12 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

Disclaimer: I don't have a particular problem with the current meta, but I can't say I fully endorse it. There's room for improvement and perhaps, room for a complete overhaul.

So, I'm someone who reads the forums a lot, mostly because I want the latest updates from PGI, but also because I want to know what players think of the game.

Currently, I've noticed 3 major points people often complain about:

1. ECM is too powerful

2. LRMs are (now) too powerful, sometimes not powerful enough

3. LRMs is either OP or completely useless thx to ECM, making TAG a necessity to carry for most LRMs enthusiasts.

As an attempt to balance a bit these pieces of equipment, I thought that returning to cannon (don't flame me) could perhaps be of particular help.

Here are the changes I would recommend in order to make firing LRMs require more skills, but also make equipments more useful, without being OP.

I could also make a poll if people are saying I should...

1st change

Without any equipment, LRMs need LOS to get target lock

Why? One of the thing people complain a lot is the ability of LRMs boats to fire from anywhere without ever being in great danger, especially if an ECM scout is spotting for them. Also, lock without LOS is something that could normally only be achieved with a C3 computer, making that piece of equipment a potential upgrade for PGI to add in the game.

Pros:
-People will stop whining about LRMs being too easy and no skill (I hope)
-Will force LRMs users to put themselves in potential danger instead of hiding and shooting
-PGI can introduce C3 computers with this change

Cons:
-Without a C3 computer installed, it's a pretty big nerf

2nd change

NARC, TAG make indirect fire possible without C3.

This alone would make NARC a lot more useful. A single Raven 3L could scout, NARC someone, TAG another mech and bam, 2 potential targets for your LRM boats. They can now indirect fire with impunity. A single NARC beacon could last 20-30 seconds, forcing the NARCed mech to take cover for the duration of the beacon's signal, otherwise it eats LRMs in the face. While a target is NARCed, the equipment is on cooldown on the scout, until the duration of the beacon is over. TAG gives the same advantages as NARC, with the possibility of giving better accuracy to LRMs.

Pros:
-Will turn NARC into something useful.
-Promotes role warfare, info warfare

Cons:
-Higher need for scouts to NARC and tag, putting them into potential danger
-If your team has no NARC or TAG scout, you're out of luck for indirect fire


3rd change

ECM only makes the mech equipped with it untargettable

Biggest change to make ECM not the overly powerful piece of equipment it is right now. This forces scouts to actually scout, not stand with their team providing ECM cover. This still makes sense to give the Atlas D-DC ECM, since it's a slow mech, it's a potential target for LRMs all over the map. What this does is make your usual scouts (commandos, ravens) excellent fast flankers that NARC and TAG the entire enemy team for target solutions. TAG still negates ECM, not decided on NARC, and BAP should IMO negate it as well.

Pros:
- ECM will be a lot less OP, while keeping its usefulness for the wielder
- Will prevent huge teams from ambushing
- ECM can keep its current disrupt/counter mode

Cons:
- Still trying to find one. People will QQ because their OP toy got nerfed? (sorry about the sarcastic tone )

4th optionnal change

AMS destroys a set amount of missiles depending of the incoming salvo

Currently, AMS is so efficient that a single LRM10 can be completely negated by 2 AMS, while 1 AMS makes it a lot less powerful. This suggestion is because I believe stock mechs should be viable, and a lot of them come with an LRM-10 or LRM 20 equipped. When I first played with CN9-A, I uninstalled my LRM-10 for SSRMs after 2 games because it got shut down all the time.

Here's what I suggest (I think someone posted the same thing somewhere)

1 AMS destroys:

1 missile out of 5 for an LRM 5 salvo
2 missiles out fo 10
3 out of 15
4 out of 20
5 out of 25

and so on... up until 8 out of 40. Basically a 20% efficiency

Over 40 missiles fired, AMS gains firing bonus since more missiles are clustered together and we could go with something like this:

10 out of 45 missiles fired
15 out of 50 missiles fired
20 out of 60 missiles fired (33% efficiency)

and so on...

Makes boating a little less desirable

About the AMS change... I just thought about it, so I could be wrong on many lvls but w/e... I know 2 AMS would be way too powerful so you can change those numbers at will... but I'm still convinced AMS is too strong vs single "cannon" LRMs.

Leave feedback/suggestions as long as it is constructive... I don't want anyone to tell me "like it or leave it" or crap like that...

Edited by Sybreed, 10 March 2013 - 12:39 PM.

[Sybreed]

I know it's a long read but I think it deserves at least 1 comment...?

[Sybreed]

okay that's my last bump... hope someone reads and replies... at least I know someone likes my ideas

[Dasein]

Actually it is not bad, but be realistic they will never implement this because it's a lot of work to do and they have priorities on releasing community warfare and new mechs.

[Cyke]

Well, I agree with the observations you make in your general premise (ECM and LRMs are both too powerful, and their present implementations swing balance too far in one direction or the other).

