221 replies to this topic

[Túatha Dé Danann]

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

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.

You forget something here: They fire from behind cover too. Getting you mouse over a red marker instead of exposing and aiming with compensated delay (like autocannons) and just wait for the lock to auto-hit a target with no aiming skills whatsoever from behind cover with no risk whatsoever is the other side of the medal.

I don't say, that you points are not valid - they are. You can easily go behind cover to evade all damage, but that does not change the fact that once the rain begins, its a free damage with zero risk weapon. I personally have no problems with LRMs. Finding cover is easy on most maps and even if you play passive and camp, a spotter has to do the spotting and risks himself to be destroyed, without getting any kind of benefit, beside a mere spotting assist.

Playing aggressive and going into the face of an LRM boat is also possible - and here comes the magic of role-warfare, informational warfare, weapon balancing and last but not least, game mechanics at a whole.

As far as I see LRMs, they are a support weapon. Thus they should behave that way. And AMS is hardly a counter against actual LRM60+ Boats. As already stated, it is ineffective to use any number of LRMs below 40 to be effective, as the damage done is either all or none, which means that if you hit, you want to make it count. This is not what LRMs used to be in TT. The characteristic right now is more like a spread-Arrow-IV.

[Wolfways]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 15 September 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:

You forget something here: They fire from behind cover too. Getting you mouse over a red marker instead of exposing and aiming with compensated delay (like autocannons) and just wait for the lock to auto-hit a target with no aiming skills whatsoever from behind cover with no risk whatsoever is the other side of the medal.

I don't say, that you points are not valid - they are. You can easily go behind cover to evade all damage, but that does not change the fact that once the rain begins, its a free damage with zero risk weapon. I personally have no problems with LRMs. Finding cover is easy on most maps and even if you play passive and camp, a spotter has to do the spotting and risks himself to be destroyed, without getting any kind of benefit, beside a mere spotting assist.

Playing aggressive and going into the face of an LRM boat is also possible - and here comes the magic of role-warfare, informational warfare, weapon balancing and last but not least, game mechanics at a whole.

As far as I see LRMs, they are a support weapon. Thus they should behave that way. And AMS is hardly a counter against actual LRM60+ Boats. As already stated, it is ineffective to use any number of LRMs below 40 to be effective, as the damage done is either all or none, which means that if you hit, you want to make it count. This is not what LRMs used to be in TT. The characteristic right now is more like a spread-Arrow-IV.

Okay, you see LRM's fired indirect as low risk because they don't take return fire right?
So how about if I'm playing my JM6-S. I know it deals a hell of a lot of damage but because of the XLengine it is fragile, so i support my teammates. I wait for them to advance and when they start taking incoming fire I unload my AC's onto the enemy. I am not taking return fire, so do i deserve less reward?

[Rebas Kradd]

So, is this thread starting to lean towards the idea that LRMs are poorly implemented? If so, that should probably be addressed before ECMs.

[IceSerpent]

Rebas Kradd, on 15 September 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

So, is this thread starting to lean towards the idea that LRMs are poorly implemented? If so, that should probably be addressed before ECMs.

The whole system needs to be addressed at the same time (LRM/SSRM/ECM/BAP/TAG/NARC), as its components affect each other.

[nehebkau]

IceSerpent, on 15 September 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

The whole system needs to be addressed at the same time (LRM/SSRM/ECM/BAP/TAG/NARC), as its components affect each other.

Let's not forget that in nerfing ECM the game will once again screw over light pilots, as every recent "change" (nerf) has already done.

[Rebas Kradd]

IceSerpent, on 15 September 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

The whole system needs to be addressed at the same time (LRM/SSRM/ECM/BAP/TAG/NARC), as its components affect each other.

I think that's bad methodology. Missile dynamics kind of drive this whole thing, as it's a primary weapon system. Change that first (AND GET BIGGER MAPS INTO THE EQUATION), then see what role the others shift into. Change one thing at a time.

[nehebkau]

Rebas Kradd, on 15 September 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

I think that's bad methodology. Missile dynamics kind of drive this whole thing, as it's a primary weapon system. Change that first (AND GET BIGGER MAPS INTO THE EQUATION), then see what role the others shift into. Change one thing at a time.

so just lower ECM range to 50m and try that for a little bit. Small changes are better than big sweeping ones.

[LCCX]

Livewyr, on 12 September 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

Anything to add or contest?

(remember, this is just problem identification)

Please keep posts respectful, on topic, and purposeful. We are aiming to change it working with PGI.

