87 replies to this topic

[Revo13]

Sandslice, on 14 January 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

A Jenner can do most of what a Raven can do. But when you construct a Lance, you'll take the Raven. Why? Because of ECM, end of line.



Fluff is not necessarily reflected in game rules, and if you read the double blind TT rules in Tactical Operations... which are 100% about information warfare - visual acquisition, and the interaction of various EloKa systems with each other... you'll find that I'm not "wrong, wrong, wrong."

TT ECM does not block regular targeting, which is what visual spotting is. In other words, if I'm 300m (10 hexes) away from you with DLOS to you, you are targeted - but so am I (even if I'm behind you, since TT field of view is 360 degrees.)

TT ECM does not block C3 unless the bubble's event horizon blocks line of effect between a slave and its master (or between two masters, which I'll skip for brevity.) C3i is harder to block since the six 'Mechs in a C3i net all have lines to each other. Just for reference.

TT Guardian ECM does not affect TAG or Streaks - this is a matter of game mechanics: it's not the Russian Shtora-1 system.

As your quote indicates, the presence of an active TT ECM can be detected by BAP, any time BAP can potentially detect a protected unit and fails to do so. And fails - yes, TT BAP gets a roll against ECM.

So yeah.

I pilot a Raven, my Lance-mate pilots a Jenner. To each their own. Look, if the game is too difficult for you I can send you a link to a program that will remove it for you at no cost. The program will even tidy up your registry, as I can tell you have problems with that.

ECM is part of the game, get over yourself. You are not special. You are the same decomposing organic material as everything else. ECM is a problem for weak players, strong players do not see it as a problem only an attribute to a wonderful game that I will be playing for years to come. So many mech bays to purchase, so many hero mechs to pilot.

You speak of visual acquisition, OK. We visually acquire target and we can blind fire missiles or simply lob artillery in their direction. 500 meters is a good distance to core an Atlas. In general, their range is maxed at 450 meters unless they are noob-boating, then we just get inside of the missile range and beat the brakes off of them ... because ... guess what? We know what they sacrifice to noob-boat.

Guardian ECM disrupts your computer, so there is no targeting. Period.

Guardian ECM does not effect (not affect) TAG or SSRM's, and you are right it does not effect them in the game, It effects your computer and your computer runs those ... so yea, PGI got it right the first time.

All computer systems go nuts when ECM is around, we all can tell when ECM is near us. It actually gives away the enemy when they think it is hiding them.

ECM is not a problem for my Lance, only an attribute to the game. When I see posts where noobs are whining and belly-aching about "ECM is too powerful" all I can think is that they would be better off playing Call of Duty instead of wasting space on this server forum.

Sincerely,
Your Noob

[Asmudius Heng]

Dude give it up - you quoted TT rules and were wrong - you have been called on your BS.

At least just say you like ECM for what it is as you have no argument based on rules or logic.

People are allowed to criticise game design decisions without crying you know. I do not like ECM the way it is implemented currently. Do I use it? Yes. Do i try to find ways around it? Of course. Most people here are working to be effective with the game build as it currently is - but this does not mean we cannot offer suggestions on how to make the game better.

So.

You like a mechanic better than someone else.

No one is right or wrong - you have an opinion not a fact. If someone diagrees with you - so be it, agree to disagree because you are not convincing anyone with your rants

[Revo13]

Asmudius Heng, on 14 January 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

Dude give it up - you quoted TT rules and were wrong - you have been called on your BS.

At least just say you like ECM for what it is as you have no argument based on rules or logic.

People are allowed to criticise game design decisions without crying you know. I do not like ECM the way it is implemented currently. Do I use it? Yes. Do i try to find ways around it? Of course. Most people here are working to be effective with the game build as it currently is - but this does not mean we cannot offer suggestions on how to make the game better.

So.

You like a mechanic better than someone else.

No one is right or wrong - you have an opinion not a fact. If someone diagrees with you - so be it, agree to disagree because you are not convincing anyone with your rants

Stop your belly aching and play the game. Nothing is broken, nothing is wrong but you. You admit to using ECM so you are the pot calling the kettle black.

Sincerely,
Your Noob

Edited by Revo13, 14 January 2013 - 07:12 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Revo13, on 14 January 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Stop your belly aching and play the game. Nothing is broken, nothing is wrong but you. You admit to using ECM so you are the pot calling the kettle black.

