Not necessarily... The likelihood of something getting crit is based the ratio of how many slots it uses vs how many total slots are used in that component.
It doesn't matter if it's two slots, or seven. If it is the only item in that component, it has a 100% chance of being what gets crit.
It all depends on how much other stuff is packed into the component to pad the item.
*facepalm* you can't fit as many things in with a GR as you can with ECM. I see many people have their ECM buffered by many things. So yes, taking up more crits does make it easier to crit.
The thing about ECM that people forget... it doesn't require LOS. Everything else requires it... TAG, PPCs, lasers, missiles... but ECM does not. Even BAP AND Advanced Sensors requires LOS to work.
I'm....not sure what this is supposed to mean. ECM's effect on enemies that do not have LoS on the ECM target actually is a con rather than a pro. I can tell where ECM mechs are by running through the cave in forest colony and frozen city because of the low signal messages from hugging the walls. Meanwhile if they were off (or didn't have it in the first place) I wouldn't be able to give my team any information as it would require line of sight in the first place.
Royalewithcheese, on 04 April 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:
She's an Awesome with an XL engine. He's a Streakcat who is getting too old for this sh*t. They fight crime!
Bad Mechs 2: The case of that ***** *ing ECM
Trailer:
How will our two cops fight.... an enemy they cannot see!?
Old lady commando getting robbed: Someone help me, this raven is mugging me!
Awesome: I don't know what you're talking about, I can't see anything with my radar.
Commando: he's right here stupid!
Streakcat: Don't give us that **** I'm hitting R and nothings coming up other than your dumb ol' lady ***.
Commando: He's streaking me!!!
Streakcat: I'm gettin too old for this ****, send this chick to the insane asylum, she's seein things.
Edit: Wow, they actually bleep the alternate to mother.
Yes, which can actually be a disadvantage for ECM. If you are behind cover with ECM, and the enemy gets within 180m, they now know you are close... Even if they don't see you.
I've had this happen, where I am about to run up and over a hill, but before I do, I get a LOW SIGNAL warning, so I stop, and now I know where the enemy is... The other side of the hill... And if I don't have ECM, they don't know where I am, or that I know where they are...
There's actually more like a 50-50 chance. I have found that Low Signal in many cases where I'm scouting the field is that the ECM mech is BEHIND me. Most players (even veterans) don't turn off their ECM when sneaking up on people. However, most players never seem to notice the "low signal" or use the novel idea to turn around.
I've experienced both and frankly you can NEVER guarantee that an ECM mech is in front of you. In fact, they are just as likely to be BEHIND you.
Quote
Really, I see lots of people not buffering their ECM... Many times, like on a light mech, everything is practically empty, there is not enough weight to put stuff to buffer against crits.
Readjusting building stats for people legging the classic 3L is not that hard, mind you.
I'm....not sure what this is supposed to mean. ECM's effect on enemies that do not have LoS on the ECM target actually is a con rather than a pro. I can tell where ECM mechs are by running through the cave in forest colony and frozen city because of the low signal messages from hugging the walls. Meanwhile if they were off (or didn't have it in the first place) I wouldn't be able to give my team any information as it would require line of sight in the first place.
Detecting ECM mechs when they are "near you" isn't difficult as much as some make it out to be.
My point is that EVERY weapon or item used to COUNTER ECM (outside of ECM) is to have LOS on the target. ECM does not need LOS to be effective. If the mech is directly behind the ECM mech, it's automatically protected from any missiles. It has the literally same effect when the mech is infront of the ECM mech. There is no balance to that.
Except I can turn around ad check behind, if there's nothing there, they are on the other side of that hill.
If you're wrong, you'll be shot from behind. If you're right, you'll probably be shot first.
Of course this applies whether or not ECM is there, but that's not even the point. Getting the drop on others with ECM is pretty easy.. it's somewhat harder when you don't, but not impossible.
AntiCitizenJuan, on 03 April 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:
I like how he brought up BAP in a positive light. When it's really a total waste of tonnage, and chances are if you run one not only are YOU bad, but you internet robot is bad too
Well its the only weapon you can fire in the game without worrying about retaliation. Why you keep comparing it to ease of direct fire weapons I'll never understand.
Two scenarios, let's assume no ECM.
Ac/40 Jager vs LRM Jager vs poptarts.
40Jager has to take direct fire in order get in range of the poptarts, and take fire while firing, exposing it.
LRM Jager sits behind a hill and lobs LRMs without worry about being shot if the 40 Jager hits r.
