41 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

Unfortunately, the majority of the players who voted in this much simpler poll are long gone;

[Khobai]

Quote

Seems the community response is pretty clear: a clear majority think ECM is just fine as it is.

clearly you dont know how to read a poll.

39% think ECM is fine as is
33% think ECM shouldnt give stealth to allies
27% think ECM shouldnt give stealth at all

So the majority of players (61%) think ECM should either not give stealth to allies or not give stealth at all. Its actually the minority (39%) that think its fine how it is.

But you have to look at it this way: if 40% of players think ECM is fine as is, and only 60% think the stealth is too strong, then ECM probably only needs a slight balance adjustment to get it to the point where everyone is happy with it. In other words ECM is probably not as unbalanced as some people claim.

Edited by Khobai, 13 September 2014 - 09:37 AM.

[LCCX]

As for ECM Counters, I'm reasonably happy with them as none are a hard counter. I would vote to increase the disruption time caused by PPC hits (suggestion: increased from 4 seconds to 15 seconds). The TAG counter feels appropriate as-is. ECM in counter mode is fine. BAP as-is is fine *if* ECM hard-countering locks/targeting is nerfed (from "no lock, ever" to "increases lock time by at least 200% and requiring line-of-sight"). Otherwise I think BAP needs to more strongly counter ECM (not every chassis can equip TAG, PPC, or ECM; therefore buffing BAP).

[Agent 0 Fortune]

I wanted to add a couple of quick comments.
1. There was no poll for who should be able to carry ECM.
-- only canon mechs
-- only select mechs (what he have now)
-- any mech

2. There were too many options related to LRMs. ECM should not be considered side-by-side with LRM, these are two distinct topics. If LRMs need to be balanced after ECM is fixed, do it then. Although I don't see why the two should interact at all.

If I were to suggest a new feature set for ECM it would be simple and take into account the opportunity cost of mounting the equipment (namely 1.5 tons and 2 critical slots). I feel a fair ability for those costs is simply reducing radar detection by enemy mechs by 25% (or 200m) for the mech carrying ECM and as a bonus it makes the carrier immune to the effects of TAG, NARC, and Artemis. There it is 1.5 tons worth of value and available to every mech.

[Khobai]

Quote

2. There were too many options related to LRMs. ECM should not be considered side-by-side with LRM, these are two distinct topics. If LRMs need to be balanced after ECM is fixed, do it then. Although I don't see why the two should interact at all.

Unfortunately thats not how the game works: ECM and LRMs are both part of an intertwined ecosystem. You cant change ECM without affecting LRMs. If weakening ECM makes Indirect LRMs too strong thats something that needs to be fully anticipated ahead of time.

[Stormwolf]

Khobai, on 13 September 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

Unfortunately thats not how the game works: ECM and LRMs are both part of an intertwined ecosystem. You cant change ECM without affecting LRMs. If weakening ECM makes Indirect LRMs too strong thats something that needs to be fully anticipated ahead of time.

How about removing the weightfree zero crit C3 all the mechs have? Actual C3 can be disrupted by ECM if a spotter (or the C3 Master) is within a ECM bubble.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Khobai, on 13 September 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

Unfortunately thats not how the game works: ECM and LRMs are both part of an intertwined ecosystem. You cant change ECM without affecting LRMs. If weakening ECM makes Indirect LRMs too strong thats something that needs to be fully anticipated ahead of time.

We have survived several Lurmpolypses, besides weapons balance is outside of our purview.
Additionally, I think the reason ECM is such a huge problem now is that it is tied to LRMs so a team without ECM is screwed. I think to balance ECM it needs to be decoupled from LRMs completely (although it could still impact LRM enhancement equipment)

[Khobai]

Quote

How about removing the weightfree zero crit C3 all the mechs have? Actual C3 can be disrupted by ECM if a spotter (or the C3 Master) is within a ECM bubble.

We dont actually have C3 now. Mechs in battletech can share targeting info without C3.

What C3 does is something entirely different. C3 takes all the targeting info shared by mechs in a lance/company, plugs it into a complex computer model using triangulation and other crazy maths, and gives targeting bonuses to all the mechs in the C3 network. The MWO equivalent would be like getting a free targeting computer as long as youre networked with the rest of your lance.

Quote

We have survived several Lurmpolypses, besides weapons balance is outside of our purview.

Additionally, I think the reason ECM is such a huge problem now is that it is tied to LRMs so a team without ECM is screwed. I think to balance ECM it needs to be decoupled from LRMs completely (although it could still impact LRM enhancement equipment)

I dont think the problem with ECM vs LRM is so much the fact theyre intertwined. I think its more the fact that that ECM is a hard counter to LRMs rather than a soft counter. Hard counters are simply not a good game mechanic.

Edited by Khobai, 13 September 2014 - 10:13 AM.

[Livewyr]

Poll is rather discouraging thus far.

Partly because of results, partly because why (I think) people think a certain way.

In my mind, Pro ECM boils down to this:
LRM indirect fire is way too powerful, so I need to be able to hard-counter it with ECM. Therefore: "ECM is Fine!"

