317 replies to this topic

[StUffz]

DocBach, on 04 January 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Not knowing what you are shooting at means you need to use another crucial part of information warfare, your eyes.

It means to use the crosshair to aim and fire at. Once you have seen an enemy via IR, you basically don't need the target select (R-Button).

I think I understand the problems you guys mostly have and where I don't see a problem (from my perspective). Mostly you use the select target to aim at an enemy and not using this confuses you into not being able to fire at long range.

[Koniving]

StUffz, on 04 January 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Read the last sentence: "By the time the enemy enters visual range, sensors can sometimes override the jamming, but by this time most pilots rely on their own eyes to track the opposition."

The sentence includes "sometimes" and not "always". My opinion here is with the patch change that ECM jam only interferes with nearest mech this has been modified to apply to the description "sometimes".

We covered that in a much more realistic scenario that would make much more sense than PGI's minor band-aid.
The following is taken from this post I highly recommend taking a gander at it, as this is only a small snippet based on limited though real military experience in early 2003/2004 ECM technology affecting strategic long range strikes with 'smart' rockets that have digital feeds.

"It is stated to "Confuse" sensors. Not completely dismiss them.

"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." (2.0, 2.1 Technical Readout: 3050, p. 197)

Let's analyze that for a moment. I can visually see mechs moving at about 1,000 meters out or more even in the blurry conditions of Caustic Valley. That's at very high settings and a screen resolution of 1360x768. So let's cut that distance in half and suppose within 500 meters should be enough to cut through jamming with sensors on direct line of sight. Keep in mind it would not be with 100% accuracy. You might not be able to lock missiles on them, but at the very least we should get a sensor target square or node to track them with and share location info to other team mates. (The enemy is in this area but we can't target him.)

Tag may not have needed its boost if ECM actually confused sensors instead of dismissing them.

Now let's continue this hypothesis. Say 500 meters and the mech is in line of sight. The jamming should be fairly overwritten by sensors plus visual confirmation. Worst case scenario, I should be able to have at most 5 targets for that single ECM-equipped mech in my sight, and have to sift through the false targets on my targeting computer (by pressing R until the correct one is locked) to fire upon the real thing with LRMs."

This still assumes that ECM could block the existence of a long range target when in fact it cannot in real life (it was supposed for the game's purposes with how it works in game). At longer ranges I'd settle with "unidentified" and a neutral colored target blimp that could be friendly or enemy.

What actually occurred to the real missiles mentioned above included transmission static from the camera feeds, to the point that the last 6 seconds of flight were unable to be recorded. However long range visual confirmation showed that the missiles did as they were programmed -- upon inability to confirm their target they were to redirect skyward and detonate at the highest possible altitude it could attain.

Before the jamming was strong enough to cut transmission, the camera's image repeated upon itself several times, creating dozens upon dozens of copies of the intended target. The missile reported what we could simplify as "confusion." (Thus, the "ghost image" topic of Battletech ECM got Docbach to bring me over here to this thread).

Since these real were fired into potentially populated areas with the intention of hitting specific vehicles with key terrorist targets, the missiles were given abort programs should such things occur. Typically beforehand the missiles would hit intended targets with around 80 to 100% accuracy. When they started using Russian ECM tech, several failed strikes took us off that assignment and they went with other methods.

A standard missile without the abortion program would proceed to select a specific ghost and "chance" it by slamming down hard. Under no circumstances can an ECM "cloak" a target or deny its existence, even in classified tech. You can displace, you can create ghosts, you can fry electronics. There's other things that can be done as well, but there is no mention that those can be done with Battletech Guardian ECM.

[Koniving]

StUffz, on 04 January 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

It means to use the crosshair to aim and fire at. Once you have seen an enemy via IR, you basically don't need the target select (R-Button).

I think I understand the problems you guys mostly have and where I don't see a problem (from my perspective). Mostly you use the select target to aim at an enemy and not using this confuses you into not being able to fire at long range.

The issue we're having actually is that we cannot communicate the locations of "cloaked" enemies, cannot fire missiles upon them without "Tag", and most of the enemies are virtually impossible to hit with the current state of net code. The ECM lights are virtually invincible, with a plethora of abilities from ECM that should not exist. The most powerful light models are the only ones that get ECM (not the sensible ones like the Raven 2x or the Commando 1B which could use the boost of ECM to balance themselves out. Instead, it's only on the most popular models which puts the other in garbage bins that no one will ever touch unless forced by the mech lab system. We should have something making us want to use certain types of mechs. Commando 2-A's for their missiles. It'll sell without ECM. 1-B for the ECM. And the other two commandos have their own reasons to sell. Meanwhile the Raven 3-L will sell anyway with its two missiles. 4x sells because of the ballistics and jumpjets. 2x? Doesn't sell. Give it ECM and it sells.).

Edited by Koniving, 04 January 2013 - 11:09 AM.

[DocBach]

StUffz, on 04 January 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

It means to use the crosshair to aim and fire at. Once you have seen an enemy via IR, you basically don't need the target select (R-Button).

