442 replies to this topic

[ICEFANG13]

What is the rest of your loadout?

[mailin]

Rather than tweak the setting on what ECM does or doesn't do, how would it be if MatchMaker balanced the number of ECM mechs in a match to plus or minus 1. That way, if your team doesn't have any ECMs, the most they would face would be 1.

As far as BAP detecing ECM interference, it doesn't really need to. When a friendly disappears off of your minimap, there may be an ECM present. When you get the interference bars, there's an ECM nearby, and when the interference bars appear over friendlies, they are in range of an enemy ECM. All the pilot needs to do is be situationally aware and figure this stuff out.

For those who complain about missile locks with ECM, all I can say is quit your griping and take a TAG. Then, you can even target the enemy ECM if you have los.

[Tolkien]

mailin, on 13 January 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

Rather than tweak the setting on what ECM does or doesn't do, how would it be if MatchMaker balanced the number of ECM mechs in a match to plus or minus 1. That way, if your team doesn't have any ECMs, the most they would face would be 1.

As far as BAP detecing ECM interference, it doesn't really need to. When a friendly disappears off of your minimap, there may be an ECM present. When you get the interference bars, there's an ECM nearby, and when the interference bars appear over friendlies, they are in range of an enemy ECM. All the pilot needs to do is be situationally aware and figure this stuff out.

For those who complain about missile locks with ECM, all I can say is quit your griping and take a TAG. Then, you can even target the enemy ECM if you have los.

Hi there Mailin,

You might have already seen this but I did some testing to see what the odds of winning were when your team had +1 or -1 ECM from the enemy team: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1709146

The study is far from perfect, but the collected data show the team with more ECM is >4x more likely to win than the team with less.

This means that the matchmaker would have to balance them to exactly equal numbers or the team with one more will tend to faceroll the other.

I know this outcome sounds crazy - how can a single 180m bubble have so much effect on the battlefield? Well a 180m radius ECM bubble covers an area bigger than 18 American football fields arranged in a grid.

This means that often you can approximate all ECMs on a given team as being wherever the combat is happening. Especially since 3/4 of mechs that can carry ECM are fast moving.

When we have to get the matchmaker to balance which team has more of a 1.5 ton item on their team, maybe the problem is with that 1.5 ton item being too powerful?

Just food for thought.

Edited by Tolkien, 13 January 2013 - 03:06 AM.

[Fabian Wrede]

pugs with out acces to voicecom will loose 9 of 10 matches with out having advantage ecm >= to enemy team current functionally of ecm is totaly unbalancing game, only team with groups 2-4 mans on voice com have a small chance of winning agaist team with ecm superiority.

[MaxllmuS]

Stalker M5 with 5srm and 4-5 ML look at ECM like....he dont need to lok at it at all.
Same for any other mech with srm and lasers.
Now only thing ECM block its ssrm and lrm. But lrm no problem if you or your team have tag.
ECM can have little nerf but i think its better buff BAP and NARC.

[Tolkien]

MaxllmuS, on 13 January 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

Stalker M5 with 5srm and 4-5 ML look at ECM like....he dont need to lok at it at all.
Same for any other mech with srm and lasers.
Now only thing ECM block its ssrm and lrm. But lrm no problem if you or your team have tag.
ECM can have little nerf but i think its better buff BAP and NARC.

That might work well. NARC really does need a buff to be competitive rather than a novelty.

I would still prefer Soft counters rather than hard counters - like make ECM increase lock on time but not prevent it. Hard counters lead to trump card design decisions.

Rock paper scissors is a terrible game for a real time shooter/sim. Now we are considering turning it into Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock....

Edited by Tolkien, 13 January 2013 - 04:14 AM.

[Jesus Box]

Rock, paper, scissors, ECM. I can't wait for tomorrow's patch. I hear they're going to make the ECM cause missiles to just bounce off you entirely.

[Codejack]

Here's a thought: What if we gave ECM a visual effect, like causing the mech to glow bright pink and have a huge rainbow aura around it? And a pony! It should have a pony painted on it!

[StalaggtIKE]

Since PGI love hardcounters, have the Command Console remove all ECM bonus on the field. It can only be countered by another CC (CCC). And when someone complains, we'll tell them to adapt and learn to aim.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 13 January 2013 - 07:52 AM.

[Koniving]

On December 31st 2012 I made a post, and then was requested to bring it over to the Fixing Information Warfare thread (found here). Due to its topic, I figure it would be important to share it within the ECM Feedback thread as well. It can be found below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems that DocBach (the aforementioned thread's creator) has also had similar interpretation of what the ECM should and/or could do based on the original rule books and lore. This is especially true on the topic of "ghost targets" instead of no targets. That said, I'll copy what I said and clean it up to be a bit clearer.