I disagree a lot with your assessment of LRM problems.
- Their indirect fire is incredibly limited, even in matches without ECM, because friendly spotting doesn't happen often in even upper mid level PUG matches. I'm sure this entirely changes with a coordinated group on voice chat.
- - LRM fire is also somewhat limited by ammo, so I'd hardly call that "allowed to fire from cover with reckless abandon", though I'll simply chalk that up to a difference in perception.
- In any case, being indirect fire isn't what encourages LRM boating. AMS [primarily] and the additional pilot attention needed to handle a completely different weapon system [secondarily] (direct vs. indirect fire; minimum range limitation; needing lock) encourage boating. The AMS issue is compounded by the strength of the "ball" tactic/strategy where a whole team (easily 8+ AMS) is within a few hundred meters of each other, and IMHO/experience about 2 AMS cancel out 5 LRM, so LRM20 vs. 8 AMS = 0 damage => THEREFORE yes, LRMs "have to" boat. This is similar to the NARC "feast or famine" balance issue where an LRM boat is "balanced" against a team with a bunch of AMS, but an unlucky team composition (too many LRM vs. too few AMS) results in LRMageddon.

- I think you are spot on that direct engagement of LRMs vs direct fire weapons and "dumbfire" are both virtually impossible, which I'd add also encourages boating and only firing indirectly.


A further thought:

• LRMs are the only indirect fire weapon in the game (unless you count artillery and air strike modules/consumables). You generally cannot return fire at indirect fire weapons by their design and nature. This makes a great many players upset because there is "nothing to do about it" other than cower behind terrain cover until it stops. It makes me think that these players do not want to be playing a Simulation game -- they want to play stompy robot FPS -- but their preferences do matter whatever their reasoning.

-----

random other thought / note-to-self
Perhaps an "Arena Mode" could be added at some point for those who really wish to play without indirect fire weapons present on the battlefield: no consumables, no LRMs, small maps only, and only 4 players per side?

[stocky0904]

ECM:

Ok, im one of those skillless LRM players (75-80% of about 5000 Matches). And you know what? I dont need an ecm nerf. Its good balanced in my opinion. All my stats are positive.

Sometimes its difficult to use LRM because of ecm but so what? Then i use my backup weapons. If you stay near the front as i normaly do you will always have the chance for a kill.

ECM is mostly used in 2 ways. LRM-cover or to get behind enemy lines to shoot someone (LRM-Boats?) skillfully in the back (BAP and Adv.SeismicSensor can help here).

LRM:

LRMs are one way to play the game. i dont see it more skillless then brawling with a 6xac direwhale or jumping up and down shooting gauss, ac or/and ppc. Hiding behind ecm and shooting with 2 ERLL from 1000+ meters also needs not much skill.

No weapon in this game can be countered better (ams, ecm, cover, radar derp). The best of all is that Bitching Betty gives you a warning about incoming missiles.

Im only a mediocre player but i know the ways to avoid LRMs most of the time. Even without ams (only a few of my mechs) or radar derp.

There is no need to balance/nerf/buff this game to death. You never can make all players happy.

[nehebkau]

stocky0904, on 15 September 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

There is no need to balance/nerf/buff this game to death. You never can make all players happy.

From your mouth to god's ear!

[0vertorque]

I'll keep this brief and only about ECM. It shouldn't keep players from locking on LRM's or SSRM's at under 180 meters. It needs to give a lock-on time penalty for both LRM's and SSRM's
Units with ECM shouldn't face indirect fire without assistance from TAG and or NARC. Direct LOS fire on ECM (and units under its umbrella) should be possible but with a lock-on penalty.

[IceSerpent]

Rebas Kradd, on 15 September 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

I think that's bad methodology. Missile dynamics kind of drive this whole thing, as it's a primary weapon system. Change that first (AND GET BIGGER MAPS INTO THE EQUATION), then see what role the others shift into. Change one thing at a time.

I don't think it's going to work funfortunately. Making DF LRMs better (i.e. better speed / damage / spread) would make IDF LRMs OP. If you make IDF LRMs more difficult to use, ECM becomes OP (even more so than it is now). If you make SSRMs act like regular SRMs when affected by ECM and change nothing else, you would make BAP much less useful than it is now. And so on. It would be extremely difficult to come up with a change only to missiles that doesn't mess up something else.

That being said, if you have an idea how to do it in stages all the way to some sort of a balanced conclusion (i.e. one that doesn't involve "let's see what happens" kind of steps), please share your thoughts.

[LCCX]

DocBach, on 12 September 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

Large LRM boats could be penalized in other ways

You have such a great post about what is currently wrong with ECM. I'd really like to respond to the LRM opinions, but let's keep this thread on topic: "Identifying the problems with the subject at hand [ECM], according to the community."

[LCCX]

Livewyr, on 12 September 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

The problem with their current IDF ability, is that it is way too easy.

Fierostetz, on 12 September 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

2. LRMS and SSRMS... are easy weapons to use

Davegt27, on 12 September 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

3) It takes no skill to use (not much skill in LRMs either)

and surely some more I've not quoted...

