6 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

Should ECM no longer prevent target-lock altogether(As PTS3),
but simply delay the time it takes for an enemy to achieve target-lock,
Like was in PTS3, Even without Info WarFare? or at least Compromise,


ECM XML from Mcgral,

Mcgral18 said:

-<Module faction="InnerSphere" CType="CGECMStats" name="GuardianECM" id="9006">
<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\GuardianECM.dds" descTag="@GuardianECM_desc" nameTag="@GuardianECM"/>
<ModuleStats health="3" tons="1.5" slots="2"/>
<GECMStats targetingfactor="0.25" weaponlockfactor="0.5" range="90"/>
</Module>

PTS4 reset the (targetingfactor) to 0.25, which is the same as it is on Live,
PTS1-3 had the (targetingfactor) set to 1, or no (no Lock Zone),


We think (targetingfactor) Controls ECM Bubble and (no Lock Zone),

Mcgral18, on 17 November 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

800M being the default sensor range, mechs inside the Magic Jesus Field are only able to be detected at 25% of your sensor range, or 200M. That can be extended by the module and possibly BAP, to 300M (1200M total).

PTS1-3 removed the Magic Jesus Field entirely, largely removing the Magic part of the Magic Jesus Box.

Personally, I'd go with a 0.5 'targetingfactor', which gives mechs a default 400M sensor range against mechs inside a Magic Jesus Field, up to 600M if you pay for it. Fixes the largest complaint of LRMs; the inability to target and lock.

The Jesus Box retains the Magic Jesus Field at a smaller radius and distance and double missile locks, which is pretty fair for a 1-1.5 ton box.

Id Agree with Mcgral here, a (targetingfactor) of 0.5(400m),
or even a (targetingfactor) of 0.65(520m) Half the Range of LRMs,
would really help Lessen ECM wail also allowing LRMs to be Better Balanced,


Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Edit- Spelling

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 21 November 2015 - 03:14 PM.

[Fubbit]

I was about to make a new post about the ecm un-nerf and found this.

The non stealth 90m ecm (PTS 3) IS WAY FREAKING BETTER than live.

If they want to mess with the range of the non-stealth ecm thats probably ok, but taking away the stealth feature was far and away the best change they made from the entire set of PTS changes. (IMHO)

Pretty please, put it back to PTS 3 before sending it live.

Incidentally, the PTS3 ecm will be much more steam-noob friendly. Just sayin.

Thanks!

[Scanz]

i thinkh we need patch pts sever with this

[Livewyr]

I uninstalled both clients because they reverted the ECM change.

(I wouldn't count on them changing it back, Russ hears the silent majority, the ones not on the forums... and they agree with him and Paul.)

[Kristian Radoulov]

I personally liked ECM better in PTS1-3. In reality though ECM's main role is to balance indirect LRM fire. As long as that part of the game is balanced, I don't care what form ECM takes to be honest.

[Wibbledtodeath]

Yup. What we need is a missile lock rebalance not ecm nerf.
Infowar cant be too weak at the same time ecm is OP. Just makes no sense. THE problem is that ecm nerfs lrm\streak lock but without it in certain teirs/maps lrm is too dominant. If lrms only lock with line of sight or tag/narc then ecm becomes stealth NOT missile shield and its no longer op.

Then lrms would need a bit of rebalancing ? Velocity buff.
This solution also enhances role of scouting.

[Lanstrike]

Why not just make the ECM jamming/disrupting other mechs 90 and the coverage for teams 180? That kinda meets a half way sweet spot. Allowing players to cover teammates and support the team at it was intended to do in the first place?

You are encouraging ECM mechs to abandon the team because it doesn't cover as many players as before.. Can you not see how that hurts teamwork?