632 replies to this topic

[IceGryphon]

Wolfways, on 12 September 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

But then, you also obviously think it's okay that a long range weapon should be reduced to the range of NARC. Not that LRM's are viable over around 600m...and if you disagree with that you are disagreeing with the vast majority of people i've seen in discussions about LRM's.

Please stop, stop feeding them.
You are even annoying me.

[Scratx]

Davegt27, on 12 September 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

I am a 30 year fighter Avionics vet ( I retired last Dec) I know about Weapons Control Radar/Fire Control Radar and ECM and RHAW systems

what exactly is the problem with the current ECM system?

It's not fun.

It's very cheap to get (if you have a mech capable of carrying it), so it's a no brainer. It's not a joke to say that if you're not carrying ECM in an ECM-capable mech you're doing it wrong. It also does way too much (for the cost, 1.5t is trivial). It makes you and your friends nigh untargetable by lock-on weapons (destroying the viability of Streaks and LRMs, they pretty much are a feast or famine weapon mainly due to this), it (effectively) obsoletes every variant that can't carry ECM if at least one variant on that chassis can take it, it destroys the ability of enemy mechs within ECM range from locking on to anything and on top of that it also interferes with their ability to get targeting information, as well as sending it, to the rest of their team.

Come on. All of this for one and a half tons and two crits. Why wouldn't you take this?

On top of this, MATCHMAKER DOES NOT CARE HOW MANY ECMs ARE ON EACH TEAM.

You don't understand how much unfun ECM can be until you roll into a match where your team has exactly zero ECMs and theirs has at least 4. And you're in an LRM-boat. Good freaking luck not dying horribly with under 200 damage.


Does this neatly explain why the Magic Jesus Box is considered broken by the player base?

[IanSane]

Yes it is completely fine that PGI changed ECM because the first time it was changed was as a COUNTER to the FIRST lrm-aggeddon. Argue all you want there is nothing you can say that will convince me a weapon that A.) Uses next to no heat when compared to many other weapons systems and MORE if you consider their damage/X-Factor i.e. pin down ability and B.) can be used 1000 meters away with ZERO worry of retaliation is a good weapon for game balance. I willl say it again.
ANY weapon that requires FIVE things to effectively counter it (ECM, AMS, RD, COVER, MOBILITY) is NOT good for balance OR gameplay experience. Gauss? Adjusted (can only fire 2 now) PPC? Adjusted (slower than malassas range nerf hotter than the sun), cERLL? (Range nerfed AND heat nerfed). The devs aren't worried about countering those weapons but for some reason they seem to ignore the most broken weapon of them all.

[Star Captain Brofist]

Markoxford, on 12 September 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

"Those ppl are known as sandpit, vassago Rain, Raodbeer, victor morson , Chronojam, Mister Blastman and many other i forgot to meantion "

Please do not bring any of these toxic people back - they have ripped MWO for years and continue to spew hate over on reddit. Allow real community assets such as theb33f or Magician to chair and each of the top 12 teams to nominate a player.

Making reps out of your strongest supporters happened in the past and contributed to where we are today. If PGI is looking for objective + constructive feedback those are the wrong people to put into that position.

[Wolfways]

IceGryphon, on 12 September 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:

Please stop, stop feeding them.
You are even annoying me.

lol i already decided to stop there
This is why i sometimes just can't be bothered with the MWO forums.

[Azantia]

Stalkerr, on 12 September 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Please don't mess this up. This is about making the game we all care about as amazing as possible, not about anyone's personal feelings about individuals/groups. If we don't work together, we'll fail separately.

I logged in for the first time in over a year simply to quote this statement.

As part of the 1st Blackburn Raiders, We understand why people hate the goons and even actively speak out against them. Our team has done so on MANY occasions. Let me be the first to say that while I dont agree with a lot of their antics (at times it can be funny), Stalkerr has a GREAT point here. We have (as a team) long since left MWO, but we follow it closely. Watching, waiting and hoping that maybe someday, the game will change course and be put back on a long-term playable track.

Ultimately, I have no leg to stand on when I look at the history of what the Something Awful / Goons have TRIED to do for this game. (antics aside) Their ability to organize and their ability to analyze, collate and present coherent thoughts and points is up there with the best of them. My opinion of them has been slowly changing over time, distance and direction. I have a begrudging respect for their community based on their capability, tenacity and yes, even their ability to wield, twist and utilize information.

I think this community would be doing itself a disservice to not utilize the capability of the SA/Goons community.

Edited by Azantia, 12 September 2014 - 04:31 PM.

[Veneroso]

I think this is great and I hope that the community can pull this off.

[JHackworth]

80%?

What number would that actually be? 80% of players who vote? 80% of 'active players' however that is defined? 80% of a quorum of representatives....and how would that come into being?

[IanSane]

What the devs should do and what I would like to see after this great first step is simple. Once they have gotten their suggestions on the forums for changes they should put it to a vote THROUGH and WITHIN the game so folks who do NOT come to the forums often can have a say and we get a TRUE representation of the player base not just the opinions of those of us in the forums.

[DeaconW]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

What do you say?

I say that it is too little, too late. #saveMWO tried, and you gave them the finger. We voted on 3PV and you said they were invalid. Now, you throw down a gauntlet with clearly unachievable conditions with, what I believe to be the sole purpose of letting you say "I told you so".

It is amazing how many people on this thread are willing to take candy from the guy in the windowless van, tho'...

To be fair, here is what would make me believe you are serious:

1. Eliminate Ghost Heat
2. Remove 3PV
3. Return shake to JJ in Heavy and Assault mechs to minimize poptarting.

[jozkhan]

Why cant we just get Community Warfare out of the door and into the game before messing around with everything again?

