What you mean to say is ECM plus SSRM is over powered. Because if you really thought ECM was OP you'd be complaining about the Spider and Cicada not just Raven and Atlas.
1
"fixing" Ecm
Started by Josef Nader, Feb 13 2013 12:48 PM
80 replies to this topic
#22
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 1,107 posts
Member
- LocationEast Coast USA
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:19 PM
Iwaslost, on 13 February 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:
What you mean to say is ECM plus SSRM is over powered. Because if you really thought ECM was OP you'd be complaining about the Spider and Cicada not just Raven and Atlas.
ECM/SSRM combo is the clear choice for any light mech pilot because SSRM hit every time regardless of how fast their mech is going. SSRM makes circling mechs easy, a pilot hardly even has to turn to face the mech they are targeting in order to hit it.
Other light mechs simply cannot perform as well with out SSRM, and imo, it is an SSRM problem, not an ECM problem.
Edited by Zero Neutral, 13 February 2013 - 01:20 PM.
#23
-
-
- 313 posts
Member
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:20 PM
Zero Neutral, on 13 February 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:
ECM is not around to balance LRMs... that is a fallacy.
Really, any basis for this?
#24
-
-
- The Blade
- 1,656 posts
Member
- LocationAlshain Military District
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:20 PM
zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:
Just think about it for a moment.
You want to take a feature that was designed for a turn-based, tabletop miniature strategy game 30 years ago,
and apply it to a real-time, 2013 casual online F2P competitive multiplayer team-based simulator/shooter.
You want to take a feature that was designed for a turn-based, tabletop miniature strategy game 30 years ago,
and apply it to a real-time, 2013 casual online F2P competitive multiplayer team-based simulator/shooter.
The funny thing is that ECM is so ridiculously overpowered right now because this is one of the comparatively few instances where MWO deviated from the tabletop rather than sticking to it.
Although I kind of agree with Zero Neutral in that it is the combination of ECM and Streaks. Either of the two systems would be fine by themselves - in fact, if it were not for the combination topping both, I would think that Streaks in their current implementation are worse than ECM. The latter just exacerbates the issue by "monopolizing" SSRMs.
Edited by Kyone Akashi, 13 February 2013 - 01:25 PM.
#25
-
-
- Survivor
- 1,269 posts
Member
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:23 PM
Zero Neutral, on 13 February 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:
Forcing ECM to take any more crit slots or weight makes it impossible to equip on light mechs. Only the heaviest mechs could use it and only at a severe gimping to their damage out put or heat scaling.
ECM in its current form should be a 10 or 11 ton item.
An ERStreakUltraHeavyPulse PPC would probably weigh around that much and that's basically what ECM is. Would you mount 2 C3 master computers weighing in at 10 tons and get far less benefit than ECM at 1.5 tons for your entire team ?
ECM is unbalanced period. Does too much for too many teammates for too little tonnage and crits. The purpose of ECM is to counter the advanced electronics of the other team (artemis, narc). Not neuter an entire class of basic weapons. I can live with giving cloak to the unit mounting ECM, but making it area effect and rendering basic LRMs unusable is too much.
Edited by PanchoTortilla, 13 February 2013 - 01:33 PM.
#26
-
-
- 875 posts
Member
- LocationOmaha,NE
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:27 PM
My issue with ECM as it is today (and OP sort of gets to this) is that there is no cost of use or downside to it.
Everything in BT/MW has a cost of use or trade off. Heat, weight, ammo requirements, crit slots, whatever.. ECM has none of these. It's an unlimited/constant use item that generates no heat, weighs little and takes up 2 crit slots while having a 100k+ square meter area of affect that acts as a cloaking device/hard counter to sensors.
Our only counter is TAG, which requires me to keep a visible beam on a moving target for a prolonged period of time while exposed to fire.
Even with the possible upcoming PPC counter, ECM needs to be tweaked.
Everything in BT/MW has a cost of use or trade off. Heat, weight, ammo requirements, crit slots, whatever.. ECM has none of these. It's an unlimited/constant use item that generates no heat, weighs little and takes up 2 crit slots while having a 100k+ square meter area of affect that acts as a cloaking device/hard counter to sensors.
Our only counter is TAG, which requires me to keep a visible beam on a moving target for a prolonged period of time while exposed to fire.
Even with the possible upcoming PPC counter, ECM needs to be tweaked.
