225 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

Mischief, I just played a game with you and we faced an enemy with way more ECM, yet we mopped the floor with them. Its like, we learned to adapt to the ECM environment, even thrive in it, yet still see a problem with the balance issues it might have for the majority of players who don't play in coordinated groups all the time.

[MischiefSC]

DocBach, on 04 February 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Mischief, I just played a game with you and we faced an enemy with way more ECM, yet we mopped the floor with them. Its like, we learned to adapt to the ECM environment, even thrive in it, yet still see a problem with the balance issues it might have for the majority of players who don't play in coordinated groups all the time.

We won because they made some big mistakes and we were better shots. I do alright playing with or against ECM but all other things being equal it's a huge force multiplier that favors premade teams and especially punishes new players.

My issue isn't that I can't 'deal with it'. If they made clan tech and mechs available for MC and you had people buying clanner mechs and tech all over I could still 'deal with it'. Play an LRM boat with TAG and keep at range, play a light mech and do hit and run, it's not that you can't 'deal with it'.

It's that it's horribly imbalanced and the fact that I have to 'deal with it' is the problem. Pay 2 win would bother me less - that at least has some sort of justification. This really just feels like I'm way, way out of step with how the developers want the game to go. I want to be a valuable consumer to them. I want to give them my money, brag the game up and watch it do well. This whole ECM 'working as planned' thing though feels like they've included transforming rainbow unicorns in Battletech and I'm going 'Yay, big stompy robots! Whee! Yeah, alright! Aweso..... huh? What? No, that can't be right. What the F....'

It's indicative of a big gap between the game experience I'm having and the one I want to have compared to the one the developers think is best and the direction they want to take the game. ECM functions as a force multiplier. It is hugely out of balance for what it costs, how its countered and how it works. It helps make organization king and playing as anything but an organized team far more difficult. It does this because.....

Well, I guess the devs think it's cool? Screw new players and anyone who doesn't want to put 300 or 400 matches into learning to play before they stop getting crushed? Screw equipment balance, basing the game on the original TT IP? I just can't see where this seems like a good idea.

That's my problem.

Edited by MischiefSC, 04 February 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[Vlad Ward]

The disconnect comes from the fact that the Developers are mostly competitive gamers themselves, and view things in-house from a competitive perspective.

In the competitive scene, ECM doesn't really mean jack squat. It's fun, and offers a little variety, but it's hardly "easy mode" or a "win button".

ECM, like Streaks all of a couple months ago, are pieces of equipment that mean increasingly less as the players involved with them gain skill.

Want to kill an RVN-3L? Suit up a JR7-D with jump jets and twice the firepower and blow it to pieces.

[OneEyed Jack]

Quote

what should be done is balance ECM itself, instead of looking for a way to circumvent the problem instead of attacking the problem itself.

I removed the name, because I don't mean to single out the poster. I just find it interesting that so many people seem to say pretty much this same thing. I don't think those people understand the basic concept of "balance" as it refers to a game. To put it simply, there is no way to "balance ECM on it's own," because the very concept of "balance" is how everything works together.

If you take a scale and put something on one side, no matter how you change that thing, the scale will never balance out with nothing on the other side. Now imagine a scale with hundreds of arms sticking out in various directions, each holding one of the aspects that make up MWO (mech classes, engine restrictions, equipment tonnages, weapon heats, weapon speeds, cycle times, JJs, etc, etc, etc...) all balanced on a single fulcrum. Some, perhaps many, people seem to think they can remove everything else from that scale except ECM and somehow magically make it balance. It simply doesn't work that way, people.

This is beta. That's where stuff gets tested. Every aspect of the game is constantly looked at and gauged to see how it all balances together. Since ECM is still in it's first incarnation, I'm pretty confident that there will be changes, but before you can balance, you have to see how the balance currently sits. Knee-jerk reactions are never, ever the appropriate answer. Something with as broad an effect as ECM requires that the players first have time to become accustomed to it before test results even begin to have meaning. Add to that the fact that there are things coming and plans in motion that the players don't know about or haven't bothered to consider. "The PPC thing is just a band-aid." But haven't they been telling everyone for quite some time that PPCs would affect electronics? That sounds more to me like plans coming to fruition than "slapping on a band-aid." Like maybe they've had this planned for some time, and need to see how big the effect on ECM is before implementing other changes, of which they most likely already have a list of possibilities? Maybe?

