1017 replies to this topic

[Tolkien]

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.

Hi Marcus - It's actually a 12-3 record at last count, and I would actually say that it is akin to a season with 15 random games in it involving 30 completely different ('matched' for player size) teams. The twist is that in this league helmets are not mandatory and in fact have only been allowed in the game for a few seasons.

What I am testing is like seeing if the team that has more players wearing helmets will tend to win more often.

The results so far seem to indicate that such a powerful piece of defensive equipment which only weighs a little bit and staves off death by severe head trauma is a benefit.

Others seem to insist I am misinterpreting the data, and that it was actually due to... oh I don't know, how many of the players wives told them they loved them before the game or something, which should indeed as you pointed out average out over large numbers of games.

The numbers so far are that with 97% certainty the team with more helmets will outdo the other.

Edited by Tolkien, 01 January 2013 - 11:45 PM.

[Abivard]

[redacted]
13 matches, 10 ecm wins = 97%, wrong, not even close.try 78%
5 matches thrown out because ECM was even? 3 wins for troll team vs 2 lost. = 60% again far from 97%

lets say troll team has some skill, 11 out of 18 wins, course we know they always had a well coordinated two-man ecm equipped team every drop against what could have been total pugs, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt.... calculating...conclusion[
troll team wins when fighting pugs with no ecm, loses when fighting skilled teams, ecm or no ecm.

Our studies with their data have proven it!

Please lock this thread and we can all move on.

Edited by Chris K, 02 January 2013 - 09:02 AM.
offensive

[WhisperingShadow]

ECM is way to powerful in myself and my friends opinions...available only on certain mechs, and that it affects more than just the mech that has it...also it affects not just missiles but targeting and rader...

[steelblueskies]

Abivard, on 02 January 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

Are these posts confusing you?

keep trollin boy keep trollin' my quotas not filled up for the day, and the reactors run on that stuff mixed with internet tears.

also not sorry that i do not always multiquote when responding to multiple lines of topic or discussion.

i politely break them apart with those nice little separators. see you even managed to quote across one!

but hey since you seem to latch on without readin' and playing the snarky twister game. good on you. did you know the forums have an ignore function? i did after all, just cover the reasons much of the data is unable to be used for hard conclusions rather than expectations AT THIS STAGE.

iterative methodology. catch up to posts you respond to.

for the interested in using ignore to ecm out attacks from those crit seeking lrm users trying to fight over the internets, see http://mwomercs.com/...gnoring-a-user/ .

Edited by steelblueskies, 02 January 2013 - 12:25 AM.

[Tolkien]

steelblueskies, on 02 January 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

the argument they are presenting tolkein is with regards to win v loss aggregates.

it's the old common factor argument. if you and a friend are always present in data tabulation, then the only thing it hard proves is that certain distributions of other factors in loadout between teams "where you remain a constant" influence the results in a certain way.

i can see that argument as at least tangentially valid. that's why you need more people stats tracking. if multiple clusters get similar trends, this removes the individual as the constant, and shifts the hypothesis to "maybe these people who are all constants/control variables in all the tests have a problem with this specific situation of loadouts.

at which point a further test can resolve away that issue and further refine the hypothesis the evidence supports..

then again, statistics are statistics. i though this little dip into scientific methodology was pretty obvious and a "given".

I can appreciate the essence of the argument - that since I and my friend are a common element in all of the trials that our presence might effect the outcomes. Ideally I would take the analytic data the game collects over all PUG matches since approx 1 week after the TAG buff and do the same test. With a sample size that large we would probably have enough data to also put a confident number on what the delta in the win-loss spread is with +1 or +2 ECMs.

Until then though I have to challenge people to point out how they believe the common factor is affecting the hypothesis-test. Even if I ask many people to do the same experiment (grab 1 friend, get on skype, drop in PUG games and count how many ECMs and TAGs both team have as well as the outcome) the same complaint would surface. Namely that all data sets would then involve 2 people as a common factor (even if they are different people).

