39 replies to this topic

[Blackavar]

I'm probably about to make an unpopular statement regarding TAG, might put people's noses out of joint a little - sorry if it does, not my intention to annoy, just wanted to make a point I felt was relevant and hadn't seen on here yet.

With the best will in the world, and even picking a mech on which mounting TAG is not going to degrade it's firepower or some other aspect of it's performance significantly, I've found that the (next to) last thing I want to do in a lumbering assault mech packed with LRMs is stand out in the open for the entire time my weapon payload is on it's way to target.

No match in which I've taken my LRM60 STK-5S recently has gone well for me. If I've not taken TAG, I've had to settle for pot-shots at enemies who've accidentally moved out from ECM cover. Fair enough. I kind of expected that.

If I've taken TAG, and had to use it, I've lasted no time at all. To be in range of said targeting system and therefore able to get lock I've generally been exposed to direct fire from several members of the enemy team for long enough - once I've included my attempt to retreat back into whatever cover I was able to stand near - to strip armour off pretty much all my front torso locations. My second salvo is usually death-by-return-fire.

Admittedly I'm not the best pilot out there, but I'm not rubbish, I do know how to manoeuvre and I get to cover ASAP once I've scored my hits. Possibly my problem is that I'm often PUGging and therefore cannot rely on people deploying UAVs, or actually engaging in a manner that doesn't just get them massacred against an ECM-cloaked team, so I'm having to stand exposed and noticeable by unengaged enemies.

I definitely like the ECM modification proposed by SpiralFace - seems well thought-out and balanced with PGI's desire (need?) to not tear down half the targeting mechanics in the game. Not so sure about some of the 'Bah, just use TAG on mechs using LRMs, problem solved' replies that are appearing. Not saying they're wrong, maybe they're better players than me and can nip out of cover then TAG and LRM things with relative impunity, but my experience has been nothing like that.

[CyclonerM]

I like very much this proposal.

I am not sure about the PPC hits, 5 times is not enough for missiles to lock , fire and reach their target, but if the ECM is wholly negated for 10 secs, the enemy 'Mech can go back behind cover and take indirect fire (without ECM forcing soft locks) , which may be too much against the spirit of your proposal. Thus, i would say 5 secs is fine. Otherwise, you would have a 15 damage TAG that does not need to be kept on target, exposing yourself.

P.S. I would keep Artemis affected, as it is in the rules for ECM in BT. You can just negate its bonus.

Edited by CyclonerM, 14 September 2014 - 02:23 AM.

[nonnex]

You are nominated, see https://docs.google....dit?pli=1#gid=0

Fill out the missing information.

[SpiralFace]

Carrioncrows, on 13 September 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

True, which is why I like your changes. And Approve.

But, as a caveat to keep everyone's mind on the future that this isn't the be all end all and we should strive for remaking all EW.

No worries.

I do like the system that you proposed as well. And hope Russ and the others might consider building something similar to that through the quirk system rather then a complete re-write.

I.E. Non-3L Raven's get a frame quirk that makes them detectable at only 75% of a sensors maximum range (thus making it still only targetable under 600 feet normally, but gains no benefit from ecm like missile lock timer increases etc.)

Saxie, on 13 September 2014 - 11:38 PM, said:

You want to post the first part of your argument here:

http://mwomercs.com/...43#entry3716343

One question that I have, and I need this answered before I can really comment. Example: say MechaMan is in a Catapult A1, he's outside the caldera on Caustic Valley. 500 Meters away from him in the Caldera is a Kit Fox with ECM, within his bubble he has 4 mechs. A spider runs into the fray and pops a UAV, can Mecha still launch indirect fire?

Example 2: Same situation instead of the spider launching a UAV he's tagging, I'm assuming Mecha can launch indirect fire now as well - to only the target being tagged correct?

EDIT: In both examples there is no LOS

Will do. thanks for the link.

So regarding the Examples:

In the first example, you can fire indirectly in that scenario due to the UAV spotting for you. Hard counters in this proposal have almost remained unchanged, so the long range indirect game through this proposal only seed a general 25% missile lock time Nerf, but beyond that remains identical to what is already in the game now.

In Example 2, the spotter with TAG will paint targets for you but the other 3 mechs will remain in ECM cover. (Exactly how it is currently implemented in the game.)