Keep in mind what I wrote were my own extrapolations based on real-world MLRS (targeted rocket artillery and some electronic information warfare) experience and the data I was able to find on Battletech's Guardian ECM Suite. From what I read in this forum by DocBach, some of my speculations and hypothesis have been validated. But some of it has been invalidated.

I still think it is worth reading and considering.

Koniving, on 31 December 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

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

Okay so from that we can read ECM shields nearby mechs with broad-band signals. It "confuses" sensors and advanced equipment. Therefore, if you're in the bubble the effect it has then expect to have a full force jamming you. That's fine and the current display effects are good.

If you are outside of the bubble then it makes sense that scanning into said bubble should be difficult. Key word "difficult," not nil and void. That is what stealth armor will be for; to protect you from being scanned. That is not the role of ECM. Until we have stealth armor, if you can see them then you should at least be able to get a confusing signal hit to team mates. One that flickers and is hard to target, but still visible. An incomplete flickering triangle might be sufficient or a general area on the minimap. Dancing ? mark. Anything.

After all 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.

My team mates who also get this data but cannot see the ECM-equipped 'Mech have a strong chance of firing at one of the four false targets. I'd say a 1 out of 3 up to a 1 out of 5 chance is plenty fair to both sides. It is a very simplified version of what real ECM winds up doing to missile lock-ons. While American surface-fired missiles are programmed to try and divert for an aerial detonation when confused, (a contingency to avoid civilian casualties as the kind of missiles I was responsible for were for strategic strikes upon mobile targets that sometimes were in urban areas), it is very likely that Battletech universe missiles are programmed to chance a false hit rather than abort given the way the rule book works this out.

We have dummy targets and confusion as to which one is the real target. (Each player may see a different set of "false" targets to further assist in generating the genuine confusion.) Now this is where tag would come in at 450 meters by helping to isolate the correct target so that team mates are not firing on dummy sensor targets created by the ECM-equipped mech. Tag is essentially a soflam and can only mark a proper target, after all, so we as the distant LRM-equipped mechs will target the one with the tag signal -- but with the ghost images will already know the general area to be looking. Since ECM uses signals to jam and not chaff, Tag will work against ECM at range and be effective through the bubble. However given the way "Tag" communicates, you cannot broadcast the information about Tag to your lancemates if you are within the bubble (since a real soflam requires line of sight, and TAG relays the information to team-mates via computer signals).

Voila. Tag just got cooler without a 750 meter buff, ECM just got reasonably more balanced without actually nerfing it (since it's now a step closer to the real intentions), and we're all set. Even better, the game just got more interesting graphically and increased our immersion.

The ghost target idea is a fact of what happens when real life ECM attempts to affect targeted missiles. It confuses missiles already in the air. Missiles not yet fired wind up having a strong chance of seeing multiple targets when in fact there is only one. ECM in real life cannot deny the existence of a target by cloaking it. Instead different methods have a few interesting effects. Some create false locations of said target by making it appear closer or farther than it really is (displacement), some generate clones (ghosts), some generate "Friendly" IFF readings. There's plenty more. But in no case can ECM generate the impression that "there is no target." Therefore it cannot deny the existence of a target. ECM in Battletech cannot deny the existence of a target either. So why in MWO does ECM deny the existence of a target unless tagged or ridiculously close?

I realize that it is simpler to implement in than adding in false targets and a bit more code. But that is not how it works.

The fact that DocBach has found the capability of Guardian ECM creating ghost images (admittedly by a toggle switch) in the rule books further iterates that ghost-targets are much closer to the original intentions than "Wow I have ECM, it's a CLOAKING DEVICE! I'm 300 meters in front of you, clearly in your sight, and you can't target me! MWAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!"

------

Before that epiphany and research, however, this was my original idea for how to balance ECM. Changing which mech variants carry them to the ones with the LEAST missile slots.
http://mwomercs.com/...43#entry1679943

And this post I quoted, in its original unaltered form,
http://mwomercs.com/...04#entry1683004

Edited by Koniving, 13 January 2013 - 08:59 AM.

[Abivard]

the inventors of TT knew very little about warfare, less about missiles and squat about EW, this game has no relation to RL anything, so just freaking stop with the RL and TT benchmarks, they don't exist.

Really, just try and learn to play the game, if you can't learn, and your not playing, why are you camping and trolling the boards?

to many live in denial on these boards.

[Tolkien]

Abivard, on 13 January 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

the inventors of TT knew very little about warfare, less about missiles and squat about EW, this game has no relation to RL anything, so just freaking stop with the RL and TT benchmarks, they don't exist.

Really, just try and learn to play the game, if you can't learn, and your not playing, why are you camping and trolling the boards?

to many live in denial on these boards.

