13 replies to this topic

[POOTYTANGASAUR]

The topic of this topic is ECM balance. ECM needs returned to the original meaning of ECM, not MWO original but Mechwarrior original, ECM should impair(slow missile lock) not stop it. Then all the ******** about PPCs shutting down ecm for 5 seconds, and the UI shutdown and other junk can be removed. The missiles wont need a huge nerf or huge buff and all weapons can be feared equally. Though ac5 is kinda trash but that's for another time. Thanks for reading and criticize please.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

The problem is one of hard vs soft counters. The way ECM was implemented in MWO it was a hard counter to all kinds of things. TAG became a situational hard counter to ECM, but ECM would trump it inside 180m. NARC was just entirely obviated. The upcoming change to BAP is yet another hard counter, this time entirely eliminating ECM.

Hard counters are toxic to fun game play. I am unaware of anyone who enjoys having a system on their mech, an ability on their character, or a weapon in their arsenal rendered entirely useless by something that another player brings. It's similar to CC in MMO PVP. The one thing you don't want to have happen is for people to lose control of their character, or to have one of their key abilities rendered meaningless.

What you want instead are soft counters. Things that make other things less effective. Instead of a stun, add a slow. Instead of preventing missile locks, slow them down. Instead of turning off enemy ECM with your BAP, weaken the impact of it.

ECM, BAP, TAG, NARC, Artemis IV, and the entire alphabet soup of electronic warfare systems should add bonuses and impose penalties, and should not cancel entire systems. Carrying LRMs? Bring Artemis IV for +25% lock on efficiency. Afraid of enemy LRMs? Bring ECM for -50% lock on efficiency. Packing an ECM and being shot by Artemis IV LRMs? The net penalty is -25% lock on efficiency. Naturally, these numbers are taken from thin air without any consideration for balance, but the core sentiment is a good one.

[POOTYTANGASAUR]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 May 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

The problem is one of hard vs soft counters. The way ECM was implemented in MWO it was a hard counter to all kinds of things. TAG became a situational hard counter to ECM, but ECM would trump it inside 180m. NARC was just entirely obviated. The upcoming change to BAP is yet another hard counter, this time entirely eliminating ECM.

Hard counters are toxic to fun game play. I am unaware of anyone who enjoys having a system on their mech, an ability on their character, or a weapon in their arsenal rendered entirely useless by something that another player brings. It's similar to CC in MMO PVP. The one thing you don't want to have happen is for people to lose control of their character, or to have one of their key abilities rendered meaningless.

What you want instead are soft counters. Things that make other things less effective. Instead of a stun, add a slow. Instead of preventing missile locks, slow them down. Instead of turning off enemy ECM with your BAP, weaken the impact of it.

ECM, BAP, TAG, NARC, Artemis IV, and the entire alphabet soup of electronic warfare systems should add bonuses and impose penalties, and should not cancel entire systems. Carrying LRMs? Bring Artemis IV for +25% lock on efficiency. Afraid of enemy LRMs? Bring ECM for -50% lock on efficiency. Packing an ECM and being shot by Artemis IV LRMs? The net penalty is -25% lock on efficiency. Naturally, these numbers are taken from thin air without any consideration for balance, but the core sentiment is a good one.

Very well said and i know what soft and hard counters are i just didnt state that i wanted soft counters directly cause i was suppressing my thoughts of capslocking and swearing at all the imbalance that is the current ECM and ECM-counter system. they tried solving a simple problem with a bunch of complicated patches which was just plain ********. and id like to say again very well spoken and well thought out.

[DocBach]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 May 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

The problem is one of hard vs soft counters. The way ECM was implemented in MWO it was a hard counter to all kinds of things. TAG became a situational hard counter to ECM, but ECM would trump it inside 180m. NARC was just entirely obviated. The upcoming change to BAP is yet another hard counter, this time entirely eliminating ECM.

Hard counters are toxic to fun game play. I am unaware of anyone who enjoys having a system on their mech, an ability on their character, or a weapon in their arsenal rendered entirely useless by something that another player brings. It's similar to CC in MMO PVP. The one thing you don't want to have happen is for people to lose control of their character, or to have one of their key abilities rendered meaningless.

What you want instead are soft counters. Things that make other things less effective. Instead of a stun, add a slow. Instead of preventing missile locks, slow them down. Instead of turning off enemy ECM with your BAP, weaken the impact of it.

ECM, BAP, TAG, NARC, Artemis IV, and the entire alphabet soup of electronic warfare systems should add bonuses and impose penalties, and should not cancel entire systems. Carrying LRMs? Bring Artemis IV for +25% lock on efficiency. Afraid of enemy LRMs? Bring ECM for -50% lock on efficiency. Packing an ECM and being shot by Artemis IV LRMs? The net penalty is -25% lock on efficiency. Naturally, these numbers are taken from thin air without any consideration for balance, but the core sentiment is a good one.

been saying similar sentiments until my face turned blue and all the constructive response I've received from opposing views was "learn to meta" - learning to meta an unfun system doesn't magically make it fun or balanced, it just means I'm adapting to play a crummy game.

