1017 replies to this topic

[Slaytronic]

We used ecm i think 4 nights ago i didn't lose one game 2 ravens a cicada and a hunchback
screwed the other team every time for 45 or so rounds not one lose tell me ecm isn't over powered

Edited by Slaytronic, 10 January 2013 - 07:16 AM.

[Shield]

HiplyRustic, on 09 January 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

I get all that, it's wildly OP. I also get that wholesale changes to ECM are not coming any time soon, so proposing that the mechs carrying th ECM become immediately and permanently vulnerable was the best thing I could come up with.

If a mech, by simply carrying ECM, becomes impossible to shield with another mech's ECM and gains no direct benefit from its own...meaning it is now as visible and vulnerable as it was before ECM was introduced...it should end ECM fleets. Shouldn't it? It was what I could come up with, given that there will not be dramatic changes any time soon. You?

The way it is right now is simply unacceptable. Small changes may move it in the right direction, but it still won't fix it. Guardian ECM should do what Guardian ECM is supposed to, otherwise PGI should just call it something else. How about the IWIN (Informational Warfare Intelligence Nullifier).

Per SARNA.NET:
The Guardian ECM Suite was introduced in 2597 by the Terran Hegemony[1]. Designed to interfere with guided weaponry, targeting computers, and communication systems, the Guardian 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 Capellan Confederation expanded the utility of the Guardian even more with the introduction of Stealth Armor.[3]

Per SARNA.NET on the Null-Signature System:
First appearing on the SLDF's EXT-4D Exterminator and the later Spector, while the Chameleon Light Polarization Shield masked their visual presence, the Null Signature System cloaked their heat output and electronic emissions. While the system is engaged, the 'Mech is more difficult to track at anything other than short range, with the Beagle Active Probe and its unbranded Clan equivalent unable to locate a hidden unit with its null signature system engaged. Only the modern and experimental Bloodhound Active Probe can penetrate the null signature masking.


Note that ECM is supposed to "INTERFERE" not completely negate/nullify/disable/etc.. current ECM does all of this (except hiding thermal signature) though I should not have mentioned it because PGI will probably add that to ECM since they don't seem to see it as being OP.

[ThePhil]

I've been scratching my head at ECM as it is currently implemented but held my tongue to this point (mostly) on the subject.

Tonight I had an idea that I feel could be implemented and maintain the intended function of the ECM suite as a tactical tool, rather than as a weapon as it currently functions. I say weapon, because it directly affects the ability of your enemies to do harm to it's wielder and his allies.

3 Modes of function (Modes 1 and 2 can be toggled between, 3 is on use and creates a cooldown for all 3 modes)

1. User mech is undetectable outside of 180m.
*Effect nullified if a friendly is marked with Tag or NARC
2. User mech creates a bubble 180 meters in diameter. Friendly units within the bubble require additional time to be locked on to unless an enemy inside the bubble targets a friendly unit inside of the ecm 'bubble'. If this occurs only the unit being targeted can be locked on to as normal for the duration of the target being locked.
*Effect nullified on a friendly unit if that friendly is marked with Tag or NARC
3. Discharge an EMP that scrambles radar and forces standard vision mode for all units within 90 meters for 10 seconds. 30 second cooldown on all ECM functions with an additional 30 seconds required for the next EMP.

If an ECM equipped mech is within sensor range of a mech equipped with Beagle a red circle appears on the BAP user's map with the approximate locale of the ECM mech (+/- 180 meters?). This would allow a light mech to hide amongst buildings and such without giving away their exact location but still allow for a defensive unit to go on the prowl rather than waiting to be attacked.

The last element of the equation is that ECM would fill an energy slot and not be limited to certain chassis.


I realize that this suggestion breaks from canon as well as the TT ruleset. However, I feel that deviating from the ruleset in this instance would greatly increase the availability of different tactics to both PUGs and drop commanders, and enrich the game experience far beyond the current implementation which serves to hinder mech selection and has served to homogenize gameplay in all competitive settings.

Edited by ThePhil, 10 January 2013 - 08:44 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

I just had to say, the "IWIN" said by Shield (Informational Warfare Intelligence Nullifier) is damn funny. What a great way to describe it.

