116 replies to this topic

[Why Run]

I have posted this before, but the only thing i would add would be that ECM affects friendlies. ECM is not discriminate. If you want ECM shield in cover, then you shouldn't be able to target out. For me, this might be the only change I'd need, and I play LRMs occasionally (when CBill grinding)

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 16 September 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

Its not fine. ECM is 1.5 tons. It shouldnt prevent like 20+ tons of launchers from being able to fire. LRMs should be able to fire if anyone on their team has LoS. Period. But like tabletop, indirect LRMs should suffer a severe penalty to accuracy. Which is the whole problem in MWO: indirect LRMs are way too accurate.

So you not only need to weaken ECM so it doesnt shut down indirect LRMs but you also need to weaken indirect LRMs so theyre not nearly as accurate.

It is OK if it keeps me from launching without a LoS to one Mech. The one with the ECM. Anything else should be fair game. and IF I have LoS I should be able to... Eventually get a lock on that Mech as well.

[Screech]

I assume this change would also include increasing the mechs that can field ECM.

[Joseph Mallan]

DocBach, on 16 September 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

I seriously got this. I'm finishing up a 15 page essay on ECM right now

I thought you already posted your thesis on ECM already Doc?

Screech, on 16 September 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

I assume this change would also include increasing the mechs that can field ECM.

It could be tested out. If it proves to be well balanced I don't see why we would have to keep it restricted.

[DocBach]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 September 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

I thought you already posted your thesis on ECM already Doc?

no this is seriously my master work, want to proof read it?

[Koniving]

Livewyr, on 16 September 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

In light of that, I think the most profound change, that is yet simple in nature, to move it closer to balance is this:

Target Sharing Disruption.

ECM would block target sharing but not Line of Sight targeting and missile locks.

What this means:
If you are in your mech that has LRM tubes as part of its load-out, you would be able to shoot your LRMs at an enemy ECM mech if you personally can see it.
If you are in a mech with LRMs and you are not in Line of Sight (behind cover or blocked by terrain) and one of your allies sees the ECM mech, the target data (red box) is not transferred to you. You cannot see the ECM mech from your buddy's target sharing. (Much as it is now.)

That's essentially what happens when an ECM mech gets close in tabletop. They stop being able to provide a relay for targeting information.

From what I've been reading, standard LRMs are only affected (in the books) when the fired missiles already flying through the air get within 180 meters of the ECM user. This is apparently the only time that standard LRMs are affected at all in the books. In tabletop this is almost impossible to reflect and it isn't a factor at all in LRM accuracy (as LRMs are very inaccurate by nature, except if Semi-Guided [TAG-compatible] or NARC-enabled. There's also Homing LRMs, which unlike our current versions are very accurate, but ECM affects all special types of LRM ammo that has advanced tracking abilities, reducing them to standard LRMs.)

By the time a standard LRM gets within 180 meters of an ECM user (by flight of course), they are already either gonna hit or not gonna hit anyway so the effect that ECM does have against them has no real use.
Continuing with the books and the rules...

They affect Artemis because the beam that Artemis sends out does not get returned. Interestingly enough this is also why TAG isn't supposed to work against ECM. But at range, nothing stops you from targeting an ECM mech. Nothing at all.

Edit: Further reading on TAG, the apparent reason that TAG does not work against ECM is because TAG only guides Semi-Guided LRMs and Arrow IV Homing Missiles (in the current timeline). These are the only two things that benefit from TAG as per lore. Obviously we have neither of these technically but I won't get into that. It's just "why" TAG is countered by ECM in the rulebook.

"Denies targeting readouts."
This is frequently quoted as the one reason it doesn't allow a triangle or target acquisition square.
However, this is defined as denying the following sensory information at range: loadout information, damage status, ammunition status, weapon status, variant type (it is described specifically as 'UNKNOWN' unless the pilot him or herself can identify it by their eyes). However you still get a target acquisition thing to lock on.

Some books even go on to describe how its ghost target system (the actual name) works.

• Sometimes ECM can provide the ECM user with a number of fake target squares that each can be locked onto (by an enemy lock-on user) in order to complicate targeting the ECM user or anyone in the ECM's 180 meter protective bubble specifically.
  
• Creating fake target confirmations on true mech radars (several mechs have built-in true radars with 360 detection ranges) and BAP (well I'm a lonely Raven and I know a scouting party is hunting me. Lets create about 3 mediums and a King Crab over in Grid B6. I'm gonna lose my ECM bubble creating this, but so long as they don't get a visual on B6...the true mech radar and BAP will think those 4 mechs are gonna back me up. For myself, well as long as I stay a few steps ahead of them I will be fine. Now, my BAP at the hit of the button would be able make a 1080 meter scan for them for 10 seconds to allow me to get away from where they are going. [BT this was entirely roll dependent and almost impossible to get. In MWO it'd probably need a substantial recharge time.).
  
