189 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

I'm in-game at the moment, hunting devs and spreading the word. I encourage everyone here to do the same - tell people to check out Russ' ECM Challenge in the forums, get more eyes on this chance. The more exposure it gets, the better off we are.

[Artgathan]

1453 R, on 12 September 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

We all need to pull together in this, the same way we all pulled together for #saveMWO.

#saveMWO was a mess that didn't accomplish anything. If this is going to happen, it needs to have a much sharper execution that #saveMWO.

That said, I see a lot of people "campaigning" to be on this council without actually mentioning what they'd like to see done to ECM to "improve" it. This is very much a popularity contest. A lot of the "nominated" candidates have had terrible opinions on various other gameplay issues.

[TopDawg]

In terms of of forming a council/organizing a council, I threw some ideas together here in this thread (so as to not take other threads offtopic etc). Feel free to take from it what you may, but I honestly think 5 people is far too small a number in order to get a proper subsection of the community. Granted more [diverse] people will lead to more discussion/disagreement, but I think that's a good thing when there is a clearer focus/goal in mind from the outset.

But regardless, I wish you the best of luck and hope you guys can come up with something solid and actually get the game moving back in the right direction again (and don't be afraid to try and get a little more wiggle room, all the systems inherently affect one another, and Russ has to be intelligent enough to realize that when living up to his end of the bargain where PGI is concerned). So again, good luck!

[Tsig]

I'm gonna go ahead and nominate B.B. Wolfe for this council.

[aniviron]

If a comprehensive solution is off the table, then Russ/PGI are not serious about this. ECM is a problem, but it's a just one part of a huge system. One piece of equipment does not a game pillar make.

Here's my thoughts on a comprehensive solution; but I guess that's not going to happen.

[El Bandito]

Believe it or not, there is a very easy to implement solution to ECM that is mostly focused on ECM alone. It is not as effective as across the board changes that includes LRMs, TAG/NARC/UAV etc... but it can work.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 September 2014 - 08:07 PM.

[Artgathan]

El Bandito, on 12 September 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

Believe it or not, there is a very easy to implement solution to ECM that is mostly focused on ECM alone.

Which would be...?

[Homeless Bill]

I don't think they are very serious, frankly. I don't think they believe we'll be able to get this organized or get a consensus, but I don't want to waste this opportunity. If we fail, they get positive PR for "being willing to listen" and they get to say, "I told you so."

If nothing else, I want to deny them that. Plus, best case scenario, we get ECM that's less terrible.

[El Bandito]

Artgathan, on 12 September 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:

Which would be...?

Just make it so the ECM gives the LRM proof cloaking to the carrier alone, but still have the 180 meter 50% increased LRM lock duration and radar range reduction umbrella for the rest of the team. That way it will still preserve the scouting function of ECM without making it a team wide hard counter for LRMs.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 September 2014 - 10:07 PM.

[Artgathan]

El Bandito, on 12 September 2014 - 08:11 PM, said:

Just make it so the ECM gives the cloaking to the carrier alone, but still have the 180 meter 50% increased LRM lock duration umbrella for the rest of the team. That way it will still preserve the scouting function of ECM without making it a team wide hard counter for LRMs.

But then how do you execute a flanking with a lance? Unless there's perfect cover the entire way it becomes impossible because as soon as the enemy glances your way up goes the magic Dorito.

Personally I'd rather see us get LOS-locking for LRMs (IE: you don't need the red box to get locks).

[Carrie Harder]

Artgathan, on 12 September 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

Personally I'd rather see us get LOS-locking for LRMs (IE: you don't need the red box to get locks).

That is definitely a good idea, no matter what ends up happening to ECM.

[El Bandito]

Artgathan, on 12 September 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

But then how do you execute a flanking with a lance? Unless there's perfect cover the entire way it becomes impossible because as soon as the enemy glances your way up goes the magic Dorito.

Personally I'd rather see us get LOS-locking for LRMs (IE: you don't need the red box to get locks).

Flanking should not rely on a magic jesus box, but with your own eyeballs and communication. There are plenty of maps where flanking can be done without ECM. Other maps are small enough where people already know where the other team will be anyway.

Also, the radar range reduction part of ECM can be there, reducing the range in which the enemy can be detected, from 750 meters to 550, for example.

The point is, ECM change only solution (as advocated by Russ) can be better than what we have now. Sure, it will not be as effective as wide sweeping changes that includes other systems, but it can work.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 September 2014 - 08:30 PM.

[Artgathan]

El Bandito, on 12 September 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

Flanking should not rely on a magic jesus box, but with your own eyeballs. There are plenty of maps where flanking can be done without ECM. Other maps are small enough where people already know where the other team will be anyway.

Not true. Most maps are designed around a set of 3 chokepoints, most of which can be "locked down" by a single lance in a good position.

