81 replies to this topic

[Lyoto Machida]

Ertur, on 15 September 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

ooooo if only I had addressed that, oh wait I did. Nice try. Buhbye.

Where? In the quote below? I'm not exactly sure where you addressed it because I can find 1.5tons on ANY mech to stuff ECM into it.

You really think more people wouldn't take ECM than would if every variant had the option to equip it?

Quote

Actually, no I wouldn't. The mechs that can use ECM are typically pretty mediocre in terms of the rest of the variants for those chassis or for other mechs of that weight class. The Spider and Commando ECM mechs are the slowest with hard engine caps, the Raven has bland weapons loadouts (exceeded in all ways by the Jenner D and F) though that's true of the chassis as a whole, and the Cicada has only torso mounted weapons (which are limited in their vertical range). The DDC is the outlier in that it actually has decent hardpoints for its class and chassis (the RS has the same number, with more energy than missile, and the K has less weapons overall), but then that's the only ECM capable mech that I've ever seen in game without ECM more than once. Generally, ECM is something that gives an otherwise unremarkable mech some value. On a mech that is otherwise strong, I'm not going to gimp my build by taking away speed or damage just to get ECM on it. The only mech I have that I would consider it would be one of my Locusts, which is so gimped by its lack of armor and tonnage that trading in a medium pulse laser and two small pulse lasers for an ECM and one medium laster+two small lasers would be a no-brainer. But I can't do that, and I shouldn't be able to do that. It's entirely correct that only a few mechs can carry ECM. Not because ECM is so ungodly overpowered, but because it gives some mechs something to do for their team.
In any case the entire argument is silly, because the same thing can be said about anything. "Would you put endo-steel on anything if you could? Yes, you would. That means it is overpowered." Or DHS. Or energy weapons. Or max engines. Or whatever.

[IceSerpent]

3rdworld, on 15 September 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

The simple fact BV existed points to it being unbalanced,

I don't follow. BV is a balancing mechanism - it's what makes TT balanced. This is akin to saying that existence of weights points to scales being unbalanced.

[nehebkau]

Mcgral18, on 15 September 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

Make the Magic Jesus Box cost 12 crit slots and generate 10 heat; I'll be happy then. It will be aECMm which costs 2 tons, stealth armour, with just a LITTLE bit of Magic thrown in to block direct fire LRMs.

Fix the direct fire, without having to pay a tax.



I wish I could fire my weapons without paying a tax...which is why I use Pulse lasers. Game is too easy with the Magic Jesus Box on my team. I need to use some of the worst weapons in the game for a challenge. It's quite fun.

I will call it what it is. aECM,+Stealth Armour+Direct fire blocking magic. At the cost of 1.5 tons, instead of 2+14 crits (two from aECM)

Then make any LRMs fired generate 5 heat for every LRM fired then i'd be fine with that.... LRM 10, 50 heat, lrm 20 100 heat. that would be well and balanced.

[Semper Fi]

Here is an off the wall thought.

Give ECM to all mechs. (or Not with the below should not matter)
Make locks faster on direct LOS, but remains same with assisted targeting.
Give designator info to mechs in ECM bubble "Alpha, Bravo, Charlie"
Lastly ECM is passive so make it pseudo-non passive. Any Mech that has heat level go above 1/4 of its shut down ECM turns off.
1 min later it is back on
Give it a threshold, say 5 times you do that it doesn't work anymore.
ECM now has a constant heat, like mechs on Tera Therma or the Craggy map.

So, you want ECM, don't alpha.
Don't Snipe till you shut down.
You have heat already, be more careful.

Now its not so passive


This might fix it.


Semper Fi

Edited by Semper Fi, 15 September 2014 - 03:10 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Fierostetz, on 15 September 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

Sure, impose the same engine and hardpoint caps/reductions and let everything carry ECM. Knock 20kph off the top speed of any mech carrying ECM and let's go. Done. Moving on.

Why would we reduce the speed of ECM carrying mechs? That isn't how it works right now.

In terms of max engine size, the ECM Commando is lower than other Commandos. The ECM Spider is slower than other Spiders. The ECM Raven is faster than the other two stock variants. The ECM Cicada is just as fast as the other variants. The ECM D-DC is just as fast as the other Atlas variants.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

nehebkau, on 15 September 2014 - 03:03 PM, said:

Then make any LRMs fired generate 5 heat for every LRM fired then i'd be fine with that.... LRM 10, 50 heat, lrm 20 100 heat. that would be well and balanced.

From your attitude regarding them, it seems dealing with LRM's are definitely part of your 99 problems.

