105 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Just make LRMs fly faster at longer ranges instead of making huge changes like that. I don't agree at all with completely reworking LRMs like that because it creates other problems in the process of trying to fix some problems.

yeah if they could make LRMs gradually accelerate upto a higher max speed that would work too

but its PGI they cant even figure out ammo swapping for LBX

[The Lobsters]

Khobai, on 10 March 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

ECM is one of many reasons why LRM dont compete with direct fire weapons. ECM shouldnt give stealth because the benefit of stealth is too good for 1.5 tons and should be reserved for equipment like Null SIgnature System where the benefit is balanced by the costs. NSS is what gives stealth in the battletech universe, not ECM.

The fact LRMs are slow as molasses and can be dodged without effort is another reason. They dont function like long range missiles because their max effective range is like 500-600 meters.

And the fact LRMs spread damage around too much and artemis isnt worth its tonnage is yet another reason.

There are many reasons LRMs arnt competitive and they ALL need to be addressed.

Lurmtard problems

Fit a suitable mech that can give a high rate of fire and has the mobility to hunt for it's own locks (clue, not an assault).
Fit tag + artemis.
Shoot from 200m-300m.
Keep moving while firing, which unlike direct fire weapons is much easier to do.
Abuse the received wisdom that LRM mechs are weak.
Don't ***** half your missiles in the early stages on second hand target locks, that way you don't need to gimp your fit by bringing too many missiles.
Find the push, support the push.

I agree that artemis could be a bit stronger. In tests i've done with a pal in an atlas the TTK without T+A was 28 secs and the TTK with T+A was 20 secs.

Edited by The Lobsters, 10 March 2016 - 10:02 AM.

[Namwons]

Get rid of Angel ECM cover. I dont know why it was like this for standard ECM in the first place.

[Livewyr]

Not that it's worth discussing.. but:

1: Increase LRM speed. (like double it)
2: Reduce LRM agility. (like, 75%, they should turn gradually- allowing for misses on agile targets or un-aimed shots)
3: Make them (Lock->Fire->Forget)
4: Remove innate indirect fire. (Let indirect happen only with NARC and TAG)
5: Set BAP to just do its job. (Detect shut down mechs within range- and notify when it is being jammed by ECM)
6: Let Artemis increase agility by 100% (of new value)
7: Set Guardian ECM to TT. Jam NARC, [TAG],Artemis, and BAP, and cut off our pretty innate C3. Nothing else.
8...Test
9: Profit.

Game changed. Missiles useful, but require more, and are not guaranteed even in open field... ECM useful, but not ridiculous. Radar Dep is moot.


I've already spent more time typing this than PGI will thinking about it. I'm done.

Have a good one.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Livewyr, on 10 March 2016 - 11:34 AM, said:

Reduce LRM agility. (like, 75%, they should turn gradually- allowing for misses on agile targets or un-aimed shots)

If anything they need a bit more, they already hit legs on any target with decent enough speed, no reason for this to be worse. That might have to do with how they track more than anything though.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 March 2016 - 11:37 AM.

[Sandpit]

Livewyr, on 10 March 2016 - 11:34 AM, said:

Radar Dep is moot.
.

I dam well better get a refund on cbills if that happens.

[Revis Volek]

Douglas grizzly, on 08 March 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

while ecm is very useful and i understand its need, i do think it is FAR too powerful. Reason i cant tell you how many times i have had a light mech hit me from behind without any warning whatsoever. believe me i am watching very carefully for the low signal and mini map disruptions, but still its very irritating to be fighting and all of a sudden be lity up by a mech there has been no warning that it is there. Also i have noticed several times mechs have not had the triangle above then even when at pointblank range. Whether that is a effect of ecm or not i dont know. If it is i dont think that should happen within say 1000 meters. I do understand not being able to lock missiles on them due to ecm and i support that.

