138 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

Just to be clear, Neither GECM or AECM block missiles from firing though; clarified below. They block bonuses attached to missile systems, or other systems, or a likelihood "to hit" and the number of missiles that actually hit.

AECM Blocks ->
* Artemis IV Bonus LOS Only (improved accuracy),
* Artemis V Bonus LOS Only (improved accuracy and + increased cluster/amount of to hit),
* Beagle Active Probe bonuses (detect/classify targets at increased range, detecting shut down Mechs) <-BAP is the actual component that alerts a pilot of being jammed if ECM is nearby, that little "low signal" symbol or something like it should only be for BAP
* Bloodhound Active Probe Bonuses (Same bonuses as BAP + can negate bonuses of other equipment such as Stealth Armor, Void Signature Systems, NULL Signature, and ECM - Original game rules state AECM nullifies Bloodhound bonuses, new rules simply still all "ECM Suites" are negated against Bloodhound)
* C3 Master Computer bonuses (Target Data Sharing IE What kind of Mech, Whats on it, "Range To Target" Sharing Benefits and "free" TAG ability) <-Note Range To Target benefits means whichever C3 in the lance is closest to the target, all others in an unbroken C3 chain get the same Range to Target benefits as the closest Mech, which opens up interesting things like firing your weapon outside normal range and still doing damage
* C3 Slave bonuses (All Master computer bonuses if "in-network", also does not have "free" TAG ability)
* SSRM bonus (improved accuracy/liklihood to hit)
* NARC Beacon bonuses (a beacon emits a homing signal, the true way in which SRM/LRM's can home in on a target provided the SRM/LRM fired is loaded with the more expensive "SRM-Narc Capable" or "LRM-Narc Capable" ammunition, it also allows actual indirect fire, whereby the Missile simply seeks out the target without aiming, unless you're in a C3 lance to "see" the target <- ECMs simply shut off the beacons homing signal)

ECM/AECM do NOT block -> Any missile system from locking, except SSRM against AECM, both ECM Suites however slightly reduce chance of more missiles hitting (but not all) or negates accuracy bonuses as described above.

Bonus notes: SSRMs can still dumb-fire as they are supposed to, but for some reason was always absent in MWO, a dumb-fired SSRM behaves exactly like an SRM (chance of wasting missiles to hit).

Also TAG - mainly only for guiding "semi guided LRMs (3057)" or designating an Arrow IV artillery missile, Artillery from Land or Naval, note a Naval unit actually gains a bonus -2 to likelihood to hit (Arrow IV, Actual Artillery units or Naval not in game)


Either way the way PGI did it is bonkers backwards going on now 2-3+ years ago. Nothing but a total rewrite of ecm, lrm targeting behavior, all that equipment, etc. would work though, as just changing a few things here and there piecemeal would probably cause more trouble. Its a lot more in-depth in BT, like a massive game of paper-rock-scissors.

Edited by General Taskeen, 09 March 2015 - 11:26 AM.

[Whatzituyah]

I know I didn't read the whole topic but isn't Single Heatsinks already invalidated? Why would it matter if streaks were able to dumb fire as well as lock on because something else is already invalidated if they can make Single Heatsinks valid again in this game then I will shut up about the streaks. Now for ecm I kinda agree it should decrease lock on time not just get rid of it all together everyone hugs the ecm bubble because of lrms it only lead to boring range battles mostly.

[GeneralArmchair]

The thing about single heat sinks is that the only mechs that are hurt are trial mechs. Everyone else is on equal footing.

If water was more prevalent, then the cooling bonus for heat sinks in your feet would be more meaningful (only possible for the IS with SHS).

[Whatzituyah]

GeneralArmchair, on 09 March 2015 - 12:42 PM, said:

The thing about single heat sinks is that the only mechs that are hurt are trial mechs. Everyone else is on equal footing.

If water was more prevalent, then the cooling bonus for heat sinks in your feet would be more meaningful (only possible for the IS with SHS).

Your saying it doesn't work for Clan Doubles?

