99 replies to this topic

[Xenosphobatic]

Cycleboy, on 02 May 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

You can do that IF and ONLY IF you are using a TAG and holding it on target... even to the mechs that don't have ECM but are huddled around the mech that does. If you are LRMing at 500m to an enemy mech within 180m of an enemy ECM and you do NOT have TAG, you are worthless.

***EDIT - Now, don't go off on "if you have LRM and don't have TAG then 'u r dum! lolz'" because that just adds to ECM not functioning properly. You need a second support system to even attempt to use your primary. And that secondary uses up a slot that could hold a direct fire weapon instead.

It would still be possible to dumb-fire on targets at that range. If they're blobbed up like that an LRM barrage would likely still hit targets. It would not be precise or accurate, but it'd still be possible. This is on top of the ability of LRM's to re-acquire targets mid flight. I'm not sure if that's an Artemis feature or not, but I've seen it happen.

And I apologize, I think you hit it on the head, I was thinking of LRM+TAG. I wouldn't run LRMS as a primary without TAG, but to each his/her own.

[Critical Fumble]

Cycleboy, on 02 May 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

Cyke... that is what ECM was design for in table-top. In MWO we all get free C3 computers to share targetting info. ECM is supposed to stop that. So, no "easy mode" LRMs. Fine. But when your 'mech is sitting on a hill ridge, direct LOS to the enemy, holding it for 10, 20, 50 seconds... and still can't lock on to fire???? That is NOT what ECM was designed for.

That's not really a C3 network as far as I know. C3 allows information "sharing" in a very different capacity than letting people know where a target is, that is assumed to be done over radio and can even allow indirect fire in some capacity as far as I know.

The basic C3 functionality in TT is to allow members of the network to take "to hit" rolls as though they were firing from the closest member's position. We clearly don't have anything like that yet, just spotting for LRM fire.

[Cyke]

El Bandito, on 02 May 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

LRM misses--a lot. It is very easy to disrupt the homing function by going behind cover. LRMs have the lowest hit rate of all main weapons. For example, Large Lasers have around 85% hit rate, PPC/Gauss have 50% hit rate, but LRMs have 25% hit rate. LRM locks are very hard to achieve in many of the small maps cluttered with buildings, unless you got a flanking light scouting for you. Not to mention it is useless within 180 meters.

The LRM misses are a result of their ridiculously low flight speed, which once again was only ever acceptable by players due to their (excessive) ease of use. It's so easy for the shooter to get a lock, so it had damn well better be easy to hide from the LRMs.

As a corollary, in their current incarnation, LRMs require so little player input to achieve a lock, so it is only fitting that PGI decided they should be slow and easy to hide from with minimal effort.. and that they should be hard countered by ECM, that requires zero effort.

In fact, as we've established, the only time it really requires focused player interaction (and therefore true satisfaction for the shooter when he scores a telling blow) is when using TAG with LRMs to counter ECM. Why not take both the TAG and ECM out of the equation, and make the normal mechanics for LRMs similar (not the same, but similar)?

Basically from day one, they have been made extremely easy to use, requiring the barest minimum of hand-eye coordination and reflexes, but in return they have been been balanced, re-balanced and re-re-balanced with poor flight speed, the need to maintain sensor targeting until impact, flight trajectory and tracking behavior changes, damage increases, damage reduction, splash addition, splash removal, hard-counter by ECM, etc etc.

Now, if at their core they were fast and deadly, able to reach out and touch the enemy when properly locked but it took a commensurate amount of skill to attain the lock, fire at the right moment when locked, and maintain the lock? Then so many of these variable buffs and nerfs have a hope of finally being set in stone. Including (and here's the crux of the matter) ECM behavior.
Because, as we all know, MWO ECM behavior is primarily here to counter MWO LRMs!

[Asmosis]

people still have a problem with ECM? or just new people have a problem with ECM.

