60 replies to this topic

[ArmyOfWon]

Urza Mechwalker, on 15 December 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

[/size]


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.

It blocks sharing of information, not acquisition, using basic rules, mind you. Yes, I have been informed that the Tactical Operations advanced rules introduce sensor ranges, but if you have LOS in basic rules you have the exact same probability of hitting a target that has ECM or not.

And to be fair, I do not have access to the Tactical Operations rule book, so I am only operating on what I've been told. I'm not exactly sure how Tactical Operations treats LOS probabilities at range, if it treats it as basic "You see the mech, you have this probability if you shoot at it" or "Your sensors do not pick up this mech, you cannot fire at all" or "Your sensors do not pick up this mech, but you can see it so here are some different probabilities for a non-sensor lock LOS only target"

I think you just misunderstood the difference between "target acquisition" and "target data sharing"?

Karr285, on 15 December 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

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?

Heat and damage values have (other than missile damage) stayed pretty much the same. Only reason I'm harping on it is that PGI keeps insisting on they want to "stick to TT as close as possible." I know that involves making concessions, but I think ECM strayed a bit too far.

[Fajther]

Would like to see more from pgi on this subject. I hope they tell us more.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Fajther, on 16 December 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

Would like to see more from pgi on this subject. I hope they tell us more.

I expect a lock or it being moved to another forum like all the other threads on the same subject are getting by prosperity park
rather than a answer

[Tilon]

Rakash, on 09 December 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

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

Quoted for truth.

[SpiralRazor]

Thank you for posting this...Clear and Concise.

Unfortunately the TLDR rtards wont or cant read it.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 16 December 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

I expect a lock or it being moved to another forum like all the other threads on the same subject are getting by prosperity park
rather than a answer

Or Dakkath...i know they are only mods following orders, but i cant help but think they are part of the problem....

Edited by SpiralRazor, 16 December 2012 - 04:06 PM.

[ArmyOfWon]

Thank you everyone for posting and giving thoughts, tips, opinions, and for letting me state my ideas and comparisons in better ways! I hope this thread continues to generate discussion and bring information previously unknown to people (including myself!) to light!

SpiralRazor, on 16 December 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Or Dakkath...i know they are only mods following orders, but i cant help but think they are part of the problem....

I want to say that this thread would have been locked/merged with others long ago if it didn't bring something new to the table the others didn't. As long as we stay on topic I think this thread should do fine standing alone.

...and on that note, back on topic! Are there other thoughts on the current conversion from TT ECM to MWO ECM? Is there something I said completely wrong? Who actually has "Tactical Operations"? All this, and more, tonight on 60 minute The Battle Report (shameless self-plug)!

Edit: Freakin spelling....

Edit Edit (Below): MW Buddah, do you just quote posts and comment "Like" without actually hitting the "Like" button all the time?

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 17 December 2012 - 08:11 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

SpiralRazor, on 16 December 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Thank you for posting this...Clear and Concise.

Unfortunately the TLDR rtards wont or cant read it.




Or Dakkath...i know they are only mods following orders, but i cant help but think they are part of the problem....

like

[Solis Obscuri]

ArmyOfWon, on 15 December 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

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?

Double-blind rules effectively work the same between TT and MWO - if you teammate can see it, you have knowledge of it (though you may not be able to shoot at it, depending on the limitations of the weapons you have equipped). ECm as implemented in MWO negates this basic ability, which is, IMO, the very worst and most game-breaking of its features - it essentially forces the opposing team into double-blind play with itself.

ArmyOfWon, on 15 December 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

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.

It doesn't matter if you call it something different, because C3/C3i are essentially impossible since we don't use dice-rolls and range modifiers to determine hits. It's simply a false statement to say that we have it, and furthermore it creates the impression that ECM forcing a team into double-blind play with itself is "ok" since "its just taking away the free C3i system everyone has been given" and that it's ok for a single 1.5 ton piece of passive equipment to trump the information warfare capabilities of an entire 8-man team.

ArmyOfWon, on 15 December 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

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.

