1017 replies to this topic

[Ransack]

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

The lack of IFF for night and thermal in combination is also a show stopper for me

does Q not work in those modes? sux if that's the case.

[Fabian Wrede]

Game need player boycot untill they fix ECM as it's now it totaly OPwhen your team have none

[LynxFury]

Ransack, on 26 December 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

does Q not work in those modes? sux if that's the case.

Doesn't work. This is particularly dangerous if working 300-500 meters with direct fire while you're closer weaponized allies join the close fur ball.

[Red squirrel]

The reason why I strongly dislike the ECM as implemented by PGI:
It is a magic all in one 1.5 ton piece of equipment.
I have no problem with the general mechanic of stealth in this game.
But there should be a plethora of different devices interacting with each other.

e.g.:
Start with the implementation of C3 master/slave units. People will need a C3 in order to share target information.
Maybe introduce some kind of active/passive radar system like in previous MW games. Where the active mode makes you more visible but gives you an increased sensor range.
Implement Null Sig armor as counter to heat vision
Maybe Camelion light pol. shield as counter to normal and night vision.
A modified version of the Angle ECM could prevent missle lock
The Guradian ECM should only counter Artemis, C3, NARC, BAP
etc. etc.
Edit: A radar scrambling device like the current ECM could be an extra device. But a mech with BAP should be aware of the jamming (e.g. scrambled region on minimap)

I just hope once the game is feature complete it will look a bit more as I described it above

Edited by Red squirrel, 26 December 2012 - 02:39 PM.

[HiplyRustic]

Welcome to Cloak of Invisibility Online.

It's ridiculously powerful, low-to-no cost, works on non-failfit boats, and is absolutely not working as intended unless ECM is supposed to equal invisible. It's flipping unfun.

[DeaconW]

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.

Why do we have to break another game mechanic(matchmaking) to fix the ECM problem? How about we just fix the ECM OP and the matchmaking fixes itself.

[GalaxyBluestar]

StalaggtIKE, on 19 December 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

I've created this post, since there is still a lot of feedback out there on ECM.

The increased TAG range is a nice attempt towards balance. It still does not change the fact that ECM is grossly useful for its critical slots and tonnage. Though it may not be OP it is not balanced. There are ways around it; a superior team of non-ECM will defeat an unorganized ECM team. However the fact remains that ECM creates a handicap situation for teams without ECM versus teams that do. That's not to say that ECM is all bad. It does help with cutting back on LRM/SSRM spam.

My Suggestion: Being that PGI since content on ECM's implementation. I propose a change; the invisible elephant in the room has to do with enemy detection. Currently, radar has the ability to auto detect an enemy from 800m away, without any effort. ECM cuts this all the way down to 200m. That being said the greatest injustice is the fact that the ECM team will out detect the enemy by 600m or 4x the distance. This gives a huge advantage to one side. To fix this, radar detection range should be reduced. I propose the following simple change:

• Decrease auto detect range of radar, for everyone, to 500m (from 800m).

That's it. ECM remains unchanged and keeps its current abilities. While the huge disparity between enemy detection is ratified.








As for changes to radar, I posted them here, under suggestions.

one of my first complaints ever was about radar well before ecm. sneaking was already too easy which is why stock mechs for the first time had just as much rear armour as they had on the front. nowdays why would you use radar? you're more likely to see your enemy before radar picks them up regardless of ecm. Please improve radar to stop all those times you go round a corner and find 3 campers who laugh at you and blow your head off cause you never saw it coming. it certainly doesn't play like any of the old mech warriors and considering this isn't a fps that you can escape out of trouble as quickly as you get into it cause these are lumbering restrictive slow mechs radar needs to have a purpose other than lock ons and weapon readouts. for all the use radar has... why have it at all?

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 26 December 2012 - 04:19 PM.

[Marcus Tanner]

Omigir, on 26 December 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

Well, hate to break it to you, but ALL ECM has this effect. Its the main purpose of ECM in the TT

No, no it does not. I play the tabletop game. It does nothing of the sort.

Elkarlo, on 26 December 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

No in TT the ECM only cloaks the Enemy for long range scanning but at Short range you still can Scan him and have optical informations about him.

Sensor Rules:
Maximum Tech/Double Blind rules

There are the Rules for GECM/BaP

Note that the current rules for double-blind play are in Tactical Operations, produced by Catalyst Game Labs.