With HSR most players are capable of hitting light mechs with reasonable accuracy, so the lights aren't the big threat they used to be. Atlas on the other hand, you can just about hit him with unguided lrms, or just carry Tag like any sensible LRM boat should be doing. If the atlas "sneaks" to within 180m well, can't really comment on that.

Even without ECM involved LRM boats should be using tag at a minimum, and should maintain visual LOS at all times, unless they are on an organized team.

As for C3, what it should probably do (considering what we already have) is mark untargeted mechs on other peoples radar, so that I can see everything that the C3 user can see not just the single mech he has targeted. Provided we both have C3 installed I guess.

Edited by Asmosis, 02 May 2013 - 06:53 AM.

[Cyke]

Anyway, as it is right now, if PGI is adamant on keeping the current game-changing level of ECM behavior, then perhaps at the very least, TAG shouldn't take up an Energy Hardpoint.

I mean, well, ECM doesn't use a weapon hardpoint, so that's fair, right?

[Cyke]

Asmosis, on 02 May 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

people still have a problem with ECM? or just new people have a problem with ECM.

With HSR most players are capable of hitting light mechs with reasonable accuracy, so the lights aren't the big threat they used to be. Atlas on the other hand, you can just about hit him with unguided lrms, or just carry Tag like any sensible LRM boat should be doing. If the atlas "sneaks" to within 180m well, can't really comment on that.

People don't have a problem with ECM because people don't use LRMs. People use PPCs and Gauss. There's a reason for this, if you think about it. That's what we're discussing. We sort about talked about TAG too.
This thread is not about "people having a problem" with things, it's about potentially improving the game for all the people.



Edit: I'm sorry, I don't mean to be offensive or rude at all and I apologize.
Generally, though, if a thread has gone on for several pages, if you have the time please read at least the last couple of pages, not just the original post, before posting.

Edited by Cyke, 02 May 2013 - 06:54 AM.

[DerSpecht]

Cycleboy, on 02 May 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

You can do that IF and ONLY IF you are using a TAG and holding it on target... even to the mechs that don't have ECM but are huddled around the mech that does. If you are LRMing at 500m to an enemy mech within 180m of an enemy ECM and you do NOT have TAG, you are worthless.

***EDIT - Now, don't go off on "if you have LRM and don't have TAG then 'u r dum! lolz'" because that just adds to ECM not functioning properly. You need a second support system to even attempt to use your primary. And that secondary uses up a slot that could hold a direct fire weapon instead.

You sir seem to have no clue how to fight ECM properly. In fact you can target ECM boats without tag and with LRM if they are between 180-200m away from your mech. If you are 1 on 1 this will actually scare them and make em keep distance. They get cautious because they dont know how you were able to hit with those LRMs. then you just close the gap and finish em.

Same works with SSRM

Edited by DerSpecht, 02 May 2013 - 07:37 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Livewyr, on 01 May 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

1st paragraph: lolwut?

2nd sentence:
You missed again, horribly.

Ask most any forum member here that has been here long than a month and has seen me post;
I used to be the optimist, I could find a logical logical reason for anything PGI had done, and therefore had room to give them the benefit of the doubt.

TL;DR: I had no "axes" to grind with PGI until ECM happened.. and even then, I'd been on both ends of the argument before settling on balance.
-------------------------------------------------------
When ECM and missiles are balanced, I'll enjoy an actual usage of missiles... not predator death drones, nor dead weight.

3rd sentence: (Since I assume you're going for "let it finish first")
I held out hope for PGI until they released their executive decision regarding ECM...
---------------------------------------
Would you like to try for a real reason to keep it as is? (or even as it will be with the new "nerfs")

So the fact that the Dev are continuing to modify the original implementation of ECM, and the game in general, has no bearing at this point and your attitude is set in stone now? Everything is a NERF right? No possibility of positives left?

If so, it may be time to move on. Why are you further torturing yourself, you do sound tortured btw, when just moving on would give you a new start.

