2028 replies to this topic

[Josh Davion]

If we remove the need to target someone in order to gain a lock for missiles it would have a more useful effect on ECM. ECM can confuse radar, IR, Sonar, Magscan, etc; but it should not disable them. ECM emits a broad-band signal which does NOT disable these previously mentioned detection methods. Radar loses strength the further out it reaches which is why ECM is able to confuse it at range; however, when an ECM is close enough it would have zero effect because the strength of the detection method would overpower it. It would make more sense for ECM to disable detection range to 500m out and it would not prevent weapon lock; it would only prevent targeting information.

[Slivinhotsverg]

I like a couple of the ideas mentioned a few pages back for nerf's

Make it expensive to repair and fragile such that if it gets destroyed you'll have a hard time equipping it again from your takings unless you do really well
-I think this will nerf the race mentality as any confrontation will be immensely expensive to the ECMracing team.

Make it so it has to charge and its effects are temporary.
-This will also cut down on the ECM race as it is no longer a long range cloak.

[Lupus Aurelius]

At 83 pages,and the one thing this thread still has not addressed, that is still missing, is this:

A RESPONSE, AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FROM THE DEVS, SOME KIND OF STATEMENT TO INDICATE THAT OUR CONCERNS ARE HEARD AND SOME INDICATION OF THEIR STANCE!

Instead, there has been total silence. Not a peep. I would not have expected it in the first few days after ECM implementation, obviously several days at a minimum would be needed to acquire data and feedback. After 10 days, however, there should be SOME KIND OF RESPONSE, even if it is just "..we are looking at it...".

Personally, I have gotten to the point that I think that they believe that if they remain silent for long enough, the threads will taper off and people will just accept the way it is. I hope I am wrong about that, I really am, because that would be unethical and unprofessional.

We have, as beta players, provided feedback. A acknowledgement of that feedback, and a response to it, is due.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 14 December 2012 - 08:25 AM.

[stjobe]

Tolkien, on 14 December 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment should be able to counter

Artemis
BAP
Tag bonuses (and the whole system inside of 180m)
NARC - a system which takes more space, weighs more, requires real coordination and skill and has ammo.
other ECMs (and stacks so even worse...)
LRM locks (shouldn't be needed but are)
SRM locks (shouldn't be needed but are)
general targeting info (should not interfere with red dots at all if a single friendly has LOS)
relegate AMS to almost pointlessness
have no exploding ammo
generate no heat
cost less than a module by a factor of 15

Seems really really silly to me.

Let's have a look at that list, shall we?
But first, let's see what a Guardian ECM does in TT:

Quote

Designed to interfere with guided weaponry, targeting computers, and communication systems, the Guardian is typically used to shield allied units from such equipment by emitting a broad-band signal meant to confuse radar, infrared, ultraviolet, magscan and sonar sensors. Affected systems include Artemis IV, C3 and C3i Computer networks, and Narc Missile Beacons. A Guardian can jam a Beagle Active Probe (or its Clan equivalent), but the probe-equipped unit will be aware of the jamming. The Capellan Confederation expanded the utility of the Guardian even more with the introduction of Stealth Armor.

The greatest drawback to the Guardian is its limited range, which extends out to only 180 meters. Sensors can sometimes override this jamming, though by that point the enemy unit is already within visual range and can track the opposition with their own eyes.

Let's also remember that in MWO LRMs are guided weapons (they are unguided ballistic weapons in TT).

So, let's go over that list:

Artemis - "Affected systems include Artemis IV"
BAP - "A Guardian can jam a Beagle Active Probe"
TAG - Outside 180m it's the hard counter to ECM, I don't know why you mention it in this list?
NARC - "Affected systems include [...] Narc Missile Beacons"
other ECMs - "Designed to interfere with guided weaponry, targeting computers, and communication systems"
LRM locks - LRMs in MWO are guided weapons, "Designed to interfere with guided weaponry"
SRM locks - Streaks are guided weapons, "Designed to interfere with guided weaponry"
general targeting info - "Designed to interfere with [...] targeting computers, and communication systems"
relegate AMS to almost pointlessness - Really? Last I checked AMS still works as well as ever against missiles.
have no exploding ammo - Irrelevant.
generate no heat - Irrelevant.
cost less than a module by a factor of 15 - this might actually be an issue. ECM should probably cost a bit more.

So that list boils down to two items once you understand that there are some differences between TT and MWO:
1. TAG, should it be affected inside the bubble or not? At the moment I'm leaning towards yes, it should, since it's the hard counter to ECM outside it.
2. ECM might be too cheap.

