632 replies to this topic

[kilgor]

Here are a few suggestions that I have.
1. Let any 'Mech equip ECM
2. Make ECM a choice to use
a. Put an active duration and cooldown on ECM, such as you activate it and it lasts for 30 seconds but has a 10 second cooldown before it can be activated again.
or
b. It can be turned on/off but while it is active, it pulses every 3 second and generates 7 heat per pulse
3. Allow 'Mechs to target enemy 'Mechs in ECM if there is Line-of-Sight, but no target info. Missiles would stay on target until they hit the 200M range of ECM, then it would finish those last 200M as if direct fired (without a lock). If a 'Mech in the ECM bubble has been NARC'd, the missiles would hit normally
4. TAG can be turned on/off and provides LoS benefits if an ally 'Mech has an enemy 'Mech in ECM Tagged and the enemy 'Mech is not in LoS.. In direct LoS, TAG would allow target info for a 'Mech in the ECM bubble.
5. BAP also increases time until lock is lost

To me, as TAG is now, it gives too much of an advantage over selecting Artemis IV and BAP.

And just 1 thing I'd like to see, Arrow IV artillery we can equip.

Edited by kilgor, 12 September 2014 - 07:12 PM.

[IanSane]

Once again...This is much ado about nothing. Please leave ECM alone it is good the way it is.

[Runs With Scissors]

The easiest "fix" I can think of, and required the least amount of programming (I think) would be to

1) get rid of the magic anti-sensor bubble, but keep the lock on delay

2) beagle and NARC no longer counter ECM.

3) ECM goes back to jamming every other electronics (Beagle, NARC, Artemis) but not TAG (cause its a laser designator, maybe reduce TAG bonuses I dunno)

keep everything else the same. ECM is only 1.5 tons it shouldn't be this overpowering, and if it isn't OP maybe we'll see some new mechs that can mount it soon.

Edited by Runs With Scissors, 12 September 2014 - 07:33 PM.

[Ertur]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Well first a question: Do you think you the community can come to an agreed upon consensus? One in which if the changes are implemented everyone says great job PGI on listening to us now we feel great about ECM and your ability to listen to feedback?

You're obviously completely new here, so 1) welcome to the forums and 2) the answer is 'no' to both of your questions.

[Carrioncrows]

IanSane, on 12 September 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

Once again...This is much ado about nothing. Please leave ECM alone it is good the way it is.

I don't think anyone was honestly considering 'Buffing' ECM.

The general consensus is that it is "Too Good"

[Kaeb Odellas]

Preface: I haven't read the whole thread yet (got to page 9), but I must express concern about the idea of a player-elected council to represent the community. There is practically no chance that such a system could ever reprrsent all players fairly and equally. It would pretty much amount to a popularity contest.

I propose instead an opt-in lottery. Have players opt into the system, just like the tournament system. Then, PGI breaks down the list according to geographic location, join date, total playtime, money spent, Elo, and whatever factors they might deem important. Then they would randomly draw from these lists to create a good representative of the playerbase.

PGI would pick a few from each group and notify them via email with confirmation link a few days before the first meeting. Those who fail to reply within 24 hours are replaced with another until the full council is complete.

Council meetings occur once or twice a week at different times to account for players in different time zones. A PGI staff member presides over each meeting, providing mmoderation, taking notes, and acting as liason to the dev team. Meetings would be held with some kind of free chat program in an invite-only room.

New members would be chosen every month, with a new opt-in each time. Previous members are disallowed from opting in for one month, and no-shows and non-participants blocked for three.

This system would be more fair and representative than a simple election, and I think some cross-pollination between the player populations would help bring the community together.

[Kilo 40]

I nominate for the council Glen Bateman, Stu Redman, Ralph Brentner, Frannie Goldsmith, Susan Stern, Nick Andros and Larry Underwood.

Edited by Kilo 40, 12 September 2014 - 08:33 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

Carrioncrows, on 12 September 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:

The general consensus is that it is "Too Good"

It is not the "general" consensus. The community is completely divided on the topic.

[DeeBeeP]

ECM should no longer have a counter mode. It should only have the Disrupt mode that gives it the ECM bubble.

NARC should not function when a NARC'ed mech is inside or moves into an ECM bubble.

One BAP should completely disable the nearest, opposing ECM when a mech with BAP enters an ECM bubble.

