2028 replies to this topic

[Lyrik]

Tolkien, on 12 December 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:

I agree with you being unable to read, but I'm still not sure on the former.

Yeah, that was a fail -.-

Tolkien, on 12 December 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:

I have to point blank disagree with you as you are saying there is nothing wrong with having a single 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment counter

Artemis
BAP
Tag bonuses (and the whole system inside of 180m)
NARC - a system which takes more space, weighs more, requires real coordination and skill and has ammo.
other ECMs
LRM locks
SRM locks
general targeting info
relegate AMS to almost pointlessness
have no exploding ammo
generate no heat
cost less than a module by a factor of 15

If you are enjoying the game as it is becoming with ECM then I am glad you are having a good time, and there is no accounting for taste. Some people loved missile warrior online, others would love it if the only weapons were medium lasers.

If you are honestly saying that it is 'good' to have a single 1.5 ton, 2 slot piece of equipment do all of what it does then I have trouble taking your opinion seriously, as allowing this sort of over the top imbalanced equipment is doing much more damage than good.

SRM doesn't need locks ;-) LRM and SSRM still can get locks if you are outside of the bubble.

Is it perfect? NO. It needs balancing. I would like to see a buffing for NARC (who uses that item?). Tag will probably get an increase in reach. I could even live with increased weight and heat production for ECM.

But it is NOT destroying MWO. Or destroying all your mechs in your bay. Okay, your streakcat was nerfed. And I like that xD

[StUffz]

Oh my Tolkien... could you stop copy/pasting

Quote

Artemis
BAP
Tag bonuses (and the whole system inside of 180m)
NARC - a system which takes more space, weighs more, requires real coordination and skill and has ammo.
other ECMs
LRM locks
SRM locks
general targeting info
relegate AMS to almost pointlessness
have no exploding ammo
generate no heat
cost less than a module by a factor of 15

? We understand in the meantime that ECM b*t***s up up with missile systems and missile supported equipments, however it does not change that technology was boosted due to Helm Memory Core recovery. We should not make the change on the weight or on critical space. This is not the best way to fix it and it differences too much with lore. Further since it is not named that it produces heat, it should also neither create heat.

If workarounds need to be done then it must be around the limiting the mechdrops or the chasis of the mechs who can equip ECM. Consider that with game release we are a year before clan invasion and when they are coming, then we would stand before the same issue with ECM again because ECM is then baseline in Clan Mechs.

Good suggestions heard out here are also that
- ECM disturbs enemy and friendly systems meaning that both have to fight with iron sights
- reduce ECM drops in 4v4 and 8v8 games. in free games it will be inevetible and those who are ECM equipped have a longer waiting time compared to those who don't have. But hey. This at least forces those who want to join a free game to decide whether they are in the luxury to have an powerful missile autolock counter or if they want to play regular.
- change the chasis who can equip ECM
- review and change netcode

Edited by StUffz, 12 December 2012 - 04:03 AM.

[Tolkien]

Lyrik, on 12 December 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

Yeah, that was a fail -.-





SRM doesn't need locks ;-) LRM and SSRM still can get locks if you are outside of the bubble.

Is it perfect? NO. It needs balancing. I would like to see a buffing for NARC (who uses that item?). Tag will probably get an increase in reach. I could even live with increased weight and heat production for ECM.

But it is NOT destroying MWO. Or destroying all your mechs in your bay. Okay, your streakcat was nerfed. And I like that xD

Please understand I am not trying to pick on you, I am just trying hard to explain my point of view.

I'd like to take exception with two of your counter points. The first is
1)

Quote

LRM and SSRM still can get locks if you are outside of the bubble.

Well you see ECM prevents a mech from getting sensor lock unless then are with 200m - so LRMs which are way too slow moving to be a dumbfire weapon cannot actually be used unless you or a teammate are within 200m. Still sounds ok HOWEVER ECM also prevents a teammate from relaying the targeting info if they get within 180m. So there is a tiny ribbon of space where a teammate can help you, and in a moving combat situation there are seldom 5-10 second intervals where you stay within +-10m of a desired range to an enemy.

Secondly, if the LRM mech itself gets to within 200m it can keep the lock inside the bubble, so problem solved right? Well no, as the LRM has a minimum range of 150m, below which the missiles do no damage. Again we have this situation where an enemy has to stay within a specific +-25m ribbon of space in a combat situation for your weapons to work.

