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

#21 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

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

Posted 14 December 2012 - 03:05 PM

View PostSolis Obscuri, on 14 December 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

[/size]
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.


(Total Warfare; p. 131)

like

#22 Fajther

    Member

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

Posted 14 December 2012 - 03:32 PM

bump I like the parts about having a chance of detecting ecm outside of 200 meters, and the part about using your own line of cite to target a mech.

#23 ArmyOfWon

    Member

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

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:14 PM

View PostSolis Obscuri, on 14 December 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

[/size]
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.


(Total Warfare; p. 131)


Hmm... How should I go about answering this?... Perhaps "drawing parallels between two similar objects in order to simply explain a concept doesn't make the two the same" or maybe "If you're given a big red box from a far away team mate allows your Gausspult to target people 1000+ meters away and therefore gives you a more obvious target to point at" or... Well, I could go on.

Point is I know the rules, but this guide is more a comparison from CBT to MWO. How would you describe MWO's information sharing system by drawing comparisons to the source material?

#24 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

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

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:16 PM

View PostArmyOfWon, on 14 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Hmm... How should I go about answering this?... Perhaps "drawing parallels between two similar objects in order to simply explain a concept doesn't make the two the same" or maybe "If you're given a big red box from a far away team mate allows your Gausspult to target people 1000+ meters away and therefore gives you a more obvious target to point at" or... Well, I could go on.

Point is I know the rules, but this guide is more a comparison from CBT to MWO. How would you describe MWO's information sharing system by drawing comparisons to the source material?

um 1000m not 1000+
wait whats the max range of the gauss now?

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 14 December 2012 - 09:17 PM.


#25 ArmyOfWon

    Member

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

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:40 PM

View PostMechwarrior Buddah, on 14 December 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

um 1000m not 1000+
wait whats the max range of the gauss now?


Range is 660m, you can do damage up to 1320m 1980m. But Geeze, can't I be sarcastic when replying to a know-it-all comment?

Edit: The ItemStats.xml reports a max range of 1980, which is 3 times the distance of the range. I thought damage fell off to 0 at double the range, guess they changed it....

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 14 December 2012 - 10:45 PM.


#26 Solis Obscuri

    Don't Care How I Want It Now!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The DeathRain
  • The DeathRain
  • 4,751 posts
  • LocationPomme de Terre

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:00 AM

View PostArmyOfWon, on 14 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Hmm... How should I go about answering this?... Perhaps "drawing parallels between two similar objects in order to simply explain a concept doesn't make the two the same" or maybe "If you're given a big red box from a far away team mate allows your Gausspult to target people 1000+ meters away and therefore gives you a more obvious target to point at" or... Well, I could go on.

Point is I know the rules, but this guide is more a comparison from CBT to MWO. How would you describe MWO's information sharing system by drawing comparisons to the source material?

The point is, we don't have C3i.

We don't have any system that duplicates the TT effects of C3 or C3i.

So ECM does not block the "free C3is". It just forces any team without an ample supply ECM-equipped 'mechs team into double-blind play with itself, which pretty much screws the "information warfare" mechanics of this game, as well as any link to the way spotting and scouting worked in TT.

#27 Zeke Steiner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • 164 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:32 AM

ECM would be better balanced if the enemy had to be in the ECM bubble for it to screw with their sensors. That and give a slight nerf to LRM damage. That way lights with ECM and lagshield don't become the hardest mech to kill in the game. ECM would still be useful as it would keep LRM boats from locking on while in the bubble.
This change would make ECM a nice addition but not a must have piece of equipment.

#28 ArmyOfWon

    Member

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

Posted 15 December 2012 - 08:05 AM

View PostSolis Obscuri, on 15 December 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

....as well as any link to the way spotting and scouting worked in TT.


I'll just say one more thing on the matter: And how did information sharing work in TT? So if there was a link to how spotting and information sharing between the two venues then one could draw parallels between the two, correct? Maybe it would have made you feel better if I had said "free gimped C3is," but I didn't want to get exactly into the differences in the C3 system of TT and the target sharing system of MWO, just a quick outline of how they're different.

I'm surprised you didn't jump on any lack of mention of the to-hit modifiers when I was describing the C3 system (I don't think I mentioned it, did I?).

Anyway, you've got me rambling again. Tldr; comparing network connections, not mechanics.

