2028 replies to this topic

[OfTheDark]

ohtochooseaname, on 12 December 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

Off topic, but, what did collisions do? I assume, light mech accidentally runs into a wall/enemy mech and falls down/blows up? If they add collisions back, will a cicada be able to smash into a raven and knock it to the ground...that would be awesome (those things seem like they should just fall over anyway).

Walls no. Other 'mechs (friend or foe!) knocked you down (with a probability proportinate to your wieght class vs thiers...supposedly). The problem was when some could do it and were fast and heavy (i.e. the Dragon in particular...Dragon bowling...shudder) it negated the advantages of a light (i.e. speed) pretty badly.

I haven't seen when/if they're adding it back...

[ohtochooseaname]

OfTheDark, on 12 December 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Walls no. Other 'mechs (friend or foe!) knocked you down (with a probability proportinate to your wieght class vs thiers...supposedly). The problem was when some could do it and were fast and heavy (i.e. the Dragon in particular...Dragon bowling...shudder) it negated the advantages of a light (i.e. speed) pretty badly.

I haven't seen when/if they're adding it back...

It seems like it should be both inertia based, and the direction/angle of the collision. For example, a smack from the side (compared with the leg direction) for a Mech with no capacity to shuffle sideways, should knock it over if significant speed is imparted, while maybe a smack from behind would speed up the mech too much and it would stumble.

[Corvus Antaka]

ohtochooseaname, on 12 December 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

I think if the ECM mech's all carried TAG, then LRM's would be more viable. Then again, if TAG went 750 meters, the LRM boats would be more viable on their lonesome...so we'll see if that helps (assuming they go that route). These days, as soon as I drop, I try to find out if anyone's got any LRM's to launch. Due to the advent of ECM, people have stopped carrying AMS, so even an LRM 5 is decent...if they can actually use it.

the problem with TAG is that before ECM a spotter could hide and get locks for his LRM boats, now that same spotter will need to reveal himself much more as his TAG/NARC useage will be much more visible. In addition, LRM's are intended as indirect fire weapons able to flush enemies from cover and to maintain a dynamic, moving battlefield with tactics.

forcing LRMS to require TAG/NARC to be viable is further horrible for PUG play, because you end up taking your LRMS/TAG in the sheer hope that someone has brought the TAG/LRM and that they can/will support you.

And no one wants to tag/narc light mechs at 130KPH in the hopes they can hold the tag on them for the entire flight path of the LRM/ssrm boat they are tagging for. I wouldnt do that to my worst enemy...its actually kinda cruel. 1 slip and the tag is useless. however, given how TAG/vs NARC works, might be good for the NARC and bad for the TAG

PUGS need to be able to bring LRM/SSRM knowing that the ECM will only counter them if within 180 meters of them. This will still be frustrating for both types of missile boats, preventing them from simply ignoring an ankle biter as they could before, while at the same time not nullifying these weapon systems completely at the ranges they are supposed to work at.

LRM would once again be useful at range, and SSRM's would still be in deep trouble if an ECM hits them inside 180meters and they don't have a counter.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 12 December 2012 - 04:08 PM.

[Luxan]

I know this opinion has been expressed in various forms already, but I wanted to add my support to it. I think game balance would be significantly improved if ECM only disrupted target lock within 180 meters (almost the opposite of what is currently implemented). Right now, no other piece of equipment has even close to the same impact on gameplay, certainly none that are so easy and cheap to use. The attempt to balance this power by restricting it to only certain variants doesn't really work because it just encourages people to use those variants exclusively.

Basically, if you have line of sight to an enemy mech, and you are not within an enemy ECM bubble, you should be able to target that mech. Now, I would support ECM preventing you from getting info on the target (variant, armor status, loadout, etc.) but not from getting a target lock (outside 180 meters).

Just my $0.02.