Although it doesn't matter to myself one way or the other, as arguing with most here just gets you called a Troll, and as such, Discussion is a Moot point (and likely the reason why they killed off the GD Forum)

If you do not like the games direction, get off the Bus already.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 02 May 2013 - 07:57 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

DerSpecht, on 02 May 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

You sir seem to have no clue how to fight ECM properly. In fact you can target ECM boats without tag and with LRM if they are between 180-200m away from your mech. If you are 1 on 1 this will actually scare them and make em keep distance. They get cautious because they dont know how you were able to hit with those LRMs. then you just close the gap and finish em.

Same works with SSRM

Lol. You close the gap and finish them with LRMs? You're a funny guy. What do you do? Dumb fire them in his face?

[MaddMaxx]

El Bandito, on 02 May 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

Word.

How about a "Word" for the dit that knew his/her 6 SSRM Boat might encounter a Mech that has the capability to render him/her moot but built it that way anyways? One SRM launcher would have saved his arse, but nooooooo, can't have that...

It is never the Players decisions that need modification, always the game.

Word indeed.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 02 May 2013 - 07:50 AM.

[Sephlock]

MaddMaxx, on 02 May 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

One SRM launcher would have saved his arse, but nooooooo, can't have that...

I for one would like to see you beat an ECM Raven with one srm launcher.

[Cyke]

MaddMaxx, on 01 May 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

Why is it always ECM ffs. What will you do when it ever gets fixed the way you like it? Find another axe to grind down to the nub....?

You let the rest of us know when LivewyrOnline is done. Maybe it will be fun, maybe not. No way to know until it is complete right? Same for MWO...

You could say the same about every thread in Game Balance.
But sometimes people aren't complaining for the sake of complaining. They have valid points, which is why they reason out their logic in their posts.

MaddMaxx, on 02 May 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

If you do not like the games direction, get off the Bus already.

Meh, could just post this in every thread in the Game Balance forum. Or remove the forum and redirect a link to a page that has that statement on it.


Honestly Maxx, we understand that you feel that the game design is fine the way it is, and the way it's headed. Nobody is trying to change your opinion.
However, not every shares your opinon. That's why the Game Balance forum exists, and it's being used in precisely the intended manner.. to discuss game balance.

It's you who needs to get off the "bus".. in this case the bus in question being the Game Balance forum.

Edited by Cyke, 02 May 2013 - 08:36 AM.

[Sephlock]

[Lightfoot]

I think BAP is getting some sort of upgrade with regard to ECM. I think the problem with LRMs is harder to resolve than just changing DPS so they should make a comeback once HSR is applied to Missiles.

Jumpsniping? Take them out at range moving laterally.

In a well balanced game with balanced skill levels you sould win 50% of matches. Just something to keep in mind. Good tactics should put you over the edge so you face more skilled players next time. We like that, right?

[Livewyr]

MaddMaxx, on 02 May 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

So the fact that the Dev are continuing to modify the original implementation of ECM, and the game in general, has no bearing at this point and your attitude is set in stone now? Everything is a NERF right? No possibility of positives left?

If so, it may be time to move on. Why are you further torturing yourself, you do sound tortured btw, when just moving on would give you a new start.

Although it doesn't matter to myself one way or the other, as arguing with most here just gets you called a Troll, and as such, Discussion is a Moot point (and likely the reason why they killed off the GD Forum)

If you do not like the games direction, get off the Bus already.

A: I dunno if I'd consider 1 tweak(bug fix), 1 non-counter(PPCS), 1 non-nerf to be, and 1 (unrelated) but helpful nerf to be over the course of 5 months now- continual modification...

B: I posted plenty of times a working rendition of ECM.. admittedly none of them involved the invisibility cloak and complete lock disruption that it never should've had. (But ECM is only part of the problem- Electronics and missiles as a whole really need changes.)

