1017 replies to this topic

[Willie Sauerland]

Tolkien, on 01 January 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

snip...

Your post lacks methodology. Were these purely PUG matches? Were voice comms used? Were the exact same mechs used for each match? Were the opponents using the exact same mechs each time? Were premades a part of either team? etc...

Please post the methodology as this would make your tests reproducible and allow others to corroborate your data and findings. As such, this seems to have a lot of independent variables which cannot be so simply statistically analyzed. To analyze them, you must remove as many of them as possible and I am curious how you did that.

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 01 January 2013 - 05:49 PM.

[Tolkien]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

Your post lacks methodology. Were these purely PUG matches? Were voice comms used? Were the exact same mechs used for each match? Were the opponents using the exact same mechs each time? Were premades a part of either team? etc...

Please post the methodology as this would make your tests reproducible and allow others to corroborate your data and findings. As such, this seems to have a lot of independent variables which cannot be so simply statistically analyzed. To analyze them, you must remove as many of them as possible and I am curious how you did that.

I added a note on methodology up top, but it's very straight forward PUG dropping with a friend of mine. Note that I am implying but not claiming that ECM has a causal relationship with match outcome. I have however found (with >97% certainty) that the team with more ECM is more likely to be the winning team.

Edited by Tolkien, 01 January 2013 - 06:00 PM.

[Marcus Tanner]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

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.

No, they'll just be off playing Hawken instead.

I've adapted to ECM. I do my share of damage and get my share of kills. I win a reasonable number of games for a PUG player.

The game is lees fun for me with this ECM. I'll be back when PGI have come to their senses.

[Malavai Fletcher]

I have played 8 mans everynight since it became available,i have never seen 5/6 D-DC,2/3 Raven 3L in a game.

We win nearly all our games i have been in and have usually at most 3 sometimes 4 ECM mechs.

We run mediums and heavies.

I have never come out of a game and thought 'well ****,we lost that because they had more ECM than us'.

One of the problems i see with ECM is it seems to make teams think they can load up on short range weapons and walk upto other teams and flatten them at close range under the magical protection of an ECM bubble,we allways have a giggle at this as we are shooting them in the face with longer ranged weapons.

Thankfully though over the last couple of nights i have seen a few teams bringing a more balanced build to the games,which has made for some very good matches.

[Tolkien]

Malavai Fletcher, on 01 January 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

...
I have never come out of a game and thought 'well ****,we lost that because they had more ECM than us'.
...

That's interesting to hear that the experience is so different for 8v8's - the numbers from PUGs so far are that with >97% confidence the team with ECM is more likely to win.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1682293

The increase in the odds is not known with any certainty so far, but in my testing it's been as wide as 3.3x more likely to win if you have an extra ECM compared to the enemy. No Joke, just what the numbers say.

Granted that MWO is meant to be a team game, I believe that the number of man-games played via pugging is far far higher than the number of man-games played in coordinated 8v8's. Seems to suggest that effort should be put to either give PUGs a lobby to form up and plan, or that the game mechanics should be balanced towards how more players are actually using the game rather than how it would be played if we were doing it the way the authors wanted us to.

Edited by Tolkien, 01 January 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[JustPyro]

Vechs, on 30 December 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

To be more constructive, let me list the things I like about ECM:

+ Counters LRM in most situations
+ Counters SSRM in most situations
+ Let's you sneak around and requires enemies to spot your actual mech, and not a red HUD element

Okay, so those things I like, and if that's all ECM did, I think it'd be pretty balanced. I'd still take it without hesitation on every mech... but... baby steps.

Now the things I really don't like about ECM:

- Disables minimap for players, causes a severe breakdown of orientation and teamwork
- Gives friendly mechs the same null signature / cloak

Okay so these two things really make ECM overpowered. It's not the missile lock countering that makes ECM too powerful.

It's how it completely disrupts... well, everything else.

