169 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

That "jesus box" having "too strong an influence on the game" is why I am having so much fun building hunter-killer Mechs in the first place. Why should I want that to end?

I fail to see how changing ECM to only stealth the mech its equipped on would make your hunter-killer any different? Your mech would still get stealth.

You just wouldnt give stealth to other mechs on your team. But support is not a role of hunter-killers anyway.

[Madcap72]

Stefka Kerensky, on 22 April 2015 - 05:53 AM, said:

Guess what happened here.

very, balanced match, gg close, right?




Avoid idiotic comments like "blue team should have choose some ecm mech....l2p"....
Because this is pugville. And because vs UBER quantity of ecm mech, a team MUST choose an uber quantity of ecm mech.

Someone here said that "ain't going to happen, blablaBLSA, BLABLAbla"

Let's see with cheetha, shadowcat, and black knight coming.... here a balanced match should have 5 ecm mech vs 5 ecm mechs.

A paradise game for ecm fan boyz... crap game for serious players.

Some of these guys had "the magic jesus box", yet with nothing more than humble lrms that are considered totatlly ineffective on here, I had no issues.



Conclusion, clearly ECM is not a problem based on one match in a pug game.

SInce the point of this thread is to stretch logic to it's breaking point, clearly the most effective way to counter ECM is to just kill everyone yourself.

[bad arcade kitty]

i just got an idea from another thread

ecm right now don't turn off enemy team chat... while it definitely should interrupting their radio communications
our ecm is in this aspect weaker than in battletech

[JaxRiot]

Madcap72, on 22 April 2015 - 08:51 PM, said:

Some of these guys had "the magic jesus box", yet with nothing more than humble lrms that are considered totatlly ineffective on here, I had no issues.



Conclusion, clearly ECM is not a problem based on one match in a pug game.

SInce the point of this thread is to stretch logic to it's breaking point, clearly the most effective way to counter ECM is to just kill everyone yourself.

I have to agree with you that a single screen shot from a single game does not really prove much.

But just for fairness sake, Stefkas screen showed a game where the winning team had 3 ecm capable mechs and the losing team had zero ecm capable mechs. Yours shows both teams with one ecm capable mech each. The Raven on one team and the Atlas on the other that I could make out. Neither team had multiples of ecm that could cause overlapping ecm coverages and neither team had a clear ecm advantage over the other. They were both equally ecm light having just one each that I could see.

So even though Im not a fan of single screenshots these two are not very comparable imo.

Just out of curiosity, how old is the screen shot you provided?

Edited by JaxRiot, 22 April 2015 - 10:19 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Khobai, on 22 April 2015 - 03:21 PM, said:

um no. clearly you dont know what stealth means. if youre barrage jamming the enemy knows youre there. its called "offensive" jamming because it reveals your presence to the enemy. offensive jamming only occurs after stealth has already been compromised.

In the context of MWO:

Creating ghost signatures so the enemy cant discern the real signatures from the fake signatures would be offensive jamming.

Cloaking your entire team so they dont appear on radar at all is stealth.

From both a realistic and game balance standpoint, ECM should not do the latter.


However, since MWO has no other stealth equipment, ECM granting stealth to the mech its equipped would be temporarily acceptable until other stealth equipment is eventually added.

Ideally Null Signature System and Stealth Armor should be added and those should be the only two ways to gain stealth (and possibly passive sensor mode as a third way). And then Ghost Mode could also be added for ECM which would allow you to create fake radar signatures.

The definition of stealth is quite clear:

• "Stealth technology, or more correctly, low observable technology, includes various methods to hide or make assets less detectable (ideally less visible) from radar, infrared or other sensors."
  
• "In military aviation, stealth refers to an asset aided with novel technologies to improve its mission survivability by elimination of adversary detection capability from all possible sensors. The term low observability, which is preferred in technical and formal jargon, is defined as a degree of achieving the total stealth ability. Various classes of stealthiness are used to indicate the degree of undetectability an asset possesses. These classes increase in stealthiness in the following order: low observables, very low observables and stealth. Sometimes low observability refers to the steps taken to achieve the total goal of stealth. However, because it is impossible to reach complete undetectability, many publications use the terms of low observable and stealth interchangeably."