I don't think ECM is perfect, but I don't think it's as bad as the doom-criers would have us believe, either. I just think people need to consider what they're saying before they say it. They won't, since this is the internet and they won't be held accountable for it, but I have to hold onto hope for the future of our species. When it comes right down to it, the only real reason I post on this kind of stuff is to keep the voice of reason alive.

[MischiefSC]

Vlad Ward, on 04 February 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

The disconnect comes from the fact that the Developers are mostly competitive gamers themselves, and view things in-house from a competitive perspective.

In the competitive scene, ECM doesn't really mean jack squat. It's fun, and offers a little variety, but it's hardly "easy mode" or a "win button".

ECM, like Streaks all of a couple months ago, are pieces of equipment that mean increasingly less as the players involved with them gain skill.

Want to kill an RVN-3L? Suit up a JR7-D with jump jets and twice the firepower and blow it to pieces.

I get this 100%. I kill people with ECM all the time and have taken to playing my D-DC and enjoy it. The problem though is that the disconnect grows the more equipment creep comes into it. If you attempt to counter ECM via dozens of little tweaks to other items you've just slammed the door in the face of new players.

If ECM worked like it does in TT you'd have a better game experience across the board. To the competitive gamers it is already a quasi-non-issue because they've adapted to just cover the field with it. Where ECM is a problem is new players and solo players - who are exactly where the playerbase as a whole is going to grow from.

If I want to kill a 3L I'll blow a leg off or circle patiently while I wait for him to get caught up on something and then shoot him in the face with an AC20 and some SRMs. That took me time to learn but there's a direct balance to it.

ECM though is irrationally out of balance though. That's my issue. It's not that it's like some clanner super-weapon that automatically kills someone. It just gives a super-stealth shield to your entire team, blocks all information gathering and missile locks (unless you're using TAG because you're in the know) and is otherwise just flat out clown shoes wearing stupid irrationally out of balance with everything else in the game.

That's the issue. That this is an issue for a majority of the player base and disproportionately impacts newer or less experienced players but just isn't an issue for the developers is what makes me concerned and hesitant to put down any sort of roots here.

[Orzorn]

MischiefSC, on 04 February 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

It's that it's horribly imbalanced and the fact that I have to 'deal with it' is the problem.

This is the issue, right here.

Even if ECM wasn't imbalanced, the effects that its no-lock policy has on LRMs and SSRMs creates an imbalance (or even just a less fun game-scape) by its very nature.

That 4 medium lasers, 2 LRM 15 catapult C1 build? That used to be a venerable build. It could get some things done, and it wasn't as dependent on its ears as an A1. But now, due to ECM, it suffered very, very much. It isn't worth bringing TAG just for 2 LRMs, at least the way I see it. ECM didn't kill missile boating, it promotes it. All or nothing.

I miss Centurion builds that used LRM for support, but hard hitting lasers and an AC for medium range support. I miss LRM 10s on my Dragon.

The fact that such a small piece of equipment changed the metagame so hard tells me something about its nature.

Quote

In the competitive scene, ECM doesn't really mean jack squat. It's fun, and offers a little variety, but it's hardly "easy mode" or a "win button".

You're right about that, but think about what ECM did to the metagame proper, and whether that's healthy for variety. Read the above for my thoughts on it.

The reason 8 mans can play around it is we just dump all weapons out of our build that are effected by ECM. Is that healthy or good? Is that fun even? I love ballistics as much as the next Steiner/Davion, but its getting a bit old. I recall a time where I could provide LRM support with my Dragon while moving into position, but I can't do that anymore.

As Mischief said, we can adapt, but does that make it fine, or fun?

Quote

To the competitive gamers it is already a quasi-non-issue because they've adapted to just cover the field with it.

I'd like folks to note that competitive players will adapt to just about anything, regardless of how stupidly powerful it might be, but that is not representative, at least all of the time, of whether something is balanced or not. You can generally see that in how hard an item effects builds. Is almost everyone running item X? If not, why? Do people who run item X win more often? Are the people who aren't running item X almost always running item Y to counter it? Is this a good thing? Is this a fun thing? I imagine that those are the sorts of questions the devs ask themselves.

