632 replies to this topic

[Túatha Dé Danann]

So you did not read what I wrote and do wild assumptions about me, because you do not find any arguments. Well, thats another way to perform a discussion.

Again: I don't have a problem with LRMs. For the fourth time now. How often do I have to repeat that until it gets into your cognition?

And the rest is the fault of PGI not being able to implement a "good" system. I'm also with Doc on his proposal, which you also might have missed and I'm for a sensful alteration of ECM, in case you have missed that part too. And again: I play as a Brawler and this very successful. So if you are able to get away from personal attacks and back to a constructive discussion, we might continue to find non-found aspects to the whole ECM system, that might lead to improved game-mechanics.

[Scratx]

Cimarb, on 13 September 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

If you have ever ran an LRM boat regularly, you would understand that getting a lock on a mech in an ECM umbrella is impossible without a TAG/NARC/UAV, or an ally keeping a lock on them within 180 meters. In addition, the extended lock-on time, even if you DO have a dedicated spotter, makes it very difficult to successfully hit the ECM mech.

I am envisioning those changes alongside largely dropping (or at least nerfing) the "No Doritos Effect" of ECM. Try slapping an UAV on top of the enemy team. Lock-on time affects, yes, but once you're locked on, just fire away. You'll note it doesn't actually hamper you all that much.

Yes, I actually run LRM mechs, as you should be able to tell.

I'm honest that I can tell that without ECM as it is now LRMs would be potentially too nasty. My proposal was simply trying to reach an alternative mechanic by which to "nerf" indirect fire LRM-spam without hard countering them.

I hate hard counters, especially when they affect entire weapon classes.

[Mcgral18]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 14 September 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

So you did not read what I wrote and do wild assumptions about me, because you do not find any arguments. Well, thats another way to perform a discussion.

Again: I don't have a problem with LRMs. For the fourth time now. How often do I have to repeat that until it gets into your cognition?

And the rest is the fault of PGI not being able to implement a "good" system. I'm also with Doc on his proposal, which you also might have missed and I'm for a sensful alteration of ECM, in case you have missed that part too. And again: I play as a Brawler and this very successful. So if you are able to get away from personal attacks and back to a constructive discussion, we might continue to find non-found aspects to the whole ECM system, that might lead to improved game-mechanics.

I tried, then you asked for a AC200.


I also offered why ECM is bad, and why you should feel bad.

Then you go and say "I Brawl and I don't care about ECM, because it doesn't break the things I like, buff brawling", paraphrased, of course.

I also brawl successfully, but I don't like how a weapon family is complete garbage because of the Magic Jesus Box, and the inability to balance them properly around it.

[Agro11]

Would a system that revamps the way we do load outs on mechs help stop the boating? I don't really think ECM is the only problem, though I would like to see a changes in the system to give the game more dynamics. Things like passive radar would change the way we play a little bit, but it don't feel it is the major problem.

The boating of any weapon IS the problem and the system allows for it and that needs to change. Every other change that has happened, from ghost heat to ECM has just been a band aid in an attempt to fix the broader issue. Fixing ECM will only change things slightly with out fixing the way we load out mechs.

Now I am pretty sure the devs have always wanted too allow us full customization of our mechs and I am pretty sure people will cry foul if some limitations were put in place but another band aid is not going to fix this problem.

I might be re iterating ideas that other people have had in the past, I don't come here often to read the forums but could we look at having say different tiers for load outs on mechs? Force people to not be able to take 4 large lasers or 4 lrm 15's and reduce the spam? Force teams to work together with various mechs that support each other, rather then which ever team can get the most large lasers or lrms down range?

If we get some change's made to ECM, that would be a great start and prove that change can be made through the correct application of applied reason and I would support which ever council gets elected to get the ball rolling. However, it really is just the tip of the iceberg and I hope those people involved with said council are persistent enough and try to do their best to get some serious changes made.

Edit: We also need more information how CW is going to work, we make so many judgments based on what we have in the pug que or various leagues that run and no solid information on how CW will effect us.

Edited by GD Agro, 14 September 2014 - 08:12 AM.

[xe N on]

Nerfing ECM might have no impact on competitive player scene. However, nerfing ECM will kick the fun out of any PUG game if you don't define fun as camping 12 mins at the same location exchange volley after volley of LRMs. There are maps, where you simply find insufficient LRM cover, like Alpine or Caustic. You might rush in a well coordinated team using 3rd party communication tools, however, the common PUG will fail.

In addition, it makes lights even more worthless. One role of lights is to bring ECM.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Maybe you got it into the wrong throat?

Again: LRMs are capable to be fired without exposing yourself. This means: Low-risk. Do you agree? Yes? No? If not, please tell me why.

