116 replies to this topic

[Titan Osis]

DocBach, on 31 January 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

ECM isn't fine - ECM has destroyed several tenants of the vaulted information and role warfare before we even received them. There are several ways ECM could help protect against missiles without flat out negating them, such as ghost target generation which is discussed in the Tactical Operations book on pages 99-100. Essentially ECM has a third mode which was left out which spams a targeting computer with false targets he has to sift through to shoot at a real 'Mech. Beagle Active Probe is suppose to have the ability to discriminate through the false targets.

There are plenty of ways to fix this game, and fix balance, but PGI stubbornly resists them and continues to introduce "fixes" which introduce more series of problems, like the original ECM introduction as an anti-missile system in the first place.

Really? because I hardly ever run ECM and I have a 74% win rate... (my team mates run it rarely as well)

[anonymous175]

It's a good start but its not complete. Compare it to the role warfare blog and it just seems that they're getting the features in but not yet getting them sorted out to the point where they should be.

Because the most effective counter to ECM is still another ECM or 2.

[DocBach]

PrestonCDawg, on 31 January 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

Really? because I hardly ever run ECM and I have a 74% win rate... (my team mates run it rarely as well)

Well, your win number certainly is impressive, but really doesn't provide any real truths about if ECM is made more fair by these "fixes."

Does two, 2,000,000 (for a total of 4,000,000) c-bill modules to gain less than 100 meter buffer from ECM sound well balanced against a 400,000 c-bill ECM? Does that sound fair?

Why does a similarly priced Beagle Active Probe have all of the abilities it should have from the lore stripped from it and accessible only via module, yet ECM has all of its capabilities in tact, with added capabilities? Does that sound fair? (Which is actually the topic of this conversation.)

Perhaps both should have had abilities stripped and available later as modules as end-game items. That might have been a more fair way to implement information and electronic warfare in this game.

Edited by DocBach, 31 January 2013 - 02:23 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

haligonian89, on 31 January 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

I think the ECM was OP to start with. In game terms I think the basic idea of the ECM was to bling sensors to information, not act as a group Romulan cloaking device. I think for the weight of the ECM it should be limited to a paper doll jammer.
  Just remove the information about your team's status. Just fighting a mech not knowing it's variant, loadout and damaged areas could really cause a lot of confusion... without absolutely rendering millions of C-Bills and tens of tons of weapons useless.
  And to be honest, even if could be countered by any comparable piece of equiptment (ie; BAP or NARC) perhaps it would add the element of lights waging a smaller war of information by trying to out maneuver each others counter measures instead of just acting as a blanket, team cloaking device.

Identifying a 'mech variant and basic paperdoll armor status is a function of a 'mechs standard sensors and identification computer; however, getting detailed information on its loadout and damaged components should require BAP per TT rules for Concealing Information.

[Xostriyad]

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

[DocBach]

Solis Obscuri, on 31 January 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Identifying a 'mech variant and basic paperdoll armor status is a function of a 'mechs standard sensors and identification computer; however, getting detailed information on its loadout and damaged components should require BAP per TT rules for Concealing Information.

Beagle really sucks in this game. Its such a shame it got shafted so hard and whored out as modules.

[Solis Obscuri]

DocBach, on 31 January 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Beagle really sucks in this game. Its such a shame it got shafted so hard and whored out as modules.

Though I continue to find it amusing that "*****" is blocked by the word filter but "whored" isn't.

[Aidan McRae]

Your poll is badly worded and so I will not vote. "Fair" implies that the upcoming changes might be viewed as unfair. I think what you are looking for is -- are the upcoming changes: Enough, Not Enough, Undecided.

In which case, I would vote Not Enough. They need to stop complicating balance with checks and balances. Once they balance the core game, they can worry about RPS. (Rock Paper Scissors)

[Znail]

haligonian89, on 31 January 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

I think the ECM was OP to start with. In game terms I think the basic idea of the ECM was to bling sensors to information, not act as a group Romulan cloaking device. I think for the weight of the ECM it should be limited to a paper doll jammer.
Just remove the information about your team's status. Just fighting a mech not knowing it's variant, loadout and damaged areas could really cause a lot of confusion... without absolutely rendering millions of C-Bills and tens of tons of weapons useless.
And to be honest, even if could be countered by any comparable piece of equiptment (ie; BAP or NARC) perhaps it would add the element of lights waging a smaller war of information by trying to out maneuver each others counter measures instead of just acting as a blanket, team cloaking device.

It's deffinitly true that they went too far with the powers given to the ECM. Your variant would be far more balanced. I personally don't understand why they thought reducing sight range from 800 to 200 with the ECM was the numbers to go for. That 200 number could easily have been 400 or even 600 and then it wouldn't nearly be the balance issue it is now.

[Titan Osis]

DocBach, on 31 January 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Well, your win number certainly is impressive, but really doesn't provide any real truths about if ECM is made more fair by these "fixes."