I suggest PGI include ECM as in TT, and then change the name of current ECM to IWIN.

[BR0WN_H0RN3T]

What about ULOSE. "Ultimate Loss Override System Engineering"

[No7]

And just imagine what this does to new players who are trying out the game for the first time and drop in a PUG.

How many of them do you think stick around and say, this is a fun game.

None.

[Mordin Ashe]

warp103, on 08 January 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

Repost from today from Garth and Me

Ok to all about ECM. After a long conversation with Garth. I see the problem as to why there is no comment on ECM.

The dev do not see the issue. Now I will not go in to all the detail about his comments. But they are pointing to how they fair in the twitch games. They do not use ECM and win most of the time.. And they are only seeing in stats 8v8 game 4 ecm's max. So the only thing that I can say is Video video video. Get TS because is what they us in the twitch games. I do not agree with him but I have respect that I got info.

I know that you want me to post the Answer that I got. Sorry I can not If he wishes he can tell me I can post then I will.

OH and Tolken, I did post your stats and finding you have. As well as the stat and videos I have of my own. More Pointing to their on play.

So again the all need to post how bad it is so they will have a visual. Video if possible so it goes around the web. As to the Boycott. I was going to be part of it since there was no Answers. Well i got Answers I do not like them but I did get them.

I am so sorry I missed this post.
On the other hand, it may have been better to just let it pass, because I feel very disilusioned right now. Devs don't see the issue because their groups are winning. So, so much out of point... Groups still somehow win, because cooperation>any build (in this regard the weapon balancing is done right). But it isn't about groups, it is about ECM giving huge advantage against those who don't use it while being the most imbalanced piece of equipment in the game right now. Though I am glad Garth found some time to talk to community members, I am sad about what he said.
By the way, there used to be a link on Counter play episode of Penny Arcade's Extra Credits. ECM is the shining example of such feature not working as it should, because it is not fun to play against ECM. When the enemy is far away and marching towards your position, nothing changes since you can't do a thing without ECM anyway. But once they come, it is too late to react on any ECM presence and you just observe how they kick you in the back. So far the game gravely misses any way of countering the ECM on reliable level, and neither TAG not NARC can do that job well.

But well, I hope more people get deranged from current ECM state as I do and stop playing, which is probably the only thing that can make devs listen and employ some more logical way of identifying issues.

[Doktor Totenkopf]

Tolkien first of all let me say I concur that ECM is, in its current iteration, too powerful for all the reasons you named. I appreciated the work your doing to gather data on your own since the Devs seem not to be willing or allowed, so far to provide their own findings.

Nevertheless I feel your "experimental setup" has some unknown variables, eg. have you controlled for pre-mades on both sides, useage of coms...just to name two. Sorry if I missed that somewhere.
The reason I ask is that in my personal experience is that communication and not ECM is the deciding factor. I am pretty sure the numbers for that would look even more impressive.

Skyscream Sapphire, on 09 January 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

I really don't care what anecdotes or feelings you have to share. Tolkien has already shown with 99.999% certainty (seriously, that's not hyperbole) that ECM is a competitive advantage.



Meanwhile, no numbers support the opposing viewpoint. The burden of proof is now on that side.

Well to be fair his "data set" so far is also an anecdote. I dont wanna discredit him but he could in theory just writen all this down. If you wanna play the scientific evidence game you have to adhere to the rules, scientific experiments follow. He hasnt proven anything, yet. He has provided us with first evidence, very strong first evidence.
What we would need would be logs in the form of videos, multiple people taking "measurements" and repetitions and more repetitions.

[chiXnhawk]

The problem is not ECM. Sure it does a little more then expected. But it's not bad. The biggest problem is Ravens , netcode , being the prime culprits of using them. I personally don't use ECM or any of the chasis that use them. My Atlas is forever the RS. But what is needed is different soloutions. So I came up with a few.

1. ECM destructable. Give it 3 HP and even do some pop damage. Like a Gauss. Not as big an explosion of course but make it removable for skilled shots like when dealing with a target with gauss.

2. Give ECM it's own hardpoint if your going to take it. Once you know an enemy has ECM on what chasis , you know where it is and you can work to remove it if you so choose.

