945 replies to this topic

[Night Thastus]

OH MY GOD IT'S A MIRACLE.

It's still not how ECM worked in the lore (didn't affect LRM's or S-SRM's) but I'll ******* take it.

[Dagorlad13]

90 meters is a fair compromise. We do not want to overcomplicate things like some of these whackjobs are suggesting.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

IronClaws, on 15 July 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

90 meters is a fair compromise. We do not want to overcomplicate things like some of these whackjobs are suggesting.

Suits me just fine, but it seems a little unfair to moderate LRM users.

[Smith Gibson]

My whole problem has never been the fact that ECM has a radius of 180 meters.

My whole problem has been that MWO ECM magically does things it shouldn't be able to.

Look at TT-Battletech Guardian/Clan/Angel ECM and remove any ability that MWO ECM shouldn't have.

If it's still too powerful then, remove or reduce some more until it starts to be something you would allow on any 'Mech just like you currently allow Beagle/Clan Active Probes.

ECM will never be fixed until it is allowed on all 'Mechs but most players decide to not spend tonnage to equip it because they value something else more.

[Nephoros Sradac]

Well it will be a good change and it put Lrm/Streak boats back into the game where they belong. I would like to ask though - Why can you not make the AMS system that players use be able to get credits and points for usage, you get a protection bonus for using missiles so why not the same protection bonus for AMS?

[Duke Nedo]

Would also prefer something less binary... increase lock time by a lot instead of invisibility bubble... affect detection range a lot etc. Make it scale with mech size it's equipped on. Have role warefare quirks counter it etc etc.

[Trev Firestorm]

First: I like how Tennex thinks, Sereglach's suggestion (post #250) is similarly good.

Second: I'm betting there's nothing in BT that fits this but what if there was something that functioned like narc but applied an ECM effect on the target? (Just looked it up, there is an ECM pod for the iNarc can we please fudge the timeline/tech for an even more diverse EWAR)
Probably not? Had to ask.

[Pjwned]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 10:29 PM, said:

Can't fit the AMS, too much ERPPC and Streak

More like there's no need to fit it in because ECM does that job and then some due to LOL BALANCE.

Quote

No you don't run so fast that mechs that are holding LRM locks on you, miss with their LRMs, not if you are going 20% slower than a kitfox. Perhaps if you get out of their lock first, but not when they are holding a lock

I tend to get out of a missile lock when I see a big "INCOMING MISSILE" warning sign on my HUD, and I also tend to be close enough to cover that I can do that because I know that it's my fault if I get slammed by LRMs otherwise, not to mention that's good piloting practice to avoid other dangers anyways.

Quote

Once again, not a crutch, in the current meta I don't need it so much as it'd be dumb not to take it. In a LRM heavy meta that would exist if ECM went away, I would need it.

So you go out of your way to choose ECM mechs and even complain that your choices are limited because of that, but it's definitely not because ECM is a crutch...very believable.

I'm also not suggesting that ECM should go away, but its ridiculous jesus box functionality needs to be removed or split up into other pieces equipment so that it comes at much greater cost, and even then its shared stealth bubble functionality shouldn't exist period.

Quote

Also it doesn't have no cost, it requires me to pick from a limited selection of mechs; that's the real cost, not the 1.5/1 ton.

That's not a cost, that's an advantage you get for choosing that mech from many other options. I also didn't say it has no cost, but it does have very little cost for what it does and that's why ECM is ridiculous.

Quote

There is nothing OP about an ECM mech blocking target sharing. It can after all still be locked onto with a direct line of sight or a spotter with TAG.

It being OP or not is very arugable because it's obviously a very strong effect, and then when you say "oh yeah and it covers the entire battlefield too" that's just crossing the line.

There is a difference between being passively shielded from target sharing and jamming the target's sensors in order to prevent target sharing; one is less egregiously broken than the other.

Quote

Not only are you being thickheaded you are also being intentionally abrasive, please refrain from replying anymore unless you are going to have a mature conversation.

It's funny because you can simply choose to stop replying yourself.

Quote

FYI: game mechanics are more important than how realistically equipment performs.

I agree but that's not an excuse to defend bad game mechanics.

[HeavyMatter]

AlphaStruck, on 15 July 2015 - 04:07 PM, said:

Just do what weve asked for.

Uh, ok?

