106 replies to this topic

[Christof Romulus]

Otto Cannon, on 21 April 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

A fix doesn't have to be exactly what everyone wants, it just needs to work well enough that most players can see it's good enough.

Soooo... the way ECM works now?

[cSand]

Mystere, on 21 April 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

Here's the rub: I like ECM as is. And I am not alone.

Here's another rub: I like it for reasons different from most people here.

I also like it.

[1453 R]

Mystere, on 21 April 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

Here's the rub: I like ECM as is. And I am not alone.

Here's another rub: I like it for reasons different from most people here.

Christof Romulus, on 21 April 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

Soooo... the way ECM works now?

cSand, on 21 April 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

I also like it.

So all of you are just fine with having no Information Warfare whatsoever in this game? With LRMs being feast-or-famine nonsense weapons only useful in the noobiest of noob brackets instead of proper armaments, and with ECM being an absolutely mandatory choice on anything and everything that can carry it?

You're totally fine with the lack of Role Warfare brought about by the utter vacuum where IW should be? You're fine with a bandage network of flat screw-you 'counters' with no counterplay or back-and-forth? You're fine with the vast majority of the chassis in the game being locked out of what pitiful shreds of IW the game has completely due to a lack of ECM hardpoints?

If you're fine with all that, then I would cheerfully append the descriptor "totally friggin' bugnuts bonkers" to each and every one of you because IW in this game as it stands is completely unacceptable.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

1453 R, on 21 April 2015 - 01:47 PM, said:

... IW in this game as it stands is completely unacceptable nonextant.

Altered to fit my perceptions.

[1453 R]

Pretty much the same thing in my book, Crobat. Heh, the total lack of IW is completely unacceptable.

Unless you're totes fine with ECM being a binary choice with binary effects on binary systems like the rest of these yayhoos, I suppose.

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 21 April 2015 - 01:47 PM, said:

So all of you are just fine with having no Information Warfare whatsoever in this game? With LRMs being feast-or-famine nonsense weapons only useful in the noobiest of noob brackets instead of proper armaments, and with ECM being an absolutely mandatory choice on anything and everything that can carry it?

You're totally fine with the lack of Role Warfare brought about by the utter vacuum where IW should be? You're fine with a bandage network of flat screw-you 'counters' with no counterplay or back-and-forth? You're fine with the vast majority of the chassis in the game being locked out of what pitiful shreds of IW the game has completely due to a lack of ECM hardpoints?

If you're fine with all that, then I would cheerfully append the descriptor "totally friggin' bugnuts bonkers" to each and every one of you because IW in this game as it stands is completely unacceptable.

1453 R, on 21 April 2015 - 01:51 PM, said:

Pretty much the same thing in my book, Crobat. Heh, the total lack of IW is completely unacceptable.

Unless you're totes fine with ECM being a binary choice with binary effects on binary systems like the rest of these yayhoos, I suppose.

More hyperbole. As such, I think I'll create a proper response only if and when I feel like it. But in the mean time, I'll just leave you with something to think about:

hardwired vs. soft-wired

Edited by Mystere, 21 April 2015 - 02:01 PM.

[cSand]

How much running around and info gathering are you going to do in a 15 minute match with some mystical information warfare role?

People wanna blow eachother up.

There will be scouting modes etc coming to CW and there's your information warfare, on a bigger scale. (We hope, anyways, that they do something cool with it for you CW-goers and loreheads, heh)


But really. PUG and group queue - it's a mech arena right now, and the only useful information is where are mechs coming from, and what kind of mechs are there, is there a UAV above me, and does that guy have an ECM


You might have a point if the maps were 50x as big, with 48+ players / side and persistence, but in the group pug queue ECM is just fine. (IMO of course).

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

What happened to that player council idea anyways?

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Just to clarify- I'm not in total agreement with Laser. But I do think IW is pretty much nonextant. Even in CW matches on very large maps. I also happen to think that this is wrong.