[Livewyr]

A few things:

1: It disrupts radar locks (of it and any under its umbrella) at ANY range outside 200m. (Radar Cloak)
2: The only range considerations are: Total radar disruption of mechs within 180, and being jammed by ECCM within 180, and BAP within 150.)
3: The difference between those counters (TAG, Narc, PPC) and ECM.. is
-A: They require a hardpoint.
-B: The require activation. (All must be "fired", TAG must remain trained on the ECM mech, and Narc/PPC counters are negated by stacking.
4: The tech 2 stuff is useful, it should not be *required* to fire a basic weapon.
5: The game should not be *slave* to Tabletop, but since it is playing on the Battletech IP, it should conform where possible.
6: It negates all locks on the ECM mechs, and those they umbrella, at any range outside 200m. (Radar Stealth, say it again.)
7: If the mechs are mediocre, why do we generally mostly see the variants with ECM? (COM-2D, SDR-5D, RVN-3L, KFX-C-right arm, CDA-3M, AS7-D-DC.) I do see other variants, but far and away, those are the variants I see the most.
8: Using real-life scenarios for a game based on a fantasy future game breaks down as soon as you start looking at the 270/540 meter maximum range of a large caliber ballistic. (Or many other things.)

[Mcgral18]

nehebkau, on 15 September 2014 - 03:03 PM, said:

Then make any LRMs fired generate 5 heat for every LRM fired then i'd be fine with that.... LRM 10, 50 heat, lrm 20 100 heat. that would be well and balanced.

That doesn't make sense.

Stealth armour costs 10 heat. Magic Jesus Box does not.

[Ghogiel]

IceSerpent, on 15 September 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

I don't follow. BV is a balancing mechanism - it's what makes TT balanced. This is akin to saying that existence of weights points to scales being unbalanced.

I think he is saying that since nothing in TT is actually balanced based on its tonnage and crits alone and requires an arbitrarily set rating that we do not have, that following TT implemetation of ECM without BV is self evident it's not going to be balalnced.

[nehebkau]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 15 September 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

From your attitude regarding them, it seems dealing with LRM's are definitely part of your 99 problems.

In case you haven't been paying attention, ECM as it stands was brought in because of the first lurmageddon (game history -- learn it). Remove it and the same thing will happen.

From your attitude regarding ECM it seems like dealing with 30 ton mechs is 99% of your problems. Look if you want to play battletech I'm sure you can find a table-top but this ISN'T TT battletech -- get over it already. Move on. Accept that things change!

Ghogiel, on 15 September 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

I think he is saying that since nothing in TT is actually balanced based on its tonnage and crits alone and requires an arbitrarily set rating that we do not have, that following TT implemetation of ECM without BV is self evident it's not going to be balalnced.

Careful! People might actually think you are paying attention!

Edited by nehebkau, 15 September 2014 - 04:11 PM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

nehebkau, on 15 September 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

In case you haven't been paying attention, ECM as it stands was brought in because of the first lurmageddon (game history -- learn it). Remove it and the same thing will happen.

Oh, that is correct -- I forgot we have not had any passes on the way LRM's functioned since then.

[Rebas Kradd]

Once again...

1) Simplicity is the best thing this ECM version has going for it. We don't need a dense, inscrutable information warfare that perplexes new players, no matter how many BT fans want it. No offense guys, I get your desires. I'm just being brutally honest.

2) Just running ECM is a drawback. They didn't put it on any mechs that were tough to identify quickly, and they didn't put it on any of the truly epic or durable chassis. ECM on a Shadowhawk or an Ilya or a Centurion or a Dire Wolf or a pre-nerf Victor would be a problem. ECM on a vulnerable light or on the runt of the Atlas chassis is not. (The Hellbringer will be a problem. Hopefully they keep it as underarmored as the lore suggests.)

3) I am all for making ECM heavier, costly in terms of energy, or perhaps eliminating the overlap bubble. But those are minor tweaks instead of a philosophy change. That's how I want to approach this.

4) It might be better to apply the suggested sweeping changes to a "hardcore mode" that's been bandied about before, or perhaps to single-player mode (along with R&R, bwahaha) . The modes we have now comprise an "instant action" variation of the game where new players should be able to thrive, and therefore ECM should be an easy-to-understand binary system.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 15 September 2014 - 04:33 PM.

[nehebkau]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 15 September 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:

Oh, that is correct -- I forgot we have not had any passes on the way LRM's functioned since then.

We haven't had a pass on the biggest issue, target sharing, and in particular being able to lock onto a shared target. If you want to shoot something, by god, you should have to be in a position to actually see it and be at a risk to be shot back.

Edited by nehebkau, 15 September 2014 - 04:27 PM.

[Ghogiel]

nehebkau, on 15 September 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

We haven't had a pass on the biggest issue, target sharing, and in particular being able to lock onto a shared target. If you want to shoot something, by god, you should have to be in a position to actually see it and be at a risk to be shot back.

