116 replies to this topic

[KuruptU4Fun]

MasterGoa, on 04 February 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

I answered no simply because countering ECM is BAP's job...

And this is my opinion...

BAP's job is to gather information quickly from distances farther than a normal mechs capability. ECM's to to deny that capability.

[Gaan Cathal]

8RoundsRapid, on 04 February 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I love the TT game, and I still play it -sorta- via Megamek and Mekwars. It had balance in all facets of its design, quite elegant balance at that. If I wanted to make a game based on BT, I would use the balance already in place - some of it for 20+ years, time tested! - rather than trying to change it to do things that aren't or shouldn't be possible. Thats just me tho, I like the simple, elegant solutions.

I'll take your word for it being a balanced TT game (although I've heard differing viewpoints on that from wargaming friends, I personally don't so won't comment). But that game is in 10s-representative rounds, and you cannot aim. The simple ability of players to point their crosshairs throws all sorts of TT balance out of the window. It's why we have doubled armour, and only missiles have commensurately increased damage. Does it mean a Light doesn't have to fear an AC/20 shot like it would in TT? Yes. Does it also mean that an Atlas actually takes some time to take down, as it does in TT? Also yes. You can have insta-pop lights or tough Altai, not both. PGI made, in my opinion, the right choice there since unplayable lights and squishy Atlai would not make for an entertaining game, and component-stripping would be even less viable than it is now.

As regards ECM, I'll just repeat what I dropped in another thread:

Basically ECM needs to either counter sensors or aggressive EWAR. Frankly it makes most sense to be the former. TAG and a buffed-into-not-idiocy NARC in should be able to light up a target irrespective of the number of ECM emitters affecting them. Oh, and dear god make it purely antagonistic with BAP. The current rendering of BAP entirely inert is...foolish. If anything, it should be a direct inverse of BAP, reduction in enemy targeting range, increase in targeting time and increase in missile lock time. Slap on a hard-counter to Artemis (and an increased spread/missrate for non-Artemis missiles to keep Artie useful) and job done, IMO.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 04 February 2013 - 08:46 AM.

[8RoundsRapid]

Gaan Cathal, on 04 February 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

I'll take your word for it being a balanced TT game (although I've heard differing viewpoints on that from wargaming friends, I personally don't so won't comment). But that game is in 10s-representative rounds, and you cannot aim. The simple ability of players to point their crosshairs throws all sorts of TT balance out of the window. It's why we have doubled armour, and only missiles have commensurately increased damage. Does it mean a Light doesn't have to fear an AC/20 shot like it would in TT? Yes. Does it also mean that an Atlas actually takes some time to take down, as it does in TT? Also yes. You can have insta-pop lights or tough Altai, not both. PGI made, in my opinion, the right choice there since unplayable lights and squishy Atlai would not make for an entertaining game, and component-stripping would be even less viable than it is now.

As regards ECM, I'll just repeat what I dropped in another thread:

Basically ECM needs to either counter sensors or aggressive EWAR. Frankly it makes most sense to be the former. TAG and a buffed-into-not-idiocy NARC in should be able to light up a target irrespective of the number of ECM emitters affecting them. Oh, and dear god make it purely antagonistic with BAP. The current rendering of BAP entirely inert is...foolish. If anything, it should be a direct inverse of BAP, reduction in enemy targeting range, increase in targeting time and increase in missile lock time. Slap on a hard-counter to Artemis (and an increased spread/missrate for non-Artemis missiles to keep Artie useful) and job done, IMO.

Some would indeed argue the TT game is unbalanced. Not my opinion, but whatever. As for translating TT balance concepts into a vid game, MWO could have done alot better. I've never, ever said I wanted 100% translation of TT to this game. Frankly, I think its painfully obvious that 100% adherence to TT would never work. Its so obvious, in fact, that I get tired of hearing it whenever TT gets brought up. That being said, the concepts at work in TT could be translated to this game for balance purposes. things like: NOT giving ECM the functionality of 3 diff pieces of equipment, 2 of which aren't even invented yet for this timeline.

I agree with you on BAP, but not on ECM. ECM should be the counter to artemis, bap, narc, and c3/c3i. It shouldnt be the primary system off of which the entire match is centered around.

[Apoc1138]

DocBach, on 04 February 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

So, its one module, but you have to buy a second one? What?

I haven't seen the costs for it, and I may have made the mistake to assume it would fall in line with pricing for other modules, which is ~6,000,000 c-bills a module. You are also forgetting that it has a prerequisite GXP requirement, which can only be earned through either hundreds of games, or with real money.

