148 replies to this topic

[Lyrik]

Agent of Change, on 12 March 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

All of them or just the ones you disagreed with? There is a serious problem with myopia on this forum i agree to that, it's primarily the prevailing "If I don't agree with it clearly it's just whining." attitude.

Just his later threads about ECM.

He just wants it to be a nice addon like AMS.

But PGI wants it to have a big impact on the battlefield. Low cost, high fonctionality, limited on a few mechs.

Of course we can discuss about the Mechs who got access. I think the devs are holding to strict to canon with the variants of the mechs. Thats why MWO has such problems with the A1, the 3L or nearly worthless variants like the the 4Ballistic Spider.

Even the costs of ECM (heat, weight, slots) are probably not high enough. But again these are details. nothing more. And not the end of MWO

[Buffalo Six]

Sifright, on 12 March 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

that would be a major faux pas considering the whole Zelbreigen thing.

What does Zell bring to the party? Their mechs (omnis and refits) hit a longer range, run almost 50% cooler, have both endo and ferro, and most carry ECM. Hell they even rebuilt Phalen's Wolfhound to carry all of that.

I cant wait until some clanner kid ends up in a drop outnumbered and cries about it because he has no concept of Batchall

[CL_Kodiak]

I highly doubt that just because this is F2P they will simply change some text on the front page from "beta" to "1.0"

Beta marks a time of fast and furious (drastic changes) to a game. Release marks a time of a stable build that is quote "finished"

Sure there will be updates and changes - but I would expect the core mechanics to be all set and those updates and changes would be more minor in nature and less frequent.

One of the other posters hit on a subject I haven't thought about in a long time - The fact that this is just a big death match so far and was advertised as much much more than that. In all of this time - we haven't even seen a hint of any additional game modes /content. I for one was one of the guys looking for those features and could care less about death match. This also contributed to why I backed away early. I see no value in death match games anymore.

Thuzel, on 12 March 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

A lot of us are in the same boat. We spend a lot more time in the forums than in the game because we just don't care to play that much anymore. We come to the forums because we hope that things will get better, but it's a losing battle, and you shouldn't underestimate that. This is a very common thing with online games and is often the last stage before just completely moving on.

Considering the rabid fanboyism that most of us have for Mechwarrior and Battletech, it should really tell PGI something when we stop logging in to play...

THIS

Edited by Kodiak Steiner, 12 March 2013 - 07:24 AM.

[Frisk]

QQ chicken little.

I think PGI has proven they listen to the community and more importantly make decisions based on numbers (and I'm not talking about the amount of QQ threads about <Fill-in FOTW>).

[Sifright]

Buffalo Six, on 12 March 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

What does Zell bring to the party? Their mechs (omnis and refits) hit a longer range, run almost 50% cooler, have both endo and ferro, and most carry ECM. Hell they even rebuilt Phalen's Wolfhound to carry all of that.

I cant wait until some clanner kid ends up in a drop outnumbered and cries about it because he has no concept of Batchall

Zellbregin means they are 100% not allowed to use ECM. Dishonourable. NO clan mechs will fit ecm

[Cferre]

Thontor, on 12 March 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

ECM is overpowered yes... But not to the extent that it is game breaking... It hasn't reduced my enjoyment of the game in the slightest. In fact I've been playing (pugging) more than ever the last few days.

People stop playing because it IS game breaking.

[Lyrik]

And still the devs don't change anything drastic ... which means that MWO does fine. Even with several old school BT fanboys dropping out.

Or do you really think that the devs are stupid or don't care?

[Agent of Change]

Lyrik, on 12 March 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

Just his later threads about ECM.

He just wants it to be a nice addon like AMS.

But PGI wants it to have a big impact on the battlefield. Low cost, high fonctionality, limited on a few mechs.

Of course we can discuss about the Mechs who got access. I think the devs are holding to strict to canon with the variants of the mechs. Thats why MWO has such problems with the A1, the 3L or nearly worthless variants like the the 4Ballistic Spider.

Even the costs of ECM (heat, weight, slots) are probably not high enough. But again these are details. nothing more. And not the end of MWO

That's fair, his most recent posts on ECM have been more alarmist than i am really comfortable with, but that doesn't mean i disagree with either his assessment or most of his suggested fixes. It does show in a demonstrable way the growing frustration a lot of us are feeling.