Which is why I am pointing out that

• We don't have "free C3i"
  
• TT C3/C3i isn't really practicable in a first-person sim/shooter like MWO anyway
  
• ECM as implemented in MWO breaks the most fundamental of information warfare/scouting capabilities shared between MWO and TT

[ArmyOfWon]

Solis Obscuri, on 18 December 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Which is why I am pointing out that

• We don't have "free C3i"
  
• TT C3/C3i isn't really practicable in a first-person sim/shooter like MWO anyway
  
• ECM as implemented in MWO breaks the most fundamental of information warfare/scouting capabilities shared between MWO and TT

Wait, I think we're just calling the same thing different names. I'm just saying that the information sharing network acts similar to how the C3i system works in TT, not that the mechanics of C3i are present in MWO. I would completely agree that the TT mechanics of the C3 (probability-sharing) system, in general, doesn't really translate that well to MWO, but I think that the spirit of information-sharing is still kept in MWO, which is why I used the C3i analogy for how we share information today.

I was unaware of that you could share LOS information without C3 (I suppose I misunderstood the LRM indirect fire rules, but now that I think about it, I don't recall it saying you needed C3 communication to fire LRMs, I'll reread the passage though)

And I completely agree on the last point as well! Haha, I apologize for arguing over nothing (or not expressing my thoughts entirely accurately!)

As a side note, it seems this thread has died/is dying. Hopefully some people got some good information out of this!

[Solis Obscuri]

It has (unfortunately) kind of died off, but (not to beat you over the head too much) look up how the double-blind rules work while you're checking out indirect-fire rules. You only need one 'mech with LoS in order for your team to have knowledge of enemy positions and movement, just using standard T1 Succession Wars 'mechs.

C3 really is about sharing those to-hit bonuses (though that in itself is a HUGE bonus in TT/MegaMek play).

Solis Obscuri, on 12 December 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

Again, C3 does not affect indirect LRM fire at all:

Quote

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 targetand 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.

(Total Warfare; p. 111)

The spotter can fire either way, and takes a small penalty both to the indirect fire and to it's own attacks. C3 doesn't play into it.

[Yanlowen Cage]

Solis 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)

Erm... again just pointing out something I don't think is really covered in this game/forums whatever. In Classic Battletech, Mechs have targeting computers and futhermore they direct fire for ALL weapons. Thus the flashing gold indicator when your weapons are "Locked".

You can turn off your targeting computer and fire iron sights "kentucky windage"

How this applies to the above statement.: When you have a mech close to the enemy and you are firing from range your targeting computers via C3 share targeting info allowing for more accurate firing for longer ranged units. Put simply. Like a forward observer for artillery.

Also the advantage of ECM is it's ability to affect your targeting computer (amongst other things).

Something that is somewhat confusing to me is the fact that LRMs are a visual lock weapon and ECM blocks thier lock at all ranges out to maxium range. It would seem to me that the only time(s) ecm would block lock of LRMS and indeed streaks would be when:
1: You were being fed targeting info thru a C3 network and the mech providing you was within the ecm bubbles and you had no line of sight.
2: you are within the ECM bubble.

That said, if I were at say 200 to 1000 meters away from an ecm mech(Because LRMS are a visual lock weapon) my missiles should track normally and hit. Unless you want to argue that once the missiles got within the bubble the link between the missile and YOUR computer would be lost and the missiles would then lose track.

And if you doubt LRMs are visual lock weapons, try and maintain a lock on a mech after it walks under cover and you have no mech near it relaying targeting info. LRMs are used in this example. SSRMs may work on fire and forget, but for rules sake they are basically a line of sight missile to lock and fire.

[ArmyOfWon]

Solis Obscuri, on 19 December 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

C3 really is about sharing those to-hit bonuses (though that in itself is a HUGE bonus in TT/MegaMek play).