What does change is the time it takes to get there. I've provided a buff for TAG in the proposal that see's it negate the 50% missile lock increase that ECM provides from all ECM's. So lets say that 3 of those 4 mechs where DDC's. Before, TAG would be able to light up a target for the firer, but the firing mech would still have the surrounding ECM's missile lock time increases to cut through, so as a result, will have much longer lock times. With the TAG change, it means that if you paint a target with TAG, That target is negated from all ECM in the area. So firing on him would be like firing on a mech not under ECM cover. (Although even with this, you would still get the general 25% indirect fire nerf.)

Hope that clears that up.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

stjobe, on 14 September 2014 - 01:40 AM, said:

#1 TAG should be a boost to LRMs, not a requirement for its use.

#2 Guardian ECM should be a counter to Artemis, NARC, BAP, and C3, not a blanket shield from missiles.

#3 PGI got the T2 EW equipment implemented almost exactly opposite of what they're supposed to be; because of the ECM implementation blanket shielding 'mechs from LRMs (and SSRMs), they had to implement the other gear as counters to it - when it actually is supposed to be ECM that is a counter to them in the first place.

1. Why shouldn't TAG be a basic requirement for countering ECM? Be specific.

2. ECM being a blanket shield makes sense in that it counters LRM's unfair advantage of need requiring line-of-sight to target. Do you have actual reasons for saying that or is it just an opinion / belief that you have?

3. Get this -- ECM IS a counter to everything you listed.

Blackavar, on 14 September 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:

With the best will in the world, and even picking a mech on which mounting TAG is not going to degrade it's firepower or some other aspect of it's performance significantly, I've found that the (next to) last thing I want to do in a lumbering assault mech packed with LRMs is stand out in the open for the entire time my weapon payload is on it's way to target.

No match in which I've taken my LRM60 STK-5S recently has gone well for me. If I've not taken TAG, I've had to settle for pot-shots at enemies who've accidentally moved out from ECM cover. Fair enough. I kind of expected that.

LRM60 was never intended to be a valid loadout. Its not something that is supposed to be effective against competent ECM equipped opposition. Complaining about LRM60 not being effective is like complaining a stalker with 6 ER PPC's isn't effective.

Suggesting ECM be degraded to appease LRM60 loadouts isn't an example of game balance.

Its an example of people trying to change the fundamentals of the game to reward their poor loadout choices.

.

[SpiralFace]

Blackavar, on 14 September 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:

I definitely like the ECM modification proposed by SpiralFace - seems well thought-out and balanced with PGI's desire (need?) to not tear down half the targeting mechanics in the game. Not so sure about some of the 'Bah, just use TAG on mechs using LRMs, problem solved' replies that are appearing. Not saying they're wrong, maybe they're better players than me and can nip out of cover then TAG and LRM things with relative impunity, but my experience has been nothing like that.

I'll just respond to the general TAG concerns by responding to this.

TAG is unaffected and is actually buffed a tiny bit in this current proposal. TAG is still desirable to hard counter ECM and still gain the bonus' it gives to clustering, lock times, ect.

The proposal is not meant to be a replacement for TAG, rather, address the current "Binary" nature of ECM.

Soft locking does not invalidate the use of TAG, it provides an option to players who do not choose or cannot carry TAG. So rather then having a piece of REQUIRED tech just to use your launcher, you are still able to use your launchers through smart play and positioning and through direct fire means. But with increased lock times, and with no TAG tightening your clusters, It is still not as effective as using missiles in conjunction with tag.

Rather it gives a physical option that doesn't result in your Missile launcher being utterly useless in an engagement if your TAG gets blown out, or you physically cannot carry a launcher.

[SpiralFace]

CyclonerM, on 14 September 2014 - 02:22 AM, said:

I like very much this proposal.

I am not sure about the PPC hits, 5 times is not enough for missiles to lock , fire and reach their target, but if the ECM is wholly negated for 10 secs, the enemy 'Mech can go back behind cover and take indirect fire (without ECM forcing soft locks) , which may be too much against the spirit of your proposal. Thus, i would say 5 secs is fine. Otherwise, you would have a 15 damage TAG that does not need to be kept on target, exposing yourself.

