89 replies to this topic

[Larshas]

I feel ECM is a bit overpowered at the moment. I like what it does but it seems like at least 60% of every team I fight against has ECM now. : I I've gone through entire matches in a hunchback with an LRM10 that could not lock onto a target once. Not once. I understand it's supposed to combat LRMs but I'd rather it increases lock-on time or reduces maximum lock on distance for LRMs instead of being this..cloak..thing. . _ .

[Void Angel]

Guys, I don't know why you keep on pulling out the old rulebooks. I have them too; I loved the original game, but the devs have told you, repeatedly, that the tabletop game (being, you know, a totally different gaming format) is not a valid basis for criticism. We have to deal with this game, not the game we played 20 years ago with those little folded cardboard mech markers. No reasoning based on the tabletop game is applicable to this game. Ever. Deal with the game that is, not the game you think ought to be.

Basing suggestions on the tabletop rules is a certain means of getting a good idea ignored.

[Wraithfox]

It's not broken, People are just mad they can't control the entire match with a few LRM boats like they could before ecm. If anything, ECM gives this game the meaning of stealth.


On a side note, I believe that the atlas should not have an ecm. Its an atlas ffs, It does not need to be cloaked.

[Artifex 28]

ECMs are fine, EXCEPT - they should not prevent locking completely on the target. Instead if should make the locking even slower than the targets around it.

Currently ECM makes the carrier immune to locks and the friendlies in 180m "bubble" are 25% harder to lock.

So double that lock on timer on the ECM carrier instead of making it completely immune. Also, tonnage could make a difference here. The smaller the mech, the harder to lock on. For example, where Atlas D-DC could only gain +25% increased lock time, Commando could gain up to 75%.

[Hammer RLG]

Because the 'old' rulebooks are Battletech. if one is making a game based upon Battletech, well... if it is something dfferent, then make something different but don't call it Battletech and use that genre. is the TT game now supposed to change to MWO 'specs' now because it is new and the rules are 'old'? seems pretty simple and would probably simplify a lot of difficult decisions. The master rules are really not that old, and are the culmination of the many previous years of use. pretty much tried and true, and balanced!

I am also not sure what this double blind stuff is. I mean, I know what it is. I have been playing miniatures combat games since 1978, or thereabouts. WW2 and modern microarmor, Napoleonics, etc. This double blind system generally has nothing to do with sensors, since sensors detect targets often before the Mark 1 eyeball. if the targets are in sensor range you see them on the map. if the enemy is under an ECM bubble and you have no BAP on your side, then no, you do not get to know where they are. if you have BAP, you know where the ECM bubble is and it behooves your team to get some Mark 1 eyeballs on that area ASAP.

can someone tell me what book these double blind rules are from? i have just not run across them.

Edited by Hammer RLG, 13 December 2012 - 08:29 PM.

[Void Angel]

Wrong. Simply wrong. As the Devs have told us, multiple times, in plain English, they're not slavishly following the rules. Which rules do you expect them to follow, anyway? Should all weapons fire only once per ten seconds? What about Solaris rules? Mechwarrior? You're only half right: the old game was Battletech. This game is Mechwarrior Online.

As a matter of fact, though, the double blind rules are from the Battletech Tactical Handbook (8630). As with any double blind game, the moderator has everything set up on a master map, and the respective players see only what they know is there - obviously screens are used. The moderator tells players when they have sensor contacts and the like - mechs are detected through visual spotting and rolls for secondary sensors. It looked like fun, but a LOT of work. I've never played a game this way, as I simply don't have a Battletech player group any longer. The handbook also contains rules for using the different sensors situationally (infrared, electromagnetic, seismic, etc.) and a campaign mode for simulating anything from an objective raid to a full-scale planetary invasion.

Edited by Void Angel, 13 December 2012 - 11:27 PM.

[Do Legs]

you can shoot LRM without a lock - missiles just don't follow your target
if you are able to target a ECM'ed mech then it becomes visible to other people so they can LRM shoot not actually being seeing

ECM is 'blinds' electronics but you do can use your guns anyway (except SSRM - requires lock). ECM totally good at the moment

[Acturius Black]

Sen, on 05 December 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

Anyone that is crying "NERF ECM" needs to remove the streaks and learn how to shoot.

Just like saying that anyone in lights with ecm and 140 kph lagshield, sprinting through enemy mechs without worrying about collision needs to learn how to drive...or?

Sorry... couldnt resist

ECM is broken. support the OP.
The fact that its a passive equipment (1.5t) with that many benefits makes it way to powerful.

