Topic: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

It appears to me that ECM is somewhat underpowered when compared to Sensor Suppression.
Sensor Suppressors are reliable, once they are active you can be sure of them achieving something.
With ECM you can never be sure when it kicks in and if it isn't already too late once it does.
Sensor Suppressors have superior range, lower energy usage and demand less CPU and reactor capacity.

While Sensor amplifiers counteract the effects of Sensor supressors, they also happen to be the most sensible thing to use against ECM.
Since ECM breaks your lock, you'll naturally attempt to relock your target. With enough Sensor amps your target might not even notice that you've been jammed at all. With the upcoming industry revamp named sensor boosters will become available, reducing a decently skilled pilots locking time by 70% per module. Now imagine 3 of them on a mech and think about how much he cares if he has to relock his targat occasionally.

It could be argued that one is supposed to combine ECM and Suppressors but I don't really see the point in that. If you have the manpower to bring more EW to the field, you might aswell have them use even more suppressors. After all you know that those are going to have a noticable effect on your enemy while ECM might just annoy them a little.

Also an Intakt is faster than a Cameleon while offering better protection at the same time and to a lesser extent this is also ture for the Zenith when compared to the Vagabond.

So... Am I missing something or is there really no reason to prefer ECM over Sensor suppression?

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

ok, i've read your post a bit fast, but i think you have mixed supressor with booster in some sentences wink

but hell, i agree with you. Supressing your enemy is more effective and reliable then ECM.

both modules need a full lock to be used. so if the player with supressor gets the faster lock, he can slow down the ecm users lock and even break it with the locking range reduction.

The ECM user on the other hand, needs a full lock to get the chance to break his oponents lock, and then he can relock again.

now if you count the countermeasures in - both need to equip sensor-boosters anyway, to either lock faster or just to counter the supressor. ECCM is optional but eventually necessary on heavy-mechs with their low base-sensor-strength.

it looks balanced, but IMHO it isnt.
With even skills and equip, the one with the supressor will most likely win, because he can prevent the ecm-user from using the ECM with almost 100% chance. Perhaps not on the first try, but ECM just has to miss once.

Last thing to look at, are the extensions:

ECM:

Jamming electronics [3] (tactics & mechatronics)
complex jamming electronics [5] (research/development & mechatronics)

Sensor-supressor:

Sensor supressing [5] (research/development & mechatronics)
Sensor-connection [3] (research/development & mechatronics)

someone could do the math EP-wise for a combat-skilled player. both will need "sensor connection" to use the boosters

Last edited by Bunkerkind Anni (2010-02-22 18:28:08)

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Bud Fug wrote:

With the upcoming industry revamp named sensor boosters will become available, reducing a decently skilled pilots locking time by 70% per module. Now imagine 3 of them on a mech and think about how much he cares if he has to relock his targat occasionally.

Myself and others in my corp already do this with our PvP fits (Best named drops), ECM and Suppressor proof.

To fix ECM is needs to jam the entire cycle and have the cycle time / acc consumption modified.

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

We've just done some testing to determine how effective suppressors really are and to test if the formula actually works like I expected it to. It does. We've used a Kain with 3 Sensor Amps and an Intakt to rape it's sensors.
This is what we got:

622m - 2,35sec - clean
401m - 4,37sec - 1 suppressor
259m - 8,14sec - 2 suppressors
167m - 15,15sec - 3 suppressors
108m - 28,22sec - 4 suppressors

The Intakt has been using Thelotec-Stellis Sensor Suppressors, reducing Locking range by 36% and increasing Locking time by 86%. Every succeeding suppressor applied it's effects to whatever values came out after the previous one was done with them. There is no stacking penalty whatsoever. How does this compare to 4 ECMs at all? While an Intakt probably isn't going to use 4 of those on you, a zenith might do that and pretty much take you out of combat entirely.
There is however another issue with them... How the frack am I even getting 86% on those things?
Basic Robotics 7 gives me 21%, Sensor suppressing 4 another 12%. How does this add up to the 115% that I must be getting in order to increase the suppressors base value of 40% all the way up to 86%?
The value for range reduction is off aswell and overall it reminds me alot of the way the 'sensor connection' extension is increasing a sensor amp's locking time bonus way too much.

So what we have here is a conceptually superior EW mechanic, that is being used on overall superior bots/mechs and on top of that it's also getting some ridiculously bugged up bonuses applied to it. That's not very balanced now, is it?

Bunkerkind Anni wrote:

ok, i've read your post a bit fast, but i think you have mixed supressor with booster in some sentences wink

I've mixed up sensor amplifiers with sensor boosters which is what they are called in 'that other game'... shame on me sad

Bunkerkind Anni wrote:

both modules need a full lock to be used. so if the player with supressor gets the faster lock, he can slow down the ecm users lock and even break it with the locking range reduction.

Take a good look at those numbers up there and take into consideration that a Vagabond or even an Ictus will not be running around with 2 or more sensor amps in his head. Do you really think he's even going to get done locking his target before he dies?

