132 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

ramjb, on 15 September 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

It has a lot to do with the discussion on ECM and LRMs. And is not that I want you to go off in a tangent, my question was a retoric one to reinforce my already stated point: You can't pull Lore explanations to define how innacurate ECM is while ignoring the fact that LRMs are as much, if not more, inaccurate, as ECM, and in several different ways. I.E. in lore ECM might not have been a hard conter vs missiles. But in lore Kintaros couldn't go into battle with almost 2000missiles. And I'm guessing Ullers would have an issue or two with carrying 1620. Which I've already seen in this game.

LRMs are rather true to lore in the way they are implemented, whereas ECM has almost no resemblance at all to its lore counterpart. That you can use the BattleMech Construction Rules to load up on lore-abhorrent numbers of missiles is a different issue, and should probably not be conflated with this one - or we're going to end up with a discussion about the whole of TT lore and rules versus the whole of MWO implementation.

ramjb, on 15 September 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Regardless: I already stated that for me Lore has a very second rate importance. Gameplay comes first. I really understand those fans of the lore and the MW brand who are angry because ECM doesn't follow the lore. However I fail to see why ECM is the problem when so many things are innacurate lore-wise. Starting with the very weapon ECM is designed to counter in this game.

It's because this specific discussion is about ECM. It's not about burst-fire ACs, or "crit-seeker" MGs, or construction rules versus field modification rules, or pinpoint accuracy, instant convergence, front-loaded damage, or the heat system.

Those are all separate issues where you'll get a lot of feedback from both the TT lore side and all the other sides. But they're not this discussion. This discussion is about ECM and in extension LRMs and the rest of the EW equipment.

ramjb, on 15 September 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

And even more important, and once again, lore is secondary to gameplay, given the -current- state of the game, And in the -current- state of the game, with ECM in it's current state, LRMs dominate a significant ammount of PUG battles to an extreme no other weapon comes close to. In the current state of the game, lore or not, you can't downgrade the effect of the only effective mean of keeping LRMs at bay. As simple as that.

I agree that LRMs need to be re-balanced if ECM is changed; I think most people do. I think PGI does (after all, it was they who implemented it as a LRM-blocker in the first place). But I don't think that should be a blocking factor from discussing just how ECM could or should be changed.

The easiest "fix" to LRMs if ECM is changed (for example to just delay lock-on instead of blocking it completely) is to increase the missile spread for indirect fire even more than it's currently set to.

Edit: And just for the record: While I am a proponent of following BattleTech rules and (more importantly) lore as far as possible, I really don't give a damn what numbers or rules they use, as long as the game feels like BattleTech.

Edited by stjobe, 15 September 2014 - 10:37 AM.

[TLBFestus]

Thing is Pappy, how much do we know about the degree of difficulty to implement any new changes to ECM?

We know nothing bcause we don't know what changes are going to be proposed for sure.

For arguments sake;

If it's a reduction in the "Umbrella" that ECM provides.....it's just a spreadsheet number, easily done.

if it only protects the Mech that carries it........ little harder, but still probaby easily done.

If it's how the adjacent mechs receive bonuses....harder, more difficult.


The point being, until we see the proposed changes and know how difficult it is to change it in the game, you are worried about "possibilites". There is nothing that says the Devs can't say..."Great Idea, but it will take time to implement, so it's going on the list".

[Steel Claws]

What I really find funny about this is the people that argue that ECM is OP and LRMs would be fine by saying "don't run in the open" or "learn to play". Such hypocrisy.

[ramjb]

stjobe, on 15 September 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

I agree that LRMs need to be re-balanced if ECM is changed; I think most people do. I think PGI does (after all, it was they who implemented it as a LRM-blocker in the first place). But I don't think that should be a blocking factor from discussing just how ECM could or should be changed.

I think it should be a factor to consider as again, the game in it's current state will decline into a lurm-to-death gameplay if ECM is changed. Certainly I'm open and I don't disagree with changes to the ECM mechanics (I've stated it several times now). I only want to reinforce and firmly state that while discussion is nice, whatever change to weaken ECM comes, it should come side by side, or after, a strong weakening of LRM as a weapon. Other than that I have absolutely no problem with any ECM change.

Quote

The easiest "fix" to LRMs if ECM is changed (for example to just delay lock-on instead of blocking it completely) is to increase the missile spread for indirect fire even more than it's currently set to.

