1017 replies to this topic

[Colonel Tie]

ECM is overpowered. ECM should be a SUPPORT (!!) system and not a grief system like "4 Com-2D trololol" Groups in PUG Matches.

[StUffz]

I don't see it as overpowered unless it is overexercisely used. Further the D-DC should not have ECM. The first Atlas to carry one was developed later than 3057+ so it does not fit into the timeline.

[Gremlich Johns]

MW:LL is looking better and better, despite the lack of a mech lab. However, regarding the ECM as implemented in MW:O:

1) ECM should only protect the mech employing it. If it gets between an opposing force and its mates, then there should be a radar disruption that can be seen on the radar scope. But it does not cover a force in movement.

2) If a friendly mech gets within the ECM of the carrying mech, it is affected and should gain no benefits of the ECM suite. It isn't packing one so it in fact experiences the same disruption as the opposing mechs the ECM is being used against. In fact, the ECM cannot either acquire or track a target on radar because it is affected by the same disruption. Unless, of course, the target is putting out sufficient energy to override the ECM suite (that would be ECCM).

3) To counter ECM (ECCM), we should either have the ability to turn up the power of our own radar or switch to a combat frequency. In real life (sorry) there are two kinds of radar found in the inventory of a military force: 1) the non-combat radar, and 2) combat radar. The latter's capabilities are typically classified and can vary wildly from the "peacetime" radar. And one ECM suite should not negate an opposing ECM suite because the opposing force designs are different than the friendly equipment. This idea as implemented in MW:O really is based on fantasy.

4) MW:O ECM, if the canon is to be believed, can disrupt communications. If it does, then MW:O needs to make everybody use their C3 to experience the whole effect of ECM. If it does not, then the ability to counter the radio signal emitted from a NARC should not be in the game. Can't have one without the other.

5) MW:O ECM should not be able to disrupt a targeting laser. I don't care what the canon says on this part, the creators and writers of the BT universe knew nothing about actual physics, other than gravity works (on ballistics and missiles (when the fuel gives out)) and lights (lasers) shine. Look on top of a military Blackhawk helicopter sometime and look for the "disco ball" (behind the main rotor), that's a laser sensor for the protection suite. You don't jam a laser you operate a protection suite (flares and/or chaff) that activates when you get illuminated by one.

6) If someone leaves their ECM on the whole game, then they should run the very real risk of overloading and destroying their ECM suite, causing them to have to buy a new one. Consider a PPC shot while it is on, I submit that the ECM should overload and require either repair or replacement. You all know what running your CPU at 90 deg C for too long does to it, or your GPU for that matter. The ECM is no different. I've used jammers before (yes, really) and I know what kind of heat they can generate, not to mention the electromagnetic hazards one presents. (I know how to cook hotdogs on an LPA)

So, with as many rational arguments and solutions to the ECM issue, it really is about time that PGI says something to the community or applies common sense and actual thought and physics to the device's concept and implementation. They are not even acknowledging that the community has a beef with it. As an investor (as a Founder, that's what I am) I am furious that my money is being ill used on just this one point which would be easy to rectify. My play time has diminished since ECM implementation, I mean, who likes getting hammered all the time by a team of wickedly fast lights with ECM packing as much firepower as some mediums and heavies. Lights taking out assaults quickly? Please. It's like hillbillies designed aspects of the game, not the Canadians. Real implementation of at least the ECM suite requires some practical exposure to or even some basic knowledge of the concept of ECM, which, sadly, is lacking at PGI.

Knockdown will ameliorate some of the whinging but it won't fix the ECM as it is currently implemented. I rarely take my Founder's Atlas in anymore because I cannot knock down a light and damage it. I usually take out my CNT-9A with an LBX-10 and 2XSRM6 and purposely hunt down ECM mechs. So, with me using one mech almost exclusively, PGI is not benefiting with my reluctance to "buy" new mechs to work through my Piloting skill tree. Cockpit gee-gaws hold no interest for me and I could care less, at this point, about camo. Once team play enters after the full up game launches, then maybe I'll invest in camo. Frankly, PGI should not charge for House Faction (or Clan) camo - Mercs for sure should be charged unless it's in their contract with a House.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 29 December 2012 - 02:12 PM.

[CatHerder]

The main flaw in PGI's argument in favor of the current ECM counters is that it won't work on fast ECM mechs because of the lag shield. For those mechs the only *VIABLE* counter to ECM is another ECM unit (and pray you match or outnumber their ECM units!!).

The lag shield makes it near-impossible to keep TAG on a light mech moving at >110KPH, at ANY range. And since lock breaks the instant your beam is off the target...

Add to that the fact that (again) the lag shield makes it near-impossible to hit those same fast-moves when they're up close (a *tiny* bit less when they're further out), and you start to see the problems.

