1017 replies to this topic

[Willie Sauerland]

StalaggtIKE, on 01 January 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

Get your thoughts together next time.

This would have been a better image for you since it is more accurate to your posting style:

[DocBach]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

ECM was put in to basically balance a single chassis boating streaks and I have stated before this was a very wrong reason to implement it. There are so many mechanics which are broken in this game, PGIGP has had a hard time fixing them. I do hope they get some of these issues fixed as well.

You don't see an issue which changes the mechanics of the game so much just to negate one chassis? Yes, Streak missiles and LRM's needed changes to them individually for balance-sake. But introducing a piece of equipment with no weakness other than the same piece of equipment stacked isn't a very good way to do it, which we're in agreement of. ECM is largely homogenizing the player base into the same builds, as the only way to be effectively countered like you put is to bring more of it than your enemy.

[Willie Sauerland]

DocBach, on 01 January 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

You don't see an issue which changes the mechanics of the game so much just to negate one chassis? Yes, Streak missiles and LRM's needed changes to them individually for balance-sake. But introducing a piece of equipment with no weakness other than the same piece of equipment stacked isn't a very good way to do it, which we're in agreement of. ECM is largely homogenizing the player base into the same builds, as the only way to be effectively countered like you put is to bring more of it than your enemy.

But it does have weaknesses. Many have been pointed out in this thread already. However, yes, I think it was wrong to implement ECM in its original (and current) form just to nerf one chassis. This does not mean I think it is overpowered since I know it can be beaten.

Also, I can't wait for knockdowns to be added back into the game. A flat-laying ECM mech is an easily destroyed mech...

In other words, we are playing a game which is not finished and is missing some very key components. I don't think ECM is worth all the whining we are seeing now.

[DocBach]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

But it does have weaknesses. Many have been pointed out in this thread already. However, yes, I think it was wrong to implement ECM in its original (and current) form just to nerf one chassis. This does not mean I think it is overpowered since I know it can be beaten.

Also, I can't wait for knockdowns to be added back into the game. A flat-laying ECM mech is an easily destroyed mech...

In other words, we are playing a game which is not finished and is missing some very key components. I don't think ECM is worth all the whining we are seeing now.

What is ECM's weakness besides the fact that it can only be put on to four chassis? The only weakness I see there is at some point people trying to maximize skill trees in those chassis is they will have to play something else only for the time it takes to get those skill points and Master the ECM capable variant.

It is true that this game is in beta and unfinished, but it is also true that the developers have gone on record saying that this system is working as intended - if the player base hopes to see the system that the majority say is unbalanced and ruining the fun of this game, the developers need to see a vocal majority expressing their displeasure with the system and hopefully have something done to change it.

[Willie Sauerland]

DocBach, on 01 January 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

What is ECM's weakness besides the fact that it can only be put on to four chassis? The only weakness I see there is at some point people trying to maximize skill trees in those chassis is they will have to play something else only for the time it takes to get those skill points and Master the ECM capable variant.

It is true that this game is in beta and unfinished, but it is also true that the developers have gone on record saying that this system is working as intended - if the player base hopes to see the system that the majority say is unbalanced and ruining the fun of this game, the developers need to see a vocal majority expressing their displeasure with the system and hopefully have something done to change it.

Your first paragraph is similar to all the light pilots who believe they have skills because they can kill anything because of the effects of netcode, lack of knockdown, and various other things (thankfully, jump jets have been somewhat fixed). Yet, once these things are fixed, there will be many light pilots crying. ECM is beatable and many methods have already been stated in this thread. In fact, kill the ECM mech and a lot of times, the other team will fall apart because their plan requires that ability. ECM does not render the team invincible.

However, some things need to be reimplemented (like knockdowns) and some things need to be tweaked. And, as much as I hate to say it, some people need to learn to adapt.