However, I disagree that indirect fire should be impossible without specialized equipment.
I'd prefer something less drastic, such as LRM salvoes simply having very large scatter (reducing number of missile impacts) when the launching 'Mech does not have line of sight to his target.
Starting with that, by eliminating some of the power of LRMs, it opens room for reducing the effectiveness of ECM to some degree.

I do, however, like the idea that AMS should be more effective against larger salvos of missiles. Truly titanic LRM swarms (like 90 LRMs fired simultaneously) are so packed, so dense, that an AMS should logically be able to shoot down far more missiles by spraying bullets into the cloud of missiles, than when it's trying to shoot down just 10 or 15 missiles flying in a similarly sized salvo.

Recall for a moment that just like ECM, AMS is also limited to certain specific variants. Basically, I'm saying that rather than having this polarized swinging game balance that we have between ECM and LRMs, rebalancing AMS might give the developers at Piranha much more leeway for some interesting and tactically diverse creativity in their game design.

[Cyke]

One additional idea is that Beagle Active Probes should also be limited to certain chassis variants, and be given some features to counteract the effectiveness of ECM by some amount.

I'm personally reserved on this, however, as it just continues the swinging polarity of critically necessary equipment that a team must possess.

Edited by Cyke, 10 March 2013 - 02:33 PM.

[Sybreed]

Cyke, on 10 March 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

Well, I agree with the observations you make in your general premise (ECM and LRMs are both too powerful, and their present implementations swing balance too far in one direction or the other).

However, I disagree that indirect fire should be impossible without specialized equipment.
I'd prefer something less drastic, such as LRM salvoes simply having very large scatter (reducing number of missile impacts) when the launching 'Mech does not have line of sight to his target.
Starting with that, by eliminating some of the power of LRMs, it opens room for reducing the effectiveness of ECM to some degree.

I do, however, like the idea that AMS should be more effective against larger salvos of missiles. Truly titanic LRM swarms (like 90 LRMs fired simultaneously) are so packed, so dense, that an AMS should logically be able to shoot down far more missiles by spraying bullets into the cloud of missiles, than when it's trying to shoot down just 10 or 15 missiles flying in a similarly sized salvo.

Recall for a moment that just like ECM, AMS is also limited to certain specific variants. Basically, I'm saying that rather than having this polarized swinging game balance that we have between ECM and LRMs, rebalancing AMS might give the developers at Piranha much more leeway for some interesting and tactically diverse creativity in their game design.

Can't say I disagree. This is mostly an attempt to reconciliate ourselves with TT, while also giving new items options for PGI. Also, it would make NARC a lot more interesting to use as a "fire and let your team rain death on them" equipment. But, it would be a pretty big nerf. That's why if you're a LRM user, you would want a C3 computer installed

[IrrelevantFish]

Sybreed, on 08 March 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Without any equipment, LRMs need LOS to get target lock

I'm very much opposed to this for three reasons:

• It would seriously reduce indirect fire capabilities of PUGs, putting them at even more of a disadvantage versus premades.
  
• It would eliminate some means of encouraging PUGs to cooperate, and mean they'd experience even less of the team-based gameplay elements..
  
• It would further discourage lights from acting as scouts/spotters, as in order to be any kind of scout, they'd have to have equipment which would significantly reduce their combat effectiveness.

Sybreed, on 08 March 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

One of the thing people complain a lot is the ability of LRMs boats to fire from anywhere without ever being in great danger, especially if an ECM scout is spotting for them.

LRM boats are artillery. The ability to fire from safety is the reason artillery exists. It's the RVN-3L that screws up this part of the equation, due to the ludicrous durability given them by the combination of speed, ECM, and messed-up hitboxes. They can spot and survive long enough for LRMs to wipe out half your team.

Sybreed, on 08 March 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

ECM only makes the mech equipped with it untargettable

This indirectly buffs LRMs, makes ECM essentially irrelevant on D-DCs, and also eliminates some of the cooperative aspects of info warfare.

Sybreed, on 08 March 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

AMS destroys a set amount of missiles depending of the incoming salvo

Now this is something I could get behind, though I think AMS isn't so broken as to merit fixing right now, and I wonder how hard it would be for PGI to implement. Depending on how AMS functions now, it could require a significant amount of coding/time I'd prefer they spend on other things.

Edited by IrrelevantFish, 11 March 2013 - 04:49 AM.

[IrrelevantFish]

Given the length of my previous post, I figured my own counter-suggestions for curing LRM/EW woes should be posted separately. They are as follows:

• Reduce LRM damage.
  
• Make NARC and TAG ECM-proof.

For those of the TLDR variety, you can stop there. What follows is my reasoning.

LRMs
IMO, the mechanics of LRMs are quite solid. The ease of indirect fire incentivizes cooperative play and discourages the camping that so often plagues 8-mans. The 180m minimum range and shallow "dive" makes their use tactically demanding, requiring careful (re)positioning.

However, at the moment, they do so much damage that they're not only devastating artillery but by far the most effective mid-range weapon in the game. The other day, I even one-on-oned a fresh brawler Atlas with my 2xALRM20+TAG Atlas D-DC in an engagement that started at ~270m. Nerfing damage would return LRMs to their rightful place as artillery.