P.S. I would keep Artemis affected, as it is in the rules for ECM in BT. You can just negate its bonus.

10 seconds seems like too much for me as well. But keep in mind that I am also proposing a 25% nerf to indirect fire missile lockon times.

So if it remains at 5 seconds, its going to be much less useable then it is now due to the nerf to indirect fire.

I'm not entirely convinced that 10 seconds is a good time for this either, but would love to hear others opinions on this, keeping in mind that indirect missile lock times are being proposed to get a general nerf to their lockon times.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

SpiralFace, on 14 September 2014 - 04:53 AM, said:

The proposal is not meant to be a replacement for TAG, rather, address the current "Binary" nature of ECM.

Soft locking does not invalidate the use of TAG, it provides an option to players who do not choose or cannot carry TAG. So rather then having a piece of REQUIRED tech just to use your launcher, you are still able to use your launchers through smart play and positioning and through direct fire means. But with increased lock times, and with no TAG tightening your clusters, It is still not as effective as using missiles in conjunction with tag.

Rather it gives a physical option that doesn't result in your Missile launcher being utterly useless in an engagement if your TAG gets blown out, or you physically cannot carry a launcher.

...

What you mean by soft locking is.

Nerf ECM to a point where LRM boats without TAG can target mechs under ECM cover.

???

If that's your proposal.

Like I said earlier -- if the concern involves loadouts. Such as a catapult A1's inability to carry TAG. The answer is to use a C4 or a C1. Or, to give mechs an additional laser hardpoint on the head.

The solution isn't to nerf ECM down to a point where its useless, and TAG is no longer necessary, despite what you might think.

EDIT -- Can you please multiquote and stop trying to bury my posts beneath your single posts, thanks.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 14 September 2014 - 05:05 AM.

[SpiralFace]

nonnex, on 14 September 2014 - 03:42 AM, said:

You are nominated, see https://docs.google....dit?pli=1#gid=0

Fill out the missing information.

Filled out the information, but as far as voting rights, Ideally shouldn't I abstain from voting? As Its a bit of a conflict of interest given that I have this proposal out in the wild.

[Mystere]

stjobe, on 14 September 2014 - 12:16 AM, said:

Riddle me this:

How many TAG lasers can you fit on a CPLT-A1?

Anyone running a CPLT-A1 has a different decision to make. Does he want to be an LRM, SRM, or SSRM boat? Or should he have a mixed load out? Should he also bring BAP?

But ultimately:

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 10:02 PM, said:

In a team full of John Rambos, TAG and/or other ECM counters are more or less a requirement if you do not want to risk being ineffective. On the other hand, on a good team, you should have the support you need to get your job done

[SpiralFace]

I Zeratul I, on 14 September 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

...

What you mean by soft locking is.

Nerf ECM to a point where LRM boats without TAG can target mechs under ECM cover.

???

If that's your proposal.

Like I said earlier -- if the concern involves loadouts. Such as a catapult A1's inability to carry TAG. The answer is to use a C4 or a C1. Or, to give mechs an additional laser hardpoint on the head.

The solution isn't to nerf ECM down to a point where its useless, and TAG is no longer necessary, despite what you might think.

Under direct LOS fire yes. These changes are targeted to prevent LRMs from being utterly bricked at range because they didn't just bring a completely seperate piece of tech. But no, it doesn't invalidate ECM.

LRM lock times would still take 75% longer in direct LOS without equipment giving players plenty of time to react if they want to, they still would block all fire from coming in Indirectly, and even then, this only takes you up to 75% of your sensor range and you get it working exactly as it does now. (So ecm snipers should see zero changes to their game.)

ECM is a 1.5 ton piece of equipment that currently provides near uncounterable perks at ALL ranges unless you specifically build out your mech to deal with it.. These changes aren't meant to invalidate the tech and you still get PLENTY of perks to having it as opposed to not having it.

What it does do is tone it down in direct fire situations. It still provides plenty of perks and through the soft lock system still negates indirect fire from happening, but this allows players have at least an option when it comes to direct fire LRM's. Unless you are seriously suggesting that a Catapult A1 in a stock loadout that a new player got SHOULD be completely useless durring an entire match of people staying under ECM cover.