Bunkerkind Anni wrote:

ECCM is optional but eventually necessary on heavy-mechs with their low base-sensor-strength.

Why would anyone do that?
It's not preventing you from getting jammed, it just decreases the chance a little and does absolutely nothing beyond that. Sensor amps on the other hand are always useful.

Styx wrote:

To fix ECM is needs to jam the entire cycle and have the cycle time / acc consumption modified.

Guess that would be the easiest way to go about it.

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Suppressors got some dated values. Seems like there was some mistake when seeding the market...

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

to make ECM usable, is to make the bot to be jammed for the duration of the jammer module.

Right now it only drops lock and is quickly re aquired.

Styx wrote:

To fix ECM is needs to jam the entire cycle and have the cycle time / acc consumption modified.

Styx wrote:

To fix ECM is needs to jam the entire cycle and have the cycle time / acc consumption modified.

Styx wrote:

To fix ECM is needs to jam the entire cycle and have the cycle time / acc consumption modified.

Styx wrote:

To fix ECM is needs to jam the entire cycle and have the cycle time / acc consumption modified.

Last edited by Siddy (2010-02-23 01:22:53)

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Maynard Benaui wrote:

Suppressors got some dated values. Seems like there was some mistake when seeding the market...

I'd really like to know what seeding stuff on the market has to do with any of this...

I've just checked how the extension and bot bonuses are being applied to ECM Bots and guess what: They actually add up in a sensible way. Jamming electronics 5, Complex jamming electronics 4 and advanced robotics 5 make for 52% increase in ECM strength and that's exactly what you get. 30*1.52=45.6 rounded up that would be 46 and that's what my module shows me.
How the values for the suppressors and amplifiers are calculated eludes me though...
Would you apply the way the formula seems to work for ECM, I'd be getting 53.2% Locking time and -28.5% Locking range on them. Not 86% Locking time and -36% Locking range.

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Bud Fug wrote:

I'd really like to know what seeding stuff on the market has to do with any of this...

I've just checked how the extension and bot bonuses are being applied to ECM Bots and guess what: They actually add up in a sensible way. Jamming electronics 5, Complex jamming electronics 4 and advanced robotics 5 make for 52% increase in ECM strength and that's exactly what you get. 30*1.52=45.6 rounded up that would be 46 and that's what my module shows me.
How the values for the suppressors and amplifiers are calculated eludes me though...
Would you apply the way the formula seems to work for ECM, I'd be getting 53.2% Locking time and -28.5% Locking range on them. Not 86% Locking time and -36% Locking range.

At some point, Supressors were considered way too strong, especialy the range reduction effect. Then it got nerfed to 15%, slipped out with some patch at 20% value and now they are at 35%, which is the original number, I think.

So what you are looking at is not 'correct' values.

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Maynard Benaui wrote:

So what you are looking at is not 'correct' values.

Yeah, those aren't correct values, all right. A 33% bonus boosting stuff by 115% isn't correct by any means.
But it's not like it's just some display bug, those values, meaning the targeting time and range modifiers, are applied to the other mech exacly as they are being shown by the modules. We tested it, he couldn't lock me unless I was standing in the range his mech info was displaying and that's what I've written down up there.

I still don't get what you mean by 'correct values'.

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Bud Fug wrote:

Yeah, those aren't correct values, all right. A 33% bonus boosting stuff by 115% isn't correct by any means.
But it's not like it's just some display bug, those values, meaning the targeting time and range modifiers, are applied to the other mech exacly as they are being shown by the modules. We tested it, he couldn't lock me unless I was standing in the range his mech info was displaying and that's what I've written down up there.

I still don't get what you mean by 'correct values'.

You are looking at modules with stats that are probably not supposed to be there - incorrect.

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Maynard Benaui wrote:

You are looking at modules with stats that are probably not supposed to be there - incorrect.

It's not about the base stats those modules should or shouldn't have.
If my skills and my bot combined give me a 33% bonus to something with a base value of 40%, I expect to get 40*1.33=53.5% out of it.
Instead I end up with 86%. That means we're talking about 40*2.15=86
I'm talking about the modifier marked red being outright worng.
It does not matter if the base stat of the module is 40, 400 or 1337, the modifier applied to it is not correct.

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Bud Fug wrote:

It's not about the base stats those modules should or shouldn't have.
If my skills and my bot combined give me a 33% bonus to something with a base value of 40%, I expect to get 40*1.33=53.5% out of it.
Instead I end up with 86%. That means we're talking about 40*2.15=86
I'm talking about the modifier marked red being outright worng.
It does not matter if the base stat of the module is 40, 400 or 1337, the modifier applied to it is not correct.

If the displayed values are not reflecting the malus applied, it is worthy posting in bug forums, imo smile


NOTE:
It seems that the values on supressors are 'correct', my bad.

Last edited by Maynard Benaui (2010-02-23 10:53:04)

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Maynard Benaui wrote:

At some point, Supressors were considered way too strong, especialy the range reduction effect. Then it got nerfed to 15%, slipped out with some patch at 20% value and now they are at 35%, which is the original number, I think.

So what you are looking at is not 'correct' values.

