145 replies to this topic

[Orkhepaj]

Vassago Rain, on 28 November 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

It's the first platform for it. It's not a relic piece of gear.
There's no such thing in battletech.

There's no orcslaying deathdealer of godly might +21 AC5 that only goes on atlas.

another mass poster without any braincells

[Itzi]

I do see it being possible for other lights to have ECM, at a cost
example would be the hardware space required for ECM is so large that it can only fit through sacrificing something,
engine, weapon, whatever.

Personally I'd like to see items and weapons becoming more bulky so there is a decision for pilots to decide what they want to sacrifice for this change from the canon builds.

[Vassago Rain]

Itzi, on 28 November 2012 - 02:53 AM, said:

I do see it being possible for other lights to have ECM, at a cost
example would be the hardware space required for ECM is so large that it can only fit through sacrificing something,
engine, weapon, whatever.

Personally I'd like to see items and weapons becoming more bulky so there is a decision for pilots to decide what they want to sacrifice for this change from the canon builds.

Yes, that's generally how a tonnage/critical component works....

You know, like say, an extra heatsink, or BAP, more lasers, bigger engine....

[Kernfeuer]

Oh yeah..put anything in any mechs ...by the way..why dozen of different mech types exist? whats the reason some mechs got jumpjets and another not?? whats the reason for different hardslots.. and then doing somthing like this..dont get it

PLs devs do an a straight-line path about that..dont make the Role of Warefare for the Raven Obsolete

Edited by Kernfeuer, 28 November 2012 - 02:59 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Kernfeuer, on 28 November 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

Oh yeah..put anything in any mechs ...by the way..why dozen of different mech types exist? whats the reason some mechs got jumpjets and another not?? whats the reason for different hardslots.. and then doing somthing like this..dont get it

PLs devs do an a straight-line path about that..dont make the Roll of Warefare for the Raven Obsolete

I don't think you understand the full implications of making a very useful, near-mandatory piece of gear version exclusive, which would force teams to add mech X, even if they don't have mech X, or want mech X.

So if it's only on, say, the godtier jenner, and you don't have a jenner, you now need to purchase a jenner, or SOMEONE on your team needs to. Raven is terrible, anyway. Maybe they should focus on making it good for real.

If ECM is really good, then will we see all those fatlases and unawesomes come out to play if it's only on jenners? It also goes against how the game should work.

They don't have a problem limiting guns or every other piece of gear, do they? But this is something they could make money of, and you're thinking it's a good idea.

[Daycrist Bloodfang]

Vassago Rain, on 28 November 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

It's the first platform for it. It's not a relic piece of gear.
There's no such thing in battletech.

There's no orcslaying deathdealer of godly might +21 AC5 that only goes on atlas.

JR10-X - A Experimental variant of the Jenner developed during the *****. It was a test-bed chassis for LAW on New Samarkand in 3072. Using the JR7-K as its base, with extensive revisions. Its internal structure was changed for a Composite Internal Structure. Its engine changed out for a 245 Rated XL Engine, which helps maintain the Jenner's original speed. The designer moved the forward jutting cockpit to a Torso Mounted Cockpit. Its missile weaponry was completely dropped in favor of increasing the 'Mechs medium laser armament up to six Medium Lasers. Jump Jets increased from base module to seven. For the 'Mechs protection, it has an Angel ECM and its hull has been encased with seven tons of Light Ferro-Fibrous Armor. For its stealth capacities, the 'mech has been given an Experimental Null-Signature System. Only seven of these 'Mechs were known to have been built. BV (1.0) = ???, BV (2.0) = 1,452^[13]

the only Jenner to ever get ECM by Sarna

[Vassago Rain]

Daycrist Bloodfang, on 28 November 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

JR10-X - A Experimental variant of the Jenner developed during the *****. It was a test-bed chassis for LAW on New Samarkand in 3072. Using the JR7-K as its base, with extensive revisions. Its internal structure was changed for a Composite Internal Structure. Its engine changed out for a 245 Rated XL Engine, which helps maintain the Jenner's original speed. The designer moved the forward jutting cockpit to a Torso Mounted Cockpit. Its missile weaponry was completely dropped in favor of increasing the 'Mechs medium laser armament up to six Medium Lasers. Jump Jets increased from base module to seven. For the 'Mechs protection, it has an Angel ECM and its hull has been encased with seven tons of Light Ferro-Fibrous Armor. For its stealth capacities, the 'mech has been given an Experimental Null-Signature System. Only seven of these 'Mechs were known to have been built. BV (1.0) = ???, BV (2.0) = 1,452^[13]

the only Jenner to ever get ECM by Sarna

That's interesting, because I can put it on any mech I want by the game's rules. Since it's not a unique piece of relic gear that I have to defeat 10 raid bosses to get.

[MustrumRidcully]

I think the real thing to do is give every Raven the option to put on an ECM.

And maybe then they can use their upcomnig "Mech Quirk" system to give the Raven an extra benefit. Maybe Raven ECMs always counter all other ECMs, or something like that.

[Daycrist Bloodfang]

Vassago Rain, on 28 November 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

That's interesting, because I can put it on any mech I want by the game's rules. Since it's not a unique piece of relic gear that I have to defeat 10 raid bosses to get.

yup because who cares about Battletech rules let's just go by designer rules

[MustrumRidcully]

How abount instead of insulting a fellow poster, you think about what he said elsewhere:
If you want the Raven to be better, make the Raven better, and don't hinge it on just a single device.

