116 replies to this topic

[Znail]

Kousagi, on 31 January 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

Every time you quote this and misuse the words there, its greatly annoying. If your sensors can't Identify a target, how do they even know it is a target? Theres also the answer to this question in your own post. Look at the line right below the one you bold... So Why would the pilots need to track a target visually when their sensors are already doing it for them? ( by your interpretation).

Also, side note. Target data is gathered by visual sensors, So mech type, load out and armor state. Its not something that is sent out by a IFF, cause who in their right mind would broadcast that info for the enemy? Its also not something Radar can pick out.So ECM has nothing to do with target data. Its kinda the reason why, when the the IS first saw the timberwolf their computers classed it as either a marauder or a catapult, Which is what earned it the name Madcat in the IS.

You know that it's a target because it's an unknown mech that isn't a friendly and there is rather limited amount of random bystander mechs on the battlefield.

[DocBach]

PrestonCDawg, on 31 January 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

Sounds like its acting exactly as intended except for this:
-- Ghost Target mode

Which doesn't matter.

Actually, the huge difference is the fact that targets in ECM bubbles can be located and targeted by sensors, which they can't in MWO, and missiles aren't affected at all by those rules -- while ECM completely blocks them in this game. Ghost target mode dissuades missile lock on but does not absolutely kill it or game balance like ECM currently does.

Kousagi, on 31 January 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

Every time you quote this and misuse the words there, its greatly annoying. If your sensors can't Identify a target, how do they even know it is a target? Theres also the answer to this question in your own post. Look at the line right below the one you bold... So Why would the pilots need to track a target visually when their sensors are already doing it for them? ( by your interpretation).

Also, side note. Target data is gathered by visual sensors, So mech type, load out and armor state. Its not something that is sent out by a IFF, cause who in their right mind would broadcast that info for the enemy? Its also not something Radar can pick out.So ECM has nothing to do with target data. Its kinda the reason why, when the the IS first saw the timberwolf their computers classed it as either a marauder or a catapult, Which is what earned it the name Madcat in the IS.

Why can't you grasp that this game is based on a science fiction universe and that the real world laws of radar don't apply to their made up, science fiction world? Quit trying to reason with it in realistic terms BECAUSE EXACTLY HOW IT IS SUPPOSE TO FUNCTION IN THIS GAMING UNIVERSE IS DESCRIBED FOR YOU BY THE AUTHORS WHO PENNED THE SOURCE MATERIAL. Your answer of "it can't work like that in the real world" has no merit here. The argument isn't if ECM is properly realistically portrayed by real world mechanics -- its if it is portrayed how it should be portrayed according the source material for game balance and fun. How sensors work and interact with ECM part of Battletech fiat. Its never explained in real life terms, because it isn't real life -- it works how the rulebooks say it works. So you can argue with me all you want about semantics about how it can't work but clear as day it says:

"Enemy long-range sensors can find vehicles and 'Mechs within the curtain" -- 'Mechs in an ECM bubble can still be located by sensors. No rules say they can't. Sorry it doesn't work this way in real world, but this is how it works in BattleTech.

As for broadcasting damage or loadout information to the enemy? You bring up a great point. Detailed targeting information like that is only suppose to be possible by using a Beagle Active Probe. Another perk that was suppose to be exclusive to Beagle that wasn't included to it.

Does it work this way in MechWarrior, which isn't BattleTech? No. Is MechWarrior Online better for its implementation? I don't believe so.

Honestly answer this - would you rather have the ECM we have now, or have it tweaked where different pieces of equipment had their own use and function in an Information Warfare pillar, that had more than just who can bring the most ECM to it?

Znail, on 31 January 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

You know that it's a target because it's an unknown mech that isn't a friendly and there is rather limited amount of random bystander mechs on the battlefield.

"Hey, we're invading an enemy planet and we've got a 'Mech signal that has its information shrouded by ECM and it's not showing up on our friendly IFF, should we shoot it?"

"Nah, looks legit to me."