I think I understand the problems you guys mostly have and where I don't see a problem (from my perspective). Mostly you use the select target to aim at an enemy and not using this confuses you into not being able to fire at long range.

I've used thermal vision almost exclusively since it was introduced in closed beta... I have with no problems with my playstyle in an ECM enviroment; my problem is the fact that the way ECM is implemented cheapens a lot of information and role wargare and negates missile systems while encouraging certain builds.

[StUffz]

DocBach, on 04 January 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

I've used thermal vision almost exclusively since it was introduced in closed beta... I have with no problems with my playstyle in an ECM enviroment; my problem is the fact that the way ECM is implemented cheapens a lot of information and role wargare and negates missile systems while encouraging certain builds.

Actually it only effects on SSRM and LRM. SRM is not affected by ECM.

In another Thread I noted that SSRM should be modeled like LRM withouth the fixed lock it should be fired like SRM 2. Tolkien added to this that this is a way to handle SSRM and also mentioned that LRM should be possible to fire as well and hit the last position where the mech was standing. I agree here with Tolkien that this changes make sense without working around ECM at the moment.

[Trauglodyte]

Nice video, Koniving. I had noticed the missile "issue" before. Heck, I don't like that you can target with your non-crosshairs if the weapon is in your arms and I especially don't like that they can fire 90 degrees to your torso. I sure can't do that with a laser or projectile.

[Koniving]

It's fun what we notice, eh? Streaks do the same thing, which is why I hate that not only does an Atlas get the ECM, but he gets an ECM and 3 missile launchers. Otherwise he's identical to some of the other builds. Why no sacrifice? One less ballistic? Fewer energy?

[DocBach]

There's so much source material showing that in BattleTech LRM's and Streak missiles are unaffected by ECM - it shouldn't matter if the ECM capable 'Mech has missile hard points because the missiles shouldn't only work if you over counter the enemy.

[Trauglodyte]

Well, like I said earlier (somewhere) in this thread. We can come up with ways of fixing ECM but everything is intertwined:

- Streaks function on the C3 targetting system with LRMs
- TAG is way more functional than NARC for 1/3 the cost and 3x the range
- Non-missile weapons are balanced on TT values, LRMs get near 2x the TT damage cause of the double armor introduction (why?) and SRMs get a slight bonus (why?)
- LBX ACs fire in a set cone but Streaks and LRMs don't (see the video)
- ECM negates LRMs and Streaks, unless you have ECCM, but AMS isn't nearly as practical and is completely ineffective against SRMs unless you're at the 200m range of AMS
- BAP increases sensor range but doesn't boost sensor capabilities and doesn't pick up where ECM is located
- ECM is currently OP because the modules that were datamined that would negate the bulk of the OP nature of ECM aren't available

And that doesn't include 2k x 2k maps which allow PPCs to fire from edge to middle with no penalty or some ballistics to go from edge to edge, mechs going much faster than TT values, Net Code, Net Code enhanced due to faster than TT engine speeds, lack of collisions making Lights harder to kill than normal (this one is going to turn into Key Stone Cops when it goes live), the lack of true DHSs but the implementation of added heat cap and heat cooling via talents, and the soon to be introduced nearly 100% flat desert map that is going to be 3k x 3k and turn into LRM valley.

But hey, we're in Beta and I'm willing to go along with it. Better to offer suggestions and hope for change than to stomp your feet and go home. Right?

[DocBach]

Trauglodyte, on 05 January 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

But hey, we're in Beta and I'm willing to go along with it. Better to offer suggestions and hope for change than to stomp your feet and go home. Right?

...hopefully, I've got fears that they won't do stuff right and the player base will leave. Right now this ECM deal has pushed a good number of my groups players away already. We use to have multiple eight man drops going concurrently nightly, now we've got maybe two four mans on a good night who refuse to play eight mans because of ECM.

[Trauglodyte]

To a point, I can understand why they did what they did to ECM. Taking TT and trying to turn it into a SIM based piece of equipment isn't easy. You've got to look at TT, take into account real world for how it would actually work, and then splice it into the game. Were they right? No, they were wrong on quite a few fronts. But, again, I think if we had more tools to work with to limit the power of ECM, it wouldn't be a big deal. And, as we've talked about before, ECM feels really like a bandaid fix to the stupidity that was Streaks and LRMs in general. The problem with the LRM part is that they're acceptable if you've only got a few people with them but it gets exponentially worse when you have several people boating them (ie, 5+ LRM 20s). AMS is acceptable but isn't enough to handle heavy doses of them. And, of course, it has limited ammo (should be 2000 rounds like the MG) and it fires through terrain which limits its uses. LRM damage is near double due to armor doubling, per Koniving, but the weapon speed is so slow that you can just dodge a lot of it (until the flat desert map shows up). Streaks are just pathetically OP - I got killed 1v1 the other night by an ECM using Commando with 3x Streaks vs my 40 ton Cicada with 5 Medium Lasers. All of his damage went to my torsos and never missed AND it is more heat friendly and on a shorter cool down than my Medium Lasers. How is that even remotely acceptable?

