945 replies to this topic

[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.

[RedDevil]

Rick Rollington, on 15 July 2015 - 04:49 PM, said:

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.

I thought it was LRM players that didn't know how to play. Are they currently playing their own mini-game?

Edited by RedDevil, 15 July 2015 - 04:53 PM.

[Pjwned]

Paul Inouye, on 15 July 2015 - 04:30 PM, said:

Just want to pop in and remind everyone.. this is just the start... more to come and I'll keep y'all updated. We will put this stuff up on PTS before it goes live so you all get a chance to see what the changes do to gameplay.

I don't really see the point in holding out on more drastic changes considering how broken ECM is, and it's a little worrying that none of the features that make ECM so broken are being addressed right away, but I'll just take your word for it because my expectations are low anyways.

[BlazeOn]

This thread will be epic. POPCORN TIME!!


I am ok with this change.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Kind of relevant: Can we see an introduction to passive radar?

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 15 July 2015 - 04:54 PM.

[Void Angel]

GoodTry, on 15 July 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

PLEASE don't change the BAP counter-ECM range. It has nothing to do with the ECM bubble range. BAP is perfectly balanced as it is - it is just good enough that some will take it for its weight, but it is not so good that everyone feels like they have to take it. Changing the BAP ranges will just nerf BAP.

The ECM bubble determines how many enemies are covered. BAP range determines how far away you can counter a single enemy ECM. They are totally different things, and there is no reason to nerf BAP just because you are changing the size of the ECM bubble.

Please reconsider.

Edit: For the record, I think that the ECM changes make sense.

Wrong. Since a reduced range on ECM makes the ECM carrier stay closer to the 'mechs it's shielding, and vice versa, the carrier is effectively forced closer to the enemy. This means that a nerf to ECM is indeed a buff to its primary counter-system, since enemy 'mechs will not have to venture as close to enemies in order to counter the bubble.

Take a Raven and his lance as an example to see what I mean: The Raven currently can be as far as 180m away from the Zeus and Hunchback that are engaging our heroic Beagle Prober. After the change, he has to be within 90m - meaning that Beagle Boy can now counter from 90m closer to the closest possible lancemate. This is inarguably to the Beagle's advantage, and that's why reducing ECM range is effectively a buff to the Beagle Active Probe.

If you nerf any system like ECM, its counter-systems grow relatively stronger - and if those systems are already in balance with each other, the counter-system needs nerfed too.

[Tesunie]

I'll take changes to ECM more seriously when they don't double stack penalties to lock ons anymore.

Right now, unless something else changes, ECM not only provides a "you can see me, but you can't lock me" mechanic, but also adds on top of that by "You can actually target lock me, but good luck getting that missile lock as I also reduce missile lock on times too!" (I want to insert the internet troll face here.)

ECM can keep one or the other. It honestly shouldn't have the two stacked together at the same time. If I can manage to get a lock on an ECM mech, then I should have no farther penalties to gaining a missile lock. If I can gain a lock on them when I see them, then they should have the delay to missile lock on times. Not both.

Though, reducing ECMs range is a great start, I don't think that necessarily is the largest issue ECM brings to the table for it's tonnage.


What I actually would propose would be, instead of a permanent "cloaking" affect, have it as ECM introduces a targeting delay. What I mean is, even if you can see the ECM unit, you can't gain a target lock on them unless you can see them for X seconds uninterrupted. This will leave it in a place where it is still useful for sneaking around undetected, and masking mech movements. However, it prevents it from being used out in the open, standing still thinking one has missile immunity. By doing this, AMS would also gain a larger presence on the battlefield, as ECM doesn't just overrule it's functions.

[Kael Posavatz]

Quote

Paul Inouye "It is crazy that a 'Mech that far away from an ECM equipped 'Mech is covered by it's protective bubble. At 90m it makes much more sense."

Apparently Paul is unaware of--or worse, simply does not care about--what is commonly known in the BattleTech community. To wit, that every time someone tries to inject logic, reason, or real-world physics into BT or MW a catgirl dies screaming.

If we really want to have an argument about what makes sense, I suggest we start with the lasers.

On the other hand, LRMs will be--wait, strike that, never mind.

[Tesunie]

Void Angel, on 15 July 2015 - 04:54 PM, said:

Take a Raven and his lance as an example to see what I mean: The Raven currently can be as far as 180m away from the Zeus and Hunchback that are engaging our heroic Beagle Prober. After the change, he has to be within 90m - meaning that Beagle Boy can now counter from 90m closer to the closest possible lancemate. This is inarguably to the Beagle's advantage, and that's why reducing ECM range is effectively a buff to the Beagle Active Probe.

Umm... They said BAP's countering range will also be reduce to match... Just an FYI.

Oh, and technically speaking (if we wish to go there), BAP was never suppose to counter ECM. However, ECM also wasn't suppose to do half of what it is doing now. So... Each were adjusted to "better match" a first person shooter styled game?

[Matthew Ace]

Appreciate the looking into of Info and Role Warfare. I'd just like to highlight this.

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

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.

[Kyrs]

I'll give you a +1 for the effort... I guess..

For public drop match it could be a significant change, but in CW you will just see an increase on ecm mech use. (which just coincident with the arrival of 2 ecm mech, you can call me a paranoid *** if you must, how thing are going financially?).

Just be sure to look at broken ams, before removing all the fairy dust from the Magic Jesus Box. We don't want an other LRMARMAGEDDON. A soft counter ams that destroy a % of incoming missile would reduce the need to boat those LRM.