LRMs have a multitude of other problems than just ECM but I'm not going to go into them here, but saying they are harder than direct fire weapons because god forbid you might have to check and see if you're plastering a wall or not from behind the ridge in calderra is laughable.
Your example is flawed in that the AC/40 Jagger is assured of getting hits and doing considerable damage to the enemy if they aim true. The LRM Jagger is not assured of doing any damage whatsoever, as there is a significant delay between the time the weapon is fired and the time it hits the target, allowing the target to take countermeasures. Also, the LRM Jagger has no chance to do any more damage than the AC/40 Jagger without exposing itself to even more damage without a teammate to provide the targetting data, nullifying the comparison if looking at them as solo combatants. Also, the AC Jagger has a definite ability to damage 'Poptart' targets due to the instant travel time of its weapons, whereas the LRM unit would have all of its LRMs striking the terrain the jumping unit is hiding behind, regardless of if it retained lock.
Finally, the effect of ECM on the two units is absolutely and undeniably different. An AC/40 Jagger is mostly unaffected by ECM, aside from not gaining target data beyond very short range, and the AC/40 Jagger can fight effectively against the ECM unit. The LRM Jagger, on the other hand, is rendered completely unable to fight by the ECM, and must get to such a range as to make the LRMs do no damage to have any reasonable chance of deadfiring them (the minimum range of the weapon makes this method of firing unusable in any reasonable combat situation).
So your comparisons are not accurate, as the LRM Jagger must expose itself just as much as the AC Jagger even without ECM when it is fighting alone, but does not have the same guarantee of damaging the enemy regardless of aim. Only with a teammate does the LRM Jagger gain the ability to fire indirectly, and even then it has different restrictions that counterbalance this ablity outside of ECM, making it a fair compromise. With ECM added into the equation, it becomes far, far more unbalanced, and unnecessarily so.
I still say equipping Guardian ECM on a mech should disable target-locking missiles (both LRM and Streak) fitted on that mech, and possibly on all mechs with the area of effect, both blue and red.
at this point its pretty obvious that theyre just saying "this is how it is and if you dont like it, dont let the door hit you"
Just like 3rd person's thread
Generally speaking, yes. I think this is largely the case.
That's not a really bad thing, even if one doesn't like what they chose to stand on (I'm not happy with either situation), but at least you know that's how it's going to be.
At which point, people may as well just shut up about it elsewhere (this is the ECM feedback thread, though), so...:
There is only one significant flaw remaining. My only real complaint is this: ECM+StreakSRM synergy make so equipped lights substantially better than other lights. The HSR fixes are effectively blanket nerfs to lights in general, and do not help fix Light vs. Light balance.
As a non-ECM light is not a better scout than an ECM light, and ECM lights have a huge advantage over non-ECM lights, you're clearly far better off rolling with an ECM light if you have the option.
Old Mechdonald, on 04 April 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:
How does coming around a corner and suddenly seeing the whole team
And instantly dying improve the game. No clue as to why making sensors
Virtually useless is a great thing. I just dont get this.
If that happens, it's your own poor piloting. You should have noted the LOW SIGNAL warning and been more cautious instead of running blindly around corners when you know there are some number of hostiles about.
Sensors have never picked up mechs that nobody can see around corners. ECM is actually a disadvantage in this circumstance.
After the Heat Vision Change, ECM is stronger than it's ever been. Pretty unhappy at their decision in this. Detecting ECM mechs at long range is now incredibly difficult, since the Long Range Zoom module is better for giving me a headache than hitting targets. It also cements ECM variants as the always-best variant of that mech. PGI should be focusing entirely on balance at this particular moment, so I don't really care if they aren't going to adjust ECM for awhile. But at the absolute least the range of its abilities should be reduced. I will state I do support their intended changes, with a standardized hardpoint, and it not effecting friendly mechs, though.
Only time will tell whether the current implementation of ECM will drive players away from the game or make it more interesting so that more continue to play.
My personal take based on experience is that ECM is overpowered and makes for more boring matches from my playing perspective since taking an ECM mech is much more effective than taking one without.
I have mastered three versions of the Jenner ... it is one of my favorites ... I really don't like the Raven, mostly from a looks perspective ... however, 90% of the time a Raven-3L (against someone with about the same skill level as I) will defeat my Jenner. Improving hit detection won't fix this. In part this is due to SSRMs ... which again appear to again be primarily hitting the center torso.
