138 replies to this topic

[Shismar]

Looks like LRM fans are out in force again. But no, sorry, ECM may be a sad crutch but the alternative is to nerf LRMs into oblivion.

I remember such a time when LRMs were just a joke and I liked it. Want that back? Go ahead and kill off ECM.

(Modules so you can actually benefit from ECM? I Iaughed hard.)

[Mcgral18]

Shismar, on 11 March 2015 - 01:28 PM, said:

Looks like LRM fans are out in force again. But no, sorry, ECM may be a sad crutch but the alternative is to nerf LRMs into oblivion.

I remember such a time when LRMs were just a joke and I liked it. Want that back? Go ahead and kill off ECM.

(Modules so you can actually benefit from ECM? I Iaughed hard.)

So, a Bad doesn't want a weapon system to be competitive, nor does he want to lose his Jesus Box.

Is that what you're saying?

Edited by Mcgral18, 11 March 2015 - 02:00 PM.

[Rossario x Vampire]

OP forgot that AECM/ECCM are firstly appear as experemental tech after Battle of Luthien. Mostly and firstly untill TRO Errata 4.1 where only mounted on such mechs as C-ANG-O and VME-1A. Since than in Sarna only C-ANG are left and after TRO-E 4.1 AECM finaly where able to be mounted on mechs who can or able to carry that... but only in times of... Jihad.

P.S. In TRO Errata 3.8 both... Clan HLL and BLC where able to distrupt even the A-ECM due high yeld energy beam... which caused in TT Battletech community a Great Sh!tstorm Of All Times. Since than... A-ECM is TRO 3067, BLC got it's values changed places and HLL got +4 heat added.

Hope PGI moderators will lock this useless thread.

[Pando]

Writing on forums is almost useless. If everyone who is against ECM's current iteration and has expressed that point/feeling in this thread, also posted on say RUSS's twitter I believe we are more likely to get a response.

[Wildstreak]

Pando, on 22 March 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:

Writing on forums is almost useless. If everyone who is against ECM's current iteration and has expressed that point/feeling in this thread, also posted on say RUSS's twitter I believe we are more likely to get a response.

Thing is, I don't tweet.
I don't see a point for me.
Like I told my friends, all I would ever say is, "Chirp, *****, chirp," then constantly break the character limit.
Heck, I rarely Facebook, usually just to chat with old friends living far off now and post pictures.
PGI should not use Twitter for contact between company & users.

[Chuck Jager]

Kalo Shin, on 08 March 2015 - 12:34 PM, said:

This is not the tabletop game, please stop saying we should adhere soley to a tabletop game.

Amen brother - Amen a thousand times over.
My lore is a wal-mart sale boc that I got the Mech2 game in. It is so much easier never ever having to be worried about the baggage every one get their shorts in a knot over.

[Joseph Mallan]

Vassago Rain, on 08 March 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

If you guys are so worried about bad systems, why not bring up actually broken things, like the terrain system, mechs teleporting when they get anywhere near each other, jumpjet animations providing huge increases in durability, that whole '400 meter draw distance in a cryengine game'-thing they've got going, MWO's LoD's being black and grey blobs, the reliance on red doritos to do anything, seismic still being a wallhack, CW still having absolutely no development 80 days into 'beta,' CW being built upon flawed foundations that led to massed zerg rushes (this can't be fixed unless they remake the whole thing, by the way), and so much else?

I know why you do it, though. It's easy. The other things aren't easy.

Maybe because this thread is not about those issues? Park is addressing the issue he wants to in his thread. If you want to start one addressing the issues you are concerned with we would happily chime in and tell you how pointless your efforts are as well to make you feel better.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 23 March 2015 - 01:57 AM.

[Telmasa]

100% agree to this idea. (And I have plenty of both ECM & LRM mechs, so I sit on both sides of the fence.) I had no idea about there being Angel or Guardian types of ECM - I thought ECM was just ECM.

This really should be a poll topic over in the feature suggestions area. This would fix so much of the information-warfare-consumable-spam imbalance that dominates the game right now.

Edited by Telmasa, 23 March 2015 - 01:55 AM.

[sycocys]

I more than agree that ecm needs to and has needed to be fixed since its implementation, but I also fee like somewhere along the path they lost the only programmer they had, that had the technically ability to go back and fix it.

[JaxRiot]

I played the table top version of MechWarrior years ago. I remember there different types of ECM but cant remember the exact differences.

