repete, on 17 December 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:
One of the things I worry about after reading the PCGamer press release or whatever that was called, is if PGI has the ability to admit that it can get things wrong some times.
Perhaps I'm just forgetting some [Ask the Devs, answers from Garth, statements from PGI employees] where, other that bugs, they have ever stated anything like:
Yeah. We made a mistake on X
...Can anyone remind me if there has been something like this that I have simply forgotten?
repete, on 17 December 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:
Right. Caught up on four days of ECM discussion.
The only problem I have which is larger than some of the issues ECM faces is PGI's apparent, and to-date, lack of acknowledging any of the concerns raised within this thread.
I wish rather than stating things like ...working as intended... they simply said We're looking at it / working on it (Which is how Garth answered the question when asked in NGNG #54 as to PGI's thoughts on the state of ECM). But hey. Perhaps it is ...working as intended... and PGI is looking at their stats and saying Yup. That's what we want. O_o
i believe it is urgent that people reflect on a core assumption being made here. the assumption that the article posted on the 14th was from an interview at that time, instead of from just before the ecm announcement(which in turn was before ecm went live, and yes, there were some hot claims before it went live).
the pcgamer mag version was based on information three or so months before the magazines release.
it's not a stretch to expect the discussion in the 14ths article was held back until the conquest was announced to the public here. which would make his comments in respect to a very different amount of argument to what has happened since.
i too find it difficult to give the benefit of the doubt, but as that was how they handled the prior pcgamer content, it is not outside the realm of reasonable possibility.
this may not sway the opinions on the seemingly empty space for comments on it *now*, but were i a betting fellow, i would largely be wagering there have been at least some interesting talks and meetings about the subject, and what if anything to actually say in response.
we are not entitled to getting that response, though it may generally be viewed as a good practice. many would certainly also set upon any response critically, no matter the content.(in much the same way, for all we know much of threads like these could be printed out unread for use as toilet paper, but i do not believe that to be the case either. they may troll quite a bit, but the devs as individuals are not even close to that bad. if even one or two points get read and lead to a new insight for them, than 99/100 pages that did not were still worthwhile, and by and large the evidence supports they DO read them. bryan seems to enjoy liking funny commentary about some of his past statements being slightly inaccurate lately, for example)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abivard, on 17 December 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:
I hate ECM so much. I have an elite CPLT-A1 and an elite Jenner-D as the only two mechs that I own. Both feel pretty much worthless since the introduction of ECM.
I keep seeing that basic statement in 80% of anti-ECM spam.
i see a poster, a poster who just made up a number on the spot, and who cannot actually back it up. stop sniping at people. you are new. you are new by your join date. while this doesn't invalidate your opinions, it does present you as someone who hasn't seen firsthand several months of closed tweaking, balancing and discussion, and therefore is denied the benefit of that experience.
i also see that this fellow wished to skate by on dog ate my homework when trying to back up claims regarding lrm viability through self tag use, by presenting a logic fragment consisting of at least three units with at least two tag systems.
while i will defend to the death this fellows rights to present his opinions, perspectives and experiences, i will not defend his claims as fact if he continues to believe that such tactics with regards to evidence will fly, and cannot defend the repetition of those claims as fact without the evidence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
continuing on. yes lrms can be fired without lock. lock is the whole cloth mechanic. the devs wish to respect canon. logically either they took lock on for lrms from some prior mechwarrior titles, but failed to accept the whole kit and caboodle of implementation around such a whole cloth system, or they reinvented it themselves, and it was not well fleshed out with regards to future tech impacts.
it's rather like buffing a flamer directly instead of adding the ability to set wooded areas on fire(causing effects similar to the caldera crater on caustic relative to surrounding areas). one is canon and buffs the system. the other is.. well.. unlikely to accomplish anything. flamer mechanics will need to be looked at with an eye towards the heat system, if heat penalties will ever be done, clan dhs, INFERNO MISSILES, etc. not necessarily pell melled for the nonce. there must be a plan. one does not proceed to begin building a house if they know they cannot finish, sort of thing.
the issue with direct fire accuracy is related to this logic(excepting lagshooting/netcode issues, it's too high canonically and leaves no room for quite a lot of tech that would by and large affect only direct fire accuracy not missiles, lb10x or pulse lasers, which are treated differently canonically). with every targeting enhancement being either broken(enhanced zoom anyone?) or focused on fiddling with lock time and accuracy for two weapon system, suddenly blackballing exactly that with a new setup is another left fielder. several months of pre open getting lrms wrangled out and ams working, and tag/narc more or less working. artemis patch has a trajectory bug using arcs from early closed beta for ALL missiles artemis or no, and then a nerf, buff, buff. you likely only caught the tail of that train.
but all of this is only hinting at the points brought up piecemeal elsewhere. some of the issues are not ecm itself, but things that were broken, unfinished or off kilter. ecm helped put those things in stark contrast, but that they are broken and made more glaring by ecm isn't ecms' fault. nevertheless, salt in a wound, is salt in a wound. it isn't making those issues better or marginalizing them.
even the random map rotator and the uneven design of some of the maps(caustics cover to open sightline ratio is an outlier) amplifies some issues, but is not ecm in and of itself being the issue.
some of us are actually noting that along with the other comments, some things are broken for what they are, some things are broken for what the prevent as a future option, and some things are only broken in relation to one another.
you do not aim for balance for it's own sake, you aim for balance as a place you can manually introduce carefully crafted imbalance to create interplay/gameplay. statistical analysis is a good tool, but only as good as the understanding of what actually drives the events generating those statistics. the feedback therefore is vital, even if it is completely off base, as the human factor and the ability for large volumes of users to simply be wrong and operate from the basis of that wrong understanding may drive the game in practice.
