559 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 April 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

I'm a 50/50 LRM shooter. I fire both direct and indirect.

A lot depends on what mech you are in. As primarily a Medium pilot, it makes sense to use direct fire.

If you are in an Assault LRM mech, there is always going to be some what of a mix because of the time it takes to get to fights.

But to say that 90% of LRM's are fired indirectly? That's silly.

[Wolfways]

Many players seem to think that ECM is meant to counter missiles, as it does in MWO.

(Someone please point it out to me if i'm wrong here.)
Very simple example of BT evolution:
There were weapons. Lasers, AC's, missiles (T1).
Technology advanced over time. ERlasers, UltraAC's, better electronics for missiles (T2).
ECM was designed to mess with the better electronics of missiles (T2) but shouldn't affect missiles (T1).

Correct?

[Daekar]

Almond Brown, on 07 April 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

Doesn't TT ECM directly counter TAG, NARC and C³? Are we using the "Rules" or not?

Yes! That's exactly the point, those systems wouldn't work under the ECM bubble, and TAG or NARC would be required for indirect fire in the absence of ECM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Wolfways, on 07 April 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

Many players seem to think that ECM is meant to counter missiles, as it does in MWO.

(Someone please point it out to me if i'm wrong here.)
Very simple example of BT evolution:
There were weapons. Lasers, AC's, missiles (T1).
Technology advanced over time. ERlasers, UltraAC's, better electronics for missiles (T2).
ECM was designed to mess with the better electronics of missiles (T2) but shouldn't affect missiles (T1).

Correct?

Seems to depend on if you use the extended rules.

I personally don't think PGI took into account the extended rules, so that arguement seems pretty weak.

[Wolfways]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 07 April 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

Seems to depend on if you use the extended rules.

I personally don't think PGI took into account the extended rules, so that arguement seems pretty weak.

I have no idea what the extended rules are

[Daekar]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 07 April 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

Seems to depend on if you use the extended rules.

I personally don't think PGI took into account the extended rules, so that arguement seems pretty weak.

in this context, there are no extended rules. ECM does not exist outside of the rules that he referenced.

[Mystere]

Karl Streiger, on 07 April 2014 - 05:25 AM, said:

75% of my weapons are not guided - and i still HATE THIS FREAKING ECM.

100% of my weapons are not guided ... and I love punching through enemy lines to kill the ECM carriers.

[Kjudoon]

Almond Brown, on 07 April 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

---Trying to tell everyone else they are wrong is simply BS.---

Uhhh... could you repeat that?

I couldn't hear you over the 'cognative dissonance' warning and hypocris-o-meter clanging away.

[Kjudoon]

Wolfways, on 07 April 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

Exactly. Screw balance and fairness! What do you people complaining about ECM think this is, a game?!

When I see people act like the one you responded to Wolfways, I am reminded of a line from Rosco Lee Brown in the famous Penuckle episode of the Cosby Show:

"Since you threw your Ace in my face, I must bump your rump with my trump."

ECM is nearly a win button for teams that employ multiple units of it. It eliminates an entire weapon system almost completely from the game and grants strategic invisibility as well. It is the trump card that too many cling to as 'fair' when it is most certainly not 'fair' in a community obsessed with game balance meaning whatever benefits them personally.

[Lykaon]

Koniving, on 05 April 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

Three words:

Short. Range. Missiles.
Fixes the A1's issue.

---

NARC instantly disables an enemy ECM, too, and maintains it for what was either 20 to 30 seconds (unless changed with the same patch; everything I shot at died before NARC went out so not certain).
So NARC one, then BAP the other. Or NARC them both.

Short range missiles also drasticly alters the role of an A1 if the player in question prefers a support role over piloting a walking claymore mine.This also pigeonholes the A1 into the SRM carrier role since the other options available to that chassis are rendered useless if it encounters ECM.


In practice the launch range of a NARC is dangerously close to the LRM's min. range.So,not a very practical solution for an LRM carrier that is severley hampered at shorter ranges due to the 180m LRM min range.For a streak boat it's not such a bad plan except,a Streak boat is in practice deployed to engage small fast targets that are difficult to hit.So hitting with the NARC is problematic and may require additional ammo for the NARC to compensate for the higher ratio of misses thus increasing the space and tonnage used to counter the ECM.

NARC one then BAP the other? So it's reasonable to expect anyone wishing to use streaks or LRMs to exspend 1 missile hardpoint 5.5 tons and 5 crit slots just to have a functioning missile system that is still vulnerable to multiple ECM or well deployed ECM?

