1089 replies to this topic

[Rofl]

Has anyone ever noticed (on either pro or anti ECM) that the more you drink, the less you care? I have. Time to drink up and play some MWO! I'll prob do something dumb like paint my mech bring green and pink.... hell ya.

[Marcus Tanner]

Rhakhas, on 06 April 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

I think BAP also ups the range, but I'm not positive on that.

You are mistaken.

The goggles do nothing.

Mystere, on 06 April 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

Can the anti-ECM crowd please get their act together?

That would be nice.

I take it there are still teams that bring pure ECM in 8v8. That would be odd if it's easily countered by planning, teamwork and a lack of missiles. If it really sucked against coordinated teams then I'd expect it to be rarer than NARC over there.

StalaggtIKE, on 06 April 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

Basically summed up: TAGs usefulness is directly correlated to ECM's power. If ECM wasn't as useful, neither would TAG.

I believe that assertion to be incorrect. I have a good friend who loves his Jenner with TAG. We did wonderful things with it just before ECM came out. TAG+Artemis *wrecked* lights at that stage of the game. The two of us (me with LRMs, him with TAG) would usually get more kills than the rest of our team combined. This is almost entirely due to how good he is at finding good targets and convincing them to leave their cover.

TAG was just fine before ECM. While it's power may be proportional to ECM, it's also proportional to the number of good LRM users on your side.

Rofl, on 06 April 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

Has anyone ever noticed (on either pro or anti ECM) that the more you drink, the less you care? I have. Time to drink up and play some MWO! I'll prob do something dumb like paint my mech bring green and pink.... hell ya.

I stopped drinking heavily when I woke up one morning beside a Hunchback.

[StalaggtIKE]

@ Marcus Tanner: Your statement was more of an addition to my statement, than an antithesis. But, yes that's great you and a buddy had success with TAG. Most people didn't bother even equipping it, prior to ECM.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 06 April 2013 - 06:21 PM.

[Mystere]

DocBach, on 06 April 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

To set one thing straight, I'm not anti ecm; I'm anti poorly balanced and implemented mechanics that cheapen gameplay. However individuals all have their own perspective on the matter, so one player who doesn't like ecm might not like it because of the effect it has on competitive play, while others may not be affected at all in competitive play but dislike it for other reasons. Regardless, attacks on semantics and syntax of an argument usually means your own position is weak. Your own position was admittedly you like ecm because it upsets players so much.

That's fine and dandy. But, you did not address what I said about 8-mans.

Edited by Mystere, 06 April 2013 - 06:42 PM.

[Gopblin2]

I have a suggestion for the devs:

Introduce another 1.5 ton module, call it say Energy Shield Module (ESM).

Have ESM completely inactivate energy weapons except Small Lasers, as well as disable heat/night vision on enemy mechs within 180m.

Make it mountable only on Raven 3L and Atlas D-DC.

Then insist the game is balanced for FIVE MONTHS, because ESM switches off for 4 seconds after the mech is hit by LBX-10(?), and because you can destroy the module(??) - provided you brought the correct weapons, and managed to outshoot the enemy despite them having better detection capabilities.

You can also say it enriches the game despite the fact it virtually removes a whole class of weapon systems and makes most chassis vastly inferior to the ones that can carry it.

....

I understand no one wants the game to be completely dominated by LRM boats. This has been solved - LRMs have been nerfed to oblivion.

At this point, even completely removing ECM would vastly improve gameplay over its currently broken state.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

Edited by Gopblin2, 06 April 2013 - 06:47 PM.

[Mystere]

Gopblin2, on 06 April 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

I have a suggestion for the devs: <&*#@^@ idea>

<&*#@^@ idea> idea is <&*#@^@ idea>. Just like the proposed Magnetic Field Calibrator: MFC and Dense Fog Generator: DFG.

Some say PGI's ECM implementation is a horrible design. And I say it's brilliant in more ways than one.

Edited by Mystere, 06 April 2013 - 06:54 PM.

[Marcus Tanner]

StalaggtIKE, on 06 April 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

@ Marcus Tanner: Your statement was more of an addition to my statement, than an antithesis. But, yes that's great you and a buddy had success with TAG. Most people didn't bother even equipping it, prior to ECM.

You talked about TAG being bad without ECM around, but I've seen it do very well in the absence of ECM. I think hammerborn would concur with my assessment, considering how much he uses TAG and how little he cares about ECM.

That sounds pretty antithetical.

[hammerreborn]

StalaggtIKE, on 06 April 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

Basically summed up: TAGs usefulness is directly correlated to ECM's power. If ECM wasn't as useful, neither would TAG.

TAG was buffed in the first place to better counter ECM. The comparison between the two is moot. It's like comparing a hammer to a nail; the nail doesn't mean **** without the hammer.

TAGs usefulness is indirectly correlated to ECMs power, as it has a direct correlation with the amount of LRMs on your team. During LRMaggeddon TAGs were used by nearly all mechs for that extra boost in damage to the absurd LRM damage that was going about then, and with the Jagermech recently introduced ECM mechs were at an artificial low.

[Belisarius1]

Why do we need an "advanced sensor module" when BAP is in the game and currently useless?

