48 replies to this topic

[Belorion]

The only ECM redesign I am really ok with is a return to the TT definition, which will require a substantial rewrite of Tag and Narc as well.

Anything else is just the community thinking they can do it better. From my experience this is often the opposite of how it turns out. Lets not be too quick to let the community F up the game.

[That Dawg]

Fut, on 29 September 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

Or in other words: Hype, hype, hype, excitement.... NOTHING.
PGI SOP I suppose.

Will keep waiting, and waiting... hopefully something will come from this in the next couple of years.

[DocBach]

Ted Wayz, on 29 September 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

You do not need the hard counter to hard counter a hard counter. If you do not have ECM then ECM only has half of it's utility correct? Even then it is only as effective as the area it covers, and only for as long as the mech that carries it stays alive or does not lose it in battle (people are getting very good at clipping Kit Foxes).

Wait, what? How does not taking ECM make the enemies ECM have half of its utility? Because it can run in disrupt 100% of the time? Nobody is saying counter mode is overpowered. ECM is effective map wide -- you can't target 'Mechs inside of its bubble inside, outside, or through its bubble unless you count the tiny 20m or so window you got between 200-180 meters.

And I suppose since its only effective while the 'Mech is alive, that makes it balanced. It's only poorly balanced until its removed from the game by players killing who takes it. Good solution.

Ted Wayz, on 29 September 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

ECM also has a drawback for a dead giveaway for position. Paying attention to when your signal goes low gives you a quick indication that the enemy is nearby.

This is literally the only downside ECM has, and is sort of funny because it is literally the anti-stealth stealth mechanic.

Ted Wayz, on 29 September 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

Now look at all the counters to ECM: ECM, NARC, UAV and not using lock on weapons that account for 90% of the weapons in game. Heck, the LRMs can dead fire and SRMs that are not streaks are not affected.

Yes, lets look at the counters.

ECM - at least countering it with another ECM requires the counter-er to press a single key unlike disrupt which is passive and always running.

NARC - weighs twice as much as ECM, requires ammo, and requires a user hit the specific ECM carrier with an unguided projectile requiring skill to use compared to ECM which is passive and always running.

UAV - requires a c-bill penalty every match it is used, and GXP unlocks which are accrued either by weeks of play time or paying real money compared to ECM which is purchased once and installed once without any recurring costs or XP requirements.

Missiles do not make up only 10% of the total weapons in the game, in fact they are one of the three classes of weapons, and if we put them on a balance beam and compare how much ECM costs in weight/ammo/input from the user, its 1.5 tons provides more utility than any other 1.5 tons worth of equipment in the entire game -- 1.5 tons of ECM can invalidate 100 tons of missiles on the other team.

Ted Wayz, on 29 September 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

Even if it gives the other team the missile advantage you can always use cover which costs 0 tons to equip.

Good point -- tell me why ECM has to provide a missile lock out for either team when cover is so cheap and plentiful? Its almost as if map makers specifically put terrain features that were 'Mech scale for players to use as cover and concealment.

Ted Wayz, on 29 September 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

ECM is only as effective as the other team makes it. Above is the evidence, what are the excuses again?

In a team based game where players who are not in full 12 man groups are randomly placed together with random equipment, teams can easily find themselves in a match with none of the counters to a system one team might get several of. It makes the team more effective from the very start. That's a problem.

Edited by DocBach, 30 September 2014 - 06:29 AM.

[Maxx Blue]

Huh...I didn't take that thread to mean 'Stop doing anything on ECM community.' I took it to mean, 'I want to share some of the history so you see how we ended up where we are.' I don't think that we, the community, have to just totally stop because Russ would like to organize his thoughts and tell us some historical points.

I guess what I'm thinking is, that post is no reason to stop the process. Russ is welcome to add context and flavor as time passes, but this isn't somethig that even a small council of unpaid helper monkeys is going to get finished in a week or two, so why not go ahead and get started? We have the list of proposed names, Lets take the top ten or twenty and make a poll. We don't have to host the poll here, just put up a post linking to it here and on Reddit, and lets pick the top four or five folks to be involved in this. Then that group can work on organizing themselves and how they want to handle accepting ideas and making proposals. That administrative stuff is NOT always simple, and would need to be worked on regardless of the problem they are looking at, or when they look at it. I say we should keep the process moving, elect a council and get a process set up for them to make proposals and gather feedback on them. There is no reason the community shouldn't go at LEAST that far.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Belorion, on 30 September 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

The only ECM redesign I am really ok with is a return to the TT definition, which will require a substantial rewrite of Tag and Narc as well.

Anything else is just the community thinking they can do it better. From my experience this is often the opposite of how it turns out. Lets not be too quick to let the community F up the game.

This is where I am at.

ECM counters Artemis/NARC/BAP/TAG.

Every mech should then be able to mount it.

I'm ok with either adding a mode or adding to the basic functionality to have ECM make it more difficult to pull up load-outs and paperdolls when an enemy is targetted as well.

They really need to get away from having ECM effect base level LRMs and Streaks, this will allow both weapons to be balanced more easily.

And keep in mind, if they do these changes, they should definitely look at changing LRMs to function better directly and worse indirectly.

[Quick n Fast]

DocBach, on 30 September 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:

you can't target 'Mechs inside of its bubble inside, outside, or through its bubble unless you count the tiny 20m or so window you got between 200-180 meters.

yes u can target them.. its as easy as movin you cross-air over them...
on the other hand.. you cant get "target locks" which is something completely different then tryin to target something.

[Mcgral18]

Kahnawake MechMaster Prime, on 30 September 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

yes u can target them.. its as easy as movin you cross-air over them...
on the other hand.. you cant get "target locks" which is something completely different then tryin to target something.

Nope, you can't do that to an ECMed target past 200M.

Doesn't let you. The more you know.

Edited by Mcgral18, 30 September 2014 - 10:19 AM.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 30 September 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

Nope, you can't do that to an ECMed target past 200M.

Doesn't let you. The more you know.

Magical Doritos are magical. Don't let the Jesus box disciples tell you otherwise!

[DocBach]

Kahnawake MechMaster Prime, on 30 September 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

yes u can target them.. its as easy as movin you cross-air over them...
on the other hand.. you cant get "target locks" which is something completely different then tryin to target something.

Aiming your crosshairs over an enemy does not target them, which means you can't share information on that target to your team, and by extension means you or your team can't lock for missiles, either.