632 replies to this topic

[maxdest]

My idea would be to reduce ECM by:
- Making sensors less effective
- Making LRM better but more skillful

Sensor range would be reduced based on weight class to allow:
- Light 300m - able to run effectively without ECM
- Medium 450m - able to flank and not get red boxed
- Heavies / assaults 600m - still benefit from ECM, but not so much.



Then extend TAG range to 1k
Extend LRM range to 1500m and increase speed, but not able to fire indirectly without TAG NARC or UAV and have a minimum range of 300m.


Overall this change would:
--> Make non ecm lights effective as they effectively have personal ecm already.
--> Allow for more surprise moves and therfore more scouting.
--> Make LRM really long ranged, but require a spotter to be effective.

[NocturnalBeast]

Leave ECM the way it is, LRMS would be too powerful if you nerf it. ECM is already easily countered. Do not listen to the players who whine because they believe that the are uber elite, so when they get killed by this or that mech which is equipped with this or that, then it must be a broken mech/weapon/etc... and could not possibly be them.

[Scratx]

Bhael Fire, on 12 September 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

I applaud this approach.

That said, I think I'm one of the few players that is actually 100% content with how ECM is implemented....and I don't even run ECM capable mechs that often (if at all).

I never really understood why so many players have such a difficult time countering or dealing with ECM.

I said why somewhere else, but basically, ECM is so brokenly good for 1.5t (trivial sacrifice) that the only way it's remotely balanced is being heavily locked down to only a scant few mech variants and having half a dozen active counters.

And even then it's hard to say it's balanced.

It just does too much for something you just slap on your mech and forget about it. In the meantime, to counter it, you have to do one of, if not many of, a ton of things that require actual skill and taking risks to do. Which often also cost more tonnage and/or crit slots and/or weapon hardpoints just to be able to do. Or costs c-bills (UAV) to deploy.

In the meantime, you can derive the majority of the benefit of ECM by just leaving it in Disrupt mode and camp with your buddies, no skill required. WTF?


Now, think about how the PUG queue works. No guarantees whatsoever any team will get ECMs. Definitely no guarantees one team won't get a single ECM while the other one gets half a dozen. And the team with ECM will usually win over the one without. (and the one with more ECMs will also tend to win over the other, though at this point it boils down more to what people do with the ECMs... Spider ERLL ECM snipers on HPG walls tend to be a waste of a good ECM)

Funny how that works. See why people have issues with ECM?


edit : fix typo

Edited by Scratx, 12 September 2014 - 05:20 PM.

[DocBach]

Cavale, on 12 September 2014 - 05:10 PM, said:

I would actually like to suggest you put the Vote for this, plus the Info regarding it into the news feed on the launch client, or possibly on the main page. Trying to do coverage of the entire user base without that kind of advertising power seems incredibly skewed and weak.

Perhaps even offer some kind of incentive like a mech bay or small mc bonus to reward player participation in actively contributing to deciding which direction certain parts of the game will go?

[Mothykins]

DocBach, on 12 September 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

Perhaps even offer some kind of incentive like a mech bay or small mc bonus to reward player participation in actively contributing to deciding which direction certain parts of the game will go?

I don't think that's really a requirement, nor a great idea; it will make people just click on the first thing on the Poll because they just care about shiny stuff.

Trust me, I've seen it.

No, the reward is participation and helping direct your game..

[Khobai]

I put up a poll for ECM here

[Mycrus]

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?

Have Niko manage the process... You seriously can't expect laissez faire on the Internet and expect it to work... the closest thing you had was #savemwoe and #unite&fap and even those had detractors....

The only bright shining moment where dev, gamer, and troll alike came together was for the Sarah mech...

If you won't commit niko's oversight then this experiment is doomed to fail from the get go and will cause more negative community backlash that you are trying to avoid.

[Wieland]

Khobai, on 12 September 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

As far as ECM goes I would like to see the following changes:

1) ECM no longer gives stealth to friendly mechs and only stealths the mech its equipped on (ECM would still increase missile lock-on time for nearby friendly mechs though).
2) LRM balance pass: mostly with regard to indirect LRMs being too accurate and LRM screenshake being too high.
3) Passive sensor mode added to the game so mechs without ecm still have a way to gain stealth (but with the disadvantage of not being able to target enemy mechs or share sensor information with allies).
4) Possible addition of other stealth equipment like NSS and stealth armor.
5) Balance pass on all the counters to ECM (if ECM is significantly weakened it no longer needs 6 different counters)

1) ECM no longer gives stealth to friendly mechs and only stealths the mech its equipped on (ECM would double missile lock-on time and target info gathering for nearby friendly mechs though).
2) LRM balance pass: mostly with regard to indirect LRMs being too accurate(increase spread) and LRM screenshake being too high.
3) Passive sensor mode added to the game so mechs without ecm still have a way to gain stealth (but with the disadvantage of not being able to target enemy mechs or share sensor information with allies).But active would still detect them so there wouldnt be an advantage to it unless the enemy also runs in passive mode.
4) No.
5) Balance pass on all the counters to ECM (if ECM is significantly weakened it no longer needs 6 different counters)
ECM
ECCM Mode i would keep as is.

