Jump to content

In Depth Ecm Discussion. Overview Of How It Works And What It Does. Comparisons To Tabletop Effects.


60 replies to this topic

#1 ArmyOfWon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 222 posts
  • LocationDallas, TX

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:06 AM

This thread is to compare MWO ECM and CBT ECM and generate discussion with coherence and thought behind arguments (Raise your hand if you've seen a post that says something like "ECM is <opinion> because I like it" or "ECM is <opinion> because everyone uses it"...) Here's a quick 'Table of Contents'

1.A) Changelog

1.B ) Preface and Acronym and terminology Reference

2) How the ECM functions
  • MWO ECM AOE-based functionality
  • CBT ECM​ LOS-based functionality
  • Why the difference between the two?
3) ECM effects
  • MWO ECM effects on different systems
  • CBT ECM effects on different systems
  • Common themes between the two
4) Discrepancies and difference between MWO and CBT
  • ECM- Data Acquiring
  • Information Sharing System
  • Other ECM affected systems (BAP, Artemis, NARC, to be updated later)
5) "Ok, if its so broken, how would you fix it?"




1.A) Changelog


​v1.0 (12/7) Posted!

v1.1 (12/7) Table of Contents added, some information added to "Information Sharing"

v1.2 (12/14) Changelog moved, Rules introduced in Tactical Operations Rule now incorporated into CBT descriptions. Chapter 4 has been updated across the board to reflect the sensor ranges not described in Total Warfare.

v1.3 (12/20) Clearly defined MWO C3 system to differentiate battlefield effects from CBT C3.

1.B ) Preface

There has been more than a few posts already on "ECM is OP" and "ECM is fine," so I'll hold off on yelling my opinion (loudly) until after we take a look at exactly How MWO ECM works and exactly What it does. I've thrown a few acronyms down without really thinking about it (I try to keep acronyms out, but they slip out) so here's a quick run-down of some of the acronyms I (might) use:

Acronym quick reference said:

  • MWO: MechWarrior Online- The Game you're playing (Is it an acronym? Did I use it? Good, I'll put it here)
  • CBT/TT: Classic BattleTech/TableTop - referring to the chance-based, turn-based tactical strategy game from which MWO is derived. Weapon Balance, Mechanics, and general game design between MWO and CBT are very similar
  • AOE: Area-Of-Effect - Area centered on an ECM equipped mech, with a radius of 180m.
  • LOS: Line-of-sight - A line drawn directly between two Mechs. Can be blocked by environmental features (e.g. Height differences, Buildings)
  • TW: Total Warfare - The basic rulebook for CBT. Contains rules for a variety of different systems and weapons, as well as the layout for the turn-by-turn rules of play
  • TO: Tactical Operations - An expanded rulebook for CBT. Introduces, among other things, sensor ranges for more complex play. NOTE: I do not own this manual, if anyone has the manual and sees anything wrong with any statements I make, please don't hesitate to correct me.





CBT terminology quick reference said:

  • "Hex/Hexes" - A unit of measurement used in CBT. The CBT battleground setup is based on a hexagonal grid system, where one "Hex" is 30 meters across in any direction.
  • xDy (e.g. 2D6)- An X number of y-sided dice rolled to determine an outcome of a situation. If a 2D6 roll is called for, the player would roll 2, 6-sided dice and add the result of the dice rolls. This result is then compared to known outcomes on tables described in the rulebooks.
  • Base - the number that must be rolled (or higher) to perform a successful maneuver or action. For example for every shot attempted there is a base "To-hit" number that must be rolled in order to land a successful shot, before Modifiers.
  • Modifier - A number added to the outcome of rolls to account for different situations. For example for every shot fired there is a base "to-hit" number that must be rolled in order to make a successful shot. This base number is then modified based on different situations such as Range, Enemy Movement, Player Movement, Weapon Type, and so on.





Because PGI repeatedly says they want to "Stick to TableTop as close as possible," let's take a look at what ECM TableTop does, and the differences in effects for the different system ECM affects.

Note: This in depth comparison was originally written with access to only Total Warfare, the basic rulebook for Tabletop. As more information on rules comes to light (props to Elkaro!) I will update this guide.

2) ECM Mechanics: How it does what it does (but not the what yet)

First off, HOW ECM affects systems is, at its core, different in TableTop vs MWO, as a result of moving from a Turn-based system to a real time system.

