Null Signature does not come into play until 3068 and is very rare even then... why introduce it now, when we do not even have Clan Tech...
I still would say:
- Remove the current ECM implementation from the game
- Make a new one that correlates to canon/TT rules and make a "direct balance" and not "counter balance" approach to it, because this is the only thing that works
2
Ecm - An Analysis Of The System And How To Fix It
Started by GoriKarafong, Dec 05 2012 10:10 AM
78 replies to this topic
#62
-
-
- 55 posts
Member
Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:19 AM
Just posting to say I like many of the ideas posited throughout this thread (particularly in the OP), but think we can only implement a few of them without totally nerfing ECM.
Another, perhaps simpler, fix I think, would be allowing a single ECM counterfield to disrupt ALL ECMs in the area, not just one.
Another, perhaps simpler, fix I think, would be allowing a single ECM counterfield to disrupt ALL ECMs in the area, not just one.
#63
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 435 posts
Member
- LocationAround
Posted 08 January 2013 - 11:34 AM
I still do not see why the implementation in TT is so bad. It is more canon and it does only effect the wearing Mech to a degree that is acceptable.
It still hugely helps scouting as LRM and SSRM are still harder to hit you, especially with your speed, but it does not make you invincible like the current implementation.
It still hugely helps scouting as LRM and SSRM are still harder to hit you, especially with your speed, but it does not make you invincible like the current implementation.
#64
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 235 posts
Member
Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:01 PM
@Terry Ward
I am no TT or canon expert ... but the link you posted to Sarna indicates that the Null Signature System was developed in 2630
Sure its LOSTech, but still ...
Terry Ward, on 03 January 2013 - 04:52 AM, said:
I am no TT or canon expert ... but the link you posted to Sarna indicates that the Null Signature System was developed in 2630
Sure its LOSTech, but still ...
#65
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 435 posts
Member
- LocationAround
Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:22 PM
If you follow canon more closely then you'll see that the Null Signature System was only rumored to be in limited supply at ComStar and even they had only so few units that no frontline Mechs used it.
It was rumored that the honor guard, that guarded Hilton Head Island on Earth had some and that during the Jihad Word of Blake had used a few of those Mechs in fights.
One of those supposedly fell in the hands of a Clan, cannot recall which one atm and they were unable to reproduce it and also considered it a tool that a true warrior would not use on the battlefield.
Hence you are right that it was developed by the Star League, but it shows that when the clans invaded and did not bring it with them only a few options are open:
- Even the Star League had only a few prototypes and those got destroyed and not taken on the Exodus
- They considered it unworthy tech for a warrior and shelved the technology
- They had a prototype, but as the later clan were unable to reproduce it
This all leaves us with a "no chance in hell" scenario that the current inner sphere in 3050 has such a device and let alone should we.
If at all then leave those things to the 3 people that actually can make their Mech dissapear: Morgan Kell, Patrick Kell and Yorinaga Kurita.
It was rumored that the honor guard, that guarded Hilton Head Island on Earth had some and that during the Jihad Word of Blake had used a few of those Mechs in fights.
One of those supposedly fell in the hands of a Clan, cannot recall which one atm and they were unable to reproduce it and also considered it a tool that a true warrior would not use on the battlefield.
Hence you are right that it was developed by the Star League, but it shows that when the clans invaded and did not bring it with them only a few options are open:
- Even the Star League had only a few prototypes and those got destroyed and not taken on the Exodus
- They considered it unworthy tech for a warrior and shelved the technology
- They had a prototype, but as the later clan were unable to reproduce it
This all leaves us with a "no chance in hell" scenario that the current inner sphere in 3050 has such a device and let alone should we.
If at all then leave those things to the 3 people that actually can make their Mech dissapear: Morgan Kell, Patrick Kell and Yorinaga Kurita.
#66
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 70 posts
Member
Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:28 PM
As others have said, ECM is (for the most part) fine as it is, with a couple minor tweaks.
It seriously blows my mind how many people think that ECM makes things invulnerable. I mean, have you ever played another FPS in your life? Not many FPSs out there paint a big red square around your target. Just. So. Pathetic.
