That being said, I will stick to my previous post and say that I disagree with this, and I would much rather them to simply create more new ECM modules. Aside from that, and only with a slight nod, perhaps to change the stasis generator so that the enemy can turn on, or off, their modules while under the effect. (unless they’re hit by both the ion emitter, and the stasis generator) However, if this is changed, then change the ECM metastable so that ecms can activate healing modules while under their own stasis, resctricting them to use modules that only effect items within their own ‘bubble’. (so no one complains and to streamline the effect; because, the ecm is only giving you the same stun they give themselves, just without the bubble of protection and with less time stunned.)
If you disagree with NuclearHail, state so, and say that you’d rather like to keep the ecm modules as they are, or put in your own suggestion, so that the devs have more to choose from if they indeed try to restructure the class. Make it so they don’t fail at it, and, in the process, make you hate it even more. (to play as an ecm, rather than playing against… or both)
Because you said please but only 4 u wolfy.
But I did think that saying no counted as disagreeing. Perhaps it was misunderstood to mean something else lol. Dont see how.
Ecm is very interactive. Just like tacklers are. To me, it sounds like someone got killed a lot by a good ecm.
You made it clear that you believe that they are not interactive, but for me and they way i play stasis and ion create a xxxx tons of interactions, no matter if i am in ECM or against - i must track enemies cd, i must understand enemies build to know which of his skill i should or should not disable, i must know and expect enemy to use his skill in certain time so i have a clear disable on him and do not get ECM/disabled/preoccupied myself, throw in priorities of targets too. IF you are against ECM all of this goes to you too, you must track and see where ECM is and what skills he has up for use, 30 seconds seems like a short time and pointless to track, but you’d be wrong, of course tracking everything is impossible but tracking some of it give you an edge vs your enemy, i go as long as counting enemy Rockets in small games (not even mentioning Torps/minefields) and try to refer to a CD on it.
The simplicity of Disables on ECM is only a description on it, the depth it brings into the game on “higher” level is immeasurable.
Actually, no. Read the first post again. I wouldn’t have taken the time to write this post if I didn’t think I’d thought it through.
What you are saying is interactivity isn’t the kind this genre of game needs. Everything has some level of interactivity on a base level, the question is what kind of interactivity it is. Tracking certain things provides tension, sure. And it does give you a nice edge in combat. But it’s not the same kind of fun as players are looking for in action games, shooters especially so. If you want to track lots of little statistics and cooldowns, you play something like World of Warcraft or Chess. (I’ve played the latter and both read and wrote about plenty of information on the former.) Those are games which ask the player to monitor large counts of different data points and make a game plan from it. And that works well in those games, because that’s what they’re designed around. If you’re looking for that in Star Conflict, you’re playing the wrong game.
No other game mechanic in Star Conflict creates such high player dissatisfaction. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to back me up on this and other points, but really you just need to look at player reactions across the spectrum to what they get frustrated by most. Their opinions aren’t invalid just because they didn’t git gud and put Proton Walls on their ships. A module which I again state answers so little a % of the meta that it’s pretty ridiculous that it’s so necessary to handle only one class.
There’s a line between expecting players to do something because they should know if they’re smart, and a level of unnecessary complexity that adds no real interactivity to the game besides mental math. ECMs cross that line in a way that provides no real benefit to the game.
The community is larger than 2 ppl. The devs jack things up when they change em usually.
Saying no is me saying I disagree and know how to word it. The dude part was mere boredom.
Then provide the articulated response first. You’d be surprised how far a few thoughtful sentences will get you. No reason to make yourself the guy who just shows up to make useless comments, that gets everyone nowhere.
Actually, no. Read the first post again. I wouldn’t have taken the time to write this post if I didn’t think I’d thought it through.
What you are saying is interactivity isn’t the kind this genre of game needs. Everything has some level of interactivity on a base level, the question is what kind of interactivity it is. Tracking certain things provides tension, sure. And it does give you a nice edge in combat. But it’s not the same kind of fun as players are looking for in action games, shooters especially so. If you want to track lots of little statistics and cooldowns, you play something like World of Warcraft or Chess. (I’ve played the latter and both read and wrote about plenty of information on the former.) Those are games which ask the player to monitor large counts of different data points and make a game plan from it. And that works well in those games, because that’s what they’re designed around. If you’re looking for that in Star Conflict, you’re playing the wrong game.
No other game mechanic in Star Conflict creates such high player dissatisfaction. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to back me up on this and other points, but really you just need to look at player reactions across the spectrum to what they get frustrated by most. Their opinions aren’t invalid just because they didn’t git gud and put Proton Walls on their ships. A module which I again state answers so little a % of the meta that it’s pretty ridiculous that it’s so necessary to handle only one class.
