117 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

Royalewithcheese, on 03 March 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

I'm yet another fan of the 120-meter detection bubble that is blocked by ECM, because then ppl would actually have a reason to run BAP.

Indeed. They should have made it so only the BAP can detect if it is being jammed, instead of always showing that low signal icon on every Mech. And, as in every thread, there have been good, simple suggestions for ECM that don't completely change the function of modules, etc. Just make it reduce detection range or a detection 'by time/distance' model, increase locks, but do not shut out locks. Second, Then PGI should do this after or at the same time ( Streaks Leaving Launchers At Ridiculous Angles ) for lock on missile systems. Voila, then balance in the universe has returned.

[Livewyr]

General Taskeen, on 03 March 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

Indeed. They should have made it so only the BAP can detect if it is being jammed, instead of always showing that low signal icon on every Mech. And, as in every thread, there have been good, simple suggestions for ECM that don't completely change the function of modules, etc. Just make it reduce detection range or a detection 'by time/distance' model, increase locks, but do not shut out locks. Second, Then PGI should do this after or at the same time ( Streaks Leaving Launchers At Ridiculous Angles ) for lock on missile systems. Voila, then balance in the universe has returned.

I have a balanced adjustment approach in the ECM balance thread that was worked on by myself and a few other level headed people (including DocBach and Doc Holliday) and so far, the only criticism I've heard about it has been from the "ECM is fine" crowd that I should just learn to play... (this tells me it's pretty good)

I wish it would get around, it solves issues from all the electronics and missiles. (right down to AMS)

[Doc Holliday]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 03 March 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

If the devs come out and say "We like ECM, we are adjusting A/B/C a bit, but otherwise it's done", that will settle it and people who don't like ECM can suck it up and move on.

I find your naïveté very amusing.

Mystere, on 03 March 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

But, I personally do not consider it as so broken that it warrants all this endless crying. Heck, I have no problem dealing with it and in fact have specialized in killing anyone I see carrying them. So why can't others just do the same and move on, enjoy, whatever?

Because others are intelligent and intuitive enough to realize that ECM is currently so unbalanced as to be gamebreaking?

The sun is too bright to stare at, even if a blind man personally does not see it to be so.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 03 March 2013 - 11:08 AM.

[Livewyr]

Doc Holliday, on 03 March 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

The sun is too bright to stare at, even if a blind man personally does not see it to be so.

Could not 'Like' more than once.

[Velba]

I came for the onion ring party.

[Doc Holliday]

Velba, on 03 March 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

I came for the onion ring party.

I came for cheese curds, but do we have that option? NO. I quit!

[Lykaon]

Kassatsu, on 03 March 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:

Matchmaker needs to take ECM into consideration, should be an equal number on each team, and yes that means a D-DC might be matched up against a Commando, but that's already happening anyways.

Other than that, people just need to learn how to effectively counter it, even without the hard counters PGI keeps adding to the game.

Adding more parameters to a match maker is not a solution.The more requirements needed to pair the longer searches become and nobody will be happy with this.

As for the "hard counters" for ECM that "PGI keeps adding" PGI has only ever included one reliable hard counter to ECM that is as effective at counter ECM as ECM is at disrupting and that is more ECM.

TAG is not a hard counter because it does not stop ECM from functioning.TAG paints one target that must be in LOS and the TAG must be maintained.The TAG painted target has some features of ECM mitigated but not all of them.
If for example an ECM equiped mech is TAGed.That mech will still be providing all ECM effects to every friendly within 180m of it's self while the TAG has only allowed the ECM equiped mech to be detected and locked onto for as long as the TAGing unit is not within range of hostile ECM.
This by definition is not a hard counter it is mitigation.Big difference.

PPC disrupt effects require LOS and accurate fire to temporarily counter ECM.Since the ECM equiped target must be struck by PPC once every four seconds to effectivley "hard counter" ECM effects this PPC disrupt feature is also best described as a mitigation effect.In truth PPC disrupt effects actually encourages the use of redundant ECM units to mitigate the effects of PPC on ECM.The best counter to PPCs is more ECM.You will not be hitting multiple targets with PPCs every 4 seconds and you will not be "hard countering" ECM because of redundentcy.

Sensor range modules are also not even close to a "hard counter" to ECM.All these items do is mitigate one effect of ECM and even then only margonaly so.Sensor modules only increase the effective sensor range vs ECM by 50m this exstends detection range to 250m from 200m,Hardley a counter by any definition.

However ECM set to counter mode does "hard counter" ECM and is in fact the only real 100% effective countermeasure for ECM.And since 1 ECM set to counter will "hard counter" 1 enemy ECM the best means of defeating this is to bring more ECM.This of course means that the best way to prevent the enemy from having more ECM than you have set to counter is to bring even more ECM.
The best strategy for Countering ECM is to have every mech in a force equiped with ECM.As is the best strategy for preventing ECM from being counter.

So basicaly the best means of maintaining ECM dominance is compose a force of 100% ECM mechs And the best means of preventing the enemy from maintaining ECM dominance is to also have 100% ECM mechs.

ECM is the only "hard counter" to ECM.

[Rivqua]

WolvesX, on 03 March 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

BAP

AMS

ECM

1.5 tons, 2 slots!

