with ecm along the lines of too many hard counters. if they where all soft and increased or decreased or enabled indirect targeting people would be more tolerant of lrm fire. I think lrms do too much damage. since not all lrm;s hit you in TT unless you got a really good roll.

Cant wait for laser ams to enter the game. I think that is on the back burner since a non ammo AMS has balance issues. AMS as it stands is a soft counter. that is defeated by swarms. group up 4 laser ams systems and you can kiss LRM's good by.
personally i think this is good since the LRM's are able to perform indirect fire vs. a few tons for one ECM.

The frame work exist to improve game play and not win via MM lottery.

[Karl Streiger]

StalaggtIKE, on 15 September 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

Though I would prefer a whole Information Warhare overhaul, the simplest fix that would make me happy is:

• Do not have ECM block the red doritos period.
  
• Only block targeting at range as it does now.

With the red doritos in place, this will allow pugs and newbies the ability to find the enemy without extensive communication, ie TS or chat. It would cut back on half of your team chasing one stray light on other side of the map, while the rest of the ghosted enemy comes crashing down on your front line.

At least it would be help full to have - "rectangles back" for example without IFF (everything in the ECM bubble can not be locked on with R) but you have a "target designation" - so an old art can be reanimated - coordinate PUGs in Team Chat.
(For example GL - for Green Lima - and hope that you made it right - and its not a team member in the bubble)
(the most simple tactic focus fire died in PUGs at the moment ECM was introduced - and the reason for my still existent anger)

[Lootee]

Karl Streiger, on 15 September 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

At least it would be help full to have - "rectangles back" for example without IFF (everything in the ECM bubble can not be locked on with R) but you have a "target designation" - so an old art can be reanimated - coordinate PUGs in Team Chat.
(For example GL - for Green Lima - and hope that you made it right - and its not a team member in the bubble)
(the most simple tactic focus fire died in PUGs at the moment ECM was introduced - and the reason for my still existent anger)

ECM currently encourages LRM boating as well. Want to know why you never see mechs with just 1 LRM launcher? Because the 1.5 ton JesusBox puts a 1 energy hardpoint + 2.5 ton + 3 critical slot tax on every opposing team player that wants to run any number of LRM launchers greater than 0.

This is why you only see LRMs in groups of 30+ and never less. Because the JesusBox requires the player to sacrifice an energy slot for TAG and some more crits and tonnage for BAP. No one is going to pay that cost just so they can use the odd LRM10/15/20. That is why you see LRM40/50/60/70. Because the JesusBox tax has to be paid at the expense of being able to mount other weapons.

Another frustrating thing about the JesusBox is the garbage mechanic that removes the player's ability to use LRMs on enemies standing in plain sight (which is completely fabricated Paul BS, GECM had no such effect on basic LRM or streak SRM attacks in TT).

I would be perfectly happy if they made indirect fire LRMs very weak in exchange for making LOS fired LRMs better and remove the JesusBox tax.

Either do that or add Blue Shields and Magnetic Barriers that prevent energy weapons and ballistics from firing unless those players pay a missile slot and 2.5 tons tax.

Edited by Lootee, 15 September 2014 - 06:47 AM.

[Mystere]

Deltron Zero, on 15 September 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

Yeah, more missiles, more spread. I don't think there should be an arbitrary limit of 40 missiles, and I think its reasonable to assume that the missiles could guide themselves to their target, so the mech has nothing to do but provide targetting information. But this being said, if you are firing obscene amounts of missiles, they will have to spread out or risk colliding into each other. So firing all your tubes at once might not be a good idea, but perhaps staggering your fire would decrease the negative spread effects. (like if you fire 20 of your 60 tubes, the missiles will spread in the way 20 missiles should, not 60).

Just to add a little monkey wrench ( ) ...

IS missiles should spread more than Clan ones, simply because the latter already fire in streams. In fact, Clan missile spread should not change at all.

[Mystere]

StalaggtIKE, on 15 September 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

Though I would prefer a whole Information Warhare overhaul, the simplest fix that would make me happy is:

• Do not have ECM block the red doritos period.
  
• Only block targeting at range as it does now.

With the red doritos in place, this will allow pugs and newbies the ability to find the enemy without extensive communication, ie TS or chat. It would cut back on half of your team chasing one stray light on other side of the map, while the rest of the ghosted enemy comes crashing down on your front line.