[DeaconW]

OfTheDark, on 12 December 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Walls no. Other 'mechs (friend or foe!) knocked you down (with a probability proportinate to your wieght class vs thiers...supposedly). The problem was when some could do it and were fast and heavy (i.e. the Dragon in particular...Dragon bowling...shudder) it negated the advantages of a light (i.e. speed) pretty badly.

I haven't seen when/if they're adding it back...

I think 100+kph collisions with walls *should* knock you down and cause damage...

[Kahna]

All ECM has done to me is make me switch my Mech of choice from the $60 Founders Jenner to the Raven 3L with ECM because it's more effective and it nullifies the strongest counter against Lights in most situations. My survivability has gone up, my damage has gone up, my kills have gone up and my enemies still complain that I'm a no skill pilot. But, the game has become boring in 8V8 with the constant brawl fests.

[steelblueskies]

some important things to note on related tech.

people keep pointing out we have free c3 computers.

to that i point out three things.

1- http://www.sarna.net...C3_Command_Unit

"As well as serving to share the linked lance/companies targeting data, <strong>the C3 Command Unit also duplicates the function of Target Acquisition Gear</strong> and can designate a target for Arrow IV homing missiles and Semi-Guided LRMs."

2- technically we don't have c3 now, it won't be released till 3050. but we act like we do, for free.

3- c3 would cost weight and crit space, and cap at one master with three slaves, or half a drop at present, which would help counterbalance scouts and other teamboat situations.


--------------------------------------------------

next up riddle me why artemis disruption isn't reducing the improved tight fire for srms?

---------------------------------------------------

if lock ons are only for lrms and streaks and the accuracy you are getting for direct fire energy and ballistics is normal, then explain the corner they paint you into if they try to implement targeting computers reducing shot innacuracy for direct fire with the clan tech, that explicitly does jack for missiles. hm. will it magically land all your "skilled" direct fire shots for you then???
according to ngng53 clans from their canon reading in august.

http://www.sarna.net...geting_Computer

and remember boys and ghouls, http://www.sarna.net..._Control_System
, "The Advanced Fire Control System or Targeting and Tracking System allows the unit carrying it to use Artemis IV FCS, Artemis V FCS, Targeting Computers, Command, Control and Communications (C3) systems, Active Probes.[4]. These Systems cannot be mounted on systems without a fire control system or with a Basic Fire Control system or (BFCS)."

and

"The BattleTech Rules call this system Sensors and assume the presence and functionality of this piece of equipment so no bonus is gained. In fact, a +2 Gunnery skill penalty takes effect if either of the criticals are marked off. When both criticals are marked off a BattleMech can no longer fire."

so if the clan targeting computer upgrades what we all have Targeting Computers are sophisticated pieces of electronics that, unlike normal targeting systems, physically help MechWarriors target their opponents. Recoil compensators and gyroscopic stabilizers are used to prevent normal weapon drift from factors such as recoil and movement while the computer accounts for atmospheric and other conditions to present an accurate lead on the target. This allows for more surgical precision of weapons fire, especially with naturally accurate systems, allowing for the user to hit specific parts on the target vehicle. so our standard advanced fire control computer allows roughly directional fire with ****-poor compensation for recoil, or taking hits, etc. and the improvement tech makes it better, but again doesn't do anything for missiles.

but if the lopsided nature of missile lock implementations in the face of ecm still doesn't whet your skill beam weapons and cannons, lets dig further into what other free goodies you are getting that keep you from being affected by what the missiles eat due to the lock issue.

i can't sarna this one for you guys. just find yourself any battletech rulebook ever made, more or less, and look up aimed shot.

it dovetails nicely with the fiction presenting the idea of needing to lock on to a part of an enemy mech to have a good chance of hitting that part of the machine, or else having your shots land anywhere or even miss outright at closer ranges, even with lasers.

so when your accuracy is subject to lock interference as well, then we can talk, because you are abnormally accurate with all direct fire at present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but back to the main, ecm isn't equally available at this time in the timeline.