Yes, by all means, let the devs know you are unsatisfied with a mechanic or implementation. However, this is a troll thread. It started as a troll thread and will end as a troll thread. However, I temper that statement with a simple fact: this game is not finished and we do not know what is still on the road map which means the implemented mechanic might be working exactly as intended given what is to come in the future. It doesn't mean there won't be tweaking and changes or growing pains for that matter.

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 01 January 2013 - 04:08 PM.

[DocBach]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

Your first paragraph is similar to all the light pilots who believe they have skills because they can kill anything because of the effects of netcode, lack of knockdown, and various other things (thankfully, jump jets have been somewhat fixed). Yet, once these things are fixed, there will be many light pilots crying. ECM is beatable and many methods have already been stated in this thread. In fact, kill the ECM mech and a lot of times, the other team will fall apart because their plan requires that ability. ECM does not render the team invincible.

Saying ECM is beatable by destroying the 'Mech carrying doesn't demonstrate a weakness if a team can use as many chassis as they wish with the ECM. There is no downside for taking one of the ECM chassis, at all. Saying that something can be countered by destroying it is obvious. The fact that ECM protects the ability of several weapon systems from killing it effectively is part of the problem.

Of course you can beat it by killing it, but what counters ECM beyond that?

[Araara]

I can't believe someone just used the "destroy the mech, that's the counter" weakness argument.

Seriously? So I guess according to that logic, if one mech was to carry a super ray of doom that did 9999 damage per second with 1 heat, 1 ton, 1 crit slot and had a beam duration of 90 seconds, it would be balanced.

Because the mech carrying it can be destroyed.


As much as I like reading heated debates about ECM, you people have GOT to stop using that silly argument lol

[StalaggtIKE]

DocBach, on 01 January 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

Saying ECM is beatable by destroying the 'Mech carrying doesn't demonstrate a weakness if a team can use as many chassis as they wish with the ECM. There is no downside for taking one of the ECM chassis, at all. Saying that something can be countered by destroying it is obvious. The fact that ECM protects the ability of several weapon systems from killing it effectively is part of the problem.

Of course you can beat it by killing it, but what counters ECM beyond that?

That's all you're going to get. Some speak as if ECM lowers the user's armor or maneuverability. Or, even better skill level. In my RVN-3L, you're lucky to TAG me long enough to get a LRM lock, let alone dumb fire them.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 01 January 2013 - 04:35 PM.

[Willie Sauerland]

DocBach, on 01 January 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

Saying ECM is beatable by destroying the 'Mech carrying doesn't demonstrate a weakness if a team can use as many chassis as they wish with the ECM. There is no downside for taking one of the ECM chassis, at all. Saying that something can be countered by destroying it is obvious. The fact that ECM protects the ability of several weapon systems from killing it effectively is part of the problem.

Of course you can beat it by killing it, but what counters ECM beyond that?

ECCM.
TAG.
Eyeballs.

By all means, carry it. If you can't figure out how to beat it, then you might as well join it. Isn't that how the phrase goes?

As for me, I shall continue to not use ECM. I don't need it and do fine enough without it. I guess USMC Iceman was correct. ECM implementation was like putting an IQ test on this game. Obviously, some didn't study...

[Robdillard]

I actually tried EVE online recently. Enjoyed the heck out of it.

[DocBach]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

ECCM.
TAG.
Eyeballs.

By all means, carry it. If you can't figure out how to beat it, then you might as well join it. Isn't that how the phrase goes?

As for me, I shall continue to not use ECM. I don't need it and do fine enough without it. I guess USMC Iceman was correct. ECM implementation was like putting an IQ test on this game. Obviously, some didn't study...

Is that suppose to be a pass at my IQ? Are you resorting to personal attacks because I believe that the way PGI chose to implement a piece of equipment has made this game un-fun, obsoleting several roles from their vaunted role warfare? I don't use any of the weapon systems affected by ECM, and I've played in thermal vision pretty much exclusively since I got into closed beta back in May -- my problem with ECM is not that I can't adapt or thrive in it, it is that in order to do so people are forced to play very constrained roles.