[GeneralArmchair]

I'm saying that the IS need SHS to take advantage of that bonus because Is DHS can't fit in their feet.




Ofcourse clan tech obsoletes IS tech at pretty much everything.

[Whatzituyah]

GeneralArmchair, on 09 March 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:

I'm saying that the IS need SHS to take advantage of that bonus because Is DHS can't fit in their feet.




Ofcourse clan tech obsoletes IS tech at pretty much everything.

If water was on every map sure it would be useful but its not.

[anonymous161]

I think there should be a limited number of ecm that can be used in a match. In cw you get crazy light rushes with ecm spam so that no one can target anyone unless they are point blank range basically, it's rather annoying.

[GeneralArmchair]

@whatsittuyah
I don't know what you're expecting man. In lore and in TT mechanics, DHS obsoleted SHS. As soon as that lostech was recovered, the houses did everything they could to upgrade their forces.

The few advantages for SHS were extremely niche scenarios. The primary drawback to using DHS was the increased expense and BV cost. Unfortunately pgi is reluctant to adopt any kind of BV equivalent system.

[1453 R]

I like the original notion of G-ECM interfering with target sharing, but I’ve pointed this out in just about every thread that attempts to point to the original G-ECM tabletop functionality as a measure of what the system should be, and I’m going to do it here, too:

G-ECM’s canonical functionality is to nullify moderately advanced enemy electronic equipment (TAG, BAP/CAP, Artemis, first-gen C3). This functionality is utterly pointless in MWO since nobody uses that crap if they have the remotest choice. I’m an information warfare junkie who is still futilely pining for the day when Piranha decides to do an IW Pillar pass and give us some actual blasted warfare in Information Warfare…and even I find it hard to justify Beagles on most of my Spheroid ‘Mechs, when I’m often specifically aiming for an information advantage over my enemies.

G-ECM’s canonical functionality is garbage so long as the things it was built to counter are also garbage.

In order to redo G-ECM, you’d need to rebuild the entire IW pillar, which I am super totally RIGHT THERE in favor of, but which we all also know is never going to happen since the CW folks will pitch a galactic-class fit if Piranha diverts any resources whatsoever to anything but CW improvements. As an example, though…let’s see what we might do to make the original functionality of G-ECM worth doing.

IW 2.0 – New Equipment Rules:
Beagle Active Probe – BAP/CAP increase targeting range by the standard 25%, and also halve the time it takes to acquire paperdoll data. The BAP/CAP unit also transmits paperdoll information instantly to allied targets, provided the BAP/CAP ‘Mech has that information itself. Furthermore, the Active part of the active probe is regained by granting the equipped ‘Mech the ability to detect and target any ‘Mech within 120m of itself, regardless of LoS, making BAP/CAP invaluable in tight confines as was originally intended to be the case. (360 Retention and Seismic modules remain as a ‘free’ alternative to some portions of the Active Probe’s functionality, but no longer do a bunch of neurohelmet hacks provide more functionality than a ton and a half of advanced sensor gear.)

TAG – TAG’s effect ‘sticks’ for five seconds (negotiable) after the spotter loses LoS on the target. This permits TAG users the option of defensive twisting, and also makes TAG much more difficult to shake, which helps offset the drawbacks of its extreme visibility to enemies. This also more closely simulates the spirit of TT, in which a TAG ‘Mech doesn’t really suffer any defensive penalties for using its TAG (that I know of, anyways) and can be assumed to be doing things like defending itself in the ten second intervals which represent a TT turn.

Artemis FCS – Artemis FCS halves the spread of a missile salvo, rather than a simple 25% reduction or whatever low number it currently adds, and furthermore increases the velocity of missile fire by 25%. The effect is to get more tightly clustered missiles on target more accurately, while also giving LRM users a better chance in the direct-fire confrontations Artemis requires. This can in turn permit adjustments to other facets of LRM gameplay (reduced cockpit shake/particle blinding in return for faster-traveling, tighter-hitting missiles that actually do their damned job).

NARC – …actually mostly good right now, even if it needs its module to work properly. Rework its interaction with G-ECM and we’ll be all right.

