945 replies to this topic

[Rick Rollington]

Personally, I'd prefer it if the ECM Stealth got murdered entirely, and instead give every mech the ability to go Passive. Because right now there is no good reason to NOT take an ECM light instead of any other Scouting light. But if all mechs could go Passive and not get picked up till close range, then suddenly Lights could Scout, Snipers could Snipe, and Lurmers could continue to sit in a corner and cry themselves to sleep.

And with Passive Sensors, ECM could make it harder for you to be detected, while BAP would increase detection range. And we'd get rid of a lot of Hard Counters all at once. There should be definite advantages to using Active Sensors though.

[XX Sulla XX]

While your changing things give us Active/Passive Radar.

[Peiper]

Glad to see Paul is finally listening to us. Or is he? Who knows? Just for nostalgia's sake, here's some stuff for newer players to think about, those of you who are too young or too new to remember what it was like to live on the island.

http://mwomercs.com/...warfare-scouts/

Or, if you want to take a trip on the way back machine, to 2012, here's some thoughts. I've since revised my feelings a bit, but there's lots of suggestions in there for alternative devices that would, like the above thread, create - get this - role warfare. Enjoy!

http://mwomercs.com/...les-considered/

Edited by Peiper, 15 July 2015 - 04:52 PM.

[PraetorGix]

I love ECM but I also love throwing LRM's at the enemy. Which is not much fun lately. So I think this is a good change. 60 meters is a bit too short, but 90 is ok. I would also add, you could think about implementing passive radar mode too (non-compatible with disrupt-mode ECM). That would give the non-ECM mechs a bit more degree in how they choose to hide themselves, instead of simply staying in the magic bubble of an ECM.

[Rick Rollington]

Alistair Winter, on 15 July 2015 - 04:29 PM, said:

Oh, and I almost forgot to say this.

Paul, if you're revamping the whole ECM and BAP functionality...

... please implement Active / Passive radar while you're at it!!

Cannot Like this enough.

[Chameleon257]

I find it funny the same people that spout off about TableTop are some of the same people that complain about LRM spam. I haven't played one Tabletop game that LRMs were not used.

As far as ECM I'd love it if it only made the mech that used it protected. PGI obviously is only loosely modeling this game over the BT universe not the table top.

[LORD ORION]

bad arcade kitty, on 15 July 2015 - 04:33 PM, said:

do you know that ecm prevents locks outside of 200 meters? 250 with bap
the radius of its 180-90 meters umbrella doesn't matter here

Negative, lock range against an ecm mech is 200m, or 250m with advanced sensors. But, as soon as you enter the 180m jammer range you are jammed and can't lock. (unless you have bap and counter the ecm 1 to 1)

That sweet spot is now much larger when you can lock an ecm mech before it can jam you. (200m, or 250m to 90m instead of 200m or 250m to 180m)

Edited by LORD ORION, 15 July 2015 - 04:42 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Void Angel, on 15 July 2015 - 03:29 PM, said:

They've talked about making scouting and such a part of CW via the planned small-teams matches (lance-level, if I recall; this was for once talked about somewhere official a while ago.) I can't recall where they were talking about it, but it should be good.

It was in the most recent few town hall meetings, all of which I've heard.

Quote

However, the combat game is the bread-and-butter of MWO, so if it only makes it to there, I'll be happy. Maybe widely separated Conquest-style capture points where light 'mechs could actually be useful for something other than LRM spotting and gen rushes. I can dream...

I can agree with those sentiments, especially since Light 'Mechs should NEVER have been, and should not be, now, main line combat units. While I will be happy to see these improvements in the combat simulator, I will be even more happy if these changes are felt wider in the future.

Groundpound, on 15 July 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

They do post it here. It was discussed in the townhall. They link the audio on these forums. Please quit making me defend PGI.

I've seen the town halls, and NO WHERE in those town halls was it addressed that changes to various equipment would be coming down the pipe to address the Information Warfare pillar, or the stupid-ass quirks we presently have on the 'Mechs. What Paul wrote in his message about changing out the quirks system makes it sound as if they might actually be working on pilot trees, as well.

Boy, that would be awefully nice.

