2028 replies to this topic

[MaxllmuS]

Stalker didnt have ECM.

[steelblueskies]

MaxllmuS, on 18 December 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Stalker didnt have ECM.

3fb did

[Umbra8]

Vodrin Thales, on 18 December 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

I think a lot of posters are hung up here on the differences between ECM in TT and in MWO. ECM is definitely much more powerful in MWO than in the TT game, and the dev's have already stated the reasons for this difference. They apparently did not like the fact that pure missile mechs like a pure LRM boat or an SRM cat were so effective. They intended ECM to make these types of builds much less viable.

The only thing they needed to do in this instance is have guided ordinance lose lock once it entered the 180 meter bubble generated by ECM. Thats it. Other than that they could have (and should have) left ECM strictly tabletop, killing Artemis, BAP, NARC and C3 targeting within (and only within) it's 180 meter bubble. That would have been more than enough for its weight and crit allotment. As it is they've introduced a Guardian/Stealth Armour combo with AOE thats not even close to TT (you could add the stealth component to your own mech in TT if you were willing to give up 12 more crit slots and 10 heat while it was active), and aside from throwing the metagame into a spin its kinda pissed the Battletech fans (right here) as its a change that is not only not cannon, but reckless and unnecessary.

On the issue of the relevance of TT. It's kind of important. There are some people who are fans of the game because they like robots or the slower, methodical pace or the dynamic of no respawns without having a history with the Battletech universe. There is another group however who are very much invested in Battletech, and are supporting this game because it is making a faithful attempt at interpreting the Battletech TT experience into a real time sim. It's no mistake that the stock heat/weapon values match TT despite it probably being a huge pain to actually represent that explicitly in a real-time sim vs a turn-based pencil and paper game. As one of those people, I don't mind the many interface errors or system bugs, those will be resolved in time, but it's when I see a heavy divergence from the Battletech cannon, especially when I don't see a legitimate reason for doing so, that I start to become concerned about my investment, in all senses of the word.

Edited by Umbra8, 18 December 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[shadN]

How do I actually build in an ECM into my DDC? It has got 2 slots, while only 1 slot is free in the head.

[Tolkien]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 18 December 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

2000 posts!

It's also got more views than my user.cfg fix thread in closed beta. First thread that has managed that I think

bumping to get to 2000 posts before it's archived...mwhahaha

don't delete this Paul

*ducks*

It's been a wild ride, and I've only been on it from about page 60. I'd like to thank all the contributors to the ECM debate both pro and con, especially those that were willing to have good natured back and forth. Given the huge amount of text we've got in here, it stayed pretty on topic most of the time which is a great thing.

I can't be all positive right now though as we still need to see how the devs are going to respond to the huge community outcry that came largely from the people in this thread who really dug into the issue and more or less insisted on knowing how these sorts of balance decisions are coming out so one sided. For the good of the game it's not good to have the game balance swing from one extreme to the other with each patch.

I know we are still in beta, but this is now open beta. There are banners all over the internet bringing in 'normal' players who might not get the best impression from this, and may not come back if they get jerked around too hard. I would say the time for "game changers" like the ECM in front of a captive audience is passed.

Since they already have my $120, I'm hoping that this won't be the norm for the remainder of the project and I hope it will be a strong success, but my biggest concern these days is actually the core concept of "role warfare".

Role warfare is a noble concept to try and make everything from the lightest light to the heaviest assault have a place on the battlefield, and it's seldom accomplished in video games. Most video games that give you 50 tools to do a job will end up having 5 that you really like to use and 3 that are so powerful (in one way or another) that not using them is a bad idea - in my personal opinion ECM as introduced was one of these types that just has so many benefits and next to no drawback that it functionally narrows the field of what is viable.

So in some ways while the devs are trying to square the circle and make a light be a counter to an assault - one of the functions of ECM made lights much less fearful of heavy/assault streak carriers, they are simultaneously undermining themselves by having those same items winnow the field of choice down to a tiny fraction of what it could be. Since the ECM patch there has been a pretty strong trend of players to the ravens, commandos, cicadas, atlas DDCs (with a good number of hero ilya's on top). The worst part of this is I believe the problems will just be aggravated by the introduction of new modes of play. In reading about the upcoming play mode it sounds as though speed will become an even greater asset in this play mode which will once again introduce an element of imbalance that might not be reconcilable without doing more crazy stuff to the game. This problem is just going to get harder to keep in check as more scenario variety is added.

