72 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Livewyr, on 13 September 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

I am interested to know why you think that way.

(This is not a place to openly disagree with someone.. I am hoping to just gather why they think that way, in order to either change my mind, or mold my argument to change theirs.)

I will not be voicing disagreements with arguments, that is not the purpose of this. Please refrain from doing so, as well.

Good thread Livewyr. Always need to know both sides' PoV.

BRB grabbing popcorn. I feel like an atheist in the middle of religious council talking about how God is real.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 September 2014 - 07:56 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

For me, the biggest thing the current ECM implementation has going for it is its simplicity.

It's a binary system. ECM is either on or off. Ironically, this simplicity is the very thing that turns off a lot of hardcore BT veterans who like the idea of a rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock-slingshot setup where multiple things overlap and cancel and such. But there's a lot to be said for simplicity when you're designing a video game. Right now, ECM is a hard counter, without degrees or gradients; you have a range of counters to use, depending on your loadout or playstyle; and you have to get through it to grasp the enemy's location and makeup, and you have to breach it to use LRMs. That's it. Learn the counters and you've got it made. Go to town.

This may offend sim purists with its simplicity, but in the category of learning curves, it leaves one anomaly - sensor/LRM blindness - to explain to newbies. Contrast most of the "soft counter" suggestions that are offered up, which involve bringing different roles for ECM, TAG, BAP, Artemis, and potentially stealth armor, C3, command computer. They read like the dream game of the most hardcore tabletop afficionado, but to the new player it manifests itself as a whole buffet of sensor anomalies right from their first game - sensor gradients, varying lock-on times, wonky information gathering, blasts of static, multiple modes of operation, blind spots, dozens of permutations of things stacking or cancelling...

I mean, holy ****, Batman. Am I the only person who sees the potential frustration factor for new players? This game is hard enough to explain NOW without tutorials. I pity Koniving for the magnum opus he'd have to write up to get all this across to the newbie. The last ECM alternative I saw required four pages' worth of graphs to explain the concept. And I thought Ghost Heat was inscrutable!

These are the lines along with PGI is thinking. That's what I'd bet, if I were a gambler. MWO needs the MC of the casual player as much as that of the BT vet. (BT vets are the worst judges of that fact, but that's true of all fan bases.) And you know the struggles PGI has already been having because of player retention. Yes, a lot of it is because they quietly "outsourced" the tutorials to the community by not doing them. But if you need five tutorials just to explain the crazy sensor ghosts going on in their very first game, you've got a problem. How do you avoid that without a simple system? Like the one we have now?

Additionally, most of the means used to judge ECM are abstract and belong to armchair designers rather than actual ones. Yes, ECM is light for its influence. Yes, it's less costly than its counters. Yes, it automatically makes a variant king amongst its kinds. I don't care. I don't care about any of these things. These are totally, utterly abstract yardsticks. I'm much more concerned with the nitty-gritty, practical realities of the battlefield, such as preventing LRM spam. And doing so simply, so that new players can see the overall shape of things without the latest in graphic organizers.

Also, in the category of taking things for granted, there is a drawback to ECM many have not considered: you can put it on only one of five mechs, all of which are vulnerable. This is no small thing. Four of them are light mechs and lack both armor and weaponry. The fifth is a ponderous assault with the most instantly recognizable gait and silhouette in the game. Just carrying ECM makes you a target. Believe me, I know. I have both a 3L and a DDC in my arsenal, and sometimes the harassment and preferential treatment I get from the enemy makes me wonder whether any of you ECM critics have ever played those mechs . Those matches can be a feast-or-famine nightmare.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 13 September 2014 - 08:32 PM.

[Quxudica]

Theodore42, on 13 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

Ok I'm really confused about the ECM argument, and I always have been. Until recently ECM was just a mild annoyance that meant I couldn't see my enemy's components. But I've recently started flying a medium LRM boat with a TAG laser and enjoy the heck out of it. Yes, I can see how it is annoying that I lock onto a mech with my TAG and 100+ missiles from all over the map come down on you. It brings me a very tragic sense joy for sure.

I quoted Quxudica because, as someone who doesn't quite understand the debate, this quote seems to express the issue. I don't know much about the lore, but I've read that sharing target info on TT is more difficult than in game (it requires special equipment). ECM threads are really common and I don't really get the issue. Let me ask three questions so people who aren't understanding the debate (maybe only me!) will get what the problem is.

1 How are LRMs broken? I'm less interested in what changes should be made and more interested in how the GAMEPLAY should be changed.

