1017 replies to this topic

[PsycoSurgeon]

Another idea is that the ecm could work in a similar way to the one in an old starwars game(x-wing vs tie fighter I think). The ecm would be an active counter measure(activated ability in other words). When the user sees the 'incomming missile' warning they activate this and the missiles lose their lock...the drawback being that the ecm would have a recharge time so they could not sit in the open constantly drawing missiles but use the break in lock as a chance to get to cover...reduces the usefulness of the device but brings it more in line with the current weight...
Granted...totally changing the ecm is unlikely at this point but its still a discusion point:P

[ICEFANG13]

Oh that would be cool, I actually had a balance idea from that game. In Xwing Vs TIE Fighter, in that game, missiles moved slower than faster craft, and you could dodge and dodge them but eventually they would catch up (unless you flew straight away for long periods of time). It would be awesome if:

LRMs and SSRMs moved slower (LRMs a little more, SSRMs a lot more) so mechs running away at 100KPH could keep away, but the missile would never stop following 'you' (although that makes not much sense), AMS, can kill missiles, and so should other weapons (like in Xwing/TIE), flamers and machine guns would actually make great anti-missile systems.

Canon? Not even a little. Realistic? Not quite completely. Balanced and tactic/teamwork building? I think so. Probably not a possibility if we have enough problems with mechs over 120KPH already.

[Marcus Tanner]

DerHuhnTeufel, on 24 December 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

ECM is definitely needed in some form so we don't have 1 scout with a tag and 7 LRMs dominating everything.

Instead of using ECM to balance LRMs, how 'bout they just balance LRMs instead?

Also, something about that Stalker story doesn't add up. LRMs don't go through walls.

Scar, on 24 December 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

1) Current ECM implementation launched the "ECM arms race".

2) ECM erased whole chassis' and many of Mech' models from the game.

3) Lights w/o ECM are useless and not viable ATM - their counterparts with ECM rule the battlefield completely.

4) Virtually, Atlas AS7-D-DC is now the only and the main Assault - in the most part of battleworthy units and pre-mades. Other Atlases are very rare and AS7-K is even more than a rare - it's just simply extinct.

5) LRM's are now sucks. Even with the 750m TAG. Any, more or less skilled team with ECM D-DC and scouts easily wipe out any LRM pre-made.

I haven't seen an ECM arms race in PUG games. If anything, the concentrations seems to have lowered a bit.

I have seen every kind of chassis appear since ECM. Some are more common and others rarer, but they all show up.

I definitely still see Jenners running around, and a friend of mine who plays Jenners almost exclusively has had his KDR go up since the ECM patch.

Again you exaggerate with talk about chassis going extinct. Other assault class mechs have certainly shown up (re: stalker) and there are still som Awesomes about.

LRMs can still work... so long as you have an ECM spotter or a spotter who can find unprotected enemy mechs to shoot at. I can do very well in my Atlas D-DC with 45 Artemis-LRM tubes with the help of my Jenner and Raven friends. Now, yes, two of those 3 are ECM capable mechs (that's because ECM is so good that I can't justify avoiding it).

I should stipulate that I say all of this from the perspective of someone who has never played in the 8v8 environment. Your mileage may vary.

StalaggtIKE, on 24 December 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

TL;DR: ECM has good intentions, but should be remodeled to closer to TT; starting with the removal of stealth. New techs created for stealth, null signature and stealth armor. AMS should be buffed and become a real counter to LRM. Radar (active and passive) rework to allow ability to "sneak" with any mech.

[Vashramire]

I say let it only do this withing the specified ranges and let any mech equip it then call is a day. Right now it has too many bells and whistles. And I like bells and whistles =/

[ExAstris]

I put together a comprehensive information warfare proposal in the suggestion section.

It isn't precisely feedback to ECM, but was largely born out of a frustration with how poorly information warfare is being handled currently.

There are a hundred ways we could do i-war better, my suggestion is just one of them.

http://mwomercs.com/...implimentation/

[Barrett Osis]

Just played an 8 man drop. Opposing team had 8 ravens all in a wolf pack. I was sitting at 600 meters with TAG and could not get a lock while TAG was lighting them up. It would try to lock for 5 to 6 seconds before the lock would happen. Obviosly something went wrong here? Can anyone tell me why?

[StalaggtIKE]

ExAstris, on 24 December 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

I put together a comprehensive information warfare proposal in the suggestion section.