(source)

Put more succinctly, "stealth" is defined as "low-observable technologies and tactics" (source), wherein noise jamming (of which barrage jamming is one variation) is but one of "various methods to hide or make assets less detectable (ideally less visible) from radar, infrared or other sensors".

• "A radar receiver detects a target by comparing the voltage of the received signal with a preset threshold voltage. If the received voltage is greater than the threshold, the radar is said to have detected a target. Radar receivers are designed to meet two main opposing specifications. These are the probability of detection (P_d) and probability of false alarm (P_fa). A radar's probability of detection is a measure of how often the radar will actually detect a target when a target is present. The probability of false alarm is a measure of how often a radar will decide that a target is present when there is not a target present. The parameters of P_d and P_fa are used to determine a radar's required signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the minimum required signal power. An increase in the noise power will result in a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio. The decrease in SNR, which is due to an increase in noise power, causes a decrease in the radar's probability of detection and an increase in the radar's probability of false alarm."
  
• "A radar receiver receives a signal that is the summation of the desired radar waveform and the external noise. A large value of noise power may cause the receiver to announce the presence of a target when in reality, no target is present. This false detection is termed a false alarm, and increases the radar's probability of false alarm. A second effect of the external noise is to force the receiver to conclude there is no target when an actual target is present, thereby decreasing the radar's probability of detection."
  
• "The primary goal of noise jamming is to increase the radar's P_fa and decrease the radar's P_d by producing a high power noise waveform that approximates the thermal noise already present in the receiver."

"Total stealth" - as you're defining "stealth", Khobai - is an impossibility; what actual stealth systems (which include "active cancellation of incoming radar signals" through the use of " platform-mounted active transmitters") is "achieve RCS reduction" such that "the return signal from a target to the radar is so small (on the order of a bird’s radar signature or smaller) that it is not detected as a threat" at a given range (with the goal of making that range sort as possible).
Ad, as demonstrated above, the passive measures that you're thinking of (e.g. shaping features and signal-absorbent coatings) are not the only means of achieving stealthiness.

And, as previously demonstrated, "escort jamming" (wherein a jamming platform uses its capabilities to provide anti-radar cover for one or more nearby friendly units) is a real and well-documented applications of ECM systems.

[Madcap72]

JaxRiot, on 22 April 2015 - 10:16 PM, said:

I have to agree with you that a single screen shot from a single game does not really prove much.

But just for fairness sake, Stefkas screen showed a game where the winning team had 3 ecm capable mechs and the losing team had zero ecm capable mechs. Yours shows both teams with one ecm capable mech each. The Raven on one team and the Atlas on the other that I could make out. Neither team had multiples of ecm that could cause overlapping ecm coverages and neither team had a clear ecm advantage over the other. They were both equally ecm light having just one each that I could see.

So even though Im not a fan of single screenshots these two are not very comparable imo.

Just out of curiosity, how old is the screen shot you provided?

It's old, back when LRM's did 1.1 damage, and as you've stated and was my intention the post was only intended to satarize the use of single screenshots to "prove" something about the game mechanic.

BUT! At the same time, even in the current set up, with much, much more ECM I'm still routinly getting 200K+ c-bill games and 5-600 damage games, with 3-4 kills.


One thing the OP fails to note, is that "The magic jesus box" is used differntly and to differnt effect at differnt elo levels. I've played games against teams that had players that were so good, they would focus fire induvidule componants on mechs to destroy the most useful stuff. For me, they shot my catapults ears off, then left me alive. On my buddy, running a kitfox set up to spot for me, they shot off his ECM and left him as well.

The OP and others, make it sound like every mech will have ECM. I feel that just won't be the case at all, because who needs it when there's the radar derp module, and all the terrain to use for cover till the murderball pops out? All game balance changes do is make it so top level players adapt ASAP to take advantage of changes. Nothing will even truly balance out, as long as it's an induvidual skill based game.