Edit: Seems I did go into the hit-modifiers aspect of C3 when describing TT. Anyway, accuracy/probability aside is it targeting data? Are you sharing it? Now, both systems don't do the exact same thing with it, but that's the price you pay when you go from dice rolls to Iron sights (or at least the price PGI paid).

This isn't supposed to be a debate on how C3 isn't implemented into the game, just what parallels we can draw between TT and MWO and how ECM totally screws over most of them.

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 15 December 2012 - 08:12 AM.


#29 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

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

Posted 15 December 2012 - 08:05 AM

View PostArmyOfWon, on 14 December 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:


Range is 660m, you can do damage up to 1320m 1980m. But Geeze, can't I be sarcastic when replying to a know-it-all comment?..


you should know you cant around here geez

#30 Fajther

    Member

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

Posted 15 December 2012 - 12:35 PM

everybody needs to read this.

#31 Foxfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,904 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:19 PM

The biggest thing that they need to do, IMO, is to make adjustments to TAG.

IMO, I think a short duration 'lingering' effect on TAG'ed targets wouldn't be a bad thing. ECM's are something that I've been waiting on, as I've wanted to fill that information warfare Raven Pilot. I think they did a decent job with ECM's, though, they do seem to have rolled in aspects of other systems(Null system for example, though it doesnt surprise me since they give defacto C3 systems to everyone). Just that the hard counter for non ECM mechs, the TAG, is a bit too... limited right now when compared to the power of the ECM.

#32 Zero Neutral

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,107 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:22 PM

Information Warfare Dev Blog

#33 Urza Mechwalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 394 posts
  • LocationBrazil, Santa Catarina

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:23 PM

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

​Nowhere in CBT does ECM block the acquisition of targeting data. This design choice creates the following drastic differences:



I only need this statement to crush OP. That is a LIE. ECM most important role in BT is to block C3. THe closest thing we have to C3 here is detection of enemies by your friends informing you where they are. That is main role of ECM and currently it performs it beautifully!

FOr a long treat y on the subject.. imrpessive work on missign the point entirely.

#34 Targetloc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 963 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:38 PM

My biggest problem with ECM is that the 20 meter buffer between 'can lock on' (200m) and 'you can't relay target info' (180m) is far too small.

The average ECM carrying mech closes that distance in less than 1 second. Literally. 100 km/h = 27.2 m/sec.

That's not even counting your forward momentum when you first contact them. Even if you are running backwards at full speed as you make contact they'll still envelop you before you have a chance to relay target info. It's far too easy for the ECM side to control the buffer zone right now.

Being able to lock on to ECM'd mechs from 360 to 400 meters would be a lot more balanced


The other thing that doesn't make any sense is that ECM fields are invisible on radar. This is not a null-sig system. In the real world (and in the Battletech rules themselves) you know when you are being jammed.

You will not know the exact position of the jamming's source, or be able to tell if there are other units besides the jammer in the area (which is a huge advantage in itself, and well worth the 1.5 tons) but there absolutely should be a large fuzzy section on your map that says 'here be ravens.'

Right now ECM has absolutely zero downside. The trade-off should be that it gives away your general position in exchange for hiding your specific position and the number of units moving with you. (Plus all the other magic stuff it does once you get within 180m of the enemy).

#35 Karr285

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 445 posts
  • LocationAB, CAN

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:41 PM

not to be a *** or anything, but when I load in a game I dont see hexes on the ground or Dice rolling around. Just saying.

ps. other than the mechs looks, names and weapons, Not much else has stayed "TT" heat, damage, rof, armour pretty much everything has changed. So why are you still harping on TT?

#36 Foxfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,904 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:46 PM

View PostTargetloc, on 15 December 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:



The other thing that doesn't make any sense is that ECM fields are invisible on radar. This is not a null-sig system. In the real world (and in the Battletech rules themselves) you know when you are being jammed.




Not to be too picky.... but..... you know when you are being jammed in this game. Or, atleast I've been able to pick up very clearly whenever I'm within the jamming range of someone with ECM. You get this nice 'Low Signal' display, fuzzy screen, and the like.

As for real world comparison... I can't say that they got it wrong in this game for the way that the ECM in this game functions.

