61 replies to this topic

[Commissar Aku]

Livewyr, on 14 September 2015 - 04:36 PM, said:

I just went ahead and responded in the quote... easier to dismantle that way.

You managed to be flatly incorrect in the first ECM assertion.


EDIT: To make it crystal clear why it is overpowered, even with all the counters.
ECM: Undectable outside 200 meters. (Disruption is of little value, actually works against ambush ECM.)
BAP: Counters ECM inside 360 (or something like that) (Has no effect on ECM outside that range.)

TAG: Breaks through out to 750.. but must constantly be trained on the ECM mech, with LoS. Also provides a bright red line leading back to the mech with TAG, with center torso exposed for the duration of the beam.
TAG makes ECM mech targetable, TAG also makes TAG Mech targetable, AND present CT constantly.
ECM: Just equip it and it works.

And just a little bit of preventative medicine:
NARC: Counters an ECM mech If it is attached to the ECM mech. Is countered by any local ECMs. Must hit the ECM mech, range of 450-600 (plus a module) Takes a missile hardpoint. Does no damage, travels at missile speed...
ECM: Equip it, and it works.

Does that make it any clearer to you?

Learn to aim without a red border? Use map awareness? I mean if anything the ability to target at range is more overpowered and game breaking than ECM is. It is not like without modules you can even target mechs outside 800 meters anyway. I do agree that tag should not have a tracer back to your mech, it is pretty dumb and should be removed. But really if you have that much trouble with ECM then learn to aim and be more map aware, I am sure you get snuck up on more by mechs without ECM than ones with it, I mean if you are map aware you can see its effects on you allies at range and even on your mini map. Stop being so self centered and work as a team rather than ***** because you can't be a hero every game. If every person took BAP or some other ECM counter for a week, not one person would waste the tonnage on ECM for a long time.

[Kmieciu]

Mystere, on 13 September 2015 - 06:45 PM, said:

The teamwork that needs to happen is on the other team, to designate that ECM carrier priority #1 and neutralize him.

This is beyond funny. One side needs to use teamwork and tactics to counter someone on the other team who spent 1 tonne and 1 crit slot in the mechbay.

Meanwhile all the ECM carrier has to do is to concentrate on killing you with his direct fire weapons.

PS. BAP does not counter ECM. BAP counters ECM within 240 meters. That means outside of 240 meters, it does nothing to ECM. "Outside of 240 meter range" is a much larger area that "inside 240 meters". Therefore ECM wins.

Edited by Kmieciu, 16 September 2015 - 10:33 AM.

[Livewyr]

Commissar Aku, on 16 September 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

Learn to aim without a red border? Use map awareness? I mean if anything the ability to target at range is more overpowered and game breaking than ECM is. It is not like without modules you can even target mechs outside 800 meters anyway. I do agree that tag should not have a tracer back to your mech, it is pretty dumb and should be removed. But really if you have that much trouble with ECM then learn to aim and be more map aware, I am sure you get snuck up on more by mechs without ECM than ones with it, I mean if you are map aware you can see its effects on you allies at range and even on your mini map. Stop being so self centered and work as a team rather than ***** because you can't be a hero every game.

You are still missing the point.
You are discussing all these things I should be able to do in order to "deal with it" and yet you still haven't figured out that Ability to do so is not the point.

I'm afraid I'm just going to have to dismiss you.

Commissar Aku, on 16 September 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

If every person took BAP or some other ECM counter for a week, not one person would waste the tonnage on ECM for a long time.

Actually, yes, yes I would. 300+ meter range on counter does nothing to my Shadow Cat at 600+ meters.

[Commissar Aku]

Kmieciu, on 16 September 2015 - 10:20 AM, said:

This is beyond funny. One side needs to use teamwork and tactics to counter someone on the other team who spent 1 tonne and 1 crit slot in the mechbay.

Meanwhile all the ECM carrier has to do is to concentrate on killing you with his direct fire weapons.

PS. BAP does not counter ECM. BAP counters ECM within 240 meters. That means outside of 240 meters, it does nothing to ECM. "Outside of 240 meter range" is a much larger area that "inside 240 meters". Therefore ECM wins.

