160 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Carlyle]

One thing i don't understand still, is why an Information Warfare item is used as an Anti-Missile system.

Curious to the Pro-ECM people.

If AMS was buffed, and they removed the missile shield from ECM, would that be ok?

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

I was promised a persistent, rich galaxy where fighting for a house effects the state of the battle lines.

CURSES THIS GAME BEING LAUNCHED WITHOUT THAT IN PLACE

Oh, wait, game's not done yet... silly me.

As a relatively smart, wellspoken person I have to ask..

It took them 5 months to make a simple statement for ECM. It looks like it might be closer to 6 months for them to actually patch the changes in.

Why should anyone believe they will have the Information Warfare pillar done within the next year or even two?

[Roadbeer]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

One thing i don't understand still, is why an Information Warfare item is used as an Anti-Missile system.

Curious to the Pro-ECM people.

If AMS was buffed, and they removed the missile shield from ECM, would that be ok?

Yes, AMS needs a buff.
As far as the missile shield, are you referring to the team or the mech? There is a whole other thread about the state of IW, this thread is just a fragment of that whole overall issue.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

It took them 5 months to make a simple statement for ECM. It looks like it might be closer to 6 months for them to actually patch the changes in.

Why should anyone believe they will have the Information Warfare pillar done within the next year or even two?

I look at it like this, think of ECM as the core of the pillar, the benchmark that all other aspects will be measured against.
I'm perfectly ok for them taking that long to get ALL the data, through all the tweaks to other systems that occurred during that time, implementation of other chassis, how it's used, etc.

From that, put the bricks of the pillar around it's supportive core. That way, if something breaks, you know it has to do with the new item, not that it's a compound of ECM + Module + Other componant.

Look at the state of LRMs and you'll see what happens to a system when you go messing with it before you really know what the underlying issues with the system is. Buff/nerf/ARTEMIS/Nerf/Buff/Splash/Buff/Buff splash/Nerf/Buff/Nerf Spalsh/Nerf.

Edited by Roadbeer, 05 April 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Yes, AMS needs a buff.
As far as the missile shield, are you referring to the team or the mech? There is a whole other thread about the state of IW, this thread is just a fragment of that whole overall issue.

Oh no, I understand.

And I mean, we remove ECM's ability to block missiles.

But buff AMS to atually work against streaks some what, and more so against LRM's.

This also fixes light vs. light combat, with streaks working for everyone. And if they want to pack AMS they can.

Edit: This is one of those questions to figure out why people use ECM. Is it information warfare, or as a missile shield. If it's as a missile shield, my proposal should be fine.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 05 April 2013 - 10:29 AM.

[Krondor]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

Weird, before they nerfed the damage, the sky was dark with LRMs, and yet, ECM was operating EXACTLY as it is now.

The skies weren't dark with LRMs even before ECM. There were a lot of them, yes, but no more than most other weapon systems, and with AMS and paying attention to cover and generally smart gameplay LRMs were fine. They were dangerous but not OP. More than any other system they just really punished stupid and inattentive gameplay, and really required one to learn how to counter them.

After ECM went in LRMs weren't even a real threat anymore, just a minor annoyance.

Edited by Krondor, 05 April 2013 - 10:29 AM.

[DocBach]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

I was promised a persistent, rich galaxy where fighting for a house effects the state of the battle lines.

CURSES! THIS GAME BEING LAUNCHED WITHOUT THAT IN PLACE!

Oh, wait, game's not done yet... silly me.

Except for they've said the equipment we have is what we're going to have for IW - we might get more modules, but using multi-million c-bill, with days worth of GXP (or real money to convert XP to GXP) to counter 1.5 tons of equipment seems even more out of whack then what we have now.

[Krondor]

AMS buff would be fine because AMS actually requires ammo. You have to sacrifice to carry AMS, and ammo storage makes your mech more vulnerable. AMS isn't perpetual. AMS isn't 100% effective. And AMS DOESN'T prevent the other team from using missiles. AMS doesn't categorically make an entire class of weapon and entire type of gameplay useless. ECM does.

Edited by Krondor, 05 April 2013 - 10:33 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

DocBach, on 05 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Except for they've said the equipment we have is what we're going to have for IW - we might get more modules, but using multi-million c-bill, with days worth of GXP (or real money to convert XP to GXP) to counter 1.5 tons of equipment seems even more out of whack then what we have now.

One of the problems with IW in battletech is there isn't a ton of equipment in this time frame that does it, And they made it so ECM kicks the crap out of every other piece.

So we're left with PGI making stuff up. Which they've not shown a lot of skill at doing.