#27
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 3,951 posts
Member
- LocationCW Dire Wolf
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:29 PM
zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:
Just think about it for a moment.
You want to take a feature that was designed for a turn-based, tabletop miniature strategy game 30 years ago,
and apply it to a real-time, 2013 casual online F2P competitive multiplayer team-based simulator/shooter.
Do you even know what the TT rules for ECM are?
#28
-
-
- 1,050 posts
Member
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:34 PM
Break ecm up into more specific devices and spread them out over different mechs.
It would then require actual thought and planning to use.
It would then require actual thought and planning to use.
#30
-
-
- 2,093 posts
Member
- LocationMontreal
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:36 PM
Okay I wasn't going to do this but here goes.
ECM in its current implementation is OK, but just that: OK, average, uninspired. It's there, and it adds a nebulous "something" to the game, but doesn't really attract much attention other than passive acceptance or impassioned loathing.
So here's some ideas:
First, give ECM multi-fuctionality and increase player-input both for ECM user and ECM target that adds more tactical complexity to it other than a binary on/off switch on enemy radar.
You can do something similar for BAP for a "hard counter", allow them to toggle on different functional states or some such.
ECM in its current implementation is OK, but just that: OK, average, uninspired. It's there, and it adds a nebulous "something" to the game, but doesn't really attract much attention other than passive acceptance or impassioned loathing.
So here's some ideas:
First, give ECM multi-fuctionality and increase player-input both for ECM user and ECM target that adds more tactical complexity to it other than a binary on/off switch on enemy radar.
- Defensive "Umbrella" Mode that acts similar to current ECM implementation but limited to greater ranges; ie it sends out disruptive signals (chaff/proton beams/x-rays/toilet plungers/whatever) that make it harder to get lock-ons on Mechs inside the field except at close range. Ideal for long-range Mechs wanting to protect themselves against LRMs from afar but won't protect them from lock-ons at shorter range (<~300m). This could be "countered" by TAG lasers.
- Targeted ECM Mode Acts in a similar manner to TAG Lasers in that they emit disruptive signals towards a specific target, to disrupt only that target's tracking computers and guidance control systems. This disruptive signal would be weaker at longer ranges (unlike AoE Mode) and stronger at short ranges. Ideal for neutralizing specific individual missile boats (either LRM or SSRM). This would have no counter (at least none that currently exist in the game) as it conveys a total "blackout" signal disruption emitted at a single target (limited to LOS).
- Area of Effect ECM Mode Acts similar to above but instead of targeting a single Mech for total ECM 'blackout', will emit a larger field around the target Mech to disrupt both him and any enemies near him. They won't experience a total blackout but instead a degredation or quality loss of their targeting capabilities similar to the "Umbrella" mode in that their lock times may be slower, their lock range shorter, etc. Again this would be countered by TAG.
You can do something similar for BAP for a "hard counter", allow them to toggle on different functional states or some such.
#31
-
-
- The Territorial
- 1,429 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:40 PM
zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:
Just think about it for a moment.
You want to take a feature that was designed for a turn-based, tabletop miniature strategy game 30 years ago,
and apply it to a real-time, 2013 casual online F2P competitive multiplayer team-based simulator/shooter.
seems about right, if people want there missle immunity the devs can make angel ECM and have it only effect missle locks. Just because the mechanic is designed for turn based table top game doesn't at all mean it can't be effectively used in an FPS.
Iwaslost, on 13 February 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:
What you mean to say is ECM plus SSRM is over powered. Because if you really thought ECM was OP you'd be complaining about the Spider and Cicada not just Raven and Atlas.
Cicada's can be hit without problems and spiders generally aren't a threat, also atlai are easy to tag (or just dumb fire missles) I for one wouldn't mind ECM quite as much if the bubble didn't exist because as it stands the team with ECM (multiple or just one) is at a major advantage.
#32
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 4,828 posts
Member
- LocationSouthern Oregon
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:41 PM
Ideas to Balance ECM:
1. Split up its more advanced functions into Modules
Recently it was announced that more capabilities the Beagle Active Probe should have are going to be released to try to counter the cries for balance against ECM -- however, the extreme cost ratio of modules makes any sort of new module much more expensive in both C-bill cost. Modules also cost a large amount of another currency, GXP, which can only be earned by play time or real money.
PGI has announced that Modules are their end game equipment. By balancing a piece of equipment like ECM, that is available to all players with no cost of GXP with systems that do cost GXP, I propose a simple fix would be to strip most the ability of ECM, then make its more powerful effects available only through modules.