The ECM in this game seems to be a combination of both with the added benefit of blanket coverage. I dont recall the ECMs having blanket coverage, but maybe they did I cant remember.

Its the blanket coverage that gets me. The ECM in this game applies all the same benefits to all friendly mechs within nearly 200m as if the friendly mechs had the ECM equipped themselves And even counters ECM countering measures.

I know for sure ECM blankets can counter NARC, but I also suspect (yet I cant prove) that ECM blankets even counter BAP. BAP only counters one ECM, but if the countered ECM is still blanketed by another friendly ECM then BAP is rendered useless.

Not- Im not positive about ECM blankets being able to counter BAP. I have mechs equipped with BAP and thought I noticed the above situations happening but its hard for me to pinpoint, so it could just be my imagination. I tried reading up on it but I cant find anything that says either way. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could correct me if Im wrong.

Im pretty sure ECM exists in the game as it is to counter LRM boats, which is fine with me. I dont always just bring LRM boats. But the overlapping protection that ECM provides that even counters the ECM counters make it a bit much imo.

Maybe we could keep ECM as it is, but atleast let BAP counter All ECMs within range.

Just my thoughts

Cheers

Jax

[Christof Romulus]

Greetings OP, I like your idea but lemme complain anyway!

Prosperity Park, on 08 March 2015 - 12:07 PM, said:

Let's touch on a few points that have been brought-up thus far in discussion:

1. "This would increase LRM Spam."

If Guardian ECM was released, then we could probably mount it on more Mechs, instead of just the Chosen Ones. This would reduce LRM spam considerably, since Team-Shared Targeting would be less prevalent.

No... it would effectively END the use of LRMs entirely. LRMs would become a direct-fire weapon (as literally everyone will be equipping this ECM, meaning direct, single locks only for all targets which require line of sight. When you think of it that way, you could use any direct-fire weapon which has a significantly shorter travel time to greater effect.

Quote

2. "This would make my ECM Light even worse than it is now compared to FireStarters."

If Angel ECM was replaced with Guardian ECM, then they would not have to withhold quirks and other nice features from Guardian ECM carriers. Guardian ECM would no longer be treated as a "magic boon" and that would allow ECM Mechs to be treated more like normal combat Mechs instead of Jesus-Boxers.

No... in fact, equipment as simple as 'jump jets', which are argued to be very poor, still reduce the tier quality of perks received. ECM for everyone would then blanket nerf all mechs because they could equip it. Remember, that even under this new system you describe, ECM is still VERY magic-box like. By very slightly reducing its effectiveness, but then drastically increasing its availability you're changing things in an extreme way that I don't think you're imagining.

Quote

3. "If ECM is so overpowered, how is it that none of the ECM mechs apart from the Hellbringer (and I'd argue ECM isn't the main reason) are tier 1 in the comp meta?"

Most of the current ECM Mechs are gimped because they are treated as "ECM Mechs" in the quirk system, or are just poor combatants in general. When's the last time your healthy Timberwolf was actually threatened by a healthy Commando 2D? Replacing Angel ECM with Guardian ECM would restrict these Mechs from receiving proper quirks.

Honestly I wouldn't ask this question so I have no response to this. =P

Quote

4. "Why remove the only information-denial tool we have in the game?"

It's a replacement of a low-population, high effectivity system with a less-effective system that can be employed in larger numbers. Derestricting ECM would let anyone use it, or at least many more Mechs would be able to use it. So you're trading low-frequency concentrated power for diffused power.

Again, not something I would ask, because you aren't removing the only information-denial tool... for the most part you're mass producing it...

Quote

5. "Don't you mean that the current system is actually more like Null Sig?"

Null Signature is a system that causes Mechs to retain their heat, preventing you from seeing them them with thermal cameras. So, the ECM we have in-game is not comparable to Null Sig, since you can easily see a Raven 3L with heat-vision (unless you're in Terra Therma :-p )

Again, no comment as it's not something I would ask.

Quote

6. "You'd have to rebalance everything!"

This is something I would like to discuss:

Quote

- PPCs would not need to disable ECM anymore (an easy fix, minimal programming hours needed).

Quite the contrary. PPCs would be more required than ever if information needs to be passed to your team! Every mech you see will have this new ECM, remember? Locks will NEVER be shared without something like this existing. If anything, PPC disable time should increase to 6 or 8 seconds if your change were to be instituted...

Quote

- BAP would not act as a hard-counter to Guardian ECM, but would rather be countered BY Guardian ECM at close range (another easy fix, minimal programming hours required).