ECM did little to change my individual play style. I use direct fire weapons to shoot the center torso as cleanly as I can to destroy a center torso and move on to the next. I don't need a red box or a damage readout to do that. What it has affected though, is my friends who have different playstyles as me who don't feel like playing the game as I do. Because there is so many different systems, they should be able to pick a weapon and feel like they are contributing to the fight instead of having a piece of equipment block out half of their weapons, an equipment thats only counter is to "blow it up."

These friends are beginning to leave this game in droves for other games. We use to have several drops full with eight players dropping into MWO - in the last month we're lucky to have eight players on MWO total.

Edited by DocBach, 01 January 2013 - 04:48 PM.

[AlexWildeagle]

StalaggtIKE, on 31 December 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

Or maybe..., bare with me, they just adapted. You know like using cover, ams, or shooting back. I agree LRM took very little skill to use, however adding something that takes less skill isn't a fix. ECM is just a band-aid. Instead require LRM to need direct LOS for lock. The recent Artemis fix was a good move by PGI. Make ECM only an EM killer, not a stealth tool.


Anything can be strategic if you are willing to put forth the effort. The inclusion of ECM did not miraculously create strategy within MWO. Dumbing down gaming mechanics however does kill strategic innovation. A tool that neutralize as many tools, with little downside does that. There is no reason to not always carry ECM other than the fact that you are unable to on every chassis.


Would this mean you don't have much experience with it, thus lacking the ability to formulate an informed opinion? Besides if you're playing so many games without ECM, then you should be still experiencing this "frozen in terror from LRM" scenario you described above.

You do realize your guilty of what your blaming me for. Just adapt to ECM, many others have.
And I've been dealing with the LRM issue since mid CB. There is no freezing, y'all make me laugh. Easy mode LRM group one "learn to use cover newb" easy mode LRM group two "don't be frozen behind cover"
You get it both ways without ECM. You stay in cover and die to thier frontline fighters or take on their frontline fighters and die to LRM rain. You can't do both, there is no such thing as brawling under cover....except ECM. So the choice is clear, ECM makes the game more like BT/any other mechwarrior game or get completely get away from the whole lore altogether and make it missile dominated. ECM is overpowered as compared to BT/Mechwarrior universe but so are the missiles in this game.

[DocBach]

AlexWildeagle, on 01 January 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

ECM is overpowered as compared to BT/Mechwarrior universe but so are the missiles in this game.

This is the major problem - PGI didn't fix things individually, it fixed them with a piece of equipment with no real counter beyond more ECM. Missiles need to be fixed individually, rather than fixed by another piece of unbalanced equipment.

[Willie Sauerland]

This was originally in response to a post, but since I wound up going on a small rant of my own, I removed it as I did not want to direct my rant toward the undeserving poster...

Unfortunately, if you read the bulk of the whining and crying posts, ECM is nigh unbeatable. Overpowered. A null-signature device. An invincibility shield. God mode. And others.

Killing the mech is an obvious way to beat it. People are disregarding the other weaknesses because it boils down into a "learn to play", "Why should I have to change my preferred fighting style because of 1 silly piece of equipment" and "I want my easy button back!" arguments.

ECM has a weakness, it only has a 180 meter bubble. It does have an incorrect implementation due to wanting to nerf the effects of LRMs and SSRM boating chassis, however PGIGP created their own problem there by ignoring how streaks and LRMs actually work. It provides LRM protection within this 180m bubble by scrambling any radar signature any mechs within that bubble have. True, this is not properly implemented, but it was done to balance the LRM issues - though, had these been properly implemented this solution would not have been needed. The same is true for the streaks.

If our LRMs were truly indirect fire and not semi-guided, this would have been a lot easier. Then the semi-guided could have been introduced and a LRM ammo option would have been born. The Artemis IV system is pretty accurate for how it is designed though it shouldn't tighten the spread of the missiles, only allow for more to hit. It is supposed to be able to be blocked via ECM.