Edited by DocBach, 31 January 2013 - 07:28 PM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Come on everyone that believes ECM is such a game breaker that there's no reason to play the game without it. This argument has been made a thousand times before and simply needs to be stepped away from for a bit. I'm not saying your points aren't valid. But you scream them from the walls so hard and have for so long your arguments fall on deaf ears and unchangeable minds. Nor our points of view ever going to change yours, so again, please let this lie for a while. So many ideas about how this can be changed to make it more balanced in these forums that PGI has a mountain of information to sift thru to find a solution. If they can find that balance then they will, but it's not going to be on your timetable and accommodate everyone's ideal of fair balance. Yes they've had the time to change ECM already, but maybe they haven't found that right perfect exchange just yet. Understand that balance may not be to change ECM at all. But to things that can counter it. Just keep an open mind guys, that's all PGI could hope for.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 31 January 2013 - 07:31 PM.

[DocBach]

KuruptU4Fun, on 31 January 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Come on everyone that believes ECM is such a game breaker that there's no reason to play the game without it. This argument has been made a thousand times before and simply needs to be stepped away from for a bit. I'm not saying your points aren't valid. But you scream them from the walls so hard and have for so long your arguments fall on deaf ears and unchangeable minds. Nor our points of view ever going to change yours, so again, please let this lie for a while. So many ideas about how this can be changed to make it more balanced in these forums that PGI has a mountain of information to sift thru to find a solution. If they can find that balance then they will, but it's not going to be on your timetable and accommodate everyone's ideal of fair balance. Yes they've had the time to change ECM already, but maybe they haven't found that right perfect exchange just yet. Understand that balance may not be to change ECM at all. But to things that can counter it. Just keep an open mind guys, that's all PGI could hope for.

My biggest fear is PGI is going to decide to make the balancing factors more and more module dependent -- the fact that modules cost huge amounts of GXP, the only way to counter ECM without bringing more ECM is to buy overpriced modules by grinding for days, or paying real money. ECM and the way PGI has been "fixing" it with modules is very worrying -- and a very easy segway to a pay to win model balanced against ECM.

Edited by DocBach, 31 January 2013 - 07:32 PM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

DocBach, on 31 January 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

My biggest fear is PGI is going to decide to make the balancing factors more and more module dependent -- the fact that modules cost huge amounts of GXP, the only way to counter ECM without bringing more ECM is to buy overpriced modules by grinding for days, or paying real money. ECM and the way PGI has been "fixing" it with modules is very worrying -- and a very easy segway to a pay to win model balanced against ECM.

Personally I would agree with that point of view, the only time that should be an option is if there are ways that make it not the ONLY option available to counter ECM. I do believe that the EMP/PPC changes will help, especially (for those that use it) tactically. I also think that putting in collisions/knockdowns is a viable counter to the lighter ECM mechs. Instituting ELO may serve some solution as well. Especially when it comes to 8vs8 matches and the guys who do nothing but boat entire ECM teams.

[Lykaon]

ECM will now dictate two more aspects of the game over and above what it already heavily influences.

Now module selction and PPC/ER-PPC use can be added to the list.

I now see an increased incentive to stack ECM.If a group wishes to asure ECM dominance they have no incentive to not bring 8 mechs with ECM.

The enemy will need to hit all 8 mechs with a PPC every 5 seconds to stop ECM effects.So in practice it not going to happen ECM will still be stacked and still dictate terms of mech choice,mech build,weapon selections,module selection,manuvers and tactics as well as overall strategy.

ECM still impacts the game meta game and mechanics intrusivley and excessivly for a 1.5 ton item that has a passive functionality.

[Titan Osis]

Also, this is not table top and compared to every single Mechwarrior game before it, this game is fanfukingtastic. As far as your argument is concerned, ECM is working almost exactly like you want it to and if it were to change to your specifics there would literally be no point in taking it or having it in the game for that matter.

It makes people diversify their builds and think about how to play a game in the matter that will make them better than people that use ECM as a crutch.