There's also something wrong from a marketing/product point of view with role warfare. Right now a player can buy any chassis they want within a reasonable amount of time, and while the assaults are more expensive, they are not 100x more than a heavy. Having them priced so high would be unjustifiable in light of the 'role warfare' dogma of having every mech tonnage class have a role at all times. The problem is that an Atlas should cause fear when you encounter it alone in a ruined city, and it should make you feel supreme when you pilot one on the field - this is completely lacking from the play experience and from the 'progression' that would normally be found in a battletech game. Right now assault mechs are like the dopey large kid in your gradeschool class who gets punched in the back of the head all the time and is too slow to react. One doesn't evolve from light to medium to heavy to assault, you change from chassis to chassis with whatever the flavour of the month equipment, patch balance, or new play mode has made 'best'.

Before the strawman of old players having equipment the new players can't match comes up, I have to bring up what was done in Multiplayer Battletech 3025. In that game you started in a light, and only lights could be used on about 50% of the planets in the game! This meant that no matter how long you were in the game you had to be a good light pilot, and even though the older pilots had the bigger mechs, they could *not* use them unless the front lines moved closer to a capital world. Mediums became usable behind the first two rows of worlds, then heavies later, then assaults on only the capitals and district capitals as I remember. The front lines rarely got there, but an assault mech could chew through multiple lights if they were brave/foolish enough to drop against it. So rather than having 'role warfare' that game preserved the feel and balance of tabletop as well as just about every other mechwarrior game to date.

Issues like lag shields were still present in MPBT3025, as with any online game, but thanks to the fact that units only had doubled head armor, one well aimed shot from a PPC could kill many lights! Light mech battles were fast and brutal, and a lot of fun. At the same time heavier mechs still felt responsive and easy to control, like they were the kings of the battlefield.

This meant that there was a good marketing and 'end game' progression from light to medium to heavy to assault that made you feel powerful to drive a big mech (I played for 2 months and got 3 lights, and 1 medium), but at the same time the new players were able to feel useful and get into the fight right away. This was such a clean model that I am crestfallen that PGI did not adopt it. It just seems so natural.

Another thing they did that made a lot of sense in MPBT:3025 was that they allowed only stock variants. This is a big step down from what this game is trying to accomplish in terms of options, but the devil is in the details. Many people despised the streak cat, and I hate to say it but boats of some description, and cheese builds will always be with us if customization is allowed. I love mech customization and even have a copy of Battle Mech Designer 10 (BMD10) running under the windows XP virtual machine, but I am willing to admit that trying to give users a billion customization options and expecting us not to find game breaking combinations is naive. Even with the fully implemented Battle Value system which goes way beyond tonnage and gets very non linear, customization can imbalance the original tabletop game. Expecting it to not happen here with this level of tuning and tweaking is naive.

In the same vein as the above, MPBT3025 also kept it to 3025 technology - no pulse lasers, no ultra autocannons, no ECM, no LBX, no indirect fire LRMs, none of that. This much smaller tech base still had 20+ different weapons in the game but the smaller pool meant infinitely less balance headache for the devs. The devs here are cutting out a truly herculean task for themselves by giving the players so many damn options and expecting us not to break their 'balance'. Again, doing this is naive.

To summarize, I think that the devs are good people with their hearts in the right place, and that the truly do want to create the premier mechwarrior game our generation will see. At the same time the last few patches have convinced me that they do not have a handle on the magnitude of the complexity of the system they are trying to design, nor the resources to execute on their vision.

I implore the devs to have the courage to give us more by giving us less. To have the vision to see where role warfare and customization and clan technology will take the game, and to reverse course before it's too late. I am proposing nothing less than making this game much more similar to what MPBT3025 was by removing customization, removing clan tech (at least for the time being), and focusing on delivering on a much narrower front.

I would rather play a modernized and streamlined MPBT3025 that will evolve and grow with PGIs ideas than the game that seems to be the logical result of 'role warfare' continuing to try to square the circle. There would be a lot of crying and gnashing of teeth since they would have to take away a lot of the options we have now, but I honestly think that role warfare and excessive player freedom to customize will end this game before it can get off the ground.

