88 replies to this topic

[Zero Neutral]

ALL PLEASE READ HERE:

Information Warfare Dev Blog

If someone can read this and still complain about the ONE ASPECT of this system that is currently added... then whatever... that person... I don't even.

Look at how many other options that they plan to add for either deceiving, receiving, disrupting, acquiring... target information... c'mon now people.

In fact, ECM is required in this system because eventually we will be able to lay down FALSE TARGETING NODES... The only way to prevent being SPOOFED is to use ECM to counter the spoof...

This is a drop in a pond... of many drops... of which we only have one drop... if you catch my drift.

Edited by Zero Neutral, 15 December 2012 - 01:12 PM.

[Belorion]

Zero Neutral, on 15 December 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

ALL PLEASE READ HERE:

Information Warfare Dev Blog

Zero is right. This has been planned the whole time, and there has been a lot of information ahead of time. If you are surprised by ECM its because you weren't paying attention.

The fact that it is only four mechs was something the community asked for many times. In fact they started with 5 and pulled one because the community felt it negated some of what made the Raven special.

[Wolfways]

Lupus Aurelius, on 15 December 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

If you plan on taking specialized Mech into a match, plan wisely and have alternate weapon systems that will help you with mid to long-range combat.

Why does that sound like "We're making things more difficult for mid to long-range players. You're better off just playing a CQ brawler."

[Belorion]

Wolfways, on 15 December 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

Why does that sound like "We're making things more difficult for mid to long-range players. You're better off just playing a CQ brawler."

Once again, TAG is getting lengthened, and ecm has never touched lasers or ballistics. Which long range game are you playing?

Edited by Belorion, 15 December 2012 - 01:14 PM.

[hammerreborn]

shintakie, on 15 December 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

The issue is that, again, we're gettin information from some place other than the main site.

Cause the multiple posts stating TAG is the hard counter to ECM and then going on about buffing it to be a better counter = no statements by devs regarding ECM.

Once again people complaining to complain.

Next we'll cry that Paul said somewhere that he wants to nerf streaks to IGN or something and they're be a huge outrage even though those weapon details have been posted for weeks.

[Zero Neutral]

Belorion, on 15 December 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Once again, TAG is getting lengthened, and ecm has never touched lasers or ballistics. Which long range game are you playing?

I don't think that people can be reasoned with once they have made up their minds...

Information Warfare Dev Blog

That's the last time I'm posting it in this thread for people to learn up.

Edited by Zero Neutral, 15 December 2012 - 01:17 PM.

[The Basilisk]

I voted NO

Why, you may ask.

Its very easy to comprehend. In fact, its so easy that even three years old children comprehend it mostly after the first explaination or after they got their behinds a good old fashioned smak.

You see its not that I'm not interested in what the devs think on our feedback or what they think how well thinks work out.
It's just that I for my part would imediately delete all stuff of the guy who demands any form of answer from me espetialy if he's doing it in such an inapropiate manner.

Edited by The Basilisk, 15 December 2012 - 01:29 PM.

[Wolfways]

Belorion, on 15 December 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Once again, TAG is getting lengthened,

Oh good, so LRM's are only losing 250m range and the ability to indirect fire, and only have to remove one laser to do it.

Quote

and ecm has never touched lasers or ballistics.

lol. Well when i'm playing my ERPPC K2 and the triangles above my teammates vanish you won't mind if i just shoot you will you.

Quote

Which long range game are you playing?

Apparently none.

[WolvesX]

Lefty Lucy, on 15 December 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

If they fix net code, there will be zero problems with ECM, because you'll actually be able to hit lights without lock-on weapons.

THIS MAN SPEAKS THE TRUTH!

[Zero Neutral]

Wolfways, on 15 December 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Oh good, so LRM's are only losing 250m range and the ability to indirect fire, and only have to remove one laser to do it.


lol. Well when i'm playing my ERPPC K2 and the triangles above my teammates vanish you won't mind if i just shoot you will you.