[Kousagi]

DocBach, on 31 January 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

.Why can't you grasp that this game is based on a science fiction universe and that the real world laws of radar don't apply to their made up, science fiction world? Quit trying to reason with it in realistic terms BECAUSE EXACTLY HOW IT IS SUPPOSE TO FUNCTION IN THIS GAMING UNIVERSE IS DESCRIBED FOR YOU BY THE AUTHORS WHO PENNED THE SOURCE MATERIAL. Your answer of "it can't work like that in the real world" has no merit here. The argument isn't if ECM is properly realistically portrayed by real world mechanics -- its if it is portrayed how it should be portrayed according the source material for game balance and fun. How sensors work and interact with ECM part of Battletech fiat. Its never explained in real life terms, because it isn't real life -- it works how the rulebooks say it works. So you can argue with me all you want about semantics about how it can't work but clear as day it says:

"Enemy long-range sensors can find vehicles and 'Mechs within the curtain" -- 'Mechs in an ECM bubble can still be located by sensors. No rules say they can't. Sorry it doesn't work this way in real world, but this is how it works in BattleTech.

As for broadcasting damage or loadout information to the enemy? You bring up a great point. Detailed targeting information like that is only suppose to be possible by using a Beagle Active Probe. Another perk that was suppose to be exclusive to Beagle that wasn't included to it.

Does it work this way in MechWarrior, which isn't BattleTech? No. Is MechWarrior Online better for its implementation? I don't believe so.

Honestly answer this - would you rather have the ECM we have now, or have it tweaked where different pieces of equipment had their own use and function in an Information Warfare pillar, that had more than just who can bring the most ECM to it?

"Nah, looks legit to me."

Show me once where I say "this is how it works in the real word"... *sigh* I'm using canon...

Yes, Sensors Can see the mech inside the bubble... but your little thing there does not list a range, just cause they are long range sensors, does not mean they pick up the mech in the bubble at long range... The quote before, even flat out says, that only at shorter ranges can the ECM be punched through, but by then the pilots better off Eye ba-lling it. Though you just ignore that bit, and are like, "but but it says here!" while you misinterpret the words said. You also ignore the double blind rule set as well, and keep trying to use your misinterpreted fluff text to over rule the rules.

Its canon that mech type, mech loadout, and mechs armor state is done by visual sensors... its a standard thing in all mechs. BAP just has a advanced version of it, which allows it to better detect hidden mechs.

edit: seems ba-lling as one word is censored.

Edited by Kousagi, 31 January 2013 - 09:15 PM.

[DocBach]

PrestonCDawg, on 31 January 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

Also, this is not table top and compared to every single Mechwarrior game before it, this game is fanfukingtastic. As far as your argument is concerned, ECM is working almost exactly like you want it to and if it were to change to your specifics there would literally be no point in taking it or having it in the game for that matter.

It makes people diversify their builds and think about how to play a game in the matter that will make them better than people that use ECM as a crutch.

It makes people diversify their builds by stripping missile systems off of it? You are missing the biggest point where ECM deviates from the source material; the stealth, impenetrable bubble of doom. It doesn't diversify game play, it creates ALL GAME PLAY REVOLVING AROUND IT. You aren't going to see PPC's on the field because they're any better, your going to see them SOLELY TO COUNTERACT ECM.

THIS IS A BAD GAME MECHANIC.

Electronic warfare in Battletech is based upon many layers of system - HERE, ALL WE HAVE USEFUL IS ECM. THE ONLY COUNTER IS MORE ECM. ALL STRATEGIES, MODULES, AND NOW EQUIPMENT TWEAKS ARE ALL REVOLVING AROUND ECM.

THIS IS A BAD GAME MECHANIC.

[Brilig]

The extra PPC utility is nice. I wish they would have given more utility to things like BAP or NARC instead of a module. ECM isn't a module capability, or that expensive.

[DocBach]

Kousagi, on 31 January 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

Show me once where I say "this is how it works in the real word"... *sigh* I'm using canon...

Yes, Sensors Can see the mech inside the bubble... but your little thing there does not list a range, just cause they are long range sensors, does not mean they pick up the mech in the bubble at long range... The quote before, even flat out says, that only at shorter ranges can the ECM be punched through, but by then the pilots better off Eye ba-lling it. Though you just ignore that bit, and are like, "but but it says here!" while you misinterpret the words said. You also ignore the double blind rule set as well, and keep trying to use your misinterpreted fluff text to over rule the rules.

Its canon that mech type, mech loadout, and mechs armor state is done by visual sensors... its a standard thing in all mechs. BAP just has a advanced version of it, which allows it to better detect hidden mechs.