Thoughts on correcting this in balance. make the ecm module weight and space intensive. IE if the ecm module is 1 space and 1 ton then change weight to 5 tons and 3 to 5 spaces. I do support limiting it to a few mechs, which is good. Also to correct the no triangle at point blank range , i suggest flickers of it, and same for the ones sneaking up on someone .

When an ECM light gets to close you get a thing on your Radar that says LOW SIGNAL


If they DONT have ECM or shut it off you wont get that blip and in that case Seismic Sensor for FTW.

[Sandpit]

Revis Volek, on 10 March 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

When an ECM light gets to close you get a thing on your Radar that says LOW SIGNAL


If they DONT have ECM or shut it off you wont get that blip and in that case Seismic Sensor for FTW.

seismic works regardless of ECM (which makes it more valuable than BAP unless you need the targeting for lurms in my opinion)

[Pjwned]

Sandpit, on 10 March 2016 - 09:39 AM, said:

I'll agree all day long that ECM needs some better counter options, but I don't feel investing 1.5 tons and 2 slots for a BAP is bending over backwards, nor is investing in a TAG laser.

In the case of BAP with LRMs, you need to be close enough to counter ECM while also not being too close for minimum range, which makes it not so great because that's a tight range window. BAP is more useful with SSRMs of course because you need to be in that range anyways, but SSRMs are absolute trash and the BAP tax for equipping any SSRMs just makes them even worse.

TAG isn't quite as bad but even with TAG it frequently takes at least 3 seconds just to get a lock on something (let alone actually do any damage with LRMs after being exposed for that long) because ECM is way too powerful.

Quote

For example, if you switch ECM to jam, it once again only jams one ECM, it should act like a bubble in reverse exactly like it does when it's creating that stealth bubble.

It's not a matter of ECM being OP in my opinion, it's a matter of the bubble mechanic it uses while no other counter electronics have the same advantage.

I don't agree at all with making ECM counters stronger because it just enforces a ridiculous arms race even more and it doesn't deal with eliminating hard counters at all when hard counters should be eliminated because they're absolute **** design. Coupled with ECM being way too ridiculously good for what it is, the answer should be to just nerf ECM.

Khobai, on 10 March 2016 - 09:40 AM, said:

yeah if they could make LRMs gradually accelerate upto a higher max speed that would work too

but its PGI they cant even figure out ammo swapping for LBX

True, I would rather have LRMs stay at their current speed than to make them too fast at shorter range though.

[Sandpit]

Pjwned, on 10 March 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

I don't agree at all with making ECM counters stronger because it just enforces a ridiculous arms race even more and it doesn't deal with eliminating hard counters at all when hard counters should be eliminated because they're absolute **** design. Coupled with ECM being way too ridiculously good for what it is, the answer should be to just nerf ECM.

I see it as expanding actual tech and info warfare roles.

[nehebkau]

Khobai, on 10 March 2016 - 08:21 AM, said:

As far as LRMS are concerned it IS invisibility. ECM should not hard counter an entire subset of weapons.

So, no red dorito = stealth to LRMs then being out of range also = stealth to LRMs.. Here is a wonderful idea... carry some other weapons besides LRMS!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

nehebkau, on 10 March 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

So, no red dorito = stealth to LRMs then being out of range also = stealth to LRMs.. Here is a wonderful idea... carry some other weapons besides LRMS!

Or better yet, dont carry LRMS!

See how well that argument works? Why should LRMs be one of the few, if only weapons that are unable to be boated/specialized because of something like ECM (and minimum range)?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 March 2016 - 03:15 PM.

[nehebkau]

Pjwned, on 10 March 2016 - 08:59 AM, said:

The caveat there was being exposed "for far too long." Get some reading comprehension please.

Welcome to the world of Lasers and SRMs. My comprehension is fine, you are so biased on the issue that no argument will ever sway you and no one is going to feel sorry for you because you have to risk inbound enemy fire. If you never want to get hit become a dropship pilot.

Pjwned, on 10 March 2016 - 08:59 AM, said:

That's not negating direct fire weapons, you have single digit IQ if you seriously think that.

