632 replies to this topic

[No One Lives Forever]

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, 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?

ECM is a defense device, not a weapon. Have not ONLY lrms, and you'll be fine. How many weapons need no skill to use besides lrms? Just hanging back and clicking one mouse button to fire lrms at targets team is providing. And still bitchin. Really?

[DocBach]

I don't use lrms personally -- I am however against the mindset that my play style is the only correct one and that other roles do not deserve a place in the game.

[Kaeseblock]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 13 September 2014 - 03:39 AM, said:

The closer you are (right now), the stronger your sensor throughput gets,

This is exactly similar to the idea I presented. And no, being farther away from a friendly ECM source doesn't increase the sensor strenght of the enemy, it weakens the ECM effect on your mech, since the ECM signal gets weaker.

PS.Could you please fill me in from which part of my post you got the impression, that the sensor strenght would increase with increasing distance? I might have formulated something misleading here. I'm not a native english speaker after all XD

Edited by Kaeseblock, 13 September 2014 - 04:25 AM.

[Wolfways]

Nerrixx, on 13 September 2014 - 04:15 AM, said:

ECM is a defense device, not a weapon. Have not ONLY lrms, and you'll be fine. How many weapons need no skill to use besides lrms? Just hanging back and clicking one mouse button to fire lrms at targets team is providing. And still bitchin. Really?

How many weapons can be completely avoided after they have been fired at you, and give you a warning that they are incoming? Good luck moving into cover before that Gauss shot hits you...
I guess you think it's fine that a CPLT-C1 spends the whole match only firing the 4xML's because the enemy's ECM completely negated its 2xLRM15's.

[No One Lives Forever]

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? Good luck moving into cover before that Gauss shot hits you...
I guess you think it's fine that a CPLT-C1 spends the whole match only firing the 4xML's because the enemy's ECM completely negated its 2xLRM15's.

Your post would make ANY sense if gauss would be INDIRECT fire weapon. Or lrms would be DIRECT fire weapon. Dont compare finger and a d***.
CPLT-C1 can have narc and a tag, can have srm, ssrm. Not only lrms and ml. Well, to use tag and a narc takes a bit of skill. But that's too much for lrms boats, isn't? Ecm is way too small price to pay for damaging, killing mechs, getting cbills and exp without putting in any real effort whatsoever. Jeez, ppl, seriously?

Edited by Nerrixx, 13 September 2014 - 04:41 AM.

[Sudden]

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?

ecm has never bothered me. I like the model as is now. what is reassuring, is that you are willing to listen to us. continue on this path and mwo might become what we the players hope for. and a moneymaker for you

[Samsoon]

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!

[nonnex]

Do we have a summary of the current ECM discussion process?

I mean I've saw a lot of additional ECM suggestions, do we pick these up or should we stick to the things from the OP?

Would be nice to have a single Document to work on which shows the current "The ECM that the community suggests" state somewhere.
Google docs maybe?

On this basis its easier to discuss details (bad/good), have a protocoll of progress and changes for this ECM Idea. The Devs could also easier contribute technical details that we have not considerd yet.

Edited by nonnex, 13 September 2014 - 05:02 AM.

[Wolfways]

Nerrixx, on 13 September 2014 - 04:39 AM, said:

Your post would make ANY sense if gauss would be INDIRECT fire weapon. Or lrms would be DIRECT fire weapon. Dont compare finger and a d***.
CPLT-C1 can have narc and a tag, can have srm, ssrm. Not only lrms and ml. Well, to use tag and a narc takes a bit of skill. But that's too much for lrms boats, isn't? Ecm is way too small price to pay for damaging, killing mechs, getting cbills and exp without putting in any real effort whatsoever. Jeez, ppl, seriously?

Oh because cover cares whether the missiles are direct or indirect...and you talk about skill lol. It's funny how people complain that LRM's take no skill yet ignore the fact that having some piloting skill means you can almost completely ignore LRM's.
All weapons should be a choice, and none should be negated by a piece of equipment.

Also, the CPLT-C1 has two missile hardpoints and is designed to carry 2xLRM15's, but yeah, let's replace one with a Narc and not only remove half the weaponry but also reduce the range of the single launcher that's left...

I'm out of this crap. PGI will continue to develop the game for those who can't/won't learn to play.

[Kaeseblock]

nonnex, on 13 September 2014 - 04:57 AM, said:

Do we have a summary of the current ECM discussion process?

I was wondering about that too. Having a centralized place where to submit ECM suggestions would be really neat.

PS.: Updated TLDR in my post and added a short explanation to the graphic of my ECM suggestion. Hopefully this gets rid of some misunderstandings. Writing something like this down right after getting up is certainly not the best idea XD

Edited by Kaeseblock, 13 September 2014 - 05:16 AM.

[nonnex]

Not just for commiting, this can be done throu the Thread here. I've meant a single Document/Concept that we can work on together and can be passed to Russ as a result of work as he has stated.

