632 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

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?

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.

This is the key:

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

ECM completely negates LRM's unless they are upgraded with T2 equipment.

I think it's a good tradeoff/risk, which reinforces the decision-making between being a specialist or generalist.

[Mystere]

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

What other weapon systems have a 1.5 ton piece of equipment completely negate them?

This argument is always given against ECM. So now I will ask, is there any mech that can use only LRMS and no other weapon system? If a player decides to use only LRMs and forgoes any other backup weapons, well that's on them. They better have a team capable of supporting them when required.

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

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

And which is why teamwork is key. Hopefully the team's members can play roles that can support each other.

DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 04:07 AM, said:

If ECM is present and an Lrm boat does not have the support of a team ...

Then he should rightfully be obliterated.

Let me ask you this: What happens if an unsupported artillery battery is pounced on by a tank column?

Edited by Mystere, 13 September 2014 - 07:17 AM.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

If you all like role warfare, then you should see that a 12 man pug consisting of 10 LRMs boats should not be very effective. If PGI would create the game mechanics in a way that every weapon (like mentioned above: Should be a choice) has a valid place, as well as counter-equipment to be more useful (I personally think that the AMS ammo is a little too few in its value to be effective - 1 ton is shot away like nothing) then I can see every loadout being valid - from Gauss/PPC/LRMs/Dakka/Laserboats etc

Up to now, LRMs are the cheapest weapon in terms of skill and have also the highest amount of reward for the low skill you need, mewaning - again - that it also should relatively low skill to counter them - per ECM, Radar Deprivation or simply by going into cover. On map where no cover it possible, like Alpine Peaks, you need a direct counter, or you just get LURMT away. This is ECM or a massive amount of AMS. Since you do not know on which map you drop, in most cases you drop the AMS at the risk of dropping on alpine, because on every other map, you find enough cover.

[9thDeathscream]

It is Rock, Paper Scissors, Lizard, Spock. You run a specialized mech, you must wear the risk that it may be useless. Lrms in River City and Ac40 in Alpine.

If your in a PUG with a specialized Lrm boat and the enemy has multiple Ecm machines, bad luck!

Not all mechs should be effective in all situations.

Ecm is fine. It has counters.

Problem is that you dont wan't to over complicate the Information Warfare System as there is already enough to worry about in a match as it is.

Pugs and small stacked groups don't communicate by coms properly, so convoluoting the incoming information is just going to make things that much harder for casual players.

[KingCobra]

Tuatha (Up to now, LRMs are the cheapest weapon in terms of skill and have also the highest amount of reward for the low skill you need, mewaning - again - that it also should relatively low skill to counter them - per ECM, Radar Deprivation or simply by going into cover. On map where no cover it possible, like Alpine Peaks, you need a direct counter, or you just get LURMT away. This is ECM or a massive amount of AMS. Since you do not know on which map you drop, in most cases you drop the AMS at the risk of dropping on alpine, because on every other map, you find enough cover. )

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And right here explains one of the biggest flaws in MWO (NO MULTIPLE SAVABLE MECHLAB CONFIGURATIONS IN THE UI2.0) So many players do not build new mech configurations between matches I would say 80% of the players probably play the same mech configuration 20-50 times then when bored they might change there mech configuration to something new .

So basically you cannot pick a load-out and configuration you want to play or test between battles without a lot of time and hassle. Which leads to stagnation of different builds during matches.No variations leads to very boring game play.

First without knowing which map your dropping on its hard to know what loadout or configuration to take second even if the map was told to players before the match you don't have time to build your configuration for that map. Without having the ability to save multiple mech loadouts in mechlab gameplay becomes static and stagnant resulting in everyone playing a lot of the same builds.

Edited by KingCobra, 13 September 2014 - 07:38 AM.

[Deathlike]

Bhael Fire, on 12 September 2014 - 11:46 PM, said:

ECM = See the mech without a red rectangle?...shoot in the face...problem solved.

I swear this community is filled with MAN BABIES...that fockin' complain about EVERYTHING.

Ugh...

The biggest error here is that the "Doritos bug" makes teammates considered to be the enemy, thus increasing the level of confusion that exists.

That is an actual problem.

[Wolfways]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

I think it's a good tradeoff/risk, which reinforces the decision-making between being a specialist or generalist.