Sorry for the long rant that's only tangentially connected to ECM, but I had to say it. I know many of you won't agree with me, but I still believe strongly that this is the best path forward.

[flashdrive]

Xeren KelDar, on 04 December 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

As it stands right now ECM is over tweaked. I think the core concept is pretty good, but just overtuned right now. One thing that could help counter it for LRMs at least is NARC and maybe tune NARC duration to permanent, but susceptable to damage. For instance it would never go off cooldown, but could get destroyed by the LRMs you just landed on the mech.

With just assault mode there seems to be even more of a shift in dynamic to cap the base, only now its both teams trying to be ninjas and do it while under an ECM bubble. This issue may get resolved in the future with CW, but right now seems to really detract from the game as it is negating the big stompy mech battles.

Finally, these may be bugged issues or not, but it seems ECM is blocking targetting for me even while I maintain LoS to target. If bugged or intended I think it needs to be looked into. This has happened to me at less than 90m (ECM bubble), 200m, and out to 600-800 all while I could plainy see the target. Blocking the lockable weapons (SSRM) seems to be the intent and I'm ok with that, but totally negating the red box which really does nothing to direct fire weapons seems excessive. One you lose LoS, I'd be ok with the ninja raven dropping off targetting/radar/etc.

To summarize:

Core Concept pretty good and promises lots of potential

Execution is overtweaked and leads to gameplay issues making it a negative addition to the current system in its current state (both game's state and ECM's)

You need another ECM set in counter mode also check your control settings each patch for added functions.

[steelblueskies]

shadN, on 18 December 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

How do I actually build in an ECM into my DDC? It has got 2 slots, while only 1 slot is free in the head.

goes in the torso, right left or center, or a leg. no mech can head slot the things.

----------------------------------------------
still wondering what [color=#EEEEEE]* ECM will now fully counter only the closest enemy Mech.[/color]

from the game patch notes(http://mwomercs.com/game/patch-notes ) will actually mean. counter as in the anti ecm mode will only affect the nearest? as in disrupt only the nearest? both? and there will be graded levels of disruption???

seems like something that needed/will need some expounding in the ecm command chair.

[Big Bad Wulf]

Tolkien, on 18 December 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

It's been a wild ride, and I've only been on it from about page 60. I'd like to thank all the contributors to the ECM debate both pro and con, especially those that were willing to have good natured back and forth. Given the huge amount of text we've got in here, it stayed pretty on topic most of the time which is a great thing.

I can't be all positive right now though as we still need to see how the devs are going to respond to the huge community outcry that came largely from the people in this thread who really dug into the issue and more or less insisted on knowing how these sorts of balance decisions are coming out so one sided. For the good of the game it's not good to have the game balance swing from one extreme to the other with each patch.

I know we are still in beta, but this is now open beta. There are banners all over the internet bringing in 'normal' players who might not get the best impression from this, and may not come back if they get jerked around too hard. I would say the time for "game changers" like the ECM in front of a captive audience is passed.

Since they already have my $120, I'm hoping that this won't be the norm for the remainder of the project and I hope it will be a strong success, but my biggest concern these days is actually the core concept of "role warfare".

Role warfare is a noble concept to try and make everything from the lightest light to the heaviest assault have a place on the battlefield, and it's seldom accomplished in video games. Most video games that give you 50 tools to do a job will end up having 5 that you really like to use and 3 that are so powerful (in one way or another) that not using them is a bad idea - in my personal opinion ECM as introduced was one of these types that just has so many benefits and next to no drawback that it functionally narrows the field of what is viable.

So in some ways while the devs are trying to square the circle and make a light be a counter to an assault - one of the functions of ECM made lights much less fearful of heavy/assault streak carriers, they are simultaneously undermining themselves by having those same items winnow the field of choice down to a tiny fraction of what it could be. Since the ECM patch there has been a pretty strong trend of players to the ravens, commandos, cicadas, atlas DDCs (with a good number of hero ilya's on top). The worst part of this is I believe the problems will just be aggravated by the introduction of new modes of play. In reading about the upcoming play mode it sounds as though speed will become an even greater asset in this play mode which will once again introduce an element of imbalance that might not be reconcilable without doing more crazy stuff to the game. This problem is just going to get harder to keep in check as more scenario variety is added.

