1017 replies to this topic

[Carmaga]

I would love if you would still see your team in radar while disrupted by ecm.

[Marcus Tanner]

Willie Sauerland, on 30 December 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

I assume you mean the Mark 1 Type 1 sensors (also known as the pilot's eyes)...

No. I can confirm, ECM even in the CBT did not affect these sensors.

I don't know about you, but my eyeballs aren't enough to spot for indirect LRMs.

While one of the devs *did* suggest dead-firing LRMs indirectly at targets covered by ECM, I haven't figured out how to do that just yet.

[LynxFury]

Quote

The Raven 3-L, another ECM totting mech variant sports two missile launchers. Why choose another variant when both of those missiles are streaks?

You are right about its quality as a mech compared to the others, but its selection was based in the battle tech technical readouts, where it carries a narc (1 missile) and an SRM 6 (the second) along with ECM BAP and TAG. It's the only mech in MWO which, by TRO, is supposed to have ECM. And in the lore, it's not very common, being is sacrifices a lot of speed and firepower to carry its unique and specialized EW capabilities.

[neviu]

stop crying about ecm,

its good to stop them twats whit lrms only

[Justin Xang Allard]

ltwally, on 30 December 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

Previously, I had (mostly) enjoyed MW:O, even with its many rough edges. ECM however, has had me mostly sidelined for the past 3+ weeks. *shrug* No biggy, since I've been busy with work, family and holiday insanity.

But I thought I'd give it a whirl again.

So, last evening, I PUG'd ~6 games. My hunchbacks -- which are direct-fire weaponry only -- still need more XP, and I wanted to see if either ECM use had died down or I was better able to stomach it. Who knows, perhaps I'd have a change of heart.

In every game ECM was present. Out of 44 possible mech variants, it was not missing from even one single game. Far from it, only once was there as few as 2 ECM mechs, most of the time it was 4+. And its presence was indeed a game changer -- those with ECM had clear advantages. In one of those matches, I found myself on a team with ECM while our opponents had none. Another match was reversed. In both cases, the team without ECM was treated so harshly, a police special victims unit could have been called out.

Even while playing in direct-fire only mechs, I found myself more than once having no clue who was friend or foe, due to ECM killing sensors/comms. Equally frustrating was the game where 3 of my teammates chimmed in at the start, saying they were LRM mechs looking for spotters, and watching as they were completely useless in game.

Not if ECM weighed 15 tonnes would it be balanced. But only 1.5 tonnes?

Decisions like this wreck games, and push players elsewhere.

I'm off to sign up for hawken and see what it's like. I'll keep an eye on MW:O, but I don't plan on playing here while the system is bent into its current pretzel shaped horror.


Dear PGI: As a professional game company, you really do need to learn to roll out new stuff in a more balanced, or even somewhat weakened, state and then ramp up as necessary. Even after all the issues you've had with this very problem in the past, you still chose to roll out ECM as it is. If you want people to pay you money, you need to do better. This sort of decision making does not engender folks to open their wallets to you.

Dear PGI PS. I applaud how you rolled out Autocannons, even if it was likely accidental. There, they were weak, and you've slowly tuned them up. This is how it should be with everything you add to the game. Think on it. Pray on it.

i just learned to adapt, since it just defeats the little red box i learned to shoot mechs that were not in the red box.

[ltwally]

Justin Xang Allard, on 30 December 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

i just learned to adapt, since it just defeats the little red box i learned to shoot mechs that were not in the red box.

As I stated previously: we can adapt to a lot. But that isn't necessarily a good thing. Simply saying "I'll adapt" doesn't help PGI make a better game.

And, beyond that, watching ECM in action, in its current incarnation, just plain makes me sick. So, no thanks, I will not adapt. They will nerf ECM down to something sane and reasonable, and hopefully stop making such bad decisions with new stuff, or I'll find my gaming kicks elsewhere.

[Mounty]

I'd like to see ECM get the Gauss treatment, it should be delicate. As a mech carrying ECM gets shot up there should be an increasing chance that the ECM will fail, represents damage to its antennas.

