221 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

All min-range should be removed from the game, including LRMs. With those listed changes, LRMs could at least be used for close range then rather than always having to rely on narc, tag, or whatever to fire over obstacles.

Also we're talking about massive core changes here that needed addressing in closed beta. All in all, it would take a while. I still think its wishful thinking.

Edited by General Taskeen, 12 September 2014 - 08:21 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned but one of the bugbears I believe is that indirect firing of LRMs is too great a risk versus reward.

This is straying into fixes but the grouping of Miss Salz indirect should probably be much worse. This would allow less efficient indirect targeting promoting more direct line of fire. It would still be viable however and made better by Tag etc

[Iron Riding Cowboy]

Right now the server is telling the client where all the mechs are all the time sooo unless the server keeps from telling your client where the enemy is until they are with in sensor range this will make a known hack a very big problem. 3D radar hack. But with this the sensor targeting well end up working like WoT where the tanks / mechs are invisible until spotted. Because your client do not know where the enemy is tell the server tells your client where they are.

[OmegaWraith]

Here is a different way at identifying the problem(s):

If we were to simply remove ECM from the game, what issues would we see? Anything ECM does now that doesn't go toward "fixing" or "solving" these issues could be considered an ECM problem.

One thing my sleep deprived brain can think of, if we just removed ECM, is that there would be an increase of LRM spam. ECM is the only solid counter to LRM heavy teams. Not even an AMS loaded team could stand against a team loaded up with LRMs (and NARC/TAG/UAV).

The other main use for ECM that I've seen is to sneak undetected around the edges of the map for some flanking maneuvers. If ECM were to be removed, people could still sneak around though it would require more skill.

Just my 2 cents

Edited by OmegaWraith, 12 September 2014 - 09:30 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

OmegaWraith, on 12 September 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

Here is a different way at identifying the problem(s):

If we were to simply remove ECM from the game, what issues would we see? Anything ECM does now that doesn't go toward "fixing" or "solving" these issues could be considered an ECM problem.

One thing my sleep deprived brain can think of, if we just removed ECM, is that there would be an increase of LRM spam. ECM is the only solid counter to LRM heavy teams. Not even an AMS loaded team could stand against a team loaded up with LRMs (and NARC/TAG/UAV).

The other main use for ECM that I've seen is to sneak undetected around the edges of the map for some flanking maneuvers. If ECM were to be removed, people could still sneak around though it would require more skill.

Just my 2 cents

Active/Passive radar.

This would change the entire discussion of info warfare and stealth

[ApolloKaras]

Ugh... So hard to keep everyone on topic... We're just discussing problems with ECM, we have one gent thats bringing up weapon balance :|

I posted Reddit a possible proposal and my thoughts on what the problems are with ECM.

It creates a targeting void, even with LOS. If that mech with ECM is outside 750 meters you have no chance hitting that with any lrm system unless you have a forward scout tagging/narcing/uaving those targets. So you have to almost dedicate a mech to just the countering of ecm on ranges 750+. You have nullified an entire weapon system with 1.5 tons. That seems unbalanced to me. Effectively you have a 180m stealth bubble.

Edited by Saxie, 12 September 2014 - 09:39 PM.

[OmegaWraith]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 September 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:

Active/Passive radar.

This would change the entire discussion of info warfare and stealth

True, but ultimately our goal is only to fix ECM, according to Russ's answer to Homeless Bill's question.:

Quote

I asked Russ just what the scope of this project is so we know immediately just how much is on the table. This was his reply: "Restricted to ECM only - Other systems can be pulled in if absolutely necessary to make the perfect ECM solution work etc."

[Asmudius Heng]

OmegaWraith, on 12 September 2014 - 09:41 PM, said:

True, but ultimately our goal is only to fix ECM, according to Russ's answer to Homeless Bill's question.:

Yes i saw that, made me a little sad though.

I just think that despite the limited scope there needs to be mention of the greater need for additional systems/features even if they do stay within the brief.

Otherwise we will just keep adding community approved band **** ...

[Lynx7725]

Thinking about BAP and some of the modules.. Why not just make ECM effectively an equipment equivalent to Radar Deprivation? If you have LOS to an ECM mech, ECM doesn't help. The minute the ECM mech breaks LOS, loss of targeting.

