76 replies to this topic

[Pygar]

Here's my proposed change: People shut up about ECM and we all move on with our lives.

[Teralitha]

Glythe, on 19 December 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

I said no because there's a much more simple way to fix ECM.

If you carry ECM then you cannot ever use lock on missiles. Suddenly there will be balance! You would need a team of at least 2 to use lock on missiles; one carries ECM and the other carries the lock on weapons. Watch a raven sometime and notice 90% of their damage is from the SSRM.... not the lasers.

That and allow TAG to prevent a disruption on your tagged target. That would be a hard counter to ECM... no the bs soft counter we have now.

Sure you could tweak the current ECM, but my version of ECM is so much better for the overall game balance.. while the current ECM, even if tweaked, is still not very good for the game.

[Roburn Bliss]

A few thought on how to better balance ECM.

ECM counters:

BAP -

Can still target ECM mech at normal range. (Non BAP range)

Can't pass on target info to team mates.

LRM's and SRM's can lock with a 4x increase in lock time.

Normal (i.e non BAP) target information speed.

TAG -

An ECM mech being targeted with TAG can be locked onto with a 2x increase in lock time.

PPC -

A hit from a PPC shuts down ECM on the target mech for x seconds. (Good luck hitting a light mech with a PPC )

Flamer -

ECM becomes intermittent whist the target mech is being hit by a flamer. (a use for flamers!?!)



ECM Drawbacks (pick one):

Whilst ECM is active heat sinks operate at 50%.

Whilst ECM is active heat sinks are disabled (No heat reduction at all ).

Whilst ECM is active weapons are disabled (A little harsh maybe ).

[Kremator1968]

Why just not let PGI (who have a LONG view) say what happens instead of people griping.

Seriously - don't like ECM? QQ or L2P.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

I voted yes but making the BAP restore users to 500m is the one thing I'm trying to get them to do. The thing shouldn't be useless as it currently is and 500m would be the perfect range for it to restore you too for reduced LRM range. That's barely farther than a 450 AC 10 or Large Laser, so I don't get why people would complain about it. But instead all we get is a dinky laser pointer.

I'll admit LRMs are a bit more viable now than they were pre-patch... but it's purely because FotW players are all on the new stuff and fewer are taking an ECM. Balance wise, the game is no better off than it was Monday.

So I say again, BUFF THE BAP.
http://mwomercs.com/...2-buff-the-bap/

[Teralitha]

Yea... I like my version better.

Kremator1968, on 19 December 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Why just not let PGI (who have a LONG view) say what happens instead of people griping.

Seriously - don't like ECM? QQ or L2P.

I ve already done both. First, I Learned 2Play ECM, then I QQ, and now I suggested a (much)better(best) ECM.

Edited by Teralitha, 19 December 2012 - 08:47 AM.

[Zolaz]

The community mods would pull my post if I put on here what I think. So, I'll just say ... good job, go get your helmet so we can get you some ice cream.

[BlackSquirrel]

I think the bubble should go unless you equip a larger ECM unit... Makes sense. Standard version just hides your mech with same stats as now.

[Lefty Lucy]

The game is way more fun with LRMs sitting on the shelf.

[Solis Obscuri]

Solis Obscuri, on 05 December 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

On TT (and yes, we all know MWO isn't a strict reproduction of the CBT ruleset) ECM is a T2 counter to a number of T2 fire-control systems that markedly boost the accuracy and cluster-hit bonuses for missile systems (Narc, TAG, Artemis, Streak*) and direct-fire systems (C3/C3i), as well as blunting the bonuses from data-gathering systems used to locate hidden units (BAP). All of these are useful bonuses, particularly when confronting an opposing team that makes extensive use of T2 equipment to augment their offensive capabilities.
* The way Streak missiles function in MWO (and previous MW titles) is also somewhat different than their TT role; on TT Streaks simply do not fire unless they roll a hit, and if the launcher hits, all missiles hit (barring terrain interference from partial cover). This amounts to a significant cluster-hit bonus and conserves both ammunition and heat, but does not actually give a bonus to accuracy.

By contrast, in MWO ECM is still doing all of that, except now also preventing the use of LRMs altogether, and preventing target data sharing except in an extremely narrow 20m band at the edge of ECM range. Compared to TT, this would be like playing double-blind, but only allowing the individual pieces to have "knowledge" of the positions of opposing units they personally have LOS on, but not any revealed to allied units. TAG is intended as a limited counter to this, as is the use of ECM as ECCM.

I find this problematic for a number of reasons;

• First, ECM effectively takes Information Warfare out of being tactically based, and much more into being equipment based; by contrast info-gathering technology (such as BAP) is helpful, but subtle in it's effects, and generally not game-changing to such a degree that it needs a hard counter. As a result, ECM largely removes Information Warfare as a feature of the game, replacing it tout entière with "Electronic Warfare", which amounts to just having more of the units allowed to carry an ECM on your side than the enemy does.
  