• Masquerading as a friendly mech. (TF2 Spy, anyone? The closer you get the less effective it is; immediately stops working at 180 meters though, and BAP can see through this. I have only seen this in one of the books and I thought it was hilarious as the neighboring mechs were starting to question him -- and of course he can't get their communications, so when it failed...heh.)

There's quite a bit of things Guardian ECM can do. But... jamming your ability to fire Streaks or LRMs on it and preventing lockons are NOT among them. Angel ECM can turn Streaks into dumbfired rockets; but it doesn't prevent the lock either (a streak wouldn't fire without a lock and the belief that it could hit).




So with your simple change, I can be content with it. Though I imagine a lot of people won't like how it turns out (as it won't be the one goto jesus box anymore).

Edited by Koniving, 18 September 2014 - 06:36 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

DocBach, on 16 September 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

no this is seriously my master work, want to proof read it?

Yes and no. I am sure it will be a good read, but I'm back on 10s and don't want to accidentally fall asleep!

[Shibas]

Livewyr, on 16 September 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Reading lots of posts about how people do not want ECM changed for various reasons.
Chief among them is:
It is my shield against (overpowered) LRMs.
I do not think it is a priority.

Both of these concerns have some merit, but so does (I think) the binary relationship with basic LRMs.  (ECM shuts off LRM usage unless they carry extra gear to make them work)

In light of that, I think the most profound change, that is yet simple in nature, to move it closer to balance is this:

Target Sharing Disruption.

ECM would block target sharing but not Line of Sight targeting and missile locks.

What this means:
If you are in your mech that has LRM tubes as part of its load-out, you would be able to shoot your LRMs at an enemy ECM mech if you personally can see it.
If you are in a mech with LRMs and you are not in Line of Sight (behind cover or blocked by terrain) and one of your allies sees the ECM mech, the target data (red box) is not transferred to you. You cannot see the ECM mech from your buddy's target sharing. (Much as it is now.)

That would be the only change. It would allow basic LRMs to be used in an ECM environment, in a direct fire capacity, but not in indirect fire capacity. It would allow ECM to maintain somewhat of the stealth capability by continuing to shield the ECM mech from having its position broadcast to everyone on the enemy team. Only the mechs that have LoS will see the "dorito."  (TAG and Narc would still effect as they do now in order to allow Indirect fire LRMs.)



If I had to put the change net effect in one sentence:

"It will still be stealth against anyone who cannot directly see it on their screens."


Thoughts?

That's actually not a bad idea.  
Though a simpler solution would probably be to just increase the range at which you can target an ECM mech.  Instead of 200m make it 3-400m and increase the lock on time (possibly not providing loadout).  Probably 350m with BAP increasing it to 450-500m.  That's it and it changes so much.
With this you now have 750m+ "stealth" (outside of TAG range) and outside of 3-400m normally you have the stealth as well; which is fine.  Under 3-400m you have all your short range weapons in effect but targeting has increased lock times.  You now are in range for streaks to lock on at all ranges (increase lock on time though) and LRMs without assistance have a much larger window than 20m to lock on and fire.

Edited by Shibas, 16 September 2014 - 08:00 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Koniving, on 16 September 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

So with your simple change, I can be content with it. Though I imagine a lot of people won't like how it turns out (as it won't be the one goto jesus box anymore).

That isn't necessarily a bad thing Koniving.

[DocBach]

Koniving, on 16 September 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

[/size]

That's essentially what happens when an ECM mech gets close in tabletop. They stop being able to provide a relay for targeting information.

From what I've been reading, standard LRMs are only affected (in the books) when the fired missiles already flying through the air get within 180 meters of the ECM user. This is apparently the only time that standard LRMs are affected at all in the books. In tabletop this is almost impossible to reflect and it isn't a factor at all in LRM accuracy (as LRMs are very inaccurate by nature, except if Semi-Guided [TAG-compatible] or NARC-enabled. There's also Homing LRMs, which unlike our current versions are very accurate, but ECM affects all special types of LRM ammo that has advanced tracking abilities, reducing them to standard LRMs.)

By the time a standard LRM gets within 180 meters of an ECM user (by flight of course), they are already either gonna hit or not gonna hit anyway so the effect that ECM does have against them has no real use.
Continuing with the books and the rules...

They affect Artemis because the beam that Artemis sends out does not get returned. Interestingly enough this is also why TAG isn't supposed to work against ECM. But at range, nothing stops you from targeting an ECM mech. Nothing at all.

"Denies targeting readouts."
This is frequently quoted as the one reason it doesn't allow a triangle or target acquisition square.
However, this is defined as denying the following sensory information at range: loadout information, damage status, ammunition status, weapon status, variant type (it is described specifically as 'UNKNOWN' unless the pilot him or herself can identify it by their eyes).