There’s a line between expecting players to do something because they should know if they’re smart, and a level of unnecessary complexity that adds no real interactivity to the game besides mental math. ECMs cross that line in a way that provides no real benefit to the game.
I can define majority of active or passive modules in the game under that description, it is all how you look at it, ECM in its own is in line with the rest of the game, and more “interactive” by your own description than quite a lot of stuff around. So no, i completely disagree with your premises for the whole post.
The things i mentioned are the BASICS of any PvP game that has any type of active combat skills that directly interact with the battle field. Judging by your description it is more of a case that “it is you that playing the wrong game”, not me.
There are more people complaining about FrigBalls than ECM, there are more people complaining destructor, coil mortars, agility of interceptors, healing mechanics and so on. People WILL ALWAYS COMPLAIN, period. And no, ECM does not “cross” that line, and is very important part of the game on many levels as it is now, just as much as majority of roles in the game.
There are more people complaining about FrigBalls than ECM, there are more people complaining destructor, coil mortars, agility of interceptors, healing mechanics and so on. People WILL ALWAYS COMPLAIN, period. And no, ECM does not “cross” that line, and is very important part of the game on many levels as it is now, just as much as majority of roles in the game.
I am actually seeing more guards being used than ECMS in all tiers. I played some t5 late last night, and while getting 4v4s all the time, I was the only person not in a frigate. It made flying gunship with nova bubbles and the new firestorm a lot of fun ^^
Then provide the articulated response first. You’d be surprised how far a few thoughtful sentences will get you. No reason to make yourself the guy who just shows up to make useless comments, that gets everyone nowhere.
I said no as I dis agree with everythingn u said. Ecms are fine.
Just because someone disagrees with u doesnt make their response inarticulate
Ecm is very interactive. Just like tacklers are. To me, it sounds like someone got killed a lot by a good ecm.
No, tacklers are more interactive than ECMs. I tend to agree with Nuke more on this one, but I don’t think ECMs aren’t interactive. They just aren’t as interactive as any other role.
With tacklers, you get slowed by one, or target painted, which forces you to make decisions. I.E. Will I use a multipurpose now to counter the slows? or am I close enough to an obstacle to lose the slow that way? Or, I am focusing one target right now, but a tackler just appeared behind me and slowed/target painted me, do I stop what I’m doing and try to kill the tackler? or do I ignore him and finish the job I was already doing?
These kind of questions/decisions are not found with ECMs. If you get stunned by an ECM, there is no “do I ignore it or not”, there is no “what options do I have”. Your only option is to accept the fact that you have been completely shut down, and wait for the stun to wear off, or for another stun to happen. That isn’t the same degree of interactivity as any other role.
In my opinion, the ECM has room to become more interactive, to put it at the same level (or similar level) of interactivity to the other roles. Making slight tweaks to modules and adding new ones that people would want to use instead of only disables. Modules that would force the enemy to make decisions like tackler modules do (or the System Hack does). As I stated in an earlier post, the System Hack is a step in the right direction. It forces more critical thinking on the other teams part. I.E. Should I place these drones/mines/stations here? or is an ECM close who I should focus first?
None of this is to say ECM is broken/OP and needs to be fixed. I just think the ECM role could be improved to a more interactive role than it is currently.
Ecms are good the way they are. If they change it, it will get worse. Thats clearly NOT obvious to you. Any experienced player with half a brain realizes that it will screw things up.
This is ignorance at it’s finest. You didn’t think about what you said before you said it. ECMs may work well the way they are, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement, nothing is perfect after all… And how do you know that it will get worse? No one knows what will happen, not even the devs. It’s all a system of trial and error. Look at the past, many changes have been implemented that didn’t work, so they were either changed so they did work, or removed entirely. Other changes were added that did work, and were later improved.
To be truthful, none of us really know what changing the ECM role would do. Yes, for all we know, it may screw things up, but at the same time, it might improve gameplay tremendously (or anything in between).
I love everything in this post.
And ArcTic, if a post involves ECMs, every argument you make is automatically invalid. Sorry.
I agree with NuclearHail here, ECM active modules should be reworked. I wouldn’t remove Stasis Generator though, but rather change it to put enemy into something akin Metastable Energy Field; in other words, remove an enemy ship from combat for a moment rather than make it an easy target.
@Dirk, ANy ECM module can be aligned into same “though interactivity process” you mention, with slight shifts, since the game does not only exist during event of module activation, but befor and after and that is where you should look into. If anything ECM modules have more player vs player interactions on multiple levels than Tackler Painter/Inhibitor module, because they are NO cooldown modules they are in 99% of times always and ready to go, eliminating that pre and after module active time cycles. All of the examples some of you are trying to show here, just striped down from conditions and narrowdowned to persoan bias against ECM, not looking into wider picture of things in the game. For example
How is some of these are more interactive than ECM modules, if anything they are leagues behind on creating any of those:
There are more modules that are not interactive at all by your own definitions, while ECM disables create and enforces gameplay on multiple levels, like in any other PvP game.