Currently, ECM is widely used to prevent getting shot at without the ability to re-fire against LRM-boats. While there are other things you can do against them (getting cover, AMS, kill them before they kill you), ECM is currently the most efficient way on blocking LRMs. Do you agree? Yes? No? If not, please tell me why.

If we widen up ECM - which would be good as it is currently used as a direct counter and less of a tool to perform informational warfare, LRMs would get an indirect buff. Do you agree? Yes? No? If not, please tell me why.

If the LRMs get that indirect buff, they change from a low-risk-medium-reward weapon they currently are to a low-risk-high-reward-weapon with one less counter. This needs to be outbalanced, so that other roles, like Brawlers, Snipers, Flankers etc. still have a reason to exists, without entirely being replaced by LRM-boats, because they have to highest ris-to-benefit-ratio. Do you agree? Yes? No? If not, please tell me why.

Step by step.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

How about this, if you guys have SUCH a hard time with LRMs...start your own thread and ask Russ and Paul to look at it.

Because so far nearly every post saying ECM is fine revolves around LRMs, and has nothing to do with the Information Warfare Pillar, which is totally fubar BECAUSE of ECM.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Who has a hard time with LRMs? Some people 10 pages back?

The reason why people discuss around LRMs and ECM at the same time, is because both things are connected right now. Many suggestions try to break that connection in a useful and senseful way, without breaking any side either. This means that at first, you have to separate two gameplay elements that are glued together right now. Thus, you try to look at LRMs without the presence of ECM and you try to look at ECM without the presence of LRMs.

Does that sound more logical?

Edited by Túatha Dé Danann, 14 September 2014 - 08:34 AM.

[Prezimonto]

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

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.

Russ, would you be willing to give us ball park figures for timelines involved with:
Changing numbers in a table that exists (changing the range of the ECM field)
Changing a small amount of code (likely) (changing how ECM interacts with it's counters)
Changing a large amount of code (likely) (overhauling how the whole mechanism works for ECM from scratch)

I bring this up as there are, valid, complaints that ECM, while a prevalent balance problem for three years, isn't the largest issue the game faces. I think a lot of players won't argue if the ECM changes don't take a large amount of resources/time from the development team. Add that many of the proposals from ECM will likely include some balance changes to how LRM's operate, and so 3 sets of systems may need changes (ECM/counter ECM/LRM) to really rework the system because it is fairly interdependent, and I think it will be HIGHLY useful for the council to be able to take a rough timeline estimate into account when working towards an initial proposal for the community in an effort to achieve consensus.

I understand that these numbers would be HIGHLY subject to change depending on the details of a proposal, but basic starting point isn't bad.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 14 September 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

Who has a hard time with LRMs? Some people 10 pages back?

The Xenon guy like two posts above mine?

Can you practice reading comprehension? You are seriously crapping on this thread with some really illogical and poorly thought out points.

[Mcgral18]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 14 September 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

Maybe you got it into the wrong throat?

Again: LRMs are capable to be fired without exposing yourself. This means: Low-risk. Do you agree? Yes? No? If not, please tell me why.

Currently, ECM is widely used to prevent getting shot at without the ability to re-fire against LRM-boats. While there are other things you can do against them (getting cover, AMS, kill them before they kill you), ECM is currently the most efficient way on blocking LRMs. Do you agree? Yes? No? If not, please tell me why.

If we widen up ECM - which would be good as it is currently used as a direct counter and less of a tool to perform informational warfare, LRMs would get an indirect buff. Do you agree? Yes? No? If not, please tell me why.

If the LRMs get that indirect buff, they change from a low-risk-medium-reward weapon they currently are to a low-risk-high-reward-weapon with one less counter. This needs to be outbalanced, so that other roles, like Brawlers, Snipers, Flankers etc. still have a reason to exists, without entirely being replaced by LRM-boats, because they have to highest ris-to-benefit-ratio. Do you agree? Yes? No? If not, please tell me why.

Step by step.

Quote

Again: LRMs are capable to be fired without exposing yourself. This means: Low-risk. Do you agree? Yes? No? If not, please tell me why.

There's a reason most LRM launcher have an accuracy of under 40%, indirect fire is bad to get hits. NARC does change that, but in the current day of Radar Derp, which reduces the 3.5 seconds of ATD to 1.5 (it removes the stock 2.0 lock on duration) and the Magic Jesus Box, indirect fire is very unreliable.

You need to expose yourself to get any reliable locks.