Edited by Acturius Black, 14 December 2012 - 02:18 AM.

[Void Angel]

brundron, on 14 December 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

you can shoot LRM without a lock - missiles just don't follow your target
if you are able to target a ECM'ed mech then it becomes visible to other people so they can LRM shoot not actually being seeing

ECM is 'blinds' electronics but you do can use your guns anyway (except SSRM - requires lock). ECM totally good at the moment

Except that you can't tell where to aim your guns because you have no targeting data on your target's armor. You can just pick a spot, sure - but if you lose LoS you can't even be sure if you're hitting the same guy any more.

As for LRMs... Really? Did you really just go there? You do know that LRMS have a long travel time, right? There is no way to aim them effectively dumbfire at any target that is awake - except at point-blank range, and they do NO damage out to 180 meters because they are not armed. It's good for scaring newbies, but nothing else.

Plus ECM does a LOT more than prevent missile locks on the enemy mech. It prevents any enemy in the effect from locking anyone, or from relaying targeting information to teammates. So you have a light mech running circles around the fire support, locking them in for missile fire while preventing them from either locking onto anyone else, even if they HAVE targeting data, OR from passing targeting information on the harassing mech to teammates in the normal way - even if they could keep the light(s) in view.

ECM is an excellent mechanic, but it needs tweaked - which is what Beta is for, and I'm sure The Devs are monitoring the system. As it stands now, however, un-countered ECM in sufficient quantity completely cripples a battlemech role for 1.5 tons of combat weight, AND drastically alters the balance of power in a fight. It's become a required system and, coupled to lag-shielded light mechs, presents a huge problem. 20-35 ton scout mechs should be scouts for heavier elements - they should not dominate the battlefield.

Edited by Void Angel, 14 December 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[Hammer RLG]

VA,
you should not say wrong, rather something like 'that is your opinion'. lots of people here have their own opinion. if the game ends up being not something i like or expect, then i will not play. no play, no pay. the devs are going to have to figure out where the concept works with the revenue and go from there. i am merely expressing my opinion about how i think and expect things should work. i have not once said you or others are wrong. and i won't. if i came across that way i definitely apologize as i am just trying to make my points and give some backup to those points. i also stated that most, if not all of us TT'ers (if you will) understand the need to make some compromises for real time vs turn based. it is a given for the translation into real time. i do think MW4: Mercs did pretty well at that.

was the technical handbook not superseded by the master rules? master rules state they supersede everything previous. also, if one calls the master rules 'old', then one should really not refer to an even older and out of print publication that has been superseded by the 'old' publication. come on, you have to give me that point!

i stated i know how double blind works - the concept is the same in all such games. regardless i had another thought. there are things that just do not make sense even in master rules. maybe it is high time to 'fix', i.e. change, the whole thing? so that things make sense, at least from our current viewpoint, existing technology, and common sense.

before i go there, a point on making sense. ECM should not disrupt TAG. i stated the reason in my post. electronic scrambling cannot disrupt light. different technology and even basic makeup - photons and electrons. MAYBE you could say that ECM disrupts the missiles homing and flight corrections in the last 180 meters and the group of missiles will get a couple less hits.

back to my point. there are things that have always bugged me about BTech. heresy you say? well, the size vs weight does not make much sense. there have been discussions in these forums, the most plausible is that the weight rating is a capacity of equipment a 'mech can hold. I like that one vs. the statement in the Tech Manual that says it is how much they weigh. what about weapon ranges? ballistic weapons nowadays (i.e. tank canons) can hit moving targets 3km away. 3000 meters. and not the small popguns like the AC2 (20mm canons actually have LESS range but can certainly fire a round more often). larger, like the AC10. why is the range reduced in the future? i would imagine it is increased, but even if we just consider today's technology and make it the same then we see the ranges of weapons in BTech and MWO are far too short. That means the devs have to make bigger maps, Ugh, but certainly a lot of people want that anyway, right? These are just two points.

Bottom line is some things are just like TT/canon and some things are just taken with too much liberty. TT/canon is a good balance to start with and honestly what most of the Battletech afficianados are EXPECTING. Likely not all will be alienated, but some will for sure. Not sure where I am at yet, time will tell.

Edited by Hammer RLG, 14 December 2012 - 10:32 AM.