Imagine the outcry if a PPC was rendered useless by a shield system that exstended out in a 360m across bubble.

This bubble could be penetrated by a PPC booster chamber that took an additional energy slot and used 3 crits and 4 tons (NARC)

Yet even after spending the extra 3 crits and 4 tons a PPC can be rendered useless again if a second shield was stacked over the first.

But,you could then spend 1.5 more tons and install a PPC acceleratormajig and that would let you counter up to 2 shields at once but only if you were within 120m of the a shield (BAP)

But, you were still vulnerable to the presence of a third shield so you can now spend 1 energy hardpoint 1 ton and 1 crit on a a PPC laser pointer...(TAG)

you have now spent 2 energy hardpoints 13.5 tons and 9 crits to have a single PPC that can ussually work when confronted with PPC sheilds.Of course you need to actually manuver and possition yourself carefully because of min ranges and such and well,hit the target with the counter measures and then finally use the weapon effectivley.

Seems like this is perfectly balanced against using 1.5 ton 2 crits and having no need to aim or possition or be concerned about ammo or heat or min. ranges.

Perfect balance!

[Daekar]

There seems to be a good deal of miscommunication when it comes to what ECM-nerf advocates what to achieve and what game systems are involved in this rebalancing.  I’m going to do my best to lay out how changes would be made to targeting, ECM, BAP, NARC, TAG, LRMs, and SSRMs.  In the descriptions below, it is always assumed that a friendly is carrying the ECM unless noted otherwise.

 

Friendly units within the ECM bubble will now be Line-of-Sight (LoS) targetable by any enemy and appear on their personal minimap.  However, friendly units within that bubble that are targeted by LoS will no longer appear on the minimap or be targetable by other enemies that do not have LoS, etc.  If an enemy doesn’t have adequate sensor range and LoS, a friendly within the bubble cannot be targeted regardless of whether or not other enemies have said LoS.  Exceptions for TAG and NARC noted later.

 

Multiple ECMs do not stack.  The only benefit to bringing more than one ECM is having more than one bubble.

 

ECM has no effects on enemy units within its 180 meter bubble that are in addition to the effects described elsewhere.

 

TAG and NARC no longer function when shot at a unit protected under the ECM bubble, regardless of whether they are applied to the ECM carrier or a protected unit.  Period.  NARC no long disables the ECM of an ECM carrier.

 

LRMs can no longer be fired indirectly without TAG or NARC, regardless of whether or not the mech to be fired upon can be targeted or the presence of ECM.  LRM flight speed will be sped up accordingly to reflect that they are now primarily a direct-fire weapon.  When a mech is targetable they will still lock on, but that lock cannot be made without the LRM carrier having personal LoS on the target.  If LoS is broken, tracking is lost regardless of whether or not units friendly to the LRM carrier have LoS.  If a unit is TAGged, it is valid for targeting and for LRM locks and indirect LRM fire until it is no longer TAGged.  If a unit is NARCed, it is valid for targeting and for LRM locks and indirect LRM fire until the NARC is exhausted.  LRM locking mechanism will be altered so that the crosshair must remain closer to the center of the targeting box to remain locked – sort of middlish is no longer enough.  This is complex enough to warrant some examples:

1)      An enemy LRM carrier crests a ridge and obtains personal LoS on a friendly mech without ECM cover.  That enemy LRM carrier may target the friendly, lock, and fire.  Missiles will track until the friendly mech breaks LoS with the LRM carrier.

2)      An enemy LRM carrier crests a ridge and obtains personal LoS on a friendly mech without ECM cover that has been NARCed.  That enemy LRM carrier may target the friendly, lock, and fire.  Missiles will track until the NARC is exhausted regardless of LoS.

3)      An enemy LRM carrier crests a ridge and obtains personal LoS on a friendly mech without ECM cover that is currently TAGged by another enemy mech.  That enemy LRM carrier may target the friendly, lock, and fire.  Missiles will track until the friendly is no longer TAGged.  If the TAG ceases but the LRM carrier still has personal LoS, missiles will continue to track until that personal LoS is broken.

4)      An enemy LRM carrier sits behind a ridge without personal LoS on a friendly mech without ECM cover.  Another enemy mech crests the ridge, obtains personal LoS on the friendly mech, and targets it.  The enemy LRM carrier may target the friendly, but it may not lock or fire upon it.

