632 replies to this topic

[IceGryphon]

Wolfways, on 12 September 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

Joseph Mallan
Bishop Steiner

No, Just no more of the Golden secret yes-men squirrels.

I nominate Vassago Rain, Also he needs to be unbanned.

Edited by IceGryphon, 12 September 2014 - 03:10 PM.

[Wolfways]

Tank, on 12 September 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

Please tell me how you deal with 6 opposing LRM boats against you, under ECM and taken a defensive posture while defended by meta mech. Pretty bulletproof scenario if you ask me and heck off a dreadful experience.

I'm guessing that happens in the group queue? I've never seen more than maybe two LRM boats on a team in solo queue.

How exactly would you deal with that situation if the LRM boats were meta mechs? I don't see the LRM's as a problem because if you are using cover they cannot hit you (yes i know people like to say there's no cover from LRM's etc. but it's complete rubbish.)

[Wolfways]

IceGryphon, on 12 September 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

No, Just no more of the Golden secret yes-men squirrels.

I nominate Vassago Rain, Also he needs to be unbanned.

I nominate those who i think have made good posts and/or i have had good discussions with.

[IanSane]

Wolfways, on 12 September 2014 - 03:08 PM, said:

I'm guessing that happens in the group queue? I've never seen more than maybe two LRM boats on a team in solo queue.

How exactly would you deal with that situation if the LRM boats were meta mechs? I don't see the LRM's as a problem because if you are using cover they cannot hit you (yes i know people like to say there's no cover from LRM's etc. but it's complete rubbish.)

please tell me of this magical moving cover you speak off because my mech came with legs and id love to get the most out of em.

[IIIuminaughty]

UAV is where it is at tho. most fights happen with in 600 meters of each company

[Sprouticus]

IanSane, on 12 September 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

and what about the other 40 mechs in the game that don't get ecm? Sorry but it sucks to be you?

That is why you make IDF TAG/NARC/C3 only. Then IDF becomes a niche, situational thing. DF...well if they are direct firing you, then how is it different than SRM's or Gauss?

[IanSane]

Bottom line is this, there are MULTIPLE ways to counter ECM so the target can be locked (Tag, Narc, UAV, Counter-ECM, BAP). So I willl use your same nonsense argument about only so called bad mech drivers being killled by LRMs and say only bad LRM boaters can't still manage to get MANY shots in a game despite ECM. Oh and by the way...the A1 can't have a tag but it sure as heck can have a narc.

Edited by IanSane, 12 September 2014 - 03:27 PM.

[Vhetra]

Tastian, on 12 September 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

If ECM, C3, and shared targeting worked correctly, it would take alot of coordination for LRMs to lock targets out of view. Currently, LRMs can hit ANY target (within range) that your team has targeted. But shared target acquisition should only be available via TAG, UAV, Narc, or C3; not by anyone who has a target. And ECM would counter C3 and Narc and BAP and Artemis.

This. A million times this. I've been wanting this for so long. We shouldn't have the targetting systems we have. They're not even around for DECADES. Or maybe A Decade. I forget. I'm also a little drunk. But I'm FRR so it's okay.

In any case, the entire targeting system needs to be re-done to be more lore-friendly and I think it will also fix a lot of gameplay issues.

C3 should be a module or something you put on a light, or maybe a hardpoint only lights/scouts can load that allows you to feed information to the team along with TAG and NARC.

[DocBach]

Tastian, on 12 September 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

If ECM, C3, and shared targeting worked correctly, it would take alot of coordination for LRMs to lock targets out of view. Currently, LRMs can hit ANY target (within range) that your team has targeted. But shared target acquisition should only be available via TAG, UAV, Narc, or C3; not by anyone who has a target. And ECM would counter C3 and Narc and BAP and Artemis.

This is actually incorrect - indirect fire was part of Battletech about 10 years before C3 was introduced.

C3, however, should be a component of information warfare and should definitely have interaction with ECM.

[Tekadept]

So let me get this straight. After all this time, suddenly the "vocal minority" here on the forums are worth listening to and our opinions are sought?? What would happen to the hundreds of thousandths of your players who are the silent majority who don't forum that you always managed to influence decisions even though they were as PGI said were silent?

I am curious as why now are we suddenly worth listening to? a large portion of the "vocal minority" had hundreds of great ideas and were subsequently told, NO the silent majority don't want that, yet now you are asking for our input?

Make ECM like TT ECM.

Edited by Tekadept, 12 September 2014 - 03:32 PM.

[Prophetic]

Having some player based voice is definitely better then none at all.

This is an exceptional change in philosophy!

[Bongfu]

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?

Russ,

If you truly follow through on this, then hell yes! This is what should have happened years ago. So keep your word and us islanders will flock back to support you.

[Mitzli Softpaw]

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?

This is a great idea. This is the kind of response that would absolutely start winning my support back.

[Gryphorim]

CarrionCrows had a fantastic proposal for IW years ago. Went something like:

ACTIVE and PASSIVE radar modes, when in PASSIVE you can only detect/lock targets that are in ACTIVE mode themselves, advantage being you could only be detected at half the normal range. ECM reduced the range you (and anyone under the bubble) could be detected from by 200m, BAP extended the range you could detect targets from by 200m.
Mech tonnage might have had something to do with the range it could be detected from.
Some scout mechs might have a quirk that allows them to detect from further than normal.