Edited by Orzorn, 04 February 2013 - 11:22 AM.

[Slater01]

I really hope that either;

a) equiping ECM or chosing an ECM mech is more of choice rather than a must have for competitive game play.

c) and/or the Command Console and future Modules help balance the situation.

apparently b + ) =

Edited by Slater01, 04 February 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[Vlad Ward]

MischiefSC, on 04 February 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

snip

I think this whole issue needs a little context.

PGI has been trying to balance LRMs and SSRMs for months. Ever since Closed Beta, it's been a revolving door of "OP!", "Underpowered!", "OP!", "Underpowered!", over and over and over again. They could never get missiles to work well for everyone for one big reason.

Any time Missiles were strong enough to be effective in the hands of a new/inexperienced player, they were god mode in the hands of old/experienced players. Likewise, any time Missiles were balanced in the hands of old/experienced players, new/inexperienced players could not use them at all.

This has been a fundamental problem with Missiles since Day 1, and frankly I'm glad they got tired of tweaking damage/spread values and decided to take a different approach to it.

Right now, Missiles are intentionally OP. They are ridiculously powerful, no question about it. The caveat to that is that you, the pilot, have to either A ) Fire Unguided missiles with a shotgun-esque spread, or B ) Use a targeting laser and/or coordinated team tactics.

That's the deal they made. Missiles are OP, but require skill and/or teamwork to use.

Everything else just makes the game more interesting. Lack of Red Triangle warnings from 800m means Scouting is actually useful again. Again, rewards for teamwork.

PUGs generally don't work as teams, so naturally many of them will fall apart at the sight of ECM. There is no real solution to this aside from making two different games: Real Mechwarrior, and Easy Mode Mechwarrior: No Teamwork Necessary Edition.

[Vlad Ward]

Orzorn, on 04 February 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

You're right about that, but think about what ECM did to the metagame proper, and whether that's healthy for variety. Read the above for my thoughts on it.

Being a CB Light pilot, I'm most aware of the effects of ECM on the Light metagame. If anything, the addition of ECM has made the Light meta significantly more diverse.

The game went from "JR7-D/JR7-F or ****" to "Oh hey, we now have a competitive variant from every Chassis".

Useful Light Chassis before ECM: JR7-D, JR7-F

Useful Light Chassis after ECM: COM-2D, RVN-3L, CDA-3M, JR7-D, JR7-F, SDR-5D

I'm treating the Cicada as an honorary light in this case.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 04 February 2013 - 11:32 AM.

[Orzorn]

Vlad Ward, on 04 February 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

That's the deal they made. Missiles are OP, but require skill and/or teamwork to use.

We'll see come Thomas' missile pattern fix and new Artemis pattern whether that holds true anymore. It could create an accuracy tipping point.

I personally think the reason missiles flip flopped so much is because they never increased their speed, and mainly tweaked their arc and damage. The speed is part of what makes them so difficult for new players to use, as they tend to fire them at nearly max range and wonder why they miss so often. Faster missiles that did less damage might be more balanced all around, but we'd have to see.

I understand the idea of ECM as a fix to missiles being too strong, but, as I said above, ECM killed moderate LRM usage.

[MischiefSC]

Vlad Ward, on 04 February 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

I think this whole issue needs a little context.

PGI has been trying to balance LRMs and SSRMs for months. Ever since Closed Beta, it's been a revolving door of "OP!", "Underpowered!", "OP!", "Underpowered!", over and over and over again. They could never get missiles to work well for everyone for one big reason.

Any time Missiles were strong enough to be effective in the hands of a new/inexperienced player, they were god mode in the hands of old/experienced players. Likewise, any time Missiles were balanced in the hands of old/experienced players, new/inexperienced players could not use them at all.

This has been a fundamental problem with Missiles since Day 1, and frankly I'm glad they got tired of tweaking damage/spread values and decided to take a different approach to it.

Right now, Missiles are intentionally OP. They are ridiculously powerful, no question about it. The caveat to that is that you, the pilot, have to either A ) Fire Unguided missiles with a shotgun-esque spread, or B ) Use a targeting laser and/or coordinated team tactics.

That's the deal they made. Missiles are OP, but require skill and/or teamwork to use.