TAG
TAG works inside ECM bubble. No energy Hardpoint needed for TAG.

NARC
NARC doesnt work inside ECM Bubble. Enhanced NARC works inside ECM Bubble(remove duration increase from the module).

UAV
Only upgraded or advanced UAV unveil the ECM Mech.

BAP
You can target the ECM Mech but your team cant.(possibility for an enhanced BAP module where BAP fully works like now)

PPC
PPC dont affect ECM.

6)Change the Module slots before Mastery on the Raven 3L to 1 Weapon, 2 Consumables, 3 Mech

7)I would even remove the ECM from the Spider, Cicada and Atlas

[Solis Obscuri]

Bhael Fire, on 12 September 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

I applaud this approach.

That said, I think I'm one of the few players that is actually 100% content with how ECM is implemented....and I don't even run ECM capable mechs that often (if at all).

I never really understood why so many players have such a difficult time countering or dealing with ECM.

At the moment, there is an adequate range of counters to ECM (buffed TAG, buffed Narc, UAV, backasswardsBAP functions) that it does not present the balance issues it once did.

In a broader context, I think a better question to ask is:

Do a majority of players feel good about the state of the Information Warfare pillar?

If not...

Do they feel it's currently too centric on Electronic Warfare? *

Do they feel it is too centric on spotting indirect fire?

Do they feel it suffers from a lack of distinct roles for different classes/variants of 'mechs to play?

Do they feel the overall spotting/sensor systems are too simplistic or otherwise flawed?

* As an adjunct question: How do people feel about the state of Electronic Warfare? Is it too centric on trying to counter ECM?

[Joseph Mallan]

Lyoto Machida, on 10 September 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

You will enjoy ECM as it is, you disgusting fatbody! Do I make myself clear?!?!?!?!

Sir! The Private doesn't know. Sir!

[DocBach]

Solis Obscuri, on 12 September 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

At the moment, there is an adequate range of counters to ECM (buffed TAG, buffed Narc, UAV, backasswardsBAP functions) that it does not present the balance issues it once did.

In a broader context, I think a better question to ask is:

Do a majority of players feel good about the state of the Information Warfare pillar?

If not...

Do they feel it's currently too centric on Electronic Warfare? *

Do they feel it is too centric on spotting indirect fire?

Do they feel it suffers from a lack of distinct roles for different classes/variants of 'mechs to play?

Do they feel the overall spotting/sensor systems are too simplistic or otherwise flawed?

* As an adjunct question: How do people feel about the state of Electronic Warfare? Is it too centric on trying to counter ECM?

Exactly -- the discussion isn't really about ECM at all, it's just the most obvious sign and symptom of an anemic game design pillar that needs added depth and refining to live up to the ideas pitched before closed beta and the founders program even came about.

[Grisolm Redd]

We need to be very careful here. We have an extremely rare opportunity to affect 'maybechange'.

What we don't need is 1500 people throwing polls up everywhere while clamoring for attention.

This is not something that can be done in a forum format, so we should get some people on a PGI hosted TS server and hash this **** out. Use the forum to navigate people to the proper place at the proper time. We can't have 15 separate entities all saying they had their meeting and our results are the best.

If Russ is really being sincere, he'll update this thread with a time and place for us to meet.

If all else fails, send Homeless Bill. He does things. I seen it.

[Sybreed]

I haven't read the whole thread (only the 2 first pages), but I hope people realize ECM is only a symptom of a much bigger problem: The lack of information warfare.

And that the lack of info warfare comes from the lack of maps requiring tactics and strategies?

Besides, changing ECM would require changes to BAP as well as IMO, LRMs and how they can be used for indirect fire.

In short, we would have to rework a crapload of stuff if we want to make ECM is it should have always been.

I'm not saying I'm against it at all. Quite the opposite, it has to be done. But, changing ECM alone won't fix the other problems with MWO.

and if anything, I think I'd vote for Docbach or Roadbeer, I've always agreed with their ideas.

Edited by Sybreed, 13 September 2014 - 09:17 AM.

[Nukkinfutts]

SiliconLife, on 11 September 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

My opinions:
Target sharing (via just pressing R to target) shouldn't be a thing and instead be facilitated by either a TAG or C3 equipment. C3 slave and master shouldn't magically exist for free on all mechs. ECM should just reduce detection range like in all previous games. BAP should increase detection range/counter ECM. LRMs should not have a minimum range, but instead just be really inaccurate at short ranges. PGI has made things needlessly complicated and binary (either it works or it doesn't) for the sake of the "role warfare" buzzword. Buzzwords are bad.

I think if someone has a lock using "R" then another lock reticle show for all members of the team. Your lock would show the same red lock square and locks by other team members show as blue squares that missles can lock to when you face them.

[Bhael Fire]

Scratx, on 12 September 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

Funny how that works. See why people have issues with ECM?

