So... Mechlab...

[Leeko]

I mean, stuff with stealth should always have lower HP...

 

GECM isn't THAT great that it should have an intrinsic penalty.

[IG142]

Technically, stuff with stealth should simply be weaker in general than non-stealth assets. This is already the case: GECM takes up tonnage that could be put to more armor or weapons. If GECM really is that overpowered, change its effectiveness or tonnage rather than introducing arbitrary modifiers.

My problem with a lot of these ideas is that they strike me as very artificial. I know gameplay is more important, but it just rubs me wrong. Instead of flatly reducing the cost of diversely armed mechs, I'd prefer varied armaments to actually have a use. I know, easier said than done...

So.... Mudcrabs....

I saw one down by the river the other day. Nasty creatures.

[KingLeerUK]

I'm sorry but adding GECM to a vehicle will never decrease its durability, that is a ridiculous notion.
 
GECM should be balanced based on a cost-to-benefit ratio, in more simple terms it there should be a fair price set for the protection it conveys.  This was already increased for 0.4.0, and may increase further as we see how variant usage figures play out.

[Flyingdebris]

stealth armor would necessitate lower HP, not a gecm

gecm is just a small bit of extra equipment you plug into a mech's cigarette lighter, practically.

though i woundn't mind seeing it behave differently...  brb starting a new thread >.>

[Nitro_R]

I'm sorry but adding GECM to a vehicle will never decrease its durability, that is a ridiculous notion.
 
GECM should be balanced based on a cost-to-benefit ratio, in more simple terms it there should be a fair price set for the protection it conveys.  This was already increased for 0.4.0, and may increase further as we see how variant usage figures play out.

Agreed.
I didn't mean my example specifically, just as a generalized example.
Don't take my example/suggestions as my hard opinion.  They're just merely opinions for discussion.

[Frostiken]

I'm sorry but adding GECM to a vehicle will never decrease its durability, that is a ridiculous notion.
 
GECM should be balanced based on a cost-to-benefit ratio, in more simple terms it there should be a fair price set for the protection it conveys.  This was already increased for 0.4.0, and may increase further as we see how variant usage figures play out.

See here's the problem. Generally speaking, brawlers need more GECM to get closer undetected and free from missile spam.

So yeah, of course they're going to find it more useful, and thus you drive up the cost of brawlers... doesn't help that almost every single brawler in the game already has it though.

[xInVicTuSx]

oh noes! Missile spam! We might have a few sections in the slightly more yellowish green without our GECM spam!

[Frostiken]

Or if it's an Arrow boat, you know, orange and red

Still though, look at the types of units that have GECM, most of them are in-fighters. Really the whole point of ECM as it's implemented is to sneak up on dudes and ruin their shit.

[Frostiken]

Actually let me change what I said - the point of ECM isn't to sneak up on guys and ruin their shit. That is, however, perhaps the most useful application.

Strictly speaking, given the way ECM and the probes function, they're designed to support long-range combat as much as possible. You don't have to worry about sensors seeing through ECM at super-long range, whereas in brawlers, you never really know just how close you can get before you're fapped. The entire point of probes is to see farther and lock faster. Really it's all geared towards that.

Still, ECM's most practical application is still the brawlers. IMO of course.

Changed my stance on this after reading and old post from Brainwright (basically saying the same thing).

[SquareSphere }12thVR{]

Well the main "issue" with ECM or LAMS (or really any electronics package) is why WOULDN'T you take it.  Does benefit of not carrying them out weigh the cost (situationaly) of equipping them?  The problem in MW2-3 was that the cost was so small there wasn't a reason not to have them.

MW4 tweaked it a bit to have only certain chassis being able to equip certain "add ons". At the same time though was they really a benefit to carrying any  of it?  ECM wasn't used much in league play cause everyone ran passive to begin with, LRMs weren't in favor (or a real threat) so there was no need to carry AMS etc.

I would say that MWLL both system are extremely more effective which leaves the question of is the cost sufficient to the benefit when the mechlab comes out.

[xInVicTuSx]

Well looking at CBT my main concern is how they are weighted.. Its one of the weight classifications in MWLL that I really can't reverse engineer.... electronics seem to be slapped on mechs that are really pushing the weight line to begin with... yet then on lighter variants they are missing? Just having cost means really little unless there is a tax on adding one on top of the other.