160 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

No seriously, there were 3 or 4 HUGE threads theory crafting and think tanking ways to make ECM and Information Warfare function properly.

Go look up Livewyr's thread, It was epic. Had a ton of feedback from a lot of posters.

What you are talking about is the people who exploded after PGI said "Screw you guys" after all that hard work for the last 5 months.

I will have to go back and look at that. Sounds interesting, must have been when I was boycotting the forum for some reason
Having said that, I'm not ready to say that PGI has taken your work and chucked it out the window I'm just saying... until I see more from IW, I'm going to say that ECM is basically fine, as it's the cornerstone that the rest of IW (allegedly) is going to be built around.

You have to have a benchmark to build everything around, otherwise your WHOLE system will end up flawed. If you look at, "Ok, this is what ECM is" now we can discuss what to do with the rest of it. An inch is an inch, you don't change the inch to make more of them fit into a foot.

Now, Rofl came up with a good plan, but that's not going to happen, so lets take what ECM is and make IW better around it.

I don't see it EVERYWHERE like the QQ threads claim, I don't have trouble hitting them with LRMs when the counter on my team switches to jam and keeps them targeted. In my world ECM isn't the problem that it's been made out to be.

I don't really think twice about it when I'm PUGging, I have a different role. I don't think about it when I'm on a team, I have a different role. I see my mini-map jam, I know there is one around me, and I announce it to my team, but I'm not breaking off to go chase the squirrel, I focus on my job. Sure you get the 4 ECM troll lance from time to time, but it's rare and I shrug it off like a CAP rush on Assault.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Mystere, on 05 April 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

I'm sorry but noise eventually drives me away. As such, if I missed (or do not remember) any of those threads, then I (rightly or wrongly) blame it all on the noise. Those threads may have come out when I periodically tuned out of MWO (again because of the noise) and instead fell back to Shogun2 or Rome: Total War.

That's fine, but what is PGI's excuse?

It's ok if you missed them. Hopefully, you will look at them and realize where we are coming from. A lot of people who have posted here contributed to them.

But why did PGI just flat out ignore any and all ideas to really make IW work and balance ECM so it didn't have to be the end-all-be-all of IW?

I hope you two will go back and read them, and understand where we are coming from.

I feel like it would've saved a lot of heartache.

[Mystere]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...66#entry2046966

Go read some of the links in his posts with tons of constructive ECM discussion that was flat out ignored.

Oh, that one? Well, I did tune out once I got to the Magnetic Field Calibrator: MFC and Dense Fog Generator: DFG part.

Slashmckill, on 05 April 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

It's quite funny you say that, because most of the time when i hear talks of balance it's always people for ecm welling up with tears ready to throw a tantrum on a moments notice about how they don't want their favorite toy taken away from them or even altered in the slightest. (I'am not implying anything just pointing out how i personally see things, not to say i don't see what you are talking about)

Well, I can honestly say that I was not one of those people as I saw ECM as the challenge to be overcome. So, no problem.

Edited by Mystere, 05 April 2013 - 11:53 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...66#entry2046966

Go read some of the links in his posts with tons of constructive ECM discussion that was flat out ignored.

Just from the title of the thread alone, I would have ignored it outright.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

That was just the easiest to find.

The second link has something very similar to what Rofl brought up.

And those two things were both just hyperbolic items to make a point about ECM.

Even if you just go back and read some of the thoughts in the feedback thread leading up to Paul's letter.

Ignore the little whiney whatever posts. Read the BIG posts, with ideas on how to adjust all of the equipment to work in harmony without ECM being the only thing that works.

Just go read the

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

Just from the title of the thread alone, I would have ignored it outright.

That thread just has links to other threads. ignore the title of that one.

http://mwomercs.com/...78#entry2033478

Here, even if you don't agree with all the specifics, the general concept is the same as what Rofl was discussing.

[Slashmckill]

Mystere, on 05 April 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

Well, I can honestly say that I was not one of those people as I saw ECM as the challenge to be overcome. So, no problem.

Never implied that you were, just pointing out that both sides of the fence have the same problem.

Edited by Slashmckill, 05 April 2013 - 12:07 PM.

