945 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

See, loud and incessant whining does eventually work.

Now, if only Paul would give further details on exactly what those "changes in role and information warfare" are. Otherwise, it's all smoke and mirrors to me.

Finally, for those still complaining that ECM is not TT, what else is new?

Edited by Mystere, 15 July 2015 - 07:55 PM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

El Bandito, on 15 July 2015 - 07:45 PM, said:

That can be easily remedied by an entire team bringing AMS. At least that sounds more realistic than an entire team of LRM boats.

Those who scoff at AMS have lost their rights to whine about LRMs.

But you must understand I cannot control my team, I cannot tell them what to bring. My survival should not rely solely on the loadouts of my team.

Currently in game, if i need to escape danger, I can lead my opponents to the bulk of my team; when i do that, even the dumbest players will turn and shoot at an enemy, thereby taking the aggro off me. I can rely on them to shoot, all players will do that. I can't rely on them to bring AMS, only smart players will do that.

[El Bandito]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 07:51 PM, said:

But you must understand I cannot control my team, I cannot tell them what to bring. My survival should not rely solely on the loadouts of my team.

Currently in game, if i need to escape danger, I can lead my opponents to the bulk of my team; when i do that, even the dumbest players will turn and shoot at an enemy, thereby taking the aggro off me. I can rely on them to shoot, all players will do that. I can't rely on them to bring AMS, only smart players will do that.

Be the change you want in the world--Gandhi.

Ask yourself: Are you a smart player?


I know this guy Bilbo, who rides a D-DC. Even though his Atlas already have ECM, he still carries an AMS with it. Cause he is smart enough to realize that ECM by itself does not protect his team at all times. And I respect him for that.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 July 2015 - 08:17 PM.

[Erik Ouzbel]

After playing for a bit, here's what I see:
ECMs are a hard counter to spotting for LRM indirect fire. How it works right now, coverage should not overlap if you're trying to counter it with a BAP.

Reducing the range of the ECM by half is a large nerf to start out with, start out by reducing to 75% of the current range.
BAPs do not need a nerf. Keep them how they are.
Let units who spot the enemy visually mark on the command map where they think the LRMs should land. This could also expand to artillery and air strikes as well, provided you have line of sight to where you are targeting with them.
Let streaks operate as standard SRMs while under ECM coverage.
TAG should be a hard counter to ECM, to only your missiles while within ECM range, and to all missiles/artillery/air strikes out of ECM coverage.
If you want to go with lore, seismic sensors should be on most 'mechs. For those who have or want to purchase the module, just double the range with it.

[Flutterguy]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 07:51 PM, said:

But you must understand I cannot control my team, I cannot tell them what to bring. My survival should not rely solely on the loadouts of my team.

Currently in game, if i need to escape danger, I can lead my opponents to the bulk of my team; when i do that, even the dumbest players will turn and shoot at an enemy, thereby taking the aggro off me. I can rely on them to shoot, all players will do that. I can't rely on them to bring AMS, only smart players will do that.

You can't balance the game around bad players and it would be a disaster to try.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Flutterguy, on 15 July 2015 - 07:55 PM, said:

You can't balance the game around bad players and it would be a disaster to try.

You can't balance a team based game around assuming players will be smart, it makes PUGing hell and loses you players and thus revenue quickly.

This 'you can't balance around bad players' thing is a false dilemma, you have to balance things somewhere in the middle ground, not just around bad players and not just around smart players.

[Tesunie]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 07:46 PM, said:

I get what you are saying, but suppose my team doesn't bring enough AMS, and I get targeted as the first man up to be bombarded by the entire enemy teams LRMs. There's nothing i can do but desperately scream and look for tall cover while simultaneously trying to find the guy who's spotting me. An entire teams worth of LRMs will make short work of me, and I didn't really have a chance to react intelligently or have any fun.

The potential for this to happen more than once in a blue moon is what worries me about removing ECMs stealth capabilities. i understand that you don't boat LRMs, but I hope you can understand where I'm coming from too. I like having a fighting chance when the whole enemy team decides they want me dead.

You see, I disagree with that. It can happen sometimes, sure. But typically, you should be able to break lock from the spotter, and get into cover.