Yep, sounds totally fair in price.

you unlock sensor range 1 with GXP, you buy the module for 2 million, you buy level 2 with GXP... you pay no more cbills as it converts the level 1 module to level 2 FOR FREE

it's already in the game, and it costs 2 mil

but sure, lets just randomly make stuff up, not understand how it works or what it actually costs and then post all over the forums about how unfair it is...

Edited by Apoc1138, 04 February 2013 - 09:13 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

8RoundsRapid, on 04 February 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

I agree with you on BAP, but not on ECM. ECM should be the counter to artemis, bap, narc, and c3/c3i. It shouldnt be the primary system off of which the entire match is centered around.

I'm not entirely convinced my inverted BAP+Artemis counter would make it match-centric, but taking your standpoint of 'TT-based' as the primary goal...


By my reading of TT, and adjusting for RT stuffthings, Guardian ECM should do the following:

-180m radius in which hostile radar fails to show friendly (to the ECM) mechs
OR
-180m radius in which friendly mechs fail to show on hostile radar

-this is true of BAP equipped mechs, but they have the 'jammed signal' alert currently displayed on radar map
OR
-this is true of BAP equipped mechs, but they have a region of 'signal haze'

-ECM-affected mechs can target hostiles, but this does not cause them to appear on friendly HUDs or radars
OR
-ECM-affected mechs cannot target hostiles
OR
-ECM-affected mechs can be targeted by hostiles, but this does not cause them to appear on friendly HUDs or radars
OR
-ECM-affected mechs cannot be targeted by hostiles

-ECM nullifies the effect of Artemis fired by mechs inside it's radius
OR
-ECM nullifies the effect of Artemis fired at mechs inside it's radius

-mechs within ECM radius cannot benefit from NARC beacons
OR
-ECM nullifies NARC beacons within it's radius

-?ECM in counter mode nullifies one hostile ECM in guardian mode within 180m?



Frankly I don't see a move to that setup being problematic with two caveats:

SSRMs need to be fixed, since their only current limiter will no longer limit them. That said, this needs to happen anyway.

LRMs need to loose indirect fire capability on non-TAGed or NARCed mechs, for the above reason. My understanding is that this is 'TT approved' in any case.

The main question would be 'does ECM affect friendly mechs within 180m or hostile mechs within 180m?' My inclination is to the former, given the information available regarding the Raven (which is the first ECM-centric mech, as I understand it) which suggests that it remains away from the front lines in a stand-off support role. This would seem to me to preclude having to get within medium pulse laser range to use it's primary equipment.

[Edit for formatting derp]

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 04 February 2013 - 09:27 AM.

[DocBach]

Apoc1138, on 04 February 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

you unlock sensor range 1 with GXP, you buy the module for 2 million, you buy level 2 with GXP... you pay no more cbills as it converts the level 1 module to level 2 FOR FREE

it's already in the game, and it costs 2 mil

but sure, lets just randomly make stuff up, not understand how it works or what it actually costs and then post all over the forums about how unfair it is...

Advanced Sensor range is an ability that was suppose to be included with Beagle Active Probe from the beginning. Modules which will increase the range ECM 'mechs are lockable by 70 meters cost not only more c-bills to unlock than ECM, they cost GXP.

For any module included to counter ECM, you are paying GXP, a currency that ECM does not require at all to use.

If you implement something, then counter it with equipment that isn't purchasable with the same currency system, there is a balance inequality.

Edited by DocBach, 04 February 2013 - 09:35 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

DocBach, on 04 February 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Sensor range isn't the modules they're putting in to balance out ECM, dude. Sensor range is an ability that was suppose to be included with Beagle Active Probe from the beginning. So far, nobody knows the price, but regardless, for any module

Sensor Range the module is a two-tier module costing 2M Cbills for the physical purchase. The sensor range buff on the Beagle is an entirely separate (stacking) effect. Why on earth the one is allowed to cut into ECM range-dampening and not the other I don't know and, as an ECM user, I somewhat agree with you that the method of countering is somewhat half-assed, and on the point of GXP-inbalance. Essentially you either force the counter to spend GXP (imbalanced) or, if Beagle can counter ECM, you allow ECM-counter to be 'buffed' for GXP but not ECM. Neither of these are good, and we certainly don't want both to be (effectively) upgradable with GXP or serious P2W issues arise, which MWO has so far managed to give a wide berth.