[Mystere]

Slashmckill, on 05 April 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

Never implied that you were, just pointing out that both sides of the fence have the same problem.

And I never thought you did. I guess I just wasn't clear enough in my reply.

[p4g3m4s7r]

Mystere, on 05 April 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

Oh, that one? Well, I did tune out once I got to the Magnetic Field Calibrator: MFC and Dense Fog Generator: DFG part.



Well, I can honestly say that I was not one of those people as I saw ECM as the challenge to be overcome. So, no problem.

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

Just from the title of the thread alone, I would have ignored it outright.

Look, in most of these threads that have a big huge post maligning ECM and suggesting a way to change it you can find some sort of technical explanation that explains why, FROM A GAME DEVELOPER PERSPECTIVE, ECM is bad and PGI should know it's bad. There are things that, even now, are fundamentally wrong with ECM.

Also, I'm glad both of you are being way more responsive than a lot of people who defend ECM. Perhaps you don't realize but the fact that we have so many posts that are just people saying ECM is broken with no elaboration is because we've talked to so many people like you on the forum who, instead of responding reasonably, blow us off or attempt to offend us. Then we have the community managers at PGI who give completely contradictory messages regarding ECM or say things that are borderline offensive to those who have problem with it, make every effort not to change it, and do not in any way address the technical analysis done by the community regarding ECM or present any of their own.

My primary issue with ECM is that it has generated so much controversy and anger that there should have been some sort of technical response by now. I've said many times that a Beta is provided to allow the player to generate data as random actors for the developers to analyze statistically. The complete lack of any of this data being presented makes me think PGI does not do this at all. PGI should be presenting this data, not because we're owed it, but because it's the fastest way to help us understand the decisions they're making. Not presenting it only leads us to distrust them or become impatient with them.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

p4g3m4s7r, on 05 April 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Look, in most of these threads that have a big huge post maligning ECM and suggesting a way to change it you can find some sort of technical explanation that explains why, FROM A GAME DEVELOPER PERSPECTIVE, ECM is bad and PGI should know it's bad. There are things that, even now, are fundamentally wrong with ECM.

Also, I'm glad both of you are being way more responsive than a lot of people who defend ECM. Perhaps you don't realize but the fact that we have so many posts that are just people saying ECM is broken with no elaboration is because we've talked to so many people like you on the forum who, instead of responding reasonably, blow us off or attempt to offend us. Then we have the community managers at PGI who give completely contradictory messages regarding ECM or say things that are borderline offensive to those who have problem with it, make every effort not to change it, and do not in any way address the technical analysis done by the community regarding ECM or present any of their own.

My primary issue with ECM is that it has generated so much controversy and anger that there should have been some sort of technical response by now. I've said many times that a Beta is provided to allow the player to generate data as random actors for the developers to analyze statistically. The complete lack of any of this data being presented makes me think PGI does not do this at all. PGI should be presenting this data, not because we're owed it, but because it's the fastest way to help us understand the decisions they're making. Not presenting it only leads us to distrust them or become impatient with them.

This is a big part. A lot of us have been explaining and breaking things down for 6 months. With nothing to show for it.

[Roadbeer]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

That was just the easiest to find.


That thread just has links to other threads. ignore the title of that one.

http://mwomercs.com/...78#entry2033478

Here, even if you don't agree with all the specifics, the general concept is the same as what Rofl was discussing.

I can't say that there is anything in that of which I disagree with, I would even go further in some instance (especially with the introduction of consumables) that modules with similar effects to BAP actually stack with them. But all those suggestions in that OP are perfectly reasonable. And I regret missing that post.

But don't take it that because what was proposed with ECM didn't come out the way you (the group) wanted doesn't mean that the rest of it won't somehow counterbalance what ECM is (or, rather, announced it will become). I'm actually surprised that even those small changes were made, given how long it took to come to that conclusion, and the stance they had that ECM is fine.

At the risk of repeating myself. I'm going to go on the "This is what it is, now do something good with it" stage. Sure the meta is going to keep being what it is until IW gets fleshed out. But you have to start form somewhere. and IMO, I'd rather have small tweaks like we have with ballistics when it comes to IW than a huge hot mess like we have with LRMs.

