221 replies to this topic

[Tombstoner]

Wolfways, on 15 September 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

Also in TT, LRM's had the same projectile speed as other weapons (instant) instead of the slowest and no warning message that allowed the target to not get hit if it moved to cover next turn.
People just seem to forget (or not know) how much LRM's have been nerfed in the transition from TT to MWO.

Very much so, but i think thats good for the game. FPS and all not just a MW sim. but don't forget that the number of missiles hitting is much higher then in TT. whats interfering with good balance is hit detection and the shear number of missiles that need to be calculated in under millisecond. TT game design is too much for the net code. i lean twords not knowing.

So as improvements in net code and hit detection and host state rewind evolve. the function of Items like ECM need to be readdressed. not in terms of damage per missile, but ECM functionality. I think LRM'S need longer ranges, faster speeds and damage drop off... just like every other direct fire weapon in the game.

[Wolfways]

Verdic Mckenna, on 15 September 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

*snip* even though now you're telling me they gave you what you wanted and used much of Table Top translated to Real Time.

The problems with ECM are because they didn't use the TT system for it and instead just made stuff up, mostly by reversing everything.

[Mystere]

StalaggtIKE, on 15 September 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

ECM receives numerous advantages that spill over to teammates without much cost, only 1.5 tons, and little to no effort. The biggest issues with of which do not currently have any counters:

• confusion placed upon new players
  
  • Without using money, new players do not have access to ECM counters.
• disruption of coordination on pubs
  
  • One stray light can pull most of a team from the front line, while the rest of the stealthed enemy team can overwhelm your front line. This requires chat or TS in order to effectively counter.
• exacerbating issue of no friendly IFF bug
  
  • The bug removes friendly IFF. However ECM hides enemy IFF until you close in or counter it. This sometimes result in friendly fire especially in pug games.
• non-parity of detection (stealth could and should be allowed for several more chassis)
  
  • ECM mech can spot you through IFF detection from 800m+ with BAP and sensor module. However the furthest you can get is 750m with a laser that must stay on target.

Which brings up a point I have been saying in this and/or other threads. Pgi should do the following first before even touching ECM and related systems:

• fix the IFF bug
  
• improve the new player experience
  
• add better intra-team communications tools

The above are being used as excuses ... Ahem! I meant ... reasons to "balance" ECM.

[Wolfways]

Tombstoner, on 15 September 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

Very much so, but i think thats good for the game. FPS and all not just a MW sim. but don't forget that the number of missiles hitting is much higher then in TT. whats interfering with good balance is hit detection and the shear number of missiles that need to be calculated in under millisecond. TT game design is too much for the net code. i lean twords not knowing.

So as improvements in net code and hit detection and host state rewind evolve. the function of Items like ECM need to be readdressed. not in terms of damage per missile, but ECM functionality. I think LRM'S need longer ranges, faster speeds and damage drop off... just like every other direct fire weapon in the game.

I think the problem PGI have with missile drop off damage is how do you explain it?
IMO the game would have been better with no drop off damage, just increased weapon ranges.

[Gwaihir]

IceSerpent, on 12 September 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

I would add that hard counters in general constitute a bad design and should be avoided if at all possible. The reason why it's a bad design is that it doesn't play well with a random matchmaking - there's no guarantee that a random team will have all necessasy conters and counter-counters that it needs in a given match.

I haven't gone through this whole thread yet, but this is the very crux of ECM's issue. It's always been a totally binary thing. Either you have it, and are (generally) immune to missiles (This was a HUUUGE DEAL back when streaks were the only way to reliably kill lights because of the lag shield pre HSR), or you don't and are totally vulnerable.

I'm a fan of adjusting ECM to match it's TT effects more closely, which happily also makes more choice involved and no hard countering.

• Keep the default mode as a way to make missiles less effective. Disable artemis and NARC bonuses, as well as giving missiles a wider spread. Net effects, fewer missiles will hit a unit covered by ECM, but they're not totally useless "On/Off"
  
• Add ghost target mode: Roll all the sensor/info denial tools in to this mode of operation. Reduced detection range, and when detected you get no target info as far as armor/weapon loads/mech variants. Also cuts off the built in MWO C3/target info sharing effects.
  