However, I digress. PGIGP created the problem they are now facing. Crying and whining in Beta is pointless. You don't like ECM, then wait a couple of patches. PGIGP is constantly tweaking things (even if it isn't in the patch notes). We don't necessarily know what is on the road map and what they have in mind to balance ECM better. I assure you, the developers are quite aware of the feelings of the vocal minority (and yes, these forums constitute a very small portion of the user base).

To scream "I want it now or I'm gonna quit!" is pointless and I think our community is better off without you. I have enough of this from my 6 year old at home, I don't need to hear it in my entertainment venue either.

Good riddance I say.

[Willie Sauerland]

DocBach, on 01 January 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

Is that suppose to be a pass at my IQ? Are you resorting to personal attacks because I believe that the way PGI chose to implement a piece of equipment has made this game un-fun, obsoleting several roles from their vaunted role warfare? I don't use any of the weapon systems affected by ECM, and I've played in thermal vision pretty much exclusively since I got into closed beta back in May -- my problem with ECM is not that I can't adapt or thrive in it, it is that in order to do so people are forced to play very constrained roles.

Not at all. I found the quote amusing and very applicable to a couple of others posting in this thread. However, adaptation is necessary and those refusing to do it will find themselves going the way of the dodo. In this sense, the IQ quote is quite appropriate. I apologize for offending you with its inclusion in my response to you. It was not directed toward you and I should have saved it for another post.

People are not constrained in their roles at all. If players feel pigeon-holed it is most likely because there isn't sufficient training for new players, something I have also lamented in this thread. I have yet to find a role which has been obsoleted. In fact, I think I have defended several such roles already in this thread and then have been told I am stupid, an *****, or just flat out ********.

It is a sad fact that in this thread, people will twist what is said trying to make others believe what has been said really is saying something else. And yes, it is a challenge, but it is a winnable challenge and I find it both exciting and fun. I do not have a problem with people having different opinions, but to argue for the sake of argument and trying to twist words to frustrate and troll is not an exchange of differing opinions, but working with the intelligence challenged.

[wintercold]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

This was originally in response to a post, but since I wound up going on a small rant of my own, I removed it as I did not want to direct my rant toward the undeserving poster...

Unfortunately, if you read the bulk of the whining and crying posts, ECM is nigh unbeatable. Overpowered. A null-signature device. An invincibility shield. God mode. And others.

Killing the mech is an obvious way to beat it. People are disregarding the other weaknesses because it boils down into a "learn to play", "Why should I have to change my preferred fighting style because of 1 silly piece of equipment" and "I want my easy button back!" arguments.

ECM has a weakness, it only has a 180 meter bubble. It does have an incorrect implementation due to wanting to nerf the effects of LRMs and SSRM boating chassis, however PGIGP created their own problem there by ignoring how streaks and LRMs actually work. It provides LRM protection within this 180m bubble by scrambling any radar signature any mechs within that bubble have. True, this is not properly implemented, but it was done to balance the LRM issues - though, had these been properly implemented this solution would not have been needed. The same is true for the streaks.

If our LRMs were truly indirect fire and not semi-guided, this would have been a lot easier. Then the semi-guided could have been introduced and a LRM ammo option would have been born. The Artemis IV system is pretty accurate for how it is designed though it shouldn't tighten the spread of the missiles, only allow for more to hit. It is supposed to be able to be blocked via ECM.

However, I digress. PGIGP created the problem they are now facing. Crying and whining in Beta is pointless. You don't like ECM, then wait a couple of patches. PGIGP is constantly tweaking things (even if it isn't in the patch notes). We don't necessarily know what is on the road map and what they have in mind to balance ECM better. I assure you, the developers are quite aware of the feelings of the vocal minority (and yes, these forums constitute a very small portion of the user base).

To scream "I want it now or I'm gonna quit!" is pointless and I think our community is better off without you. I have enough of this from my 6 year old at home, I don't need to hear it in my entertainment venue either.

Good riddance I say.

Most rational argument after 15 pages.

You sir, are made of win.

