632 replies to this topic

[Kaeseblock]

TLDR:
Make ECM effects decline with distance from the friendly ECM source. The farther you are away from it, the easier for enemy mechs to target you.
Physically speaking: The farther you are away from the friendly ECM source, the weaker the signal gets until you leave the ECM bubble.
Added some pictures below for details.


Ok, I'll just throw this in here. Lets first briefly analyze the problem with ECM: ECM is a really, really damn good equipment for 1,5t and 2 crit slots.

Why is that so? Well, because it:

• denies locks on allied mechs, that are below the ECM shield
  
• denies the enemy target info of allied mechs, that are below the ECM shield

There are some other nice effect of ECM (e.g. increased time to lock lock on for LRMs / Streaks) but I think the two reasons above are the main reasons why ECM is so damn good.



What can be done to bring it a bit more in line with the other equipments without rendering it completely useless, especially for scout mechs? So should ECM only work on the mech that carries it? No, it shouldn't. Hiding your team (especially a scout lance) while advancing is an important, tactical element that is currently only provided by ECM and... well, cover. Basically using cover is the only real solution to hide your heavy mechs. Once in LOS the enemy can see them anyways, even if they are 1k+ meters away (just look at Alpine Peaks). So for heavy mechs, ECM mainly works as a hard counter for LRMs. Because ECM denies locks and once locked, still increases the lock-on time for LRMs by 50%. But for a scout lance on the other hand, not being seen while getting near the enemy and establishing LOS for gathering info is vital for them to fulfill their role. And since not every light can carry ECM, having an ECM bubble is necessary to not give ECM lights an even bigger advantage compared to the other (allied) lights running next to them.

Regarding the denial of target info: This is highly coupled with the denial of locks, since locking the enemy is necessary before gathering target info on him. Otherwise than that ECM only provides +25% time needed for gathering info on allied mechs under the shield. Maybe some fine tuning can be done here. But the increased time for target info gathering is not why ECM is so strong.

Result: The main reason ECM is so strong is that it denies enemies locks outside of CQC range.

So, back to the initial question: What can be done to bring it a bit more in line with the other equipments without rendering it completely useless, especially for scout mechs?

Sometimes it's hard to explain ideas in with words only. Different people often tend to understand the same text in different ways. So I made some graphics .

Basic idea:
Make effects of a friendly ECM source decline with increasing distance from it. The farther you are away from it, the easier for enemy mechs to target you.

Since the denial of locks is probably the main reason why ECM is so damn good, I'll use the max. targeting range for enemies as example to explain my idea.



(Ripping the data from my head, not sure if mechs are really targetable below 120m if they are under the ECM shield. Please correct me if I'm wrong - and look at the graphics as if the value was the correct value )

Explanation:
If you are outside of a min. radius (rECM) of [tbd] m around the nearest allied ECM source, the distance an enemy can stand away from you to get a lock on you increases. At the same time, the other positive effects of ECM (increased time to lock on LRMs/Streaks and gather target info) start to decline.
At just below 180m away from the ECM source, the ECM will almost have no effect anymore.
I included the min. radius, so that scout mechs running/standing next to each other can still get the full ECM cover, even if just on of them mounts an ECM. That might not be necessary. In that case min. radius can be simply set to 0.


Why is this a good idea?
I think it's a good idea since it makes ECM less of a "ha, I'm making half of my team invulnerable against LRMs" equipment in PUGs. In fact, as soon as the team starts to spread out a bit, it becomes an "ok, I protect these few guys I'm running around with and give the ones a little farther away a tiny advantage over our common enemy. If the team decides to stick together tightly, everybody will be well protected by your ECM. But this makes the team also more vulnurable agains Airstrikes and Arty. So it's kind of a tradeoff here. Same arguments are valid for the group queue and 12 mans. This way the ECM concept presented in this post makes ECM a little less of a "no brainer" to... well, not to take but rather to use right. Maybe it even encourages better team play


Additional ideas (these are OPTIONS, that could be added to the concept above):
On twitter Russ stated, that ideas should be "Restricted to ECM only - Other systems can be pulled in if absolutely necessary to make the perfect ECM solution work etc"
The idea proposed above perfectly fulfills that. Basically it's just a change to the way the ECM bubble works. No changes to other systems necessary. I'm going to throw in some additional Ideas anyways

BAP:
Gives +25% targeting range. This range increase could directly decrease the effect of enemy ECM for the mechs that carry a BAP.


Basically BAP not only remains a hard counter in CQC but also becomes a soft counter on longer ranges.