Krondor, on 05 April 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

AMS buff would be fine because AMS actually requires ammo. You have to sacrifice to carry AMS, and ammo storage makes your mech more vulnerable. AMS isn't perpetual. AMS isn't 100% effective. And AMS DOESN'T prevent the other team from using missiles.

I know the people who don't like ECM are going to feel that way.

I'm more interested in the pro-ECM crowd.

Would you be ok taking away ECM's missile lock effects if AMS was buffed?

[Krondor]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

Would you be ok taking away ECM's missile lock effects if AMS was buffed?

Absolutely.

I would like to see ECM nerfed more, but this would be a compromise I'd live with. I think making ECM greatly increase lock time would be an excellent compromise, personally.

[Zerberus]

ECM ist the primary reason I no longer play my balanced D and RS Atlases but almost exclusively my D-DC set up for brawling.

If you can`t beat 'em, join 'em. Sucks for all the chassis that don`t have ECM on them and all the players that want to fly their preferred mech and not be forced to use one with ECM, but since I now have access to the same nearly uncounterable advantage any with it countermeasures to use at my discretion, it no longer bothers me.

Would still prefer to drive another chassis, maybe even buy a hero what with the c-bill buff, but I guess saving up for clan mechs and playing more MW:Tactics is fine, too.

Edited by Zerberus, 05 April 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[Commander Kobold]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

It took them 5 months to make a simple statement for ECM. It looks like it might be closer to 6 months for them to actually patch the changes in.

Why should anyone believe they will have the Information Warfare pillar done within the next year or even two?

and another 5 months before they realise all they had to do is remove lock immunity (with LoS locking or something like that)

[Chazer]

I like the current ECM because it punishes enemy pilots who rely entirely on the automatic target detection instead of any kind of visual detection. I can flank behind the enemy in an atlas simply because no one bothers to glance left when they are holding a line.

[Strucker]

ECM was never the big issue everyone made it out to be, unfortunately there were so many other issues with the game that ECM just became the hotpoint.

Used to be that ECM 3L's and 2D's would run around with lagshield, broken hitboxes, and OP streaks killing everything in 2-3 hits, and in groups of 4.

Lagshield has become less of an issue, hitboxes were fixed, missiles were balanced. Alot of the major issues were tackled, and they had little to do with ECM itself.

The only real updating that ECM needed / needs is the mentioned possibilities from the dev update, give ECM a set tonnage and location so it can be targeted and playing around with the FoF tags

[Krondor]

Chazer, on 05 April 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

I like the current ECM because it punishes enemy pilots who rely entirely on the automatic target detection instead of any kind of visual detection. I can flank behind the enemy in an atlas simply because no one bothers to glance left when they are holding a line.

You could do that anyway before ECM, because mech sensors don't pick up targets in a 360 radius.

[Slashmckill]

DocBach, on 05 April 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

Fixing ECM requires more than just changing stats on the ECM. It requires an overhaul of the Information Warfare pillar, namely Narc and Beagle to make you want to take ECM to block their effects, rather than using it solely as a immunity shield from missiles.

That is my biggest problem with ECM. We were promised a deep, rich, and immersive Information Warfare aspect to this game, and instead of recieving that, we were handed ECM and a system that revolves around just bringing more ECM or PPC's (- how did they become part of information gathering??) than the other guy.

You and me both wanted that. (i still hope for a dream like that to become true)

Thontor, on 05 April 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

They are making changes

I'am sure they are, but are these changes they are making good for the games comunity and overall balance?, or are these changes just because they could not for the life of them find a way to make missles more skillful and fun? I really have to wonder this because i'am the kind of person that would take an axe to lore and canon just so i could achieve balance, they seem like they are taking an axe to lore and canon because "shut up". (they won't tell us their reasons, all they ever tell us it's what they wanted and nothing more. And don't give me the BS about controlling missles and all that garbage, you can rework them if they are that much of a freaking hassle)

(Ecm isn't very fun to use since it's completely static, it's not very fun to fight against for the same reason and it doesn't at all seem mathimatically balanced, soooo... if it's not fun and it's not balanced what the hell is the point of it?)

[DocBach]

Krondor, on 05 April 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Absolutely.

I would like to see ECM nerfed more, but this would be a compromise I'd live with. I think making ECM greatly increase lock time would be an excellent compromise, personally.

I don't even want to see it nerfed, I just want to see it balanced. 1.5 tons countered by a 7 ton weapon isn't balanced. 1.5 tons negating 20 tons of missile weapons unless you use a 7 ton weapon isn't balanced.