• ECCM. Plain old counter mode, needs no changes.

BAP's a harder choice since it's not really intended to directly counter ECM. Another ECM in counter mode should be that tool. I'd make BAP better for scouting and info gathering, as is thematically appropriate for it. Let a BAP equipped unit detect and target mechs through line of sight blockers from 150 meters away, as well as the ancilliary effects of allowing faster target info gathering and increasing general detection range and so on.



I know I've read some posts from others suggesting this same sort of thing, but there's so many scattered threads about the feedback stuff that I don't remember where it was. So yea! +1 or whatever. Bottom line, make it a more meaningful choice in use, and stay away from binary hard counters.

Edited by Gwaihir, 15 September 2014 - 09:47 AM.

[nehebkau]

As I see it, here is the problem:

• Target sharing is too powerful when combined with LRMs. There is no other mechanic in the game that so easily allows everyone on your team to target the same mech. Could you imagine the devastation if one could auto-aim to what your team-mate is targeting with direct-fire weapons? In pugs this makes ECM a necessary item to have.
  
• ECMs stack making multiple ECM units more powerful together than they would be separately, reducing the effect of NARC or BAP. However, there is no indication that you are affected by a NARC or TAG meaning that without ECM cover you have no way to counter those via piloting skills.
  
• BAP doesn’t have the same AOE range as ECM.
  
• Several ECM units, by virtue of their AOE can cover an entire force.
  
• People rely on the red target indicator to figure out what to fire at and ECM removes that.

DocBach, on 12 September 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

ECM LRMs requires no skill to use, ECM LRMs only requires a user to purchase it an install it for its effect.

Verdic Mckenna, on 15 September 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

My concern with just saying the current ECM is bad - means people who are used to it are re-learning the mechanic. "Well, and ECM isn't the only problem, let's fix the entire game!" Seems to be the general sentiment i'm seeing in some of those proposals. They don't just affect ECM - they affect all of Information Warfare. Well let's just delete the whole bloody game. How is this fair to the other 99.08% that don't come to the forums? Craziness. You realize that of the 1400+ people that frequent the forum, registered players are in the hundreds of thousands. So we're going to depend on JUST 1400 people (If that) to decide the games fate? I still don't buy it - but it looks like it's rolling that way regardless.

I would have liked this 1,000,000 times if the system allowed.

Edited by nehebkau, 15 September 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Wolfways, on 15 September 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

I think the problem PGI have with missile drop off damage is how do you explain it?
IMO the game would have been better with no drop off damage, just increased weapon ranges.

engine flame outs. premature detonation. bent fins. any number of mechanical or electronic errors....ECM jamming perhaps

But can anyone tell me why lasers have damage drop off and shorter ranges then auto cannons? Well cause it comes from TT. Also why is the ac-20 a short range weapon that magically accurate out to a hard stop then nothing. No psudo tech explanation was ever provided for anything.... nor is it needed, but i would like for it to be at least reasonable.

So i could See ECM increasing damage drop off for LRM's then add in AMS. this is a soft counter that in large numbers would just make the AMS super effective as long as ammo lasts until laser ams is in game.

Multiple soft counters with one hard counter that requires player risk (TAG). its all about the interplay of positioning not just blobing up under multi ECM and focused fire.

[Verdic Mckenna]

My concern with just saying the current ECM is bad - means people who are used to it are re-learning the mechanic. "Well, and ECM isn't the only problem, let's fix the entire game!" Seems to be the general sentiment i'm seeing in some of those proposals. They don't just affect ECM - they affect all of Information Warfare. Well let's just delete the whole bloody game. How is this fair to the other 99.08% that don't come to the forums? Craziness. You realize that of the 1400+ people that frequent the forum, registered players are in the hundreds of thousands. So we're going to depend on JUST 1400 people (If that) to decide the games fate? I still don't buy it - but it looks like it's rolling that way regardless.

