1089 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Thontor, on 04 April 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Exaggerate much?

150 kph is 41.67 m/s, so it actually takes 2.16 seconds to travel 90 meters at that speed.

lol your argument is that I have 2 seconds to react? Lovely.

[Mystere]

Is ECM really a problem in the 8-man scene? Speak up please because I seem to be reading completely opposite opinions from so-called "competitive" or "elite" players.

And while waiting for answers ...

Deathlike, on 03 April 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

I remember someone had some really nice idea for PPCs to completely disable ECM until the mech shut down.

I find it a bit too easy because it only requires a single PPC shot. Call me a mas0chist but I prefer requiring sustained PPC shots. But, I will not mind requiring only 2-4 shots within a set time frame.

MischiefSC, on 03 April 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

What it does do however is create a balance situation that punishes people for pugging ...

I play 100% solo but in no way at all do I feel like being punished. Is that good enough?

Dexter Herbivore, on 03 April 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

The assumption that most people seem to be making in this is that ECM means that you can't defeat a mech 1 vs 1 when in reality the dev team is likely balancing more around the 12 vs 12 or 8 vs 8 mechanic. You see an ECM, he'd better run because he SHOULD be getting focussed to take him out. You get caught in a duel with an ECM variant, it's your fault for getting out of range of your support.

Ding! DIng! Ding!

If only we had more people who think like us.

Ghogiel, on 03 April 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

working as intended.

DocBach, on 03 April 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Sure, if the designers of this game intended ECM to be the entire fulcrum in which their game and all tactics in it are balanced around.

I don't know about the "entire fulcrum" part, but isn't ECM the "frightful piece of equipment" they intended all along?

Edited by Mystere, 04 April 2013 - 05:59 PM.

[whiteknight]

Thontor, on 04 April 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Exaggerate much?

150 kph is 41.67 m/s, so it actually takes 2.16 seconds to travel 90 meters at that speed.

<Pacino> 2.16 Seconds?! 2.16 Seconds is a lifetime </Pacino>

That is all

[Mystere]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 03 April 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

In random matches, you might have a balance (I consider a difference of +/-1 generally balanced), but you might not (i.e.: one team might have 2+ more ECM than the other team) ... and my observation is, the team with the imbalance in their favor almost always wins.

Well, you might want to increase that count to 3+. I have been in quite a number of 0/2 ECM matches in which the non-ECM team won.

[Mystere]

I think I have an appropriate if a bit strange suggestion. PGI should create 2 new and publicly visible stat items:

• # of ECM mechs killed
  
• # of deaths in ECM mechs

Wouldn't this be fun?

Marcus Tanner, on 04 April 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

What's your investment in having ECM stay this way?

Bragging rights if suggestion #1 above is implemented?

Edited by Mystere, 04 April 2013 - 06:35 PM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Mystere, on 04 April 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

I think I have an appropriate if a bit strange suggestion. PGI should create 2 new and publicly visible stat items:

• # of ECM mechs killed
  
• # of deaths in ECM mechs

Wouldn't this be fun?

I dare them. But we all know it won't happen.

[Kobold]

My only post in this thread: ECM + Streaks still makes light v. light battles completely stupid.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Mystere, on 04 April 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

Well, you might want to increase that count to 3+. I have been in quite a number of 0/2 ECM matches in which the non-ECM team won.

I did say "almost always" ... I don't have the data (PGI does) ... I just have my personal observations and guess, which, specifically is:

• when the difference between the number of ECMs on either side of a random match is more than one, the side with more ECMs wins much more often

The conclusion is still valid, my opinion ... no one piece of equipment should be that influential to the outcome of a match.

If any other 2-crit, 1.5 ton piece of equipment was this influential, we would be trying to get it addressed, as well. Given the choice between AMS +1 ton ammo, 1x Med Las and 1x Sm Las, MG +1 ton ammo, BAP, and ECM ... which of them have any significant influence over the outcome of a 8v8 match?

[Mystere]

Eraos, on 04 April 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

With respect, PGI -- grow a pair. You claim that ECM is balanced "how you would like it to be"; but refuse to take the course that you are on to the obvious conclusion.