They do not seem to put 2 and 2 together:
LRM indirect fire IS too powerful, but SO is ECM. Change both so that ECM has an appreciable effect and LRMs are usable all the time, without being overpowered boating weapons.

You *can* have both. (I honestly wish I could take a FerroSteel Mallet and pound that into their brains to where they at least THINK about it.)

[Khobai]

Quote

LRM indirect fire IS too powerful, but SO is ECM. Change both so that ECM has an appreciable effect and LRMs are usable all the time, without being overpowered boating weapons.

Exactly. ECM should soft counter LRMs rather than hard counter them.

The question is how would ECM soft counter LRMs? increased lock time? increased missile spread and decreased tracking? chance for missiles to miss? Theres tons of different options.

[DocBach]

Khobai, on 13 September 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Exactly. ECM should soft counter LRMs rather than hard counter them.

The question is how would ECM soft counter LRMs? increased lock time? increased missile spread and decreased tracking? chance for missiles to miss? Theres tons of different options.

I would increase the lock on time for 'Mechs protected by ECM, and add additional lock on penalties for 'mechs firing on ECM enemies from behind cover, ie 'Mechs conducting indirect fires.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Cavale, on 12 September 2014 - 05:29 PM, said:

Scrap this please, we really need an official methodology before we can even attempt to vote. This is very haphazard and not helpful in the slightest, it will just cause more conflict before we can even really get a handle on exactly what it is that IS wrong.

I think this method works okay - it allows those that care to voice their opinions and the poll options are rather apt to the situation. I don't see anything amiss that I would expect to be there.

I also don't think have a council in the user base is an effective way to direct community concerns. Those people are not paid representatives looking to properly represent the community - they're individuals with their own agendas that are likely to come to the fore.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I think the ECM system should be changed to just make all electronic warfare combat take longer. So longer lock on times, poor tracking for Narc and TAGGED targets as the missile guidance system would be screwed with. I'm okay with it still having blanket coverage, but just get rid of the stealth part of it, and make it so BAP or Artemis system mitigate but not negate the effects of ECM - this would allow it to have it's role.

To get stealth behavior we should add in Stealth armor and allow that to be one of the customization options, this then would have the stealth effect on the mech it's equipped with. But the stealth armor provides less protection than Standard armor. So there is a risk/reward to using the stealth armor. Less likely to be targeted immediately but more squishy than everyone else.

[Livewyr]

Khobai, on 13 September 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Exactly. ECM should soft counter LRMs rather than hard counter them.

The question is how would ECM soft counter LRMs? increased lock time? increased missile spread and decreased tracking? chance for missiles to miss? Theres tons of different options.

Idea:
http://mwomercs.com/...ple-first-step/

[Stormwolf]

Khobai, on 13 September 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

We dont actually have C3 now. Mechs in battletech can share targeting info without C3.

What C3 does is something entirely different. C3 takes all the targeting info shared by mechs in a lance/company, plugs it into a complex computer model using triangulation and other crazy maths, and gives targeting bonuses to all the mechs in the C3 network. The MWO equivalent would be like getting a free targeting computer as long as youre networked with the rest of your lance.

Actually they can't share targeting data, this came up in a discussion on the BT boards a few years back. The initial discussion was about EI and info sharing. Targeting data wasn't part of the package deal in that one, it isn't present in a non-EI mech either.

This game has no equivelant for spotting (I'm refering to the not firing your weapons for one turn). Even spotting is a bit meh in terms of effectiveness. I think that you have "Targeting and Tracking System" mixed up with "Targeting Computer" here, that's a completely different beast.

The TT knows range brackets for its weapons set to short, medium and long range. This has largely to do with how well the Targeting and Tracking System can track and damage the opponent. The actual gunnery skill is derived from the pilot's gunnery stat.

Now a non-C3 unit can probably see a enemy mech as a blip on his or her radar or potentially see what type of unit it is, but it can't target and fire at it without LoS. You can do indirect LRM fire on the hex, but you'll be lucky to hit anything.

A C3 networked mech can indeed do this it's short, medium and long range bracket is decided by the unit closest to the enemy under attack. Direct fire weapons like AC10's or PPC's won't work because you still need LoS here. However within LoS you still gain the advantages of the closest unit.

Now a Targeting Computer is a firing aid, the MW3 firing computer is probably the best adaption of this tech in a MW game. It only works for direct fire weapons (energy and ballistics). This is different from the advantage of the C3 network since targeting data can be variable for that one (the TC bonus is consistant),

Edited by Stormwolf, 13 September 2014 - 10:37 AM.

[LCCX]

Khobai, on 13 September 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

Unfortunately thats not how the game works: ECM and LRMs are both part of an intertwined ecosystem. You cant change ECM without affecting LRMs. If weakening ECM makes Indirect LRMs too strong thats something that needs to be fully anticipated ahead of time.

While I agree that the knock-on effects of an ECM change need to be fully anticipated ahead of time, I do not agree that anything must necessarily be done about it immediately/simultaneously. There will always be knock-on effects, both foreseeable and occasionally unforeseen. There is no chance that anything constructive can be accomplished while permitting unlimited scope creep. Exclusively consider the single variable/system [ECM] for now, bearing in mind and recording the implied, subsequent, necessary changes to the rest of the affected system [e.g. LRMs] for later.

