185 replies to this topic

[Mechi Messer]

DDCs with XL are ******, I know, but the fact that I encountered quite a few of them shooting missiles recently is an indicator how hard people try to bring missiles to the battlefield because they have become so powerful. Don't get me wrong, I don't want missiles to be nerfed. In fact I'm more or less happy with the balancing now. I just have a bad feeling about nerfing ecm because it makes missiles too powerful I think.

[Kjudoon]

StalaggtIKE, on 28 May 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

Perhaps coupled with decreased LRM tracking?


Now you're just trying to hard. LT has only 12 slots. With an XL engine and ECM that leaves you with only enough for 35 missiles tops. Hardly a threat.

Right. LRM tracking isn't bad enough.

[Ngamok]

StalaggtIKE, on 22 May 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

If you're allowed to keep TAG on ECM target long enough for LRM to hit then you're playing in average to low ELO bracket.

See this is what I was going to say. If I am in my Stalker 5M (which has 2 TAG btw one in each arm in case I lose one arm) and I am TAGing someone with LOS to hit them with LRMs, I am taking PPC + AC/5 fire in my face in return. There is absolutely no way I will be allowed to sit there and TAG an Atlas or whatever I am trying to TAG at <750m and not get cored. My 5x LRM10s or 4x LRM15s won't be enough to kill something as fast as what I am getting thrown back at me in return.

[StalaggtIKE]

Mechi Messer, on 28 May 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

DDCs with XL are ******, I know, but the fact that I encountered quite a few of them shooting missiles recently is an indicator how hard people try to bring missiles to the battlefield because they have become so powerful. Don't get me wrong, I don't want missiles to be nerfed. In fact I'm more or less happy with the balancing now. I just have a bad feeling about nerfing ecm because it makes missiles too powerful I think.

My point is a XL DDC is one of the worst possible way to "boat missiles", as even a Raven could pack more.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 28 May 2014 - 11:02 AM.

[Tesunie]

Mizeur, on 27 May 2014 - 10:18 PM, said:

Pulled them from the MWO Gamepedia which uses info from the original changelog posted when ECM was patched in.

Are you sure? Because those numbers seem... old... I'm now double checking on Smurfy which is updated with the current game files from my knowledge. (I don't recall what numbers you used, so I'm just posting what Smurfy says.)

Smurfy says: http://mwo.smurfy-ne.../#module_normal
ECM: Range 180m.
It also says that it shuts down locking abilities within 180m.
BAP apparently starts to ECCM at 120m range, unless you have advanced sensor range as well, which increase this range (from my understanding).

Also, it says it cloaks friendly mechs within 180m (actually uses the term cloak), and on top of that cloak it also increases missile lock speed by 50% (think almost twice as long to get a lock) and target information gathering by 25%.

Any one of these factors (cloak or slowed down information gathering) would have been nice by itself. Together? Seems a bit too much. (And by bit, I mean only a little. I'm not saying it's super powerful, but it is STRONG.)

Mechi Messer, on 28 May 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

Just a question: Why on earth does anyone even consider ECM to be OP?
ECM is making the game playable at the moment. Nerfing ECM would change it into an even bigger lrmfest.
Look at all the builds out there. Almost every mech with a misslehardpoint carries lrms nowadays. I see DDCs with xl-engines just to fling more explosive poo arround. Maybe, MAYBE it's not the best Idea to mess around with the only viable counter to lrms.
Someone mentioned the "current meta-builds" of Spiders and Ravens. I've played this game since the end of open beta and these builds were always "meta". These are best countered by other lights oder fast mediums like it's supposed to be, NOT by missleboats. Missleboats should die horribly against a spider outside tagrange when it comes to a 1on1 situation. Not because I hate missleboats so much but because missleboats shouldn't be the swiss-army-knife of mechs. Maybe I'm getting a bit silly now but in my opinion they should have weaknesses. The negative effect of ecm is one.
Spiders and Ravens with ecm can still be hit by lasers. Even big boys can do that if the lightmech is caught off guard or in a fight with other lights.

