99 replies to this topic

[Modo44]

No. Allowing ECM on a Jenner would remove any incentive to play other lights.

[Dimento Graven]

******** I wanted to say NO so bad, but, to be fair... Yeah, at the very least this should be looked at again, dang it...

[xCico]

K version only, I think you all know why

[Dimento Graven]

Wow... Reading some of these responses makes me laugh considering the 'mechs that HAVE ECM...

Commando
Spider
Raven
Cicada
Atlas

Honestly Jenners are easier to take out than Ravens and FAR easier than Spiders. The only thing ECM does is block missile locks, and even without ECM most good Jenner pilots I've shot at know how to avoid almost all missile salvos fired their way to the point, I fire one salvo and wait to see how the pilot responds, if they respond poorly, more salvos, if not, F it, bring on the beam and ballistics weapons, ammo is to damn expensive to waste that way...

At this point in time I think enough pilots have learned enough about aiming at fast moving small targets to mitigate a Jenner with ECM.

Yes, absolutely if PGI were to put one out today, you'd have a massive rush of everyone getting/equipping their Jenner with it and you'd see hordes of them, then after two weeks and the "new" has worn off and we've proven that we CAN kill them almost as easily as before, things will calm down and you'll have what we have today, only with a few different ECM capable Jenners.

I would like to see a few medium and heavy 'mechs with ECM hard points, but that's just me...

[Kunae]

Deathlike, on 14 August 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

After playing the Jenner-K, I'm not in favor of the ECM idea... despite it being just ridiculously beneficial if I wanted it to happen.

In sum, it would literally displace the Raven-3L (if it hadn't already)... and I don't mean in hardpoints (4e+1m vs 3e+2m), but in terms of mobility for its module power.

Then we should take it away from the spider-5D, if that's your reasoning.

[Kunae]

Btw, the only reason it wasn't put on the Jenner originally:

At the end of CB, PGI(Paul) in their infinite wisdom, chose to remove knockdowns. This caused an explosion of light mechs, just as large influx of players happened. Being that the Jenner was the most heavily armed of the lights, meant that its population grew substantially.

Understandably, people got pissed at the poor hit detection and proliferation of Jenners because of these two items. This created a level of angst and hatred, beyond reasonable levels, which carries forward, even to today.

This is PGI's fault. Not the Jenners, not the people who played Jenners. Only PGI. They created that mess, through their choices, then didn't fix it... even to this point.

Please stop using an irrational bias, which was artificially created by PGI, as a "justification" as to why Jenners shouldn't be given something they should have had 9 months ago.

[Deathlike]

Kunae, on 15 August 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

Then we should take it away from the spider-5D, if that's your reasoning.

The 5D only has 3 module slots (5V has 4), and doesn't have the same tonnage benefits that the Jenner has over the Spider. Both Spider+Jenner could go faster w/o the speed cap in place (I'm unsure which would benefit more though)... but the Spider-5D has 3e hardpoints vs the Jenner-K's 4e+1m.

The details matter.

Edited by Deathlike, 15 August 2013 - 07:30 AM.

[Kunae]

Deathlike, on 15 August 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

The 5D only has 3 module slots (5V has 4), and doesn't have the same tonnage benefits that the Jenner has over the Spider. The details matter.

And the Atlas DDC has a huge tonnage benefit over all of the other ECM mechs. Module slots too.

The decision to not give Jenners ECM, like they had originally planned to, was irrational, as I detailed in the post before yours.

It's long overdue to provide Jenners with ECM. I'd be satisfied with even a "self-only" version.

[Dimento Graven]

Deathlike, on 15 August 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

The 5D only has 3 module slots (5V has 4), and doesn't have the same tonnage benefits that the Jenner has over the Spider. Both Spider+Jenner could go faster w/o the speed cap in place (I'm unsure which would benefit more though)... but the Spider-5D has 3e hardpoints vs the Jenner-K's 4e+1m.

The details matter.

Knowing what 4 modules I have in my Raven3L and Atlas DDC, I can't figure out what the 4th module slot would give a Jenner that would be so ingloriously OP.

Can you elaborate on that?

[Kunae]

Dimento Graven, on 15 August 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

Knowing what 4 modules I have in my Raven3L and Atlas DDC, I can't figure out what the 4th module slot would give a Jenner that would be so ingloriously OP.

Can you elaborate on that?

Well,... Advanced Zoom, of course!

[Deathlike]

Kunae, on 15 August 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

And the Atlas DDC has a huge tonnage benefit over all of the other ECM mechs. Module slots too.