I'm not understanding what you just said. You agree that 'Mechs can see into the ECM bubble, but then you take it back because the excerpt doesn't have a range listed?

...and how am I ignoring double blind rules? We've gone over them before like fourteen times -- and you have ignored that ECM can only affect a spotting unit detecting it if the spotting unit is inside the operating range of the ECM inside the bubble. You've then discredited that and said an ECM has a whole mapsheet effective range without any sources or references.

Here's a question... if they fixed LRM's and Streak missiles individually by adjusting damage or functionality, would you be so resistant to any sort of changes that would take away ECM's missile invulnerability?

[Titan Osis]

DocBach, on 31 January 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

It makes people diversify their builds by stripping missile systems off of it? You are missing the biggest point where ECM deviates from the source material; the stealth, impenetrable bubble of doom. It doesn't diversify game play, it creates ALL GAME PLAY REVOLVING AROUND IT. You aren't going to see PPC's on the field because they're any better, your going to see them SOLELY TO COUNTERACT ECM.

THIS IS A BAD GAME MECHANIC.

Electronic warfare in Battletech is based upon many layers of system - HERE, ALL WE HAVE USEFUL IS ECM. THE ONLY COUNTER IS MORE ECM. ALL STRATEGIES, MODULES, AND NOW EQUIPMENT TWEAKS ARE ALL REVOLVING AROUND ECM.

THIS IS A BAD GAME MECHANIC.

There are counters to ECM, its called a TAG and NARC. They are adding more as well. ZERO of my builds EVER REVOLVE AROUND ECM. Any balance they add to the game will be based off data statistics they pull from match stats. Based off of most of the games I have played in the last months, I have seen very few ECM mechs compared to the amount there was when it was introduced and before the net code fix.

I run everything from a strict LRM boat catapult to ravens to atlas's.

[DocBach]

Preston, Narc does absolutely nothing in an ECM environment -- which is actually OK, because it isn't suppose to counter ECM, it is suppose to be defeated by it. However, Narc is suppose to allow 'Mechs the ability to fire missiles at a target without line of sight. So you get hit by a Narc and try to hide behind a mountain to break lock and... it doesn't break. ECM was suppose to protect you.

Beagle was suppose to be able to detect targets in a 360 degree radius, through obstructions like hills and buildings. ECM was suppose to protect you from Beagle's advanced targeting.

Here is a scenario of how ECM was suppose to be used against Narc:

Mech A shoots Mech B with a Narc. Mech B moves behind a hill but because he has been hit with a Narc beacon, he is still lit up on radar and Mech A continues to shoot LRM's at him, as Narc is suppose to allow for indirect fire without a spotter.

Mech C is Mech B's lancemate equipped with ECM; he moves his ECM into range of Mech B and kills the Narc signal, stopping Mech A's ability to fire LRM's at Mech B.

Here is a scenario of how ECM was suppose to be used against Beagle:

Mech A is a scout with beagle active probe -- he wants to get information on the caldera, but he doesn't want to expose himself to enemy fire. He positions himself at the lip of the caldera behind defilaide, but because of the Beagle he still has radar into the caldera and can see enemies crossing into it.

Mech B is the enemy who wants to cross the caldera. If he enters it, however, Mech A will locate him with the Beagle active probe.

Mech C is Mech B's lancemate and is equipped with ECM. While moving across the caldera with Mech C, his Guardian shields him from the Beagle's probe and the lance moves undetected by Mech A.

ECM was a very niche piece of equipment meant to protect off advanced equipment like Beagle and Narc -- not all radar, and by proxy every guided missile in the game. Unfortunately, not only is ECM super effective, all the other equipment like Beagle and Narc were nerfed right out of the gate. Part of the reason ECM is so broken is the fact that half the stuff it exists to defeat don't do anything worth defeating.

Edited by DocBach, 31 January 2013 - 09:57 PM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

PrestonCDawg, on 31 January 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

There are counters to ECM, its called a TAG and NARC. They are adding more as well. ZERO of my builds EVER REVOLVE AROUND ECM. Any balance they add to the game will be based off data statistics they pull from match stats. Based off of most of the games I have played in the last months, I have seen very few ECM mechs compared to the amount there was when it was introduced and before the net code fix.