5)      An enemy LRM carrier crests a ridge and obtains personal LoS on a friendly mech with ECM cover.  That enemy LRM carrier may target the friendly, lock, and fire.  Missiles will track until the friendly mech breaks LoS with the LRM carrier.  Note that this is exactly the same as with no ECM (#1).

6)      An enemy LRM carrier sits behind a ridge without personal LoS on a friendly mech with ECM cover.  Another enemy mech crests the ridge, obtains personal LoS on the friendly mech, and targets it.  The enemy LRM carrier may not target, lock, or fire upon the friendly mech. (no target sharing of targeting on ECM-protected friendlies)

7)      An enemy LRM carrier sits behind a ridge without personal LoS on a friendly mech with ECM cover.  Another enemy mech crests the ridge, obtains personal LoS on the friendly mech, targets and TAGs it.  The enemy LRM carrier may not target, lock, or fire upon the friendly mech as long as it remains under ECM cover.  If it exits ECM cover and is still TAGged, the enemy LRM carrier may fire upon it regardless of LoS (see #3).  Note that whether or not the TAGging mech targets the friendly is irrelevant.

8)      An enemy LRM carrier sits behind a ridge without personal LoS on a friendly mech with ECM cover.  Another enemy mech crests the ridge, obtains personal LoS on the friendly mech, targets and NARCs it.  The enemy LRM carrier may not target, lock, or fire upon the friendly mech as long as it remains under ECM cover.  If it exits ECM cover and is still NARCed, the enemy LRM carrier may fire upon it regardless of LoS until the NARC is exhausted (see #2).  Note that whether or not the NARCing mech targets or maintains LoS on the friendly is irrelevant.

9)      Basically, LRMs cannot fire indirectly without TAG/NARC, ECM has no effect if the LRM carrier has personal LoS for direct fire, and it prevents TAG and NARC from allowing indirect LRM fire.

The Target Retention module will still allow targets to be retained but will no longer allow LRM locks to continue after the target has left LoS.  Because TAGged and NARCed LRM targets are not directly subject to LoS restrictions to be valid for targeting or for LRM locks, they do not additionally interact with the Target Retention module in any way.

 

BAP will now extend sensor range by 35% and increase target acquisition speed by 35%, up from 25% each.  This will make it more worth carrying.  However, any friendly unit that is inside the ECM bubble is not subject to these increased detection ranges and speeds.  This means that a unit inside the bubble that carries BAP will be able to target an enemy while the enemy carrying BAP will not be able to target them in return.  Make note that, due to proposed changes in targeting and ECM/SSRM interaction, BAP no longer needs to interact with ECM at close ranges.  BAP will still detect shutdown enemies at 120m or closer.  BAP has no impact on the ability to target ECM-protected enemies within normal sensor range because within that range ECM does not prevent personal LoS targeting.

 

SSRMs can lock based on personal LoS or on shared targeting data from other units that have LoS.  When you throw in ECM and the rest this means that if you acquire a lock on a light mech that runs behind a building, several things can happen.  Note that even though the language is the same as for LRMs, SSRMs still do not have ballistic trajectories or fire indirectly, so defacto personal LoS is required.

1)      An enemy SSRM carrier crests a ridge and obtains personal LoS on a friendly mech without ECM cover.  That enemy SSRM carrier may target the friendly, lock, and fire.  Missiles will track until the friendly mech breaks LoS with the SSRM carrier.

2)      An enemy SSRM carrier crests a ridge and obtains personal LoS on a friendly mech without ECM cover.  Another enemy mech also obtains personal LoS on the friendly mech and targets it.  The enemy SSRM carrier may target, lock, and fire on the friendly mech as long as it remains in the personal LoS of either of the two enemy mechs.

3)      An enemy SSRM carrier crests a ridge and obtains personal LoS on a friendly mech without ECM cover.  Another enemy mech also obtains personal LoS on the friendly mech, targets, and NARCs it.  The enemy SSRM carrier may target, lock, and fire on the friendly mech until NARC is exhausted regardless of LoS. 

4)      An enemy SSRM carrier crests a ridge and obtains personal LoS on a friendly mech with ECM cover.  The enemy SSRM carrier may target, lock, and fire on the friendly mech until the friendly mech breaks LoS with the SSRM carrier. (exactly like #1)

5)      An enemy SSRM carrier crests a ridge and obtains personal LoS on a friendly mech with ECM cover.  Another enemy mech also obtains personal LoS on the friendly mech and targets it.  The enemy SSRM carrier may target, lock, and fire on the friendly mech until it breaks LoS with the enemy SSRM carrier, regardless of whether or not the second enemy mech maintains LoS. (No target sharing of ECM-protected mechs).