TAG should not give target information of a mech inside an ECM bubble but should still allow missile lock on a mech in ECM.

There should be no minimum range for which a mech with ECM can be targetable without BAP.

In my opinion ECM is currently too powerful but ironically has too many counters which creates a vicious circle. On the other hand BAP is relatively useless with hardly any counter-play against ECM but NARC hard-counters ECM while TAG is more situational.

There needs to be more incentives for running BAP. And to maximize the effectiveness of something like the 3L you should want to run both ECM and BAP which would let you counter an enemy ECM but also keep yours functioning. You sacrifice a lot to run ECM and BAP on a 3L and it should powerful. You should be wishing you have BAP when you run into enemy ECM.

Right now Its way too easy for two teams to turtle with missile-boats no matter how much ECM they have. Making NARC relatively useless unless a lance is willing to move in to disable enemy ECM would open up more strategies and bring more brawling back.

Quick note on UAV's. They should hard-counter ECM since a mech has to get close enough to launch it and its easily destroyed.

[Carrioncrows]

Bhael Fire, on 12 September 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

It is not the "general" consensus. The community is completely divided on the topic.

Everyone and their mother that I have talked to, read, or encountered - except for the previously quoted guy - agree's that ECM needs to change.

Where the disagreement comes in, is "how" to go about that change.

[Bhael Fire]

Carrioncrows, on 12 September 2014 - 09:22 PM, said:

Everyone and their mother that I have talked to, read, or encountered - except for the previously quoted guy - agree's that ECM needs to change.

Where the disagreement comes in, is "how" to go about that change.

I don't think it needs to change.

But then again, as I've said before I don't use ECM mechs so I don't care what you crazy fools do with it...as long as it doesn't break my sh*t.

[Carrioncrows]

Bhael Fire, on 12 September 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

I don't think it needs to change.

But then again, as I've said before I don't use ECM mechs so I don't care what you crazy fools do with it...as long as it doesn't break my sh*t.

If anything it will do the opposite, provided we get ducks in a row.

Most of the people suggested to be on the council are looking to lesson the impact of ECM but increase it's utility.

Which means it will be far less powerful but provide a broader range of function. No more black and white, but several degrees of grey in between.

In all honesty the whole EW needs reworked to be richer and more diverse, but that is a fight for another day.

[Richard Warts]

Predictable... The thread devolves into "hey, screw game balance! Let's just turn this game into LRMWarrior.com!" Yeah, that's what EVERY player wants they just don't know it yet - 15 minutes of exchanging LRM fire. Woot! How exciting! It disturbs me that the "LRMs can never be good enough" crowd have one of the loudest voices on the forums, and worst, that the Devs might actually consider your bad ideas. Out of the downpour of terrible ideas I saw less than a handful of practical ones that seemed well reasoned with game balance in mind, and know you're forming a council? I pray for the sake of the game whomever you end up picking actually cares about game balance and isn't just another LRM fairy.

[StaIker]

Russ, your proposal is the end stage of desperation. And I suspect you are quite aware that meeting a threshold of 80% approval is almost impossible with any worthwhile change, as it would suggest 80% of players share a common understanding of the game and its mechanics, which is laughable. You couldn't even get 80% of players to agree on which is the best Weapon, something that is much easier to decide on than a purely theoretical discussion of ECM effects.

I think all you're doing is creating the illusion of player input as a pacification and delaying tactic while knowing full well that forming a council, agreeing to a proposal and then getting it past PGI management is never going to happen. It also suggests to me that PGI is completely at sea when it comes to understanding their own game. If you can't work out the sort of ideas that would find broad support, what makes you think you're capable of assessing those ideas when they are presented to you? If any of you knew how to design a Mechwarrior game you wouldn't be in this situation in the first place, begging for ideas isn't going to make PGI's decision makers any better at their jobs.

My prediction; this scam is going nowhere. It is designed to keep the vocal players busy fighting among themselves and deflect attention from PGI's utter incompetence.

Edited by StaIker, 12 September 2014 - 09:46 PM.

[Kilo 40]

StaIker, on 12 September 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

And I suspect you are quite aware that meeting a threshold of 80% approval is almost impossible

It's almost, my dear Watson, as if that was the entire point...Like he's attempting to show that any change in the game that is made is almost guaranteed to anger a large percentage of the community, because there is no consensus among the players about what should or shouldn't be changed.