There's also something wrong from a marketing/product point of view with role warfare. Right now a player can buy any chassis they want within a reasonable amount of time, and while the assaults are more expensive, they are not 100x more than a heavy. Having them priced so high would be unjustifiable in light of the 'role warfare' dogma of having every mech tonnage class have a role at all times. The problem is that an Atlas should cause fear when you encounter it alone in a ruined city, and it should make you feel supreme when you pilot one on the field - this is completely lacking from the play experience and from the 'progression' that would normally be found in a battletech game. Right now assault mechs are like the dopey large kid in your gradeschool class who gets punched in the back of the head all the time and is too slow to react. One doesn't evolve from light to medium to heavy to assault, you change from chassis to chassis with whatever the flavour of the month equipment, patch balance, or new play mode has made 'best'.

Before the strawman of old players having equipment the new players can't match comes up, I have to bring up what was done in Multiplayer Battletech 3025. In that game you started in a light, and only lights could be used on about 50% of the planets in the game! This meant that no matter how long you were in the game you had to be a good light pilot, and even though the older pilots had the bigger mechs, they could *not* use them unless the front lines moved closer to a capital world. Mediums became usable behind the first two rows of worlds, then heavies later, then assaults on only the capitals and district capitals as I remember. The front lines rarely got there, but an assault mech could chew through multiple lights if they were brave/foolish enough to drop against it. So rather than having 'role warfare' that game preserved the feel and balance of tabletop as well as just about every other mechwarrior game to date.

Issues like lag shields were still present in MPBT3025, as with any online game, but thanks to the fact that units only had doubled head armor, one well aimed shot from a PPC could kill many lights! Light mech battles were fast and brutal, and a lot of fun. At the same time heavier mechs still felt responsive and easy to control, like they were the kings of the battlefield.

This meant that there was a good marketing and 'end game' progression from light to medium to heavy to assault that made you feel powerful to drive a big mech (I played for 2 months and got 3 lights, and 1 medium), but at the same time the new players were able to feel useful and get into the fight right away. This was such a clean model that I am crestfallen that PGI did not adopt it. It just seems so natural.

Another thing they did that made a lot of sense in MPBT:3025 was that they allowed only stock variants. This is a big step down from what this game is trying to accomplish in terms of options, but the devil is in the details. Many people despised the streak cat, and I hate to say it but boats of some description, and cheese builds will always be with us if customization is allowed. I love mech customization and even have a copy of Battle Mech Designer 10 (BMD10) running under the windows XP virtual machine, but I am willing to admit that trying to give users a billion customization options and expecting us not to find game breaking combinations is naive. Even with the fully implemented Battle Value system which goes way beyond tonnage and gets very non linear, customization can imbalance the original tabletop game. Expecting it to not happen here with this level of tuning and tweaking is naive.

In the same vein as the above, MPBT3025 also kept it to 3025 technology - no pulse lasers, no ultra autocannons, no ECM, no LBX, no indirect fire LRMs, none of that. This much smaller tech base still had 20+ different weapons in the game but the smaller pool meant infinitely less balance headache for the devs. The devs here are cutting out a truly herculean task for themselves by giving the players so many damn options and expecting us not to break their 'balance'. Again, doing this is naive.

To summarize, I think that the devs are good people with their hearts in the right place, and that the truly do want to create the premier mechwarrior game our generation will see. At the same time the last few patches have convinced me that they do not have a handle on the magnitude of the complexity of the system they are trying to design, nor the resources to execute on their vision.

I implore the devs to have the courage to give us more by giving us less. To have the vision to see where role warfare and customization and clan technology will take the game, and to reverse course before it's too late. I am proposing nothing less than making this game much more similar to what MPBT3025 was by removing customization, removing clan tech (at least for the time being), and focusing on delivering on a much narrower front.

I would rather play a modernized and streamlined MPBT3025 that will evolve and grow with PGIs ideas than the game that seems to be the logical result of 'role warfare' continuing to try to square the circle. There would be a lot of crying and gnashing of teeth since they would have to take away a lot of the options we have now, but I honestly think that role warfare and excessive player freedom to customize will end this game before it can get off the ground.

