9 replies to this topic

[Voidsinger]

Just a couple of suggestions to make ECM builds less abusive if they mount ECM.

Raven 3L - I read in another thread that the Stalker only has a NARC tube when NARC is mounted. Implement this for the Raven, and it can carry only a single Streak or SRM6. and before people balk at the idea look at the Hardpoints other ECM mechs have.

Spider - 3 Energy (30 tons, no missiles or ballistics)
Cicada - 4 Energy, 1 Ballistic (40 tons, much bigger than a Raven)
Commando 2D - 3 missile, 1 Energy (25 tons, and pops more easily, has reasonable hit boxes).


Atlas D-DC

Okay, the only reason the D-DC should mount ECM is having a dual cockpit with a second operator. Therefore, make mounting of ECM contingent on mounting the Command Console in the head.


If we can't all have ECM, then force the mechs with ECM back to their more original intents. It cuts down on the abuses, and encourages more mech diversity.

Posted here for a little discussion before I suggest it.

[Biglead]

In Soviet Russia, ECM controls you.

[Buzzkillin]

with the suggesting of "let all mechs have ECM" mist as well just take out missiles and leave us with only energy, ballistics, and srm6s.

[Hawks]

<Cue the inevitable parade of sycophants crying 'ECM IS FINE, LRN2PLAY NOOB', spouting ad hominems, strawmen and reducto ad absurdums, but apparently either unwilling or unable to actually address the issues raised>

[Tarman]

Hawks, on 09 March 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

<Cue the inevitable parade of sycophants crying 'ECM IS FINE, LRN2PLAY NOOB', spouting ad hominems, strawmen and reducto ad absurdums, but apparently either unwilling or unable to actually address the issues raised>

Counter-queue all the people who don't understand about evolving systems being created and tweaked in a live-development environment and people who think real debating tools are relevant on internet forums.

For the record this is probably one of the first remotely intelligent approaches to ECM issues. It's about creating a situation where ECM is useful and varied, yet not overly widespread or powerful. Should be more tradeoffs for taking it other than mere tonnage.

[Voidsinger]

Buzzkillin, on 09 March 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

with the suggesting of "let all mechs have ECM" mist as well just take out missiles and leave us with only energy, ballistics, and srm6s.

Spare me.

It's well known ECM is a massive advantage, and the Raven-3L was a so-so mech that needed good pilots before it was implemented. Look at other "combat" Ravens, only a single missile hardpoint. A pilot of a built for original intent, "Information Warfare" is at a considerable disadvantage to a dedicated Strike Raven. The reason the Raven did get ECM was that it was intended to be a premier Scout and Information Warfare mech, not a zippy strike mech that used ECM to disable enemy weapon system many times the tonnage of the ECM. How many Raven 3Ls do you actually see hanging with their teammates providing ECM support?

As for the D-DC. The main use of ECM there is cloaking device, and LRM defence. Huge advantage.

Just remember, these two mechs also have an extra module slot on most mechs. With airstrikes and artillery coming, and with modules being the endgame, that alone is a considerable advantage, What I would suggest provides a required compromise to mount ECM, but hardly one that disables either mech from being excellent ECM support.

[Ashnod]

Btw void, the narc tube was removed from the stalker when using a bigger missile pack, and the raven does shoot out of its 1 tube narc, just when firing 2 guided streak SRM's out of it it really doesn't matter.

[Voidsinger]

Ashnod, on 09 March 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Btw void, the narc tube was removed from the stalker when using a bigger missile pack, and the raven does shoot out of its 1 tube narc, just when firing 2 guided streak SRM's out of it it really doesn't matter.

Interesting (I abandoned Stalkers as soon as I Mastered them, big blimps).

My point though was more there is discretion there to change things depending on the mount. Right now, all of the partial counters to ECM require giving up an energy hardpoint, whereas ECM does not. My proposal makes a Raven give up a missile hardpoint, unless it chooses to mount NARC. For the Atlas D-DC, what I propose means they would give up 3 tons and a critical slot on top of the ECM cost of 1.5 tons and 2 critical slots. Neither is much of a sacrifice compared to the benefits ECM brings.

Implementation would likely be easier than fiddling around with ECM mechanics. It's a quick and dirty fix I know, but it addresses some of the issues, and does not interfere with the mech's intended role.

PGI has stated they don't want an ECM arms race. They have one right now. We all know how many complaints about Raven-3Ls there are. In restricting access to ECM, what was done guaranteed that these two builds at the top of their weight classes would dominate choice. Add to that the expanded effect on Streaks, and ECM became a potent denial tool. That many benefits on a restricted item needs to come at a cost for play balance issues.

[Tarman]

Voidsinger, on 09 March 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

Interesting (I abandoned Stalkers as soon as I Mastered them, big blimps).

My point though was more there is discretion there to change things depending on the mount. Right now, all of the partial counters to ECM require giving up an energy hardpoint, whereas ECM does not. My proposal makes a Raven give up a missile hardpoint, unless it chooses to mount NARC. For the Atlas D-DC, what I propose means they would give up 3 tons and a critical slot on top of the ECM cost of 1.5 tons and 2 critical slots. Neither is much of a sacrifice compared to the benefits ECM brings.

Implementation would likely be easier than fiddling around with ECM mechanics. It's a quick and dirty fix I know, but it addresses some of the issues, and does not interfere with the mech's intended role.

PGI has stated they don't want an ECM arms race. They have one right now. We all know how many complaints about Raven-3Ls there are. In restricting access to ECM, what was done guaranteed that these two builds at the top of their weight classes would dominate choice. Add to that the expanded effect on Streaks, and ECM became a potent denial tool. That many benefits on a restricted item needs to come at a cost for play balance issues.

I like your idea because it changes the meta of ECM to a more choice-based selection, instead of the usual extremes of GIVE IT TO ALL and THROW IT AWAY. There should be tradeoffs for running the kit; currently there are not other than a small tonnage cost.

[Voidsinger]

Tarman, on 09 March 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

I like your idea because it changes the meta of ECM to a more choice-based selection, instead of the usual extremes of GIVE IT TO ALL and THROW IT AWAY. There should be tradeoffs for running the kit; currently there are not other than a small tonnage cost.

The problem isn't so much what players will accept. The issue is what PGI is willing to do to balance things.

ECM is far more potent than tabletop, in part because PGI also saw it as a solution to the LRM and Streak problem.

Given they limited the mechs that could carry ECM, it makes sense that those mechs should sacrifice more to carry it. Spiders are limited by design, Commandos could be problematic, but can't cram everything on a small frame like Ravens can, and Cicadas lack the missile hardpoints that make ECM problematic in the light arena.

When ECM blocks Streaks, only ECM mechs will carry Streaks.

That is why removing the Narc missile slot when the Raven doesn't carry NARC makes so much sense. It cuts it back to 3 Energy, 1 Missile. 1 Streak isn't so problematic, 2 or more can be. However, a Raven in Stock configuration, or acting as a Spotter with NARC, shouldn't lose the slot. Everybody else has to sacrifice an energy slot to deal with ECM, the Raven should lose an offensive missile slot.