134 replies to this topic

[Solis Obscuri]

Livewyr, on 24 February 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

-Should nullify target sharing: This is the biggest one for the "should do" side of the coin. As of right now, from what I understand, MWO is set up as though each mech has a c3 target sharing system. (And that is fine with me..we can go hardcore mode and give out c3 to equiped lances; but that is for another thread.) Guardian ECM is designed to defeat this system, therefore preventing target data sharing. One could argue that this should only work within 180 meters, but given that this game is real time and much more dynamic than the Tabletop Battletech, I think preventing target data sharing from any distance is acceptable. This means that any mech that has LoS can target the ECM mounted mech, but he cannot share that targeting information with anyone else, they'll have to get it themselves via LoS.

Also, as it does now, it should prevent the target from sending/receiving any information with team mates, including personal location. Your minimap should be blank, but unless you're mounting BAP, you shouldn't be warned: just have to notice. (More on that farther down.)

Sharing target spotting/scouting information on enemy movements, spotting for indirect fire, and transmitting personal location data to teammates are not functions of the C3 network. The C3 network only shares targeting data insofar as it provides better telemetry to reduce range penalties to accuracy for direct-fire weapons on TT; we don't have range penalties per se, so I don't even know how the devs would even go about implementing that system.

What we have now is all basic 'mech sensor/communication system functionality, except for the detailed target info on 'mech loadouts etc., which should actually be a function of the Beagle Active Probe only (and therefore subject to jamming by ECM).

[miscreant]

Whiners. You know what will happen if ECM is nerfed right?

[Doc Holliday]

Livewyr, on 25 February 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

They're "not" right now, because of ECM.. but if the ECM iWin button were removed, they would become just that.

We're discussing DRASTIC changes to ECM, I think similarly DRASTIC changes to the weapon group that ECM directly effects would be in order to prevent lopsiding in a different direction.

I was referring to LRMs before ECM, as well. I think the broken ECM was more a response to SSRMs being overpowered than anything else, and dev comments at the time support that. I'm not trying to say you're wrong necessarily, I'm just not convinced you're right.

miscreant, on 25 February 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

Whiners. You know what will happen if ECM is nerfed right?

Yeah, I'll finally be able to play a reasonably-balanced Mechwarrior game again.

[DocBach]

miscreant, on 25 February 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

Whiners. You know what will happen if ECM is nerfed right?

I'd have to use cover and concealment, movement under direct and indirect fire tactics and patience to best an enemy instead of stomping down the river in the open without fear of indirect fire?

[Livewyr]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

I was referring to LRMs before ECM, as well. I think the broken ECM was more a response to SSRMs being overpowered than anything else, and dev comments at the time support that. I'm not trying to say you're wrong necessarily, I'm just not convinced you're right.

SSRMs definitely had an effect in the current implementation of ECM, I'll agree there, but LRMS were serious collateral damage, and in a way fortunately so, since they were OP in the beginning.

Tangent:
(I think SSRMs should be nerfed to reduced agility- where as under normal circumstances they wouldn't miss, but when addressing drastic changes in direction they wouldn't compensate as well as they do now. Reasoning being that in TT targets were stationary in between "movement" phases so it was OK to "never miss." since other weapons only had a certain chance to miss in the first place. In this dynamic environment non-guided weapons can miss horribly and the odds are not in their favor. )

I'm not sure that was very clear (as it is kind of hard to explain), let me know if that was understandable or if I should try and clarify.

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Yeah, I'll finally be able to play a reasonably-balanced Mechwarrior game again.

DocBach, on 25 February 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

I'd have to use cover and concealment, movement under direct and indirect fire tactics and patience to best an enemy instead of stomping down the river in the open without fear of indirect fire?

You two speak heresy!

[Livewyr]

Solis Obscuri, on 25 February 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Sharing target spotting/scouting information on enemy movements, spotting for indirect fire, and transmitting personal location data to teammates are not functions of the C3 network. The C3 network only shares targeting data insofar as it provides better telemetry to reduce range penalties to accuracy for direct-fire weapons on TT; we don't have range penalties per se, so I don't even know how the devs would even go about implementing that system.