I would suggest the following changes:

1) While inside an ECM bubble, you still see friendly player HUD elements, and still see their blue arrows on your minimap

2) An ECM mech has the cloak / null signature for himself, but does not give that to friendlies

3) An ECM mech has the missile lock counter for himself, and gives that aspect of ECM to nearby friendlies

4) A single ECM in counter mode can counter any amount of nearby enemy ECM. So you don't have to stack your entire team around the damn thing.

Would ECM still be amazing for 1.5 tons with these changes? Hell yes.

Would I still mindlessly put it on any mech I could? Yep.

Would it be as broken as it currently is? Nope!

There are some pretty good suggestions to start tweaking around.

[Willie Sauerland]

Tolkien, on 01 January 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

I added a note on methodology up top, but it's very straight forward PUG dropping with a friend of mine. Note that I am implying but not claiming that ECM has a causal relationship with match outcome. I have however found (with >97% certainty) that the team with more ECM is more likely to be the winning team.

Since these were purely PUG matches, how do you remove the possibility that the team with more ECM might just also be the team with a 4-man (or even worse, 2 x 4-man) premade on comms and as such you were fighting at an unfair advantage from the start? This particular scenario would seem to imply the ECM really had little to do with the loss and is merely a coincidence.

How many assaults were in the matches? How long did the ECM mechs survive (if they were killed early on, then they would seem to not really have had much bearing on the match outcome)? How coordinated were the teams?

I always question statistics and methodology. I'm not necessarily saying your analysis is wrong, but it does seem to have some significant hurdles to overcome as it does not seem to remove any independent variables. And while you are not claiming causality, people who do not understand statistics and methodology will see it as such even if you are only implying it.

I would submit for consideration that the lay person who would read your post would then climb up on their soap box of nerfdom and scream, "See, he has proved it!"...

To me, this says your statistical analysis is meaningless though certainly true for you during those games. I do believe you had a 97% certainty for your claim as it pertains to you and your experiences but I'm not sure you can make any other claims beyond that which you are certainly trying to imply. Understand, I'm not claiming sample size issues here, though a larger sample would have certainly been preferable with more people included to remove the concerns of the independent variables. It seems to me that your methodology has invalidated your results on a larger scale even if they were analyzed in a mathematically correct fashion.

Niko Snow, on 01 January 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

Fe Fi Fo Fum....I smell duplicate threads.

And lo' now they are merged.

Doesn't rhyme.

But thanks.

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 01 January 2013 - 06:33 PM.

[Marcus Tanner]

Niko Snow, on 01 January 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

Fe Fi Fo Fum....I smell duplicate threads.

And lo' now they are merged.

Thumbs up.

---

ECM may have a range of 180m, but calling that a "weakness" makes as much sense as saying that streaks aren't too good because they weight 1.5 tons per launcher. That describes what the thing does, but doesn't show any kind of drawback.

Things don't necessarily need a "weakness" in order to be balanced.

Armor points generate no heat, don't use explosive ammo, don't blow up on their own, can't be critted, take up no crit space... and yet armor points aren't too good. The better something is, the bigger its drawbacks should be. This is true regardless of whether those drawbacks be tonnage, crit space, heat, or something more esoteric like explosive components.

[Marcus Tanner]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

How many assaults were in the matches? How long did the ECM mechs survive (if they were killed early on, then they would seem to not really have had much bearing on the match outcome)? How coordinated were the teams?

[...]

Understand, I'm not claiming sample size issues here, though a larger sample would have certainly been preferable with more people included to remove the concerns of the independent variables. It seems to me that your methodology has invalidated your results on a larger scale even if they were analyzed in a mathematically correct fashion.

You are incorrect. A larger sample size would adequately correct for the independent variables.

Get enough games in, and you'll see premades on both sides with comparable regularity. Same for ECM getting killed off early (or late). The same holds for the coordination of teams. Large sample sizes factor those out.

I'd prefer a larger sample size, but it would have to be quite the anomaly if it turned out that the 10-3 record in favor of ECM is bogus.

If a football team goes 10-3 in a season, it's hard to claim that they`re just lucky.

[Willie Sauerland]

Marcus Tanner, on 01 January 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

Thumbs up.