Learn to aim and use you mini map? Or better yet use teamwork. You are so quick to dismiss the power of working with your team to counter the other team WORKING TOGETHER, all I see is crying because other people use teamwork that you are to self centered to engage in. If that is what you want go back to playing Call of Duty and stop crying on the MWO forum.

[Mystere]

Kmieciu, on 16 September 2015 - 10:20 AM, said:

This is beyond funny. One side needs to use teamwork and tactics to counter someone on the other team who spent 1 tonne and 1 crit slot in the mechbay.

Meanwhile all the ECM carrier has to do is to concentrate on killing you with his direct fire weapons.

PS. BAP does not counter ECM. BAP counters ECM within 240 meters. That means outside of 240 meters, it does nothing to ECM. "Outside of 240 meter range" is a much larger area that "inside 240 meters". Therefore ECM wins.

You have to be prepared for the possibility of being on the technologically disadvantaged side upon meeting the enemy, always. That is not much different from when the matchmaker decides your team gets 4 LRM Awesomes and the enemy gets 4 Meta Dire Whales.

Should the matchmaker always guarantee that both teams are mirror images of each other?

As I said earlier, this is not even on the same level as the Kobayashi Maru. <and now I am really shaking my head>

Edited by Mystere, 16 September 2015 - 11:23 AM.

[Commissar Aku]

Livewyr, on 16 September 2015 - 11:17 AM, said:

You are still missing the point.
You are discussing all these things I should be able to do in order to "deal with it" and yet you still haven't figured out that Ability to do so is not the point.

I'm afraid I'm just going to have to dismiss you.



Actually, yes, yes I would. 300+ meter range on counter does nothing to my Shadow Cat at 600+ meters.

So it is 600 meters away, I don't see your problem, if you know it is there then why do you need to target it or anyone else? It is called team work and information gathering. Learn to aim and use direct weapons and stop relying solely on missiles. I don't see your issue here, actually call out targets that are far away instead of crying that you don't work with your team well enough to fight back, if it is behind cover with or without ECM it would be invisible to you anyway. all you have to say in chat is "I see movement in E6" that is it, and that would be a better counter to ECM that crying on the forum about being a coward and refusing to work as a team.

[Livewyr]

Commissar Aku, on 16 September 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:

So it is 600 meters away, I don't see your problem, if you know it is there then why do you need to target it or anyone else? It is called team work and information gathering. Learn to aim and use direct weapons and stop relying solely on missiles. I don't see your issue here, actually call out targets that are far away instead of crying that you don't work with your team well enough to fight back, if it is behind cover with or without ECM it would be invisible to you anyway. all you have to say in chat is "I see movement in E6" that is it, and that would be a better counter to ECM that crying on the forum about being a coward and refusing to work as a team.

You are beyond hope of getting the point of what balance is.

Good day.

[Commissar Aku]

Livewyr, on 16 September 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

You are beyond hope of getting the point of what balance is.

Good day.

Pretty sure my first post pointed that out. Not sure why you would get so butthurt it is after all a game.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

This thread is a very interesting read, albeit a bit chaotic.

But, I think you're all getting bogged down in the details prematurely.

While details are all well and good, I prefer to define the principles; because, well, they just aren't that clear and that makes the details pretty much arbitrary and disconnected.

I think the idea of InfoTech is awesome. But I'm not at all clear about how it works. To read this thread it would seem to be based around the ECM.

If that is the case, I fully understand why no one can agree or feel that it works properly. ECM, by definition cannot be the baseline; it's meant to modify a facet of the game.

So, for InfoTech, let's start there: What is the baseline?

Imagine a 'Mech, any 'Mech, with nothing but a basic layout. What is that? How does it operate?

That's my idea of the baseline.

Now, add some way to modify this baseline and the absolute single thing that is necessary is to add a third modification to return the gameplay back to the baseline.

Cycle this concept as needed.

The core of this is the principle that if you move away from the baseline, you must have a BALANCE to return it to the baseline.

So, baseline -> counter -> check = balance.

[Skarlock]

Struan, on 12 September 2015 - 05:46 PM, said:

Amen to that! Enough of this arms race crap, this is never what Mechwarrior was supposed to be.

