97 replies to this topic

[Rasc4l]

Bush Hopper, on 12 July 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:

simple (see below) and don't start a flame war. 1. Like/Dislike 2. Reason(s): 3. How would you change it if you could

1. Dislike very much.
2. It's OP for reasons that should be clear to everyone (It's more like Angel ECM, not ECM).
3. I have proposed a solution earlier that would make Information Warfare really feel like Information Warfare. This would include fixes to ECM and passive and active radar modes. See link.

[Shae Starfyre]

Indifferent

Has no impact on my aim or situational awareness

Doesn't matter what solutions are or are not implemented, as it has been scientifically documented that it take around 66 days to form a habit which means that if it is changed, it will take me at the most 66 days to get use to it.

Historically speaking, it is a miracle that video games were not created during the dawn of man, for the impact of ECM on the typical gamer in this community would have prevented the continued evolution of mankind.

Edited by Aphoticus, 13 July 2015 - 04:33 AM.

[Lugh]

Mcchuggernaut, on 12 July 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

Well, personally I don't think it's that bad simply because of TAG. TAG is so light I end up mounting it on any extra energy hardpoints I have, and most mechs, especially Clan mechs, have abundant extra energy hardpoints. Point a TAG laser at an ECM user, and suddenly that god-system is just extra tonnage. Another thing about ECM is that you can counter other ECM users with it by switching modes. The more people that have it on both teams, the more people can cancel each other out. You also have BAP if someone gets close and you don't have TAG or ECM. I really think ECM is about where it needs to be, and that LRMs need just a little buff.

edit: If anything does need tweaked with ECM, I would say decreasing the size of or removing the ECM "bubble" of protection that a single mech can give to others.

From what I've seen of teams using LRMs well on teams without ECM. LRMs do not need a buff.

[Pjwned]

Fenrisulvyn, on 12 July 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

What I find interesting is that we are allowed to say "magic jesus box" here without being censored. Because if I made up a similar term that mocked the "protected" classes, I would catch all kind of hell. Double standard.


[and no Moderator, I put it back in. Nothing I said was uncivil or against the TOS, if you want to make it an issue, I can do a separate thread every day on it. What you *should* be doing is asking people to call it ECM instead of a term that mocks religion. Because I'm pretty sure that kind of bigotry is against the TOS]

So it's not actually about you being able to make up some other slightly derogatory name, you're just whining about the term that was chosen because hurt buttocks.

Go blog about it on tumblr instead of here.

[Mystere]

mailin, on 13 July 2015 - 02:37 AM, said:

One issue that I find is that people still haven't figured out the order of priority for targets. All too often someone will launch a UAV and the lurms will start raining on the first target locked. Dudes, if there's an ECM lit up by a UAV target him!

Similarly, people will worry about a centurion rather than the DDC brawler that's right behind him. Prioritize and focus fire.

Again I say that ECM is fine. Also, BAP wasn't buffed to 360m, that was its original range when implemented by PGI. Later it was reduced to the current state.

As far as BAP being able to counter multiple ECMs, I disagree. Very rarely will there be enough ECM mechs to negate all the enemy BAPs. Remember, ANY mech can mount a BAP, but only very few can use ECM. And I still see many, many Kit Foxes without ECM. If it were truly OP as many claim, why wouldn't you use this in every mech that can take it? I've even seen a few DDC drivers who didn't use it to be able to get something else in.

This is why all of these ECM whine threads make me shake my head. Many of these "Magic Jesus Box" "balance" "concerns" seem to be just cover for people's inability or extremely stubborn refusal to consider ECM in their load outs ("But I want more ammo!", "But I want more weapons!") or tactics ("I don't want to use my eyes! I want to see that red Dorito to identify my target!").

ECM in MWO is not the ECM of TT. It was never intended to be so by PGI. It was meant to be a highly disruptive piece of equipment. It's called creative license. Get over it.

[RockmachinE]

I like it the way it is.

Reson its simple and works.