---

ECM may have a range of 180m, but calling that a "weakness" makes as much sense as saying that streaks aren't too good because they weight 1.5 tons per launcher. That describes what the thing does, but doesn't show any kind of drawback.

Things don't necessarily need a "weakness" in order to be balanced.

Armor points generate no heat, don't use explosive ammo, don't blow up on their own, can't be critted, take up no crit space... and yet armor points aren't too good. The better something is, the bigger its drawbacks should be. This is true regardless of whether those drawbacks be tonnage, crit space, heat, or something more esoteric like explosive components.

Streaks are improperly implemented. The user should get a lock, fire his streaks and then be required to reacquire the lock. There is little drawback from having them as implemented short of ECM. Implementing ECM as a balancing mechanic broke ECM and several other game mechanics.

Had streaks and LRMs been implemented properly, having ECM as it is in game now would not be necessary. However, I do not believe it is overpowered. I believe it only needs an ability to adapt on the side of the player. This does not mean I do not hope the developers will fix these systems. I really do. However, we are still in Beta (even if people refuse to believe it) and I do expect some changes will be coming.

[Willie Sauerland]

Marcus Tanner, on 01 January 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

You are incorrect. A larger sample size would adequately correct for the independent variables.

Get enough games in, and you'll see premades on both sides with comparable regularity. Same for ECM getting killed off early (or late). The same holds for the coordination of teams. Large sample sizes factor those out.

I'd prefer a larger sample size, but it would have to be quite the anomaly if it turned out that the 10-3 record in favor of ECM is bogus.

If a football team goes 10-3 in a season, it's hard to claim that they`re just lucky.

If I am correct, why are you saying I am incorrect? You seem to agree with me and then don't. I'm confused.

As for the 10-3 season, you are talking about a team which has their collective stuff together. They have excellent coaches who have trained them well. Are you implying then that the reason why your statistics seemingly come out the way they do is because MW:O does not properly train its new players? In this I would agree 100%.

Also, one experienced/talented person is enough to anchor a high-school or even collegiate team. Are you implying that one experienced person on the winning team might have been enough to anchor it?

If either of these are true, it would imply the effect with the ECM was coincidental and would have been an independent variable as opposed to the dependent you want to imply it to be.

No, I am afraid the methodology for this claim is flawed and should not be purported as true for the majority of games. Perhaps a second study with a much larger sample size will bear your implication (as you have stated it is not a claim, though it seems to be worded as such) as correct, but perhaps not. I cannot state one way or the other given the methodology (or, really, the lack thereof) used.

[Orion Solitaire]

Noth, on 01 January 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

That is flawed thinking. You should not be forced to group up just because of one system that was added to the game.

It's not flawed thinking...it's sound strategy to increase my fun factor, success and stats. Given the current state of the game mechanics, it is a perfectly valid reaction.

[ltwally]

I've read what the pro-ECM crowd has said. And I've been convinced.

I'll say it again: you were right. ECM is perfectly balanced, and I just need to accept that and move on.

In the spirit of co-operation, I'd like to propose a couple new electronic systems.

Energy Weapons Counter-Warfare (EWCW)
It will be available to 4 mech variants, and function as follows:
The EWCW creates a powerful grounding effect, specifically designed to draw in high-energy effects and safely ground them out. Within its area of effect, any sufficiently large number of non-bound charged particles will be drawn to it. The unit also provides super-conducting wiring which trail to the ground, providing a safe conduit for the particles to ground out.

• 2 slots
  
• 1.5 tonnes
  
• no heat
  
• no ammo
  
• always on
  
• 180m range
  
• friendly units within range have all laser fire drawn to it. The photons from enemy laser fire are converted into electrons, which safely ground out, so long as the carrying mech has at least one leg touching earth or water.

Because I do not want the EWCW to become more powerful than ECM, it can be countered by:

• another EWCW within 180m, or
  
• a Special Ballistic Tool (SBT), which only weighs 1 tonne and never runs out of ammo, but does take take up a ballistic slot and can only negate the EWCW for a couple seconds per hit.