Sincerely,
Your Noob

No need to get worked up, have a lollipop and calm down there.

Nothign is wrong! i am wrong - the petulance is kind of amusing but let atually you know - talk about the topic at hand not sling insults eh

[Solis Obscuri]

Ohari, on 09 January 2013 - 01:29 AM, said:

You know.. funny thing is that I used to think that people complaining about ECM being OP were just whiners, but I was running a brawling Cataphract..with no LRMs. Lately I've been trying out the Awesome.with LRMs. Now I see what people have been complaining about. It really does completely negate LRM use. I mean others can have ECM and put it on counter, but that only neutralizes one ECM. Often times a team may have 4 or 5 ECMs and the other team not have any or just 1.

It's not just neutralizing LRMs (you can still compensate somewhat with TAG), but when a team has one or two LRM boats and/or direct-fire snipers camping on a hilltop under an ECM umbrella they are damn near impossible to dislodge, and can seriously control the battlefield in ways that even 8-man LRM boat teams couldn't in the past. Essentially, once you show up anywher in the open, those ECM-cloaked boats can be firing within a second or two - in response you have to TAG then lock on at a reduced rate where it takes ~4 seconds for a lock (and sometimes it does this glitchy thing where the LRM try to lock before you get the target box, but won't, and then after you push "R" they lose the lock and have to begin the slow 4 second process again). By that time the opposing team can have 2-3 salvos of their LRMs in the air. Direct-fire weapons have similar problems - they get suppressed immediately, and without Info Warfare capabilities for their team, they have a much harder time picking up where the LRM boats are at.

ECM-covered LRM boats can be beat, but it's a hell of a disadvantage to work against even in a pre-made drop, and I think that disparate effectiveness is further fueling a confirmation bias that LRMs are just so terribly OP that ECM is a necessary hard-counter. I have no idea why PGI decided to give the D-DC, best missile-boat of all the Atlas chassis, an ECM, but it was an awful idea. If they had to give it to any of them it should've been the AS7-K, would at least have given that overpriced walking scrapheap a reason to be used.

[Sandslice]

Revo13, on 14 January 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

I pilot a Raven, my Lance-mate pilots a Jenner. To each their own. Look, if the game is too difficult for you I can send you a link [REDACTED]

RAFFEL MAU.

Yes, ECM is part of the game. That does not mean that the way that it is implemented is automatically correct.

Yes, ECM is part of the game; but if you think that it is working exactly according to TT (with the added Streak defence,) then I'd recommend two books for you to read. I'll even include page numbers for fast reference:

Total Warfare:
pp131-3: For description of c3 and c3i. As a specific part of this, it mentions that stealth armour does not work against a c3 net (beyond their usual effects on the reference,) but that with respect to the stealth armour's required ECM, "an attacking unit must be outside the effective range of the ECM mounted on the target unit, or the attacker gets cut off from the network." Footnote 1.

pp134-5: For description of ECM and what it does, at least in standard BT play. Note: "The ECM suite does not affect other scanning and targeting devices, such as TAG and targeting computers." TT ECM does not affect TAG, even if the tagger is in the bubble.

Tactical Operations
p220 and follows: Double Blind rules. The only difference between double-blind and standard BT play is a spotting / EloKa phase, in which sensors, probes, and ECM interact to determine who detects whom in a turn.

p221: Visual Spotting. Spotting (and thus can be targeted, as demonstrated in the C3 ruleset) occurs if you have direct line of sight and enough range, based on the environment. This would correspond to the following on the MWO maps:
-Most maps: 1800m (daylight)
-Frozen City Day: 600m (it seems like moderate snowfall, with the haze)
-Frozen City Night: 900m (ad-hoc: the aurora makes it unusually bright)
-River City Night: 150m (freaking dark, but not absolutely because of the fires)
p222: Sensor ranges and terrain variables, and also an interesting bit about how sensors are not LoS except that they can't penetrate hills.
p223: Description of IR sensors (and why cool-running 'Mechs should be virtually invisible to them, making standard and night vision more interesting,) along with a chart of sensor-roll modifiers broken down by types of ECM/stealth gear carried.

----

Also, TO pp219-220 on hiding information (concealed record sheets) is enlightening, and could inform other EloKa-balancing decisions.