[Khobai]

Quote

And, as previously demonstrated, "escort jamming" (wherein a jamming platform uses its capabilities to provide anti-radar cover for one or more nearby friendly units) is a real and well-documented applications of ECM systems.

again. offensive jamming is not considered stealth because offensive jamming tells the enemy that you have planes in their sky. especially if you have ECCM or EPM which are systems specifically designed to counter jamming.

if jamming was stealth it would be called stealth. its called jamming because its not stealth. they are two entirely different concepts that are both employed to complement one another.

jamming is generally only used when stealth has already been compromised. the whole point of stealth is to approach the target without alerting them to your presence. the moment you start jamming you notify them of your presence (modern ECCM/EPM detects ECM easily). jamming just makes you harder to pinpoint. but its still better to avoid detection in the first place.

Besides how ECM works in real life has absolutely no bearing on what is and isnt balanced in MWO. ECM isnt balanced in MWO so it needs to change. Simple as that.

Edited by Khobai, 23 April 2015 - 09:58 AM.

[JaxRiot]

Madcap72, on 23 April 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

It's old, back when LRM's did 1.1 damage, and as you've stated and was my intention the post was only intended to satarize the use of single screenshots to "prove" something about the game mechanic.

Ok I can respect what you were trying to do. But with all due respect, Im not sure how you were going to achieve your goal to satarize with such a drastically different screen shot.

Stefkas screenshot was an attempt to show how one team with multiple ecm has a distinct advantage over a team that has no ecm at all. Whether or not thats actually true or not is up for debate, but atleast the screenshot showed he/she was trying to prove.

Yours on the other hand is an old screenshot from a time when LRMs were much more powerful, on a map that favors LRMs, in a match that had almost no ecm.

Im sorry but I dont see the point you were trying to prove. Your screenshot had nothing to do with Stefkas point and from a different era with a completely different ecm environment. Im sorry I just dont get it

Madcap72, on 23 April 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

BUT! At the same time, even in the current set up, with much, much more ECM I'm still routinly getting 200K+ c-bill games and 5-600 damage games, with 3-4 kills.

Fair enough and I believe you. But define routinely. Routinely as in every other match? Or Routinely as in every 10 or so matches?

Also since this is a thread about ecm, what is the ecm environment like when you get those scores with your LRMs? Can you still achieve those scores with LRMs when the opposing team has 3 or 4 ECMs and your team has none?

Madcap72, on 23 April 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

One thing the OP fails to note, is that "The magic jesus box" is used differntly and to differnt effect at differnt elo levels. I've played games against teams that had players that were so good, they would focus fire induvidule componants on mechs to destroy the most useful stuff. For me, they shot my catapults ears off, then left me alive. On my buddy, running a kitfox set up to spot for me, they shot off his ECM and left him as well.

My sincerest apologies but those are two bad examples. The CPLT-A1's ears are so big that even with bad hit reg they are easy to hit, and the kitfox can only mount ecm and weapons in their arms which are the first to go because they are so puny.

Youre making like you play at an ELO level where everyone is a surgical shot and then give two examples of disarming that even mid ranged players could pull off.

Although the fact that your opponents knew enough about your mech specs that they knew you were no longer a threat and were not going to waste their ammo or time on you is pretty impressive. Knowledge is always good.

Madcap72, on 23 April 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

The OP and others, make it sound like every mech will have ECM. I feel that just won't be the case at all

Ah see now thats why I say that you purposely go to extremes in an effort to try and trivialize what people are trying to say. Nobody has said that every mech will eventually be ecm capable. What we are saying is that the game will become ecm saturated.

The next Clan pack is bringing another medium ecm capable mech and another light ecm mech, and they are already talking about adding an IS Heavy ecm capable mech. My guess will be a Clan Assault ECM capable mech after that.

Madcap72, on 23 April 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

because who needs it when there's the radar derp module, and all the terrain to use for cover till the murderball pops out? All game balance changes do is make it so top level players adapt ASAP to take advantage of changes. Nothing will even truly balance out, as long as it's an induvidual skill based game.