The entire Mechwarrior franchise was founded on warring houses that constantly sought to out politick and out tech their arch rivals, until the clans came, and it was a race to catch up to understand, salvage, and produce clan tech, and then the jihad came and it was yet another arms race to beat the the comstar forces. The whole theme of teching up to deal with a new enemy with superior technology is a recurring theme in the game. Every Mechwarrior game that featured a single campaign was about killing mechs and salvaging equipment to build bigger, better mechs. A perpetual arms race is a core feature and theme of Battletech related games, period. Perhaps it isn't implemented very well in this game, but it is a critical feature necessary to capture the spirit of the original BT.

[oldradagast]

Skarlock, on 19 September 2015 - 02:50 AM, said:

The entire Mechwarrior franchise was founded on warring houses that constantly sought to out politick and out tech their arch rivals, until the clans came, and it was a race to catch up to understand, salvage, and produce clan tech, and then the jihad came and it was yet another arms race to beat the the comstar forces. The whole theme of teching up to deal with a new enemy with superior technology is a recurring theme in the game. Every Mechwarrior game that featured a single campaign was about killing mechs and salvaging equipment to build bigger, better mechs. A perpetual arms race is a core feature and theme of Battletech related games, period. Perhaps it isn't implemented very well in this game, but it is a critical feature necessary to capture the spirit of the original BT.

Eh... it was also a critical feature to sell more product. Buy this new tech manual with more powerful stuff in it! Sure, it makes everything you had before obsolete and useless, but buy it now while it is on sale! Power creep didn't start with video games or collectible card games.

And it's happening here, too, though it is even more frustrating since it takes much longer to grind out the latest power-creep mech than it does to simply go down to the local game store and buy a copy of "Technical Readout 3066.8: More Guns and Stuff!"

[Astrocanis]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 18 September 2015 - 07:35 PM, said:

This thread is a very interesting read, albeit a bit chaotic.

But, I think you're all getting bogged down in the details prematurely.

While details are all well and good, I prefer to define the principles; because, well, they just aren't that clear and that makes the details pretty much arbitrary and disconnected.

I think the idea of InfoTech is awesome. But I'm not at all clear about how it works. To read this thread it would seem to be based around the ECM.

If that is the case, I fully understand why no one can agree or feel that it works properly. ECM, by definition cannot be the baseline; it's meant to modify a facet of the game.

So, for InfoTech, let's start there: What is the baseline?

Imagine a 'Mech, any 'Mech, with nothing but a basic layout. What is that? How does it operate?

That's my idea of the baseline.

Now, add some way to modify this baseline and the absolute single thing that is necessary is to add a third modification to return the gameplay back to the baseline.

Cycle this concept as needed.

The core of this is the principle that if you move away from the baseline, you must have a BALANCE to return it to the baseline.

So, baseline -> counter -> check = balance.

The problem is that if the baseline is "sensors don't work very well without LOS", then that makes ECM even more powerful than it already is.

Baseline -> counter=exposure within range to enemy -> ECM (rangeless) -> BAP (limited range) = Visual Detection System Mark I. In other words, slightly worse than it currently is. But at least we get to call it "Infotech" and "Role Warfare".

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Astrocanis, on 19 September 2015 - 08:01 AM, said:

The problem is that if the baseline is "sensors don't work very well without LOS", then that makes ECM even more powerful than it already is.

Baseline -> counter=exposure within range to enemy -> ECM (rangeless) -> BAP (limited range) = Visual Detection System Mark I.  In other words, slightly worse than it currently is.  But at least we get to call it "Infotech" and "Role Warfare".

I readily accept the premise that the baseline is not good enough.That means that PGI needs to re-evaluate the baseline, how ECM modifies it and what checks ECM (BAP? Maybe this need to be like a serious radar upgrade that can always counter ECM? Maybe it needs to have hardpoints like ECM?).As a note, I actually meant more like: Baseline -> Counter (is ECM) -> Check (BAP?) = Balance (or should).