[JigglyMoobs]

Khobai, on 13 September 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

clearly you dont know how to read a poll.

39% think ECM is fine as is
33% think ECM shouldnt give stealth to allies
27% think ECM shouldnt give stealth at all

So the majority of players (61%) think ECM should either not give stealth to allies or not give stealth at all. Its actually the minority (39%) that think its fine how it is.

But you have to look at it this way: if 40% of players think ECM is fine as is, and only 60% think the stealth is too strong, then ECM probably only needs a slight balance adjustment to get it to the point where everyone is happy with it. In other words ECM is probably not as unbalanced as some people claim.

When I last checked the poll the majority indicated ecm was fine on almost all other measures.

As it is now, majority agrees on area effect and it seems to be swinging back and forth wrt lrm locking.

The only significant change was indicated for the first option, but what does stealth even mean? If the enemy is visible then you can you sent your eyes to see. If they are behind cover then radar signal disappears anyways. So where is the impact?

[LCCX]

Khobai, on 13 September 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Exactly. ECM should soft counter LRMs rather than hard counter them.

The question is how would ECM soft counter LRMs? increased lock time? increased missile spread and decreased tracking? chance for missiles to miss? Theres tons of different options.

There are a lot of different options, but I think that lock time and missile spread+tracking are the most direct and most fungible (values do not have to be on-off or lump-sum-effect, but instead can be drawn out/incremental/smooth curve) and thus the best target for a refined mechanic. I'd suggest greatly increased lock time (12 up from the current 4 seconds) and cut to a third missile clustering and tracking (which implies some missiles in a LRM salvo should miss) [as the ECM cover benefit].

To soften the counter further, LRMs could potentially then have their missile spread and tracking reduced linearly down to normal [no ECM benefit] if they maintain the lock for 6 seconds (approximately 1.5 salvos) if that turned out to be necessary/desirable.

[MadTulip]

Stormwolf, on 13 September 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

How about removing the weightfree zero crit C3 all the mechs have? Actual C3 can be disrupted by ECM if a spotter (or the C3 Master) is within a ECM bubble.

I think this is a good idea about C3. It should work closely to as is, but it should be equipment you actualy need to bring. Im not sure about actual implementation regarding master for just the lance or all 12 mechs and benefits of a master at all. Maybe slaves should only connects to masters and masters can connect to other masters to spread the info acting like a repeater. stuff like that would need to be visualized. Getting all target info from all of the team all the time is way powerfull and shouldnt be there for free imo. I like ambushes, anticipation of enemy movement and such which would benefit from not omnipresent C3.

[LCCX]

JigglyMoobs, on 13 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

what does stealth even mean? If the enemy is visible then you can you sent your eyes to see. If they are behind cover then radar signal disappears anyways. So where is the impact?

My understanding is that "Stealth" in this context means "cannot be targeted for info gathering, nor target-locked for LRM or Streak SRM, nor seen on the minimap, nor identified by the HUD".

MadTulip, on 13 September 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

Stormwolf, on 13 September 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

How about removing the weightfree zero crit C3 all the mechs have? Actual C3 can be disrupted by ECM if a spotter (or the C3 Master) is within a ECM bubble.

I think this is a good idea about C3. It should work closely to as is, but it should be equipment you actualy need to bring. Im not sure about actual implementation regarding master for just the lance or all 12 mechs and benefits of a master at all. Maybe slaves should only connects to masters and masters can connect to other masters to spread the info acting like a repeater. stuff like that would need to be visualized. Getting all target info from all of the team all the time is way powerfull and shouldnt be there for free imo. I like ambushes, anticipation of enemy movement and such which would benefit from not omnipresent C3.

No, I must disagree.

• Altering the current information sharing setup/system will overwhelmingly affect PUG matches more than competitive matches, and in a negative way as newer people and lone wolves will not only fail to cooperate on the battlefield but then will also avoid mech builds which include whatever cost you impose on C3 users.
  
• Balancing an "optional" C3 system for information sharing will be incredibly hard to get it into the grey area between "mandatory in all but name" and "worthless" (again, especially in relation to PUG vs. 12-man).
  
• C3 is yet another tangent away from ECM.

[Stormwolf]

LCCX, on 13 September 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

My understanding is that "Stealth" in this context means "cannot be targeted for info gathering, nor target-locked for LRM or Streak SRM, nor seen on the minimap, nor identified by the HUD".



No, I must disagree.

• Altering the current information sharing setup/system will overwhelmingly affect PUG matches more than competitive matches, and in a negative way as newer people and lone wolves will not only fail to cooperate on the battlefield but then will also avoid mech builds which include whatever cost you impose on C3 users.
  
• Balancing an "optional" C3 system for information sharing will be incredibly hard to get it into the grey area between "mandatory in all but name" and "worthless" (again, especially in relation to PUG vs. 12-man).
  
• C3 is yet another tangent away from ECM.

Organized teams will always beat unorganized ones, teamspeak and a good team structure will steamroll any PUG.