ECM still benefits you at range, TAG is still useful, all this does is provide an option for people to utilize that doesn't result in bringing a mech with a load out that has ZERO chance of doing any damage just because it didn't bring equipment that should be optional and supplimentary to its use. (You ONLY see missile boats in this game specifically because you can't put a single LRM backup launcher on a mech without needing all the aditional equipment just to have a chance to use it.)

No other weapon system in the game is completely invalidated by the presence of ECM like LRMs are. This provides a "grey area" to where they can be used, but still at a reduced efficiency due to the presence of ECM. Rather then the binary "Functional / Totaly useless" range that they currently occupy.

[stjobe]

I Zeratul I, on 14 September 2014 - 04:51 AM, said:

1. Why shouldn't TAG be a basic requirement for countering ECM? Be specific.

Because it is not supposed to be a counter to ECM in the first place, it's supposed to be a boost to Artemis IV artillery and semi-guided LRMs. It has nothing to do with either LRMs or ECM in TT.

I Zeratul I, on 14 September 2014 - 04:51 AM, said:

2. ECM being a blanket shield makes sense in that it counters LRM's unfair advantage of need requiring line-of-sight to target. Do you have actual reasons for saying that or is it just an opinion / belief that you have?

Indirect fire with LRMs is a basic TT rule, and Guardian ECM has no effect on this capability, ECM is simply a counter to the T2 EW tools of Artemis, Narc, BAP, and C3.

Read these:
Guardian ECM Suite
Target Acquisition Gear
Narc Missile Beacon
Artemis IV Fire Control System

Even if you add the capabilities of the Angel ECM Suite, and Null Signature System or Stealth Armor, you still won't get a missile shield like MWO's ECM provides.

I Zeratul I, on 14 September 2014 - 04:51 AM, said:

3. Get this -- ECM IS a counter to everything you listed.

And also a blanket LRM shield on top of that. Which is wrong. Not even the Angel ECM Suite stopped LRM lock-on.

[Why Run]

I also think ECM should affect friendlies. ECM cannot discriminate, if friendlies want to benefit from the bubble, they should lose targeting ability!

[Blackavar]

I Zeratul I, on 14 September 2014 - 04:51 AM, said:

LRM60 was never intended to be a valid loadout. Its not something that is supposed to be effective against competent ECM equipped opposition. Complaining about LRM60 not being effective is like complaining a stalker with 6 ER PPC's isn't effective.

Suggesting ECM be degraded to appease LRM60 loadouts isn't an example of game balance.

Its an example of people trying to change the fundamentals of the game to reward their poor loadout choices.

Yeah, sort of fair. I didn't make it clear that my example was the most extreme LRM-boating mech I ever use. I normally prefer direct-fire weaponry with maybe a single LRM10/15 to give me options. That said, the downside the LRM60 build already has is that it has a poor-rating XL engine and can therefore not defend itself well against more mobile enemies, and it dies quite easily when it does get hit. Rendering most of its armament (5 MLas and a TAG round it out) non-functional unless it stands out in the open seems harsh - that was all I was pointing out.

More realistically when I'm playing LRM support I like to take something like a Trebuchet-7M or my CPLT-C1 out for a few matches, running them with enhanced-stock loadouts but still with a focus on a pair of LRM15. Finding that I've effectively left most of my weapons tonnage in the mech bay is proving frustrating; even mounting TAG on those 'valid loadout' variants, standing out in the open still gets them shredded very quickly. I'm assuming of course that stock weapon loadouts from lore as put into the game by PGI are counting as 'valid loadouts' - seems logical to me.

As many others have pointed out on this thread, the way PGI have implemented Guardian ECM is way outside the lore / TT rules. I don't mind that much - if they don't change it I'll still play - I just thought that SpiralFace's proposal was quite reasonable.

Zeratul, you honestly sound to me like someone that runs ECM-equipped mechs and/or has become really sick of "Lurmageddon" matches, and I can sympathise. I hate being pummelled down by LRMs, and I do like the abilities ECM gives me when I have it. I just agree with many other players that it's a bit too good right now and could use a revision.

[SmurfOff]

I Zeratul I, on 13 September 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

Boating LRM's and nothing but LRM's is bad design philosophy. Our goal in restructuring ECM shouldn't be one of appeasement where we reward players who consistently use bad loadouts equipping their mechs with LRM's and nothing but LRM's.
.