MWO ECM mechanics said:


Area-of-Effect that only cloaks those within the radius. Friends are only cloaked by the ECM if they are within the radius, and enemies are only affected when they are within the radius themselves. Yes, there is a small area in between "not targetable at all" and "Jamming your systems" (The ECM Area-of-Effect radius is 180m, but you must be within 200m to target them), but this difference is negligible.

In a single sentence, MWO ECM affects only the objects inside the AOE (180m radius), in one way or another.


CBT ECM mechanics said:


ECM affects not only the objects inside the AOE, but also any enemy Line-of-Sight through the AOE. Any enemy system affected by ECM effects are affected if their Line-Of-Sight is traced anywhere through the AOE.



I can easily see why this design choice was made, and why it was changed from CBT. Having a bubble that affects your aiming and information sharing based on Line-of-Sight doesn't really work when you can't see it (I suppose if the Magnetometer was implemented it might work, I know that the Heat vision also has fluctuations around ECM equipped mechs, but I don't think you can see the AOE itself)

3) ECM Mechanics: So what the hell does it do?

Note: Again, there is some nuance with with distances, but at the most basic, there is an "inside ECM" and "Outside ECM." Simplified, yes, but still a good description.

MWO ECM effects said:

  • No enemy mech can be targeted within enemy ECM Area-of-Effect (180m radius) [Note: Without TAG]. These enemy mechs can not be targeted by LRMs or SSRMs (or any weapon system requiring a lock, which requires targeting).




  • Mechs within enemy ECM Area-of-Effect have no targeting abilities what-so-ever, not even IFF (Identify-Friend-Foe) capability. Because they can't target enemies, they can't share the targeting data they don't have.




  • NARC beacons and BAP are completely ineffective within enemy ECM range.




  • Artemis does not have any bonus when fired at a Targeted Enemy Mechs within Enemy ECM AOE (as if someone were TAGging them. Slim chance, but it can happen!)




  • ECM can be set in a mode to counter a single enemy ECM within the friendly AOE.





Those are the very basic (and most damaging, IMO) aspects of MWO ECM. For more information: http://mwomercs.com/...dian-ecm-suite/

CBT ECM effects said:

  • Targeting Computers and Targeting Devices not explicitly stated to have an effect are not affected.




  • BAP cannot penetrate enemy ECM radius. (BAP discrepancies and other implementation discrepancies in Part 3).




  • Artemis IV bonuses do not apply to targeted enemy Mech's when enemy ECM 'blocks' Line-of-sight.




  • NARC beacons do not grant bonuses when the beacon attached to an enemy Mech is within enemy ECM AOE.




  • C3 and C3i computers are cut off from their network if Line-Of-Sight between their C3 Master System or other C3i systems. When the C3 network is cut off, targeting data cannot be shared between the cut-off mech and the rest of the system. If the C3 Master is within an enemy ECM AOE (or completely cut-off LOS) the C3 slave units loose all communication and targeting information from one another




  • ECM can be used to counter the AOE of an enemy ECM. Any AOE of the enemy ECM is nullified within the area of the friendly Counter-ECM (allowing for partial AOE counter, opposed to complete ECM counter)





As you can see, there are themes that are common with one another. Artemis Bonus loss, NARC beacon bonus loss, situations with information loss.

4) ECM Mechanics: What's so different between the two? (And other discrepancies)

Well, I'll start with the largest difference between the two (largest in my opinion)​
  • MWO ECM's inability to gather target information AT ALL (even for personal use)
​Nowhere in CBT does ECM block the acquisition of targeting data. This design choice creates the following drastic differences:
  • CBT allows for LRMs and SSRMs to be fired at ECM equipped enemy mechs, without use of TAG, at any distance with unblocked LOS, or sharing targeting data using the C3 network.
  • MWO can not target any enemy mechs "hidden" by the ECM AOE. They cannot fire LRMs at an ECM equipped target (edit: without any semblance of accuracy. MWO has merged LRMs with TAG functionality with the lock-on feature. I'll explain my thoughts below), they cannot fire SSRMs without the use of TAG. This has, in my experience, rendered LRM support fire completely moot.​
  • ​Information sharing systems, and ECM effects
  • In CBT information sharing between team-mates isn't an automatic option. Mechs on a team must have one of two different communication systems installed on their Mechs. Here's a quick run-down on how these systems work:

CBT Command/Control/Communications System said:




The CBT C3 Computer systems allows Mechs to share targeting information with one-another. This allows for Mechs to take advantage of closer allies to an enemy Mech for targeting information. Simply put, this allows Mechs further away to use the hit probabilities as if they were standing at the shorter range of their C3 equipped ally. All other hit probability modifiers are calculated as normal (Weapon type, minimum range modifiers, terrain modifiers, etc). There are two ways to set up a CBT C3 Network:
  • C3 Master Unit + (up to) 3 C3 Masters* -OR- 3 C3 Slaves (1 ton, 1 crit slot): A Mech equipped with a "home" C3 Master systems receives and relays information to its connected network. *Couldn't find Master Tonnage or crit slot info anywhere on Sarna or in the Total Warfare rule book. Just know that its larger than a C3i (below) and carries TAG**-dual functionality built in) **See CBT TAG discrepancy below
  • Improved C3 system (C3i): Each unit combines the functionality of the C3 Master and Slave units into one module on a Mech (without TAG functionality; 2.5 tons, 2 crit slots). Not compatible with any C3 Master or Slave set-up.





If a friendly unit ventures into an enemy ECM AOE, the ECM AOE blocks LOS in between a Master and controlled C3 Unit (either Master or Slave, depending upon the set-up) then the unit is cut-off from the the network. If the Master C3 Unit (controller for other C3 Masters or Slaves) is inside the AOE of an enemy ECM, then the entire network is cut off and no unit can share targeting information using C3. If a Lance is using C3i network, the only (general) way a unit can be cut-off from the network is if the C3i Mech is inside the AOE of an enemy ECM.

Edit: Information is shared instantaneously between friendlies as well. There is no range on information gathering. Information gathering is 360 degrees around a Mech, opposed to only in the front 120 degrees.

Tactical Operations Update: Tactical Operations added sensor range for CBT. These rules are how PGI bases their sensor lock distances. Instead of "Only LOS" lock with TW, there are 3 ranges for sensor lock, and these ranges are affected by the Beagle Active Probe system as well. The rules are as follows:

[spoilers]

3 Ranges: Small, Medium, and Large.
  • Standard Sensors (No BAP)
  • Small: 1-8 hexes (240 meters)


  • Medium: 1 - 16 hexes (480 meters)


  • Large: 1 - 24 hexes (720 meters)
  • Beagle Active Probe Sensors
  • Small: 1 - 12 hexes (360 meters)
  • Medium: 1 - 24 hexes (720 meters)
  • Large: 1 - 36 hexes (1080 meters)
To use the sensor suite, a 2D6 is rolled. A successful roll (subject to the following results table) detects all enemy Mechs within the designated radius.




2D6 Result:
  • 2-4: Large Sensor Range success
  • 5-6: Medium Sensor Range success
  • 7-8: Small Sensor Range success
  • 9-12: Sensor Failure
Whenever an enemy ECM is in play, the ECM equipped mech has a +5 (standard) or +4 (BAP) modifier applied to the sensor roll. This makes BAP only have a 1/12 shot of successfully detecting an ECM equipped mech in medium range, and a 1/4 chance of detecting them at all (opposed to a 3/4 chance of detecting a mech at a minimum of 360 meters). With a non-BAP equipped mech, there is only a 1/6 chance of detecting an ECM equipped mech at all, a maximum detection range of 240 meters. These probabilities are analogous to the "Sensor Lock time" in MWO (not to be confused with separate "Weapon Lock time" with SSRMs or LRMs)


[/spoilers]

2) MWO Information sharing and networks:

Since there were a few assumptions I made when I described the MWO information sharing system as "C3;" there were some disagreements over wording. The MWO C3 system only shares LOS data with teammates. It still transmits information from pilot to pilot, and those transmissions can be blocked by ECM, but it does not affect accuracy of weapons (other than simply telling you where the enemy is).




Everyone gets free C3is! No ton, no slot taken, able to communicate targeting data to your entire team! The only way you can be disconnected from the team is if you are within an enemy ECM AOE. Simple.

Edit: Information is not shared instantly between friendlies. If an ally is targeting an enemy, the way you gather information on the target is as if you now have direct LOS to the target. There is also a 1000m (I believe) range for you to gather target data (even with LOS), assuming that an ally has not targeted the enemy already (infinite range for targets acquired by allies, assuming they are within 1000m to target and have direct LOS). You may only acquire a target if facing him.