C: I have moved on game-wise, but in regards to MWO my remaining in the forums serves two purposes.
-1: I get more value out of the money I've spent thus far on this game..
-2: I get to monitor just in case they figure it out and reverse their decision like they did with 3pv and coolant flushes..
(-3Can also toy with those who argue belligerently with insults, "advice", and no real substance...)

[Suko]

Billygoat, on 01 May 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

ECM appears to be somebody's favourite little pet design project, and they will buff and nerf and rebalance around it so it doesn't have to be properly evaluated and balanced. It is deeply odd the kind of fetishism that surrounds ECM at PGI.

This, all the way. It's obvious that someone high up thought this was the coolest thing ever and can't admit that it's just not fitting well with the current game. It took them MONTHS to concede that something should be done about it and the results were arguably the smallest nerf in MWO history. Instead of doing what was needed to balance ECM, they have forced the rest of the game to conform to it.

I would've hoped that as professional game developers, they would be able to objectively step back from their own creations to analyze it in an unbiased manner. But we're all just human in the end, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

Edited by ShadowVFX, 02 May 2013 - 10:17 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Sephlock, on 02 May 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

I for one would like to see you beat an ECM Raven with one srm launcher.

Well it would certainly cut down on the number of folks at the wailing wall if they at least gave themselves a chance to defend themselves. Ok, add a ML as well then, but wait, then it isn't a Boat and the player in question built a pure single weapon based Boat. I forget, my bad.

P.S. How many time have you ended a Match just you and your SSRM boat and a Raven 3L?

[MaddMaxx]

Cyke, on 02 May 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

You could say the same about every thread in Game Balance.
But sometimes people aren't complaining for the sake of complaining. They have valid points, which is why they reason out their logic in their posts.

Meh, could just post this in every thread in the Game Balance forum. Or remove the forum and redirect a link to a page that has that statement on it.

Honestly Maxx, we understand that you feel that the game design is fine the way it is, and the way it's headed. Nobody is trying to change your opinion.
However, not every shares your opinion. That's why the Game Balance forum exists, and it's being used in precisely the intended manner.. to discuss game balance.

It's you who needs to get off the "bus".. in this case the bus in question being the Game Balance forum.

And I have no issue with those with issue. I have issue with those who think that repeated BS QQ spewing all over the Forums, about well known and Dev responded to items, that never stops is actually a productive method of communications with the Dev Team.

If I thought for a minute I could change an opinion, I would try harder. But alsa this is the Internet. As is, I am just making sure the Dev team do not just see only the LOUD.

They have done a lot of good work and deserve to have that noted in this Cess-Pool as well. At least that way they know they should keep driving the Bus and not let the Inmates drive.

[MaddMaxx]

Livewyr, on 02 May 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

A: I dunno if I'd consider 1 tweak(bug fix), 1 non-counter(PPCS), 1 non-nerf to be, and 1 (unrelated) but helpful nerf to be over the course of 5 months now- continual modification...

B: I posted plenty of times a working rendition of ECM.. admittedly none of them involved the invisibility cloak and complete lock disruption that it never should've had. (But ECM is only part of the problem- Electronics and missiles as a whole really need changes.)

C: I have moved on game-wise, but in regards to MWO my remaining in the forums serves two purposes.
-1: I get more value out of the money I've spent thus far on this game..
-2: I get to monitor just in case they figure it out and reverse their decision like they did with 3pv and coolant flushes..
(-3Can also toy with those who argue belligerently with insults, "advice", and no real substance...)

So in affect, until you get what you want, nothing else will suffice. To bad 45000 others have the same attitude. Not sure about the 3PV or Coolant reversals. 3PV is going to go in and Coolants are already in, after a slight modification, which I thought was rather clever and actually showed they know the Community better than the Community knows itself.

If you have ever felt insulted or that I have been belligerent, than I apologize but it is very hard to make ones point, in many cases, without someone taking offense regardless of what is said or how it is worded.

[Keifomofutu]

Just a little update on ECM.http://mwomercs.com/...eapon-balances/