What we have now is all basic 'mech sensor/communication system functionality, except for the detailed target info on 'mech loadouts etc., which should actually be a function of the Beagle Active Probe only (and therefore subject to jamming by ECM).

Learned a little bit there (thank you, will have to start reading the manuals from front to back) and it confirms the refined adjustments that I'd been working on with DocBach and Doc Holiday.

[hammerreborn]

Oilslick, on 25 February 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

ECM is too much of an influence on the outcome of a match to not be considered in the match making process. I can deal with anything as long as the other team has to deal with it as well. Launching time after time while Pugging against teams carrying ECM, while my team has none has shown me that at least 80% of time the team with ECM will come out on top. Simply balancing out the number of units that carry ECM on both teams will level the playing field.

Show your work or gtho.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1860557

Results after 60 trials:

Games with one team with more ECM: 37
Games with equal ECM: 23
Games where team with more ECM won: 21

Win rate of ECM: ~55%

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1825376

Games Tracked: 40

(note: summarized data image seems to conflict with mental calc, looks like I did the total games with more ecm wrong in my %)

Games with one team with more ECM: 30
Games with equal ECM: 10
Games where more ECM = win: 18

ECM win = 60%

So in summary....ECM barely makes a damn bit of difference. Account for premades, disconnects, and general skill levels and it really does absolutely nothing except create tons of QQ on the forums.


Adapt or cry!

Edited by hammerreborn, 25 February 2013 - 01:08 PM.

[Livewyr]

hammerreborn, on 25 February 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

Show your work or gtho.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1860557

Results after 60 trials:

Games with one team with more ECM: 37
Games with equal ECM: 23
Games where team with more ECM won: 21

Win rate of ECM: ~55%

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1825376

Games Tracked: 40

(note: summarized data image seems to conflict with mental calc, looks like I did the total games with more ecm wrong in my %)

Games with one team with more ECM: 30
Games with equal ECM: 10
Games where more ECM = win: 18

ECM win = 60%

So in summary....ECM barely makes a damn bit of difference. Account for premades, disconnects, and general skill levels and it really does absolutely nothing except create tons of QQ on the forums.

A: Insufficient sample size(I'm going to assume the data is credible.)
B: 55-60 percent would actually be substantial over the course of hundreds of games. That would mean that unlike other aspects of the game, it does not have a 50/50 (balanced) chance of losing.

Try the same test with PPCs vs Gauss.. with a decent sample size I bet you'd get pretty close to 50/50 with current ELO dictated MM.

(One side note: Wargaming balanced World of Tanks through numbers of won games by vehicles.. when the Maus had a 57% W/R it received a hefty nerf, when the T34 had a 47% w/r, it received a buff...the T-32 heavy tank had a 60% W/R and it was nerfed into oblivion because that was considered too big of an edge.)

[Solis Obscuri]

Livewyr, on 25 February 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

Learned a little bit there (thank you, will have to start reading the manuals from front to back) and it confirms the refined adjustments that I'd been working on with DocBach and Doc Holiday.

I have some notes that you may find helpful here: http://mwomercs.com/...-balancing-ecm/

and here: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1603836

The most up-to-date rules can be found in p.219-225 of TacOps (I'd quoted Max tech in the first thread listed.)

[Doc Holliday]

Livewyr, on 25 February 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

SSRMs definitely had an effect in the current implementation of ECM, I'll agree there, but LRMS were serious collateral damage, and in a way fortunately so, since they were OP in the beginning.

Tangent:
(I think SSRMs should be nerfed to reduced agility- where as under normal circumstances they wouldn't miss, but when addressing drastic changes in direction they wouldn't compensate as well as they do now. Reasoning being that in TT targets were stationary in between "movement" phases so it was OK to "never miss." since other weapons only had a certain chance to miss in the first place. In this dynamic environment non-guided weapons can miss horribly and the odds are not in their favor. )

I'm not sure that was very clear (as it is kind of hard to explain), let me know if that was understandable or if I should try and clarify.