[Moomtazz]

Carrioncrows, on 12 September 2014 - 09:22 PM, said:

Everyone and their mother that I have talked to, read, or encountered - except for the previously quoted guy - agree's that ECM needs to change.

Where the disagreement comes in, is "how" to go about that change.

I dont think it needs to be changed. However I would be happy if they made LRMs line of sight only and removed ECM altogether.

[Marukage]

Hello

Well this is a very positive move.
Well done for once, Russ.

[Spurowny]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

What do you say?

I say that this is a bad idea. sure the whiners will shut up for a bit while they try to get organized but then they will be even more furious when you inevitably have to shut down their stupid ideas.

[zortesh]

DeeBeeP, on 12 September 2014 - 08:56 PM, said:

ECM should no longer have a counter mode. It should only have the Disrupt mode that gives it the ECM bubble.

NARC should not function when a NARC'ed mech is inside or moves into an ECM bubble.

One BAP should completely disable the nearest, opposing ECM when a mech with BAP enters an ECM bubble.

TAG should not give target information of a mech inside an ECM bubble but should still allow missile lock on a mech in ECM.

There should be no minimum range for which a mech with ECM can be targetable without BAP.

In my opinion ECM is currently too powerful but ironically has too many counters which creates a vicious circle. On the other hand BAP is relatively useless with hardly any counter-play against ECM but NARC hard-counters ECM while TAG is more situational.

There needs to be more incentives for running BAP. And to maximize the effectiveness of something like the 3L you should want to run both ECM and BAP which would let you counter an enemy ECM but also keep yours functioning. You sacrifice a lot to run ECM and BAP on a 3L and it should powerful. You should be wishing you have BAP when you run into enemy ECM.

Right now Its way too easy for two teams to turtle with missile-boats no matter how much ECM they have. Making NARC relatively useless unless a lance is willing to move in to disable enemy ECM would open up more strategies and bring more brawling back.

Quick note on UAV's. They should hard-counter ECM since a mech has to get close enough to launch it and its easily destroyed.

Narcs don't function inside a ecm bubble, I dunno why people think they do......

Agree about the bap turning off a hostile ecm, that'd be incredibly useful.

[Kjudoon]

After going back and reading up on lore about ECM, assuming Sarna.net is valid, I see only three ways to make this lore applicable:

1. One ECM Mech per lance or star max.
2. ECM no longer stacks.
3. Mechs not inside the bubble cannot be protected by the bubble being between them and the enemy mechs.

The lore for Sarna's info is fairly accurate. The problem is it's the size of the maps and ability to stack make it so easy to deny a large portion of the battlefield with this feature.

Therefore limit the ability to have it in match to a max of three. ECM is supposed to be expensive and fairly rare. Right now it's relatively cheap and present in just about every match in multiples. This shouldn't be the case. Factions and Merc Corps would not pile more than 3 ECM mechs in a company beause of it's rarity and lone wolves would be freakishly rare with it. ECM mechs would be spread out and tactical, not like raisins in cereals that promise multiple raisins in every bite. We easily can limit this and it would slow down connection times a little just like 3/3/3/3 did. But it is just as important as not having 7 assault mechs or 7 assault-lights needed to be stopped.

Now, ending stacking ECM deals out a TON of problems right there. Tag could function normally, so could BAP. Heck, so could a lot of targeting. AFAIK it doesn't stack in TT either so this would be in line.

Lastly, a mech outside the ECM bubble cannot be protected by the ECM bubble even if the bubble is between them and the enemy. This ends the screening effect I've seen for mechs obviously too far away to be covered by the ECM and yet gets all the benefits unless a mech has a clear view.

As a side note, I think that Tag should be completely immune from ECM to be honest because it is a visual targeting method based on reflected light painting. When I took this concern to the devs in the past, they had explained to me the ECM scrambles the targeting computer... then even direct fire weapons should be affected and the HUD should be knocked out too for all mechs as a base targeting hud unbolstered by a TAG is weaker. So unless we're going to allow ECM to scramble TAG, we need it to shut down the HUD on all mechs, and not just affect LRM mechs in this fashion.

Those are about as reasoned points I can think of to deal with the problem of OP ECM and yet remain true to the lore of ECM and what PGI has created.

Edited by Kjudoon, 12 September 2014 - 11:28 PM.