If the only weapon you know how to fire is one that locks on to a target for you with minimal effort, or how to lead a target with... well, any other type of weapon, just keep on posting how unfair it is because you cant one shot those pesky light mechs. FYI, I would run out of ammo on my Cmd by the time I solo killed an assault.
It seriously blows my mind how many people think that ECM makes things invulnerable. I mean, have you ever played another FPS in your life? Not many FPSs out there paint a big red square around your target. Just. So. Pathetic.
If the only weapon you know how to fire is one that locks on to a target for you with minimal effort, or how to lead a target with... well, any other type of weapon, just keep on posting how unfair it is because you cant one shot those pesky light mechs. FYI, I would run out of ammo on my Cmd by the time I solo killed an assault.
#67
-
-
- 55 posts
Member
Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:55 PM
ECM doesn't make anything invulnerable, but it totally nerfs various mechs and types of play. If you are playing with ECMs, LRMs and streak builds are virtually useless. Something like in the OP allows those builds to still be useful, but be made LESS useful by ECMs. ECMs, as they stand, make those builds plain bad.
#68
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 3,495 posts
Member
Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:55 PM
SSRMs, LRMs, ECM and electronic warfare need to balanced ... in my opinion they are not at the moment.
ECM prevents locks making SSRM and LRM useless. When not countered in this way, LRM and SSRM are extremely effective ... perhaps too effective. In recent matches, without ECM cover, I have had my mech shredded very quickly by LRMs and SSRMs if there was no nearby cover to break the lock.
Suggestions:
1) LRMs and SSRMs should do slightly less damage .. they are too effective when ECM is not present.
2) Currently, ECM blocks missile locks within 180m and reduces detection range to 25% of the sensor range (200m based on a base 800m sensor range). This gives a 20m range band where an ECM protected mech can be locked. This is useless in practice. The ECM sensor block range should be increased to 30 (240m) or 35% (280m) giving a wider range band in which an ECM mech can be locked.
3) BAP and sensor range modules (if not within 180m of ECM) should further increase the sensor detection range of mechs hidden by ECM.
4) TAG should continue to work even within 180m of an ECM mech.
5) TAG should be on a toggle (folks get this by stacking a weight on the key to activate the TAG or using a keyboard macro to effectively push the button all the time ... this shouldn't be needed).
6) SSRM2s should be able to fire as SRM2 without a lock ... whether inside ECM or not (I believe this is in TT ... no reason it should not be in MWO).
I would start with those and see how the balance goes.
ECM prevents locks making SSRM and LRM useless. When not countered in this way, LRM and SSRM are extremely effective ... perhaps too effective. In recent matches, without ECM cover, I have had my mech shredded very quickly by LRMs and SSRMs if there was no nearby cover to break the lock.
Suggestions:
1) LRMs and SSRMs should do slightly less damage .. they are too effective when ECM is not present.
2) Currently, ECM blocks missile locks within 180m and reduces detection range to 25% of the sensor range (200m based on a base 800m sensor range). This gives a 20m range band where an ECM protected mech can be locked. This is useless in practice. The ECM sensor block range should be increased to 30 (240m) or 35% (280m) giving a wider range band in which an ECM mech can be locked.
3) BAP and sensor range modules (if not within 180m of ECM) should further increase the sensor detection range of mechs hidden by ECM.
4) TAG should continue to work even within 180m of an ECM mech.
5) TAG should be on a toggle (folks get this by stacking a weight on the key to activate the TAG or using a keyboard macro to effectively push the button all the time ... this shouldn't be needed).
6) SSRM2s should be able to fire as SRM2 without a lock ... whether inside ECM or not (I believe this is in TT ... no reason it should not be in MWO).
I would start with those and see how the balance goes.
#69
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 235 posts
Member
Posted 08 January 2013 - 01:55 PM
The problem isn't necessarily what ECM does (although many would argue that it combines 2 or 3 pieces of equipment that really should be separated out if for no other reason than for variety). The problem is that there is only one counter to ECM that isn't ECM itself.
ECM (if it is to remain a "null signature system emulator" as well as an ECM), should be countered by both TAG AND NARC ,,, and ideally PPC/ERPPCs should disable it temporarily. It should probably also produce heat while active.
