96 replies to this topic

[LynxFury]

Mini Rukus, on 15 January 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

If you claim to be a gunboat or laserboat you're the first I've seen bitching about ECM. :]

I'm another one. I've never built a missile boat and I have four laser boats. The OP nailed the most important issue. See the other 300+(?) pages of feedback for the dozens of other serious problems with how ECM is implemented.

I usually do an obligatory evening ride when every patch comes out--not sure I even should do that much this time around. Been part of several gaming beta teams as well as many software ones--and honestly never seen a set of developers less communicative with their testers than this game. I really don't get it, and starting to have negative thoughts like "Is this really a beta? Or just a battletech fan $ milking machine destined to never be final?" I'm certainly not dropping another dime in this game until it starts looking like a beta.

[ICEFANG13]

ECM is obviously OP and very poorly done, and even more poorly is how PGI doesn't talk about it. Obviously they aren't playing the game game or perhaps are lacking in intelligence or coordination, either way, other than not playing, me and my teammates are abusing it too.

Seriously, you hate ECM, you get a Raven-3L et al (don't get the Spider, that one is a bad version of the Cicada-3M, and you will fight a 3L when you bring it), and ABUSE it with me. Its so stupid and wrong and I love talking about it in game.

DON'T WORRY! Its working as intended!

[Valaska]

Hey TehCable, I suggest just taking lengthy hiatus from MWO and wait until something is done... Or even PGI says one ******** thing about it other than "Learn to dumb-fire arching LRM's!" I am lucky in a sense, my computer has busted so I get to take an extended hiatus from whatever the hell MechWarrior Online has become lol.

[MasterBLB]

Yes,ECM works as intended by devs,that's true.
But the problem is majority of us players don't like it.

Seriously mates,I think the only way those PGI ******* get we do want ECM be removed from the game/tweaked into canonical version is to make some kind of action "No logging into game and play for a week".And of course,ABSOLUTELY not purchasing MCs.
Remember,they depend on US.They can't ignore the situation if few thousands users will stop play and pay.
(Btw,same for making DHS 2.0 again)

Edited by MasterBLB, 15 January 2013 - 11:57 PM.

[Stormwolf]

For people curious about how ECM is supposed to work:

Total War

Quote

ECM SUITE
An ECM suite has an effect radius of six hexes that creates a
“bubble” around the carrying unit. The ECM’s disruptive abilities
affect all enemy units inside this bubble, as well as any line of sight
traced through the bubble. It has no effect on units friendly to the
unit carrying the ECM.

In the ECM diagram, the ’Mech in Hex A on the Open Terrain
#1 map is equipped with an ECM suite, which has an eff ect
radius of six hexes (shown as the shaded area). The suite
aff ects any enemy unit in this area or any enemy LOS traced
through it. The ’Mech in Hex B is aff ected because it falls inside
the eff ect radius. A shot from Hex C to Hex D would also be
aff ected because LOS passes through the radius. A shot from
Hex C to Hex E would not be aff ected because LOS does not pass
through the radius.

Within its effect radius, an ECM suite has the following eff ects
on the following systems. The ECM suite does not aff ect other
scanning and targeting devices, such as TAG and targeting
computers.

Active Probe: Active probes cannot penetrate the ECM’s area
of eff ect. The probing unit would notice that it is being jammed,
however.

Artemis IV FCS: ECM blocks the eff ects of Artemis IV fire
control systems. Artemis-equipped launchers may be fired as
normal missiles through the ECM, but they lose the Cluster Hits
Table bonus.

Narc Missile Beacon: Missiles equipped to home in on an
attached Narc pod lose the Cluster Hits Table bonus for that
system if the pods themselves lie within an ECM “bubble.” The
Narc launcher itself (standard and iNarc) is not aff ected by ECM.

C3 and C3i Computer: ECM has the eff ect of “cutting off ” any C3-
equipped unit from its network. If a C3 master unit is isolated from
the network because it ventures inside the ECM radius, the entire
portion of the network below it is eff ectively shut off (all units
subordinate to it on the diagram on p. 132). Only those C3 units able
to draw an LOS to the master unit that does not pass through the
ECM radius can access the network. If the master unit that connects
the lances of a company lies inside the ECM eff ect radius, the link
between the lances is lost, though each lance’s network functions
normally (unless the ECM also interferes with them individually).