Does two, 2,000,000 (for a total of 4,000,000) c-bill modules to gain less than 100 meter buffer from ECM sound well balanced against a 400,000 c-bill ECM? Does that sound fair?

Why does a similarly priced Beagle Active Probe have all of the abilities it should have from the lore stripped from it and accessible only via module, yet ECM has all of its capabilities in tact, with added capabilities? Does that sound fair? (Which is actually the topic of this conversation.)

Perhaps both should have had abilities stripped and available later as modules as end-game items. That might have been a more fair way to implement information and electronic warfare in this game.

Well if you put it that way, most of the mechs that carry ECM are WAY more than any of the other chassis, The Raven is 5,xxx,xxx, the DDC is 10,xxx,xxx, and the cicada is 7,xxx,xxx. So those people that play match after match to get those mechs don't count on their purchase? They have to spend WAY more than the person that gets the module or tag that counters their 400,000 piece of equipment.

Your logic is flawed.

Edited by PrestonCDawg, 31 January 2013 - 03:53 PM.

[DocBach]

You've convinced me that because the average ECM capable chassis on average costs more than the other chassis (usually because of XL), ECM is fairly balanced in terms of gameplay...

Oh wait...

You ignored all of my previous statements in regard to comparing how the balance is skewed... The modules still cost more than any of the overhead against non-ECM capable challenges and do waaaaay less effect than our magical -- but perfectly balanced -- ECM box.

[Troggy]

My understanding is ONE module, TWO tiers. I.e. 2M C-bills, a boatload of gxp, 1 module slot.

[Rakashan]

PrestonCDawg, on 31 January 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

Well if you put it that way, most of the mechs that carry ECM are WAY more than any of the other chassis, The Raven is 5,xxx,xxx, the DDC is 10,xxx,xxx, and the cicada is 7,xxx,xxx. So those people that play match after match to get those mechs don't count on their purchase? They have to spend WAY more than the person that gets the module or tag that counters their 400,000 piece of equipment.

Your logic is flawed.

The day it takes 12,000 GXP to get into an ECM mech I'll call that price inflation balanced.

Oh, and the day that *any* of the proposed counters to ECM function with no more thought about their use than "I think I'll equip this this match" I might also agree. But until TAG is something I turn on to make all opfor mechs targettable for the entire match, NARC or BAP actually do anything about ECM or anything *but* ECM counters ECM while I do *SOMETHING* *ELSE* without any thought to use of the counter you have a problem with functional balance.

Don't get me wrong. I play against ECM and aside from being blindsided by a force coming out of an ECM bubble I do ok targetting and killing ECM mechs. In fact, I hunt them in my Ilya in order to assist my team. But the fact that "the only chassis worth driving in this class" is the ECM chassis gets more than a little bit old. Look at the numbers. ECM should be a support tool as useful as TAG, not something that shows up 3-5x more often on the battlefield in spite of only specific chassis being able to equip it.

Troggy, on 31 January 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

My understanding is ONE module, TWO tiers. I.e. 2M C-bills, a boatload of gxp, 1 module slot.

Your understanding is correct. 12,500 GXP specifically.

[Titan Osis]

DocBach, on 31 January 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

You've convinced me that because the average ECM capable chassis on average costs more than the other chassis (usually because of XL), ECM is fairly balanced in terms of gameplay...

Oh wait...

You ignored all of my previous statements in regard to comparing how the balance is skewed... The modules still cost more than any of the overhead against non-ECM capable challenges and do waaaaay less effect than our magical -- but perfectly balanced -- ECM box.

ECM is balanced for these reasons; if everyone had an ECM all of the time, people would stop using lock on missiles and learn to use other weapons making ECM less effective as the only thing it is doing is messing up radar. Once people realize "oh this isn't really doing anything anymore, better start trying to adapt to the new play style they veer away from using ECM all of the time.
This forces players to simply get better with all of the different types of weapons (YES THERE ARE OTHER WEAPONS THAT AREN'T AFFECTED BY ECM MIND BLOWING I KNOW). Use lasers, use autocannons use SRMs all of these things don't require a lock and laugh in the face of ECM. Use building's as cover and learn to stay out of line of sight and with your team. If I run an LRM boat I run a tag, BAP, Decay mod, sensor mod etc. AND check with my team to make sure my lights are running tags as well. this way I have plenty of options to counter any type of ECM we run into.

ECM is just a handy cap for noobs, and once ELO is introduced you will probably see many of the higher level games using only so many ECM mechs. The good players will ADAPT their play style and the bad players will be stick in a low ELO bracket losing games because they are to busy whining about ECM on the forums instead of practicing their piloting and gunnery skills. I rarely see ECM anymore and it never helps VS. my AC20(s) that I usually run.

Honestly I think the best balance to ECM was fixing the netcode and it didn't need anything else. The game will only get easier for me from this point if they continue to nerf ECM into the ground.

[Wolfways]

PrestonCDawg, on 31 January 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

Then just being able to lock missiles all the time is fine?