• Second, ECM's two counters are itself and another somewhat-expensive T2 component that only one stock unit equips, meaning that players/drops not heavily customized/organized to counter ECM operate under a massive disadvantage for information gathering. No other T2 item by itself gives that degree of advantage to "haves" over "have-nots".
  
• Third, the use of TAG as a counter requires continual aim on the 'mech to be targeted; ECM counters all targeting attempts simply by being present in a 180m radius. Even with T2 gear equipped, there is a substantial disparity in the challenge presented in countering ECM vs. using ECM (unless the counter is just another ECM in ECCM mode).
  
• Fourth, by denying targeting data to enemy units, ECM prevents opponents from receiving loadout and damage data. This further exacerbates the 'lagshield' issue already exploited by fast-moving units, since visually displayed hits/hit locations often differ from the server-authenticated data provided by the targeting data readout. This would be a lesser concern if netcode was in better shape, but lag-shooting and hit-detection remains the single worst gameplay issue for a large percentage of the players.

Overall this is too many advantages to stack, particularly for a 1.5 ton piece of passive equipment with no drawbacks, primarily available on fast scout chassis.

Looking at the proposed change to TAG, I can see where the devs might want it as a counter for ECM - it would allow attacking units to target 'mechs under the ECM effect at a much longer range, either for direct-fire or with a spotter. However, it doesn't address problems 2, 3, or 4 as listed above. Instead, it creates a TAG unit which is much, much stronger against units not shrouded beneath the "cloaking device", deepening the T1/T2 equipment advantage, as well as the Narc/TAG effectiveness disparity.

As such, I would, instead of buffing TAG further (really, it's plenty good as-is!) and creating a new problem in the course of "fixing" an existing one, make the following changes to how ECM functions:

Disruption Mode:

• ‘Cloaks’ friendlies within 180 meters (reduces detection distance to 25% 75% of normal range).
  
• Disrupts enemies sensors (targeting system), as well as targeting communication (sharing of targeting information) within 180 meters.
  
• Disables enemy NARC
  
• Disables enemy Artemis within sphere of influence, and against friendly target in sphere of influence.
  
• Disables broadcasting of TAG (if friendly is within sphere of influences); However, if you TAG a mech with ECM OUTSIDE of their sphere of influence, it allows you and your friendlies to target
  
• Slow down weapon locks by 25%
  
• Slow down target gathering by 25%
  
• Active Probes do not gain any benefits against ECM equipped or protected enemies. Units equipped with Active Probe will receive a visible notice they are being jammed.

Counter Mode:

• Neutralizes 1 nearby enemy’s ECM in Disruption mode. (no change)

Ghost Target Mode: (new!)

• Can create up to 4 (one every three seconds) false sensor contacts within 180m radius of 'mech location (cannot create or maintain targets outside this range)
  
• Ghost targets do not display any target data
  
• Battlegrid must be active to create Ghost Targets
  
• Active Probe can discern Ghost Targets from real sensor contact unless under effect of ECM jamming
  
• ECM cannot Disrupt or Counter while in Ghost Target Mode.

[WhiteRabbit]

Lefty Lucy, on 19 December 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

The game is way more fun with LRMs sitting on the shelf.

oh come on.. don't you miss the time when all you had to do as a medium mech was: wait till someone sticks his nose out from behind the rocks/buildings... run one or two circles around him, so you get his attention... see him drop dead due to lrms from your buddy?

btw. those 10 seconds everybody keeps talking about (you know the time you've got to get into cover).. well those only apply if the lrm-boat is at max range... most good supporters keep about 400-600 meters behind their group--> the target has about 4 seconds time to find a convenient rock or he's pretty much dead.

Disclaimer: I don't think Lrms are the most effective weapon to kill someone... however one or two good salvos at the right time dictate the outcome of most duells this mech will be in after he got hit (i.e. he'll lose)

Edited by WhiteRabbit, 19 December 2012 - 12:03 PM.

[Teralitha]

I personally dont like the way LRM is implemented at all, but its not going to change, but I dont want to see them shelved entirely either

Edited by Teralitha, 20 December 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[ATao]

I think ECM is just fine as it is now with 750m TAG. TS' suggestion is basically MW4 copypasta. Here ECM is something more than radar range limiter and after all is said and done it's more interesting that way. It provides for more tactical maneuvers. LRMs are still viable for 8s but not in big numbers and you have to use 'em with skill to benefit.

