41 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

I'm honestly not convinced we need a player council. Seems like a waste of time to me. But regardless we needed an ECM poll.

Im not going to worry about what equipment should counter ECM just yet, because if ECM is weakened it obviously doesnt need as many counters. So that will be a followup question for later.
Also other items relating to information warfare, like passive sensor mode, etc... can wait until later. Right now we just need to figure out the community's stance on ECM.

Edited by Khobai, 13 September 2014 - 08:51 AM.

[Livewyr]

Trouble is, it does not necessarily hit on "why."

Some people think LRMs are too strong because they always get hit by them. Some people think they are too weak because they never hit with them, some people think that the indirect is too much.. etc..

[Mothykins]

Scrap this please, we really need an official methodology before we can even attempt to vote. This is very haphazard and not helpful in the slightest, it will just cause more conflict before we can even really get a handle on exactly what it is that IS wrong.

[KamikazeRat]

something should be mentioned about indirect LRMs in general being a problem, which required ECM being so powerful in the first place to counteract them.

So...maybe no lock-on without LOS, TAG, or NARC on target?

Cavale, on 12 September 2014 - 05:29 PM, said:

Scrap this please, we really need an official methodology before we can even attempt to vote. This is very haphazard and not helpful in the slightest, it will just cause more conflict before we can even really get a handle on exactly what it is that IS wrong.

unless PGI states what the offical methodology is, there will never be one, so this is as good as anything

Edited by KamikazeRat, 12 September 2014 - 05:31 PM.

[Mothykins]

KamikazeRat, on 12 September 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

something should be mentioned about indirect LRMs in general being a problem, which required ECM being so powerful in the first place to counteract them.

So...maybe no lock-on without LOS, TAG, or NARC on target?


unless PGI states what the offical methodolgy is, there will never be one, so this is as good as anything

That is a poor attitude to have.

We where told to form a counsel of sorts.

This is not forming a counsel, nor is it actually explaining any reasons behind any of the options. You are already ignoring what the Dev team asked of us. If we don't follow the few baseline rules they laid down for this, they're not going to take it seriously.

This thread is a detriment to any proactive solution.

[Khobai]

Quote

Trouble is, it does not necessarily hit on "why."

Players are free thinking individuals. Ill leave it up to them to decide the why. I dont want to unduly influence anyone to push an agenda, which is exactly what a council would end up doing.

Quote

That is a poor attitude to have.

We where told to form a counsel of sorts.

This is not forming a counsel, nor is it actually explaining any reasons behind any of the options. You are already ignoring what the Dev team asked of us. If we don't follow the few baseline rules they laid down for this, they're not going to take it seriously.

This thread is a detriment to any proactive solution.

Actually we werent told to form a council at all. Russ simply suggested a player council as ONE possible way we could reach a player consensus regarding ECM. I personally dont believe in a council though. I see it as a waste of time as the numerous threads debating who should or shouldnt be on the council have already proven...

Quote

This thread is a detriment to any proactive solution.

And designating a small handful of players to make important decisions for the entire community isnt detrimental? It hasnt worked for other games and it wont work here. A simple poll is the best way. Everyone gets a say and theres no hidden agendas.

Edited by Khobai, 12 September 2014 - 06:02 PM.

[KamikazeRat]

Cavale, on 12 September 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

That is a poor attitude to have.

We where told to form a counsel of sorts.

This is not forming a counsel, nor is it actually explaining any reasons behind any of the options. You are already ignoring what the Dev team asked of us. If we don't follow the few baseline rules they laid down for this, they're not going to take it seriously.

This thread is a detriment to any proactive solution.

my attitude is realistic, right now there is nothing official, so everyone is going to have their own ideas on how to do this. look at any governmental entity that isnt a dictatorship, lots and lots of discussion with very little result... thats what we're looking at. only in this case its a bunch of people on the internet, and we all know how nicely they all play along.

bare minimum this is somewhere for the council to look, why does it have to be "official" for it to be a discussion.

EDIT: i don't really mean to come off as snarky, maybe mildly sarcastic. but my point remains valid, without PGI saying what is "official" nothing will ever be and it will be endless discussion about what is until they do. and thats not even counting talking about ECM. but if this Poll is thought out well enough, and whoever does take lead on it sees it, they can look and go, ok, thats most of it. and refine from there. so why not make it as complete as possible.

Edited by KamikazeRat, 12 September 2014 - 05:46 PM.

[KamikazeRat]

Khobai, on 12 September 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

This would be a possible followup suggestion if the community does indeed think Indirect LRMs are overpowered.

I really feel that this is the heart of what ECM was put in place for originally, LRMageddon, as it was so frequently called, was ended with ECM. i was just saying add it to the poll for the community to vote on, if its overwhelming, it will be considered, if its lackluster or goes the other way, then i guess im wrong.

EDIT: addendum for potential clarification, i don't think indirect LRMs are too "STRONG" i think they are too easy without the hard-counter that is ECM. thus in raising the skill level, which is a common complaint with LRMing in the first place, ECM can be reduced in power to something more balanced, as suggested and decided by the community.

Edited by KamikazeRat, 12 September 2014 - 05:55 PM.

[Khobai]

Ok i added it.