@Dirk, ANy ECM module can be aligned into same “though interactivity process” you mention, with slight shifts, since the game does not only exist during event of module activation, but befor and after and that is where you should look into. If anything ECM modules have more player vs player interactions on multiple levels than Tackler Painter/Inhibitor module, because they are NO cooldown modules they are in 99% of times always and ready to go, eliminating that pre and after module active time cycles. All of the examples some of you are trying to show here, just striped down from conditions and narrowdowned to persoan bias against ECM, not looking into wider picture of things in the game. For example
How is some of these are more interactive than ECM modules, if anything they are leagues behind on creating any of those:
There are more modules that are not interactive at all by your own definitions, while ECM disables create and enforces gameplay on multiple levels, like in any other PvP game.
just cuz it’s not interactive doesn’t mean it’s bad.
@Dirk, ANy ECM module can be aligned into same “though interactivity process” you mention, with slight shifts, since the game does not only exist during event of module activation, but befor and after and that is where you should look into. If anything ECM modules have more player vs player interactions on multiple levels than Tackler Painter/Inhibitor module, because they are NO cooldown modules they are in 99% of times always and ready to go, eliminating that pre and after module active time cycles. All of the examples some of you are trying to show here, just striped down from conditions and narrowdowned to persoan bias against ECM, not looking into wider picture of things in the game. For example
How is some of these are more interactive than ECM modules, if anything they are leagues behind on creating any of those:
There are more modules that are not interactive at all by your own definitions, while ECM disables create and enforces gameplay on multiple levels, like in any other PvP game.
Start at 50 seconds if you want to skip the introductory info:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g&feature=youtu.be&t=50s
This video explains a part of the argument a lot better than I can. They do this for a living like I do, but they’ve produced far more content than me that’s both sold and been seen, making their expertise far less disputable than mine.
To address the modules in question:
These are passive effects, which are exempt from interactivity. These don’t create any counterplay to be interactive with. (Besides outranging the caster or figuring out what allies are in range of its effects.) Thus, them not being interactive is irrelevant.
These modules are simply modifiers to another existing mechanic. The disintegrator isn’t very interactive, but that doesn’t make these particular effects bad, just the disintegrator itself.
This modules don’t necessarily create much counterplay besides outranging the caster, and they don’t create a tangible effect in game. Passive effects like these are exempt from interactivity.
I have no idea where you got the idea that this module isn’t interactive. This is one of the most interactive modules in the game.
This module is interactive. It has a specific use and creates effective counterplay - you have to change up your strategy but not in a way that debilitates you from playing.
just cuz it’s not interactive doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Dude. This very thread exists because it states that a lack of interactivity is bad. If you wanted to dispute that, you should have done that first.
And yet out of all the modules that easily falls undervyour own description (that be almost all modules in the game ) you complain about ECM, this is a personal bias against mechanics you personaly do not like rather than debating about broad spectre of interactive/non interactive stuff.
soft and hard disables create depth and extra layers in player development, forcing not only press, a because b but actual thinking and anticipation process with critical descision making.
And yet out of all the modules that easily falls undervyour own description (that be almost all modules in the game ) you complain about ECM, this is a personal bias against mechanics you personaly do not like rather than debating about broad spectre of interactive/non interactive stuff.
soft and hard disables create depth and extra layers in player development, forcing not only press, a because b but actual thinking and anticipation process with critical descision making.
This thread is about ECMs specifically. I have plenty of other qualms with other mechanics in Star Conflict that have little interactivity, but this thread isn’t about them. If you like, we can debate the other elements elsewhere.
To be honest, I’m one of the most middle-ground players on ECMs right now. I don’t think they’re outright unacceptable, but the frustration they cause will turn a great many players away. Disabling is a griefer mechanic, and whether or not griefing should be a supported element of gameplay has been hotly debated across the gaming industry for a long time. In the case of ECMs in Star Conflict, it’s bad for the game.
Watch the video. It explains this better than I can. If you can’t take five minutes to hear the argument, then you aren’t respecting it and that gives yours no credence. It just makes you a vocal opinion. Anyone can be vocal, being loud doesn’t make you right.
I have seen those videos many times, they are the “counter” argument of “anti disables” people since forever
I have seen those videos many times, they are the “counter” argument of “anti disables” people since forever
For good reason.
For good reason.
no not really
no not really
Can you elaborate as to why you disagree?
read what i said earlier?
read what i said earlier?
Two things:
First, be more specific. We’ve both said quite a lot in this thread.
Second, if I’m using this evidence as an argument against yours, and you say your argument is your evidence against mine, then we’ll just run in circles forever. That gets us nowhere.