Everything else just makes the game more interesting. Lack of Red Triangle warnings from 800m means Scouting is actually useful again. Again, rewards for teamwork.

PUGs generally don't work as teams, so naturally many of them will fall apart at the sight of ECM. There is no real solution to this aside from making two different games: Real Mechwarrior, and Easy Mode Mechwarrior: No Teamwork Necessary Edition.

Pugs do work as a team. I do it all the time. At least 50% of my games, generally 60 to 70%. They would do better and more so if it wasn't for things like ECM and poor matchmaking.

So what you're saying is that the game is designed for experienced players looking for experienced competitive play. Alright, fair enough. I wish that sort of direct answer about how missiles, ECM and the like will be balanced (if you PUG you're at best tolerated, join a team or get stomped. This game is for competitive team play) was clearer from the developers so everyone else knows to invest their time and energy elsewhere.

[Vlad Ward]

MischiefSC, on 04 February 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Pugs do work as a team. I do it all the time. At least 50% of my games, generally 60 to 70%. They would do better and more so if it wasn't for things like ECM and poor matchmaking.

So what you're saying is that the game is designed for experienced players looking for experienced competitive play. Alright, fair enough. I wish that sort of direct answer about how missiles, ECM and the like will be balanced (if you PUG you're at best tolerated, join a team or get stomped. This game is for competitive team play) was clearer from the developers so everyone else knows to invest their time and energy elsewhere.

Matchmaking will fix more problems than anything else when Phase 3 is implemented.

I have to ask, though. What's the point of balancing the game around casual play? Is a game really fun when anyone who plays at a remotely competitive level is capable of abusing the system beyond belief?

Players who are still learning the game don't need perfect balance. The various skill and skill-type gaps between them will throw objective balance out the window anyways.

[Orzorn]

Vlad Ward, on 04 February 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Matchmaking will fix more problems than anything else when Phase 3 is implemented.

I have to ask, though. What's the point of balancing the game around casual play? Is a game really fun when anyone who plays at a remotely competitive level is capable of abusing the system beyond belief?

Players who are still learning the game don't need perfect balance. The various skill and skill-type gaps between them will throw objective balance out the window anyways.

I think matchmaking phase 3 will also reveal some problems, as the different levels of players are separated out and we get to see what builds and what items are strongest, or even dominate, at which ELO rankings. You'll inevitably see several types of builds rise to the top of each bracket, and if its the same type of build, you might end up seeing a problem.

I'd also have to say that balancing purely around the top isn't worth it either, because good players will adapt, as we have done. If they're going to do that, it doesn't quite matter how you change it, as they'll get around it. Balancing around the middle of the road is better, because its more likely to affect a larger group of players in a more meaningful way. Balancing for brand new players will tend to "dumb down" player at higher levels. Balancing for competitive teams is damn near impossible because they're always looking for the latest and greatest to use and abuse, and only the most serious abuses need attention.

I think the thing about ECM is that its effects are almost intangible. Lots of people don't like the fact that it cuts off missile locks, but here I am talking about how that creates a different metagame (and one that I don't believe is healthy). Not so much "this item is OP and breaks the game" as "this item is strange as hell and creates a metagame all its own".

If there's anything I'd like to see get changed about ECM, anything at all, and I think this one is reasonable, its that TAG be able to work within the bubble of ECM.

If they're going to create an item that is a "counter", it might as well be an actual counter, and not a soft counter. Having a flood of Raven's in your scouts face while they try to TAG is pretty pathetic to watch, and frustrating to be the scout pilot yourself. Its no wonder so many LRM boaters take their own TAG.

Edited by Orzorn, 04 February 2013 - 11:58 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Vlad Ward, on 04 February 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Matchmaking will fix more problems than anything else when Phase 3 is implemented.

I have to ask, though. What's the point of balancing the game around casual play? Is a game really fun when anyone who plays at a remotely competitive level is capable of abusing the system beyond belief?

Players who are still learning the game don't need perfect balance. The various skill and skill-type gaps between them will throw objective balance out the window anyways.

It's about balancing the game towards consistency. LRMs at 1pt each, SRMs at 2. ECM works like it does in tabletop. Missile spread and accuracy at around 70%, give or take. This makes them useful weapons in certain situations while direct fire weapons are more so. TT is balanced that way for a reason; it creates a broader, better balanced game.