Sorry for the long rant that's only tangentially connected to ECM, but I had to say it. I know many of you won't agree with me, but I still believe strongly that this is the best path forward.

Nice post I had the same thought, I like ECM and strongly feel that any tweak would make it useless to a point that why is it even there would be the question. There are people who do not like it to a point that the only way to make them happy would be to eliminate it which would tweaking it do anyway.

So why not petition the devs to make a 3025 edition. They already have the ground work and the basic 3025 mechs. For those who like old fashioned straight out fight. What is nice is that Most 3050's mechs are upgraded 3025 edition so both editions can use the same chassis. Only the parts in the mech bay would differ.

For those of us who love the 3050's and forward could continue to enjoy the challenges it will give us. This would allow the un-Nerfing of IS weapons, full double heat sinks and so forth and a chance to test it against the supperior technology of the clans.

Btw I am still playing my Raven 2X (4 medlas and 1 SRM 6 w/ artemis) and I still have to encounter the disadvantage about ECM that people are complaining about. Mostly wining than losing and at one point Scoring 5 kills and 1 assist against a team who had DDC's, Cicadas and 3L's.

I am giving it 2 more play days defore I return to my Atlas.

[Murdalizer]

If the Devs really cant be allowed play around with the TT rules, to find ways to create balance and imbalance....well tbh screw the TT rules for real!

Streakcat can chainfire Ssrm2 without any drawbacks(very low heat)....thats the problem right?
so lets play with the heat mechanics.

lets fire of 6 ssrms

how it is works now: 6 ssrms=2+2+2+2+2+2=12 heat

but why not do this: 6 ssrms=2+2x2x2+2+2=20 heat

i know its a crude example, but it should stop someone spamming the srrms right? should TT really stop the Devs form being a little creativ?

Why use ecm as a total cockblock for people that only use 1 or 2 srrms?

[steelblueskies]

why use the ssrms. no really why use them. because of lights that are hard to hit? think it through mon frere.

would you like having a half dozen lockable sensor targets for an ecm carrier, with the ability to fire at any of them at will with ssrms, but no way to tell which was the real target and not a ghost until you had visual confirmation from the bounding box tha ou had the right one selected? that's an optional tt rule for ecm as well.

but in what situation would you take an srm2, or an ssrm2? would you like to present a case for using them(1 or 2 of them) as an optimal choice against assaults? against heavies? against mediums?

just lights? thought so.

but you miss the point on developer fiddling. there is a letter of the law, and a spirit of the law concept. if you lean too deeply into spirit over letter or use both inconsistently, then you create problems that otherwise did not exist. there is also the little issue i just brought up(which is a grand case of all those optional and/or alternative rules.), if the first set doesn't fit, try the next one. furthermore if a+b doesn't work out, it might be because you didn't add C or D which were a natural part of the mix.

again, ecm is very close to a workable system as is, if it just accounted for interaction with the other systems around it rather than a blanket binary on/off utility. its' many of the work in progress other issues, and or missing features, balances, functions, and technical issues that make it a bit of a shark in the toilet. same story for ssrms. only fires when guaranteed to hit, is not the same as locks and fires if you are now aiming at your chestnuts instead of the enemy before lock falls off. one means if you click fire and it would hit it would fire and hit. if it would not then the weapon begins cooldown for the next try, or the equivalent.

there was a reason i posited ecm only affecting forward view cone at one point. it requires the pilot to present a certain facing to a target to disrupt it, and the suicide ninja lights would not unilaterally disrupt around them instead having to work to keep a single target supressed, and generating disruptions in random fashion through their maneuvering. this would make running around in the middle of a pack of 6 or so mechs as a solitary light risky with or without counter ecm, while promoting actual scouts trying for info on the enemy at range. it would have also allowed one light to sneak around and possibly catch out another, and been in line with "sensors" being fov cone only as well.. but it was not a complete solution to the inherent web of interrelated issues either.

[Tonberry]

Murdalizer, on 18 December 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

If the Devs really cant be allowed play around with the TT rules, to find ways to create balance and imbalance....well tbh screw the TT rules for real!