do you want to face a capellan loyalist force that has it available readily and everyone else gets the shaft or pays through the nose? that'd be canonical, sure enough.
is it balanced out presently if one successor state has a significant availability advantage and you may not be able to field it as a counter? remember galactic warfare is still a looming'.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

then we have streaks. they do need their dumbfire mode rule, or else we need kick attacks.

if an ecm commando moves onto his cap with ecm and afks, he should not beat an enemy with only streak missiles remaining simply because dfa/and default physical attacks aren't in. maybe his other ammo is gone, his other weapons and/or tag are blown off, etc. i'd like to say that the narrow targeting band covers this scenario, but sadly it isn't consistent(and if you've ever gotten 6 guys onto enemy cap and had the cap bar refuse to move, you know the level of frustration this causes).

for that matter as we never seemed to get ams working properly and consistently for all the missile systems simultaneously, maybe just adding http://www.sarna.net...-Streak_Warhead as an anti streak missile system.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
random thought note.
null sig at least turned off your heatsinks when enabled allowing eventual overheat.
then gain chameleon makes on invisible to visual targeting. both together, or a later tech void sig system would make thermal vision useless to boot. could you imagine the rage over an unlockable literally invisible mech?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


as a referent on the performance impact, who relies on the red box to target at range irregardless of weapon systems?
low setting is about half the mech draw distance of high. best i can say in the land of equality is try just pushing your object detail setting to high and the rest to low if you want to spot the enemy when they can spot you, and suck up the fps hit.

as to iff. well i guess having no hud item indicating the enemy is either a devs like this idea or a hard to ui out problem.
it could simply strip everything but the red triangle and the box. no username, no damage doll, no chassis variant info, no range, and no target letter designation. i could live with that, and it would not excessively empower voice chat calling targets.
how do you call a specific target atlas in a group of three or four if they are all pristine. you would need to know relative position to say, the one on the right or left. you could try on the grid x# side i suppose, but thats subject to change, and the map, much like the damagedoll doesn't exactly keep in lockstep with current events. in the case of ecm, the map wouldn't do anything either way, and if i'm engaging an ecm machine in its bubble, i'm fine with that.

i find i'm not fine with being barely a step ahead of having my hud turned off with right shift f11, and i think this is actually a main issue independent of complication from other pre-existing issues.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lastly. no narc should not work in ecm fields. it should last longer, and frankly, until we get physical attacks, should not have a duration consistent with a brush off rule(ie short, vs until the part its on gets blasted/blasted off/cleared of armor).

tag however is equipment, not an energy weapon. need to stop softnerfing the hardpoint system like this.
don't agree? look at the c3 command unit's specs again. bandaids like that range increase are only going to help paint you into a corner.

don't even get me started on special munitions or pilot consciousness. i just went through and double checked all of this with master rules, strategic operations, total warfare, the 4e core rulebook, citytech, and fished for more notes in a few clan sourcebooks. then went through sarna trying to find matching references. needless to say i found a ton of things that i wasn't paying close attention to, or had previously written off as that stuffs just not in yet, or is being worked on, that didn't just feel like they were made glaringly obvious by the ecm system and player response, but actually were, well, wrong.

which leaves me with my previous assertion, the system as is, in the current environment is not the way to go. if other issues were fixed, well that would be a different situation to evaluate from, but as is it's broken.

if this is how your house rule translation to realtime is intended, so be it. i will continue to work around it in the doses i can tolerate. it is your game afterall. nevertheless that does not invalidate my view, feelings, or any canonical incongruities.

i think i'll consider that the finishing up of a formal response to many of the comments relating to the system and its implications, when taken with my previous comments.

Edited by steelblueskies, 12 December 2012 - 05:11 PM.