And that's fair, considering lasers and AC's have T2 upgrades but are never forced to be useless unless upgraded?

[DocBach]

Akulla1980, on 13 September 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:

Ecm is fine. It has counters.

Problem is that you dont wan't to over complicate the Information Warfare System as there is already enough to worry about in a match as it is.

Pugs and small stacked groups don't communicate by coms properly, so convoluoting the incoming information is just going to make things that much harder for casual players.

For counters -- ECM costs 400,000 c-bills and is a passive system that requires minimal input from the user. The counters either require much greater skill (for instance, PPCing at 850m/s or NARCing a Spider), or a much greater cost to use; unlocking UAV's for their greatest effects is a huge GXP sink, and after 10 rounds you're paying more to reload your UAV's then an ECM unit costs, and you'll continue to pay for it if you want to counter it.

Certain items in information warfare serve very little purpose beyond turning off ECM -- Beagle Active Probe has very little utility in a match if ECM isn't present. Both ECM and BAP weigh the same tonnage and have the same critical requirements.... why is BAP so anemic when compared to ECM? People are now complaining that NARC is too effective now that it cuts through ECM; one of the major functions of ECM in the source material and lore is protection from NARC. Some small changes to making other systems more viable to where the Disrupt mode of ECM would be useful to debuff them would be a much better balance option than simply changing or nerfing ECM.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are ways to balance ECM while still allowing it to be an effective soft counter for sensors and LRM's and to provide some stealth ability but not absolute stealth; break off some of ECM's features and place them into a third mode. The original source material has this third mode called Ghost; the fluff says that in Ghost mode ECM stops blocking normal electronics and focuses its energy into actively trying to confuse enemy sensors.

It is, however, important to note that ECM in any form does not equate to sensor stealth like we see in MWO -- that in fact is the job of Stealth Armor, which has several downsides to its use such as massive critical slot requirements and heat generation per each turn used.

In Ghost mode, ECM 'Mechs would no longer block Beagle (which should be buffed to be an actual information gathering piece), Artemis, NARC (which would no longer counter ECM), and spotting (or C3 if it is implemented) -- Ghost mode would decrease the sensor range detection of 'Mechs based on their weight class; heavier 'Mechs are more easily detected.

Base detection range: 800m
Assault detection range (ECM Ghost mode): 700m
Heavy detection range (ECM Ghost mode): 600m
Medium Detection range (ECM Ghost mode): 500m
Light Detection Range (ECM Ghost mode): 400m
ECM Detection Range (currently): 200-180m (without sensor modules)

This allows sniper type light 'Mechs to still maintain their ability to stay at extreme range undetected, but requires lights who are attempting flanking manuevers to utilize fundamentals of cover and concealment instead of relying on the complete sensor stealth of ECM to cover their movement. The better light pilots already do this, but many ECM pilots are so brazen from the lack of being able to be targeted they stand directly in front of enemies knowing that unless someone gets a PPC hit, they won't be able to be targeted by the enemy. It still provides some counter to sensors, but requires players utilize fundamentals like cover and concealment better instead of relying on ECM to move through direct line of sight without consequence.

Ghost mode 'Mechs that are targeted will enjoy a longer lock on time against them. The lock on time is scaled as well -- the lock on penalty for 'mechs beyond visual sight (such as 'Mechs being spotted but not actually in the firing 'Mechs visual arc) should be greater than firing on a 'Mech in Ghost mode in the open that the missile boat has LOS on. This provides a soft counter against radar and missile locks, but not a complete radar defeating hard counter like ECM currently enjoys -- players will need to advance through open danger areas with haste, but will still enjoy longer lock on times against them, especially for enemy missile boats out of line of sight.

The biggest balance change would be buffing other Information Warfare pieces and splitting up ECM's function, so unlike currently where it enjoys all of its effects in one single mode, pilots using have to decide which mode is best suited for the combat situation.

