945 replies to this topic

[IceGryphon]

I just don't understand why you can make false positives that come and go and scrambling that comes and goes along with real data.
I mean you can do all kinds of strange crap with ECM. Also make Variants of it.
Directional line of sight might have a longer range then a 360degree variant.
90m Nerf just seems silly. It has a reactor, you telling me it doesn't have Megawatts of energy to pipe out bad radar data beyond that?
It's not my fault that even after BAP Counter Pubbies can't see RED DORITOS so they get mad.

[Wildstreak]

Dunno about this.

I have and probably will always be a ECM critic but this was not what I critiqued. I believed the change should have been the stealth part stops working when an enemy gets into mid-range on a target.

Reducing the bubble brings 2 consequences.

1 - Collisions. Light ECM carriers can no longer perform well as guards because every time a Light collides, it takes damage. I have run Light ECM carriers and the Griffin-2N, the Griffin never suffers but the Lights do. Forcing the group into a tighter space means Lights will less often if ever work to protect a team, that role is now on Medium, Heavy and Assault ECM carriers.
Begs the question of what the Kit Fox will do now.

2 - Gives a buff to LRMs. This is kinda seen already in some matches where one team has no ECM.

Positioning is going to matter more now.

[bad arcade kitty]

Faktype, on 15 July 2015 - 06:54 PM, said:

you say ECM prevents locks. i get locks fine in my HBR with ECM at 200m or 800m, even 1000m with sensor range.
ah you mean it prevents locks for the opponent. I see but it does prevent locks from ANYWHERE on the battlefield so what about 200m. sure 200m and 2000m because ECM prevents locks inside 180m. ECM does jack **** outside of 180m.

omg, i'm sometimes surprised how people even play if they never saw ecm covered mechs from afar which don't lock and don't appear on the radar

When a Mech is hidden by a friendly ECM:

Enemy Mechs will have to come within 1/4 the normal distance (200 m instead of 800 m, by default) for hidden Mechs to show up on their battlegrid and HUD.

The Beagle Active Probe will extend this range.

It takes twice as long to achieve a missile lock against a hidden Mech.

it's a bit old wiki article but the mechanics stayed the same
http://mwo.gamepedia...termeasure_(ECM)

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 15 July 2015 - 06:59 PM.

[Odanan]

Tina Benoit, on 15 July 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

Hello MechWarriors,

Please share your feedback on this thread regarding Paul's discussion on ECM changes.

As many have said, reducing the ECM coverage it's a start.

But please consider about changing how the ECM works to:
- increase the lock-on time for LRMs OR avoiding the lock only for mechs you don't have LOS (or affected by TAG, NARC, UAV);
- increase the lock-on time for SSRMs OR make them work as normal SRMs while in effect of ECM;
- or just make ECM to cancel the use of advanced electronic equipment (Artemis, BAP and the lock function - but not the ability to fire - of SSRMs).

Sure, there are plenty of reasonable suggestions out there (including the passive/active radar and the seismic sensor style radar ideas), but those are much more complex to implement.

PS: BAP doesn't need a nerf.

PPS: you know when ECM will be balanced when it is available for every mech and most people won't bring it to the field.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Pjwned, on 15 July 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

For 1.5 tons it's actually not reasonable and is still a crutch, and it still comes into play outside of the most extreme situations possible because it's so broken.



Balancing around pilots being terrible is always a poor idea, and saying that speed doesn't protect from LRMs only tells me that your position awareness is awful; even if you tend to pilot slower clan light mechs they still have more than enough speed to dodge LRMs quite well.



That just speaks to how broken ECM is in its current form; if I bring my 1.5 (1) ton jesus box ECM then I don't have to deal with an entire weapon system because I just passively hard counter it BALANCED LOL!

I'm sorry dude, but you're just dead wrong.

1/1.5 tons is perfectly reasonable to stop indirect missile fire. I understand that it's not fair for it to stop LRM boats that have line of sight, but it's perfectly reasonable for it to stop the LRM boats that don't have line of sight.

You can take cheap shots and blab on about how I'm a terrible player who has no idea what he's doing, but at the end of the day, the fact is I'm not the guy who's standing out in the open and using ECM to negate 1/3 of the weapons in this game. I am the guy using cover intelligently and deploying the only countermeasure I have available to stop enemy mechs from shooting at me without exposing themselves to return fire.