Techmanual

Quote

Introduced: 2597 (Terran Hegemony)
Extinct: 2845 (Inner Sphere)
Recovered: 3045 (Capellan Confederation)

Around the end of the Reunification War, Johnston Industries
(a Terran Hegemony company, working in partnership with Yelm
Weapons of Fletcher) debuted the Guardian ECM suite on the newly
deployed Nightshade VTOL. This broad-spectrum jamming and
electronic countermeasure system revolutionized electronic warfare
(EW). In a day when most communications and targeting systems
had grown accustomed to a battlefield flooded by conventional
electronic noise and counter-noise, the Guardian was powerful and
smart enough to scramble all hostile electronics within a spherical
“bubble” roughly 180 meters across. The Guardian could even adapt to
and scatter contemporary EW packages like the Beagle Active Probe,
Narc Missile Beacon and Artemis IV—all while simultaneously keeping
friendly channels and targeting enhancers clear.

Even today, the Guardian’s recovered technology remains highly
adaptable, not only capable of recognizing and countering the EW features
of its Star League counterparts but also newer technologies such
as the C3 and C3i systems. The Capellan Confederation has expanded
on the Guardian’s utility with their new stealth armor system, a new
role that will assure this powerful piece of technology a place on the
battlefi eld for the foreseeable future.
Predictably, the refined (and name-brand free) Clan version of the
Guardian achieves the same eff ects with a third less weight and half
as much bulk. Though the technology was largely in decline for a time
among Kerensky’s children, their return to the Inner Sphere and the
growing preponderance of EW systems has prompted more and more
Clan machines to hit the field armed with ECM systems.

[Matthias Malthias]

I have been playing close-in brawlers and gunboat mechs not long since MWO hit open beta. In that time, I have seen the introduction of the Yen lo Wang, Cataphract, the advent of ECM, and the Dragon Hero and Stalker patches.

There are two main things that I have noticed since the ECM patch. The first, was that I was noticing more and more of the same people in game; whilst I have seen less and less unfamiliar names. This can have two causes -
1: There are less and less new players
2: There are less people queuing.

Neither bodes well for the continued health of the MWO community.

The second was that I initially saw a promising few that took to the Battlegrid and command console, to set waypoints, and mark targets in ingame chat. After ECM this essentially disappeared. I have a theory as to why -
1: ECM shrouds marked targets, so pinging an enemy being in a grid location was unreliable
2: Everyone is running brawlers with a high pilot load and running to middle to duke it out - so there is no reason, nor time for, tactics.

Added to this are the dev responses claiming that ECM was working as intended, and the relatively slow response PGI has had in addressing the lack of ingame VOIP, borked netocde, borked matchmaking pitting 4man premades against a full PUG team, and the newbie hostile learning curve.

I think that in the devs view, ECM is in fact canon-correct, and working like they want it to. The trouble begins when you factor in the following:
1: Borked netcode such that everyone is essentially shooting at sensor shadows, especially of lights
2: Borked implementation of TAG and NARC, completely invalidating their usefulness in the presence of ECM lights
3: The presence of battlemechs carrying ECM that did not do so in canon. The Atlas DDC was actually a command console-bearing mech, NOT an ECM platform, for example.

Remember the different pillars of design the devs were originally touting their game to feature? Information warfare, Role warfare, Community warfare?

ECM is destroying the information warfare aspect of MWO that has been touted since its beginning - why scout at all when you can't relay C3i info due to an ECM blanket?
It is destroying co-operation within the community such that PUGs are easily stomped.
It is destroying Role warfare because now ECM Streaklights are the flavour of the month, being nigh-untouchable threats to all weight classes.

If ECM is in fact working as intended, then why is it so against the grain of their design pillars?
If patch after patch fails to address issues ingrained since closed beta, why should the community continue to have goodwill for PGI's cause?

The way I see it, PGI is now at a critical period. They can claim to be "extensively testing" every new feature before it comes out, but when the state of the game has devolved to the way it has, I'm not so sure it can be sustained for much longer.