[Matroid]

wow, 78 pages and i'm going to add another comment


i believe ECM is too powerful in it's current design. i have played every mech, and currently have
9/11 available mech types in my bay. i have also played all roles (scout, brawler, sniper)


for a 1.5 ton ECM, you can:

- prevent the majority of target locking. this stops LRMs and SSRMs (70% of the missile weapons available), and
is better than bringing an AMS with 1 ton of ammo (also 1.5 tons)
- make the other electronic warefare (TAG, NARC, BAP) almost useless
- shield your team-mates with the same benefit
- counter other ECM on the enemy team



i know it's currently only availabe on 4 mechs (COM-2D, RVN-3L, CDA-3M, AS7-D-DC), but those mech
variants are already good. so everyone and their brother is playing one, and most people are playing
competitively because this is a PVP system... so there's no reason to bring a non-ECM capable scout,
when a mere 1.5 tons gives you (and your team) this much benefit

i don't know if ECM is supposed to be this strong, given lore/BT rules, but in a balance argument i
think it needs a nerf of some kind. otherwise everyone will continue to run the mech variants with
ECM. at some point in the future if it is allowed to be placed on any mech, then everyone will run it


Example from last night: i played an Awesome 8V with LRM 20, LL, 2 ML, and 2 streaks. the enemy team had
two Atlas D-DC with ECM, and two commando 2D with ECM. all of my missiles were useless, and when the
teams engaged in a firefight i got steamrolled by an Atlas :/ i have good days and bad days, but this has
become the norm so much that people won't play CATs (excluding the K2) or Awesomes

right now you are a liability on the team if you play a scout or assault without ECM

*sigh*
Hadros

[DeaconW]

Hadros, on 12 December 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

right now you are a liability on the team if you play a scout or assault without ECM

Exactly. Why people can't see this is beyond me.

[Locan Ravok]

The ECM is a good thing, but it need nerf.

The non lock bubble is making packs of lights carrying SSRM invincible.

[Serapth]

I mostly PuG because of time restraints, so ECM has had a dramatic effect on my enjoyment of the game. Especially when you run in to 4 man premades running all ECM lights... Its pretty much the definition of lame. And it happens... a lot. Either that, or everyone and their dog is running a light ECM streaker...


I actually want streakcats back at this point, at least you had a defence against them.

If it werent for the fact my founders bonus is counting down, I would have shelved this game until the next patch dropped. I wish they added the ability to pause that.

Simply put. Game == broken right now with ECM.

[Solis Obscuri]

steelblueskies, on 12 December 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

2- technically we don't have c3 now, it won't be released till 3050. but we act like we do, for free.

No, we don't. C3 gives bonuses to direct-fire weapons, not LRMs.

And you don't need a C3 for all of your units to be aware of an enemies position in double-blind play.

Quote

C3 COMPUTER (MASTER/SLAVE)
The C3 computer system can link up to twelve ’Mechs or vehicles together—utilizing a series of C3 Master and C3 Slaves—in a communications network that will share targeting information.

To make an attack using a C3 computer network, calculate the to-hit number using the range to the target from the networked unit nearest the target with line of sight. Use the firing unit’s modifiers for movement, terrain effects, minimum range and so on. A weapon attack using a C3 network must conform to standard LOS restrictions and cannot fire beyond its maximum range, though a well-placed lancemate may allow the firing unit to use his weapon’s short-range to-hit number at long range.

The C3 network itself has no maximum range, but only units actually on the playing area can benefit from the network, and the C3 Master (or C3 Masters if using a company-sized network) must be on the playing area.

TAG: The C3 Master (but not the C3 Slaves) exactly duplicates the function of target acquisition gear (see TAG; p. 142).

LRM Indirect Fire: C3-equipped units spotting targets for or launching an LRM indirect fire attack use the LRM Indirect Fire rules (see p. 111), and gain no benefit from a C3 network.

Minimum Ranges: Minimum range is always determined from the attacking unit to the target.

Variable Damage Weapons: The range, to determine the Damage Value of a Variable Damage Weapon, is always determined from the attacking unit to the target.