To make it "better", can have the same effect in the 180m bubble. Increased targeting lock times can also stay.

[Gryphorim]

OmegaWraith, on 12 September 2014 - 09:41 PM, said:

True, but ultimately our goal is only to fix ECM, according to Russ's answer to Homeless Bill's question.:

Quote

@@wingbreaker

@russ_bullock Question on ECM discussion: Is Radar passive/active modes a possible facet of discussion? Ive seen lots of discussion on it

@@russ_bullock
@wingbreaker I'm listening

I'd say It's on the cards....

[Pjwned]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 September 2014 - 08:19 PM, said:

I am not sure if this has been mentioned but one of the bugbears I believe is that indirect firing of LRMs is too great a risk versus reward.

This is straying into fixes but the grouping of Miss Salz indirect should probably be much worse. This would allow less efficient indirect targeting promoting more direct line of fire. It would still be viable however and made better by Tag etc

Artemis already encourages people to use direct fire though, and if you're firing artemis launchers indirectly then that essentially means the extra tonnage & crit space is wasted. We already have a system to encourage people to use direct fire with LRMs, I don't really see any need to further discourage indirect fire considering that.

That's not to say it couldn't be done though, there could be 3 different firing situations instead of 2 if it was changed. Right now, we have indirect fire and direct fire with artemis, but a 3rd category of direct fire without artemis could be added, but is that the right solution? If you ask me, it's fine the way it is pretty much, I would rather stick with encouraging people to use direct fire than additionally discourage people from using indirect fire.

Edited by Pjwned, 12 September 2014 - 11:04 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Pjwned, on 12 September 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

Artemis already encourages people to use direct fire though, and if you're firing artemis launchers indirectly then that essentially means the extra tonnage & crit space is wasted.

We already have a system to encourage people to use direct fire with LRMs, I don't see any need to further discourage indirect fire considering that.

The issue as i see it is that in certain circumstances LRMs can be overly optimal when used indirect. Indirect fire means you are not exposing yourself for return fire..

When firing direct you have a much higher risk.

There is nothing wrong with an indirect fire system mind you but i feel that in some circumstances this becomes overwhelming and too far rewarded for the lack of risk.

All i am saying is the spread of the LRMs is much wider when fired indirect and then TAG/NARC etc would tighten it up - but when used direct it would be tight to start but when Artemis and TAG are used it should be extremely dangerous because you have brought all your tools AND you are exposing yourself to return fire unlike when hiding behind a hill.

Basically a greater ROI for direct and lesser ROI for indirect without making it useless for indiect flushing and harrassment

[Mothykins]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 September 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

Yes i saw that, made me a little sad though.

I just think that despite the limited scope there needs to be mention of the greater need for additional systems/features even if they do stay within the brief.

Otherwise we will just keep adding community approved band **** ...

We need an understanding of what's going on between all the systems. Ecm ties into quite a bit, and we need to understand how, so that changes made don't cause unforseen issues.

And he did say if we need to drag something in, we could. So if there's an intrinsic mesh that requires a change in another system, we need to know. That's why this is important.

[Asmudius Heng]

Cavale, on 12 September 2014 - 11:45 PM, said:

We need an understanding of what's going on between all the systems. Ecm ties into quite a bit, and we need to understand how, so that changes made don't cause unforseen issues.

And he did say if we need to drag something in, we could. So if there's an intrinsic mesh that requires a change in another system, we need to know. That's why this is important.

Really we need to be looking at how the entire info warfare pillar is put together thats what i want to see ...

ECM was a single system that PGI built everything around so its basically about unravelling that and building back up if they want to do a good job but whats why i was bemoaning a limited brief because i think its a pretty wide issue.

However Russ has said on twitter that active passive radar is soemthing he is aware of and is listening so there is hope i guess

[kapusta11]

So the issue as I see it is "I play LRM boat and I suck because of ECM". The truth is LRM suck because of cover and is pretty good on maps without it which means you don't suck because of ECM you just suck in general. No offence.