Sure, but the difference is that PPCs have no problem hitting Atlases than it does for any light mech. Any ECM nerf hurts Atlases more than any other mech (I've been saying this a little prior to the ECM hardpoint decision).

Quote

The decision to not give Jenners ECM, like they had originally planned to, was irrational, as I detailed in the post before yours.

It's long overdue to provide Jenners with ECM. I'd be satisfied with even a "self-only" version.

It's not irrational... it would be overwhelming dominance. I speak from loving Jenners (ALL variants, including the K). Unless we have reached that point that the Jenner is not the dominant light mech (Spiders being seen more due to poor HSR and possibly hitboxes), it is not possible to for me to change my mind on that.

[Dimento Graven]

Kunae, on 15 August 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

Well,... Advanced Zoom, of course!

LOL, I've never loaded THAT one in any of my ECM 'mechs, but I'll try it to see how "OP" it makes me!

Deathlike, on 15 August 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

...
It's not irrational... it would be overwhelming dominance. I speak from loving Jenners (ALL variants, including the K). Unless we have reached that point that the Jenner is not the dominant light mech (Spiders being seen more due to poor HSR and possibly hitboxes), it is not possible to for me to change my mind on that.

I disagree, but you might be able to convince me. Elaborate on your reasoning for that, please.

[Deathlike]

Dimento Graven, on 15 August 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

Knowing what 4 modules I have in my Raven3L and Atlas DDC, I can't figure out what the 4th module slot would give a Jenner that would be so ingloriously OP.

Can you elaborate on that?

There's plenty to choose from.

Capture Accelerator (useful on all modes, even if you don't plan to cap on Assault)
Target Decay (missile boat spotting and/or slight location tracking)
360 Target Retention (though not for me)
Target Info Gathering (assuming BAP is not in use)
UAV (very useful in higher level play, and missile boating)
Seismic Sensor (still useful after nerf)
Sensor Range (stacks with BAP)

It's not a tough list to crack.

Edited by Deathlike, 15 August 2013 - 07:38 AM.

[Kunae]

Deathlike, on 15 August 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

Sure, but the difference is that PPCs have no problem hitting Atlases than it does for any light mech. Any ECM nerf hurts Atlases more than any other mech (I've been saying this a little prior to the ECM hardpoint decision).

It's not irrational... it would be overwhelming dominance. I speak from loving Jenners (ALL variants, including the K). Unless we have reached that point that the Jenner is not the dominant light mech (Spiders being seen more due to poor HSR and possibly hitboxes), it is not possible to for me to change my mind on that.

That was not a rational reason to deny them ECM in the first place, and even less-so now.

There was no reason to give DDC's ECM, in the first place. Nor the Cicada 3M, when it came out.

[DegeneratePervert]

No. The Jenner is the best light already. They should have given ECM to underpowered chassis only.

[Dimento Graven]

Deathlike, on 15 August 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

There's plenty to choose from.

Capture Accelerator
Target Decay
360 Target Retention (though not for me)
Target Info Gathering (assuming BAP is not in use)
UAV
Seismic Sensor (still useful after nerf)
Sensor Range (stacks with BAP)

It's not a tough list to crack.

Yes, but which of those as a '4th' module in a Jenner would make it 'OP'?

In my ECM capable 'mechs I by default have the following:
Adv Sensor Range
Adv Seismic
Adv Target Gathering

If it has a 4th slot, I typically load up:
Either Target Decay, or 360 retention, depending on the rest of the 'mechs load out (the raven gets the 360 retention for maintaining streak lock, the Atlas gets Decay for LRM lock).

When I pilot those 'mechs I rarely end the match standing on a pile of my slain enemies, sometimes, not always, so I don't see where a 4th module slot becomes a reason to deny a Jenner ECM.

So specificity please, which of the module choices would make an ECM capable Jenner, OP, if it were loaded in a 4th slot?

[Kunae]

DegeneratePervert, on 15 August 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

No. The Jenner is the best light already. They should have given ECM to underpowered chassis only.

But they didn't.

The Commando 2D was never underpowered, and neither was the Raven 3L. The DDC has always been a great atlas, and one of the best assaults. The Cicada 3M is armed the same as the Jenner K, with the option to have a ballistic instead of the 1 missile slot, and with more armor.

Choosing which mechs should get ECM should not be balanced according to the current meta. As we all should know, by now, PGi shifts that, unwittingly, whenever the wind happens to blow N/NE and a sparrow sings outside their window.