[Max Von Lakes]

The basic problem trying to balance 'mechs currently in game, is that they were never intended to be balanced in the first place.
Most (Raven, and Mauler are expections) of the Inner Sphere 'mechs in the game are old, REAL old, like 300-200 years old - if not more - technology, which in canon, did not evolve at all in that period, in fact it went backwards. Comstar's 'mechs were even older, but had better (star league era) technology.
So, going back to how do you balance a timberwolf against a 75T IS 'mech....in this timeline you can't, not 1v1, or at least, shouldn't be able too. The Inner Sphere forces won the few victories they did against the clans (in the early years of the invasion) by mostly two things;
1) Tactics - Lure them in close where the significant range advantage was negated,
2) Numbers - IS forces wouldn't even consider fighting unless they had a minimum of 3 to 1 advatange in 'mech numbers, otherwise they would use gorilla tactics.

Only until later, post Tukayyid (3052/53), did the IS produce 'mechs that could compete with clan 'mechs more evenly, the Penetrator, and bushwacker, for example.

The biggest problem this presents (IME, at least) is that it makes levelling the crap, or even mediocre 'mechs, extremely painful. There is a good chance both teams will have fully mastered METAmechs (read, clan 'mechs), that your crap/medicore 'mech cannot keep up with, and - even IF you do get to see some action - cannot compete with. This is even more pronounced during an event, like this weekend.

So the problem is not, how do you balance the 'mechs, the problem is how do you balance the game.

Going back to the launch of clan wave I, the idea was banded about of making drops Clan binary (10 'mechs) Vs IS company (12 'mechs). This would (IMO), give a more even match up. Clan 'mechs can deliver a better TTK, but, they would have more to kill.
Could matchmaker be programmed to allow 3, or a combination of 3, types of drop? for instance, using check boxes like we currently have for Assault, Conquest, Skirmish, but using more to allow selection of; IS(12) vs IS(12), Clan(10) Vs Clan(10), Clan(10) vs IS(12) games.

My 2cents regarding weapons/TTK. The current setup has two significant flaws (IMO).
1) Convergance - pinpoint accuracy with 60+ damage is bad juju.
2) Recycle times. All weapons should have the same recycle time/rate. For example, an AC2 fires once per cycle, with 1 shell, doing 2 damage. An AC/20 (depending on type) could fire 10 shells at 2/ea, or 1 shell at 20 in the same time. In MWO, we don't have an AC2, we don't even have an AC5. Using an IS AC20 as a baseline (damage/time), the AC10 is actually an AC16, AC5 = AC12, AC2=AC11.11, and UAC5=AC24. No wonder dakka hurts so much. Oh the Gauss rifle? yeah, thats about the same as a light gauss rifle compared to its smaller, rapid fire friends. Lasers fall in this category as well. The ACH, or FS9 delivering 2 alphas of small pulse, whilst your ERLL is still on cooldown...hmm...

So, what measure of time do you make "a cycle"? Well now, there's a REAL question...

Another, slightly oblique idea - Is the player big enough to support splitting the queue into the various stages of mastery? For instance, if your piloting a 'mech in basics, you only come up against other 'mechs in basics. Elites Vs Elites, etc etc. This would help the new player experience, there would be the occasional existing/good player leveling something new, but for the most part, I imagine it would make the initial few days in the game a bit more even, and palettable. The Mastered 'mechs could then square off in some pretty exciting, and more even, matches, instead of having to "gg" a 1 - 12 rolfstomp.
Edit :This sounds a lot like tiering

Edited by max11180, 20 September 2015 - 02:49 AM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@max11180

I'll start near the end of your post:

I really like the CONCEPT of Binary vs. Company drops, but think it should really only happen in CW. The Public Queue is fine being a mixed jumble of 'Mechs.

The other concern about this is that if you drop Binary vs. Company x4 you end up with 40 vs. 48 'Mechs. That 8 'Mech deficit will prevail every time. There are other ways to balance this out, like giving Clanners 5 'Mechs each instead of 4 (meaning 50 vs. 48) and then forcing equal tonnage values (or maybe even giving IS great tonnage values). But that's not very lore friendly!

However, you're still left with balancing the 'Mechs because that is really the game, at its core.

The reality is that TT worked as a fun game for many reasons that cannot or should not be implemented in this real-time simulation.

Therefor, certain aspects of lore must be abandoned or ignored; namely the fact that IS tech is fully obsolete. It just won't work if you want to make it fun.

Why? Because, well... no one wants to play at a disadvantage. Do you?

So, instead of "better and worse" it has to be "different and balanced".

