1017 replies to this topic

[Willie Sauerland]

ICEFANG13, on 01 January 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Can you give me a reason why I should not bring ECM on a mech that can carry it? Please don't ignore the question because you can't give an answer, and keep saying L2P L2P L2P!

Because it forces you to play in a mech you don't like? I think that is one big disadvantage right there.

Because it will cause you to be focus-fired? The first mech to go is the ECM mech. The second is the one who can do the most damage.

Because ECM isn't invincible? You would still have to use cover to avoid LRMs (I know - the ones that can only be "intelligent fired").

Because it only takes one mech to counter you?

Because you aren't even sure of what you are doing since you have problems adapting?

Those are only some of the disadvantages I can think of - however, your mileage may vary.

[Noth]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

{Begin Sarcasm}

You're right! Obviously it isn't ECM itself which is overpowered, it is teamwork!

This game was obviously meant to be played by a single person lone-wolfing it and PGI has completely screwed up your play style.

{End Sarcasm}

Find yourself some friends, get on a team speak server (you'll find them in my sig), and learn to play.

You do realize that this mindset would kill the game right? There is a reason why the most successful ftp games make sure you don't have to join a team to get an enjoyable experience and also work to keep the pug game balanced.

[mouzerius]

read thru this treat and there is some thing i noticed and that is the "ECM is bad" group and the "ECM is good" group.
reading thru here i can conclude;
- the ECM haters do not have or don`t like the ecm cabable mechs.

- the ECM lovers do have those mechs and play them exclusively.

so my conclusion is that this is a threat that strated with a personal complain about a pice of equipment, sayed the ECM, and
ended in a i love, i hate it scream show.
so the board mod can lock this down because it became a useless threat after page 2.

P.S
i see this on a lot of complaint threats, so can we for the love of this game stop doing that and become more constructive
of ower postings.
and that go`s for all mindles comments.
1 - if you got a complaint gif it a good sollid base for why it is no good
2 - if you see a treat or post that dos nothing to give good information to help the creators of MW;O than please revine
from reacting on it and let it blead to death.

[steelblueskies]

goodness.

itwally, i can only say ye need to get more sourcebooks, imparticular the master sets.

they are the only places to find a fully featured breakdown for specific subsensors and interactions, especially for double blind.

i posted some tables from them in some of my recent posts, inside spoilers to save space.

the rules are bloody extensive, and aside from the chance to detect at given ranges and the amount various ew systems modified it on a per sensor/enhanced sensor suite, it would and has translated directly.

technically if a short range roll used the values given with a +6 dc for basic mech radar, or ir sensor, as well as bap for a unit under ecm, it would still mean they would almost ALWAYS be detected in short range, which would generally be around 9 hexes x30 meters per hex = 270 meters minimum. as that is outside 180 meter 6 hex ecm disruption zone, that's a fair bit more margin according to the rules to detect and fire on an ecm mech, even with basic sensors, compared to 180-200. but we already know they went lazy man and tried to make it angel ecm+ as an anti streak system, so keeping tt range sane went out the window. there was no other sane way to explain the 180-200 range window when porting it over other than that streaks have a 270m range, and are erroneously benefiting from tag. also explains the loss of self benefit from tag as opposed to just losing info sharing. even worse i've already bothered to establish info sharing was rule inherent with the 2 tons of sensors in the cockpit of every mech. the rules indicate that that two tons counts as 1 ton of comms equipment for that purpose and the purpose of logical voice comms. they also indicate that is why it must be in the same section as the sensors suites. if one wanted more comms equipment for some of the optional rules like using it as ecm/eccm or for initiative purposes one would need a lot of it all together in a torso section. that a command console can do ecm/eccm/ghost target generation as well is related to the other pair of points, in the optional rules.

of course thats double blind. in standard play you know where the enemy is by default, bap only has it's stealth/shutdown detection range for determining bonuses or ability to target a unit at all, and ecm is even more powerful, relatively speaking.

but like i said, it's all there , laid out pretty clearly, and they flubbed it.

i mean they ported the 24 hex/720 meter mech standard sensor radar range. they got it spot on.

they made thermals show targets out to 900 meters, which matches the hex range for mech standard ir sensor range. but for some reason one cannot thermal lock??

no magscan/ magnetic anomaly detector, and i can only assume the 3 hex seismic sensor range is being treated as "hearing a mech stomp nearby, instead of being properly part of the mech targeting and tracking suite.