Because of how it is now I can't see any progress.

Edited by nonnex, 13 September 2014 - 05:21 AM.

[Kaeseblock]

Well, currently there are a lot of ideas floating around.

I'm fine with sticking to the process HomelessBill suggested.
So according to his process, there should be some document containing all initial ideas. No idea if it was created yet though XD

[Livewyr]

nonnex, on 13 September 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:

Not just for commiting, this can be done throu the Thread here. I've meant a single Document/Concept that we can work on together and can be passed to Russ as a result of work as he has stated.

Because of how it is now I can't see any progress.

It certainly hobbles efforts that PGI does not allow Polls in GD. If we had polls, I suspect this would be a lot easier.

Identify and weight problems. (Poll)
Discuss solutions that treat each problem as best as possible.
Present Solutions. (Poll)
Discuss findings, adjust.
Repeat.
Submit.

[L A V A]

Lot of good ideas here on this thread.

Problem is a lot of it requires new features and personally I would rather PGI concentrate on CW.

[Wolfways]

xLAVAx, on 13 September 2014 - 05:47 AM, said:

Lot of good ideas here on this thread.

Problem is a lot of it requires new features and personally I would rather PGI concentrate on CW.

I doubt anything would be changed until after CW.

[xThrottle Geek]

Russ (and PGI)

Hello and congrats on more control of your game! I don't want to derail the important balance discussion going on here about proposed changes to the game (IW & ECM). It is very important.

However, in order to facilitate this PLAYER COUNCIL there needs to be a dedicated area in the forums for the community to get organized. I propose that it get its own FORUM area in the Developer's Corner Forum or perhaps even its own entire section. This way ALL DISCUSSION can take place in an organized and easily found area. We need ORGANIZATION for this to succeed not just a crazy assortment of posts spread all over the place.

What say you?

[MechB Kotare]

Quote

I dont like the idea of having few individuals to tell PGI what i want for me.

NO thanks.

I will bother enough to quote myself from other topic reffering to the same thing....

As for ECm, aside of lack of ability to disrupt Narc beacons i think ECM is ok.

As for LRMs question, not so much. Their low cooldown still promotes LRM flooding. I think thats the issue PGI should adress. Buffing their damage, reducing cooldown

No need to form any "forcommunity" speaking group of individuals.

Edited by MechB Kotare, 13 September 2014 - 06:32 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Kmieciu, on 10 September 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:

ECM is not even about avoiding LRMs. Target deprivation makes you almost immune to them, if there is even a bit of cover.
ECM is about preventing/slowing down target info gathering. That's why it is so useful for competitive teams.

1) ECM makes it harder to focus fire on one target, both in PUGs and while being on coms. All you can say is "focus on that Gaussjager". I remember once I put 6 pinpoint alphas (2x15+4x5 damage) on a JM6's side torso and it didn't die. Turns out there were 3 of them taking turns to snipe.

2) ECM prevents you from knowing the enemy loadout. You don't know it he's using a brawler or a ranged build. You cannot determine if he's using a XL engine or not. You can't say if he's shaved his leg armor or not.

3) ECM slows down target info gathering in a brawl. That means you either wait to see the enemy weak spots, or waste our shots firing at the wrong torso/leg.




I also experience this. A normal missile lock takes exactly 1 second, right? So with ECM missile locks should take no longer than 1.5 second, correct? But they do take longer. Maybe the ECM effects stack? With 2 ECM it would mean 2.25 seconds and with 3xECM = 3,375 seconds to lock a target.

I would very much want to know if it's an intended design or not.



This is true. All mechs under ECM umbrella detected by UAV take longer to lock. In my opinion, it is a bug. UAV was supposed to counter all effects of all ECM in the area.

PS. Why do I feel BAP is not overpowered? Because I don't put BAP on all of of my mechs, despite having the ability to do so.
Why do I feel ECM is overpowered? Because I would definitely put ECM on every mech I use - especially clan ECM (1 tonne, 1 slot). ECM capability is a defining feature of a mech variant.

and night maps, ever tried to see a ECM mech outside the heat/night visions short range? impossible.

ECM has way too many features. simply make ECM mechs being able to be lockes with R as normal but prevent LRM completely from being able to lock on ECM mechs. And possibly decerase the bubble range for teammates.

[Davoke]

I would personally like to see chassis variants that made sense be able to mount them. The ComStar upgraded Thunderbolt variant, the BLR-1G was a classic Command mech so ECM makes sense, several Jenner variants in lore mounted ECM, the AWS-9Q(a direct 8Q upgrade)mounted ECM, not to mention hosts of other mechs that should theoretically have the capability.

[Mystere]

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.

Then players should learn to coordinate and communicate with the rest of the team and at the same time ask PGI to make that a more viable activity.

It's not a problem only confined to ECM.