Further, I completely agree with what Mawai suggested ...
ECM (if it is to remain a "null signature system emulator" as well as an ECM), should be countered by both TAG AND NARC ,,, and ideally PPC/ERPPCs should disable it temporarily. It should probably also produce heat while active.
Further, I completely agree with what Mawai suggested ...
Mawai, on 08 January 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:
6) SSRM2s should be able to fire as SRM2 without a lock ... whether inside ECM or not (I believe this is in TT ... no reason it should not be in MWO).
#70
-
-
- 55 posts
Member
Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:02 PM
Also, an ECM field should disrupt ALL locks, not just enemy locks. A raven with ECM activated shouldn't be able to use streaks.
#71
-
- Survivor
- 8 posts
Rookie
Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:22 PM
Zyllos, on 05 December 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:
I agree with the need of balancing ECM. But ECM does not need to radically changed (SSRM/LRM stop tracking at 180m, blur blipping, ect). Personally, the GECM (Guardian ECM) should only make the mech equipped with ECM un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). All other mechs within 180m of the GECM mech should just have the lock-on time increased.
Then later, add AECM (Angel ECM) which makes all mechs around it within 180m un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). The mech equipped with AECM just increases lock-on time.
For each ECM (both AECM and GECM), you could have the Counter mode which goes out to 360m or possibly to 540m and block ALL ECMs within range (not the 1-to-1 ratio of now). This is to make having a ton of ECMs just dominate a team with a single ECM. It should be able strategic use of the ECM, not the number of ECM.
Then later, add AECM (Angel ECM) which makes all mechs around it within 180m un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). The mech equipped with AECM just increases lock-on time.
For each ECM (both AECM and GECM), you could have the Counter mode which goes out to 360m or possibly to 540m and block ALL ECMs within range (not the 1-to-1 ratio of now). This is to make having a ton of ECMs just dominate a team with a single ECM. It should be able strategic use of the ECM, not the number of ECM.
Zyllos, on 05 December 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:
I agree with the need of balancing ECM. But ECM does not need to radically changed (SSRM/LRM stop tracking at 180m, blur blipping, ect). Personally, the GECM (Guardian ECM) should only make the mech equipped with ECM un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). All other mechs within 180m of the GECM mech should just have the lock-on time increased.
Then later, add AECM (Angel ECM) which makes all mechs around it within 180m un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). The mech equipped with AECM just increases lock-on time.
For each ECM (both AECM and GECM), you could have the Counter mode which goes out to 360m or possibly to 540m and block ALL ECMs within range (not the 1-to-1 ratio of now). This is to make having a ton of ECMs just dominate a team with a single ECM. It should be able strategic use of the ECM, not the number of ECM.
Then later, add AECM (Angel ECM) which makes all mechs around it within 180m un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). The mech equipped with AECM just increases lock-on time.
For each ECM (both AECM and GECM), you could have the Counter mode which goes out to 360m or possibly to 540m and block ALL ECMs within range (not the 1-to-1 ratio of now). This is to make having a ton of ECMs just dominate a team with a single ECM. It should be able strategic use of the ECM, not the number of ECM.
Zyllos, on 05 December 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:
I agree with the need of balancing ECM. But ECM does not need to radically changed (SSRM/LRM stop tracking at 180m, blur blipping, ect). Personally, the GECM (Guardian ECM) should only make the mech equipped with ECM un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). All other mechs within 180m of the GECM mech should just have the lock-on time increased.
Then later, add AECM (Angel ECM) which makes all mechs around it within 180m un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). The mech equipped with AECM just increases lock-on time.
For each ECM (both AECM and GECM), you could have the Counter mode which goes out to 360m or possibly to 540m and block ALL ECMs within range (not the 1-to-1 ratio of now). This is to make having a ton of ECMs just dominate a team with a single ECM. It should be able strategic use of the ECM, not the number of ECM.
Then later, add AECM (Angel ECM) which makes all mechs around it within 180m un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). The mech equipped with AECM just increases lock-on time.