Actually:

• PGI should:
  
  • squash the missing blue dorito bug asap
    
  • make the red dorito flicker on and off at a ratio inversely proportional to distance
    
  • make BAP, TAG, and UAV affect the flicker rate
• Players should:
  
  • shoot any mech missing a blue dorito with extreme prejudice

(Lock on times are to be affected according to this).

It may not be TT, but I like the stealth component of MWO's ECM. So I am going to want it to stay.


<There, I said it!>

Edited by Mystere, 15 September 2014 - 07:00 AM.

[Galenit]

Mystere, on 15 September 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

Just to add a little monkey wrench ( ) ...

IS missiles should spread more than Clan ones, simply because the latter already fire in streams. In fact, Clan missile spread should not change at all.

The steamfiring of the clan lrms is the price you have to pay for halftheweight launchers.

Giving every launcher the same base spread will balance all lauchers out.

No indirect fire direct centertorsostream builds anymore,
you can still do it,
but you need los, artemis and tag and it doesnt matter if you use lrm 5 or 20.

[Verdic Mckenna]

Doc,

Before you come at me with a Forum poll that only the vocal minority sees. Bust out a calculator and do the math.

45% either Don't give a flying crap about your issues with ECM - or prefer it as it stands. 55% Claim it either slightly hampered their enjoyment of the game - or they preferred ECM to not be in the game at all. Either way you're talking about a rediculous amount of dissent among a small percentage of half a million people. It pays to reason out what it is you think you're posting before thinking that a photo wins the arguement of opinion. Think twice.

I'll further push back to you that if I start running the numbers on the amount of posts that those who champion Table Top rules also represent the loudest minority. I'd be more interested to see what an in-game poll regarding this would turn up if every player had to click it as they went to the Mech Bay. I'd take those odds. I've been watching this insanity almost as long as you have been championing it. It's never worked out for the best - and so many of you attribute PGI to having failed the core base - even though now you're telling me they gave you what you wanted and used much of Table Top translated to Real Time. If that's the case - why are we trying to muck about in their work? Present wall - drive head.

DocBach, on 15 September 2014 - 05:57 AM, said:

Yeah I guess when more people think ECM makes the game much less fun than people who think it makes the game more fun or much more fun they are part of the minority.

You do understand that just about everything in this game is based on a table top game translated into real time, right?

Edited by Verdic Mckenna, 15 September 2014 - 07:26 AM.

[Big Tin Man]

My problem with ECM is rather simple: it doesn't work in a real work physics model. Assuming this is a wide band jamming frequency which would mask everything within it, it would appear on sensors as a 180m circular blob of white noise, not a void. Further, information within the team can transverse this bubble, which doesn't make much sense either. How can a mech broadcasting a disruption signal across all bands receive and transmit information to its allies?

Solution: Make ECM mech's appear on the map as white blobs with a 180m radius when in disrupt. Leave the rest of the functions alone and see how that plays. Your team would know something is there, just not what or how many, nor could you get a lock on anything within the bubble. Target info could not be sent out of the bubble either.

Other issues: Tag should break any # of ECM's for the purposes of locks only, as Tag is the laser of laser guided missles (HEY MISSLE! Go to the shiny!). Tag should not allow target data to come up, just that there is a target to lock to and fire. ECM is not accounted for in MM, perhaps weight class +5-10 tons?

[StalaggtIKE]

ECM receives numerous advantages that spill over to teammates without much cost, only 1.5 tons, and little to no effort. The biggest issues with of which do not currently have any counters:

• confusion placed upon new players
  
  • Without using money, new players do not have access to ECM counters.
• disruption of coordination on pubs
  
  • One stray light can pull most of a team from the front line, while the rest of the stealthed enemy team can overwhelm your front line. This requires chat or TS in order to effectively counter.
• exacerbating issue of no friendly IFF bug
  
  • The bug removes friendly IFF. However ECM hides enemy IFF until you close in or counter it. This sometimes result in friendly fire especially in pug games.
• non-parity of detection (stealth could and should be allowed for several more chassis)
  
  • ECM mech can spot you through IFF detection from 800m+ with BAP and sensor module. However the furthest you can get is 750m with TAG that must stay on target.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 16 September 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Tombstoner, on 15 September 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

Cant wait for laser ams to enter the game. I think that is on the back burner since a non ammo AMS has balance issues. AMS as it stands is a soft counter. that is defeated by swarms. group up 4 laser ams systems and you can kiss LRM's good by.