Some books even go on to describe how its ghost target system (the actual name) works.

• Sometimes providing multiple fake target squares that each can be locked onto in order to complicate targeting the mech specifically.
  
• Creating fake target confirmations on true mech radars and BAP (well I'm a lonely Raven and I know a scouting party is hunting me. Lets create about 3 mediums and a King Crab over in Grid B6. I'm gonna get some extra heat creating this, but so long as they don't get a visual on B6...the true mech radar and BAP will think those 4 mechs are gonna back me up).
  
• Masquerading as a friendly mech. (TF2 Spy, anyone? The closer you get the less effective it is; immediately stops working at 180 meters though, and BAP can see through this.)

There's quite a bit of things ECM can do. But... jamming your ability to fire Streaks or LRMs on it and preventing lockons are NOT among them.



So with your simple change, I can be content with it. Though I imagine a lot of people won't like how it turns out (as it won't be the one goto jesus box anymore).

I really like the idea of adding ghost targets, I always have but I understand adding new mechanics like that would make engineering any change much more difficult. PM me your email, I have something for you to read.

[Jon Gotham]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 September 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

The Frontline is never where I positioned my LRM boats, That is a terrible use of a LONG RANGE weapon systems.

I use mine at 400 or slightly less on average., I like to cut my lrm time-to-target to about 2 seconds if I can. A 5 second+ window is simply too long to reliably hit vs competent opponents:)
I also like to be within a sub 10 seconds response window from team mates should I be savaged by lights.

As to the op I kinda like the idea but have concerns about anything that enables MORE lrm use-it's already way too much sometimes.

[Livewyr]

Tastian, on 16 September 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

This doesn't affect indirect fire of LRMs at all. Yes, you lose the ability to fire at ECM mechs indirectly just like now. But you can still fire LRMs indirectly at mechs without ECM. You actually gain the locking ability to fire at ECM mechs you can see (which you cannot do now).

This is a simple but grand change to ECM IMHO.

And let us not forget, that one can still use indirect fire in the same means as before. (Team mate TAG'ing any of the mechs under ECM, or Narcing the ECM mech.)

Dutch Bear, on 16 September 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

Can't an LRM boat shoot their LRM's without a lock? They go to where the retical was when the trigger was pulled just like other weapons...

At 200 meters against an assault, yes.. anything else, hardly.
2 reasons:
A: LRMs are incredibly slow. You must lead the target to hit them.
B: In order to lead the target, your reticule is pointed a farther distance. Farther distance means the flight path flies up and high over your intended target to get to the point your reticule was looking at. (If they were straight flying, this might work, but they are not.

Khobai, on 16 September 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

Again. A 1.5 ton piece of equipment should NOT hard counter LRMs. That has been the problem all along.

ECM should not stop LRMs from being direct or indirect fired. Its bad game design.

It doesnt fix the problem at all. The game will still revolve around ECM to shut down indirect LRMs. And indirect LRMs still have to be on the strong side because of ECM.

No, it will mean that LRM indirect will still require active team mate assistance with gear in order to shoot at targets covered by ECM.
It will not effect non-ECM targets in any way.

Khobai, on 16 September 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

No its not a soft counter. If it prevents LRMs from being used, its a hard counter.

A soft counter is a counter that doesnt prevent LRMs from being used, but just weakens LRMs instead. AMS for example is a soft counter.

That is one kind of soft counter. The other kind is making one aspect, of a dual aspect weapon harder to use.

El Bandito, on 16 September 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

I'm certainly ok with it as long as ECM does not cockblock me when exposed. I deal LRM death mostly directly anyway. It is bad Lurmers who rely solely on IDF.

This change would be most beneficial to your type of LRM use. (Mine as well.. when I used to use LRMs.)

Ozric, on 16 September 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:

This is one of those ideas that came out before ECM was introduced to MWO and the fact the concept was ignored then was one of the reasons we all knew ECM was crazy OP. ECM should never have blocked LOS targeting.

Hopefully something like this could get pushed through. It is still the information denial aspect of Info Warfare we are after, without being a hardcounter to a basic class of weapons.

Tombstoner, on 16 September 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

The game needs all forms of ECM from TT rules. not just one...

I would love to change just about everything about ECM...however being realistic; sadly, that will never get the required approval. (It would require changes to just about everything in the info warfare sphere/LRMs..and honestly the players, who would have to vote on it, either do not care enough about that to really look at the positives, or worse, are scared of the changes.)

Khobai, on 16 September 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

Its not fine. ECM is 1.5 tons. It shouldnt prevent like 20+ tons of launchers from being able to fire. LRMs should be able to fire if anyone on their team has LoS. Period. But like tabletop, indirect LRMs should suffer a severe penalty to accuracy. Which is the whole problem in MWO: indirect LRMs are way too accurate.

