238 replies to this topic

[focuspark]

Actually stealth planes do both. Paint absorbs some, angled plates deflect the rest away from the radar sensor.

ECM is not stealth technology. We have ECM today. We've had it since WW2! It's well understood. What MW:O hasn't isn't ECM - fix it! or at least name it something else. Mystical Shield of Cloaking +5 sounds about right.

[Roughneck45]

focuspark, on 12 February 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Actually stealth planes do both. Paint absorbs some, angled plates deflect the rest away from the radar sensor.

ECM is not stealth technology. We have ECM today. We've had it since WW2! It's well understood. What MW:O hasn't isn't ECM - fix it! or at least name it something else. Mystical Shield of Cloaking +5 sounds about right.

Even if it is not the same, the end result is very similar to what we get in MWO.

Once again, RL=/=MWO.

Would you be happier if they called it an "R button defense field" instead of ECM? Because thats what it is.

Edited by Roughneck45, 12 February 2013 - 03:16 PM.

[focuspark]

Roughneck45, on 12 February 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Even if it is not the same, the end result is very similar to what we get in MWO.

Once again, RL=/=MWO.

Would you be happier if they called it an "R button defense field" instead of ECM? Because thats what it is.

Actually, yes I would.

The problem with MWO's version of ECM is that it's more effective than it should be and has no weakness. It's light, no heat, small, very effective, requires no skill, and offers no penalties.

Honestly, missiles should seek out the bright ECM beacon and slam into it. ECM should only be a shield for its teammates because missiles lock on to it and home in. Then the Atlas-D-DC would make sense... poor poor Raven though.

[Asmudius Heng]

Garth Erlam, on 12 February 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

"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."

Oh dear - Garth, you seem to have opened a can of worms here as your limited cut and paste did not really take into account the actual mechanics of how ECM works in TT.

MWO is not TT but the balance equation of usefulness vs tonnage/crit space/heat/etc al comes form the TT.

In TT if i fire my LRMs at an ECM mech i have the same chance to hit than a non ECM mech. This is not represented in MWO at all ...

You are only going to **** off a lot of people with comments like this that do not actually show any real understanding of BT and TT.

You would be better just saying you shanges ECM in MWO becasue you believe it is better this way.

I am a little dissapointed - I know the huge fury over ECM must really irritate you and the dev team but this is not the way to handle it ...

[Asmudius Heng]

focuspark, on 12 February 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

I think the issue with LRM is/was that the launcher can be behind a hill and raining down death on anyone his team can see, without much limitation or method to counter it. AMS doesn't counter squat and shouldn't.

IMO, the real problem here is that LRM continue to track for far too long. They should only lock a location and not a mech, if the mech moves the miss; of course they'd need to travel A LOT faster to make this balanced at all. Basically, LRM would be the anti-stupid weapon; as in do not stand still stupid!

I wrote a suggestion on how to change LRMs and SSRMs so that they are not too powerful and require more skill - and so ECM could be changed as to not be such a hard counter to them

http://mwomercs.com/...m-tagnarc-post/

The indirect fire and its accuracy is indeed the major problem. A light mech could charge into a brawl and then 5 mechs loaded with ECMs would destroy anything targeted without needing to expose themself.

If indirect fire was inaccurate and the groupings of the missiles were very spread it would be a tactical choice to fire direct (tighter grouping and damage) vs indirect (bad damage but dont need to expose to indirect fire).

Something I could see as helping though is adding a semi-guided system to LRMS if they INSIST on this silly implementation of ECM

LRMs track exactly where your reticle is, and the less you move the reticle the tighter the spread becomes.

This way you can manually guide LRMs into an enemy mech and if it stands still its going to hurt a lot - but if it is moving you can still guide the milles to splash the heck out of it. IF you have a lock of course the full guidance system takes over.

This would make LRMs a skill based direct fire weapon that requires a lot of tie and concentration to do damage but you are not totally screwed by ECM as you 'dumb fire' can actually hit.

This is the only way i see LRMs being effecive with the current ECM rules. SSRMs should be able to be dumb fired also - this still makes lights with ECM and streak OP though.