#37 Targetloc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 963 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:55 PM

View PostFoxfire, on 15 December 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:


Not to be too picky.... but..... you know when you are being jammed in this game. Or, atleast I've been able to pick up very clearly whenever I'm within the jamming range of someone with ECM. You get this nice 'Low Signal' display, fuzzy screen, and the like.

As for real world comparison... I can't say that they got it wrong in this game for the way that the ECM in this game functions.


You do get an on-screen warning when you're inside the 180m bubble, but just from the way jamming works, even at 800m, where your sensors would normally be able to lock onto an enemy mech you would be able to detect the giant mass of electromagnetic interference that is blocking your sensors in that region.

The difference between cloaking (null-sig system) and jamming (ECM) is one attempts the extremely difficult task of making it look like there is nothing there, while the other just blasts out overwhelming amounts of static and noise to scramble any meaningful readings.

#38 Foxfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,904 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:09 PM

View PostTargetloc, on 15 December 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:


You do get an on-screen warning when you're inside the 180m bubble, but just from the way jamming works, even at 800m, where your sensors would normally be able to lock onto an enemy mech you would be able to detect the giant mass of electromagnetic interference that is blocking your sensors in that region.

The difference between cloaking (null-sig system) and jamming (ECM) is one attempts the extremely difficult task of making it look like there is nothing there, while the other just blasts out overwhelming amounts of static and noise to scramble any meaningful readings.



The real stuff doesn't come from electro-magnetic interference... just to point out.

From my understanding of how Guardian works, it shouldn't block people from targeting you outside of the 180m range. However, it should still interfere with lockons from LRM's and the like.

Also, one thing that should be noted about knowing when you are being jammed... as per the discription of the Guardian, only those with BAP or other active detection systems should get any indication that they are being jammed.

Edited by Foxfire, 15 December 2012 - 02:10 PM.


#39 Kooky Carter

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 48 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:51 PM

First of all, I think you've done a really great job of comparing targeting in MWO to CBT and how the ECM works.

I almost exclusively PUG and from this point of view I have seen a team that effectively uses ECM regularly wipe the floor regardless of which team I am on. Personally, I think ECM has been implemented fairly well - it does a good job confusing the enemy team and preventing pure long range fights. I say long range because 1) LRMs are next to useless (I'll come back to that) and 2) it can be a bit of a challenge to consistently hit a 'mech with direct-fire weapons at a range greater than 600m with precision. Also, the limit it puts on SSRMs is nice but may be a bit much.

Personally, I think that ECM should not completely electronically cloak a 'mech. I think it should muck up and confuse your sensor system with regard to target lock-on and IFF. It'd be neat if instead of not being able to target an enemy 'mech or see who your teammate is within the 180m ECM bubble you could target any 'mech in LOS (other than the ECM carrier) inside the 180m but not receive any information on it and it would take longer to receive a lock. Essentially, you'd be able to target both friendly and enemy 'mechs and you would not receive any information on them. This would force you to visually identify your friendlies in order to prevent friendly-fire mistakes. I think by doing that it would create the confusion that 'electronic warfare' should cause.

In addition to this type of effect, I think that you should still be able to fire LRMs and SSRMs if something is within the ECM bubble but it should come at a cost. A good idea for this cost of firing weapons that require guidance without a full target lock would be that maybe only 50% of the missiles fired can actually hit the target - the rest could fly off in cool spins and whatnot to simulate the mucked up electronics. I think that this would be a neat idea since it doesn't make all weapons obsolete but makes LRMs still require some form of a spotter to actually be useful.

Overall, I really like my idea even though I imagine PUGs will consistently kill their friendlies by accident if they're not paying attention. Regardless, I am not completely against how the current implementation of ECM works. I actually enjoy how confused and oblivious it makes a team that is having it used against them (yes, even when it's my own team getting destroyed). However, it does seem to be a bit messy in regards to LRMs since I think they are an important part of fire support units and should be able to at least hit ECM cloaked 'mechs with something. But maybe with this coming TAG buff all LRM carriers will just always equip TAG - hell, it's only 1 ton and would let you actually target what you can see. That's all I have to say about it.

#40 Foxfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,904 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:53 PM

After looking into it more, it turns out that the ECM modeled in game is actually the Angel ECM( a modified Guardian ECM prototype by ComStar) and not the Guardian.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users