2028 replies to this topic

[Abivard]

lol. you can't just pull the trigger and expect the LRMs to hit where you want with out lock, its not telekinetic guided, you have to AIM! and be careful you can kill teammates dumb-firing. so don't be Dumb about it.

[Miles Naismith]

One idea to help LRMs is to make them disperse over a larger area when fired without lock. Sure, they won't hit as hard, but they'll still cause the 'Incoming missile' message, so you can still volley fire for area denial.

[Vasces Diablo]

Abivard, on 17 December 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

lol. you can't just pull the trigger and expect the LRMs to hit where you want with out lock, its not telekinetic guided, you have to AIM! and be careful you can kill teammates dumb-firing. so don't be Dumb about it.

Of course not, I'm not askin for an easy button. 100% of LRMs didn't hit in TT and I don't expect 100% hit in MWO either.

I would expect to still aim, I would expect a slower lock on, I would expect that I have to maintain the aim, and I would expect my advanced targeting to be nullified.

What I also expect is that PGI wouldn't introduce a 1.5 ton price of equines with no drawbacks or cost of use that would brick every fire support mech in the game.

[StalaggtIKE]

Lupus Aurelius, on 17 December 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

One of our company members, who runs lights and Cicadas almost exclusively, had an interesting theory about this. LRM's had basically been balanced before ECM, but there was still a significant outcry about streakcats, specifically by the lag shielded lights crowd.

His theory was that PGI could not figure an easy way to balance the issue, so instead they implemented ECM in it's current incarnation. This effectively killed the streakcat, but still allows for an ECM carrying light or Cicada to still utilize streaks, or for that mattter, the D-DC Atlas, for use against light harassers. This also would explain the lack of explanation concerning PGI's stance on ECMs, since they would have to admit that they were unable to come up with a balancing mechanism that would still allow streaks to be useful across the board.

If this is the case, it's one of the worse methods of "balancing" that I have ever seen. Regardless, the merging of Guardian ECM, Angel ECM, and Null Sig armor into a package that is 1.5 tons and 2 crits, with none of the crit space requirements and heat requirements of Null Sig armor is so totally balance changing as to boggle the mind. Also, the mantra of "use TAG", and the TAG buff coming in the patch is ludicrous. The use of an AOE being countered by a direct line of sight system, that you actually have to sacrifice a weapon slot for, and maintaining that TAG on a lag shielded fast moving target, is hardly a balance.

Statements by the whiteknighters claiming that there are more things coming down the road is also ludicrous. Logically, in order to evaluate balance, the counters should have been implemented at the same time as ECM, to allow for evaluation of the balance of those elements. Without the counters, no evaluation is possible. Instead, you have an uber item that will drive gameplay into a few set of tactics and fits that will exploit that capability.

Agreed. I feel that ECM in its current state is nothing more than a band-aid. Considering the tonnage and ammo cost, LRM felt pretty good pre-ECM. Those that can't move and find cover, were going to complain regardless. The streaks on the other hand could be problematic. It was fairly cheap and very light. An increase in heat or lock-on time would have been a good start. If PGI insist on keeping it the way it is, then allow every chassis to equip it or increase its tonnage.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 17 December 2012 - 01:32 PM.

[LynxFury]

Abivard, on 17 December 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

lol. you can't just pull the trigger and expect the LRMs to hit where you want with out lock, its not telekinetic guided, you have to AIM! and be careful you can kill teammates dumb-firing. so don't be Dumb about it.

At thier severe drop off, minimum range and bristling 200m/s speed like that's realist. LOL.

[Tolkien]

LynxFury, on 17 December 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

At thier severe drop off, minimum range and bristling 200m/s speed like that's realist. LOL.

Suggesting direct firing LRMs at any range against a moving target (without a hint of irony) is about all I need to hear to form a pretty good opinion of how clearly someone can think.

[LynxFury]

Agreed.

And how it TAG, which also is only found in Ravens of the current crop of chassis/variants and less than 40 of more than 1300 IS TROs supposed to represent battletech?