Apparently none.

You can still see your teammates visually at all times regardless of ECM... however they may not appear on your radar. Therefore, if you shoot a teammate it is because you are not very intelligent.

LRM will still have indirect fire because your teammates can TAG for you with their light mechs (or other,) and then you can fire your LRM at max range.

TL:DR - spoken like a true PUG... you don't always need to rely on yourself alone... you can keep your laser and let others TAG for you... don't be afraid of teammates.

Edited by Zero Neutral, 15 December 2012 - 01:41 PM.

[Corbon Zackery]

How did they get the idea that TAG was the counter for ECM its a light bulb that blinks the ECM off?

It make me wonder if the dev team play battletech and is making a battletech game or there just making thing up as they go along.

[Belorion]

You don't have to be the one taging the enemy, therefor you are not losing indirect fire.

[Vernius Ix]

Prosperity Park, on 15 December 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

I believe the Developers have been doing a fine job at explaining their stances on issues like this considering the circumstances - it's a new feature, it's been in the game for less than 2 weeks, they (the developers) are the only ones who know the actual drop-frequency/ratio of ECM and non-ECM Mechs and their respective win/loss rates as a function of team make-up, there are changes incoming to the game (as they have mentioned) such as increasing TAG to full Sensor-Range and implementing weapons/modules that affect ECM, and there will undoubtably be more information coming every week.

For a game under development, they're doing a good-enough job of informing us of their intentions, in my opinion. Just my opinion, though. I don't feel like I'm lacking any ECM-related information right now. In fact, I have been expecting ECM and electronic sensor warfare to be a MAJOR part in the general, everyday gameplay of MWO ever since I read the Dev Blogs ages ago, especially Dev Blogs 2 and 3.

PP you should not be posting anything in these forums. Your a MOD, your opinions should be kept to yourself. Even if we could take anything you said as your actual opinion and not just IGP/PGI boot licking, you should still remain above the fray.


Yeah...

[Wolfways]

Zero Neutral, on 15 December 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

You can still see your teammates visually at all times regardless of ECM... however they may not appear on your radar. Therefore, if you shoot a teammate it is because you are not very intelligent.

Yes i can see them, but i can also see the enemy (otherwise i wouldn't be deciding whether to fire). If there are no blue or red triangles there's no way to tell friend from enemy.

Quote

LRM will still have indirect fire because your teammates can TAG for you with their light mechs (or other,) and then you can fire your LRM at max range.

TL:DR - spoken like a true PUG... you don't always need to rely on yourself alone... you can keep your laser and let others TAG for you... don't be afraid of teammates.

Yes i'm 100% pug, and in about 99% of matches i can't rely on my team. Very few players use TAG unless they are using LRM's themselves, or occasionally SRM users have them. Strangely, it's rare to see a light mech with TAG, and they never keep a target for long anyway because it makes them an easier target.

[MrPenguin]

Lefty Lucy, on 15 December 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Also: why should they come on the forums to explain their stance to a bunch of blow-hards who think their individual experiences are more valid data than actual numbers pulled from the servers?

This is exactly why, despite my constant disagreement with you, that I think you're one of the better posters here.

Edited by MrPenguin, 15 December 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[stjobe]

Wolfways, on 15 December 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

Yes i can see them, but i can also see the enemy (otherwise i wouldn't be deciding whether to fire). If there are no blue or red triangles there's no way to tell friend from enemy.

That's the boldest acknowledgement of having absolutely zero situational awareness I've ever read on a forum. Kudos for that, not many people are so ready to confess they're not very good at the game.

Incidentally, it also explains a lot of the troubles people seem to have with ECM. Thanks, it makes me see things in a different light.

Edited by stjobe, 15 December 2012 - 02:14 PM.

[Leetskeet]

Lefty Lucy, on 15 December 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

If they fix net code, there will be zero problems with ECM, because you'll actually be able to hit lights without lock-on weapons.