3. Make BAP and/or modules do more to counter or decrease the effects of ECM , at least for the person who took all the time to unlock the skills and modules for the mechs they are using. This could be as much as having BAP , Target info and sensor range Modules be able to to be combined to completely nulify ECM. Thus this would bring back mechs that are disapearing because people think they need to bring ECM to counter ECM. Of course BAP should be destructable as well. They should cost weight and critt slots to bring them. That would balance it out some.

4. Of course fixing the netcode would solve 50% of ECM's claim to fame.

If your dead set on bringing weapons that require lock it's always going to be a crap shoot. LRMs will always do better on Caustic then on River city. You will never know if your going to see ECM'd mechs or in the matter of my fixes mechs built to counter those builds.
I think ECM is fine the way it is. I think there should be ways to add to your builds to counter it better and there should be ways to remove it from your enemy in game if your skilled enough ( or lucky enough ) in your shooting.

[Impossible Wasabi]

The Space Pope is not sure if it is just ECM or more likely ECM along with various other factors, but something has to be done to fix the unbalanced state of the game at the moment.

There is really no reason not to use ECM and if anything you are only punished if you do not choose to use it. Something which does bother the Space Pope, because few other weapons or systems in the game essentially have no negative aspects.

Edited by Merlevade, 11 January 2013 - 06:08 AM.

[Victor Morson]

I thank you for all the data gathering, but you cannot seriously get any usable data from PUG matches, from a personal perspective anyway. Looking over analytic data from every PUG game for a week on a server level is a different story.

Simply put, even if an unorganized team has ECM, it won't prove anything because they won't be using it effectively. When you face a pack of coordinated ECM Ravens, you will have no doubt "he who has the most ECM edge is he who doesn't have one arm tied behind their back."

I'm seriously in favor of having Counter ECM knock out TWO ECMs, not one, to make counter more powerful.

TO RECAP: ECM itself is not too powerful but the fact the only thing that counters is it another ECM, TAG (iffy, it takes a long time to get a lock this way and must be fired from out of the bubble) and NARCs, sort of, but no one is going to use NARCs in their current form.

Either make ECM Counter counter more than one ECM like I was saying, introduce Disruption Pods early (NARC ammo that broadcasts a counter-ECM field when it hits a target, making any missile hardpoint a potential ECM counter and ADDING depth to the system), or even make NARC Pods have an AOE where they will light an entire cluster of 'mechs up in a radius around the impacted target.

Something to make easy target calls possible and get your SSRMs/LRMs back outside of "bring more ECM." That's the biggest problem. That's the ONLY solution to it, and thus that's why an otherwise interesting system has such limited depth. There need to be OPTIONS to deal with it.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 January 2013 - 01:22 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

Alright, look at 8 mans, the ECM in that is far worse, usually one side having ECM and LRMs, and the other side neither.

Its not balanced in PUGs
(Can't look at PUGs look at 8 mans!)
Its not balance in 8 mans. 1 team has more ECM than the other, and then the other team can't use LRMs or ECM. ECM is worse when its coordinated.

[Conn Man]

Netcode and lag is in every online game. The real culprit here is ECM. Once that is fixed, if it's EVER fixed, the big problem we go back to being LRM's. So that's two systems that need to be fixed.

LRM's are way overpowered. Indirect should be removed from the game until C3 becomes available (unless using TAG). Then ECM can counter the C3 in addition to Artemis, Narc, and BAP.

ECM should not be including null sig and stealth armor effects, especially since it doesn't carry any of the costs for those systems. (12 crit slots for stealth armor plus ECM required, 10 points of heat every ten seconds while it's active, and the carrying unit behaves like it's in an enemy ECM field while it's active.)

"BAP is such a useful piece of equipment and well worth it's weight." said no MWO beta tester ever.

[Featherwood]

The problem with ECM is that it + some MWO problems make RVN-3L an ultimate PWN_machine. Not AS7-D-DC nor CDA-3M are not that tough to deal with.
In my opinion there are two reasons causing that inconvenience: MWO has no physics enabled (lame!) thus collisions don't occur, sneaky ******** easily run through enemy Mechs and spam SSRMs. It's 2013 already and some nicely working physics would be cool to have, when 35t Mech run into any heavier opponent it should take damage and fall, IMO. Second problem is that effect of ECM in disrupt mode is too tough, shouldn't be there a Chance to affect enemy Mechs electronic systems? Maybe it would be good to have a module which would work as ECM in counter mode and would lower chance of enemy ECM to affect your electronics, such ECM mechanics modification will significantly reduce number of fielded ECM carriers and will allow pilots to gain ECM-protected configurations.