Footnote 1: What this means in MWO terms is that ECM should not be capable of preventing targeting. Hiding the paperdoll from anyone that doesn't have BAP? Sure. Inhibiting missile lock? Sure, why not. It should not inhibit targeting itself, though... if nothing else is nerfed, that.

Edited by Sandslice, 14 January 2013 - 08:20 PM.

[Revo13]

Leave ECM alone, it is fine.

Buff the jump-jets! I need more thrust to stomp on assaults!

[jajsamurai]

Constructive criticism would be more useful than angry ranting, so I will try to be constructive here.
ECM is imbalanced, because as has been pointed out, it is only allowed on 4 out of 51 chassis, and still makes it into every game.
The real test of whether ECM is imbalanced is to allow it on every mech, and see if people will voluntarily NOT take it.
Omni mechs by definition will all be capable of taking it, so we really need to balance it so that people will voluntarily not take it. Otherwise when clan mechs come in every clan mech will have an ECM. I think we need to balance ECM now, so that it doesn't become a problem later.

These are my suggestions for how ECM might be SLIGHTLY modified to improve balance.

1. let TAG be completely unaffected by ECM both inside 180m and outside. Also let a tagged mech be targeted by any mech with LOS and within the TAG range of 750. TAG is a laser designator, and as such is entirely passive. It makes no sense that ECM could have any effect on it, and it makes no sense that you need to communicate with the TAG equiped mech in order to use it. It is passive reflected light in a specific wavelength. If you can see the reflected light you can lock on to it.

2. Let BAP equipped mechs gain a small advantage in finding ECM cloaked units. My suggestion is to just have BAP increase your detection range against ECM cloaked units from 200m to 400m. Another suggestion I noticed in here is to have BAP able to detect the area of interference at longer range. You wouldn't be able to target the mech but you could call out enemy contact, warn your allies and give a general direction. Some combination of both could also work.

3. let Narc reduce missile lock time increases from ECM, while still having ECM counter NARC's normal benefits. Thus they both partially counter each other.

I think these suggestions would bring BAP and NARC into more prominent use. Currently almost no one uses them, because ECM counters them completely and is so common in every game.

Some good arguments have been made about LRM's being OP without ECM, so here is some thoughts on that topic.
LRM's and SRM's got a significant damage boost from the TT game, so they can be OP pretty easily.

1. Make AMS capable of taking out more missiles per salvo, or increase AMS ammo efficiency or both.
2. have indirect fire missiles spread more, thus missing more and doing less damage than direct fire by 10 to 20%

I'm not sure any nerf of indirect fire LRM's is needed. Artemis was already nerfed for indirect fire. Most people haven't noticed due to ECM nerfing ALL LRM's. I think if we do small changes to ECM to make it a little less powerful no changes to LRMs would be needed.

[Revo13]

jajsamurai, on 14 January 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

Constructive criticism would be more useful than angry ranting, so I will try to be constructive here.
ECM is imbalanced, because as has been pointed out, it is only allowed on 4 out of 51 chassis, and still makes it into every game.
The real test of whether ECM is imbalanced is to allow it on every mech, and see if people will voluntarily NOT take it.
Omni mechs by definition will all be capable of taking it, so we really need to balance it so that people will voluntarily not take it. Otherwise when clan mechs come in every clan mech will have an ECM. I think we need to balance ECM now, so that it doesn't become a problem later.

These are my suggestions for how ECM might be SLIGHTLY modified to improve balance.

1. let TAG be completely unaffected by ECM both inside 180m and outside. Also let a tagged mech be targeted by any mech with LOS and within the TAG range of 750. TAG is a laser designator, and as such is entirely passive. It makes no sense that ECM could have any effect on it, and it makes no sense that you need to communicate with the TAG equiped mech in order to use it. It is passive reflected light in a specific wavelength. If you can see the reflected light you can lock on to it.

2. Let BAP equipped mechs gain a small advantage in finding ECM cloaked units. My suggestion is to just have BAP increase your detection range against ECM cloaked units from 200m to 400m. Another suggestion I noticed in here is to have BAP able to detect the area of interference at longer range. You wouldn't be able to target the mech but you could call out enemy contact, warn your allies and give a general direction. Some combination of both could also work.

3. let Narc reduce missile lock time increases from ECM, while still having ECM counter NARC's normal benefits. Thus they both partially counter each other.

I think these suggestions would bring BAP and NARC into more prominent use. Currently almost no one uses them, because ECM counters them completely and is so common in every game.