For each ECM (both AECM and GECM), you could have the Counter mode which goes out to 360m or possibly to 540m and block ALL ECMs within range (not the 1-to-1 ratio of now). This is to make having a ton of ECMs just dominate a team with a single ECM. It should be able strategic use of the ECM, not the number of ECM.
Fully agree. It seems that the ECM counters just
Zyllos, on 05 December 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:
I agree with the need of balancing ECM. But ECM does not need to radically changed (SSRM/LRM stop tracking at 180m, blur blipping, ect). Personally, the GECM (Guardian ECM) should only make the mech equipped with ECM un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). All other mechs within 180m of the GECM mech should just have the lock-on time increased.
Then later, add AECM (Angel ECM) which makes all mechs around it within 180m un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). The mech equipped with AECM just increases lock-on time.
For each ECM (both AECM and GECM), you could have the Counter mode which goes out to 360m or possibly to 540m and block ALL ECMs within range (not the 1-to-1 ratio of now). This is to make having a ton of ECMs just dominate a team with a single ECM. It should be able strategic use of the ECM, not the number of ECM.
Then later, add AECM (Angel ECM) which makes all mechs around it within 180m un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). The mech equipped with AECM just increases lock-on time.
For each ECM (both AECM and GECM), you could have the Counter mode which goes out to 360m or possibly to 540m and block ALL ECMs within range (not the 1-to-1 ratio of now). This is to make having a ton of ECMs just dominate a team with a single ECM. It should be able strategic use of the ECM, not the number of ECM.
Zyllos, on 05 December 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:
I agree with the need of balancing ECM. But ECM does not need to radically changed (SSRM/LRM stop tracking at 180m, blur blipping, ect). Personally, the GECM (Guardian ECM) should only make the mech equipped with ECM un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). All other mechs within 180m of the GECM mech should just have the lock-on time increased.
Then later, add AECM (Angel ECM) which makes all mechs around it within 180m un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). The mech equipped with AECM just increases lock-on time.
For each ECM (both AECM and GECM), you could have the Counter mode which goes out to 360m or possibly to 540m and block ALL ECMs within range (not the 1-to-1 ratio of now). This is to make having a ton of ECMs just dominate a team with a single ECM. It should be able strategic use of the ECM, not the number of ECM.
Then later, add AECM (Angel ECM) which makes all mechs around it within 180m un-lockable at 50% sensor range (BAP should be able to boost this). The mech equipped with AECM just increases lock-on time.
For each ECM (both AECM and GECM), you could have the Counter mode which goes out to 360m or possibly to 540m and block ALL ECMs within range (not the 1-to-1 ratio of now). This is to make having a ton of ECMs just dominate a team with a single ECM. It should be able strategic use of the ECM, not the number of ECM.
Fully agree. It seems that the ECM is a bit to strong at the moment when you are running a BAP it should beable to lock up the mech with the ECM at closer range.
#72
-
-
- 2,698 posts
Member
- LocationStrana Mechty
Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:24 AM
Garth confirmed yesterday that no ECM changes are on the books for now.
His reasoning behind this was sound:
Despite the extremely vocal posts on the forums, ECM is still only averages 1-2 per team in PUG matches, and only 3-4 per team in 8v8 matches, with declining numbers every week.
If ECM was truly overpowered, those numbers would be at least doubled.
His reasoning behind this was sound:
Despite the extremely vocal posts on the forums, ECM is still only averages 1-2 per team in PUG matches, and only 3-4 per team in 8v8 matches, with declining numbers every week.
If ECM was truly overpowered, those numbers would be at least doubled.
#73
-
-
- The Determined
- 2,003 posts
Member
- LocationEarth
Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:46 AM
Syllogy, on 10 January 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:
Garth confirmed yesterday that no ECM changes are on the books for now.
His reasoning behind this was sound:
Despite the extremely vocal posts on the forums, ECM is still only averages 1-2 per team in PUG matches, and only 3-4 per team in 8v8 matches, with declining numbers every week.
If ECM was truly overpowered, those numbers would be at least doubled.
His reasoning behind this was sound:
Despite the extremely vocal posts on the forums, ECM is still only averages 1-2 per team in PUG matches, and only 3-4 per team in 8v8 matches, with declining numbers every week.
If ECM was truly overpowered, those numbers would be at least doubled.
