74 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

LordNothing, on 29 August 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

while i normally say 'just do things the MWLL way and be done with it', which would totally work mind you, i have yet another alternative.

give ecm 3 modes.

counter: works the same as before, can break the other 2 modes unless also countered by an enemy ecm

stealth: protects you and only you from radar, unless countered. does not alert enemy mechs to radar disruption (or perhaps at a reduced range).

protect: protects all non ecm mechs in the bubble, essentially giving them stealth. the mech in protect mode however is completely detectable and targetable. 2 ecm mechs in protect mode cannot shield eachother, however a mech in protect can shield a mech in distrupt. protect bubbles have no effect on ecm mechs in stealth mode.

I like this idea. Im not sure about all the positives and negatives though. I am 100% sure Omni mech pilots wont be to happy about ECM being weakened in any way. The 90 meter update is very weak so I am not surprised it isnt being shot down.

So many mechs running ECM sometimes that it seems to be calling for some nerfs. I like the none ability to stack ECM mostly because it makes BAP actually worth taking. Anything requireing a lock at the moment is next to useless even if a player has BAP making not only lock required weapon useless but also BAP.

I am of the opinion that the counter measures need to be strengthened, not that ECM needs to be removed or made to weak. This includes AMS. This also encourages none weapon tonnage in a game where every ton is being used for weapons except for ECM users... None weapon tonnage is a direction this game should be going and would make things alot more interesting.

Narc is something I have not considered taking to this day for example.

Hardly related it would be great if AMS would function as a single offensive auto target machine gun when not engaging missiles. This makes AMS alot more fun and makes the toggle that was added for on/off AMS more usefull.

I will mention again that having a TAG toggle on/off would be great to and improve its usefullness without making it stronger. Or just make it an on always thing if thats to much trouble because Im sure most will leave it on. Some may say they want an off switch for stealth reasons or what ever, but then they can just take NARC or BAP.

A few minor improvements to counter measures and alternatives to ECM and the playing field gets alot more fun and ECM alot less OP.

Edited by Johnny Z, 29 August 2015 - 01:28 PM.

[nehebkau]

While I agree, that there are more elegant solutions -- I just think that could be dropped easily and that the game would improve with a relatively simple change.

Edited by nehebkau, 29 August 2015 - 03:57 PM.

[Hotthedd]

If you get rid of ECM, you need to get rid of the lock mechanic for LRMs

[Vlad Ward]

oh my god. double velocity, dumb fire LRMs.

do it. just ******* do it. holy ****, that'd be fun.

or just call them MRMs I don't even care.

[Balder Shadow]

Mystere, on 29 August 2015 - 09:47 AM, said:

Not all lights scout. Some form bloodthirsty wolf packs.

I resemble that remark.....

And yeah, only lights should have ECM..... do you have any idea how disturbing it is for my Spider to turn a corner at 142 KPH only to find two lances under ECM facing me..... I still have nightmares.

I really don't care who has ECM, I learn to adapt.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Lrms cant be allowed to be viable weapons because players lose their **** when they are. Dunno how 90% of those ppl would have been able to cope in CB where the lrms had an AOA of 90 degrees. Hell even then I didnt take AMS, I just learned how to use cover lol

[wanderer]

W A R K H A N, on 29 August 2015 - 10:19 AM, said:

Secondly in lore, C3 master and slave systems existed. To share targeting data, you needed a C3 master system, to recieve you needed a slave. in MWO both systems are free to all mechs, so any mech can indirectly fire LRMs.

For the umpteeth time, C3 wasn't ever required for indirect LRM fire- all it takes is having someone who could spot the target. As in "Line of Sight". A fricking SINGLE INFANTRYMAN can spot for LRMs in tabletop.

What, did you maybe think LRMs magically couldn't use indirect fire for the Clans/pre-3060's?

If we had "free C3", you'd be able to fire your direct-fire weapons off of anyone else's sensor data in the network as if you were at their range. Wanna easymode headshot? Use the "sensors" of that guy who's brawling it and blow it off from 1000m away with your Gausses, easy-peasy. THAT would be a C3 system.

[nehebkau]

Everyone is so scared of LRMs -- maybe taking away ECM entirely would make people remember to use Radar Dep, take an AMS unit and stick with their team-mates.

I wish PGI's development / test environment were robust enough to test this type of thing on the fly.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Itd be nice is ecm didnt screw with you when its under a thick ass layer of metal (IE HPG)

[sycocys]

I'd have no problem with ecm, if ecm was just ecm and not angel/null combined into one unit. Don't really get the feeling that PGI has any desire what so ever to actually go back and fix the systems they made blindly so that these things can be seperated and LRMs can be more than fire and forget missiles.

[MechWarrior3671771]

The problem is that removing ECM would nerf BAP, TAG and Narc.

[Davegt27]

get rid of radar then you dont need ECM

[Galenit]

Hotthedd, on 29 August 2015 - 04:02 PM, said:

If you get rid of ECM, you need to get rid of the lock mechanic for LRMs

Why?