This isn't simply balancing it for competitive play, it's balancing it for team ladder play. As to why to balance it for a more 'casual' approach I guess it depends on how successful you want it to be. I'm not saying the game should be changed - just saying that you need to realize that if you're pointing your game at being fun for the top 10% of a market that's already only 10-20% of the gamer population is that really what's going to make an F2P game successful? You'd be better off going subscription, wouldn't you?

[Orzorn]

MischiefSC, on 04 February 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

It's about balancing the game towards consistency. LRMs at 1pt each, SRMs at 2.

LRMs would have to move pretty darn fast if they only did 1 damage.

Quote

ECM works like it does in tabletop.

I wish.

Quote

Missile spread and accuracy at around 70%, give or take.

Well what is it now?

Quote

This makes them useful weapons in certain situations while direct fire weapons are more so. TT is balanced that way for a reason; it creates a broader, better balanced game.

There are a lot of things that won't translate properly, but I see your point. LRMs as support, direct fire as the meat, but I'm not sure removing their damage that drastically is quite the way to do it.

Luckily, PGI seems to at least be on ECM's case right now. The PPC change was going to happen anyways (so I think people are over reacting when they call it a band-aid), but Garth himself said they're looking at ECM and what to do with it, but no doubt they're going to give the PPC change time to settle in to see what it does to ECM (not much, I'd imagine, since the mechs mounting SSRMs are not likely to be the ones using PPCs. You might end up with some decent tales of teamwork where a PPC support lays into a lone ECM mech so someone else's missiles can be locked).

[Kyone Akashi]

Vlad Ward, on 04 February 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

The game went from "JR7-D/JR7-F or ****" to "Oh hey, we now have a competitive variant from every Chassis".

We must play on different servers.
From my recent matches, there is a definite trend to the heavier chassis now, to the point where my JR7-K is the only Light in my team. I would not actually mind this much, were it not that about half or more of the few other Lights I encounter are COM-2D or RVN-3L. Which, judging from the vocal majority on the forums, seems to be the norm these days.

That being said, right now it even seems as if it is getting fewer Lights in general, possibly just because so many people have switched to the 2D or 3L or a heavier 'Mech that the former two have "fewer victims" now, thus putting their efficiency into question, and causing their pilots to switch again?

ECM is perfectly fine - yes, even for PUGs - until it gets combined with SSRMs in a single fast and small chassis, at which point the 'Mech carrying them becomes the most efficient Light-killer possible, able to deal missile damage with a 100% to-hit chance whilst keeping up with its target, and simultaneously disabling the option of delivering guaranteed damage for anyone but the same model/s.
Packing more weapons or armour is, for most pilots, not of much use when velocity, terrain and connection quality prevent said superior damage from being delivered in a reliable way. The current popularity of ECM-Streak-Lights is an obvious hint regarding this evolution, and it puts the viability of non-ECM-Streak-Lights into question. There were times where I considered switching to something else, too, simply because my usual prey is not as numerous anymore, and me playing a Light also opens up a slot for the enemy team, possibly being filled with ECM...

But I'll likely continue to stick to my current choice as I still have a lot of fun and success fighting anything that is not one of the two aforementioned models. Still, I am certainly not surprised that the trend is showing in current PUG drop compositions.

[Orzorn]

Kyone Akashi, on 04 February 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

That being said, right now it even seems as if it is getting fewer Lights in general, possibly just because so many people have switched to the 2D or 3L or a heavier 'Mech that the former two have "fewer victims" now, thus putting their efficiency into question, and causing their pilots to switch again?

So what you're saying is that those chassis are very powerful, but because they're strong against specific mech sizes, people just swapped out to prevent getting eaten alive by them, then those pilots ran out of food so they themselves switched?

Well, I'd agree with part of that. The other part is that the recent netcode changes caused poor light pilots to suffer as we could actually hit them now (although whether that damage is always dealt, or dealt to the proper location due to hit box reasons, is another issue).

Funny, though, how something in a game can get so efficient as to start killing off its own build. Its the same as how competitive 8 mans started stripping LRMs from their mechs in order to be able to ignore ECM more. Then you saw people taking a little less ECM because it didn't matter as much. Does that mean ECM isn't powerful? No, because its capabilities were what caused that situation in the first place, even if it did stabilize.