I run everything from a strict LRM boat catapult to ravens to atlas's.

While TAG could be considered a ECM counter, just because they increased the time a NARC beacon is active does not dissuade that the launcher is extremely heavy and the ammo count per ton is very small. To date I do not know any of the 40+ people I group with around 4-5 days a week use NARC since it's introduction back in CB more than a couple of times since that introduction.

KuruptU4Fun, on 31 January 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

I do believe that the EMP/PPC changes will help, especially (for those that use it) tactically. I also think that putting in collisions/knockdowns is a viable counter to the lighter ECM mechs. Instituting ELO may serve some solution as well. Especially when it comes to 8vs8 matches and the guys who do nothing but boat entire ECM teams.

[Kousagi]

DocBach, on 31 January 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

I'm not understanding what you just said. You agree that 'Mechs can see into the ECM bubble, but then you take it back because the excerpt doesn't have a range listed?

...and how am I ignoring double blind rules? We've gone over them before like fourteen times -- and you have ignored that ECM can only affect a spotting unit detecting it if the spotting unit is inside the operating range of the ECM inside the bubble. You've then discredited that and said an ECM has a whole mapsheet effective range without any sources or references.

Here's a question... if they fixed LRM's and Streak missiles individually by adjusting damage or functionality, would you be so resistant to any sort of changes that would take away ECM's missile invulnerability?

No, I didn't take it back... Your own quote, says it right there...

"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.".

by your interpretation of it, WHY would they need to use their eyes if their sensors can already see them at long range???

You Misinterpret "Normal Operating range", thats not my fault... Though its a moot point, cause PGI Also interprets it the same way I do... And as far I know, they do talk with the guys that made battletech to start with... So they might just know more about the rules then you do.

Thing is, LRM's and streaks in MWO are different then the ones in TT. So, that whole balance game there is left to PGI. Though really the way streaks work in TT it's kinda hard to bring them to a real time and keep their spirit from TT.

[DocBach]

Kousagi, on 31 January 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

No, I didn't take it back... Your own quote, says it right there...

"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.".

by your interpretation of it, WHY would they need to use their eyes if their sensors can already see them at long range???

You Misinterpret "Normal Operating range", thats not my fault... Though its a moot point, cause PGI Also interprets it the same way I do... And as far I know, they do talk with the guys that made battletech to start with... So they might just know more about the rules then you do.

Thing is, LRM's and streaks in MWO are different then the ones in TT. So, that whole balance game there is left to PGI. Though really the way streaks work in TT it's kinda hard to bring them to a real time and keep their spirit from TT.

The quote says that radar can detect 'Mechs but can't identify them, (like the rules on page 52 of MaxTech describes) -- when they get into range and the sensors clear up to identify the unit, MechWarriors are already able to identify the 'Mechs with their eyeballs - but their sensors are still detecting the ECM'd target, and tracking the ECM'd target, able to use their self-guided LRM's against them. Yes, LRM's are self-guided in TT BattleTech, and if you want, I can post a whole bunch (more) of descriptions from various rulebooks and tech manuals that describe LRM's as being guided.

There is absolutely no definition of "normal operating range" to be an entire mapsheet in MaxTech, which you claim it is from. I have the original softbound book and a .pdf of the revised version and neither have any other ranges for ECM, in fact, on page 54 of MaxTech it tells the reader to refer to pages 130 and 137 for information on the ranges of ECM - which turns out is six hexes, not a mapsheet.

Edited by DocBach, 31 January 2013 - 10:15 PM.

[Kousagi]

DocBach, on 31 January 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

The quote says that radar can detect 'Mechs but can't identify them, (like the rules on page 52 of MaxTech describes) -- when they get into range and the sensors clear up to identify the unit, MechWarriors are already able to identify the 'Mechs with their eyeballs - but their sensors are still detecting the ECM'd target, and tracking the ECM'd target, able to use their self-guided LRM's against them. Yes, LRM's are self-guided in TT BattleTech, and if you want, I can post a whole bunch (more) of descriptions from various rulebooks and tech manuals that describe LRM's as being guided.