[Pjwned]

Lugh, on 13 July 2015 - 04:45 AM, said:

From what I've seen of teams using LRMs well on teams without ECM. LRMs do not need a buff.

I think it's safe to bet that those teams without ECM didn't have AMS either.

Mystere, on 13 July 2015 - 08:04 AM, said:

This is why all of these ECM whine threads make me shake my head. Many of these "Magic Jesus Box" "balance" "concerns" seem to be just cover for people's inability or extremely stubborn refusal to consider ECM in their load outs ("But I want more ammo!", "But I want more weapons!") or tactics ("I don't want to use my eyes! I want to see that red Dorito to identify my target!").

ECM in MWO is not the ECM of TT. It was never intended to be so by PGI. It was meant to be a highly disruptive piece of equipment. It's called creative license. Get over it.

It's because in addition to being a magic jesus box stealth bubble for potentially the entire team, it shuts down 2 whole weapon systems which easily weigh 2-10x as much as ECM and take up much more space as well.

What tactics do you need to use when your team has ECM? You group up into a giant ball on 1 person and then you move as a blob to annihilate any enemy who's trying to locate your group but can't until it's too late because LOL MAGIC JESUS BOX STEALTH BUBBLE.

ECM is a crutch because it's absurdly overpowered for its cost and enables the team that has it to abandon tactics in favor of a mindless zerg, so complaining that people want ECM nerfed because they hate tactics is stupid.

Edited by Pjwned, 13 July 2015 - 08:35 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

Mystere, on 13 July 2015 - 08:04 AM, said:

This is why all of these ECM whine threads make me shake my head. Many of these "Magic Jesus Box" "balance" "concerns" seem to be just cover for people's inability or extremely stubborn refusal to consider ECM in their load outs ("But I want more ammo!", "But I want more weapons!") or tactics ("I don't want to use my eyes! I want to see that red Dorito to identify my target!").

ECM in MWO is not the ECM of TT. It was never intended to be so by PGI. It was meant to be a highly disruptive piece of equipment. It's called creative license. Get over it.

Like so often a hypocritical note with hidden ad hominems. I get the feeling you need to compensate something because you obviously like to belittle people.

Ja, sure, "use your eyes". Luckily there are no maps where your vision range is severely limited and ranged mechs with ECM have a huge advanztage. /sarcasm off

[EvilCow]

It is a great piece of equipment, the best ton you can allocate in any mech that can mount it. It is that good that you would never consider NOT mounting it, no drawbacks, no heat, no need to dedicate it attention, it just works. It is also the best countermeasure to itself. Best countermeasure to whole classes of weapons. It gives also a stealth advantage and, best of all, works on you and your teammates.

How could somebody not like it.

I wish also spend few words about how much I like ghost heat and quirks but I would go off topic.

Keep it up PGI.

Edited by EvilCow, 13 July 2015 - 09:04 AM.

[Maxx Blue]

I think that if I pilot a mech that can mount ECM, then I will always find the space to mount it. It is always worth the weight and crits to mount it. The way it works now, I have never found a build where I was better off dropping ECM to fit something else. So, I would say it is probably too powerful for the weight and crit slots it requires.

How would I fix ECM? Not sure really. There have been one thousand and one threads with long, well thought out discussions on what to do with ECM. At this point, you could probably pick any of them and give it a try.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 13 July 2015 - 08:23 AM, said:

It's because in addition to being a magic jesus box stealth bubble for potentially the entire team, it shuts down 2 whole weapon systems which easily weigh 2-10x as much as ECM and take up much more space as well.

What tactics do you need to use when your team has ECM? You group up into a giant ball on 1 person and then you move as a blob to annihilate any enemy who's trying to locate your group but can't until it's too late because LOL MAGIC JESUS BOX STEALTH BUBBLE.

ECM is a crutch because it's absurdly overpowered for its cost and enables the team that has it to abandon tactics in favor of a mindless zerg, so complaining that people want ECM nerfed because they hate tactics is stupid.

The onus of employing counter tactics is primarily on the disadvantaged side of the ECM equation. They need to remove the enemy advantage or render it ineffective.