Yeah, I do like that idea. I still feel that the mech-shaking needs to be removed from SSRMs as well. A single COM-2D can completely stop any single opponent from being able to return effective fire simply by timing chain-fired SSRMs properly, thus constantly leaving the enemy unable to aim properly. Even just two SSRMs can do a fairly good job of locking down a target. That needs to change.

[Slaytronic]

christ just give it to all mechs done no more bitching

[Ransack]

I've given up on thinking that ECM will change in any significant way. It's broken and way overpowered for what it is and the devs seem to like it that way.

Before ECM people complained about not being able to move in the open due to those slow lumbering LRM's. Now everyone sits back under ECM cover (not actual cover, in the open just not targetable) and snipes from halfway across the map. It has made the game very stale to me.

We can suggest all sorts of fixes, but if PGI was actually interested in fixing it, they would have by now.

[hammerreborn]

Livewyr, on 25 February 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

A: Insufficient sample size(I'm going to assume the data is credible.)
B: 55-60 percent would actually be substantial over the course of hundreds of games. That would mean that unlike other aspects of the game, it does not have a 50/50 (balanced) chance of losing.

Try the same test with PPCs vs Gauss.. with a decent sample size I bet you'd get pretty close to 50/50 with current ELO dictated MM.

(One side note: Wargaming balanced World of Tanks through numbers of won games by vehicles.. when the Maus had a 57% W/R it received a hefty nerf, when the T34 had a 47% w/r, it received a buff...the T-32 heavy tank had a 60% W/R and it was nerfed into oblivion because that was considered too big of an edge.)

Meanwhile, the team with a DC loses 95% of the time, and the team with the premade (vs a pure PUG) wins roughly 70-80% of the time. You can't balance one without looking at the others. And guess what, premades generally run with more ECM. Seeing premades are also prevelent in nearly 70% of all matches (during prime time) they are the far biggest indicator of success than anything else. If your premade sucks, you lose, if your premade owns, you win.

And it's a lot better than anti-ECM sample sizes of pulling 80% win rates out of your ***.

Edited by hammerreborn, 25 February 2013 - 01:22 PM.

[DeadlyNerd]

stop complicating.
ECM just needs to prevent the carrier mech, as well as enemy mechs from using missile locks.

This would only affect SOLO lights and D-DC LRM boats.

How?

Simpe:

Solo lights will have to use regular SRMs in order to have functional weapon systems.
Grouped lights, if they prefer using SSRMs, will depend on their lance mates to use the ECM. This will however end up in all lights still using ECM and no ECM lights will use SSRMs ever again.

Problem solved on lights end however you look at it.

D-DC LRM boats are a waste of tonnage and their pilots should be shot so no harm done here.

[Livewyr]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Yeah, I do like that idea. I still feel that the mech-shaking needs to be removed from SSRMs as well. A single COM-2D can completely stop any single opponent from being able to return effective fire simply by timing chain-fired SSRMs properly, thus constantly leaving the enemy unable to aim properly. Even just two SSRMs can do a fairly good job of locking down a target. That needs to change.

Yeah, I think the screen shake should be reduced to a tiny amount per missile.. so if you get hit with a bunch of missiles at once you get a fairly good shake, but being hit by a couple of missiles should make you twitch at best.

Slaytronic, on 25 February 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

christ just give it to all mechs done no more bitching

Give these 1.5ton 2crit pieces of equipment out to every mech as well.

-An intense magnetic field generator that would slow down any ballistic fired outside of 270 meters to the point where it does little or no damage UNLESS you had a person mount an energy draining beam that would disable that magnetic field (must be kept on target just as TAG)
-A personal dense fog/steam generator that would require lasers to be on target for 1/2 a second before they start to deal damage because they have to burn through the fog. This ofcourse could be countered by someone using Jumpjets near, or flamers on the mech to blow away the majority of the fog.