Believe me, I'm on your side with IW, I want it to be great, and I'll fight with you. But the ECM battle (for now) is lost, the song has become tired, and it's time to move forward to make the rest of IW better.

Edited by Roadbeer, 05 April 2013 - 12:15 PM.

[Slashmckill]

Mystere, on 05 April 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

And I never thought you did. I guess I just wasn't clear enough in my reply.

You were crystal clear, just making sure my point was just as clear.

..... I grow bored of this, somebody wake me up when the devs decide to tell us where the hell they are going with their "plan".

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

At the risk of repeating myself. I'm going to go on the "This is what it is, now do something good with it". Sure the meta is going to keep being what it is until IW gets fleshed out. But you have to start form somewhere. and IMO, I'd rather have small tweaks like we have with ballistics when it comes to IW than a huge hot mess like we have with LRMs.

I think the problem is, you are a "The Cup is Overflowing" person. And the rest of us are taking a more realistic approach based on PGI's prior performance and speed at fixing and changing things.

While I appreciate your optimism, I have 0 faith that we'll see meaningful IW within the year. And thus ECM is broken because of it.

If i'm wrong, good, but i highly doubt they are going to add a bunch of completely new items created by PGI to bring ECM into balance with the rest of the game.

[Roadbeer]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

I think the problem is, you are a "The Cup is Overflowing" person. And the rest of us are taking a more realistic approach based on PGI's prior performance and speed at fixing and changing things.

While I appreciate your optimism, I have 0 faith that we'll see meaningful IW within the year. And thus ECM is broken because of it.

If i'm wrong, good, but i highly doubt they are going to add a bunch of completely new items created by PGI to bring ECM into balance with the rest of the game.

Actually, I'm more of the "There has to be more, because to have THIS be your pillar, are you out of your minds? If you consider one component a pillar, then CW is just going to be a ladder system".

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Actually, I'm more of the "There has to be more, because to have THIS be your pillar, are you out of your minds? If you consider one component a pillar, then CW is just going to be a ladder system".

Yeah well, since about March, I feel like they have lost their minds.

[DocBach]

Trauglodyte, on 05 April 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

PS> For those that keep bringing up lore to the ECM subject, you have to remember that lore ECM didn't block sensors cause we were GOD during the game sitting in the heavens and looking down at the world. You can't run stealth rules when you can visually see everything. Anyway, it makes sense that ECM debuffs sensors and, as such, debuffs weapons that depend on sensor locks. It just doesn't make sense that we can't get around that without whistling Dixie while jumping on one leg and doing advanced mathematics.

Actually, there are very complete and fleshed out rules for sensors and detection in double blind play, where you can't see where everything is. And in double blind play, ECM only affects sensors if the detecting 'Mech is inside the 180 meter bubble.

You can detect and locate 'mechs shrouded in ECM in double blind play; ECM however can shroud the identity of them so you can't identify the chassis, variant, loadout, or damage of the 'Mech inside the ECM cover.

ECM was not included to defeat all sensors; while it has some negative affects on standard sensors in the expanded Battletech rules, its main functionwas to defeat advanced sensors and electronics like Beagle, Narc, Artemis and the like. It also has a third mode I've mentioned before which specifically concentrates on confusing standard sensors, though when it runs in that mode it gives up its protection against advanced sensors, and doesn't completely nullify sensors, just makes it a little harder to get locks to fire. This mode is also countered by Beagle, and has a chance it won't work when you use it, and you have to check if its still on every turn with a skill roll.

All of the groundwork for ECM balance was already presented to PGI on a silver platter, they just chose to completely ignore it.

Edited by DocBach, 05 April 2013 - 12:52 PM.

[Rofl]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Now THIS is something I could get on board with.

DocBach, on 05 April 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Exactly - ECM, Beagle, Artemis, AMS, Narc, ect all should be nice to have, and provide bonuses (or in ECM's case, provide protection from those bonuses) -- they should not be so overpowering that they completely and totally counter a 'Mech's weapon systems.

