373 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Void Angel, on 02 January 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

Yes you did. I gave you the rules that gave those same ballistic weapons a higer rate of fire, and you haven't addressed them. When you can cite the relevent rules and explain to me by what standard you wish to ignore those rules in favor of (literally) one page out of the tabletop rulebooks, please get back to me.

You mean Solaris, a game that was also broken, turning an MG into a 8 point / 10 seconds weapon? According to everything I heard on people with paly experience with Solaris, min/maxing there definitely lead to very different game play, and the reason were such alterations.

Quote

We don't have those ranged to-hit probabilities in this interface, and that's why the numbers cannot be weighted the same way they were weighted in Tabletop - therefore you can't say "we need to go back to the Holy Word of Fasa!" That's the point that you try to gloss over by effectively saying "well, yeah, but..." You can't say "well, yeah, but the weapons still aren't balanced, so we need to re-implement the tabletop equipment values!"

You seem to be misunderstanding me there. I know we can'T get those hit probabilties back. I am fine with mouse-aiming. But if we have it, we have to realize that the original assumptions the weapon stats were build on have changed. We have to figure out how these assumptions affected the weapons and how we need to tweak stats so that the new assumptions (mouse aiming) affects them.

Quote

Yet that is exactly what you and others seem to want; it just won't wash. My issue isn't with the idea that the weapons aren't all balanced yet. My issue is with the inexcusably silly proposition that because the weapons are not yet balanced, we have to go back to this one set of weapon stats - even though those stats were already found to be unbalanced during testing. The weapon values didn't work out, so they embarked on a series of alterations that lead us to where we are now.

Do you actually know the reasons why the weapon stats didn't work out?
Do you really believe it was because of such subtle influences like to-hit probabilities and hit-locations wreaked havoc on the game?

We can only speculate here, but I don't think that was the case. The effect of this is too subtle, considering that we had people complaining about things like the ER Large Laser or the PPCs being too hot, and not much had happened in that time. If the devs were able to detect such irregularities like the effect of hit probability concerns in a state of the Closed Beta (or even earlier) with much less active testing and feedback than we have going on now, I'd be extremely surprised.

I believe it simply didn't work out because people shot every 10 seconds, but with pin-point accuracy. It felt probably too slow waiting for shots, but at the same time, the pin-point accuracy with weapons meant that once you shot, death came quickly. WIth heat capacities of 30 + heat sinks, they also probably didn't feel like heat mattered then, because it took only 2 or 3 shots to kill an enemy mech. Even a Marauder only gains about a net of 12 heat per turn if it alpha strikes. In the table top, that's bad - at a heat of 12, you already take severe heat penalties, and your next salvo will cause a potential shutdown, and the one afterwards forces a shutdown. But in MW:O, only the 3rd shot would produce the alpha
So they reaised the rate of fire, which increased the heat load of mechs considerably, and made weapons fire more often. That felt probably right to them, especially since the mech customziations they had them were probably not that extreme - I figure that the Gaussapult had yet to be invented.

If they had decided to lower the heat capacity by 1/3, they would have felt the mechs being rather hot (many of them even unable to fire an alpha strike without overheating - but pretty much all stock builds being able to chain fire at their full rate of fire for a while without getting into heat troubles).


An important thing to understand is that doubling every mech's heat production is not equally fair. A build that only produces 1 heat per second with his weapon will produce 1 heat per second more, requiring 10 tons of extra heat sinks - or (assuming he was heat neutral before) shutdown or shutdown in 40 seconds if no extra heat sinks are granted. A build that produces 2 heat per second will now produce 2 heat per second more, requiring 20 extra tons of investment, and (again assuming he was heat neutral before) now shutdown in 25 seconds.

[JimSuperBleeder]

TT is a good solid base, but to translate to a modern video game it needs to be modified here and there. It's coming together I think pretty well.

[Void Angel]

I missed my chance at closed beta, so I can't trace their design process - I'm operating on the testimony of players I've talked with who were there. But, since all we can do is speculate, it's not really productive to spend much time on it. They did what they did for the reasons they did it. We can't go back and un-do their design process - we'd be asking that months of effort and testing be thrown out and re-done. We have to deal with the game we have now.

