1017 replies to this topic

[steelblueskies]

CatHerder, on 25 December 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

1) this is what Guardian ECM is on TT
2) this is what Angel ECM is on TT (but as I recall, it needs Guardian to also be installed in order to work, so you're actually "paying" 6/6 for it)

holy wrong cats batman.

no it isn't.

basic guardian had multiple functions and counted as 1 or 1 at a time. it could block another guardian therefore.

angel counted as 2, so it could counter two guardian ecm units by itself, and took two guardians or one full angel to disrupt it.

this also meant it could counter a guardian while being as effective as a guardian at jamming.

anywho continuing to observe.

things i've noted: everytime someone brings a non ecm light mech a rvn-3l gets its wings.

[LionZoo]

Just out of curiosity, why isn't this thread stickied?

[Marcus Tanner]

LionZoo, on 26 December 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Just out of curiosity, why isn't this thread stickied?

ECM feedback was for the last patch. This time it's not a fresh addition, so they're not as interested in feedback on it.

It's old news now. They're resolved to keep it pretty much as is.

[steelblueskies]

Pilotasso, on 25 December 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

You can break ECM easely and blitz the other team with TAG. It only takes a widespread use (yeah you need to get around the idea of sacrificing a laser slot for it) to make it alot less effective.

odd i missed this one. so if everyone takes a system to counter ecm it works ? hey guis guess what. if they all take ecm, and we all take ecm we tie right? but if they all take ecm and we all take ecm AND tag we can blitz em!

this vaguely reminds me of friends trying std 100 engines in a 4j to see if they could work as a missileboat pre open beta.

--------------------------------------

as to the inquiry, by and large they aren't even there right now, what with the holiday funnybusiness boatloads of people are on about.

ironic given how many people who failed to feedback in prior patch or here have thrown up change suggestions fixes, or complaints independently. you'd think a mod would start cleaning that up and redirecting it to one place instead of the 5 million spawns everywhere problem they usually try to fix.

i also blame the holiday bit for this, and the fact that moderators generally are underappreciated.

[ltwally]

CatHerder, on 25 December 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

The single biggest issue with ECM has to do with 3 factors, actually:

1) The disrupt bubble out to 180m which PGI completely made up
2) The lag shield protecting light mechs due to bad netcode (this is likely not fixable in the short term, though, due to the nature and difficulty of the problem at hand)
3) The lag in some weapons firing (i.e. SRM's, for instance).

1. Agreed.
2. This isn't ECM's problem. Also, from what I've seen, this is mostly fixed. Most of the remaining problem is laggy connections combining with speed mechs.
3. Again, this isn't ECM's problem. It's only more noticeable when the only missiles you can dumb-fire (SRM) at a ECM'd mech have a delay.

Personally speaking, I feel that ECM arguments should be kept to ECM itself, and only itself. While ECM may seem to exacerbate lagginess or firing delays, those issues are, strictly speaking, not relevant to the ECM issue. Those issues should be brought up with those items separately.

ECM has plenty of problems on its own:

• It only takes up 2 slots and uses 1.5 tonnes, and...
  
• It generates no heat, and...
  
• It requires no ammunition, and...
  
• It is only available to 4 mech/variants, and yet it....
  
• Counters/disrupts/negates Artemis, Beagle, Narc and Tag.
  
• Counters/disrupts/negates other ECM.
  
• Is a better anti-LRM tool than AMS -- a piece of equipment that does have ammo.
  
• For all intents and purposes, also renders completely useless S-SRM.
  
• Disrupts sensors, sowing all kinds of battle-field confusion.

In my opinion, a sane version of ECM would behave has follows:

• Take 2 slots.
  
• Weigh 1.5 tonnes.
  
• Generate no heat.
  
• Require no ammunition.
  
• Counter/distrupt/negate Artemis, Beagle, Narc and Tag.
  
• Disable lock within 180m.
  
• Slow down lock times outside of 180m by 25 - 50 %.
  
• Decrease lock loss time by 25 - 50 %.
  
• Have no effect on sensors (outside add-on equipment like Beagle)

Additionally, I strongly recommend PGI create a Pilot module -- available to everyone -- which counter the effects of ECM for the module owner only.

[Allekai]

yep.. welcome to ECM warrior online.. come on in, radar's options

[Marcus Tanner]

ltwally, on 26 December 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Additionally, I strongly recommend PGI create a Pilot module -- available to everyone -- which counter the effects of ECM for the module owner only.

That would immediately become an no-brainer automatically-included piece of gear. That would probably make it a poor plan to implement.

Also, they devs want ECM in the game and they like what it does to gameplay (for some unfathomable reason). They don't want to do this for the same reason that they don't think ECM needs to be reduced in power. They seem to want more confusion and surprises in the game, and ECM helps them do that.

The sensor reduction range isn't going to get scrapped, because the developers seem to think that's the whole point of the thing (in the context of their game, regardless of tabletop). It looks as if they wanted a piece of gear to reduce sensor range, and they're using ECM as a vehicle for that design goal. I consider that a *terrible* plan, but they like what it does to the game.

---

Also, they seem to have the impression that going with a pure direct-fire loadout is a hard counter to ECM. I must reiterate that even if there were no LRMs or streaks in this game, I would consider it a no-brainer to bring ECM in every mech if only for the other effects. It's only 1.5 tons and 2 crits after all. The opportunity cost of it is just above negligible.

[Gremlich Johns]

There are two ways that I know to counter ECM: 1) destroy/disrupt the capability (in this case by destroying the device/burn out the device by overloading its circuits), and, even though the Devs know nothing about this, is 2) ECCM.