Okay. Even without ECM, try hitting a light with LRMs. They still tend to drive nose first into the ground...

What I think could be altered to LRMs would be to increase the spread of the missiles when it is fired in a indirect manner. This should help to bring them back in line, and make them more potent in a direct fire mode. (You want to hide and shoot indirection, you still can, but you wont be as effective as one who is getting his own locks.) I also feel that the target decay module could use to be changed, and target decay in general decreased overall. Let the locks be lost faster, as NARC is now here to help with better lock on "decay" (for lack of a better term right now).

There are ways to change LRMs besides speed. I feel that their speed is fairly nice where it sits right now. It still takes a while to go any real distance, and they can still be dodged (and they are as far as I know still the slowest moving weapon in the game).

The old "meta" for ECM lights was to load up on SSRMs and med (pulse) lasers, close in, and shut down enemy LRMs/SSRMs and kill. It has been shifting with some of the new ECM counters into a "I'm a smaller target, so I'll stay far back so ECM can't be counted and shoot". There is nothing wrong with this light "meta" either. (I once had a spider with only an ERPPC and a TAG. Most of the match, I would just sit someplace high and hopefully behind the enemy and would just TAG. I would try to deal no damage myself so I didn't give away my position, and watch as the LRMs rained on people who couldn't figure out why they were still hitting. Gave me no rewards back then, so I changed the build. This was back when it was 8v8 and LRMs were not very popular. So, most games, I had to rely only on the ERPPC to do anything...)

[Koniks]

Tesunie, on 28 May 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

Are you sure? Because those numbers seem... old... I'm now double checking on Smurfy which is updated with the current game files from my knowledge. (I don't recall what numbers you used, so I'm just posting what Smurfy says.)

Smurfy says: http://mwo.smurfy-ne.../#module_normal
ECM: Range 180m.
It also says that it shuts down locking abilities within 180m.
BAP apparently starts to ECCM at 120m range, unless you have advanced sensor range as well, which increase this range (from my understanding).

Also, it says it cloaks friendly mechs within 180m (actually uses the term cloak), and on top of that cloak it also increases missile lock speed by 50% (think almost twice as long to get a lock) and target information gathering by 25%.

Any one of these factors (cloak or slowed down information gathering) would have been nice by itself. Together? Seems a bit too much. (And by bit, I mean only a little. I'm not saying it's super powerful, but it is STRONG.)

Those numbers are in line with what's on the Gamepedia. Which is why I suggested removing the cloaking/stealth feature, boosting the low signal strength radius to 2-3x as wide, and bumping up BAP a bit to compensate.

As for long range light snipers: their weapons do acceptable damage beyond standard sensor range as is. They don't need ECM stealth for that job.

[IraqiWalker]

StalaggtIKE, on 28 May 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

Perhaps coupled with decreased LRM tracking?


Now you're just trying to hard. LT has only 12 slots. With an XL engine and ECM that leaves you with only enough for 35 missiles tops. Hardly a threat.

It's a serious threat to the team they are on, and I've seen that before, many many times.

The Atlas DDC isn't the crutch of his argument, it's just an example.

Ngamok, on 28 May 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

See this is what I was going to say. If I am in my Stalker 5M (which has 2 TAG btw one in each arm in case I lose one arm) and I am TAGing someone with LOS to hit them with LRMs, I am taking PPC + AC/5 fire in my face in return. There is absolutely no way I will be allowed to sit there and TAG an Atlas or whatever I am trying to TAG at <750m and not get cored. My 5x LRM10s or 4x LRM15s won't be enough to kill something as fast as what I am getting thrown back at me in return.

That's part of the risk of spotting for your self when you are in an assault LRM boat. That's why we have lights that spot for you, and carry TAG, because they usually like running Streaks as well. If your 20+ meters Stalker tries to get locks by itself, everyone from here to Timbuktu will see you. That's why you let the smaller lights that are about less than half your height do the spotting.

I've made it a rule of thumb to almost never mount TAG on my LRM boats. My BLR-1S runs 2LRM15+2LRM10+4MLs.