2 Why is LOS for the LRM mech needed (without TAG and NARC)? Again, what is wrong with the current gameplay and how would you like changes to affect gameplay?

3 Most generally, from these two questions, how do you want the gameplay to change in game overall?

I really only have experience playing MW2 and MWO (although I've played a lot of both!) and to me there isn't much of a problem, it just is what it is.

The problem with LRM's is simply one of mechanics. Nearly all of the effort required to use LRM's effectively does not come form the mech using them. The person firing them only needs to know and do a couple things: 1-Don't fire into obstacles 2-keep the circle red. Everything else is on the shoulders of the target and the spotter, keeping the lock while avoiding enemy fire is entirely up to the teammate spotting them (though really all they have to do is look at the target), while whether or not the missiles impact the enemy is up to if that target manages to find effective cover (which despite what defenders of LRM's will tell you, not every spot of every map has the required mech-tall overhands to stop LRMs). This is lopsided compared to every other weapon, especially when you take into consideration the wildly varying level of effectiveness LRM's can have.

In pugs LRM's can range from match altering to absolutely useless and it is completely out of the hands of the user which is likely to happen. Meanwhile in competitive group matches LRM's have always been lackluster if not outright useless.

It really just isn't a well designed weapon system, Lock-on style weapons in MWO have never been implemented well. As another person stated, artillery should have been reserved for things like the arrow IV, while indirect fire for LRM's should only be possible if the target has a TAG or NARC on them (this requires a player to actually need to interact with the target in someway beyond just.. seeing.. them). The bottom line is there are numerous maps with sloping or sparse cover that don't allow for effective avoidance on the targets behalf, and the way the missiles work currently contribute to a less enjoyable game. As someone who piloted Light Mechs for all of Beta, I can't tell you the last time I got into an enjoyable dust up with my counterpart on another team, it used to be I could stumble into the enemy light scouting alongside me and the two of us could end up dueling - winner decided purely by who was better - but now every single time the dust up is almost immediately interrupted by my team or their team raining missiles in just because one of us can look at the other mech.

Honestly, more than anything, I think that's the crux of my problem with the current way LRM's are implemented. A pilot doesn't even need to do anything to enable their use, they don't even need to press R since auto-lock picks up after a few seconds. It just needs to be more involved than this.

Full disclosure: I've played multiple mechs of every weight class since early closed beta, I've seen LRM's both nerfed into total uselessness damage wise, and the Lurmpocolypse when their damage got over buffed and their angel of decent became almost vertical. I've used Missile Boats of every type myself over the years and even when using them I have never been anything but disappointed with the design behind the system.

Edited by Quxudica, 13 September 2014 - 08:25 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Quxudica, on 13 September 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

As someone who piloted Light Mechs for all of Beta, I can't tell you the last time I got into an enjoyable dust up with my counterpart on another team, it used to be I could stumble into the enemy light scouting alongside me and the two of us could end up dueling - winner decided purely by who was better - but now every single time the dust up is almost immediately interrupted by my team or their team raining missiles in just because one of us can look at the other mech.

The culprit for that is 12v12 on our small maps, not ECM. Give me a map in which the lances are so far apart, and are assigned different dynamic objectives, that it's actually inefficient to just group up and focus fire, and problem solved. THAT'S MechWarrior.

Additionally, have you driven LRM boats before? Honest question. Because while the LRM spam may be irritating (and I wouldn't argue against reducing their screenshake), LRM boating is actually pretty tedious and ineffective without both TAG and Artemis. I'll be raining fire down on a target, and watching the paperdoll turn red is like watching paint dry. I'm usually pretty positive my other allies up close are doing more damage than me. Give me a constant TAG lock, though, and yeah - I get deadly, fast. Components start coming off. But that requires skill, and the risk of line-of-sight. And oftentimes, I end up regretting having to get that LOS, courtesy of a pair of Gauss shots ripping through my side torso.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 13 September 2014 - 08:39 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

My main issue as i have stated many times is that it is not ECM it is the information warfare pillar in general.

However, it is also kind of irritating that it is SO powerful that it almost obsoletes all other variants for that chassis - this is not good for diversity.

If LRMs need reigning in then LRMs need to change so ECM can also change.

[Quxudica]

Rebas Kradd, on 13 September 2014 - 08:37 PM, said:

The culprit for that is 12v12 on our small maps, not ECM. Give me a map in which the lances are so far apart, and are assigned different dynamic objectives, that it's actually inefficient to just group up and focus fire, and problem solved. THAT'S MechWarrior.

