1017 replies to this topic

[Bullseye69]

CatHerder, on 22 December 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Really? Have you ever tried to hit a 136KPH Jenner with a large laser at 100m? There's a reason people complain about the netcode and "Lag Shield" (look it up in the forums).

My whole argument about ECM is that the Lag Shield makes it far worse than it otherwise would be. If the lag shield weren't so bad, you'd take out an enemy light in no-time flat. Being what it is, though, it makes ECM lights nigh-impregnable beasties that can only be killed with counter-ECM *AND* guided weapons.

TAG, therefore, is also broken because it's also susceptible to the lag shield because you have to HOLD the TAG beam on target to get a lock, and keep it locked to get a hit. If that were the case, then why bother with TAG? I'd rather shove a LLAS/ERLAS up their scrawny li'l butts... Or a PPC... etc...

So: in order for ECM to be less of a problem, one of the following two (ideally both) would have to happen:

• Fix the Lag Shield on light mechs
  
• Remove the bubble on disrupt

Since fixing the lag shield is much more involved and difficult, and may never be properly done, I say the low hanging fruit is removing the bubble. If, later on, they can really fix the lag shield issue, then they can re-add the bubble. Otherwise, Lag Shield + ECM Bubble = Light Mechs defiling whole lances of assault mechs (yes, I've seen it happen, to somewhat-competent pilots even)!

Agreed


[color="#222222"]Had a match last night was in a 4 player assault match last mech standing with 4 enemy left and I was in my Jenner.[/color]
[color="#222222"]Killed a damaged Raven, Cicada both with ECM both heavy damaged killed both of them had a Awesome and Cataphract left and killed both of them the Awesome was not damaged managed to kill them both because of my lag shield I was almost stripped of all armor but I managed a win.[/color]

Please fix the lag shield and ECM..

[ltwally]

Koniving, on 31 December 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

I agree with the first three posts for a few reasons. None of which even need to be mentioned. However take a peek at what I've got below.


"The Guardian is typically used to shield allied units from such equipment by emitting a broad-band signal meant to confuse radar, infrared, ultraviolet, magscan and sonar sensors."
(↑ 2.0 2.1 Technical Readout: 3050, p. 197)

Okay so ECM shields nearby mechs with broad-band signals. It confuses sensors and advanced equipment. Therefore, if you're in the bubble the effect it has then expect to have a full force jamming you. That's fine. If you're outside the bubble then scanning into said bubble should be difficult. But not nil and void. That's what stealth armor is for to protect you from being scanned. In the mean time if you can see them then you should at least be able to get a confusing signal hit to team mates. One that flickers and is hard to target, but still visible.

After all it is stated to "Confuse" sensors. Not completely dismiss them.

"Sensors can sometimes override this jamming, though by that point the enemy unit is already within visual range and can track the opposition with their own eyes." (↑ 2.0 2.1 Technical Readout: 3050, p. 197)

I can visually see mechs moving at about 1,000 meters out or more. I'd say within 500 meters should be enough to cut through jamming with sensors on a direct line of sight. May not be able to lock missiles on them, but at the very least we should get a sensor node to track them with and share location info to other team mates. Tag may not have needed its boost if ECM actually confused sensors instead of dismissing them.

So, say 500 meters and the mech is in line of sight. The jamming should already be overwritten on sensors. Worst case scenario, I should be able to have at least 5 targets for 1 ECM-equipped mech, and have to sift through the false targets to fire upon the real thing with LRMs.

Now this is where tag would come in at 450 meters by helping to isolate the correct target so that team mates are not firing on dummy sensor targets created by the ECM-equipped mech.

Voila. Tag just got cooler without a buff, ECM just got reasonably more balanced, and we're all set.

Though I still agree with many of the other posters, there's absolutely no reason to carry NARC. I haven't found it even remotely useful as a scout or missile mech. Once an ECM comes along, no one can see my target. What's the point of using it?

------

Before that epiphany, however, this was my original idea for how to balance ECM. Changing which mech variants carry them to the ones with the LEAST missile slots.

http://mwomercs.com/...43#entry1679943

(And no ECM didn't drive me to Hawken, that's some whiner's thread. However my post does provide some good insight in simple changes to balance the game without changing anything about ECM.)

Whiner here.

In the BT books, many components have both their mechanics, and some descriptive text -- "fluff."

My version of TR:3050 reads differently than what you've quoted. That's not really surprising; that book was revised at least twice that I'm aware of, and probably more than that. That said, your quote reads like fluff, and not mechanics.