[Bobzilla]

Apoc1138, on 04 February 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

you unlock sensor range 1 with GXP, you buy the module for 2 million, you buy level 2 with GXP... you pay no more cbills as it converts the level 1 module to level 2 FOR FREE

it's already in the game, and it costs 2 mil

but sure, lets just randomly make stuff up, not understand how it works or what it actually costs and then post all over the forums about how unfair it is...

Your right it does only cost 2 mil cbills. But it also costs gxp. This is where the question of fairness comes in. Is it fair to have an item costing gxp be a balance to something that only costs cbills. It doesn't matter how it works, just the idea behind the different currencies as one is more valuable than the other.

Hey someone figue out how much 1 gxp is worth in cbills.

[Kyone Akashi]

As for the original question - yes, I think that the proposed "counters" are fair, simply because affecting ECM is not all they are good for and it is more of a bonus effect rather than their only purpose.

It changes nothing on my newfound belief that ECM should work a little closer to the tabletop (my idea: decreased detection range + allow lock-on but disable IFF, minimap and sharing of sensor data between all units within Guardian range, essentially making affected units unable to discern between friend or foe unless using their own eyes), but I don't see why the PPC or the Sensor Module should have suddenly become worse just because they now affect ECM.

But for what it's worth, I'm convinced that GXP gain is way too slow anyways. The gap between finishing full customization of one's favorite 'Mech and starting to go into Modules is a huge chasm of grind. Not that I mind it that much; the most important aspect of the battles is the fun. But still, this is nagging a little. I just unlocked a fourth Module slot for my Jenner and have yet to use the first one.
Mind you, this is an issue that is concerning Modules in general, not just ones that now help against ECM.

Edited by Kyone Akashi, 04 February 2013 - 10:11 AM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Bobzilla, on 04 February 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Your right it does only cost 2 mil cbills. But it also costs gxp. This is where the question of fairness comes in. Is it fair to have an item costing gxp be a balance to something that only costs cbills. It doesn't matter how it works, just the idea behind the different currencies as one is more valuable than the other.

Hey someone figue out how much 1 gxp is worth in cbills.

You're earning both in each match you play. The only RM cost is trading mech specific XP into GXP. Since both are earned in a grind (win or lose) that is not imbalanced.

[Odins Fist]

Wolfways, on 31 January 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

As long as ECM stops missile locks it's not fair. And 50m is nothing.

.
TRANSLATION: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.... I want my EASY MODE BACK... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
.
Seriously..??

[DocBach]

Odins Fist, on 04 February 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

.
TRANSLATION: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.... I want my EASY MODE BACK... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
.
Seriously..??

Translation: "I got killed by LRM's a lot, and ECM is a better AMS"

[Gaan Cathal]

Odins Fist, on 04 February 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

.
TRANSLATION: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.... I want my EASY MODE BACK... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
.
Seriously..??

DocBach, on 04 February 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Translation: "I got killed by LRM's a lot, and ECM is a better AMS"

Aaaaaaaaaand there goes the constructive discussion.



Frankly the biggest 'easy mode' issue ECM has prevented is the ridiculous SSRM spam. And that is a ridiculously low skill ceiling weapon. Those of you piloting larger mechs might not be too worried about the current SSRM2s, but SSRM4/6 are going to arrive with Clan content and with the current mechanics and no ECM will obliterate everything within range. The amount of D-DCs I see rolling with three SSRM2 for effortless light-spanking (or almost any Awesome likewise) is, y'know, silly. I don't mind when I get hosed by an assault who actually hits me, but 15 damage per volley just by waving your cursor vaguely at me is, y'know...easy mode.

Does ECM need toning down? Yes. Does it need removing from the game and everyone who's ever used it banned for L33T HAX? No, not really. It's out of whack, but it's not the game-ending demon it's often presented as. I get that a lot of you have issues with it (I have some, certainly), especially TT vets, but it'd help if you'd engage with posts trying to establish what you want/the ideal TT/FPS compromise as opposed to one-line trollposts.