[El Bandito]

Artgathan, on 12 September 2014 - 08:19 PM, said:

Not true. Most maps are designed around a set of 3 chokepoints, most of which can be "locked down" by a single lance in a good position.

Then the proposed ECM change will not negatively affect them anyway. It is map issue, rather than equipment issue.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 September 2014 - 08:22 PM.

[Artgathan]

El Bandito, on 12 September 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

Then the proposed ECM change will not negatively affect them anyway. It is map issue, rather than equipment issue.

It would affect them negatively because taking away the stealth bubble makes it even easier to detect the flanking mechs (since the dorito will pop up even if you didn't physically see them yourself).

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Hmm... well, I'll share two ideas regarding ECM.

First change Lock-On, in Relation to ECM (Making it an independent system). So, if we can at least make Lock-Ons independent of ECM's cloak, that could be a good start for both Clan and IS.

But that would need to include changes to how locks work, which is the second idea.

Therefore, here's what I'd look at:

With ECM specifically:
ECM no longer prevents locks or slows them down.
Still works against Artemis, and canceling out other spread reducing bonuses.
It will continue to obscure the HUD and deny a Paper Doll (HTAL, hopefully in the future) as it currently functions.
TAG, NARC, PPC shot can reveal a Target, filling the Magic Dorito for Allies and the Paper Doll info just as currently can happen.

Then for the Lock-on mechanism (making it independent):
Holding the reticle/crosshair on a target long enough brings up the 'Lock-On set' reticle independently.
No longer need to acquire a Target lock with the default 'R' with Line of Sight on Target.
ECM no longer blocks locks if player can hold reticle/crosshair on target with Line on Sight on Target.
Target Decay and Radar Deprivation will still be able to modify Target Retention for Locks.
Showing the Paperdoll of a Target should be a separate (independent) mechanism from Locks.
Indirect Fire Lock-On needs a Target to be TAG'ged, NARC'd, and/or revealed by a UAV.

And I could have missed a detail with what I've shared, so please feel free to add to these ideas!

P.S. Still working on processing the rest of the OP.

[Bhael Fire]

Homeless Bill, on 12 September 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

I don't think they are very serious, frankly. I don't think they believe we'll be able to get this organized or get a consensus, but I don't want to waste this opportunity.

Because the community is completely divided on it.

For example, people like me think it's perfectly serviceable and needs no attention whatsoever, aside from some slight tweaks — And I don't even use ECM.

Then you have a good portion of the community that thinks it WAY too powerful.

And don't forget those that think it's not too powerful but they want it to work differently and/or closer to lore.

Not even going to mention those that think it needs to be removed completely...well ok nevermind, guess I just did.

The point is, PGI would be right in their assumption; it's not a topic that everyone agrees on or even thinks is a problem.

[El Bandito]

Artgathan, on 12 September 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

It would affect them negatively because taking away the stealth bubble makes it even easier to detect the flanking mechs (since the dorito will pop up even if you didn't physically see them yourself).

Which is why I said in one of the previous posts that ECM should still reduce detection range. Here.

El Bandito, on 12 September 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

Also, the radar range reduction part of ECM can be there, reducing the range in which the enemy can be detected, from 750 meters to 550, for example.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 September 2014 - 08:35 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Homeless Bill, on 12 September 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

I don't think they are very serious, frankly. I don't think they believe we'll be able to get this organized or get a consensus, but I don't want to waste this opportunity. If we fail, they get positive PR for "being willing to listen" and they get to say, "I told you so."

If nothing else, I want to deny them that. Plus, best case scenario, we get ECM that's less terrible.

They are skeptical we'll get anything done for good reason - we don't do anything useful 99% of the time.

I hope that by monday we'll get a feel for how much mod support we can get for having 1 or 2 heavily moderated threads for helping organize both selection of council/task force folks and another for the actual refinement of ECM options. If so then we're good to go. 1 thread to collect peoples names, 1 thread to collect ECM names. 1 poll to turn those names into people willing to do the job, 1 poll for the selected people to turn all those suggestions into a choice from the community.

We can do this and do it easily. We need a tiny bit of mod support and to get the word out as much as possible and for people like you (if you think you're not going to be sorting ECM choices officially you're ******* high, Homeless Bill) to start getting the viable ECM options from suggestions down into game mechanics PGI can implement.

This is going to happen if a hand full of us have to go all Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back plane trip around to every MW:O forum user, beat them soundly and make them log in and vote. You keep doing what you're doing and trust that people like me will keep this topic alive, cooking and people involved.

[ApolloKaras]

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

Already a thread where that's been discussed.

http://mwomercs.com/...uncil-of-sorts/

Indeed. There are a whole slew of names here. I also fully support the Poll idea. Probably the easiest way to do it.