Greetings fellow BETA Testers!

BAP = 25% increased target range, 25% faster information, detect shutdown mechs under 120m

AMS = Shot down 1-8 LRM, 0-3 SSRM

ECM = Well, as there is no discussion about its OPness anymore I'm going to skip this part.

---

ECM should be = decrease the range your mech is targetable by 25%, 25% slower information from you, can not be detected when you are shut down. Every mech should be able to get it.

That is the fair solution.

---

PROS: more mechs would be viable. Game would be more fun.

CONS: You can't drive your L3 with closed eyes anylonger.

---

Posting your opinion keeps the discussion alive.

Your PROs and CONs are incorrect. You are assuming people drive a 3L for any other reason than the ECM. There are better mechs for just coasting around in a light.
All it would do is decrease the amount of selectable mechs, and take the 3L out of the equation. All else being equal, the only things ECM does is lower LRM rain a tiny bit (99% of good LRM people are not affected by enemy ECM cover, only by ECM light which are amongst their own ranks, and they are usually killed off within seconds).
No other weapon is affected by ECM. And all mechs are ALWAYS visible. Saying anything else is a blatant lie. Would removing the ECM module make for a better game? absolutely not, if judging by pre-ECM experience.
There is no strong argument for removing ECM other than a few people being annoyed by not being able to blindly lob LRMs across the map, and balancing by that factor alone is flawed.

[Royalewithcheese]

Rivqua, on 03 March 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

All it would do is decrease the amount of selectable mechs, and take the 3L out of the equation. All else being equal, the only things ECM does is lower LRM rain a tiny bit (99% of good LRM people are not affected by enemy ECM cover, only by ECM light which are amongst their own ranks, and they are usually killed off within seconds).

There's also the SSRM. I know that some people don't like the idea of weapons that don't require significant skill to aim, but given the current state of the netcode SSRMs are probably a necessary evil for effectively dealing with lights. This becomes a problem when the only things that can use reliably use SSRMs are mechs with ECM, and of those only one (the 3-L) is an ideal platform for them, because now you have exactly one top-tier light mech.

[Mystere]

Doc Holliday, on 03 March 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Because others are intelligent and intuitive enough to realize that ECM is currently so unbalanced as to be gamebreaking?

Or maybe other players would rather practice to be effective against it instead of crying all day long.

[Livewyr]

Mystere, on 03 March 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Or maybe other players would rather practice to be effective against it instead of crying all day long.

PGI should give certain players/mechs the ability to teleport to various parts of the battlefield. But not you, you could just practice to be effective against the teleporting mech.


(I'm truly surprised you don't see the absurdity of your statement...)

[Mystere]

Livewyr, on 03 March 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

(I'm truly surprised you don't see the absurdity of your statement...)

And maybe it's time to replace your sig. Just saying.

[Doc Holliday]

Mystere, on 03 March 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Or maybe other players would rather practice to be effective against it instead of crying all day long.

Just because you can practice and "be effective" against something doesn't make it balanced. We could make all missiles do four times the damage they do now. Would that be balanced? Missiles have distinct weaknesses in that they have specific ranges at which they do zero damage. No matter how much you increased their damage, you could practice harder to be effective against missile mechs by killing them at a range they cannot shoot back.

[Ghogiel]

Livewyr, on 03 March 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

If there are no downsides to it at all: It is not balanced.

BAP IS OP NERP IT

[Mystere]

Doc Holliday, on 03 March 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

Just because you can practice and "be effective" against something doesn't make it balanced ...

And I am saying, and have been saying, that if people can create effective counters by using what already exists (with the exception of the said "broken" item, of course), then maybe, just maybe, the balance is good enough and does not warrant all the months of crying that has been going on.

Frankly, I can't wait for Clan tech to show up. The forums will go supernova in no time. And it will be GLORIOUS!

Edited by Mystere, 03 March 2013 - 12:15 PM.

[WolvesX]

Please stick to the topic and do not insult each other.

[Doc Holliday]

Mystere, on 03 March 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

And I am saying, and have been saying, that if people can create effective counters by using what already exists (with the exception of the said "broken" item, of course), then maybe, just maybe, the balance is good enough and does not warrant all the months of crying that has been going on.

I can't wait for Clan tech to show up. The forums will go supernova in no time.

And I'm saying that argument is completely irrelevant and moot.

Games are about having fun. If your players aren't enjoying the game, they won't stick around, and your game will be less profitable or possibly even fail entirely. If you have as many complaints as this game gets about ECM, it's clearly not fun for a significant portion of the players and needs to be changed. Whether or not it can be worked around is meaningless.

[FupDup]

WolvesX, on 03 March 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

BAP

AMS

ECM

1.5 tons, 2 slots!

You forgot MG + 1 ton of ammo.

[WolvesX]

FupDup, on 03 March 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

You forgot MG + 1 ton of ammo.

All the things I stated are "equipment", MG well... is not even a weapon.

[FupDup]

WolvesX, on 03 March 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

All the things I stated are "equipment", MG well... is not even a weapon.

AMS fits into a hardpoint so in a way it is a "weapon," it's just not one that can be manually controlled.