I wholeheartedly agree with anyone who says so that the weapons still need adjustment. That's happening, of course - I'm seeing a lot more PPC boats running around since the patch, for example. But we can't use one page of the tabletop rulebook as an authority for this game. If we're going to ask for a specific fix for, say the flamer (the poor, poor flamer) then we're going to have to make our suggestions based on the mechanics extant in this game if our feedback is to be useful.

Edited by Void Angel, 03 January 2013 - 09:00 PM.

[Henchman 24]

I've played the TT since BattleDroids(first name before first lawsuit), and this:

Quote

Namely, these two mechanics describe the combat capability of the 'Mechs. Kinda hard to make a game that simulates combat in a BTUniverse Mech.

is off base. Those two mechanics were only necessary when relying on the randomness of the dice roll. Also, they were intended to help foster longer gameplay, as accurate weaponry usually meant quick and dirty gameplay that was over way too fast for a TT game. They were also built off the dubious design choice FASA made, trying to portray how badly technological advancements had suffered since the 400 years of war in the inner sphere. Oddly enough, they also wrote about stunning technology that exists alongside tech that seems backwards even today. Even back then, I found none of that to make sense, and over the years, I've seen a wide array of GMs that have fiddled with the ruleset to make the game more comfortable/playable in the face of stupid, half thought content.

I'm sorry, but some of that ridiculousness had to give to make a game like this. Don't get me wrong, when you're playing the TT...it can be a bunch of fun...but when you face that same content 1:1 in a playable pilot format game...it shows off the weak spots in concept very quickly.

Nobody, I mean nobody wants to aim their lasers on a target, and have it shoot 30 degrees off target, not when there is no believable excuse for why it would happen, and 20+ years later...still no decently thought out way to make that mechanic work properly.

Dual reticules, or at least the idea behind them isn't a symptom, it's a direct correlation to the ability to use one arm to fire with vs. all torso weps, which you could choose to do in TT. Circle is your arms, plus is torso, I fail to see how much simpler they could make this for you. Now you have the choice of what to fire, if you don't setup your fire groups to take advantage of it, it's not the game's fault.

I honestly wish they could put in a TT 'mode' button, and do a direct translation...then let folks see how bad it really is when faced with pilot skill. Like happens now, ranged battles would end, as the brawlers would close the gap a lot sooner than 'canon' pilots or players ever would. LRM boats would be constantly beaten as their LRMs are dumber than dirt. Energy boats would get hosed as their beams flash off into nothingness as even the lightest ballistic boats crawl up their backsides and render them dead in quick alpha strikes to the back of their super thin armor values.

I'm no mathematician, but even I can figure out how quickly, just based on my playstyle, a TT based ruleset would turn to crap and lead to 3 minute outcomes(even if you took the cheesy caps out).

People wonder why the trial mechs suck so bad.....here's your example....because they are still outfitted based on broken rules, that were adapted to fit this game. Yeah their armor is higher, but their heat values stink due to the balancing that had to be done to foster longer play. To say that goal isn't working is wrong. Always looking for an example in TT to explain why things aren't balanced here, is to ignore how much HAD to be changed to make this game even remotely fun for longer than 5 minutes.

I know I'm going to **** off a bunch here now, but so what....to date, everything FASA has touched has turned into dust. None of their IPs were mature enough to last, and this divide we have is just one clear example. Yeah Jordan, talking about you buddy. It's an opinion, but honestly, the damage to this IP had already been done by those who both strayed from TT or tried to embrace it in whole.

How bout we let the guys trying to marry the two have a go and let them finish before we get all bunched up about the differences. I still see the loudest TT whiners in game, playing it up, having fun....how the heck can you call that a failure after so many years with nothing and no hope for this IP?

So, TL;DR is HELL NO, dumb idea....go do some critical thinking and go over the math, it will be obvious.

Edited by Henchman 24, 04 January 2013 - 09:05 AM.

[Pht]

wolf74, on 01 January 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

The "to hit" or "cone of fire" can both be done without random number by Removing the auto-weapon convergence

The "auto weapons convergence" you're referring to is the 'Mech.

Quote

and placing in a manual controlled convergence. A player can get the auto convergence back at a much lower convergence speed with the targeting computer upgrade when they come out. This is my personal thoughts on this

Which would be fine in another game, but the system is not built to balance for that. You'd have people camping in specific spots with their convergence set perfectly with, say, a bunch of lasers... walk from behind wall, blast target as it walks into the zone (MW4 poptart style), walk behind wall. Rinse. Wash. Repeat endlessly.