Additionally, have you driven LRM boats before? Honest question. Because while the LRM spam may be irritating (and I wouldn't argue against reducing their screenshake), LRM boating is actually pretty tedious and ineffective without both TAG and Artemis. I'll be raining fire down on a target, and watching the paperdoll turn red is like watching paint dry. I'm usually pretty positive my other allies up close are doing more damage than me. Give me a constant TAG lock, though, and yeah - I get deadly, fast. Components start coming off. But that requires skill, and the risk of line-of-sight. And oftentimes, I end up regretting having to get that LOS, courtesy of a pair of Gauss shots ripping through my side torso.

Yes I have, many different chassis types in fact. I'd argue this frustration is also tied to the poor implementation of them. If they were altered to require NARC or TAG for indirect fire, or any similar substantial change to increase the depth of the weapon systems use, they could also be buffed to deal more, or more effective, damage. I referenced this in that post you snipped, LRMs have always had (outside of brief moments when they were over buffed) much much wider ranges of effectiveness than any other weapon. They could determine the outcome of entire matches or be nearly inconsequential and it's because they must be balanced around the notion that multiple mechs can rain them in without needing to even see the target themselves or put themselves in danger. I've argued that, with the current targeting model LRM's must be viewed damage-wise as pure support weapons, you can't have a weapon system that allows mechs to rain in damage on a target from complete safety and also have that weapon system be primary source of kills.

This leads to two results: The people on the receiving end are frustrated because the outcome of their melee is heavily influenced by something they have no means to counter-act without being an ECM variant, while the people using LRM's are frustrated because the effectiveness of their weapon relies far more on what their teammates and their target does than on what they can do, and leaves them disappointed at the resulting damage when it does go through.

There was a BT Mod for another game that used to run along side MWO which had the same mindset of being a competitive online mech sim. I forget it's name, but their LRM's were much better thought out. The game had both Active and Passive radar modes, LRM's could achieve indirect fire locks on any mech that used Active radar mode, thus creating a risk-vs-reward system for it's use, otherwise LRM's required their user to have and maintain LoS for Passive Radar users. It's this kind of depth that the MWO model has always lacked.

I agree with you on the need for larger maps and more complex dynamic objectives. A long long time ago, might even have been closed beta, I created a post that outlined a real "Assault" mode: One team would be on defense, one on offense, the defenders had a real base they needed to protect with automated turret defenses and a central command structure that needed to be destroyed. The map was large, and featured power generators in two different locations, one powering the defense turrets while the other powered an anti-missile defense that protected the main objective structure and the primary base turrets. Defenders and Attackers would have to decide how they wanted to deal with these objectives and it would mandate splitting the groups up.

[Lynx7725]

Quxudica, on 13 September 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

I've argued that, with the current targeting model LRM's must be viewed damage-wise as pure support weapons, you can't have a weapon system that allows mechs to rain in damage on a target from complete safety and also have that weapon system be primary source of kills.

This leads to two results: The people on the receiving end are frustrated because the outcome of their melee is heavily influenced by something they have no means to counter-act without being an ECM variant, while the people using LRM's are frustrated because the effectiveness of their weapon relies far more on what their teammates and their target does than on what they can do, and leaves them disappointed at the resulting damage when it does go through.

I have to point out to you -- if a LRM user is expecting their teammates and the targets to cooperate, that LRM user is in for a rude surprise, especially in the solo queue. LRM Specialists know when to hang back and when to go forward to bring the rain on the targets. The skill of using LRM is not in pulling the trigger, but knowing when and where to support their teammates.

And no, that twerp hiding at the back raining LRMs ineffectively is not a LRM Specialist. I challenge the perception that LRMs are causing kills and damage. I currently have just over 500 games in my LRM chassis with 600 kills. If you consider 1.2 kills per game to be good, really... (Full disclosure: Average of 519 damage per game with a ALRM45 chassis.) Just because missiles are visibly in the air and there's a lot of impact shake doesn't mean there's actually a lot of damage done to anything other than terrain -- that's the #2 thing that LRM Specialists learn, and which good non-LRM users learn.

At the end of the day, what LRM hinges on is more of what role PGI expects this weapon to fill. As an indirect, on map weapon capable of forcing dug-in mechs to move out of their position, with a side-dish of direct fire? Or as a somewhat poorer direct fire weapon vulnerable to multiple counters? Do note that the balance of LRM is very delicate, because changing a few parameters can effectively nullify the usability of an entire weapon system. And, if you'd notice, ECM plays very little in that discussion.