Also, "if my team doesn't bring any AMS" is no different than from the current "if no one on my team brings ECM". It's also like saying "if I run around behind the enemy team alone, and they all turn and focus me to death, we should prevent that". It's a teamwork game. AMS is a teamwork protection piece of gear. Currently, it's not taken in favor of ECM. Why take AMS which is a soft counter to LRMs, when you can just take ECM for about the same cost, and be a hard counter?

Still, until LRMs are seen as often as all other weapons, I feel they need help. Adjusting the counters to LRMs is a start. I'm not opposed to other mechanics, but LRMs do need to keep their indirect fire capabilities. They add tactical considerations into the game play. (And reminder, they are the slowest movement weapon in the game.)

The problem with LRMs (and most people's mentality, and with most other weapons in the game) is the concept that boating them makes them better. Though, this is true to an extent, every weapon system should also be balanced in a manner where even if they aren't boated, they should remain affective. Right now, LRMs are a "boat or go home" weapon (even if I don't play them that way) due to all the counters to them, if they are even taken at all.

I think I'm rambling here, and probably not making as much sense as I'd like to anymore... However, suffice to say, I see your point. I agree with some of what you've been saying. However, LRMs do need their indirect capabilities. I view LRMs as a utility weapon. Not always "effective" for every role, but good for many things.

(One proposal for indirectly fired LRMs would be an increase to their spread. I could get behind that far sooner than no lock unless it's direct or done with X gear.)

[DHeth]

+1

_______________________________________________________

Never understood the whole passive "Umbrella of protection" bubble thing for ECM. It should be an active system used to attack & shutdown the advanced systems (which we don't have enough) of enemy mechs.

Edited by DHeth, 15 July 2015 - 08:11 PM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

El Bandito, on 15 July 2015 - 07:54 PM, said:

Be the change you want in the world--Gandhi.

Ask yourself: Are you a smart player?


I know this guy Bilbo, who rides a D-DC. Even though his Atlas already have ECM, he still carries and AMS with it. Cause he is smart enough to realize that ECM by itself does not protect his team at all times. And I respect him for that.

Yahtzee Croshaw once said (im paraphrasing), 'life is a cruel and unituitive place, I have no idea why game devs would ever want to mimic it.'

Life isn't fair, if that upsets people they have to live with it anyway.

Games should be as fair as the devs can manage, if they aren't people don't have to live with it and will quit, losing the company money.

Now to answer your question YES I run AMS on all of my main mechs that don't have ECM, but that isn't going to make other people bring AMS. If PGIs response to this issue is to let me die continuously because of my teams idiocy, that isn't fair and I'm not going to want to play anymore.

[Cyborne Elemental]

You should just separate the ECM into two Paul.

Offer it as two completely seperate pieces of equipment, one offers teamwork value at cost of extra tonnage, the other is lighter for Scout and personal ECM cover only.

Angel-ECM wasn't very well defined in the SARNA database anyway.

Here is what I would do.

Guardian ECM suite
IS 1.5 ton / CLAN 1 ton
PERSONAL STEALTH ONLY 20 meter sphere (should cover all mechs physical dimensions)
Anti-Radar/ANTI-ECM Jam radius 150 meters
Radar visibility between 1 up to 350 meters, 351 meters and beyond requires TAG/NARC/PPC
15% slowdown to LRM/SSRM lockon times while ECM is functional.
20% slowdown to Target info gathering
(Missle lock speed down from 50%, Infogather down from 25%)


ANGEL ECM suite
IS 3.0 ton / CLAN 2.5 ton
ECM Coverage bubble 150 meters
ANTI-Radar/ANTI-ECM jam radius 150 meters
Radar visibility between 1 up to 375 meters, 376 meters and beyond require TAG/NARC/PPC
30% slowdown to LRM/SSRM lockon times while ECM is ON for Equipped mech only.
15% slowdown to LRM/SSRM lockon to any teamate under the ECM Radius.
30% slowdown to Target info gathering
(Missle lock speed down from 50%, Infogather up from 25%)

Edited by Mister D, 17 July 2015 - 05:15 PM.

