142 replies to this topic

[ElLocoMarko]

Finally the dual LRM/Quad SSRM Cat A1 will be able to defend itself!

[Screech]

So which Jenner variant is getting ECM now?

And I guess we will see the rise of the Streakcat again. I think game balance has much in common with the tides.

[Zerikin]

Not quite as much speed increase as I was hoping for LRMs but even that much will help.

[Braggart]

Trauglodyte, on 02 May 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

Eh, you just burn through equipment that much faster, Braggart. They're being a little over the top by saying that MGs are scary but at least they'll no longer be inept. Plus, at 0.08 per bullet, the MG will now be doing 160 damage per ton which where ballistics typically sit. Good balance change.

yes they burn through equipment faster, but guess what is faster than that, blowing out the entire torso section taking everything in that torso and arm along with it.

The next thing is they have to get through the armor to the internals first, in order to get any crits, and crits are not guaranteed, and what gets crit is based on a roll of the dice.

[Adrienne Vorton]

i love it... especially the BAP-ECM counter... means Jenner comes back to old raven killer abilities

[Zyllos]

Braggart, on 02 May 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

yes they burn through equipment faster, but guess what is faster than that, blowing out the entire torso section taking everything in that torso and arm along with it.

The next thing is they have to get through the armor to the internals first, in order to get any crits, and crits are not guaranteed, and what gets crit is based on a roll of the dice.

This is a huge problem with the entire game in general. And this is because pin-point accuracy, which applies all damage being fired from a mech onto a single location instead of spreading multiple weapons onto different locations.

[Braggart]

Zyllos, on 02 May 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

This is a huge problem with the entire game in general. And this is because pin-point accuracy, which applies all damage being fired from a mech onto a single location instead of spreading multiple weapons onto different locations.

I agree entirely.

[Trauglodyte]

Braggart, on 02 May 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

yes they burn through equipment faster, but guess what is faster than that, blowing out the entire torso section taking everything in that torso and arm along with it.

The next thing is they have to get through the armor to the internals first, in order to get any crits, and crits are not guaranteed, and what gets crit is based on a roll of the dice.

I get it. MGs won't ever be super scary in that "I need you dead right now" situation. This just means that they'll burn through equipment faster and you won't be able to totally ignore the MG user cause it won't be chipping paint anymore.

Adrienne Vorton, on 02 May 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

i love it... especially the BAP-ECM counter... means Jenner comes back to old raven killer abilities

Just to clarrify, it is my understanding that BAP won't be countering ECM like people think. It just means that if the BAP carrier is targetting a mech carrying ECM or there is an ECM mech in the area, the BAP carrier will still be able to lock on a mech within 150m. ECM in counter mode is still better but it comes down between to a decision, assuming you can carry both, whether you want to extend your sensors and avoid ECM or obscure your enemy's sensors and counter their ECM. Each electronics suite will have its benefits.

[Howdy Doody]

Braggart, on 02 May 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

why, crit damage only applies to items in the mech, not the mech itself.

Ohhhhh. I didn't know that! Thanks....and that sucks, hahahha!

[General Taskeen]

Sephlock, on 02 May 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

It is kind of neat that there are multiple counters to fit your playstyle rather than just the one.

I don't think you get it.

There would be no need for "multiple counters" if ECM simply did what it is supposed to do from the beginning.

Big Fish Balancing is the exact reason all of this ecm missile nonsense + multiple bandaids is such a collasal mess.

Edited by General Taskeen, 02 May 2013 - 12:37 PM.

[Adrienne Vorton]

Trauglodyte, on 02 May 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Just to clarrify, it is my understanding that BAP won't be countering ECM like people think. It just means that if the BAP carrier is targetting a mech carrying ECM or there is an ECM mech in the area, the BAP carrier will still be able to lock on a mech within 150m. ECM in counter mode is still better but it comes down between to a decision, assuming you can carry both, whether you want to extend your sensors and avoid ECM or obscure your enemy's sensors and counter their ECM. Each electronics suite will have its benefits.

i´m okay with that...for me that means, my jenner D can take on a 3L again,like ingood oldtimes... bb 3L

[Kraven Kor]

So, if ECM is countered by BAP, why have ECM with "counter mode" at all?