ECM / BAP Modules:
possible ECM modules:

• increase max. ECM radius (180m) by [tbd]%
  
• increase rECM by [tbd]% (if rECM is not 0, see explanation above)

possible BAP modules:

• increase targeting range by [tbd]% (adds to the base of 25%, further decreasing ECM effects on you)

Could be "mech" or "weapon" modules.







Fluff:
Instead of just completely jamming the minimap and shared target info within 180m of an enemy ECM, scale the jamming with the distance between the enemy ECM and the affected mech. At 180m, the minimap and shared target info would start to be randomly jammed for short periods of time. Should create some kind of "white noise" feeling. The nearer you get to the ECM source, the heavier the jamming becomes until you are permanently jammed within a radius of [tbd] m around the ECM source.

Conclusion:
So, this became a really lengthy post. Please feel free to provide feedback and discuss.
I'm really curious in the result of this whole "community created ECM" process


Edit: Scaled down the graphic with the BAP range graph
Edit2: Since I didn't write it explicitly in my post yet: ECM counter measures like PPCs and Tag are meant to work the same way they work now.
Edit3: Added note to make clear that the "additional ideas" are just ideas for possible additions and not necessary for the concept presented.
Edit4: Updated the TLDR to prevent further misunderstandings. Man, today is edit-day XD
Edit5: Going to edit the graphics to make them more understandable. Added an explanation in the meantime. Doing stuff like writing down this idea right after getting up is certainly not the best idea... I'll keep on improving this post and the idea presented. -
Edit6: Graphics updated
Edit7: Added explanation of this concepts advantages.

Edited by Kaeseblock, 15 September 2014 - 08:44 AM.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

The use of ECM:

First, ECM is useful for exactly 3 things:
- Prevent missile lock-on for LRMs
- Prevent Missile lock-on for SSRMs
- Prevent enemies to gether targeth infos (paperdoll), as there is no red triangle above an enemy

ECM does NOT:
- Shield you from any other weapon fire beside guided missiles
- Shield you from any other vision mode (thermal/night)
- Shield you from seismic sensors

ECM can be countered via:
- Counter-ECM
- PPC impact
- NARC
- TAG
- Adv. Sensor Range (to a degree)
- Beagle Active probe
- UAV

This is what we have. In my opinion, the use of ECM is in that way only useful to prevent LRM-Boats - the most easy-to-use weapon in the game with the highest reward to lowest risk benefit, and can still be countered in 7 (!!!) ways. Saying, that ECM is overpowered is... funny at best. Right now, I'd wish for more options to counter LRM spam, as these are the main weapons of the largest part of the community, because they just went on the wagon and never tried any other weapons beside LRMs.

To be honest, I think people deserve to be shot in the face if they only use LRMs. So running into the enemy with ECM coverage and then unloading a hellfire of Ballistics, SRMs and Lasers on the LRM boats is one of the most satisfying views in this game - killing the campers.

So - if you want to NERF ECM - well, do so, but then you have to NERF LRMs too - like for example: You get only a lock with LOS, which may sound stupid, what it is - stupid. LRMs are supposed to be an indirect fire weapon. You can only lock on LRMs on an enemy target under ECM if you have TAG right now, meaning LOS - and this is already balanced.

So to be totally honest: I think that ECM is already quite balanced, as it only suppresses the use of LRM spam, which is GOOD and hinders the enemy to gather target infos, which increases the time-to-kill, which is also GOOD.

The use of ECM can be made more complex, deeper, interesting, as well as the methods to counter it. But in general, the balance right now is OK. Don't screw it up!

Edited by Túatha Dé Danann, 13 September 2014 - 03:02 AM.

[DocBach]

ECM might only do the above to well coordinated teams who can use voice comms to negate the confusion the absence of sensor icons creates.... Solo players or smaller groups playing with players outside of their comms have much more difficulty in dealing with the loss of information ECM creates.

[Wolfways]

maxdest, on 12 September 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

--> Make LRM really long ranged, but require a spotter to be effective.

As long as there's a warning letting players know to move into cover LRM's will never be long range.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 03:04 AM, said:

ECM might only do the above to well coordinated teams who can use voice comms to negate the confusion the absence of sensor icons creates.... Solo players or smaller groups playing with players outside of their comms have much more difficulty in dealing with the loss of information ECM creates.

I don't - even when pugging. This is called map awareness. If you stand at a certain spot, you have a certain "point of impact" on your mech. Covering these points with your view to counter-attack is one of the basic skills in this game. As I mostly play (IS) Brawlers and (IS) Dakka mechs, it is fairly easy for me to attack enemies under ECM, because I do not use any weapons that require a lock. Case closed, still 100% efficiency.