Mizeur, on 28 May 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

As for long range light snipers: their weapons do acceptable damage beyond standard sensor range as is. They don't need ECM stealth for that job.

Actually for snipers, stealth is the most important element. That's why when they fire, they usually pick a spot and a time when their shots cannot be heard, and they an't be seen easily (hence why their rifles never stick out of a window). A proper sniper needs stealth. I would honestly say they need stealth armor, not ECM. However, we don't have stealth armor yet, so we'll take the next best thing.

Also, a light sniper can only hope to deal 10 damage per shot, at best. the 2LL raven, can't deal respectable damage beyond 800 meters. The ERPPC on a spider or COM-2D is the only real sniper weapon, weighs 7 tons (almost half the weight of the mech right there, generates insane heat, in a mech that doesn't have the heatsinks to deal with it, and deals at best 10 damage.

Compare that to a single sniping shot from a CTF-3D, dealing 30 damage a pop with 2PPCs+2AC5s. Light snipers don't even deal half that damage (with the exception of 2 ERLL under 600 meters, so not in sniping range)

[Tesunie]

Mizeur, on 28 May 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Those numbers are in line with what's on the Gamepedia. Which is why I suggested removing the cloaking/stealth feature, boosting the low signal strength radius to 2-3x as wide, and bumping up BAP a bit to compensate.

As for long range light snipers: their weapons do acceptable damage beyond standard sensor range as is. They don't need ECM stealth for that job.

I thought you said something about 200m... but I'm not infallible, I just always blame someone else instead. (It's his fault!)

Sensor ranges are between 850m (standard) to 1000m (BAP + Increased Sensor Range Module). Very few weapons are truly "effective" outside 1000m. ECM is a much larger support for a sniper build than for most other builds, even a Brawler (who would use it to close into range with the target). ECM helps cover the sniper when he is sitting between 600-800m, which I feel is the average engagement ranges for a sniper mech.

I feel that your suggested changes to ECM would be more detrimental to not only ECM, but to it's counters as well. BAP shouldn't turn off ECM too early. ECM should provide some stealth effect (I could even see locks on an ECM shielded mech not being able to be shared with teammates, but still lockable. This makes it so direct fired missiles can still lock and shoot). ECM also shouldn't shut down locking abilities at too great a distance either.

I think the cloak is, sadly, needed in the way this game plays. But there are ways it could be diminished and placed more inline to what it probably should be. Right now, it cloaks an ECM mech to any kind of lock on weaponry, which can negate an entire weapon type in the game. (Ever wondered why LRMs were not popular for a while there? They became a gamble weapon. "Can I use it this game? Can I not use it this game? Oops. They have a single Raven 3L with ECM... I'm useless." Of course, they have introduced several ECM counters now, which has helped.)

[IraqiWalker]

Tesunie, on 28 May 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

-Analysis-

I personally do want to see the current stealth field bubble disappear, but I haven't found a good replacement for it. I think the inability to share locks would be greatly favored as a replacement, since right now we're getting ECM+stealth armor for the price and size of the ECM suite. I want my stealth armor, in fact I want the 3100 era stealth armor upgrades. There is nothing I would love to do more than strap that on my commando and ghost around the field.

[Koniks]

IraqiWalker, on 28 May 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Actually for snipers, stealth is the most important element...

Compare that to a single sniping shot from a CTF-3D, dealing 30 damage a pop with 2PPCs+2AC5s. Light snipers don't even deal half that damage (with the exception of 2 ERLL under 600 meters, so not in sniping range)

And the snipers can already hit with acceptable damage from outside sensor detection range without ECM stealth. ECM stealth just means mean they can do so from much closer without any fear of return fire. Unlike your CTF example, which has to be within sensor range and exposed to some return fire, even if it's only during a jump, to deal legit damage.

Tesunie, on 28 May 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

I thought you said something about 200m.

I did. That's the range at which ECM mechs are detectable using standard sensors and no BAP. You can get missile locks between 180m-200m.