It isn't precisely feedback to ECM, but was largely born out of a frustration with how poorly information warfare is being handled currently.

There are a hundred ways we could do i-war better, my suggestion is just one of them.

http://mwomercs.com/...implimentation/

Beautiful write-up. Though I wonder the chance of such a system being implemented. Especially since all of the feedback and query PGI has gotten on ECM, we have yet to receive a response. They would have a lot of work to do.

Barrett Osis, on 24 December 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

Just played an 8 man drop. Opposing team had 8 ravens all in a wolf pack. I was sitting at 600 meters with TAG and could not get a lock while TAG was lighting them up. It would try to lock for 5 to 6 seconds before the lock would happen. Obviosly something went wrong here? Can anyone tell me why?

It depends if you were within any of the enemy's disruption bubble. All it takes is one of them to passively walk close enough to you and your TAG is useless. That's why I feel TAG is not the ECM balancing tool, some make it out to be.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 24 December 2012 - 11:53 AM.

[ICEFANG13]

Also, if you TAG someone, the ECM counters it still by making lock on take a long time (like 5 seconds), but also, TAG counters ECM somehow.

[StalaggtIKE]

ICEFANG13, on 24 December 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Also, if you TAG someone, the ECM counters it still by making lock on take a long time (like 5 seconds), but also, TAG counters ECM somehow.

Yay! For balance.

[steelblueskies]

could also be the server authoritative netcode with a poor client prediction system biting us / you in the hindquarters again.

see if you want to target raven A, but ravens B through H are all crossing paths randomly, then they are interrupting the tag laser on your primary target causing it to instantly fall off and be reacquired very very rapidly, and each falloff starts the lock over again from scratch. the same thing also occurs should a friendly pass in front of the beam briefly, or the positional misreporting by the server cause the tag to actually "miss" ever so briefly as you aim at what you see not what the server says it's position is.

see you aren't just magically awarded lock on whatever you have tagged, just awarded a targetable unit while tag is held and only while tag is held, which must then be selected as a target and locked up.

and remember. if they move 120kph they are covering 33 meters per second. if they move 150kph they are covering 41.66 meters per second.

lrms, by the way, fly at 100 meters per second, but also burn that and their range, on the height axis, while the rangefinder only reports distance in two dimensions ignoring height differences to travel distance.

for the curious that means a 150kph mech you start locking at 500m, if your lock takes ~2 seconds to take before firing, may actually escape lrm max range running full speed away before they catch up, which will take around ten seconds to have occur.

srms 300m/s and ssrms btw move at 200m/s.

edit: forgot to add:

that speed to flight time example also means that a 150kph mech may run out of tag range from that starting position before the rounds can catch up, and if ams equipped double the ams' time to work on the incoming flight. never mind how things work out if side to side movement is added in as the missiles turn rate is very very slow, of if the target has jump capability to further exacerbate the height to range advantage through tracking abuse/tag lock issues...

Edited by steelblueskies, 24 December 2012 - 01:09 PM.

[Barrett Osis]

I was definately outside all the Raven's ECM bubbles. But if TAG doesn't give you a lock then what good is it? Maybe this is why ECM is over powered. They increase the range of TAG to counter ECM but TAG doesn't give you a lock? I guess if enough people stop dumping money into this game, they will get it.

BTW. Speaking of the science of TAG. Is this correct?

TAG bounces an infared laser off of a target. The return light pulse determines the location of the target. The mech can then radio friendly units with this information.

So my question is... How does an ECM (which emits a broad band singal) jam laser light? The only way I know how to jam laser radar is to send a brighter laser back to the source. Does ECM do this? It only says it emits a Broad Band Signal, not emit a specific infared laser pulse.

I can completely understand not being able to transmit the info, if you are within 180 meters. But not being able to lock a target with ease at 500 meters?

Maybe someone can explain this to me.

[Gremlich Johns]

Barrett Osis, on 24 December 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

Maybe someone can explain this to me.

PGI cannot because their designers are not informed enough to know the difference between light, radio and radar wave frequencies. To them a wave is a wave is a wave and one ECM suite can handle them all.

They also do not seem to know people have presented rational arguments against the way ECM has been shoved implemented.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 24 December 2012 - 02:31 PM.