Add to that that ECM also disables artemis IV (doubles lock time) then doubles lock time again (quadruples lock time) and I feel comfortable asserting ECM has 110% broken LRMs.

2)

Quote

Okay, your streakcat was nerfed. And I like that xD

I actually never got into streak SRMs. They were annoying as hell, and I thought they needed a nerf, but the problem with adding equipment that completely negates Streak SRMs while also doing every other damn thing the ECM suite does will break the game very quickly.

Just imagine how broken clan bloodhound targeting computers will be.

Balance and items should be soft counters and incremental improvements. "Game changers" are the fat kid on the play ground who would say he was 'invisible' when he was losing the game of tag.

[Tolkien]

StUffz, on 12 December 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

Oh my Tolkien... could you stop copy/pasting



? We understand in the meantime that ECM b*t***s up up with missile systems and missile supported equipments, however it does not change that technology was boosted due to Helm Memory Core recovery. We should not make the change on the weight or on critical space. This is not the best way to fix it and it differences too much with lore. Further since it is not named that it produces heat, it should also neither create heat.

If workarounds need to be done then it must be around the limiting the mechdrops or the chasis of the mechs who can equip ECM. Consider that with game release we are a year before clan invasion and when they are coming, then we would stand before the same issue with ECM again because ECM is then baseline in Clan Mechs.

Good suggestions heard out here are also that
- ECM disturbs enemy and friendly systems meaning that both have to fight with iron sights
- reduce ECM drops in 4v4 and 8v8 games. in free games it will be inevetible and those who are ECM equipped have a longer waiting time compared to those who don't have. But hey. This at least forces those who want to join a free game to decide whether they are in the luxury to have an powerful missile autolock counter or if they want to play regular.
- change the chasis who can equip ECM
- review and change netcode

I would love to stop repeating myself but people keep showing up who don't realize exactly how much that one piece of equipment is doing.

reagarding

Quote

Consider that with game release we are a year before clan invasion and when they are coming, then we would stand before the same issue with ECM again because ECM is then baseline in Clan Mechs.

Baseline is far too strong of a term. Rare is much more accurate. If you go count the clan mechs (include omni variants as different mechs) in the 55-58 tech readouts, then count the number of variants that come with ECM I think you'll find it's less than 12.5%.

ECM should be toned down until it is used by maybe 1 person per team in 8v8 encounters, and is not thought to be 'essential'.

[DeaconW]

Marcus Wulf, on 11 December 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

I have seen this in several drops I was in. it takes actual skill and coordination to execute, unlike sitting back and waiting for a lock and pressing a button. Btw we were the ones who got tagged. they did not get trashed because they worked as a team.

What was the ECM mech ratios in that game? I have seen TAG being used once(by an entire group actually)...but the real deciding factor was the ECM mech ratio, not TAG.

PainStealer, on 12 December 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

Damn I love ECM the way it is now. It highly motivated people to learn a tactic or two. Please don't change a thing.

"Tactics". I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[StUffz]

DeaconW, on 12 December 2012 - 04:47 AM, said:

What was the ECM mech ratios in that game? I have seen TAG being used once(by an entire group actually)...but the real deciding factor was the ECM mech ratio, not TAG.



"Tactics". I don't think that word means what you think it means.

There is much about tactics. The current tactics is: use heavy fat armored ECM mechs to smash your enemy.

Very barbaric and simple but it's tactic.

Since I had chances to play more and see the issue far better than a few days before I see best option is remove ECM from Atlas D-DC and reduce ECM dropslots to 2 for 8vs8 and free game and 1 for 4vs4. And no, I don't use ECM equipped mechs.

[DeaconW]

Xenok, on 12 December 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

I played around 15 matches yesterday in PUGs. I tracked with tick marks how many times each team had ECM. Out of the 15 matches 6 matches had a side without ECM. Out of those 6, the side without ECM won 4. This is simply not true.

You missed the part about "equally skilled teams"....