bap granting radar type scans out to 1080 meters according to bap scan range in hexes? nope, here bap only grants 25% increase to standard 720 leaving you at standard ir sensor range. need a sensor module to hit the full standard range for bap.

it's so bloody close to right, and tweaked off by degrees for seemingly no sensible reason.

clearly we must be using double blind rules. yet we keep taking hits in strange places. generally getting the sensors all in, and tied up so only one sweep at a time can be used per mech(say by making each type of sensor tie to a different vision mode), then working out whether to keep a chance of detection system, or adjust the ranges according to chance at each range could have ported directly.

sadly, well, we all know what we have instead.

---------------------------------

Gremlich Johns, on 01 January 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

ECM = electronic countermeasures
TAG = laser target designator = light
ECM does not = light therefore ECM has no effect on TAG laser

If it did, we would not be able to fire a laser at an ECM mech and damage it.

What this does equal is that the developers need to read more before they implement something.

don't make us beat you with a rulebook.

the tag designator is no more the tag systems core than your mouse is the computer doing all the fancy stuff.

and yes i'm obliiquely aware how it does/may/can work in reality. i also realize how many problems we have from inheriting the simplifications, technical limitations due to limited cpu power, etc from the mechwarrior #x line. some 1992 mechanics needed to go the way of the dodo when the horsepower to actually figure range to target v obstructions for multiple targets in realtime, with modifiers became plausible.

we do not need to cater ever more to the real world crowd, who also believe the skills in aiming like one might with a bow, or a handgun, or a javelin are the same skills needed to direct a semi autonomous armored robotic weapons platforms' targeting and tracking system to adjust for heat and recoil, movement, and other effects, and place a round from a given system in the general vicinity of something picked up out the viewscreen, much less on sensors.

you are directing the machine as to what to shoot, not doing it for it.

adding a visual tracer to help coordinate visual target assignment with the correct element in the sensor picture is handy, but it's actually the addons to the fire control system, and targeting and tracking computers that make up part of the mechs DI that matter most, and the ability to share the enhanced effort the mech directs to detailed tracking of a single target, and of sharing that target info over the commnet with other mechs, that does the improved tracking bit for accuracy. each mech talks to it's own weapons systems. each mech tracks placement of those weapon systems output via it's comprehensive standard sensor suite, and when sensor blind loses accuracy with all weapons. that it's using extra detailed sensor information passed on from another mechs sensors instead of it's own matters not at all. this is also why the spotter was supposed to have to stay still and not fire other weapons while spotting for indirect, or else lose tohit for the mech doing the indirect fire attack.
it's also why the tag computer equipment mitigated that loss of bonus. more hardware to handle the extra effort( and one the spotting mech di know which sensor blob to track it can use those extra resources just for that target for a bit. sensors being 360 and all).

in a related note, you know the laser weapons are actually invisible beams with secondary laser emitters fused in as visible light tracers right?

bleh. it takes going across several books and quite a few special equipment rules, but this really is how it ultimately breaks down in this universe, only becoming somewhat nebulous when hitting the infantry equipment level.
and reality can go futz itself. i'll eat the "for general balance reasons once other options have been tried" before i'll eat the "reality argument".

[Gremlich Johns]

Scar, on 01 January 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

Wrong.

Basically, TAG it's a laser designator, which reflection can be jammed by the optical jamming systems, like Shtora.

I submit that at the time the canon capabilities were written, the writers had no clue what they were conceiving. ECM just does this against this, but not how or through what systems/devices - one catch-all suite of awesome. Also, Shtora is a sensor package linked to systems which defend, disrupt or deceive, not negate.(It can also target designate to about 2-5 degree arc of the illuminating device) For lack of a better term, "they" chose "jammer" which many people do not understand.

jam: 7. Electronics To interfere with or prevent the clear reception of (broadcast signals) by electronic means.

nothing there says negate.

I do want to point out, again, that when ECM is on, nobody should be able to use effectively what the ECM suite is supposed to affect - either side and especially the ECM mech. Scouts should use it to sneak, peek, and retreat, not swarm and destroy. That's tech abuse. yeah, yeah, it is a capability in the game so let's use it, but at what cost. Nobody buying non-ECM mechs, swarms of LRM lights keeping their distance and pounding the opposition, or swarms of Steiner Atlas Scout Lances?

