442 replies to this topic

[Lupus Aurelius]

Because this topic is not going away...

Previous:

http://mwomercs.com/...d/page__st__960

http://mwomercs.com/...4-ecm-feedback/

Edited by Niko Snow, 16 April 2013 - 12:20 PM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

From the patch notes:

"Gameplay:

- XP and C-Bills Rewards for using TAG and NARC
This reward is given to pilots that are TAG/NARC'ing a hostile and that hostile takes damage from other friendlies. Given once per hostile mech per match."

Well, NARC is totally useless with ECM, so that is a non-existent bonus.

Other than the TAG bonus, yet again, not a single mention of ECM...and the bonus will hardly induce anyone to use it since that takes coordination that will not exist in random drops, and for 4 man and 8 man drops, they already ARE using TAG in a coordinated manner.

[LagomorphPrime]

Improve BAP with some piercing capabilities and set ECCM mode to counter the nearest 2 ECM's and problem solved. See previous thread for lots of module options to tweak the dynamics.

[Tolkien]

So people can get back up to speed on the ECM debate, here's a copy of the question put in the most recent ask the devs: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1712396

I know the question is a little long, but the 2nd part has a link to a small study I did on the effects of the number of ECMs on each team and the odds of that team winning. The spread is a lot higher than you would probably expect, even knowing ECM is powerful.

Tolkien, on 08 January 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Question 1 is about ECM)
How was it considered balanced to introduce a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment that does all of the following?:

i) Counters Artemis
ii) Counters BAP
iii) Counters TAG bonuses and the whole system inside of 180m
iv) Counters NARC - a system which weighs more and requires real skill and teamwork to use
v) Counters other ECMs
vi) Destroys LRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on a potentially lag shielded mech)
vii) Destroys SSRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on a potentially lag shielded mech)
viii) Ruins information sharing via minimap
ix) Scrambles HUD display of enemies
x) is a better AMS than AMS itself
xi) Requires no exploding ammo
xii) Generates no heat
xiii) Costs less than a much less useful module by a factor of 15
xiv) Doesn't use up a weapon hardpoint

Going by tonnage and critical space the ECM should be about as useful as a small laser plus a regular heatsink.
Or a medium laser and a little armor,
Or an AMS and a ton of ammo
etc.

Here's a link to the existing unanswered question from 'ask the devs' 29:
http://mwomercs.com/...70#entry1598770
And another to the same in 'ask the devs' 29A:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1640301

The former question has 230 likes at last count, while the latter has another 94, and neither have been addressed yet.


Question 2 is about game outcome statistics versus number of ECMs on each team:
Put simply, are the outcomes measured here representative of the current state of the game? If not, how far off were my results?
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1709146

tl:dr I gathered enough match outcome data that with >99.999% confidence (statistical not subjective) I can say that ECM superiority is a predictor of victory. Also I can say with >97% confidence that a team with more ECMs is at least 2x more likely to win than the team with less.

If you like the question being asked, and dislike the fact that the previous two versions with a combined ~300 likes didn't get answered, please like the one in ask the devs 30.

Edited by Tolkien, 08 January 2013 - 02:23 PM.

[MadaO]

It looks like PGI has done NOTHING this past month. Not anything on ECM, unbalanced matches, matchlock weapons. Festering wounds lead to amputations. Thumbs down.

[Fireye]

MadaO, on 08 January 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

It looks like PGI has done NOTHING this past month. Not anything on ECM, unbalanced matches, matchlock weapons. Festering wounds lead to amputations. Thumbs down.

PGI has said that they intend to wait a month after the implementation of ECM to re-examine it. How can you be surprised that they haven't said anything firm since it hasn't been a month?

Edited by Fireye, 08 January 2013 - 01:40 PM.

[StUffz]

I am not expecting a quick change since datas provided were this/last week (according to Tolkien). If possible it'll be in about 3 or 4 weeks before they start to tweak around ECM.