Streakcat can chainfire Ssrm2 without any drawbacks(very low heat)....thats the problem right?
so lets play with the heat mechanics.

lets fire of 6 ssrms

how it is works now: 6 ssrms=2+2+2+2+2+2=12 heat

but why not do this: 6 ssrms=2+2x2x2+2+2=20 heat

i know its a crude example, but it should stop someone spamming the srrms right? should TT really stop the Devs form being a little creativ?

Why use ecm as a total cockblock for people that only use 1 or 2 srrms?

Because 2^6 is more than 20?
This would also kill anyone with Lrms..
And pretty much every boat in existance...
nice try but this option was suggested back in closed beta, the devs ignored it then i doubt they are going to try it now

Also

steelblueskies, on 18 December 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

why use the ssrms. no really why use them. because of lights that are hard to hit? think it through mon frere.

the prime reason is that they are easy to use hit a high % of the time and are effective even against meds and heavies.

steelblueskies, on 18 December 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

again, ecm is very close to a workable system as is, if it just accounted for interaction with the other systems around it rather than a blanket binary on/off utility. its' many of the work in progress other issues, and or missing features, balances, functions, and technical issues that make it a bit of a shark in the toilet. same story for ssrms. only fires when guaranteed to hit, is not the same as locks and fires if you are now aiming at your chestnuts instead of the enemy before lock falls off. one means if you click fire and it would hit it would fire and hit. if it would not then the weapon begins cooldown for the next try, or the equivalent.

there was a reason i posited ecm only affecting forward view cone at one point. it requires the pilot to present a certain facing to a target to disrupt it, and the suicide ninja lights would not unilaterally disrupt around them instead having to work to keep a single target supressed, and generating disruptions in random fashion through their maneuvering. this would make running around in the middle of a pack of 6 or so mechs as a solitary light risky with or without counter ecm, while promoting actual scouts trying for info on the enemy at range. it would have also allowed one light to sneak around and possibly catch out another, and been in line with "sensors" being fov cone only as well.. but it was not a complete solution to the inherent web of interrelated issues either.

and ^This is absolutely true

Edited by Tonberry, 18 December 2012 - 02:14 PM.

[steelblueskies]

turns out it's a buff to ecm disrupt vs counter.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1625667

[Tolkien]

steelblueskies, on 18 December 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

turns out it's a buff to ecm disrupt vs counter.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1625667

Sooooo,

This means that before a single mech in counter was countering all enemy ECM in range if I understand it?

The fact that this is the only change after the ECM doing too much question getting 136 (at last count) likes and being by a factor of 8x the most popular question is a bit disturbing. The question as phrased was clearly pointing out the ECM was doing too much for 1.5 tons and it seems that it just got harder to counter.

...grand...

[DeaconW]

Tolkien, on 18 December 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Sooooo,

This means that before a single mech in counter was countering all enemy ECM in range if I understand it?

The fact that this is the only change after the ECM doing too much question getting 136 (at last count) likes and being by a factor of 8x the most popular question is a bit disturbing. The question as phrased was clearly pointing out the ECM was doing too much for 1.5 tons and it seems that it just got harder to counter.

...grand...

No, the change means that an ECM in counter will only counter the *closest* ECM in disrupt vice a random one in range like it used to. At least that is how I understand it. It is a nearly useless change. I agree with your assessment of PGI's response to what the community is saying about ECM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Basically it means that having more ECMs than the other team is an even bigger advantage than it was before.

[DeaconW]

Solis Obscuri, on 18 December 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

Basically it means that having more ECMs than the other team is an even bigger advantage than it was before.

I think it's a wash either way. It just means you won't end up in illogical situations where your disrupt is jamming a guy at 150m while the guy at 50m is not affected.

[Tolkien]

DeaconW, on 18 December 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

I think it's a wash either way. It just means you won't end up in illogical situations where your disrupt is jamming a guy at 150m while the guy at 50m is not affected.

I'm not completely sure what to make of it yet - just played a first match in my commando 2D ECM cheese boat (3x SSRM2 of course...) and we dominated them 7 to 2 (we had 2+ ecm, I only saw one of theirs and we cluster hugged them fast...).

The only consolation I have is that the No Guts No Galaxy guys were on top of this ECM being potentially a 'one up trump card' type problem in their last podcast which is here: http://nogutsnogalax...cz-garth-erlam/

I've been in touch with them and given the massive outpouring of support for the ECM balance post over in ask the devs 29, they are going to be including it in their next podcast (last I heard).

