Jump to content

My Conclusion On Ecm


71 replies to this topic

#41 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:40 PM

View PostDavers, on 18 February 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:



Honestly, if they kept ECM at a very basic level with modules allowing the 'game breaking' effects I don't think there would have been nearly as much outcry- and combined with matchmaking would keep ECM out of matches with players stuck in trial mechs.

I guess the problem is the Devs wanted a powerful game-changing piece of equipment, but that doesn't work as well in a system without 'tiered' equipment.


http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Actually, I wrote out an essay pretty much saying the exact same thing. Beagle Active Probe, for instance, has a lot more function in the source material that was stripped from it and included as modules. ECM could be balanced significantly by giving its base function all it does in the basic Battletech rules (block C3, TAG, Artemis, and Narc), and expand its more advanced features to tiered modules. Not only would it bring a lot more balance to the game, it'd make players pick and choose what functions they want to provide with their ECM, and as modules cost GXP, could provide more revenue opportunity to PGI.

#42 Davers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanada

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:44 PM

View PostDocBach, on 18 February 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:


http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Actually, I wrote out an essay pretty much saying the exact same thing. Beagle Active Probe, for instance, has a lot more function in the source material that was stripped from it and included as modules. ECM could be balanced significantly by giving its base function all it does in the basic Battletech rules (block C3, TAG, Artemis, and Narc), and expand its more advanced features to tiered modules. Not only would it bring a lot more balance to the game, it'd make players pick and choose what functions they want to provide with their ECM, and as modules cost GXP, could provide more revenue opportunity to PGI.

LOL maybe one day Narc will be useful enough to warrant a piece of equipment designed to nullify it.

#43 Doc Holliday

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 377 posts
  • Locationplaying some other game that's NOT PAY TO WIN

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:46 PM

So in conclusion, ECM is still broken OP.

#44 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:46 PM

Whole different topic right there -- Narc, like Beagle had most of its usefulness removed and transplanted into modules. Target Decay should be prevented by Narc so a target lit up by Narc could be attacked by indirect fire, even without a spotter with LOS to it, indefinitely until the location hit by the Narc is destroyed. That right there is a scary function that would make finding the nearest ECM umbrella something you'd want to do right quick and in a hurry.

#45 Davers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanada

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:59 PM

View PostDoc Holliday, on 18 February 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

So in conclusion, ECM is still broken OP.

I dunno. All I am really getting out of it is that ECM is bad for new players in trial mechs (which is not a very smart design granted) and that the planned future implementation of C3 will fix most of the problems everyone else is having.

#46 Kousagi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 676 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:00 PM

View PostDocBach, on 18 February 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:


I say use TT's electronic warfare as a base line, starting with enhancing the Beagle and Narc to actually do what they are suppose to do.

By the way, went to the Classic Battletech forums and asked the writers what they meant about that rule we disagreed over saying you had to be within the radius of the Guardian ECM to disrupt sensors.


Slightly doubt you talked with the guy that wrote that section. Though, Mechwarrior rule book even explains ECM radar disruption the same way I interpret double blind rules. In "Mechwarrior's guide to solaris VII" which has the Roleplay Mech Combat rules, Just having or being in a friendly ECM bubble makes you harder to detect. PGI even sees these rules the same way, and from what I understand, they talk with the guys that made battletech/mechwarrior.

Just saying....

#47 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:07 PM

You can read it yourself on classic battletech's "ask the writers" section

Being inside a friendly bubble should only make it more difficult for enemy detection if the enemy is also within the bubble. If the enemy is outside of the bubble he can target and track you, but not receive data on you. Think of it like this... why would there be rules on scanning ecm mechs if you cant even target them to scan them?

Edited by DocBach, 18 February 2013 - 07:28 PM.


#48 ArmandTulsen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,184 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:32 PM

View PostKousagi, on 18 February 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

*sigh* Oh look, Another ECM thread... Lets see how many times the same thing is repeated. The horse, its dead. Let it Rest in peace...
No! **** that ****! ECM is a win button. It's ******* A.I.D.S.It needs to be nerfed to oblivion. Or at least, back to how it should be functioning.Every time I read "working as intended" being quoted it's like you get that twitch.

#49 Jesus Box

    Clone

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • LocationInside a gold painted D-DC

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:52 PM

It’s not for profit and the gain is the misery
We’re the germ and the pain is the industry
And we came in the name of the enemy
Habit’s a pill that is easy to swallow
We’re beating dead horses (we know)
Beating dead horses
It’s not for fame, not for love or nobility
We’re the germ and the pain is stupidity
If the sign is to find our futility

#50 Kousagi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 676 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:55 PM

View PostDocBach, on 18 February 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

You can read it yourself on classic battletech's "ask the writers" section

Being inside a friendly bubble should only make it more difficult for enemy detection if the enemy is also within the bubble. If the enemy is outside of the bubble he can target and track you, but not receive data on you. Think of it like this... why would there be rules on scanning ecm mechs if you cant even target them to scan them?