Here is my experience yesterday...ran with a group of 4 Commando 2D's. We were nearly unstoppable and either won without a shot by capping or had most of the damage for the team(this is 100 tons TOTAL mech weight getting 60-70% of the damage or more on games we actually had to skirmish). Won over 75% of the time. Our "tactics" were singular...run up one side of the map under cover, sneak to enemy base. Cap. If the enemy came back, they came almost one at a time and we killed them one by one(until we finished capping). On several occasions the other 4 players on our team were so horribly bad, the entire enemy team could come back to cap quikcly and because we stayed to continue to cap(assuming we hadn't already won...) we would get killed. Is this what MWO is supposed to be because this type of gameplay, while successful, has little challenge in it...another week of this and I will be bored to tears driving around in easy mode.

[DeaconW]

StUffz, on 12 December 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

There is much about tactics. The current tactics is: use heavy fat armored ECM mechs to smash your enemy.

Very barbaric and simple but it's tactic.

Since I had chances to play more and see the issue far better than a few days before I see best option is remove ECM from Atlas D-DC and reduce ECM dropslots to 2 for 8vs8 and free game and 1 for 4vs4. And no, I don't use ECM equipped mechs.

Tactics = plural. Tactic = singular. You only mentioned one tactic. But I have to say that you are correct, there are 2 tactics...the one you mentioned and the one I use...fast ECM mechs for the quick cap. I respectfully disagree with your solution however. I think ECM needs to be taken back to canon-defined performance parameters. Then there will be no necessity to put artificial limits on anything.

[StUffz]

DeaconW, on 12 December 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:

Tactics = plural. Tactic = singular. You only mentioned one tactic. But I have to say that you are correct, there are 2 tactics...the one you mentioned and the one I use...fast ECM mechs for the quick cap. I respectfully disagree with your solution however. I think ECM needs to be taken back to canon-defined performance parameters. Then there will be no necessity to put artificial limits on anything.

From my point of view ECM is canon. The 180m bubble is only meant that it covers all mechs within this range but the Range of ECM is far far (about a Kilometer). At least it is so strong that it prevents a poinpoint electronic target guide unless it is done via TAG (laser guided targeting).

Just from how I see ECM is logic. Light Scouts use ECM suites as a defensive measure to avoid detection and being target. Why should a successor state equip with a technology which is only limited to 180 meters? For my point of view it does not make a lot of sense. And Terrain Cover is only 50% but what would you do if there is no terrain cover to use but you need to scout the area?

Edited by StUffz, 12 December 2012 - 05:47 AM.

[DeaconW]

StUffz, on 12 December 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

Why should a successor state equip with a technology which is only limited to 180 meters?

Why would any "state" use giant stompy robots with weapons inferior to today's weapons and platforms...once you start trying to make fantasy sense out of it...it doesn't work...what we need to proper game balance...

[StUffz]

DeaconW, on 12 December 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

Why would any "state" use giant stompy robots with weapons inferior to today's weapons and platforms...once you start trying to make fantasy sense out of it...it doesn't work...what we need to proper game balance...

The fictional game leans much to todays warfare equipment and military ranks and social cultures. I agree it needs balance but it should not be done on the equipment itself unless it is proven that even in 4vs4 or 8vs8 (non-openbattle) ECM is still powerfull if the ECM slot is reduced to one or two mechs per game.

By the way. with Successor State I meant the five houses. Hope at least this was clear.

Edited by StUffz, 12 December 2012 - 06:14 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Rakash, on 11 December 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

That's because they made ECM do WAY more than it's supposed to do. BAP, TAG, NARC, and Artemis are supposed to enhance the capabilities of basic equipment (weapons and sensors). ECM is supposed to cancel those E-war components AND NOTHING ELSE, making your 1.5 tons cancel all the tons of Artemis, BAP, and TAG the enemy is carrying in your 180m sphere. That's what ECM is, the equalizer.

Valid things it does now include blocking enemy E-war components, blocking targeting data sharing between enemy units within/through the ECM sphere (as these functions mimic C3 components which are SPECIFICALLY COUNTERED by ECM) and completely hiding shut down battlemechs within the area of effect.

Invalid functions include preventing target locks on friendly units in the area of effect (Battlemech sensor suites are not entirely disrupted by ECM and may therefore acquire and lock targets in LOS, regardless of location relative to the AoE) and preventing targeting data sharing between enemy units not inside to AoE whose line of effect does not pass through the AoE.

The point of ECM in paper-scissors-rock is hammer. It doesn't win the game, it cancels the game and puts us back to basics.