Longbow and Catapult would like to disagree with you. Don't call bad game design a bad mech design. Supporting LRM fire from the backfield has its place, it has just been poorly translated to MW:O. For example, by removing the R&R functionality there is no downside to raining ammo indiscriminately across the map. In addition, the lack of a proper C3 component changed the way indirect fire works, with units exchanging radar data with ease.

This is the problem with choosing ECM as the first "community" led change. There are so many bad decisions that led to an escalation of nerf / counter-nerf, we would almost need a reset to closed Beta to level set the mechanics, which is not on the table.

But back on topic - I love the idea of "soft locks" which are not placed on the map and cannot be shared between units. It goes more inline with the concept that a mech is a pile of Electronics, and not just a shell that could be run off an iPhone.

[nonnex]

SpiralFace, on 14 September 2014 - 05:04 AM, said:

Filled out the information, but as far as voting rights, Ideally shouldn't I abstain from voting? As Its a bit of a conflict of interest given that I have this proposal out in the wild.

Na, dont think so. Futhermore your Ideas and thoughts should be listened, contributed and discussed, so I have putted you on the list. Giving himself a vote is common and is totally allright, because it shows that you stand behind your own idea

Edited by nonnex, 14 September 2014 - 08:19 AM.

[B O A]

Here is Guardian ECM Suite from Battletech:
The Guardian ECM Suite was introduced in 2597 by the Terran Hegemony^[1]. Designed to interfere with guided weaponry, targeting computers, and communication systems, the Guardian is typically used to shield allied units from such equipment by emitting a broad-band signal meant to confuse radar, infrared, ultraviolet, magscan and sonar sensors.^[2] Affected systems include Artemis IV, C3 and C3i Computer networks, and Narc Missile Beacons. A Guardian can jam a Beagle Active Probe (or its Clan equivalent), but the probe-equipped unit will be aware of the jamming. The Capellan Confederation expanded the utility of the Guardian even more with the introduction of Stealth Armor.^[3] Contemporary guided missiles such as standard LRM or Streak SRMs are not affected by the Guardian suite and will be able to achieve hard lock as normal.^[4]
The greatest drawback to the Guardian is its limited range, which extends out to only 180 meters. Sensors can sometimes override this jamming, though by that point the enemy unit is already within visual range and can track the opposition with their own eyes.^[2]

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

SpiralFace, on 14 September 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

Under direct LOS fire yes. These changes are targeted to prevent LRMs from being utterly bricked at range because they didn't just bring a completely seperate piece of tech. But no, it doesn't invalidate ECM.

LRM lock times would still take 75% longer in direct LOS without equipment giving players plenty of time to react if they want to, they still would block all fire from coming in Indirectly, and even then, this only takes you up to 75% of your sensor range and you get it working exactly as it does now. (So ecm snipers should see zero changes to their game.)

ECM is a 1.5 ton piece of equipment that currently provides near uncounterable perks at ALL ranges unless you specifically build out your mech to deal with it.. These changes aren't meant to invalidate the tech and you still get PLENTY of perks to having it as opposed to not having it.

What it does do is tone it down in direct fire situations. It still provides plenty of perks and through the soft lock system still negates indirect fire from happening, but this allows players have at least an option when it comes to direct fire LRM's. Unless you are seriously suggesting that a Catapult A1 in a stock loadout that a new player got SHOULD be completely useless durring an entire match of people staying under ECM cover.

ECM still benefits you at range, TAG is still useful, all this does is provide an option for people to utilize that doesn't result in bringing a mech with a load out that has ZERO chance of doing any damage just because it didn't bring equipment that should be optional and supplimentary to its use. (You ONLY see missile boats in this game specifically because you can't put a single LRM backup launcher on a mech without needing all the aditional equipment just to have a chance to use it.)

No other weapon system in the game is completely invalidated by the presence of ECM like LRMs are. This provides a "grey area" to where they can be used, but still at a reduced efficiency due to the presence of ECM. Rather then the binary "Functional / Totaly useless" range that they currently occupy.

At the end there you said: no other weapon system in the game is completely invalidated by the presence of ECM like LRMs are. I disagree.

Streak SRM's are hurt worse by ECM than LRM's are. If you've ever used streaks you might realize it takes some time to acquire a lock. How long does the average person hold their crosshairs over an ECM raven or ECM cicada for streaks to lock on? With a fast moving ECM mech running circles around them, they might never acquire a lock, even with BAP equipped.

In that: LRM's aren't the only weapon system invalidated by ECM. Far from it.

Responding to the first portion of your post, like I said before, the only way an LRM boat is "bricked" is if it can't find itself a laser hardpoint and 1 ton of weight. In real terms, they only need 1 mech on their entire team with a TAG or a UAV to find locks for them. If that's a problem, or too much to ask -- its inaccurate to blame ECM. More likely the issue is them using a mech that has no laser slots for them to equip TAG.

You can't say failure on the part of someone to equip TAG is a fault of ECM. The two topics aren't related.

stjobe, on 14 September 2014 - 05:31 AM, said:

Because it is not supposed to be a counter to ECM in the first place, it's supposed to be a boost to Artemis IV artillery and semi-guided LRMs. It has nothing to do with either LRMs or ECM in TT.

Indirect fire with LRMs is a basic TT rule, and Guardian ECM has no effect on this capability, ECM is simply a counter to the T2 EW tools of Artemis, Narc, BAP, and C3.

Read these:
Guardian ECM Suite
Target Acquisition Gear
Narc Missile Beacon
Artemis IV Fire Control System

Even if you add the capabilities of the Angel ECM Suite, and Null Signature System or Stealth Armor, you still won't get a missile shield like MWO's ECM provides.

And also a blanket LRM shield on top of that. Which is wrong. Not even the Angel ECM Suite stopped LRM lock-on.

It seems like you're saying lore was developed as an ultra perfect set of rules for a f2p battletech fps game no one should ever question.

What I'm asking specifically is how the game is improved by adhering to lore.

How will your suggestions improve conditions and make this game more fun, or enhance the gameplay aspect?

Blackavar, on 14 September 2014 - 06:03 AM, said:

Yeah, sort of fair. I didn't make it clear that my example was the most extreme LRM-boating mech I ever use. I normally prefer direct-fire weaponry with maybe a single LRM10/15 to give me options. That said, the downside the LRM60 build already has is that it has a poor-rating XL engine and can therefore not defend itself well against more mobile enemies, and it dies quite easily when it does get hit. Rendering most of its armament (5 MLas and a TAG round it out) non-functional unless it stands out in the open seems harsh - that was all I was pointing out.

More realistically when I'm playing LRM support I like to take something like a Trebuchet-7M or my CPLT-C1 out for a few matches, running them with enhanced-stock loadouts but still with a focus on a pair of LRM15. Finding that I've effectively left most of my weapons tonnage in the mech bay is proving frustrating; even mounting TAG on those 'valid loadout' variants, standing out in the open still gets them shredded very quickly. I'm assuming of course that stock weapon loadouts from lore as put into the game by PGI are counting as 'valid loadouts' - seems logical to me.

As many others have pointed out on this thread, the way PGI have implemented Guardian ECM is way outside the lore / TT rules. I don't mind that much - if they don't change it I'll still play - I just thought that SpiralFace's proposal was quite reasonable.

Zeratul, you honestly sound to me like someone that runs ECM-equipped mechs and/or has become really sick of "Lurmageddon" matches, and I can sympathise. I hate being pummelled down by LRMs, and I do like the abilities ECM gives me when I have it. I just agree with many other players that it's a bit too good right now and could use a revision.

I'm neither someone who runs ECM or someone who is sick of LRM's.

What I disagree with is the way people here constantly try to change the rules to suit their preferred style of gameplay.

If they're unskilled at using LRM's they ask for ECM nerfs.

If they're unskilled at shooting mechs in the air they ask for jump jet nerfs.

If they're unskilled at chain firing they ask that ghost heat be removed so they can alpha strike in their stalker with 6 PPC's.

That's what I disagree with.

SmurfOff, on 14 September 2014 - 06:34 AM, said:

Longbow and Catapult would like to disagree with you. Don't call bad game design a bad mech design. Supporting LRM fire from the backfield has its place, it has just been poorly translated to MW:O.

.

"Supporting LRM fire." Exactly.