6)      An enemy SSRM carrier crests a ridge and obtains personal LoS on a friendly mech with ECM cover.  Another enemy mech also obtains personal LoS on the friendly mech, targets, and NARCs it.  The enemy SSRM carrier may target, lock, and fire on the friendly mech until it breaks LoS with the enemy SSRM carrier.  If the friendly mech loses ECM cover before the NARC is exhausted, the enemy SSRM carrier may target and lock on the friendly mech regardless of LoS until the NARC is exhausted. (NARC doesn’t function under ECM, no target sharing of ECM-protected targets)

7)      An enemy SSRM carrier crests a ridge and obtains personal LOS on a friendly mech with ECM cover.  Another enemy mech also obtains personal LoS on the friendly mech, targets, and TAGs it.  The enemy SSRM carrier may target, lock, and fire on the friendly mech until it breaks LoS with the enemy SSRM carrier, regardless of whether or not it remains TAGged.  If the friendly mech loses ECM cover, the enemy SSRM carrier may target, lock, and fire on the friendly as long as an enemy mech maintains LoS with the friendly.  Since TAG requires LoS by default, this is exactly like #2 after the friendly loses ECM cover.

[operator0]

I would just like to state that it was probably me and the two other guys I was running with that the OP is talking about. A team of three running CDA 3M with ECM.

The reason we were running it is because, at the moment, half the entire drop deck of any team is missile boats. The obvious strategy to counter missile is to use long range ECM mechs. I was running ERLL and my two teammates were running AC5. We all had ECM and we all tried to stay together. All of us could do 130+KPH. Our tactic worked. Every drop we won but most games were very close. In fact it's the closest set of games I've had in a long time. Make no mistake, my friends and I will be running this drop deck regularly until the missile boats fade away.

Here's the kicker. A set of good lights with lasers could have spanked us pretty hard. That would have been a very good counter to what we were running, but we never experienced it. If we had consistently run up against some light fighters and kept losing, you can bet we would have changed mechs. But as it was, that didn't happen.

Say what you want about ECM, but when you run the flavor of the day, expect a smart team to be running something to counter it. Today's flavor is LRMs, tomorrow's will be something entirely different and my friends and I will be running the best counter for that. It's not about ECM or PPC or ACs or Gauss, it's about what's popular right now and what gives the smart players the best chance of beating it.

[Koniving]

Lykaon, on 07 April 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

Spoiler

Short range missiles also drasticly alters the role of an A1 if the player in question prefers a support role over piloting a walking claymore mine.This also pigeonholes the A1 into the SRM carrier role since the other options available to that chassis are rendered useless if it encounters ECM.


In practice the launch range of a NARC is dangerously close to the LRM's min. range.So,not a very practical solution for an LRM carrier that is severley hampered at shorter ranges due to the 180m LRM min range.For a streak boat it's not such a bad plan except,a Streak boat is in practice deployed to engage small fast targets that are difficult to hit.So hitting with the NARC is problematic and may require additional ammo for the NARC to compensate for the higher ratio of misses thus increasing the space and tonnage used to counter the ECM.

NARC one then BAP the other? So it's reasonable to expect anyone wishing to use streaks or LRMs to exspend 1 missile hardpoint 5.5 tons and 5 crit slots just to have a functioning missile system that is still vulnerable to multiple ECM or well deployed ECM?

Imagine the outcry if a PPC was rendered useless by a shield system that exstended out in a 360m across bubble.

This bubble could be penetrated by a PPC booster chamber that took an additional energy slot and used 3 crits and 4 tons (NARC)

Yet even after spending the extra 3 crits and 4 tons a PPC can be rendered useless again if a second shield was stacked over the first.

But,you could then spend 1.5 more tons and install a PPC acceleratormajig and that would let you counter up to 2 shields at once but only if you were within 120m of the a shield (BAP)

But, you were still vulnerable to the presence of a third shield so you can now spend 1 energy hardpoint 1 ton and 1 crit on a a PPC laser pointer...(TAG)

you have now spent 2 energy hardpoints 13.5 tons and 9 crits to have a single PPC that can ussually work when confronted with PPC sheilds.Of course you need to actually manuver and possition yourself carefully because of min ranges and such and well,hit the target with the counter measures and then finally use the weapon effectivley.