[Void Angel]

Hammer RLG, on 14 December 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

VA,
you should not say wrong, rather something like 'that is your opinion'. lots of people here have their own opinion. if the game ends up being not something i like or expect, then i will not play. no play, no pay. the devs are going to have to figure out where the concept works with the revenue and go from there. i am merely expressing my opinion about how i think and expect things should work. i have not once said you or others are wrong. and i won't. if i came across that way i definitely apologize as i am just trying to make my points and give some backup to those points. i also stated that most, if not all of us TT'ers (if you will) understand the need to make some compromises for real time vs turn based. it is a given for the translation into real time. i do think MW4: Mercs did pretty well at that.

... So I'm wrong to tell you you're wrong. Because telling people they are wrong is wrong, you tell me. And this made sense to you, as you were typing it? For that matter, you have, in many instances, told me and others we were wrong. Expressing a contrary opinion does that. It's not wrong, or rude, or even unusual.

Also, superceding previous rules does not cancel rules that are not covered. For example, the more complex combat sequences in the Solaris expansion are not superceded simply because they are left out of the Master Rules. If the Master Rules don't cover double-blind play, then those rules are still valid if you want to play double blind. Otherwise, you're saying that the published double-blind format is now illegal under the current rules simply because it isn't reprinted in the Master Rules.

None of which changes the fact that while we can certainly make suggestions about what we would like to see in this game, basing our logic on rules from a different game is illogical, and weakens our presentation of the suggestion.

Edited by Void Angel, 14 December 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[Hammer RLG]

well then, i guess I am wrong because Void Angel said so.

[Klemvore]

I use mostly lasers... I find the ECM annoying because I can't see the missile boats.

The intention of using ECM was to destroy missile boats... but if you don't run ECM you can't see the other teams missile boats.. which means as a "melee" (short range) mech I am very susceptible to attacks from missile boats unless I hug an ECM mech on my team.

Streak cats have not been nerfed... in some cases they have been upgraded... because I can't lock on them or spot them from a distance sometimes while they can still do that to me.

I would prefer ECM to be anti-missile for 1 person... the guy equipping it.... if you run it any missiles near you have the electronics fried... yours as well as the ones fired at you. This makes you a close range mech with the ability to close in on the missile boats without being nuked before you get there... a brawler... that is allowed to brawl.

[Psydotek]

ECM should prevent a missile lock. ECM should not prevent missiles from being fired as dumbfire missiles (Streak SRMs and LRMs).

[Void Angel]

Hammer RLG, on 14 December 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

well then, i guess I am wrong because Void Angel said so.

No, you're wrong because your position doesn't hold up under its own logic. Nice try at a straw man.

[Hellboy561]

Artifex 28, on 13 December 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

ECMs are fine, EXCEPT - they should not prevent locking completely on the target. Instead if should make the locking even slower than the targets around it.

Currently ECM makes the carrier immune to locks and the friendlies in 180m "bubble" are 25% harder to lock.

So double that lock on timer on the ECM carrier instead of making it completely immune. Also, tonnage could make a difference here. The smaller the mech, the harder to lock on. For example, where Atlas D-DC could only gain +25% increased lock time, Commando could gain up to 75%.

The movement speed could also play a factor, a fast moving target would be harder for your computer to lock on to.

[Hammer RLG]

VA,
at this point you do not get it and will not likely do so in the future. that is your opinion, both about the game and about my thoughts. it really does not give you the right to call others wrong (well, maybe it does - keep reading!)(actually it is just not nice and polite) not sure where you live, but here in the US we have freedom of speech which allows free expression of thoughts and ideas and opinions. that is all i am doing. expressing my thoughts and ideas. others are not wrong because they have differing thoughts and ideas, just different.

regardless, sorry to others for having hijacked this thread. there will be no more on this particular tack from me.

Edited by Hammer RLG, 15 December 2012 - 05:44 PM.

[Red squirrel]

I like the idea.
Further I think it is okay if ECM increases the time you need to lock on missles by 25% or 50%.

[Valiantheart]

An alternative and simple fix would be to prevent all mechs benefting from Disruptor Mode ECM from getting their own missile lock.

[El Death Smurf]

i just feel ecm shouldnt be stronger the futher away you are from it, i think thats weird.
scrambling radar outside of the bubble is fine, but nutralizing it completely is weird. a fuzzy triangle at least should pop up above their head, and their signal should be intermitant (LRMS can't keep a lock that way)
but when you get within the bubble things can stay the way they are, and a Ssrm cant get a lock at all once it is at 180m.

i also wonder what's gonig on that ECM doesn't affect friendlies in a neggative way as well as cloaking them, not that i would change that aspect, i just wonder.