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

Nope, 75% of you are screaming "OMGZ NERF NOW" without even knowing what the real issue is. Very few are asking for a robust IW. When put the way Rofl did, Yeah, I'm ok with that, sounds reasonable.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

But I don't get how Roadbeer says he doesn't want to change ECM, then says he loves Rofl's idea. Because Rofl's idea is what we have all been making huge posts about.

I vote myself for ECM spokesperson.

[Suko]

The reason I'm up in arms about it now, more than before Paul's letter, was because I had hope. I had hope that PGI was going to listen. I had hope that out of the hundreds of posts in that thread, someone at PGI would admit that "Damn, that beats what we've currently got going on, let's do that". I had hope that something would change for the sake of balance in MWO.

I had hoped wrong.

Edited by ShadowVFX, 05 April 2013 - 02:15 PM.

[Adrienne Vorton]

DocBach, on 05 April 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

Actually, LRM's are now balanced, ECM is completely out of whack, and completely locking out LRM's just makes them worthless to take. Might as well just delete the Catapult model from the game files since it has no place in this MechWarrior anymore.

you know... LRM´s aren´t locked out completely...it´s just not easy to properly use them... a thing that a lot of ppl were asking for during CBT, forcing the "noobs" to move their lazy a$$es instead of "hide and rain"... and catapult is still a good heavy mech... boating LRM´s only on an a1 was NEVER a good idea, not before ecm and certainly not after...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 06 April 2013 - 04:01 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Adrienne Vorton, on 06 April 2013 - 03:58 AM, said:

you know... LRM´s aren´t locked out completely...it´s just not easy to properly use them... a thing that a lot of ppl were asking for during CBT, forcing the "noobs" to move their lazy a$$es instead of "hide and rain"... and catapult is still a good heavy mech... boating LRM´s only on an a1 was NEVER a good idea, not before ecm and certainly not after...

They suck right now. SUCK.

Even after ECM when LRM's supposedly sucked, I still used them. I'd have games where I was locked out completely. But during games with even ECM, I could do the normal amount of damage for a medium mech.

It took a lot of effort though. It wasn't stand behind a rock and fire. It's stay at about 500-750m. Use tag. Use cover. Make sure my missiles are hitting while taking fire. I had to put an XL engine in to make sure I could maneuver enough to make use of my LRM's.

And if it was 2-3 ECM to none I was screwed.

Then the splash damage bug happened, and they got nerfed into the ground with a hotfix that will probably never go away.

And now they are worthless, because not only do I have to do everything I had to do above, I do laughable damage, and if there is an ECM discrepancy I might as well just run out of bounds.

It's a stupid mechanic.

They have shown no ability to balance LRM's and the player base has shown a lack of ability to use cover properly and whine about LRM's even when they were probably in their most balanced state.

But they SUCK now. And ECM is a big reason.

[DocBach]

Adrienne Vorton, on 06 April 2013 - 03:58 AM, said:

you know... LRM´s aren´t locked out completely...it´s just not easy to properly use them... a thing that a lot of ppl were asking for during CBT, forcing the "noobs" to move their lazy a$$es instead of "hide and rain"... and catapult is still a good heavy mech... boating LRM´s only on an a1 was NEVER a good idea, not before ecm and certainly not after...

Ah, so exactly how easy is it to "not completely" lock those missiles out? Do you need to shoot something with a different gun before ECM activates? How much skill does ECM require beyond having to install it and waltz around with LRM and radar immunity?

ECM would be fine as a soft counter to LRM's that debuffs them and makes them more difficult to use, not impossible to use without additional equipment that some 'Mechs are incapable of even mounting. If they make ECM a hardpoint, perhaps they should look into making all equipment a hardpoint (even AMS), with each 'Mech getting one (some getting several) so every 'Mech has the ability to mount equipment be it ECM, TAG, AMS or whatever (though those three would be the only pieces people would mount as IW is incredibly limited and shallow).

Equipment balance will be acheived when it each tertiary system like ECM, TAG, Beagle, ect are a nice system to take and having them provides a nice bonus for your team, but not completely mission essential or the piece in which nearly all builds and strategies revolve around countering and defeating.

Edited by DocBach, 06 April 2013 - 06:17 AM.