Speculation: Why was this design choice made? said:

[spoilers]
Simply put, simplicity. In CBT, a Master/Slave C3 network cannot adapt to losing any Master/Slave systems. The network is set up before the match (Each Master unit points to up to 3 specific Master units or 3 specific slave units. If a Master Unit is lost, the connected Masters or Slaves are disconnected from one another. If a Master loses a Slave unit (due to critical hits or Mech death) it cannot pick up a wayward Slave. Giving everyone free C3i units is just easiest. Let alone Network set ups among Premades, it would be impossible to easily set up a Master/Slave C3 Network for PUGs. Who would be the Master Unit? Which 3 Mechs would he be connected to? What if you don't have any Master units? You wouldn't have ANY data sharing. You think LRMless landscape with ECM is bad now? Imagine having NO data sharing at all!
[/spoilers]
  • TAG, BAP, and other affected systems

TAG Differences said:

  • CBT: A successful TAG hit allows other weapons to be fired at lower failure probabilities. Semi-guided missiles' (Standard LRMs) to-hit value (number you need to roll, or higher, in order to hit the target) does not take movement modifiers into account (The more you move, the less likely you are to hit a target, therefore the larger the to-hit modifier will be. These movement to-hit modifiers are ignored with successful TAG hit)
  • MWO: To be honest, I don't see much difference in TAG painting and just regular target-sharing LRM firing. There may be a grouping bonus the TAG + LRM gets, but I don't see much bonus.




BAP Differences said:

  • MWO: Reduction in target acquire time (25% reduction), increase in target acquire distance (25% boost).
  • CBT Total Warfare: Detection of 'Hidden' Units on the battlefield within a radius. But not 'Hidden' using ECM, just like, hiding in the bushes. Active Probes are only used when "Hidden Units" rules are applied. They otherwise serve no purpose.
  • CBT Tactical Operations: Boosts sensor range by 66%
Why'd they make this change? Well, so we'd have a shiny Probe to put on our mech that does something! Although, I suppose that automatically getting alerted to enemy presence you don't see (360 targeting functionality, perhaps?)




Looks like PGI took a note from another rulebook, MWO implementation isn't too much different than from Tactical Operations.

  • So what would YOU do about the situation?
Some people may not like what I'm about to say, but ECM needs a pretty massive nerf "Rebalancing". Here's how I would treat it, personally:





  • Allow ECM to be attached to every mech, or have some system to be able to upgrade mechs to ECM capability (as well as Jump Jets or MASC, but that's a different thread)




  • Friendly Mechs would no longer be cloaked by the ECM. This may or may not include the ECM carrier himself (although LRM shield is really a problem, IMO. I would rather not have any "Cloak" at all.




  • Retain IFF and targeting for yourself within enemy ECM range, although your target info would not be shared with other friendlies (and you wouldn't receive detailed targeting info from your allies. This may or may not require implementing a rudimentary C3i system (instead of the info free-for-all currently instated. I suspect that the ONLY reason we can't share targeting info while within enemy ECM is because we don't have the info to begin with. I think that if you have target info on your enemy it is built into the system to automatically share it, instead of having sharing and gathering as two independent processes)
That's just a quick couple of suggestions. I'm gonna pass out now. Hopefully this wall of text is easier to read than my last manifesto!

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 19 December 2012 - 10:54 PM.


#2 PurpleNinja

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,097 posts
  • LocationMIA

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:11 AM

And yet people are happy with ECM.

:blink: :)

#3 ArmyOfWon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 222 posts
  • LocationDallas, TX

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:15 PM

View PostPurpleNinja, on 07 December 2012 - 03:11 AM, said:

And yet people are happy with ECM.

:) :(


And what, perchance do they run? Do they run LRM boats, a staple of strategic support? Or perhaps its a brawler who didn't know how to strategically place their Mech when dealing with LRM equipped opponents? Or maybe just people tired of Streakcat supremacy?

Personally, I'm torn over the current implementation of ECM. I think it Forces PUGs to work more cloesly to one another (a good thing), creating a more team-friendly environment over the "I can just go over here now because" attitude that a lot of PUG groups have had (I am guilty of this from time to time myself)

That DOES NOT MEAN ECM is balanced. Happy =/= Balance. Remember, some people were happy with the Gausskitty.

[/respose]

On a different note, I guess my wall of text was a bit too long again to generate any meaningful discussion and bring basic information to light that people may or may not have been aware.... :/

#4 Reviorry

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 46 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 06:53 AM

No. Simple People are ranting in other threads. I think your comparison is dead on. You even stated that there need to be balance changes to make them most effective.

#5 Elkarlo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 911 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:27 AM

Army of Won first of all, very good summary of the Problems, but you missed one Rule that is affected in TT by ECM.