Quote

Currently, ECM is widely used to prevent getting shot at without the ability to re-fire against LRM-boats. While there are other things you can do against them (getting cover, AMS, kill them before they kill you), ECM is currently the most efficient way on blocking LRMs. Do you agree? Yes? No? If not, please tell me why.

Magic Jesus Box prevents locking of missiles, yes, it is the most efficient LRM-viability killing equipment. Next to overhead cover.

Quote

If we widen up ECM - which would be good as it is currently used as a direct counter and less of a tool to perform informational warfare, LRMs would get an indirect buff. Do you agree? Yes? No? If not, please tell me why.

Not sure what you mean by widen MJB.

Quote

If the LRMs get that indirect buff, they change from a low-risk-medium-reward weapon they currently are to a low-risk-high-reward-weapon with one less counter. This needs to be outbalanced, so that other roles, like Brawlers, Snipers, Flankers etc. still have a reason to exists, without entirely being replaced by LRM-boats, because they have to highest ris-to-benefit-ratio. Do you agree? Yes? No? If not, please tell me why.

If a 1.5 ton piece of equipment no longer kills 20+ tons of weapons, we might be able to balance them without the need of a hard counter. MJB is bad. It's current implementation is bad. It can be fixed. There will be some balance changes required when that happens.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Mcgral18, on 14 September 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

There's a reason most LRM launcher have an accuracy of under 40%, indirect fire is bad to get hits. NARC does change that, but in the current day of Radar Derp, which reduces the 3.5 seconds of ATD to 1.5 (it removes the stock 2.0 lock on duration) and the Magic Jesus Box, indirect fire is very unreliable.

And any direct fire weapon would hit the wall in front of you if you try to fire it on a target staying behind cover, leading to a hit rate of 0%. So in order to hit with direct fire weapons, you have to expose yourself. LRMs on the other hand can hit targets that are behind a wall (but maybe not in real cover against LRMs)

You can hit - may it be for 40%.

Another aspect of this fire-line is the suppressive aspect. If you fire on a target, it goes back into cover, meaning that you buy your team time to push. If there is nobody around that wants to push, this aspect gets completely negated. As for that point, its the fault of your teammates not wanting to push, but not for LRMs not giving that opportunity. Another team might, giving it a great deal of advantage. The ability to fire indirectly thus has several advantages, from suppressive fire, over dealing damage over forcing the enemy to go back negating any kind of re-fire.

Quote

You need to expose yourself to get any reliable locks.

As well as anyone else to get the weapons on the target. Or someone is spotting for you with NARC or TAG or UAV. Having a reliable lock means that you are in the same position as any other direct fire-mech. This means equal footage from a balancing point of view.

Quote

Magic Jesus Box prevents locking of missiles, yes, it is the most efficient LRM-viability killing equipment. Next to overhead cover.

Then we agree here.

Quote

Not sure what you mean by widen MJB.

See the many suggestions made in this subforum - for example from Doc or Bishop Steiner or Homeless Bill or SpiralFace etc. Nearly all of them want to widen up the usage of ECM to be a more general equipment for informational warfare and take away the Target-Lock-Block-effect.

Quote

If a 1.5 ton piece of equipment no longer kills 20+ tons of weapons, we might be able to balance them without the need of a hard counter. MJB is bad. It's current implementation is bad. It can be fixed. There will be some balance changes required when that happens.

Good, I think so too.

Now that we know that we see the things similarly on those points, I'd like you to read some of the proposals made by the peoples above, as they try exactly what you want: Balance out ECM while trying to separate LRMs from the ECM mechanic as a hard counter, more to an informational warfare aspect.

My replies the couple of last pages referred to those proposals.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 14 September 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

The Xenon guy like two posts above mine?

He has? I only read, that he fears that PUG-Matches might get a hard time, he did not mention having a hard time by himself. Did you really read his post?

Quote

Can you practice reading comprehension? You are seriously crapping on this thread with some really illogical and poorly thought out points.

Odd, I wanted you to do exactly that.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 14 September 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

He has? I only read, that he fears that PUG-Matches might get a hard time, he did not mention having a hard time by himself. Did you really read his post?


Odd, I wanted you to do exactly that.

xe N on, on 14 September 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

However, nerfing ECM will kick the fun out of any PUG game if you don't define fun as camping 12 mins at the same location exchange volley after volley of LRMs. There are maps, where you simply find insufficient LRM cover, like Alpine or Caustic. You might rush in a well coordinated team using 3rd party communication tools, however, the common PUG will fail.

Nice try with the "I'm rubber your glue" come back, but seriously, read that. If he doesn't have problems with LRMs, why is he worried about games lasting 12 minutes while teams sit back and lob LRMs (only bads do that, total and utter bads)? Why does he bring up Caustic and Alpine? Why does he seem to think PUGs can't deal with LRMs?