Even if we can get a few people to help out and add their data sets using the same methodology, someone is going to argue them invalid since they all share the same common factor of 2 players. So rather than step into that one I am first going to insist that people elucidate their argument for why this common factor is correlated with the outcome of the given hypothesis.

edit: Eventually if an observer mode is added then we could do this testing without having to take part in the game, which would be much better since the current method can miss TAG systems (and sometimes but rarely enemy ECM capable mechs/ECMs). Even then I am suspicious that people will wave their hands and say that the common factor is then the MWO matchmaker which will be technically true but also a specious argument since PUG games by definition have to use the matchmaker. INB4 technically true but missing the point etc.

Edited by Tolkien, 02 January 2013 - 12:53 AM.

[Sudden Reversal]

PGI do have all the data and I am sure it is showing something similarly unbalanced, being a blatant match decider.

Unfortunately that probably means, in their minds, it is working as intended. Such is the deafening silence on their part I fail to see how it could be otherwise.

[Scar]

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

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.

Now it clearly shows that you even didn't bother to read the thread. Try to read it, then you'll realize that your previous sentences were a nonsence.

Edited by Scar, 02 January 2013 - 01:56 AM.

[Tolkien]

Sudden Reversal, on 02 January 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

PGI do have all the data and I am sure it is showing something similarly unbalanced, being a blatant match decider.

Unfortunately that probably means, in their minds, it is working as intended. Such is the deafening silence on their part I fail to see how it could be otherwise.

I'm hoping it can be explained as hubris and vacation time rather than their actually thinking it balanced.

Paul's comment that ECM didn't need to be nerfed was less than 6 full days after the original introduction of ECM, so his statement probably was not based on analytic data. Even at that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth by saying ECM didn't need a nerf but they would be adding more counters to it later to balance it. Sort of a tacit acknowledgement that it was OP without those counters, but hey...

Also they went on vacation shortly after the TAG buff patch so even if they could see the fertilizer hitting the air distribution contrivance they probably thought it would be resolved over the break.

tl;dr: I think it's a mistake and hubris rather than malice.

Scar, on 02 January 2013 - 01:56 AM, said:

Now it clearly shows that you even didn't bother to read the thread. Try to read it, then you'll realize that your previous sentences were a nonsence.

I'm glad you called him out on this as he is completely wrong. The argument is more along the lines of ECM being too good or not. I believe it is too good and needs a nerf but I also use it (since it is too damn good to ignore...)

[Hoshi Toranaga]

So last 2 weeks I have been running an ECM raven (going 130+) in PUG matches or in teams of 4.
It is ridiculous how easy mode this is.
You can take down anything so easily it is not even funny.
The only counter is if you face off against another ECM light/med or the enemy has 2 of them and they hunt you in a group and those with worse ping and lag shield will loose.
Anything else you are invincible.

I would take a step back and not call it unbalanced, it is off the charts unbalanced. I feel sorry for the many founders jenner pilots that get wasted, because they have no ECM shield.
I thought 8man was bad, but usual PUG matches are worse, as people try to play something else until you come along with your ECM mechs and utterly destroy them.
I can now also see why so many post "ECM is fine", I can see how this may be fun for some people to totally stomp non-ECM opponents.
Also for those who think TAG fixes it... well if you are not stupid you just break line of sight for a bit or run into cover, which is easy when you go that fast. Of course if you failed the LRM dodge lessons when LRMs were still usable, then I see how TAG could be a problem for you. I have not once been killed by LRM fire and only took minor damage from any LRM boat stalkers, and took them down pretty good.

Edited by Terry Ward, 02 January 2013 - 02:14 AM.

[Allekai]

maybe ECM should be redacted... lol.. or atleast the PGI made up abilities.. the normally canon ECM abilities would be fine.. but the magic cloak bubble and the tottal weapon lock abilitiy can go..

[StUffz]

Tolkien, on 02 January 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

I'm glad you called him out on this as he is completely wrong. The argument is more along the lines of ECM being too good or not. I believe it is too good and needs a nerf but I also use it (since it is too damn good to ignore...)

Although I am of the opinion that ECM is not out of balance if limited to at least two mechs per match I don't use ECM equipped mechs until today and I don't plan to control one until I have outskilled my othe Atlases.