[Rebas Kradd]

Lynx7725, on 13 September 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

And no, that twerp hiding at the back raining LRMs ineffectively is not a LRM Specialist. I challenge the perception that LRMs are causing kills and damage. I currently have just over 500 games in my LRM chassis with 600 kills. If you consider 1.2 kills per game to be good, really... (Full disclosure: Average of 519 damage per game with a ALRM45 chassis.) Just because missiles are visibly in the air and there's a lot of impact shake doesn't mean there's actually a lot of damage done to anything other than terrain -- that's the #2 thing that LRM Specialists learn, and which good non-LRM users learn.

This, this, this. Good LRM boaters are skilled at positioning and timing, and they're also using TAG or benefiting from a teammate's counter work, both of which should be rewarded. It takes forever to wear down a target with just plain LRM's.

Also, LRM boats are not playing with impunity. I am shocked at how few players slap together a small strike force and go after an LRM boat at close range. It's practically a slam dunk because of the LRM boat's natural drawback - lack of close-in weapons. Unfortunately, another reason you don't see this much is because of the cramped 12v12 nature of the game - that boat will inevitably have help somewhere nearby. Again, a symptom of poor map design.

Bigger maps should be implemented before anything else, so we can see how all these mechanics work in a real BT environment. As it is, role warfare/info warfare are being buried by poor map design more than anything else. That's the real problem.

[Remarius]

When the subject came up on Mechspecs I put:

"TBH I've never understood the big deal over the current version of ECM as I rely a lot on my visuals and sounds .... not like its hard to see a mech if you use them. The old seismic was vastly more abusive.

Its only real effect is to mask sensible groups for short periods and to act against LRM's too lazy to use Tag's. Lets be honest any streaker that doesn't use a BAP or AP is fairly incompetent as it gives so many bonuses and rewards. 99% of LRMers should have a tag (only excuse is to have no energy points). Sit in any vaguely ok group and those ECM'ers get plastered with PPC's, primaried, countered, etc. In an age of clan LRM's they can even hit you with LRM's inside BAP range!

The best element of ECM is it allows solo/small groups lights to sneak around and TAG/NARC, locate the enemy without getting auto blapped or hit rear end LRM boats.

Role warfare needs ECM simple as that for lights to do their job."

Edited by Remarius, 13 September 2014 - 09:51 PM.

[DAYLEET]

You have people who want ecm change to "fix" the fact that it makes it a lot harder to focus front loaded damage on the right target and the right part. Russ explicitly said he didnt want to lower time to die of a mech, which is already very low. This would buff in a very big way people using front loaded damage and they already are strong enough like that. Ecm makes teamplay harder if you end teamplay at calling targets and dont use the available tools to counter ecm.

People want to change the fact that the team with more ecm has the advantage and nerfing the ecm isnt going to change that unless you make ecm useless as opposed to tweak it.

Then ofcourse you have the guy who has a broken loadout of mostly lrm and nothing else. He thinks nerfing ecm will help him get more lock. He is wrong unless ecm is completely broken and made useless in regard to lrm but even then he would need to learn how to use lrm and understand them as support weapon and not main weapon.

Overall, the end result with a weaker ecm will make them even more mandatory in large number. Disregarding the issue the 3 people above have, you can get away with just 1 right now. Sure it sucks when the other team has 3 and you have none but with a weaker ecm it will suck when the other team has 3 ecm and you have 2.

Edit> nerfing ecm would do the same thing as when they nerfd arty, it's less deadly by a long shot if you get the cbill one but it's still incredebly usefull and strong. The team with more has a damn good advantage. Theres nothing you can do unless you remove/make it useless.

Edited by DAYLEET, 14 September 2014 - 12:59 AM.

[Haji1096]

Here is a simple alteration:

ECM continues to deny locks for guided weapons.

ECM does not deny target designation/location.

[Rebas Kradd]

Haji1096, on 14 September 2014 - 04:58 AM, said:

Here is a simple alteration:

ECM continues to deny locks for guided weapons.

ECM does not deny target designation/location.

Perhaps the command console could be made into a "target information storage" device. Once someone has established a lock on a target long enough to retrieve info, the info remains available to everyone for the rest of the match as long as someone on the team has a CC.

[Livewyr]

Please, let this just be statements of why people think it is ok... we can argue in the next one.

(In a couple days I will come through and categorize the various trains of thought to be addressed appropriately.)