134 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

DocBach, on 24 February 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Beagle gives you better radar, ECM takes it away. Thats the interaction between the two.

That is precisely my point- BAP gives you extended detection range, and ECM counters it's effect. As it should be.

[REDACTED]

Edited by Viterbi, 25 February 2013 - 09:47 AM.
Removed reference to off-topic/removed content

[DocBach]

Livewyr, on 24 February 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

That is precisely my point- BAP gives you extended detection range, and ECM counters it's effect. As it should be.

You keep missing the point that Beagle does more than that. Beagle is a 120 meter, 360 bubble (like ECM) that detects anything inside of it. It's beyond boosted standard sensors, its an active radar... ie Beagle ACTIVE probe.

[Doc Holliday]

Livewyr, on 24 February 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Please, do think on it and let me know- I'm looking for good input.

Well, even with your proposed changes ECM would still be too powerful. You have to compare it with other similar equipment, and BAP is the perfect comparison as it requires exactly the same resources. BAP feels about right for the resources it takes, but even with your changes, ECM would still do considerably more for the same resources. Detection prevention needs to go, entirely, I think. ECM is not stealth. ECM should make it take longer to lock target, but have no impact on how soon you can start. (I'm pretty sure the latter is what is meant by detection.) Also, I don't think it should prevent target sharing unless you're within its 180m bubble.

With these additional changes, ECM would:

- Counter BAP
- Counter NARC pods
- Counter Artemis
- Cause longer target-lock times
- Prevent target sharing within its 180m range

And I'm sure a few other things I'm forgetting.

You didn't propose any changes to BAP, so at the same time, for the same resources, BAP is still doing:

- 25% increased sensor range
- 25% decreased target level acquisition time
- Allows targeting of unpowered 'Mechs within 120 meters

Even then, ECM still feels like it offers a tad more than BAP, though not so much as to really be overpowered.

So there you have it... I think you need to cut back ECM pretty much to exactly what it does in TT, or buff BAP and increase the resource requirement of both ECM and BAP to compensate.

If you don't want to directly nerf ECM that much, you could move the ECM hard counter to BAP and give it two modes instead of ECM, though that makes no sense at all except for balance purposes.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 24 February 2013 - 11:34 AM.

[Galathon Redd]

I... wait... I just can't do it.

OP intentionally set me up for yet another opportunity to post one of my hilarious "Dead Horse" pics, but I can't do it.

You see, the OP here is at least being constructive and suggesting ways to fix ECM instead of just QQing about its broken-ness and insisting it be removed. This is not the dead horse. This is the way ECM discussions SHOULD happen.

Curse you for deceiving me!

[Seanamal]

ECM Is not a gamebreaker. What it does is make specific play-styles that were unbalanced much more difficult to use. What I see every time this comes up is more or less the same argument: I want to boat LRMs / streaks and I can't because of ECM. Every proposal for "nerfing" ECM is the same: Make ECM no longer block LRM barrages and streaks.
I remember pre-ecm. It was an awful experience on some maps. Caustic was invariably a question of who could better focus fire and out LRM the other team. Streak cats would come in and core an atlas in 10 seconds. I'm sorry this was not better. Direct fire weapons are relevant. You actually need to be able to aim to kill the enemy. If you read the rules for indirect LRM fire in TT it is almost impossible to hit the enemy. With the quasi-C3 that is implemented in MWO it is all too easy. Forcing someone to TAG an ECM protected mech for LRM fire ups the skill required. Most people who play in 4 / 8 mans have little issue with how ECM works, as it works for them as much as it works against them. In the PUG environment it's obviously another story. My advice to those who want to to LRM boat: get on teamspeak and group with someone who runs a recon spotter. I'll do it for you, I got a couple nice scout/spotter builds in my mech bay. Just don't be a jerk.

[Commander Kobold]

Xenosphobatic, on 24 February 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

Man, that horse must be sore by now.

...if it weren't dead.

horse will be beaten untill the problem is fixed.

[Mystere]

Omni 13, on 24 February 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

horse will be beaten untill the problem is fixed.

Yay, more horse meat for everyone.

[Livewyr]

Doc Holliday, on 24 February 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Well, even with your proposed changes ECM would still be too powerful. You have to compare it with other similar equipment, and BAP is the perfect comparison as it requires exactly the same resources. BAP feels about right for the resources it takes, but even with your changes, ECM would still do considerably more for the same resources. Detection prevention needs to go, entirely, I think. ECM is not stealth. ECM should make it take longer to lock target, but have no impact on how soon you can start. (I'm pretty sure the latter is what is meant by detection.) Also, I don't think it should prevent target sharing unless you're within its 180m bubble.