Seemed well reasoned out. As such I vote CarrionCrows, and Homeless Bill (who put forward an excellent heat mechanic proposal)

WRT Indirect fire, we need a blind-fire option. Perhaps the ability for Mechwarriors to place a marker on their minimap, that becomes a targetable waypoint in the battlefield. Lock on to waypoint, saturate target area with LRMs.
Bonus points if Commanders can designate these for whole team if Command Console fitted.
Also, artillery that require CC, but are deployed from minimap.

[Wolfways]

IanSane, on 12 September 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

please tell me of this magical moving cover you speak off because my mech came with legs and id love to get the most out of em.

I'm not expecting my opinion on LRM's to be how LRM's/ECM are changed. There are many players with different skill levels and i certainly don't expect the game to cater to me solely. I simply gave my opinion.
If one person who get's killed by weapon X says it is OP, and another person who doesn't get killed by weapon X says it's UP who is right? Obviously both can be...for themselves.
It is fine that you disagree with me, but please don't try to make it sound like i'm lying or trying to get "my preferred weapon" (which i rarely use) buffed for myself.

It's just my opinion, and i know a few other forum users who mostly agree.

[Kjudoon]

First off a major Salute and THANK YOU to Russ. You are asking us to put our money where our mouth is and the community is responding the way I kinda expected to. Now let's see if we can live up to your 'put up or shut up' challenge.

The council should have some LRMdefenders as well as LRMhatorz.

[IanSane]

Gryphorim, on 12 September 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

CarrionCrows had a fantastic proposal for IW years ago. Went something like:

ACTIVE and PASSIVE radar modes, when in PASSIVE you can only detect/lock targets that are in ACTIVE mode themselves, advantage being you could only be detected at half the normal range. ECM reduced the range you (and anyone under the bubble) could be detected from by 200m, BAP extended the range you could detect targets from by 200m.
Mech tonnage might have had something to do with the range it could be detected from.
Some scout mechs might have a quirk that allows them to detect from further than normal.

Seemed well reasoned out. As such I vote CarrionCrows, and Homeless Bill (who put forward an excellent heat mechanic proposal)

WRT Indirect fire, we need a blind-fire option. Perhaps the ability for Mechwarriors to place a marker on their minimap, that becomes a targetable waypoint in the battlefield. Lock on to waypoint, saturate target area with LRMs.
Bonus points if Commanders can designate these for whole team if Command Console fitted.
Also, artillery that require CC, but are deployed from minimap.

I think the last thing most serious players want to see is ANOTHER way to do indirect damage. They already nerfed strikes fortunately. Guys in LRM cover? No worries we will just saturate the area...
no thank you.

What I love the most is people freaked out about Pop Tarting to the point it was nerfed and made nearly useless but at least tarting took skill AND they could be shot at even if it was like playing whack-a-mole. LRM spam for days no problem. Want to fire those 4x AC2s? Not on your life but sure go ahead and perma spam LRM-60.

[Wolfways]

IanSane, on 12 September 2014 - 03:26 PM, said:

Bottom line is this, there are MULTIPLE ways to counter ECM so the target can be locked (Tag, Narc, UAV, Counter-ECM, BAP). So I willl use your same nonsense argument about only so called bad mech drivers being killled by LRMs and say only bad LRM boaters can't still manage to get MANY shots in a game despite ECM. Oh and by the way...the A1 can't have a tag but it sure as heck can have a narc.

So it's completely fine with you that PGI changed ECM from its original functions to the opposite and made it also into a hard counter for two weapon systems (SSRM and LRM)?

But then, you also obviously think it's okay that a long range weapon should be reduced to the range of NARC. Not that LRM's are viable over around 600m...and if you disagree with that you are disagreeing with the vast majority of people i've seen in discussions about LRM's.

[Sprouticus]

Gryphorim, on 12 September 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

CarrionCrows had a fantastic proposal for IW years ago. Went something like:

ACTIVE and PASSIVE radar modes, when in PASSIVE you can only detect/lock targets that are in ACTIVE mode themselves, advantage being you could only be detected at half the normal range. ECM reduced the range you (and anyone under the bubble) could be detected from by 200m, BAP extended the range you could detect targets from by 200m.
Mech tonnage might have had something to do with the range it could be detected from.
Some scout mechs might have a quirk that allows them to detect from further than normal.

Seemed well reasoned out. As such I vote CarrionCrows, and Homeless Bill (who put forward an excellent heat mechanic proposal)

WRT Indirect fire, we need a blind-fire option. Perhaps the ability for Mechwarriors to place a marker on their minimap, that becomes a targetable waypoint in the battlefield. Lock on to waypoint, saturate target area with LRMs.
Bonus points if Commanders can designate these for whole team if Command Console fitted.
Also, artillery that require CC, but are deployed from minimap.

This is basically how it worked in MW4. Actually it is EXACTLY how it worked in MW4.

I would not mind a system like this, it is not my favorite idea, but I like it.. Especially if lights had a lower default detect range (smaller radar signature), and some mechs had quirks to lower it further.


NOTE: Passive mode is an important element in whatever solution we come up with. Every mech should have the ability to impact their own sensor signature, to hide, etc.

[Markoxford]

"Those ppl are known as sandpit, vassago Rain, Raodbeer, victor morson , Chronojam, Mister Blastman and many other i forgot to meantion "

Please do not bring any of these toxic people back - they have ripped MWO for years and continue to spew hate over on reddit. Allow real community assets such as theb33f or Magician to chair and each of the top 12 teams to nominate a player.

Edited by Markoxford, 12 September 2014 - 03:59 PM.