Unless I missed something, they never said anything about "balance", only about ECM being close to where they want it to be.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 04 April 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

I did say "almost always" ... I don't have the data (PGI does) ... I just have my personal observations and guess, which, specifically is:

• when the difference between the number of ECMs on either side of a random match is more than one, the side with more ECMs wins much more often

I guess I wasn't clear then: "almost always" no longer applies as far as my games go.

Edited by Mystere, 04 April 2013 - 07:03 PM.

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 04 April 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

I think I have an appropriate if a bit strange suggestion. PGI should create 2 new and publicly visible stat items:

• # of ECM mechs killed
  
• # of deaths in ECM mechs

Wouldn't this be fun?

There would be untold whining horrors to be had if that were implemented. If it's out of battle, I bet the #s for newbies would resemble their W/L ratios. If it's in pre-match warmups... people would disconnect immediately. If it's listed in post-match results, there will be lots more screenshots to come.

Without needing it, I can safely say that my W/L ratio in a 3L is far above any other mech I've piloted. Same thing could be said for the Cicadas or the Atlases. However, the stat recording happened before I had already finished with the Cicadas...

Edited by Deathlike, 04 April 2013 - 07:08 PM.

[NemesisXIII]

Despite the fact that this is a nerf ECM post, please don't disregard this. I would appreciate it if you would review what ECM is SUPPOSED to do in battletech. Then revisit ECM in this game. Yes this means you really need to retune LRMs/SRMs/AMS...and even retune SSRMs... but it's all needed. They are not functioning the way they were originally intended to function in table top. This might make you happy... but really isn't the way it was meant to function and is a source of problems in the game. Highly competitive players always take ECM mechs. Most guilds demand you play ECM mechs. I don't find ECM wars much fun. I also don't find LRM bombs much fun. LRMs were never meant to be as powerful as they are nor should ECM be the "proper" counter. If nothing else consider upping AMS to really reduce the ability of LRMs.
Thanks.

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 04 April 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

There would be untold whining horrors to be had if that were implemented. If it's out of battle, I bet the #s for newbies would resemble their W/L ratios. If it's in pre-match warmups... people would disconnect immediately. If it's listed in post-match results, there will be lots more screenshots to come.

Could you kindly explain? I think I just had a brain freeze.

[Mystere]

Tarball, on 04 April 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

I think ECM is good how it is right now. It does need an active, non ecm counter however. I think the game has potential for it with NARC. If you could make the NARC beacon disregard ecm on any target it's stuck too, with the exception of the mech with ecm mounted.

For example if you have an Atlas DDC running with ECM and lets say a stalker running along with him. You can't currently target either one of them for LRM's. It would be cool if fast mech with a NARC could zoom in and stick the narc on the Stalker making it target-able for 15 to 20 seconds. Would really help offset the ECM and would make the NARC much more useful.

Then you could have a decent counter to ECM covered mechs. As for the mech with ECM mounted? Let BAP be able to get locks on the ecm mounted mechs. Just keep the lock time slow. I think this would keep ecm powerful but provide effective counters for those pilots that want to specialize in ECM counter mechs. Could be a fun option.

How would you counter BAP? Narc. Have it be dual function. Have it disrupt BAP mounted mechs. That way it could serve an offensive function as well. I know i'd be much more inclined to use NARC on my raven if it actually was useful.

Wait isn't narc to powerful then? Have ECM, when switched into counter mod jam NARC beacons.

Let me know what you guys think.

Me likey very much and would make great additions to my ECM hunters.

[and zero]

Karr285, on 04 April 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

It really is surprising what PGI thinks is balanced, hey guys using The Stalker, do you always use all your Missile hardpoints? no.
DO LRM atlas's always put Ballistics? no. Do Jagermechs Always put 4 lasers or 2 depending on variant? No
Do you always put AMS? No, do you ever put BAP? almost never. Do you always put an XL engine on everymech? No you weigh the pros vs cons.