[Vasces Diablo]

Lupus Aurelius, on 14 December 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

At 83 pages,and the one thing this thread still has not addressed, that is still missing, is this:

A RESPONSE, AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FROM THE DEVS, SOME KIND OF STATEMENT TO INDICATE THAT OUR CONCERNS ARE HEARD AND SOME INDICATION OF THEIR STANCE!

Instead, there has been total silence. Not a peep. I would not have expected it in the first few days after ECM implementation, obviously several days at a minimum would be needed to acquire data and feedback. After 10 days, however, there should be SOME KIND OF RESPONSE, even if it is just "..we are looking at it...".

Personally, I have gotten to the point that I think that they believe that if they remain silent for long enough, the threads will taper off and people will just accept the way it is. I hope I am wrong about that, I really am, because that would be unethical and unprofessional.

We have, as beta players, provided feedback. A acknowledgement of that feedback, and a response to it, is due.

I think we have gotten acknowledgment actually (though not in this specific forum). In last weeks review, the comment was "We released ECM to no complaints what so ever". They're saying that they understand a lot of people are unhappy with it and they are reading the forum. Though stated a bit sarcasticly (which I'm totally cool with), there is your "we hear you." comment.

More specifically, I think the lack of a patch this week speaks volumes. Either they are making changes that were not planned for the next patch, thus messing with the dev/test/publish cycle or they are taking a little more time with it.

Edited by Vasces Diablo, 14 December 2012 - 08:58 AM.

[Chrithu]

As the mods kindly ask to use this thread for feedback I will repost my view on the subject one last time.

In my view, after now playing well over 100 matches since ECM hit us using both ECM (CDA-3M) and non-ECM (CDA-2A, CTF-2X, CAT-C1) Mechs I have only a few things that truely annoy me about ECM:

• The stacking effect that forces to bring in the same number of ECMs as the enemy to an area to counter them. This should in my view be changed so that a ECM in counter mode counters all ECMs within it's range.
  
• The combination of ECM, a fast mech, and Streaks. But this is a lot more a problem of the Streaks as of the ECM and should be a lot less of a hassle as soon as the Streaks can hit all mech parts and not just the torso section so they do a lot less focused damaged.
  
• The fact that the Information Warfare equippment appears pretty imbalanced amongst them. The ECM is truely powerful, while the BAP is pretty much useless, at least it's benefit is not as noticeable as that of the ECM.

So in my view there isn't awfully much that would need to change about the ECM itself. As I said changing the way stacking works would be a welcomed change. Instead of fumbling around further on ECM beyond that the BAP should simply get a change in the way it works in combination with ECM:

• BAP becomes restricted to certain mech variants. Different ones as the ECM so it is impossible to equip ECM and BAP in the same mech.
  
• BAP gives a 500m 360° radar that doesn't need line of sight to detect enemies.
  
• ECM breaks that radar.
  
• A Mech with BAP can still lock on to targets under ECM it has a Line of Sight to and relay that target info if it is outside of the 180m ECM radius.
  
• Other teammates get a lock on time penalty for an ECMed target relayed by a BAP equipped mech.
  
• As the BAP is an active device it can be noticed by a mechs sensors, thus the pilot get's some kind of feedback that shows him, that he is currently tracked by a BAP. Maybe even get a direction indicator that show in what direcetion the BAP is located (?).

Edited by Jason Parker, 14 December 2012 - 09:12 AM.

[Elistaire Drummond]

I don´t like ecm in its current state. PERIOD. It doesn+t feel right in a mechwarrior-sense. For me this game is much sense driven. For me it is overpowered. Find a better state intermediate for it. It currently DICTATES gameplay. And that ist what is wrong. ECM doesn´t feels right. It produces a Raven-Spam. Ravens are ok. In low numbers. All I see now are Atlasses and Ravens... That is "sehr bärtig". I allways liked the way MWO capped for me the feeling of BattleTech. That is gone now. I hope the right feeling will come back. I don´t like the feeling of some casual mass shooter of being in danger of being intercepted out of everywhre at all times. THEN I´d like to play Counterstrike. PERIOD.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Vasces Diablo, on 14 December 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

I think we have gotten acknowledgment actually (though not in this specific forum). In last weeks review, the comment was "We released ECM to no complaints what so ever". They're saying that they understand a lot of people are unhappy with it and they are reading the forum. Though stated a bit sarcasticly (which I'm totally cool with), there is your "we hear you." comment.

