945 replies to this topic

[Funnymouth]

The BAP is really nice for that scout build, which is what has me concerned about a BAP nerf.

[Lunatic_Asylum]

I do not mind the changes. The command console needs some work now.

[Blaze32]

when is this ECM change going to be patched into the game? Cant wait!

[stjobe]

Paul Inouye said:

First off, ECM was never meant to be a magic bubble used by 1 or 2 'Mechs to protect an entire 12 player team.

Then why did you implement it that way? And let it stay that way for two years?

Paul Inouye said:

It is crazy that a 'Mech that far away from an ECM equipped 'Mech is covered by it's protective bubble

Then why did you implement it that way? And let it stay that way for two years?

Paul Inouye said:

(I actually tested at 60m and that makes even more sense but that is too high of a nerf to range to start.)

You're not boiling frogs, if it makes "even more sense" for heaven's sake implement it in the way that makes more sense. Doing things half-arsed might be your modus operandi, but it's getting old. Or are you even now preparing a post in another two years about how ECM was never intended to be a 90 meter bubble, and how crazy that is?

Paul Inouye said:

The gameplay implications this brings is that 'Mechs will have to stand closer together to get ECM coverage. This opens up a vulnerability that standing in close quarters results in collisions between 'Mechs and enemies can blind fire more easily into the cluster to shear armor.

How bad of a pilot do you need to be to think you risk collisions at 90 meters? Ridiculous argument, there is no increased "vulnerability" with this change.

ECM needs to be purged. Scrapped, removed from the game and re-written. It was and is and no matter how many bandages you put on it, it will only ever be a badly implemented, overpowered piece of equipment that makes zero sense.

[Spleenslitta]

stjobe, on 24 August 2015 - 09:16 AM, said:

Then why did you implement it that way? And let it stay that way for two years?


Then why did you implement it that way? And let it stay that way for two years?


You're not boiling frogs, if it makes "even more sense" for heaven's sake implement it in the way that makes more sense. Doing things half-arsed might be your modus operandi, but it's getting old. Or are you even now preparing a post in another two years about how ECM was never intended to be a 90 meter bubble, and how crazy that is?


How bad of a pilot do you need to be to think you risk collisions at 90 meters? Ridiculous argument, there is no increased "vulnerability" with this change.

ECM needs to be purged. Scrapped, removed from the game and re-written. It was and is and no matter how many bandages you put on it, it will only ever be a badly implemented, overpowered piece of equipment that makes zero sense.

I think you need to calm down a bit Stjobe. True it was not exactly a good idea to have 180 meter ECM range for 2 years but it's done allready.

[stjobe]

Spleenslitta, on 24 August 2015 - 10:09 AM, said:

I think you need to calm down a bit Stjobe. True it was not exactly a good idea to have 180 meter ECM range for 2 years but it's done allready.

I'm quite calm, thank you.

It is an honest question; if it was "never meant to be a magic bubble", and it's "crazy" to have a 180 meter range, why did they make it that way?

Two and a half years ago, Paul said ECM was "very close to where we want it to be", and now it's all of a sudden "never meant" and "crazy"?

They designed it. They implemented it. They defended it for two and a half years. And now it's "crazy" and "never meant"?

[Xetelian]

ECM is the only equipment worth taking when available.

Lowering the distance only causes murder balls to bunch up closer together, which is something we really don't need.

Leave it as is and work on balancing LRMs in such a way that ECM isn't necessary to win matches.

[Cyberiad]

I liked MW4's ECM, it was not game-breaking, simple, and worth the tonnage to bring. It simply reduced the targetable range of the mech equipping it. I think that's the way it should be in MWO. I don't care if it goes against "lore" or anything, it would simply make MWO a better game.

[Seelenlos]

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.

Hi,

and another thought to changes:

If you are going to change ECM the way it should be, you MUST also inplement the C3 computer Master/Slave should be, the way the BAP should be and on and on.

ECM in its state seems to work good. Touching it without the other systems is again a HOVAK on the game.
You make a little change and the whole balance is gone.

Maybe you make a long plan on implementing the CC/C3 System/ Command Console and so on on a roadmap, give it in special Testing SERVERS (not client, why should i waste another 8 GB ?) and see the outcome.

As you see, this need to first change the MWO-Client and not the rules at first place! So a lot of more data is coming from anyone wants to see the effects.

Else your are another 4 or 5 patches in 6 month to correct the imba.

Wish you success on that with client. THAT will take the most of time, the rest you can then implement modular as server sided script to download

Edited by Seelenlos, 26 August 2015 - 03:48 AM.

[Drunken Skull]

IMO get rid of ECM all together, then rebalance the Armor and Weapons so that the game actually works and doesnt play favourites with 1 or 2 weapons systems. Playing Hide and Seek snipey brawlerfest is getting old.

[Torezu]

Drunken Skull, on 26 August 2015 - 05:40 AM, said:

IMO get rid of ECM all together, then rebalance the Armor and Weapons so that the game actually works and doesnt play favourites with 1 or 2 weapons systems. Playing Hide and Seek snipey brawlerfest is getting old.

