Jump to content

Ecm Plan Of Action: Let's Not **** This Up


189 replies to this topic

#81 Artgathan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,764 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 08:38 PM

View PostEl Bandito, on 12 September 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:


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


Except that you stated you only want it to apply to the mech carrying ECM - not any of it's allies. Which is not useful for movement as a team.

#82 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 12 September 2014 - 08:41 PM

View PostArtgathan, on 12 September 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:


Except that you stated you only want it to apply to the mech carrying ECM - not any of it's allies. Which is not useful for movement as a team.


Guess I did not convey my intentions clearly. I wanted the LRM lock immunity part to be on the carrier alone. The umbrella still retains the lock increase and radar range reduction. The important point is that teamwide LRM hard counter must stop.

Lemme edit the post.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 September 2014 - 08:48 PM.


#83 Nauht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,141 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 08:44 PM

Put it this way -

ECM users like it and the protection it gives. One camp is happy.

Lurmers hate it. This camp not happy.

PGI changes it to meet the middle ground. Both camps not happy and everyone now bitching about it.

I'd rather the status quo than another LRMageddon.

#84 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 12 September 2014 - 08:50 PM

View PostNauht, on 12 September 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

I'd rather the status quo than another LRMageddon.



Then I think you are in the minority. Cause otherwise, this whole thing wouldn't have started.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 September 2014 - 08:50 PM.


#85 Nauht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,141 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 08:52 PM

View PostEl Bandito, on 12 September 2014 - 08:50 PM, said:



Then I think you are in the minority. Cause otherwise, this whole thing wouldn't have started.


No you are. Cos if I was ECM would have been changed a loooong time ago. See I can play that game too.

#86 Asmudius Heng

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 2,429 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:10 PM

View PostNauht, on 12 September 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

Put it this way -

ECM users like it and the protection it gives. One camp is happy.

Lurmers hate it. This camp not happy.

PGI changes it to meet the middle ground. Both camps not happy and everyone now bitching about it.

I'd rather the status quo than another LRMageddon.


Any change would require a look into the entire info system including LRMs.

The entire thing is a delicate ecosystem and a change on one part without a change elsewhere can have massive consequences.

There needs to be an overriding theory on how the peices fit together before anything can be done anyway which has never been articulated by PGI except that they liked LoS rather than radius based sensors - which is not a bad idea per se but there is a lot more too it than that

#87 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:11 PM

View PostAsmudius Heng, on 12 September 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:


Any change would require a look into the entire info system including LRMs.

The entire thing is a delicate ecosystem and a change on one part without a change elsewhere can have massive consequences.

There needs to be an overriding theory on how the peices fit together before anything can be done anyway which has never been articulated by PGI except that they liked LoS rather than radius based sensors - which is not a bad idea per se but there is a lot more too it than that

Im in both Camps. My ECM Mechs uses Missiles!

#88 Asmudius Heng

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 2,429 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:13 PM

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 12 September 2014 - 09:11 PM, said:

Im in both Camps. My ECM Mechs uses Missiles!


Sinner!!!

:P

#89 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:15 PM

View PostAsmudius Heng, on 12 September 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:


Sinner!!!

:P

I ain't here to make friends with the players I'm Shelling Dang it! :P

#90 Asmudius Heng

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 2,429 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:19 PM

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 12 September 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

I ain't here to make friends with the players I'm Shelling Dang it! :P


LRM love spam *******

Let them feel your friendship all over thier cockpit!

This is totally getting moderated right?

#91 Nauht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,141 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:21 PM

View PostAsmudius Heng, on 12 September 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:


Any change would require a look into the entire info system including LRMs.

The entire thing is a delicate ecosystem and a change on one part without a change elsewhere can have massive consequences.

There needs to be an overriding theory on how the peices fit together before anything can be done anyway which has never been articulated by PGI except that they liked LoS rather than radius based sensors - which is not a bad idea per se but there is a lot more too it than that


Yes you're right. Any changes could lead to PGI doing more changes to LRM's itself further down the track. Which would mean more nerfing as it would defy logic to buff LRM's with an ECM nerf.

#92 Asmudius Heng

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 2,429 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:30 PM

View PostNauht, on 12 September 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:


Yes you're right. Any changes could lead to PGI doing more changes to LRM's itself further down the track. Which would mean more nerfing as it would defy logic to buff LRM's with an ECM nerf.


The problem is nerf and buffs are words that only apply when it is related to a stable system.

Entire redesigns change the balance of power in such different ways that those terms are hard to apply (and i think they are too negative on connotation)

The point is to get to a point where LRMs so basically what a design theory says and ECM the same. However the argument needs to be larger ... shy do ONLY mechs with ECM get to be scouts since everyone else just gets targetted immediatly as soon as they leave cover if anyone is even glancing in thier direction? Where is passive/active radar and a system of risk vs reward to using that?

Its such a HUGE discussion but because PGI made ECM the entire focus of all info warfare we are usually reduced to just talking about ECM and LRMs by association.