Does a 3L, DDC, 3M, or Com3d ALWAYS put ECM? YES. when the answer is yes to an OPTIONAL piece of equipment or weaponry it is OP.

This.

What is the absolute most valuable thing across the board, in a vast majority of the potential in game circumstances, that you can do with 1.5 tons? Not a difficult question to answer currently is it.

Occurences like this are why I have pretty much given up trying to provide game balance feedback.

Edited by and zero, 04 April 2013 - 07:33 PM.

[Synra]

LOL!

Those last two points at the end were both mine. Not the only valid points I've made about ECM, and definitely not the only changes needed here, but it's finally an important step in the right direction. The sooner those fixes go live the better.

Also, while not a part of this topic, the other new command chair post about the technical issues has me very pleased. The combination of all those technical problems and ECM issues are the biggest things that have frustrated me and driven me away from MWO lately.

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 04 April 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Could you kindly explain? I think I just had a brain freeze.

You hadn't explained where this would be shown to everyone. I was trying to explore what would happen with the web stats and in-game behaviors...

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 04 April 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

You hadn't explained where this would be shown to everyone. I was trying to explore what would happen with the web stats and in-game behaviors...

My bad then.

In any case, I really had no idea where to put them because we currently have no publicly visible stats. But because you got me thinking, one place could be the player's profile page. But that is not visible enough, so I think PGI should create an "Achievements" page that lists the top N players for each achievement.

Finally, add the two in the currently existing private stat pages.

[shabowie]

Wow, talk about clueless. ECM is completely ridiculous in it's high number of effects and the strength of those effects for it's weight and tonnage. It serves as a bandaid for the festering wound that is the broken missile mechanics in this game.

Really disappointed.

[Alilua]

Problem is that ecm affects user mech identification, nearby enemy mech identification, nearby friendly mech identification, lrm, ssrms, and has no penalty to use, countered only by another ecm within range and temporary countered by a ppc shot.

One piece of equipment provides an insane amount of advantages and makes mech variants without them sorely underused.

If pgi loves their 15k gxp modules, why not make ecm only mask the users mech at a distance and use a module to offer the ecm range stealth bubble and another to jam lockons.

Wait pgi gets tons of useful feedback and decides to ignore it and blab more about how ppc's are a good counter in their eyes. But maybe we will look into making friendly mechs still visible.

Biggest problem of all is this

Quote

Guardian ECM, like all features in the game, is very close to where we want it to be.

Blatant design fixation. In this case it is a bad design and sadly not enough has been done to fix it.

Edited by Alilua, 04 April 2013 - 09:08 PM.

[Jerot]

I prefer to play a LRM/Commanding the back-lines Fire Support kind of role. I really enjoyed it in the closed beta, even before 'LRM-AGEDDON' business and all the tweaking since. But once ECMs were added, I can't enjoy my favourite load-out. I had to switch to a direct-fire build to stay competitive (RE: Playable). Pugs are just too unpredictable, some are easier to coordinate then others but overall you end up with several matches where you simply cannot function as an LRM support. I certainly don't have a problem with the tactical advantages of the ECM, but when it comes to the absurd penalties to mech pilots who rely on lock-on targeting, its just a complete mess.

I think adding them in before counters just "because its on the raven" is a pretty poor excuse honestly, if that were the case what about the D-DC? Command Console is still just a Three-Ton-Handicap. No pressure to add functionality to that apparently. And what is the drawback to equipping an ECM exactly? Oh you're stuck with a handful of mech variants, that seems like a great trade-off of a game changing piece of equipment. (This coming from someone who ran a D-DC before ECMs were implemented)

I find myself unwilling to play these days, its just nothing like any MW/BT game I've enjoyed in the past. It feels more like "MechWarrior" Flavored MechSim Online then a real BT game. More effort is going into pay-for mech variants and consumables/side features then putting more polish on the game and finishing the core game play components. There are plenty of weapons/munitions that could use work, modules to add/tweak, chassis quirks, game modes It has almost been an entire year in beta and these things still need to be done.

I guess I'll just resume lurking around and playing other games until this one either shapes up or becomes so unrecognisable I lose all interest.