Base suppressor is -15% range reduction, best named is -25%. Did you even think to check those figures before using them as the sole bit of information in your argument?

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

oh man,
bud

shame on you

you did translate the 33% into factor "1,33"... but why didn't you do the same for the 40%?

1,4*1,33 = 1,86 = 86%

also, whats the problem with the locking times there?
the intact is an EW-bot with bonuses for supressors,
equipped with four of the best supressors availiable,

and the kain had three standard boosters...

and what i see, is,
that after three supressors, the locking-time of the kain is back to standard + 3 seconds.

which means - three standard booster did almost negate the effect of 3 best supressors. (locking skills are not mentioned, so a cant comment on those)

i had expected some numbers, way off... but those can be dealt with.

and all those numbers are not related to the fact that ECM is less usable then supressors.
i wrote all my arguments about that - and you even tried to counter them...
*would add a vagabond-facepalm-image here if i had one*

Last edited by Bunkerkind Anni (2010-02-23 20:58:35)

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Bunkerkind Anni wrote:

shame on you

you did translate the 33% into factor "1,33"... but why didn't you do the same for the 40%?

1,4*1,33 = 1,86 = 86%

also, whats the problem with the locking times there?

Somehow that didn't even occur to me but you're totally right. Epic Fail on my part there.

So at least those formulas work as intended so we can scratch that off the list, still that's some pretty impressive scaling right there.
You still have to consider that this factor 1.33 bonus does way more to increase the suppressors efficiency than a 1.52 bonus does for ECM as it't not multiplied with another factor but just with a fixed number.

Bunkerkind Anni wrote:

and all those numbers are not related to the fact that ECM is less usable then supressors.
i wrote all my arguments about that - and you even tried to counter them...

No I didn't. Like I told you yesterday in chat, I just don't think you sufficiently expressed that an ECM Bot/Mech would not even get the chance to use his ECM at all as he would be suppressed before he could get in range to use them, because suppressors have superior range.

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Since we've startet talking about sensor suppression in some other thread, let's have a look the numbers of the involved modules again.
These are the best named items with maximal extensions:

Thelotec-Stellis Sensor Suppressor
Locking range -40%
Locking time 124%

Ambassador SU-I Sensor Amplifier
Locking range 45%
Locking time -102%

So yeah, one sensor amp pretty much cancels out another sensor suppressor.
This makes sensor amps mandatory modules for pvp. They counter suppression, they push locking times so far down that being jammed is reduced to a mild annoyance and even if no EW is thrown at you, they are still nice to have. Styx already stated that M2S PvP fits involve sufficient amps to make them pretty much EW proof.
Whether one likes the idea of amps being mandatory or not is an entirely different issue, for now this is the reality we're looking at. In this reality we have PvP mechs running around with locking times of maybe 2 or 3 seconds or less, depending on how many amps they have, but I doubt they'll use any less than two.
That means, if you really happen to jam someone like that, you better hope that his weapons were about to cycle in the 2 seconds he has to relock, otherwise it didn't do anything at all.

With that in mind, ECM becomes practically useless. Anni's idea to make ECM work before attaining a full lock on the target would help in some sort of EW-Bot/Mech 1on1, but it would do nothing about your average grunt in a mech with amps.
For ECM to be worth using it needs to do something beyond breaking the lock. Jamming the target for 5 seconds might suffice, 10 seconds would even make up for the ECM-Bots/Mechs being so crappy stat-wise when compared to the suppression ones.

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

to be more precisely:

ECM without lock should be able to breack attackers lock on me
ECM with full lock should work like it does now - break ALL locks of the target.

and additional,
we need some jam running down the screen of the target big_smile

Last edited by Bunkerkind Anni (2010-03-04 04:24:06)

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Bunkerkind Anni wrote:

to be more precisely:

ECM without lock should be able to breack attackers lock on me
ECM with full lock should work like it does now - break ALL locks of the target.

and additional,
we need some jam running down the screen of the target big_smile

ECM without lock is the precise reason that they stopped all modules from being activated until the target is locked - because it was bugged to hell and fixing it was out of the question.

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

no, it was not ecm...
at least not ecm alone.

it was a fail because NOTHING needed a full lock. especially missiles (100% Chance to hit) and laser (99% Chance to hit)

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Bunkerkind Anni wrote:

no, it was not ecm...
at least not ecm alone.

it was a fail because NOTHING needed a full lock. especially missiles (100% Chance to hit) and laser (99% Chance to hit)

I think you'll find it was bugged EW.

Re: ECM vs Sensor Suppression

Bunkerkind Anni wrote:

no, it was not ecm...
at least not ecm alone.

it was a fail because NOTHING needed a full lock. especially missiles (100% Chance to hit) and laser (99% Chance to hit)

The old targeting system allowing to aggress someone without a full lock was causing numerous issues - like bugged e-war.

There was quite an effort put into making it work and alternate ways like having 2 separate targeting systems for weapons and e-war but it did not work as intended and at some point the targeting system was scrapped as it turned out not possible to fix without sinking too much time on it.