[Mystere]

Livewyr, on 10 September 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

LRMs and Streaks being hard countered.

SerEdvard, on 12 September 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

Finally, I believe LRMs have had to be buffed too much in order to make them useful in a world where a hard counter to them exists (which is why missile spam is a problem when a team does not have ECM), so LRMs will need a nerf to bring them back in line.

DocBach, on 12 September 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

but not a hard counter like it currently serves

Jabilo, on 12 September 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

NO HARD COUNTERS.

Ergath Macfirtree, on 12 September 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

I like the idea of a "realistic" approach with no hard counters.

Sprouticus, on 12 September 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

3) get rid of all hard counters for sensors. Soft counters (like decreased/increased range) only.

Simply because this ECM brouhaha just will not die ( ), I am grudgingly submitting my radical but ultimately significant ( ) contribution to this discussion.

So, instead of using discrete values, make missile lock-on times in the presence of ECM, BAP, TAG, and UAV effects follow some derivative of the inverse-square law. Make the current discrete range values be at the 25% (or some other) point of the electromagnetic curve. That totally gets rid of the hard counter effects people constantly and very noisily complain about.

Heck, do the same for LRM and SSRM lock-on times in the absence of ECM, BAP, TAG, and UAV effects.

Edited by Mystere, 14 September 2014 - 10:17 AM.

[LostRothschild]

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

Okay how about this, this is what many of you have been waiting for:

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?

If the answer is Yes then I suggest the following:

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?

How about you start deilvering what's been promised in the first place? How's that for a consensus?

[nonnex]

Its so noisy in here that contributing doesnt make fun/sense anymore here. Any other places where it goes foreward in a positive way?

Edited by nonnex, 14 September 2014 - 10:30 AM.

[xe N on]

@ Nicholas Carlyle
I personally don't have a problem with LRMs, beside Caustic and Alpine. However, at least on my ELO range I regularly see PUG teams get obliterated by LRM Spam. This is mainly due to tactical mistakes, correct. However, LRMs are the easiest way to make profit from the mistakes of others. And belive me, PUG do alot mistakes. ECM water this slightly down.

And of course the strength of the LRM weapon system is connected to ECM and it's function. If you touch ECM, you cannot leave LRMs out of discussion. It is like increasing the engine of an car and not considering it's brakes. You might do that, of course, but it is narrow sighted and not an sign of good engineering.

On the other hand, the arguments of information warfare weight imho only low. Because their is simply no information warfare beside ECM and UAV. There is no passive sensor mode. There is no sensor range depending on size of the mech (atlas = locust). And there is even an arrow that point on your target if it is in sensor range for those who fail to watch their radar that only works if line of sight in the 30rd Century ... I really fail to see a warfare system at the moment.

I'm not against a change of ECM, however, the way auto-aim LRMs work need to be reconsidered. And, by the way, I started playing MWO with LRM-Catapults, so I quite know what drawbacks LRMs can have.

Edited by xe N on, 14 September 2014 - 10:34 AM.

[Lootee]

I would be all for making indirect fired LRMs less effective if it meant the magick JesusBox didn't prevent a whole class of weapon from being used on an enemy in plain sight.

Unless the indirect target is being lit up by TAG or has a Narc beacon attached to it, the indirect LRM spread should start off very wide. Maybe even as large as 30m. The longer the spotter targets the enemy mech and keeps it in LOS the tighter the spread should get until it becomes 'normal'.

Indirect fire is notoriously inaccurate in TT and spotters are supposed to be relaying corrections to the firing unit the whole time. This would be more in the spirit of the source material and removes the biggest gripe from the anti-LRM-no-skill-weapon-can't-see-the-target camp.

In exchange JesusBox should no longer prevent LRMs from locking onto a target that the launching unit has a clear LOS to. Block target sharing, damage info, loadout, increase lock-on time, negate Narc and Artemis, wutever. But get rid of the BS mechanic that prevents basic LRMs and streaks from being able to target a mech in plain sight.

If that's all they did to change ECM I'd be happy with it.

Edited by Lootee, 14 September 2014 - 10:50 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

xe N on, on 14 September 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

I'm not against a change of ECM, however, the way auto-aim LRMs work need to be reconsidered.

See, you say all that. Then you say "the way auto-aim LRMs work need to be reconsidered".

Instead of just saying "I'm not against a change of ECM, however the way LRMs work need to be reconsidered".

There is an inherit bias in your posts.

In the end, ECM is stupid and TOTALLY changed from what it was in EVERY other iteration of MW/BT and it's causing major issues that need to be addressed.