EDIT: added link to my thread.
I doubt that any of my suggestions even get looked at though *sigh*

Edited by Asmudius Heng, 12 February 2013 - 03:52 PM.

[Ter Ushaka]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 February 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

MWO is not TT

Thank you, drive through.

[Asmudius Heng]

Ter Ushaka, on 12 February 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

Thank you, drive through.

Yet is is based on BT and TT - wow glad you are not designing a game based of a popular franchise which people love - you might end up destroying its integrity, balance and flavour. Lucky us huh

[Shibas]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 February 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

Oh dear - Garth, you seem to have opened a can of worms here as your limited cut and paste did not really take into account the actual mechanics of how ECM works in TT.

MWO is not TT but the balance equation of usefulness vs tonnage/crit space/heat/etc al comes form the TT.

In TT if i fire my LRMs at an ECM mech i have the same chance to hit than a non ECM mech. This is not represented in MWO at all ...

You are only going to **** off a lot of people with comments like this that do not actually show any real understanding of BT and TT.

You would be better just saying you shanges ECM in MWO becasue you believe it is better this way.

I am a little dissapointed - I know the huge fury over ECM must really irritate you and the dev team but this is not the way to handle it ...

hahaha, Next stop, Far Country.

Edited by Shibas, 12 February 2013 - 03:55 PM.

[focuspark]

Yup, I had a big thread of ideas to fix missiles and ECM a long time ago as well.

http://mwomercs.com/...m-ssrm-and-ecm/

Mostly turned into a flame war about how I hated LRM users (not sure how).

[saq]

Shibas, on 12 February 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

So close.

I'm pretty sure this is at least the third time a ****** thread about ECM has been made so I think you sir have won a bingo!

[Asmudius Heng]

focuspark, on 12 February 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

Yup, I had a big thread of ideas to fix missiles and ECM a long time ago as well.

http://mwomercs.com/...m-ssrm-and-ecm/

Mostly turned into a flame war about how I hated LRM users (not sure how).

Yes that was a good one man - it is amazing the level of reading comprehension when people completely misinterpret your argument right.

I do not know if it is a lack of critical thinking or a deliberate troll though =/

[Shibas]

saq, on 12 February 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure this is at least the third time a ****** thread about ECM has been made so I think you sir have won a bingo!

Thank you, Thank you. It was a long and mind numbingly boring process to go through the posts and ensure a proper bingo. It finally paid off, I'd like to thank all the people in this thread that made this victory possible.

[wrecker666]

StalaggtIKE, on 12 February 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

Those suggestions are bandaids. What happens when at team with LRM with faster or more damaging missiles face a team without any ECM? They will easily win. It would be a repeat of before, the very problem ECM was created to fix. Choosing to go with or without ECM/LRM. Would be a gamble. It would be more so than a game in a casino.

The fact is ECM completely negates LRM. The mere existence of an item should not negate another. The fixes need to go towards toning ECM down. That's how you properly balance something.

ECM only negates LRM on its own. If a team mate has TAG or is inside the bubble then ECM is completely useless.
All your arguments about ECM bubbles and ECM completely negates sensors is pointless and completely rubbish.
AMS should be made more effective against incoming missiles. Nothing else need be taken out of the game or tweaked until this issue is addressed. Simple fix for a seemingly huge problem.
LRM's are far too effective, especially if someone is inside the ECM bubble or has a TAG unit. Come on, a weapon that locks on and then is trackable after firing. Only an ***** could miss.
Have a range limitter on the tracking ability or remove it completely.
As for this moan about sensor effectiveness against ECM, everyone who plays this game has the only sensors needed to take down a mech under ECM, and they are in your head not in a mech. Your EYES.
You dont need to lock a mech to kill a mech.
Each mech has an aiming reticule.
Try pointing it in the direction of the big bad mech and fire your weapons a it.
It works for those who dont have LRMs or ECM and they dont whinge about it.

[focuspark]

Shibas, on 12 February 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Thank you, Thank you. It was a long and mind numbingly boring process to go through the posts and ensure a proper bingo. It finally paid off, I'd like to thank all the people in this thread that made this victory possible.

