632 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

Can anybody find the original archived ECM poll that had the options

ECM makes the game much less fun
ECM makes the game less fun
ECM does not affect the game
ECM makes the game more fun
ECM makes the game much more fun

?

There were at least a thousand of responses, and the voting for "ECM makes the game much less fun" had more votes than "ECM makes the game more fun, makes the game much more fun" combined?

Edited by DocBach, 12 September 2014 - 02:58 PM.

[Clit Beastwood]

Stormwolf, on 12 September 2014 - 01:43 PM, said:

So Russ, why haven't you posted this on R/MWO yet?

Reaching out yourself would go a long way towards restoring even a small part of the disappointed community.

The PGI IGP split just happened - I'm surprised he's carved out enough time to do what he has so far. Give him some time mom and dad just got divorced, they still gotta figure some stuff out.

If it were up to me, I'd remove modules from the game completely, shrink the size of the ECM bubble, and increase the rewards for non-combat roles. That's just me though.

Edited by Fierostetz, 12 September 2014 - 01:48 PM.

[Ozric]

On the Player Council issue, I too worry that it could be too easily abused. There is too much division in the community as it is without making figureheads to rally around.

A more peaceful solution could just be to improve the forum debates, much as you are now, and create a real environment where player ideas can be heard, vetted, and then addressed. Not all player concepts should ever leave the forums of course, but a process is important none-the-less.

[ipox]

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

What do you say?

To Russ.

Russ, thank you for speaking to us on the general subject of community-driven improvements. I firmly believe that in asking us to give you a new chance, you must in turn do so for us. Un-Ban/Un-Block everyone who didn't threaten your staff directly, as insults have been flung in moments of passion (you said we're passionate -- we are). Declare general amnesty, ***please*** and if there are new violations, the entire community will back your re-banning and forgetting of them. We want the product's success and we have ***deep*** pockets.



To the community.

I (am not the only one to) nominate Homeless Bill to lead the charge. His moderation of /r/OutreachHPG is fair and effective (and be clear that it isn't moderation that is the problem either there nor in /r/MWO -- much moreso the downvoting blasts from the peanut galleries of each!). He could champion the community effort remarkably well and collate the different issues and choose sub-champions who seem appropriate for each issue based on their willingness to be basically impartial as well. Impartiality is key, champions to be replaced by track record as required.

80% may be a bit much, but the best part in this is "I'm listening... go on...".

Most importantly:

• we must get a top community rep ASAP through consensus (not easy but Homeless Bill?);
  
• that rep must pick an issue that is small to get started on -- and then delegate its management to someone who can put it together and present it in a week -- ***must be small and doable immediately***; and
  
• we must remember that the longer we take, the more silly it looks -- whether intentional or not this is a possible divide and conquer scenario.

We're all paying customers with adoration for the BT/MW storyverse in our hearts. Please let's reach consensus. Homeless Bill, if he's willing, would do us very proud. If we don't show an immediate track record on ***one thing***, it's still-born.

[TopDawg]

Just another point worth noting, balance in a game like this is always going to be interconnected. It's going to be very rare (with the possible exception of adjusting weapon numbers/values) that you will ever be able to change one thing that doesn't inherently affect another (either directly or indirectly).

Another, 'nother point, is that some of these systems/designs (the simpler ones that don't require lots of hours) could easily be rolled out and tested on the test servers, and people would be able to see first hand which systems/designs/numbers work better, or in fact don't.

It's impossible to please everyone, that's just the way it is in game design; no game is going to be able to appeal to everyone. An earlier post stated something like 'if 50% of the community wants something changed, that should be enough', however that still leaves the other 50% that will still want it changed afterwards. It's definitely an interesting dilemma, but as I've posted before, these are worth a read (and perhaps should be required reading for those interested in attempting balance): Balancing Multiplayer Games, Part 1: Definitions, Part 2: Viable Options, Part 3: Fairness, and Part 4: Intuition. Of course it isn't a compendium, but it's good enough to get the ball rolling for thoughts and angles that people may not have thought of previously. Regardless, a better system can surely be reached.

In terms of where my position is, I try to keep it as clear as possible and I don't try to hide it from anyone. I think games are best balanced from the top down. That is, the game has to be balanced around the highest level of competitive play. I implore people not to confuse this with 'none of the rest of the game mattering' or that it has to be done at the exclusion of everything else. That's certainly not the case, and is not my opinion anyway.

The game has to be fun for all players, and all playing methods (I am hesitant to use playstyle here, as I feel that should be reserved to an in-game method such as scouting with Lights, filling gaps with Mediums, etc); that means for PUGs, for solo players, for groups, for units, and for CW players.

