221 replies to this topic

[VanillaG]

Livewyr, on 13 September 2014 - 05:33 AM, said:

I am building a Survey (Survey Monkey) in order to gain a picture regarding ECM and LRMs.

Anyone have suggestions on unbiased questions to help nail down the primary feelings and points regarding the two systems?

The only affect ECM has on LRMs/SSRms is that it prevents then from getting a lock. All of the other discussion about direct and indirect fire are better handled in a different discussion about how LRMs work.

[IceSerpent]

VanillaG, on 13 September 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

The only affect ECM has on LRMs/SSRms is that it prevents then from getting a lock. All of the other discussion about direct and indirect fire are better handled in a different discussion about how LRMs work.

It's not that simple - if you just change ECM so that it doesn't prevent LRM locks and leave everything else untouched, LRM indirect fire would become OP, while TAG would become fairly useless. I don't see a way to fix one component of that whole "electronic warfare" system without touching the others.

[Lynx7725]

IceSerpent, on 13 September 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

It's not that simple - if you just change ECM so that it doesn't prevent LRM locks and leave everything else untouched, LRM indirect fire would become OP.

I seriously doubt it.

[Livewyr]

VanillaG, on 13 September 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

The only affect ECM has on LRMs/SSRms is that it prevents then from getting a lock.

That effect alone shuts them down.
Streaks cannot fire without lock.
LRMs cannot fire remotely accurately without lock. (Best chance is a slow moving assault at 200-300 meters.)

[IceSerpent]

Lynx7725, on 13 September 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

I seriously doubt it.

Why? If ECM doesn't prevent locks and everything else remains the same, all you need for LRM IDF is somebody on your team having LOS to target (they don't need to do anything at all, just be in a position with LOS). As soon as that happens, you can just fire LRMs from a safe spot behind some rock.

[VanillaG]

IceSerpent, on 13 September 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

Why? If ECM doesn't prevent locks and everything else remains the same, all you need for LRM IDF is somebody on your team having LOS to target (they don't need to do anything at all, just be in a position with LOS). As soon as that happens, you can just fire LRMs from a safe spot behind some rock.

While this might not be the correct thread to throw around hypotheticals you could change ECM to reduce the range and increase the amount of time in which you can get a lock. For the player that is not running around in the open it could be very hard, but not impossible to get a lock. For a player in the open they would still get rained on given enough exposure to a spotter.

Livewyr, on 13 September 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

That effect alone shuts them down.
Streaks cannot fire without lock.
LRMs cannot fire remotely accurately without lock. (Best chance is a slow moving assault at 200-300 meters.)

Totally agree and we should focus on that aspect, not the whole direct/indirect ways LRMs fire. Any solution should take into account how LRMs work but should not require any change in how LRMs work other than maybe tweaking some values.

[Abivard]

ECM should prevent locks!
ECM however should not make the mech invisible!

ECM unless countered by TAG/BAP/CECM/PPC/NARC should prevent locks from being acquired, how ever if that ECM covered-mech is in LOS then it should be able to be targeted, if targeted it's position should show on mini map and battle maps. ECM does not counter the good old MK1 Eyeball, issue 2 each. Our mechs certainly have basic visual ID systems available to them.

Information about the mechs condition is not known by targeting mech nor shared , just the variant name and letter designation.

A rather simple and elegant solution. is it not so?

ps if your weapon crosshair is not on the ECM mech, then it would not show hollow triangle, your crosshair is on ECM covered mech, you hit target key, that mech should then be targeted, and as above.

Edited by Abivard, 13 September 2014 - 12:03 PM.

[Lynx7725]

IceSerpent, on 13 September 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

If ECM doesn't prevent locks and everything else remains the same, all you need for LRM IDF is somebody on your team having LOS to target (they don't need to do anything at all, just be in a position with LOS). As soon as that happens, you can just fire LRMs from a safe spot behind some rock.

My experience is mostly on solo queues. I've seen games go either way with or without ECM. Teams that managed to utilize ECM offensively (i.e., sneak forward and attack) wins more, while teams that don't typically just extends their agony under LRMs.

ECM might in theory provide a safety umbrella, but individual movement, terrain, etc. will conspire to give a good LRM specialist shots on target. And if they're all hunkered down in one tight group that's good also, since they aren't doing any aggressive movement and they are all stuck together in one big artillery target (which doesn't care about ECM). They cede the initiative to the other team and usually that ends in a big hammering. Also, practically, terrain mask more target opportunities, than ECM ever would.