[Tesunie]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

Now to answer your question YES I run AMS on all of my main mechs that don't have ECM, but that isn't going to make other people bring AMS. If PGIs response to this issue is to let me die continuously because of my teams idiocy, that isn't fair and I'm not going to want to play anymore.

But do you bring AMS with your ECM mechs? I'm going to take it as no. For the same reasons I've stated, why when ECM does AMS's job better?

And, not to quote other people here but it is true, if you want a team that can be set up to work together, join a unit/team and set up in such a manner. Pugs will be pugs. They will be a mixed basket of players. It's a team based game so, you do have to depend upon your team and your teammates to pull their weight.

Besides that, don't know what to say. I believe I've already said how it's no different than if your team does or does not have any ECM and if your opponents do or not. Same issue, different name.

[Cementi]

This was the suggestion that I made in one of my own threads. That was ages ago and instead of putting a link to that post I decided to repost it. In addition to what I have posted here I would also like to see a signature radius system put in where the bigger the mech the further away it can be detected. Would allow lights that didnt have ecm to possibly scout as their smaller signatures would be harder to pick up on.

I realize there has been a ton of debate on every single angle to do with the state of ECM however I had some thoughts on the topic and wanted to share.

IS Sensors to obtain lock. I know that currently they are set to about 800 meters I am proposing a slight buff to that along with all the other changes.
Sensors 1000
w CC 1060
w BAP 1250
w Advanced sensors 1250
w Advanced sensors and BAP 1500
w all three 1560

Change BAP so that it no longer disables ECM and change ECM so that it can no longer toggle or stack but would still be an umbrella.
Instead make ECM a direct reduction in sensor strength by 85 %so that the above values become:
Sensors vs ECM 150
w CC vs ECM 159
w BAP vs ECM 187.5
w Advanced sensors vs ECM 187.5
w Advanced sensors and BAP 225
w all three vs ECM 234

Now for tag and narc. Again do not have them completely cancel ECM but reduce it's strength by 45% for narc and 40% for tag so that the combination totally cancles ECM but ONLY on the target. The interference is still there, but now there is something there to help cut through the interference. The ranges would be come as follows tag/narc:
Sensors 600/550
w CC 636/583
w BAP 750/687.5
w Advanced sensors 750/687.5
w Advanced sensors and BAP 900/825
w all three 936/858

UAV's could continue to work as they do now.
These changes would certainly change alot of how the game plays but I think they solve alot of the issues surrounding the ECM debate.

#1 ECM is the Jesus Box. If you look at a chassis right now if any of them have the capability to run ECM that is the one you run. To my knowelage there is no exception to that rule. By removing the ability to stack ECM it is no long beneficial to have every other mech on the team have ECM. Still wise to have a few but IMO more than 3 would become redundant. This would free up alot of variants and even other chassis IMO.

#2 Hard Counters......no one likes these. There will always be someone frustrated over something that instantly negates all effectiveness of a piece of equipment. By layering the counters so that to fully negate ECM you have to run ALOT of equipment. However if you spread the responsibility around you can stack all of that amongst your team....promoting teamwork. Even with that a team would have to work well together to completely negate ECM and then it would only be on that target instead of exposing the entire team. More often than not you would be dealing with limiting the effectiveness of ECM instead of canceling it.

#3 Boating Missles. A few points here to the good and bad. First off Missle Boats will have to have a decent amount of support to be effective but even if you did not run all the counters could still bring weapon systems to bear with some of them instead of being completely negated. On the flip side unless all the counters are used LRM boats will have a tough time bringing their weapons to bear with the reduced ranges. At these ranges indirect fire will be come less attractive and they will have to expose themselves to get a shot.

#4 SSRM. Currently to use this weapon system you HAVE to run BAP. Even then you can get hard countered by stacking ECM. With this setup you could still use streaks at really close range but if you wanted the full range you would have to use BAP.
Anyway let me know what you guys think. I expect a fair amount of hate over this but would like to see some constructive suggestions.

[Dracol]

Pjwned, on 15 July 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

It is a crutch because a 1.5 (1) ton piece of equipment hard countering an entire weapon system (a weapon that is far more heavy than ECM as well) is completely ridiculous

It takes a 1.5 ton piece of equipment to negate a mech equipped with LRMs. That 1.5 ton investment can be countered by a 1 ton investment in TAG by the LRM equipped mech.

