Ecm Concept
#1
Posted 29 July 2015 - 06:26 AM
ECM I - 1ton. Only effects the 'mech with the ECM
ECM II - 3ton. 90 meter coverage. Effects the closest 4 'mechs (including host mech) within the 90meters.
ECM III - 6ton. 180 meter coverage. Effects the closest 8 'mechs (including host mech) within 180meters.
The idea is to stop a 1 ton investment on 1 mech from crippling an enemy team. This solution seems like an actual pay for what you get fix rather than the current thrift store ECM... Shoot, it was only 99 cents!
#2
Posted 29 July 2015 - 07:13 AM
What it did do:
Prevent target data
Prevent detection of the 'Mech(s)
Prevent TAG, NARC, or ARTEMIS from providing bonus
That's it.
Yep.
It was lightweight, but it didn't do a whole lot. I wouldn't mind a 180m bubble if that's all it did.
Edited by Night Thastus, 29 July 2015 - 07:15 AM.
#3
Posted 29 July 2015 - 07:16 AM
#4
Posted 29 July 2015 - 07:58 AM
My though on it are:
1. ECM passive mode only protects the carrier.
2. The ECM can be "fired" to create the Jesus bubble for a short period of time. This creates heat and has recharge and the Carrier looses the ECM protection so is targetable.
So you can have your stealth or stealth everyone else and be a target.
#5
Posted 29 July 2015 - 09:45 AM
Night Thastus, on 29 July 2015 - 07:13 AM, said:
What it did do:
Prevent target data
Prevent detection of the 'Mech(s)
Prevent TAG, NARC, or ARTEMIS from providing bonus
That's it.
Yep.
It was lightweight, but it didn't do a whole lot. I wouldn't mind a 180m bubble if that's all it did.
Honestly, at 1.5t, the above effects are worthwhile. Preventing target data alone is a substantial advantage in a brawl. Removing the ECM cockblock on lock on weapons would help in balancing them, as it's hard to make good balancing moves while accounting for the (strong) possibility that those lock on weapons will in fact be completely useless at times/for entire matches.
#6
Posted 29 July 2015 - 09:55 AM
#7
Posted 29 July 2015 - 10:28 AM
the ecm gives the mech stealth armor ability to itself & it's team without the heat and the armor slots required for it, not to mention it wouldn't provide anything for it's own team.
if they are going to give it the stealth armor effects then the unit should have to pay for it in crits & heat along with messing up its own electronics.
outside of SA then the ecm should proved the basic protection as mentioned by HammerMaster.
but on the bright side(depending on which side you are on) only the IS has the SA tech.
#8
Posted 29 July 2015 - 10:37 AM
Night Thastus, on 29 July 2015 - 07:13 AM, said:
What it did do:
Prevent target data
Prevent detection of the 'Mech(s)
Prevent TAG, NARC, or ARTEMIS from providing bonus
That's it.
Yep.
It was lightweight, but it didn't do a whole lot. I wouldn't mind a 180m bubble if that's all it did.
I agree. I'd like to see this for ECM.
And then make the necessary adjustments for LRMs and Streaks. I'd consider factors such as having more ripple fire patterns for missiles, longer cooldowns and so on.
#9
Posted 29 July 2015 - 10:47 AM
#10
Posted 29 July 2015 - 02:06 PM
VinJade, on 29 July 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:
What in the world are you talking about?
LRM-5: 3.25s
C-LRM-5: 3.50s
LRM-10: 3.75s
C-LRM-10: 4.00s
LRM-15: 4.25s
C-LRM-15: 4.5s
LRM-20: 4.75s
C-LRM-20: 5.00s
So clan 'Mechs have a quarter of a second slower cooldown? Who cares? They weight tons less and take up less slots. Don't mind at all.
(Note that even at the worst case, the LRM-5, the increase in cooldown from IS to Clan is 7.69%. Honestly, who gives a f*ck.)
Edited by Night Thastus, 29 July 2015 - 02:07 PM.
#11
Posted 30 July 2015 - 04:29 PM
Night Thastus, on 29 July 2015 - 07:13 AM, said:
What it did do:
Prevent target data
Prevent detection of the 'Mech(s)
Prevent TAG, NARC, or ARTEMIS from providing bonus
That's it.
Yep.
It was lightweight, but it didn't do a whole lot. I wouldn't mind a 180m bubble if that's all it did.
Its supposed to convert SSRM to normal SRM.
So yeah its supposed to affect SSRM but not block it.
Its not supposed to interfere with TAG either.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users