So, stop defending PGI... the things I was addressing had nothing to do with what's been addressed in the past few town hall meetings, all of which I have listened to, and perhaps participated in. Nor do they appear on these forums, but I can very easily believe they've been discussed on Twitter, and I'm not turning back to Twitter, unless I start up Armageddon Unlimited, again.

[PraetorGix]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 03:11 PM, said:

I am fine with an ECM range decrease, even down to 60meters. What I don't want you guys to get any funny ideas about is getting rid of it's ability to hide my dorito at long range, and interfering with lock on systems.

I use ECM FIRST to protect MYSELF from being highlighted, and missile locked. Sharing it with friends is just a bonus that I use out of curtousy; take that away before you take away my missile defense system.

EXACTLY THIS. I do not use ECM to cover other people's a**es. That's just a bonus for them. Nerf the ECM all you want but the path it followed in its development marks it clearly as a personal stealth device. Get rid of the sharing aspect if you must, but please keep the self-hiding aspect intact.

[Tennex]

XX Sulla XX, on 15 July 2015 - 04:34 PM, said:

While your changing things give us Active/Passive Radar.

Its hard for them to right now. Because their Information Warfare system is tied to Missile targeting. If you turn off your radar, you would turn off 1/3 of the weapon group.

I made some clarifications t to the proposal I made on the first page on how Active/Passive Radar would be possible

http://mwomercs.com/...49#entry4564949

[RedDevil]

As other's have mentioned, the way LRMs work also needs to be overhauled. LRMs should not be behaving like Streaks unless there is some special spotting going on. IE: NARC or TAG.

There's a reason everyone wants ECM, and it's not just because it stops the little red box from appearing.

[bad arcade kitty]

LORD ORION, on 15 July 2015 - 04:36 PM, said:

Negative, lock range against an ecm mech is 200m, or 250m with advanced sensors. But, as soon as you enter the 180m jammer range you are jammed and can't lock.

That sweet spot in now much larger when you can lock an ecm mech before it can jam you.

any streakboat has a bap and bap range is longer than the ecm umbrella

so it's actually that 200 meter ecm zone which matters for streaks, not the 90-180 umbrella radius, it's irrelevant unless you are countered by two ecm mechs at once

that's why bap nerfs can hurt streakboats, because right now bap has 240 meters range and allows normal locks at the comfort zone, if its range decreases, the speed of locks in the band between 250 and the new bap range will be twice as slow

umbrella nerfs won't affect streakboats except for negating them with 2 ecm mechs

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 15 July 2015 - 04:43 PM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Pjwned, on 15 July 2015 - 04:13 PM, said:

I expected the jesus box functionality to be removed, not just DURF SLURP SHORTER RANGE.

This barely does anything to ECM.



If you want a missile defense system then use AMS and stop whining about your crutch potentially being taken away.

It's not a crutch and your inflammatory comments are unappreciated. I'm quite a good pilot actually. What I have a problem with is mechs getting to rain hell on a target THEY CAN'T EVEN SEE. You want to take away the equipment's status as a Jesus Box, that's fine, but at least give it the TT quality of countering the C3 computer-like capabilities that all mechs in MWO have.

ECM, no LOS and no TAG? NO LRM LOCK.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 15 July 2015 - 04:42 PM.

[Deathlike]

I was pretty sure this was a suggestion in the ECM wall-of-text-dump, so the fact that this is 2 years late is... incredible and yet lazy.

90m is more or less where you have to hug your ECM carrying teammate, so asking for your ECM teammate to cover you is more incumbent on the teammate that doesn't have the ECM to get into coverage. This indirectly allows more ECM Sniper mechs (Raven-3Ls and Spider-5Ds) to go off on their own.

This doesn't hurt the naturally brawly Atlas-D-DC as much as you want to surround it anyways. I suspect more deathballing will result.

With respect to Streaks, a BAP counter range adjustment will mostly call for a TAG laser... which isn't a problem with the "Skillcrow" (head TAG) as Streaks @ facehugging range is far more effective due to how AMS works (AMS works more effectively when the missiles are fired further from its target).


