1089 replies to this topic

[Xune]

I played 4 matches since ecm came out.

I dident activate my premium time from the Founders.
I dident spend any mony, even if i was sure (in the beta) i would.

ECM made me run straight out the door, i now and then check in if something changed.
But it seems it dosent, a pitty. Was so looking forward to have fun with MWO

and HECK it was a BLAST till they intreduced ecm

[DocBach]

I had an idea similar to Mr. Wolf's in which the basic ECM only blocked Narc, Beagle, and Artemis -- additional functions from expanded rule sets like hiding sensor information were unlocked through multi-tiered modules, so to have fully functioning ECM you were limited by module slots, as well as a gigantic progression.

The problem with that is PGI in all their wisdom gave the king of Class Battlemechs the Raven 3L and D-DC more Modules than everyone else and they could fit all the expansion mods.

[StalaggtIKE]

DocBach, on 09 April 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

The problem with that is PGI in all their wisdom gave the king of Class Battlemechs the Raven 3L and D-DC more Modules than everyone else and they could fit all the expansion mods.

True, but then they wont also have Advanced Sensor Range, 360 Target Retention and Advanced Target Decay.

Xune, on 09 April 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

and HECK it was a BLAST till they introduced ecm

Exactly how I feel. Having fun was limited to your creative ability.
If I was being bombarded by LRM, I got behind cover and used AMS.
If I needed to sneak around, I stayed within the valleys and behind cover.
If I needed to get closer, I flanked around.
I guess some people weren't creative enough to have fun until a device that did half the work was created. One that also limits other's play style. Really a pity.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 09 April 2013 - 07:20 AM.

[DocBach]

Oh, you mean the modules that were suppose to do what Beagle does already? The system everyone strips from their 3L's?

[StalaggtIKE]

DocBach, on 09 April 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

Oh, you mean the modules that were suppose to do what Beagle does already? The system everyone strips from their 3L's?

Exactly. It blows my mind, that BAP = gimped tool + modules, while ECM = all abilites + extra stuff just for "fun". Thus the IW pilar is working as intended.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 09 April 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[DocBach]

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Even with all the modules (which cost exponentially more than ECM and requires a different currency), Beagle has a fraction of the utility its suppose to.

[StalaggtIKE]

DocBach, on 09 April 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

Even with all the modules (which cost exponentially more than ECM and requires a different currency), Beagle has a fraction of the utility its suppose to.

Agreed. Even radar for that matter is highly gimped. What kind of radar requires los!? I hope this is fixed once they add active radar. ...If ever.

Quote

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Where has this jewel of a thread been hiding? This is exactly everything I've stated at one time or another: IW is broken and with the resent info on ECM, will not be getting fixed anytime soon. A well structured and informative post. It should become required reading.

Edit: Oh it's new.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 09 April 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[AntharPrime]

I don't think that putting a harpoint for ECM is necessary, the only mechs that have seen a large advantage are the lights and it is very difficult to aim for a designated spot on those mechs.

When the state rewind comes in the PPC counter will become very effective. I ran an Atlas RS with 4 PPCs and 2 SSRMs and when an ECM light came in, the PPCs chain fired with the SSRMs was a very effective counter. With the state rewind, I might be able to core any light with just one shot, ECM or not. Add to that teammates that used the TAG to negate the ECM and I've rarely been too bothered by it.

[DocBach]

StalaggtIKE, on 09 April 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Where has this jewel of a thread been hiding? This is exactly everything I've stated at one time or another: IW is broken and with the resent info on ECM, will not be getting fixed anytime soon. A well structured and informative post. It should become required reading.

Its now hiding in the suggestions forum, "where good threads go to die."

Swept under the rug out of public eye.

[Solis Obscuri]

Instead of posting a new opinion, I'll just re-issue my old one since ECM isn't really getting fixed.

Solis Obscuri, on 19 March 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:

I'd be lying if I said I haven't been very outspoken about ECM since it was implemented; if you haven't gotten any idea of my opinion of the mechanic by now, you haven't been reading the forums. At all.

Simply put, I believe ECM has the potential to be a good an useful part of MWO, and a substantial portion of that should revolve around both combating the advantages provided by T2 technology advancements like Narc Beacons and Artemis FCS, and providing minor stealth advantages to reconnaissance units; this should be part of a larger game of Information Warfare and Electronics Warfare involving a number of units and systems vying for the best possible advantage.

However, ECM as implemented is the ultimate in denial of Information Warfare, as it utterly blocks out all sensor readings, targeting information, or guided missile locks; it both negates the Information Warfare pillar of the game, and the functionality of an entire T1 weapons system (LRMs). Add to this that the TT functionality of other sensor systems like the BAP have been largely transferred to basic sensors and modules (referencing here abilities like enemy loadout and critical damage info), and ECM has basically become the sole pillar of Information Warfare. The end result is not an expansion of in-game content and strategy, but rather a reduction; ECM limits information and options for the opposing team so heavily that ECm warfare supplants a great deal of gameplay with an ECM-warfare (not full electronics warfare, since ECM is the only EW unit and only 1:1 counter) metagame.

The largest proponents of ECM seem, in my observation, to mostly latch onto some sort of fantastic and overwrought depiction of guided missile systems like the LRM and SSRM to justify the use of ECM as a counter. However, ECM intended to counter either system under TT rules, and most of the inspiration for MWO mechanics has been based thus far on harkening back to the old TT mechanics. And on TT, well, SSRMs and LRMs weren't that big of a deal - they were useful, but not disproportionately so, as each had a specific role. But the whole ECM bubble magic is basically serving as a disincentive to better balance how the guided missile and indirect-fire mechanics should work as a whole. This is especially the case in the realm of light 'mechs, where units capable of carrying both ECM and SSRMs (namely the RVN-3L and COM-2D) have become the dominant light 'mech element in all match types. These days, in pub matches, the number of ECM carrying 'mechs have waned - I can only imagine because people have gotten bored and decided to try other things - but in the more competitive 8-man drops, having fewer than 3 ECM 'mechs is virtually a death sentence, and most teams carry between 3-8 ECM 'mechs (there are always a few slots for FotM builds like Boomcats or jump-sniper CTF-3Ds); the RVN-3L and AS7-D-DC have become the most common 'mechs in their weight range since the implementation of ECM, and both are capable of mounting a respectable amount of guided missile launchers within their weight class, which would say something in and of itself.

