40
Lupus Aurelius, on 14 December 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:
“I also asked Inoye if Piranha is happy with the recent implementation of the ECM (electronic counter-measures) system to MWO, which allows some mechs to equip radar and lock-on jamming equipment. "The effect [of ECM] is working as intended and forces players to play a lot smarter," he said. "Specialized Mechs still have their place on the battlefield but they are going to need the assistance of their teammates to succeed. If you plan on taking specialized Mech into a match, plan wisely and have alternate weapon systems that will help you with mid to long-range combat. People are thinking we need to severely 'nerf' the ECM. This is not the case at all. There is already 1 counter-ECM item in the game (TAG), and likely there will be a couple more involving modules and weapon effects."”
PCGamer, 14th Dec 2012 | 19:55
We have had a variety of posts that pretty much say the same thing, so I will omit the background details. It has been clearly established that Guardian ECM implementation in MWO DOES NOT match Guardian ECM from TT, and that instead represents a synthesis of Guardian ECM, Angel ECM, and Null Signature Armor, at a minimum.
Added to this has been the relation of the effects it has been having on gameplay, mostly negative statements, involving a lessening of tactics that revolve around base rush under ECM cloak or turtling under ECM cloak. In 8v8, this is accompanied by a trend to maximizing the use of heavy numbers of Atlas D-DC with ECM, pretty much weighing bouts heavily towards whoever has the most ECM and assaults will most likely win. Under those circumstances, a sole light with a tag will not be able to stay on target with tag long enough for missiles to impact without becoming an easy target, and if a squad tries to push in with less ECM than the opponent, will not be able to counter ECM.
Added to that, the features that replicate Null Sig would actually require alot of crits, and would generate heat, and you have all the advantages of that system with none on the drawbacks.
All of this has been amply covered in the preceding 84 pages. For it’s weight an functionality, it totally wipes out the checks and balances crafted in BattleTech so as to give, not only counters, but disadvantages to use of the multiple ECM packages that currently are contained in 1 system that weighs 1.5 tons and takes up 2 crits of space. And Paul Inoye’s response –
“People are thinking we need to severely 'nerf' the ECM. This is not the case at all. There is already 1 counter-ECM item in the game (TAG), and likely there will be a couple more involving modules and weapon effects”
-is astounding on several levels. It totally ignores all the above points, ignores and does not address at all any of the issues brought up.
More importantly, was this response here on the forums? Was this response to the community? NO, IT WAS IN PCGAMER MAGIZINE. It addressed none of the concerns, it does not address what it has done to gameplay. Instead it minimizes to the outside public the obvious concern that players in this community have.
There has been data and input from this community as to how ECM has been implemented in MWO by this community, combining all the posts and you have hundreds of pages of input, with a clear indication that ECM is currently overpowered. Paul, we deserved a response here on the MWO forums, we deserve a response that actually addresses concerns, we deserve a response that actually tells us what will be done to balance ECM in MWO, and what the short term and longterm solutions are.
This may be beta, this may be F2P, but you have asked us to give input to balance the game. We have done so. If you are going to minimalize it, ignore it, mis-represent it to the public, why should we even continue to support MWO?
PCGamer, 14th Dec 2012 | 19:55
We have had a variety of posts that pretty much say the same thing, so I will omit the background details. It has been clearly established that Guardian ECM implementation in MWO DOES NOT match Guardian ECM from TT, and that instead represents a synthesis of Guardian ECM, Angel ECM, and Null Signature Armor, at a minimum.
Added to this has been the relation of the effects it has been having on gameplay, mostly negative statements, involving a lessening of tactics that revolve around base rush under ECM cloak or turtling under ECM cloak. In 8v8, this is accompanied by a trend to maximizing the use of heavy numbers of Atlas D-DC with ECM, pretty much weighing bouts heavily towards whoever has the most ECM and assaults will most likely win. Under those circumstances, a sole light with a tag will not be able to stay on target with tag long enough for missiles to impact without becoming an easy target, and if a squad tries to push in with less ECM than the opponent, will not be able to counter ECM.
Added to that, the features that replicate Null Sig would actually require alot of crits, and would generate heat, and you have all the advantages of that system with none on the drawbacks.
All of this has been amply covered in the preceding 84 pages. For it’s weight an functionality, it totally wipes out the checks and balances crafted in BattleTech so as to give, not only counters, but disadvantages to use of the multiple ECM packages that currently are contained in 1 system that weighs 1.5 tons and takes up 2 crits of space. And Paul Inoye’s response –
“People are thinking we need to severely 'nerf' the ECM. This is not the case at all. There is already 1 counter-ECM item in the game (TAG), and likely there will be a couple more involving modules and weapon effects”
-is astounding on several levels. It totally ignores all the above points, ignores and does not address at all any of the issues brought up.
More importantly, was this response here on the forums? Was this response to the community? NO, IT WAS IN PCGAMER MAGIZINE. It addressed none of the concerns, it does not address what it has done to gameplay. Instead it minimizes to the outside public the obvious concern that players in this community have.
There has been data and input from this community as to how ECM has been implemented in MWO by this community, combining all the posts and you have hundreds of pages of input, with a clear indication that ECM is currently overpowered. Paul, we deserved a response here on the MWO forums, we deserve a response that actually addresses concerns, we deserve a response that actually tells us what will be done to balance ECM in MWO, and what the short term and longterm solutions are.
This may be beta, this may be F2P, but you have asked us to give input to balance the game. We have done so. If you are going to minimalize it, ignore it, mis-represent it to the public, why should we even continue to support MWO?
wow.
Direct fire it is. Goodbye LRMS & SSRMS. PGI, please fix your netcode if you are going to force us to primarily use direct fire. And fix weapon convergance from the arms so using dual gauss and PPC in arms is just as effective as from a K2's side torsos, instead of worse.