Wonder what the LRM and SSRM useage looks likes as well.
#74
-
-
- Bad Company
- 509 posts
Member
- LocationHarlech, Outreach
Posted 10 January 2013 - 02:42 PM
Syllogy, on 10 January 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:
Garth confirmed yesterday that no ECM changes are on the books for now.
His reasoning behind this was sound:
Despite the extremely vocal posts on the forums, ECM is still only averages 1-2 per team in PUG matches, and only 3-4 per team in 8v8 matches, with declining numbers every week.
If ECM was truly overpowered, those numbers would be at least doubled.
His reasoning behind this was sound:
Despite the extremely vocal posts on the forums, ECM is still only averages 1-2 per team in PUG matches, and only 3-4 per team in 8v8 matches, with declining numbers every week.
If ECM was truly overpowered, those numbers would be at least doubled.
Just did a review of all the posts by Garth that I could find on the forums. There is no such statement.
Please provide an actual link to the actual statement.
Otherwise, we call bull...
#75
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 1,684 posts
Member
- LocationTerra
Posted 10 January 2013 - 03:40 PM
Syllogy, on 10 January 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:
Garth confirmed yesterday that no ECM changes are on the books for now.
His reasoning behind this was sound:
Despite the extremely vocal posts on the forums, ECM is still only averages 1-2 per team in PUG matches, and only 3-4 per team in 8v8 matches, with declining numbers every week.
If ECM was truly overpowered, those numbers would be at least doubled.
His reasoning behind this was sound:
Despite the extremely vocal posts on the forums, ECM is still only averages 1-2 per team in PUG matches, and only 3-4 per team in 8v8 matches, with declining numbers every week.
If ECM was truly overpowered, those numbers would be at least doubled.
Even if this was true, which I see no evidence for publicly (see Lupus' post above), 1-2 per team in PUGs and 3-4 per team in 8v8 is *still* too much! That means that in a 8v8 game, 37-50% of the mechs are one of *four* variants... out of over 50 now available to the playerbase. That just isn't right or good for the game!
Even with PUG games you are talking 12-25% of mechs being one of those four variants, which still means those variants are over-represented by two to four times what they should be.
ECM needs to be balanced such that every chassis / variant could equip it, and yet still we would only see a few people per match bother to equip it! Then it will be truly a fair, balanced piece of equipment.
#76
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 435 posts
Member
- LocationAround
Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:01 PM
Still no ECM fix in the patch.
...... patience is wearing thin ....
...... patience is wearing thin ....
#77
-
-
- The Raider
- 2,304 posts
Member
- LocationGeorgia, USA
Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:08 PM
Terry Ward, on 08 January 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:
Null Signature does not come into play until 3068 and is very rare even then... why introduce it now, when we do not even have Clan Tech...
The reason it should be added in, is because it is currently already in the game by the name of ECM. This will split stealth from ECM, so it is more balanced.
#79
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 435 posts
Member
- LocationAround
Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:23 AM
Well Written post TehCable.
What I totally do not get from Garth especially is:
Why remove knockdowns totally from the game "until it is fixed", but keep something even more gamebreaking as the current ECM implementation in the game "until we can balance it".
This sort of decisions are beyond me and either they have no marketing team or their product marketing guys got their degree on the black market in Thailand and have no common sense at all. If I ran my business with decisions like that I would be bankrupt already and the only thing keeping MWO alive is the franchise at this time and possibly guys that love "robot brawl online with lazors and big gunz, but tiny light robots" (the later ones will find out that Hawken is the game for them...).
What I totally do not get from Garth especially is:
Why remove knockdowns totally from the game "until it is fixed", but keep something even more gamebreaking as the current ECM implementation in the game "until we can balance it".
This sort of decisions are beyond me and either they have no marketing team or their product marketing guys got their degree on the black market in Thailand and have no common sense at all. If I ran my business with decisions like that I would be bankrupt already and the only thing keeping MWO alive is the franchise at this time and possibly guys that love "robot brawl online with lazors and big gunz, but tiny light robots" (the later ones will find out that Hawken is the game for them...).
Edited by Terry Ward, 17 January 2013 - 05:25 AM.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