[DocBach]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

This was originally in response to a post, but since I wound up going on a small rant of my own, I removed it as I did not want to direct my rant toward the undeserving poster...

Unfortunately, if you read the bulk of the whining and crying posts, ECM is nigh unbeatable. Overpowered. A null-signature device. An invincibility shield. God mode. And others.

Killing the mech is an obvious way to beat it. People are disregarding the other weaknesses because it boils down into a "learn to play", "Why should I have to change my preferred fighting style because of 1 silly piece of equipment" and "I want my easy button back!" arguments.

ECM has a weakness, it only has a 180 meter bubble. It does have an incorrect implementation due to wanting to nerf the effects of LRMs and SSRM boating chassis, however PGIGP created their own problem there by ignoring how streaks and LRMs actually work. It provides LRM protection within this 180m bubble by scrambling any radar signature any mechs within that bubble have. True, this is not properly implemented, but it was done to balance the LRM issues - though, had these been properly implemented this solution would not have been needed. The same is true for the streaks.

If our LRMs were truly indirect fire and not semi-guided, this would have been a lot easier. Then the semi-guided could have been introduced and a LRM ammo option would have been born. The Artemis IV system is pretty accurate for how it is designed though it shouldn't tighten the spread of the missiles, only allow for more to hit. It is supposed to be able to be blocked via ECM.

However, I digress. PGIGP created the problem they are now facing. Crying and whining in Beta is pointless. You don't like ECM, then wait a couple of patches. PGIGP is constantly tweaking things (even if it isn't in the patch notes). We don't necessarily know what is on the road map and what they have in mind to balance ECM better. I assure you, the developers are quite aware of the feelings of the vocal minority (and yes, these forums constitute a very small portion of the user base).

To scream "I want it now or I'm gonna quit!" is pointless and I think our community is better off without you. I have enough of this from my 6 year old at home, I don't need to hear it in my entertainment venue either.

Good riddance I say.

Reading this post I think that we're in agreement to a lot of this subject; that ECM is not a substitute for invulnerability, that it is a remedy for the symptom of missiles being unbalanced, that PGI hopefully recognizes that there is problems with their system and are working to change them, and that positive constructive posts will probably go further than chicken little end-of-the-world nerf posts.

Edited by DocBach, 01 January 2013 - 05:16 PM.

[DeaconW]

Tolkien, on 01 January 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

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.

Thx for taking this data. It confirms what I (and many others, including yourself!) have been saying..ECM superiority is the primary match decider right now. I feel bad tho'...my degree is in applied math but I was too lazy to collect the data on my own matches and analyze it...

[Tolkien]

I'm cross posting this from the current ECM feedback thread so people can see some of the numerical effects of ECM now that it has been out for several weeks and the meta game has had a chance to evolve to counter it. This is also data taken more than a week after the TAG range boost patch so that is factored in too and is now helping to counter ECM:

The simple question is - is ECM overpowered enough that having 1 more or less than the other team is enough to predict the outcome of the match. After all if the whiners would shut up and just counter the ECM it would hardly matter and they would beat the other team just as often as not right?

Well, let's see what the numbers say:

Methodology: I dropped into PUG games exclusively with 1 friend on skype - he helped me count up ECM and TAG instances during the games.

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

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. If you think that this is the right way for a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment to be balanced, please stop using my air, there are other more deserving people who need to breathe.

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 - 05:54 PM.

[Tolkien]

DeaconW, on 01 January 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

Thx for taking this data. It confirms what I (and many others, including yourself!) have been saying..ECM superiority is the primary match decider right now. I feel bad tho'...my degree is in applied math but I was too lazy to collect the data on my own matches and analyze it...

Oh you crazy mathamagicians - always letting those with the engineering degrees get our hands dirty eh?

(In all seriousness if you could look over the source document I am using I would appreciate it - I've never been particularly strong in stats and I was more or less turning the crank with that. It looked sane, but I didn't check against Papoulious or any other respected texts.)

Edited by Tolkien, 01 January 2013 - 05:43 PM.