Quote

Sensor ranges are between 850m (standard) to 1000m (BAP + Increased Sensor Range Module). Very few weapons are truly "effective" outside 1000m.

True. But the ERPPC does full damage at 850m and almost full damage at 1000m. The ERLL does >75% of its damage at 850m and is still doing damage at 1000m.

I fully acknowledge how useful ECM stealth is as a crutch. But the game mechanics already limit sensor ability and provide opportunities to snipe without it.

Quote

I think the cloak is, sadly, needed in the way this game plays.

Full stealth should come at the cost of 14 crit spaces like Endosteel and Ferrofibrous, not 1.5 tons and 2 crit spaces.

Edited by Mizeur, 28 May 2014 - 01:32 PM.

[Just wanna play]

focuspark, on 22 May 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

make is no brainer when designing a layout. This is a problem. No other component of module is so compelling that if you can fit it, you will fit it.

.......what about an engine?

[IraqiWalker]

Mizeur, on 28 May 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

And the snipers can already hit with acceptable damage from outside sensor detection range without ECM stealth. ECM stealth just means mean they can do so from much closer without any fear of return fire. Unlike your CTF example, which has to be within sensor range and exposed to some return fire, even if it's only during a jump, to deal legit damage.

My example was specifically based on a cataphract hitting at over 900 meters. Where no sensors can see it, and it will deal crazy damage compared to the damage of a light sniper.

Mizeur, on 28 May 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

Full stealth should come at the cost of 14 crit spaces like Endosteel and Ferrofibrous, not 1.5 tons and 2 crit spaces.

Actually it should come at a cost of 7 slots, not 14. Stealth armor occupied 7 slots only+ECM if I am not mistaken. Most mechs will still not be able to run ECM even when it's at 7 slots, since lights don't have enough space for much of anything if they want to mount more than 2 MLs.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 28 May 2014 - 01:41 PM.

[focuspark]

Just wanna play, on 28 May 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

.......what about an engine?

Engine is a required component, but the rating is the variable, which is inherently balanced by weight. Nice straw-man - why didn't you choose something even more lame like the cockpit?

[Tesunie]

focuspark, on 28 May 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

Engine is a required component, but the rating is the variable, which is inherently balanced by weight. Nice straw-man - why didn't you choose something even more lame like the cockpit?

Okay... A gyro! And Actuators. We can't forget about them...

(PS: I think he may have been joking there... can't tell... But I can tell you I AM joking. )

[Just wanna play]

lol of course I was joking around (straw man?)

[Tesunie]

Just wanna play, on 28 May 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

lol of course I was joking around (straw man?)

Strawman.

[Wildstreak]

Tesunie, on 28 May 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

Okay. Even without ECM, try hitting a light with LRMs. They still tend to drive nose first into the ground...

What I think could be altered to LRMs would be to increase the spread of the missiles when it is fired in a indirect manner. This should help to bring them back in line, and make them more potent in a direct fire mode.

I hope they test people making their own arcs for Indirect Fire ala MW2.

[Just wanna play]

Tesunie, on 28 May 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

Strawman.

but but my teachers say Wikipedia badddddd

[Tesunie]

Merchant, on 28 May 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

I hope they test people making their own arcs for Indirect Fire ala MW2.

Though I played MW2... I don't get what you are saying here... Farther explanation please? (I'm probably just being dense... again...)
Are you meaning, "get a lock, fire, and then swing your reticule up as high as it can as fast as you can to give your LRMs an indirect arc"? Could be nice, but with how we have to hold locks, and everything comes out in one "burst", the current missile system would not be compatible with this concept. (Please correct me if I am incorrect with what you are meaning.)

Just wanna play, on 28 May 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

but but my teachers say Wikipedia badddddd

It can be... but for a general purpose it's alright. (There were other sites with the same information when I did a google search for "Strawman debate" (or something like that). I'd say it's fairly accurate.)

[IraqiWalker]

Just wanna play, on 28 May 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

but but my teachers say Wikipedia badddddd

There are two things Wikipedia is good at. BS, and video games.