See now, Paul in the thread gets it. He says the same things I say. Though as much as I like the guy, hes not a writer. Hes a site maintenance guy. Though you should listen to him. PGI and Mechwarrior rule book says the same thing I do, Just double blind is worded oddly to be interpreted different ways. But at the end of the day, its all a moot point what TT rule books say...

If you look at the scanning rules, it does not take double blind in to account, As it starts off with " any unit not deployed under the hidden unit rule is visible to a opponent as soon as game play starts"... Though common sense here says, if your mech can't see or detect it, how would it scan it?

#51 Team Leader

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,222 posts
  • LocationUrbanmech and Machine Gun Advocate

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:02 PM

You would think the sheer volume of arguments for and against ECM would be proof enough for everyone that something about it is, in fact, out of whack

#52 Pihb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:54 PM

Whats this? The third ecm post today. /yawn

#53 Voidsinger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,340 posts
  • LocationAstral Space

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:57 PM

One thing I would like to see, is Beagle getting a buff, and giving normal sensor info to an equipped mech.

Just the sensory stuff as in passive unjammable sensors (thermal, magnetic, sound location, seismic). This would be mountable on all mechs. It also wouldn't take a weapons slot like TAG does.

If hitting an ECM field, I feel a BAP-equipped mech should:
- Lose all Beagle enhanced sensor bonuses.
- Retain standard sensory functions (passive targeting).
- Lose all communications related equipment functionality (Artemis, NARC, C3...)

It buffs BAP, loses the stupidity of the TAG counter (painting laser hits target and tells you everything?)

Makes BAP very desirable again. The buff itself is far less than ECM was.

As an alternative, has anyone thought that the radar from an ECM mech would itself make the mech targetable? That would preclude use of technologies it jams because it would need to be an active emitter/receiver and these could be traced back? This would mean if a Guardian mech uses Streaks, it would itself be targetable by Streaks.

#54 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:04 PM

View PostKousagi, on 18 February 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:


See now, Paul in the thread gets it. He says the same things I say. Though as much as I like the guy, hes not a writer. Hes a site maintenance guy. Though you should listen to him. PGI and Mechwarrior rule book says the same thing I do, Just double blind is worded oddly to be interpreted different ways. But at the end of the day, its all a moot point what TT rule books say...

If you look at the scanning rules, it does not take double blind in to account, As it starts off with " any unit not deployed under the hidden unit rule is visible to a opponent as soon as game play starts"... Though common sense here says, if your mech can't see or detect it, how would it scan it?


Did you and I read different things that he said, or something? He clearly stated that the rules do not work as you keep putting it, with your "effective radius being an entire mapsheet" and what not, and plain as day says to have sensors be interfered with by ECM the 'Mech making the sensor check has to be within the bubble. He does go on to state that this game is made by PGI, and that it is their call to make changes to the game to make it more fun...

https://mwomercs.com...__fromsearch__1

Newsflash: This non-biased poll has almost 1,000 votes in it, with more people saying that ECM has made the game much less fun, than people who say it made the game somewhat or much more fun combined.

In regards to your use of MechWarrior's Guide to Solaris VII as a source, I would hazard to guess that the 600m effective range they listed was in error, as all the other rulebooks available at the time listed it at 180 meters. The +2 TN ability ECM gives against sensor rolls is much less dramatic than the effects listed in the more current Tactical Operations when you take into consideration that MechWarrior 3rd Edition used 20 sided dice for rolls. Either way,

http://bg.battletech....html#msg495678

shows that "Every product featured herein is no longer supported [including the mentioned MechWarrior's Guide to Solaris VII]! That means there should not be a single rules question or Ask The Devs request made about the rules found in this stuff (background info is still fair game, although the older the book, the less likely you are to get an answer). In case of any contradiction between any item featured here and more recent rules, the more recent rules take 100% precedence."

The more recent rules, from Tactical Operations, were clarified by Paul as requiring a 'Mech be inside the actual ECM bubble to have their sensors be affected by ECM's disruption.

Edited by DocBach, 18 February 2013 - 09:50 PM.


#55 Red squirrel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,626 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:46 PM

View PostRashhaverak, on 18 February 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

That's not really accurate. The devs have answered this question, most recently in the "ask the devs 30 answers". The answer might not have been the answer some people wanted, but it was an answer none-the-less. The answer was, "There are a lot of personal opinions about how ECM should work. ECM is currently under review and will undergo minor tweaks along with additions to help counter/disrupt the ECM effects."

Just because it's not the answer you might have given doesn't mean it isn't an answer. But by all means, keep asking the question anyways.


Oh sorry, I forgot to count "We're looking into it."
as an answer for approx. 10000 posts about the topic. :D

#56 Red squirrel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,626 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:50 PM

View PostDocBach, on 18 February 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:


This is pretty much exactly how it's suppose to function, minus the blocking of Streak missiles.