And I can appreciate that huge bonus with to-hit probabilities. I was just noting how, instead of MWO's information sharing system it doesn't share hit-probability targeting data, but instead it shares enemy position and movement data. Yes, I agree that C3 isn't implemented at all, as far as C3 game-mechanics go, but instead the double-blind rules of LOS have been merged together with the spirit of C3.

So instead of sharing hit-percentages with MWO C3, you're sharing enemy position data. So MWO ECM is interfering with our basic Double-blind LOS sharing system (I'll still call it "MWO C3 until they actually add C3 proper, dammit!) just as ECM interferes with CBT ECM interfering with sharing targeting data (to-hit modifiers).

I reaaaallly hope I got my comparison through that time XP. (And if you were to follow my "MWO C3 shares LOS data" analogy, then by that we have free MWO C3s, not CBT C3s. Yes, two very different systems with the same effect around ECM)

(And I didn't catch your last statement the first time. My bad!.... but I don't think I was technically arguing that point, just not really wording my arguments the best they could be. CBT C3 doesn't play into indirect fire, but the way I have defined MWO C3 by sharing LOS data it does. Darn me and my assumptions and ambiguities!)

[ArmyOfWon]

Yanlowen Cage, on 19 December 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

-snip-

Don't worry about it, Cage, he was just correcting an incorrect statement that I had by use of sarcasm. I'll update the original post to include my definition of "MWO C3 system" so that it's clear that although the two systems use similar communication mechanics when it comes to ECM, they have different effects when it comes to actual targeting and hit-percentages.

Edit: Whoops, that was meant to be an edit, not a double post!

Edit Edit: Solis, would you happen to have the Tactical Operations rulebook? I don't have that one and I don't want to throw down 50 bucks just for some light reading on how the sensor ranges apply to LOS and firing in CBT. Do you know? (I'll keep looking for it, but the source rules are always better than second-hand)

Triple Edit!: Huh, went back to check the price on Tactical Operations pdf and it was only 15 bucks! I have no clue what I was looking at before, so I went ahead and picked it up. I'll read through the pertinent information and update the master post as needed.

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 19 December 2012 - 11:04 PM.

[Alvor]

To summarize TAG should always work & Streaks/Regular LRMs should always work if using Canon BT/MW.

Number of (regular) missiles hit per salvo in current MWO is OP. On average only about 50%-60% should be hitting i.e. LRM20 average 12 missiles hit per salvo.

All this information was taken from http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Main_Page which is one of the best resources for Battletech information.

http://www.sarna.net...rdian_ECM_Suite

Guardian ECM Suite 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.[2] 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 greatest drawback to the Guardian is its limited range 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.[2]

http://www.sarna.net...Angel_ECM_Suite

Angel ECM Suite is an experimental version of the Guardian ECM Suite operating on a broader spectrum and greatly advances ECM technology on the battlefield.
Game Rules
The Angel ECM Suite represents a great advance in ECM technology from the standard Guardian model. Angel suite completely blocks the following systems on enemy units: Artemis IV,Artemis V, Beagle Active Probes, Bloodhound Active Probes and their Clan equivalents, C3 Master Computers and C3 Slaves, Streak Missile Launchers and Narc missile beacons. Streak missiles may be fired at units affected by the device, but they function as standard missiles.
When using ECCM rules, the Angel ECM Suite counts as two ECM/ECCM units (depending on how it is set) for the purposes of determining the ratio of ECM to ECCM in a given area.

http://www.sarna.net...cquisition_Gear

Target Acquisition Gear (TAG) is an advanced targeting device for use by artillery spotters. The TAG unit works by firing an infrared laser beam to designate the target and transmits that data via a tight-beam laser communication system to the guidance systems of friendly "smart" bombs and missiles. TAG is compatible with systems such as Arrow IV Homing Missiles or LRM munitions.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Streak_SRM

Streak Missile Launcher Unlike a standard SRM whose shotgun effect may result in some misses and some hits, Streak guidance gives the lighter launchers the effective average firepower of the heavier and more wasteful SRM systems, but with considerably less variation in damage effects. The only disadvantages are that Streak launchers are incompatible with other missile target acquisition technologies such as the Artemis IV FCS and Narc Missile Beacon, their specialized ammunition is much more expensive, and some users are willing to accept partial hits rather than not be able to fire on demand.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/LRM