[Carrioncrows]

I had a whole system set up shown here:http://mwomercs.com/...eedback-thread/

But it's probably been seen analysed and discarded by now.

[Farpenoodle]

I don't really feel ECM is particularly bad or great in it's current incarnation. I do however disagree with how they've decided to counter it.

ECM isn't the problem it used to be. It used to be that running into a 3L in my LRM treb would mean certain death. However I can now run back to my team and be reasonably certain my team mates will actually shoot at him because with ballistic HSR it's not too hard to kill a light running around in the open. It used to be that people would just ignore it because they were unable to hit it. Meaning even after running back to my team I'd still end up being whittled down by the little blighters. These days, a 3L will most of the time turn right back around when it comes into contact with my team.

DDCs aren't that big a problem either. With the advanced sensor module it's pretty trivial to stay in a range I can maintain lock with either LRMs or streaks in my Treb. Even ignoring the fact that he's often under a constant barrage of PPC fire.

So yeah, I've come to actually enjoy using the current counters to ECM. Now that BAP is a hard counter it just seems like a 1.5 ton tax to not have to deal with it.

[Tesfurdo]

POOTYTANGASAUR, on 11 May 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

The topic of this topic is ECM balance. ECM needs returned to the original meaning of ECM, not MWO original but Mechwarrior original, ECM should impair(slow missile lock) not stop it. Then all the ******** about PPCs shutting down ecm for 5 seconds, and the UI shutdown and other junk can be removed. The missiles wont need a huge nerf or huge buff and all weapons can be feared equally. Though ac5 is kinda trash but that's for another time. Thanks for reading and criticize please.

What you see as trash, I see as treasure!

[Asmudius Heng]

DocBach, on 12 May 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

been saying similar sentiments until my face turned blue and all the constructive response I've received from opposing views was "learn to meta" - learning to meta an unfun system doesn't magically make it fun or balanced, it just means I'm adapting to play a crummy game.

The problem is PGI think that polarising viewpoints is good for thier game and they have stated it. This is only true if everyone is still having fun ... if half our people hate something and the other love it ... but the FUN is being destroyed for half your players you are on dangerous ground.

People can hate something and still have fun with the game, however this is not the case when you have hard counters as has been stated.

PGI seem to equate increasingly hostile viewpoints as 'working as intended' rather than looking at how you might make both sides have fun by changing the implementation of certain mechanics.

Fun, variety, and feeling VALUED in a game is what drives people - when you do not feel valued because you are not min/maxing a broken system you feel bad and leave, when you do not feel valued because you get hard countered by something you feel bad.

When you have even an ounce of control but are faced with a large hurdle you feel GOOD when you overcome it. Nothing can help you overcome some things in this game or make a dent on it if you do not have the requisite hard counter.

Make players feel valued when they do a half decent job in any mech and people will feel better even when they lose.

[Lykaon]

One big problem was when ECM was introduced we didn't have a developed electronic warfare system.BAP was pretty much a waste of space (and currently still is) NARC was complete garbage (and still is) Artemis was in it's infancy and TAG had half the range it does now so wasn't all that potent in it's only role as a missile target assist.

When ECM was added there was no need for the Guardian ECM to function as it was meant to,as a countermeasure for support electronics.

No body ever exclaimed OMG I wish I had some means of countering the enemy BAP and NARC.
Why? because those support electronics were not used because they were garbage.(and still are garbage)

Now imagine this...

BAP extended sensor range by 20% halved the time to get critical data,detected shut down mechs,doubled target decay time AND detected any enemy within 120m of the probe at 360 degrees through obstructions to line of sight.

Now that is a potent information warfare tool well worth bringing a countermeasure for.

Imagine a NARC beacon that when attached to an enemy mech transmitted that enemy mech's location to every friendly mech within 800m regardless of line of sight.The beacon remains active until the location it is attached to is sufficently damaged to destroy the beacon..A mech with a NARC attached would be in trouble transmitting their location to the enemy and a valid target for indirect fire LRMs.

Again this would make the NARC system a potent tool in information warfare.And of course dangerous enough to merit a countermeasure.

Because support electronics were so poorly designed ECM was dropped into the game grossly over featured to give ECM purpose.There was no need for a dedicated countermeasure to support systems that were almost never seen on the battlefield.

If the other support electronics were given features like the ones I listed ECM would be just fine with ONLY the following functions.

1) Jams Artemis,NARC and BAP when these systems are within 180m of hostile ECM or the target is equipped with ECM.

2) delays missile locks by 100% (doubling lock on time) countered by active TAG painting the target (encouraging role warfare and the use of TAG scouts and spotters)

3) Reduces sensor detection range of the ECM equipped mech (only the ECM mech ) by 50%. Countered by active TAG painting the target. (again more use of role warfare)

4) Mech equipped with ECM take double the time to gain critical data and critical data on the ECM equipped mech decays at twice the normal rate (effectively reducing the potence of installed modules in use by the enemy)

5) ECM can be switched to ECCM mode or counter mode.When in counter mode the closest hostile ECM set to disrupt is countered.While in counter mode all other features of ECM are lost.