I am concerned that the game will not be fun in the long term if ECM stays the way it is ... I just finished a match with 3 or 4 ECM mechs on each team. Spider-5D, Commando-2D, Raven-3L and Cicada-3M use is all on the rise from what I can see ... possibly due to this statement about the plan to leave ECM as it is ... which makes for boring matches with the great majority of mechs sitting it out on the bench.
Anyway, PGI has the stats ... hopefully they can put them together to make a fun and interesting game in the long run. I wish them the best of luck with it.
I still say equipping Guardian ECM on a mech should disable target-locking missiles (both LRM and Streak) fitted on that mech, and possibly on all mechs with the area of effect, both blue and red.
If TT Stealth armor was being implemented, and assuming ECM stayed the same, it would be appropriate for missiles from the ecm/stealth carrying mech be made unable to lock
The proposed changes and the existing effects for ECM counters are irrelevant to the issues ECM/missile balance generates.
Team stealth shield and a feast/famine design for LRMs shafts pugs. That is exactly what it does and it does it pretty well. In order to use ECM and/or LRMs to full effect you have to drop with a team designed to use them effectively together.
That's bad balancing for pugs. It is a design specifically based around the idea of helping premade teams beat pug teams. That's it. It serves no other purpose.
To fix it make ECM slow, not block, missile lock. The whole 'have to be in X range with LOS, TAG, two glass beads in your left pocket while hopping on one foot for LRMs to work but only on Tuesdays when someone on your team has 1 ton of MG ammo in their left foot but no MGs loaded' concept is bad. I'm exaggerating to make a point but I feel the point is valid.
It really feels like there's this desire to create an overpowered item (ECM or LRMs or both) that's 'balanced' by coordinated mech loadouts or one-off stuff like PPCs or range modifications or modules or the like.
Don't do it. Don't. It's never going to work well for anyone save premade teams playing against pugs. It's not a good balance idea.
Balance each item relative to every other item. Weapons like LRMs are balanced by long range and indirect fire vs having a minimum range, weight and heat. ECM should deal with the mech equipping it, it should delay (not block) locks and should blocks its paperdoll from detection, possibly the paperdoll of nearby mechs. It should be available to every mech.
The current balance concept is designed, intentionally or otherwise, to punish people for pugging. That's it. For obvious reasons I don't find it a good idea, please take it a different direction. Please.
Thank you for the update. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.
I am not going to lie, this is disappointing. The hardpoint idea, is a nice thought and might help a bit. (Make sure it's somewhere easily shot off like an arm please)....Really I think there shoud be an antenna array or something, similar to AMS if it is mounted.
I still feel like this is the most overpowered single component in game right now. BAP is essentially useless I think.
While this may work in the PUG environment, I suspect once CW starts you will see waves and waves of ECM mechs, as we often see in the 8 man queues.
Again...there should be a disadvantage to running ECM like you cannot lock on your own missiles (you are trying to be stealthy right?).....or..BAP should pick UP the ECM signal at range and at least tell you SOMETHING is there..even if you cannot lock onto it. (If you are not actively transmitting how are STREAKs locking?)
I agree, that ECM should SLOW lock ons but not block totally.
Thank you for the update,
Regards.
Edited by Rhinehardt Ritter, 04 April 2013 - 12:29 PM.
Having an ECM hardpoint is NOT a real fix. Seriously. This is very similar to the AMS hardpoint.. not that useful.
The latter point in the post however is good. Obscuring your teammates from your view confuses newbies to a whole different level. That is very problematic. With higher level play, this is a lot more interesting... but newbies, not so much.
In sum, I don't think this goes far enough, especially with respect to ECM, Streaks, and other light mechs.
Exactly. I like how in his post he says "The Guardian ECM was released at the same time as the Raven Light Mech. The Raven 3L required the ECM/BAP systems as they were the main functionality of the variant". But yet the BAP for the most part gets taken out and the fact that the Raven 3L:
Also has TAG and NARC and also gets taken out. I say that these items on mechs that come standard with them remain because if you go and say that the 3L required ECM/BAP well, it also required the other two as well to do the job it describes.
Exactly. I like how in his post he says "The Guardian ECM was released at the same time as the Raven Light Mech. The Raven 3L required the ECM/BAP systems as they were the main functionality of the variant". But yet the BAP for the most part gets taken out and the fact that the Raven 3L:
Also has TAG and NARC and also gets taken out. I say that these items on mechs that come standard with them remain because if you go and say that the 3L required ECM/BAP well, it also required the other two as well to do the job it describes.