[IceGryphon]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 06:52 PM, said:

But the difficulty of destroying the spotter is way out of proportion with how easy it is for an LRM team to destroy the targets the spotter is spotting (provided there is no ECM ofcourse). It's not as simple as turning and shooting the guy spotting. You have to first locate him, then you have to shoot and destroy a potentially fast moving mech while a torrential downpour of cockpit shaking missiles rains down upon your head, If you are in a PUG group it gets even harder, because half of them probably won't figure out what's going on until the damage is done.

Jesus what number LRMpocalypse is this 5 or 6, I lost count?
I lost count, At least I have boats still in my bays.

[Rick Rollington]

Odanan, on 15 July 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

PPS: you know when ECM will be balanced when it is available for every mech and most people won't bring it to the field.

QFT.

[AlexEss]

Sounds good as a start especially as it is combined with the fixed location for the eq it self.

Now i mostly use dumb-fire weapons and while clan streaks still scare the living **** out of me as a light/medium pilot i rarley use a mech that pack a ECM any way.

Any way. Look forward to see the changes. (and the gnashing of teeth from the people who rely soley on their ecm to stay alive. )

[Tesunie]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 05:57 PM, said:

Can you explain to me how allowing such a thing (indirect fired LRMs) with no countermeasures to stop it is balanced?

AMS? It can counter LRMs. One AMS can counter (situation dependent) an average of 4 LRMs to 10 LRMs. Add that per mech per team that can take it (all but the Cicada hero) and it can block a LOT of LRMs. It's a soft counter, and stacks with teammates.

ECM on the other hand is better than AMS, lighter (overall) than AMS, and just makes AMS redundant and near useless to bring in.

So, don't say that LRMs don't have any other counters. Breaking locks, AMS, moving quickly (preferably perpendicular to the shooter, it still works if you are fast) and smart positioning can still mitigate LRMs.

PS: You only seem to complain about boated LRMs. Not LRM based builds. Not all of us LRM users just spam the LRMs in a "Spray and pray" fashion. Also, LRMs do require skill to use effectively, even before the introduction of ECM. They are not so much the "easy button" and "skill-less" as people claim them to be...

[Jack Shayu Walker]

I decided I should to a more complete write up on my opinion on ECM and their relationship to LRMs.

LRMs as they are right now are clearly not effective, and I agree that they do need some love. Now the reason these LRMs are not effective is because they were at one point overpowered and were subsequently nerfed in an indirect and very poorly designed way, via the implementation of ECM.

With ECM as it is currently implemented LRMs are rightfully dubbed "trash tier", and I agree that this is not acceptable. What some pilots need to understand however, is that if we aren't careful LRMs could become overpowered again. I don't think this is something that anyone wants to happen, so the key to buffing LRMs is moderation and compromise.

Multiple suggestions have been given on this thread thus far, but what clearly needs to happen in some capacity is that ECM's capabilities need to be dial'd back, not removed.

What seems very rational to me, is the idea of allowing mechs with a line of sight to lock onto an ECM mech, but disallowing them to lock onto an ECM mech that they don't have a line of sight on.

There are a lot of ways to change up the balance on this suggestion. Some players suggest that LRMs should not be allowed to lock onto ANY target without line of sight unless they have TAG or NARC assistance. Other players suggest that Line of Sight restrictions should only apply to mechs with ECM, while still other suggest that not having a direct LOS should simply increase the required lock on time for LRMs.

The specifics on how non-LOS missile locks work can be fine tuned, but the idea in general seems to strike a good balance.

[ChewBaka]

Azargo, on 15 July 2015 - 05:36 PM, said:

Can I like this post a hundred times? ECM has always been a very boring mechanic and yet it could make all the difference, not to mention it made playing LRM mechs an exercise in frustration. This is a good first step. Fingers crossed for the rest.

LRM is a very boring mechanic too, and it makes playing slower mechs an exercise in frustration in maps that have no cover like Alpine and Caustic.ECM forces LRM boats to get least get off their lazy camped arse and go out there to get their own locks with TAG or NARC.Fingers crossed that there would at least be a nerf to LRMs to match the nerf in ECM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Tesunie, on 15 July 2015 - 07:03 PM, said:

AMS? It can counter LRMs. One AMS can counter (situation dependent) an average of 4 LRMs to 10 LRMs. Add that per mech per team that can take it (all but the Cicada hero) and it can block a LOT of LRMs. It's a soft counter, and stacks with teammates.

ECM on the other hand is better than AMS, lighter (overall) than AMS, and just makes AMS redundant and near useless to bring in.