... But BAP doesn't need a counter... BAP can be equipped on all mechs, and even then, according to the last numbers from PGI, it only really has been put on 20%. BAP practically doesn't DO anything in this game, why would ECM counter it? What possible thing is BAP doing that ECM even NEEDS to counter it? Nobody has made a single post about BAP, complaining that its function currently is 'just too damn high'...

Quote

- Team Targeting would have to be slightly modified (instead of blocking ALL targeting like Angel ECM does now, Guardian ECM would only block shared-team-targeting)

Yes... on all 12 enemies... making LRMs useless...

Quote

- Missile Locks would have to be slightly modified (locks on LOS only if the enemy is within Guardian bubble)

Right... something I touched up on earlier about LRMs being relegated to direct fire only.

Quote

Really,the only thing they'd have to worry about is if/how Guardian ECM will decrease over-all detection ranges and lock times. Right now, detection-range is eliminated completely by Angel ECM, and lock-times are lengthened if you TAG an enemy under ECM. If guardian ECm was employed, then detection ranges might be reduced by 25-40% with Guardian, or something like that, and lock-times are already nicely affected by current ECM rules.

No... I think you missed the whole removal of a weapon system from the game thing.

[Weeny Machine]

The ECM crutch just shows how badly implemented LRMs are. The problem is the fire and forget component which you need for indirect fire. So, maybe indirect fire should only be possible on tagged and narced targets. Then the direct fire ability could be buffed (e.g. speed increased for unguided missiles). At the same time ECM a little bit nerfed

Shismar, on 11 March 2015 - 01:28 PM, said:

Looks like LRM fans are out in force again. But no, sorry, ECM may be a  sad crutch but the alternative is to nerf LRMs into oblivion.

I remember such a time when LRMs were just a joke and I liked it. Want that back? Go ahead and kill off ECM.

(Modules so you can actually benefit from ECM? I Iaughed hard.)

Wh...wha...what? According to this forum all you need to 100% mitigate LRMs is cover - which is always nearby and easily accessed. Therefore people who have problems with LRMs are total noobs.

Edited by Bush Hopper, 23 March 2015 - 10:48 AM.

[stjobe]

Bush Hopper, on 23 March 2015 - 10:39 AM, said:

The ECM crutch just shows how badly implemented LRMs are.

No argument there, they're really badly implemented.

Bush Hopper, on 23 March 2015 - 10:39 AM, said:

The problem is the fire and forget component which you need for indirect fire.

Here's where you lost me though; there's no "fire and forget" with LRMs. You have to maintain lock from launch to impact - which is rather silly for a weapon that's described in lore as "self-guided".

If anything, LRMs (and SRMs) need to be made fire-and-forget in the first place. Maybe then we could get some semblance of balance to them - and to ECM.

Bush Hopper, on 23 March 2015 - 10:39 AM, said:

So, maybe indirect fire should only be possible on tagged and narced targets.

No, no, no. Indirect fire is possible with ANY unit in BattleTech. It can be a single infantryman with a radio, a Swift Wind wheeled scout vehicle, a 'mech, or for that matter a fixed installation.

You just need a unit (ANY unit) with LoS to the target, and be without LoS to the target yourself, and you can fire LRMs indirectly.

[Strum Wealh]

stjobe, on 23 March 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

Here's where you lost me though; there's no "fire and forget" with LRMs. You have to maintain lock from launch to impact - which is rather silly for a weapon that's described in lore as "self-guided".

If anything, LRMs (and SRMs) need to be made fire-and-forget in the first place. Maybe then we could get some semblance of balance to them - and to ECM.

They don't really need to be fire-and-forget - what we have in MWO is a SACLOS-type implementation, which is a perfectly-valid form of missile guidance.

Quote

Semi-automatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) is a method of missile command guidance. In SACLOS, the operator has to continually point a sighting device at the target while the missile is in flight. Electronics in the sighting device and/or the missile then guide it to the target.

In fact, looking at how fire-and-forget guidance is described/defined (...does not require further guidance after launch such as illumination of the target or wire guidance, and can hit its target without the launcher being in line-of-sight of the target...), BT missiles don't really fit that definition (since the launcher necessarily has to maintain LOS for a direct-fire attack, or a spotter with LOS (which must likewise maintain LOS) has to guide it in for an indirect-fire attack).