How a change such as needing your own locks/no target sharing would spiral out to all other systems is a headache. Everything from radar, weapon balance to end of round spotting rewards.

[Aresye]

Ertur, on 15 September 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Also, it should be noted that the weapons systems that are affected are some of the lowest-skill-required systems available.

This is pretty much where I stopped reading, but to be quite honest, it's not like everything before was smooth sailing anyway.

I even used to be an anti-LRM guy. Have I started using LRMs now? What's changed? Have I started using missiles now and suddenly I'm pro-LRM? Nope. I just took LRM boats out for a few runs and realized just how much missile players got the short end of the stick.

With the way the balance is currently, technically a full 12man team with missiles can be completely negated by a single ECM mech, provided that the ECM mech stays with the whole team, and nobody on the other team has any counter.

Improbable, sure, but the fact still stands. An entire team of missile boats could theoretically be 100%, completely defeated, by a single mech on the other side carrying a 1.5t piece of equipment. That's a problem.

[nehebkau]

Ghogiel, on 15 September 2014 - 04:46 PM, said:

How a change such as needing your own locks/no target sharing would spiral out to all other systems is a headache. Everything from radar, weapon balance to end of round spotting rewards.

Which Is why i suggest the ONLY change to ECM we should be considering right now is reducing its area to 50m. A small but significant change.

Look, ECM can only be made perfect if many, many, many other game systems are in a nearly optimal state. As it stands the only way we can get there is by successively making small changes to the game systems and moving forward. Reducing the range of ECM will fix some of it's issues (because we have lots of remedies for enemies clustering together) and then we can move on to other issues, like target sharing, pinpoint damage, instant convergence etc.

Aresye, on 15 September 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

This is pretty much where I stopped reading, but to be quite honest, it's not like everything before was smooth sailing anyway.

I even used to be an anti-LRM guy. Have I started using LRMs now? What's changed? Have I started using missiles now and suddenly I'm pro-LRM? Nope. I just took LRM boats out for a few runs and realized just how much missile players got the short end of the stick.

With the way the balance is currently, technically a full 12man team with missiles can be completely negated by a single ECM mech, provided that the ECM mech stays with the whole team, and nobody on the other team has any counter.

Improbable, sure, but the fact still stands. An entire team of missile boats could theoretically be 100%, completely defeated, by a single mech on the other side carrying a 1.5t piece of equipment. That's a problem.

so we are to balance the game around an entire group picking a SINGLE weapon type? How about we balance around a theoretical team that is entirely composed of people running Small lasers or SRMs? In that case a lone gauss-cat could completely dominate the other team.

Edited by nehebkau, 15 September 2014 - 04:58 PM.

[Ghogiel]

Aresye, on 15 September 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

Improbable, sure, but the fact still stands. An entire team of missile boats could theoretically be 100%, completely defeated, by a single mech on the other side carrying a 1.5t piece of equipment. That's a problem.

Improbable, sure, but the fact still stands. An entire team of narc boats could theoretically be 100% completely defeated, by a single mech on the other side carrying a 0.5t piece of equipment. That's a problem.

[Ertur]

Moot point now. Per Russ (with regards to what the community suggests first:

Quote

It doesn't even necessarily need to be ECM, in fact I might suggest we choose something easier to start with in order to again prove the process and succeed at something.

Thank God, now this can go away.

Though I still stand by my HARM strike idea, because it fits the current StrikeWarrior Online meta.
I also don't think that all of my missing Narcs were eaten by AMS, but I could be wrong, I'll pay more attention to what I'm trying to Narc in the future. Hit reg in general still needs another look.

[Lootee]

Meh let them scream 'THIS ISN'T BATTLETECH' and keep all the backwards ass confusing illogical unintuitive unfun game mechanics in until enough people quit to play 'THIS IS PRIVATEER' and 'THIS IS ELITE' instead. (funny... those games seem to embrace their heritage instead of telling their backers they are on an island, but what do Chris Roberts and David Braben know about designing epic award winning, enduring, memorable games anyway?)

BattleTech is the ONLY reason this game got enough funding to start up development and stay running. But wutever, alienate the core audience again. Doesn't matter to me because soon 'THIS IS ELITE' will be in beta 2.0 and gamma testing.

Edited by Lootee, 15 September 2014 - 05:43 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Rebas Kradd, on 15 September 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

ECM on a vulnerable light or on the runt of the Atlas chassis is not.

Did you forget the K variant exists? I'll take 3 SRM6s over 2 AMS any day.

Ertur, on 15 September 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

ooooo if only I had addressed that, oh wait I did. Nice try. Buhbye.

Still avoiding the question, eh? I'm not surprised. I'm not the only one who mentioned that you didn't address it but whatever. OP is like Fox News...fair and balanced.