I hate to say it but I completely agree.

It boggles the mind that after someone went to the trouble of more or less proving that ECM is deciding match outcomes we still have people on the forums who refuse to see the problem.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1709146

I'm glad that you're against ignorance Abivard because there are a lot of people who refuse to acknowledge evidence.

[Big Bad Wulf]

Hi Tolkien,

Nice data gathering, I have just one question in those games you were in, you alone account for aleast 25% or more of the kills per game how does this affect or rather does this have any effect on the findings?


Thanks,

-Marcus

[Tolkien]

Marcus Wulf, on 13 January 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

Hi Tolkien,

Nice data gathering, I have just one question in those games you were in, you alone account for aleast 25% or more of the kills per game how does this affect or rather does this have any effect on the findings?


Thanks,

-Marcus

Hi Marcus,

It's a good question and I have actually modified the last post on it recently to include how this affects the outcomes.

Basically my team won ~2/3 matches yet we had ECM superiority in ~2/3 of matches as well.

If I was an ultimate badass and won 100% of my matches no matter what, I would see an outcome ratio of 2:1 and not higher! This is because the ratio would max out at this level since my team only had ECM superiority 2/3 of the time.

If you look at the inconclusive matches I won ~75% of those, so this actually indicates that despite my being a good pilot and tending to win most games all other things being equal, the ECM superiority of the enemy team was more than enough to overcome me

In short it actually makes me more confident that the >4:1 win ratio of the team with more ECMs on it is due to ECM since the data indicates I should win 3/4 of my games when ECM is equal on both teams.

Edited by Tolkien, 13 January 2013 - 08:42 AM.

[Koniving]

Then there's my original idea since that entire thread was deleted:

First, notice how three of the ECM-carrying Battlemechs are sporting 2 or more missile launcher hardpoints? Commando 2-D 3x missiles. Atlas DDC 3x missiles. Raven 3-L 2x missiles. If ECM's main rushed implementation was to balance the missile easy button, then why did we give it to the 'Mechs with the missile easy buttons!?

A very simple, unaltering fix to the balance issue with ECM is the following:

I think with the exception of the Raven 3-L much to my dismay since it is canon to have ECM (as it's the one that needs it removed), the other 'Mechs should have their ECM variant switched. They are not canon for having ECM. They were the worst choices to receive it. ECM doesn't need to be on the only Atlas with 3 missile launchers. Or the only commando with 3 missile launchers. It needs to be on the 'Mechs who would minimally benefit from having ECM on their own.

Examples: There's an unconfirmed Atlas with 1 missile hard-point. This seems like a logical choice to have ECM. There is also the Atlas RS which has nothing going for it. K has 2 AMS. DDC has 3 missile launchers. RS? It's been neutered. 1 ballistic. 4 energy. 2 missile. What would allow us to see more on the field? If the RS -- the neutered Atlas -- had ECM. We'll always see DDC Atlas 'Mechs on the field, they are the pick of the litter with their 3x SRM-6 or their 3x Streak combined with 2x UAC-5. We'll see D's and K's fairly often. But the only way we'll see the RS or the unconfirmed Atlas is if one of them had the ECM instead. Something going for them!

The Commando 2-D is a triple missile platform with high speed and faster turning radius than the Raven. Pumping out 1.5 times the missile firepower of the Raven, it is devastating when armed with 3x streaks. It's an optimum choice in any situation and has always been the favorite. So why not make it the only one anyone will EVER use by giving it ECM? Ingenius!
Better idea.

Let's give it to the runts of the pack. Commando 1-B with its single missile launcher would have minimal benefit of sporting the ECM by its lonesome. Causing it to join up with the team and help out. Of course, probably an even better balance is to give the ECM to the 1-D or the 3-A, both of which are runts of the litter since they are almost identical. Of the two, the 1-D has the issue of being "one sided." All of its weapons are mounted on its center and right sides, making it very impaired and thus unloved. Solution? Give the 1-D an ECM. Bam, the most nonviable 'Mech is now viable.

Despite how the Raven 3-L is canon for ECM, the addition of the NARC launcher allows it to sport 2 Streaks. This becomes a problem when coupled with its -- even 1/13/2013 patched -- awful hit detection. Were this fixed I suppose it would not be so bad. But if that's the case, all 3 Ravens should be able to equip ECM.
If nothing else consider this.

The 3-L had missiles going for it from the start. The Raven 4-X has jump-jets and ballistics going for it. What does the 2-X have going for it? An extra energy hard-point? Pfft. That isn't much. What it could really have used was an ECM. Especially since NARC missiles fired from an ECM-equipped 'Mech set on disrupt will DISABLE his own NARC missile beacon! O_O! So the only viable choices are SRMs or Streaks.