If ecm would nearly do what ecm does in tt, they just need to match the lrms.

EMC:
+50% lockontime,
+50% spread,
-25% radarrange

LRM:
All lrms have the same spreadradius of 5m (a lrm5 would spread their 5 missiles in the 5m radius as a lrm 20 would do it, this would make bigger launchers better)
Using more then 1 launcher at the same increases the spreadradius by 5m for every launcher

NARC: Counters the ecm effect of the mech its sticked on and provides target data
TAG: Reduces spread and lockontime by 25%
Artemis (needs los): Reduces spread and lockontime by 25%
BAP: Counters the ecm effect inside the bubble.

Now balance the numbers,
then you have artemis (LOS!)+tag lrms that hit nearly pinpoint,
ecm makes them normal (with some spread) against tag+artemis,
and firing them indirect against ecm makes them splatting all over the mech and around it.

Thats how do you make softcounters, where every item has a use and no jesusmagicbox or binary item.

I have done this some time ago with numbers, maybe you find the post in the archive...

EDIT: They also need to improve the ams code, it should only fire at missiles it can destroy, not on missiles that are to near to kill them. This would do something against overwelming ams.

Edited by Galenit, 30 August 2015 - 07:18 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Galenit, on 30 August 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

Why?

If ecm would do what ecm does in tt, they just need to match the lrms.

EMC:
+50% lockontime,
+50% spread,
-25% radarrange

LRM:
All lrms have the same spreadradius of 5m (a lrm5 would spread their 5 missiles in the 5m radius as a lrm 20 would do it, this would make bigger launchers better)
Using more then 1 launcher at the same increases the spreadradius by 5m for every launcher

NARC: Counters the ecm effect of the mech its sticked on and provides target data
TAG: Reduces spread and lockontime by 25%
Artemis (needs los): Reduces spread and lockontime by 25%
BAP: Counters the ecm effect inside the bubble.

Now balance the numbers,
then you have artemis (LOS!)+tag lrms that hit nearly pinpoint,
ecm makes them normal (with some spread) against tag+artemis,
and firing them indirect against ecm makes them splatting all over the mech and around it.

Thats how do you make softcounters, where every item has a use and no jesusmagicbox or binary item.

I have done this some time ago with numbers, maybe you find the post in the archive...

EDIT: They also need to improve the ams code, it should only fire at missiles it can destroy, not on missiles that are to near to kill them. This would do something against overwelming ams.

You are proposing a FIX to ECM.

I was responding to the OP's suggestion of REMOVING ECM. If ECM is removed then the lock-on mechanic for LRMs becomes a little to much of an easy button when boated, especially on some maps.

To compensate for the lack of a lock-on, LRMs would have to be made into a viable direct-fire weapon (i.e.increase speed), and be able to be manually guided, however.

[Hashocky]

Oh god the LRMS! They block out the sun!!!

[Galenit]

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2015 - 07:20 AM, said:

To compensate for the lack of a lock-on, LRMs would have to be made into a viable direct-fire weapon (i.e.increase speed), and be able to be manually guided, however.

We have hitscanweapons (laser), we have direct fire weapons (ballistics, ppc, srm) and we have have lockonweapons.

How fast, do you think, should lrms be to compitate against ballistics and ppcs against 300, 500 or 700 meters?
They have double the ppcs minimumrange, should they have more speed then ppcs?

But why remove even more diversity and complexity?
Isnt mwo simple enough? Should they dumb it even futher down?

[KraftySOT]

Removed? No. Because then Lurmaggedon would begin again. They never fixed LRMs or sensors, or anything else. ECM was a bandaid. If you rip that bandaid off, youll find out that the wound underneath has never healed.

[Steve Pryde]

Duke ramulots, on 29 August 2015 - 09:35 AM, said:

LRM indirect fire would have to go as well and why would we want that?

I would appreciate that. Just remove indirect fire from lurms and remove ecm.

Edited by Steve Pryde, 30 August 2015 - 08:22 AM.

[Screech]

Davegt27, on 30 August 2015 - 07:10 AM, said:

get rid of radar then you dont need ECM

A passive/active radar system would fix this whole issue but they never talk about that, they just try to nerf ECM.

[Hotthedd]

Galenit, on 30 August 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

We have hitscanweapons (laser), we have direct fire weapons (ballistics, ppc, srm) and we have have lockonweapons.

How fast, do you think, should lrms be to compitate against ballistics and ppcs against 300, 500 or 700 meters?
They have double the ppcs minimumrange, should they have more speed then ppcs?

But why remove even more diversity and complexity?
Isnt mwo simple enough? Should they dumb it even futher down?

We would have hit-scan weapons (lasers, MGs), PPFLD weapons (ballistics, PPCs), burst-fire weapons (cACs), and spread damage weapons (LBXs, SRMs and LRMs)

Missiles would need speed comparable to ACs, (and fire in groups of 5 for IS, 1 for clan to discourage boating)

Rather than dumbing things down (which the lock-on mechanic does, btw) it would make things able to have their own role. Indirect fire could still be done, the LRMs would have to be manually guided though.