More specifically, I think the lack of a patch this week speaks volumes. Either they are making changes that were not planned for the next patch, thus messing with the dev/test/publish cycle or they are taking a little more time with it.

Not what I would call directly answering the input given, Vasces, and your "intrepretation" of their "response" is highly hypothetical. In any "good faith" relationship, direct and honest responses are necessary.

"In philosophy, the concept of good faith (Latin: bona fides, or bona fide for "in good faith") denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action; the opposed concepts are bad faith, mala fides (duplicity) and perfidy (pretense). In law, bona fides denotes the mental and moral states of honesty and conviction regarding either the truth or the falsity of a proposition, or of a body of opinion; likewise regarding either the rectitude or the depravity of a line of conduct."

"In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract."

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 14 December 2012 - 09:05 AM.

[Darwins Dog]

So I just had my first 10 or so games with ECM last night. I ran my commando, and loved it. There are still balance issues that need to be addressed. I ran in a 4 person group (another issue for another thread) are some specific thoughts:

Dueling vs. other lights:
-I had a major advantage over jenners, since I had streaks and they didn't. I think that the commando already has an advantage from the arms, but it used to be skill that decided the fight.
-Versus ravens, I usually had the advantage (the arms again) over ECM ravens (no streaks for anyone usually), and had streaks plus arms against the rest.
-Versus 2D commandos, skill was the decider (obviously)

Other thoughts:
-I soloed a streak cat and felt nothing but glee. I'm sure it sucks to have your build shut down, but I've died to enough of them that I'm not sad. The streak cat is a one-trick pony. If you roll out with only one type of weapon, then you are limiting your options to begin with.
-I was a priority target, and died fairly often.
-Most of our "stealth" advances were noticed ahead of time (there are only so many good routes on each map)
-I LOVED the new level of tactics that it brings to the game. You it brings battlefield awareness to the forefront, and makes scouts/lookouts (not necessarily light mechs) more important.
-ECM can be countered by a coordinated team with no ECM, but the key is coordination. This brings me back to my personal belief that this game needs voice comms for all. That would fix a lot of the issues.

tl:dr - ECM is great for organized groups, not great (yet necessary) for PUGs.

@Lupus, don't worry they are listening. They've shown many times in the past that they do listen and respond to threads, PMs, and emails. Just have a little patience. There are a lot of different opinions to sort through.

[XvDraxvX]

While i applaud Paul and Garth for making a wonderful game. I think part of the issue is one of them is always running a light Mech so maybe they built ECM the way they wanted it to be.

I am not mad, i would do the same thing if it was my game, but i think they need to focus on overall balance a bit more and maybe a little less "dude, wouldn't it be cool if (insert thing here)"

Please Balance ECM, its a bit to strong right now needs a tweak or something.

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

[Xenok]

This is a change for me, but I do think the Mech running with the ECM on jamming other peoples locks should not be able to establish a lock themselves. I do not think effect should do the same for his team members but a cost of running ECM while creating the lock jamming effect for your team should be that mech generating the field cannot establish a lock.

[Tolkien]

stjobe, on 14 December 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

Let's have a look at that list, shall we?
But first, let's see what a Guardian ECM does in TT:



Let's also remember that in MWO LRMs are guided weapons (they are unguided ballistic weapons in TT).

So, let's go over that list:

Artemis - "Affected systems include Artemis IV"
BAP - "A Guardian can jam a Beagle Active Probe"
TAG - Outside 180m it's the hard counter to ECM, I don't know why you mention it in this list?
NARC - "Affected systems include [...] Narc Missile Beacons"
other ECMs - "Designed to interfere with guided weaponry, targeting computers, and communication systems"
LRM locks - LRMs in MWO are guided weapons, "Designed to interfere with guided weaponry"
SRM locks - Streaks are guided weapons, "Designed to interfere with guided weaponry"
general targeting info - "Designed to interfere with [...] targeting computers, and communication systems"
relegate AMS to almost pointlessness - Really? Last I checked AMS still works as well as ever against missiles.
have no exploding ammo - Irrelevant.
generate no heat - Irrelevant.
cost less than a module by a factor of 15 - this might actually be an issue. ECM should probably cost a bit more.

So that list boils down to two items once you understand that there are some differences between TT and MWO:
1. TAG, should it be affected inside the bubble or not? At the moment I'm leaning towards yes, it should, since it's the hard counter to ECM outside it.
2. ECM might be too cheap.