Russ can you please make some statement on this? That this thing you are offering is not gonna delay CW in any way?

Edited by jozkhan, 12 September 2014 - 04:46 PM.

[Livewyr]

jozkhan, on 12 September 2014 - 04:46 PM, said:

Why cant we just get Community Warfare out of the door and into the game before messing around with everything again?

Russ can you please make some statement on this? That this thing you are offering is not gonna delay CW in any way?

Erm, in case it was not obvious: It is going to wait until after CW.

[Scratx]

jozkhan, on 12 September 2014 - 04:46 PM, said:

Why cant we just get Community Warfare out of the door and into the game before messing around with everything again?

Russ can you please make some statement on this? That this thing you are offering is not gonna delay CW in any way?

Why would it? Russ's asking US to organize ourselves, come up with as close to a consensual proposal to deal with ECM as we can possibly come up with and then give it to him for analysis on whether it's feasible. How does this in any way impact CW? O_o

[Thizcrusher]

I don't feel as though ECM needs to be nerfed/reduced, there are currently 6 ways to counter it (7 if you count blowing off the component). If you want to LRM you can be prepared to deal with it, and you should, I for one don't find it hard to manage at all if I want to use LRMs

[Monky]

The only changes ECM needs to be perfect;

Reduce detection range to half of normal for all mechs cloaked by the ECM field instead of near perfect radar invisibility unless the enemy has tag.

Set target gathering info to half speed on any mech covered by cloak.

Set missile lock on against targets covered by the ecm cloak to half the normal speed.

Remove hardpoint restriction

Allow it to be equipped to at least a wider array of chassis, preferably the WEAKEST PERFORMING VARIANT of each chassis, unless the chassis overall is very high performing (like, a victor might not need ECM at all, wereas a commando or locust could probably be really helped on all variants). You have the statistics. Use em. This logic can apply to both clan and IS mechs, boost underpowered variants (IS) and underpowered chassis (Clan, since they have swappable parts you would need to do the whole mech chassis w/o adding some ass-backwards hardpoint to CT). CASE BY CASE BASIS, USE YOUR STATISTICS. FILTER OUT (C) MECHS PLEASE.

Edited by Monky, 12 September 2014 - 05:15 PM.

[IceGryphon]

jozkhan, on 12 September 2014 - 04:46 PM, said:

Why cant we just get Community Warfare out of the door and into the game before messing around with everything again?

Russ can you please make some statement on this? That this thing you are offering is not gonna delay CW in any way?

My GOD, We're being scammed again!

[CocoaJin]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Okay how about this, this is what many of you have been waiting for:

Well first a question: Do you think you the community can come to an agreed upon consensus? One in which if the changes are implemented everyone says great job PGI on listening to us now we feel great about ECM and your ability to listen to feedback?

If the answer is Yes then I suggest the following:

You the community decide how your going to present a proposal, nominate a peer that you feel has the best handle on this, put together your own player council whatever you like but present a proposal that your peers vote on. The vote would likely need to be far greater than just 51% in favor. Perhaps something more like 80+%

At that point PGI will analyze the proposal, if we see any technical problems or balance problems that we feel perhaps you didnt see, we will point those items out to you. Then if necessary you can adjust your proposal and put it to a vote again, if successful PGI will again analyze and repeat if necessary until we have a final design solution for implementation.

PGI will then communicate how long it will take to implement with full explanation as to why, and we will patch the changes in upon the agreed upon delivery date. Once complete if this whole process has gone smoothly and civily we will proceed with doing things like this far more frequently or at least for other areas of the product that are controversial.

What do you say?

I stand in awe...I'm literally bug-eyed, jaw dropped and sick to the stomach, but in a good way. The openness, humility and willingness to cooperate with the community is beyond refreshing.

[Gryphorim]

@@RangersBrigade

@Livewyr7 @russ_bullock A few of our members would sign up for this as long as what's suggested don't push back CW

@russ_bullock

@RangersBrigade @Livewyr7 yes it cant push CW for sure that is where we present the integration date and the logic behind it

For anyone who was worried.

Edited by Gryphorim, 12 September 2014 - 05:09 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Well first a question: Do you think you the community can come to an agreed upon consensus? One in which if the changes are implemented everyone says great job PGI on listening to us now we feel great about ECM and your ability to listen to feedback?

I applaud this approach.

That said, I think I'm one of the few players that is actually 100% content with how ECM is implemented....and I don't even run ECM capable mechs that often (if at all).

I never really understood why so many players have such a difficult time countering or dealing with ECM.

[Mothykins]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

Yes I do want to keep these conditions in place, I think it is a good starting point. Also yes I do think it will be a good exercise for the community to truly get a sense of the vast amount of opinions within MWO and how difficult it is to listen to ideas and feedback and come up with a solution we think best meets the communities desires.

As to the 80% I am open to discussing the criteria with you. No of course it isn't 80% of entire player base, but it also can't be just the 100 most active people on the forums either which would be incredibly skewed. Units will need to make sure their player bases log into the forums at least to vote. There will need to be a continued dialogue on how we determine that the 80% is truly representative of today's active players.

I will continue to monitor the thread and situation. I can take some PM's but I encourage you to prove to PGI that you can come to consensus and work together.

I would actually like to suggest you put the Vote for this, plus the Info regarding it into the news feed on the launch client, or possibly on the main page. Trying to do coverage of the entire user base without that kind of advertising power seems incredibly skewed and weak.