97 replies to this topic

[Twisted Power]

Carighan, on 08 March 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

Personally I would take the simple way out: Remove it.

Not necessarily permanently, mind you. Just... see how the game balances without it. Balance LRMs and Streaks with ECM, balance NARC / BAP / Artemis. Then, at the end of that process, see whether the game now feels like it still needs ECM. If it doesn't, then think of an entirely new use instead of even considering the current version.

You are making to much sense. This is the ECM feed back thread. You can't use logic!

[Arnold Carns]

GrizzlyViking, on 07 March 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Is there a valid reason for this thread?

I think not.

Yeah, it's very obvious that you "don't think"!

[StalaggtIKE]

Twisted Power, on 08 March 2013 - 06:47 AM, said:

Those "fast" tweaks you are talking about are the really lame tag+PPC+Modules changes. They actually think that those things did something and now everything is "OK".

I think these "fast" tweaks were a complete disservice to ECM, information warfare and all things involved. Here's why:

• Tag - It is currently used as a self designating tool, when instead it should have been the tool of a spotter (preferably a light). That's why the default range was short. It required sneaking behind enemy lines and spotting. A range boost is fine, however this has came with the corruption of role warfare.
  
• Modules (sensor range & target info gathering) - these are copied abilities from BAP. The issue being that, these are superior, since ECM counters BAP. The only saving grace of the BAP is its ability to detect shutdown mechs, in which is easily dealt with a shot in the cockpit for anyone foolish enough to attempt such.
  
• PPC - We were promised EMP, instead we got a temporary ECM disabler. This is what an EMP does (24s mark):
  
  
  It distorts the HUD and minimap..., kind of like, I don't know, our current ECM!
  
• BAP - cost, weight and take up the same crit slots as ECM, yet it is greatly inferior. It is supposed to provide the user with a targeting range advantage, however ECM cuts everyone's default range by 75%. Thus doing a better job. ECM causes a huge disparity between detection ranges:
  Over half of BAP's abilities can be duplicated through the use of modules. On top of that ECM completely negates it.
  
• ECM - It stealths teammates, blocks missiles lock from a distance and up close, slows down missile locks within range, slows down information gathering, disrupts minimap and IFF, denies target sharing between enemies and counters opposing ECM. All of this is done passively, only requiring the user to toggle modes. The only drawbacks is the limited builds that can carry it. Instead of adding to information warfare, it is the sole denier of information and enabler of LRM/SSRM spam.

Currently the only attempted method of balance towards ECM has been through elimination from gameplay: 4 seconds from PPC, TAG removing its stealth or being destroyed. Fact is, we want ECM to harmonize with the rest of the game. As electronic counter measure it should be the equalizer to electronic advantages. Nothing more and nothing less. Therefore it does not need to be countered. It is simply doing the countering. Information warfare comes from the use of BAP, NARC and TAG. ECM is not a part of this group. We do not currently have information warfare; instead only ECM, ECM and more ECM. Hopefully there are plans in the work to correct this ~ SOON.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 08 March 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[Cpt Jason McCarthy]

StalaggtIKE, on 08 March 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

Hopefully there are plans in the work to correct this ~ SOON.

Which ones ? I'm really interrested.

[StalaggtIKE]

Shadowpunisher, on 08 March 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Which ones ? I'm really interrested.

Well, hopefully we will get an answer soon in the promised Command Chair.

[EvangelionUnit]

BAP should break the LoS rule for lockable stuff, so you can detect shut down mechs in a close range AND everything without ECM up to 1000m around you ... if it don't got ECM, well sucks to be your target...

this would make it worth

[ExAstris]

StalaggtIKE, on 08 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Well, hopefully we will get an answer soon in the promised Command Chair.

I've basically lost hope. PGI's recent responsiveness to the outcry over their implimentation of consumable items with respect to the potency of c-bill vs MC versions shows that they are still responsive to issues.

The problem has to be something else. The best-fit explanation I can come up with is that they just don't think ECM is a problem. Maybe its something else (like not knowing which fix is best, or still needing to test internal permutations, or still needing some other features in place), but we just can't know because there has been an information blackout on the subject. Its like PGI has actually equipped an ECM.

If it is the case that they think its fine, then I wish they would at least let us know that they think this and give a defense of their position.

If it is the case that they think its not fine, then I wish they would at least let us know that they do plan on substantial changes to ECM itself, along with their current best guess for what the new version should be like and why it needs to be that way.