Lets be honest, that part of his post was downright stupid.
And a reach.
Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 04 April 2013 - 12:32 PM.
I have no problem with that. Every effect of ECM is quite fine with me.
The problem is that all those effects are included in a single 1.5 ton equipment. Split them to many different equipments and modules and we're fine. We still have all those effects to teamplay that PGI seems to think are important but we're freed from the curse a ridiculously OP single item.
Seriously now, is there anyone at PGI or in the whole world that can say that PAB is even half as useful as ECM? That's how you know you have a balance problem. No person in their right mind uses PAB but everyone uses ECM if they can.
Sound post Paul. The thing I find most distressing about using ECM to 'add an exrtra dimension' is that they are admitting that their gameplay is fundamentally broken unless there is ECM in play.
To be 'real' - MechWarrior is fundamentally broken as an online game. A lot of the trends established were single-player adaptations of the table-top game. Online play adapted afterward - and 'balance' has long been an issue with the game. Previous games have often been dominated by Assault mechs (though some of us better players were quite competent in mediums and heavies).
The information warfare aspect of the game gives lights a very crucial purpose, and ECM completes the information warfare aspect.
The problem is that it does a bit too much autonomously. You cut enemies off, make allies virtually immune to missiles, and give everyone a cloaking device... not to mention you completely shut down any enemy missiles within 180 meters.
The 'cloak' functions should be split off into their own mode of operation. The hard-counter for locks should be reduced to a soft counter (increased lock time), and the shut-down of hostile combat networks should work in the 'offensive' mode.
This way - you have three modes of ECM. One reduces effective enemy sensor range on friendlies in range. One lengthens lock-on time and cuts enemies off from their combat network. The other negates the effects of the other two ECM modes.
This makes ECM a more conscious endeavor, preserves the role, but does not render entire classes of mechs useless (IE - the LRM fire support mechs who, otherwise, have to become SRM-boats).
Slambot, on 04 April 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:
So, basically, you took all those replies (I read most of them) and decided to ignore 90% of them? Nifty. Successful game developers actually listen to their fanbase. Even Blizzard, arguably the number one game designer out there, listens quite closely to their fanbase.
I caution against this mentality. Democracy doesn't always lead to a good game. WoW has largely been 'destroyed' because of this philosophy. "Choose a character class. It doesn't matter, it's the same as every other class." There were distinct advantages, disadvantages, and nuances to each class and how to play it effectively. After people who couldn't figure out how to play Pong also decided to play WoW and complain (with money) - the experience went to hell in a handbasket.
Many of the game's raids were nerfed to the point where there is no challenge. You used to wipe on raids a few times as you built party cohesion and what-not (newer content would have top-tier guilds wiping for -weeks- to try and develop the strategy and tactics for a win).
While I think there is some truth to the concept of "bring the player, not the class" - if you back that logic with forum democracy, you'll reduce your game to a very bland and repetitive experience.
Granted, in this case, it's the lack of content at present...
Quote
ECM should NOT be a cloaking device. What will you do with the null signature system? I agree that ECM adds a level of strategy, but really, it defines the game currently. No one system should do so.
This is where units like BAP should offer far more functionality - such as transmitting -all- visible targets to your team mates (or a module that allows it to do so). There has been plenty of effort by PGI to -hide- mechs from standard equipment and sensors. There has not been much effort put into the opposite - which is info gathering (another side to information warfare).
I don't think BAP should be the counter to ECM, per say - but something more like its opposite; a 'yin' to the 'yang' - ECM is to disrupt and restrict information, BAP is to enhance a team's ability to gather information. If ECM can hide all allies within 180 meters - BAP should be able to relay all sensor contacts (with target detail) within the field of view to your allies (this would pair great with target info gathering).
What PGI has not paid attention to is that, while they have removed the silly, omniscient sensors of MechWarrior of old (reducing our overall awareness), they've also stuck with a lot of old conventions regarding components like BAP, Tag, Narc, etc - but gone a completely different direction with how ECM works (compared to previous MW games).
Though I think an arbitrary "you cannot mount both ECM and BAP" rule should be in effect.
Null Sig should pretty much eliminate the ability to target the mech unless it is within 90 meters or is being illuminated with BAP/TAG/NARC. I would actually be for violating the lore timeline to implement NullSig a little bit earlier simply so that Narc comes with a bit more meaning.