[Jale]

ltwally, on 30 December 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

Previously, I had (mostly) enjoyed MW:O, even with its many rough edges. ECM however, has had me mostly sidelined for the past 3+ weeks. *shrug* No biggy, since I've been busy with work, family and holiday insanity.

But I thought I'd give it a whirl again.

So, last evening, I PUG'd ~6 games. My hunchbacks -- which are direct-fire weaponry only -- still need more XP, and I wanted to see if either ECM use had died down or I was better able to stomach it. Who knows, perhaps I'd have a change of heart.

In every game ECM was present. Out of 44 possible mech variants, it was not missing from even one single game. Far from it, only once was there as few as 2 ECM mechs, most of the time it was 4+. And its presence was indeed a game changer -- those with ECM had clear advantages. In one of those matches, I found myself on a team with ECM while our opponents had none. Another match was reversed. In both cases, the team without ECM was treated so harshly, a police special victims unit could have been called out.

Even while playing in direct-fire only mechs, I found myself more than once having no clue who was friend or foe, due to ECM killing sensors/comms. Equally frustrating was the game where 3 of my teammates chimmed in at the start, saying they were LRM mechs looking for spotters, and watching as they were completely useless in game.

Not if ECM weighed 15 tonnes would it be balanced. But only 1.5 tonnes?

Decisions like this wreck games, and push players elsewhere.

I'm off to sign up for hawken and see what it's like. I'll keep an eye on MW:O, but I don't plan on playing here while the system is bent into its current pretzel shaped horror.


Dear PGI: As a professional game company, you really do need to learn to roll out new stuff in a more balanced, or even somewhat weakened, state and then ramp up as necessary. Even after all the issues you've had with this very problem in the past, you still chose to roll out ECM as it is. If you want people to pay you money, you need to do better. This sort of decision making does not engender folks to open their wallets to you.

Dear PGI PS. I applaud how you rolled out Autocannons, even if it was likely accidental. There, they were weak, and you've slowly tuned them up. This is how it should be with everything you add to the game. Think on it. Pray on it.

You are obivous fail.


You dont know anything thats gonna come in future.
You obivously dont know that ECM is just the tip of begining of information warfare. There is UAVs (good for countering ECM), IFF jammer, missile support from the base (good for countering ECM), different vision, etc.
Thats why we dont need to adapt so we dont loose ourselfs right? We have to wait for other features to come, right now its still beta and its normal to see something OP, but problem is that everybody are acting like the game came out. Then your playstyle comes in play, not now really.
Adapting is not bad thing at this point - its not pointless it makes ppl play differrent style when there is different groups with ecm, something they cant control and that you will see when game comes out just in other scales.
You lost all the passion for the game and if you think you can troll fine but you are gonna ruin other players perspective.

Huovi, on 30 December 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

ECM made me to find group that use teamspeak. After that i have seen lots of lrms etc. ECM needs also team work.

ECM makes ppl think.

Malavai Fletcher, on 30 December 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

ECM drove(not really drove,more hinted that there was a way around ECM blobs) me to PPC's and a long range game........and i love it!

When bigger maps come, plus some new info warfare features., i guarantee you, you are gonna love it


And the fact that you are replacing hawken with MWO - eww!

Edited by Jale, 31 December 2012 - 07:23 AM.

[DocBach]

Jale, on 30 December 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

ECM makes ppl think.

ECM makes people think "stay in the ECM bubble with the other Atlases then hit counter when we make contact so we can use our streaks" and "I'm in a Raven, with ECM - I don't have to worry about dying because with my lag shield all they can hope to do is maybe nick me with part of a laser blast!"

[Aegic]

Those poll options hurt my brain. I think I answered the ones I wanted.

[ShadowSpirit]

I think PG will get it right. I just hate that things like this actually make it into the game when this surely should have been hashed out a bit more before it hit the masses. Doing it right before a big break/holiday wasn't a good idea either.