The way ECM should work is that it should only cover the mech in question, but counter should counter ALL ECM units within its umbrella. That is to say: no umbrella on disrupt, counter has an umbrella and counters all enemy ECM units within range (you can argue whether that's 180m or 120m or 90m or whatever...I'd say keep it at 180m to see how that works).

This will INSTANTLY eliminate the packs of ECM light mechs running rampantly, since now they can't roll together b/c a single enemy ECM negates them all. Especially when they try to take on the AS7-D-DC... It also happens to more closely align with TT rules.

This reduces the importance of fixing the lag shield since guided weapons will work again. The only reason this is important is that fixing the lag shield is more likely to be a far more challenging change than what I'm suggesting. This will not affect the intended role for scouts with ECM: spotting for indirect LRM fire with *SOME* impunity (but still being vulnerable).

This solution (remove disrupt bubble, counter bubble counters all ECMs in range) is probably the best compromise until a solid, PROVEN fix to the lag shield can be implemented. And, even then, it will probably work better.

Just my $0.02

[HiplyRustic]

StUffz, on 29 December 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

I don't see it as overpowered unless it is overexercisely used. Further the D-DC should not have ECM. The first Atlas to carry one was developed later than 3057+ so it does not fit into the timeline.

How do you not see ECM functioning as a Radar Cloak, i.e. null sig, as OP? Seriously, how is eliminating non-line of sight visibility and the ability to lock not overpowered? Curious as to why...if ECM was supposed to do that...every boat in canon would not have figured out a way to mount it.

Edited by HiplyRustic, 29 December 2012 - 11:49 AM.

[PiemasterXL]

When I discover the enemy team does not have ECM:

Spoiler

[Peter Valentine]

The problem with the ECM here is that this is not Guardian ECM,This is Angel ECM(Angel's first field test is at 3057 in the Draconis Combine).

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

So actually it's a little cheat from the Dev's,and since they want to do everything right about the universe of the BattleTech I also think that they should need to change the ECM somehow.

On the other hand what I hate mostly about the ECM is the Ravens and Commandos with it. If I'm derping around with my Cicada-3M(equipped with ECM) and I notice that a Raven or Commando want to kill me...well,I'm a free freg,he just switch his ECM to counter mode and pushing the fire button of that lame ssrm...so fair. I dont understand why the Raven-3L and Commando-2D are selected to be the ECM variant...it could be much better if the variants with lesser missle slots were selected (and what is also strange that a lot of time it happens that I have active ECM which is not blocked by an enemy ECM and the enemy is still firing me with SSRM,really strange....).

But most of this light ECM-derp problem will die a painful end if the Dev's finally bring back the collision system,yet the light mech are the predators(protected with many thing,like ecm,lagg shield,no collision etc etc...) and not the Assault and Heavy mechs,It's totally sad and far from the spirit of the BattleTech universe. so WE WANT COLLISION BACK ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh yeah,and also bring back the repair and rearm cost!!

[Tragaperras]

Well, after 2 days playing against teams full of Atlas D-DC and Ravens 3L, I think I had enough. ECM just makes the game a lot worse, with absolutely no tactical depth and very little mech diversity. It was fun playing MWO while it lasted. Me and my money will go elsewhere.

[Tex Arcana]

ECM sent me back to WoT finally.
Between poor MM, ECM imbalance, and a XP/Levelling system that is about as interesting as watching grass grow: This game has more growing up to do.
I hope it improves as I like Mechs more than Tanks; but at present..."meh".

[Gremlich Johns]

You'd think that with the Founder's ("we") having contributed the $5 mil + that "we" should wield some influence with PGI. Although not stockholders, we still gave them money based on certain expectations, ones I feel are mostly reasonable. Like 1st Person view only.

Niko, if you have been bothering to read any of the posts re: ECM, your organization is obligated, through its acceptance of funds, to address shareholders concerns in a rational and timely manner. Most of us who have played video games for decades, especially MW-based games can give great advice, despite not being able to code a game. We know where canon is weak, strong or broken. Oh sure, the kids will whine and say that "this needs to be done to bring in new players" Fact is, those kids do not want a mech game, they just want CoD with mechs. that's all. Why? Cuz those types of games have 3rd Person View, respawn, NH UA, stealth armor, etc....I know PGI wants to make money, but there really is only so much you'll be able to get from either camp before both say bye bye. EVE is more fun at this point. I can pay for stuff using ISK there without ever dipping into my wallet.

You should listen.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 29 December 2012 - 02:24 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

CatHerder, on 29 December 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

The main flaw in PGI's argument in favor of the current ECM counters is that it won't work on fast ECM mechs because of the lag shield. For those mechs the only *VIABLE* counter to ECM is another ECM unit (and pray you match or outnumber their ECM units!!).

The lag shield makes it near-impossible to keep TAG on a light mech moving at >110KPH, at ANY range. And since lock breaks the instant your beam is off the target...