ECCM can be, among others, polarization, chaff, or chirping (pulse compression). Of course, AMRAAM (home-on-jam) is best and most satisfying

[Fabian Wrede]

tag and narc is not a counter to ecm only way to reliably conter ecm is ecm. For narc to be effective as counter it need atles 5 min duration or untill the location it's attached to is destroyed. Narc ater all weight in ad 3ton + ammo vc ECm 1,5 ton.

Edited by Wrede, 26 December 2012 - 09:28 AM.

[drloser]

ECM and SSRM are a major problem. They really need to fix it... Playing a light without ECM/SSRM = 0% chance to win against another light with SSRM.

[Ransack]

I will say this. I consider ECM way OP. I feel it's OP because it made me buy and use a Commando. I SUCK in light mechs, but the little tin boy with no armor upgrades and an XL engine merrily dances on the battlefield saying "HIT ME!" then "SIKE!" as he runs away. There are some really good ideas in this thread, and I hope someone at PGI takes the time to consider some of them.

[DeaconW]

drloser, on 26 December 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Playing a light without ECM/SSRM = 0% chance to win against another light with SSRM.

This is so true. Anyone bringing a light without ECM to any type of match (PUG, 4 or 8 man) is hurting the team...plain and simple.

[X-Man]

I turned off the game yesterday because of lag sheild ecm combo. My Awsome was not damaged and it was taken out by a Raven. I did not score one hit, with missles and lasers. This needs to be fixed, the speed alone makes these small mechs impossible to kill. The ECM makes them unkillable...I've been a Battletech fan for over 30 years and this is breaking the game and needs to be fixed.

[Fabian Wrede]

Ecm is the bigges mistake PGI made so far people complaing about SSRM need to get the obvious counter AMS. In pug its down to haveing ecm`= wiing not having EMC = loose

[LynxFury]

Marcus Tanner, on 26 December 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

ECM feedback was for the last patch. This time it's not a fresh addition, so they're not as interested in feedback on it.

It's old news now. They're resolved to keep it pretty much as is.

Or the holidays have slowed them down.
Or they hoped the banter would settle down.
Or they hoped people would just get used to it.
Or they have planned a lot more illogical EW additions which neither make TT or physical sense.
Or they're rethinking their entire approach to EW; revamps aren't' easy and take time.
Or some combination of the above.

Personally I've stopped playing for a couple weeks just to see what happens. Been a CBT fan for decades, but I can't abide something so obviously neither TT nor based in anything from the real world. The lack of IFF for night and thermal in combination is also a show stopper for me--I'm tired of shooting lance mate.

Edited by LynxFury, 26 December 2012 - 10:46 AM.

[Twisted Power]

LynxFury, on 26 December 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Or the holidays have slowed them down.
Or they hoped the banter would settle down.
Or they hoped people would just get used to it.
Or they have planned a lot more illogical EW additions which neither make TT or physical sense.
Or they're rethinking their entire approach to EW; revamps aren't' easy and take time.
Or some combination of the above.

Or... they should have never redesigned ECM in the first place and just used it as it was supposed to be. On top of that they then released it EVEN after they tested their version and ADMITED it was OP because they could.

[dunkov]

Perhaps balance matchmaking by checking for ECM at drop. Allow a 1 to 1 ECM for matches, that way there isn't a default handicap for teams without ECM.

[ltwally]

Marcus Tanner, on 26 December 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

ltwally, on 26 December 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Additionally, I strongly recommend PGI create a Pilot module -- available to everyone -- which counter the effects of ECM for the module owner only.

That would immediately become an no-brainer automatically-included piece of gear. That would probably make it a poor plan to implement.

You'll note the "additionally" -- as in, additional to the ECM modifications I suggested, which would strip ECM down to a piece of equipment that was fairly reasonable. (Perhaps even a little overpowered, but not game-breakingly so, as it is now.)

Once the piece of equipment itself (ECM, Beagle, Narc, TAG, Artemis, whatever) is at a reasonable point, where its usefulness is conditional and balanced against its weight and other qualifiers, then it's a perfectly good idea to introduce Pilot modules that allow an individual player to negate a piece (or pieces) of equipment.

A counter-ECM module, at that point, would be conditionally good, as ECM would already be both less powerful and less frequently seen.

Counter-Artemis/Beagle/Narc/Tag modules would likewise be good, as none of these systems are individually heavily used, and therefore likewise a counter- module that effected each one specifically would not be over-used or over-powerful. For those thinking that modules doing this would infringe upon ECM, keep in mind that ECM counters all of the above, and at a far cheaper cost than even one Pilot module costs in terms of either c-bills or GXP.

[ltwally]

Dear PGI

I would like to re-iterate: You will never see so much as one cent of my hard earned dollars until you:
a. ECM is nerfed into a reasonable piece of equipment
b. Display that you are able to roll out updates to the game that do not bend it like a pretzel. This is neither amusing nor fun for players. You need to understand that when you roll out new equipment, to start from a weaker, potentially under-powered state and then buff it up a little at a time until it is good and balanced. That way, you do not risk radically unbalancing and altering the game ecosystem, as you have done with ECM.

I will not put my money into supporting a game where the dev's make poor decisions that effect my ability to enjoy the game.

You want my money? Then you need to start making smarter, better decisions on how you roll out new stuff. ECM is just the latest and most glaring in a line of poor decisions.

Edited by ltwally, 26 December 2012 - 11:56 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

romeoecho, on 26 December 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Perhaps balance matchmaking by checking for ECM at drop. Allow a 1 to 1 ECM for matches, that way there isn't a default handicap for teams without ECM.

If they were to implement such a criteria for match-ups, it would be proof to as how broken ECM is. That's about as useful as taking cough syrup for the flu virus. It would be best served to solve the real issue instead.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 26 December 2012 - 12:05 PM.