As to add-ons vs. major impact on the battlefield well you can have a major effect on the battlefield, game changing even, but that doesn't mean it can't come with a draw back. And in a perfectly designed system the overall advantage gained by taking a piece of equipment should come with a draw back and/or opportunity cost that makes it a real choice. Right now ECM comes with no draw back and the only opportunity cost is that you can only choose 4 mechs 1 of which is currently considered one of the best in the game and another is a solid assault mech.

Game changing mechanics can be small, they can be big, but if they define the game it's probably a bad thing.

Edited by Agent of Change, 12 March 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[Matt Minus]

[Jeff K Notagoon]

ECM needs to be fixed.

By which I mean be made available on every mech. I literally can't play my non-ECM mechs any more, because as soon as I leave cover for more than 2 seconds << INCOMING MISSILES >>

[Barkem Squirrel]

I went from this is great no LRM showers, to where are the LRM's, to stop the people from just charging through the open with no fear.

Some of the changes have changed that, but not many people are using cover now or when they back behind cover they do not break lock then turn to get out of the path of the missiles. TAG alone has changed that with the addition of Alpine and some what on Caustic valley. ECM can not be everywhere and LRMs are coming back.

The way I see it now is that I use ECM for help, but TAG will get you so you still have to use cover to prevent a LRM shower even with ECM cover.

I see it as a tool, some times counter, some times disrupt. Then for getting into position to TAG others. The only problem with that is after they figure out where you are you see a pair of spiders, jenners, commandos, or ravens break off in a 'B' line at you as a spotter or as a TAG LRM boat they focus fire while charging you.

It leads to interesting combat with people that know what they are doing, but if you find some one that runs over the hill and stops, you got him with at least two racks of missiles.

Edited by Barkem Squirrel, 12 March 2013 - 07:45 AM.

[Chrithu]

I don't think that the majority of people complaining about ECM are LRM players that are unable to adapt.

As I already said in the official feedback thread: ECM's mechanics versus lock on weapons are just fine. Indeed I'm in the club of people that say that they were and still are indeed needed, because cover alone isn't enough. Alpine is just an example of that: The Maps to come will have more and more open areas that can completely be denied by LRM coverage giving Teams heavy on LRM a huge advantage.

Almost all truely problematic situations about ECM can be narrowed down to two things: The stacking of nearby disrupting ECMs making a pack of D-DCs almost impossible to hurt outside of playing their game of doing close range brawls at which they excell almost any other mech.

And more importantly the combination of ECM and speed and much easy to do damage. Best example is the 3L but the Com 2D is just as dangerous. Even more so if there's two or three of those running around in a pack.

As far as I understood all that was said about ECM by Brian and/or Paul the strategies we see employed by the fast ECM carriers in game on a daily basis are not exactly what they had envisioned. Their Idea for ECM was for it giving mainly LRM cover or by the counter mechanic fight other ECM. The fast ECM carriers almost all went away from that role. They are used to make fast invisible flanking maneuvers to destroy any enemy strategy early on in the game and maybe take one or two opponents out early in game.

Fixing those problems can only be achieved by removing the stacking mechanic of ECMs: One ECM in counter counters all ECMs in it's range thus making it a viable move again to run between a pack of D-DCs in a 3L, 2DA or 3M. Instead of disturbing targeting as a whole ECM should only affect lock ons. Streak SRM should be able to be switched to dumbfire just as LRMs so that a ECM near you does not cut you short of a part of your firepower automatically. And finally the weight and critslot usage of ECM should be increased so that carrying it leads to sacrifices in speed or firepower on the light ECM carriers.

Edited by Jason Parker, 12 March 2013 - 08:17 AM.

[Lyrik]

Agent of Change, on 12 March 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

Right now ECM comes with no draw back and the only opportunity cost is that you can only choose 4 mechs 1 of which is currently considered one of the best in the game and another is a solid assault mech.

No drawbacks to ECM means is gets used a lot. Which means more data for the devs to analyse. ECM is not an easy system like an AC20. And how often have they been adjusted?

More important we had a post (I'm unable to find it :-( ) where is was stated that data analyzing on ECM is going on and thats why we don't have a command chair post about ECM.

The Raven 3L is not so godlike anymore with state rewind on lasers . My Jenner is finally able to take them out or drive away. Of course I will be badly damaged after. Or get killed when the pilot of the 3L is better.

[Livewyr]

I'm definitely frustrated regarding ECM. And flabbergasted with "Pro-ECM Arguments" (L2P it;s fine, because.. and it shows in more recent postings regarding it)

but I would like to point out. When Artemis came out and was totally broken.. it was hot-fixed within.. what, a day or two?

ECM is totally broken, but PGI doesn't see it that way.. ergo concern.

