632 replies to this topic

[Hillslam]

ECM is fine as is. leave it alone.

[Wolfways]

DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

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!

So you think that Catapults should not be viable mechs? Or that they should be forced to use "optional" T2 equipment?
Please tell me how ECM does not affect you. Is it because you don't mind using T2 equipment, or because you don't use LRM's as they're "no-skill" weapons (where the skill of the target plays a larger part in the chance of the missiles hitting)?
I personally find the idea that weapons in MWO require skill ridiculous. But then, I've played other fps games where aiming is actually more difficult...at least as a sniper.

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 13 September 2014 - 08:48 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.

SRM-only Mechs are not viable unless within 270m.
PPC-only Mechs are not viable under 90m.
AC40 Jags are not viable at high-mid to long ranges.
Machine gun-only Mechs are not viable under many/most conditions.

DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

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!

As usual:

• may the better team win
  
• new players need better facilities for helping them

Edited by Mystere, 13 September 2014 - 09:00 AM.

[DocBach]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

• new players need better facilities for helping them

Agree wholeheartedly.

Wolfways, on 13 September 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

So you think that Catapults should not be viable mechs? Or that they should be forced to use "optional" T2 equipment?
Please tell me how ECM does not affect you. Is it because you don't mind using T2 equipment, or because you don't use LRM's as they're "no-skill" weapons (where the skill of the target plays a larger part in the chance of the missiles hitting)?
I personally find the idea that weapons in MWO require skill ridiculous. But then, I've played other fps games where aiming is actually more difficult...at least as a sniper.

I was being facetious and emulating the attitude of a lot of players on the forums.

[Wolfways]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

SRM-only Mechs are not viable unless within 270m.
PPC-only Mechs are not viable under 90m.
AC40 Jags are not viable at high-mid to long ranges.
Machine gun-only Mechs are not viable under many/most conditions.

You have the option/chance to control your range to the opponent, and don't need to mount special equipment to do it. You have no control over the enemy using ECM without mounting special equipment.
Also, LRM's - not really viable under 180m or over 600m...against anyone who knows how to use terrain.

DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

I was being facetious and emulating the attitude of a lot of players on the forums.

Oh sorry
I really need to take another break from these forums. Wonder if i should get another suspension......

[Talsha]

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, you made me smile.
This is a great gesture and even a better idea if it turns into something permanent.

The suggested grass root proposal system is much better than the EVE Council concept.
At least the first stage is more flexibel, transparent and if done right less open to claims of tampering or favoring.
The voting should probably be done through a third party platform.
Moreover it could be targeted precisely on central and controversial issues.

A 75% required majority in combination with a certain minimum threshold of votes sounds appropriate.

Your Idea could:

• rebuild trust between IGP and the playerbase through cooperation and shared passion,
  
• give a sense and actual active stakeholdership to the playerbase,
  
• take a bit of workload from PGIs shoulders if quality proposals are delivered,
  
• result in shared decisions and therefore shared responsibility for their results,
  
• boost sales ,
  
• ...

The direct PR value is not as bit as a more formal representation system.
Yet the indirect PR effect will probably be great if it works out

Edited by Talsha, 13 September 2014 - 09:44 AM.

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 13 September 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

You have the option/chance to control your range to the opponent, and don't need to mount special equipment to do it. You have no control over the enemy using ECM without mounting special equipment.

Alternatively, your team can decide to make ECM Mechs priority target #1. So again, may the better team win.

[Wolfways]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

Alternatively, your team can decide to make ECM Mechs priority target #1. So again, may the better team win.

Good luck getting that kind of teamwork in PUG's.

[Wrathful-Khan]

I'm voting no on ECM changes.

I bend to the will of NO COUNCIL!

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 13 September 2014 - 09:46 AM, said:

Good luck getting that kind of teamwork in PUG's.

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

Better intra-team communication tools help with more things other than just the ECM "problem".

[Wolfways]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

It's not communication that's the problem. It's very common for players to specifically not hit R so that LRM users cannot "steal their kills" and other assorted rubbish. In my experience, not many players in solo queue are willing to help anyone who uses LRM's.