It doesn't. It's a bandied to protect a questionable EW concept and badly overpowered game breaker.

Specific recommendations:

The eye signal indicator already has three bars.

Change the bubble with range effects as follows:

For the ECM equipped mech:
-detection by enemy radar reduced to 250m. 3X targeting time required to lock (no mech ever gets complete immunity).
ECM equipped mech sees 3 bars.

For friendly bubble out to 50m from ECM mech.
-detection by enemy radar reduced to ~500m, Enemy lock times 2x normal. Friendly sees 2 bars.

For friendly bubble out to 150m,
-detection by enemy radar reduced to ~750m, a rough counterpart to increased BAP range. Lock on times 1.5 normal.

Counter ECM moves the level of ECM protection ONLY based on max effect or counter within similar ranges--no more than one friendly or enemy ECM or ECCM count, only the strongest effect; in other words they do not stack.

For example a friendly stands 40m from a friendly ECM but there's an enemy ECCM 100meters away. His protection is as if he were 110 meters from the ECM chassis. (total move by 1 bar).

--
I also recommend adding an off mode to the guardian as well as heat when they jam or counter jam, say equal to firing a medium pulse laser. That would add more decision making to ECM mechs.

[Gladewolf]

The addition of ECM is good, I've had a chance to play with it in the Atlas, Raven and Commando and i've also played against it in Fire Support, Scout, Sniper and Brawling roles. It does however, have the following problems.
1. It promotes sloppy play by teams that have it.
- I know how to switch between thermal and normal vision modes....so i CAN see that blob of mechs advancing straight down the middle of the map, ignoring cover, unafraid of what the enemy will do because THEY HAVE AN ECM SHIELD. If i'm playing direct fire support or sniper, this i can do something about, but I also understand the frustrated disgust of any LRM boat that can see 8 targets simply marching across the field as if they are on some sort of twisted nature walk.
2. The Haves vs Have Not encounters are one sided among light mechs
- Most ECM equiped lights now carry streak launchers. Why? They can disable streak fire at them while gaining the benifit of being able to use them themselves. In any ECM v ECM senario, this problem balances out, but if one side doesn't have it, you might as well kiss your light mechs goodbye. I have both done this, and had it done to me.
3. Haves vs Have Nots in general with streak systems.
-Some teams are fielding streak+ECM as their entire tactic....let's face it, that's just cheesy.Fielding multiple streak cats with multiple ravens and Altases with streak launchers and then charging the enemy knowing they probably aren't going to have 5 ECM units should not be a valid tactic.

So with these issues in mind, here are some ideas to fix it.
1. Drop range reduction to half instead of 1/4th and remove the counter BAP when it is NOT in an ECM field, UNLESS the ECM cloaked mech is using cover at which point he can be right on the other side of a building as far as i'm concerned(already the way it is) Nobody should be "invisible" while standing 400m in front of another player in plain sight, That is NOT an information warfare piece, it's just silly. Make NARC a second usable counter to ECM.

2. Move ECM to the variants with fewer, or no missle hardpoints

3. I believe the first 2 changes proposed will make this tactic less viable

What do I believe these changes will do?
-Make LRMS fully viable without assisance from 180 to about 450 in range(maybe a little bit more with BAP)...IF the target is in the open.(I believe that is a fair fight scenario)
-Forces light mechs to play on a more even playing field with one another
-Eliminates really cheesy, planned gameplay from people that were probably complaining about streaks before ECM dropped.
-Will make me spend my 1.5 tons on my own Atlas on something else(I carry three streak launchers for you speedy little munchkins when i'm running my Atlas)

[Abivard]

A Statement is made ; I should be able to fire LRM's without lock on a clear stationary target, and I can't. Also stated, when I fire LRM's without lock they don't hit what I want.

Reply; LRM's can be fired without lock, you must aim your fire, be careful you can KILL teammates.

The further away the target and the faster it is moving makes it harder to hit goes without saying, use some mind power.