Well, this isn't entirely bad - sitting back and pushing a button can be countered by sitting back and accumulating heat. So its an even situation. The advantage of this is that passive behavior can be "countered" by another passive behavior, denying low risk situations any kind of reward.

As I already stated in another thread, laser-AMS can be quite nice because:
- It has unlimited ammo, thus LRM boats will think twice before wasting their ammo, they have to think before they fire
- While the missiles get shot down, you mech will heat up through the Laser-AMS, thus even if the LRMs don't deal any damage, they still have the effect of heating the enemy up and thus limiting the effective re-fire answer for the rest of the enemy team - maybe opening a gap ready to be used for a push. A heated up enemy cannot put as much damage into you as a cold one - so LRMs can still be used as an opener, even if they do not deal any damage --> Good for tactical gameplay, as it also widens up the usage of weapons to not be a one-trick-pony

In general, I like some kind of engagement-rulesets, like passive vs. passive and LOS vs. LOS and shuffled in between. There should always be openings, advantages and disadvantages to give the player as much tactical freedom as possible.

[Wolfways]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 15 September 2014 - 05:13 AM, said:

Maybe both... Spread and lock-on time. The spread in nominal for launchers up to 20 and will increase in 5% increments for every 5 missiles above that are *currently* in the air.

You can't do that. The missile speed is so slow that you often have multiple salvo's in the air at the same time.

[Wolfways]

Blakkstar, on 15 September 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

ECM is too powerful because LRMs are too powerful. LRMs need to "roll" on the missile hit table, which averages about 60%...12 missiles on an LRM 20. Artemis kicks this up to 80%. Missile damage is then allocated by 5 on a normal hit chart, not all chained into the same 1-2 locations as it seems to work now. This is extremely easy to implement because the player has no say in where LRMs land anyways.

Also in TT, LRM's had the same projectile speed as other weapons (instant) instead of the slowest and no warning message that allowed the target to not get hit if it moved to cover next turn.
People just seem to forget (or not know) how much LRM's have been nerfed in the transition from TT to MWO.

[Tombstoner]

Verdic Mckenna, on 15 September 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

I have asked Russ to consider adding into the game the option for players to provide feedback via a pop up window
specifically for this sort of discussion. That way the game is discussed and voted upon but people willing to take the time and provide feed back. It would be as inclusive as possible...

Also TT is an abstraction of real world tech and scifi as the creators understood the subject mater. translating that into a video game is rather strait forward. ECM in MWO is an extreme form of ECM from TT. TT has i be-leave 3 forms. all of which should be available as part of IW and purchasable via modules not for 1.5 tons

This thread is about identifying the issues with ECM but people drift into solutions.

[Gyrok]

My thoughts:

-ECM Ghost targeting increases lock time to 200% of base time required for locks. This cannot be negated by modules/TCs/Command Console. This mode does not deny indication of position on sensor arrays, and denies information about the target being acquired until the target would be capable of being locked.

-ECM has 3 modes Ghost targeting (basically current disrupt but changed to the above mechanic), Counter (same as current), Personal stealth for the carrier mech which pertains to only the mech using it, and decreases sensor detection range to 180m for the carrier mech only.

-Narc/TAG reduces lock time on ECM equipped targets to normal time. This can work in conjunction with modules to decrease the lock time once ECM is countered by a spotter.

-LRMs can only fire indirect with a spotter.

-LRM angle of approach is a much flatter trajectory across the board (both direct/indirect) and velocity is increased to perhaps 180m/s

-NARC duration is reduced to 10 seconds, and cannot be knocked off.

-NARC/TAG negate the added lock time from ECM reducing the lock time to normal base time.

Edited by Gyrok, 15 September 2014 - 08:52 AM.

[Wolfways]

Tombstoner, on 15 September 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

I think lrms do too much damage. since not all lrm;s hit you in TT unless you got a really good roll.

And in MWO players mostly have a 30-40% hit ratio with LRM's. They do miss...a lot.