While I am glad that you are willing to acknowledge that the ECM is likely too cheap, and I do see that ECM should stack, I have to disagree strongly with some of your disagreements. Regarding ECM stacking and acting also as ECCM this is more of an issue with how other systems in the game are implemented, such that ECM didn't actually fix the problems with streak SRM or LRM, it just made them exclusively available to the team that has N+1 ECMs in the area. If one thought that SSRM needed a nerf before this now doubles the gap between those with and without.

Now, regarding the points where I have to strongly disagree.

First, for example you contend that BAP should be interfered with, please go see http://mwomercs.com/...36#entry1591436 The actual rule states clearly that the BAP is not interfered with unless the mech using it is standing inside the enemy ECM bubble. So, no, it is not supposed to universally disable BAP as it does now.

Secondly with TAG, take a look here http://www.mwowiki.o...termeasure_(ECM) where you can see that TAG is still affected outside of the 180m bubble, again this is buff to ECM over what one would expect.

Third, Streak SRMs are not affected by baseline ECM, only the Angel ECM suite http://www.sarna.net...Angel_ECM_Suite, and even then Streak SRMs are supposed to revert to normal SRMs, not become unable to fire,, which is a substantial handicap.

Fourth, in all past mechwarrior games I am aware of (including tabletop) when one of your units sees an enemy, everyone on that team knows where that enemy is. Since each side was played by a human it would be very hard to make them pretend that only one of their mechs had seen the enemy team. Adding disruption of enemy situational awareness to ECM is taking the fluff you quoted out of context. There 'communications' refers to the to hit bonuses conferred by C3 having a spotter standing close to the enemy, and was in no way to do about not seeing an exposed enemy.

That summarizes my list of rule based issues with what you said, now on to the general style ones.

You claimed that not needing exploding ammo to function or generating heat was irrelevant. Far from being irrelevant this is just another example of how unlike other systems in the game or in the game universe, ECM is sorely lacking a con to its pros. Saying this makes me think you haven't truly considered what is meant by balance - AMS has the benefit of protecting you against missiles, while it has a drawback of taking 1.5 tons, 2 crits (minimum), and having explosive ammo. Stealth systems that do for individual mechs what ECM is doing for an AOE generates 10 heat per turn for the user and weighs as much as a PPC. TAG which weighs more than ECM despite having a much smaller effect on the battlefield takes up an energy weapon slot, which ECM does not.

Regarding ECM not affecting AMS, it has dramatically reduced the utility of and therefore the frequency of use of LRMs and SSRMs, which as a first order effect dramatically reduces the utility of the AMS. Pretty simple connection really.

While you are right that ECM should interfere with Artemis, you're taking my argument out of context by saying that ECM should do A,B, and C, but no matter that is also doing X,Y,Z while not costing many tons, crits, heat, ammo or other units of 'worth'. You are compounding the error in your argument by suggesting that there is nothing wrong with ECM interfering with LRMs, as it is yet another feature it has for no drawback.


In conclusion, while some of my objection to what you said is due to your misinterpretation of the rules about what the AOE should be, the bigger issue was and still is that ECM does way too much for such a small and lightweight piece of equipment.

If you honestly think cbill cost is the only factor, then I challenge you to not use ECM, and substitute other items into your builds that cost the same amount of weight and crits:

For example a single heatsink and a small laser (unfortunately this has the drawback of generating heat).
A machine gun and a ton of ammo (unfortunately this has the drawback of exploding from time to time).
Some more armour (no drawbacks here!)

Or use your imagination to come up with others. If you're not able to come up with something that is as good for the tonnage and critical space, maybe it's because ECM is currently hands down the best piece of equipment in the game.

Edited by Tolkien, 14 December 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[Old Mechdonald]

I might as well delete all my Catapults and Missile mounts on all my mechs. Why have missiles now? I don't get it.

Why don't you just have an invisibility button.

[Vasces Diablo]

Lupus Aurelius, on 14 December 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Not what I would call directly answering the input given, Vasces, and your "intrepretation" of their "response" is highly hypothetical. In any "good faith" relationship, direct and honest responses are necessary.

"In philosophy, the concept of good faith (Latin: bona fides, or bona fide for "in good faith") denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action; the opposed concepts are bad faith, mala fides (duplicity) and perfidy (pretense). In law, bona fides denotes the mental and moral states of honesty and conviction regarding either the truth or the falsity of a proposition, or of a body of opinion; likewise regarding either the rectitude or the depravity of a line of conduct."

