88 replies to this topic

[Lupus Aurelius]

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.

Edited by Niko Snow, 16 December 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Lefty Lucy]

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.

[Anastasius]

You gotta love internet lawyers.

[Lefty Lucy]

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?

[shintakie]

TL;DR version.

Does PGI still need work on their communication issues, yes or no?

[Arclight]

Good communication is always appreciated. They don't have to explain squat though.

[Torqueware]

shintakie, on 15 December 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

TL;DR version.

Does PGI still need work on their communication issues, yes or no?

Yes, but so does everyone. It should be a MORAL OBLIGATION to be as clear as humanly possible when communicating.

[Naotaka]

Or...they collect data, collect forum responses, collate that and formulate their opinion, a response and possible fixes to the game.

...without reacting with the same knee-jerk break-neck speed some of the players do after a couple of games?

Go on then: State I am a hopeless romantic Legendary Founder.
(or a mature individual that doesn't emo and rage the second there is a setback)

[shintakie]

Naotaka, on 15 December 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Or...they collect data, collect forum responses, collate that and formulate their opinion, a response and possible fixes to the game.

...without reacting with the same knee-jerk break-neck speed some of the players do after a couple of games?

Go on then: State I am a hopeless romantic Legendary Founder.
(or a mature individual that doesn't emo and rage the second there is a setback)

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

[Tennex]

i think the forums don't feel listened to do we'd our concerns to be acknowledged. Seems they are ignoring the issue

[Blark]

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.

And we all know that could take a while.. a long while..a very very long while.

Meanwhile it's take as many streak loaded ecm lights as you can (in smaller groups anyways), it's r-tarted and exceptionally boring.
I love(ed) mwo, but playing raven all the time got so boring that I'm taking a brake until this is sorted out.

[Daiichidoku]

a free game

yet i paid for it

i will only be satisfired when each individual at PGI and IGP flys me to their moms for a nice home cooked meal

Jordan Weisman approves of this post, he told me so

that is all.

[Felicitatem Parco]

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.

[Wingbreaker]

It's good to know Paul has an Alot too.

[Secundus]

I want to know if I can expect the Devs to have a wide stance if I encounter them in a Minneapolis airport bathroom.

[Ricama]

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?

Maybe to share the hard data? Maybe to give some indication that this is a testing phase in more than just name? Silence speaks volumes, and right now it's saying PGI is trying to get the best of both worlds: the 'shut up and give me your money' of a released product, and the ability to fundamentally alter the game content on a whim of beta.

[SpiralRazor]

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?

Because they show little ability in interpreting the data they pull....Aside from which, how do you know what they pull or how its processed?


You take to much on faith.

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.

Lost a lot of respect for you here PP.. ...sad, sad white knighting.


I made a post about the system before it was released, and Paul responds, "yeesh, i didnt work on ECM, Ill check in on it."(paraphased)

It resulted in one minor nerf before the actual release

and then Paul goes on the interview and says its fine..

Yeah, thats a problem.

Edited by SpiralRazor, 15 December 2012 - 12:48 PM.

[Zero Neutral]

It was stated that additional systems/modules will be added to the warfare system in order to combat ECM and also provide new options... I don't see any issue. They added a new system... it currently doesn't have all of its' counters added to the game... sooo what's the issue?

The philosophy was already stated. The devs want to add a really cool warfare system with disruptions, possibly UAVs for scouting, and who knows what else... this is just one step down that route.

They think that ECM is working correctly because it fits in to their overall vision. We do not know all of the systems that will be added because it is generally not a good idea to tell the playerbase about IDEAS that might not make it in to the game, because there will be much complaining if a favored idea cannot or will not be implemented.

[Belorion]

The DEV side of the equation is not where I see a lack of professional behavior.

[Zero Neutral]

shintakie, on 15 December 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

TL;DR version.

Does PGI still need work on their communication issues, yes or no?

How much more communication could they provide??? I feel as if some people missed a few communications... i.e. how many people are complaining about the visuals of the game but are totally unaware that DirectX11 has been disabled... this information was from Closed Beta and seems to have been removed from the patch notes forum.

If the game was not progressing in any way, then I would be worried... but it is.

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.

I concur... That Information Warfare Dev Blog clearly stated that there would be a robust electronic warfare system... So far we have 1 part of it... There does not need to be a philosophical discussion every time there is an addition to the game imo, especially when there has already been a Dev Blog illustrating future plans for that system.

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