See? Now the canonical effects of G-ECM are looking pretty hawt, considering that the Active Probes can now completely ruin your hide-and-fade attacks in tight quarters, and that something with TAG and Artemis is starting to actually look pretty dang scary if it can catch you out of cover. Being able to nullify powerful enemy electronics makes G-ECM worthwhile, and also gives players a new facet of combat in which each side tries to leverage its EW advantages while seeking to minimize the enemy’s. Light ‘Mechs with active probes can actually be worthwhile scouts, LRM boats get to actively work towards opportunities to devastate their enemies instead of being completely at the mercy of team composition, and the best part of all?

The choice between a ton of ammo, a heat sink, or an active probe is actually a straight-up choice again, with significant consequences and benefits of each. IW starts to look less like a failed promise and more like an actual blasted pillar of gameplay.

Gawd, wouldn’t it be amazing? >_>…

[Rasc4l]

OP is correct. ECM is still the elephant in the living room and I hope PGI doesn't think it's ok.

I recently thought of something like this to fix ECM and I'm surprised to see a significant correlation with our thoughts:


1) ECM no longer creates a bubble and only affects the mech equipped with it.

Result -> Horrendous LRM spam. To counter this:


2) LRMs can only be locked to enemy mechs with line-of-sight.

Result -> LRMs become subpar weapons, because no LRM-mech can suffer to go face-to-face with gauss or PPC at ranges. To counter this:


3) Introduce C3 Master module and C3 Slave module. LRM-mech equipped with C3 Master can lock to targets without LOS if the friendly mech targeting the enemy mech is equipped with C3 Slave module.*

Result -> No general LRM-spam (save the noobs), because they become weapons that are most effectively used with teamwork (competitive).

* Mechs with TAG or NARC should not be required to have a C3 Slave and they should still be able to give locks to friendly LRM-mechs (but only while directly TAGging the enemy or when the enemy is NARCed). The LRM-mech still needs to have a C3 Master module for this (and to get locks through UAVs). However, to boost teamplay and help LRMs a bit more, TAG/NARC mechs should have a cumulative bonus from using a C3 Slave module with TAG/NARC, for example with decreased locking times/tighter missile flight formation. Also because of requiring LOS in general, it is possible that minor increase to the time locks stay in general is required to help LRMs (and/or lessen the effect of radar deprivation a little).

[MoonfireSpam]

Rasc4l, on 09 March 2015 - 04:12 PM, said:

3) Introduce C3 Master module and C3 Slave module. LRM-mech equipped with C3 Master can lock to targets without LOS if the friendly mech targeting the enemy mech is equipped with C3 Slave module.*

Result -> No general LRM-spam (save the noobs), because they become weapons that are most effectively used with teamwork (competitive).

What bonus does ECM offer in this scenario? Assuming no ECM bubble could get messy

Effectively that solution sounds like a tonnage tax for indirect fire LRM which is fine, as long as it is significant enough that not everyone takes it. Else you just end with LRM over-suppressing everything since even using cover etc. there are enough places in maps where LRMs aren't blocked (e.g. a lot of Canyon walls that aren't steep enough to block LRMs) and super passive gameplay.

[Artgathan]

1453 R, on 09 March 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

[Buff information warfare]!

I wrote a topic a while ago that was all about increasing Information Warfare without actually modifying any of the in-game equipment. The general idea was to make Information Warfare a more active experience for players by forcing them to actually scan their surroundings for enemies, and discussing a possible implementation of C3. You can read more about it here: Information Warfare Overhaul

In general I think the ability to prevent sensor locks is necessary for Information Warfare, as it's the only thing the really allows for flanking maneuvers against anyone who isn't brain dead (as if you become partially exposed, even for a second, the 'dorito' will pop-up and expose you).

[Aethon]

If we remove Angel ECM...will we also remove the C3 system that every mech in the game currently mounts, free of crit space and tonnage?

Edited by Aethon, 09 March 2015 - 06:20 PM.