[Odins Fist]

DocBach, on 04 February 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Translation: "I got killed by LRM's a lot, and ECM is a better AMS"

.
NOPE SORRY...!!!! You got that all wrong, I "NEVER" ran ECM until 1 1/2 weeks ago after I bought back my old Atlas D-DC to see out of curiosity, and as I suspected, ECM is not the "BOOGEYIMAN" that all the man-children are "CRYING" about...
.
I never ran ECM... And I had "ZERO" issues playing against pilots that ran it "ZERO"..!!
Before that I didn't "CRY" about ECM, and it didn't affect me in one way or another, in fact when I saw my map go "LOW SIGNAL" it was a clear indication that I was going to turn the corner and Alpha something in the face, watch it try to back up, and Alpha it again for 110 points of damage, I can't tell you how many Commandos, Ravens, and Atlas D-DCs got the surprise of their short lives this way. I never got into using "EASY MODE" LRMs before ECM either, I didn't want to play like some of the "PUH-CEEZ" out there, and no I didn't get killed by LRM's alot, they were never more than an irritant (like you), so I think you need to back up and sit down.
.
CONCLUSION: (SOME) Players have adapted just fine to ECM, people with limited 2 dimensional thinking did not..
.
SUMMATION: again... "ECM is fine... Move along now, nothing to see here."

Edited by Odins Fist, 04 February 2013 - 11:20 AM.

[Adrienne Vorton]

even if i know that ppl don´t wanna hear it, i say it regardless:

neither the additional EMP effects for PPC´s, nor a specific module, are and will be considered as THE counter to ECM.. the single thing that actually counters ECM,is ECM unless PGI decides to split ECM into different modules or what ever with parts of the effects...

the EMP is an aditional effect for the PPC which gives it a nice sideeffect, as AC´s have the shaking...

all those littlethings HELP against the effects of ECM, and a well fitted team can negate most of them..(OOOOH NOOOO TEAMPLAY, GET AWAY WITH THAT STUFF, WE DON`T WANT MW TO BE A TEAMGAME)

last but notleast: in this case, i don´t really care about the canon description, ECM works right as i would imagine an ECM system would work... sad part about it is that there are still too many ppl who think they have to use it for the wrong purposes and thus it´s a bit too present (actually, it doesn´tprevent anybody from dying, but it takes a while until everybody tried it ) ... but i for my part see them less and less...

Quote

An electronic countermeasure (ECM) is an electrical or electronic device designed to trick or deceive radar, sonar or other detection systems, like infrared (IR) or lasers. It may be used both offensively and defensively to deny targeting information to an enemy. The system may make many separate targets appear to the enemy, or make the real target appear to disappear or move about randomly. It is used effectively to protect aircraft from guided missiles. Most air forces use ECM to protect their aircraft from attack. It has also been deployed by military ships and recently on some advanced tanks to fool laser/IR guided missiles. It is frequently coupled with stealth advances so that the ECM systems have an easier job. Offensive ECM often takes the form of jamming. Defensive ECM includes using blip enhancement and jamming of missile terminal homers.

wikipedia, just in short... i am sure there are more detailed and different things to find about ECM´s... we can be happy that tag works against it, so stop crying and celebrate (jk)

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 04 February 2013 - 11:33 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Xostriyad, on 31 January 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

Here's the thing that is annoying the **** out of me regarding ECM... Why does it do so much?! It's just supposed to counter things! It's not a weapon unto itself! Why is goofy things like PPC damage does a goofy thing like disable ECM on a target mech for 5 seconds... what the hell is this?? Some sort of DOTA game?!

ECM should do jack and **** when you are running with weapons that really don't do anything especial. LRMS, SRMs, meh. Artemis? yea that should kick your missiles back to vanilla. Friendly mech has target on enemy unit but YOU or HE is in a ECM field? You shouldn't be able to get targeting info based on your teammate then.

Not this garbage of "drrrr you can't lock onto me cause... uhh... well I don't know really."

Also what the hell is with beagle active probe! This should have been the one item that let a unit get targeting info on mechs behind buildings and should be the reason other teams run ECM... to COUNTER

QFT!

ECM, from TT was nothing more than a equalizer. It was there to remove the bonuses from extra electronics that people brought. In mmo terms, it was simply a debuffer. That was it! How PGI, translated that into a uber buff tool, I do not know. However, that's what we have now. And because of that, the game is centered around.

[Haligonian]

It should be obvious that most people want to see the ecm stick around in a reduced format, or even split into two different types of ecm... which I think would be a cool trade off. When buying and ECM equipable chassis, just make 2 different or even 3 different types of ecm to suit the players style of play. and if you end up with 3 ecms on one team, the odds that all three types will be able to be as effective at all times would be seriously reduced.
My gripe is with how they are "fixing" the ecm... by not fixing it. They are making more confusing layers of rules which many casual players, especially those who do not read the forums, do not even know.
I'd like to see simpler, not more complex and convoluted.