With these additional changes, ECM would:

- Counter BAP
- Counter NARC pods
- Counter Artemis
- Cause longer target-lock times
- Prevent target sharing within its 180m range

And I'm sure a few other things I'm forgetting.

You didn't propose any changes to BAP, so at the same time, for the same resources, BAP is still doing:

- 25% increased sensor range
- 25% decreased target level acquisition time
- Allows targeting of unpowered 'Mechs within 120 meters

Even then, ECM still feels like it offers a tad more than BAP, though not so much as to really be overpowered.

So there you have it... I think you need to cut back ECM pretty much to exactly what it does in TT, or buff BAP and increase the resource requirement of both ECM and BAP to compensate.

If you don't want to directly nerf ECM that much, you could move the ECM hard counter to BAP and give it two modes instead of ECM, though that makes no sense at all except for balance purposes.

Good points, I only have two criticisms:
A: (I said BAP should be the only thing actively aware of being jammed. IE: only BAP mechs get the low signal bars and phasing HUD.. other mechs just have to notice their minimap is suddenly very empty.
B: The reason I would still give ECM target-sharing interference outside 180 is because unlike in TT, this game moves very quickly so realistically, it would be even less effective than it would be in TT because moving out of 180 is all too easy and near instantaneous. The target interference would make it more difficult for missile boats, without making it near impossible. It would also continue keeping meta communication imperative.

Seanamal, on 24 February 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

ECM Is not a gamebreaker. What it does is make specific play-styles that were unbalanced much more difficult to use. What I see every time this comes up is more or less the same argument: I want to boat LRMs / streaks and I can't because of ECM. Every proposal for "nerfing" ECM is the same: Make ECM no longer block LRM barrages and streaks.
I remember pre-ecm. It was an awful experience on some maps. Caustic was invariably a question of who could better focus fire and out LRM the other team. Streak cats would come in and core an atlas in 10 seconds. I'm sorry this was not better. Direct fire weapons are relevant. You actually need to be able to aim to kill the enemy. If you read the rules for indirect LRM fire in TT it is almost impossible to hit the enemy. With the quasi-C3 that is implemented in MWO it is all too easy. Forcing someone to TAG an ECM protected mech for LRM fire ups the skill required. Most people who play in 4 / 8 mans have little issue with how ECM works, as it works for them as much as it works against them. In the PUG environment it's obviously another story. My advice to those who want to to LRM boat: get on teamspeak and group with someone who runs a recon spotter. I'll do it for you, I got a couple nice scout/spotter builds in my mech bay. Just don't be a jerk.

1st: dealing with the most "aggressive" part of your post: Yes, Streak cats were frequent and annoying before the current implementation of ECM.. but I'd say their successor, the splat cat is worse. (Those are the mechs that truly core an atlas in 10 seconds.. only slightly better aim required.) And in regards to 4/8 mans, they have no problem with it, because they're usually mounting at least 2 ECMs in a 4man, and 6-7 ECMs in an 8man. I don't do 8mans because I did them for a couple nights and ran into 5 kinds of mechs: D-DCs, 3Ls, Splatcats, AC20 cats, and Gaussaphracts/cats. With the majority of the teams being ECM.. so naturally they would see nothing wrong with that.

Second
I think we have differing opinions on what is "difficult" to do: I think having to spot your own targets with LoS in missile mechs or be tag equipped with a LOS'd Tag mounted spotter would be difficult. I'd give that a 40% difficulty increase over pre-ECM missile-boating.

Requiring TAG (which must remain on target, that is within 750 meters) or an ally with TAG remaining on target to even fire your missiles is more like 90% difficulty

Having a 1.5ton/2crit piece of equipment make you nearly missile immune is absurd. Imagine if they offered similar pieces of equipment for dealing damage with Ballistics or Lasers.
Self-indulgent exploration of that concept-
-An intense magnetic field generator that would slow down any ballistic fired outside of 270 meters to the point where it does little or no damage UNLESS you had a person mount an energy draining beam that would disable that magnetic field (must be kept on target just as TAG)
-A personal dense fog/steam generator that would require lasers to be on target for 1/2 a second before they start to deal damage because they have to burn through the fog. This ofcourse could be countered by someone using Jumpjets near, or flamers on the mech to blow away the majority of the fog.