[Tolkien]

Doktor Totenkopf, on 11 January 2013 - 03:10 AM, said:

Tolkien first of all let me say I concur that ECM is, in its current iteration, too powerful for all the reasons you named. I appreciated the work your doing to gather data on your own since the Devs seem not to be willing or allowed, so far to provide their own findings.

Nevertheless I feel your "experimental setup" has some unknown variables, eg. have you controlled for pre-mades on both sides, useage of coms...just to name two. Sorry if I missed that somewhere.
The reason I ask is that in my personal experience is that communication and not ECM is the deciding factor. I am pretty sure the numbers for that would look even more impressive.



Well to be fair his "data set" so far is also an anecdote. I dont wanna discredit him but he could in theory just writen all this down. If you wanna play the scientific evidence game you have to adhere to the rules, scientific experiments follow. He hasnt proven anything, yet. He has provided us with first evidence, very strong first evidence.
What we would need would be logs in the form of videos, multiple people taking "measurements" and repetitions and more repetitions.

Hello Death's Head,

Put simply, I have not controlled for any variables I do not have control over. Stated another way my team will never be an 8 man, nor a 4+4 man, nor a 4+3 man. As long as a player in the game has to collect the data that player will be part of the data set and I get the impression that there will always be people who are unsatisfied with results that come from this method.

In terms of why didn't I ask other players what team compositions they were in, what voice comms they had, or even how many ECM are on the other team, the problem is that people on the internet are generally jerks:



Basically I can't trust my own team, let alone the enemy to even answer accurately how many ECM they have, so there's no hope that they will accurately inform me of the order of battle comms. Another factor is that by getting enough games in uncorrelated factors should drop out in terms of influence so rather than attempt to control for them I simply tried to collect a good sized chunk of data. Once again someone will always say the results will be different if I had just collected 10x more data... then 100x more, etc.

Another interesting suggestion that I had to consider was that "Tolkien is the best pilot evar so him bringing ECM means his team will often have more ECMs and his good looks and skill will always win the match".... I'm paraphrasing here, but this has to be responded to. In short, we won a little less than 2/3rds of our conclusive matches, and had ECM superiority slightly less than 2/3 of the conclusive matches as well. If my ultimate badassery was the deciding factor this would push the expectation to 2:1 and not let it go higher.

You'll note that in the post I already explained that the difference between the data as measured and the 2:1 win ratio is 2.23 sigmas lower than the measured set, or >97% that you will be above that 2:1 ratio when your team has an extra ECM on it.

An argument can probably be made for 2nd order effects, but with this margin of certainty between the expected value of this argument and the actual data outcomes, I'm willing to declare victory and get out.

Those who aren't willing to accept this data already will always come up with another factor that can't be tested in practice like how much sleep each pilot had the night before or whether their parents hugged them enough growing up. Personally I just want some raw match data released to the community so we can pick it apart with a fine toothed comb and see if the fellow who made offered up data showing machine guns decide match was actually blowing smoke

Edited by Tolkien, 13 January 2013 - 04:50 AM.

[Frostblade]

Hi PGI/devs/whoever, just played a few quick games this morning, ECM is just plain no fun getting rolled by a ecm raven and his buddies. I'll be spending my free time elsewhere :\

[StUffz]

Tolkien, on 12 January 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

In terms of why didn't I ask other players what team compositions they were in, what voice comms they had, or even how many ECM are on the other team, the problem is that people on the internet are generally jerks:



Basically I can't trust my own team, let alone the enemy to even answer accurately how many ECM they have, so there's no hope that they will accurately inform me of the order of battle comms. Another factor is that by getting enough games in uncorrelated factors should drop out in terms of influence so rather than attempt to control for them I simply tried to collect a good sized chunk of data. Once again someone will always say the results will be different if I had just collected 10x more data... then 100x more, etc.