The other thing you mention is the "cycle time". I understand your thoughts (I think), but the fact is a "cycle" is completely arbitrary. Doesn't actually matter how long they determine a "cycle" to be, as long as it's consistent.

[Shad0wCatcher]

Wall of text incoming. Be warned. Also none of this TL:DR crap; take ritalin if you can't bear it.

Personally with regards to cycle / recycle times I'd prefer it if they went back to closer to MW4 / Black Knight / Mercenaries values for recycle times with a modified / standardized (30 point) heat bar with increasing penalties the higher you went (not binary 99% to shutdown...Stacking penalties; see Sarna; it's been posted here before also). See again the older games for ideas (movement / agility reduction the further you went; could even go so far as to increase recycling times for all weapons as the reloading machinery overheats; though I feel at least to start the reduction in movement speed / torso turn / twist rate and arm tracking rate and see how it goes from there). The effect is two-fold: First and foremost alpha strikes aren't the end-all-be-all due to much longer recycle times (you're waiting now and completely vulnerable to counterattack) and Secondly you run the very real risk of overheating, either shutting down entirely or reducing your agility / speed and increasing your vulnerability to return fire and being able to twist/turn to soak damage or get away. Gauss is balanced by having a huge recycle time (8 seconds!) and being heavy as well as vulnerable to crits (though I'd love to be able to shut it off to remove that vulnerability with an extended startup time; call it the full recycle time to recharge the coils). Same with the PPCs (CERPPC @ 8 seconds; IS @ 6 seconds)

Pulse lasers are powerful sure; but they like the CERLPL @ 4.5 damage every 0.75 sec for 5.60 heat (in Mercenaries) would overheat EXTREMELY quickly (as well as seriously increase needed facetime due to more than halving the damage dealt every cycle; would need tweaking to make it work with this "hold on target while wubs" deal since the recycle time is close to current on-target time [0.67 sec vs 0.75 recycle]) with a fixed heat scale; they could do solid damage for a very short period of time but you couldn't keep those alphas going or risk multiple penalties (slower movement, reduced agility, shutdowns etc due to how absolutely toasty they get). Balance also comes from if you wanted to "boat" more than a couple you'd REALLY need to stack up heatsinks to keep running cool (not this increased heat load crap we have now, just increased dissipation). As well extra heat sinks would mean something since you could fire more often for reduced / low penalties the high damage pinpoint weaponry.
.
With regards to people just going back to dakka dakka dakka vs spamming lasers there are a few options. First and easiest would be to reduce damage per ton with regards to ammunition such that it encourages bringing a balanced weapon loadout as opposed to just spamming all the AC/2s or AC/5s or their clan equivalents. (AC/2 @ 0.75 recycle, AC/5 @ 1.5 recycle, AC/10 @ 3 secs @ 13 tons, AC/20 @ 5 secs). LBXs need to save a ton still; but truly dakka balance is weight and low damage per ton. They retain usefulness since they do generate low amounts of heat overall. You COULD increase tonnage per weapon; but that punishes lighter mechs more than heavier mechs due to total available weaponry tonnage.

Far as dual gauss / ERPPC / ERLL or whatever the meta is for high damage pinpoint crap, with a 30 point fixed scale you stop the "boating" and staying ability of one type of weapon because you can no longer sustain that damage over any period of time. For CERPPC / ERPPC / 2x Gauss, well good job; you alpha'd and can now do nothing for 6 / 8 seconds while something recycles. You can use that to hide for 6 seconds (IS PPC) giving the opposite team that time to reposition or you could have mounted something else with a lower recycle time so that you can actually hit another target of opportunity while the gauss rifles come off cooldown.

For things like the 5x LLs on BLRs in chainfire or 2x / 3x combos it wouldn't ever happen due to overheat since you couldn't sustain more than 1 alpha strike (7.5 damage for 6 heat and 6 second recycle time). A) you're at 30 heat and autoshutdown since you didn't mount any heatsinks; good job you just b33f'd and Direstar'd. Also you did 37.5 damage and probably just killed yourself because you shutdown. Also you now have to wait for 6 seconds for weapons to recycle and for your mech to cooldown enough to restart. Outliers like the Supernova (Nova's big brother; not to be confused with the Nova Cat) can sustain 6 LLs chainfiring precisely because for that 24 tons of tasty clan weaponry it's mounting 22 tons of heatsinks to cope with the heat generation; even then it STILL can't keep up and will shutdown after some time.