Edited by StUffz, 08 January 2013 - 01:42 PM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Fireye, on 08 January 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

PGI has said that they intend to wait a month after the implementation of ECM to re-examine it. How can you be surprised that they haven't said anything firm since it hasn't been a month?

Please link that quote and indicate source, because other than the PCGamer comment I've seen nothing.

[Fireye]

Lupus Aurelius, on 08 January 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Please link that quote and indicate source, because other than the PCGamer comment I've seen nothing.

The MWO forum search is really quite terrible... I'll see what I can dig up. I know that when I saw it on PCGamer, it was new to me, so I don't believe it was stated before then.

[Mechrophilia]

Lupus Aurelius, on 08 January 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

From the patch notes:

"Gameplay:

- XP and C-Bills Rewards for using TAG and NARC
This reward is given to pilots that are TAG/NARC'ing a hostile and that hostile takes damage from other friendlies. Given once per hostile mech per match."

Where are you getting this information? It is not in trhe patch notes.

[Lupus Aurelius]

It was there - that makes 2 stealth patch note changes in about an hour, first the comment about partially fixing lagshield, now the Narc/Tag bonus...


see this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...n-8th-incoming/

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 08 January 2013 - 02:09 PM.

[Mechrophilia]

Lupus Aurelius, on 08 January 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

It was there - that makes 2 stealth patch note changes in about an hour, first the comment about partially fixing lagshield, now the Narc/Tag bonus...


see this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...n-8th-incoming/

Well that explains it. Thanks for letting me know.
Sorry to all for going off topic there.

Now back to the regularly scheduled ECM discussion:

[Tolkien]

Mechrophilia, on 08 January 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

Well that explains it. Thanks for letting me know.
Sorry to all for going off topic there.

Now back to the regularly scheduled ECM discussion:

There's a post in this thread from a dev http://mwomercs.com/...ey-patch-notes/

He explains that the Lag shield fix is still in testing and didn't actually go live today, thus the yoinking.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Still, where is the QA here? Making sure the patch notes match the actual items being effected would be Quality Assurance 101, but worse yet, the notes were revised twice, with no revision history. Since many people would be reading this at different times, they would all have a different set of data on which they would be expecting the game to reflect.

QA 101 is every time you change something, there is a revision history. Whiteout is never used, changed items are crossed out and dated and initialed, with the correction added next to that. Documentation has a revision history, showing what changes to that standard/procedure underwent, when, and by whom, with the revision change history reflecting what was changed or deleted.

It's disturbing that the notes again did not reflect the reality, and even more so that changes were made with no indication of what those changes were, and when they were performed, and by whom.

[warp103]

Tolkien, on 08 January 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

There's a post in this thread from a dev http://mwomercs.com/...ey-patch-notes/

He explains that the Lag shield fix is still in testing and didn't actually go live today, thus the yoinking.

So basically we did not fix "S h i t e".
We are going to give you a wee bit of xp for non ecm fixes.
Edit videos taken today after patch shows no bonus.{ just another screw you}
Look at the 21 things we frak up with this patch. http://mwomercs.com/...1-known-issues/
EDIT 24 now

Like I said no news {ecm} by Next week( patch I thought was Scheduled),I am Boycotting.

Edited by warp103, 08 January 2013 - 03:32 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

Due to the lack of consideration regarding the ECM issue, I am taking a break from MW:O gameplay for one 7-day week. A boycott if you will. I advocate one of two courses of action if you have continuing concerns about PGI's ECM implementation:

1) do not play for a week;
2) use your ECM and be a real pill with it.

There is a 3rd option, posting/informing about your concerns, but answers are slow in coming, if at all. Please do not rage if you choose this option. It would serve nothing.

I do not have an ECM capable mech. While this ECM cloaking suite, and the lack of knockdown, gives lights the ability to kill assaults relatively easily, I refuse to purchase one.