So, if there was no counter available I would agree with you. But there is, and overall, it costs the ECM mech .5 tons more in reduced weapons, engine size, armor, etc. than the LRM equipped mech.

One other consideration not directly related to the above quote. ECM does force a mech equipped with LRMs to act as a Direct Fire platform, which seems to be what a lot of people are looking for but without the associated counter cost in TAG in the LRM mech. I agree with the ECM / TAG counter costs and the fact the .5 ton additional investment in ECM negates the indirect fire mechanic.

Edited by Dracol, 15 July 2015 - 08:36 PM.

[Frischi]

Finaly and thanks!!!

That was nessesary an schould be done a long time ago.

[Tesunie]

Cementi, on 15 July 2015 - 08:28 PM, said:

Change BAP so that it no longer disables ECM and change ECM so that it can no longer toggle or stack but would still be an umbrella.
Instead make ECM a direct reduction in sensor strength by 85 %so that the above values become:
Sensors vs ECM 150
w CC vs ECM 159
w BAP vs ECM 187.5
w Advanced sensors vs ECM 187.5
w Advanced sensors and BAP 225
w all three vs ECM 234

Interesting idea, but having all the sensor buffs still only grant lock on ranges of 234 is a tight squeeze. 180m is the LRM minimum range. A light mech (those that typically have ECM) can easily dash within that range before a missile lock could be acquired.

As I said, interesting. However, I don't think it would work, and may be a bit too complicated to be overly practical. Sometimes, simplistic is better than complicated. Just my opinion, as you asked.

[Bloodweaver]

bad arcade kitty, on 15 July 2015 - 03:42 PM, said:

to clarify why changing bap range will hurt streaks

ecm has 2 different zones, 180 (will change to 90) meters zone inside which ecm jams sensors/prevents locks and 200 meters zone outside which ecm prevents locks and radar marks; in the band between 180(90) and 200 you can lock the ecm hidden mech but twice as slowly (or to give the target info to another teammate to lock, twice as slowly again); bap increases 200 to 250 though

now, bap has 240 meters range (streaks have 360 so ecm mech already has an advantage), it's a nice distance to use streaks, but if they blindly decrease bap range it will slow down the locks by two in the band between 250 and the new bap range

they cannot really increase the 200 meters no lock zone either, because it's a separate nerf to ecm and mostly to its solo usage

i dunno, imo they either shouldn't even touch bap at all or should make that it allows normal locks at at least 240 meters range even if it completely negates ecm at a shorter range

upd

a bit fixed, added that bap buffs the sensors too and afaik extends that 200 meter zone by 25%

There's a much simpler solution to the problems you mention.

Make ECM 'Mechs preclude target sharing.

In other words: YOU can still target, and lock on to, any ECM 'Mech you see.

But your teammates won't receive any target info from you. They won't even see that a target is present.

Ta-da! ECM is still stealthy, and you can still use LRMs and Streaks against it.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Tesunie, on 15 July 2015 - 08:15 PM, said:

But do you bring AMS with your ECM mechs? I'm going to take it as no. For the same reasons I've stated, why when ECM does AMS's job better?

And, not to quote other people here but it is true, if you want a team that can be set up to work together, join a unit/team and set up in such a manner. Pugs will be pugs. They will be a mixed basket of players. It's a team based game so, you do have to depend upon your team and your teammates to pull their weight.

Besides that, don't know what to say. I believe I've already said how it's no different than if your team does or does not have any ECM and if your opponents do or not. Same issue, different name.

I don't bring AMS on my ECM mechs because ECM needs a rollback to only preventing indirect locks, I'm a pragmatist, I don't bring redundant equipment.

It is not same issue different name. If my team doesn't bring ECM and we get bombarded to hell, it's my fault for not bringing ECM, as I could have prevented the stomping. If ECM gets nerfed in the way that you wish, my bringing AMS isn't going to mean jack if my teammates don't do it too.

I am in a unit but I like to Pug it too. Of course your team has to pull its weight but you aren't listening to me. As I said above you cannot balance a game only for dumb players or only for smart players, you have to work in the middle ground. Your suggestion is to only balance for smart players and im telling you it will hurt this game and PGIs bank account.