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 01 January 2013 - 01:21 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

Because it forces you to play in a mech you don't like? I think that is one big disadvantage right there.

Because it will cause you to be focus-fired? The first mech to go is the ECM mech. The second is the one who can do the most damage.

Because ECM isn't invincible? You would still have to use cover to avoid LRMs (I know - the ones that can only be "intelligent fired").

Because it only takes one mech to counter you?

Because you aren't even sure of what you are doing since you have problems adapting?

Those are only some of the disadvantages I can think of - however, your mileage may vary.

Why would I not bring ECM on a mech that can carry it means that the argument that you cannot play your favorite mech is not an answer. Many players play an ECM mech, because you need to if you want to be competitive.

Why are ECM mechs focused first? Because its the best? Counter logic there. ECM isn't OP, but its so good that everyone will shoot you first.

ECM makes you very immune to LRMs, I don't even know how this is a disadvantage, sure sometimes you have to run to cover like everyone else does all the time.

Its like you are arguing that ECM is OP. Clearly everything you said indicates it is.

[mouzerius]

dos any one read what i just wrote
no........clearly.

[Gremlich Johns]

mouzerius, on 01 January 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

dos any one read what i just wrote
no........clearly.

I did

[Willie Sauerland]

StalaggtIKE, on 01 January 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

I've concluded that voicing your opinion is only feedback if everyone agrees, else it's either whining or complaining.

That is absolutely rich coming from you since you haven't stopped whining...

Noth, on 01 January 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

No where do they say joining an organized team is necessary. In fact their actions prove that they want the pug game to be balanced and fun for the pugger. Puggers are what keep games going.

Quote

MechWarrior Online puts MechWarriors into a first-person, team-based, tactical battlefield where the victors swim in the spoils of war and are rewarded with the almighty C-Bill (in-game currency).

Each team has 8 players and the two teams are pitted in combat in an enclosed battlefield. Communication is key, be it in-game chat, integrated C3, or a third party VOIP solution, keeping in constant communication with your teammates will drastically increase your team’s chances of success.

The various weight classes of BattleMechs help create their own evolving roles on the battlefield. Fast moving scouts can feed target and tactical information back to the main battle group and the team commander. This information allows the support and assault role pilots to decide where to put their resources to work. Long-range fire support and heavy hitting assault class Mechs will use this invaluable information to finish the job at hand. It is up to you, the pilot, to customize your BattleMech’s loadout and electronic systems to fulfill the role you want to take.

The emphasis is mine. I think it clearly shows this is a team-based game and organization will help significantly.

Oh, I almost forgot the -->Link<--

ltwally, on 01 January 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

The "adapt" argument, again.

How much bad does one have to adapt to before we can stop being told we must adapt? How much not-fun does a game have to hit before we can say "enough", for you?

If you don't mind ECM being horridly overpowered and breaking game balance, fine.

I didn't see anyone tell you that you have to stop playing. Please, stop telling us that we have to adapt. It's obnoxious, pointless and counter-productive to a worthwhile debate.

You're still here?

[mouzerius]

Gremlich Johns, on 01 January 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

I did

thanks gremlich

[Willie Sauerland]

ltwally, on 01 January 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

If joining a team was necessary, then PGI should have made that apparent up front.

http://mwomercs.com/game

Quote

If joining a team was required, there should much better systems for it inside the game itself.

Integerated C3?

Quote

If PGI is not interested in making PUG games viable and enjoyable, then why make it possible at all?

They are working on this. ELO match-making will help. Go through the suggestions forum, you will find I'm all about helping the newer players and I think they don't have a fair chance.
Are you telling me that because you don't care if PUG games are balanced, that they shouldn't be?

Quote

Telling me that I'm playing the game as it is presented, without going to the extra (sometimes insanely PITA) effort of finding and joining some clan or what-not, and that I'm doing it wrong is... well... can you even hear yourself?

Nope - can't hear myself over all the crying and whining I hear coming from you and others in this thread.

[Noth]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

That is absolutely rich coming from you since you haven't stopped whining...





The emphasis is mine. I think it clearly shows this is a team-based game and organization will help significantly.