[steelblueskies]

well see, in tt the c3 fire control computer addon allowing for target info sharing had a master unit that also duplicated the function of tag without the laser.

the tag system is mostly computer back end with the laser used as a simple designator for getting the equipment to kick over and say "yes sir, i'll focus efforts on THAT ONE" with lateral and nebulous mechanics for how it directed intelligent munitions like arrow IV cruise missiles or semi guided munitions to target.

as to how to block a laser targeting system.. well you can send out multiple beams at staggered intervals at matching wavelengths, so the system cannot tell which is the reflected beam, and thus cannot determine range accurately. or you could overload the photoreceptor sensors picking up the reflected beam. if you rely on the ir deflection on the visual scan of the painted target caused by the laser you can modulate the surface ir signature to confuse where the beam is hitting though a sufficiently advanced visual image processing system should be able to extrapolate through edge detection, terrain mapping, and the signature of the beam until it crosses target profile to eliminate much of that interference.

suppose through a combination of occlusion and diffusion via a gaseous cloud of particulate matter in the area. smokescreen of mica or glass fiber particulates with some ferrous oxide particulates and a high humidity volumetri fill level, emitted at or near the temperature of the machine behind it. you'd still be aware of the "cloud" but not specific target position within, laser designator or no, and cross sectional radar pictures would be pretty badly mangled as well. course visibility would be crap, regional heat would be higher than ambient, and any attempt to detect outside the bubble from within would be toasted too.

imagine other means exist. don't even think that recently rolled out ir chameleon tank design(real world) would defeat laser rangefinding designation.

actually. pretty sure a netbook with a copy of processing(the language mind you) and a couple webcams of low quality with differing angles to target and filters could do as much. i'm not one to toot my own horn, and certainly don't specialize in it, but i have reasonable confidence i could pull that much off. then again i understood more than was presented in the defcon diy radar talk so well.. shrug.

but we digress. remember its pre 1990 and tech predictions upon which the tech is derived were a wee bit strange.

the simple fact is we KNOW it doesn't reflect real life, and it is not reflecting tt rules in the letter of the law/rules. what that leaves is if it is even managing to reflect the spirit of those rules with an eye towards an intelligent and balanced system. still going with no.

example some people like to use is that we could just nuke planets by dropping rocks from orbit. we know we don't do that as it gets one branded as a murderous dog outside of the treatment and handling conventions of civilized warfare in the universe in which we play. you would be an outlaw immediately and shunned and hunted by all, be they from your former alliance or not, lest they be branded the same.

you have to get inside the mindset of the universe, and it paints much of that mindset grand and wide.

i'm actually seeing suggestions floating to limit numbers of ecm units with matchmaker. when you realize ecm was a capellan/liao controlled system, then spread to the combine/dcms/kuritan space through economics and outside those regions is supposed to be exceedingly rare at this time, follow the thought exercise if equipment availability was limited to loyalty to a faction.

how many would scream and gnash teeth at 2 successor states having it and davion/marik/steiner factions not.
the lore and more rolls well through those issues, but we also do not have combined arms or uneven fieldings(well intentionally contrived anyway, matchmaker and bugs break in so often we do field unevenly quite often :/ ).

i think to really set the point home, given everything else they need to release a single star league tech era exterminator complete with null sig and chameleon light polarization shield. when they can balance around that, introduce inferno rounds(missiles that set you on fire for 30s per flight, with additional hits extending time of burn by same amount?).hells even announce its a test of limited duration. when that's knocked out then, and only then will they have found an inflection point they can use for going forward. it's not like things could get much more wonky than they have been lately with so many core systems offlined for rewrites. it is literally not the same game as pre open beta anymore with them gone, and adding some of the systems they have without them in place is proving a mounting problem.

[ExAstris]

As steelblueskies notes, ECM in MWO behaves nothing like electronic warfare in real life. You only need to read briefly on the most basic applications to get that much, but doing advanced studies in radar detection and avoidance technologies and techniques really drives home how far removed what we are dealing with here is from any hint of reality.

Nor is it the case that the ECM we've been given bears any resemblance to its TT forerunner. I have no problems with this myself, lifting things in name to keep their spirit is just fine with me.

The real problem is that its hurting gameplay in several ways.

1. Non-ECM lights/assaults are pretty much just a waste of a mech.
2. LRMs and SSRMs are only viable if you win the ECM arms race. Which means they're often not viable, LRMs especially.
3. TAG is not a real counter. The only real counter to ECM is ECM.
4. The only restriction designed to "limit" the power of ECM was to restrict it to certain chasis, but that has in turn made those the only preferable chasis.