I guess if an enemy fires LRMs at you while you're brawling with another enemy at close range then you're suddenly blocked from firing your weapons, right?

You can still dumb-fire your LRMs and they will hit and do damage to an enemy -- sad part is you may have to lead your target just like using an auto-cannon -- so you need some skills. A PPC has the same issue as LRMs for close range -- and people make the choice to equip it or not equip it. So yes, if I have a PPC and someone gets in brawl range my weapon will not work -- perhaps I should have taken an ERPPC? And how is firing from behind cover and hitting a target not in LOS not negating another enemies ability to fire defensively on you? And for the record, you are not prevented from firing your LRMs if someone is shooting you.

Pjwned, on 10 March 2016 - 08:59 AM, said:

Laughably pathetic argument from the scrubbiest of ECM-baby crutchlords.

Laughably pathetic argument from the scrubbiest of LRM-tryhard crutch-lords. Just because you are unable to see the parallel between ECM and firing on targets when they can't even see you (behind buildings hills mountains etc.) doesn't make the argument invalid -- it simply demonstrates that you are completely unwilling to consider, even in the slightest, that you may be wrong.

Pjwned, on 10 March 2016 - 08:59 AM, said:

Right, you have to bend over backwards to deal with ECM because it's so unbalanced, and even then it's far from being any ECM mech's "worst nightmare."

Didn't you just say everyone should equip AMS to counter LRMs Why should my whole team bend-over backwards to deal with your LRMs? Thats a hard counter to LRMs that require me to carry tons of ammo... to use the LRM-scrub argument about BAP vs. ECM.

Pjwned, on 10 March 2016 - 08:59 AM, said:

Right, that's what you end up doing and not equipping LRMs because they're so unreliable, and when people say that's the problem you get scrub baddies saying LOL JUST DON'T USE LRMS THEN.

That shows you don't know how to use them. I have met and battled along side many people who use LRMS and they have done fantastic using because they are at the front, have alternate weapons and know how to drive their mechs. I am sure if we keep this thread alive long enough some of them will drop by and show you. I have some LRMs on a few mechs as backup weapons and they work just fine.


Show me that people (not just the scrublord) can't use LRMs effectively and that ECM is a huge burdon...
and
This
and
This
and
This

Edited by nehebkau, 10 March 2016 - 03:35 PM.

[Pjwned]

nehebkau, on 10 March 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

Welcome to the world of Lasers and SRMs. My comprehension is fine, you are so biased on the issue that no argument will ever sway you and no one is going to feel sorry for you because you have to risk inbound enemy fire. If you never want to get hit become a dropship pilot.

I would be fine if being exposed to fire LRMs (to a far greater degree than SRMs and lasers require) was as effective or more effective, but it's not even close, so there is a difference unless you just ignore it due to extreme bias.

Quote

You can still dumb-fire your LRMs and they will hit and do damage to an enemy -- sad part is you may have to lead your target just like using an auto-cannon -- so you need some skills.

Needing to rely on dumb fire for anything except the most extreme situations means that LRMs are not worth bringing, which is again the problem; might as well bring that auto cannon you mentioned instead of the LRMs.

Quote

A PPC has the same issue as LRMs for close range -- and people make the choice to equip it or not equip it. So yes, if I have a PPC and someone gets in brawl range my weapon will not work -- perhaps I should have taken an ERPPC?

And that should be addressed by adjusting PPC minimum range so that it doesn't deal 0 damage at 89m because that's also nonsense.

Quote

And how is firing from behind cover and hitting a target not in LOS not negating another enemies ability to fire defensively on you?

You're moving goalposts by adding "[the] ability to fire defensively on you" and additionally ignoring that situation requires you being spotted for the LRM mech to have a target.

Quote

And for the record, you are not prevented from firing your LRMs if someone is shooting you.

And neither are you prevented from firing your weapons while being hit by LRMs, which is why your argument there is ****.