Some good arguments have been made about LRM's being OP without ECM, so here is some thoughts on that topic.
LRM's and SRM's got a significant damage boost from the TT game, so they can be OP pretty easily.

1. Make AMS capable of taking out more missiles per salvo, or increase AMS ammo efficiency or both.
2. have indirect fire missiles spread more, thus missing more and doing less damage than direct fire by 10 to 20%

I'm not sure any nerf of indirect fire LRM's is needed. Artemis was already nerfed for indirect fire. Most people haven't noticed due to ECM nerfing ALL LRM's. I think if we do small changes to ECM to make it a little less powerful no changes to LRMs would be needed.

If every chassis carried ECM then everyone would complain to limit it to a few chassis, PGI got it right the first time. Practice more. Omni mechs are Clan mechs ... Clan > Inner Sphere. No need to modify ECM, it is perfectly balanced. I have 4 mechs, only one uses it and I rarely pilot the Raven. The Cataphracts are more enjoyable to pilot.

1. TAG isn't effected, your computer is. This is why TAG doesn't help when inside the field, what is so difficult to understand about this?

2. We already "sense" the disruption on all mechs at 180 meters, that is more than enough distance for me to pin point the location of the ECM equipped mech. Some pilots believe it makes them invisible, when it really makes them stand out more.

3. NARC could use a small buff in the time it is active. Other than that, why fix something until you break it?

I use BAP, I use NARC. It is all choice of the pilot. Just because there is a trend that you find impossible to overcome doesn't mean it cannot be overcome.

Practice, practice, practice.

[Sandslice]

Revo13, on 15 January 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

If every chassis carried ECM then everyone would complain to limit it to a few chassis, PGI got it right the first time. Practice more. Omni mechs are Clan mechs ... Clan > Inner Sphere. No need to modify ECM, it is perfectly balanced. I have 4 mechs, only one uses it and I rarely pilot the Raven. The Cataphracts are more enjoyable to pilot.

1. TAG isn't effected, your computer is. This is why TAG doesn't help when inside the field, what is so difficult to understand about this?

2. We already "sense" the disruption on all mechs at 180 meters, that is more than enough distance for me to pin point the location of the ECM equipped mech. Some pilots believe it makes them invisible, when it really makes them stand out more.

3. NARC could use a small buff in the time it is active. Other than that, why fix something until you break it?

I use BAP, I use NARC. It is all choice of the pilot. Just because there is a trend that you find impossible to overcome doesn't mean it cannot be overcome.

Practice, practice, practice.

1. We've already established that "your computer" is not affected by ECM. The systems that cause LRMs to be guided to the TAG are not keyed to the spotter, in any case; it's the laser version of wire guidance, which is keyed to the mark on the target, and that alone.

There are ECM systems, such as Shtora-1, which specifically counter modern wire / TAG guidance (and counter-acquire the spotter on top of it: in post-Soviet Russia, ECM-equipped tank TAGs you... with your own TAG.) Guardian ECM was not intended to be anything like Shtora, mainly because Shtora was invented in the 90s.

2. Again, BAP should be detecting ECM's presence at 1000 (or 1150) meters, rather than "not at all." BAP should also be ignoring LoS (it's definitely not) - and, in MWO, it should be able to identify ECM's event horizon by noticing that these spots here can be probed, but those there are being jammed. ECM is not a stealth system - its operating principle, by its nature, involves generating "noise" on various frequencies.

3. Narc needs a function. Right now, the pod's "come hither" effect on missiles requires direct line of sight to the missile-thrower, and it's still hard-countered by ECM. There are other types of Narc ammo, but those don't come until Improved Narc, which is during Toaster Time starring The Word of Blake.

----

Again, the primary issue most of us seem to have with ECM isn't that it's "too hard" to compensate for it. It's that it is an unbalanced triple-threat system: the electronic jammer it should be, the missile jammer that the devs obviously want it to be, and a stealth system, the last of which is contrary to an ECM's operating principles.

Take away the stealth and leave everything else, just as a beta test experiment, and see what it does to the metagame. You can even have your hidden paperdoll unless the opponent has BAP (a tabletop optional rule, TacOps pp219-220.) But you get to be targeted, and BAP will be able to see active ECM within its range. That, I think, would be balanced even if the Streak heroes still get to bubble-auto-hit.

After that, we can take care of that problem by pondering Streaks.