I do agree that ECM is a major contributor, but personally I happen to see ECM as being as much a symptom as a culprit.

http://mwomercs.com/...38#entry3302838

Pretty much is what I thought before, and is roughly still the same. Maybe some details are different, particularly with Clan LRMs on the field, but it's mostly the same.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 21 April 2015 - 02:29 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

ecm is fine as it is

lrm boats should suffer anyway

[1453 R]

Mystere, on 21 April 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

More hyperbole. As such, I think I'll create a proper response only if and when I feel like it. But in the mean time, I'll just leave you with something to think about:

hardwired vs. soft-wired

Let me break this down, then:

-Your 'Mech is 100% opted out of IW unless it has an active ECM unit, in which case it is making use of 100% of the game's IW capabilities. Binary, yes/no, on/off.

-A Beagle Active Probe within range of an ECM unit will 100% defeat that ECM unit, negating the entirety of its effects with zero loss of functionality to the rest of what the Beagle does. Binary. Yes/no. On/off.

-Two ECM units within the range of a Beagle will overwhelm that Beagle. One ECM unit is 100% canceled out, losing all effectiveness. The second ECM unit is 100% unaffected and retains the entirety of its functionality. Binary. Yes/no. On/off.

-A TAG unit held on an ECM system will 100% disable that ECM system for as long as the TAG is active. Binary. Yes/no. On/off.

On and on and on. An endless list of 100% hard counters with no real counterplay. And the entirety of IW becomes "Do you have ECM? [Y/N]", followed by 'List of thngs which 100% disable ECM'

There needs - needs needs needs needs - to be more depth, complexity, and play in the system. Whether you want all manner of posturing or whatever or not is honestly kind of irrelevant.

You know what would be amazing? A new type of EW unit which throws those phantom contacts that were bug-patched out of existence a few patches ago. No ECM cloaking effect (despite this being a canonical effect of G-ECM), but one could replace their cloaking with the ability to generate an extra couple of red triangles around themselves. Enemies have to deal with cutting through the sensor ghosts to find the real targets, which would be of much greater use in a brawl.

Even something like that, something so simple as a different choice of ECM system, would be a huge boon to IW as it stands. The reduction of the endless list of 100% counters also needs to go. C'mon, guys - we all know there is no IW in the game right now. None. Nada. Nill. That's honestly cool with you?

Edited by 1453 R, 21 April 2015 - 02:20 PM.

[Mystere]

bad arcade kitty, on 21 April 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

lrm boats should suffer anyway

I wouldn't go that far. But then again I don't think I suffer from LRM-induced trauma.

Edited by Mystere, 21 April 2015 - 02:27 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Primary alterations I would make to referenced post:


Sensors

1: Reduce the information normally available to a pilot through sensor use. Scrap this. Directly scouting should be rewarded with in-depth info.

2: Reduce the value of piggybacked target locks. Let us see the name, the ‘mech chassis (but not precise serial number), and lock for LRM fire, but that’s it. In fact, given that Artemis already doesn’t do anything to a target a pilot doesn’t have direct line of sight on, it shouldn’t be hard to extend that limitation to things like sensor modules and so on. This would make scouting more of a skill, and require more attention to communication from players- always a good thing in a team-oriented game like this. Plus it allows even more add-ons for scouting, like additional skills and modules.

ECM

3: ECM should mostly just do what a two-slot, one-and-a-half-tonne item should do: mung with other advanced electronics equipment. If you’re really in love with degrading weapons lock-on times, then fine, but having ECM completely break sensors is out of line. Instead, have it disable Artemis as though Line Of Sight were broken, and turn off NARC beacons under its ‘umbrella’. This also results in a slight improvement in value to the Anti-Missile System, but I’ll get to that later. Beyond that, just make ECM jam or otherwise mess with other advanced sensor stuff, like the Target Lock Retention or Target Info Gathering modules.

4: Let ECM prevent target lock piggybacking- that is, a 'mech under an ECM bubble can still be target locked, but nobody can gain an indirect lock through an ECM umbrella. This would provide the same protection against indirect LRMs without making LRMs useless, and would to some degree mimic the Beagle-proofing that was part of the original intent of ECM to begin with.

NARC

5: This actually then doesn’t need much of a change. The way it is currently comes out essentially untouched at the end of the sensor tweak mess, and with more people actually able to use LRMs on a regular basis (rather than being a diceroll as to whether or not they’ll be useful) it comes out as a valuable piece of equipment. Amend this: NARC shouldn't allow weapons locks without line of sight from at least a friendly if not the locking unit.