[ApolloKaras]

kapusta11, on 13 September 2014 - 12:18 AM, said:

So the issue as I see it is "I play LRM boat and I suck because of ECM". The truth is LRM suck because of cover and is pretty good on maps without it which means you don't suck because of ECM you just suck in general. No offence.

The issue is, is that it needs to be balanced. ECM should not be able to provide the inability for the enemy to target you. This has other applications as well. Such has keeping your lance hidden during movement. Also the need to bring hard counters to counter ECM the system is flawed. This is coming from someone who has taken LRM's 224 times (clan, and IS, artemis and not, Archived stats & current) out of 9,700 matches since they started stat keeping... So its more than just "I play LRM boat and I suck because of ECM."

Edited by Saxie, 13 September 2014 - 02:13 AM.

[El Bandito]

THe fact that LRMs take way longer time to lock than the advertised 50% lock increase of ECM, needs to be addressed.

What use is to have clear LoS and TAG on the ECM mech, if the lock takes so long that the enemy manages to go back behind cover?

OmegaWraith, on 12 September 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

Here is a different way at identifying the problem(s):

If we were to simply remove ECM from the game, what issues would we see? Anything ECM does now that doesn't go toward "fixing" or "solving" these issues could be considered an ECM problem.

One thing my sleep deprived brain can think of, if we just removed ECM, is that there would be an increase of LRM spam. ECM is the only solid counter to LRM heavy teams. Not even an AMS loaded team could stand against a team loaded up with LRMs (and NARC/TAG/UAV).

The other main use for ECM that I've seen is to sneak undetected around the edges of the map for some flanking maneuvers. If ECM were to be removed, people could still sneak around though it would require more skill.

Just my 2 cents

No one said anything about removing GECM. It is a BT canon equipment, but right now it is NOT DOING canon function. That needs to be fixed. Reducing it's effectiveness to actual GECM function will go a long way to address the mess.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 September 2014 - 04:51 AM.

[ICEFANG13]

OmegaWraith, on 12 September 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

Here is a different way at identifying the problem(s):

If we were to simply remove ECM from the game, what issues would we see? Anything ECM does now that doesn't go toward "fixing" or "solving" these issues could be considered an ECM problem.

One thing my sleep deprived brain can think of, if we just removed ECM, is that there would be an increase of LRM spam. ECM is the only solid counter to LRM heavy teams. Not even an AMS loaded team could stand against a team loaded up with LRMs (and NARC/TAG/UAV).

The other main use for ECM that I've seen is to sneak undetected around the edges of the map for some flanking maneuvers. If ECM were to be removed, people could still sneak around though it would require more skill.

Just my 2 cents

The game was fairly fine before ECM, I agree that removing it right now, would mess up game balance with LRMs, which are tied too closely to it. Hopefully if this goes well, we could see more community adjustments.

I quoted myself from the other thread here, its very important, even at this early stage of "what is the problem exactly" that we remain aware of the first point I bring up, that it is limited, and, although I do think its too strong, if we generalize it, and make it worth 1.5 tons and 2 slots in usefulness, it may be wise to also share it to other mechs.

Imagine if the Raven-4X, the Atlas-K, and Spider-5K had ECM instead of the better versions, I don't think that ECM would even be a thing, those mechs are so weak as it is, that having this powerful ECM on them wouldn't be worth bring such a weaker mech.

ICEFANG13, on 12 September 2014 - 10:00 PM, said:

I put a lot of effort into the hundreds of pages on ECM feedback many moons ago. I will share my feedback again, and if anyone needs good old ICE, you can PM me. I can give a lot of feedback on light fights, which were impacted very heavily from ECM, and although I don't play much recently, I would if the game started to pick up.

There is a point to start when it comes to ECM, is it too powerful, and is that power warranted? Let me explain that. When I asked for "what is the weakness of ECM?" there was no answers given, there are really two weaknesses, at the time.

1 ECM can be detected from enemies mechs, (a bit ironic), you can avoid this by clicking J, and only if they have ECM themselves.
2 It is limited to certain mechs, to have ECM to have to be in a specific mech.