Wolfways, on 15 September 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

The problems with ECM are because they didn't use the TT system for it and instead just made stuff up, mostly by reversing everything.

[Phashe]

IMHO, no ECM problem. And I seldom run with ECM. Frustrates my LRMs when I use LRMs, but never made me cry in my beer.

But if you want something, allow for visual targeting but still block LRM/SRM block over 200m or something...

[Maxx Blue]

With regard to identifying the problems with ECM, you have some properties of ECM in your list, but I'm not sure that accurately lists the actual problems. I would define the actual problems more like this:

ECM
- Inability to target the mech past 200M radius makes sharing information with your team to counter ECM difficult, even with voice comms.
- Inability to target the mech past 200M without special equipment greatly decreases the effectiveness of LRM's against not only the target, but ususally other enemy team members as well. ECM doesn't make using LRM's slightly or moderately more difficult. It makes using them extremely difficult.
- The lack of a targetting triangle past 200M is an extremely powerful tool. Spotting an ECM mech at longer ranges is highly dependant on an individual's graphics settings and to some extent the size and capabilities of their monitor because there is no obvious red triangle indicating where the enemy is. This provides a significant advantage in the scouting and sniping roles that is very difficult to counter given the short range of most ECM counters.
- Two of the counters to ECM, BAP/CAP and friendly ECM require the user to close to less than 200M of the enemy and remain there to be effective. The typical engagement ranges in MWO are often greater than 200m. This makes it difficult to counter enemy ECM without committing to a brawl to do so. This limits tactics which would allow countering ECM.
- The best counter to ECM is friendly ECM, and that still requires closing to very close range to be effective. Essentially, ECM is stronger when used as a friendly shield than as a counter to other ECM due to its greater flexibility.
- TAG, as a counter, requires the user to maintina uninterrupted visual contact with the enemy, and only counteracts the effects on a single mech and only for the TAG user, while TAG its self requires 66% of the weight of ECM and consumes an energy hardpoint to mount. Plust it requires every mech that wants to use it to mount their own while ECM affects other players who paid no cost in tonnage or hardpoints to mount it.
- PPC's, as a counter, are only effective for a very short time, they require direct line-of-sight to the enemy ECM carrier to be effective, and they often rely on the attacker seeing and identifying which mech has ECM without the ECM being countered, so it is highly depenent on player skill and situational awareness. Also, the ECM user does not have to take any action to counter the effects of being hit with ECM. They just have to wait 10 seconds. So, the skill required to use the counter is much greater than the skill required to use ECM.
- the UAV, as a counter, requires CBills or MC to purchase, and can its self be countered by any enemy mech with direct fire weapons. It is much more difficult to disable ECM than it is to disable a UAV, plus UAV's require constant investment.
- Because ECM prevents targetting of firendly mechs within 200m, ECM provides a distinct advantage when making tactical manuvers. Such manuvers cannot be countered unless the opposing team happens to spot them visually in the first place, without the benefit of ECM being countered at the time. The only counters to this effect are player skill and visual accuity and to a lesser extent the seismic sensor module. However, seismeic sensor does not typically alert your team to an ecm-covered push until it is almost complete and right on top of you.
- In BattleTech, the function of ECM was to cancel the effects of BAP/CAP, Artemis, NARC, and C3 networks. It does NOT affect TAG or Targeting Computers. It does NOT prevent targeting the ECM carrier or other enemies in the bubble, and it does not affect the ability to lock missiles. ECM was, historically, a counter to missilve-targetting-imrpovement systems, and its scope in MWO has increased greatly beyond this to encompass some features of other systems like Angel ECM, the null-sig system and stealth armor, all of which had additional tonnage/crit or other penalties associated with them.
- Without a counter, ECM completely disables SSRM missile systems. This makes carrying SSRM's very risky unless a 1.5t BAP/CAP is carried by every mech that wishes to use them.