Indoorsman, on 02 January 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

All this poo about mechs aligning weapons and bringing them to bear

From the definitive source:

TechManual, Page 43, right column

Quote

BattleMechs are very capable and smart robots, with most of their intelligence embodied in the DI computer network. But they are not truly autonomous. Partly because they have so much firepower and could cause so much destruction if something went wrong, virtually all of the higher decisions are left in the hands of MechWarriors. MechWarriors decide when the BattleMech moves, where the BattleMech moves to and whom the BattleMech shoots. Frankly, it is difficult to code all that decision-making for computers, at least in real-world environments.

....

But BattleMech computers do handle an incredible amount of lower-level decision-making. The T&T system, for instance, sorts, processes and interprets sensor data for the MechWarrior, who only has to look at his screens or HUD to get a concise picture of the battlefield. When targeting, a MechWarrior merely uses a control stick to aim a crosshair on a display that shows the enemy. It is up to the BattleMech to actually aim the weapons with all the calculations that entails.

It is also mostly up to the BattleMech to compensate for the recoil of its autocannons or the blasts of hostile fire while moving in the direction a MechWarrior sets. Yes, a MechWarrior can correct the BattleMech on its balance, such as telling the BattleMech when to ride with the blasts rather than leaning against them, or when to throw itself off-balance and into another BattleMech, but a lot of the decision-making gets done by the DI computer.

Quote

makes me think of this guy who drives a car. He isn't physically propelling it down the track or turning the wheels, but it does EXACTLY what he wants. Seriously, watch this and say that there would be problems with mech control 1050 years in the future.

Cars are not 'Mechs.

Taizan, on 02 January 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

Not really a fan of TT games and don't see how there could be a closer implementation as movement is completely free and things like aiming are also left to player skill.

So, you don't mind at all that there's zero simulation of the 'Mech's weapons handling and targeting systems?

[Pht]

Void Angel, on 02 January 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

Massive lines of context-less quotations paired with your own (context-less) commentary on them are less than useless.

They aren't out of context.

Quote

I'm just going to assume

Lazy or cowardly, which is it? Too lazy to read my posts, or too cowardly to actually engage with the content of what I've posted?

Quote

You also like to respond to general statements addressed to groups of posters,

Even If I did it wouldn't make it right for you to do so.

Quote

As for implementing random hit locations and the like; not only does that sound wonderfully not-fun (and totally unnecessary to give the feel of "real" Battletech,) its implementation would reduce the complexity and skill needed to play the game, while simultaneously making it harder for the player to interpret feedback from gameplay.

It would not reduce the skill required to play the game; it would require more, and it would not make it unfriendly to new players.

Quote

...it's been pointed out to you, rather exhaustively, that converting the full ruleset doesn't translate well into this format.

It has not. Nowhere have you or anyone else in this thread or anywhere else pointed out a rule and validly shown how it will not convert over.

[Ryolacap]

They should allow you to fire presise with one weapon at a time with a 1-2 sec global cool down (less or more if need be after testing) OR alpha strike with no convergence it would bring every weapon Back in line AND make this a thinking mans FPS

Edited by Ryolacap, 04 January 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[Indoorsman]

Pht, on 04 January 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Cars are not 'Mechs.

Cars and 'Mechs are both machines. The 'Mech is much more complicated, yes, but if in less than 200 years we can get cars from invention to precision handling, then I'm sure in ~600(2439-3050) years mechs could go from invention to precision aiming. In your reference all it does is prove that the Mechwarrior does not aim, the mech does. It does not mention any limitations of the mech at aiming.

[Pht]

Henchman 24, on 04 January 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

is off base. Those two mechanics were only necessary when relying on the randomness of the dice roll. Also, they were intended to help foster longer gameplay, as accurate weaponry usually meant quick and dirty gameplay that was over way too fast for a TT game.

Even if we accpet that this is true it still doesn't mean that the hit-location tables don't represent a 'Mech's ultimate ability to converge all of it's weapons onto a mobile 'Mech sized target.