Though, again, ECM should not be able to be equipped on mechs with Null Sig (you can't be countering enemy electronic systems if you are effectivelly nullifying your emissions).
But, perhaps the real solution is to make Narc actually useful (such as making any missiles fired on a Narc-tagged mech fire-and-forget - the missiles continue to home even if lock is broken, so long as Narc is active).
Marcus Tanner, on 04 April 2013 - 04:36 AM, said:
LRMs could be the kind of weapon used by new players because of their high damage/skill ratio, but get abandoned in higher tiers of play for less skill-efficient but more mass-efficient weapons. It's easy to tell someone who loves their LRMs to L2P, but they're the ones who *are* learning to play, and using a crutch while figure out how the game works.
I, actually, disagree with this.
The reason LRMs are abandoned at higher tiers of play is because the level of skill required to apply damage to a target is directly proportional to the piloting skill of that target.
Dealing with players who are just learning the game, avoiding LRMs is a bit of a pain. Dealing with more experienced players - even an Atlas can largely nullify a distant LRM player through piloting, alone. You have to get much closer and play far more tactically for LRMs to be effective (play them more like MRMs and long range streak SRM shots).
Some of this could be addressed with improvements to how missiles perform, kinematically, but they will always remain more difficult to use in higher tiers because no other weapon system is so dependent upon the target's level of skill. Against the players you -need- to be dealing the most damage, LRMs will be least effective - because there's only so much you can actually do after you've committed to firing. It's mostly on their shoulders.
Which is why you don't see them at higher tiers of play.
It's not that they "require no skill" - it's that the skill they require to be effective is greater than the skill of your target... and there are limited opportunities for the player to insert skill/tactics into LRM behavior. Anything that is put in gets voided largely after the first 1.5 seconds of flight time (so the missiles haven't even hit their minimum effective range).
Quote
You would see a lot fewer bicycles around if training wheels didn't exist. Similarly, you'd see a lot more players if this game had training wheels.
I don't think any weapon system should be considered a "training wheel."
"nube tubes" are not really training wheels. It's a slur because it's a powerful one-shot weapon that "requires no skill." Because stupid people think that killing somoene in a video game equates to skill when they model weapon systems designed to give untrained peasants a fighting chance against armored, highly trained nobles (knights, samurai were dethroned by the man-portable firearm... "gun" - a point-and-kill device that was the nube tube of its day... where almost anyone could pick it up and undo 10+ years of dedication, training, and practice).
So, basically, a game filled with nube tubes is assumed to be a display of skill relative to the size of nube tube you're using.
That said - this game does need a much better way of introducing players to the mechanics of the game and a way to actually learn some of the principles they will need to use against real targets (not the things standing still in the training grounds...) so that they can drop into their first real match with a little more competency.
Many MMOs have a scripted intro stage where you are introduced to many of the game's mechanics.
Actually - there's a pretty good video on the idea of "tutorials" and teaching elements of games:
Not all of it is applicable to the scene of MWO - but a considerable portion of it is. The more "academic" you make the learning curve of your game, the 'worse' it is, usually.
MegaZordTrololo, on 04 April 2013 - 05:04 AM, said:
My main problem with ECM was the disorientation it causes. It is very important to know whether your team has your back, if ECM can no longer deprive me of this information then I have far less problem with it.
Actually, this is the thing about ECM that should stay in, period.
Taking mechwarrior in a direction where you do not have arbitrarily omniscient sensors that know where everyone and everything is... has been the absolute best decision by PGI in regards to the development of MWO.
Play just about any game out there. Unless it is designed to be a simulator or to pretend to be a simulator - you have some 'radar' thingy that can pretty much detect where everyone is. The exceptions to this are single-player games with more complex recon systems/gadgets.
I'd rather avoid Call of Duty: Mech Warrior. If for no other reason than it will constantly be confused with modern warfare.
Quote
Saying that, an Atlas should not get ECM capability, this is just ridiculous.
EDIT: I would say restrict ECM to Mediums and Lights, this will help Mediums have more utility (and reason for use) than a Heavy.
I'm fine with the DDC getting ECM - it actually makes sense as a command mech designed to support theater forces and form the backbone of a combat front.
I just don't think that it should be invulnerable to missile fire unless somoene has TAG. You shouldn't be able to trudge through the open with relative impunity - but it should give you an edge when you need to make moves through more open spaces.
23
This topic is locked
Thontor, on 04 April 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:
