2028 replies to this topic

[Synra]

I am entering the conversation late here, but I will throw in my thoughts anyway. I don't say much on these boards anymore since beta ended, and PGI doing bone headed things like this is a big reason why.

I have been experiencing ECM for the past week just like everyone else. At first I didn't like it much. Then I realized that it solved certain problems that have plagued MWO for months. Particularly, people being afraid to move forward. But now I am convinced that ECM is massively overpowered.

*sigh* you know, I want to write and detail why I feel that way, but I doubt I need to. At 79 pages here, I am sure it has all been said many times over. ECM is almost a good idea in a way, but it's cripping the gameplay in other ways. It does way too many different things, to every single mech within range, and the only counter is another ECM. And it's getting old fast.

The fun in playing MWO is draining away quickly thanks to this. My friends and I used to put in 4-5 hours of play at a time. But lately, we have been calling it a night in 1 - 2 hours of play due to frustration because of this ECM stuff.

I am all for information warfare, but this thing shouldn't be an end-all-be-all super information warfare tool.

1. If it's going to be a massive bubble like it is, then it should only generate one single effect, not 7 or 8 different effects like it does now.
2. If it's going to do more than one thing, then it should be self only for the guy who equips it. No more stealthing your whole team, no more scrambling enemy mechs.

3. The counter for ECM should not be ECM. That is incredibly stupid. Imagine playing Paper/Rock/Scissors and for some inexplicable reason the only counter for Rock is to neutralize it with another Rock. BAP really doesn't do anything useful currently. That should probably be the counter tool for ECM. If ECM stealths people, then BAP probably should be the tool that detects stealthed enemies.

4. I would love to point a finger at tabletop rules here, but ever since we got that oxymoron that PGI calls double heatsinks I just visualize that Paul Inuoye guy just throwing all of their battletech rulebooks and referance material out the second floor window of the building.

Edited by Synra, 12 December 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[Kemosobe]

I agree Synra, the ECM is a very good counter to certain aspects of gameplay that needed countering. But they made it far too powerful and it counters everything instead of simply halting what it was implemented to halt. Making it only affect the mech it is equipped on I think would be a start to see if anything more needs to be done to it.

[BadKarma7]

repete, on 12 December 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

To anyone else who is wondering what PGI's thoughts or position is re: ECM at the moment, I asked in today's NGNG podcast, and the response from Garth was (To paraphrase):

"[We're watching, gathering information, and we'll see]"

I was predominantly curious if Garth would make a statement like "Yes, we are aware of issues", "We are aware of some of the impacts" or even something like "We believe ECM is operating as intended".

So it's been a week. They are watching. I think many would agree it can be frustrating at times, but bottom line, look at the little blue word on the MWO logo. We are here to test. So be sure to test and give PGI the results.

Except that they are charging REAL money in STUPID amounts. That's not testing, that's selling a product. You pretty much have to be a window-licker to not see the issues at this point - they're watching what? People leaving? Barren chat servers? ECM stacked bum rushes?

PGI: here are your results - ECM is overpowered and the idea to reward stacking it has had the painfully predictable result of people stacking it (imagine that?!) and actual tactics going out the window. Gratz.

[Hammer Hands]

Arcturious, on 09 December 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

I would hate to see knee jerk nerds to a system working as intended and exactly as canon describes.

Which canon lore are you reading buddy, because I've been playing the TT since I was 13, some 24 years ago and never once have I read that gave friendly mechs inside a 180m range any benefits at all. It only effected enemy mechs inside that range. ECM in its current incarnation is NOTHING like the canon rules.

[LynxFury]

Hammer Hands, on 12 December 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Which canon lore are you reading buddy, because I've been playing the TT since I was 13, some 24 years ago and never once have I read that gave friendly mechs inside a 180m range any benefits at all. It only effected enemy mechs inside that range. ECM in its current incarnation is NOTHING like the canon rules.

Because the TT designers didn't have a clue how ECM works. It shouldn't be followed in this case.

[StUffz]

BadKarma7, on 12 December 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

Except that they are charging REAL money in STUPID amounts. That's not testing, that's selling a product. You pretty much have to be a window-licker to not see the issues at this point - they're watching what? People leaving? Barren chat servers? ECM stacked bum rushes?

PGI: here are your results - ECM is overpowered and the idea to reward stacking it has had the painfully predictable result of people stacking it (imagine that?!) and actual tactics going out the window. Gratz.

They are not charging but they are offering you to assist with sponsoring money. That's the difference. It is not that PGI asks for a monthly fee to run beta. It's an option offered to the testers.

[Solis Obscuri]

steelblueskies, on 12 December 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

or perhaps ecm shouldn't be disrupting that information sharing as it's not a c3 network being disrupted you mean?

Bingo.

[BR0WN_H0RN3T]

I've got Beagle on one of my mechs. Either that or more armour. So...now just waiting for it to do something.

[StUffz]

LynxFury, on 12 December 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Because the TT designers didn't have a clue how ECM works. It shouldn't be followed in this case.

But you know how it is working exactly? Please share your information that we know how it is working properly

[Tolkien]

StUffz, on 13 December 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

But you know how it is working exactly? Please share your information that we know how it is working properly

If you read back in the thread you'll see that people have already posted and debated the TT rules for ECM for both regular and double blind scenarios, within the last 3 pages I think.

Right now ECM in MWO is doing much more than it really should, some of this being due to the devs going way overboard, part of it is due to the way that other systems in MWO are already set up, like the entire LRM weapons family that currently needs a lock to do anything.

One good example is there are a few people pointing out that we sort of have access to C3 to allow us target info sharing. Sort of, but C3 if actually there it would modify to hit difficulties - we certainly don't have this. Also, this C3ish target info sharing still wouldn`t be disrupted unless your LOS to your ally passes through the 180m bubble. Right now ECM just sort of monkey hammers sensors which is not right at all. On tabletop, if an enemy mech is in LOS to one of your mechs you know where it is and you can guide your whole force accordingly, you don't have to pretend that 1 pilot can see an enemy and the six on the other side of a building have no clue he is there. You the commander standing over the table see him, and the information sharing we had before ECM broke it modeled it well within 800m.

Some have also argued that ECM, which should disrupt clan targeting computers, should monkey hammer sensors to model this. On tabletop ECM should disrupt basic clan targeting computers so that they don`t grant their bonus to hit and also disrupt the ability of the targeting computer using mech to shoot at specific spots on an enemy mech. While this is completely correct on tabletop, since you can`t target specific locations on a moving mech in tabletop, it's all random to hit locations unless you have a working targeting computer. The problem here is that us humans can point our guns where we want and blow out the damaged centre torso on an atlas rather than hitting him in the legs for the next 20 minutes (which can happen on the tabletop). ECM doesn't fix this anyway since us humans can still point our direct fire weapons where we want on the enemy. This also underlines a big difference between this game and tabletop: on tabletop the odds of hitting a mech in the centre torso was the same whether it was a commando, jenner, atlas, awesome, catapult etc. Here in MWO since it's a first person shooter, the mechs visual size and arm/leg/torso sizes make some spots easier to hit than others. This is part of why catapults and atlases get their centre torsos blown out so often, while huchbacks get their big gun blown off, and centurions lose that arm with the AC first

I have no idea how they plan to solve this latest point, but dicking with targeting via ECM isn't it - direct fire weapons point just as well whether you have a target lock or not, you just run the risk of spiking a teammate which never* happens on tabletop (*okay it does happen with artillery etc.).

Whatever the devs come up with has to be balanced for the game they are making, and the current implementation of ECM has a number of seriously ugly features:

1) It didn't nerf LRMs, it made them exclusively available to the team that has N+1 ECM mechs around.
2) It didn't nerf streak SRMs, it made them exclusively available to the team that has N+1 ECM mechs around.
3) It didn't fix our virtual targeting computers - only making hits randomly assign damage would fix this.
4) It ruined information sharing, making pugs extremely frustrating.
5) It is not a balanced gameplay item by any objective analysis. It is a 2 slot, 1.5 ton item that counters

counter

Artemis
BAP
Tag bonuses (and the whole system inside of 180m)
NARC - a system which takes more space, weighs more, requires real coordination and skill and has ammo.
other ECMs
LRM locks
SRM locks
general targeting info
relegate AMS to almost pointlessness
have no exploding ammo
generate no heat
cost less than a module by a factor of 15

I know some have complained that I sound like a broken record when I post the above, but I feel it necessary to hammer the point home that the ECM is currently hands down the best value for tonnage/slots/cbills in the game. It is a true 'force multiplier' for the team that has it, but worse it is a 'force divisor' for the side that doesn't have N+1 of them around at the moment.

Before judging the other things I've said please tell me if you can disagree with that - isn't the ECM the hands down best single item in the game right now?

[sarkun]

I could live with all of the effects of ECM, if the bloody thing came with some disadvantages. I mean, for 2crit, 1.5 ton, you can get what - 1 SL and SHS, or MG + 1ton ammo, or AMS + 1ton ammo... or ECM. Which of these is MASSIVELY more useful than others?

If the effects of ECM are here to stay, I wish they split it over different ECM parts, so that if you wanted all of it, you'd have to take several pieces of equipment, taking a significant chunk of your chassis weight / space. And have it generate heat or explode on destruction.

I think it could be a cool idea if Electronic Warfare Equipment (ECM, BAP, etc), required some sort of a new hardpoint on a mech... an Electronic Warfare Hardpoint - so some mechs could have 3, some none, giving much more diversity that just this variant can equip ECM, this one cannot.

Thus we could have all Raven mechs have 2 Electronic Warfare Hardpoints, other lights just single, etc.

Edited by sarkun, 13 December 2012 - 04:33 AM.

[Tolkien]

StUffz, on 12 December 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

They are not charging but they are offering you to assist with sponsoring money. That's the difference. It is not that PGI asks for a monthly fee to run beta. It's an option offered to the testers.

I would agree if we were still in closed beta, exactly as the founders program was. In open beta offering things for sale means that the game is ready for all to come and kick the tires.

If you don't want your product evaluated as a retail product, don't offer it openly for sale - planetside 2 only went to open beta when it was a few weeks ahead of launch as it was a load test, not a balance sandbox. Since the devs still want to throw in 'game changers' that are this badly balanced, it means this game is nowhere near that point, and would be better served by a return to closed beta.

Edited by Tolkien, 13 December 2012 - 05:22 AM.

[StUffz]

Tolkien, on 13 December 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

I would agree if we were still in closed beta, exactly as the founders program was. In open beta offering things for sale means that the game is ready for all to come and kick the tires.

If you don't want your product evaluated as a retail product, don't offer it openly for sale - planetside 2 only went to open beta when it was a few weeks ahead of launch as it was a load test, not a balance sandbox. Since the devs still want to throw in 'game changers' that are this badly balanced, it means this game is nowhere near that point, and would be better served by a return to closed beta.

It's still beta. And PGI is still not demanding payment for service. That they are offering additional gimmick is something which does not impact beta. Neither the Founders Mechs nor YLW nor IM have boons that have impact on the game testing.

Paying to PGI is more like a donations program and as a thank you they create non-phyiscal gifts in form of game credit at the moment. During Founders Program the thank you was in form of game avatars and some credits.

However all this is a free option with no mandatory charges like monthly fees to use the service.

[Tolkien]

StUffz, on 13 December 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

It's still beta. And PGI is still not demanding payment for service. That they are offering additional gimmick is something which does not impact beta. Neither the Founders Mechs nor YLW nor IM have boons that have impact on the game testing.

Paying to PGI is more like a donations program and as a thank you they create non-phyiscal gifts in form of game credit at the moment. During Founders Program the thank you was in form of game avatars and some credits.

However all this is a free option with no mandatory charges like monthly fees to use the service.

I think I can see what you're saying, and in some ways I do agree. We are both legendary founders because we wanted to give the design of the game a boost to help it see the light of day, and knew we were in for a rough ride in closed beta as the game was still being assembled from pieces.

To me though the transition to open beta is a whole new world as it is literally anyone who can come into the game and see what it's all about. To see a game hit open beta usually means that release is right around the corner and most of what is needed is server stability and load testing, not fundamental design balance or mode of play evaluation.

When there is a release that creates a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment that can counter

Artemis
BAP
Tag bonuses (and the whole system inside of 180m)
NARC - a system which takes more space, weighs more, requires real coordination and skill and has ammo.
other ECMs
LRM locks
SRM locks
general targeting info
relegate AMS to almost pointlessness
have no exploding ammo
generate no heat
cost less than a module by a factor of 15

... and has been stated by the devs to have been toned down prior to release, this really makes me question how the project is going to turn out, and how ready it really is for the world to see and judge it. Even though you can make the case for a beta having rough edges, how much of the general population do you think is going to take that charitable of an attitude? I see MWO banners and ads everywhere online and wonder what fraction of the people that click through and try the game will be permanently turned off by one of these wild 'game changers' the devs seem to think are no big deal.

Again, they already have my money, I really want to see the project thrive, and I was very patient during closed beta, but the game has changed - the marketing game is afoot and the fickle fancy of the consumer needs to be taken into account.

[StUffz]

Everybody wants to see the project going on. However it's beta and we should give the feedbacks on the mechanics - what we already do. Just give the devs the time to focus on issues step by step.

[AlanEsh]

StUffz, on 13 December 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

Paying to PGI is more like a donations program ...
However all this is a free option with no mandatory charges like monthly fees to use the service.

It won't be mandatory after some magical "end of beta" line is crossed either. I don't see your point.

And, because I can't seem to say it enough, "Remove ECM Stacking."

[StUffz]

Angelicon, on 13 December 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

It won't be mandatory after some magical "end of beta" line is crossed either. I don't see your point.

And, because I can't seem to say it enough, "Remove ECM Stacking."

The point is that PGI is not demanding payment in beta or even after beta for playing the game/testing in beta phase. Paying for some extra avatars or credits is an optional benefit everybody is free to chose.

[Tolkien]

StUffz, on 13 December 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

The point is that PGI is not demanding payment in beta or even after beta for playing the game/testing in beta phase. Paying for some extra avatars or credits is an optional benefit everybody is free to chose.

I apologize for derailing the conversation towards beta/for sale issues, we should be discussing ECM balance in this thread.

[TitanSeraph]

>All ravens should have ECM, or at least almost all
>ECM is not overpowered - keep it the way it is

[Latvanis]

Those people who ar saying that ECM should affect only are *******!
There will be only a mech types who has ECMs... Because now allies wont be able to shield your faworite mech ,but you are forced to pick ECM mech instead... With this you just make it worse!
I rather see ECM disrupting every one ,not just enemy (inclouding mech carrying it)
That would make better ballance!