Those effects could be countered with a spotter or getting in close, but otherwise cripple the effectiveness ballistics and lasers and that simply would not stand. This is an absurd concept, I obviously don't support it, but it is much like the difficulty made for missiles in the current implementation of ECM.

(Missiles do lock on and are easier to aim, but also have such a slow projectile time that they can be easily avoided once fired.)

[REDACTED]

Edited by Viterbi, 25 February 2013 - 09:54 AM.
Removed reference/response to removed off-topi ccontent

[Doc Holliday]

Livewyr, on 24 February 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Good points, I only have two criticisms:
A: (I said BAP should be the only thing actively aware of being jammed. IE: only BAP mechs get the low signal bars and phasing HUD.. other mechs just have to notice their minimap is suddenly very empty.
B: The reason I would still give ECM target-sharing interference outside 180 is because unlike in TT, this game moves very quickly so realistically, it would be even less effective than it would be in TT because moving out of 180 is all too easy and near instantaneous. The target interference would make it more difficult for missile boats, without making it near impossible. It would also continue keeping meta communication imperative.

Well, you asked for my thoughts, and I gave them. Your criticism does nothing to change them.

Your point A changes very little, in reality. Back before I quit playing because of ECM, I almost always noticed the information disappearing from my minimap before I noticed the "low signal" indicator.

And I simply disagree with your point B. ECM should not do that much. That still leaves it way too powerful for the resources it takes. If you want it to retain that much functionality, it also needs to require more tonnage and/or more crit slots. It needs to be balanced such that it's actually a decision whether or not you should take it. Your changes would still leave it a no-brainer.

Like I said before, you can't simply look at ECM by itself. You have to compare it with other systems. Instead of just thinking about how to make ECM a bit more palatable, think about how it would actually be balanced compared to BAP. Think about how it would actually be balanced compared to AMS. Think about how it would actually be balanced compared to a DHS. Think about how it would be balanced compared to a SSRM2 or a medium laser. As long as ECM is an easy go-to choice above all equipment that requires similar tonnage and crit slots, it's too powerful.

[Zanathan]

I really do fail to see the big issue unless you primarily play with LRMs and SSRMs. I will be honest I only used LRMs and SSRMs during closed beta just to test them out. I have since moved away from any type of locked-on missiles (I feel they are cheap but that is my opinion) and I didn't see a need for SSRMs since collision was still in at that time. When they removed collision I will admit it was a pain in the backside to kill lights (heck they still are!) but the problem was lights and lagshield as opposed to anything else.

I generally see folks complaining about it and when countered they start bring up 'What about those pre-mades with 4 ECM lights!'. Seriously? That's another issue in itself, not ECM's fault.

Maybe someone can shed light on this for me ..

[Doc Holliday]

Zanathan, on 24 February 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

I really do fail to see the big issue unless you primarily play with LRMs and SSRMs. I will be honest I only used LRMs and SSRMs during closed beta just to test them out. I have since moved away from any type of locked-on missiles (I feel they are cheap but that is my opinion) and I didn't see a need for SSRMs since collision was still in at that time. When they removed collision I will admit it was a pain in the backside to kill lights (heck they still are!) but the problem was lights and lagshield as opposed to anything else.

I generally see folks complaining about it and when countered they start bring up 'What about those pre-mades with 4 ECM lights!'. Seriously? That's another issue in itself, not ECM's fault.

Maybe someone can shed light on this for me ..

Let me just copy & paste my post from another thread.


It's not hard to figure out if ECM is overpowered.

If you have two crit slots and 1.5 tons available and ECM is an option, what might you possibly take instead of ECM?

Here is a list containing the possible answers to the question:

[Zanathan]

Doc Holliday, on 24 February 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

Let me just copy & paste my post from another thread.


It's not hard to figure out if ECM is overpowered.

If you have two crit slots and 1.5 tons available and ECM is an option, what might you possibly take instead of ECM?

Here is a list containing the possible answers to the question:

How is that making it OP in combat? It's just implying there isn't much choice in terms of equipment ...

[Glythe]

I think we just need to break ECM into multiple different devices like in the actual rules. If we are going to have them all right now fine.... let's make them the correct weights.

Fine you want a Raven with ECM in its current form.... that will cost you about 6 tons. Unless a raven wants to take off its armor that means it can't bring ECM MLs and streaks.

The extra critical slot space from the extra equipment might also prevent the use of the ferofibrous upgrade which would further cut into the ravens power.