I don't know how we/they are going to dig through all of this when so many systems are built upon themselves. It feels like a house of cards that could collapse if we try poke too hard.

[MadSavage]

ECM is fine as is. It does need at least two counters. BAP would be nice if it at least allowed you to lock on to ECM mechs with an increased lock time. A targeting module that allowed locking of ECM mechs would also be nice, of course with an increased lock time from standard.

Edited by MadSavage, 05 January 2013 - 02:34 PM.

[DocBach]

MadSavage, on 05 January 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

ECM is fine as is. It does need at least two counters. BAP would be nice if it at least allowed you to lock on to ECM mechs with an increased lock time. A targeting module that allowed locking of ECM mechs would also be nice, of course with an increased lock time from standard.

Looks like you took the time to read the evolution of this thread and came up with a logical conclusion.

Requiring a module that will cost several million c-bills and thousands of GXP to counter a 200,000 c-bill piece of equipment seems absolutely reasonable.

Edited by DocBach, 05 January 2013 - 02:38 PM.

[MadSavage]

DocBach, on 05 January 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Looks like you took the time to read the evolution of this thread and came up with a logical conclusion.

Requiring a module that will cost several million c-bills and thousands of GXP to counter a 200,000 c-bill piece of equipment seems absolutely reasonable.

I read the topic and posted my opinion, I don't appriciate the sarcasm. I do believe ECM is fine as is. As I said, it needs more counters. No one suggested that the module cost several million, it could be a lower-priced module. The point is that it takes up a module slot, which are valuable. One of up to four module slots to counter a single piece of equipment is a fair trade. ECM can't be completely nullified, that's not an option.

A module also doesn't take up space or tonnage. Once more modules are added then a lower-cost ECM counter would make sense in the module selection.

Edited by MadSavage, 05 January 2013 - 02:47 PM.

[DocBach]

I've seen your thread on why ECM is fine as is and it boiled down to "learn to play, whiners."

Explain to me why ECM should be a stealth field for an entire team and how its good for the game and I'll listen.

[MadSavage]

DocBach, on 05 January 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

I've seen your thread on why ECM is fine as is and it boiled down to "learn to play, whiners."

Explain to me why ECM should be a stealth field for an entire team and how its good for the game and I'll listen.

And if you actually read, I wasn't the one saying L2P. It's a stealthfield because that's how its explained in the lore as

"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."

This is exactly as it is implemented in the game with one exception. BAP is not required to detect interference. So, the ECM in game is actually a watered-down version of what's in TT.

[DocBach]

Your profile says your 19, you take English in college? You can't use wikis as a credible source for your thesis.


Technical Readout: 3050 Revised, pg 196
"The Guardian emits a broad-band signal that interferes with all sonar, radar, UV, IR, and magscan sensors, thus protecting all units in a radius of up to 180 meters by projecting a "cloak" to its enemies. Enemy long-range sensors can find vehicles and 'Mechs within the curtain, but the Guardian obscures the reading and prevents identification. By the time the enemy enters visual range, sensors can sometimes override the jamming, but by this time most pilots rely on their own eyes to track the opposition."

Total Warfare, pg 134: "The ECM does not affect other scanning or targeting devices such as TAG and targeting computers"

Total Warfare, pg 134: "ECM blocks the effects of Artemis IV fire control systems. Artemis-equipped launchers may still be fired as normal missiles through ECM."

Tell me if your interpretation of those excerpts from the actual rulebooks and source material makes it sound like MWO has implemented ECM faithfully to the lore.

[MadSavage]

Sarna is an accumulation of information created by the community. As a one-stop source, it contains much of the information on the BT universe. It is obvious that the Sarna information on ECM is what's implemented in the game. It is also obvious that much of the lore is not taken into account with mechwarrior games in general, specifically this one in terms of heatsink implementation, armor values, weapon damages, and refire times. TT ideas don't translate directly into FPSs with complete balance.

Edited by MadSavage, 05 January 2013 - 03:14 PM.

[DocBach]

MadSavage, on 05 January 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

Sarna is an accumulation of information created by the community. As a one-stop source, it contains much of the information on the BT universe. It is obvious that the Sarna information on ECM is what's implemented in the game. It is also obvious that much of the lore is not taken into account with mechwarrior games in general, specifically this one in terms of heatsink implementation, armor values, weapon damages, and refire times.

Would you agree that the way ECM is implemented is a good decision for the game, and makes it play better than if electronic warfare was expanded to where everything had a role and some kind of counter?

[Dudeman3k]

The phrase used "You can't compare TT to MWO" isn't completely valid. MWO has an existing set of rules to use as guidelines... what PGI is doing to these ALREADY CREATED items is completely changing the function... you might as well not even call this MWO if thats the case.

You can argue "well, if this were TT rules, the game wouldnt be fun as a FPS.".... well, thats not the point because what you should be saying is "we should let them pretend like they created the BT universe and change everything so it'll be fun."

Not everything has to be verbatim, but it sure as **** can't be made up either (like what they did with ECM)