Target Acquisition Gear

6: No longer needs to cut through ECM. Still improves weapons lock time, though. Might want to look into a way to keep it from occupying an energy slot? Doesn’t seem too bad a deal regardless, though. Should still function through ECM. Also throw out the stupid thing where using your laser pointer while in an ECM bubble somehow prevents the little red light from being the right shade of red for missiles to follow it. This makes no sense currently.

Beagle Active Probe

7: This can now do what it’s supposed to- detect shutdown ‘mechs. Improving sensor range seems neat too, and doesn’t feel like something completely egregious on a piece of equipment that size. Maybe Absolutely drop the missile lockon time thing if you also remove the opposite lockon time thing from ECM and if not, just make it counter that effect of ECM instead.

LRMs

8: Reduce LRM value for targets that aren’t being directly viewed. You already have code in there somewhere that prevents Artemis from taking effect when the launcher doesn’t actually have LOS, this can’t be that hard to pull off. If you want it to come off really smooth, here’s what you do: Have LRMs travel slower and in higher arcs than they currently do or at least comparable or equal to current when firing indirectly, and have them travel faster and more straight-line than they currently do when firing on a target with line of sight. This would make LRMs more valuable direct fire weapons while preventing some of the ridiculous trick shots pulled off by breaking and reacquiring lock, and would make Target Lock Retention modules less deadly while still keeping them valuable and relevant.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 21 April 2015 - 02:29 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

ecm should completely deny sensors, it's its core value

wtf is this 'to break artemis', it's simply laughable, who needs a piece of crap like that

right now ecm:

a ) allows you to cover yourself and your teammates
b ) enforces enemies to scout to find ecm-covered mechs

i.e. it greatly positively adds to the gameplay. those who whine about ecm simply want that no scouting and no supporting existed and they saw everything on their radars (and shoot it with their lurms). so much fun, such complex gameplay

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 21 April 2015 - 02:36 PM.

[Mystere]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 21 April 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

Primary alterations I would make to referenced post:

Sensors
1: ...
2: ...

ECM
3: ...
4: ...

NARC
5: ...

Target Acquisition Gear
6: ...

Beagle Active Probe
7: ...

LRMs
8: ...

What do you think about doing everything above, but without touching ECM (i.e. not doing #3 and #4)?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

bad arcade kitty, on 21 April 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

ecm should completely deny sensors, it's its core value

wtf is this 'to break artemis', it's simply laughable, who needs a piece of crap like that

http://www.sarna.net...rdian_ECM_Suite

It shouldnt even break missile lock, thats Angel

[bad arcade kitty]

if you want it strictly by lore
do you want that clan ecm be superior to is ones not only by weight?

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Mystere, on 21 April 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

What do you think about doing everything above, but without touching ECM (i.e. not doing #3 and #4)?

Without touching ECM at all? No, not really.

I could see using other factors to limit the power of the 1500-kilo godbox, though. Maybe make it generate a little heat or cause minor sensor interference on teammates when in Disrupt mode. If it's ever to stop being a hardpoint item, though, nerfs along the lines I described are kind of mandatory- but then, it doesn't absolutely have to stop being a hardpoint item.

[Pjwned]

A player council was a horrible idea anyways, so I don't care if it blew up in peoples' faces, although that did mean PGI not accomplishing anything so that was rather lame.

As far as fixing ECM, make it affect only the mech equipped with it. Additionally, do not make it a hard counter to LRMs & SSRMs, a simple lock time increase like how it functions when you're not being jammed (except remove the current stacking effect too) would be more than fair.

There, you now have a useful piece of equipment at 1.5 (1 for clans) tons & 2 (1 for clans) slots while being actually reasonable. Prove me wrong.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

bad arcade kitty, on 21 April 2015 - 02:41 PM, said:

if you want it strictly by lore
do you want that clan ecm be superior to is ones not only by weight?

By lore, clan ECM and probe are only superior to IS ones by tonnage and CHS, anyways, so I fail to see your argument.