While this doesn't really affect the LRM boat much DIRECTLY vs the ECM carrier, it will affect LRM boats vs targets NOT under ECM coverage. I expect plenty of QQ coming from this direction.


Otherwise, not much will change otherwise, as the counterplay isn't that much different other than people deathballing more as a consequence.

Edit:

I would like to point out that BAP is mostly going to be an anti-ECM facehugging thing (if you can't counter it, expect the ECM carrier to hug you so you can't fire LRMs/SSRMs). You may see less use of BAP as a consequence (it's not as necessary) and more TAG, but it's just the only real counterplay that may change...

Edited by Deathlike, 15 July 2015 - 04:45 PM.

[Monky]

At least you're finally seriously addressing it.

Still relevant advice back from open beta:

ECM is meant to counter advanced tech, not be a counter to basic functions of mechs. BAP being a sensor, ECM is the shield against that sensor. Artemis being a missile enhancer, ECM is the shield against that missile enhancer. And so on. Making a radar proof field makes no sense either compared to tabletop OR reality, and makes its roll in MWO questionable at best, and unbalanceable at worst (and given the time we've spent with it, I would say the worst case has happened - LRM's are COMPLETELY balanced against ECM, without it they wreck, with it they are fireworks - skilled teams using cover excluded from this statement).

PUAL, REWORK TEH ECM. DO IT.

[LORD ORION]

bad arcade kitty, on 15 July 2015 - 04:41 PM, said:

any streakboat has a bap and bap range is longer than the ecm umbrella

so it's actually that 200 meter ecm zone which matters for streaks, not the 90-180 umbrella radius, it's irrelevant unless you are countered by two ecm mechs at once

that's why bap nerfs can hurt streakboats, because right now bap has 240 meters range and allows normal locks at the comfort zone, if its range decreases, the speed of locks in the band between 250 and the new bap range will be twice as slow

umbrella nerfs won't affect streakboats except for negating them with 2 ecm mechs

WTF are you even posting for, you are mistaken on some things, and agreeing with me on others. Fuctionally illiterate or just an insufferable know it all who can't shut his mouth even when looking stupid?

[RedDevil]

Monky, on 15 July 2015 - 04:43 PM, said:

PUAL, REWORK TEH ECM. DO IT.

And get rid of Streak LRMs, too.

[Rick Rollington]

Actually, what we need to do is buff the living hell out of LRMs, and remove the Indirect Fire unless Narced or Tagged. Sure, in TT you could fire with just a spotter, but as so many people keep pointing out (usually ECM crutch users.....) this isn't TT. So, keep the damned Stealth system, and remove the Lock on feature of LRMs. Then buff them into a missile equivalent of LBXs. Now LRMs don't get f***ed over by ECM, Indirect Fire can still happen with TAG/Narc for the occasional Lolz, and people still get their invisibility field because they don't know how to play.

Edit: And sure, it makes the game even more Call of Doody, but that seems to be what most people playing this game actually want. Heaven forbid we actually get what was originally advertised.

Edited by Rick Rollington, 15 July 2015 - 04:52 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

LORD ORION, on 15 July 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

WTF are you even posting for, you are mistaken on some things, and agreeing with me on others. Fuctionally illiterate or just an insufferable know it all who can't shut his mouth even when looking stupid?

i'm trying to explain it to you with fingers

ecm inner bubble doesn't matter for streakboats in 1v1 situation because bap bubble radius is longer and it negates the ecm bubble

meantime the range on which ecm prevents locks from far away does matter

simple enough to you?

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 15 July 2015 - 04:54 PM.

[Gattsus]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 15 July 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

First off, this is better than nothing.

That out of the way, here is my objection: it still leaves ECM as an on/off switch. Hard counters are bad gameplay. The rework should be to redo ECM and information warfare entirely, into a system of soft counters. Have ECM impose sensor penalties against targets protected by it, rather than making them flat-out immune, and then make the various offensive sensor options give sensor bonuses against affected targets. This lets all the various information warfare kit interact freely, without having trump cards or on/off switches or hard counters.

Yes, hard counters incentives rock paper scissors style of gameplay which leads to or feast/famine experience.