Are you serious?
So you would be happy if they introduce a piece of equipment that stops you firing lasers or ballistics at a target?
Why should one weapon system be singled out? And please don't say LRM's are OP. I got killed by LRM's today and was surprised because it's been so long since that happened, and i don't use ECM.

The only thing wrong with SSRM's is that they should need to reacquire lock after each shot.

[DocBach]

PrestonCDawg, on 31 January 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

mumblings of a madman, with **** L2P NOOB undertones

Oh. I see. ECM is balanced because it only makes a third of the weapons in the game completely useless. But we can still use the other two-thirds to shoot the enemy 'Mech, so balance has been achieved. Roger that.

[Tincan Nightmare]

PrestonCDawg, on 31 January 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

Then just being able to lock missiles all the time is fine? Do you remember when ravens first came out and jenners would just run circles around them and there was no point? With the netcode fix light mechs are no longer as big of a threat as they used to be. I killed 3 of them in about a minute with my AC20 cat the other day.

ECM preventing missile locks keeps people from running massive LRM boats and 6 streak cat builds unless you have a team that is running proper counters for ECM (Tag/Narc). I have run a strict LRM boat with team mates running TAGs in light mechs and painting ECM'd targets and demolishing them.

If ECM were not in the game we would just hear more and more QQ about how LRMS are overpowered. The game has a bunch of setups and if you can't expand your thinking and understanding of how the equipment and weapons work then you're going to be stuck in a low skill level when ELO does come out.

The proposed changes are more than enough counter for ECM as it is. My guess is they are doing it simply to give everyone that is complaining more options without making it pointless to take because everyone whined to much. ECM is fine, LRMs are fine, SSRM,s are fine, stop complaining.

Before ECM you could never just lock onto anyone at any time all the time. You still neded line of sight or a spotter, so the only way you were getting locked up was if you were in the open or targeted by an enemy mech. And Jenners running around Ravens is just part of the concept that the faster you go the quicker you turn (makes you wonder about PGI's understanding of physics.) LRM was only considered OP because they buffed the damage, and could have been fixed easy enough by dropping its damage back to 1 point per missile. And while ECM may stop a Streak Cat, it does nothing to the Splat Cat with 6 SRM6's which is a deadlier configuration if the pilot can hit what they shoot at. And a configuration that shows up more and more since LRM's are just less effective with the prevalence of ECM. I haven't seen a single match recently where there wasn't at least 3 or 4 ECM mechs per side. And lets not forget it does more than effects missiles, it also shuts down radar and your IFF to locate friendlies when inside the bubble. ECM should have a role, but it shouldn't be the overpowering one it currently holds that makes it a requirement for success.

[Titan Osis]

Wolfways, on 31 January 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Are you serious?
So you would be happy if they introduce a piece of equipment that stops you firing lasers or ballistics at a target?
Why should one weapon system be singled out? And please don't say LRM's are OP. I got killed by LRM's today and was surprised because it's been so long since that happened, and i don't use ECM.

The only thing wrong with SSRM's is that they should need to reacquire lock after each shot.

No, I just just don't think people should be able to run 6 massive ARTIMIS+LRM boats with 2 scouts spotting and have no way to get to the other team without getting gunned down in 2 seconds. Do you remember when they were messing around with LRM's in the first few months? There was SOOO MUCH complaining about it. I think they are fine the way they are INCLUDING with ECM in the game.

Wolfways, on 31 January 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Are you serious?
So you would be happy if they introduce a piece of equipment that stops you firing lasers or ballistics at a target?

Like what? Force fields? there is no such thing in battle tech/mechwarrior. Guided missiles need GUIDANCE when hitting a target. That statement is like saying "whould you rather have homing AC20's?" it's irrelevant. That is what SRM's are for. What are you going to think when they have dumb fire MRM40's?

Also, for those of you arguing post up your stats to show me how much you know about balance and gaming.

Here's mine:

[shabowie]

It's total crap. The are creating new effects to counter something that's baseline effect is overpowered and all they ever need to do was tweak that down and then look at other broken and related gameplay mechanics.

Should have made the detection range for an ECM equipped unit like 400m, modules and BAP increase this range as normal, lockon weapons like streak and lrm should have always required a new lock per salvo, perhaps smaller reticule window for getting lock (play test for balance using... Gasp... Beta testers), make lockon against ECM equipped or bubbled units (bubble still 180m) take something like 50-100% longer (play test for a good balance). It should never prevent a weapon lock entirely, I can't believe that idea even made it out of a internal discussion.

Fin.

Edited by shabowie, 31 January 2013 - 04:45 PM.

[DocBach]

I don't understand how you insist in game stats have any relevance to game balance. Your statements make it pretty obvious you don't have a real concept of it. But if stats prove who is right in determining if a game is balanced...



...I have better stats so my argument is more valid.

Just so you know -- more than just ECM needs to be balanced. But trying to balance broken mechanics like LRM's by introducing a broken mechanic like ECM just made things way more broke.

Edited by DocBach, 31 January 2013 - 04:43 PM.