The only thing that tips balance off is absence of team weight limit. D-DC is really good line mech as it is and when given ECM and no restriction to the number you can have on board... result is pretty obvious.

Imo instead of touching ECM PGI should do 2 things: 1) take ECM from D-DC and give it to K atlas; 2) introduce drop weight limit to 8s faster (ELO isn't really needed, weight limit is).

Edited by Alexander Malthus, 20 December 2012 - 03:10 PM.

[Teralitha]

Alexander Malthus, on 20 December 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I think ECM is just fine as it is now with 750m TAG. TS' suggestion is basically MW4 copypasta. Here ECM is something more than radar range limiter and after all is said and done it's more interesting that way. It provides for more tactical maneuvers. LRMs are still viable for 8s but not in big numbers and you have to use 'em with skill to benefit.

The only thing that tips balance off is absence of team weight limit. D-DC is really good line mech as it is and when given ECM and no restriction to the number you can have on board... result is pretty obvious.

Imo instead of touching ECM PGI should do 2 things: 1) take ECM from D-DC and give it to K atlas; 2) introduce drop weight limit to 8s faster (ELO isn't really needed, weight limit is).

TAG is not a counter to ECM. Its a tool to make LRMS more useful. It works whether a target has ECM or not. And ECM STILL makes the ECM mech invisible on radar outside 180m to a mech carrying TAG until they shoot it with the TAG laser. And the TAG is useless unless your team brings LRM's and who is gonna bring LRMs when there is so much ECM on the field and having to depend on your teammates TAG locking in order to have a use.

Not saying people wont use TAG and LRMs, its just not an effective setup. And definitely not a counter to ECM.

Edited by Teralitha, 01 January 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[Erik Hollister]

Kremator1968, on 19 December 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Why just not let PGI (who have a LONG view) say what happens instead of people griping.

Seriously - don't like ECM? QQ or L2P.

Seriously... this is BETA TESTING. That means that the company that is creating the game... and I'll type slow because I know you don't read fast.... wants feedback from the beta testers. They use this information.... sorry for using a "big word"... to help create a game that people enjoy and will spend money on. They want as many people as possible to like the game, so they can make as much money as possible, so they can eat food.

SO, really... they want to hear it if people are QQ, ok? What they really don't want, because its counterproductive... go ahead, sound that last one out... is having people type stuff like "QQ or L2P".

[Codejack]

GalaxyBluestar, on 15 December 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

10 hour! simply cause this observation has been made by many people and has been adressed by many people over the last week or so.

best to just stick it here ---> [color=#b27204]Ecm Feedback[/color]

sorry the link is visually screwed btw :/

And that thread is closed; new ECM threads go in General Discussion

To the OP:

I like it. It is still useful, but not mind-bogglingly out of proportion the way it is now.

[Felix]

Kremator1968, on 19 December 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Why just not let PGI (who have a LONG view) say what happens instead of people griping.

Seriously - don't like ECM? QQ or L2P.

I have to wonder how much you drooled on yourself while typing that up kiddo. Because thats the kind of thing a tard would say.

And PGI have a long view of about 5 seconds like a goldfish, particularly as they said they were happy with ECM showing they know jack **** about balance.

Critical Fumble, on 18 December 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Yes, ECM needs a change, but this is not the way to do it. Limiting the effect of an ECM to the equipping mech relegates it to defensive gear, where it should be support gear.

It is already used as defensive gear, so it should be changed to fit the role properly.

[King Arthur IV]

suggestions like this really mean nothing when your not a dev. even if 100% of community was behind you, stuff still needs testing.
only thing that really matters is if something is op or not op, does something need changing or not etc. dev will figure it out from there onward.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

or as I been saying for weeks, make ike like guardian from TT (where it doesnt block streaks - thats angel ecm and two years off in timeline)

King Arthur IV, on 01 January 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

suggestions like this really mean nothing when your not a dev. even if 100% of community was behind you, stuff still needs testing.
only thing that really matters is if something is op or not op, does something need changing or not etc. dev will figure it out from there onward.

yes as theyve stated, they like it when we call things op. "makes the game more diverse"

so... yeah good luck with that

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 01 January 2013 - 09:16 AM.

[King Arthur IV]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 01 January 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

or as I been saying for weeks, make ike like guardian from TT (where it doesnt block streaks - thats angel ecm and two years off in timeline)



yes as theyve stated, they like it when we call things op. "makes the game more diverse"

so... yeah good luck with that

just saying, you can waste your time by giving your suggestions along with the countless meaningless one.

you have a much better chance of posting something that explains why you think ecm, bap etc. needs buffs or nerfs to change devs mind rather then just posting your fix. using good reasoning is much more productive because it gives more insight to the core problem.

so many people are posting quick fixes, throwing out unjustified numbers.