Not being on comms is also a problem you cannot blame ECM for, but this is an issue of a missing feature in this game. You should never nerf a weapon system or a part of your equipment, because another feature coming from the borders of the gameplay (voice-comm) is missing. If you want to fix that problem, implement voice-comm. This also goes for many other aspects of the game. Missing voice-comm does not only affect ECM/No-ECM, but also focus fire, firing-lines, strategies and tactics, as well as consolidated loadouts, formations and the ability to play together. Taking ECM for the blame is like hitting a random stranger because your coffee got cold.

[kapusta11]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 13 September 2014 - 03:01 AM, said:

The use of ECM:

First, ECM is useful for exactly 3 things:
- Prevent missile lock-on for LRMs
- Prevent Missile lock-on for SSRMs
- Prevent enemies to gether targeth infos (paperdoll), as there is no red triangle above an enemy

ECM does NOT:
- Shield you from any other weapon fire beside guided missiles
- Shield you from any other vision mode (thermal/night)
- Shield you from seismic sensors

ECM can be countered via:
- Counter-ECM
- PPC impact
- NARC
- TAG
- Adv. Sensor Range (to a degree)
- Beagle Active probe
- UAV

This is what we have. In my opinion, the use of ECM is in that way only useful to prevent LRM-Boats - the most easy-to-use weapon in the game with the highest reward to lowest risk benefit, and can still be countered in 7 (!!!) ways. Saying, that ECM is overpowered is... funny at best. Right now, I'd wish for more options to counter LRM spam, as these are the main weapons of the largest part of the community, because they just went on the wagon and never tried any other weapons beside LRMs.

To be honest, I think people deserve to be shot in the face if they only use LRMs. So running into the enemy with ECM coverage and then unloading a hellfire of Ballistics, SRMs and Lasers on the LRM boats is one of the most satisfying views in this game - killing the campers.

So - if you want to NERF ECM - well, do so, but then you have to NERF LRMs too - like for example: You get only a lock with LOS, which may sound stupid, what it is - stupid. LRMs are supposed to be an indirect fire weapon. You can only lock on LRMs on an enemy target under ECM if you have TAG right now, meaning LOS - and this is already balanced.

So to be totally honest: I think that ECM is already quite balanced, as it only suppresses the use of LRM spam, which is GOOD and hinders the enemy to gather target infos, which increases the time-to-kill, which is also GOOD.

The use of ECM can be made more complex, deeper, interesting, as well as the methods to counter it. But in general, the balance right now is OK. Don't screw it up!

QFT

[Wolfways]

Bhael Fire, on 12 September 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

But whatever. I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is...and as I've said, I don't run ECM mechs so I couldn't less if they nerf the **** out of it, but I just don't see the the point in doing that.

Imagine if players could equip a 1.5ton piece of equipment that stopped you firing lasers or AC's at them unless you had ERlasers or UltraAC's.
ECM completely negates LRM's unless they are upgraded with T2 equipment.

[DocBach]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 13 September 2014 - 03:18 AM, said:

I don't - even when pugging. This is called map awareness. If you stand at a certain spot, you have a certain "point of impact" on your mech. Covering these points with your view to counter-attack is one of the basic skills in this game. As I mostly play (IS) Brawlers and (IS) Dakka mechs, it is fairly easy for me to attack enemies under ECM, because I do not use any weapons that require a lock. Case closed, still 100% efficiency.

Not being on comms is also a problem you cannot blame ECM for, but this is an issue of a missing feature in this game. You should never nerf a weapon system or a part of your equipment, because another feature coming from the borders of the gameplay (voice-comm) is missing. If you want to fix that problem, implement voice-comm. This also goes for many other aspects of the game. Missing voice-comm does not only affect ECM/No-ECM, but also focus fire, firing-lines, strategies and tactics, as well as consolidated loadouts, formations and the ability to play together. Taking ECM for the blame is like hitting a random stranger because your coffee got cold.

So because the weapons you prefer are not affected by it, it's ok that the system completely disables weapon systems you don't prefer?

I use direct fire weapons almost exclusively, but I can still recognize that my play style isn't the only one that should be valid in this game.

Edited by DocBach, 13 September 2014 - 03:25 AM.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Kaeseblock, on 13 September 2014 - 02:34 AM, said:

TLDR:
Make ECM effects decline with distance from ECM source.
Added some pictures below for details.