Disparage me all you want if you love the ECM, but I actually have used ECM and understand the concepts (and science) under which it operates. And leave Shtora out of this, that is a passive-countermeasures sensor package that reacts (meaning becomes active) when "illuminated" by laser target designators and ATGM laser rangefinder systems. The IR "jamming" system uses two IR illuminators, essentially pink light searchlights that make viewing the target difficult (but not impossible) - this will have no impact on thermal sights (which depends on heat being given off by the target (different freq than IR)) One form of protection is has, upon being illuminated, is the release of smoke screen grenades which release a screen which prevents IR and clear optical observation. Last I checked, PGI's ECM does not have that latter capability.

PGI's ECM is magic, being used to cloak a main force because it can be. You may cite that this system is in canon, but you do not care that it is 3050 and nobody used a scout to cloak a combat force in the fiction. This is not actually Information Warfare - I know what that involves as well. Methinks some have been or are mis-informed. If PGI wants to use it, they should know what it actually is and intelligently implement it, not just bits that they think might work well for their purposes.

The NARC/TAG bogus, errr, bonus is just throwing money to make a problem go away. If ECM was fixed, NARC and TAG would be just fine.

It's only a week and I doubt my absence will be felt. See you next Tuesday in a match. Maybe.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 08 January 2013 - 03:23 PM.

[warp103]

Gremlich Johns, on 08 January 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Due to the lack of consideration regarding the ECM issue, I am taking a break from MW:O gameplay for one 7-day week. A boycott if you will. I advocate one of two courses of action if you have continuing concerns about PGI's ECM implementation:

1) do not play for a week;
2) use your ECM and be a real pill with it.

There is a 3rd option, posting/informing about your concerns, but answers are slow in coming, if at all. Please do not rage if you choose this option. It would serve nothing.

I do not have an ECM capable mech. While this ECM cloaking suite, and the lack of knockdown, gives lights the ability to kill assaults relatively easily, I refuse to purchase one.

Disparage me all you want if you love the ECM, but I actually have used ECM and understand the concepts (and science) under which it operates. And leave Shtora out of this, that is a passive-countermeasures sensor package that reacts (meaning becomes active) when "illuminated" by laser target designators and ATGM laser rangefinder systems. The IR "jamming" system uses two IR illuminators, essentially pink light searchlights that make viewing the target difficult (but not impossible) - this will have no impact on thermal sights (which depends on heat being given off by the target (different freq than IR)) One form of protection is has, upon being illuminated, is the release of smoke screen grenades which release a screen which prevents IR and clear optical observation. Last I checked, PGI's ECM does not have that latter capability.

PGI's ECM is magic, being used to cloak a main force because it can be. You may cite that this system is in canon, but you do not care that it is 3050 and nobody used a scout to cloak a combat force in the fiction. This is not actually Information Warfare - I know what that involves as well. Methinks some have been or are mis-informed. If PGI wants to use it, they should know what it actually is and intelligently implement it, not just bits that they think might work well for their purposes.

The NARC/TAG bogus, errr, bonus is just throwing money to make a problem go away. If ECM was fixed, NARC and TAG would be just fine.

It's only a week and I doubt my absence will be felt. See you next Tuesday in a match. Maybe.

Wait till next week so others can boycott too.

[Bad Brad Keselowski]

I recently had a match, where I played against ECM-enemies. There were about 2 D-DC staying close together. I tagged one from about 300-400m, but nothing happened. No lock what so ever.

When a enemy mech is able to get in target by R, if I don't do that, just tagging him, do I get an LRM lock then? Or do I have to press R first?

Also, what is very annoying about tag, is when you tag something over ECM, the triangle appears. This is very deceiving, makes you think you can "R" the target, but doing so, acquires anything anywhere and makes your missile lock, which is hard to close under ECM, going away.

[Malzel]

Tolkien, on 08 January 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

I agree that those are contributing factors, and that life will be better for all of us once they are sorted out. Hitboxes are an issue that I think should be getting more attention but is wildly overshadowed by other problems at the moment. For example consider the cicada and the hunchback. The hunchback weighs 25% more than the cicada. The silhouette/surface area of the hunchback is how much bigger? The right torso (where the good guns are) is as big as the cicada on its own, making it really easy to knock out a hunchback's good guns.