I think BAP should reduce the effective range of ECM, not negate it entirely, which it kind of already does but not enough.

ECM should not prevent locks at close range; it should only protect against detection and target locks at long range (outside 180m; kind of the opposite of how it is now.)

So, ECM should counter locks outside 180m (adjusted by Sensor Range Module and BAP), but should do nothing inside 180m (except increase the time it takes to detect, and increase the time it takes to achieve missile lock.)

Someone with BAP should be able to detect and lock out to, say, 270m. Sensor Module, 220m. Sensor Module + BAP, 320m or so.

TAG should counter ECM - as it does - only if the TAGging mech is outside the 180m zone.

NARC should counter ECM for the duration of the beacon, canon be damned to make the item useful.

ECM should still be the only "counter" to ECM, to negate the detection / missile lock effects when inside the hostile ECM bubble.

Keep ECM vs. ECM.

Increase BAP effectiveness vs. ECM, but do no make BAP a counter to ECM.

Reduce ECM effectiveness at short range, and keep the intent of this change - making ECM a long-range stealth tool.

Just my $0.25 (adjusted for inflation.)

[DocBach]

Not to be the devils advocate, but we still have a really overpowered piece of equipment unless we're forced to take another 1.5 tons to counter it.

If Beagle isn't on the battlefield ECM still has crazy amounts of reasons to take it on its own right.

If ECM isn't on the battlefield, Beagle is still a waste of 1.5 tons of space.

[Knizia]

Trauglodyte, on 02 May 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Just to clarrify, it is my understanding that BAP won't be countering ECM like people think. It just means that if the BAP carrier is targetting a mech carrying ECM or there is an ECM mech in the area, the BAP carrier will still be able to lock on a mech within 150m.

That isn't how I read this quote:

Quote

If Mech X has BAP, and Mech Y has ECM, and Mech X gets within 150m or less of Mech Y, Mech Y loses all effects of ECM. It is a 100% counter to ECM.

It sounds like ECM is being completely negated by the BAP, and not only losing it's effects to the BAP mech. It also says:

Quote

Mech Y is now vulnerable to LRMs/S-SRMs as long as Mech X stays within 150m.

That part would make zero sense if BAP only countered ECM for the BAP-equipped mech. In this scenario, Mech Y becomes vulnerable to LRM's... but Mech X can't shoot LRM's because it is within 150m. Why specify that Mech Y is vulnerable to a weapon, unless they can actually be shot by that weapon?

[Rebas Kradd]

General Taskeen, on 02 May 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

I don't think you get it.

There would be no need for "multiple counters" if ECM simply did what it is supposed to do from the beginning.

Big Fish Balancing is the exact reason all of this ecm missile nonsense + multiple bandaids is such a collasal mess.

Tell that to the hundreds of screaming malcontents who stamped their feet demanding it. All that direct buffing/nerfing does is shift weight. It rarely balances it out. PGI should have just stayed put on ECM.
But perhaps we can put aside for awhile the notion that PGI doesn't listen to its community. They just capitulated like an Urbanmech to a flock of Atlai. Betcha nobody's complaining about them changing their mind now, eh?

[Braggart]

Kraven Kor, on 02 May 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

So, if ECM is countered by BAP, why have ECM with "counter mode" at all?

I think BAP should reduce the effective range of ECM, not negate it entirely, which it kind of already does but not enough.

ECM should not prevent locks at close range; it should only protect against detection and target locks at long range (outside 180m; kind of the opposite of how it is now.)

So, ECM should counter locks outside 180m (adjusted by Sensor Range Module and BAP), but should do nothing inside 180m (except increase the time it takes to detect, and increase the time it takes to achieve missile lock.)

Someone with BAP should be able to detect and lock out to, say, 270m. Sensor Module, 220m. Sensor Module + BAP, 320m or so.