Stealth Armor: Armor that inficts range modifiers against attacking units does not confuse a C3 network. While such additional range modifiers apply to the nearest attacking unit, they do not apply to any other units using the network to attack. However, some such systems (notably the Stealth Armor System, p. 142) include their own ECM system; in this case, an attacking unit must be outside the effective range of the ECM mounted on the target unit, or the attacker gets cutoff from the network.

(Total Warfare; p. 131)

For emphasis:

Quote

LRM Indirect Fire: C3-equipped units spotting targets for or launching an LRM indirect fire attack use the LRM Indirect Fire rules (see p. 111), and gain no benefit from a C3 network.

Quote

LRM Indirect Fire: C3-equipped units spotting targets for or launching an LRM indirect fire attack use the LRM Indirect Fire rules (see p. 111), and gain no benefit from a C3 network.

Quote

LRM Indirect Fire: C3-equipped units spotting targets for or launching an LRM indirect fire attack use the LRM Indirect Fire rules (see p. 111), and gain no benefit from a C3 network.

[steelblueskies]

Solis Obscuri, on 12 December 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

No, we don't. C3 gives bonuses to direct-fire weapons, not LRMs.

And you don't need a C3 for all of your units to be aware of an enemies position in double-blind play.

(Total Warfare; p. 131)

For emphasis:

thanks for reinforcing about six different points when thinking you were emphasizing a counterargument.

see portion on effect of tag in rules, c3 master acting as in possession of tag unit if you want to argue that element.

further note, that in any way you interpret what i noted, you merely point out one element or another being broken. its not *IF* something is wrong with in game implementations of systems, it is *WHAT* is broken. that's whats pointed out here.

lastly. how does c3 improve direct fire accuracy HERE. see my points on the clan targeting computer and our too accurate direct fire weapons right now.

as to missiles, huzzah you saw the trees, but missed the forest.
from the referenced page 11 of total warfare


LRM Indirect Fire
Units armed with LRM-type weapons may fire those
missiles indirectly. Indirect fire allows a unit without a direct
line of sight to a target to attack that target, though a friendly
unit must have a valid line of sight to the target (this unit is
referred to as the spotter). An attacker with a valid LOS to a
target cannot make an LRM indirect fire attack, even if that
attack would have a better to-hit modifier.
Resolve LRM indirect fire attacks in the turn they are
launched. The base to-hit number is the firing unit’s Gunnery
Skill. Use the following modifiers:
• Range modifier based on the range between the target
and the firing unit, including minimum range modifiers;
• +1 for indirect fire;
• All standard modifiers for target movement;
• All standard modifiers for attacker movement and a
modifier for the spotter’s movement (infantry have no
attacker movement modifier for spotting);
• Terrain modifiers based on line of sight from the spotting
unit; this includes the +1 modifier if partial cover exists
between the spotting unit and the target. (Regardless
of whether partial cover shields the target from either
the spotting unit or the attacking unit, Damage Value
groupings from LRM indirect fire always strike the target
and not the partial cover, even if they hit a leg location;
see Partial Cover, p. 102.)
Finally, if the spotting unit makes any attacks in the turn
that it spots for another unit, apply a +1 modifier to all of the
spotting unit’s attacks, as well as a +1 modifier to the LRM
indirect fire attack. If the spotting unit makes no attacks, do
not apply these additional modifiers. The spotter can spot for
any number of attacking units to a single target, but it cannot
spot for multiple targets.

so with ecm i can't indirect fire even if the ecm bubble is not interrupting the spotter or myself.
because indirect fire depends on lock-on in this implementation, not popping open the map and firing at a point on the grid or some other system.

or perhaps ecm shouldn't be disrupting that information sharing as it's not a c3 network being disrupted you mean?

or did you mean to say.. well actually what was your real point? all i'm seeing is you repeating and embolding something which further exemplifies SOMETHING is broken here with ecm.