Guardian ECM, when originally purchased, should only have the effects that it was described to have in the base rule set, much like Beagle Active Probe. Beagle Active Probe's current implementation follows the base rules in books like Total Warfare, but it has additional uses described in books like Tactical Operations, such as 360 degree targeting, advanced target info, and sensor range, that are only available in the form of Modules.
By the base, tournament rules found on page 134 of Total Warfare, Guardian ECM would have the following effects:
An ECM suite has an effect radius of six hexes that creates a
“bubble” around the carrying unit. The ECM’s disruptive abilities
affect all enemy units inside this bubble, as well as any line of sight
traced through the bubble. It has no eff ect on units friendly to the
unit carrying the ECM.
Within its eff ect radius, an ECM suite has the following eff ects
on the following systems. The ECM suite does not aff ect other
scanning and targeting devices, such as TAG and targeting
computers.
Active Probe: Active probes cannot penetrate the ECM’s area
of effect. The probing unit would notice that it is being jammed,
however.
Artemis IV FCS: ECM blocks the eff ects of Artemis IV fi re
control systems. Artemis-equipped launchers may be fi red as
normal missiles through the ECM, but they lose the Cluster Hits
Table bonus.
Narc Missile Beacon: Missiles equipped to home in on an
attached Narc pod lose the Cluster Hits Table bonus for that
system if the pods themselves lie within an ECM “bubble.” The
Narc launcher itself (standard and iNarc) is not affected by ECM.
C3 and C3i Computer: ECM has the effect of “cutting off ” any C3-
equipped unit from its network. If a C3 master unit is isolated from
the network because it ventures inside the ECM radius, the entire
portion of the network below it is eff ectively shut off (all units
subordinate to it on the diagram on p. 132). Only those C3 units able
to draw an LOS to the master unit that does not pass through the
ECM radius can access the network. If the master unit that connects
the lances of a company lies inside the ECM eff ect radius, the link
between the lances is lost, though each lance’s network functions
normally (unless the ECM also interferes with them individually).
At its basic level, ECM exists solely to counter Artemis, Narc, Beagle, and sharing information through C3.
However, much like Beagle, ECM could be improved by purchasing additional Modules based on advanced rules from Tactical Operations to further enhance its capabilities.
Sensor Obscure 1: Prevents enemies farther than 400 meters from gaining any targeting data against 'Mechs in an ECM bubble
Sensor Obscure 2: Prevents enemies farther than 200 meters from gaining any targeting data against 'Mechs in an ECM bubble
Lock Scrambler 1: Increases the lock time for units firing on 'Mechs in an ECM bubble by 50%
Lock Scrambler 2: Increases the lock time for units firing on 'Mechs in an ECM bubble by 100%
Lock Scrambler 3: Prevents locks against 'Mechs in an ECM bubble, if the firing unit is within the bubble as well
Ghost Target Mode: Allows an ECM 'Mech to switch to Ghost Target Mode. Generates false target signatures for the enemy to target to confuse the enemy
Counter: Allows an ECM 'Mech to switch to Counter Mode: Counters any other ECM effect within its radius
These modules should require the base ECM equipment to be installed on the 'Mech, or the modules have no effect. PGI has made the things ECM is suppose to counter available only in the form of end-game modules, why is ECM itself not part of those end game modules?
2. Just make it more in line with the specific lore material
-- Disrupt blocks other electronic warfare devices like Beagle, Narc, Artemis, as well as shrouds information on the chassis such as damage and weapons loadout. Also blocks units within the bubble or on the opposite side of a bubble transmit target information, so spotters need to stay out of the bubble. If a 'Mech firing on a 'Mech in an ECM bubble is inside the bubble as well, ECM will provide a penalty that increases the lock time of missiles. (ref: Total Warfare, pg 134; Technical Readout 3050, pg 196, Tactical Operations 224)
-- Counter disrupts other ECM modules in range. (ref: Tactical Operations, pg 99)
-- Ghost Target mode projects false radar signatures the enemy can lock on that makes it more difficult to employ weapons like LRMs. Missile boats will need to cycle through false targets to find the target they are actually trying to shoot, and may even be fooled into shooting at false signatures. (ref: Tactical Operations, pg 100)
-- ECM can use only one mode at a time. (ref: Tactical Operations, pg 100)
1. Split up its more advanced functions into Modules
Recently it was announced that more capabilities the Beagle Active Probe should have are going to be released to try to counter the cries for balance against ECM -- however, the extreme cost ratio of modules makes any sort of new module much more expensive in both C-bill cost. Modules also cost a large amount of another currency, GXP, which can only be earned by play time or real money.