+1. I never thought of it that way, but yes ECM is a passive reset tool, nothing more. It eliminates advantages but not creating any. It is not supposed to cloak allies until enemies are within 200m.

[Snuglninja]

DeaconW, on 12 December 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

Why would any "state" use giant stompy robots with weapons inferior to today's weapons and platforms...once you start trying to make fantasy sense out of it...it doesn't work...what we need to proper game balance...

The reason there weapons seem inferior to what we have today is the idea that after hundreds of years of war that they have beat each other back to the stone ages. The ability to make mechs or jumpships have been limited by destruction of manufacturing centers. Mechs were passed down through generations. Like the feudal knight.

[Mercules]

HTTP Error 400, on 11 December 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

The lack of one module type on your team should not dictate whether you win or lose between 2 equally skilled teams.

It doesn't. ECM shuts down certain weapon systems (that technically it shouldn't but only does because THEY are not correctly implemented). ECM doesn't determine games. What it does do is occasionally make it so a team of four dropping with 2 ECM AS7-D-DCs with 3 SSRM 2s each and 2 CPLT-A1s with 6 SSRM2s can run roughshod over disorganized PUGs because if they did bring 3 ECM mechs they are probably not coordinating enough to get them all in the same place to counter them.

The question is, what is really broken here? It's not the ECM, it is the Streaks and they way they are implemented. ECM is the symptom the disease is how "lock on" systems are in MWO. Without the ECM Streaks were dominating. Why bring larger SRMs when fewer missiles that home do it BETTER? At least before ECM you could bring your own SSRMs and blast back but ECM made the Streak escalation a binary situation. Either you could use them, or you couldn't.

ECM revealed the real problem. LRMs were very similar but had a balancing factor that you could break lock and get into cover. If a mech was caught out in the open though... *shudder*. So before MWO was often "Duck the LRMs and brawl." and now it is "Ignore the LRMs and brawl." Something was wrong with LRMs and Streaks and ECM brought it glaring into the light.

Tolkien, on 12 December 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

To review once again - what we have here is a system that is able to have a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment counter

Artemis
BAP
Tag bonuses (and the whole system inside of 180m)
NARC - a system which takes more space, weighs more, requires real coordination and skill and has ammo.
other ECMs
LRM locks
SRM locks
general targeting info
relegate AMS to almost pointlessness
have no exploding ammo
generate no heat
cost less than a module by a factor of 15

Should counter Artemis.
Should counter BAP.
Should counter NARC - but NARC with or without ECM is NOT worth it because it is poorly designed from the start for this game. Given how long it takes LRMs to get on target NARC simply doesn't last long enough to guide them in. This isn't an issue with ECM but an issue with NARC. NARC should give huge bonuses so that when you don't run into ECM it is potent and useful.

Shouldn't counter LRMs and doesn't BUT implementation of LRMs in MWO is incorrect. You can still launch LRMs at a mech without lock and it will hit where they are... unless they move. The "Homing" aspect of LRMs meant the balance they put into the game was to make them slow for the time on target. This makes them nearly unusable without the homing and lock. I mean I've been able to hit a D-DC Atlas with LRMs even with it's ECM simply because I can point and shoot at it and it doesn't move swiftly enough to get away from them all. I can't hit faster mechs unless they really don't know it is coming and are moving slow. If we keep the lock and homing then we need to be able to lock on things with Direct LOS and no "r targeting" and make it longer. Then ECM can shorten sensors like it should because we don't need to hit "r" first.

It counters Streaks and should... it should make them fire differently but Streaks need balance that isn't involved in ECM. Again we allow locks without the "r targeting" but make it so you have to hold the cursor on the opposing mech longer and more specifically so that it is roughly the same as firing a laser. Once launched the lock should be lost and need to be reestablished through the same aiming process and then the streaks fired. Now it takes as much skill to keep a SSRM on target as it does a Laser. While in ECM Streaks should take longer to lock on than normal, maybe 1.5 x as long since we are making it more difficult to achieve a lock.

It should block general targeting info since when using Double Blind rules ECM specifically cuts range down for most active sensors(which is what "r targeting" is). This is one of the really cool things ECM does and one of the reasons to take it in TT. The other one is cutting out the C3 networks which we pseudo have in our target sharing. This is one thing it should do well.