Anyway, even when I imagine a future version of the game with fixed netcode and collisions to keep the rugrats in line, I still have a lot of trouble accepting the balance of ECM since it does all of the following:


i) Counters Artemis
ii) Counters BAP outright - a system which weighs exactly the same amount
iii) Counters TAG bonuses and the whole system inside of 180m
iv) Counters NARC - a system which weighs more and requires real skill and teamwork to use
v) Counters other ECMs
vi) Destroys LRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on the target)
vii) Destroys SSRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on the target)
viii) Ruins information sharing via minimap
ix) Scrambles HUD display of enemies
x) is a better AMS than AMS itself
xi) Requires no exploding ammo
xii) Generates no heat
xiii) Costs less than a much less useful module by a factor of 15
xiv) Doesn't use up a weapon hardpoint like it's supposed counter TAG does

Honestly in terms of game balance even if it ONLY countered BAPs as it does now it might be considered strong since 1 ECM on the enemy team can hide the whole thing from multiple BAPs if they stay close. This is in contrast to tabletop where it only affects BAP when the BAP is inside the 180m bubble with the ECM.

I can understand where that list looks intimidating or unbalancing on paper, but I don't feel it's as unbalanced as you feel it is in practice. To reply to the individual items:

I, II, III, and IV: These are all small perks and bonuses, not required systems. Missiles still work perfectly fine against TAGged targets, and the small clustering bonus provided by TAG, NARC, or Artemis isn't going to suddenly pull a win out of a loss. BAP is countered, yes, but I find BAP's actual usefulness to be questionable in the first place, so it's loss is not a great one.

IX is largely cosmetic, like the cockpit shake from missles. It's annoying, yes, and it does complicate situational awareness, but can be countered with an ounce of effort and teamwork on behalf of the players. If I pay attention to where my team is when the ECM starts, I can still fight with the same effectiveness until I can get out of it and re-assess, and if I'm actually communicating with my team, then this obstacle is easily surmounted.

X and XI: It's better than AMS for the handful of mechs that can mount it, if that's what you mean, but that doesn't nullify the need for AMS on other mechs by any reasonable standard. Also, the damage from an AMS explosion is laughable, so I don't consider that a real balancing factor.

XII: Neither do BAP, Artemis, TAG, or NARC, most of the systems that it counters. Nor does AMS generate heat when it counters missiles. Seems fair to me.

XIII: Modules are "free" boosts that occupy no space or weight on the mech, they're not comparable.

XIV: Why does this matter? If it's possible to mount 2 ECMs to double your ECM effect, then I agree this is a problem and mechs need an "ECM hardpoint" like AMS has, but I don't think it works that way. As is, it's just a non-weapon system with a weapon counter, just like AMS is the non-weapon counter to missiles, a weapon. Variety is the spice of life.

So, all in all, I feel that the list of valid complaints can be shortened to:

i) Destroys LRM locks (Without TAG lock, which is hard)
ii) Destroys SSRM locks (Without TAG lock, which is hard)
iii) Ruins information sharing via minimap

iv) Counters other ECMs

As these are the only far-reaching effects of ECM that actually nullify the other teams fighting capability. These obstacles, though, present more dynamic combat scenarios than we had before ECM's introduction, which largely consisted of hiding from the LRM rain from LRM boats that often couldn't even see us, and SRMs being largely ignored in favor of SSRMs, (Because why wouldn't you use a weapon that never misses?) so I welcome that tactical variety to the game. And given that all of those effects must be turned off for it to actually counter another ECM (iv), and only at close range, that seems like a fair trade to me.

The only thing I really feel needs to change is that a target painted with a TAG needs to be target-able instantly. As is, the 1-3 second delay in actually acquiring the target makes the TAG counter less effective than it should be.

[Gremlich Johns]

warp103, on 08 January 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Wait till next week so others can boycott too.

Fair enough, I'll wait. There is a voice with numbers.