PGI has announced that Modules are their end game equipment. By balancing a piece of equipment like ECM, that is available to all players with no cost of GXP with systems that do cost GXP, I propose a simple fix would be to strip most the ability of ECM, then make its more powerful effects available only through modules.
Guardian ECM, when originally purchased, should only have the effects that it was described to have in the base rule set, much like Beagle Active Probe. Beagle Active Probe's current implementation follows the base rules in books like Total Warfare, but it has additional uses described in books like Tactical Operations, such as 360 degree targeting, advanced target info, and sensor range, that are only available in the form of Modules.
By the base, tournament rules found on page 134 of Total Warfare, Guardian ECM would have the following effects:
An ECM suite has an effect radius of six hexes that creates a
“bubble” around the carrying unit. The ECM’s disruptive abilities
affect all enemy units inside this bubble, as well as any line of sight
traced through the bubble. It has no eff ect on units friendly to the
unit carrying the ECM.
Within its eff ect radius, an ECM suite has the following eff ects
on the following systems. The ECM suite does not aff ect other
scanning and targeting devices, such as TAG and targeting
computers.
Active Probe: Active probes cannot penetrate the ECM’s area
of effect. The probing unit would notice that it is being jammed,
however.
Artemis IV FCS: ECM blocks the eff ects of Artemis IV fi re
control systems. Artemis-equipped launchers may be fi red as
normal missiles through the ECM, but they lose the Cluster Hits
Table bonus.
Narc Missile Beacon: Missiles equipped to home in on an
attached Narc pod lose the Cluster Hits Table bonus for that
system if the pods themselves lie within an ECM “bubble.” The
Narc launcher itself (standard and iNarc) is not affected by ECM.
C3 and C3i Computer: ECM has the effect of “cutting off ” any C3-
equipped unit from its network. If a C3 master unit is isolated from
the network because it ventures inside the ECM radius, the entire
portion of the network below it is eff ectively shut off (all units
subordinate to it on the diagram on p. 132). Only those C3 units able
to draw an LOS to the master unit that does not pass through the
ECM radius can access the network. If the master unit that connects
the lances of a company lies inside the ECM eff ect radius, the link
between the lances is lost, though each lance’s network functions
normally (unless the ECM also interferes with them individually).
At its basic level, ECM exists solely to counter Artemis, Narc, Beagle, and sharing information through C3.
However, much like Beagle, ECM could be improved by purchasing additional Modules based on advanced rules from Tactical Operations to further enhance its capabilities.
Sensor Obscure 1: Prevents enemies farther than 400 meters from gaining any targeting data against 'Mechs in an ECM bubble
Sensor Obscure 2: Prevents enemies farther than 200 meters from gaining any targeting data against 'Mechs in an ECM bubble
Lock Scrambler 1: Increases the lock time for units firing on 'Mechs in an ECM bubble by 50%
Lock Scrambler 2: Increases the lock time for units firing on 'Mechs in an ECM bubble by 100%
Lock Scrambler 3: Prevents locks against 'Mechs in an ECM bubble, if the firing unit is within the bubble as well
Ghost Target Mode: Allows an ECM 'Mech to switch to Ghost Target Mode. Generates false target signatures for the enemy to target to confuse the enemy
Counter: Allows an ECM 'Mech to switch to Counter Mode: Counters any other ECM effect within its radius
These modules should require the base ECM equipment to be installed on the 'Mech, or the modules have no effect. PGI has made the things ECM is suppose to counter available only in the form of end-game modules, why is ECM itself not part of those end game modules?