Using radar derp, and the terrain for cover is all great. Those take environmental and situational awareness. They take actions and efforts to use and good players can use them very skillfully. Which is also great.

But let me ask.. How much 'skill' does ecm require to use? It acts passively. There is no heat to manage, no ammo to manage. No need to target anyone for it to function. All a player has to do is equip it and, Ta-daaa, instant benefits.

In the end, Im not trying to get ecm taken away. I just feel it needs to be more balanced out. It can do too much while requiring so little to function.

I mean, at least let NARC and BAP over ride ECMs blanket coverage instead of ECM blanket coverage over riding them rendering them near uselessness.

[Strum Wealh]

Khobai, on 23 April 2015 - 09:44 AM, said:

again. offensive jamming is not considered stealth because offensive jamming tells the enemy that you have planes in their sky. especially if you have ECCM or EPM which are systems specifically designed to counter jamming.

if jamming was stealth it would be called stealth. its called jamming because its not stealth. they are two entirely different concepts that are both employed to complement one another.

jamming is generally only used when stealth has already been compromised. the whole point of stealth is to approach the target without alerting them to your presence. the moment you start jamming you notify them of your presence (modern ECCM/EPM detects ECM easily). jamming just makes you harder to pinpoint. but its still better to avoid detection in the first place.

Besides how ECM works in real life has absolutely no bearing on what is and isnt balanced in MWO. ECM isnt balanced in MWO so it needs to change. Simple as that.

"In the physical world, platforms that implement RF stealth technology are not invisible to radar. This technology reduces the detection range analogous to camouflage tactics. When applied to aircraft, this method is referred to as radar cross section (RCS) reduction. Using this method, the return signal from a target to the radar is so small (on the order of a bird’s radar signature or smaller) that it is not detected as a threat.
To achieve RCS reduction, four approaches are used. The first one applies shaping features. In a conventional radar configuration, the transmitter and receiver are collocated, so the stealth platform is shaped to reflect the incoming radar signal in a direction other than directly back to the radar. The second approach seeks to absorb, cancel or scatter the incoming radar transmitter signals so as not to reflect them to the radar receiver(s). This is accomplished by the application of special coatings to the platform’s body or using special composites or materials in platform construction. The third technique implements passive cancellation. Cancellation is achieved by adding a skin to the surface of the platform which acts as a secondary scatterer and cancels the reflected field from the primary target. The fourth technique implements active cancellation of incoming radar signals. Technologies, including the use of platform mounted active transmitters, are employed that mask and cancel out these signals. One additional approach involves the absorption of RF signals using a plasma layer, formed with ionized and conductive gas particles. There are not many applications of this technique; however, some scientists consider it promising for future low observable designs."
(source)

"Often noise jamming is referred to as 'masking jamming' because the purpose of the jamming is to obscure or 'mask' any signals which the victim radar receiver is interested in intercepting. Masking jamming is fundamentally different from deception jamming which is used to confuse the victim radar receiver operator. Deception jamming is more sophisticated than noise jamming, but for that very reason is not always as reliable."
(source)

Noise jamming is used to decrease the probability of detection of the platform (and any nearby allied platforms) of an opposing radar system (or set of opposing radar systems) as well as increase the probability of false alarm of an opposing radar system (or set of opposing radar systems), and it does so by decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio of the opposing radar system(s) - an effect which is used to obscure/mask the presence of the jammer at range, and the use of such techniques in an "active cancellation" role is well-known and well-documented.

To say, "if [noise jamming] was stealth it would be called stealth. its called [noise jamming] because its not stealth" in this scenario is the same as saying, "if passive cancellation [see above] was stealth it would be called stealth. its called passive cancellation because its not stealth" or "if RAM was stealth it would be called stealth. its called RAM because its not stealth" - it is demonstratably incorect & the fact of the matter is that all of those are means of achieving a stealthy/low-observability state.

[Khobai]

why cant you write short posts

no one reads long ones