No...sorry, not at all.

I play in the solo queue the majority of the time with non-ECM mechs and have never had a problem dealing with ECM mechs.

For starters, you know when they are skulking around because your radar tells you it's there — in fact, this is almost worse than not being under the cover of ECM, because at least you can sneak up on mechs (those without seismic) when you're not broadcasting to every mech in the area that you're sneaking around.

Furthermore, between all of the available to counters to ECM available to players (namely seismic, BAP, NARC and TAG) you'd pretty much have to literally be playing the game wrong. Sure it can be annoying if you're a missile boat, but even then you still have multiple ways to counter it.

As for it being too powerful for 1.5 tons, you have to remember that only a handful of mechs are capable of running ECM; it's their signature feature. I guess I could see a system that is similar to how Targeting Computers work in that you have variable strength ECM units that work stronger the bigger and heavier they are. For example an ECM MK-II unit would not cloak as effectively as a MK-IV unit.

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.

[Bhael Fire]

Solis Obscuri, on 12 September 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

* As an adjunct question: How do people feel about the state of Electronic Warfare? Is it too centric on trying to counter ECM?

My opinion is no, it is not. It feels about right to me.

However, I do think that the range that we can detect and target mechs is current too far. I'd like the detection range be reduced by a third.

I think this would make the role of scout even more important in relaying targeting info.

[Jolly Llama]

There is nothing wrong with ECM. Leave it alone. Stop changing things. Play better.

[Mycrus]

BlakeAteIt, on 12 September 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

For now, lets drop the goon vs not-goon, founder vs not-founder, pug vs unit vitrol. It wont't help anything. Everywhere else on the forums are used for that.

Spamming this thread with wishlists will be similarly unhelpful. That can be done later.

Let's use the thread to figure out what we are looking in leadership on this and future issues, and to communicate with Russ if needed.

Exactly... I was impressed with how lowtax organized the #savemwoe meetings.... If there is anyone that could pull it off it is the goons... I can't help the feeling that russ is in fact trolling them though... give a ridiculous high target that is ambiguous and subjective enough that they can hand wave it off for Paulesque balance...

[Vanguard319]

I would propose a few things to consider and expand upon:

• Adjust the strength of ECM. have it hamper missile accuracy rather than just making it impossible to get a missile lock (both LRMs and SSRMs) maybe allow it to deny scouts the ability to relay their targeting data for indirect fire.
  
• Give us back proper jump jets that can be used for navigating the terrain. you can discourage poptarting by considering my next point.
  
• You guys initially set the damage values of the weapons based on TT values, however, you did not include the rules that allowed those values to work. Pinpoint damage needs to die in a fire. Play a few games of the original board game, and take note of how they kept weapons balanced, not by adjusting dmg values, but by making it almost impossible to reliably core an opponent with all your weapons. Think of how you can translate these rules into a PC game.

These are just a few ideas to consider in fixing game balance. If anyone wants to expand on them feel free.

[carl kerensky]

ipox, on 12 September 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

To Russ.

Russ, thank you for speaking to us on the general subject of community-driven improvements. I firmly believe that in asking us to give you a new chance, you must in turn do so for us. Un-Ban/Un-Block everyone who didn't threaten your staff directly, as insults have been flung in moments of passion (you said we're passionate -- we are). Declare general amnesty, ***please*** and if there are new violations, the entire community will back your re-banning and forgetting of them. We want the product's success and we have ***deep*** pockets.



To the community.

I (am not the only one to) nominate Homeless Bill to lead the charge. His moderation of /r/OutreachHPG is fair and effective (and be clear that it isn't moderation that is the problem either there nor in /r/MWO -- much moreso the downvoting blasts from the peanut galleries of each!). He could champion the community effort remarkably well and collate the different issues and choose sub-champions who seem appropriate for each issue based on their willingness to be basically impartial as well. Impartiality is key, champions to be replaced by track record as required.

80% may be a bit much, but the best part in this is "I'm listening... go on...".

Most importantly:

• we must get a top community rep ASAP through consensus (not easy but Homeless Bill?);
  
• that rep must pick an issue that is small to get started on -- and then delegate its management to someone who can put it together and present it in a week -- ***must be small and doable immediately***; and
  
• we must remember that the longer we take, the more silly it looks -- whether intentional or not this is a possible divide and conquer scenario.

We're all paying customers with adoration for the BT/MW storyverse in our hearts. Please let's reach consensus. Homeless Bill, if he's willing, would do us very proud. If we don't show an immediate track record on ***one thing***, it's still-born.

Thanks Russ for getting communication running full speed. There is a lot of smart talent from this community that can help make MWO a raging success and a Btech game that will eclipse all the rest. We the community must focus like a laser beam and deliver it to PGI. PGI must be willing to implement and try these fresh ideas. Oh....I vote for Homeless Bill to head the council up. He da man for the job. Also some of the top talents like Kon and Bishop need to be involved as well. I'm sure there is more out there.
Let's do this folks because MWO needs some serious TLC.