[TheSteelRhino]

Sugfestions

1). Add ability to go passive radar. ThAt would effectively reduce opfor ability to locate u and lock u for lrms if u go passive and they dont have line of sight (with additional below)
2) add MAG scan This would have shorter range than radar and wouldnt be good enough to lock targets but would help to keep u from being "blind". As further interest some maps could have lots of ferrous metals making this a skill to use. U could also have earthquake prone maps that make seismic "iffy"
3) passive radar
4) target sharing. If u want to be passive and fire lrms (and have em lock)... I think it should be lossible. With c3 on targetti g and launching mech. Target sharing is NOT the same as Tag or narc. If a launching mech fire (with radar on) and the target gets lit by a 3rd part tag then they should still home on the refracted/reflected laser beam. Narc is an active signal and also would not require c3.
5. Ecm should have no impact on passive sensors. Visual, seismic, thermal, magscan.
6) Also an ecm mech that has active radar should be picked up by opposing mechs. If u want to stay hidden u dont get to transmit. However. TAG as its a laser shouldnt give away the mech mounting/using TAG. (Other than The beam itself which can be seen)

The idea with this is that there advantages and disadvantages to everything. Ecm has no disadvantage in this game.

[GreyGriffin]

Logging in here to weigh in on the Dev Post. In short, I don't buy it.


Anyone here ever worked for a large company? A large company that gives, say, a monetary bonus based on some kind of strange condensed matrix of statistics? Yeah. Those goals are designed so that you can't meet them. They're designed to make you think the company is having hard times, to encourage you to button up and accept whatever crap they decide to shovel down your pipe because you should be glad you even have a job.

That's what's happening here. The tone of the post and its hedged and vague statistics are clearly laid out not as a challenge to overcome, but a challenge we, as a community are meant to fail. We don't have the tools to create a democratic parliament, and when we realize that, we are supposed to be comforted that they are doing the best that they can with what they have got.

If I was wrong, we'll have this kind of thing on the frontpage of the site, with new web pages and forums and communication on how this kind of community integration would happen. Don't anybody get your hopes up just because there was an offhand forum post.

Now, if PGI really wants to prove me wrong, then please, get to it. Sing this intention from the mountaintops, elicit player participation and express magnanimity for your critics.

I love Battletech. I want to love MWO. But PGI, you have a lot to prove to regain my trust.

Edited by GreyGriffin, 13 September 2014 - 10:40 AM.

[kapusta11]

• According to TT rules ECM calcels Artemis and NARC.
  
• Artemis and NARC increase clustering of LRM missiles.
  
• In MWO there is little to no difference between normal and ALRMs.

If you want to follow the rules:

• Increase the spread of normal LRMs 2 times
  
• Increase Artemis/NARC effect 2 times to compensate
  
• Make ECM counter Artemis and NARC.
  
• Optional: increase LRM projectile speed to 300mps

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 13 September 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

It's not communication that's the problem. It's very common for players to specifically not hit R so that LRM users cannot "steal their kills" and other assorted rubbish. In my experience, not many players in solo queue are willing to help anyone who uses LRM's.

It's very hard to fix "selfish".

And again, may the better team win.

[DocBach]

kapusta11, on 13 September 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

• According to TT rules ECM calcels Artemis and NARC.
  
• Artemis and NARC increase clustering of LRM missiles.
  
• In MWO there is little to no difference between normal and ALRMs.

If you want to follow the rules:

• Increase the spread of normal LRMs 2 times
  
• Increase Artemis/NARC effect 2 times to compensate
  
• Make ECM counter Artemis and NARC.
  
• Optional: increase LRM projectile speed to 300mps

Add the expanded rules for ECM and Beagle from tactical operations and you got my vote.

[Stormwolf]

DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

Add the expanded rules for ECM and Beagle from tactical operations and you got my vote.

Oh yes, that would improve the game quite a bit.

[Livewyr]

Hillslam, on 13 September 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

ECM is fine as is. leave it alone.

Interesting.

Why do you think so?

[Richard Warts]

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

What other weapon systems have a 1.5 ton piece of equipment completely negate them? You are marginalizing the fact that guided weapons are completely defeated by ECM.

Nope, they aren't. Tag allows for LRMs to track whatever you're holding the tag on. Narc... Do you really need someone telling you how it works? UAV... Again self explanatory, it goes up, you have a lock, fire your weapon, smile and watch the LRMs rain down on his head. I know this may seem unorthodox but try direct firing your LRMs, you might just find out how useful that can be.

[zortesh]

Tabu 73, on 13 September 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

Nope, they aren't. Tag allows for LRMs to track whatever you're holding the tag on. Narc... Do you really need someone telling you how it works? UAV... Again self explanatory, it goes up, you have a lock, fire your weapon, smile and watch the LRMs rain down on his head. I know this may seem unorthodox but try direct firing your LRMs, you might just find out how useful that can be.

Tag and narc work fine on an atlas, but what about a raven or kitfox in the middle of a blob? any decent players will keep a eye open for uav, and tagging a light ecm mech in the middile of a enemy force is suicide, narcing a moving light is easy, if they make the mistake of being predictable in there movements.

lrms/tags/narcs all suffer from one problem, there effectiveness is inversely proportional to the ability of your target, and two good light ecm pilots = lrms are completely negated.