2. Just make it more in line with the specific lore material
-- Disrupt blocks other electronic warfare devices like Beagle, Narc, Artemis, as well as shrouds information on the chassis such as damage and weapons loadout. Also blocks units within the bubble or on the opposite side of a bubble transmit target information, so spotters need to stay out of the bubble. If a 'Mech firing on a 'Mech in an ECM bubble is inside the bubble as well, ECM will provide a penalty that increases the lock time of missiles. (ref: Total Warfare, pg 134; Technical Readout 3050, pg 196, Tactical Operations 224)
-- Counter disrupts other ECM modules in range. (ref: Tactical Operations, pg 99)
-- Ghost Target mode projects false radar signatures the enemy can lock on that makes it more difficult to employ weapons like LRMs. Missile boats will need to cycle through false targets to find the target they are actually trying to shoot, and may even be fooled into shooting at false signatures. (ref: Tactical Operations, pg 100)
-- ECM can use only one mode at a time. (ref: Tactical Operations, pg 100)
#33
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 3,951 posts
Member
- LocationCW Dire Wolf
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:43 PM
DocBach, on 13 February 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:
Ideas to Balance ECM:
1. Split up its more advanced functions into Modules
snip
1. Split up its more advanced functions into Modules
snip
^This
Sorry for snipping your post btw.
#34
-
-
- 53 posts
Member
- LocationFlushing, NY
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:44 PM
I've been in the "ECM is fine" camp ever since I started playing, despite never having owned an ECM mech or played one. But recently my friend bought a Raven-3L and we've been harassing together, me in my Jenner and him in his Raven. There is a huge difference in the quality of our encounters between not having ECM and having it. With ECM I can pick when and where to engage an enemy. I can actually stop moving for a minute, survey the battlefield, notify my team of my findings, and proceed with a plan. I don't have to worry about LRMs and if I stumble upon an SRMcat I have time to run, regroup, and re-engage when his attentions are elsewhere.
Without ECM no matter how much cover I put between me and the enemy team I have around 5 seconds to look around before an ERPPC/Gauss Round/LRMs start flying toward me. When I engage any enemy my first thought is always, "I hope they don't have an LRM boat." There is no such thing as picking off stragglers - A single lone mech just needs to hold out long enough for a teammate to arrive and my goose is cooked. If I stumble upon an ambush I generally barely survive with most of my armor stripped off. I spend all of my time running and reacting to what the enemy does, and if none of my teammates are around to pose a bigger threat all I have is cover and erratic piloting to save my butt.
I guess my point in all of this is, Maybe ECM is working as intended, but the last week or so has really opened my eyes about the consequences of those intentions. They say to me, "Don't play without ECM unless you enjoy being hunted." Just as the faster mech in a brawl has the initiative, the side with more ECM also has the initiative. And whereas there is a trade-off between agility and stamina when it comes to mech maneuverability (XL means faster but weaker, Light means faster but weaker), there is no trade-off when it comes to ECM. Having it never means making a sacrifice in another area, whereas not having it means spending a whole round forced to defend against enemy maneuvers, hoping they make a wrong move.
I think it's worth thinking about.
Without ECM no matter how much cover I put between me and the enemy team I have around 5 seconds to look around before an ERPPC/Gauss Round/LRMs start flying toward me. When I engage any enemy my first thought is always, "I hope they don't have an LRM boat." There is no such thing as picking off stragglers - A single lone mech just needs to hold out long enough for a teammate to arrive and my goose is cooked. If I stumble upon an ambush I generally barely survive with most of my armor stripped off. I spend all of my time running and reacting to what the enemy does, and if none of my teammates are around to pose a bigger threat all I have is cover and erratic piloting to save my butt.
I guess my point in all of this is, Maybe ECM is working as intended, but the last week or so has really opened my eyes about the consequences of those intentions. They say to me, "Don't play without ECM unless you enjoy being hunted." Just as the faster mech in a brawl has the initiative, the side with more ECM also has the initiative. And whereas there is a trade-off between agility and stamina when it comes to mech maneuverability (XL means faster but weaker, Light means faster but weaker), there is no trade-off when it comes to ECM. Having it never means making a sacrifice in another area, whereas not having it means spending a whole round forced to defend against enemy maneuvers, hoping they make a wrong move.
I think it's worth thinking about.
#35
-
-
- 1,050 posts
Member
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:47 PM
Iwaslost, on 13 February 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:
What you mean to say is ECM plus SSRM is over powered. Because if you really thought ECM was OP you'd be complaining about the Spider and Cicada not just Raven and Atlas.
MurnShaw, on 13 February 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:
I've been in the "ECM is fine" camp ever since I started playing, despite never having owned an ECM mech or played one. But recently my friend bought a Raven-3L and we've been harassing together, me in my Jenner and him in his Raven. There is a huge difference in the quality of our encounters between not having ECM and having it. With ECM I can pick when and where to engage an enemy. I can actually stop moving for a minute, survey the battlefield, notify my team of my findings, and proceed with a plan. I don't have to worry about LRMs and if I stumble upon an SRMcat I have time to run, regroup, and re-engage when his attentions are elsewhere.