Oh, I almost forgot the -->Link<--

Oh you mean like in WoT, LoL, DoTA, Smite, and numerous other successful team based games? Of course organization will help, no one is debating that. That quote does not say being on an organized team is necessary for a balanced fun time. In fact, PGI's actions are showing that they are wanting the pug game to be balanced and as fun as possible. Separating premade and solo queue (granting you can have a 4 man premade, but that will have less effect when 12 mans come). Then there was a statement in beta where they flat out said their biggest audience would be solo puggers and were going to make sure that experience is enjoyable and fair. Oh and then there is the complete lack of actual C3 integration for pugs (you have to already be in a group to use it) I'll take more recent actions and statements over the dev blogs at this point as thing change in development.

You have to cater to puggers for the game to live. Most players even in team games play solo

Edited by Noth, 01 January 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[mouzerius]

<-- starts to hand out ear plugs and handkerchiefs to all who needs them.
and can we now shut up and get on with the normal things like making this a good game.

[ICEFANG13]

ICEFANG13, on 01 January 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

Why would I not bring ECM on a mech that can carry it means that the argument that you cannot play your favorite mech is not an answer. Many players play an ECM mech, because you need to if you want to be competitive.

Why are ECM mechs focused first? Because its the best? Counter logic there. ECM isn't OP, but its so good that everyone will shoot you first.

ECM makes you very immune to LRMs, I don't even know how this is a disadvantage, sure sometimes you have to run to cover like everyone else does all the time.

Its like you are arguing that ECM is OP. Clearly everything you said indicates it is.

Willie are you just gonna ignore that you were wrong, or what? I just want to make sure you understand that no one has named a disadvantage for ECM yet.

[Willie Sauerland]

Noth, on 01 January 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

You do realize that this mindset would kill the game right? There is a reason why the most successful ftp games make sure you don't have to join a team to get an enjoyable experience and also work to keep the pug game balanced.

Actually, no.

Integrated VOIP or use of a third party VOIP (check the sig for a link) will help anybody play - and even *gasp* [/i]learn[/i]. This is not a single player game and people need to move beyond that fact.

mouzerius, on 01 January 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

- the ECM lovers do have those mechs and play them exclusively.

Wrong. I do not own a mech capable of carrying ECM.

At present I own:

1 Atlas (founders)
3 Stalkers (eliting them)
2 Cataphracts
1 Catapult.
1 Centurion

Sorry to ruin your assumption.

[Noth]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

Actually, no.

Integrated VOIP or use of a third party VOIP (check the sig for a link) will help anybody play - and even *gasp* [/i]learn[/i]. This is not a single player game and people need to move beyond that fact.

Again, yes it will. Devs have realized this. It is the reason why team based games balance the pug experience and even cater to it. LoL, WoT, Smite, TF2, DoTA. Heck most of the most popular and largest Esport team based games make sure the pug experience is good and smooth with as fair and balanced play as they can get. If any of them had the philosophy of join an organized team or don't have fun or a balanced game they would not be nearly as successful at all. Most players are puggers and most of those will never join an organized group. This is the nature of the current game market.

Edited by Noth, 01 January 2013 - 01:44 PM.

[Oppresor]

Detrimus, on 30 December 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

Trolls be trollin'

Considering how Hawken and MWO are completely different games in every way imagineable, I can't understand how one could drive you to the other?

I play both simultaneously BECAUSE they are so unlike one another. Admittedly I play hawken 5% of the time and MWO 95% simply because of how broken Hawken is.

Go ahead and play that game where hackers, abusers and P2W players will go 30/0 in every match they play.

Have fun.

Please remember that I haven't actually played Hawken, but I have seen it in action. I'm not saying that it is better than MWO, I mean no way could it ever be simply because it's not MechWarrior; however some of the effects that I witnessed were stunning. The one that comes to mind was the way that the units showed damage; one of them actually disintegrated in a burning pile, I mean you saw it fall apart and burn from within; very cool.

[Willie Sauerland]

ICEFANG13, on 01 January 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

Why would I not bring ECM on a mech that can carry it means that the argument that you cannot play your favorite mech is not an answer. Many players play an ECM mech, because you need to if you want to be competitive.

LMAO. Tell that to the team I ripped with a 6 PPC stalker (5 kills, 3 assists). They even had the "over-powered ECM LRM mechs"...

Quote

Why are ECM mechs focused first? Because its the best? Counter logic there. ECM isn't OP, but its so good that everyone will shoot you first.

No, it certainly isn't the best, but it is a hassle. But then again, it is supposed to be by design, isn't it...