[Murdalizer]

Hello Murda here, still running my 2x lrm 15,2x ssrm2 and 2x mlas Catapult...its 0300 in the morning here in Denmark and i just got home from work an hour ago, i was going to play a few games before bedtime..but why bother, granted i might get lucky and get games with no ECMs, but i wouldnt count on that. Now why dont i just get another mech with ECM like everybody else.

Well ill tell you why, its principle...i wanted to be fire support and i choose the catapult chassie as my weapons platform, then i spend alot of MC's(real money) and a **** load of c-bills on the mechlab...and i came up with the Reaper-Six...my very own close-fire support mech..this mech in that sweet spot between 180 and 270 from the enemy...EPIC..

so i just defined my role on the battlefield, i customized a mech to suit that role and i made it work on the battlefield.....thats rolewarfare in its essence right?...thats pretty fekking sweet.

One more thing before i get to the ECM.....can you look me in the eye and tell me that, 2 lrms 15s, 2 ssrm2s and 2x mlas, is overpowered and a cheese build?

now enter ECM, you wanna know the definition of useless?...its using 2 medium lasers against a light mech.

this is what ECM is.....

One Counter to Counter them all and in noobness bind them:P


ohh and before i go to bed..a quick idea to balance ssrms, if you use more than 2...make em generate alot more heat, how hard can that be?..if you want fluff, lets say its the targeting computer drawing more power from the reactor, thus the extra heat, just an idea.


GN.

ps sorry for the english..not my first language.

[repete]

To anyone else who is wondering what PGI's thoughts or position is re: ECM at the moment, I asked in today's NGNG podcast, and the response from Garth was (To paraphrase):

"[We're watching, gathering information, and we'll see]"

I was predominantly curious if Garth would make a statement like "Yes, we are aware of issues", "We are aware of some of the impacts" or even something like "We believe ECM is operating as intended".

So it's been a week. They are watching. I think many would agree it can be frustrating at times, but bottom line, look at the little blue word on the MWO logo. We are here to test. So be sure to test and give PGI the results.

[Midnight Blue]

Needs to be tweaked so that if you can see something long enough you can shoot it, and TAG should over ride it hands down.

[DeaconW]

Murdalizer, on 12 December 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

this is what ECM is.....

One Counter to Counter them all and in noobness bind them:P

LOL! Maybe that's what this really says...

Edited by DeaconW, 12 December 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[Ryvucz]

79 pages of CRYengine 3 stuff.

[Corvus Antaka]

DeaconW, on 12 December 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

One Counter to Counter them all and in noobness bind them:P

LOL!  Maybe that's what this really says...

quoting for awesomeness

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 12 December 2012 - 07:24 PM.

[Kemosobe]

repete, on 12 December 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

To anyone else who is wondering what PGI's thoughts or position is re: ECM at the moment, I asked in today's NGNG podcast, and the response from Garth was (To paraphrase):

"[We're watching, gathering information, and we'll see]"

I was predominantly curious if Garth would make a statement like "Yes, we are aware of issues", "We are aware of some of the impacts" or even something like "We believe ECM is operating as intended".

So it's been a week. They are watching. I think many would agree it can be frustrating at times, but bottom line, look at the little blue word on the MWO logo. We are here to test. So be sure to test and give PGI the results.

Like I tell some friends who are also in beta, the only thing I dislike about the game right now is that it is in beta. I am putting up with the bugs and such. Have been disconnected from time to time (game just crashes and closes at match launch), yellow screen glitch, always in overheat mode eve after recovering, etc. But I do wish they would look at these game changing additions more carefully. I wish they would simply remove the ECM from the game in a quick patch and sift through all our rants and suggestions to see what they can do to make it better. Whether you agree that ECM is over powered or not, you have to admit it is changing the game for the worse. People are now staying away from LRMs and starting to lean towards mechs with the capability to equip an ECM.