[GeneralArmchair]

Sure. The precise armor level details of the targeting info can be stripped away, but keep in mind that C3 networks are not a pre-requisite for indirect LRM fire. Even an infantry squad without any special equipment can call in indirect lrm fire from an LRM platform.

[Durandal]

I didn't read the whole thread (not enough time, will try it later), but the thing that jumped out at me from the OP is this: If you change how ECM works, you have to radically modify NARC, as it will no longer have any sort of hard counter. Right now the only thing that stops NARC from getting someone killed by LRM rain is ECM, something even more prevalent now that it's HBR time again. With your change as suggested, people will simply start including a NARC in their loadouts, and it will slaughter people.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

OP did not understood at all what sarna is speaking about, just like devs I suppose. Reading without understandings. Calling 1+1=3. How to discuss with people that just cant understand simple things, you just cant.

ECM is supposed to block narc, by the way.

[Mechteric]

GECM and Angel ECM should both be in the game as separate pieces of equipment, not the current combined into one deal.

[WintermuteOmega]

All i read when i see these post is:
"I waaaanaaaaa my Misslesles hits allll the teime!! STUUUUPID ECM!!!!"

Again, since there are many ways to counter ECM (Narc, PPC, UAV, TAG, Counter ECM, BAP or friggen KILL - or better: let your teammates kill - that ECM-bearing buggers first) i think the outrage of Lurmers complaining about ECM is just riddicules. It's always the same: Lurmers complain about ECM, Nonlurmers complain about Master-C3 spotting and no malus for indirect fire.

Sometimes i run LURMS, and yes, ECM can be anoying. But then you have to be patient and clever with your use of Lurms. And maybe just use your TAG to paint your own targets.

[Almond Brown]

Meeso Thorny, on 09 March 2015 - 09:48 AM, said:

You should not be able to fire LRMs on a targeted mech that is not in your own radar scope...without C3

All MWO BattleMechs have a C3 Master/Slave component. Thus why these discussions in the first place. If PGI had decided to make C3 a thing that players could or not mount, what would be the point when only 1/2 or 1/3 of your team had the gear, because you know a lot of players prefer more guns to even armor ffs.

And if only 1/2/ or 1/3 of any Team had C3, and it was the wrong 1/2 or 1/3, then any LRM's brought would require that Pilot to face time the enemy for as much as 6 seconds (max flight time) to deliver them themselves. Now some would say that is great, but given the way MWO plays now, even 2-3 seconds of face time can get you killed.

So yes a FREE C3 allows shared targeting but the alternative would likely make LRM's even worse than the lowly MG, according to many.

So many time we read, "Role Warfare" where is it. PGI has put in place a shitload of Tech to use and still most players load only weapons, weapons and as minimal heat protection as possible and yet complain when the rain comes and they didn't even think that maybe an umbrella might have been a good idea.

If it weighs anything and it you don't go DAKAKAKA or WUB WUB WUB many simply don't care to have it on their machines, regardless if would be a good idea anyways.

So Electronic Role Warfare is a misnomer and always will be and it is because of the way Players play, not because PGI didn't provide the tools...

Edited by Almond Brown, 10 March 2015 - 09:26 AM.

[Rasc4l]

MoonfireSpam, on 09 March 2015 - 05:08 PM, said:

What bonus does ECM offer in this scenario? Assuming no ECM bubble could get messy

Effectively that solution sounds like a tonnage tax for indirect fire LRM which is fine, as long as it is significant enough that not everyone takes it. Else you just end with LRM over-suppressing everything since even using cover etc. there are enough places in maps where LRMs aren't blocked (e.g. a lot of Canyon walls that aren't steep enough to block LRMs) and super passive gameplay.

But it's not a tonnage tax, because I was thinking of modules. So one would have to sacrifice one module slot to relay locking ability to LRM-mechs. I don't think too many would go for this, because radar derp and wallhack are much more important modules. ECM would offer the same bonus as it does now but only for the mech carrying it. My suggestion would probably require little tweaks to existing mechanics (locking times etc.) to balance it right.