I am glad that PGI has finally issued a major response to the ECM issue. However, I feel this response is far from thorough and glosses over some of the most serious issues of ECM.
Quote
...These aspects combined with the actual ECM counters (PPC/Advanced Sensor Range) implemented put ECM VERY close to where we want it to be; a very frightful piece of equipment that is powerful and versitle while at the same time has its weaknesses (3 health and soon to be hardpoint limited, see below)...
...Now that they are in, you will notice that ECM is not as big of an issue as it was before. Putting a PPC shot on an ECM equipped Mech makes them very vulnerable for 4 seconds... but not only that, you have also put a lot of damage into that Mech. The “Advanced Sensor Range” module allows you to get a lock on an ECM Mech at a longer distance and S-SRMs/LRMs can be fired in a larger window than before...
Firstly, "actual ECM counters (PPC/Advanced Sensor Range)". Yes, PPCs are a counter, and a moderately effective one at that, as well as being widely available. Yes, hit-state-rewind, fixed hitboxes, and various other coding changes have made 'Mechs easier to hit. However, even with these changes, PPCs much more easily counter the AS7-D-DC, because it is by far the easiest to hit already, while doing relatively little to counter the effects of lights and fast mediums carrying ECM, which have been more problematic. Particularly, although PPCs allow for short-term combat benefits, such as allowing sporadic LRM and SSRM fire against ECM-proteted 'Mechs, it does little to counter the tactical benefits of consistent target acquisition. As it stands, this statement skirts the issue that the best counter to an ECM Suite is still another ECM Suite, which only encourages the further proliferation of ECM.
Seconly, the Advanced Sensor Module as a counter to the ECM is, frankly, a joke. PGI have described Modules as "end-game features", and their prohibitively high cost (both in C-Bills and GXP) means they give no benefit to newer players, who are also those whose performance is most hurt by ECM. As for its in-game effects, both Advanced Sensor Range Modules combined provide a 25% sensor range increase. This is opposed to ECM's
75% sensor range decrease, so both module slots combined grant a paltry 50m of additional detection, which is maybe a second's movement before even a D-DC brings the player under its ECM umbrella.
Thirdly, both paragraphs in the quote above describe "weaknesses" and "vulnerabilities" to ECM, which I feel is a gross misrepresentation of its effects. The first example, the low critical health of ECM, only comes into play when the 'Mech carrying it suffers internal damage in the relevant location. Because ECM makes it harder to deal damage (hard-countering both LRMs and SSRMs) and harder to focus damage (hiding targeting data of enemy 'Mechs), this "weakness" has no effect on ECM before it's carrier is crippled. The only time I have ever seen a 'Mech's ECM disabled before it is destroyed is on AS7-D-DCs that have lost both side torsos, and even then most have CT or leg-mounted ECM, and so retain its protection.
The second example, a future ECM hardpoint, will have some small effect in making it easier to disable ECM, but I believe this will more seriously affect the D-DC than any other chassis. Only the D-DC is large enough that specific locations can be picked out easily. Furthermore, only it has the tonnage available to mount weapons that might fill of the critical slots of a particular location, and so depending on the location of the hardpoint may not be able to mount certain combinations of weapons in conjunction with an ECM Suite. Even then, however, only two configurations of D-DC will be invalidated: a RT ECM Hardpoint would invalidate double LB-X AC/10 and Gauss Rifle + AC/5 builds, while a LT ECM Hardpoint would invalidate triple LRM-20 and triple Artemis-IV-equipped LRM-15 builds.
The third example, how a ECM-equipped 'Mech struck by an ECM is "very vulnerable for 4 seconds", ignores the fact that non-ECM-equipped 'Mechs have been aparently "very vulnerable" the whole game. If the ECM effect is canceled, the 'Mech in question is no more or less vulnerable than any other 'Mech in the game, it has only temporarily lost its bonus protection.
As it stands now, there is no appreciable downside to taking an ECM Suite. Yes, 'Mechs that don't mount ECM are viable and widespread, but here is a true test of ECM's "weaknesses". If you were taking a 'Mech capable of mounting ECM, is there any situation where you would would not do so? Is there any other combination of 1.5 tons of systems you would rather mount on a COM-2D, SDR-5V, RVN-3L, CDA-3M, or AS7-D-DC instead? For that matter, if you could take ECM on any 'Mech, would you ever not?