Basically I'd just like to see much longer recycle times on all weapons to promote taking multiple weapon types (see MW4 Mercs for examples for this), a fixed heat scale with progressive penalties to punish very hot builds (see anything boating CERSPL / CERMPL and not enough heat sinks to cope with the heat), increased dissipation only for heatsinks (no increase in scale size, only amount dissipated per sink over time), reduced damage per ton of ammo for ballistics to again promote balanced builds and limit boating, and lastly for heat sinks to actually matter since right now you don't need anything more than 10 DHS internally for just about any build.

[Vykryl]

Dont cap alphas, increase heat or Cool downs on lasers.

For instance, lasers vs AC's. It doesnt even compare. Ill take unlimited ammo all day. and i can put 5 medium lasers and some DH where 1 ac5 can fit. Your not buffing AC's, heck your not nerfing lasers your saying hey you cant alpha every 8 seconds. You are making it more realistic. Laser vomit is the problem. Not a flood of ac 2's....

This is just my 2 cents.

[Lyoto Machida]

Commissar Aku, on 14 September 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

1. You guys understand that the 'arcade mode' isn't supposed to be the real game right?
2. ECM is so easily countered that it is almost a waste of tonnage in CW.
3. The game as it stands is so unbalanced that it is getting not fun to play.
4. This isn't going to be the only pass, and IF it becomes apparent the weapon quirks are actually needed to balance the game they will put them back in.
5. Why all the butthurt? I don't get it, they are trying to make the game better but instead of giving feedback all I see is crying about a change, every person who has presented anything in any form other than crying about the change has agreed with it to some degree or another. It isn't going to be perfect the first try, nothing is, that is why pencils have erasers, and there is a delete key on your keyboard. FFS.


And since you are rage trolls I will put this into perspective, Beagle active probe costs less tonnage, works at a longer range, and on top of countering ecm it also speeds up lock times and info times, making it better than ECM. Tag negates ECM, it has less tonnage, works at a longer range, and not only counters ECm but also reduced lock on time and info gathering. ECM has the same tonnage, works at the same range and can hide your mechs or counter ECM. There is no excuse for all this bitching about ECM be less of a self centered ******* and take any one of the options above. Or better yet learnt to aim without locks and be aware of your surroundings, then all you need to do is learn to aim, aside from the myst lynx the ECM is in the left torso. Easy.

Tag negates ECM, it has less tonnage, works at a longer range, and not only counters ECm but also reduced lock on time and info gathering.

also reduced lock on time

also reduced lock on time

also reduced lock on time

also reduced lock on time

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Lyoto Machida, on 22 September 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

Tag negates ECM, it has less tonnage, works at a longer range, and not only counters ECm but also reduced lock on time and info gathering.

also reduced lock on time

also reduced lock on time

also reduced lock on time

also reduced lock on time

Just have one thing to "counter" that (sorry, couldn't resist): ECM is passive and effectively range-less (meaning it is effective not TO a range, but STARTING AT a range. TAG is activated, requires LOS, has an discrete range and gives your position away quickly! Both have a viable role, but not really comparable in the as a Counter -> Check feature in the model I put forth above.

[Bigbacon]

if they want to increase TTK...they need to first fix laser vomit alpha stuff. this is the biggest reason I see for such a short life span of mechs.

Fix heat for real and you'll increase TTK greatly.

I mean, all you see is 90% energy builds with some AC dakka mechs thrown in.

biggest turn off in the game and for new players and even me alike, it is really rage inducing when you get cooked in an instant by some 7 MPL blasting thing 45 seconds into the match.

and look at weapons that are practically useless anymore:
SRMs are one...Looks at chassis like the Kintaro, they are pretty useless now.
AC are pretty useless now unless they are boated
LRMs...well they are LRMs...good sometimes terrible other times.

force people to mix and match loads to balance out their heat OR force them to deal with their high laser boat heat by making people have to think about their shooting.

As so many have been saying forever. HEAT is what needs to be fixed.

Edited by Bigbacon, 23 September 2015 - 07:29 AM.