This requires skill, if you are not skillful enough doesn't mean NO ONE else can do it. Other people can be better than you or do things you can't, doesn't make them things impossible, and if on top of it you DON'T EVEN TRY, you certainly are never going to learn to do them yourself.

Making declarations like, no one uses LRM's, everyone is in a ECM mech, all using streaks etc are 'False' statements,

[Lupus Aurelius]

Abivard, on 17 December 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

..stuff

Wow, delusional much? Please provide objective evidence to backup what you have managed to repeat multiple times, and have had refuted multiple times. Disingenuous argument, in parrot mode.

[Vassago Rain]

I like ECM.
It has opened up a lot of gameplay elements.

For instance, you can actually hide and ambush people now, as they can't magically detect you from a kilometer away. It's nice that support weaponry is back to being support weaponry, and direct-fire guns gained a lot of value with their long ranges.

I don't like that ravens abuse lagshields and immunity to streaks, unless I hardcounter them with a double-D that has ECM and streaks of its own, but this is a completely diffferent issue.

[Corvus Antaka]

Vassago Rain, on 17 December 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

I like ECM.
It has opened up a lot of gameplay elements.

For instance, you can actually hide and ambush people now, as they can't magically detect you from a kilometer away. It's nice that support weaponry is back to being support weaponry, and direct-fire guns gained a lot of value with their long ranges.

I don't like that ravens abuse lagshields and immunity to streaks, unless I hardcounter them with a double-D that has ECM and streaks of its own, but this is a completely diffferent issue.

I don't see this, as pre-ECM cover hid you from radar too, and kept LRM's off you. I don't even mind ECM cutting down radar detection range. but when you have LOS on a mech, ECM or not, that mech should be lockable with LRMS & SSRM's without needing a NARC or TAG, or having to dumbfire the missiles.

if an enemy gets within the 180 meter bubble, then I like how ECM stops lockons. This is a perfect counter to the streak boating problem imho, except that every non-ecm mech with streaks is boned, so again, doubling lock on times, forcing you to lock EVERYTIME you want to fire, makes a lot more sense than completely negating missiles.

[White Bear 84]

I think they should have put the ecm on non streak mechs..

[Wintersdark]

StalaggtIKE, on 17 December 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

This is where you are wrong. Yeah it cut back on Streak and LRM boats, however it does so much more with such a small cost and tonnage. See below:

Not only does it block LRM and Streaks, it also:

• blocks radar (until within 200m, but outside of 180m bubble)
  
• blocks target acquisition (until within 200m, but outside of 180m bubble)
  
• blocks target intel (until within 200m, but outside of 180m bubble)
  
• blocks your mini map (once in 180m bubble)
  
• blocks your ability to distinguish between friend and foe (once in 180m bubble)

The fact is it hurts the coordination of a non-ECM team is my biggest issue with it. All radar is useless untill within a small 20m window of an ECM carrier. That window becomes even smaller when you add in multiple ECMs. You're at a disadvantage when joining a pug game to see that no one on your team has ECM, while the enemy has several.

Ok, I will absolutely concede the FF issues. Those secondary effects you note should apply to *everyone* in the bubble, not just the enemy team - or at least radar. Without the ability for mechs to carry externally visible ID, loss of FF determination is a huge disadvantage.

[repete]

Slivinhotsverg, on 13 December 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

Here's why I don't think it should just get nerfed. It adds considerably to the variety of the builds and game-play styles...

Been away from this thread for a few days, so late replies inbound.

I'm not sure what games you've been playing in, but as for "variety of builds", 80% of what I've seen are Ravens, AC toting Cataphracts and D-DCs, all in direct fire brawls or base rushes.

[Tykelau]

The main problem I have with ECM, besides it being a new "Must Have" is that is disables my ability to see FRIENDLY mechs on my minimap.

In a game where team communication is vital yet the in game communication is implemented really really poorly, adding ECM makes coordinating even simple things sooooooo much harder.

[repete]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 13 December 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

How about some reasons WHY ECM is not OP?

Otherwise, I call troll.