Quote

Laughably pathetic argument from the scrubbiest of LRM-tryhard crutch-lords. Just because you are unable to see the parallel between ECM and firing on targets when they can't even see you (behind buildings hills mountains etc.) doesn't make the argument invalid -- it simply demonstrates that you are completely unwilling to consider, even in the slightest, that you may be wrong.

That doesn't mean LRMs negate direct fire weapons, so maybe try not saying something incredibly stupid. Just because you make horrible arguments doesn't mean I don't consider that they may be valid.

Quote

Didn't you just say everyone should equip AMS to counter LRMs Why should my whole team bend-over backwards to deal with your LRMs? Thats a hard counter to LRMs that require me to carry tons of ammo... to use the LRM-scrub argument about BAP vs. ECM.

This would be a reasonable argument if AMS was literally the only counter to LRMs after ECM being nerfed, but it isn't.

AMS is also not a hard counter against LRMs and it only "requires" "tons of ammo" (unless you're being a twit and count 1 ton as "tons of ammo") if you sit in the middle of an LRM rainstorm or never toggle your AMS off ever even when it's being wasted, and even then if you're actually using a lot of AMS ammo (assuming it's not being wasted due to being bad) then that means mitigating a lot of damage.

It's not bending over backwards to equip AMS, which does its job passively, and if you can't see the difference between that and trying to counter ECM then I don't know what more to say.

Quote

That shows you don't know how to use them. I have met and battled along side many people who use LRMS and they have done fantastic using because they are at the front, have alternate weapons and know how to drive their mechs. I am sure if we keep this thread alive long enough some of them will drop by and show you. I have some LRMs on a few mechs as backup weapons and they work just fine.

That's not even close to enough info to argue whether ECM is unbalanced, so unless you're trying to say "ECM isn't unbalanced when it's not present" then all I have to say is "cool story."

Quote

Show me that people (not just the scrublord) can't use LRMs effectively and that ECM is a huge burdon...

No true scotsman, nice. Also, I already explained why ECM is a huge burden, but you just ignore it because of your own insane bias.

Quote

and
This
and
This
and
This

Not cherry picking and you're a massive hypocrite for pointing out anecdotes as a fallacy with your previous paragraph alone.

[Zerberus]

nehebkau, on 10 March 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

And how is firing from behind cover and hitting a target not in LOS not negating another enemies ability to fire defensively on you?

This is the oldest and most ridiculous anti-LRM argument in the book, and it showcases either an extreme bias that leads to preposterous statements or a complete lack of understanding of how indirect fire works, basically disqualifying anything said by that person afterwards.

If you understand how guided indirect fire works on even the most basic level, in real life OR in Battletech, then you should be able understand that for guided weapons to hit accurately without a LoS, someone else has to HAVE a LoS so as to be able to relay the information. This is called "Spotting", and is one of the primary roles of fast mobile units, units like light mechs or Army Rangers.

Bonus question: Can you guess what the root of the word "Ranger" is, and how this may directly apply to this situation (even though it happens to be coincidental)?

Shoot the spotter or shoot the UAV, and the rain stops falling. That is the obvious defensive fire choice.

The only other way to take indirect fire is to get NARCed, and letting that happen to you usually takes a special kind of stupid....

All of this imaginary "orbital satellites are spotting for them" schtick was already boring and blatantly false in 2011, and it´s still boring and blatantly false now.

Sandpit, on 08 March 2016 - 11:15 AM, said:

It only counters a single ECM though. If 2 mechs are carrying ECM only one of them will lose their ECM coverage. Same with UAVs.

So, for example, if I am running BAP and 2 cheetahs come rushing in, once they're in my BAP bubble, their ECM should be negated.

While I personally feel that 1:1 is good enough (in no small part becasue any mech that can be "shut down" by ECM should already be taking a BAP by default, and BAP can be mounted on anything as opposed to ECM`s comparatively limited availability ) I´m not sure I understand what you mean with the UAV part... are you saying that if there are 2 ECM mechs in range of the UAV, it only cancels one out? Because I pop them quite often and usually have at least 2 eECM mechs suddenly come up on everyone´s targeting, so I´m not quite sure what to make of that.....