Before we continue, although I will still write what needs to be said, we, as a community, have to decide, should ECM be "too powerful" but act as a buff to the mechs that can use it, and therefore we can equip it to mechs that need help, or should be be "very powerful" where mechs that have it should use it, but the effects aren't that great, but the mechs that have it are limited, or just "useful" where all mechs could use it, like BAP, but it may not be worth the tonnage and space.

This is very important, after the representatives are decided, we have to make that choice first.

Now, what is my problem with ECM? It is too good for its tonnage and slots. Every single mech that can use it, will use it, and the mechs that can use it, are actually on the upper end for mechs in general (at the time especially) and in their type of mech, Raven-3L is the best Raven by far, and then has ECM too. There are no mechs that can equip it that do not, and that is, in theory, a problem.

Keep in mind, if this is successful, we may be able to impact other aspects of the game, so I would suggest that we make ECM in the image that we would imagine as perfect, if the game was as well.

Another large issue with ECM, is that it really messes with game balance very largely. LRMs are never going to work right if they have a hard counter, there should not be a counter to weapons, especially as one so light. LRMs are so hit and miss, their design is just a mess, but no matter how LRMs are, there is no way to accurately pin down how powerful or weak they are with ECM potentially messing up the ability to work.

ECM is so damn complex now too. When I actually wrote and put effort into changing it, it was a little too complex for the game, but now I have no idea exactly how everything works with it, its just nuts. It really needs to be simpler, its 1.5 tons and 2 slots for butt sakes, it doesn't need to be as complex as a huge list of things that you have to remember and re-evaluate every time you play.

To touch on points:
ECM, how powerful AND how limited should it be?
ECM is currently so powerful, or at least too powerful, that every mech that can, will have it.
ECM messes with the balance of LRMS too much for them to work right.
ECM is so complex, that you can't possibly expect a new player to understand how it works.

I really look forward to helping anyone with this new idea, I've been hoping for this forever, and I have high hopes, PGI extends their hand, and I sure as hell will give them a hand shake back.

--End of general statement--Personal opinion on ECM

ECM is too powerful, as to the, availability vs power graph, I have no opinion there, but I would prefer if the "electronic counter measures" just counter electronic upgrades, and it needs to be very simple, either it should just protect the mech its on, or extend to teammates, or only impact the enemy directly (ie, it needs to protect you from the effects of Artemis, protect your teammates with a bubble, or only impact the enemy if ECM is on them), I personally would like it to have an area to encourage mech diversity, and help diversify load-outs.

What I think ECM should do:
Counter BAP
Counter Artemis
Counter TAG
Counter NARC

It should impact the user directly, and should impact nearby allies, if an enemy has BAP, they can see you like normal out to normal sensor range, but cannot 'see' you beyond it, which is extended with BAP.

In addition, I honestly haven't played in a while, it should also be considered to impact other things, like Command Console?

Lastly, LRMs, and this is to be discussed in detail in the future, least I hope, should be viable weapons that are useful, but are significantly more powerful, when an ally (and not yourself) TAGs or NARCs the target.

OH yes, I should add this, I would actually like to be on the council of players, I dunno if its a faux pas to 'nominate' yourself, but if there was a minor interest, I would be happy to write a detailed 'essay' of what I would bring to the table, at the least, I want to make the gap between player and dev smaller, let our voices be heard, and work hard to collaborate the data and present it in a clear and logical way. I'm very passionate about this game, despite all the sadness it has brought, I always loved this concept and would love to put the effort forward to bring positive change that could benefit everyone.

[Livewyr]

I am building a Survey (Survey Monkey) in order to gain a picture regarding ECM and LRMs.

Anyone have suggestions on unbiased questions to help nail down the primary feelings and points regarding the two systems?

[Kmieciu]

There is one aspect of ECM that can be corrected without touching anything else:

Disable ECM stacking.

Why do you think people want the matchmaker to put equal number of ECM mechs on each side? Because 2 ECM are better than 1 BAP/ECCM. It turns into an arms race. Two RVN-3L are better at "Information Warfare" than one.

Without ECM stacking one mech with BAP/ECCM could counter any number of enemy ECM within range.

Edited by Kmieciu, 13 September 2014 - 05:35 AM.