15 replies to this topic

[Outlaw]

Lately I have noticed in large group games most teams are using roughly the same build every time. Usually a lance of Atlas D-DC using ECM with a few brawlers and some ECM Ravens in the mix. What this shows me is that there are not enough counter-ECM options available to teams in the current build.

My proposal is this, remove Counter-ECM capability from ECM units and instead give it to the Beagle Active Probe. This allows for more units overall that can equip a Counter-ECM option at a cost of 1.5 tons of payload capacity. Not only would this break up the saturation of same build teams it would give greater importance to a piece of equipment that is questionable on its usefulness.

[Arcaist]

Mh, basically a good idea.

IMHO, BAP shouldn´t totally negate ECM, but soften its effect up. So ECM has still its use, and wont drop from "OP" to "1,5 tons of trash", because everyone packs BAP now to counter ECM.

[blinkin]

Arcaist, on 17 February 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Mh, basically a good idea.

IMHO, BAP shouldn´t totally negate ECM, but soften its effect up. So ECM has still its use, and wont drop from "OP" to "1,5 tons of trash", because everyone packs BAP now to counter ECM.

i think having to get close enough to disable the ECM would likely be enough to keep ECM useful, but i won't argue against play testing a major change like this.

[p4g3m4s7r]

No, ECM should be balanced, not countered. This will simply lead to "Summon Bigger Fish," which will get us nowhere. Every update we'll receive a new item that is OP because they haven't implemented its counter yet. We'll be lead on by a string of never-ending balance promises that get us nowhere. What few fans the Battletech series will have left will be even more disillusioned than they were after Mechwarrior Mercs and by extension the series will be worse off.

[Corvus Antaka]

+1

[Arcaist]

Personally, I would prefer a paper-rock-scissor behavior of the game, so possible ecm counters would be fine with me.

"Balancing" ECM on the other hand would mean to reduce its effect...or make carrying ECM more painfull
(e.g. 6 tons of weight, not just 1,5 tons..maybe along with a lot of generated heat...dunno). The DC can be countered
with the PPC Effect or TAG easily...the scout ECM carrier would have to think twice about mounting ecm, because they would
not be able to mount much stuff besides it...

Anyway, there has to be done sumthin about ECM...

[p4g3m4s7r]

Arcaist, on 17 February 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

Personally, I would prefer a paper-rock-scissor behavior of the game, so possible ecm counters would be fine with me.

"Balancing" ECM on the other hand would mean to reduce its effect...or make carrying ECM more painfull
(e.g. 6 tons of weight, not just 1,5 tons..maybe along with a lot of generated heat...dunno). The DC can be countered
with the PPC Effect or TAG easily...the scout ECM carrier would have to think twice about mounting ecm, because they would
not be able to mount much stuff besides it...

Anyway, there has to be done sumthin about ECM...

A: a PPC effect is not yet implemented and would be an example of an ECM hard counter.

B: TAG is the most useless counter to ECM (even less useful than TS with a premade you've never met) and is in no way like a rock-paper scissors counter.

What I mean by balancing ECM is, yes, reducing its effects, and also reducing the strength of LRMs and SSRMs. Did you realize LRMs, SRMs, and SSRMs do substantially more damage than they should when compared to their table top values and every other weapon in the game? Do you see why something like ECM seems so necessary to people who are afraid of the crap that was LRM warrior online?

And while a paper rock scissors game would be fine, what has been done is supposedly an attempt at that, and it has failed miserably. It would be like only having paper, suddenly receiving scissors, and being told that they're looking at implementing rock making no mention of it having a weakness to paper. Now realize that MWO is basically going to be in this beta-like state forever, since they will never stop releasing new items until the game is dead. We'll never have a closed Rock-Paper-Scissors loop at this rate, because by the time they stop adding weapons they'll just have given up on balance

[Arcaist]

A: Wait until tomorrow

B: You seem to play another game then. Took down several DC by painting them with my TAG, being able to lock on and drowned them in LRM´s afterwards.