As I've also said above, I can count on PUGs to try to shoot enemies and take the aggro off of me in direct firefights, even the dum dums will do that. What I cannot count on, or control is what the PUGs actually bring to the match. If they don't bring AMS there's not a damn thing I can do but die buried beneath the LRMs that will become the new meta. Your position seems to be "oh well, the PUG queue is going to suck, but that's inconsequential, just need to make the game more fun for organized premades, that's all that really matters."

Once again, I can take leadership over a PUG team with VOIP, it's kinda fun, but I cannot reverse what they decided to bring to the match.

Lastly I sympathise with the idea of wanting to keep the LRMs tactically relevant, but allowing ECM mechs to personally shield themselves from indirect locks will not even come close to taking away the tactical significance of LRMs. I highly doubt every single player is going to bring ECM to a match, and provided they don't the LRM indirect fire can still function effectively. Even IF every single player brought ECM once in a blue moon, with ECM in the state I'm suggesting LRMs would still be able to fall back on direct locks and have a good fighting chance.

[Void Angel]

GoodTry, on 15 July 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

The size of the ECM bubble makes just makes no difference to the BAP user. The 180 meter BAP range should not measured against the ECM bubble, it should be measured against the actual range of ECM target blocking, which is infinite. A 90-meter counter for ECM is far less useful than a 180 meter counter. It really has nothing to do with the ECM bubble.

Except for all the times when the bubble interacts with teammates, which is where ECM really shines. Hence my example. Now, you bring up a good point 1v1 - except that you haven't really thought it through. You've completely forgotten the current targeting bubble for ECM; unless they change that too, which has not been mentioned, you'll still get locks at under 200-ish meters, depending on your build. Against an enemy team, you are not going to have to sneak up on a full-team "death ball" to counter one ECM system, because they will simply not all fit comfortably within that 90m radius - if you see them try, scan a laser across their backsides and drop an artillery strike. Mocking laughter is optional. So, you might have to get closer to the ECM carrier's escorts, but the ECM carrier also has to stay closer to you in order to be safe from counter-jamming. Thus, increased risk to using a Beagle comes along with increased risk to the ECM carrier - and again, if the systems are balanced against each other, some kind of nerf to the Beagle needs to happen too.

Now remember, nobody said, "we're going to reduce the Beagle's counter-ECM range to 100m." They said they were going to tune it to closely match the new range - precise numbers to be determined. So mindless pushback at having the hard-counter nerfed to match its target system is not only unwarranted, it's also premature.

Note also that your 1v1 example was a fracking Streakcrow; I had to stop using my Pirates' Bane in CW because of those things, and if they actually have to start working to kill lights, that's all to the good.

[Blue Shadow]

I like the change it's a good start, for future adjustments if the stealth bubble is reduced more or removed altogether you would have to limit LRM indirect fire to mechs TAGed or NARCed by friendlies.

If you wont to buff the information role warfare increasing the time it takes for mechs to gather info might be necessary, but give big perks to light mechs (and some scout focused mediums too maybe) to gather enemy mech info faster and/or built in buff to radar range.

But I'd like to add my voice to at lest keeping the ECM equipped mech with stealth so that sniping remains a viable and fun role.

[El Bandito]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

Yahtzee Croshaw once said (im paraphrasing), 'life is a cruel and unituitive place, I have no idea why game devs would ever want to mimic it.'

Life isn't fair, if that upsets people they have to live with it anyway.

Games should be as fair as the devs can manage, if they aren't people don't have to live with it and will quit, losing the company money.

Now to answer your question YES I run AMS on all of my main mechs that don't have ECM, but that isn't going to make other people bring AMS. If PGIs response to this issue is to let me die continuously because of my teams idiocy, that isn't fair and I'm not going to want to play anymore.

MWO is pretty fair. Otherwise you would see canon value Clan mechs obliterating everything in their way. If you keep blaming your team for causing you defeats then go play group queue where communications are far better. Leave solo-q pug matches to those who are suited for it.

LoL with 5 player per team alone is annoying enough, just what did you expect from a 12 man per team game?

Edited by El Bandito, 15 July 2015 - 08:55 PM.