Additionally, the need to counter ECM has made certain systems, like TAG, almost indispensable on the battlefield; this has left systems that cannot penetrate ECM, like the Narc Beacon, in the dust as less preferable options. Even the PPCs, long scorned for poor performance, poor hit detection, and high heat, don't seem to have been solely adopted for the improvements in heat generation, projectile speed, and hit detection, but because they can temporarily cancel out ECM.

So, in terms of ECM balance, I believe four major changes are needed:

• ECM needs to stop being a magic cloaking device. Some reduction in sensor range and lock on times (only against the 'mech carrying the ECM unit) are ok, not the over Information Warfare blackout currently implemented.
  
• ECM needs to stop affecting guided missiles. LRMs and SSRMs need to be balanced independently of ECM to be viable parts of MWO (note that this is not including systems like Narc and Artemis, which ECM is intended to counter).
  
• TAG needs to go back to being a more limited close/mid-range spotting component.
  
• LRMs and SSRMs need to be balanced independently of ECM to be viable parts of MWO (note that this is not including systems like Narc and Artemis, which ECM is intended to counter). And yeah, I'm saying this twice as a QFE.

And on a larger note, Information Warfare was one of the strongest parts on MWO (until ECM supplanted it with a unipolar game of Electronic Warfare). Information Warfare is one of the key elements that can take this game beyond a slugfest of FotM builds, circle-strafing, "murderballs", and alpha-striking to truly be that "thinking man's FPS" it was billed as. That's why I think ECM should retain some stealth features for the unit carying it, and also why I think that the BAP should be buffed (at least relative to basic sensors), and that we should implement some additional sensor modes to make the engagement planning portion of the game somewhat more involved than trying to decide on the best time to charge over a ridgeline.

[Space Odin]

I'd just like to point out there's 41 pages almost entirely comprised of people with negative opinions about the state of ECM.

ECM is not "polarizing content" unless you mean polarizing between the developers and the community, because the community unanimously dislikes ECM. The only people who like it are the people who use it and even they admit it's broken.

[Mystere]

Space Odin, on 09 April 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

I'd just like to point out there's 41 pages almost entirely comprised of people with negative opinions about the state of ECM.

ECM is not "polarizing content" unless you mean polarizing between the developers and the community, because the community unanimously dislikes ECM. The only people who like it are the people who use it and even they admit it's broken.

No on all counts. I have specialized ECM hunters that get the job done and I enjoy using them. I like facing an ECM-heavy enemy because every kill is a kill earned. This is not easy peasy CoD.

People should really refrain from using absolutes as well as from speaking for everyone. You do not speak for me.

Edited by Mystere, 09 April 2013 - 04:33 PM.

[DocBach]

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Mystere, check that thread out and tell me if you think implementation like that would be more beneficial to the balance and depth of the game compared to what we have now.

[Sa7aN]

Thuzel, on 03 April 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

This is what a lot of us have been saying for over half a year. PGI does not listen. They do what they want to do, and we're just along for the ride.

The best we ever seem to get is some occasional lip service and backpedaling when it really hits the fan.

we got an activate button to stop the founder premium time from auto starting at the start of open beta... and that took a HUUUUGE **** fest

probably was the sudden large demand for refunds that made that happen though

Edited by Sa7aN, 09 April 2013 - 11:14 PM.

[Urdnot Mau]

I have a doubt about the recent announced nerf to ECM.

By removing the unholy effect of hiding friendly units will we be able to share targets ?

[DocBach]

Urdnot Mau, on 10 April 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

I have a doubt about the recent announced nerf to ECM.

By removing the unholy effect of hiding friendly units will we be able to share targets ?

ECM is suppose to block target sharing by C3, right now we only share the data for one target via sensors spotting for indirect fire, which is not the same thing as C3. But I doubt it, we'll probably not be able to share target data for 'Mechs in ECM if we're in the bubble as well.

[Urdnot Mau]

DocBach, on 10 April 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

ECM is suppose to block target sharing by C3, right now we only share the data for one target via sensors spotting for indirect fire, which is not the same thing as C3. But I doubt it, we'll probably not be able to share target data for 'Mechs in ECM if we're in the bubble as well.

That's bad I Hope we get C3 soon.

[Critical Fumble]

Urdnot Mau, on 10 April 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

That's bad I Hope we get C3 soon.

ECM makes BAP largely useless, why would C3 be any different?

Keep in mind that ECM double nerfs support gear like that. The first nerf is the direct counter that renders it inoperable. The second comes from its other innate boosts making it more common than it would be as just a countering device.

[Urdnot Mau]

Critical Fumble, on 10 April 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

ECM makes BAP largely useless, why would C3 be any different?

Keep in mind that ECM double nerfs support gear like that. The first nerf is the direct counter that renders it inoperable. The second comes from its other innate boosts making it more common than it would be as just a countering device.

Because C3 would come in to relief one of the many ECM's evil ?

[DocBach]

C3 is suppose to be countered by ECM. Like critical fumble pointed out, the problem with ECM isn't its debuffing nature, its the fact that not only does it debuff, it buffs the user with radar and missile immunity.