It is not directly at the Core Rules but at the Total Tactics Rules for Double Blind.

PGI relies on them for the Locking Ranges. So maybe it would be good to Mention them.
As they would Improve BaP Usability and won't outnerf the ECM.

The Detection Rules for TT are:

Quote

For Sensor use the Player have to throw 2d6. For a result of 7 or 8 every Unit in short Sensor range is spottet,
if he throws a 5 or 6 he spots a Targets in Medium Range, and a throw of 2-4 he spots Units in Long range.
... ...


Then there are two Tables with the ranges:
I putt the both intresting for us into the Tables:
Sensorsystem: BaP Short: 1- 12 Medium: 1-24 Long: 1-36
Sensorsystem: Std Mech Sensors Short:1-8 Medium:1-16 Long 1-24

ECM-Modification
Beagle Probe gets +4 with Guardian ECM
Std Mech Sensors gets +5 with Guardian ECM.

This Means on the 2d6 throw the Guardian ECM adds an +4 or +5 if the Mech have Bap or not.

Technically Speaking the Mechs are restricted to their Short Range on detection of ECM Guarded Mechs.

This would mean in MWO we would only be able to Lock Enemy Mechs on Short Range Sensor Range.
12 Hex of a BaP Means 360Meters and 6 Hex of Std Mech Sensors Means 180 Meters.

It would work totally oposed to the effect it now have, as you need to closecombat ECM Carriers to get locks on them and Missles on them. Atm the ECM had been used to counter SSRM and this tiny Rule Change from TT to MWO Rules shows it totally, as the best fighting Chance against a ECM equipt Mech would be getting INTO the 180 Meters Chance with SSRm and circle him, with the original TT Ruleset.


Btw Sorry i only got the German Issue of the Total Tactics and had to backtranslate.

Edited by Elkarlo, 09 December 2012 - 07:29 AM.


#6 Rakash

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 51 posts
  • LocationVirginia, USA

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:54 AM

The current implementation of ECM is ******** for one very basic reason: it ignores optical sensors. If I can SEE a battlemech, I should be able to target it and fire weapons at it. Advanced guidance (A4) will not apply. Streak will not apply. I won't get target information beyond chassis (Atlas) because I can't detect the EM and thermal signatures that would give away weapon and therefore model specifics. But ECM is not a ******* cloaking device, and should not behave as one. Besides, if it does, what's Null Sig gonna do? :-D

#7 ArmyOfWon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 222 posts
  • LocationDallas, TX

Posted 14 December 2012 - 12:57 PM

Woah! Looks like people posted while I wasn't looking! Thanks for the information, Elkaro, I've added the Tactical Operation sensor ranges into the description.

#8 Fais

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 146 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:23 PM

Personally:

I'm not going to get into a debate of TT mechanics. Turn based games are very limited, because of the turns.

I would like to see how the matches would go if we moved out the ECM targeting range. I think currently its 25% of normal sensor range. Ie normal 800m is now 200m. So you have this range from 200 to 180 where you can freely target ect... I think if we moved this out to 50%. So you could freely target something between 180-400m. It might get things working again a little better. Put tag at 500m. Narc overides the ECM bubble. Add knockdowns back in. Fix the netcode so we can hit lights easier. Give ECM to all the Ravens, Commandoes and K Jenner. Remove ECM from the DDC's. And for good measure, add one giant map, I dont care if its barren desert.

Edited by Fais, 14 December 2012 - 01:37 PM.


#9 Mike McSullivan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 556 posts
  • LocationHannover, Germany

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:43 PM

Thank you "AoW" for that loads of work!
Helped me to understand things better that i read 20 years ago ;)

- I would change one thing with ECM: Ineffective/ does nothing when i have LoS to an enemy-mech. (still, the information transfer to friendly mechs could be blocked).

#10 Pygar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,070 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:47 PM

Nice post: I can assure you I skipped every single word of it.

"How it worked in tabletop" is: it didn't work, so nobody used it because nobody cared.

Comparing how the mechanics work in a video game to how it worked in a turn based game where every thing is resolved with dice is pointless...because we don't roll dice to make things work in the video game, we don't get to clearly see where everybody is all the time because there's no way to hide, and we don't get the extra time to think about whats happening while we are waiting for it to be our turn again.