"Fairy Dust Junky": are ppl that think that can hide in plain sight. Please seek mechanic technician if you have sign this DEMENTIA..

[Tarogato]

bad arcade kitty, on 15 July 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

are you kidding? read my previous posts, the bap changes can very seriously hurt streakboats and if they don't touch bap/remake it a bit to keep the current lock range, this ecm nerf won't change streakboats much except making it harder to completely negate them with 2 ecm mechs... consider the abundance of the new ecm lights and mediums though

I did read your post, and I don't see how nerfing BAP range is going to hurt streaks that much. What if I told you that streaks work without BAP? Because they do. Ever use TAG? =P

[bad arcade kitty]

Tarogato, on 15 July 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

I did read your post, and I don't see how nerfing BAP range is going to hurt streaks that much. What if I told you that streaks work without BAP? Because they do. Ever use TAG? =P

tag doesn't work at all inside the 90-180 meters bubble
to take both tag and bap is kind of heavy

twice as slow lock on ecm covered mech in a band of possibly 250-150=100m (if they make bap range 150) will be very very noticeable

[Pjwned]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 04:41 PM, said:

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.

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, especially considering how many other counters it has aside from ECM, so saying it's not a crutch while defending it because you depend on its ridiculous jesus box functionality is a sign that you need to git gud.

Quote

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.

MWO mechs don't have C3-like functionality in the first place, so no.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

For 1.5 tons, I'd be fine with ECM preventing shared targeting, LOS targeting only.

[Rick Rollington]

RedDevil, on 15 July 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

I thought it was LRM players that didn't know how to play. Are they currently playing their own mini-game?

Right now, LRMs are a terrible weapon system. If the RNG gods smile on you, then the enemy team has no ECM and you drop on Caustic. You proceed to systematically destroy all the Pugs. Every other game? 90% ECM coverage, you get a lock for 1.2 secs, fire a volley, and watch as they miss terribly. Even if you manage to predict the enemies movement, and lay LRMs across there path, the missiles are so slow that anyone with a jot of situational awareness can calmly move out of the way. And if your staying in LoS long enough to get Locked onto by a TAG user while under a bubble, then LRMs are the least of your worries, as you've probably just taken 3 Gauss, a dozen Medium Lasers, and a stray PPC round for standing around in the open.
There is NO reason to ever want to mount an LRM rack, other than as a Troll device. Or to locate anyone silly enough to mount AMS.

The problem with ECM is it encourages lazy gameplay. "Lolz, I R invistablez, so I can haz standz here and Snipez all day! DERP!".

What we need is a system that is less about hard counters, and more about actively managing information warfare. And if we can't have a system that uses a series of progressive modifiers, then we should give ECM some serious drawbacks to account for its stealth ability.

Edited by Rick Rollington, 15 July 2015 - 05:12 PM.

[Gordon Gecko]

50% reduction seems like a large step, I thought PGI was going to stick to small incremental changes. Start w/ the scalpel not the hatchet.

I think a reduction from 180m to 150-120m is more practical to start, can always reduce more later. My concern is if you're the lone guy w/ ECM other players will cramp your space to stay in bubble. a single mech w/ ECM now is not suffice to cover entire team in PUG or Group play as is.

[LORD ORION]

bad arcade kitty, on 15 July 2015 - 04:49 PM, said:

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?

Both than... Functionally illiterate and insufferable know it all...

Nowhere did I ever mention the streaks were considering bap when defining the new sweet spot to lock an ECM mech 250m to 90m (with advanced sensors) or 200m to 90m (normal sensors)...

After reading all your posts everything you have said agrees with what I've said... you just read what you wanted to.

Please just shut up already if you can't comprehend the meaning of the words you are reading.

[Void Angel]

Kael 17, on 15 July 2015 - 04:56 PM, said:

Apparently Paul is unaware of--or worse, simply does not care about--what is commonly known in the BattleTech community. To wit, that every time someone tries to inject logic, reason, or real-world physics into BT or MW a catgirl dies screaming.

If we really want to have an argument about what makes sense, I suggest we start with the lasers.

On the other hand, LRMs will be--wait, strike that, never mind.

I'm pretty sure he knows how ECM worked in tabletop - it's been referenced ad nauseum, after all. So what we're really dealing with here is a willful intransigence: yours. It's this kind of sullen refusal to accept a simple premise - that the tabletop rulebook is not an authority for an entirely different format and genre of game - which drove the player side of the now-infamous rift between PGI and a vocal (yet small) portion of its fanbase. You seem unaware - or worse, you do not care - that you are completely missing the context of what I found to be a very simple and readable post. Paul is speaking about game balance; the game-as-it-is. In that game, ECM projects a cloaking field that interferes with active sensors, and the 180m range is too high for that mechanic.

Now, you could have argued about whether or not we should rework ECM in some way or other; you could, less defensibly, have assumed your own conclusion from that debate and argued from there. Instead, you ignored the context of the very text you quoted and launched into a diatribe showcasing your True Battletch Fandom with a segue into how applying real-world physics to genre conceits is asinine. You might as well have argued that blue was not in fact the color of maleness during earlier periods in history, and that it is silly and sexist to chastise men for wearing pink - as the role of any color is a social construct without any grounding in practicality. In short, your response is inapplicable to your cited quotation - you've not even succeeded in being wrong.

Put the rulebook for the other game down, and stop hitting.

[Benjamin Davion]

Hahahahahaha, yes, let's give more incentive to run the cheapest weapon in the game. LRMs. Yeah, **** this. **** this with a brick.