Half true, because you have to remember that the D-DC mounts ECM too, so assuming that they eventualy fix the netcode(which I doubt), you can still stack a team with 6 ECM Atlases and hurr durr to free wins like people are already doing.

[Lefty Lucy]

Leetskeet, on 15 December 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Half true, because you have to remember that the D-DC mounts ECM too, so assuming that they eventualy fix the netcode(which I doubt), you can still stack a team with 6 ECM Atlases and hurr durr to free wins like people are already doing.

Atlases are ridiculously easy to TAG and hit with direct-fire weapons. Only reason why DDC atlases are so competitive is because they can bring ECM and 3 streaks to dominate scouts that get too brave.

Belorion, on 15 December 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Once again, TAG is getting lengthened, and ecm has never touched lasers or ballistics. Which long range game are you playing?

Yep, one of the only matches we lost in 8 mans today is because we got out-sniped.

[MustrumRidcully]

I think they should explain their stances, time permitting. We don't have to like them, but I am genuinely interested in seeing their perspective and reasoning of things. Maybe it helps me see flaws in my own reasoning or perception, maybe I still see some in theirs. But it can only increase the quality of discussion if we understand more of each other's perception on the situation.

[Coolant]

Lupus Aurelius, on 15 December 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

This is not a pro ECM / con ECM discussion.

So, in the 14th Dec 2012 article on PCGamer, Paul was quoted on the issue of ECM.

"I also asked Inouye if Piranha is happy with the recent implementation of the ECM (electronic counter-measures) system to MWO, which allows some mechs to equip radar and lock-on jamming equipment. "The effect [of ECM] is working as intended and forces players to play a lot smarter," he said. "Specialized Mechs still have their place on the battlefield but they are going to need the assistance of their teammates to succeed. If you plan on taking specialized Mech into a match, plan wisely and have alternate weapon systems that will help you with mid to long-range combat. People are thinking we need to severely 'nerf' the ECM. This is not the case at all. There is already 1 counter-ECM item in the game (TAG), and likely there will be a couple more involving modules and weapon effects.""

This was after 10 days of forum posts, both pro and con, on ECMs, the variance between MWO's implementation of them and Battletech rules / previous Mechwarrior games, it's effect on game play, etc. These posts total out at hundreds of pages.

And yet, in these forum, the Command Chair, anywhere on the MWO site, there was absolutely no response, pro or con, refuting or agreeing with POVs, not even so much as "we heard you". Nothing, zilch, zero, nada. Instead, the only comments were those in an outside source, and that 1 comment marginalized ALL input on the issue.

This is not a pro ECM / con ECM discussion.

What this discussion is what is, and what is not, professional behavior, between the Devs and the beta players/testers. We, in closed beta, had been asked to give input to help in the development of this game, and as open beta testers, this has not changed, it has merely increased the amount of input available. As such, it is suppose to be a "good faith" relationship. In any "good faith" relationship, direct and honest responses are necessary.

"In philosophy, the concept of good faith (Latin: bona fides, or bona fide for "in good faith") denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action; the opposed concepts are bad faith, mala fides (duplicity) and perfidy (pretense). In law, bona fides denotes the mental and moral states of honesty and conviction regarding either the truth or the falsity of a proposition, or of a body of opinion; likewise regarding either the rectitude or the depravity of a line of conduct."

"In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract."

We, the "beta testers" should be able to expect that the Devs will act "in good faith" when providing input on game changes and new items, and that they communicate directly with us on highly controversial issues. Just on this one issue alone, in 10 days, there has been more input, both pro and con, than any other issue other than the originally proposed open beta date. Regardless of that input being what they might want to hear or not, in good faith, they should be communicating directly with us and addressing those concerns, and if their POV is at odds with the community, they extend the effort to explain that POV to us.

We take the time to explain our POV to them, what we need to have is for them, in good faith, do the same for us.

P.S. - This is not a pro ECM / con ECM discussion.

They don't have to reveal diddly squat...