[Willie Sauerland]

Marcus Tanner, on 30 December 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

I don't know about you, but my eyeballs aren't enough to spot for indirect LRMs.

While one of the devs *did* suggest dead-firing LRMs indirectly at targets covered by ECM, I haven't figured out how to do that just yet.

Keep practicing. I will give you a hint... on the HUD is a range finder.

DocBach, on 30 December 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

ECM makes people think "stay in the ECM bubble with the other Atlases then hit counter when we make contact so we can use our streaks" and "I'm in a Raven, with ECM - I don't have to worry about dying because with my lag shield all they can hope to do is maybe nick me with part of a laser blast!"

My PPC builds disagree with you.

ltwally, on 30 December 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

As I stated previously: we can adapt to a lot. But that isn't necessarily a good thing. Simply saying "I'll adapt" doesn't help PGI make a better game.

And, beyond that, watching ECM in action, in its current incarnation, just plain makes me sick. So, no thanks, I will not adapt. They will nerf ECM down to something sane and reasonable, and hopefully stop making such bad decisions with new stuff, or I'll find my gaming kicks elsewhere.

You know, this isn't like CoD where everything is given to you. Quite frankly, I prefer a game which requires some skill. Perhaps this isn't the game for you and it certainly isn't any shame if that is true. I wish you well in whatever endeavor(s) you decide to pursue.

[Corvus Antaka]

The most significant chagne would be to stop doing the non-TT stuff....locking with missiles at range should not be a problem, only take longer. Targetting systems themselves should not be disrupted either, or, If they are, then PGI needs to introduce a new method for players & commanders to call targets that does not rely on the ingame radar system as ECM just negates it.

If disrupt simply stopped missiles working inside the 180m bubble this would be plenty powerful on it's own.

forcing TAG/NARC is a bad idea, its made LRMS even more OP when they do hit, while remaining pretty much worthless...the whole situation is pretty funny actually.

having ECM curb detection range on the mech carrying it by 100-200 meters so they cant be found without BAP until 300m or so would be plenty sufficent as well and aid scout mechs as it should.

possibly having disrupt actually increase detection range but shutdown enemies missile systems inside 180m, but on counter curbing detection range to noted 300m but enemy missiles arent shutdown when inside the 180m bubble would be a working solution as well.

Myself, the biggest gripe is target & locking negation on enemies. Double lock on times, ok, fine. no lockon ability at all? ********.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 30 December 2012 - 10:34 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

ECM does not make people think. It keeps everyone huddled under an ECM shield, laughing as their ssrm immune ravens & altai ssrm everyone else to death.

I've been quite happy to snipe & play with everything except my LRM mechs since ECM.

But whereas pre-ecm this game was actually fun and challenging & felt like mechwarrior, now it feels like any other shooter, except way worse! why?

Because ECM pretty much removes radar from the game, exponentially so as you move to 8 mans. 90% of games are now fought in thermals. Peaking over hills sniping. All those pretty graphics for naught.

Maybe, yes indeed, we will see other counters to ECM. But PGI is walking a bad bad line here, they are taking big liberties with TT & straying completely from every mech game ever made before in how it works, plays, functions.

So, I am only left to conclude that

a ) PGI is brilliant and soon all us ECM whinos will be proven to be the whiney little qqers we are as MWO ascends to be a top-rated PC game where smashing 8 v 8 huddled up mechs into each other over and over on tiny maps is like the most epic experience ever...

or

b ) Hawken and other FPS titles are about to get a lot of backflow.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 30 December 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[Tolkien]

ECM is currently far too powerful for a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment that doesn't take up a weapon hardpoint etc.

Even if PGI wants the game to 'feel' this way with all of the target disruption etc. it should still be done with multiple pieces of electronic warfare equipment.

I voted for just about every option to reduce the power of the ECM, since the ECM should have about as much effect on the battlefield as a small laser and a heatsink or an AMS - other pieces of equipment that use 1.5 tons and 2 slots.