LRM's
- Compared to TT rules, LRM's are far more 'feast or famine'. Typically, if an LRM volley hits at all, we will land more missiles than the TT rules anticipate, and they will cluster into the mech torsos more. This makes it difficult to rely on balance achieved in TT rules when building MWO systems.
- Screen shake provides an advantage not contemplated in TT balancing. There is no 'canon' guidance on balancing this.
- Indirect fire is more effective in MWO, largely due to the lack of any sort of 'to-hit' penalty that would have existed in TT. Direct fire is actually LESS desirable in many instances in MWO.
- Any non-locked LRM fire against ECM-covered mechs is very difficult. due to the real-time, skill-based nature of dumb-fired missiles in MWO. It is likely not possible to balance LRM's

NARC
- Requires a significant tonnage/crit investment to use, and also can be ineffective if not dropping ina group with didcated LRM carriers.
- Limited to countering ECM only if the ECM mech its self is hit.
- Counter is time-limited and also limited by ammo. This makes it a very expensive counter to ECM, and also makes it skill-based whereas applying the ECM effect doesn't require the same level of skill in the first place.

If we are talking about the problems, I would word things more like that. I think the OP list focuses a little too much on what the properties of ECM are without trying to indicate why those properties are a problem, and a couple of items don't seem directly related to ECM in my mind.

[Wolfways]

Verdic Mckenna, on 15 September 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

My concern with just saying the current ECM is bad - means people who are used to it are re-learning the mechanic. "Well, and ECM isn't the only problem, let's fix the entire game!" Seems to be the general sentiment i'm seeing in some of those proposals. They don't just affect ECM - they affect all of Information Warfare. Well let's just delete the whole bloody game. How is this fair to the other 99.08% that don't come to the forums? Craziness. You realize that of the 1400+ people that frequent the forum, registered players are in the hundreds of thousands. So we're going to depend on JUST 1400 people (If that) to decide the games fate? I still don't buy it - but it looks like it's rolling that way regardless.

I don't really agree with having a player council, but PGI seem incapable of fixing their own game...or don't want to and are just trying to prove a point. Imo that point is once you screwed up it's hard to fix without annoying a portion of the playerbase.

[nehebkau]

I just love how people skirt the issue....

AOE ECM is needed because of target-sharing auto-aim LRMs.

Get rid of LRMs and target sharing then you can make ECM single-target only or get rid of it all together. Problem solved.

[Gyrok]

Gyrok, on 15 September 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

My thoughts:

-ECM Ghost targeting increases lock time to 200% of base time required for locks. This cannot be negated by modules/TCs/Command Console. This mode does not deny indication of position on sensor arrays, and denies information about the target being acquired until the target would be capable of being locked.

-ECM has 3 modes Ghost targeting (basically current disrupt but changed to the above mechanic), Counter (same as current), Personal stealth for the carrier mech which pertains to only the mech using it, and decreases sensor detection range to 180m for the carrier mech only.

-Narc/TAG reduces lock time on ECM equipped targets to normal time. This can work in conjunction with modules to decrease the lock time once ECM is countered by a spotter.

-LRMs can only fire indirect with a spotter.

-LRM angle of approach is a much flatter trajectory across the board (both direct/indirect) and velocity is increased to perhaps 180m/s

-NARC duration is reduced to 10 seconds, and cannot be knocked off.

-NARC/TAG negate the added lock time from ECM reducing the lock time to normal base time.

[DocBach]

nehebkau, on 15 September 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

A quote of a previous post of mine, with the problem of ECM being a passive system with the word ECM being cleverly scrawled out and replaced with LRM's

If we compare the amount of work required to use ECM and LRM's we see:

ECM is a passive system that literally is on as soon as the match starts

LRM's requires a 'Mech gain a lock either by its own devices or by relying on a spotter who must hold the lock for the entire flight time of the LRM's. LRM's have a slow movement speed and are completely defeated by cover, and can be avoided at longer range by moving into cover. LRM's also can be defeated by AMS, and in the presence of ECM is completely useless it or its teams brings counters, and employs them correctly (most counters of course are skilled based to disable the passive ECM system), unless a player can time and lead firing his missiles without guidance perfectly to hit an enemy at range who is moving.