For future reference. Any equipment piece, module, or item that gets introduced into the game, should not be a necessary item for every mech if the item were unrestricted in its deployment. In other words. If every mech could mount any special equipment, it should not be absolutely vital for every mech to carry that equipment. ECM is precisely a violation of that rule. If ECM were unrestricted, every mech should carry it.

If you want to restrict items to particular chasis, thats fine, it makes for great flavor. Dual AMS is such an equipment option. But the restricting itself should never be the balancing factor, because that just makes everyone need to drive those variants.

[Fabian Wrede]

Ecm should not be the null signature system it's today nor should LRM be an indirect system with out targeting help like narc or TAG. In TT if you wanted to fire lrm indirect you needed a dedicated spotter thay could not fire his own weapons.

[Bolide]

I think an easy fix for ECM would be a "wind-up" timer.

Mechs should have some shielding vs interference, it should take 2-3 seconds of hostile ECM being in close proximity (180m) before it blocks missle locks ect.

A light mech cirlcing me should break my locks. One doing a "drive by" where it's only close to me for a second should not.

The timer would also prevent any benefit from rapid cycling of ECM modes.

[steelblueskies]

Wrede, on 24 December 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Ecm should not be the null signature system it's today nor should LRM be an indirect system with out targeting help like narc or TAG. In TT if you wanted to fire lrm indirect you needed a dedicated spotter that could not fire his own weapons.

sigh. incorrect. they could fire, and move. it would incur a tohit penalty. however if the indirect firing unit had a spotter they could choose to use the spotters tohit, or their own. if the firing unit had los to the enemy they could not use the spotters tohit even if it was better than their own. right now, without a lock-on one cannot indirect fire spotter or no. dumb fire is not indirect fire.

again i 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 fi ring unit’s Gunnery
Skill. Use the following modifiers:
• Range modifier based on the range between the target
and the firing unit, including minimum range modifiers;
• +1 for indirect fire;
• All standard modifiers for target movement;
• All standard modifiers for attacker movement and a
modifier for the spotter’s movement (infantry have no
attacker movement modifier for spotting);
• Terrain modifiers based on line of sight from the spotting
unit; this includes the +1 modifier if partial cover exists
between the spotting unit and the target. (Regardless
of whether partial cover shields the target from either
the spotting unit or the attacking unit, Damage Value
groupings from LRM indirect fire always strike the target
and not the partial cover, even if they hit a leg location;
see Partial Cover, p. 102.)
Finally, if the spotting unit makes any attacks in the turn
that it spots for another unit, apply a +1 modifier to all of the
spotting unit’s attacks, as well as a +1 modifier to the LRM
indirect fi re 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.



where we have problems is that a speedy mech can run in and tangle with the enemy having sacrificed nothing to do so for spotting purposes, and that this style is rewarded over actually, well, being a spotter/scout. with the inclusion of ecm and it's counter it is now being hyper-rewarded as that brawling speedmech can also disrupt multiple enemies essentially free, whereas the spotter/scout would be giving away his position with tag and narc still requires los and no ecm field.

the idea of rewarding the wrong thing is of course subjective and qualitative not quantitative. on this i am going to leave it to someone else to come up with some quantitative elements to help zero that out. bottom line is that the rambo behaviour is being rewarded and the teamwork behaviour is not.

if you want rambo, then keep it as is.
it really is that simple.

[Wendigo Vendetta]

HiplyRustic, on 22 December 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

So far today not one match has not been about ECM. Not. One.
That, all by itself, should speak volumes. That it apparently does not also speaks volumes.

[/cynicism on]
Currently, one can buy enough MC in the store to exchange your way into the ECM game. When the sales of MC begin to flag in conjunction with a slowing of exchanges for those mechs, they will change thier minds. Until then, selling the solution to the problem they created is entirely too profitable to alter course. Welcome to the alternate business model.
[/cynicism off]

Edited by Wendigo Vendetta, 24 December 2012 - 07:21 PM.

[Blood78]

I'm happy to run into more and more 2-4 premade light wolf pack with multiple ECMs and abusing the ECM as well as lack of collison to r*pe people. Including myself getting r*ped

We need to see lot more of these so PGI will react and balance ECM, bring back collison in some form.

So all of you should go buy ECM light mech, form 2-4 man group and r*pe everyone. It's best way to energize the mass playerbase to QQ and ask PGI to balance it. Which is really unfortunately only way to get PGI to react quickly enough.

Edited by Blood78, 24 December 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

There is no rhyme, reason, or explanation to ECM, it's just working as intended.