[Xandralkus]

Revo13, on 14 January 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Mathematics is a wonderful thing, the Raven is in every way better than the Commando. My Commando has been pushed through to the end, so has the Raven. The Raven is better, yet they both have ECM.

Your argument is invalid; this is a failure of game balance. A mech should not be 'better' than another mech. Why? Because it contravenes and undervalues player choice completely. If every choice and every permutation is not equally valid, then it cannot be called a choice. I don't care if mech imbalance is lore-supported. I don't care if it's in TT. It was bad game design there too, and bringing broken mechanics from TT into MWO will screw up MWO as well.

Revo13, on 14 January 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Wrong, wrong, wrong! I have to play so much harder against a ECM heavy team, which makes me a better player. I enjoy the difficulty it brings to the game as I only have one ECM mech that I use as a Scout Striker when my Lance requires one for our joint purposes.

You obviously did not read or chose to ignore my original post: No player deserves that much power over another player, under any circumstances. This is no mere opinion, this is the very fundamental nature of game design itself. ECM is bad game design because it gives a player the capability to completely undo or otherwise prevent taking action against another player. Additionally, it proceeds down the path of metagame paper-rock-scissors with its narrowly constrained roles, especially since so few mechs can use ECM.

Revo13, on 14 January 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

When I was Mastering my Raven chassis I used a sniper build people laughed at while posted 300+ damage each game and getting 1-3 kills. ECM or not, I do not rely on targeting to snipe, I just snipe. This must be from all of the time I spent sniping in Battlefield 3 with my squad.

Your argument is again invalid. Light mechs are against my preferred playstyle; I prefer mediums and heavies. If you pilot something <75 KPH, that cannot instantaneously change battlefield position on a whim, you will discover that you must calculate your desired sniping point 30+ seconds in advance. I actually liked it better this way. Now, if you choose the wrong firing point because of a lack of targeting data, you either end up getting blasted by multiple battlemechs simultaneously, or you end up simply not sniping at all. The reason your tactic is valid in a light mech is because you have enough maneuverability to change position on a whim. I encourage you to generate the same result in a mech with a top speed <75 KPH; you will find that without the insane speed and the lagshield generator, the game is actually quite difficult, and not in a way that the developers can reliably monetize.

Revo13, on 14 January 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Here you admit to being a noob-boater. LRM's are great for those who cannot use ballistics or energy weapons properly. So, they rely on others to do their targeting so they can noob-click to fame while fighting P.U.G.S. This is nothing to be proud of, and if I were you I would never admit this to anyone, ever.

You misunderstand, though it is an easy enough error to make, and I harbor no ill will against you for doing so. If you had read my posts, you would quickly discover that I am a staunch advocate of strong indirect-fire LRM nerfs. While I enjoy using LRM's as a weapon, I always wait for direct-LOS engagement. ***** spotters never hold targets, and even if they do, players do not deserve to apply statistically firepower when another cannot retaliate.

Revo13, on 14 January 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

You speak of having player skill yet you are proud to announce your noob-boating to get top blah blah blah. I bet you are a K/D-R phreak, also.

I don't even know where to find my kill/death ratio, nor do I care. I enjoyed the old days, where competitive gaming was about having fun, not about metagame analysis and exploitation of game mechanics, and application of insurmountable firepower.

That being said, I do enjoy using my dual LRM-10 Hunchback...at least, I did, when I could strafe at 300-400 meters with direct line-of-sight and hunt lights, mediums, heavies, and occasionally soften up assaults. In tandem with my secondary laser armament, I would regularly end up near the top of the scoreboard, with no indirect fire use whatsoever.

Revo13, on 14 January 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Please, PGI, keep making the game more difficult so only the devoted pilots will remain and the noobs will be forced to play better by practicing as hard as we have. Don't ruin a good thing!

Hey PGI, casual gamers are the primary monetizers of any and every F2P game in existence. The devs will either cater to them with balanced mechanics that prevent hardcore veterans from exploiting imbalanced mechanics and stomping all over them in combat, or they will not monetize your game and you will go out of business. The irony is, you need them to monetize or else your gaming experience goes away completely. Recognize your symbiosis with casual gamers and recognize that no one deserves either autowin or instadeath under ANY circumstances.

There are far better methods of dealing with the game's obvious imbalances than implementing another broken set of mechanics.