There are some subtle differences. Long story short, if you have LOS to a target than ECM has no effect on your ability to spot or scan it.

In tabletop, ECM can make it more difficult to spot enemy mechs that you do not have LOS to, so long as you are within 180m of the ECM carrier. If you are outside 180m, it does not reduce your ability to spot a target visually or with sensors, regardless of line of sight.

Malevolent Twitch, on 26 December 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

The counter point to this is that our base targeting system is quite a bit more advanced than the basic TT version. The ability to target a mech and sending that targeting information to your team so that they have an easier time murdering said opponent is very similiar to C3i, which would be disrupted by ecm. Then we also have to take into account that Lrm targeting and tracking is way more advanced than the basic TT version. The current system doesn't miss without your help. LRMs lock and track a target even to point of turning at near 90 degrees angles (have seen this occur when lock is momentarily lost) to hit the target. No, this LRMs are actually much more like Streaks without the lock safety. Oh and for the record, indirect fire was actually more difficult than having your targeting info automatically sent to you at your leaisure. You and your spotter took penalties to hit the target. Now the only issue is having someone actually maintain a lock....

The point to this rant, really, is that we were spoiled by the cool factor. If the whole design of MWO had stayed more true to the future of the 1980's. Had we not been spoon fed better tech than what was actually written from the word go until we were fat and lazy, then this ECM issue, wouldn't be one.

No, these sensors are not much more advanced than in tabletop, if any. Mechs could always get a wireframe damage estimate of their target, regardless of ECM. Even in double-blind.

Scanning for specific mech armament without Beagle is new, but targeting computers had the functionality of reading standard configurations of mechand displaying the kind of mech and normal armament (which is how the MadCat got it's name, as the tabletop veterans will remember). This shouldn't be a problem

Without the tracking feature on LRMs, they would be pieces of junk. They would be nearly unable to hit fast-moving targets. Try going into a match with an LRM-using mech and only dumbfire your missiles, then let us know how far it gets you.

While missiles din'd quite track like this in tabletoop, the other side of the coin is that in tabletop the other mech has no time to run for cover. These LRMs are different, but not necessarily better by mere virtue of their tracking.

Even if the tech were better than what is described in the tabletop or background (which it is not), and even if its use were spoon fed to us (which is rich considering the thrown-to-the-wolves learning curve of this game), then ECM would still be a problem. It would still bear little resemblance to the tabletop incarnation, it would still be the best use of tonnage in the game by far, and it would still magnify problems with the current "PUG & premade" player population.

It needs to be said again: C3 does one hell of a lot more than give you the target's wireframe.

It makes the target much easier to hit, particularly at long range.

Current sensor systems and "target data sharing" have nowhere near the functionality of C3.

[MaxllmuS]

1 realy problem with ECM its mounting it on ATLAS if ECM will be moved to light and medium only we can see em much more in the games and this add some balance.
Realy now then repair no problem i see only way to make medium more usefull give em ECM ability.

Light become scouts.
Med will be support mech tag\narc\ecm etc.
Havy become damage dealers fast and good firepover.
Assaults wiil be slow moving not mobile tanks and death machines.

[Frostiken]

Frankly I wish someone would take the lore and universe of Battletech and rewrite the rules to make and sensible fair and balanced game that is actually based somewhat in reality.

ECM should behave like ECM in real life. The ECM implementation is why ECM is the most overpowered piece of gear in every single Mechwarrior ever. The -detection range kind of stuff is exactly what it never works.

[ICEFANG13]

I do agree that pulling from the real world is never a terrible comparison point, but we can't do that too much, otherwise we'd have insanely broken LRMs, and who's to say that ballistics would even be around in our world in 300 years?

[Ransack]

LynxFury, on 26 December 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Doesn't work. This is particularly dangerous if working 300-500 meters with direct fire while you're closer weaponized allies join the close fur ball.

It's working for me




or is this not what you are talking about.

[ICEFANG13]

I tried to enjoy some games today in my Jenner-D, it was foolish, the Raven-3L is the only good light mech.

PGI, explain or fix ECM pronto please, this is stupid.

[BR0WN_H0RN3T]

It is stupid. Very very stupid. PGI: stop bringing out new mechs until they're worth using.

Just make it affect the mech that carries it and see how you go. Surely that can't be too difficult.