[UrsusMorologus]

I did not vote for any changes, because none of the options reflected my thoughts. Specifically, these things should never be immunity switches, instead they should just be buffs and debuffs that make it harder/easier to do something. Immunities are bad, they break most games.

You see this in some of the pilot modules too.

[KamikazeRat]

Khobai, on 12 September 2014 - 05:58 PM, said:

Ok i added it.

EDIT: cool

Edited by KamikazeRat, 12 September 2014 - 06:22 PM.

[Grey Ghost]

How should Indirect LRMs be weakened (if at all)

Quote

They should have increased spread and reduced tracking

Is that what you meant?

[El Bandito]

I voted just now. Will come back in few hours to see how the poll is going.

[Bhael Fire]

I'm, OK with ECM being EXACTLY the way it is.

Since I don't use ECM and never had a problem dealing with mechs with ECM, my only request is please don't f*ck with my ****.

We might have a problem at that point.

Thanks.

[Khobai]

So far the community seems fairly divided as to whether or not ECM should give stealth to nearby mechs.

Perhaps the AOE stealth should remain, but the effectiveness of the stealth should be decreased? Either by increasing the detection range from 200m to 300m-400m. Or by reducing the size of the AOE from 180m to 100m-150m.

[Gas Guzzler]

Lol the majority is saying ECM should work how it works now.

[JigglyMoobs]

Seems the community response is pretty clear: a clear majority think ECM is just fine as it is.

The only change I would make is that ECM should have some effect on Narc.

Grey Ghost, on 12 September 2014 - 08:37 PM, said:

How should Indirect LRMs be weakened (if at all)

Is that what you meant?

I think there are already sufficient counters to LRM due to the Radar Deprivation module being in game.

The only change I would make is to have ECM affect NARC, which currently has no counter. Maybe ECM should increase lock on time or weaken tracking.

Livewyr, on 12 September 2014 - 05:27 PM, said:

Trouble is, it does not necessarily hit on "why."

Some people think LRMs are too strong because they always get hit by them. Some people think they are too weak because they never hit with them, some people think that the indirect is too much.. etc..

Actually:

Some people think LRMs are too strong because they have not equipped radar deprivation.
Other people think LRMs are too weak because they always use LRM and are frustrated when people hide from them and locks disappear.
The people in between are new to the game and confused.
The rest of us only have a problem with NARC.

Edited by JigglyMoobs, 13 September 2014 - 09:02 AM.

[Stormwolf]

Just make ECM work like it does in the canon, you can even add in those TacOps rules for different functions.

I expect certain things from Guardian ECM, the current implementation is way too far off the mark. It's like having a PPC that fires missiles.

Edited by Stormwolf, 13 September 2014 - 09:04 AM.

[LCCX]

UrsusMorologus, on 12 September 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

Specifically, these things should never be immunity switches, instead they should just be buffs and debuffs that make it harder/easier to do something. Immunities are bad, they break most games.

Hard counters and RPS (rock, paper, scissors) mechanics can be a decent way to balance certain games, but MW:O is not one of them; the numbers involved in a match are too small (only 12 players/mechs per side, no respawn, time-to-kill (TTK) can be extremely short, etc.). This results in substantial team imbalances when the numbers change even a little bit (e.g. 2vs0 ECM, lopsided disconnects, lopsided team coordination, lopsided team mech composition depending on map characteristics).

However, IMHO, the only way for proper community progress to be made is to assume in good faith that a community-directed ECM change will not be the last community-directed change. As such, it is *far* less important that we all agree on any specific "perfect" ECM change as it is that we *must* agree on a mutually agreed upon improvement. The core game is strong enough that few changes could single-handedly, literally, ruin the game. Yes, nerfing ECM at all will necessarily imply a relative buff to LRM boats, and vice versa. However, assuming in good faith that this will not be the last community-directed change, we can agree on an ECM change *and* agree on changing LRMs next.

All of this would be improved substantially if PGI would give the community access to more battle statistics. For example, a 12x12 grid of match win percentages from the most recent 1000 matches with X-axis the number of mechs on the winning team with ECM and the Y-axis the number of mechs on the losing team with ECM. And/or more data like:
http://mwomercs.com/...s-with-science/

----------

Back to considering specifically this poll:
Another way to look at it is not "final changes to propose" but "How strong or weak should ECM be?", with this as a first-step choice before asking and answering the necessary followup questions like "What should counter it?" (e.g. TAG, PPC) and "What restrictions should be placed around it?" (e.g. tonnage/crits cost, limited chassis options).

From this prospective, I'd like ECM to be a bit weaker than it is now. Specifically I'd like only the equipped mech to be "stealthed" (i.e. does not show up on minimap). I also think that increasing target lock and information acquisition time in a bubble is still good. This combination would allow for ECM to still be used in a supporting role vs. LRMs/sniping and for individual scouting without blanketing the whole team with a hard counter.

Does anyone have an argument as to why ECM should be stronger or weaker than I propose *without assuming potential counters or equipment costs/restrictions*?

[LCCX]

JigglyMoobs, on 13 September 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

Seems the community response is pretty clear: a clear majority think ECM is just fine as it is.

49 votes is not even a proper sample of the community. I want to know what the voting looks like after at least 500 votes.