Then we can all be fair and equal: we can go download another game and would be equally non-present.

[Doc Holliday]

Livewyr, on 25 February 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Give these 1.5ton 2crit pieces of equipment out to every mech as well.

-An intense magnetic field generator that would slow down any ballistic fired outside of 270 meters to the point where it does little or no damage UNLESS you had a person mount an energy draining beam that would disable that magnetic field (must be kept on target just as TAG)
-A personal dense fog/steam generator that would require lasers to be on target for 1/2 a second before they start to deal damage because they have to burn through the fog. This ofcourse could be countered by someone using Jumpjets near, or flamers on the mech to blow away the majority of the fog.

Then we can all be fair and equal: we can go download another game and would be equally non-present.

No, he's right, they should just let every mech use ECM. That way everyone would have it all the time and the debate would be done because no one could bury their heads in the sand any more. Then with people leaving in droves because of it, PGI would be forced to fix it or give up on MWO.

[Livewyr]

hammerreborn, on 25 February 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

Meanwhile, the team with a DC loses 95% of the time, and the team with the premade (vs a pure PUG) wins roughly 70-80% of the time. You can't balance one without looking at the others. And guess what, premades generally run with more ECM. Seeing premades are also prevelent in nearly 70% of all matches (during prime time) they are the far biggest indicator of success than anything else. If your premade sucks, you lose, if your premade owns, you win.

And it's a lot better than anti-ECM sample sizes of pulling 80% win rates out of your ***.

Premades were stomping pugs long before ECM ever arrived.. that's just the meta-game advantage of real-time voice communication. Using ECM in each team exacerbates the effect.

and I'm not pulling any stats out of my butt.

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

No, he's right, they should just let every mech use ECM. That way everyone would have it all the time and the debate would be done because no one could bury their heads in the sand any more. Then with people leaving in droves because of it, PGI would be forced to fix it or give up on MWO.

Would probably work.. but too risky. PGI might not recover from that ever.

[Doc Holliday]

Livewyr, on 25 February 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Would probably work.. but too risky. PGI might not recover from that ever.

So then they'd have to sell the IP rights to a company that could actually do justice to it. I fail to see the downside?

[hammerreborn]

Livewyr, on 25 February 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Premades were stomping pugs long before ECM ever arrived.. that's just the meta-game advantage of real-time voice communication. Using ECM in each team exacerbates the effect.

and I'm not pulling any stats out of my butt.

The guy I quoted did.

And premades have been stomping forever, so adding ECM made them...stompier? That makes no sense at all. A win is a win, and premades win, with or without ECM.

ELO matchmaking for premade teams was a far more of a balancing change to the game than any change to ECM could ever hope to achieve if it ends up working as intended (obviously there's room for exploiting using low ELO players to drag the average down).

ECM barely gives a slight edge in games when you don't account for any outside factors. It's not the damn golden gun you people make it out to be.

And please, go ahead and track 200, 300, even a 1000 games in a vain effort to prove me wrong. Cause we both know a) you won't, and we both know that you will find that I'm right, hence a).

Edited by hammerreborn, 25 February 2013 - 01:37 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

hammerreborn, on 25 February 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

The guy I quoted did.

And premades have been stomping forever, so adding ECM made them...stompier? That makes no sense at all. A win is a win, and premades win, with or without ECM.

ELO matchmaking for premade teams was a far more of a balancing change to the game than any change to ECM could ever hope to achieve if it ends up working as intended (obviously there's room for exploiting using low ELO players to drag the average down).

ECM barely gives a slight edge in games when you don't account for any outside factors. It's not the damn golden gun you people make it out to be.

And please, go ahead and track 200, 300, even a 1000 games in a vain effort to prove me wrong. Cause we both know a) you won't, and we both know that you will find that I'm right, hence a).

I can't be bothered to waste a lot of time digging up the thread right now, but someone's already done that. In that study, just one extra ECM gave ~75% win rate.