But, there is also a tactical necessity on the advantaged side. They need to prevent the enemy from removing their advantage while at the same capitalizing on it.

That is exactly the kind of asymmetry I want in a war game. I don't want the picture-perfect 1-on-1 symmetrical balance many people are demanding. For me that makes for an extremely boring game.

Bush Hopper, on 13 July 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:

Like so often a hypocritical note with hidden ad hominems. I get the feeling you need to compensate something because you obviously like to belittle people.

Ja, sure, "use your eyes". Luckily there are no maps where your vision range is severely limited and ranged mechs with ECM have a huge advanztage. /sarcasm off

That thing I wrote above is my motivation for keeping ECM as is. It has been consistently that way since the day ECM was introduced.

As for any ad hominems you may see, it's quite negligible when compared the vast amounts hurled on these very same forums day in day out. And it's especially so precisely because ""But I want more ammo!" and "But I want more weapons!" have indeed been used as excuses on why people refuse to equip counter equipment.

As for your "need to compensate" jibe, all I can say is what I already wrote in another thread:

Mystere, on 08 July 2015 - 09:33 AM, said:

Well, it's not my fault I am actually really special, as opposed to those who only claim they are.

Edited by Mystere, 13 July 2015 - 09:37 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Fenrisulvyn, on 12 July 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

What I find interesting is that we are allowed to say "magic jesus box" here without being censored. Because if I made up a similar term that mocked the "protected" classes, I would catch all kind of hell. Double standard.

[and no Moderator, I put it back in. Nothing I said was uncivil or against the TOS, if you want to make it an issue, I can do a separate thread every day on it. What you *should* be doing is asking people to call it ECM instead of a term that mocks religion. Because I'm pretty sure that kind of bigotry is against the TOS]

I'm not sure what you mean by "protected" classes, but religion is just having a specific set of silly ideas in your head, it doesn't warrant any more protection than any other collection of ideas, such as communism or a preference for smelly cheese.

Things like ethnicity or sexuality are completely different because they are states of being rather than belief, not chosen freely.

I also don't see how the term "magic jesus box" is bigotry, it doesn't actually imply any form of judgement or opinion about anything.

[Mystere]

Sjorpha, on 13 July 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "protected" classes, but religion is just having a specific set of silly ideas in your head, it doesn't warrant any more protection than any other collection of ideas, such as communism or a preference for smelly cheese.

Things like ethnicity or sexuality are completely different because they are states of being rather than belief, not chosen freely.

I also don't see how the term "magic jesus box" is bigotry, it doesn't actually imply any form of judgement or opinion about anything.

Well, believe it or not, there are many who do live by the following words:

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

That I assume is where the offense is coming from.

[Sjorpha]

Mystere, on 13 July 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

Well, believe it or not, there are many who do live by the following words:

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

That I assume is where the offense is coming from.

I don't even have a way of breaking that command, because Jesus isn't my Lord/God.

But yeah, I guess that's right. We can't base rules on what people find offensive to their personal beliefs though, there would be no end to what you couldn't say. There are thousands of sects worldwide with their own ways of getting offended, christianity is just one of them. No special treatment warranted.

[bad arcade kitty]

Fenrisulvyn, on 12 July 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

Yes, it needs to be nerfed.

What I find interesting is that we are allowed to say "magic jesus box" here without being censored. Because if I made up a similar term that mocked the "protected" classes, I would catch all kind of hell. Double standard.


[and no Moderator, I put it back in. Nothing I said was uncivil or against the TOS, if you want to make it an issue, I can do a separate thread every day on it. What you *should* be doing is asking people to call it ECM instead of a term that mocks religion. Because I'm pretty sure that kind of bigotry is against the TOS]

i think it's better to start a separate thread about it

Mystere, on 13 July 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

Well, believe it or not, there are many who do live by the following words:

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

That I assume is where the offense is coming from.

the offense comes from mocking, not from using the name in vain

[stjobe]

Can you please leave your religion at the door, guys?