So, don't say that LRMs don't have any other counters. Breaking locks, AMS, moving quickly (preferably perpendicular to the shooter, it still works if you are fast) and smart positioning can still mitigate LRMs.

PS: You only seem to complain about boated LRMs. Not LRM based builds. Not all of us LRM users just spam the LRMs in a "Spray and pray" fashion. Also, LRMs do require skill to use effectively, even before the introduction of ECM. They are not so much the "easy button" and "skill-less" as people claim them to be...

AMS as it is cannot defend against high density volleys of LRMs from multiple mechs. Unless everybody on the opposing team brings AMS, an LRM dense team can throw all their weight onto a single mech that may only have LOS on one or two of the targets he's being attacked by.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 15 July 2015 - 07:14 PM.

[InspectorG]

A. Give Lights more Recon: larger sensor range, faster + better target info. Should affect Heat Vison and Night Vision similar to zoom on a TC.

B. SHRINK Medium/heavy/Assault's SENSOR RANGE in ascending order. Medium = 500m, Heavy = 450m, Assault = 400m
ALL BUT SELECT FEW MEDIUMS get LESS sensor info.
FOSTERS COMMUNICATION/SHOT CALLING: VOIP FOR A REASON

C. ECM, covers @90m DIAMETER, COUNTERS INDIRECT LOCKS- Direct locks act as normal, Negates NARC/Probes

D. Buff BAP/AP PROPORTIONAL to weight class of mech using it.

E. Due to ECM cutting indirect locks, LRM users should use TAG and stay CLOSE ENOUGH for their weight class's sensor range...YES! NO MORE LRM FROM THE BACK - YOU NOW GET TO FIGHT GLORIOUS FIGHT COMRADE!!!
Dedicated scout can still scout but will have to be more 'dedicated'. TAG would thus be used like spotting artillery and provide bonus for indirect LRM use. Bigger reward for spotting.

F. TAG range depends on weight class. 700m for Lights, 600m for Medium, 500m for Heavy/Assault.

G. Buff LRM if needed due to more demanding criteria.


Something like this.

You get:
Roles for Lights
Demand for more teamwork
Perhaps better balance for indirect fire/LRM/ECM
Meta less heavy on strict damage done.

[MauttyKoray]

Make sure you take into account that Paul has said this is only a first step. Unlike their Quirk-pocalypse changes that were made in massive swoops and cause huge imbalances to the game, they're actually changing things little bits at a time and making sure it doesn't cause the massive derp that Quirks have.

Good job Paul, it seems you guys are finally getting the hang of how to handle balance changes. Also, congrats on the new River City, it is absolutely amazing and a much needed update.

After the ECM is tested, a change to it and the interaction with the missile targeting system does definitely need a change too. Something along the lines of needing to target an enemy and have to wait for the spotting pilot to obtain the enemy information before allowing other pilots to target them out of LOS. Or with NARC/TAG being able to target the enemy out of LOS regardless of the spotting pilot having the info or not. Otherwise removing non-LOS targeting with LRMs for non-targeted enemies would allow LRMs to even receive a buff and become useful outside of pure boats.

[Gorgo7]

I would like to thank Paul for a very overdue reduction in ECM bubble range and I look forward to a further reduction of 60m in the near future.
There is too much ECM out there.

Good job Paul!

PS, role warfare is an excellent way to go!

[Rick Rollington]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 07:01 PM, said:

I'm sorry dude, but you're just dead wrong.

1/1.5 tons is perfectly reasonable to stop indirect missile fire. I understand that it's not fair for it to stop LRM boats that have line of sight, but it's perfectly reasonable for it to stop the LRM boats that don't have line of sight.

You can take cheap shots and blab on about how I'm a terrible player who has no idea what he's doing, but at the end of the day, the fact is I'm not the guy who's standing out in the open and using ECM to negate 1/3 of the weapons in this game. I am the guy using cover intelligently and deploying the only countermeasure I have available to stop enemy mechs from shooting at me without exposing themselves to return fire.

I could almost agree with you, if ECM didn't stop LoS locks.
The problem though, is that it does, and that Direct Fire LRMs are terrible. Compare an ALRM10 with one ton of ammo, to a PPC. The PPC does near instant damage to the target, on the location of your choosing, and has no ammo requirement. The LRM takes anywhere up to 5 secs to get to the target, it spreads it's damage all over the place, and if the target has ECM, then you need to hold a Laser Pointer on the Target for at least 1.5 secs for a lock to occur. And if the target has any skill whatsoever, they will break lock, evade, and watch as the missiles fly harmlessly past them. The ONLY thing LRMs have going for them at the moment is their indirect fire ability.
Which ECM completely negates without any active input from the user. They don't have to engage it when locked. They don't have to do anything to bypass the lock. It's just ON.