[Richard Warts]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 12 September 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

We want the whole system reworked, ECM, Information Warfare AND LRMs. We are not advocating to remove ECM without taking a look at missiles.

Then what are your suggestions? How would you rework ECM, LRM, Narc, UAV etc?

[TrentTheWanderer]

Stormwolf, on 12 September 2014 - 01:43 PM, said:

So Russ, why haven't you posted this on R/MWO yet?

Reaching out yourself would go a long way towards restoring even a small part of the disappointed community.

I think he's stilled shadowbanned from Reddit for the Transverse fiasco.

[Senzerah]

So uhm, why do you bring this to a vote after banning all the sceptics from the forums is my question? because a LOT of the people who are now banned are founders who are massive fans of the IP, would be a big mistake to deny them the chance of voting on this, just sayin'

[TheCaptainJZ]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

Okay now hold it - For the record I dont view "Islanders" as those that disagree with me or PGI. I have claimed that term now for good humor opportunities. I think were all every one of us on this island together so let's make it work.

Russ, I strongly urge you to ask around and research this "island" phrase. People don't use it the way you think they use it. In short, a portion of the playerbase is downright insulted by it and use it in a degrogatory sense. Please do get someone to explain the whole thing to you.

[Livewyr]

Stormwolf, on 12 September 2014 - 01:43 PM, said:

So Russ, why haven't you posted this on R/MWO yet?

Reaching out yourself would go a long way towards restoring even a small part of the disappointed community.

I dunno, whenever I do decide to cruise a little bit of the Reddit.. I find myself clawing my eyes out.

The community is "Passionate" here, damn near toxic there.

[Clint Steel]

I love what ECM does, partly because I hate LRMs, and partly because I like the idea of being able to do sneaky flanking stuff.

Taking more equipment to counter ECM seems fair to me, just as other mechs have to take AMS (or ECM) to counter LRMs

Now, you can also narc an ECM mech and he loses his cover, another good counter.

They should take away the long delay locks take on the ECM mech though, not really sure why that added benefit is there.

The one big problem I have with ECM is that its limited to certain mechs. I could see it weighing maybe 3 tons, but all mechs can take it. Sure it would be harder for LRMs but they are too easy to use anyway (did I mention my bias against LRMs?)

Another option could be, 1.5 tons for personal ECM, 3 tons for 20m radius and 5 tons for 30m or somthing like that.

Streaks just need a dumb fire mode like LRMs have (would behave just like regular SRMs). I never take a weapon that won't let me fire when I need it.

[beerandasmoke]

What about making mechs still show up in HUD but untargetable to LRMs if covered?

[Jabilo]

I posted this 16 months ago. ECM has not changed or been looked at as far as I know in the intervening time.

Still looks good to me. The intention with the below system is that every mech can be equipped with ECM.

Anything less than a complete overhaul of information warfare is a waste of time and a placebo to the community.

The whole way sensors, BAP and ECM work and synergise needs a complete overhaul - with active and passive sensors thrown in to the mix.

Ok you have standard sensors.

These can be improved with BAP, TAG, NARC, modules etc.

You can shield yourself and team mates (where appropriate) with ECM and by going passive.

These should all interact in a deep but common sense way, with detection ranges and lock on times getting higher and lower as the different systems play off each other.

Example, BAP allows you to detect and target opponents at longer ranges and helps achieve missile locks quicker. NO HARD COUNTERS.

However YOUR signal is also stronger, allowing you to be detected at longer ranges and for missiles to lock you more easily.

BAP can be toggled on and off as desired when installed.

ECM reduces the range that people can detect you and the time it takes them to lock missiles against you. BAP counters these to a certain extent but NO HARD COUNTERS (just adjustments to lock time and detection range).

BAP and ECM can both be used, giving you the benefit of BAP without all the draw backs, but obviously you pay the price in tonnage and critical slots. Of course you would not be as radar dark as if you ran ECM alone.

In addition passive sensors allow you to go dark, adjusting the ranges people can detect you and the time it takes them to achieve lock. This can be combined with ECM and countered with BAP.

Detection ranges and lock on times will adjust dynamically depending upon who has BAP and improved sensors, who has ECM, who has gone passive etc etc.

ECM, BAP and active sensors can all be toggled at any time in game (when installed) to allow you to fit your profile to the current battlefield condition.

If any one wants me to flesh it out a bit I would be happy to.

Edited by Jabilo, 12 September 2014 - 02:13 PM.

[Stormwolf]

TrentTheWanderer, on 12 September 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

I think he's stilled shadowbanned from Reddit for the Transverse fiasco.

That's pretty much the same situation that many of the people there are in.