Lets begin at the... beginning:
ECM is a strong distortion signal that tries to deny enemy sensors from getting a lock. The closer you are (right now), the stronger your sensor throughput gets, meaning that on very close ranges, your sensors are able to get a lock-on, even in the prenence of ECM - this is already useful for Streaks. There is a certain "donut" around an ECM, whene you can fire your streaks on an ECM-Mech. This Donot gets larger, if you equip advanced sensor range and is fully active from 0m if you have the BAP.

Going farer away from an enemy mech, lowers your sensor resolution, which leads to a loss of sensor lock on longer ranges. You proposal means the opposite: Being farer away to increase your sensor throughput, just to lose it instantaneously once you reach max range. Thats counter-intuitive in many ways. ECM is also a strong local "bubble", meaning that the farer you are away, the more problems you should have to get though it. You may even lose the lock on a NARC if you are too far away.

One thing that CAN be fixed is losing the NARC-lock-on if the NARC-spotter is very close or inside the enemy ECM bubble. This - right now, is something you could fix. Meaning: The NARC should be very effective on closer ranges and should broadcast, even if the spotter is under enemy ECM.

So to summarize:
A Decay of sensor throughput is already present and can be broken if you are *close* to the enemy, not *far* away. This is GOOD, as it follows to a certain degree actual physics, making it intuitive.

[Giverous]

Well, since you are actually revealing details of CW, and making SOME sort of effort to reach out to the community, I guess I'll have to play for a couple of days and get a feel for the game again before I pass on any serious feedback.

I warn you now though, in being prepared to listen to feedback you also have to be prepared to listen to criticism. The recent trends of being extremely twitchy on the banhammer can't continue. A lot of what I have to say is likely to be very critical.

I will always try to deliver my feedback in a constructive manner (as do most people who are passionate about the franchise), but you still might not like what a LOT of people have to say.

All that being said, thanks for reaching out.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

So because the weapons you prefer are not affected by it, it's ok that the system completely disables weapon systems you don't prefer?

Nope, right now, there are a plethora of weapon systems and LRMs are the only ones affected (beside Streaks that nobody uses anymore, because SRMs have a higher and more reliable DPS)
So the usefulness of ECM is rather thin, as it only affects a (currently used) single weapon system right now in the game. Telling, that this is a broad mechanic is just wrong, its more like a direct counter to LRMs. If other weapons (at least 3 or 4) would be affected too, then we could start arguing about it, yes.

Quote

I use direct fire weapons almost exclusively, but I can still recognize that my play style isn't the only one that should be valid in this game.

Its more about the basic skillset in order to be a good player. Focus fire, heat management, twisting, piloting, management of your weapon systems, map awareness etc. If you lack on any of those, the enemy will use that "gap" to get you. So if LRM-boats lack a plethora of those skills, because they never used them, you cannot blame ECM for suddenly making them necessary again, as they were necessary to begin with - but LRMs only negate the need for them. It forces players to think and act more intelligent - which is imho GOOD.

[No One Lives Forever]

ECM is working fine. I would actually go to increase its range a bit more. Every time there's a challenge, you cant see the sky trough all the missiles. Most annoying sound in the game: Betty saying "Incoming missiles".

I cant believe there are players, wanting ECM to be nerfed. To use LRMS you don't need to put in any effort whatsoever most of the times. Its ECM that makes LRM boats to think and "work" sometimes. Its missiles that need to be nerfed, not ECM. ECM nerf would BREAK THE GAME. Only it is preventing LRMS to become absolute meta.

Edited by Nerrixx, 13 September 2014 - 03:58 AM.

[DocBach]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 13 September 2014 - 03:47 AM, said:

Nope, right now, there are a plethora of weapon systems and LRMs are the only ones affected (beside Streaks that nobody uses anymore, because SRMs have a higher and more reliable DPS)
So the usefulness of ECM is rather thin, as it only affects a (currently used) single weapon system right now in the game. Telling, that this is a broad mechanic is just wrong, its more like a direct counter to LRMs. If other weapons (at least 3 or 4) would be affected too, then we could start arguing about it, yes.


Its more about the basic skillset in order to be a good player. Focus fire, heat management, twisting, piloting, management of your weapon systems, map awareness etc. If you lack on any of those, the enemy will use that "gap" to get you. So if LRM-boats lack a plethora of those skills, because they never used them, you cannot blame ECM for suddenly making them necessary again, as they were necessary to begin with - but LRMs only negate the need for them. It forces players to think and act more intelligent - which is imho GOOD.