At best, Streak missiles (which also require the launcher to have a LOS in order to make an attack) could be seen as using some form of ACLOS-type guidance ("target tracking, missile tracking and control are automatic", as it would also need to calculate the probability of the missile hitting the target anyway, in order to fulfill the Streak system's primary purpose of ammo conservation).

Edited by Strum Wealh, 23 March 2015 - 12:57 PM.

[stjobe]

MWO "missiles" are semi-guided at best (LRMs, SSRMs), and rockets at worst (SRMs).

BT missiles are self-guided, i.e. fire-and-forget. All BT missiles are, except MRMs.

Yes, BT LRMs are fire-and-forget. So are BT SRMs and SSRMs.

Lock, fire, next target.

I think MWO missiles should work that way too, but that's too long of a proposal to put here (in this margin ). I might make a thread in suggestions about it, maybe it'll be the 1,000th thread about how to improve MWO missiles...

[DocBach]

https://docs.google....VTg/mobilebasic

Here

[JaxRiot]

DocBach, on 23 March 2015 - 01:36 PM, said:

https://docs.google....VTg/mobilebasic

Here

that was an impressive read. when was that written?

[DocBach]

Back when Russ wanted ideas to change ECM.... November or so. Hasn't been updated after the changes to beagle, though.

[Strum Wealh]

stjobe, on 23 March 2015 - 01:26 PM, said:

MWO "missiles" are semi-guided at best (LRMs, SSRMs), and rockets at worst (SRMs).

BT missiles are self-guided, i.e. fire-and-forget. All BT missiles are, except MRMs.

Yes, BT LRMs are fire-and-forget. So are BT SRMs and SSRMs.

Lock, fire, next target.

I think MWO missiles should work that way too, but that's too long of a proposal to put here (in this margin ). I might make a thread in suggestions about it, maybe it'll be the 1,000th thread about how to improve MWO missiles...

I do agree that MWO's LRMs are an amalgamation of what should really be separate munition types (Artemis-compatible munitions (which are distinct from, and more expensive than, standard LRMs in TT), Narc-compatible munitions (which, again, are distinct from & more expensive than standard LRMs in TT), and semi-guided LRMs (which are technically out-of-timeline)), and would have been better implemented as each munition being separate (rather than the combined state that they're in now) and having the launchers able to use the various munition types (see here) separately or together via ammo switching.

I also agree that SRMs are poorly implemented with regard to their implementation as unguided missiles - unguided "Dead-Fire Missiles" were an alternate munition type for SRMs (and LRMs), not the standard munition, and I've consistently maintained that SRMs should have been implemented as the guided weapons that they were meant to be (see here, here, and here).

However, the fact of the matter is that "self-guided" is not the same thing as "fire-and-forget" - SACLOS-type missiles are self-guided but is not fire-and-forget (as the missile's tracking & control systems are automatic and on-board the missile itself, but LOS must be maintained between the launcher (or a spotter) and the target for a missile lock to be maintained in order to track the target), while "not self-guided" would be exemplified by MCLOS ("both target tracking and missile tracking and control are performed manually" & "the operator watches the missile flight, and uses a signaling system to command the missile back into the straight line between operator and target (the 'line of sight')") and SMCLOS ("Target tracking is automatic, while missile tracking and control is manual") type missiles (as, in both cases, missile tracking and control is performed by the operator onboard the firing platform).
Even ACLOS does not necessarily equate to fire-and-forget, as the (automatic) target-tracking component in an ACLOS system may be housed onboard the firing unit, while a true F&F missile seems to necessarily require having everything onboard.

Since even spotting for someone else's indirect-fire attacks requires some active attention on the part of a MechWarrior (as "the ’Mech may not spot for indirect LRM fire or artillery fire or take any other action that would normally require it to sacrifice an attack" while sprinting (where the MechWarrior's attention is wholly focused on not falling over)), direct-fire attacks necessarily require the firing platform to have LOS to the target (even though some 'Mech sensors don't necessarily require LOS to detect/target an opponent; TacOps states, "However, just because your sensors have picked up a target doesn’t mean the target is visible. Once a sensor has revealed a unit, standard LOS must be established to the unit before it can be revealed."), and indirect-fire attacks necessarily require the spotter(s) to have LOS to the target (again, even though some sensor types don't necessarily require LOS to detect/target an opponent; TacOps states, "Only targets that have been spotted by a friendly unit in that turn may be attacked. All standard weapons-fire rules apply."), what evidence we have seems to suggest that BT generally uses SACLOS-type guidence systems (or something very similar) in its standard missile launcher munitions.