Which is why it is overpowered for a 1.5 ton piece of gear. It completely negates an entire weapon system for no effort on the users part.

Imagine if there was a 1.5 ton equipment that prevented from hitting the target, unless you used a 1.5 ton piece of Counter equipment, a 4 ton Missile Weapon, or a 1 Ton Laser Pointer for 1.5 secs before being allowed to fire your weapons.

Or a 1.5 ton piece of equipment that prevented Gauss from doing any damage unless you were within 180m.

Or a 1.5 ton piece of equipment that prevented Autocannons from landing more than 1 shot every 4 secs.

That is what ECM does to LRMs.

Edit: Your next post is much more descriptive, and I do agree with that one.

Edited by Rick Rollington, 15 July 2015 - 07:20 PM.

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

By change I'm referring to reducing the effective range of ECM from 180 meters to 90 meters.

It's the first in many steps of getting role and information warfare more relevant in the game.


Ok, the first statement by Paul is what is happening. You're cutting ECM radius in half. Why you double and cut things by half I don't know, because the changes are either reverted (ref CERLLAS) and given minor sensible tweaks, but very very far down the road.

The second statement is a blanket "fedspeak promise" that this is the first of many changes. Would it be asking too much for a point of reference as to what the endgame is? Perhaps what changes are on the drawing board to follow with the ECM change? How are we, as consumers, supposed to give feedback about one specific change to the "role/information warfare" if we only have one part of it?

Seriously, it's like being given one piece of a puzzle, and not allowed to have the rest of the pieces OR a picture of the finished puzzle as reference, and asked to place it where we think it goes!

The only feedback people could give is master of the obvious level. Derrrh, it seems to have made the ECM radius smaller. The answers you get from Comp Teams, CW drops, and PUG drops are going to be vastly different... in opinion too.

[Mawai]

I like the 60m radius idea too ... it becomes much more of an advantage for a single mech then rather than the giant radius of invisibility that it is currently.

Also, although I acknowledge that changing the ECM radius has to be one of the fastest and easiest changes you can make ... if you are REALLY planning on revamping and rebalancing everything then you may want to bite the bullet and simply look at a redesign of all of the mechanics of ECM, BAP, TAG, NARC and PPCs.

Should ECM provide an invisibility bubble to itself and nearby mechs or should it just deny detailed information, target relaying and increase substantially the time to get a lock? (By target relaying I mean that players with a direct line of sight can get a lock but not players who are using someone else's R target to lock them.) Maybe it is time to review what these systems are really supposed to do and rather than making them "hard" counter rock/paper/scissors turn them into soft counters or essentially debuffs if you want to use different terminology.

Perhaps ECM should reduce the range at which the mech can be detected rather than making it and all nearby mechs undetectable? If having nearby ECM degraded the opposing teams sensors requiring the opponents to be within 500m or 250m to get a lock rather than completely preventing locks ... it would be a soft counter to detection that could be increased and decreased as required. There are so many ways that ECM can be implemented to improve game play without it being overpowered that you really might want to consider some of them.

It is much easier to balance effects that make things better or worse than ones that turn effects completely on or off.

Edited by Mawai, 15 July 2015 - 07:22 PM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Still nobody has explained to me why making LRMs Line of Sight only on either all mechs or just ECM mechs when TAG/NARC aren't in play is unfair. Either one of these suggestions is fine with me. It's not that I cannot take cover from LRMs, it's that it seems very unbalanced to me to let an enemy team fire consistently on mechs without exposing themselves to return fire.

[Marcus Tanner]

I don't understand why it hasn't just been electronic countermeasures this whole time. Let it kill Artemis, narc, beagle, Doritos, maybe tag. Delay target data acquisition. No other effect needed on mechs that don't mount special stuff.
Mechs are currently in passive radar mode. The targeting reticule is just your FCS recognizing a shape (the way your smartphone has facial recognition software).
Small mechs should be good enough even when there's no ECM nearby. If base "radar" range went from 800m to 8x tonnage then your light sniper mechs will be fine sans ECM.
This half-range nonsense isn't enough to bring me back.