[Corvus Antaka]

Butane9000, on 15 January 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

I still can't fathom why they haven't done ANYTHING to ECM since they adjusted it for the worse. It's insane.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[Loonix]

I hate to vote NO. Because I love the concept of ECM, but currently it is poorly implemented.

Given the lack of response so far, I feel sadly compelled to vote as such.

[kalligrapher]

I'm not quite sure what would lead anyone to vote yes on this one - besides a desire to troll. At the very least - p*ssing off a large chunk of your playerbase and measurably reducing it's potential funding going forward should be ringing alarm bells.

Someone want to let the devs know? From the responses to date they obviously haven't noticed - I'm not crude enough to suggest they have their heads stuck anywhere biologically impossible.

[machinech]

Mini Rukus, on 15 January 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

I never once said I couldn't deal with LRMs. I take pride in not being LRMtarded. I just find it's generally LRM boats who complain about ECM. Never hear bitching about it from Laserboats or Gunboats. Again, ECM came out and I learned how to play around it, effectively. I came out top 3 on average, before ECM, and after. I've just learned that it's an aspect to the game and that it is implemented quite effectively forcing players to varry their mech builds(just like Battletech!), or just to ***** about moan about ECM.

Just to give a comparison. Until ECM I piloted mainly Cents and then Cataphracts. I am primarily a direct fire user splitting my use of lasers an AC weapons pretty evenly. Since ECM I have begun piloting a D-DC. As soon as I switched, I found the D-DC to be a rediculous WIN button. I play rather infrequently now, spending more of my time watching forums an patch notes to see if anything will change. I think ECM, in it's CURRENT form, a horrid solution to anything. It's a bit like using my M1A2 Abrams 120mm main gun to go deer hunting. The deer is most certainly dead, but not sure your going to find anything useful left of it afterwards. I don't think my point of view is the Right One by any arrogant sense. I personally just don't like it for ALL the reasons the OP stated. It did cut out LRM spam, but sadly it's collateral dmg to information in a game that currently suffers from UI work overload (clickyclickyclicky), and communication in general (requires 3rd party solutions) is OVERKILL. Their current balance attempts are a LOT like my wife trying to drive...she over compensates for everything.

[ICEFANG13]

Wow those numbers are pretty obvious.

Oh wait, pro-ECM will say we are a vocal minority, so we should add 3rd person too? Because that's what a vocal minority said not to do (I mean 90-10% said dislike to like, but hey, only people who complain go on the forums!)

PGI WAKE up this plan for the game is so messed up, I don't want to play with IW that is around this power level, hoping that each team has the effective counters on the new flavor of the month builds.

[Wun]

TehCable, on 15 January 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

I have seen every match reduced to a single strategy: a ball of death where nobody scouts and the team sits scared hoping to have the best numbers on the front line when the enemy is found. That's not fun.
[...]
Once split, ECM makes it nearly impossible to regroup. It's impossible to communicate anything to pugs once the fighting starts because almost no pugs can pay attention to team text chat and fight at the same time.

New players are rarely on voice comms. The current state of ECM preventing random PuGs from communicating at all puts them at a huge disadvantage and has got to be scaring new players away. Without ECM you at least get your teammates position and any enemies they can see on your map. WIth ECM you are basically alone if you dont have voice comm..

It should be easy to detect where an ECM disruption bubble is, even if you cant detect whats inside of it. At least BAP should let you see a mark or circle where the ECM disrupt bubbles are. It would also make ECM more of a tactical decision, to not give away your position behind a hill you might run in counter mode, which would once again allow scouting to effective even in PuGs.

[Latvanis]

Because devs are stuppid. Srsly! Addind ECM (such a powerfull tool) to only a certain mechs? Gawd dammit. My faworite mechs USELESS!

PLEASE FIX ECM!

If you dont want to change ECM! Then hear me out!
To ballance ECM make it a UPGADE. Costs 1 million to upgrade mech to ECM mech and 500k to downgrade.
asks for 14 crittical slots. Weights 5% of mech total tonns.
THATS IT! EMC would be FIXED! Ultimate COST for ITS POWER!

[Darius Deadeye]

Like everyone else threatening to "leave the game for good", you'll probably be back when the game is FINISHED and POLISHED.

See you then.