Kinetic Invincibility Super Shield (KISS)

It will available to 4 mech variants, and function as follows.
The KISS realigns the molecules in armour plating, making it all but impervious to fast-moving projectiles. This system is able to effect friendly mechs within range, granting them protection against fast-moving kinetic effects. Ballistic weapons are unable to penetrate armour under the operation of KISS.

• 2 slots
  
• 1.5 tonnes
  
• no heat
  
• no ammo
  
• always on
  
• 180m range
  
• friendly units within range have their armor hardened, rendering the immune to ballistic weapons fire. Such fire harmlessly bounces off.

Because I do not want the KISS to become more powerful than ECM, it can be countered by:

• another KISS within 180m, or
  
• a Armour Weakoning Rocket (AWR), which only weighs 1 tonne and never runs out of ammo, but does take up a missile slot and can only negate the KISS for a couple seconds per hit.

Likewise, as I do not want things to become unbalanced, neither EWCW or KISS will do any of the following:

• effect other electronic equipment
  
• prevent basic sensors from detecting Friend from Foe

I hope you will all forward these suggestions on to the PGI development team. I am sure they will adopt them and put them in-game quickly.

To anyone that says they are over-powered, un-balanced or just plain dumb: Stop whining. Drink the company koolaid, and learn to adapt.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Edited by ltwally, 01 January 2013 - 07:44 PM.

[StalaggtIKE]

ltwally, on 01 January 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

I've read what the pro-ECM crowd has said. And I've been convinced.

I'll say it again: you were right. ECM is perfectly balanced, and I just need to accept that and move on.

In the spirit of co-operation, I'd like to propose a couple new electronic systems.

Energy Weapons Counter-Warfare (EWCW)
It will be available to 4 mech variants, and function as follows:
The EWCW creates a powerful grounding effect, specifically designed to draw in high-energy effects and safely ground them out. Within its area of effect, any sufficiently large number of non-bound charged particles will be drawn to it. The unit also provides super-conducting wiring which trail to the ground, providing a safe conduit for the particles to ground out.

• 2 slots
  
• 1.5 tonnes
  
• no heat
  
• no ammo
  
• always on
  
• 180m range
  
• friendly units within range have all laser fire drawn to it. The photons from enemy laser fire are converted into electrons, which safely ground out, so long as the carrying mech has at least one leg touching earth or water.

Because I do not want the EWCW to become more powerful than ECM, it can be countered by:

• another EWCW within 180m, or
  
• a Special Ballistic Tool (SBT), which only weighs 1 tonne and never runs out of ammo, but does take take up a ballistic slot and can only negate the EWCW for a couple seconds per hit.

Kinetic Invincibility Super Shield (KISS)


It will available to 4 mech variants, and function as follows.
The KISS realigns the molecules in armour plating, making it all but impervious to fast-moving projectiles. This system is able to effect friendly mechs within range, granting them protection against fast-moving kinetic effects. Ballistic weapons are unable to penetrate armour under the operation of KISS.

• 2 slots
  
• 1.5 tonnes
  
• no heat
  
• no ammo
  
• always on
  
• 180m range
  
• friendly units within range have their armor hardened, rendering the immune to ballistic weapons fire. Such fire harmlessly bounces off.

Because I do not want the KISS to become more powerful than ECM, it can be countered by:

• another KISS within 180m, or
  
• a Armour Weakoning Rocket (AWR), which only weighs 1 tonne and never runs out of ammo, but does take up a missile slot and can only negate the KISS for a couple seconds per hit.

Likewise, as I do not want things to become unbalanced, neither EWCW or KISS will do any of the following:

• effect other electronic equipment
  
• prevent basic sensors from detecting Friend from Foe

I hope you will all forward these suggestions on to the PGI development team. I am sure they will adopt them and put them in-game quickly.



To anyone that says they are over-powered, un-balanced or just plain dumb: Stop whining. Drink the company koolaid, and learn to adapt.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

They sound a little weak. Will these techs provide stealth or some other benefits as well?

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 01 January 2013 - 07:47 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

Niko Snow, on 01 January 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

Fe Fi Fo Fum....I smell duplicate threads.