[Lootee]

Lyrik, on 12 March 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

And still the devs don't change anything drastic ... which means that MWO does fine. Even with several old school BT fanboys dropping out.

Or do you really think that the devs are stupid or don't care?

That's the perfect attitude if they plan on developing the Dixie Chicks of online gaming. But I suspect they really do want to tap into the supposed 400k accounts they claim to have. During the last tournament they said over 3 days 100,000 people played. No telling if this is unique users or repeats or what but that's only 1/4 of the alleged total they have retained as active players. Only 8000 bothered to compete in their 'huge' event. Those numbers are abyssmal. Closed Beta regularly had 3000-4000 players and account creation was restricted during that time.

I think their number crunchers looked at the numbers and saw a huge pool of untapped potential players/moneybags that have dropped the game for some reason or another and that's why after 4 months they are finally conceding that ECM may need tweaking.

Edited by PanchoTortilla, 12 March 2013 - 07:51 AM.

[Livebait]

Sadly OP you are not the only player shining this game on. My play time for this game has dropped a lot for the past month. This last patch was the straw for me.

Of all the glaring broke @$$ junk in this game, the devs mess up the lasers. They remove the good recharge time on LPL and add cheezy toy sound on the LL. It may be a small thing for most but for me it just confirmed that the janitor is now editing the game changes.

At this point, I'l play 1 game a month till I see some real progress.

[KuruptU4Fun]

If you're leaving because the devs aren't listening to YOUR designs on how this game should be then by all means go, most of us will not mourn your passing. There is a hard counter of soft ECM counters and one hard from the beginning. I'm betting 1 or 2 more will be coming shortly.

ECM itself may be a bit OP, I'll give you that. BUT just because they aren't changing ECM directly doesn't mean they haven't been listening to us. Those are what the soft counters are designed to deal with. And since ECCM was built into ECM in the first place it allows people to deal with it directly...

... PGI is creating the needed "imperfect balance" needed in any MMO game developed thus far, again, if it's not to your liking, there's the door. Don't continue to troll the threads on your way out.

[Agent of Change]

Lyrik, on 12 March 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

No drawbacks to ECM means is gets used a lot. Which means more data for the devs to analyse. ECM is not an easy system like an AC20. And how often have they been adjusted?

More important we had a post (I'm unable to find it :-( ) where is was stated that data analyzing on ECM is going on and thats why we don't have a command chair post about ECM.

The Raven 3L is not so godlike anymore with state rewind on lasers . My Jenner is finally able to take them out or drive away. Of course I will be badly damaged after. Or get killed when the pilot of the 3L is better.

I saw the devs update, and it's about damn time. Testing without draw back doesn't tell you what it will look like when there is an actual choice. Standing by your guns and saying "working as intended" for months until finally reversing on that position doesn't indicate to me that having no drawbacks as a testing thing was the plan.

It's a good point, and state rewind did a number on lights survivability for the good of the game. But i will say that learning to work around a broken mechanic doesn't make the mechanic any less broken or any less i need of repair.

Edited by Agent of Change, 12 March 2013 - 07:57 AM.

[Thuzel]

PanchoTortilla, on 12 March 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

That's the perfect attitude if they plan on developing the Dixie Chicks of online gaming. But I suspect they really do want to tap into the supposed 400k accounts they claim to have. During the last tournament they said over 3 days 100,000 people played. No telling if this is unique users or repeats or what but that's only 1/4 of the supposed total they have retained as active players. Only 8000 bothered to compete in their 'huge' event. Those numbers are abyssmal. Closed Beta regularly had 3000-4000 players and account creation was restricted during that time.

I think their number crunchers looked at the numbers and saw a huge pool of untapped potential players/moneybags that have dropped the game for some reason or another and that's why after 4 months they are finally conceding that ECM may need tweaking.

QFT.

I think one of PGI's greatest blunders is that they don't have a feel for their audience. They seem to be just moving along according to their own plan without really listening to their customers. Every now and then they get something right, but more often than not they just do what they were going to do regardless of what we think or feel. Look at how much uproar had to be created before they rolled back consumables, for example.

Honestly, if they'd been paying attention they wouldn't have even tried some of the things they did (3rd person anyone?).

[Frisk]

If we gear this game to the lowest common denominator then we'll end up with garbage. ECM is a pillar of this game, deal with it.

PGi is doing just fine, I personally like the fact they don't get on their knees and start blowing all these whiners.

If you can't make a logical argument and a suggestion to fix the percieved problem then QFT.