In what way has ECM solved the missile issue? It has instead become its own issue, and allows those with the anti-missile equipment (ECM) to be the exclusive ones sporting streaks. o.o; Where is the logic in this?

Right now the way it works is:

Teams flock to the ECM with the ECM's cluster of missile launchers.

The way it should work is:

The ECM should flock to the team, to support the cluster of missile launchers on ~OTHER 'MECHS~ and support with their not-overly-missile-dependent-arsenals.

Hmm....

[Abivard]

You went to a lot of work and I applaud your efforts, but the sample size,amount of unknown variables as well as a lack of control group rather invalidates everything.

[Tolkien]

Abivard, on 13 January 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

You went to a lot of work and I applaud your efforts, but the sample size,amount of unknown variables as well as a lack of control group rather invalidates everything.

I'm pretty sure that no matter what lengths I went to you would still declare the results invalid.

Personally I'd gladly bet money on match outcomes based on the number of ECM on each team - especially since the recent best question about the results (See Marcus Wulf's earlier post 1 page ago) actually led me to be more confident in the results.

Edited by Tolkien, 13 January 2013 - 09:02 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Abivard, on 13 January 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

You went to a lot of work and I applaud your efforts, but the sample size,amount of unknown variables as well as a lack of control group rather invalidates everything.

Unknown variables are the point! Had the rest of the variables been the same then, it would be hard to dispute that one of those variables are deciding the outcome of the battle. With ECM being the controlled variable, it show overwhelming that higher ECM numbers to be a deciding factor in wins.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 13 January 2013 - 09:15 AM.

[Big Bad Wulf]

Tolkien, on 13 January 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Hi Marcus,

It's a good question and I have actually modified the last post on it recently to include how this affects the outcomes.

Basically my team won ~2/3 matches yet we had ECM superiority in ~2/3 of matches as well.

If I was an ultimate badass and won 100% of my matches no matter what, I would see an outcome ratio of 2:1 and not higher! This is because the ratio would max out at this level since my team only had ECM superiority 2/3 of the time.

If you look at the inconclusive matches I won ~75% of those, so this actually indicates that despite my being a good pilot and tending to win most games all other things being equal, the ECM superiority of the enemy team was more than enough to overcome me

In short it actually makes me more confident that the >4:1 win ratio of the team with more ECMs on it is due to ECM since the data indicates I should win 3/4 of my games when ECM is equal on both teams.

Thank you, btw there is no nice "you" in a raven 3L!

My lance and I have been running non-ECM mechs ( 2 x Cats, Dragon and Cataphract) last week and almost all of the matches we were in the other team had ECM suppriority, yet we were winning a constant ratio of 10:1 with the loss attributed to bad decissions.

The only time ECM played a role in our drops was when we were dropping 8 man and had LRM and SSRM boats, to which support was necessary (countering and destroying ECM emiiters or luring / forcing targets out of the bubble).

On PUG drops I am seeing less ECM capable mechs and more LRM and SRM boats. On these drops the only time I saw that ECM played a deciding factor when the last man standing was a "Stalker Streaker".

-Marcus

[StalaggtIKE]

Marcus Wulf, on 13 January 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

Thank you, btw there is no nice "you" in a raven 3L!

My lance and I have been running non-ECM mechs ( 2 x Cats, Dragon and Cataphract) last week and almost all of the matches we were in the other team had ECM suppriority, yet we were winning a constant ratio of 10:1 with the loss attributed to bad decissions.

The only time ECM played a role in our drops was when we were dropping 8 man and had LRM and SSRM boats, to which support was necessary (countering and destroying ECM emiiters or luring / forcing targets out of the bubble).

On PUG drops I am seeing less ECM capable mechs and more LRM and SRM boats. On these drops the only time I saw that ECM played a deciding factor when the last man standing was a "Stalker Streaker".

-Marcus

Are you saying that you're surprised that your organized lance team was successful in pugs? I thought it was established a while back that teamwork trumps unorganized ECM. That the issue of ECM superiority is prevalent in games consisting of teams with similarly equal skill level and organization, ie: pugs vs pugs.

Edit: I noticed your lance is piloting ballistic mechs. Playing ballistic heavy mechs really does make a difference vs ECM. The idea is to hit hard and fast, especially deadly when focused fired. Doing so means you do not require intel on enemy, nor any lock-ons. With that kind of fire power, I don't even need to know what the mech looks like. However the charm of MW, at least for me, is being able to customize and play any mech type. Currently I've been sticking to my CPLT-2K (dual AC20) and occasionally RVN-3L. And yes because of it I've been very successful against ECM.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 13 January 2013 - 09:47 AM.