#93 Nauht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,141 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:36 PM

View PostAsmudius Heng, on 12 September 2014 - 09:30 PM, said:


The problem is nerf and buffs are words that only apply when it is related to a stable system.



Not sure what you mean but the very reason for a nerf or buff is if something is too strong or too weak, ie, making a weapon FOTM or non-existent.

Honestly I don't think PGI is capable of entire redesigns. It's too late and MWO is now "a mature product".

#94 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,697 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:44 PM

The best solution is one that flattens the curve on both out.

ECM should be part of IW but it should be no more or less critical than BAP, TAG or NARC or intelligent radar use.

LRMs should be a solid weapon but not amazing - unless the other team has ECM or sticks to cover, at which point it's useless.

Lower, flatter, faster travel time. ECM slowing/disrupting locks but not all radar activity. Turning Radar/hud off should be an option to break radar locks actively, not ECM. ECM should slow locks and prevent paper doll but still let locks happen. It should prevent hostile locks within its radius, making getting close to enemy mechs with ECM a very useful tool.

A separate stealth module sort of aspect to block radar detection like ECM does currently should be a viable component (stealth armor already exists in lore).

This is a good solution IMO and I know similar stuff has been brought up in detail before.

#95 ICEFANG13

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,718 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 10:00 PM

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.

Edited by ICEFANG13, 12 September 2014 - 10:11 PM.


#96 STEF_

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nocturnal
  • The Nocturnal
  • 5,443 posts
  • Locationmy cockpit

Posted 12 September 2014 - 10:14 PM

View PostArtgathan, on 12 September 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:


Except that you stated you only want it to apply to the mech carrying ECM - not any of it's allies. Which is not useful for movement as a team.

Sorry, Artagatan, but there is not a rule testing that ecm should cover friendly units.
You are referring to ecm as it miraculously gifts stealth armor or null signature system for all its teammate :)
Now, I would like these and many other features implemented here in mwo, of course.
But, ECM is not working properly, now.

#97 A banana in the tailpipe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,705 posts
  • Locationbehind your mech

Posted 12 September 2014 - 10:40 PM

What if ECM was a passive pulse that pinged like sonar every 6 seconds. Stealth mechs within the ping would stay on the radar/be targetable 3 seconds, and missiles within the radius of the pulse were nullified. That offers windows where missiles could still be deadly, a well timed NARC could make it through a pulse to counter the ECM for the duration of the NARC, and cloaked mechs could retreat if they wanted to regain stealth. TAG would no longer have an effect on ECM but still be useful vs cloaked mechs.

I know that's thinking way outside the box but I enjoy spitballing abstract ideas.

Edited by lockwoodx, 12 September 2014 - 10:45 PM.


#98 Asmudius Heng

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 2,429 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 September 2014 - 10:44 PM

View Postlockwoodx, on 12 September 2014 - 10:40 PM, said:

What if ECM was a passive pulse that pinged like sonar every 6 seconds. Stealth mechs within the ping would stay on the radar/be targetable 3 seconds, and missiles within the radius of the pulse were nullified. That offers windows where missiles could still be deadly, and cloaked mechs could retreat if they wanted to regain stealth.

I know that's thinking way outside the box but I enjoy spitballing abstract ideas.


Some way to manipulate the locking and targetting would be optimal - lots of different ways to enact that. Its not a terrible idea but i could see issues or frustrations based on timings etc.

+1 for at least adding a new idea man :)

#99 meteorol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,848 posts

Posted 12 September 2014 - 10:46 PM

View Postlockwoodx, on 12 September 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

Does needing a "council" represent that PGI has run out of ideas, or are too afraid to make unpopular ones?


Oh my god give me a break. Seriously. Finally, finally PGI did ramp up the communication again, involving the community and you are coming up with this?

#100 A banana in the tailpipe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,705 posts
  • Locationbehind your mech

Posted 12 September 2014 - 10:51 PM

View PostAsmudius Heng, on 12 September 2014 - 10:44 PM, said:


Some way to manipulate the locking and targetting would be optimal - lots of different ways to enact that. Its not a terrible idea but i could see issues or frustrations based on timings etc.

+1 for at least adding a new idea man :)


Thanks! I was a sponsored game critic for over 6 years so I'm much better at picking things(and people) apart than offering genuine solutions. I'd rather attack the logic of a problem and break it down into simpler elements so that players and professionals who generally come up with better overall ideas have an easier time at it, tho people don't like having their ideas critiqued which more often than not leads to conflict when flaws are pointed out. When I'm bored tho I can come up with some pretty whacky things just to get people to think, regardless if the ideas have merit or not. This helps the process of elimination along until a viable solution can be found that benefits the overall bigger picture.

View Postmeteorol, on 12 September 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:

Oh my god give me a break. Seriously. Finally, finally PGI did ramp up the communication again, involving the community and you are coming up with this?


Considering what led up to PGI "ramping" up the communication, it's a valid (all be it slanted) question.





33 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 33 guests, 0 anonymous users