The current implementation is horse****

[steelblueskies]

how about we just say yours' is not the first suggestion, and will not be the last, but continues to not account for the future.

30 meters per hex. bap =36=1080meters.
guardian =6=180 meters.
standard mech radar= 24 hex= 720meters.
standard mech ir sensor = 30 hex = 900 meters.

Spoiler

so can we get some ideas that actually account for easily translated ranges and interactions?
y'know ones that actually look to the tech that isn't in yet and the tech that is coming up rather than assuming what we have will be all there is? preferably without resorting to complete fabrications.

i have what is now a seven page document cross referencing quotations from several sourcebooks on the specific mechanics of direct fire, indirect fire, los, sensors double blind, concealing information, the specifics of each type of "inspection" from visual up through specific suites, what defines a target and what defines a sensor contact, and more. i will unload that massive wall of critical text made blisteringly clear in how certain things are not only wrong, but inexcusably wrong. don't make me do it with all the poorly thought out bandaid suggestions.

and while we are at it. why does an lrm with a range of 1000 meters that fires and hits in one turn of ten seconds travel 100 meters per second, yet a ppc with a range of ~1800 meters travel 1000+ meters per second when it would fire and land in the same ten second turn.

because it tracks?

Edited by steelblueskies, 31 December 2012 - 03:06 AM.

[Deathz Jester]

[Nawiedzony]

"i dont like nothing from above" - i quote my post from other topic in that case

Nawiedzony, on 30 December 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

This way it works in MW4, and i think its good example than ecm and bap have their own place ...
ECM expand lock time and BAP make lock shorter, if target have ECM and missleboat have BAP lock time is normal.
Im not BT fan, i like to have online multiplayer balanced and with sense, now im not play from two weeks or so and i not see reason to change that ....

Btw i like to see possibiity to turn rdr on/off, and radar working on electronic signature not this what mechwarrior can see, its dumb ....

[Flapdrol]

I'd like friendlies to be always visible, even under enemy ecm, nobody likes friendly fire.

[steelblueskies]

Spoiler

so. we can see that sensor acquisition of a target at long range should be 30 hexes maximum using ir sensors(30 hexes times 30 meters per hex = 900 meters range to get an ir lock maximum.), that standard mech radar is 24 hexes or 720 meters for a lock exactly as implemented, hat bap only acts to extend radar type locks to 1080 meters/36 hexes, just narrowly out-max-ranging ir sensors. and a whole slew of data on visual los ranges across all rationally conceivable weather/time of day.

even have the impact degree of say, a lightning storm, and specify screwing over of seismic sensors from earthquakes and meteor showers specifically.

that seems pretty well nailed down to me.

so does the impact of each ew/stealth type on detection chance by sensor type.

and the concept of screwing special guidance when it enters the ecm bubble and not before so long as the spotter or wielder do not happen to be in a bubble or separated by one.

i said before perhaps different sensor scans should be tied to different vision modes to simulate the rules only allowing one scan sweep type per mech, per turn. ir sweeps while in thermal mode, radar for normal/standard mode, maybe magscan/magnetic anomaly detector(which picks up the em field of your fusion plant not the metal hunk of your chassis, if you actually bother to read through) runs in nv mode for lack of a better analogue.

sensor sharing is also baked in, not via c3 but basic comms gear. getting improved direct fire accuracy by having a connected c3 friendly *closer* to the target than you are is part of what it does. it is NOT supposed to do jack for indirect fire. for that matter for lrms period. there's no room in the system for accuracy of direct fire being impacted by many a system. that you can see at ir scan range using thermal but cannot lock is another snub nosed shot across the bow of uneven implementation.

you lose 2 tons and two crit slots in the cockpit for sensors. one ton is said to be basic communications equipment.

to quote some fluff from Classic Battletech TechManual (FPR35103p)