And lo' now they are merged.

You scamp ;-)

[BR0WN_H0RN3T]

I think we just got to wait and trust PGI to do the right thing. I'm sure they want the same thing we all do, which is a great game, free of exploits and an enormous (paying) player base for years to come.

[Big Bad Wulf]

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

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.

Hello Tolkien,

Happy New Year!

Nice Data Collection thank you for taking the time. Unfortunately (you saw this coming didn't you) your data does not show how ECM was the deciding factor in your data.

As I kept on stating inorder for ECM to succeed it needs to be employed properly, I think you would agree with me that just having more ECM does not guarantee's a win.

But I am interested in what you find out that it is really ECM that's the deciding factor and not the one's I posted on another topic (which mostly points to tactical errors on the opposing teams side).

-Marcus

Edited by Marcus Wulf, 02 January 2013 - 12:03 AM.

[gamingogre]

My account is mostly ballistics and lasers, so I didn't see much of a problem at first. My brother quit playing his account early. I have been playing his account this last week and my eyes are opened. His account has a founder catapult. I fully leveled 2 mechs (50ton) with extra xp yet for that founders catapult I am still trying to get my basic skills. I was altering between the catapult and one of the other mechs, so about 1/2 the play time is on the catapult. Clearly the addition of ECM to pug matches has ruined mechs that depend on LRMs. I have played enough now that I am sure ECM is way out of balance.* LRMs are useless for pugging. I get that ECM is fine for 8v8 matches, but all I do is pug. It seems to me that since I started playing late in closed beta til now, this game has gone downhill. Seriously, it just keeps getting worse. I have been playing (on and off) the TT game since it was just a single box set with cardboard standups, so I am a fan who wants to see this game succeed. I with that was what I was seeing.

*Edit: balance with ECM could start with limiting them to one a match, or at the very least, equal number of ECM on each side. I would say 1 in 3 matches I get 0 damage with LRMs. Seriously, this is just wrong.

My solution: ECM should increase lock-on time, not cancel it out entirely. Time to lock should stack. (3 ECM = x4 to lock time) Remove the stealth effect. Keep the blocking of shared targeting. BAP should decrease lock-on time. Keep tag as is, although tag should reduce lock on by one level when target is under ECM.

Edited by gamingogre, 01 January 2013 - 09:17 PM.

[steelblueskies]

ltwally, on 01 January 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

I've read what the pro-ECM crowd has said. And I've been convinced.

I'll say it again: you were right. ECM is perfectly balanced, and I just need to accept that and move on.

In the spirit of co-operation, I'd like to propose a couple new electronic systems.

Energy Weapons Counter-Warfare (EWCW)
It will be available to 4 mech variants, and function as follows:
The EWCW creates a powerful grounding effect, specifically designed to draw in high-energy effects and safely ground them out. Within its area of effect, any sufficiently large number of non-bound charged particles will be drawn to it. The unit also provides super-conducting wiring which trail to the ground, providing a safe conduit for the particles to ground out.

• 2 slots
  
• 1.5 tonnes
  
• no heat
  
• no ammo
  
• always on
  
• 180m range
  
• friendly units within range have all laser fire drawn to it. The photons from enemy laser fire are converted into electrons, which safely ground out, so long as the carrying mech has at least one leg touching earth or water.

Because I do not want the EWCW to become more powerful than ECM, it can be countered by:

• another EWCW within 180m, or
  
• a Special Ballistic Tool (SBT), which only weighs 1 tonne and never runs out of ammo, but does take take up a ballistic slot and can only negate the EWCW for a couple seconds per hit.

Kinetic Invincibility Super Shield (KISS)

It will available to 4 mech variants, and function as follows.
The KISS realigns the molecules in armour plating, making it all but impervious to fast-moving projectiles. This system is able to effect friendly mechs within range, granting them protection against fast-moving kinetic effects. Ballistic weapons are unable to penetrate armour under the operation of KISS.