The book TechManual describes that all 'Mechs can share target information without C3 -- a C3 system would go above and beyond what we have now. Right now when you target a 'Mech, that's the only information your team mates receive, even if you have five other enemies on radar. Teammates can only target what other teammates are targeting. Implementation of C3 would allow you to target what your other teammates detect on radar.


Since Streaks are much more powerful than in TT I can understand the extra anti SSRM feature of the MWO ECM

#57 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:09 PM

If MWO handled lock-on disruption only affecting a 'Mech inside of an enemy ECM bubble, ECM would still serve as a Streak missile deterrent. However, because getting a lock on an ECM equipped 'Mech, even while in the bubble is not impossible, the negative effects should probably just be more in line with a longer lock on time, rather than a complete negation of a lock on system.

#58 Red squirrel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,626 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:39 AM

Now that teams start to get more balanced it get even more obvious how unbalanced ECM is.

I had some fairly equal matches today and in the end they were mostly determined by
1) Which team had a disconnect (7 vs 8)
2) Which team had the ECM Streak Raven

With the PPC effect Atals D-DCs get a nice nerf. But I just watched a RVN-3L own an Awesome (ER-PPC + SSRMs).
Even though the PPCs stopped the ECM several times it was never enough to actually get an SSR on target.
And let's not speak about getting an LRM volley on target.....


But for me right now the worst thing are the attempts to balance ECM using modules.
Mainly because they are not available to new players.
Further, it's a logic where something is broken and you invent a new mechanic as a work around

SSRM OP -> ECM
ECM OP -> modules
modules --> what will be next in the chain?



It's just so sad EW is just about a single piece of equipment.

Edited by Red squirrel, 21 February 2013 - 10:41 AM.


#59 Strig

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 235 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:59 AM

The OP has completely valid points, particularly the fact that ECM is on the wrong mechs. The presence of lack of ECM on a chassis should make one decide between two equally useful mechs. As it is, there is no reason to take any other commando except to level them up so you can master the Commando 2D. The Raven is essentially the same (although some might argue that at least the jump-jet variant has something to offer). The same holds true for the Atlas (with the possible exception of the RS which offers considerably different build options compared to the others).

ECM should have been on these mechs (IMHO) cannon be damned:
  • COM-1B (3e, 1m) (weakest commando, nothing to recommend it over the rest)
  • SDR-5D (3e) ... (really, any of the spiders are fine, this one can stay as is)
  • RVN-2X (4e, 1m) (no JJ, no engine upgrade and least missiles)
  • CDA-3C (1e, 4b) (probably fine in the 3M but the 3C is the worst and ECM would make it a viable choice)
  • AS7-K (4e, 1b, 1m) (weakest Atlas. 1 less module slot than D-DC, 1 less hardpoint than all the others! Extra AMS doesn't make up for this, but it could imply that the AS7-K is designed as a long-range support anti-missile platform ... which makes it the natural fit for ECM and would make this chasis a viable option as opposed to taking any of the others)
I also agree that ECM is currently doing too many things.

Don't misunderstand me: I like all the things it does, I just think it should be multiple pieces of Electronic Warfare equipment and modules that accomplish the same effects, not just one UBER item.

#60 Red squirrel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,626 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:27 PM

View PostStrig, on 21 February 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

The OP has completely valid points, particularly the fact that ECM is on the wrong mechs. The presence of lack of ECM on a chassis should make one decide between two equally useful mechs. As it is, there is no reason to take any other commando except to level them up so you can master the Commando 2D. The Raven is essentially the same (although some might argue that at least the jump-jet variant has something to offer). The same holds true for the Atlas (with the possible exception of the RS which offers considerably different build options compared to the others).

ECM should have been on these mechs (IMHO) cannon be damned:
  • COM-1B (3e, 1m) (weakest commando, nothing to recommend it over the rest)
  • SDR-5D (3e) ... (really, any of the spiders are fine, this one can stay as is)
  • RVN-2X (4e, 1m) (no JJ, no engine upgrade and least missiles)
  • CDA-3C (1e, 4b) (probably fine in the 3M but the 3C is the worst and ECM would make it a viable choice)
  • AS7-K (4e, 1b, 1m) (weakest Atlas. 1 less module slot than D-DC, 1 less hardpoint than all the others! Extra AMS doesn't make up for this, but it could imply that the AS7-K is designed as a long-range support anti-missile platform ... which makes it the natural fit for ECM and would make this chasis a viable option as opposed to taking any of the others)
I also agree that ECM is currently doing too many things.


Don't misunderstand me: I like all the things it does, I just think it should be multiple pieces of Electronic Warfare equipment and modules that accomplish the same effects, not just one UBER item.


Also the K variant of the Jenner would be a good choice (originally the D variant was supposed to get it - again worst choice)





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users