You can't prove a negative. So the author's options are to counter criticisms of ECM, or to pose reasons in support of how ECM is fine, but you can't prove X is not Y. I'm just being pedantic, so don't mind me. :-)

ohtochooseaname, on 13 December 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

...Regardless, I am frequently the only ECM on the teams that I join these days (like 50%), so it's not nearly as much of an issue as it was when this patch first came out.

I'm seeing less ECM in 4v4, and I ALWAYS bring mine (RVN-3L) just in case. I'm not necessarily seeing less ECM in 8v8.

[BR0WN_H0RN3T]

ECM should take up a hardpoint on mechs that can use the. Buff TAG so that it is a simple TAG-and-go rather than training a beam on a target. And finally, remove the extended lock-on time for hidden mechs. ECM is crazy OP right now cause nothing is suitablr to beat it and it does too much and it makes non-ECM variants completely useless.

[White Bear 84]

Brown Hornet, on 17 December 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

it makes non-ECM variants completely useless.

I killed 4 mechs in a match where the enemy team had 2 ecm and we only had one.. ..and i was in a cataphract. I beg to differ.

[Mad Porthos]

Not sure if there's anything I can say that hasn't been said already, but I'll try. First off, I see pros and cons to ECM, but I think the game has changed and gotten "smarter"/squirrelier because of it. I also think that ECM, as a thing that can be used by experienced players is an even greater advantage when running against raw green players, making the new player's random matches that much less fun.

A new player of MWO who drops into an match with ECM is bound to be annoyed and confused. The matchmaking and ranking system that searches for matches of players should perhaps take into account ECM equipped mechs and attempt to balance with it in mind, but I realize that's difficult and unlikely to be implemented.

This is unfortunate because one of the prevalent forms of c-bill farming I've seen is the ECM "streak cat" commando, or raven who exclusively hunts those new players - as a result the new players are very often dealing with nothing but ECM and being murderized by those looking for easy, quick kills on thier tally... light mech hunting circles of death. Again, perhaps one wishes this to be the case, let the "noobs"
learn from mistakes... but in the case of new players, it's going to put them off, greatly. It's not their fault they're green and they won't just sit there for 100+ matches being mauled trying to get a handle on aiming, turning and targeting while being rocked by commando's deploying ECM and 3 streak srm 2's, with tag...piloted with much better turning radius, target acquisition etc, due to elite skills on the mech tree.

Another bit of thought, on ECM. I've heard some commentaries about how eventual modules may allow operation of mechs without ECM interference, at least in some regards - sort of like hardened circuitry I guess. The thing is, those modules are beyond the reach of any but very experienced players, whereas ECM is a relatively cheap and early purchase, albeit on select mechs. Perhaps it would be better if ECM was rather a module implementation, something you need to earn - sort of the type of thing that a military organization wouldn't put just in the hands of any old mechwarrior, and that occupies a module space on the mech. However, I can see that it's important it takes up tonnage as well, if it's the ECM, as that's again, an attempt at a tradeoff, ineffective as it is.

Conversely, having electromagnetically hardened circuitry on most battlemechs should be standardized, due to expected interference from EMP blasts(PPCs), nuclear warfare and of course expected ECM usage. I always had the impression of rarity from ECM in the battletech universe, partially because it was Lostech in many cases, but also simply because it was expensive and took alot of trade offs from the mech it was installed in.

But ECM in MWO has few of those tradeoffs. It takes a few tons, a few slots... but it generates no heat, does not interfere with your own team (which in reality it should) and does not even force you to give up some weaponry or hardpoints, except by costing a relatively small tonnage. If it instead was viewed as perhaps a weapons pod as omnimechs treated it, it could then at least perhaps take up hard points, forcing for instance a commando or raven to give up a missile spot or energy weapon spot to slot it... but no. I realize that MWO developers may feel ECM effects to be alright... for the most part I think they are, but unintended conseqences on new players as well as insufficient "balanced tradeoffs" I think make it a bit in need of revisiting. Just one man's opinion but I think there's others who can see what I mean.

Edited by Mad Porthos, 17 December 2012 - 04:09 PM.