Add to that the fact that (again) the lag shield makes it near-impossible to hit those same fast-moves when they're up close (a *tiny* bit less when they're further out), and you start to see the problems.

The way ECM should work is that it should only cover the mech in question, but counter should counter ALL ECM units within its umbrella. That is to say: no umbrella on disrupt, counter has an umbrella and counters all enemy ECM units within range (you can argue whether that's 180m or 120m or 90m or whatever...I'd say keep it at 180m to see how that works).

This will INSTANTLY eliminate the packs of ECM light mechs running rampantly, since now they can't roll together b/c a single enemy ECM negates them all. Especially when they try to take on the AS7-D-DC... It also happens to more closely align with TT rules.

This reduces the importance of fixing the lag shield since guided weapons will work again. The only reason this is important is that fixing the lag shield is more likely to be a far more challenging change than what I'm suggesting. This will not affect the intended role for scouts with ECM: spotting for indirect LRM fire with *SOME* impunity (but still being vulnerable).

This solution (remove disrupt bubble, counter bubble counters all ECMs in range) is probably the best compromise until a solid, PROVEN fix to the lag shield can be implemented. And, even then, it will probably work better.

Just my $0.02

pretty pronounced when raven 3L's are ****** everyone due to lagshield + ssrm shield + ecm cloak in general. trying to hit a raven with lag & ppc / gauss is a nightmare. Worse than mech3 almost.

[ICEFANG13]

PiemasterXL, on 29 December 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

When I discover the enemy team does not have ECM:

Spoiler

God that's funny, that is EXACTLY how I feel and I bring my Jenner along, it was like the good old days and it tons of fun

I am thankful for the Stalker, everyone wants to try it and that means less ECM mechs, but 8 mans are just so terrible!

[StUffz]

HiplyRustic, on 29 December 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

How do you not see ECM functioning as a Radar Cloak, i.e. null sig, as OP? Seriously, how is eliminating non-line of sight visibility and the ability to lock not overpowered? Curious as to why...if ECM was supposed to do that...every boat in canon would not have figured out a way to mount it.

The enemy mech is not invisible on line of sight because you can still see the thermal Silhouette of the oponent. But if I am the only one who is firing with energy and ballistic at long range I can not blame itnis a tools fault. Further I only see a strong disatvantage if you allow too many mechs with ecm in one match. Delimited to two ecm mechs gives s good balance on both sides.

[HiplyRustic]

StUffz, on 29 December 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

The enemy mech is not invisible on line of sight because you can still see the thermal Silhouette of the oponent. But if I am the only one who is firing with energy and ballistic at long range I can not blame itnis a tools fault. Further I only see a strong disatvantage if you allow too many mechs with ecm in one match. Delimited to two ecm mechs gives s good balance on both sides.

Well, that doesn't answer my question at all. I asked you specifically how eliminating NON line of sight visibility and the ability to lock is not overpowered and you respond with "the enemy mech is not invisible on line of sight". Really? ECM renders LRM obsolete, discuss.

Edited by HiplyRustic, 29 December 2012 - 05:56 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

Why would we limit ECM per team?

You know we should limit streakcats to one per team was never a suggestion, fix ECM, and the problem is fixed.

[Promethey]

because ECM is NOT the definition of MW.

Edited by Promethey, 29 December 2012 - 05:46 PM.

[Kell Morgan]

I only have 1 complaint.. ECM should NOT block missile lock totally. No mech should have immunity to any weapon. i agree that it should take LONGER to lock. But i have seen too many times someones primary weapons being streaks and a raven just cuddles next to him and he cant do a thing...

[Volkite]

WOW ANOTHER ECM IS BROKEN THREAD.
IT'S SUCH AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER LRMS THAT DEAL 1.8x YOUR VAUNTED TT VALUES, AND CAN SPOT FROM ACROSS THE MAP WITHOUT ECM.

IT'S SO UNFAIR, NOBODY SHOULD EVER HAVE AN EDGE WITH THE EQUIPMENT THEY CHOOSE, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S ONLY ON 4 CHASSIS.
MEANINGLESS TRIFLES SUCH AS LONGER RANGE IN WEAPONS DON'T GIVE AN ADVANTAGE, HEAT KEEPS THAT IN CHECK, ONLY ECM IS BREAKING THE GAME.
MY RAIDBOSS DOESN'T WORK ANYMORRRRRRRRE! WAAAAAAAAH!

That's you, OP (and everyone who agrees), that's how dumb you sound.

[ICEFANG13]

So Merovigian, what is the disadvantage of ECM? Why would I not want to bring it on a mech?

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

ICEFANG13, on 29 December 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

So Merovigian, what is the disadvantage of ECM? Why would I not want to bring it on a mech?

I think he'll answer tomorrow. His pinky is tired pushing the shift button down so hard.