Seems like this is perfectly balanced against using 1.5 ton 2 crits and having no need to aim or possition or be concerned about ammo or heat or min. ranges.

Perfect balance!

1) The support unit's problem is a Close Range Threat within 180 meters.
This means said player has LRMs and cannot fight back.
Or said player has streaks on the side and cannot fight back despite already having BAP, because he is ambushed by not one, but two ECM users who are employing a valid strategy that is not exploiting PGI's bull interpretation of ECM (aside from the fact that this is a trait of Angel ECM to block streaks).

Obviously the player has already dedicated missile tubes to close range defense and is in a close range situation. Most likely the player matter-of-factly has 4 tubes dedicated to this defense; all of which have been rendered useless thanks to ECM.

2) NARC is a single missile tube and requires only 4 tons and 4 slots. The player in question is only actually out 2.5 tons in order to do this, as 1 streak has been exchanged for it.

3) Two SRM-4s are only 1 ton difference from 2 streaks and do not require boating. With how effective SRMs are, it would be enough to scare or delay his attackers and provide a sufficient close range defense to last the player until help arrives.

Also, what the player is facing is actually 4 crits, 3 tons split on two separate targets under specific conditions that do not frequently occur.

Now I'm not saying it's perfect.

After all, ECM is jacked in its implementation.

ECM's ability to counter another ECM is universal.

All players' ability to detect ECM is a trait unique to Beagle Active Probe and Electronic Warfare Equipment.

ECM's ability to delay locks is a universal one.

ECM's ability to deny target data and information is a universal one.

Its ability to block LRM locks at range however is a trait of Stealth Armor, which should take 12 slots but unless I remember incorrectly is the same weight.

ECM's ability to stop communication (thus prevent 'relaying' lock info, etc) is universal.

ECM's ability to shut down the advanced electronics of a mech by standing in proximity is a universal trait (up to the IV level. Angel ECM is required to block the V level).

ECM's ability to prevent Streaks from achieving locks is exclusive to only Angel ECM. Streaks fire as dumb-fired rockets as a result.

ECM's ability to produce ghost targets (not available in MWO) is universal.
[/spoiler]

Edited by Koniving, 07 April 2014 - 02:50 PM.

[Artgathan]

Just make it so that LRMs can lock onto objects within their LOS that don't have the targeting box. Problem solved.

[Daekar]

Artgathan, on 07 April 2014 - 02:43 PM, said:

Just make it so that LRMs can lock onto objects within their LOS that don't have the targeting box. Problem solved.

This is sort of what I proposed in my wall of text a few posts up. Would like your feedback.

[Artgathan]

Daekar, on 07 April 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

This is sort of what I proposed in my wall of text a few posts up. Would like your feedback.

I like where you're headed with it. That said, I don't think allies affected by allied ECM should be target-able (without special equipment). I really think that MWO needs some sort of "stealth" mechanic, or else there's no way to conduct infiltration (because your scouts will be visible to the enemy right away if they happen to turn around).

I also think indirect fire should be possible without special equipment (but, without extra equipment it should be pretty bad). That's a good part of their utility and helps them remain special in MW:O. Requiring special equipment for indirect fire would also make using indirect LRMs in PUGs a crapshoot (did someone else bring TAG/NARC this time? No? Damn - there goes half my utility).

[ShinVector]

operator0, on 07 April 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

Here's the kicker. A set of good lights with lasers could have spanked us pretty hard. That would have been a very good counter to what we were running, but we never experienced it. If we had consistently run up against some light fighters and kept losing, you can bet we would have changed mechs. But as it was, that didn't happen.

This can't be true.. ECM is OP...
20 Tons of terror + PUG Team work can't possibly beat ECM Cicadas.

Honestly at this point of the game.. I do believe ECM is only thing that stopping everyone and their grandmother from bringing LRM boats to the battle field. If the battle field was fill with LRM boats like the like tourny.. The game would simply be not fun..
Things have settle but the after effects are still there.. Eg. LRM5 ECM Commandos.. Still seeing this crap last night..

Back on topic..
I find the A1 to be a crappy chassis in the first place... 50% of weapons in big ears..
Regardless of weaponry... You just de-ear A1s and they are practically useless.
A1s just like the Locust are chassis that will depend of hiding in the crowd and team work to do well... Gone are the days of the OP Splatcat and SteakCat and good riddance.

*From last night... Why am I running that thing ? Just because..


I will do what I can to keep Brawling in MWO alive.