Another interesting suggestion that I had to consider was that "Tolkien is the best pilot evar so him bringing ECM means his team will often have more ECMs and his good looks and skill will always win the match".... I'm paraphrasing here, but this has to be responded to. In short, we won a little less than 2/3rds of our conclusive matches, and had ECM superiority slightly less than 2/3 of the conclusive matches as well. If my ultimate badassery was the deciding factor this would push the expectation to 2:1 and not let it go higher.

You'll note that in the post I already explained that the difference between the data as measured and the 2:1 win ratio is 2.23 sigmas lower than the measured set, or >97% that you will be above that 2:1 ratio when your team has an extra ECM on it.

An argument can probably be made for 2nd order effects, but with this margin of certainty between the expected value of this argument and the actual data outcomes, I'm willing to declare victory and get out.

Those who aren't willing to accept this data already will always come up with another factor that can't be tested in practice like how much sleep each pilot had the night before or whether their parents hugged them enough growing up. Personally I just want some raw match data released to the community so we can pick it apart with a fine toothed comb and see if the fellow who made offered up data showing machine guns decide match was actually blowing smoke

I still suggest that you pick up a 4 or 8 team unit. I agree that half of the game players will remain lone wolf and would like to play the game solo but this won't work and your data collection is always modified by those who play as a team on the enemy side, lagg issues or personal skill.

To justify that your thesis is correct, you should also analyize 4 fixed units + randoms and 8 man setups.

And one thing also. If you already distrust your team, then you are mostly doomed to fail. Consider this is a "wargame", in war you have to trust your teammates. This is key to success.

Edited by StUffz, 12 January 2013 - 06:56 AM.

[Tolkien]

StUffz, on 12 January 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

I still suggest that you pick up a 4 or 8 team unit. I agree that half of the game players will remain lone wolf and would like to play the game solo but this won't work and your data collection is always modified by those who play as a team on the enemy side, lagg issues or personal skill.

To justify that your thesis is correct, you should also analyize 4 fixed units + randoms and 8 man setups.

And one thing also. If you already distrust your team, then you are mostly doomed to fail. Consider this is a "wargame", in war you have to trust your teammates. This is key to success.

This is a good idea, but I don't know how well it will satisfy the critics?

With the PUG groups I had a 75% random team on my side and a 100% random team on the other (in terms of player skill level, voice comms, and mech choice) whereas in an 8 man with good buddies I can foresee a big complaint.

1) If the team uses a lot of ECM and stomps the competition the critics will say that all it shows is that the team is working well together and that it's not due to ECM. Hard to disprove it :/

2) If the team uses very little ECM and gets stomped the critics will say that it's just a bad group and that we need to L2P etc. Helpful as always really.

Frankly I think I need eye in the sky/observer data from the devs even more for 8 mans than for PUGs

That's just my take on the process and maybe I'm being a bit cynical

[StUffz]

Tolkien, on 12 January 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

This is a good idea, but I don't know how well it will satisfy the critics?

With the PUG groups I had a 75% random team on my side and a 100% random team on the other (in terms of player skill level, voice comms, and mech choice) whereas in an 8 man with good buddies I can foresee a big complaint.

1) If the team uses a lot of ECM and stomps the competition the critics will say that all it shows is that the team is working well together and that it's not due to ECM. Hard to disprove it :/

2) If the team uses very little ECM and gets stomped the critics will say that it's just a bad group and that we need to L2P etc. Helpful as always really.

Frankly I think I need eye in the sky/observer data from the devs even more for 8 mans than for PUGs

That's just my take on the process and maybe I'm being a bit cynical

You are missing one point which.

3.) If a team with more ECM gets stomped by a team with lesser ECM but a mixed of all tonnage, what will the critics be? The better tacticians? The better weapon loads? Prove with youtube upload?

Edited by StUffz, 12 January 2013 - 09:54 AM.

[Tolkien]

StUffz, on 12 January 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

You are missing one point which.

3.) If a team with more ECM gets stomped by a team with lesser ECM but a mixed of all tonnage, what will the critics be? The better tacticians? The better weapon loads? Prove with youtube upload?

lol, hadn't thought of that, but it's something that could come up.