Electronic Warfare
Right now, the only true counter to ECM is another ECM. Scouts trying to TAG targets for long-range LRM bombardment have to expose themselves to enemy fire for the entire duration of the LRM flight, and surviving that long is a very risky proposition. On the other hand, ECM-lights can easily get close enough to counter TAG, NARC, and Streaks, and good luck hitting them with PPCs.

However, ECM-proofing NARC would not only give it a reason to exist, it would also allow scouts to mark targets for long-range bombardment, encouraging the use of LRMs for their intended purpose. ECM-proofing TAG would reduce the "Streak-proofing" that makes ECM-equipped lights so enormously frustrating,

I feel that these changes would provide ECM-free mechs with effective counters without compromising ECM's intended functionality, Yes, RVN-3L's would still be able to counter LRM bombardment, cloak their team against detection, and reduce their opponent's ability to communicate, but they'd have to be a lot more careful about doing it.

Edited by IrrelevantFish, 11 March 2013 - 06:50 AM.

[Cyke]

I stated earlier that "I disagree that indirect fire should be impossible without specialized equipment", but I didn't say why, and perhaps that wasn't very fair to Sybreed's original post.
IrrelevantFish's three point-form statements are pretty much the same reasoning I had behind my statement, though.

Here's another random crazy idea I'm throwing out, that I personally haven't really thought through all the way through:
Maybe the "Counter ECM" function should be moved to Beagle Active Probes, and removed as a mode for the ECM itself?

This BAP Counter ability should be very short-ranged, either the same range or possibly even shorter ranged than the current existing ECM's Counter mode, but at least it will be available to any 'Mech willing to spend that bit of tonnage. That alone might possibly balance the RVN-3L chokehold, by creating the new role of BAP-equipped light 'Mechs working as ECM-hunters.
I understand that TAG is supposed to handle this role right now, but it does seem a bit unfair to put an ability that requires very active effort for single target effect (holding TAG beam on a target) to counter an ability with no player attention overhead to benefit multiple allies (running ECM in Disrupt mode).
The upcoming rework of Thermal vision mode will also make TAG somewhat less viable for countering ECM, as it will be harder to spot sensor cloaked 'Mechs that are partially obscured by terrain or foliage, especially when they don't skyline the horizon.

Once again, as is the overarching point of this thread, any change that weakens ECM in the metagame (such as this BAP idea) will also likely necessitate a weakening of LRMs. Not guaranteed, but likely.

Edited by Cyke, 11 March 2013 - 08:21 AM.

[Xandralkus]

Sybreed, on 08 March 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Without any equipment, LRMs need LOS to get target lock

Why? One of the thing people complain a lot is the ability of LRMs boats to fire from anywhere without ever being in great danger, especially if an ECM scout is spotting for them. Also, lock without LOS is something that could normally only be achieved with a C3 computer, making that piece of equipment a potential upgrade for PGI to add in the game.

Pros:
-People will stop whining about LRMs being too easy and no skill (I hope)
-Will force LRMs users to put themselves in potential danger instead of hiding and shooting
-PGI can introduce C3 computers with this change

Cons:
-Without a C3 computer installed, it's a pretty big nerf

I advocate almost identical LRM, Ewar, and ECM changes. I even made a little diagram in MS paint to demonstrate:


With these changes, ECM acts as the force that 'undoes' the problem of indirect LRM fire. However, indirect-fire LRM's, even when not being prevented by ECM, should suffer a significant penalty to missile spread. If a player can attack another and be immune to retaliation at all, the damage that they do should be minimal - even under the presence of TAG and NARC.

Regardless, I still support anything that undoes LRM indirect fire while still making units targetable through ECM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Quote

1. ECM is too powerful

2. LRMs are (now) too powerful, sometimes not powerful enough

3. LRMs is either OP or completely useless thx to ECM, making TAG a necessity to carry for most LRMs enthusiasts.

I agree with all of this. The current patch is playing well, but you are dead on. I continue to advocate mech3 style LRMS that turn much much worse than the ones we have now, hit about the same and CAN be arced over cover, however aware pilots can dodge them.

This adds skill to LRM useages and more flexibility for the firing mech while giving enemies more skill based chance to avoid them if caught in the open than simply "die, fool"

However the ECM shield at long ranges would need to go most likely for this to work - something we may yet need as the current stealth radar seems to be putting a lot of new & old people off.

mech3 LRMS!!!

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 11 March 2013 - 11:18 AM.

[IrrelevantFish]

CYBRN4CR, on 11 March 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

You do realize we already have this. Except the last part is only possible with TAG and you're out of ECM range OR you use thermal vision to "target" them and use weapons that don't need a lock to hit with.

That's not entirely true. ECM lights (RVN-3Ls in particular, of course) are just so fast and durable that LRMs and direct-fire weapons are often ineffective (or at least not effective quickly enough to stop them from ruining your day by spotting a few dozen LRM salvos) and they can easily close distance and disable your TAG.

In other words, ECM lights need their Streak-proof shields need removed.

Edited by IrrelevantFish, 12 March 2013 - 07:10 AM.