Without ECM no matter how much cover I put between me and the enemy team I have around 5 seconds to look around before an ERPPC/Gauss Round/LRMs start flying toward me. When I engage any enemy my first thought is always, "I hope they don't have an LRM boat." There is no such thing as picking off stragglers - A single lone mech just needs to hold out long enough for a teammate to arrive and my goose is cooked. If I stumble upon an ambush I generally barely survive with most of my armor stripped off. I spend all of my time running and reacting to what the enemy does, and if none of my teammates are around to pose a bigger threat all I have is cover and erratic piloting to save my butt.
I guess my point in all of this is, Maybe ECM is working as intended, but the last week or so has really opened my eyes about the consequences of those intentions. They say to me, "Don't play without ECM unless you enjoy being hunted." Just as the faster mech in a brawl has the initiative, the side with more ECM also has the initiative. And whereas there is a trade-off between agility and stamina when it comes to mech maneuverability (XL means faster but weaker, Light means faster but weaker), there is no trade-off when it comes to ECM. Having it never means making a sacrifice in another area, whereas not having it means spending a whole round forced to defend against enemy maneuvers, hoping they make a wrong move.
I think it's worth thinking about.
Without ECM no matter how much cover I put between me and the enemy team I have around 5 seconds to look around before an ERPPC/Gauss Round/LRMs start flying toward me. When I engage any enemy my first thought is always, "I hope they don't have an LRM boat." There is no such thing as picking off stragglers - A single lone mech just needs to hold out long enough for a teammate to arrive and my goose is cooked. If I stumble upon an ambush I generally barely survive with most of my armor stripped off. I spend all of my time running and reacting to what the enemy does, and if none of my teammates are around to pose a bigger threat all I have is cover and erratic piloting to save my butt.
I guess my point in all of this is, Maybe ECM is working as intended, but the last week or so has really opened my eyes about the consequences of those intentions. They say to me, "Don't play without ECM unless you enjoy being hunted." Just as the faster mech in a brawl has the initiative, the side with more ECM also has the initiative. And whereas there is a trade-off between agility and stamina when it comes to mech maneuverability (XL means faster but weaker, Light means faster but weaker), there is no trade-off when it comes to ECM. Having it never means making a sacrifice in another area, whereas not having it means spending a whole round forced to defend against enemy maneuvers, hoping they make a wrong move.
I think it's worth thinking about.
#36
-
-
- The Territorial
- 1,429 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:48 PM
Then again ECM isn't so much broken as it is overpowered.... broken implies it's not working as intended (which according to the devs it is) which leave the explenation that it's OP which it is..no ifs ands or buts its overpowered for the cost/weight/crit slots required not to mention the fact that it has no downside what so ever.
#37
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 1,929 posts
Member
- LocationCalgary, Canadia
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:48 PM
How to fix ECM:
1) remove pseudo-Stealth Armour sharing
2) Remove nullification of TAG
3) ???
4) PROFIT!
1) remove pseudo-Stealth Armour sharing
2) Remove nullification of TAG
3) ???
4) PROFIT!
Edited by Volthorne, 13 February 2013 - 01:48 PM.
#38
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 126 posts
Member
- LocationMadison, WI
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:51 PM
Josef Nader, on 13 February 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen this suggested.
You're wrong, there is nothing to fix. ECM is fine.
#39
-
-
- 2,500 posts
Member
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:52 PM
zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:
Just think about it for a moment.
You want to take a feature that was designed for a turn-based, tabletop miniature strategy game 30 years ago,
and apply it to a real-time, 2013 casual online F2P competitive multiplayer team-based simulator/shooter.
In other words, you don't actually have any solid reasoning behind your argument beyond saying that a BT-based game shouldn't be based on BT.
You do know there is a specific Trolling clause in the code of conduct, right?
#40
-
-
- The Territorial
- 1,429 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:53 PM
not to mention I don't like the idea of modules being the counter to ECM as that leaves new or slighlty more casual players at a big disatvantage, the hard counter to ECM (I think a hard counter for a hard counter is fair) should be something you can buy with CBills that costs around the same as the ECM suit itself.
You're wrong, there is nothing to fix. ECM is fine.
not sure if....
PrestonCDawg, on 13 February 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:
You're wrong, there is nothing to fix. ECM is fine.
not sure if....
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