Lastly, to give Ghost mode utility in close ranges and to illustrate the lore's fluff of massive blasts of static, when inside the bubble of an enemy in Ghost ECM mode, players will have static appear and obscure the minimap radar and the target information box, making it a useful tool for quick striking light ECM 'Mechs. The effect gets worse the closer in proximity a 'Mech is with an enemy in Ghost mode. This makes it more illustrated and dynamic than the current "Low Signal" warning.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The easiest and most effective way for Pugs and small groups to communicate with each other (since we lack VOIP) is like Deathlike mentioned, the "red dorito" -- pressing R. The amount of havoc taking that ability away from solo players and small groups is one of the most devastating effects of ECM; the problem with ECM goes much beyond its interactions with LRM's. Game demographics show solo and small group players to outnumber the amount of coordinated 12 man groups -- changes to balance at the top do not always equate to balance for casual players, who also may happen to be paying customers.

Edited by DocBach, 13 September 2014 - 08:58 AM.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

You will never be able to balance causal players against high ELO players. Never! The META will just change, shift and the ROFLstomp will go on, just with other setups. So instead of trying to buff the only weapon that causal players use (LRMs), you should make other weapons more valid - meaning taking away the charge of the Gauss, make the AC/20 faster again, take away Ghost Heat for a better system (there have been plenty of outdrafted suggestions already) etc

ECM, as far as it goes, is currently mainly used to prevent LRM spam from being effective. If you give me a Laser-AMS with the doubled efficiency of current AMS, I might reconsider taking in ECM. Of couse, this Laser-AMS should be rather hot, meaning that if the LRM boat sits back and fires, I sit back and shoot the missiles away. The advantage of that SHALL be, that the LRM boat should go out of ammo before dealing any significant damage. So the deal is the following:
You give the ECM mechs the ability to mount Laser-AMS, at the expense of disregarding ECM. This Laser-AMS is a direct counter to LRMs, meaning it should be more effective against LRMs than ECM - which can be countered by 7 hold cow methods.

I lose my "cloaking device" ability and the enemy can use its target info gathering, so it is for any other weapon besides LRMs a disadvantage to use the Laser-AMS. The advantage on the other hand is, that if you want to hit me or my group with LRMs, that you have to take me out first, to get rid of that magical AMS. This means, that pure LRM boats will still suck, as they do not engage - they are meant to be supporters. No direct fire weapons - bad luck. If you are too afraid to charge in, and every PUG beside you too, then nobody will take me down and I can just charge in. So you notice, that you need Brawlers to "open the gap" - meaning me. That is Role-Warfare.

Someone who charges in and takes out priority targets (Brawlers), someone who is able to use gaps in the enemies defense to open a small hole (Snipers), someone in the second line to support with fire in crowded areas (LRMs)

If you only use Snipers, you should get Brawled away. If you only use LRM-Boats, you should get ROFLSTOMPED, if you only use Brawlers, you should have problems against long ranged weaponry.

High risk: Brawler. Short range, highest DPS.
Medium Risk: Sniper, long range. You still need LOS, but your DPS should be really low, but pinpoint. So medium reward.
Medium-Risk: Dakka - you need LOS, have still a high DPS, but spread damage. Medium/Long range. Medium reward.
Low Risk: 3rd line Support (LRMs) - Low reward - spread damage, medium/low DPS and only useful, if enemy counters are taken out (ECM, AMS)

Changing any of the parts inside those rulesets, must be changed on the other side of the medal to balance itself out. Right now, LRMs are low risk, high reward. Whoever wants that increased even more reward, shall give an explanation how to outbalance that properly.

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 13 September 2014 - 04:23 AM, said:

How many weapons can be completely avoided after they have been fired at you, and give you a warning that they are incoming?

I say get rid of the warning. I always found that one odd.

Samsoon, on 13 September 2014 - 04:47 AM, said:

Hi! As you can see, I was a founder when MWO was in beta. I haven't played or logged in in over a year. Just popping in to give my opinion.

The time for this dialogue was 12 months ago. PGI has alienated their userbase with false promises and stall tactics for too long while delivering nothing. I for one, am never playing one of your games again, and I suggest everyone else do the same.

Have a nice day!

The better course of action was for you to have remained silent, especially because your post brought nothing useful to the discussion.

[KingCobra]

Tuatha (You will never be able to balance causal players against high ELO players. Never! The META will just change, shift and the ROFLstomp will go on, just with other setups. So instead of trying to buff the only weapon that causal players use (LRMs), you should make other weapons more valid - meaning taking away the charge of the Gauss, make the AC/20 faster again, take away Ghost Heat for a better system (there have been plenty of outdrafted suggestions already) etc)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually your wrong there was a balance in MechWarrior2-MechWarrior4 as far as skill vs skill it was called (THE MSN GAMMING ZONE) playersno matter what level could play 1v1-12v12 matches with players of similar skill sets and they progressed in a system of leagues with player help and training that promoted skill VS skill matches VS grinding as MWO does.