Quote

ECM makes you very immune to LRMs, I don't even know how this is a disadvantage, sure sometimes you have to run to cover like everyone else does all the time.

Oh, I forgot - you are of the mindset that LRMs cannot be dumb-fired. As I have said in the past, I can't help you on this matter as it only shows how inexperienced you are with this game...

Quote

Its like you are arguing that ECM is OP. Clearly everything you said indicates it is.

It is like you are not understanding anything and are wanting to try the same type of strawman arguments that your buddy StalaggtIKE uses when he can't think of a proper argument either. Ah well, there is no helping some...

ICEFANG13, on 01 January 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

Willie are you just gonna ignore that you were wrong, or what? I just want to make sure you understand that no one has named a disadvantage for ECM yet.

I'm sorry, I do have a life outside of this game and this forum. Perhaps you should go find yourself one instead of crying here.

[Willie Sauerland]

Noth, on 01 January 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

Again, yes it will. Devs have realized this. It is the reason why team based games balance the pug experience and even cater to it. LoL, WoT, Smite, TF2, DoTA. Heck most of the most popular and largest Esport team based games make sure the pug experience is good and smooth with as fair and balanced play as they can get. If any of them had the philosophy of join an organized team or don't have fun or a balanced game they would not be nearly as successful at all. Most players are puggers and most of those will never join an organized group. This is the nature of the current game market.

I'm not saying you must join an organized team outside the scope of this game. I am saying that even a PUG team can be organized using tools at their disposal (including, but not limited to, such things as the C3 integrated VOIP, freely available PUG teamspeak servers found in my sig, and even the horrible chat system)...

In other words, PUGs have to organize themselves within the match. Nothing wrong there. If, however, they do not play as a team, they will lose - whether ECM is around or not and whether the game is perfectly balanced or not...

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 01 January 2013 - 01:51 PM.

[Tolkien]

Allright, I've run six more games tonight with my friend who helps me count ECM and TAG and have five new data points to add. The last game was a wash since we had a stalker disconnect and had a jerk on the team friendly fire an Atlas right in the back tearing off the armor - he then disconnected, so I decided it wasn't a good data point.


Our side always has 1 ECM since I piloted a trollmando 2D or Craven 3L for the duration of the tests.

The hypothesis is that the team with more ECMs will tend to win more often.

Out of curiosity I also counted TAG systems on each team to get a gage of how smart of an idea taking LRMs into a PUG match is. This was done this last thursday so this is with the upgraded TAG having been out for several days:.
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:3, TAG 1, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:3, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: No
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 2, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Inconclusive(1ECM each)
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:0, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: No
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:0, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:3, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:0, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 1, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Inconclusive(2ECM each)
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:0, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: No
Us: ECM 3, TAG 0, Them: ECM:3, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Inconclusive(3ECM each)
Us: ECM 3, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes
Latest 5 games: Done 1 January 2013
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Inconclusive(1ECM each)
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 1, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Inconclusive(1ECM each)
Us: ECM 4, TAG 1, Them: ECM:2, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 3, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes


Evaluation: 5 matches had equal numbers of ECM and are marked inconclusive, leaving 13 matches. Of these 3 matches went against the hypothesis while 10 were for it. This is a small sample set but using the methods for binary outcomes on page 10 of this document (dealing with binary outcomes in a finite population) http://classes.soe.u...nter03/h5m3.pdf I calculate the 1 sigma uncertainty at 1.52 matches.

This means that the outcomes could be wrong by up to 2.30 sigmas before the hypothesis would be neutralized/wrong.

Assuming a normal distribution etc. this gives erf(2.30/sqrt(2))= 0.979

I believe this means that even with this small sample set I can state that ECM is a match decider with 97.9% certainty. The other way of stating this outcome is that you are 3.3x more likely to win the match if your side has a larger number of ECMs on your team. I expect this latter number to reduce with a larger data set, but so far ECM seems to be the best way of predicting the outcome of a match - I would gladly bet money using this.

I will keep track of more of my matches to tighten these bounds but so far I can state with (97.9%) confidence that the team with more ECMs will tend to win the match, all other factors being equal.

Tag should also not be expected to be there in the vast majority of matches so do not take LRMs expecting a TAG to be around to help unless you take it yourself.

Edited by Tolkien, 01 January 2013 - 05:44 PM.