UAV is (usually) a direct LoS from above and SHOULD negate any and all targeting countermeasures on those mechs in visual range...... if someone manages to stay out of the UAV´s LoS that´s great for them, but anything it can see it´s team should be able to target....

Edited by Zerberus, 11 March 2016 - 04:25 AM.

[Wolfways]

nehebkau, on 10 March 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

Welcome to the world of Lasers and SRMs. My comprehension is fine, you are so biased on the issue that no argument will ever sway you and no one is going to feel sorry for you because you have to risk inbound enemy fire. If you never want to get hit become a dropship pilot.




You can still dumb-fire your LRMs and they will hit and do damage to an enemy -- sad part is you may have to lead your target just like using an auto-cannon -- so you need some skills. A PPC has the same issue as LRMs for close range -- and people make the choice to equip it or not equip it. So yes, if I have a PPC and someone gets in brawl range my weapon will not work -- perhaps I should have taken an ERPPC? And how is firing from behind cover and hitting a target not in LOS not negating another enemies ability to fire defensively on you? And for the record, you are not prevented from firing your LRMs if someone is shooting you.




Laughably pathetic argument from the scrubbiest of LRM-tryhard crutch-lords. Just because you are unable to see the parallel between ECM and firing on targets when they can't even see you (behind buildings hills mountains etc.) doesn't make the argument invalid -- it simply demonstrates that you are completely unwilling to consider, even in the slightest, that you may be wrong.



Didn't you just say everyone should equip AMS to counter LRMs Why should my whole team bend-over backwards to deal with your LRMs? Thats a hard counter to LRMs that require me to carry tons of ammo... to use the LRM-scrub argument about BAP vs. ECM.



That shows you don't know how to use them. I have met and battled along side many people who use LRMS and they have done fantastic using because they are at the front, have alternate weapons and know how to drive their mechs. I am sure if we keep this thread alive long enough some of them will drop by and show you. I have some LRMs on a few mechs as backup weapons and they work just fine.


Show me that people (not just the scrublord) can't use LRMs effectively and that ECM is a huge burdon...
and
This
and
This
and
This

I was going to give a long reply but after reading the same crap for years, and highly doubting pgi cares, it's just easier to say every single thing you wrote is just idiotic, and there's no point in explaining why because you'll just deny it.

Pgi doesn't want to remove OP ECM "stealth" anyway because newbies and bad players will go mental on the forums or just quit the game because learning to play a game is too hard.

[Pjwned]

Wolfways, on 11 March 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

Pgi doesn't want to remove OP ECM "stealth" anyway because newbies and bad players will go mental on the forums or just quit the game because learning to play a game is too hard.

Well, they did at least consider doing that during the "great mech re-balance" but of course in typical PGI fashion they didn't follow through and have shown no further interest in revisiting it again.

[Pjwned]

Sandpit, on 10 March 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

I see it as expanding actual tech and info warfare roles.

Personally I see it as an extremely piss poor, lazy way of accomplishing that, but I do see the point I suppose.

[Wolfways]

Pjwned, on 11 March 2016 - 10:32 AM, said:

Well, they did at least consider doing that during the "great mech re-balance" but of course in typical PGI fashion they didn't follow through and have shown no further interest in revisiting it again.

They did? I didn't know that.
So it's kind of official that ECM will always be OP (excluding any later "position at the time"). That sucks

[Pjwned]

Wolfways, on 11 March 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

They did? I didn't know that.
So it's kind of official that ECM will always be OP (excluding any later "position at the time"). That sucks

Yeah, PGI wanted to change ECM to just increase lock time, but it ended up not happening. They didn't follow through mostly because they wanted to rush the game out to Steam because they were taking absurdly long to get anything done with their re-balance efforts, so it's not an entirely lost cause because they probably did actually want to do that, but they didn't follow through and again have shown no visible interest in revisiting the issue.