Edited by Brown Hornet, 26 December 2012 - 09:44 PM.

[Shield]

ICEFANG13, on 26 December 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

PGI, explain or fix ECM pronto please, this is stupid.

+1.

You can't fight a raven-3L with any other light mech on even footing. The only way to win is with a faster mech and have vastly superior piloting skills with direct fire weapons. Out-ECMing the opposing team seems to be the only way to roll these days. LRMs are mildly useful after the buff to TAG, but it's still no answer to ECM since a single mech with ECM can disrupt the lockon capabilities of any weapons that require targeting.

I'm not a bad pilot, but I repeatedly see instances where teams with the most ECM typically wins. Jenners are almost useless against a raven. The commando with ECM is more useful, but still is slower and less armored than the raven-3L. Sure, superior coordination can win against a less coordinated ECM-heavy group, but we're talking 4 mans here. You can't coordinate and often times encounter resistance to orders for organization. Or they just ignore coordinates, charge in and die. Not to mention trying to organize people via text while in battle since you have to give up all controls to type anything out...

The stealth bubble for ECM? Dumb, ridiculous irritating, frustrating. Either give every mech ECM or get rid of the freaking bubble because it's just not fun anymore. I still give more than I get and win more than I lose, but until this crap is fixed PGI is not getting another dime of my money. It just seems that if I don't run an ECM mech I'm put at an immediate disadvantage.

[drloser]

I guess they designed the ECM in order to counter the SSRM2. Problem: they gave the ECM to the MECHs which own missiles hardpoints...

If they fix the ECM, we still need a mean to counter the SSRM2, because currently, the SSRM2 is still way too powerful against the light MECHs.

But if they fix the SSRM2, they will also need to fix the lag shield on the lights.

This is feasible if they reintroduce the collisions. Actually, PGI started to broke the game when the removed the knockdowns. They should not try to balance it before reintroducing them.

Here's my humble suggestion :
- ECM affects only yourself. You can't fire SSRM or LRM when you use it.
- Decrease SSRM effectiveness by 30% (more heat, less DPS, less ammo...)
- Reintroduce knockdowns

Edited by drloser, 26 December 2012 - 10:46 PM.

[BR0WN_H0RN3T]

I played a PUG match a few days ago. Clearly we were against a premade with 3 Raven 3Ls, 1 Commando 2D and 1 Atlas DC - all with ECM. I didn't even see what else they had but it was a total face-roll. A complete disgrace. I'm utterly appalled at insensibilities of the developers.

Check the latest patch - they removed R&R so it's easier on the newbies. This encourages fresh meat and fresh $ to spend. Doing this also made Founders mechs and Hero mechs much more valuable as they are really showing their worth now. And then there's ECM...way to encourage new players PGI. Good effort guys.

[Tragaperras]

If anything, the ECM effects shouldn't stack at all. This mechanic encourages teams to stack the ECM mechs, which isn't very good for diversity in game. How many jenners, hunchbacks and centurions have you seen lately in your 8x8 groups games? And how many Atlases D-DC and Ravens/Commandos ? Yeah, right...

ECM should be a useful feature, not a 'must have' and 'more the better' kind of feature.

Edited by Tragaperras, 27 December 2012 - 02:03 AM.

[Tolkien]

One thing to keep in mind is the inconsistent story that is being presented on ECM.

When asking about why ECM hasn`t been fixed I have been told that they really want to see the numbers before they come to any conclusions on ECM, and given that they gather a large amount of data that makes good sense.

At the same time though, even on the 14th of December Paul said that ECM was working as intended and wouldn't need a nerf, so I have a lot of trouble taking the former statement seriously.

The public statement that ECM was fine coming after less than 6 full days of ECM play data is asinine.

[BoondockSaynt]

Simply put if your team doesn't have ECM, or the ecm carrier is a fast mech that only wants to cap, you lose 97% of the time. And yes that is an accurate number 300 matches played in that scenario. 294:6. Simple fix: nerf the ECM to 1/2 reduced range so 400 meter range for enemy detect instead of 200. ECM is still vary viable, because you only need to close the gap an aditional 120 meters to kill LRM boats. Snipers will still have to free fire on seen mechs (meaning untargetted). Also by making it 400 meters, you make the game more enjoyable, because the shortest range of most mechs is 270 meters. With ECM the way it is, you make 60% (arbituary number) of mech designs, completely useless.