945 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

SgtMagor, on 16 July 2015 - 04:08 AM, said:

if that's correct then my Recon D-DC thx's you!

yes Steiners then can scout as hard as never before.

This change will make seismic even more a must have than before, and I have pity with all the casuals and newbies not having money and GXP to buy them.

Edited by Lily from animove, 16 July 2015 - 04:29 AM.

[Ozzy Stormlight]

180m->90m->60m would be fine w/me

but i do agree w/ alot of what others have been saying about fixing the missile lock system.
I suggest...
1. Clan streaks fire in salvos of 2 instead of all at once . ( similar to the C-AC/UAC & CLRM mechanic )
2. Give all standard SRMs a limited tracking element. A follow the crosshairs mechanic. not a lock, but a way to give the SRM a more missile characteristic in stead of just being rockets.
3. implement active / passive radar mode . Passive mechs would not be able to be targeted at more than 250m w/o LOS.
4. Give LRM users salvo control. The ability to control the number of missiles launched in a salvo would give better control over ammo. Wouldn't have to waste ammo on that untraceable spider. just enough to keep his head down sorta tactic.


...but these are all for another thread im sure lol.

but ya, smack the ECM w/ a nerf hammer. My lrm support will be grateful.

[IraqiWalker]

JudgeDeathCZ, on 16 July 2015 - 04:10 AM, said:

no no no no and NO.It is same just with different range.Useless change...ECM implementation is OP not range...

Livewyr, on 16 July 2015 - 03:49 AM, said:

Disappointing.
ECM wouldn't need the range cut...if it just worked the way it was supposed to instead of a free umbrella of null-sig armor...

But... at least there was a *nerf* and "ECM" in the same post...

Koshirou, on 16 July 2015 - 04:28 AM, said:

+1.

Quoting Paul:

This change to ECM is a first pass


So people, calm down for crying out loud. Step 1 seems to be shrink the range. Okay, what's step 2? 3? or 4?
How about we all wait and see what comes next, before we all start panicking.

[Lily from animove]

IraqiWalker, on 16 July 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

Quoting Paul:

This change to ECM is a first pass


So people, calm down for crying out loud. Step 1 seems to be shrink the range. Okay, what's step 2? 3? or 4?
How about we all wait and see what comes next, before we all start panicking.

the question is what they change, maybe 180m are fine if they change the entire effect of ECM.

asking for feedback on a single step without knowing the others on such a complex system that interacts with so many other systems is not going to be much ql feedback.

[Koshirou]

Introducing something independently that is supposed to work as a part of a larger system and then trying to evaluate it without said larger system in place is not a very productive approach.

[topgun505]

I thought when it was first introduced that it would only trip if you were over a certain tonnage and/or you moved faster than x speed. But it turned out to just be a wall hack. Then they finally toned it done by requiring that you not be moving (thank goodness). But yeah ... it'd be nice if it didn't pick up lights moving at slow speed.

Felio, on 15 July 2015 - 10:16 PM, said:

Speaking of role warfare and Seismic Sensor, light 'mechs could be immune to it...

Edited by topgun505, 16 July 2015 - 04:47 AM.

[AeusDeif]

Glad to see a change to ECM. I have seen many matches decided by matchmaker putting 3 ecms on one side and 0 on the other. The reason this has such effect is because pugs tend to be uncoordinated, so if they don't see where the enemy team is, chances are they will all be throwing their own little picnics in various parts of the map.

However that is also the reason I'm concerned about information warfare becoming more prominent. I am loathe to be forced to rely more on teammates to play a role, as it seems half the players in the game do not coordinate and play it more like a free for all. What would be Really Great is if there were prominent REWARDS for playing the information warfare role. Then maybe people would stop trying to play mecha-chuck-norris and branch out towards team-oriented builds.

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

if you take away the ability for ECM to hide doritos then at least make it so Lurmboats need line of sight to lock onto an ECM prtected mech.

looks like Tennex edited his suggestion to include 'Null Sig' as a way to hide doritos from lrms.

Edited by AeusDeif, 16 July 2015 - 04:52 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

topgun505, on 16 July 2015 - 04:46 AM, said:

I thought when it was first introduced that it would only trip if you were over a certain tonnage and/or you moved faster than x speed. But it turned out to just be a wall hack. Then they finally toned it done by requiring that you not be moving (thank goodness). But yeah ... it'd be nice if it didn't pick up lights moving at slow speed.

In lore, Seismic sensors (which existed on virtually all mechs), had trouble picking up the movements of anything about 30 or less.

[ZuFFuLuZ]

Great news! Do not be afraid of big balance changes. The game needs it and it keeps things exciting. I would love to see big balance patches every month and lots of public tests with seemingly crazy ideas until we find something that feels right. It will probably upset a lot of people, but that's alright.