Quote

To summarize our Code of Conduct policies on Racial / Ethnic, Sexual Preference, National and Major Religions. We believe that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. MechWarrior Online has a diverse mosaic of players who come from many walks of life, cultures, languages and religions. Regardless of where they came from or who they are: Here they are MechWarriors meriting equal value and respect as any other. Promoting any intolerance based on age, race, ethnicity, citizenship, language, gender, sexual orientation, medical condition, religious beliefs, political alignment, employment or even musical tastes are strictly forbidden. While real-life political discussions are important, we do not believe this is the appropriate environment for such discussions, and political posts are frowned upon.

- http://mwomercs.com/...nduct-expanded/

[Pjwned]

Mystere, on 13 July 2015 - 09:26 AM, said:

The onus of employing counter tactics is primarily on the disadvantaged side of the ECM equation. They need to remove the enemy advantage or render it ineffective.

The issue is entirely with how unbalanced ECM is, not that you may be expected to counter (or otherwise disable) it in some way. As soon as ECM is toned down so that it's not a ridiculous jesus box, or at the very least is split up into the 3-4 pieces of equipment that it mimics and then some, then the issue goes away.

Quote

But, there is also a tactical necessity on the advantaged side. They need to prevent the enemy from removing their advantage while at the same capitalizing on it.

I think what you forgot to add in is they do that while eliminating the need for many other tactics because they just rely on their ECM crutch. Out in the open without any nearby cover where you would normally be blasted to bits by LRMs? Not a problem, don't ever equip AMS because 1 ECM has you covered, and by the time your ECM is disabled you won't need to worry about it; what great balance!

Quote

That is exactly the kind of asymmetry I want in a war game. I don't want the picture-perfect 1-on-1 symmetrical balance many people are demanding. For me that makes for an extremely boring game.

It's not good or valuable in any way to half-ass asymmetrical balance for a game, you either do it completely or you don't do it at all.

Mystere, on 13 July 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

Well, believe it or not, there are many who do live by the following words:

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

That I assume is where the offense is coming from.

It's rather lame to act like the issue is other people getting offended about other theoretical terms when in fact the issue is entirely 1 person getting ass rampaged because their deity is mentioned in vain, and then on top of that decide to derail a thread with their whining nonsense.

[Almond Brown]

Louis Brofist, on 13 July 2015 - 08:21 AM, said:

I like it the way it is.

Reson its simple and works.

And despite the laments of many, it does in fact provide a use for other pieces of gear. I always find that Seismic is a great counter to ECM, even the big boys have to move around from time to time...

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 13 July 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

The issue is entirely with how unbalanced ECM is, not that you may be expected to counter (or otherwise disable) it in some way. As soon as ECM is toned down so that it's not a ridiculous jesus box, or at the very least is split up into the 3-4 pieces of equipment that it mimics and then some, then the issue goes away.

I think what you forgot to add in is they do that while eliminating the need for many other tactics because they just rely on their ECM crutch. Out in the open without any nearby cover where you would normally be blasted to bits by LRMs? Not a problem, don't ever equip AMS because 1 ECM has you covered, and by the time your ECM is disabled you won't need to worry about it; what great balance!

It's not good or valuable in any way to half-ass asymmetrical balance for a game, you either do it completely or you don't do it at all.

Well, much of this game is still half-assed. But, I am still holding out for more such examples of asymmetric balance, not less. And I still want what little asymmetry there is to stay.

Pjwned, on 13 July 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

It's rather lame to act like the issue is other people getting offended about other theoretical terms when in fact the issue is entirely 1 person getting ass rampaged because their deity is mentioned in vain, and then on top of that decide to derail a thread with their whining nonsense.

Hey! Hey! Hey! I was just giving an explanation on why some may be offended. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Mystere]

bad arcade kitty, on 13 July 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

the offense comes from mocking, not from using the name in vain

There is a reason I intentionally did not state any interpretation of those words, mine or anyone else's.

Heck, I was practically raised by Jesuits. So I have my own very special take on religion.