I think more than this is needed. decrease of rate of fire. Cockpit shake drastically reduced should be also added. Strong revision to the ammo-per-ton of LRMs (I don't see why SRMs get 100 per ton but LRMs get almost twice). Revision of TAG/NARC mechanics. and yeah, severe increase of missile spread, specially against mechs out of direct LOS...

Quote

Edit: And just for the record: While I am a proponent of following BattleTech rules and (more importantly) lore as far as possible, I really don't give a damn what numbers or rules they use, as long as the game feels like BattleTech.

That's my point and I'm glad to see people who followed the lore for years also agrees with it. The feel should be there (I'm getting interested into the lore because of the game, for instance), and lore respected as much as possible to keep the game identity true to the origins of the franchise. But when lore conflicts with gameplay, gameplay should prevail, while trying to keep the flavor of the game alive. That's exactly what I'm trying to say all the time .

Edited by ramjb, 15 September 2014 - 10:46 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Steel Claws, on 15 September 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

I STILL don't understand all the crying about ECM.

1. It does nothing to stop someone from shooting direct fire at you.
2. It is disabled by a UAV.
3. It is disabled by a PPC hit - (though since PPCs are over nerfed they aren't used that much).
4. They are disabled by tag.
5. They are disabled by narc.
6. It is nullified by BAP or another ECM mech.

You want to fix something, make LRMs less effective when fired with no line of sight. The only reason you see so much ECM in the game is because the game has gone LRM heavy and they are boated too much. Otherwise it has little advantage at all.

Guess what? You can't direct fire LRMs without paying the taxes. Fix that, and you can work on direct fire.

ramjb, on 15 September 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

Of course the problem is me running into the open and crying. Maybe I'm not running into the open, you know. Maybe it's just that I'm locked into a fight. Maybe is because someone with the sensor range module is spotting beyond my own sensor range. Or maybe it's because after the LRMs have killed 5-6 of the team in an ongoing fight, my turn comes. GL finding cover when you're defending a position against an enemy push and you're forced to move, and there's no way to break LOS from the rushing enemies.

but we all know that you're the all-mighty, all-powerful, extremely-excellent LRM avoider and that for you LRMs aren't and will never be a problem while ECM massively impairs your gameplay. However, given your very singular condition of excellent and personal skill extraordinaire, that the rest of us common mortals don't share, again, as what you experience is extremely different from what the immense majority of players do, whatever you say is irrelevant.

So you got caught out of cover, and then you start crying about Lurms. Got it.

Don't do that.

[ramjb]

Mcgral18, on 15 September 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

So you got caught out of cover, and then you start crying about Lurms. Got it.

Don't do that.

At this point noone takes you seriously, so I will start following suit, and stop feeding the troll.

So get lost, troll. I don't know if there's an ignorelist in this forums, but if there is you just got mine started. Congrats.

Edited by ramjb, 15 September 2014 - 11:01 AM.

[stjobe]

ramjb, on 15 September 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

Cockpit shake drastically reduced should be also added.

According to a recent tweet by Russ, this is coming in the next patch already.

ramjb, on 15 September 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

That's my point and I'm glad to see people who followed the lore for years also agrees with it. The feel should be there (I'm getting interested into the lore because of the game, for instance), and lore respected as much as possible to keep the game identity true to the origins of the franchise. But when lore conflicts with gameplay, gameplay should prevail, while trying to keep the flavor of the game alive. That's exactly what I'm trying to say all the time .

It's that "trying to keep the flavour of the game alive" that's been sort of missing for a while; the game was closer to its BattleTech roots in CB than it is now. A game without a good foundation in the BattleTech lore is just a stompy robot game, not "a BattleTech game" as it says up there in the logo.

[ramjb]

stjobe, on 15 September 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

According to a recent tweet by Russ, this is coming in the next patch already.

Thank heavens for that! great news indeed.

Quote

It's that "trying to keep the flavour of the game alive" that's been sort of missing for a while; the game was closer to its BattleTech roots in CB than it is now. A game without a good foundation in the BattleTech lore is just a stompy robot game, not "a BattleTech game" as it says up there in the logo.

I see your point and I feel your pain. Hopefully things move in a way that such a feeling can get into the game again for people who really love the franchise, while keeping gameplay enjoyable .

[Mcgral18]

ramjb, on 15 September 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

At this point noone takes you seriously, so I will start following suit, and stop feeding the troll.