Likewise, Sarna pretty much copies the fluff. They don't always reproduce the mechanics. I can only assume this is for legal reasons.

In this case, and others before it, PGI seems to have missed out on the mechanics and just read the fluff. So they took the lines about "sensors" and applied it to all sensors, instead of just the add-ons that were explicitly listed in the TT rules.

Thing is, the TT rules on ECM were pretty good, and would probably carry over pretty well. It was balanced there, and would likely be balanced in a straight carry-over, here.

A sane beginning for ECM in MW:O would have been just to counter/disrupt/negate Artemis, Beagle and Narc. At the same time, they should have improved Beagle & Narc so that those systems were useful and desirable. If ECM did not feel useful enough as a counter to Artemis, Beagle and Narc, after those systems were brought up to spec, then they could have added some juice to ECM a little at a time. But, instead, we see that PGI favours a cluster-f*** at first, and perhaps - maybe - they'll tone it down to something sane in time.

[ltwally]

LtPoncho, on 31 December 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

It's really starting to wear on how many times we keep seeing threads that talk about all this 'soon to come' content while we wait in a status of a release where there are obvious inequalities in game balance and a serious lack thereof.
Yeah yeah the developers and game designers and leads and other respective titles are just CHURNING away - yet none of those who state this actually *work* on the project nor do they have so much as an insight into the product plan save for what is posted here.
What is really enlightening/frightening is when you pull your respective finger/head out of said MWO orifice and look at other F2P games to gauge where this product is at. So many excuses and defending statements (some of you should be troll lawyers) - where's the content and balance we paid for?
As a member of that same crowdfunded group that established a profit to this endeavor, I'd really like to know when this is going to be more than just an 8 man gong show. MPBT:3025 was 4vs4 - fast forward to now 12 years later where 32vs32 is par for course, and we've only doubled the match sizes. Must be the same math applied to Double Heat Sinks.

I wrote code in college, both for coursework and for fun, and do so occasionally for work / personal. But I have never been a full-time professional developer.

I have worked with professional developers in the past, and still do on occasion. I also call a couple of them personal friends.

In my experience, and from discussions with my developer buddies, most successful software companies do not heap new, untested features on top of a system already full of bugs. It's a great way to make things worse.

That said, according to wikipedia, PGI raked in $5M from the Founders package. So, apparently, their method turns a buck. Not from me. No way I'd pay for the displeasure of this mess, as is. But they're making money, and until that changes, they'll likely just keep going full steam ahead, no matter if their course is straight for a giant iceberg.

[Fabian Wrede]

ECM should in no way interfere with detection or lock on targets you have direct LOS to.
They need to add a you basic 20/20 vision also know as Mk 1 eyeballs for spotting . ecm might dirsupt radar but it will not defeat direct LOS by eyes after all there is a reason why they only fly stealth fighters and bombers by night

Edited by Wrede, 31 December 2012 - 01:51 PM.

[Least Action Jackson]

I think ECM is closer to what it should be than not, but the things that would be nice to see are:

1. TAG should work regardless of where you are. There is no reason physically or from a gameplay standpoint that TAG shouldn't paint a target if you're jammed.

2. NARC should shine through ECM, otherwise it's virtually pointless. It only lasts 20 seconds anyway, which is already ridiculous considering the minimal bonus it provides.

3. Streak SRMS should have the ability to dumbfire. Otherwise, the presence of ECM renders the weapon dead weight. A pilot should at least be able to use the ol' model 00 sensors to make a shot.

4. BAP should do something (anything, really) against ECM. What's the point of a probe if it doesn't probe anything? The usefulness to tonnage ratio vs ECM is almost zero right now.

[Tzukasa]

My suggestion for a good ecm change would be this. My reasoning is that ecm should be a Support Item to help the team and enable a scout to do his job better. NOT an Offencive Tool that enables a light to be a 5x better brawler, an Atlas that is already insanely powerful as is to be that much more powerful, which is what ppl treat it as now. So I really think that ecm should retain its current functions Except:

1) weigh 3 tons instead of just a single ton.
2) take up 2 weapon hard points (its ABSURD that a raven can mount 3x med pulse's and 2x streaks and fire them with impunity while lagging around at 130kph, if they were reduced to 1 laser and 2 missiles ppl would treat the raven like it SHOULD be treated as a SCOUT not a ridiculously hard to kill brawler)
3) its bubble range is too large and should be reduced slightly by 10-25% (it really is absurdly massive atm)
Finally 4) if you have a Clear LOS with the target like a giant freekin atlas out in the open you SHOULD be able to get a lock on No Matter the ecm condition but the speed to get that lockon should be slower to happen than if there was no ecm.

