[Idea][Disco] Should 'ecm' Units Better Reflect 'canon' Mechs?
#21
Posted 24 April 2013 - 04:50 AM
To get all those stuff it has only a AC 5....and no Medium Laser in the Arms
(source is XTRO Succession Wars)
#22
Posted 24 April 2013 - 06:52 AM
#23
Posted 24 April 2013 - 07:08 AM
#24
Posted 08 May 2013 - 04:07 PM
#25
Posted 15 May 2013 - 09:55 AM
StalaggtIKE, on 08 May 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:
Well, we can hope that ECM will given changes so it is just ECM. I don't agree with ECM shutting off missile systems. However, the idea (of the topic) originates from PGI's original intent to keep ECM on a per 'canon' variant for "uniqueness." This has been the case since the Spider, that I predicted might get ECM. I think they are opting for this since there are enough Mechs with variants in canon that have at least one variant with ECM. This is somewhat true for MASC as well. But, I do agree with you to an extent.
Edited by General Taskeen, 15 May 2013 - 09:57 AM.
#26
Posted 12 June 2013 - 01:25 PM
#28
Posted 22 July 2013 - 08:01 AM
#29
Posted 22 July 2013 - 09:19 AM
Warge, on 22 July 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:
I'm already aware.
However, the original post is by promoting more variety and giving ECM to other Mechs that should get it (that are often the 'weaker' variants, while choices are powerful competitive variants). PGI said they would re-evaluate ECM Mechs at some point and the original intent was to keep them on Mechs that did get it (eventually).
If ECM is ever changed or other additions are added, more variety is the key.
KingCobra
Pretty cool picture of a Raven. It would be interesting, if the accomplished goals of the game are met and/or re-evaluated. It be interesting, if they ever add radar, and maps with more foliage where foliage could obscure your position from radar.
Edited by General Taskeen, 22 July 2013 - 09:23 AM.
#31
Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:03 PM
#32
Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:34 AM
Screw all the speculation and mech bias.
BTW, we all know without the ECM, the Raven is a limp noodle, and worthless scrap piece.
Edited by YourBusDriver, 25 October 2013 - 12:55 PM.
#33
Posted 25 October 2013 - 04:16 AM
General Taskeen, on 01 December 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:
In my opinion, the current list of ECM equip-able Mechs should be changed. However, some of these will likely change in time anyways, based on what the Dev comment in the ECM Command Chair thread said, "As we add new Mechs into the game, some of them will be ECM capable, and we may even go back and reconsider existing Mechs deserving of the capability.":
...
Voted "no". I can see why ECM is only available on ones which have it now - namely Commando, Spider, Raven, Cicada and Atals. And i can see why mediums, heavies and even non-Atlas assaults should never get it, too. It's about speed and firepower. See, lights (counting Cicada as a "overgrown light", hehe) - are quick. They run fast. To survive, they need to run fast - and often, they need to change locations in order to stay alive. This means, "main forces", - which are a bunch of heavies and assaults together, - will not have ECM coverage much of the time. This is important in order to maintain viability of LRMs and SSRMs (and MRMs if they will ever be implemented and would have guidance). Make some cataphracts or jagers or hunchbacks, - or even Stalkers or Awesomes - to be ECM-capable, and SSRMS will lose much of their value, while LRMs will lose most of their value. Which is a bad thing to happen.
As for ECM Atlas, - the thing is 100-ton, thus it is significantly slower than much of "main forces". In practice, everyone loves to follow DDC exactly because it's so awesome protection from LRMs, but once firefights start and needs for flanking, tactical retreating etc appear, - many mediums, heavies and faster-than-Atlas assaults inevitably go out of ECM "umbrella", making LRMs viable and SSRMs fully functional. Also, Atlas is a most fat and easily noticeable target there could be. Give ECM to, say, a Stalker, - and the thing will be much more difficult to notice (and thus, to kill), because Atlas is taller and much wider than Stalker, and because Stalker's weapons are so high-mounted it can stay mostly behind cover. Same story for jagers, too. May be - just may be, - an Awesome with ECM could be tolerable to me, seeing Awesomes not used any much nowadays, having low arms and wide, easily spottable silouette... But still, 80-tonner can run so much faster than Atlas, and thus to cover "main forces" so much better. So i'd rather see Awesomes underplayed than whole weapons classes - LRMs, SSRMs, - underplayed.
One more thing to look at it - is: guys, sure thing, each one of us loves to run in a ECM-able mech. It's so easy to vote "yes" for more of them because of it. But think, would you like most enemy teams having nearly complete, or simply complete ECM cover whenever at 200+ meters distance from you and your teammates (so their ECM can't be countered)? I definitely wouldn't. It's good when just _some_ of enemies have ECM cover, but at least some others - don't. More diversity, makes things more interesting than when it's either no ECM at all - or total ECM cover.
Lore-wise, it seems OP is making a some very good points (as my very limited knowledge allows to say). But real-time game is not table-top. That's why i think my thoughts above deserve to be fairly considered before adding any new mech with ECM.
#34
Posted 19 November 2013 - 03:03 AM
Seismic was great when it first came out to lower the power of ECM, then it had a range nurf, now the movement nurf has made it almost redundant.
Not a fan
#35
Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:46 PM
we never had stealth mechs in 2 or 3 or 4, and in TT ECM is a whole different animal compared to what we have.
we have combined stealth armor and the angel ecm suite rolled into one package.
#36
Posted 24 March 2014 - 08:02 AM
#37
Posted 25 April 2014 - 11:49 AM
I gave up on the idea due to how 'ECM' is implemented in the first place.
#38
Posted 13 July 2014 - 01:48 PM
If only factions mattered more for the availability of certain variants...
7 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users