Dude... that whole chart is full. Everybody loses

[Asmudius Heng]

wrecker666, on 12 February 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

ECM only negates LRM on its own. If a team mate has TAG or is inside the bubble then ECM is completely useless.
All your arguments about ECM bubbles and ECM completely negates sensors is pointless and completely rubbish.
AMS should be made more effective against incoming missiles. Nothing else need be taken out of the game or tweaked until this issue is addressed. Simple fix for a seemingly huge problem.
LRM's are far too effective, especially if someone is inside the ECM bubble or has a TAG unit. Come on, a weapon that locks on and then is trackable after firing. Only an ***** could miss.
Have a range limitter on the tracking ability or remove it completely.
As for this moan about sensor effectiveness against ECM, everyone who plays this game has the only sensors needed to take down a mech under ECM, and they are in your head not in a mech. Your EYES.
You dont need to lock a mech to kill a mech.
Each mech has an aiming reticule.
Try pointing it in the direction of the big bad mech and fire your weapons a it.
It works for those who dont have LRMs or ECM and they dont whinge about it.

This is why most people who look critically at ECM implementation are in agreement that LRMs and SSRMs need to change first before ECM can be changed.

[Codejack]

Roughneck45, on 12 February 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Even if it is not the same, the end result is very similar to what we get in MWO.

No; not at all.

[roflplanes]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 February 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

Oh dear - Garth, you seem to have opened a can of worms here as your limited cut and paste did not really take into account the actual mechanics of how ECM works in TT.

MWO is not TT but the balance equation of usefulness vs tonnage/crit space/heat/etc al comes form the TT.

In TT if i fire my LRMs at an ECM mech i have the same chance to hit than a non ECM mech. This is not represented in MWO at all ...

You are only going to **** off a lot of people with comments like this that do not actually show any real understanding of BT and TT.

You would be better just saying you shanges ECM in MWO becasue you believe it is better this way.

I am a little dissapointed - I know the huge fury over ECM must really irritate you and the dev team but this is not the way to handle it ...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in BT I'm fairly certain that LRMs weren't the computer-guided artillery weapons they are in MW:O. In fact, they were dumb-fire (and DIRECT fire...) missiles with no homing system at all aside from the (optional) Artemis system. Hence the reason shooting LRMs at an ECM 'Mech would have the same hit chance as a non-ECM 'Mech.

Am I confused or misremembering?

[focuspark]

roflplanes, on 12 February 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in BT I'm fairly certain that LRMs weren't the computer-guided artillery weapons they are in MW:O. In fact, they were dumb-fire (and DIRECT fire...) missiles with no homing system at all aside from the (optional) Artemis system. Hence the reason shooting LRMs at an ECM 'Mech would have the same hit chance as a non-ECM 'Mech.

Am I confused or misremembering?

They could be used for indirect fire, but they weren't homing like they are in MW:O.

[Asmudius Heng]

roflplanes, on 12 February 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in BT I'm fairly certain that LRMs weren't the computer-guided artillery weapons they are in MW:O. In fact, they were dumb-fire (and DIRECT fire...) missiles with no homing system at all aside from the (optional) Artemis system. Hence the reason shooting LRMs at an ECM 'Mech would have the same hit chance as a non-ECM 'Mech.

Am I confused or misremembering?

It doesnt really say in TT i think ... however the to hit chance or LRMs was just as good as any other weapon with the same range.

Without homing you would hardly every hit anything dumb firing LRMs in MWO which is why I suggsted it be semi guided, you have to point your reticle a the desired location and the missiles will follow. This would allow you to drag your missiles into the enemy and have it splash over them requiring more skill but not a lock.

I still think the lock mechanics can work essepcially for indirect fire which is a new thing from TT but a good addition if done right with spotters etc.

So basically LRMs were changed a lot form TT and for the better in some ways but required tweaking heavily and still do - as does ECM in my opinion but only after they make LRMs balanced without ECM first

[roflplanes]

focuspark, on 12 February 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

They could be used for indirect fire, but they weren't homing like they are in MW:O.

Gotcha, I knew I remembered SOMETHING about trees messing with my LRMs haha.