[Deathlike]

Dimento Graven, on 15 August 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

I disagree, but you might be able to convince me. Elaborate on your reasoning for that, please.

One of the major changes that made my decision to switch from a Raven-3L (which I started the very early part of the game from) to a Jenner was the movement change. Although the Raven is only "slightly behind" the Jenner, JJ mobility is a top priority for the simple purpose of getting to where I need to go... but also to slow/stop a cap. The only comparable mech that does this is the Spider, but the Spider does not hold the same offensive mobility that a Jenner can hold. The Spider-5V is the inferior build (but a great zombie candidate with a Standard engine), the 5D is the strongest, but lacking in energy based firepower compared to the Jenner, and although the 5K is the newest MG toy for trolling, it still requires a hole being punched into the mech's armor before it takes over (one energy hardpoint with an ER Large or LPL will take a while to crack).

Even the Jenner-K has a decided advantage over practically all of the light mechs (and Cicada) as currently constituted. This may change in the future, but in higher level play, the Jenner with a small nod to the 3L and the Spider-5D (because of ECM) is consistently viable in higher level play.

Edited by Deathlike, 15 August 2013 - 07:47 AM.

[Deathlike]

Dimento Graven, on 15 August 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Yes, but which of those as a '4th' module in a Jenner would make it 'OP'?

UAV.

Although missile boating has been kinda laughed at in the sense that it has multiple requirement to succeed, the UAV is the device that allows missile boaters to be semi-relevant in the high sniper meta. Not everyone has caught onto this. Even if it wasn't used for spotting, it's an ECM counter that has value... still it has its drawbacks (and recurring cost), but even the devs have "correctly" hinted at this usefulness. After playing a # of 8 and 12 mans, the value of this device is optimal for a heavy missile boating force... especially when shrouded with ECM.

Of course, it has relatively weak value in PUG play.. unless your team is full of missile boats...

[Dimento Graven]

Deathlike, on 15 August 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

One of the major changes that made my decision to switch from a Raven-3L (which I started the very early part of the game from) to a Jenner was the movement change. Although the Raven is only "slightly behind" the Jenner, JJ mobility is a top priority for the simple purpose of getting to where I need to go... but also to slow/stop a cap. The only comparable mech that does this is the Spider, but the Spider does not hold the same offensive mobility that a Jenner can hold. The Spider-5V is the inferior build (but a great zombie candidate with a Standard engine), the 5D is the strongest, but lacking in energy based firepower compared to the Jenner, and although the 5K is the newest MG toy for trolling, it still requires a hole being punched into the mech's armor before it takes over (one energy hardpoint with an ER Large or LPL will take a while to crack).

Even the Jenner-K has a decided advantage over practically all of the light mechs (and Cicada) as currently constituted. This may change in the future, but in higher level play, the Jenner with a small nod to the 3L and the Spider-5D (because of ECM) is consistently viable in higher level play.

You've done a great job describing the advantages of the Jenner as you see it, but I don't see how that makes an ECM capable Jenner 'OP'. It might have a few people switch from Spiders and Ravens, those that can't take advantage of the smaller profiles (or busted hit detection/hit boxes) and need the additional armor the Jenner allows, but currently I feel, having driven Jenners, Ravens, Spiders, Cicadas, and Atlas ECM capable variants that my preference would be to stick with the Raven 3L when it came to driving a light 'mech with ECM.

The profile is sufficiently more difficult to hit that often I'm surviving much longer than most Jenner pilots in my average match and I know that BAP and counter ECM has whittled down, significantly (though admittedly, not completely), the advantage of ECM.

Deathlike, on 15 August 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

AV.

Although missile boating has been kinda laughed at in the sense that it has multiple requirement to succeed, the UAV is the device that allows missile boaters to be semi-relevant in the high sniper meta. Not everyone has caught onto this. Even if it wasn't used for spotting, it's an ECM counter that has value... still it has its drawbacks (and recurring cost), but even the devs have "correctly" hinted at this usefulness. After playing a # of 8 and 12 mans, the value of this device is optimal for a heavy missile boating force... especially when shrouded with ECM.

Of course, it has relatively weak value in PUG play.. unless your team is full of missile boats...

Interesting view point, but currently ANY ECM capable 'mech can load that, it wouldn't be unique to a Jenner with 4 module slots...

So again, we're back to, I'm not seeing what would make an ECM capable Jenner so much more OP than any other ECM capable 'mech...