Oh, right, because the advanced sensor module costs a lot of money. Gotcha.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Please remove the stacking effect on ECM.
It should only take one ECM to counter all ECM's within the bubble.
This needs to happen if you want to stop 4 ECM ravens steam rolling groups. And believe me, it really needs to be stopped.
I'm not going to write 1000 word essay explaining why.
Please just listen to this. Implement this.
Please, damnit.

[Thomas Covenant]

Quote

• ECM should have a dedicated hardpoint (tonnage/space does not change). That way ECM will always be in a known location on a Mech and can be directly targeted by attackers.
  
• ECM should not cut out friendly signatures on the battlefield. Friendly Mechs should always be identifiable and not obscure team play.

Sounds good. Looking forward to playing MWO again.

[D0GMA]

Hello, please don't further limit mech build versatility by putting in ECM hard points. After all, designing your mech is half the game. If you want ECM to be targetable, maybe make it part of target info gathering. There could be a blinky on your enemy damage display after you keep the target for a certain amount of time. Or make it visible on the mech. ECM hard points might also limit strategy a bit, by making targeting the ECM the only strategy.

[Peiper]

"Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone at home?" - Pink Floyd

38 pages now. PGI, are you listening?

You guys gonna say ANYTHING? Or are you just going to continue thinking that you're right and we're wrong?

WE are the consumers of your product. Please stop feeding us shizznit, because I'm sick of telling my merc corp to 'hang in there. Things are going to get better.'

Fix ECM and give us lobbies or this game goes down the toilet.

Community warfare is not going to be any fun if we still have area cloaking devices. No matter how much cool stuff you put in the game, if the foundation of the game is broken, the game will not be able to stand on it's own.

YOU might think it's just where you want it: but if you think we're a very loud minority, well, we still outnumber you by a couple thousand and most everyone agrees, the very quiet super-minority (PGI staff) are WRONG!

And I still challenge you: write a mandatory survey for your Beta testers to answer what they think, before they are no longer your beta testers and ask them: Do you think an area cloaking device has a place in Mechwarrior Online?

You won't do it, will you? Just like the US Congress: if they were have us vote to stay in Afghanistan or leave, we would have been out of there a couple years ago or more. Instead, America continues to plummet deeper into debt and people lose more faith in their government - just like we keep losing faith in you, PGI, that you're not just going to take our money and get off on the first lifeboat.

Edited by Peiper, 07 April 2013 - 01:13 AM.

[Liquidx]

Rhakhas, on 06 April 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

This actually is the way it currently works, but base sensor range is 800m and the reduction from ECM is 75% Which is why you can target an ECM mech between 180 and 200m, and out to 250m if you have the module. I think
BAP also ups the range, but I'm not positive on that.

Replace target with "allow missile locks" in my post. This is what I had intended (but I was running off to work as I posted it - apologies for poor wording).

In essence, once you are within an enemy ECM bubble, your sensors should not be affected - this will solve the problem with streaks currently, and if sensor range is extended as per my earlier post, also solve LRM uselessness issues.

[senaiboy]

Everyone has had their say, so I'm not sure if anyone in PGI is still reading. But at the very least, read the first 5 pages (I did) - everything that are worth saying have already been said.

My only gripe is ECM being used offensively with SSRMs, in the sense of Raven-3L and Commando-2D, where they literally hunt down light mechs with no fear. Why would you make a specific light mech better than the rest?

Every time I see a 3L on my team, I sighed in relief. Any other light mech, I'd prepare myself for a tough fight, as not only will our light mech be taken out, we will then have to deal with the Raven-3L. This cannot possibly be working as intended.

How to change this? If you PGI have to ask this question, dear god, there were dozens of suggestions already. Note how many of us here are "Founders". We gave our support, at the very least listen to us when we speak.

Edited by senaiboy, 07 April 2013 - 03:21 AM.

[zztophat]

This was really... eh... disappointing, I finally see an official statement about ECM and it's to the effect of: "we think it's good".

Sometimes I wonder exactly how much PGI actually plays this game or even just reads the forum.

PPCs countering ECM is just laughable, by that logic; AC 20s are an even better counter.

[Livewyr]

zztophat, on 07 April 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

This was really... eh... disappointing, I finally see an official statement about ECM and it's to the effect of: "we think it's good".

Sometimes I wonder exactly how much PGI actually plays this game or even just reads the forum.

PPCs countering ECM is just laughable, by that logic; AC 20s are an even better counter.

PGI does play the game.. however.. none of their testers like using missiles in the first place.. that explains:

Missiles coming in super freaking (broken) strong (Artemis, Splash,etc..) in patches
and
ECM being "fine" to them.. they don't *actually* play them outside of what they have to do to make sure the game doesn't crash.

Point me to a an instance of a PGI dev in any game using missiles?

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

They aren't going to fix it. It's time to prepare for CW as one big broken ECM filled mess.

[Nutlink]

Why call it the Guardian ECM when you give it the properties of the Angel ECM? I'm a bit confused on that part.

[Livewyr]

BOTA49, on 07 April 2013 - 04:54 AM, said:

Why call it the Guardian ECM when you give it the properties of the Angel ECM? I'm a bit confused on that part.

It's Null Angelic Guardian Electronic Countermeasure Signature System.

Guardian for short.