Boating LRM's en masse as a front line weapon that inflicts more damage than PPC's, gauss and other 1st tier forms of weaponry isn't how things were intended to work.

In that, we might say LRM's are a bit overpowered. If LRM's are a bit overpowered, why would anyone ask for ECM nerfs that would make LRM's more overpowered? Does that make sense?

Edited by I Zeratul I, 18 September 2014 - 12:41 PM.

[stjobe]

I Zeratul I, on 18 September 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

It seems like you're saying lore was developed as an ultra perfect set of rules for a f2p battletech fps game no one should ever question.

It does? That's a strange reading of what I'm saying. I am saying this: Guardian ECM in MWO has very little in common with Guardian ECM in BattleTech. My contention is that it should stick closer to what it does in the BattleTech rules.

I Zeratul I, on 18 September 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

What I'm asking specifically is how the game is improved by adhering to lore.

I'd like to pose a question in return: How does a game set in a universe from a 30-year old franchise, with hundreds of rule- and lore-books, and over a hundred novels published, how does such a game benefit from disregarding the rules and lore of that universe?

I Zeratul I, on 18 September 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

How will your suggestions improve conditions and make this game more fun, or enhance the gameplay aspect?

With a less capable ECM, LRMs can be re-balanced to not be so binary (useful against non-ECM opponents, wasted tonnage against ECM opponents), which opens up better gameplay and also the possibility of having LRMs on a build that isn't boating them (i.e. closer-to-stock loadouts).

Due to ECM's hard counter to targeting, both LRMs and Streaks (who share lock-on mechanics with LRMs) are the only two weapon systems in the game that can be totally negated by equipment carried by the opposition. You can't negate lasers, PPCs, autocannons, SRMs, or any other weapons by mounting a piece of equipment. But all the LRMs and SSRMs on all the 'mechs on your team can be countered by 1.5 tons and 2 crit slots invested on one 'mech on the enemy team.

Doesn't that strike you as a little bit too powerful?

Edited by stjobe, 18 September 2014 - 01:21 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

stjobe, on 18 September 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

#1 It does? That's a strange reading of what I'm saying. I am saying this: Guardian ECM in MWO has very little in common with Guardian ECM in BattleTech. My contention is that it should stick closer to what it does in the BattleTech rules.

#2 I'd like to pose a question in return: How does a game set in a universe from a 30-year old franchise, with hundreds of rule- and lore-books, and over a hundred novels published, how does such a game benefit from disregarding the rules and lore of that universe?

#3 Due to ECM's hard counter to targeting, both LRMs and Streaks (who share lock-on mechanics with LRMs) are the only two weapon systems in the game that can be totally negated by equipment carried by the opposition. You can't negate lasers, PPCs, autocannons, SRMs, or any other weapons by mounting a piece of equipment. But all the LRMs and SSRMs on all the 'mechs on your team can be countered by 1.5 tons and 2 crit slots invested on one 'mech on the enemy team.

Doesn't that strike you as a little bit too powerful?

1. If the goal were to make a game that was 100% the equivalent of an electronic dice game from the 1980's that might be a legitimate complaint. But, is that really the goal?

2. The lore based on dice games you're referring to was never developed for use in a first person shooter. I'll give you an example. Jump jets. People on this forum often claim that jump jets are maneuverability only. Why should developers adhere to that? If jump jets are fun to use and open up a new dimension of play where poptarting and jump sniping become feasible why should that be nerfed just because some old book from decades ago, that was written for a dice game, says its a bad idea?

3. LRM's can't be directly compared to PPC's, autocannons or SRM's. LRM's have an advantage of targeting without direct line of sight. They also have an advantage of not requiring aim, and tracking targets with homing capabilities.

One aspect of direct fire weapons like PPC's, AC's and SRM's is that you need to stand out in the open where others can target you to use them. Those who use LRM's complain that they have to stand where they can be targeted if ECM isn't nerfed.

I think its fair that if users of direct fire weapons have to stand out in the open to fire, users of LRM weapons should do the same to some degree.

Those asking for ECM nerfs are asking for special treatment where everyone else needs to stand out in the open and get line of sight to use their weapons..

But those with LRM's asking for ECM nerfs won't need to do the same.

Its not something objective where fairplay is the end goal, just pandering for special treatment.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 18 September 2014 - 01:42 PM.