There is absolutely no definition of "normal operating range" to be an entire mapsheet in MaxTech, which you claim it is from. I have the original softbound book and a .pdf of the revised version and neither have any other ranges for ECM, in fact, on page 54 of MaxTech it tells the reader to refer to pages 130 and 137 for information on the ranges of ECM - which turns out is six hexes, not a mapsheet.

Again, you are just making up stuff... It says, right in the quote... use their eyes to track a target, not ID a target. BIG BIG BIG difference in those words. by your interpretation, If the sensors can see the mech, then why would they need to use their eye balls to ID a target, when visual sensors, that are not hurt in any way by ECM, can ID the type of mech? This even works just like MWO, if you are in 180 meters of a ECM mech, you still get target data for it, you just can't share it.


Again, I will say... You misinterpret the meaning of "Normal Operational Range", not my fault... PGI Interprets it the same way I do, so you fighting that point is moot.

[DocBach]

OK. I'll bite: What is your definition of "normal operational range?" And if you could, please support your definition with pages and annotations from your sources so I can confirm them for myself.

Again, beyond a disagreement over a single word in a paragraph of fluff, the rules you keep saying support your claims, actually do not in fact give ECM as much power as MWO, or what you say they the rules say ECM should do.

Page 52 of MaxTech (and I'm using MaxTech as a reference because the rules are largely unchanged in the newer TacOps, but you have it so you can check for yourself) explains how ECM can protect a unit from being scanned - ie, protects the enemy from receiving an accurate loadout or damage readout. Page 54 goes over how ECM affects spotting, including the rule stating to be affected by ECM the spotting unit must be in the operating radius of the ECM, and to refer to page 137 of BattleTech Master Rules for rules regarding the Operating Radius.

So we've gone over the rules for the fifteenth time, and again they come up showing ECM is nowhere near as powerful as PGI implemented. You claim the secret is in the phrase "normal operational range;" convince me, Show me something that contradicts the rule book telling me the operating range is indeed 6 hexes.

I've agreed that based on the spotting rules ECM could be used to disrupt targeting within 180 meters as the rules say it can, and could be implemented by a modifier delaying locks on weapons within 180 meters of the ECM 'Mech, but nothing, in any of the rules, say that ECM is completely impervious to radar locks at all ranges except 200 meters like we currently have.

Edited by DocBach, 31 January 2013 - 10:47 PM.

[Kousagi]

DocBach, on 31 January 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

OK. I'll bite: What is your definition of "normal operation range?" And if you could, please support your definition with pages and annotations from your sources so I can confirm them for myself.

Again, beyond a disagreement paragraph of fluff, the rules you keep saying support your claims, actually do not in fact give ECM as much power as MWO, or what you say they the rules say ECM should do.

Page 52 of MaxTech (and I'm using MaxTech as a reference because the rules are largely unchanged in the newer TacOps, but you have it so you can check for yourself) explains how ECM can protect a unit from being scanned - ie, protects the enemy from receiving an accurate loadout or damage readout. Page 54 goes over how ECM affects spotting, including the rule stating to be affected by ECM the spotting unit must be in the operating radius, and to refer to page 137 of BattleTech Master Rules for rules regarding the Operating Radius.

So we've gone over the rules for the fifteenth time, and again they come up showing ECM is nowhere near as powerful as PGI implemented. You claim the secret is in the phrase "operating range;" convince me, Show me something that contradicts the rule book telling me the operating range is indeed 6 hexes.

I know you keep using range, and I was wrong for copying that... The book itself says "normal operating radius" which radius and range do have different meanings. But again.. moot point, since PGI interprets it the same way I do, and I'm not going to go through piles of books just to post them, cause I don't really care that much.

Though please, for the (un)love of god(s) stop using TT as a reason for "The way things should be"....

[DocBach]

The book refers to the radius as being listed along with the ECM rules on page 137 of Battletech: Master Rules. The radius is 6 hexes.

PGI deviating from the radius being 180 and making their operating radius the whole game made their ECM OP. To keep in line with the thread topic, the new fixes require significantly more c-bills than ECM as well as GXP, which is an entirely different currency which can only be earned with either player time or real money. ECM fixes are unfair and fail to fix the actual problem, which is that PGI's implementation of ECM to try to fix their broken implementation of Streak missiles and LRMs broke even more stuff.