Edited by Lykaon, 13 May 2013 - 03:53 AM.

[General Taskeen]

^ For the Artemis, in TT terms it just means when an LRM Artemis fires at an ECM unit, it loses the "accuracy" bonus of the Artemis when the missiles hit the 'cloud' of the ECM, but the missiles will hit regardless (+rolling dice, etc.). It stops the bonus at any range, unless another ECM rolls up and counters allowing the accuracy bonus to hit.

Basically GECM should just be GECM and do what it is supposed to do, and not have fantasy features of shutting off weapons like LRMs and SSRMs. It should have a straight percentage to lock time for a gameplay bonus, plus its intended abilities to interact with C3 (if within 180m), NARC (if within 180m), Artemis Accuracy Bonus (any range, unless countered), BAP (if within 180m), and "hiding" the Mech Doll Armor/Weapon Information (any range, unless countered by BAP within 180m).

And if they really wanted to add something unique and fun, they could give it the Ghost Target ability from TT.

Edited by General Taskeen, 13 May 2013 - 05:12 AM.

[Vodrin Thales]

General Taskeen, on 13 May 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

^ For the Artemis, in TT terms it just means when an LRM Artemis fires at an ECM unit, it loses the "accuracy" bonus of the Artemis when the missiles hit the 'cloud' of the ECM, but the missiles will hit regardless (+rolling dice, etc.). It stops the bonus at any range, unless another ECM rolls up and counters allowing the accuracy bonus to hit.

Basically GECM should just be GECM and do what it is supposed to do, and not have fantasy features of shutting off weapons like LRMs and SSRMs. It should have a straight percentage to lock time for a gameplay bonus, plus its intended abilities to interact with C3 (if within 180m), NARC (if within 180m), Artemis Accuracy Bonus (any range, unless countered), BAP (if within 180m), and "hiding" the Mech Doll Armor/Weapon Information (any range, unless countered by BAP within 180m).

And if they really wanted to add something unique and fun, they could give it the Ghost Target ability from TT.

This is pretty much right on. If they simply made it so LRM's only really hurt when the target has TAG, NARC, or Artemis effect on it, and ECM counters these effects, and obscures the target information without interfering with IFF, the system would work well. The current system just seems a bit bastardized and somewhat imbalanced. ECM is still too powerful without hard counters in place making the hard counters more necessary than they should be.

[Kensaisama]

I have a thread going in the suggestion forums about this very thing, BAP and ECM. http://mwomercs.com/...nd-ecm-changes/ I figured a link here to further the discussion in either thread would be good.

[MustrumRidcully]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 May 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

The problem is one of hard vs soft counters. The way ECM was implemented in MWO it was a hard counter to all kinds of things. TAG became a situational hard counter to ECM, but ECM would trump it inside 180m. NARC was just entirely obviated. The upcoming change to BAP is yet another hard counter, this time entirely eliminating ECM.

Hard counters are toxic to fun game play. I am unaware of anyone who enjoys having a system on their mech, an ability on their character, or a weapon in their arsenal rendered entirely useless by something that another player brings. It's similar to CC in MMO PVP. The one thing you don't want to have happen is for people to lose control of their character, or to have one of their key abilities rendered meaningless.

What you want instead are soft counters. Things that make other things less effective. Instead of a stun, add a slow. Instead of preventing missile locks, slow them down. Instead of turning off enemy ECM with your BAP, weaken the impact of it.

ECM, BAP, TAG, NARC, Artemis IV, and the entire alphabet soup of electronic warfare systems should add bonuses and impose penalties, and should not cancel entire systems. Carrying LRMs? Bring Artemis IV for +25% lock on efficiency. Afraid of enemy LRMs? Bring ECM for -50% lock on efficiency. Packing an ECM and being shot by Artemis IV LRMs? The net penalty is -25% lock on efficiency. Naturally, these numbers are taken from thin air without any consideration for balance, but the core sentiment is a good one.

This. So much.

[Undead Bane]

Hard counters are for sure no fun. And what is going to happen to BAP, that will become the hard counter to ECM, is very sad for me.

However, the main problem here is that no matter how much we cry here, on the forums, we are (and always will be) considered to be "the minority" => our opinion is not completely irrelevant, but very, sadly close to it.

The funny thing about the active "minority" is, however, that every product has exactly active minority, that fights for the product with the developer, trying to change the product for the good this minority thinks of and a passive majority, who, if the product does not satisfy their needs, just goes for another product.
The other funny thing is, that this minority often (but not always) represent a sample (hello, statistics!) from the whole community, and often (but again, not always) totally ignoring the sample's opinion is the same as ignoring the whole community's opinion.

Time will show if we are the proper sample and we were right about some of the stuff we are complaining here for SO long or if we really are negligible whiny piece of audience, and all the invented mechanics, that we find bad and are "working as intended" are for greater good.

At least my software developer's experience shows, that in the end "working as intended" with so many complains in the forums ends up badly.