Get rid of the complete stealth field. You shouldn't be immune to locks if you are tromping in the open. Denial of information like chassis type, variant, weapons and damage, sure. But completely eliminating locks and by proxy the ability to designate targets reliably is still too potent of an effect, especially outside of coordinated 8 man teams.

[Roadbeer]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

I know the people who don't like ECM are going to feel that way.

I'm more interested in the pro-ECM crowd.

Would you be ok taking away ECM's missile lock effects if AMS was buffed?

See, I can't really answer that I would, but not because I don't anyone messing with my ECM, I'm looking at it in a more holistic sense.

The reason the 3L is OP is because the rest of it's parts aren't implemented or are weaksauce. The way I envision the 3L with everything working as intended.

The 3L approaches the enemy lance under the 'cloak' of ECM, picks out the DDC which is under it's own ECM cloud. Uses TAG to bust through the DDC's ECM cloud so it can NARC it. Once NARCed, RVN switches to 'counter' mode and the DDC is visible to EVERYONE. RVN remains on scene to disrupt the DDCs ECM and jam it's C&C communications to the rest of the OPFOR until the LRM volleys arive. RVN leaves to find another target.

There are MANY things in that description that need to be changed. All upping AMS would do would be to counter the end result of that scenario. And upping AMS it's just treating a symptom, not the disease.

Edited by Roadbeer, 05 April 2013 - 11:11 AM.

[DocBach]

Slashmckill, on 05 April 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

I really have to wonder this because i'am the kind of person that would take an axe to lore and canon just so i could achieve balance,

ECM was taken in the canon mainly to prevent detection from Beagle. Unlike the waste of space and tons Beagle is in this game, board game Beagle could detect units that weren't hidden (ie shut down or deliberately camouflaged such as hiding inside a blown up building), regardless of line of sight. The interaction between the two was Beagle could see beyond terrain, ECM could hide your movement as you moved around their line of sight. If a target was in line of sight, it was fair game for any weapon system, even if it was missiles.

The best part is the lore and canon of ECM is ECM provides coverage against locks in a third mode called Ghost Target mode - which isn't counted by a PPC, or TAG; it is countered by Beagle Active Probe, another passive item that weighs the same weight. Ghost Target mode also has to be maintained every 10 seconds; there is a chance it fails to generate enough static to jam the enemy. ECM in the canon and lore has some downsides to it, and other passive counters. MWO has none of this and as a result it's ECM skews the game quite a bit.

[Krondor]

DocBach, on 05 April 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

I don't even want to see it nerfed, I just want to see it balanced. 1.5 tons countered by a 7 ton weapon isn't balanced. 1.5 tons negating 20 tons of missile weapons unless you use a 7 ton weapon isn't balanced.

Get rid of the complete stealth field. You shouldn't be immune to locks if you are tromping in the open. Denial of information like chassis type, variant, weapons and damage, sure. But completely eliminating locks and by proxy the ability to designate targets reliably is still too potent of an effect, especially outside of coordinated 8 man teams.

That makes sense.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

The reason the 3L is OP is because the rest of it's parts aren't implemented or are weaksauce. The way I envision the 3L with everything working as intended.

The 3L approaches the enemy lance under the 'cloak' of ECM, picks out the DDC which is under it's own ECM cloud. Uses TAG to bust through the DDC's ECM cloud so it can NARC it. Once NARCed, the DDC is visible to EVERYONE. RVN remains on scene to disrupt the DDCs ECM and jam it's C&C communications to the rest of the OPFOR until the LRM volleys arive. RVN leaves to find another target.

That can't happen unless they nerf/change ECM.

So now you are really confusing me.

[Rofl]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

One thing i don't understand still, is why an Information Warfare item is used as an Anti-Missile system.
Curious to the Pro-ECM people.
If AMS was buffed, and they removed the missile shield from ECM, would that be ok?

This. This is totally acceptable, and I'm more anit-ECM leaning. We should have soft counters in place, not lockouts.

It should've been from the start:
A makes B *less* effective, unless C. C also makes B *more* effective, unless A.

1. ECM makes LRMs less effective (read: longer locks, more spread, etc. Soft counters), unless TAG/NARC. TAG/NARC also makes LRMs *more* effective, unless ECM.
2. BAP makes spotting more effective, unless ECM. However BAP can still use missiles as per normal (ie removes the soft counter).

Something along those lines.

In short: We want soft counters to basic equipment available and hard counters to those soft counters. We want soft buffs to basic equipment and hard counters to those soft buffs. (Read as: ECM negating Artemis IV but not LRMs entirely)