I really feel that if all 4 of these things were changed then ecm would work as it should. It would still be effective as a SUPPORT ITEM like it should be, rather than an Insanely Powerful Offencive Tool and ALOT of the overpowered nature of it would disapear overnight.

[PiemasterXL]

I will go down with this 'Mech,

And I won't put my hands up and surrender,

There will be no Alt-F4 out my game,

I'm in looove, and always will be.

[LynxFury]

1) and 2) would break the CBT TROs....a definite no go.

If the Raven 3L, which IS THE ONLY mech currently in the game that's supposed to carry ECM is broken, it's because ECM is broken, simple as that. It wasn't a tremendously popular mech before ECM's introduction (though I drove one because I simply love the Raven look)--that's another good signal.

3) and 4) Definitely--as a starter.

[ShadowSpirit]

Nice post. Thanks for the source information.

[Bad Andy]

I think a good rule for the devs would be to try as close to a TT canon interpretation as possible when releasing new content and then if there are balance issues work from there. Saying that just because its a realtime 3d game being true to TT isnt the answer is not really a valid argument because in many cases stuff already does work fine and is close to canon.

If ECM had just been implemented to work like in TT in the first place and then buffed slightly from there if found to be underpowered I think that would have been much preferable from the point of view of much of the player base.

[Goodcore]

ICEFANG13, on 30 December 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

I agree, I'm still wanting to play, for now, a break. ECM makes the game really boring and stale.

Same here. Taking a break from the game. Everything just feels so wonky at the moment..

[Mordin Ashe]

Tried Hawken and I must say, the game has more serious issues that MWO some two months ago. Still not playing much MWO either, with ECM it is ridiculously shallow. Good thing we have steam sales.

[ltwally]

Mordin Ashe, on 01 January 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

Tried Hawken and I must say, the game has more serious issues that MWO some two months ago. Still not playing much MWO either, with ECM it is ridiculously shallow. Good thing we have steam sales.

Haven't even gotten around to it. Noticed Syndicate sitting on a dusty shelf, and had a ball with it (after fussing with DOSBox).

Edited by ltwally, 01 January 2013 - 07:44 AM.

[Goldhawk]

ltwally, on 30 December 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Firstly, Sarna is not cannon; it's not "offiicial." There have been inaccuracies in the past, and so quoting it as a TT source is sometimes not a good idea.

That said, cannon ECM counters/disrupts/negates the following:

• Artemis
  
• Beagle
  
• Narc
  
• C3

The PGI implementation does that, and also:

• kills basic sensors, so you often have no idea who is friend and who is foe
  
• kills missile locks, making you immune to LRM & S-SRM

It's the PGI addons that really wreck things.

But do recall, the Beagle can identify the areas in which ECM is present. THus this should be implemented into the game. If ECM is on the field, you can see little gray areas on the minimap.

[neviu]

people crying they cant shoot there missles anymore haha

[ltwally]

Goldhawk, on 01 January 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

But do recall, the Beagle can identify the areas in which ECM is present. THus this should be implemented into the game. If ECM is on the field, you can see little gray areas on the minimap.

Beagle and Narc are horribly understrength in MW:O. If they were brought up to snuff, then ECM simply functioning as the counter Artemis/Beagle/Narc that it is in TT would be pretty good.

All this sensor-killing, no missile-lock stuff is like PGI's idea of a really bad joke. And then they went on holiday. Hahahaha. Good one.

[StalaggtIKE]

neviu, on 01 January 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

people crying they cant shoot there missles anymore haha

People laughing because they can't read.

[ltwally]

neviu, on 01 January 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

people crying they cant shoot there missles anymore haha

Only one of my mechs has any missiles at all.

It isn't about me, specifically, not being able to use missiles. It's about the devastating effects ECM has had on this game -- not being able to tell Friend from Foe in a brawl, and totally countering missiles. They said it was game changer -- they just neglected to mention that the change was so terrible.

[Schlaung]

LRMs are still amazingly effective in PUGs unless you're borderline ********. And no, you don't need spotters.

[Willie Sauerland]

Schlaung, on 01 January 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

LRMs are still amazingly effective in PUGs unless you're borderline ********. And no, you don't need spotters.

Shh... You'll bring in logic like running a C1 with a TAG and LRMs which will completely nerf the entire argument! No sir, your logic is not needed in this conversation.

All others, please carry on.