7 replies to this topic

[MajorChunks]

In the May 21st patch, we will have a total of four hard counters for ECM: BAP, TAG, NARC, and PPC hits (also other ECMs, but I'm not really counting that). I think most people would agree that this will make ECM a whole bunch easier to deal with.

I think that in light of these changes, we should take the opportunity to try and simplify the increasingly confusing ECM mechanics. Specifically, the ranges at which you can target an ECM cloaked mech. Greater than 180, but less than 200, increased by BAP and modules...it's not really a significantly useful counterplay mechanic, not to mention confusing and therefore un-newb-friendly to boot.

The proposed change: Line up the range at which you can target an ECM-cloaked mech (and his nearby friendlies) with the 180m "bubble." In addition, line up the counter range of BAP to 180 meters as well.

To clarify:

• If you are outside of the 180m bubble, you can't target any mech within the bubble unless that mech has been TAG'd, NARC'd, or PPC'd.
  
• If you are inside the 180m bubble, you can target all mechs within the bubble, but you aren't getting any missile locks on anyone while you're in there.
  
• BAP and advanced sensor modules do not increase the detection range of ECM cloaked mechs.
  
• BAP just needs to be "inside" the 180m bubble to negate ECM, rather than the 150m proposed in the Command Chair.

I know this may be a subtle buff to ECM, but I think this makes intuitive sense. ECM is a bubble of distortion, if we treat it like a hard barrier that needs to be pierced, it really simplifies the whole deal.

Where does that leave us?

• ECM now "properly" counters BAP and advanced sensor modules outside of the bubble (as nature intended), while BAP counters ECM while inside the bubble. This leaves options for interesting counterplay between the two, rather than BAP trumping ECM in all cases.
  
• ECM explanations are greatly simplified. 180m is the only range you need to worry about, ever.

A secondary concern: Due to ECM receiving a dedicated hardpoint, I really think BAP should as well. It's only fair, considering how powerful BAP is about to become. Then we would have ECM-capable mechs, BAP-capable mechs, and maybe a couple of valuable variants that can equip both.


A tertiary concern: Since BAP is turning into ECCM, the ECCM aspect of ECM could likely be removed. This might counterbalance the slight buff inherent in the suggestion.

Thoughts?

Note: I'm a medium pilot, I don't use ECM myself. I'm just looking for ways to decrease the bloated monstrosity that the ECM mechanic is becoming while still retaining the designed functionality.

[Mason Grimm]

Digging this. I was writing down this info during the podcast last night on NGNG and attempting to make sense of what it was done the way it was done then reading this post, a few diagrams on a napkin later, and viola!

I can safely say; I agree. I think.

[Syllogy]

It's designed to be an at-range scouting tool, not something meant to be used within brawling range.

WIth the BAP changes, this turns ECM into a scouting tool instead of a necessary brawling tool, and will allow many more Light Mechs to become more viable.

I don't think that the Counter mode will be removed. Since BAP mounted on a mech with ECM will not counter enemy ECM, I think it'll be interesting to see how it works.

Edited by Syllogy, 09 May 2013 - 07:53 AM.

[MajorChunks]

The removal of counter mode from ECM was just an aside, it makes no real difference to me personally if it stays or not . I completely agree with ECM being a scouting tool, and as such the complicated targeting range mechanics are just redundant if they are only applicable in a brawling scenario.

Edited by MajorChunks, 09 May 2013 - 08:43 AM.

[Kensaisama]

I disagree with Beagle Active probe countering ECM, per the tabletop rules and current implementation in game. in my thread http://mwomercs.com/...nd-ecm-changes/ I call for a reduction of ECM's effect rather than outright negation. The only thing that should negate ECM is ECM itself.

PGI in my belief has not implemented any EW feature correctly and I call upon them to rethink their current upcoming changes to EW. BAP is not strong enough or implemented correctly in my opinion, ECM is to strong and needs to be brought inline but not by making BAP negate ECM. Call me arrogant but this is how I feel, and feel strongly about. Developers are not perfect and they do make mistakes in judgement and implementation.

I do agree that the PPC changes are a nice touch and do fall in line with cannon/lore with its disrupting effect. NARC on the other hand and per TT rules and its current implementation is nullified in an ECM field and should stay that way.

The way I see it now is if you make BAP counter ECM, then ECM will become completely useless and no longer used, how you ask? Because every mech will be fitted with BAP. Not a direction I believe the Devs really want to go. I will admit that I have not tested whether or not BAP can be fitted to every single mech in game, but I have heard no reports to the contrary.

Thank you for your time.

Edited by Kensaisama, 09 May 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[MajorChunks]

I read your thread, and while a neat idea for BAP, I fear that it would make BAP incredibly overpowered while at the same time making ECM even more mandatory then it is now (although for different reasons). Teams will be paranoid to leave their ECM bubble, lest the (then-fixed) LRM rain come down upon them from an entire unseen enemy team - since they won't need LoS any more to spot targets. The game just degrades to Atlas D-DCs carrying missiles who don't leave the base, and Raven 3Ls with both ECM and BAP that go find a nice hill to sit behind and spot targets for free with no risk.

While I can agree that ECM might be doing like 2-to-many things, giving BAP anti-LoS powers will open a whole can of worms that I'm not sure we really want...

Regardless, what this thread is about is not the BAP changes - I'm taking those as given. All I want is to streamline the ECM mechanics themselves, and take out a couple of unnecessary complicated rules that aren't really needed.

[von Pilsner]

I would like to test the new BAP changes before deciding they are good or bad.

I don't really see the need for a dedicated BAP hardpoint, just use normal crit slots like everything else (assuming BAP can be equipped on every mech).

[Kensaisama]

I see your point.

However the anti-LOS as you call it only conveys that information to the battlemap, it will in no way shape or form give you targeting telemetry to fire anything at unless you or a friendly has actual LOS, so in essence you will still need spotters to get LOS for telemetry information and TAG targets for LRM fire. As for the huddle under the ECM umbrella, I did mention the more prolific use of Artillary strike and Air strike mods, clustered mechs make for good bombardment targets. I believe if anything it will promote more combat, you activate BAP, find the enemy and move to engage. Scouts will still be needed to find that cluster of mechs under an ECM umbrella, albeit a reduced one per my suggestion.

Edited by Kensaisama, 09 May 2013 - 11:02 AM.