Quote

They were also built off the dubious design choice FASA made, trying to portray how badly technological advancements had suffered since the 400 years of war in the inner sphere. Oddly enough, they also wrote about stunning technology that exists alongside tech that seems backwards even today. Even back then, I found none of that to make sense, and over the years, I've seen a wide array of GMs that have fiddled with the ruleset to make the game more comfortable/playable in the face of stupid, half thought content.

So you don't like the BTU canon.

... Your point?

Quote

Nobody, I mean nobody wants to aim their lasers on a target, and have it shoot 30 degrees off target, not when there is no believable excuse for why it would happen, and 20+ years later...still no decently thought out way to make that mechanic work properly.

First, no mechwarrior actually aims the 'Mech's weapons. The mechwarrior indicates the target for the 'mech, tracks the target, and pulls the triggers; the 'Mech does the rest.

"No believeable excuse" - again, if you don't like the lore, that's fine. If you don't, though, why are you here?

If you wanted a mecha game where your mech/a could drill targets with that kind of precision... I'm sure there are plenty of anime-based mecha games that fit the bill. Maybe even some western ones.

Quote

I honestly wish they could put in a TT 'mode' button, and do a direct translation...then let folks see how bad it really is when faced with pilot skill. Like happens now, ranged battles would end, as the brawlers would close the gap a lot sooner than 'canon' pilots or players ever would. LRM boats would be constantly beaten as their LRMs are dumber than dirt. Energy boats would get hosed as their beams flash off into nothingness as even the lightest ballistic boats crawl up their backsides and render them dead in quick alpha strikes to the back of their super thin armor values.

Pure FUD.

Quote

How bout we let the guys trying to marry the two have a go and let them finish before we get all bunched up about the differences. I still see the loudest TT whiners in game, playing it up, having fun....how the heck can you call that a failure after so many years with nothing and no hope for this IP?

They've already dropped out half of the combat system and are yet still somehow trying to use the equipment numbers in a wholly-new combat system that wasn't built to handle those numbers; this is a bad thing and has already borne rotten fruit.. and it will continue to do so.

----

It's perfectly OK that you don't like the BTU lore/canon - the question is, why do you feel obliged to dump on those who do? There's plenty of other games out there to move on to for you.

[Pht]

Ryolacap, on 04 January 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

They should allow you to fire presise with one weapon at a time with a 1-2 sec global cool down (less or more if need be after testing) OR alpha strike with no convergence it would bring every weapon Back in line AND make this a thinking mans FPS

It would be interesting if they did something like this with a single weapon, but how they would balance it's damage numbers versus the inveitable headcapping ... it's an interesting idea.

Indoorsman, on 04 January 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

Cars and 'Mechs are both machines.

Yes, and ballpoint pens are also machines.

However, if you wish to resort back to this - yes, both are machines - and this doesn't give you the premises you need to make the argument that the 'Mech can hit anytihng its pilot indicates for it.

Quote

The 'Mech is much more complicated, yes, but if in less than 200 years we can get cars from invention to precision handling, then I'm sure in ~600(2439-3050) years mechs could go from invention to precision aiming.

The BTU is a fictional lore, not non-fiction.

...

Why is it that people keep making this simple mistake? ... besides which, I kinda thought one of the reasons for this game was the escapism factor.

Quote

In your reference all it does is prove that the Mechwarrior does not aim, the mech does. It does not mention any limitations of the mech at aiming.

You're right. It doesn't.

The hit-location tables and the to-hit mechanics illustrate the 'mechs aiming ability.

[Ryolacap]

My great idea is getting smothered by all this useless aurguing here it is again
it makes so much sense

They should allow you to fire presise with one weapon at a time with a 1-2 sec global cool down (less or more if need be after testing) OR alpha strike with no convergence it would bring every weapon Back in line. Also firing groups in one area say an arm would converge as a group better

Edited by Ryolacap, 04 January 2013 - 03:46 PM.

[Pht]

Ryolacap, on 04 January 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

My great idea is getting smothered by all this useless aurguing here it is again
it makes so much sense

If certain people would bother to read the posts they're trying to refute things wouldn't be so messy.

Quote

They should allow you to fire presise with one weapon at a time with a 1-2 sec global cool down (less or more if need be after testing) OR alpha strike with no convergence it would bring every weapon Back in line. Also firing groups in one area say an arm would converge as a group better

How would you balance precision fire with a single weapon in relation to the inevitable constant head-shotting that it would give rise to?