It wouldn't relegate AMS to a secondary position if you FIXED LRMS.

Once you fix the other systems ECM stops being a huge benefit so it doesn't need a huge downfall. The issue is that the OTHER systems are broken making ECM better than it should be.

[DeaconW]

StUffz, on 12 December 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

Oh my Tolkien... could you stop copy/pasting

Truth hurts?

I am actually hoping Tolkien puts it in his SIG so it's in every post of his on this thread...

[Tolkien]

Snuglninja, on 12 December 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

The reason there weapons seem inferior to what we have today is the idea that after hundreds of years of war that they have beat each other back to the stone ages. The ability to make mechs or jumpships have been limited by destruction of manufacturing centers. Mechs were passed down through generations. Like the feudal knight.

That is certainly part of it in the lore, how the star league fell and the technologies that are considered advanced in 3025 were actually developed in the 2700's or earlier.

However even the clans who took the pinnacle of technology with them and then developed it further have LRMs that suck rocks compared to 1950's technology (at least when you look at ranges) simply so they balance with other systems.

Real hightech warfare would be no fun... people die, often having never seen the drone that fired the hellfire missile into their neighbor's house (tis ok, he was probably a bad guy too).

What was I talking about.... oh right, my point is that in this vein of trying to make a fun and balanced war game right now we have a single 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment that can counter

Artemis
BAP
Tag bonuses (and the whole system inside of 180m)
NARC - a system which takes more space, weighs more, requires real coordination and skill and has ammo.
other ECMs
LRM locks (unless you or a temmate are magically dancing between 199.9m and 180.1m of range)
SRM locks (see above)
general targeting info (see above, or just makes it unreliable below 180)
relegates AMS to almost pointlessness
has no exploding ammo
generates no heat
cost less than a module by a factor of 15

This is bad game design, point blank - as some have called it it is hammer in the rock paper scissors game. I prefer to call it rock paper scissors punch to the nuts.... it doesn't beat any of rock paper or scissors immediately, but it sure does mess up the game.

[Mercules]

StalaggtIKE, on 12 December 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

+1. I never thought of it that way, but yes ECM is a passive reset tool, nothing more. It eliminates advantages but not creating any. It is not supposed to cloak allies until enemies are within 200m.

You need to read the Double Blind rules. It is supposed to prevent Active Sensors from noticing opposing mechs until they are closer. 1/4 normal sensor range is a bit too much though, it should have been about 1/2.

For those who don't understand TT or the more advanced rules of TT Double Blind is a system where you do not get to see where your opponent is on the map. It requires three identical boards, one for each player and one that they both can see. A GM will make rolls to determine what is detected by various mechs and place those forces on the open board while players track their own "hidden" mechs on their private boards.

MWO is a "Double Blind" system. I can't see opponents on my map unless I can spot them with Sensors. I can still use the old Mark I eyeball however. It isn't a bad system. What is bad is that LRMs and SSRMs are reliant on Sensors when they SHOULDN'T be.

[DeaconW]

StUffz, on 12 December 2012 - 06:12 AM, said:

The fictional game leans much to todays warfare equipment and military ranks and social cultures. I agree it needs balance but it should not be done on the equipment itself unless it is proven that even in 4vs4 or 8vs8 (non-openbattle) ECM is still powerfull if the ECM slot is reduced to one or two mechs per game.

By the way. with Successor State I meant the five houses. Hope at least this was clear.

Well, at least we agree there is a balance problem. I did understand you meant successor states. I only quoted "state" to match my "fantasy" statement.

[Tolkien]

Mercules, on 12 December 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

It doesn't. ECM shuts down certain weapon systems (that technically it shouldn't but only does because THEY are not correctly implemented). ECM doesn't determine games. What it does do is occasionally make it so a team of four dropping with 2 ECM AS7-D-DCs with 3 SSRM 2s each and 2 CPLT-A1s with 6 SSRM2s can run roughshod over disorganized PUGs because if they did bring 3 ECM mechs they are probably not coordinating enough to get them all in the same place to counter them.