TAG should counter ECM - as it does - only if the TAGging mech is outside the 180m zone.

NARC should counter ECM for the duration of the beacon, canon be damned to make the item useful.

ECM should still be the only "counter" to ECM, to negate the detection / missile lock effects when inside the hostile ECM bubble.

Keep ECM vs. ECM.

Increase BAP effectiveness vs. ECM, but do no make BAP a counter to ECM.

Reduce ECM effectiveness at short range, and keep the intent of this change - making ECM a long-range stealth tool.

Just my $0.25 (adjusted for inflation.)

Bap is a piece of equipment that can put 2 identical mechs on equal footing some of the time. Picture identical Ravens, 1 with ECM, 1 with Bap.

1st scenario. That raven sees another raven at 600 meters. ECM raven(+teammates) can target Bap Raven, Bap raven (+teammates) cannot target ECM raven.

2nd scenario. cluster of units brawling. Bap Raven is 200m from ECM raven. No one can target the ECM team, ECM team can target enemy team. What if that Bap Raven had ECm instead, and set counter.

3rd scenario cluster of units brawling again, Bap raven is 100 meters from ECM. It is an equal playing field for everyone.

So other than having a longer sensor range, and faster targeting data. ECM is much more useful in most situations. This change is only important for mechs that cannot install ECM. Does this make ECM balanced................. no ECM is still a tiny piece of equipment that has a huge impact on gameplay, that most mechs cannot use, and renders certain weapons useless.

IF PGI would get thier **** together and let us equip 1.5 ton piece of equipment that counters PPC in all but the most insignificant scenarios, we would have some decent balance.

Edited by Braggart, 02 May 2013 - 01:21 PM.

[Monky]

I am glad to see at least a compromise on the MG's, I don't understand the AC5 buff but w/e it isn't a big change, I think the LRM buff was needed and possibly needs to be higher (i would argue as high as 150% current speed and increase the spread a little)

Not going to comment on NARC and LBX as I don't think the buffs will make any practical difference for those weapon systems.

Accuracy at range -is- a problem for LBX and timer duration -is- a problem for NARC, but both systems are so woefully under-designed that they will never be able to compete unless redesigned almost completely.

Edited by Monky, 02 May 2013 - 01:27 PM.

[Kraven Kor]

Braggart, on 02 May 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

So other than having a longer sensor range, and faster targeting data. ECM is much more useful in most situations. This change is only important for mechs that cannot install ECM.

And that is an important distinction, but I still feel ECM does way too much. We'll see how this affects things though.

[MustrumRidcully]

The buff to the Machine Gun still seems low, considering how poor it currently performs. But it's an improvement, I'll take that.

The AC/5 change doesn't really make sense to me. Range is nice to have, but not really needed for it. It's not what is keeping it down. The damage output is.

The LBX... I don't know... 20 % sounds awfully low.
Just like the LRM speed buff.

I don't expect the Narc change to make it worth the effort. It just is too costly in terms of tonnage and hard point count and the ammo count is too low.

Rebas Kradd, on 02 May 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

Tell that to the hundreds of screaming malcontents who stamped their feet demanding it. All that direct buffing/nerfing does is shift weight. It rarely balances it out. PGI should have just stayed put on ECM.
But perhaps we can put aside for awhile the notion that PGI doesn't listen to its community. They just capitulated like an Urbanmech to a flock of Atlai. Betcha nobody's complaining about them changing their mind now, eh?

The masses always said ECM shouldn't do what it's doing. PGI seems unwilling to simply just admit that and change it to something reasonable, instead coming up with counters and counters and counters.

But hey, looks like my Founder-Jenner is back in business, if I can make weight for the BAP. I guess that's something.

[jakucha]

Zyllos, on 02 May 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

You have to remember, this is an update to the weapon balance discussion that had no mention of PPCs/Gauss. So it makes sense to not see any PPC/Gauss balance discussion here.

But the balance of those two weapons will need work in the future.

Yeah, and it's already been mentioned by the devs that PPCs are going to be changed.