In other words if you solo played or you and your group of friend wanted to play similar skilled players all you had to do was ask a team of players to match your group up with similar set of skilled players for matches 2v2-12v12or just fun or training.

Edited by KingCobra, 13 September 2014 - 08:00 AM.

[Mystere]

KingCobra, on 13 September 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

Actually your wrong there was a balance in MechWarrior2-MechWarrior4 as far as skill vs skill it was called (THE MSN GAMMING ZONE) playersno matter what level could play 1v1-12v12 matches with players of similar skill sets and they progressed in a system of leagues with player help and training that promoted skill VS skill matches VS grinding as MWO does.

In other words: eSports. I think people already know what I think of it.

KingCobra, on 13 September 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

In other words if you solo played or you and your group of friend wanted to play similar skilled players all you had to do was ask a team of players to match your group up with similar set of skilled players for matches 2v2-12v12or just fun or training.

Then use private matches for those.

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 13 September 2014 - 07:40 AM, said:

And that's fair, considering lasers and AC's have T2 upgrades but are never forced to be useless unless upgraded?

So weapons have different (pre-)upgrade characteristics/abilities? I'm perfectly fine with that. Weapons do not have to share any capabilities.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

KingCobra, on 13 September 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

Tuatha (You will never be able to balance causal players against high ELO players. Never! The META will just change, shift and the ROFLstomp will go on, just with other setups. So instead of trying to buff the only weapon that causal players use (LRMs), you should make other weapons more valid - meaning taking away the charge of the Gauss, make the AC/20 faster again, take away Ghost Heat for a better system (there have been plenty of outdrafted suggestions already) etc)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually your wrong there was a balance in MechWarrior2-MechWarrior4 as far as skill vs skill it was called (THE MSN GAMMING ZONE) playersno matter what level could play 1v1-12v12 matches with players of similar skill sets and they progressed in a system of leagues with player help and training that promoted skill VS skill matches VS grinding as MWO does.

In other words if you solo played or you and your group of friend wanted to play similar skilled players all you had to do was ask a team of players to match your group up with similar set of skilled players for matches 2v2-12v12or just fun or training.

That was without ELO. Now we have it. As you can see, we already have a thing that actively manipulates the skill level of the players by matching them together in the same sum of ELO-points. The missing part of that is, that the sum is a linear calculation, while the skill-level of a player vs. player action is a non-linear function.

Meaning: The gap between a bad and a mediocre player is higher, that that of a medicore vs. a good, which is higher than a good vs. an AAA.

So one problem is to solve this non-linearity. 2 AAA-player cannot outbalance 10 bad ones, vs 12 medium skilled ones - which is a pest for any player with a higher ELO.

Another point is the equipment used. Seeing some mech loadouts in the lower-tier playerbase, I can only cry when I see it, meaning that a bad player skill is multiplied with a bad mech loadout leading to a terribad performance. As the loadout is free to configure, you cannot hope to "match" any of those setups correctly in a free queue.

[KingCobra]

Mystery (Then use private matches for those.)

Do you really think new players or most casual players will pay for private matches they cannot play 1v1-12v12 with friends? and randomly get thrown into a big FREE FOR ALL battle system where they receive no training or benefits from doing so? I think not. Without a system where players can learn skills and tactics from more advanced players they just die repeatedly 2 minutes into a match and learn nothing it is a sure uninstall. ECM and similar modules & battle tactics need to be learned and used properly to be effective. I have seen new players ask question in game chat only to receive LOLL or silence or ridiculed about ECM-AMS-ETC.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tuatha (That was without ELO. Now we have it. As you can see, we already have a thing that actively manipulates the skill level of the players by matching them together in the same sum of ELO-points. The missing part of that is, that the sum is a linear calculation, while the skill-level of a player vs. player action is a non-linear function.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yes i do believe PGI should have dumped ELO and its MM long ago in favor of just skill vs skill matches in a live chat/lobby system where players make the choices with no a server AI.