That doesn't make sense. If someone is set up to snipe, unless it's with ER PPCs or Gauss (both of which are quite heavy and limit available shorter-range firepower, I can take them out 1-on-1 with my brawler 9 times out of 10. I've gone up against TBRs face to face in my Orion recently and come out on top. They get one alpha at the same time I blow most of their armor off. As long as I roll at least some of the damage over into the STs (preferably more than half), I can usually kill them when they twist back to line up for another alpha. Sometimes it takes 3.

[Torchfire Katayama]

Tennex, on 15 July 2015 - 02:47 PM, said:

Heres a suggestion to information warfare/fixing ECM
Give all mechs Seismic Sensor by default as a "Radar"

Almost all mechs equip the module seismic sensor. It has become the de facto Radar of Mechwarrior Online. (don't freak out. Think of this change as just Seismic Sensor with more integration into Role Warfare)
Summary of what changing seismic sensor to Radar will do for the game :

• Active/Passive Radar
  
• True to lore implementation of ECM. That doesn't break all missiles
  
• Visual/Missile Targeting is the ONLY mechanic of Information Warfare right now. This change will fix that
  
• True to lore implementation of whatever the hell radar tech you can think of
  
• Null Sig

And here is the how:



By actually having a Radar mechanic you are are able to implement features that are true to lore.
Meanwhile the Radar(seismic sensor) portion of the game is still kept separate from the Missile Lock/Visual Lock portion of the game. What this mean is:

#1 Just because you see mechs on your Radar(seismic sensor) doesn't mean you can lob LRMs at them. Just because you see them on Radar, doesn't mean you can have damage information on them. (A problem the developers sought to get rid of from the old game.)

#2 Lore ECM: Having a separate Radar and Missile targeting system means that ECM can have the Radar jamming portion of its function (invisible from Radar, jams enemy's Radar), without the missile targeting interference. I.E true to lore and does not break an entire 1/3 of the weapons.


#3 You can tune/adjust a mech's Radar capability without hindering its Missile/Visual Targeting ability. I.E if you lower the Missile Targeting range from 1000 you can no longer effectively use LRMS. Whereas if you lower the Radar radius there is no effect on viability of Missile weapons. Worried that giving light mechs 2x Visual/Missile Lock will wreck the game? Worry no more, giving light mechs 2x Radar range is fine and encouraged!

#4 Passive/Active Radar! Turn off your own Radar(Seismic Sensor), and other mechs will not see you on their Radar. This means mechs will still be able to sneak around, and have that stealth gameplay.



Heck, devs can add Null Sig if they wanted to if it no longer has functionality overlap with ECM. Miss your Sniper Raven? Slap that Null Sig onto a Rave, turn on Passive Radar and it works just like ECM does now without the broken umbrella.

I like this. A lot. I'm just worried that it's too complicated for some of our more simple minded shoot em up players to understand.

[Torchfire Katayama]

Mr Andersson, on 23 August 2015 - 02:51 PM, said:

So lower LRM damage a bit. Fixed.

LRM's always do 1 damage per missile. To change this is akin to suggesting an AC 20 only do 15 damage.

[stjobe]

Torchfire, on 26 August 2015 - 08:54 AM, said:

LRM's always do 1 damage per missile. To change this is akin to suggesting an AC 20 only do 15 damage.

Well, if you want to be technical, MWO AC/20s do 50 damage.

The number in the AC/nn designation is how much damage they do over 10 seconds, and MWO AC/20s do 50 damage over 10 seconds.

ACs in lore are burst- or continuous-fire weapons; there is one single, very debatable, reference to one specific version being a single-round weapon, all the rest (and there's a lot of them) are described as firing bursts or being continuous-fire.

As for MWO LRMs, they're a mess. They have different DPS depending on launcher size (when corrected for tube count), with the smaller ones having a higher DPS:

LRM-5: 1.54 DPS, 0.308 DPS per missile
LRM-10: 2.67 DPS, 0.267 DPS per missile
LRM-15: 3.53 DPS, 0.253 DPS per missile
LRM-20: 4.21 DPS, 0.210 DPS per missile

So mounting a LRM-5, a single LRM does 3.08 damage over 10 seconds, not 1.
And mounting a LRM-20, a single LRM does 2.1 damage over 10 seconds, not 1.

MWO weapons are really screwed up as compared to TT or even BattleTech lore.

Edited by stjobe, 26 August 2015 - 10:58 AM.

[Gorgo7]

Nice try stjobe.

An AC/20 does 20 per trigger pull.
An Lrm 20 potentially does 20 per trigger pull.
TT is another game altogether and comparing it to MWO is like comparing Risk to Age of Empires!

Good point Torchfire.

[Torchfire Katayama]

Nah I can see where stjobe is coming from. You are both correct.

[Docta Pain]

so... is there going to be a change or not? why the radio silence?

[Ulfgar Snorrison]

Forty-four pages and counting. Wow. Looks like we care. And for all that Mr. Paul said about the this and that of the ECM, any actual change is still in the realm of sometime, someday, 'we have a plan'....Dear PGI, more and more of your playerbase is nearing our retirement ages. Once on fixed incomes we won't have as much money for games like yours. I just saying you might want to hurry things along a bit.

[Docta Pain]

why no feedback on our feedback, pgi?

[Redshirt enraged]

Well,i guess these changes will be a advantage for some sneaky egoists.

No "low signal" until they are in a range of 90m...