The question is, what is really broken here? It's not the ECM, it is the Streaks and they way they are implemented. ECM is the symptom the disease is how "lock on" systems are in MWO. Without the ECM Streaks were dominating. Why bring larger SRMs when fewer missiles that home do it BETTER? At least before ECM you could bring your own SSRMs and blast back but ECM made the Streak escalation a binary situation. Either you could use them, or you couldn't.

ECM revealed the real problem. LRMs were very similar but had a balancing factor that you could break lock and get into cover. If a mech was caught out in the open though... *shudder*. So before MWO was often "Duck the LRMs and brawl." and now it is "Ignore the LRMs and brawl." Something was wrong with LRMs and Streaks and ECM brought it glaring into the light.




Should counter Artemis.
Should counter BAP.
Should counter NARC - but NARC with or without ECM is NOT worth it because it is poorly designed from the start for this game. Given how long it takes LRMs to get on target NARC simply doesn't last long enough to guide them in. This isn't an issue with ECM but an issue with NARC. NARC should give huge bonuses so that when you don't run into ECM it is potent and useful.

Shouldn't counter LRMs and doesn't BUT implementation of LRMs in MWO is incorrect. You can still launch LRMs at a mech without lock and it will hit where they are... unless they move. The "Homing" aspect of LRMs meant the balance they put into the game was to make them slow for the time on target. This makes them nearly unusable without the homing and lock. I mean I've been able to hit a D-DC Atlas with LRMs even with it's ECM simply because I can point and shoot at it and it doesn't move swiftly enough to get away from them all. I can't hit faster mechs unless they really don't know it is coming and are moving slow. If we keep the lock and homing then we need to be able to lock on things with Direct LOS and no "r targeting" and make it longer. Then ECM can shorten sensors like it should because we don't need to hit "r" first.

It counters Streaks and should... it should make them fire differently but Streaks need balance that isn't involved in ECM. Again we allow locks without the "r targeting" but make it so you have to hold the cursor on the opposing mech longer and more specifically so that it is roughly the same as firing a laser. Once launched the lock should be lost and need to be reestablished through the same aiming process and then the streaks fired. Now it takes as much skill to keep a SSRM on target as it does a Laser. While in ECM Streaks should take longer to lock on than normal, maybe 1.5 x as long since we are making it more difficult to achieve a lock.

It should block general targeting info since when using Double Blind rules ECM specifically cuts range down for most active sensors(which is what "r targeting" is). This is one of the really cool things ECM does and one of the reasons to take it in TT. The other one is cutting out the C3 networks which we pseudo have in our target sharing. This is one thing it should do well.

It wouldn't relegate AMS to a secondary position if you FIXED LRMS.

Once you fix the other systems ECM stops being a huge benefit so it doesn't need a huge downfall. The issue is that the OTHER systems are broken making ECM better than it should be.

Partial credit - I agree wholeheartedly that SSRMs needed to be toned down, but what ECM does to balance is extreme. I agree that LRMs needed to be toned down, though a baseline ECM would do that too by eliminating Artemis (the only useful LRM modifying equipment in the game thus far) narc and tag are bleh right now.

I hate to nitpick but I have to call this a really bad way of going about things, as they have gone way too far with what ECM does, and this type of game balancing by swerving erratically one way then the other means that we are going into the ditch sooner rather than later.

It also breaks faith in those at the wheel since they made comment that ECM was toned down after internal testing.... what the hell did they originally think was a good idea for a 1.5ton 2 slot piece of equipment that... oh just go read another of my posts, I'm not including the laundry list this time.

[Mercules]

Tolkien, on 12 December 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

Partial credit - I agree wholeheartedly that SSRMs needed to be toned down, but what ECM does to balance is extreme. I agree that LRMs needed to be toned down, though a baseline ECM would do that too by eliminating Artemis (the only useful LRM modifying equipment in the game thus far) narc and tag are bleh right now.

I hate to nitpick but I have to call this a really bad way of going about things, as they have gone way too far with what ECM does, and this type of game balancing by swerving erratically one way then the other means that we are going into the ditch sooner rather than later.

It also breaks faith in those at the wheel since they made comment that ECM was toned down after internal testing.... what the hell did they originally think was a good idea for a 1.5ton 2 slot piece of equipment that... oh just go read another of my posts, I'm not including the laundry list this time.

So, if ECM didn't effectively block LRMs and SSRMs from functioning, do you still think it would need to be "toned down"? I honestly don't.