[Doc Holliday]

Zanathan, on 24 February 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

How is that making it OP in combat? It's just implying there isn't much choice in terms of equipment ...

There's plenty of choices in equipment. Just none that would ever be considered instead of ECM in its current form.

That tells you nothing? Really? Are you seriously that dense? Do you understand nothing of game balance?

[Zanathan]

Doc Holliday, on 24 February 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

There's plenty of choices in equipment. Just none that would ever be considered instead of ECM in its current form.

That tells you nothing? Really? Are you seriously that dense? Do you understand nothing of game balance?

Nice man, I guess our 'discussion is over'.

[Doc Holliday]

Zanathan, on 24 February 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

Nice man, I guess our 'discussion is over'.

What discussion? A discussion requires at least two parties that have some degree of understanding of the topic at hand.

[Livewyr]

Zanathan, on 24 February 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

How is that making it OP in combat? It's just implying there isn't much choice in terms of equipment ...

That is just it, it should be a decision as to whether you would use it.
Examples:
Do you want to put AMS on a mech? (1.5 tons/2crits for AMS and ammo) Well, do you think you'll be vulnerable to missiles in the mech? (Fast and close-fighting probably doesn't need AMS, but slow and large should probably get it for vulnerability.)
Do you want to put BAP on a mech? (1.5 tons2/crits) Extends detection range and decreases lock-on time for missiles. (Scout might want it, except they can just use the sensor module for free weight, just like every other mech who doesn't use missiles. So.. if you don't use missiles, you don't use BAP.. use the tonnage for heatsinks, armor, or ammo..

Do you want ECM on a mech? (1.5 tons2/crits) Untargetable outside 200-230 meters without someone actively holding a TAG laser on you..,actively occupying that member of the enemy team.
Completely disables locking inside of 180 meters making you near invincible to Streak missiles.
Completely disabling/nerfing any weapon that uses locks for a mech within 180.meters of you. (eliminating the effectiveness of an entire class of weapons.

So for 1.5 tons and 2 crit slots, you can be invulnerable to targeting/missiles unless you entirely occupy a member of the enemy team with your passive equipment, and utterly disable an entire class of weapon. What person in their right mind would choose AMS, BAP, Ammo, Armor, or Heatsinks over that? Nobody, that is his points.

Glythe, on 24 February 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

I think we just need to break ECM into multiple different devices like in the actual rules. If we are going to have them all right now fine.... let's make them the correct weights.

Fine you want a Raven with ECM in its current form.... that will cost you about 6 tons. Unless a raven wants to take off its armor that means it can't bring ECM MLs and streaks.

The extra critical slot space from the extra equipment might also prevent the use of the ferofibrous upgrade which would further cut into the ravens power.

I would agree, except:
Angel ECM technology (which blocks Streak locks supposedly) isn't available for (at least) another 2 years (3052) according to timeline.
Stealth Armor (which prevents targeting/locks) isn't available for another 13 years (3063). So those things shouldn't even have a presence yet. (what is PGI going to do when it comes time to introduce those technologies? heh)

[Eddrick]

I don't use ECM and I'm ok with how it works now. I don't care if they nerf it or not.

[Nonsense]

ECM is probably fine. It's impossible to test whether or not it is with streaks in their current form.

Plus, most players are terrible and unable to adapt, so that's a factor.

[Vahnn]

I voted Yes to Question 1: I'm fine with ECM the way it is. I have no problems with it.. I play a CTF-2X brawler and a Jenner 7-D/K scout/hit and run, and do not use streaks. I sometimes equip an SRM + LRM on my CTF-2X, but usually 2 SRM. I have no complaints when using an LRM.

However, I think the ideas presented by the OP are excellent, and voted 'Yes, it's better than what we currently have." It still gives ECM a high degree of functionality without being a straight-up on/off switch for targeting, like we have now. I'd much rather have ECM act as a counter to advanced targeting/scouting techniques as opposed to a binary function as it is now (either enabling or 100% disabling a lock).

I think it would expand gameplay a great deal and allow for a great number of viable configurations. It may even increase the use of ECM over what we see now, but it would be perfectly awesome to me, seeing as how it wouldn't completely shutdown certain mech configurations. Seeing as how team composition and map choice are basically completely randomized, I would like OP's ECM proposal much more than what we have now.

That said, I would not quit playing if ECM remained as is, seeing as how I do fine vs ECM in its current form.