IMO, you'd see a lot of people with the hardest-hitting single weapon doing cockpit/ct hunting.

What do you mean "with no convergence?" ... do you mean, alpha strike but the weapons don't concentrate on a single armor panel?

They've already started doing the firing groups in one area thing to a small extent with the arms reticule/all else reticule.

[Ryolacap]

Yes large hard hitting weapons would be more fearsome; as they should be; its the reason they are large. AC20 should be the most feared weapon its 14 ton plus ammo and 10 crit slots with a 270 range. You no longer have these crazy alpha stike builds 1 shoting Ct. Its pretty darn hard to hit the head. Yes you would still have presice shots but 4 med laser would then = 4 med lasers and not an AC20 as they do now. Basicly when you alpha strike with every thing shots land around the center of the aimer rather than the little dot in the middle of your aimed; you know like every other modern FPS out there when simulating heavy fire.

Hell I think even COD got that right; ever fire 2 handed ambiko style?

Edited by Ryolacap, 04 January 2013 - 08:00 PM.

[Indoorsman]

Proof PHT has double standards:

Pht, on 04 January 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Void Angel, on 02 January 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

I'm just going to assume

Lazy or cowardly, which is it? Too lazy to read my posts, or too cowardly to actually engage with the content of what I've posted?

Pht, on 01 January 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

I'll presume

Pht, on 31 December 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

I presume

Pht, on 31 December 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

I presume

presume = fancier word for assume btw

Pht, on 04 January 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

there's zero simulation of the 'Mech's weapons handling and targeting systems

So you want simulation, aka realism. But as soon as someone else mentions realism you say:

Pht, on 04 January 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

The BTU is a fictional lore, not non-fiction.

I mention that perhaps 'mechs aren't a bottleneck when it comes to aiming and eventually you say:

Pht, on 04 January 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

The hit-location tables and the to-hit mechanics illustrate the 'mechs aiming ability.

To which I say, you are "presuming" again. Take the data of all the players of MWO and their accuracy and put it into table form and you've got hit-location tables. The hit-location tables could just as easily be reflecting pilot data, rather than your assertion that it is reflecting the limitations of the hardware/mech ONLY.

Edited by Indoorsman, 04 January 2013 - 11:52 PM.

[Void Angel]

Thanks, Indoorsman. Pht has pretty much removed himself from the "reasonable debate" category a long time ago. It's really not worth sifting through his huge pile of piecemeal quotes and sophistry just to point out every fallacy he's committed.

Pht, your style of debate, to use the term loosely, is called "sophistry." You seem to think that if you just hand-wave away objections you don't have answer them, and can get away with sniping at small parts of post - then making claims like "no one has shown me any reason why (insert objection) is valid!" This is not in fact the case. Chopping up others posts into pieces so small that they take up (literally) half a page of this thread simply means that your ideas are sloppily organized - at best. At worst they are hypocritical in the extreme. For example:

Pht, on 01 January 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

VoidAngel said:

I shall decline to deal with your two-part megapost point-by-point, since that would be even MORE unreadable. I shall instead cover a couple of highlights!

... I guess that's one way to cover one's backside when you can't find a valid way to answer objections in detail

VoidAngel said:

This is precisely what you are asking for, and precisely the objection that has been raised repeatedly by myself and others - since half of "the combat system" is indeed valid for this play format.

----

Mouse-aiming allows targeting in ways that break the tabletop range and movement difficulty system, and this really does destroy game balance if the weapon numbers are slavishly copied.

----

This is what, as you have been repeatedly advised, prompted the devs to embark on the tweaks and adjustments which have led the game to where it is. They started from the very numbers you want them to go back to - and made the adjustments they made for logical reasons they have talked about elsewhere.

----

How can you be surprised when you discard all the real data about how the game worked (and they have real data - you have theorycraft based on a tabletop game) because you tell them they didn't try hard enough? If you were simply bringing up concerns based on actual fact and gameplay

"This" what? What, exactly, are you trying to attribute to me here? "This" that you just quoted from my post or something else that you're presuming and not actually putting on the forums?