On ECM:

Honestly whats more absurd than any ECM issue, is Quirks, Plain and simple.

Arn't the Weapon Mods Suppose to be the "Quirks"

" Balancing " by giveing one side more Advantages then "Balancing" by give them to the other side is just stacking more problems on top of each other.

That leaves you with guys like this. :\

No offence but that line is ridiculous.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Pjwned, on 15 July 2015 - 11:33 PM, said:

More like there's no need to fit it in because ECM does that job and then some due to LOL BALANCE.



I tend to get out of a missile lock when I see a big "INCOMING MISSILE" warning sign on my HUD, and I also tend to be close enough to cover that I can do that because I know that it's my fault if I get slammed by LRMs otherwise, not to mention that's good piloting practice to avoid other dangers anyways.



So you go out of your way to choose ECM mechs and even complain that your choices are limited because of that, but it's definitely not because ECM is a crutch...very believable.

I'm also not suggesting that ECM should go away, but its ridiculous jesus box functionality needs to be removed or split up into other pieces equipment so that it comes at much greater cost, and even then its shared stealth bubble functionality shouldn't exist period.



That's not a cost, that's an advantage you get for choosing that mech from many other options. I also didn't say it has no cost, but it does have very little cost for what it does and that's why ECM is ridiculous.



It being OP or not is very arugable because it's obviously a very strong effect, and then when you say "oh yeah and it covers the entire battlefield too" that's just crossing the line.

There is a difference between being passively shielded from target sharing and jamming the target's sensors in order to prevent target sharing; one is less egregiously broken than the other.



It's funny because you can simply choose to stop replying yourself.



I agree but that's not an excuse to defend bad game mechanics.

k

[Dagorlad13]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 July 2015 - 10:38 PM, said:

Suits me just fine, but it seems a little unfair to moderate LRM users.

I have been using Lurms on my Mad Dog with no BAP or Modules and I have been getting 400-700 dmg regularly (yeah, not spectacular, but passable).

[Krivvan]

Xhaleon, on 15 July 2015 - 06:48 PM, said:

The range nerf for ECM changes nothing. If two ECM mechs are not enough to cover a team, then tryhard groups will run with four.

Tryhard groups tend not to care much about ECM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

IronClaws, on 15 July 2015 - 11:46 PM, said:

I have been using Lurms on my Mad Dog with no BAP or Modules and I have been getting 400-700 dmg regularly (yeah, not spectacular, but passable).

I can only offer you a shrug. I like my ECM, but I don't necessarily think it needs to be as powerful as it is. Some people on here are certainly taking the nerf proposals a little too far though.

[Rushin Roulette]

Hmm. Would be interresting to see how this affects the gameplay. I would rather see ECM staying as it is 180 meters and bubble protection, but a change to the BAP functionality.

Just change BAP from a 1 BAP counters 1 ECM to 1 BAP counters all ECM within the BAP bubble.

[bad arcade kitty]

IronClaws, on 15 July 2015 - 11:46 PM, said:

I have been using Lurms on my Mad Dog with no BAP or Modules and I have been getting 400-700 dmg regularly (yeah, not spectacular, but passable).

bap doesn't help lurms much, 240 is pretty close to the lurm minimal distance

eh, the main reason why nerfing bap makes little sense it's that it largely confronts ecm's 1/4 radar range feature not only its bubble

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 15 July 2015 - 11:58 PM.

[Knight2416]

I agree to reducing the ECM limit, but only if you fix maps and LRM, SRM, SSRM at the same time.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Knight2416, on 15 July 2015 - 11:58 PM, said:

I agree to reducing the ECM limit, but only if you fix maps and LRM, SRM, SSRM at the same time.

indeed

Welp imma head to bed all, lemme know how the glorious people's revolution to overthrow ECM goes.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 16 July 2015 - 12:02 AM.

[Unit47]

TBH it is not needed. ECM did mit even play a big role in comp play. Quite the opposite: It is used as restriction in MRBC.

[Nephoros Sradac]

bad arcade kitty, on 15 July 2015 - 11:53 PM, said:

bap doesn't help lurms much, 240 is pretty close to the lurm minimal distance

It's actually 180 m for clan mechs

[bad arcade kitty]

Bastardinc, on 16 July 2015 - 12:07 AM, said:

It's actually 180 m for clan mechs

240 it's the range of bap