in case you were wondering, prior to open i predominantly alternated light mechs and assaults.
with the open wipe, my first chassis was a cat-a1 to fill assigned duties as long range support and some then not quite workable srm6 tries, devolving into streaks for data collation to prove that the third dimension(ie jj use) had more impact with salvo fire than chain streaking or circle running. did that until i could pick up my first atlas variant by selling the catapult, then proceeded to grind out two more atlases outright. role filling testing and more left two of those variants well above master level on exp. still have the rs and d-dc while mulling getting the k just to finish them off(and continuing to debate which i favor more, ecm has made this tougher still). meantime i've rebought and resold a cat-a1 after doing some testing with a streak+lrm setup, some hunchbacks, some awesomes, and the recently acquired cicada. presently i have the cicada 3m, atlas rs, atlas d-dc and a bit over ten million cbills. i have in the past and continue to dislike lrms, but have been assigned that role from time to time, and feel as i felt that they had a role and purpose. i continue to hate streaks generally, and lament that the only chassis with all its hardpoints in the arms is the a1 with only missiles, and that the catapult is the only arm heavy chassis with jumpets above a light mech.. i favor energy over ballistics(so highlander and cataphract.. eh), and long and medium range over short. i continue to lament ppc's not both having a min range with the ability to add/remove a bit of tech to remove the min range available at some cost or detriment. i find pulse lasers other than smalls on light mechs are garbage vs normal lasers and the inverse is sometimes true for bigger machines.
deep down i feel that a pair of light mechs moving 120+ and dueling, when it is settled not by the ability to pilot and compensate for netcode and lagshield with energy weapons, but rather by streak attrition makes me sad, but i live with it. i also miss knockdown, which was why i went assaults first after open, hoping by the time i was done with them collision and knockdown would be back online as i went to fast movers again(moving to a laser only cicada without collision is necessitating using bad habits to counter bad habits that would not fly were they present still no streaks there). so for your stats, there ya go. does that make me 20% or 80%?
i don't hate it[ecm], i find it amplifies poor or broken elements elsewhere, while being off kilter in a few places in and off itself which may be easy fixes. i also find it largely non canonical, and note that many of the other issues it exacerbates are not simple fix things.
----------------------------------------------
most common new user use of a light mech, not limited to, but including devs in the pirahna hunt: run out and try to speedball brawl with the enemy team well in advance of friendlies.
ecm as a canceller for things in it's aoe bubble works enhancing that style of play by retarding countermechanics.
ecm as a shield to hide the light mech acting as a spotter trying to *see* the enemy without being seen unless the enemy is the next best thing to on top of them, fine that's great.this enhances team based infowar, in a role that requires thought.
ecm disrupting munitions passing through it's bubble at things beyond the ecm field. okay fine, hard to communicate to an end user. perhaps if things like locked lrms took noticeably strange flight paths when passing through the bubble to give a visual hint of what was going on and about where.
the ball tactic is a problem of the aoe and hide effect being too strong. it's one thing to see an ecm haze over thataway and wander up to find a pile of mechs or just the ecm carrier when you round to visual range. it's another to get a balls to the wall train under shield steamrolling through the open. the current system promotes leg humping under the shield rather than advanced scouting.
but really which teamwork do you want to focus on rewarding? the next best thing to suicide lights, or the guys actually doing something purely to play up team based information warfare. the team oriented scout needs to hide himself with any advantage possible to serve that end, while being out alone from the pack and is not going to be on top of the enemy while scouting, unless something goes very badly. this is the fellow who in a premade group wouldn't be getting triangles and locks right away, but rather calling visual sightings at range and approximate grid and numbers.
whereas the brawler light/suicide squirrel is already out of balance due to other issues. adding yet another layer to them simply rewards poor play, and helps create the complication of ewar all the time.
i would say that ecm wasn't well considered for time of release, because no system added to the game operates in a bubble, but some snarky fellow will point out that if it's mounted on an ecm carrier, it does.
which avenue to follow? the prior games with the franchise name? tabletop from which they were spawned (and the makers of which put input int the prior realtime games)? reality?
------------------
the economics changes. who remembers all the time at millions per match of income, then next to an ants **** in the desert per match income levels, but it was months of them collecting data to tune things. then what do we get? they pull it all because it isn't quite workin'? worse there's still guaranteed income and the high side income is still marginalized(and the effect of premium bonus on income is reduced due to smaller values to multiply. ditto for founder/hero bonuses). exp on trials and free income. the suicide problem will not be solved.
knockdown collision for lights? do you remember that firsthand at all? think it was before your time. hard to fix stuff gets pulled if it can be, that's becoming the modus operandi. if they could pull netcode they probably would. in fairness sake at least pulling collisions and the netcode bit were so they could be redone from the ground up, sadly we cannot make such a claim for economics as no statement to such effect has been made. must we, after going open beta in the face of extensive claims they weren't ready for first impressions and after months of fiddling and data collection, have this offlined for a rewrite as well?
nevertheless it in no way changes or invalidates issues from ecm or raised around ecm.
p.s. i've retrodden this more or less three times. i can still read it as overtly hostile, and i apologize for that. it is not intended as such. best to imagine it being said in lecture by whichever science or mathematics teacher you've had who drones on a bit too long at times.
edit for: largely,fixing div " etc format markers that appeared all over the place for some reason.
Edited by steelblueskies, 17 December 2012 - 07:43 PM.
40