Also, in your last post you're shamelessly harassing the support guy, who is being VERY diplomatic throughout.

Edited by Darius Deadeye, 16 January 2013 - 11:36 AM.

[TehCable]

Darius Deadeye, on 16 January 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Like everyone else threatening to "leave the game for good", you'll probably be back when the game is FINISHED and POLISHED.

See you then.

Clearly, I care about the game and would like to come back. In the original post here, I said it would "probably" be my last post. That is out of pessimism from the fact that MWO has refused to even comment on the issue for this long already.

[TehCable]

Great News!

http://mwomercs.com/...06#entry1749106

Garth Erlam said:

I sent a 5 page 'suggestions from the forums' email to design a couple days ago, with multiple links to ECM ideas.

The reason we don't reply about it, is we don't have a definitive change we can tell you yet. "It might be one of these things or maybe something else" isn't going to help anything, and will lead to more confusion than understanding. An 'incremental change' requires we have data to see how it's actually working. If we went off of Mech popularity the day after a patch where a Mech was released, well, you can imagine how accurate it'd really be.

The fact is ECM numbers are dropping - in both pub games (a LOT), and in competitive games (a fair amount - the average is much, much lower than 'all eight Mechs'. Are we looking at changes? Yes. Am I going to post here every time we have an idea in testing? No. Why not? I'd literally spend my entire work day posting changes that occurred from the day before. And most of it would never make it to the live game, and would cause people to choose the ones that weren't used as 'that would have worked instead' (see: Dual Heat Sinks.)

We're not trying to hide info from you - it's just that barraging you with data that, by and large, won't be used isn't a good use of anyone's time. I try to tell people when I am forwarding their ideas, but when you're sending ten at a time, in a short amount of time, it's tough to justify saying "thanks sending this!" over and over, and then getting PM's saying you clearly didn't, because that exact change wasn't used in the next patch.

That said, we do listen, we do look at your ideas, and we do value your info. I try to answer PM's as fast as I can, but again, I'd spend an entire day responding, and then responding to the responses, and so on. We do see, and we do appreciate, and I am constantly forwarding your comments.

I hope you all understand this isn't an attack on you guys, or saying you're all shouting blasphemy. It's, sadly, a time thing. Were I able to clone myself, every single suggestion would get a reply, kudos, and a free bobblehead of me agreeing with your assertions.

Garth has broken the official silence on ECM, and has at least let us know that they have read some of the ECM feedback. That's enough for me for now. All I wanted was some acknowledgement that we're not just talking to ourselves here.

Now I can wait peacefully for teamwork to be an option again.

Edited by TehCable, 16 January 2013 - 01:46 PM.

[Attalward]

TehCable, on 16 January 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Great News!

http://mwomercs.com/...06#entry1749106

[/font]

Garth has broken the official silence on ECM, and has at least let us know that they have read some of the ECM feedback. That's enough for me for now. All I wanted was some acknowledgement that we're not just talking to ourselves here.

Now I can wait peacefully for teamwork to be an option again.

Someone should publish Garth post on General.

[TehCable]

Another mention of ECM today by a dev:

http://mwomercs.com/...59#entry1749659

Paul Inouye said:

Hot topic: ECM... yes... I've got a write up on our stance on the situation but I will not release it until I can confirm 2 features I want in the game before I do so.

I'm on the edge of my seat...

Edited by TehCable, 16 January 2013 - 03:09 PM.

[TehCable]

More from Garth on why we don't have more from Garth:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1750287

[Fotracul]

Oh nevermind about my rant, i found out these:

What TT BAP does:
[color=#000000]The [/color]Beagle Active Probe[color=#000000] (BAP) is a suite of enhancement technology that, when attached to general electronic sensors, enables the equipped unit to detect and classify other battlefield units -with the exception of conventional infantry- whether they are camouflaged or even shut down.[/color]

What MWO BAP does:


The Beagle Active Probe, or BAP, is a sensor suite that enhances the units onboard detection systems. Essentially it boosts radar coverage, locking and scan strength.

• 25% increased sensor range
  
• 25% decreased target level acquisition time
  
• allows targeting of unpowered 'Mechs within 120m

Edited by Sashulescu, 17 January 2013 - 04:35 AM.