Thus, their responsiveness to other issues frustrates me because, even when they make excellent decisions regarding those other issues (ex: consumables), I can't help but get annoyed anyways because decisions aren't being made about the single feature that I think should be taking priority (and should have had priority months ago).


As an anecdote, I thought their original MC consumable idea was bad. But I would've played the game with it. I might've grumbled every time I had to buy the subpar c-bill version (or had to spend MC to be competative), but I can't imagine that would've prevented me from playing (unless the performance gap was large). But ECM has prevented me from even clicking on the client in almost two weeks.

The desync between my priority wieghting and PGIs is so distressing that I would rather deal with SimCity which isn't even playable 90% of the time, than deal with MWO in its current gameplay state despite being utterly stable and reliable. In fact, the only reason I am posting this is because SimCity's servers are still borked, and the fact that I'm here posting this instead of actually playing MWO is a serious hint.

[Slayer Of Twisted]

So I do not have many posts but allow me to leave my feedback.

The time it takes to kill a mech is not in direct proportion to game difficulty.

I can kill plenty of mechs with LRM's that still have ECM but that does not make ECM (or LRMS) balanced at all.

Tried to pick the game back up the other day and played through the trail mechs and bought an awesome and while I did well it was not fun. I would like to play and invest money but I cannot justify spending money for development if this is what you call development.

Edited by Slayer Of Twisted, 08 March 2013 - 04:10 PM.

[Cpt Jason McCarthy]

StalaggtIKE, on 08 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Well, hopefully we will get an answer soon in the promised Command Chair.

I've been waiting for it a full month, now I don't care any more for this post.

[arghmace]

As many have said already, the most annoying thing is that the developers don't deem it necessary to even give some answer to our concerns. This is a major change compared to closed beta. It seems they completely disregard the community with no respect to their paying customers whatsoever.

Also it should be clear to any sane person that ECM should just be a viable option. You should be able to make a proper DDC build without ECM, just like equipping PAB is just an option, not for granted. But now PGI seems to be going the route of nerfing ECM-capable variants. This is pure madness.

Sure, I can adapt and still play with ECM, I kill those ******* a lot. I could probably also get used to having a nail put through my sack but it doesn't mean it's all fine and good.

Now I still have lots of MC's from my Founder's package and will continue to play for now since this game certainly has its upsides. But unless this ECM fiasco is fixed, I will never ever pay a single dime for this once my current MC's are exhausted.

[Liquidx]

Another possible way to decrease the potency of ECM would be to make it completely ineffective against mechs within the ecm bubble.

ie: if you're within 180m (or however large the ECM bubble is) of a mech that's blocking you with ecm, the ecm ceases to affect you - in table top lore, basic sensors could punch through ecm in certain situations, so this would kind of make sense.


Personally I would take ECM, BAP, Tag, narc, etc completely back to the drawing table and balance them properly - rather than attempting to balance it one at a time.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

StalaggtIKE, on 08 March 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

I think these "fast" tweaks were a complete disservice to ECM, information warfare and all things involved. Here's why:

• Tag - It is currently used as a self designating tool, when instead it should have been the tool of a spotter (preferably a light). That's why the default range was short. It required sneaking behind enemy lines and spotting. A range boost is fine, however this has came with the corruption of role warfare.
  
• Modules (sensor range & target info gathering) - these are copied abilities from BAP. The issue being that, these are superior, since ECM counters BAP. The only saving grace of the BAP is its ability to detect shutdown mechs, in which is easily dealt with a shot in the cockpit for anyone foolish enough to attempt such.
  
• PPC - We were promised EMP, instead we got a temporary ECM disabler. This is what an EMP does (24s mark):
  
  
  
  It distorts the HUD and minimap..., kind of like, I don't know, our current ECM!
  
• BAP - cost, weight and take up the same crit slots as ECM, yet it is greatly inferior. It is supposed to provide the user with a targeting range advantage, however ECM cuts everyone's default range by 75%. Thus doing a better job. ECM causes a huge disparity between detection ranges:
  
  Over half of BAP's abilities can be duplicated through the use of modules. On top of that ECM completely negates it.
  
• ECM - It stealths teammates, blocks missiles lock from a distance and up close, slows down missile locks within range, slows down information gathering, disrupts minimap and IFF, denies target sharing between enemies and counters opposing ECM. All of this is done passively, only requiring the user to toggle modes. The only drawbacks is the limited builds that can carry it. Instead of adding to information warfare, it is the sole denier of information and enabler of LRM/SSRM spam.