Yeah, I can see where installing and bringing ECM is a much harder to do. I tried it once in the 'MechLab, but couldn't figure out how to drag it into the right torso of my DDC.

[Ed Trend]

@Wolfways

With all the respect mate , you seriously believe that if you nerf the ecm , ppl will put efford in the game to grow some awsome skills in order to avoid the lrm rain? or maybe they will abandon the light , medium and the half heavy class mechs altogether in order to make assault lrm boats of their own ? Not everyone wants to get a degree or a diploma on MWO mate . And i cant blame em to be honest . A game its just that...a game . One does give his best effords in real life to secure a job or progress in his school and when he comes back at home and wants to play his game , he wants to have some fun . Not to add even more efford on something that supposed to be entertainment . Thus , one will chose the easy way to achieve that , not the most complecated one . Its only natural . Am i not convincing you yet?...then just rember what happened at the begining of August when those two events occured . It was an lrm fest , and not even ecm's with its current abilities and capabilities was able to stop it , or even reduce it to any degree.Imagine if it was already nerfed down the way that you all suggesting .

Anyway , i see that most of ppl posting on this thread , can only see the "benefits" that such a change will bring . Imho , the problems which will occur from the nerfing of the ecm , will outweight by alot , any potential benefits you guys might imagine . And here we all will be agin , discussing about nerfing something else (probably the lrms) , in order to restore the "balance" .
So all in all , nerfing the ecm in any way , (always imo) can only have 1 result....to allow more targets to be visible in the battlefield . And when that will happen , its gonna be like an old song from my time of youth , of the "Eurethmics"...

"Here comes the rain again , falling on ma ' head like a memory ...falling on ma' head like a new emotion...."....and the emotion will be anger and frustration.

ty all once again

Edited by Ed Trend, 15 September 2014 - 12:04 PM.

[Karl Marlow]

I've gotten pretty use to ECM by now. Hwoever if there isone thing that really bugs me about ECM is that it jams you from across the map. It seems to me if you are wanting to jam someone you should be right on top of them or nearby. Thus adding some skill and danger to their use.

[Killstorm999999]

Ed Trend, on 15 September 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

@Wolfways

With all the respect mate , you seriously believe that if you nerf the ecm , ppl will put efford in the game to grow some awsome skills in order to avoid the lrm rain? or maybe they will abandon the light , medium and the half heavy class mechs altogether in order to make assault lrm boats of their own ? Not everyone wants to get a degree or a diploma on MWO mate . And i cant blame em to be honest . A game its just that...a game . One does give his best effords in real life to secure a job or progress in his school and when he comes back at home and wants to play his game , he wants to have some fun . Not to add even more efford on something that supposed to be entertainment . Thus , one will chose the easy way to achieve that , not the most complecated one . Its only natural . Am i not convincing you yet?...then just rember what happened at the begining of August when those two events occured . It was an lrm fest , and not even ecm's with its current abilities and capabilities was able to stop it , or even reduce it to any degree.Imagine if it was already nerfed down the way that you all suggesting .

Anyway , i see that most of ppl posting on this thread , can only see the "benefits" that such a change will bring . Imho , the problems which will occur from the nerfing of the ecm , will outweight by alot , any potential benefits you guys might imagine . And here we all will be agin , discussing about nerfing something else (probably the lrms) , in order to restore the "balance" .
So all in all , nerfing the ecm in any way , (always imo) can only have 1 result....to allow more targets to be visible in the battlefield . And when that will happen , its gonna be like an old song from my time of youth , of the "Eurethmics"...

"Here comes the rain again , falling on ma ' head like a memory ...falling on ma' head like a new emotion...."....and the emotion will be anger and frustration.

ty all once again

Well, I think the main thrust of most peoples suggestion is to make the target's visible, but not lockable. ECM should only interfere with hard locks, TAG, and NARC (and then it should only make those things less effective, not impossible). It should NOT be an invisibility shroud.