Edited by ShinVector, 07 April 2014 - 05:35 PM.

[IceCase88]

Indirect fire for LRMs has been disabled? It has been a long time since I have used LRMs but the last time I did I was able to put the target reticle on a spot and the LRMs landed exactly where it was pointed when I fired. Also, isn't that why LRMs launch into where your target reticle is pointed when you lose lock?

[ICEFANG13]

Almond Brown, on 07 April 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

But we have been over this numerous times. If ECM did not prevent missile locks then what would it be good for, really? Many have offered let it simply delay the Lock time. OK, how much of a delay would be considered balanced? 2 seconds, 4 seconds? 10?

As has been noted, ECM is the EW pillar on which all others currently rely. Change it to much or removing it all together makes the game less.

Some one fix ECM so we can all agree on said FIX and let's be done with these BS monthly arguments once and for all. Taking it out, would not be on the agenda.

Its 1.5 tons and 2 slots, how much should that adjust the battlefield again? More than a single Large Laser does? More than AMS or BAP? Why does ECM have to stand above the rest? I agree the system is completely based on ECM and changing it would change the entire system, but we can pretend that it would all be worked out correctly, why should ECM do so much more than BAP or AMS?

How would it make you feel if BAP also made any laser weapon not work against the user and against any mech within 180m?

IceCase88, on 07 April 2014 - 05:58 PM, said:

Indirect fire for LRMs has been disabled? It has been a long time since I have used LRMs but the last time I did I was able to put the target reticle on a spot and the LRMs landed exactly where it was pointed when I fired. Also, isn't that why LRMs launch into where your target reticle is pointed when you lose lock?

I believe they mean, direct fire, same as using another weapon, having LOS to make the target yourself and looking at the mech when you fire. Indirect is when you fire from behind cover and cannot see the target yourself.

I hope so, the concept of 'unlocked' LRM fire is just downright dumb. Thank goodness none of the proECM people said that argument this time.

[Osric Lancaster]

I still think the way to handle ECM is not to make ECM weaker, but to blend it into a more complete sensor / role warfare system. Quoting myself to save time because I'm a lazy jerk;

" Have the detectable sensor radius of a 'Mech depend on their tonnage and engine rating, and then modified by things like TAG, ECM, BAP etc.
In order of effect -
Base Detection Range (or DR hereafter) = Tonnage * 5m/T + (engine rating)
BAP: +200m DR.
ECM: DR = (Detection Range / 2)
NARC/TAG: TAGed targets are radar visible, period. 750m TAG range.

Example :
A Locust has a base detectable radius of 100 meters (20 tons * 5m/t). With a 180XL that extends to 280 meters (100m + 180). By the same token, an Atlas with a 300 std engine would show up on sensors within 800m normally. Say BAP extends the detectible range of all enemy 'Mechs by 200m. So with BAP you can detect and lock the Atlas at 1000m, and the Locust at 480m. ECM halves detectible range of 'Mechs under it's effect. ( If that's a D-DC your detection range is 500m with BAP, and the locust sticking to it is sensor invisible outside 240m. )
NARC/TAG and you can lock it. "

mwomercs.com/forums/topic/154846-time-to-kill/

ICEFANG13, on 07 April 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

I hope so, the concept of 'unlocked' LRM fire is just downright dumb. Thank goodness none of the proECM people said that argument this time.

It's doable, and stealthy since you don't give your target a lock on warning. Problem is missile travel speeds were only briefly high enough to make that practical. If missiles always traveled toward a TAG'd point / a NARC'd point on a 'Mech (without external ECM cover) it'd be a non issue. It's not that ECM is too strong, it's that TAG and NARC are still too weak. Quoting myself once again -

". . . As line of site weapons they're decent. Not great, not overpowered. They just need a balance adjustment for indirect fire and a bit more ammo per ton.

1 - Have LRMs spread out more when indirectly fired.
2 - Have LRMs cluster more tightly when fired with line of sight.
3 - Give NARC and TAG the effect of attracting missiles in a 200m proximity towards the TAG'd or NARC'd sections of a target (sort of like a reverse AMS) at a rate of 20?missiles/sec for NARC and 10?missiles/second for TAG. NARC would be considerably better than TAG for pulling missiles to one section.

Missile spread would accurately describe the penalties inherent in indirect missile fire, and make massed indirect-fire missiles behave more like "laying down a field of fire" and less like a "hammer of god", while making LRMs more useful when direct-fired. "

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 07 April 2014 - 07:01 PM.