So get lost, troll. I don't know if there's an ignorelist in this forums, but if there is you just got mine started. Congrats.

I really tried to help...but I take it you can't stop trolling.

Maybe one day you will stop dying to Lurms. Today certainly isn't that day.

[Kjudoon]

stjobe, on 15 September 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

If you want me to go off on a tangent on us using the BattleMech Construction Rules in lieu of the Field Modification Rules, please have a look through my posting history; I've done so on a number of occasions. However, it has little to do with the discussion on ECM and LRMs and I'll refrain from doing so here.

The point stands though. LRMs could be fired indirectly without any additional equipment, and ECM was a counter to Artemis and Narc, not to LRMs in general.

Then someone has gone in an altered the Guardian Suite entry on Sarna.net it seems to match MWO and not mention TT anymore.

Also, seeing LRMs get singled out to get screwed over again just makes my day... :::: How about reducing ALL cockpit shake and stop giving ACs an unfair advantage with that too?

Edited by Kjudoon, 15 September 2014 - 01:20 PM.

[InspectorG]

Steel Claws, on 15 September 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

I STILL don't understand all the crying about ECM.

1. It does nothing to stop someone from shooting direct fire at you.
2. It is disabled by a UAV.
3. It is disabled by a PPC hit - (though since PPCs are over nerfed they aren't used that much).
4. They are disabled by tag.
5. They are disabled by narc.
6. It is nullified by BAP or another ECM mech.

You want to fix something, make LRMs less effective when fired with no line of sight. The only reason you see so much ECM in the game is because the game has gone LRM heavy and they are boated too much. Otherwise it has little advantage at all.

You kinda missed the point about that it can cloak a majority of a team from RADAR or TARGET LOCK(which should be used regardless of LRM or not because of target info)

I never read Total Warfare, i played in the mid 90's and am going on memory. My old rules compendium is in storage...somewhere.

LRM indirect fire should be done via the 'B' map. A scout gets a target in LOS, the red triangle shows on the stage 'B' map.
If its in range, point the mouse over the triangle, and fire. This can also be used to 'guess' and attack blind to keep people from hill humping/etc.

The Price for this? Gambling on wasted ammo, and more spread/diluted damage from the missiles having no target.

With the current lock system we have, there are no penalties for indirect fire. Which uses the best 'lock' which is made available to ANY ally. Is that not what a C3 computer does? Shares the best lock for a to-hit modifier? Or am i old and forgetting sh*t.

[stjobe]

InspectorG, on 15 September 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

With the current lock system we have, there are no penalties for indirect fire.

The missile spread is worse than for direct-fire, which means less missiles hit the target given the same target at the same range.

It could be lessened even further, especially if ECM is reworked to not block LRMs completely.

As I see it, direct-fire LRMs should be the base-line.
Indirectly fired LRMs should get worse spread (by a lot), representing the lowered to-hit chance from TT.
Artemis and Narc should both tighten the spread.
ECM should counter Artemis and Narc, totally removing their bonuses.
To represent the anti-C3 aspect of ECM, it can add say 50% to the lock-on time to any 'mech under the ECM bubble, but never block lock-on completely.

This way, LRMs are always useful for direct-fire, and less useful in their supportive role as indirect-fire weapons. They can be buffed by Artemis and/or Narc, and those buffs can be negated by ECM.

TAG can be reworked to tighten the spread for artillery strikes, since that's all it was used for in TT.

[InspectorG]

stjobe, on 15 September 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

The missile spread is worse than for direct-fire, which means less missiles hit the target given the same target at the same range.

It could be lessened even further, especially if ECM is reworked to not block LRMs completely.

As I see it, direct-fire LRMs should be the base-line.
Indirectly fired LRMs should get worse spread (by a lot), representing the lowered to-hit chance from TT.
Artemis and Narc should both tighten the spread.
ECM should counter Artemis and Narc, totally removing their bonuses.
To represent the anti-C3 aspect of ECM, it can add say 50% to the lock-on time to any 'mech under the ECM bubble, but never block lock-on completely.

This way, LRMs are always useful for direct-fire, and less useful in their supportive role as indirect-fire weapons. They can be buffed by Artemis and/or Narc, and those buffs can be negated by ECM.

TAG can be reworked to tighten the spread for artillery strikes, since that's all it was used for in TT.

Sounds reasonable.