*raises the ITS A DAMN BETA, THEY ARE NOT DONE YET" shield once more.

Edited by Arcaist, 18 February 2013 - 06:19 AM.

[p4g3m4s7r]

Arcaist, on 18 February 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

A: Wait until tomorrow

B: You seem to play another game then. Took down several DC by painting them with my TAG, being able to lock on and drowned them in LRM´s afterwards.


*raises the ITS A DAMN BETA, THEY ARE NOT DONE YET" shield once more.

Have you heard of raven 3Ls, commando 2Ds, and Cicada 3Ms? ECM only needs to be working on one mech to completely ruin your teams ability to work together. On top of that, TAG only counters ECM on the mech being tagged, and does not negate the IFF jamming or radar jamming effects even when applied to the only enemy ECM mech. This doesn't even make it a soft-counter. It's a very weak-partial-almost-counter. It's meaningless unless used against a DDC that everyone should be focusing down anyway.

p4g3m4s7r, on 18 February 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

Now realize that MWO is basically going to be in this beta-like state forever, since they will never stop releasing new items until the game is dead. We'll never have a closed Rock-Paper-Scissors loop at this rate, because by the time they stop adding weapons they'll just have given up on balance

I feel like your response to this is really you just not reading this. And I point this out not to beat up on PGI. I simply think everyone would be better served if PGI came up with a set of requirements to lifting the beta label that they can complete within the next month. This is already getting to be a very long public beta, and the code state is getting to the point where they can pretty much remove the beta label, given that this is a F2P game.

[WinnieTheWhor]

ECM is a counter to BAP, not the opposite.

[blinkin]

WinnieTheWhor, on 18 February 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

ECM is a counter to BAP, not the opposite.

when has BAP ever been strong enough to need a counter?

i have never seen any posts that mention nerfing BAP. almost everything gets some sort of rant at some point about how it is OP regardless of how weak it is in practice, but not BAP as far as i have seen.

[DocBach]

WinnieTheWhor, on 18 February 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

ECM is a counter to BAP, not the opposite.

Beagle is suppose to have all sorts of additional abilities that were stripped from it and given to modules. Beagle should have 360 degree targeting, the ability to detect signals through hills/buildings, and longer sensor range. ECM was made to stop those functions.

However, Beagle has features that should actually provide some benefit against ECM; it is suppose to work better than standard sensors at detecting ECM equipped 'Mechs, and is suppose to counter against Ghost Targets generated by ECM, which unfortunately is a feature the developers did not include in ECM.

[p4g3m4s7r]

DocBach, on 18 February 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

Beagle is suppose to have all sorts of additional abilities that were stripped from it and given to modules. Beagle should have 360 degree targeting, the ability to detect signals through hills/buildings, and longer sensor range. ECM was made to stop those functions.

However, Beagle has features that should actually provide some benefit against ECM; it is suppose to work better than standard sensors at detecting ECM equipped 'Mechs, and is suppose to counter against Ghost Targets generated by ECM, which unfortunately is a feature the developers did not include in ECM.

Only in expansions outside of tactical warfare does BAP have substantially more abilities than it does now. However, you're right in the sense that it should make it easier to tell where ECM mechs are. Granted, that's not super useful currently, since we don't have C3.

[Corvus Antaka]

I'd like to see BAP able to detect ECM mechs without interference outside the 180m bubble, out to around 450meters without sensor module addons.

[Zordicron]

I dunno, I posted earlier today some comments, one of them being-

i always thought BAP and ECM were yin and yang. Right now ECM is like 75% instead of 50% IMO. BAP could just reduce the size of ECM bubble, and it would help balance it IMO. ECM still works at full power, if the team using it is close enough to ECM mech.

[DocBach]

p4g3m4s7r, on 18 February 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

Only in expansions outside of tactical warfare does BAP have substantially more abilities than it does now. However, you're right in the sense that it should make it easier to tell where ECM mechs are. Granted, that's not super useful currently, since we don't have C3.

Then again, only in expansions outside the base rules does ECM have anywhere close to the effects it has in this game.