So at least we're still getting the message that all is not well here out.

[Gremlich Johns]

Stingz pointed out something I neglected to point out, that any electromagnetic interference is going to show up on a radar or radio display as a big ball o static. The jammer jams the receiver by putting out more than the emitter he is jamming - this means if a commander is sending a message or if a radar is operating, the jammer is overriding the friendly signal by putting out more power degrading detail. It isn't negating it, per se, but it does make it hard to work through. That ball o'static would still show up on an appropriate display, even on the console map which is, for all intents and purposes, superimposed on an o-scope. That crap can be DF'd in a short amount of time,then steel on target in 3-5 minutes from many kilometers away.

I am not suggesting to nerf ECM, just make it work properly (per real life Physics) at the scale we play this game at.

ECM jams radar in this game, quiaff? If that is the case, NARCs (and IFF) are unaffected by them, they are radio transmitters probably operating at a frequency not affected by the ECM radar suite. That is something the original BT TT developers never considered (nor anybody else that followed).

And one other thing, only in this game does one ECM suite negate another, opposing force, ECM. That's says someone is smoking serious dope and does not care for even the remotest shred of Physics reality. The jamming combines and just makes more chaos for everybody with harmonics, that's all.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 18 December 2012 - 05:31 PM.

[Murdalizer]

Ill give it one last go....all if was trying to say, in a post above, was if theres an balance issue with something, in this case its the ssrm, we should let the Devs fix it, regardless of TT rules.

and in this case the balance issue is..if you boat ssrms they become OP'ed, 1-2 ssrms are not, they are just usefull tools..but chainfiring 4-5-6 ssrms becomes nasty, because they auto hit, blinds you and shakes your cockpit.

so should we remove em?....mechwarrior with out ssrms?...

or should we put in a weakness, i thought using heat was a good idea, fire 1-2 off no biggie, but chainfiring 1-2-3-4-5-6-1-2-3-4-5-6 etc your heat would spike fast..and not in a even curve, but in big jumps/spikes. this must be possible somehow right?

make heat an issue and hard to crontrol, so the pilot would have to stop fireing for 1-2-3 secs to let it cool..creating an opening a good mechwarrior could use to target the Streakcats ears...that would create some kind of balance right?

i think putting in small subtle weaknesses into things is the way to go, and then let the player find them and figure out how to exploit them.

in multiplayer games...paper sometimes should beat scisscors and scisscors should sometimes beat rock.

and that goes double in a game like this, where they give us so many customization options, i can mix in alittle rock and alittle paper plus a dash of scisscors into my mech or i could go with alot rock and none of the other two..and if i go pure rock, i dont automatic beat scisscors, because it might just happen that the scisscor pilot found a weakness in my rock design, and has the skill to exploit it...this really offers some great gameplay.

And i really dont want some old TT rules getting in the way of that.

you should not put an item into a game, thats so good, that people dont even consider other options.

and thats what the ECM does..players are gravatating towards mechs that carry ECM, and disregarding mech that dont, and they stop using lrms/streaks, and that will slowly kill of rolewarfare, diversity and customization.

Someone asked me in a post above somewhere, why i would even use 1-2 streaks in my design..and heres why this is(could be) a great game...he does not get to tell how to play this game, because he does not know how i play, I get to choose how i play..what role i wanna take in battles and I how design my mech based on MY playstyle.
maybe i know something he dont?..who knows:P

thats it really, hope it makes sense and if not...well i am sorry my english skills arent any better.

Edited by Murdalizer, 18 December 2012 - 05:38 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

2SSRM's weigh a ton more than SRM-4, and are great against lights and anything larger if you stay closer. I would love a nerf to SSRM's, putting in ECM is not the way to nerf it though. SRM-4's will be hard pressed to hit any capable light mech (which means they are probably fast, as a slow light is a dead light). Heck I'd be for adding a ton to each launcher. Currently, ECM counters streaks, and that is the disadvantage to them (other than the once cost, and the slight weight and slight spaces which are so small to worry about).

I'm just sad that the ECM has a lot of good things, and there was a lot of good suggestions, and they had good reasons, and none of them were considered at all.

PGI, answer me this, really, what did ECM do before it was this powerful and was too powerful for you?