When you talk of teammates getting locks, it's not so straightforward either. Getting locks is only part of the equation. Holding the locks long enough for LRMs to be effective is the other. The majority of players don't know how to hold locks, or just don't out of self-preservation; LRM engagement outside of 700m (from the shooter) is hit and miss with mechs easily breaking locks by interposing concealing terrain in between the spotter and themselves. It's when a match enter the pre-brawl engagement range that locks become steady and plentiful. But by then, the direct fire and brawl mechs are already closing, and LRMs just serve to assist in cracking the eggs open.

LRMs really just punishes the unwary and the careless. ECM in effect gives more room for error for pilots and IMO makes them complacent and careless. Removing the ECM effect may be better in the long run, since it forces more pilots to step up and become better.

LRMs are a team weapon. The proper tactical solution to that weapon system is individual skill in using terrain to mask an approach and tactical team play. ECM builds on top of that. Without ECM, the good won't be bothered by LRMs, the bad would still eat LRMs. The middle of the road would either be slightly inconvenienced, or drop into the bad category because of the bad habits they picked up over time.

And in Group queues.. my understanding is that LRMs decrease in effectiveness in group queues. So shrug.

Would taking away ECM lock denial increase LRM effectiveness? Possibly. I just doubt it'll make LRMs OP (because you need to go a long way to make LRMs OP). OTOH, you may end up increasing sniper effectiveness, because they can now lock up and see weak points, and use their long range direct fire to better effect.

[Abivard]

ps if your weapon crosshair is not on the ECM mech, then it would not show hollow triangle, your crosshair is on ECM covered mech, you hit target key, that mech should then be targeted, and as above.

Edited by Abivard, 13 September 2014 - 12:03 PM.

[Livewyr]

VanillaG, on 13 September 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

Totally agree and we should focus on that aspect, not the whole direct/indirect ways LRMs fire. Any solution should take into account how LRMs work but should not require any change in how LRMs work other than maybe tweaking some values.

The problem is that they are linked.

Without ECM on the field, LRMs can use IDF willy nilly and that is pretty much overpowered, especially on some maps, with their flight path. (That is why, I think, so many people feel ECM is ok.. it is protection from ridiculous LRM IDF.)

[Pjwned]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 September 2014 - 10:25 PM, said:

The issue as i see it is that in certain circumstances LRMs can be overly optimal when used indirect. Indirect fire means you are not exposing yourself for return fire..

When firing direct you have a much higher risk.

There is nothing wrong with an indirect fire system mind you but i feel that in some circumstances this becomes overwhelming and too far rewarded for the lack of risk.

If you're firing indirectly though then that means somebody is spotting for you in some way, and that means the spotter is exposed. Indirect fire is also often rewarded with your shots missing when somebody (either the spotter or the enemy) goes to take cover, you have to know when to fire based on the map layout and how long the mech has been targeted and what weight class it is and such, so considering that I don't think the reward is all that high unless you can catch a slow mech sitting out in the open or something.

Quote

All i am saying is the spread of the LRMs is much wider when fired indirect and then TAG/NARC etc would tighten it up - but when used direct it would be tight to start but when Artemis and TAG are used it should be extremely dangerous because you have brought all your tools AND you are exposing yourself to return fire unlike when hiding behind a hill.

Basically a greater ROI for direct and lesser ROI for indirect without making it useless for indiect flushing and harrassment

I can understand that but I'm not sure I agree with trying to further discourage indirect LRM fire.

[VanillaG]

Livewyr, on 13 September 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

The problem is that they are linked.

Without ECM on the field, LRMs can use IDF willy nilly and that is pretty much overpowered, especially on some maps, with their flight path. (That is why, I think, so many people feel ECM is ok.. it is protection from ridiculous LRM IDF.)

Except that it also prevents DF LRMs. If someone remains in LoS of a mech they deserve to get hammered by any weapon whether it is LRMs, lasers, or ballistics. You can structure ECM so it gives some AoE effects that makes it harder to get and maintain a lock but it should not be an on/off switch for missiles locks of any variety. You could have ECM counter the spread tightening of NARC and Artemis but still allow locks. It would degrade missiles but make them worthless.

[Pjwned]

El Bandito, on 13 September 2014 - 04:47 AM, said:

THe fact that LRMs take way longer time to lock than the advertised 50% lock increase of ECM, needs to be addressed.

What use is to have clear LoS and TAG on the ECM mech, if the lock takes so long that the enemy manages to go back behind cover?

I've seen this happen a number of times myself, I sit there for something ridiculous like 3-4 seconds (or maybe even longer) just trying to get a lock on them in plain sight and then they just run off behind cover without taking a single missile, the annoyance is practically limitless with that crap and it needs to be fixed. It might not be as bad with Artemis IV launcher(s) but I really hate the way Artemis IV is just automatically installed on every launcher and I don't like running heavier LRM boats so I just do without it.

[Pjwned]

Livewyr, on 13 September 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

The problem is that they are linked.

Without ECM on the field, LRMs can use IDF willy nilly and that is pretty much overpowered, especially on some maps, with their flight path. (That is why, I think, so many people feel ECM is ok.. it is protection from ridiculous LRM IDF.)

Maybe if people started using AMS more they wouldn't need ECM as a crutch so much.

[Livebait]

ECM is suppose to negate the effects of TAG & Artemis. So basically you get rained on by LRM's that are not tightly clustered to a single part. But all this has been discussed 8 trillion times before. Make ECM like it worked in TT. Reduce LRM speeds to around 140/145 max. Have a chance of some missiles not hitting.

Make AMS do its job by protecting the mech its on and have a switch to turn it on or off. Buff ammo to 1500 rounds. Lastly allow Streaks to be dumb fired. That is all good day...

[Wolfways]

Livebait, on 13 September 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

ECM is suppose to negate the effects of TAG & Artemis. So basically you get rained on by LRM's that are not tightly clustered to a single part. But all this has been discussed 8 trillion times before. Make ECM like it worked in TT. Reduce LRM speeds to around 140/145 max. Have a chance of some missiles not hitting.

Make AMS do its job by protecting the mech its on and have a switch to turn it on or off. Buff ammo to 1500 rounds. Lastly allow Streaks to be dumb fired. That is all good day...

While i agree with just about everything you said, i don't think LRM's need slowed down. At 160ms they are already the slowest projectile in the game and the missile warning (which should be removed imo) gives players more than enough time to get to cover.

[Mystere]

IceSerpent, on 12 September 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

I would add that hard counters in general constitute a bad design and should be avoided if at all possible. The reason why it's a bad design is that it doesn't play well with a random matchmaking - there's no guarantee that a random team will have all necessasy conters and counter-counters that it needs in a given match.

I totally disagree. You seem to be coming from an eSports perspective, where everything has to be "fair" and "equal". That's fine.

I, on the other hand, like uncertainty and the potential adversity that brings. If the players are good, they will be able to compensate for their equipment deficiencies with skill and teamwork.

I'm here to play "A BattleTech Game". "Fairness" and "equality" are the last things on my mind.

[Livebait]

Wolfways, on 13 September 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

While i agree with just about everything you said, i don't think LRM's need slowed down. At 160ms they are already the slowest projectile in the game and the missile warning (which should be removed imo) gives players more than enough time to get to cover.

Well, I kinda see it this way. If you start to mess with ECM you need to do some tweaking ( not twerking) to LRM's. They are highly linked. LRM's should be a suppression weapon system. Not a direct fire killing weapon IMHO. By reducing the speed you will make the enemy mech stop and move for cover. Not getting cored. As is the normal these day.

The speed reduction will also help with the boating situation since more of your missiles are likely not to hit you should have a laser or to for augmentation. Just my thoughts.

[Wolfways]

Livebait, on 13 September 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

Well, I kinda see it this way. If you start to mess with ECM you need to do some tweaking ( not twerking) to LRM's. They are highly linked. LRM's should be a suppression weapon system. Not a direct fire killing weapon IMHO. By reducing the speed you will make the enemy mech stop and move for cover. Not getting cored. As is the normal these day.

The speed reduction will also help with the boating situation since more of your missiles are likely not to hit you should have a laser or to for augmentation. Just my thoughts.

Well...i guess i just don't see them that way. I see them (or rather want to see them) as they are in TT. A direct-fire weapon that is as viable as any other weapon, that also has the ability to be fired indirect. Tbh though I'm not bothered if indirect-fire is nerfed.

[Wolfways]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

I'm here to play "A BattleTech Game". "Fairness" and "equality" are the last things on my mind.

"A BattleTech Game" where things do the opposite, and much more, of what they do in "BattleTech"?