[TOGSolid]

People are seriously overthinking all of this.

Make LRMs work like they do in TT. No indirect fire without NARC, TAG, or a C3 spotter. Boost their flight speed to make them far more viable as a direct fire weapon and to make the rewards of good teamwork allowing for the indirect fire all that much better.

All of a sudden ECM can be massively toned down from the AOE middle finger it is right now because the reason it is the way it is right now is due precisely to its nature as a hard counter to LRMs. These two systems are inherently tied together and need to be adjusted together. ECM was only ever intended to be a system used to allow a group to sneak into a position and jump targets without their position being reported back via sensors/C3. It also helped shut down indirect LRM fire (though TAG still cuts through it). Due to the nature of MWO's LRMs, ECM was made into a 100% hard counter which is wrong. In general, hard counters are just straight up bad game designs.

Edited by TOGSolid, 15 September 2014 - 12:31 PM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

TOGSolid, on 15 September 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

People are seriously overthinking all of this.

Make LRMs work like they do in TT. No indirect fire without NARC, TAG, or a C3 spotter. Boost their flight speed to make them far more viable as a direct fire weapon and to make the rewards of good teamwork allowing for the indirect fire all that much better.

All of a sudden ECM can be massively toned down from the AOE middle finger it is right now because the reason it is the way it is right now is due precisely to its nature as a hard counter to LRMs. These two systems are inherently tied together and need to be adjusted together. ECM was only ever intended to be a system used to allow a group to sneak into a position and jump targets without their position being reported back via sensors/C3. It also helped shut down indirect LRM fire (though TAG still cuts through it). Due to the nature of MWO's LRMs, ECM was made into a 100% hard counter which is wrong. In general, hard counters are just straight up bad game designs.

LRM's work closer in MechWarrior Online to table top than they have in any previous incarnation of the series.

I do not think you have a very good concept of the background material and rules, but I agree with your conclusion.

Hard counters are poor game design.

[nehebkau]

DocBach, on 15 September 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

bunch of stuff...

You miss the point -- and not by a small margin either -- we are talking hitting jupiter while aiming for pluto miss.

ECM is needed as it is because 11 LRM users can hide behind a hill, fire at the same enemy w/o LOS and all you have to do is press 'R' and hold your cross-hair over a square for a few seconds.... that takes almost as little skill as dragging and dropping ECM onto a mech. 1 mech spotter, 11 mechs get instant nearly auto target on that mech for focus fire and there is nothing the targeted mech can do until the LRMs are already in the air and on their way (at which point you get a helpful lady yelling a warning at you that you are going to die). We need ECM as it is because of target-data sharing.

There is only 1 solution to the problem given that the mandate is to look at ECM only and no other systems -- Make ECM single-target only (NOT AOE) and let EVERY mech be able to equip it <insert 'bla bla bla TT lore ' counter argument> <insert 'lrms would be useless' argument> -- but it would be FAIR.

TOGSolid, on 15 September 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

People are seriously overthinking all of this.

Make LRMs work like they do in TT. No indirect fire without NARC, TAG, or a C3 spotter. Boost their flight speed to make them far more viable as a direct fire weapon and to make the rewards of good teamwork allowing for the indirect fire all that much better.

All of a sudden ECM can be massively toned down from the AOE middle finger it is right now because the reason it is the way it is right now is due precisely to its nature as a hard counter to LRMs. These two systems are inherently tied together and need to be adjusted together. ECM was only ever intended to be a system used to allow a group to sneak into a position and jump targets without their position being reported back via sensors/C3. It also helped shut down indirect LRM fire (though TAG still cuts through it). Due to the nature of MWO's LRMs, ECM was made into a 100% hard counter which is wrong. In general, hard counters are just straight up bad game designs.

We are only supposed to look at ECM, no other system -- as said from 'On High'

Edited by nehebkau, 15 September 2014 - 12:56 PM.