Edited by KingCobra, 13 September 2014 - 08:23 AM.

[Wolfways]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

So weapons have different (pre-)upgrade characteristics/abilities? I'm perfectly fine with that. Weapons do not have to share any capabilities.

Well i do consider one capability to absolutely be shared amongst all weapons. They should all always be viable.
I find it quite funny (and sad) that what i consider the weakest weapon (out of LRM's, AC's, and lasers) is the one that people don't mind if it's nerfed and consider it OP...although tbh many have stated that they just hate LRM's "because".

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 13 September 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

Well i do consider one capability to absolutely be shared amongst all weapons. They should all always be viable.
I find it quite funny (and sad) that what i consider the weakest weapon (out of LRM's, AC's, and lasers) is the one that people don't mind if it's nerfed and consider it OP...although tbh many have stated that they just hate LRM's "because".

I do not consider LRMs to be OP in any way. I consider them viable. But, they (or any weapon for that matter) do not have to be viable under all circumstances.

Everyone is in a team. May the better team win.

Edited by Mystere, 13 September 2014 - 08:28 AM.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Wolfways, on 13 September 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

Well i do consider one capability to absolutely be shared amongst all weapons. They should all always be viable.
I find it quite funny (and sad) that what i consider the weakest weapon (out of LRM's, AC's, and lasers) is the one that people don't mind if it's nerfed and consider it OP...although tbh many have stated that they just hate LRM's "because".

You would have a problem buffing MGs and Flamers, so that they become useful, as we do not have any kind of infantry in this game? You may see the problem...

Weapons should get valid in their trade-off and inter-balance settings. Once that is done, players can try any combination of weapons to make the whole gameplay more fun. You could for example add positive Quirks to mechs with a vastly mixed weaponry, while giving negative Quirks to mechs with a boating loadout. Ghost Heat was a try to prevent boating, but failed in many aspects, as it just shifted loadouts around.

This biggest problems up to now are:
- Time-to-kill
- Missing information management to enable PUGs to have a similar control over the battlefield as groups on comm

The first point can be outbalanced with an armor increase - which is something I do not really prefer, as small weaponry becomes even more useless then (MGs for example) and that Light battlemechs will tank even more. Instead, I'd like to see maybe a little non-linear behavior of armor and tonnage (value x2 beginning at 20 tons reaching a factor of 2.5 at 100 tons compared to the TT-ruleset)
Another thing is to boost defensive mechanisms (ECM, AMS) or add more (Harjel, maybe repair-bases on a not out-thought gamemode lurking in my head) and similar stuff. You can also try to implement a spread on any weapon, via either missing convergence for pinpoint weapons and/or balance them out with a longer reload time. Right now, the Gauss is as effective as an AC/20 in a Brawl, mainly because of the less heat and high projectile speed.

The comm-problem could be solved by programming a voice-comm into the gameplay. It cannot be replaced by any other make-up-mechanic or nerf of weapons that are mainly used by people on comms, because it would be nerfed for people not on comms or pugging solo too - which makes the whole thing illogical.

[Wolfways]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

I do not consider LRMs to be OP in any way. I consider them viable. But, they (or any weapon for that matter) do not have to be viable under all circumstances.

Everyone is in a team. May the better team win.

But they are the only weapon that isn't always viable. I don't consider making someone's mech, no matter what the loadout, completely useless as fair in any way.

Túatha Dé Danann, on 13 September 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

You would have a problem buffing MGs and Flamers, so that they become useful, as we do not have any kind of infantry in this game? You may see the problem...

As they aren't anti-infantry weapons, as many people assume because they did extra damage to infantry, i don't have a problem with buffing them. MG's are supposed to have the same dps as an AC2.
The only problem with buffing small weapons is that the mechs that usually carry them, lights, are much more powerful in MWO than they are in TT because of their enhanced speed.

Edited by Wolfways, 13 September 2014 - 08:49 AM.

[DocBach]

Wolfways, on 13 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

But they are the only weapon that isn't always viable. I don't consider making someone's mech, no matter what the loadout, completely useless as fair in any way.

Hey, its new players own fault if they pick the Champion Catapult while grinding out 'Mechs -- they should learn to play and use weapons that require skill, since ECM doesn't affect me at all!