First, you claim that I'm avoiding your 1337 logical $K1LLZ when I point out that your huge, disorganized collection of sniping one-liners is unreadable - then you decline to deal with a body of arguments... because you claim you can't tell what they're about! That's the precise objection I raised regarding your mega-post of snippet quotes; you cannot dismiss my argument without derailing your own! Prattling on about how it's other people's responsibility to figure out the context of the snippets you're quoting is silly in the extreme.

You seem to have jumped into a discussion on whether or not the tabletop rules (not the damn fluff in the sidebars, the rules) should be followed more closely, cut-and-pasting quotes from conversations regarding this topic and responding to them as if they pertained to that topic - if you wished to talk about whether or not to use the fluff in the sidebars of a technical manual to make a major decision in game design, you should have said so. Similarly, if you wish to carry on about whether or not we have to have a point and click targeting interface in order for this to be "real" BattleTech, you should make your own thread instead of trying to hijack this one. In either case, your opinion is really not germane to the subject to which you are repeatedly responding.

Yet your method of posting, as outlined above, doesn't lend itself well to unimportant things like context. If you want to talk about your subject, please feel free to make your own thread. While I disagree with some others on the subject of how closely tied to the tabletop rules our current gameplay should be, they are at least talking about the same subject - and unlike with you, I don't have to spend half my time correcting their hypocritically arranged and invalid arguments. The sophists contributed greatly to the destruction of Greek society. Please stop emulating them.

As for whether we should implement a sidebar in a supplementary rulebook as the Holy Word of Fasa, I say, "heck no." First if we're actually staying within the topic of the post, because it would: make a bad design choice for an in-the-cockpit perspective game; require a complete rework of a fun game system that has been months in the making; and dilute feedback to the player because the RNG would sometimes give to returns for a bad decision. There's no rational reason to select that one piece of flavor text and say "we must design the entire game around this thing!" particularly when that thing isn't related to game balance.

If, on the other hand you are saying that "It's not 'real' Battletech without a point-and click interface," I say "go away until you can reason from a consistent basis." You've said above that you don't want the tabletop rules directly transplanted into this Battletech game, so what's your basis for selecting this one thing (which is not even a rule) as a deal-breaker? To say nothing of the fact that, to bring you back to my thesis in these posts, you cannot thump a rulebook to "prove" a purely aesthetic opinion about what makes "real" Battletech - or to enforce an arbitrary opinion about which rules to import to this game.

P.S. Sidebar fluff aside, the fact that in tabletop, Mechwarrior skill levels affect targeting accuracy puts paid to the idea that it's only the Battlemech doing the aiming. Pairing Mechwarrior skill to accuracy, yet rolling the hit location randomly (only allowing called shots at a penalty, or with special equipment) is a game balance decision which cannot be coherently reconciled with the game lore. So now I guess Battletech isn't really Battletech...

Edited by Void Angel, 05 January 2013 - 12:10 PM.

[Khobai]

Trying to stick to tabletop is the whole reason this game has glaring balance issues.

[Void Angel]

Khobai, on 05 January 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

Trying to stick to tabletop is the whole reason this game has glaring balance issues.

No, the most glaring balance issues are because of the net code. The rest are simply the fact that weapons are still being tweaked (and most of them are not sticking to the tabletop values.)

Edited by Void Angel, 05 January 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

No, the most glaring balance issues are because of the net code.

Not really. no one had problems killing lights before ecm despite the horrible netcode. it was the combination of the netcode and ecm that pushed lights over the top.

[Roughneck45]

Dice rolls =/= Player skill, and never will.

For that reason alone, pure tabletop rules will NEVER work for an action game.

Everything should be inspired by tabletop, but it doesnt have to be 100% the same.

[Void Angel]

That doesn't seem quite right, Khobai. In order to hit lights now, you have to fire at a special ghost in front of their mech. The main way ECM improves lights' survivability is that it negates lock-on weapons. So now the only way to kill lights is lasers, which are hard to deal decent damage with unless you catch the light doing the Newbie Hammer Circle Strafe around another 'mech. ECM is handle-able without nearly invulnerable lights skating through your main body practically without fear. So if lock-on weapons were powerful enough to counter the lag shields, I have to point out that they don't work according to the TT values. =)

Edited by Void Angel, 05 January 2013 - 12:09 PM.