Long Range Missiles are designed to engage the enemy at great distances at the expense of damage dealt. Adapted towards the profusion of electronic jamming on the battlefield and the effectiveness of current armor designs, these missiles are capable of indirect fire and disperse over a smaller area than Short Range Missiles. Inner Sphere LRM launchers achieve this range by firing at a ballistic launch angle, making them less accurate at close range. Clan LRM launchers do not suffer from this effect, in addition to being smaller and more compact, thanks to their technological advantage. LRMs are highly upgradable, able to fire a variety of warheads and benefit from devices such as Artemis IV FCS.[1]

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/CBT_Tables

Number of Missiles Hit Table
Die Roll (2D6) Number of Missiles Fired
2 3 4 5 6 9 10 12 15 20
2 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 6
3 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 6
4 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 9
5 1 2 2 3 3 5 6 8 9 12
6 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 12
7 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 8 9 12
8 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 8 9 12
9 2 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 12 16
10 2 3 3 4 5 7 8 10 12 16
[u]11[/u] 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 12 15 20
[u]12[/u] 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 12 15 20

[Znail]

There are some major balance differences here in MWO compared with the TT and ECM. In the TT so is the ECM main use to counter other advanced equipment. In MWO so is the main function of the ECM to cloak your team and the countering of some enemy equipment is just a bonus. BAP hardly does any thing in MWO, but in the TT so is it quite strong.

Anyway, I am going to make a try at answering what I think should be done and not only about ECM as balance is delicate..

ECM - 'cloak' effect changed from reducing the sight range from 200m to 400m.
BAP - can now detect enemies within 180m without LOS.
LRM - Damage reduced to 1 for each missile, ammo increased to 240 missiles/ton.
SSRM/SRM - Damage reduced to 2 for each missile.
LB 10-X -Reduce the spread of the pellets to half as much.

[Rakash]

Pygar, 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.

Then why are you talking? You lost us at "I skipped every single word..."

[Iacov]

who cares about ECM these days?
coolant flush is the new ECM

[Krell Darkmoon]

PPPSSSSSSTTTTTTT......


We're not playing TableTop.....

Just FYI

[DocBach]

The "this isn't tabletop" excuse to keep broken mechanics is a pretty poor argument. It doesn't explain why reverting back to the source material would be worse at all; it holds as much water as "learn to play."

Either way, taking inspiration from the board game, I think the effects ECM has can be broken down into a third mode, Ghost Target mode -- move any sort of missile counter to this mode. In the board game Ghost Target mode added modifiers to shoot at a 'Mech protected by it. It actively attempted to jam sensors whereas disrupt was only suppose to jam higher-end electronics like Artemis and Beagle.

The modifier could easily be translated to an increased lock on time for missile weapons. It should not outright defeat the missile system, though, as ECM's current functions obsolete AMS already; it should make it harder for enemies to employ weapons against you, but not impossible, and shouldn't require so many outside sources like TAG and PPC's to do -- I mean, ECM itself is passive and does not require any additional equipment to run, so why should the counters be so active?

Also, for the record, according to Tech Manual, all 'Mechs can share information on targets without C3. C3 implementation in this game could be handled by expanding the sharing of information. Right now, you can only share target data on 'Mechs you are targeting yourself; even if you have five enemies on your radar, your team can only see the one you have selected. C3 could allow a 'Mech to share everything it has on its sensors as a net. C3 master could do the same but also work the same as a Command Console once they are implemented.

[Augmenautus Rex]

I don't think ECM should be nerfed as it allows light mechs to be viable. I mean the opportunity cost of a raven 3L is another assault mech the light mechs need to do something pretty spectacular to compete with superior armor values and a large disparity in the amount of weapon hardpoints. I think they should take ecm capability away from the larger mechs, and only allow light mechs to take it. Maybe let a few medium mechs like the cicada have it as well.