"In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract."

I agree that I am being somewhat glib in my response and extrapolating to an extent. However, I feel that dev aknowledgement is implied in this case and not explicitly required.

They have provided us with a specific forum with specific topics each and every patch. That would indicate an intent by their party read/track those specific topics. A comment stating "we are reading this" in each topic thread, although nice, would be redundant and unnecessary. Your example of contract law here is very appropriate and I think that both parties have entered it in and maintain the good faith that you specify. PGI, with multiple patch and "ask the dev" entries has stated they are reading the feedback and trying to address the issues raised.

...wow, talk about getting off topic.

[ICEFANG13]

ECM is a big deal, so it would make sense that when its such a heated topic that at least them reading it would be nice to confirm. Right now, what we type may be ignored completely, and there is no reason to have it.

Although I do agree about the, "to no complaint" line being a, "we are thinking about it" sort of. But that was a few days ago, like a week now? There has been a lot of discussion and suggestions since then.

[Tolkien]

ICEFANG13, on 14 December 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

ECM is a big deal, so it would make sense that when its such a heated topic that at least them reading it would be nice to confirm. Right now, what we type may be ignored completely, and there is no reason to have it.

Although I do agree about the, "to no complaint" line being a, "we are thinking about it" sort of. But that was a few days ago, like a week now? There has been a lot of discussion and suggestions since then.

This one feedback thread has about as much feedback in it as all of the pinned patch feedback threads combined in in the last patch. There is also 2x as much feedback in this thread on the ECM issue as in ALL other pinned feedback threads combined for this patch.

It would be nice if they could jump in and discuss how they're planning to change things - either to make the current ECM make sense with new additions to the game, or how they are going to tone it down to where it is worth 1.5tons and 2 crit slots.

edit: *cheerfully withdrawn*

Edited by Tolkien, 14 December 2012 - 11:02 AM.

[Vasces Diablo]

Tolkien, on 14 December 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

Another point is that their statement of 'to no complaint' means they are either out of touch or lying. This one feedback thread has about as much feedback in it as all of the pinned patch feedback threads combined in in the last patch. There is also 2x as much feedback in this thread on the ECM issue as in ALL other pinned feedback threads combined for this patch.

Saying that there was no complaint to the release of ECM is arrogant and ignorant, or simply dishonest on the part of the representative of PGI saying it.

Um...you may need to look up the definition of sarcasm.

By saying "to no complaint" he was indicating the exact opposite of that. He was saying they are aware that its a heated topic that was causing a lot of discussion and heart burn a month the player base. He WAS NOT saying that there had not actually been any complaints.

[Tolkien]

Vasces Diablo, on 14 December 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Um...you may need to look up the definition of sarcasm.

By saying "to no complaint" he was indicating the exact opposite of that. He was saying they are aware that its a heated topic that was causing a lot of discussion and heart burn a month the player base. He WAS NOT saying that there had not actually been any complaints.

Ahh, well I'm sorry then - I interpreted the context one way when I should have interpreted it the other... let me go edit that post.

Could you provide me a link to where the dev said that - was that the no guts no galaxy podcast?

Edited by Tolkien, 14 December 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[Tex Arcana]

Vasces Diablo, on 14 December 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Um...you may need to look up the definition of sarcasm.

By saying "to no complaint" he was indicating the exact opposite of that. He was saying they are aware that its a heated topic that was causing a lot of discussion and heart burn a month the player base. He WAS NOT saying that there had not actually been any complaints.

Unfourtunately; Printed word sarcasm can be misconstrued. Especially in this day and age of people being unable to interpret (let alone write) the printed word correctly.
A more carefully worded statement should have been used...if sarcasm was indeed the intent.
Note that many may not have listened to the Podcast; only read the printed headline.

Edited by Tex Arcana, 14 December 2012 - 11:05 AM.

[Vasces Diablo]

Tex Arcana, on 14 December 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Unfourtunately; Printed word sarcasm can be misconstrued. Especially in this day and age of people being unable to interpret (let alone write) the printed word correctly.
A more carefully worded statement should have been used...if sarcasm was indeed the intent.
Note that many may not have listened to the Podcast; only read the printed headline.

Very true. Using sarcasm is print is generally considered bad form as the interpretation of said sarcasm is often based on tone of voice and physical expression.

Tolkien, here's the link: http://mwomercs.com/...-review-dec-7th

Now... Back to the great ECM debate!

Edited by Vasces Diablo, 14 December 2012 - 11:13 AM.