Revo13, on 14 January 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

ECM is perfect, reference sarna.net ---> http://www.sarna.net...rdian_ECM_Suite

If you have at least a Fifth Grade reading level you will understand that PGI it the nail on the head with ECM.

Your argument is completely invalid, and all subsequent arguments thereof. This is the single largest threat to the continued existence of the game: Adherence to TT. Sarna.net is not infalliable. What makes you begin to think TT mechanics can translate to a shooter with absolutely no changes whatsoever? Have you designed either a shooter or a tabletop game? You don't bring a walrus to a dog show, and you don't bring tabletop mechanics to a shooter. Other examples of TT's obvious imbalance? Clan tech is OP, Supernovas and similar battlemechs are disproportionately ineffective due to poor heat balancing, and medium laser boats > all. Heck, clan tech screwed things up so badly, they had to implement battle values in lieu of tonnage.

Additionally, several things in TT are balanced with cost as a factor. That does not work in the slightest with the present MWO mechanics without becoming a purely progression-centric grind2win game. Either the game's economic mechanics need serious revision, or metagame cost and combat effectiveness must be seperated from one another completely.

Additionally, take away your premade groups and engage in some solo PvP, where you and you alone are singly responsible for the damage you do and the events you cause, and you will quickly discover that the solo PvP aspect of the game is COMPLETELY missing, due to ECM. It destroys the capability of obtaining sensor data except in an extremely narrow range of circumstances.

You never really make any deliberate attempt at reasoning, aside from "L2Pnoob" and "ECM is fine, I like ultra-hardmode." Additionally, if you intend to quote & disagree with everyone who posts on behalf of ECM changes, I encourage you do so in a constructive and analytical manner. I still harbor no ill will against you, but I would encourage you to read through the posts that I (and others) have made, prior to your arrival in the thread. We fundamentally agree on many issues, I suspect - such as a way to nerf indirect-fire LRM boats and streak platforms.

Edited by Xandralkus, 15 January 2013 - 02:53 AM.

[Fooooo]

After looking it over it seems weird that we have ECM that encompasses all the effects of multiple modules.....

Has anyone had the thought that maybe the current ECM is a test of the complete system in 1 module (unlike TT) because it is easier to test all of the effects that in the future will be relocated to seperate modules ? + those modules need to be created first...which takes a little time I guess....

That way they don't have to wait for everyone to slowly gain all the modules to test that all the effects are working properly and not bugged.

They can see what effect it would have if a mech could use all the ecm modules in the future and hence balance accordingly beforehand.

Etc etc etc..........however the problem I guess is they do have internal testers and a small group of outside testers (players included) that should be able to test all that stuff fairly effectively......hence there would be no need to really throw it out into the wild for testing.

i'm sure we could have waited for all the modules to be created first....... and I'm sure they would have said something about it if this was the case.....(that all ecm effects from tt being rolled into 1 module is only for testing)

Which points to there being no multiple modules in the EW category...............a sad sign imo...

Edited by Fooooo, 15 January 2013 - 04:10 AM.

[Bobzilla]

It doesn't matter if its op or not, that it does or doesn't follow TT, that it does or doesn't do to much or too little, that it has a counter or not.

What matters is it takes veriety away from the game which makes it less fun.
If you like to only close range brawl you love ECM. But that gets boring after a while.

If there were larger, more open maps you could 'snipe' effectively, but maps are small with lots of cover.

[Regrets]

And /thread

[StalaggtIKE]

Quote

Some have to resort to foul language when they know they have been bested. ECM is no over-powered, I have no problem with ECM with it like it is. Mind you, I do not own a D-DC nor do I have any intention to own one any time soon. I do have a Raven, I had a Commando, for scouting. When I construct a Lance it isn't "bring what ever". It just so happens the Raven is in every way better than the Commando (numbers do not lie).

No foul language was used, thus the reason I found it funny. That is, unless you consider B-U-T-T-H-U-R-T a bad word. For the record D-DC is the 3rd worst ECM mech, with the Cicada as the worst.

Quote

Sniping is very efficient way to play. 300+ damage with ER PPC and 1-3 kills.

I constantly get 600+ and 3-5 kills with my brawler, whoopie! That means nothing. The ability to defeat ECM has nothing to do with its balance. It's the many pros and lack of cons, that makes it so.

Quote

ECM actually makes my sniping career EASIER. The players "under" ECM cover stand in the open making it simple to rip arms off and core them.