Spoiler

SENSORS AND TARGETING SYSTEMS
In its entirety, a BattleMech’s targeting and tracking (T&T)
system includes a sophisticated set of sensors and computers
to process data. These systems are getting ever more sophis-ticated as technology is recovered and expanded…a fact that
might explain the Blakists’ recent interest in targeting elec-tronics manufacturers throughout the Inner Sphere.
Thermal imaging, light amplification, radar and magnetic
anomaly sensors are all among the primary sensors used by
BattleMechs, supplemented by seismic sensors, motion detectors, chemical analyzers and a multitude of others. Despite
this broad range of sensor types, MechWarriors are not deluged with raw data. Sophisticated computers streamline,
interpret and prioritize this information, so that by the time
the warrior gets the info, it appears as simple visual cues on
the usual cockpit displays or the warrior’s own neurohelmet
heads-up display (HUD).
The powers of a BattleMech’s sensory processors stand
out most strongly in their ability to recognize other units and
classify them by type and as friend or foe. Any T&T suite today
can inform a MechWarrior of the type of unit it detects, and
can even speculate on what variant it is, and the system is sur-prisingly intuitive. Sometimes, this can present an interesting
effect, such as the famous example of the Inner Sphere nam-ing of the Clan Timber WolfOmniMech. Upon an Inner Sphere
BattleMech’s first encounter with that ’Mech—which looked
like a cross between the familiar Marauderand Catapult designs, the name “Mad Cat” was born. The ability to tell friend
from foe—another key ability of the T&T suite—eases the
burden of target identification for MechWarriors in the heat
of battle, particularly under poor visibility conditions.
BattleMechs are also not islands unto themselves. They can
share sensor data to some extent, allowing greater sensory
performance than a single ’Mech can achieve. The specialized
equipment of a C3
system takes this to new heights with direct battlefield applications, but all BattleMechs can at least
receive basic sensory data from a unit mate.
And that data is recorded. BattleMechs have capable “black
box” systems, the so-called battleROM that stores hundreds
of hours of all sensor data from a ’Mech, from its internal and
external sensors and communications. The armored bat-tleROM recorder is located in the cockpit and will survive vir-tually any catastrophe, from an ammo explosion to a failed
orbital drop.

sometimes the sourcebook section introduction fluff puts the sum of the rules in the most elegant ways.
i know many of you might have difficulty catching the distinction, but a sensor contact and full information including internal equipment and a point by point breakdown of damage and variant and loadout of a target, as well as sensor readout vs valid target for firing are not all the same.

a bap would, if unopposed by an ecm, grant the ability to see the target mechs record sheet in full, inclusive to damage, crits etc taken to the point of scan. a visual inspection would only grant a chassis i.d. until fairly close range at which point color coded paperdoll damage indication becomes available. you still wouldn't know its internal loadout for things like ecm, or a c3, or command console. or what weapons behind that port, unless you had seen it fire in a way that could identify it.(the rom remembers, and the sensors built in to every machine share sensor data remember). still even a contact does not necessitate being able to fire on said contact. you need proper los or a spotter for that(or a remote sensor like an inarc pod, or narc beacon, and even those are either not present or broken in this regard. further ecm would kill contacting them if within 67 hexes of the remote sensor if it was on you, on the remote sensor or in between. lastly ecm would nuke the sensors pickup too given the way it works now, so a uav or satellite with ir/magscan/lookdown radar would be equally boned. if the uav was actually an unmanned drone the ecm specifies interrupting the info feed if it breaks the line between drone and drone control system. yes there are rules for that).

the future is a big space. work needs to go down considering the roots, and getting them all layed out for th future, or someone needs to stop by and say, "hey this entire line of tech? we aren't going to do that ever." or "hey we do not plan to progress the timeline beyond the equipment of about this specific point in the timeline, ever". because there's this nice corner that without some serious attention they will be totally painted into, and forced to rework EVERYTHING YET AGAIN to make room for or throw the roots out the window entirely.

ecm only has a few flaws in and of itself. the fact that it is binary instead of granular in its' effects is the foremost.

what really screws the pooch, as it were, is how it impacts all the other systems underlying flaws.

Edited by steelblueskies, 31 December 2012 - 03:15 AM.