[Vassago Rain]

Enjoy paying for new ECM versions of your mechs.

[Crayzed Lyon]

ECM Jenner makes Streak Cats sad. 'Nuff said

[Captain Midnight]

If the Jenner D gets ECM it's just one more piece of evidence that the Devs of this game are just like EVE devs. They play and abuse the game so they are reluctant to fix something they themselves are abusing. It's easy to think LRMs are fine, SSRMs are fine, and Jenners are fine if you are piloting A1s (like Kyle Hayden has been) or if you are coring atlases in 3 seconds with your Jenner (like Garth Erlam is) or boating an LRM15+Artemis no repair DDC like the rest of the team is.

Your favourite mech is a Dragon Paul? Yeah right.... Because all the love is flowing one way, and that way is lock-on weapons that outperform skill-based weapons at all ranges. The BEST PLAYERS IN THE WORLD at this game (which isn't saying much since there is only a couple thousand of us) can barely out headshot a left trigger mech like the A1 or the DDC that anyones nephew could play to the tune of 900 damage after a 15 minute tutorial.

(His score was 2/X kills/assists when he CTD)

[Orkhepaj]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 November 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

How abount instead of insulting a fellow poster, you think about what he said elsewhere:
If you want the Raven to be better, make the Raven better, and don't hinge it on just a single device.

the raven would be better if its advantage (ewar) wouldnt be give to the already superior jenner also

with that reasoning , why dont make the raven able to fit even better engines than the jenner it also should be more agile + give all variants jumpjets cause who the hell cares it is an item why cant every mech fit it?

[Kernfeuer]

Crayzed Lyon, on 28 November 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

ECM Jenner makes Streak Cats sad. 'Nuff said

Yeah..and then the crystorm about lagshielding ecm-jenners will start ..anyway when this going to happen i want jumpjets for my atlas as well

[Terick]

Valder, on 28 November 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

I can only hit like once for this. But this is an awesome pic!!!!

[Kurayami]

sheer idiocy. d variant is best all around light currently implemented. it is fast(est), have JJ, close to zero frontal lt\rt projection and unarguably best hardpoints (i don't want to count odd hitbox and lagshield since i hope those will be addressed) and all this comes with a little cherry on top - JR7-D (f) which have 25% reward bonus. So why should people even bother with Raven?

ECM is not some ordinary modular piece of equipment - it is a complex system of sophisticated hardware with requirements so strict that nonspecialized mechs couldn't carry it at all before some major improvements in both esm tech and chassis. It is not something you can just slap and strap with blue blue tape like Kurita do with ppc on every mech. so why the hell best and most widely spread mech wariant should receive yet another boost?!

i really do hope that that canon ecm carriers like Raven will receive some bonuses like chassis integrated ecm (lower or zero weight req and zero crits) or at least boosted ecm efficienc because if not - only diehard fans will use them.

[Vassago Rain]

Orkhepaj, on 28 November 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

the raven would be better if its advantage (ewar) wouldnt be give to the already superior jenner also

with that reasoning , why dont make the raven able to fit even better engines than the jenner it also should be more agile + give all variants jumpjets cause who the hell cares it is an item why cant every mech fit it?

Yes, why don't we do that, and then we balance the items properly, and the mechs while we're at it? It's funny that no one has a problem with every mech ever taking gauss rifles, but ECM is the most sacred piece of raid gear EVER. We for sure can't let already bought mechs field it, and simply make fluff ECM users field it with extra features.

That'd make too much sense.

[Orkhepaj]

Vassago Rain, on 28 November 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

Enjoy paying for new ECM versions of your mechs.

I get that you play jenner and wants it as overpowered as you can , but that wont help the game as it is a multiplayer game , where balance should matter ,and no mech should be plain superior to an other

[Vassago Rain]

Kurayami, on 28 November 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

sheer idiocy. d variant is best all around light currently implemented. it is fast(est), have JJ, close to zero frontal lt\rt projection and unarguably best hardpoints (i don't want to count odd hitbox and lagshield since i hope those will be addressed) and all this comes with a little cherry on top - JR7-D (f) which have 25% reward bonus. So why should people even bother with Raven?

ECM is not some ordinary modular piece of equipment - it is a complex system of sophisticated hardware with requirements so strict that nonspecialized mechs couldn't carry it at all before some major improvements in both esm tech and chassis. It is not something you can just slap and strap with blue blue tape like Kurita do with ppc on every mech. so why the hell best and most widely spread mech wariant should receive yet another boost?!

i really do hope that that canon ecm carriers like Raven will receive some bonuses like chassis integrated ecm (lower or zero weight req and zero crits) or at least boosted ecm efficienc because if not - only diehard fans will use them.

Yeah, uhhh, I don't want to ruin your headcanon, but it totally is just a piece of gear you add to whatever mech you want, whenever you want, and since no one cares about stock mechs at all, there's no reason to enforce this one requirement, while we let gauss rifles on ravens slide.

Orkhepaj, on 28 November 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

I get that you play jenner and wants it as overpowered as you can , but that wont help the game as it is a multiplayer game , where balance should matter ,and no mech should be plain superior to an other

No, I play fatlases and unawesomes. I don't own a jenner. My only lights are commandos. I want it on all mechs, simply so it doesn't get like you describe in the quoted post - which is what will happen.

I've been right about EVERYTHING so far. You think I won't be right about this, too?