So the truth finally comes out. You like ECM because it makes the game easier for you. Ironically, that's the same reason I hate it. I enjoy a challenge and even more so, diversity. ECM kills that; the game is now a brawlfest with kill stealing snipers. I hope you're using this time to improve your KDR.

Revo13, on 15 January 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

If every chassis carried ECM then everyone would complain to limit it to a few chassis, PGI got it right the first time.

Why would they complain? Most people gripes with ECM seems to be the fact it is necessary on the field, compelling you to play the same 4 mechs. If everyone had access, they would be able to play other mechs, besides laser/ballistic boats and ECM mechs. Diversity would return.

Quote

2. We already "sense" the disruption on all mechs at 180 meters, that is more than enough distance for me to pin point the location of the ECM equipped mech. Some pilots believe it makes them invisible, when it really makes them stand out more.

What a noobish statement. A smart player would just turn it off.

Quote

3. NARC could use a small buff in the time it is active. Other than that, why fix something until you break it?

Why bother buffing it, when ECM negates it.

Quote

I use BAP, I use NARC. It is all choice of the pilot. Just because there is a trend that you find impossible to overcome doesn't mean it cannot be overcome.

ECM also counters BAP. For someone that claims to be an expertise of ECM, you neglect a lot of detail.

Quote

Practice, practice, practice.

.... RIGHT. It takes no skill to truly beat ECM; either you get a lucky pub drop or you sync drop with a higher number of ECM. The only counters to ECM is more ECM or stupid enemies. Keep living in your illusion of grandeur.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 15 January 2013 - 06:55 AM.

[MWHawke]

Xandralkus, on 15 January 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

Your argument is invalid; this is a failure of game balance. A mech should not be 'better' than another mech. Why? Because it contravenes and undervalues player choice completely. If every choice and every permutation is not equally valid, then it cannot be called a choice. I don't care if mech imbalance is lore-supported. I don't care if it's in TT. It was bad game design there too, and bringing broken mechanics from TT into MWO will screw up MWO as well.

I have to disagree with this statement. If you don't care if it's in TT, then don't play Mechwarrior, play Hawken. Reason why we are playing Mechwarrior is because it brings Battletech to life. Yes, some tweaking is required to keep the game updated but to say that you do not care about the original game at all?

Also, if everything has to be equally balanced, and I mean equally balanced, then seriously, all you need to play this game is ONE chassis, with the ability to to put on different skins, ONE weapon with the ability to change it's look but not function, and NO movement as this will make it unfair with the differing ping rates.

Not arguing but just trying to draw the logical conclusion from your statements. I might have gotten it wrong but it seems like that to me.

[Regrets]

^C'mon dude, he isn't suggesting that everything should be balanced no matter what you choose. He is obviously saying that each option should have some viability. Otherwise, why put it in the game?

[MWHawke]

Regrets, on 15 January 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

^C'mon dude, he isn't suggesting that everything should be balanced no matter what you choose. He is obviously saying that each option should have some viability. Otherwise, why put it in the game?

"
Xandralkus, on 15 January 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

Your argument is invalid; this is a failure of game balance. A mech should not be 'better' than another mech. Why? Because it contravenes and undervalues player choice completely. If every choice and every permutation is not equally valid, then it cannot be called a choice. I don't care if mech imbalance is lore-supported. I don't care if it's in TT. It was bad game design there too, and bringing broken mechanics from TT into MWO will screw up MWO as well."

Read his post again. He does not say "some". He says "every choice and every permutation is not equally valid".

[Regrets]

MWHawke, on 15 January 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

"
Xandralkus, on 15 January 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

Your argument is invalid; this is a failure of game balance. A mech should not be 'better' than another mech. Why? Because it contravenes and undervalues player choice completely. If every choice and every permutation is not equally valid, then it cannot be called a choice. I don't care if mech imbalance is lore-supported. I don't care if it's in TT. It was bad game design there too, and bringing broken mechanics from TT into MWO will screw up MWO as well."

Read his post again. He does not say "some". He says "every choice and every permutation is not equally valid".

Yeah bro, he is talking about each variant being a valid choice. ZZZZZZZ

[Revo13]

This is great, I go to sleep and wake up to post after post of flame from players of this game.

If you don't like the game, if ECM makes it too difficult, if there is only one variant worth playing then delete the game and find Call of Duty in your local store.

/endthread