- Making something "hard to use" is almost always a terrible way to "balance" something. It is undeniably an effective way to reduce its usage by the playerbase at large, but what you've really done is simply exclude the game content from newer players as only more dedicated types (with the time and inclination to practice using the hard item/tactic/skill) will get to use it ... and it will STILL be overpowered, just not frequent enough for people to complain loudly. Otherwise triple damage for those playing with only one hand or invisibility for those with their screen turned off could be considered "balanced".
- To emphasize this point, this is actually how ECM is currently [un]"balanced" -- only a very few, select chassis can even equip it. Think about this: Would nearly as many people be discussing ECM if *only* locusts and the spider 5D could equip it, in the center torso? I think the answer is pretty obviously "no". But that wouldn't make it "balanced", only rare, which isn't the same thing.

[LCCX]

Dracol, on 12 September 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

Interesting reading. A lot of variety. To help ID the issues, I have a question for the general community:

ECM has the benefit of allowing mechs not to be immediately picked up by radar once in LOS of an enemy. Visually spotting a mech is required. This was a big departure from prior MW titles and changed how the game feels.

In general principle, should there be a way for a mech to not be auto spotted by radar when in LOS and radar range of an enemy?

IMHO, the "automatic" part is not the problem. The "at all, ever" part is, especially for PUG play where, as mentioned, there is no timely way to communicate necessary information. A manual way around ECM without special equipment (e.g. zoom and force-target while enemy is under your reticle even if it has ECM coverage) will be something I suggest in part 2 of this discussion.

[Yiphyin]

Sounds to me like we've got good discussion going here with some competing viewpoints. As the threshold for any changes is 80% approval... how about we get a multi-point multi-vote poll started with a list of proposed changes ordered from small (ECM range/behavior) through medium sized (ECM + LRM tweaks) to full ECM + all connected systems ones and see how it shakes out?

It might help us solidify a point to work from when we know where people stand on these issues.

[Dracol]

LCCX, on 15 September 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

IMHO, the "automatic" part is not the problem. The "at all, ever" part is, especially for PUG play where, as mentioned, there is no timely way to communicate necessary information. A manual way around ECM without special equipment (e.g. zoom and force-target while enemy is under your reticle even if it has ECM coverage) will be something I suggest in part 2 of this discussion.

Currently there is a small window between 180 and 240 where an ecm mech can be targeted. Would increasing the size of this detection zone help alleviate some of the grief ecm causes?

[Yiphyin]

I would be in favor of doing a small, achievable, tweak to ECM to show PGI that we can come together on a subject and as a stepping stone to potentially reworking the entirety of ECM/BAP/NARC/LRM/etc as a broader project.

If we expand the scope too far, people are not going to be in agreement and nothing will be done.

[LCCX]

Livewyr, on 13 September 2014 - 05:33 AM, said:

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?

I think this is a necessary step.

ECM:

• Should ECM primarily provide an effect countered by other IW equipment, counter other IW equipment effects, or a balance of the two? (3 radio-button question)
  
• Should ECM primarily buff, debuff, or neither? (3 radio-button question)
  
• Would you like to see ECM:
  - Prevent LRMs from being launched
  - Delay LRM target lock
  - Degrade LRM tracking
  - Degrade LRM clustering
  - Prevent Stream SRMs from being launched
  - Delay Stream SRM missile lock- Degrade Stream SRM tracking
  - Degrade Stream SRM clustering
  - Prevent info gathering (display of paper doll damage readout and weapon loadout list)
  - Delay info gathering
  - Prevent info sharing (where one teammate targets the target of another, spotting teammate)
  - Delay info sharing
  - Prevent automatic notification (the little red triangle that pops up over enemy mech's heads)
  - Delay automatic notification
  - Prevent minimap presence (the little red dot on the minimap)
  - Delay or shift minimap presence
  - Block seismic sensors
  - Delay seismic sensors
  - Counter other ECM
  - Counter TAG
  - Counter NARC attached to the ECM-equipped mech
  - Counter NARC attached to a teammate's mech
  - Counter BAP/CAP
  - Counter targeting computers / command console
  - Be countered by TAG
  - Be countered by NARC attached to the ECM-equipped mech
  - Be countered by NARC attached to a teammate's mech
  - Be countered by BAP/CAP
  - Be countered by targeting computers / command console
  - Notify teammates it is affecting
  - Notify enemies it is affecting
  - Have a range gap in its effectiveness (where an enemy within some range band is less affected by the ECM)
  [check all that apply]
  
• Should ECM bubble/extend to cover teammates for all, some, or none of its functions/effects? (3 radio-button question)

.
[edited to add more checkbox options]

Edited by LCCX, 15 September 2014 - 08:46 PM.

[Yiphyin]

You might also want to have follow-up questions if they want to do the radio button idea LCCX mentioned above detailing some of the potential trade-offs.

Something like:

If there was an option to extend ECM coverage over teammates with diminishing effectiveness, would you like this idea?

Examples (numbers made up for filler here):
Personal ECM: Only affects you, lockable within 200m range but unlockable outside of that (like current ECM)
Small bubble: Anyone is lockable but hostiles locking teammates within 250m range take 2x longer than normal
Large bubble: Anyone is lockable but hostiles locking teammates within 500m range take 50% longer than normal