What other weapon systems have a 1.5 ton piece of equipment completely negate them? You are marginalizing the fact that guided weapons are completely defeated by ECM; there are many mechs that have the majority of their combat ability completely rendered ineffective. As asked by another poster, would you be wiling to have a 1.5 ton box that negates energy weapons, like a shield of some sort?

Lrm support is a component of role warfare -- it sounds like you are completely biased against any other role except the one you play.

[Ulric Kell]

I'm not sure how ECM can be fixed without delving into all the supporting systems including RADAR both active and passive.

Without putting those on the table, we're really only repainting over the rust.

[kapusta11]

DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 03:56 AM, said:

What other weapon systems have a 1.5 ton piece of equipment completely negate them? You are marginalizing the fact that guided weapons are completely defeated by ECM; there are many mechs that have the majority of their combat ability completely rendered ineffective. As asked by another poster, would you be wiling to have a 1.5 ton box that negates energy weapons, like a shield of some sort?

Lrm support is a component of role warfare -- it sounds like you are completely biased against any other role except the one you play.

What game are you playing?

[Túatha Dé Danann]

DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 03:56 AM, said:

What other weapon systems have a 1.5 ton piece of equipment completely negate them? You are marginalizing the fact that guided weapons are completely defeated by ECM; there are many mechs that have the majority of their combat ability completely rendered ineffective. As asked by another poster, would you be wiling to have a 1.5 ton box that negates energy weapons, like a shield of some sort?

Lrm support is a component of role warfare -- it sounds like you are completely biased against any other role except the one you play.

There are 7 counters to ECM. Use them. This is role-warfare.
Camping behind and hoping for a free damage without re-fire is not what this game is about. Having you mech filled to the teeth with LRMs is also rather bad gameplay.

It is called LRM-SUPPORT, meaning it is a support weapon. When people push on the frontlines, you should be able to bring in some LRMs if you have no LOS or your line is blocked in order to still deal some SUPPORT damage. LRMs are able to be fired from behind a rock, so they should be countered from "behind a rock". Lasers cannot be fired from behind a rock, so they should not be countered "from behind a rock". You know... balance.

Edited by Túatha Dé Danann, 13 September 2014 - 04:11 AM.

[DocBach]

If ECM is present and an Lrm boat does not have the support of a team, how effective will it's lrms be without paying additional tonnage taxes like tag?

Tell me, how much skill and cbills are required to use ECM?

How many of the counters require skill or reoccurring cbill costs to deactivate it?

What happens if you brought missiles and encounter ECM? Pop your uav over yourself and hope an enemy is in range?

Túatha Dé Danann, on 13 September 2014 - 04:04 AM, said:

There are 7 counters to ECM. Use them. This is role-warfare.
Camping behind and hoping for a free damage without re-fire is not what this game is about. Having you mech filled to the teeth with LRMs is also rather bad gameplay.

No, this is actually a shallow and unfinished information warfare. Different play styles and types of mechs with different mission profiles such as spotting and support is role warfare. Again... You outright say the reason ECM is fine is because you do not like a certain role certain players and mechs perform on the battlefield.

Edited by DocBach, 13 September 2014 - 04:11 AM.

[Angelos Sanguinum]

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

You the community decide how your going to present a proposal, nominate a peer that you feel has the best handle on this, put together your own player council whatever you like but present a proposal that your peers vote on. The vote would likely need to be far greater than just 51% in favor. Perhaps something more like 80+%

At that point PGI will analyze the proposal, if we see any technical problems or balance problems that we feel perhaps you didnt see, we will point those items out to you. Then if necessary you can adjust your proposal and put it to a vote again, if successful PGI will again analyze and repeat if necessary until we have a final design solution for implementation.

PGI will then communicate how long it will take to implement with full explanation as to why, and we will patch the changes in upon the agreed upon delivery date. Once complete if this whole process has gone smoothly and civily we will proceed with doing things like this far more frequently or at least for other areas of the product that are controversial.

What do you say?

You fix your own crap yourselves or hire better game designers that actually know wtf they are doing with game.
There is good example at Planetside 2 team.

Edited by Angelos Sanguinum, 13 September 2014 - 04:11 AM.

[Livewyr]

I would argue that much of the support for ECM as it currently is, is a result of LRMs having free range to fire indirectly at a whim.

I think they might go for a change, if LRMs were changed drastically to where they were not "sit back and lob" weapons.

[DocBach]

High risk should yield high rewards. Indirect fire should have less reward as there is little risk. It should however not be completely marginalized because of a 1.5 ton ECM unit.