189 replies to this topic

[Tombstoner]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 September 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

Best you can hope for is MOST being happy with it. All will likely never happen.

It underscores the need for player feed back and a test server well before anything gest released and people start to form opinions and like or dislike something. The would have been a great way of introducing 3pv to the community.

ECM is a complicated issue. One of the first things to decide is the scope of changes... hard counter or soft counter. The people who put the effort in consistently will tend to drive the topic/ program/ hobby... They become the defacto leaders.

[Gwaihir]

Homeless Bill, on 15 September 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

If you don't see the inverse relationship between number of systems touched and likelihood of success, I can't help you. I'm not arguing it's a hard rule; I am suggesting that the more surgical we can make it, the better our chances are.

People need to think politically about this - not just about the design aspects. Something that's 50% better and can get the votes is better than something that's 100% better and can't. I'm just asking people not to turn this into a microcosm of Congress.

God, yes, this. The only way we're going to get anything decent is staying laser focused, and that alone is probably the largest challenge facing this whole shebang.

[Shibas]

ECM already does some of those options:

• It takes twice as long to achieve a missile lock against a hidden Mech.
  
• Narc beacons will stick to hidden Mechs, but they won’t provide their normal bonuses until the Mech leaves the ECM’s range.
  
• Artemis IV does not provide any bonuses against hidden Mechs.

It's weird that the complaint of hard counters comes up, normally I would be against it, but the thing that counters ECM, is ECM. So that is a bit different than needing a completely different device to counter it. BAP is just a secondary hard counter, which is fine, because it's a way for ECM to be countered by non-ECM mechs. You can already use TAG to counter ECM out to 750m as well, though that is a bit harder to accomplish.

What I think would make people more happy is to increase the range of targeting an ECM covered mech. Mabye from 200m to 350m; BAP increasing that to 500m. Or maybe a bit farther out ~50-100m more. The targeting wouldn't provide you with the load out information, but you still target them. It would still provide it's "stealth" 750m+

[Gwaihir]

Tombstoner, on 15 September 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

It underscores the need for player feed back and a test server well before anything gest released and people start to form opinions and like or dislike something. The would have been a great way of introducing 3pv to the community.

ECM is a complicated issue. One of the first things to decide is the scope of changes... hard counter or soft counter. The people who put the effort in consistently will tend to drive the topic/ program/ hobby... They become the defacto leaders.

Also, yea, we're looking at sorta playing catch up on a very non trivial amount of time spent iterating and testing. No idea springs forth ideal from the get go, you always need plenty of testing and tweaking to get something just right. And that's something we've basically never seen.

[Nathaniel Kell]

Ok, I just want to throw my .02 in here. I completely agree with the OP. We have been given an opportunity, let's not mess it up. Given PGI's Shakey track record I am sceptical that all this will amount to something. But we have to try.

If it all goes smoothly, there is a chance that we (the community) can have some say in the balance of other parts of the game too. Case in point:

http://mwomercs.com/...island-comment/

He specifically mentioned heat scale, and that if this all goes right, there could be a dialogue opening up on that as well.

Now I'm sure some don't believe that this will ever work, or that PGI will really listen to us. But we have to try.

This is our moment, let's seize it.

[Almond Brown]

Was away all weekend. Wowzers for the Forums...

Councils won't work. Been tried and ended up as expected. Best option, and easiest to implement. Let's make ONE(1) more thread. This will be the ECM FIX Ideas thread. Bill can create, to keep current continuity (agreed) with this one. Set a posting format

1) How I would totally FIX ECM.
1a)
1b)
1c)

2) What I would agree with to FIX ECM.

3) What I would not agree with to FIX ECM.

Each poster would then create a 1) and also select/note a 2) and 3) (if available) entries from a Post in thread by Post #.

So then we have a format like this. Bill went first, I went second.

1) ECM only allows indirect Fire mode to those who have direct LoS to the indirect LoS provider. (you have to see the scout who is giving you the unseen target info)

2) Would totally agree with proposal 1(a/ or c/) under post #1.

3) Would not agree with proposal (1b) under Post #1

N.B. The Would not agree entries could be updated based on new posts. I only had Bills in this case but may update based on future post written. Use on best to worst case would be the guide line.

Example: I did not like Bills (1c) but really didn't like Post 67's (1c) so I changed my entry to reflect that.

End of Poster #2 input. (pending noted updates)

We set a time frame, 2 weeks, then tabulate and off to PGI.

P.S. 1) ECM only allows indirect Fire mode to those who have direct LoS to the indirect LoS provider. (you have to see the scout who is giving you the unseen target info)

That is my real proposal to fix ECM.

P.S.S. Moderators have carte blanche to K-Town any post not using the proper format.

Edited by Almond Brown, 15 September 2014 - 11:06 AM.

[Mystere]

Homeless Bill, on 15 September 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

If you don't see the inverse relationship between number of systems touched and likelihood of success, I can't help you. I'm not arguing it's a hard rule; I am suggesting that the more surgical we can make it, the better our chances are. People need to think politically about this - not just about the design aspects. Something that's 50% better and can get the votes is better than something that's 100% better and can't. I'm just asking people not to turn this into a microcosm of Congress.

Actually, I am being political about it (even though it is something I really have no taste for).

Based on the posts so far regarding the issue, this process already has it's first hurdle: people questioning the necessity of having a council at all.

And also based on the posts so far, I am already seeing a potential second hurdle: people insisting that an ECM-only proposal just does not cut it.

That 80% objective is a very high bar. And I may be wrong, but I do not believe those two sets of people are an insignificant chunk of the player base.

[Homeless Bill]

Mystere, on 15 September 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

Actually, I am being political about it (even though it is something I really have no taste for).

Based on the posts so far regarding the issue, this process already has it's first hurdle: people questioning the necessity of having a council at all.

And also based on the posts so far, I am already seeing a potential second hurdle: people insisting that an ECM-only proposal just does not cut it.

That 80% objective is a very high bar. And I may be wrong, but I do not believe those two sets of people are an insignificant chunk of the player base.

The first hurdle is irrelevant. Whether or not a council is formed, all that matters is the proposal that's put forward. Even if someone disagreed with the formation of a council, that won't cause them to vote against a proposal they agree with.

The second hurdle is notable, but frankly I think there's an equally large contingent of people that think ECM is "fine" or doesn't need fixing. The proposal needs to be mild enough to appeal to a few of them as well.

No one is going to get exactly what they want coming out of this. If there are people that **** this up because whatever gets presented isn't "better enough" for their tastes, they're morons. If it's a choice between the status quo and something even slightly better, I simply have to hope people will drop their pet cause and vote for the greater good. If they don't, we're ****** anyways.

[Osric Lancaster]

*BALEETED*

http://mwomercs.com/...player-council/

Never mind then.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 16 September 2014 - 01:57 AM.

[warner2]

In re-working ECM It occurred to me that it is about to become more prevalent. Possibly, far more prevalent. Right now ECM 'mechs are niche. That is probably by design to some extent - I'm sure there were variants eligible for ECM that were not given it. A 100 ton assault and some relatively fragile lights (and Cicada - the honorary light). The Loki will change that and in all likely-hood we will see matches not with typically 0-2 ECM per team but more like 2-4 per team or even higher. At the very least this will apply to PUG matches even if it does not apply to the competitive scene. I don't have any conclusions other than to say in it's current form this means players are going to get used to having no radar most of the time.