Instead of being a :foreveralone: combing through old source books so you can write a whole research paper on game mechanics you are struggling with, you should scroll farther down in the forum directory to the corp recruitment section and use your time discovering that people in serious teams have this ECM thing worked out w/out really needing a nerf, and still bring LRMs to play with as well.

#11 SpiralRazor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 2,691 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:59 PM

To seriously understand this topic you have to have a FIRM grasp on the Table Top rules and systems of:


Guardian ECM / Angel ECM

Beagle and Bloodhound Active

Stealth Armor

Artemis FCS

Streak tech

Target Acquisition Gear

Null Signature System

C3 and C3i


I would posit that 95% of the forumites have NO clue how these systems interact by virtue of the huge amount of postings ive seen on the subject.

"How it worked in tabletop" is: it didn't work, so nobody used it because nobody cared."



We did use it....we used it quite a lot when you had multiple mechs under your control... Of course, the game also took 4 to 6 hours.

Edited by SpiralRazor, 14 December 2012 - 02:00 PM.


#12 byteu2

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco, CA

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:02 PM

View PostPygar, on 14 December 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

Nice post: I can assure you I skipped every single word of it.

"How it worked in tabletop" is: it didn't work, so nobody used it because nobody cared.

Comparing how the mechanics work in a video game to how it worked in a turn based game where every thing is resolved with dice is pointless...because we don't roll dice to make things work in the video game, we don't get to clearly see where everybody is all the time because there's no way to hide, and we don't get the extra time to think about whats happening while we are waiting for it to be our turn again.

Instead of being a :foreveralone: combing through old source books so you can write a whole research paper on game mechanics you are struggling with, you should scroll farther down in the forum directory to the corp recruitment section and use your time discovering that people in serious teams have this ECM thing worked out w/out really needing a nerf, and still bring LRMs to play with as well.


To which I say "Bah!". If it was designed to be a team game, PGI should do more to make it easier to form teams. ;)
PUG for life!

#13 SpiralRazor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 2,691 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:20 PM

"and we don't get the extra time to think about whats happening while we are waiting for it to be our turn again."


This is actually relevant....BUT....it doesnt mean a real time game should be dominated by one piece of very, very light equipment with no downside that takes zero skill to use.

#14 Jacmac

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 828 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:26 PM

Why hasn't this thread been locked and people redirected to the existing ECM feedback thread?

#15 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:27 PM

ibtl youre not allowed to talk about this

#16 Pygar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,070 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:27 PM

View Postbyteu2, on 14 December 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:


To which I say "Bah!". If it was designed to be a team game, PGI should do more to make it easier to form teams. ;)
PUG for life!


It's not very difficult to form teams, even easier if you join a merc corp, which is also fairly easy to do.


View PostSpiralRazor, on 14 December 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:


This is actually relevant....BUT....it doesnt mean a real time game should be dominated by one piece of very, very light equipment with no downside that takes zero skill to use.


It's not...the game is dominated by teamwork which costs 0 slots and 0 tons, and requires a fair amount of skill(s) to use.

#17 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:29 PM

View PostPurpleNinja, on 07 December 2012 - 03:11 AM, said:

And yet people are happy with ECM.

;) :ph34r:


because, as I keep saying, people would rater keep their OP stuff than have it "nerfed" IE fixed. Theres no surprise here

View PostPygar, on 14 December 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

It's not...the game is dominated by teamwork which costs 0 slots and 0 tons, and requires a fair amount of skill(s) to use.


then all they have to do is disable the lone wolf thing and pugging
cause apparently theyre exploiting and doing it in a way youre not meant to in this team only game.

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 14 December 2012 - 02:30 PM.


#18 Fajther

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 451 posts
  • LocationGrand Rapids, Michigan, usa

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:45 PM

Thank you for an intelligent non rage talk on ecm. It was very interesting. I hope someone at pgi reads it.

#19 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:56 PM

View PostFajther, on 14 December 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Thank you for an intelligent non rage talk on ecm. It was very interesting. I hope someone at pgi reads it.

Im amazed it hasnt been locked honestly

#20 Solis Obscuri

    Don't Care How I Want It Now!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,745 posts
  • LocationPomme de Terre

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:58 PM

View PostArmyOfWon, on 07 December 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

Everyone gets free C3is! No ton, no slot taken, able to communicate targeting data to your entire team! The only way you can be disconnected from the team is if you are within an enemy ECM AOE. Simple.

Interesting.

Please elaborate on how the accuracy of my long range direct-fire weapons is enhanced by having a teammate stand close to them in MWO.

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)





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users