Currently the only attempted method of balance towards ECM has been through elimination from gameplay: 4 seconds from PPC, TAG removing its stealth or being destroyed. Fact is, we want ECM to harmonize with the rest of the game. As electronic counter measure it should be the equalizer to electronic advantages. Nothing more and nothing less. Therefore it does not need to be countered. It is simply doing the countering. Information warfare comes from the use of BAP, NARC and TAG. ECM is not a part of this group. We do not currently have information warfare; instead only ECM, ECM and more ECM. Hopefully there are plans in the work to correct this ~ SOON.

When the next QnA comes up, I'm spamming this every page. Since they ignored the question about the ECM command chair. Hope you don't mind. I may get myself banned.

[Gandalfrockman]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 March 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

When the next QnA comes up, I'm spamming this every page. Since they ignored the question about the ECM command chair. Hope you don't mind. I may get myself banned.

At least its for a good cause....

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Gandalfrockman, on 08 March 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

At least its for a good cause....

Hope so.

[StalaggtIKE]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 March 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

When the next QnA comes up, I'm spamming this every page. Since they ignored the question about the ECM command chair. Hope you don't mind. I may get myself banned.

I'll be honored. Hopefully they realize all we want is a response.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

I would like to see any feedback from devs...I saw a lot of questions in ATD 33 but not even one was answered...

[ICEFANG13]

I doubt they will ever answer ECM questions or do the command chair post anytime soon. The game is centered around ECM. I don't think there is any player that can't deal with it (maybe PUG only teams who have no target info), but its still OP and still needs to be adjusted to be worth 1.5 tons and 2 slots.

[Sudden Reversal]

It is my impression that PGI have painted themselves into a corner somewhat in regards to ECM.

Obviously they personally like it and wish it to stay in its current form. This is somewhat understandable as they play with single digit pings, voice communication and coordinated drops. Under those circumstances ECM most probably provides a fun to circumvent challenge and an early designated target to focus on. The problems in gameplay that ECM brings are largely ameliorated in that format.

Sadly this is not the PUG players experience, far from it, as ECM for the most part does nothing but degrade their enjoyment of the game as reflected in a recent poll where over 50% of the thousand respondents disliked its addition.

As a result there is a hue and cry on the forums and PGI look to their data for justification. They find it of course, as it reflects that the great majority in fact do not use ECM capable Mechs. The inference would be that if it were so OP then everyone would be using it, right? Actually no, that would be wrong. Most people will continue to drop in their favourite chassis, or work on variants to skill up their piloting or refuse to ride in such a downright imbalanced Mech such as the Raven 3L on principle. These may be mitigating effects however they do nothing to address the disparity in usefulness and game influence that a paltry 1.5 tons and 2 critical spaces creates.

So the Devs do not want to change it as it is their version and vision for information warfare but must be seen to be open to change. They are in a double bind, how to keep it in its current form yet make the punters feel that change and balance are in the works.

What you get is vague, sporadic comments stating they are looking at it and 'minor tweaks' are coming whilst introducing bandaid fixes like TAG range increase and PPC 4s disruption in a hope that will quell most of the disquiet. Nothing more definitive than that as the truth just might be too painful for many players to hear, they might just shed a tear and move on.

They are happy for the ECM dissenters to labour under the impression that a fix just might be in the works, clinging on to false hope that reason will somehow prevail, all for the betterment of the game when in reality it will be business as usual.

Hope springs eternal and I here I am still, playing despite the oppressive blanket that is ECM shrouding an otherwise excellent game.

[Flapdrol]

Hello ecm thread, still going strong I see.

[hercules1981]

The only thing I have really said since the start of ECM is to make BAP a better counter for it. So if u can't target a ECM mech till 200 meters now make it so a BAP mech can target them at say 500 instead so then it is half regular 1000 meter range to begin with. And just have the tag inside bubble thing actually lock as some1 else had mentioned. I'm not really an LRMS fan and would much rather have an auto cannon so ECM doesn't bother me at all and I only own 1 of the 4 ECM mechs anyway, but I will say I have played the treb a little bit and was pretty good at lighting people up with LRMS and tag without much practice at all, guess I was just not out of position! Aiming with the mouse and shooting ppcs or auto cannons or srms instead of just locking and hitting a button for LRMS is more fun anyway.Final thought on ECM. If pgi doesn't make changes, I'm good and will still spend money on this game in the near future.