• 2 slots
  
• 1.5 tonnes
  
• no heat
  
• no ammo
  
• always on
  
• 180m range
  
• friendly units within range have their armor hardened, rendering the immune to ballistic weapons fire. Such fire harmlessly bounces off.

Because I do not want the KISS to become more powerful than ECM, it can be countered by:

• another KISS within 180m, or
  
• a Armour Weakoning Rocket (AWR), which only weighs 1 tonne and never runs out of ammo, but does take up a missile slot and can only negate the KISS for a couple seconds per hit.

Likewise, as I do not want things to become unbalanced, neither EWCW or KISS will do any of the following:

• effect other electronic equipment
  
• prevent basic sensors from detecting Friend from Foe

I hope you will all forward these suggestions on to the PGI development team. I am sure they will adopt them and put them in-game quickly.


To anyone that says they are over-powered, un-balanced or just plain dumb: Stop whining. Drink the company koolaid, and learn to adapt.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

ironically you ewcw system at least in part does exist. arrowIV energy dispersion munitions. creates a cloud of particulates in the region fired upon that screw energy weapons, largely nullifying them.

furthermore, the timelines future also contains the blue shield, basically a magnetic force field that specifically dissipates ppc type weapons on the target running it.


of course both have more drawbacks than your outlined approach. and let us not forget various armors.
stealth armor which works as a new armor type like ferro or std or hardened and has different point/ton allocations.
reflective and reactive armors. etc etc.

just imagine for the lulz if we had the alternate armor types available right now as well.

simple reactive armor with lights would have boned streak v lights as sane.

simple reflective would bone energy.

but ranges are still screwy. a range for std mech radar OR bap of short would need only be a high roll from 2d6, and ecm affects chance of detection vs both the same by adding +6 dc. so ecm functionally, would always be detected out to 9 hexes with bap or std sensors, which means from ecm range(6 hexes or 180 meters) to 9 hexes/270 meters. the cutting down to 180-200 and adding streak disruption shows up exactly what they tried to turn it into. so rolling 2d6 to get 7+ when ecm adds 6 isn't hard. too bad streak range was also 270 eh?
time to make it require a lower point per ton stealth armor, and rename it angel ecm so it fits what it does.

[Tolkien]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

If I am correct, why are you saying I am incorrect? You seem to agree with me and then don't. I'm confused.

As for the 10-3 season, you are talking about a team which has their collective stuff together. They have excellent coaches who have trained them well. Are you implying then that the reason why your statistics seemingly come out the way they do is because MW:O does not properly train its new players? In this I would agree 100%.

Also, one experienced/talented person is enough to anchor a high-school or even collegiate team. Are you implying that one experienced person on the winning team might have been enough to anchor it?

If either of these are true, it would imply the effect with the ECM was coincidental and would have been an independent variable as opposed to the dependent you want to imply it to be.

No, I am afraid the methodology for this claim is flawed and should not be purported as true for the majority of games. Perhaps a second study with a much larger sample size will bear your implication (as you have stated it is not a claim, though it seems to be worded as such) as correct, but perhaps not. I cannot state one way or the other given the methodology (or, really, the lack thereof) used.

You're implying that this was 15 trials of Team 1 versus Team 2 - it was not! It was 15 Trials of random teams, where one of the two teams had the pair of me and my friend on it. Since the hypothesis doesn't have anything to do with which team I am on, this too is a non factor.

Over a representative and sizeable sample set of the population factors like Team 1 having all free mechs, or team 2 having a 70 ton advantage will average out. The only outcome that will be correlated with my presence on a team is that it will occasionally happen that we will drop against a 4+4 or a synch dropped 8 man. Since my win loss is ~50% the effect of this superior communication/coordination against my team seems to be <1% on average - again, seems to be a non factor.

Please don't use strawmen just because you don't like the result of the experiment so far.

I will add more data but right now the outcome has a >97% certainty that numerical ECM superiority tends to lead to victory (and anecdotally by a factor of 2.3-3.3!)

Before I can take your objections seriously you will have to point out exactly what does not average away over random trials of random teams over multiple days such as this data set.

Edited by Tolkien, 01 January 2013 - 11:40 PM.