Its a weird bizarro situation where an item/build is both powerful yet not, because it killed off the very same metagame that allowed it to be so powerful.

[Vlad Ward]

MischiefSC, on 04 February 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

It's about balancing the game towards consistency. LRMs at 1pt each, SRMs at 2. ECM works like it does in tabletop. Missile spread and accuracy at around 70%, give or take. This makes them useful weapons in certain situations while direct fire weapons are more so. TT is balanced that way for a reason; it creates a broader, better balanced game.

This isn't simply balancing it for competitive play, it's balancing it for team ladder play. As to why to balance it for a more 'casual' approach I guess it depends on how successful you want it to be. I'm not saying the game should be changed - just saying that you need to realize that if you're pointing your game at being fun for the top 10% of a market that's already only 10-20% of the gamer population is that really what's going to make an F2P game successful? You'd be better off going subscription, wouldn't you?

Perfect Balance doesn't equate to fun, that's entirely different.

The point I'm trying to make is, quite bluntly, what does a new player know about Balance anyways? What they are capable of using effectively may be completely different from what can be used most effectively at different levels of play.

The thing about Mechwarrior is that there aren't simply "Good" and "Bad" builds. There are builds that are easy to use, but reach their maximum potential quickly. There are also builds that are very difficult to use, but have a higher skill cap.

ECM is part of the former, just like Streakcats. They're easy to use and do well with, but not all that useful once you're playing in the big leagues. Builds evolve as players grow and become capable of using more technical Mechs.

This doesn't mean that "only bad players use ECM". In competitive play, ECM is part of a complex and interesting balance mechanism involving LRM, TAG, SSRMs, AMS, and ECM. Do you risk taking LRMs without a TAG scout? Do you risk leaving AMS off your builds without ECM? Is it worth dropping your total tonnage to bring TAG/ECCM scouts? Do you risk taking AS7-D-DCs and losing out on the punch/hitboxes of the STK series?

These are all important questions that make the game more interesting.

[Kyone Akashi]

Orzorn: Hai, exactly! And I noticed a general decline in ECM as well as of a short time, actually had a number of matches where neither side used a Guardian suite.

Makes me wonder whether IFF disruption (combined with reduced detection range) instead of lock-on prevention might actually make ECM more useful rather than less - after all, this would affect all weapons ... at least when a pilot fails to recognize his own teammates in the heat of battle. I have seen it happen with overheating 'Mechs already.

Edited by Kyone Akashi, 04 February 2013 - 12:31 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Vlad Ward, on 04 February 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Perfect Balance doesn't equate to fun, that's entirely different.

The point I'm trying to make is, quite bluntly, what does a new player know about Balance anyways? What they are capable of using effectively may be completely different from what can be used most effectively at different levels of play.

The thing about Mechwarrior is that there aren't simply "Good" and "Bad" builds. There are builds that are easy to use, but reach their maximum potential quickly. There are also builds that are very difficult to use, but have a higher skill cap.

ECM is part of the former, just like Streakcats. They're easy to use and do well with, but not all that useful once you're playing in the big leagues. Builds evolve as players grow and become capable of using more technical Mechs.

This doesn't mean that "only bad players use ECM". In competitive play, ECM is part of a complex and interesting balance mechanism involving LRM, TAG, SSRMs, AMS, and ECM. Do you risk taking LRMs without a TAG scout? Do you risk leaving AMS off your builds without ECM? Is it worth dropping your total tonnage to bring TAG/ECCM scouts? Do you risk taking AS7-D-DCs and losing out on the punch/hitboxes of the STK series?

These are all important questions that make the game more interesting.

I get the concept that you're trying to put forward, but here's the thing.

ECM is 1.5 tons. It blocks all information gathering, missile and streak locks. It disrupts all enemy locking and targeting information. Not having it on your team puts you at a huge disadvantage, having 2 or more of them is pretty telling especially in competitive play. How competitive is a team that doesn't use LRMs? Can still be very competitive. How about a team that has no ECM? Not competitive.

It's imbalanced. Clown-shoes style ridiculously imbalanced. You can attempt to justify this in a metagame fashion about how it's not that bad if you're playing on an organized team for competitive play but that's a tiny percentage of the games players. Are you saying that everyone else should just quit?