So you not only need to weaken ECM so it doesnt shut down indirect LRMs but you also need to weaken indirect LRMs so theyre not nearly as accurate.



Again a better way is to remove the dependency on ECM in the first place. Your team should not have to have ECM to shutdown LRMs. And you should not get LRMd to death when you dont have ECM.

I would love to change LRMs, but this has to be small enough for the masses to swallow. This step removes the straight hardcounter to LRM usage, and replaces it was a special-aspect denial that is still countered the way we have to use now to fire at all.

DocBach, on 16 September 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

I seriously got this. I'm finishing up a 15 page essay on ECM right now

I respect that, Doc... but as we have seen before, massive essays go nowhere.
PGI does not want to do a massive sweeping change to the entire Info Warfare system at once. (I cannot blame them.)
Players will not buy the massive change because the 15 page wall of text will scare them off from trying to understand it, and how it might benefit them. (Change is scary, unless you understand it entirely, and you will not likely read a 15 page essay to understand it.)

I am looking for the simplest, easy-to-swallow, change in order to make ECM at least palatable.

[Mercules]

Khobai, on 16 September 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

This idea defeats the entire purpose of LRMs which is indirect fire. If LRMs cant indirect fire theres really no point in using them over other weapons.

A better idea is to make ECM a soft counter to LRMs rather than a hard counter. And then weaken indirect LRMs just enough so that they no longer need a hard counter to be balanced. For 1.5 tons its completely ridiculous for ECM to hard counter anything.

I think if they spread out the LRM Indirect Fire missile flight so that it isn't clustered that might help weaken them that way. The ECM should only increase lock on time, not negate targeting. The mech WITH ECM might not be able to be targeted but anyone else can.

[Livewyr]

One change at a time.

Remember who has to ratify any changes proposed according to PGI.

If this is successful, perhaps we can change other things in the future.

[DocBach]

Livewyr, on 16 September 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

I am looking for the simplest, easy-to-swallow, change in order to make ECM at least palatable.

the change is incredibly simple, small, adds no new mechanics and does not change any other item -- the essay goes in depth describing every aspect of ECM from MWO to the board game pm me email

Edited by DocBach, 16 September 2014 - 07:56 AM.

[KingCobra]

Livewyr (I am looking for the simplest, easy-to-swallow, change in order to make ECM at least palatable.)

Here is your answer (LEAVE ECM ALONE FOR NOW) it needs a lot of test server time to even see if any of the thousands of ideas by the community are viable. And we should be trying to convey to Russ and PGI we are more interested in new content and advertising for new players and player retention.

Edited by KingCobra, 16 September 2014 - 07:56 AM.

[Lemming211]

More simple: remove LRM's high ballistic arc. Make it more linear, use that ballistic arc for Arrow IV.

[Apnu]

Livewyr, on 16 September 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Reading lots of posts about how people do not want ECM changed for various reasons.
Chief among them is:
It is my shield against (overpowered) LRMs.


(snip)


ECM would block target sharing but not Line of Sight targeting and missile locks.

(snip)

Agreed.

First off, I haven't hauled out my Raven or DDC in months. I've been running mostly mediums and heavies, no ECM and I'm often not under an ECM bubble. I'm about 50-50 in my W/L and sitting on a 1.52 KDR. I face LRMs all the time, and I often run with LRMs too. I survive and am an asset to my team because I use movement and terrain to mitigate LRMs.

Having said that, I like your fix idea. Its more TT like and I dig that.

[Livewyr]

DocBach, on 16 September 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

the change is incredibly simple, small, adds no new mechanics and does not change any other item -- the essay goes in depth describing every aspect of ECM from MWO to the board game pm me email

Incredibly small, and therefore much easier to chew. (Is it easier to eat a sandwich or doughnut by taking one bite at a time, or by trying to shove the whole thing in your mouth at once?)

KingCobra, on 16 September 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

Livewyr (I am looking for the simplest, easy-to-swallow, change in order to make ECM at least palatable.)

Here is your answer (LEAVE ECM ALONE FOR NOW) it needs a lot of test server time to even see if any of the thousands of ideas by the community are viable. And we should be trying to convey to Russ and PGI we are more interested in new content and advertising for new players and player retention.

Right now, alone, it is not palatable. I have not used LRMs in over a month, in any capacity, because ECM makes them unreliable. Very few of the people I run with use them at all. (Competitive or not.)

Not palatable.

Edited by Livewyr, 16 September 2014 - 08:01 AM.

[KamikazeRat]

As a simple suggestion, I like it.

As far as balancing, they can tweak when targets can be shared and when LRMs can acquire locks as separate variables.
i.e. in certain circumstances, you might be able to say "they're over here" (Dorito) but they can't get a target lock without narc/tag/los.

Also balancing lock-on times. With the above. If they find LRMs are on the upswing, increase lockon times.