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

Reducing ECM bubble radius is an excellent idea.

Please don't reduce BAP counter-ECM range, we need to be able to use Streaks against ECM-shielded lights.

[Savage Wolf]

I'm hoping for more changes than just ECM range. The whole information warfare thing needs to be thought through all the way and made a hell of a lot more interesting. And for the love of god, ignore lore. Lore will only impress purists and players you already have and they are a limited number. It will not impress anyone on Steam and you need new players if this game is going to survive in the long run.

Role warfare and information warfare will make this more than just a shooter and actually add some strategy to the game and we need that desperately. The solution will not be found in lore because lore wasn't built around a multiplayer FPS. It will be found in innovation and game design. Bring us MechWarrior anno 2015, the evolution of MechWarrior.

[Malleus011]

It's better than nothing, but ECM needs to be completely reworked to function more like Guardian ECM from the game. What we have now is immensely OP, even with the range cut to 90 or 60m.

[Mogney]

Please consider reducing the range of streaks to coincide.

[Tesunie]

Pjwned, on 16 July 2015 - 12:12 AM, said:

Glad you agree with everything I said, guess there's no need to continue.

I don't think this is "agreeing with everything you've said", but more so taking advice that he can be the one to just stop responding. More so "K, I agree that we will disagree on this subject".

No need to be rude about it though. You two just have different concepts and ideas on what would make good balance.

[StalaggtIKE]

Paul, incremental changes or not makes no difference. People would complain if it was ionly decreased down to 179m. In the end it's not even the range that is the issue. It's the mechanic and how things interact with it. There needs to be an overhaul on the following:

• Decouple shared target info and shared missile lock
  
• Rework of LRM locking (direct LOS only; shared missile lock only through TAG or NARC)
  
• Rework of ECM (only blocks advanced tech and shared missile locks)

[Xhaleon]

IraqiWalker, on 16 July 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

This change to ECM is a first pass

And the proposed first pass does not address the core problem of both ECM suites. It could stay as 180m and be perfectly fine if the Jesusbox abilities and their relationship with a certain weapon type were completely reworked.

[Drunk Canuck]

Azargo, on 16 July 2015 - 01:45 AM, said:

Actually while we're having this glorious revolution thingy, can I suggest that TAG beam is made invisible to anyone but the mech that's using it? That would make it less of a [read in Arnold's voice] "Kill me, I'm here!" thing and into more of a useful tool. I wouldn't even mind if the painted mech got a warning from BB that they're being TAGged.

I mean we all know that if covert teams that paint targets for laser-guided missiles/bombs used visible beams, that would be bad for their health, just like it's bad for health of LURMboats trying to paint their own targets in a bunch of mechs under ECM's Jesus canopy.

They need to really need to reduce the Tag laser range and stop making it a crutch for LRM boats if they really want to make the game have role warfare. At this point spotting is a waste of time because the big red beam screams "hey imma lurmboat, I haz no backup weapons, come kill me!" for light pilots. Making it invisible would only make sense if you were actually spotting and holding target locks for another Mech as a light pilot.

[Livewyr]

IraqiWalker, on 16 July 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

Quoting Paul:

This change to ECM is a first pass


So people, calm down for crying out loud. Step 1 seems to be shrink the range. Okay, what's step 2? 3? or 4?
How about we all wait and see what comes next, before we all start panicking.

It is a first pass... but entirely in the wrong direction.

They made a first pass with "left torso hardpoint" too...

[CainenEX]

bad arcade kitty, on 15 July 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

are you serious? you ruin the best tactical feature of ecm due to a lot of forum whining from the vocal minority

i just dunno... i am deeply disappointed in you

ECM was TOO good, as it was and there is little counterplay to this (staking against an enemy team's ecm is a bad form of couterplay :\). Honestly this is a good direction to go. It's still very useful but now you'll have to trade off more vulnerability to use it.

I'm excited to see what other changes will come to information warfare! I personally love dabbling in this area.
Keep up the great work PGI!

[Twilight Fenrir]

StalaggtIKE, on 16 July 2015 - 05:20 AM, said:

Paul, incremental changes or not makes no difference. People would complain if it was ionly decreased down to 179m. In the end it's not even the range that is the issue. It's the mechanic and how things interact with it. There needs to be an overhaul on the following:

• Decouple shared target info and shared missile lock
  
• Rework of LRM locking (direct LOS only; shared missile lock only through TAG or NARC)
  
• Rework of ECM (only blocks advanced tech and shared missile locks)

Agreed, the current a lock for all kind of needs ECM as it is. Missile locks should only be shared with TAG, NARC, or C3. Right now, basically all mechs have C3 slave and Master built into them, making LRMs perform better than they should, making ECM need to be betrer than it should.