Quote
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. As mentioned above, the ECM really only affects 2 weapon systems. We measured the gameplay consequences against the gameplay benefits and it became clear to us that the benefits that it brought to the table would help stagger the ranges in which combat takes place. It was at this time that we decided to go ahead with the Raven/ECM launch. During this time through Beta, we knew that this would become a hot topic, but at the same time, we wanted to make sure players got used to and adapted to ECM being used in the game.
In this section the release of the RVN-3L is cited as requiring ECM and BAP to provide functionality. However, the introduction of ECM has totally overshadowed the previously existing BAP by hard-countering it in the most absolute way. Even the Advanced Sensor Range Modules still apply their benefits, even though the effect is negligible. The BAP not only has its effects descreased, but countered altogether, even when the BAP itself is outside of the ECM field.
I believe that any truly balanced ECM Suite will require a BAP of equal effectiveness. Both systems could even compete for limited "Electronic Warfare" Hardpoints, and the RVN-3L would still remain the undisputed master of electronic warfare by being able to mount both. A powerful BAP does not necessarily need to hard-counter the effects of ECM, in fact that is the problem of ECM in the first place in hard-countering LRMs and S-SRMs. However, some function that allowed limited target detection and missile locks against ECM-protected targets at longer ranges (i.e., 300-400m for locks, 500-600 for detection) while still denying detailed target data (variant, loadout, armor status) would make BAP viable again. A strategic-level effect of BAP allowing BAP users to identify the approximate positions of ECM fields and other BAPs (it's called an "active" probe for a reason) on the map, would add whole new levels of strategic play, even encouraging players to turn off ECM in some circumstances to remain undetected by probes.
The idea that ECM "only affects two weapon systems" is technically true, but does no justice to either ECM or the intelligence of the community. By this logic, their are only 5 or 6 "weapon systems" in the game (depending how you count PPCs), and even then, this single piece of wargear affects a full third of them. "Affects" itself is a massive understatement, as ECM completely hard-counters both LRMs and S-SRMs. Furthermore, this statement gives the impression that ECM has no other effects beyond these two weapon systems, when in fact it drastically effects almost every aspect of the game. Strategically, it disrupts target sharing, making it hard for teams to coordinate, particularly individual players on randomly assigned teams. Tactically, it conceals target data, which affects the aim of players mounting ballistics and energy weapons, preventing them from focusing fire effectively.
We've played with and against ECM for months now, PGI. Please don't try to white-wash its abilities, be honest with us. ECM has dictated tactics and 'mech loadouts ever since it's inclusion to the game.
Ending on a good note, I really do appreciate how you are willing to respond to the community. Regardless of all of the issues going on, the fact that you have made this announcement at all speaks loudly for your commitment to the community.
In the future, if drastic game changes are planned that could controversy, I would appreciate some sort of statement a week or so the patch goes into effect. A warning of some sort, "Hey guys, we're planning on introducing/changing such and such major feature. We know this'll screw up the metagame/balance/your playstyle for a while, and possibly cause a controversy but we're doing this to make sure that such and such feature works right before we implement that." would mean a lot to me, and probably to many others.
Also, I highly recommend going out on public servers and running all different sorts of (non-optimized) builds especially in "PUG" games. Group drops with teamspeak are fun, and you guys have ready-made teammates in your co-workers, but a number of players are exclusively lone wolves, and even more go out "pugging" often, even if they have a team. Get a feel for the effect of ECM and other systems when your team doesn't have voice-comms. Plus, people who run into you will know the devs are actually playing the same game as the rest of us. For example, when LRM splash damage skyrocketed about a month ago, as frustrated as I was that such an obvious problem had made it past your own playtesting, it was nice to see some Devs out in games running missile builds to test the forum claims.
Edited for grammar and to clarify meaning.
Edited by Joker Two, 17 April 2013 - 10:10 AM.
23
Grayseven, on 16 April 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:
This topic is locked