Livewyr, on 12 September 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

I dunno, whenever I do decide to cruise a little bit of the Reddit.. I find myself clawing my eyes out.

The community is "Passionate" here, damn near toxic there.

They are pretty easy going once you get to know them. And the irony here is that I'm a BT grognard who is defending guys who come into this from a FPS point of view.

[Carrioncrows]

Well this is easy- Elect Bishop.

We don't always see eye to eye on balance but at least he explains his reasons clear enough and is willing to passionately debate the merits of the issue without it getting all personal and stuff.

[Deadmeat313]

RedDragon, on 11 September 2014 - 03:44 AM, said:

Can we please just get direct-fire only LRMs? Then we wouldn't need overpowered ECM. And the crying about LRMgeddon would cease. And we had a real use for light spotters (indirect fire only possible with NARC/TAG?).
It's a scenario in which everyone would win.

I absolutely support this proposal.

Really the main pillar of MWO is face to face Mech combat. Right now, if you meet an enemy Mech in an open brawl then one or both of you is likely to receive a rain of LRMs delivered by some guys over the hill. This has influenced map design - requiring LOTS of tall structures to hide behind, and making an "Open Plains" style map sheer folly. This makes me sad.

I'd like to see LRMs fire on a shallower arc, and be "fire and forget" so you don't need to steer them in on target.

On Topic: ECM

I'd like to see ECM toned down and BAP toned up. Allow locks on ECM masked targets - but give no ID and no target info. Crucially - ECM would become a counter (OMG an electronic countermeasure!) to BAP.
BAP should be given a limited fitting slot like ECM has now. Mechs that carry it can light up all enemy Mechs within its operating range - on a 360 degree arc - showing them on the team minimap, but NOT allowing indirect fire.

Indirect fire should be allowed only by TAG.

D313

[JackPoint]

Dumping Ghost Heat on the trash pile would be a great 1st base to gaining trust and ex players.

[IanSane]

Why bother with changing ECM? The only reason this came up is because of all the LRM boaters crying about the fact they can't permanently spam. As usual a VERY vocal minority of players think they represent ALL players.
I am more concerned about the horrible spawn locations...(friendlies spawning nearer enemies than friendlies) than trying to buff an already broken LRM spam.
Heaven forbid we fire more than an AC2 without overheating but spam LRM 60 all day? No problem...what more do you LRM boats want? You are already the most game breaking build in the game.

[Wolfways]

Tank, on 12 September 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

ECMs and other countermeasures should stay effective against LRMs, there should be no easy mode weapon or combination in a competitive game. LRMs don't need buffs at the moment.

This is an example of how people cannot agree on things. Some people refuse to accept that an "easy mode weapon" is only easy if the target is a bad player that let's themselves be killed by it.
Along with the flamer and maybe small laser, LRM's are one of the least effective weapons in the game.

[Zalmun]

Here's a post from my friend from my player organization, who was recently banned by PGI from posting here:

Quote

chronojam, on 12 Sept 2014 - 4:08 PM, said:

Anybody feel like crossposting to MWO for me?

Quote

After reading what the community had to say in the thread, I'm open to playing a part in this. But, the 80% nonsense has to go away and the idea of having a sole representative has to go away. #saveMWO was able to show the value in bringing in new players, bitter vets, the competitive crews, and the unaffiliated players like HomelessBill.

Unfortunately, at the time, PGI did not recognize that value. I worry that they still do not recognize that value. And, cynically, if they truly believe there is a large group that seeks only to destroy the game then they are perhaps intentionally setting it up to fail by banking on that dissent and thereby betting against their own community by insisting on this 80% metric instead of seeing the value of our proposals.

We had several successful townhall meetings, with concerns drawn from the MWO forums, offsite fan forums, and unit pages. Pointing to any disorganization on the first day of this sudden proposal from Russ as a sign that it's somehow without merit, more than one year after dismissing the representative front that was able to reach consensus on a wide variety of topics, is more than a little dishonest.

If it's harder to get those (often banned) founders, clan members, and casual players to feel like it's going to be worth it this time around, that's not the fault of those players.

I'd like to reiterate the plea to unban prominent voices that were banned for only being outspoken and critical of the decisions PGI has made over the course of MWO's lifetime.

In particular, my unit teammate Chronojam's recent ban for being critical of PGI is stifling a reasonable and honest voice with a great deal of experience with this community. He also keeps the discussion going about MWO among Word of Lowtax refugees at a point when most of our group has essentially given up on MWO. He obviously has some bit of hope of seeing PGI redeem themselves, but has been effectively silenced right before this sudden willingness for open dialogue became apparent.

Please don't let spite and bitterness silence the voices that try to keep PGI honest and open about their actions and dialogue.