By the way, since I have returned from vacation and a few pages ago someone asked why I would delimit the usage of ECM capable mechs, here are my opinion why it should be delimited:
- Matches are Assault/Domination - no Scout Missions or even where gathering Intel and ECM to protection from dection is required
- Light Mechs interpretation as Lights to counter Assaults (in "BT reality" we know that Lights are not always beating Assaults)
- ECM should make the game interesting but not matchdeciding. Two ECM capable mechs seems to be the break even point of a match.
- Lagshield

[Keifomofutu]

StUffz, on 02 January 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

Although I am of the opinion that ECM is not out of balance if limited to at least two mechs per match I don't use ECM equipped mechs until today and I don't plan to control one until I have outskilled my othe Atlases.

By the way, since I have returned from vacation and a few pages ago someone asked why I would delimit the usage of ECM capable mechs, here are my opinion why it should be delimited:
- Matches are Assault/Domination - no Scout Missions or even where gathering Intel and ECM to protection from dection is required
- Light Mechs interpretation as Lights to counter Assaults (in "BT reality" we know that Lights are not always beating Assaults)
- ECM should make the game interesting but not matchdeciding. Two ECM capable mechs seems to be the break even point of a match.
- Lagshield

If you have to arbitrarily limit the amount of mechs that pack a certain piece of low weight equipment to restore balance then maybe that equipment isn't balanced at all is it?

[StUffz]

Keifomofutu, on 02 January 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:

If you have to arbitrarily limit the amount of mechs that pack a certain piece of low weight equipment to restore balance then maybe that equipment isn't balanced at all is it?

Nope. Looking back at the history of ECM, too much weight and too much space broke the neck of the first Raven design with EW equipment. That's why I don't complain about 2 crit slots and 1.5 tons.

And since you are still able to see an enemy via thermal heat view and you can target with iron sight I don't see it as unbalanced.

[Scar]

StUffz, on 02 January 2013 - 02:59 AM, said:

Nope. Looking back at the history of ECM, too much weight and too much space broke the neck of the first Raven design with EW equipment. That's why I don't complain about 2 crit slots and 1.5 tons.

LOL. Are you trying to compare the fiction with the actual game balance?! Pathetic.

Quote

And since you are still able to see an enemy via thermal heat view and you can target with iron sight I don't see it as unbalanced.

You're naive.

[Thorqemada]

Willie Sauerland, on 01 January 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

" An LRM boat should be moving with the group and not sitting back..."

Do you notice that a LRM boat walking with the team is a SRM boat?

[StUffz]

Thorqemada, on 02 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

Do you notice that a LRM boat walking with the team is a SRM boat?

His sentences do make sense if the Group is split up into a front line and a range support group. However I don't believe this was his intention.

[Thorqemada]

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

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...

ECM is the "single checkbox test" for those with an adequate IQ.

[StUffz]

Scar, on 02 January 2013 - 03:07 AM, said:

LOL. Are you trying to compare the fiction with the actual game balance?! Pathetic.

To be straight, yes. And call me pathetic. I would call it "Original".

Scar, on 02 January 2013 - 03:07 AM, said:

You're naive.

Not naive, but I use the given tools by the game design. And iron sight targeting is one option to fight at range without using missile lock.

[Scar]

StUffz, on 02 January 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

To be straight, yes. And call me pathetic. I would call it "Original".

Noone care about literary origins if the game-balance is ruined and whole mech models, chassis and even class(Medium) are now obviously inferior and impotent in comparison to others.

You want the origins? Go play TT and read the books. This game already suffer from such inapplicable to real-time FPS "origins".

Quote

Not naive, but I use the given tools by the game design. And iron sight targeting is one option to fight at range without using missile lock.

O'RLY?! Good luck with that - you'll be just an easy frag for me and my pilots. There is a difference between the "game design" and "bad game design" - and it's called BALANCE.

Edited by Scar, 02 January 2013 - 04:26 AM.

[steelblueskies]

StUffz, on 02 January 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

To be straight, yes. And call me pathetic. I would call it "Original".



Not naive, but I use the given tools by the game design. And iron sight targeting is one option to fight at range without using missile lock.

then yes naive. thermal vision is ir sensing. all mech have ir with a tt hex to meter range of 900 meters. if you can see it with thermal vision so can your mechs' targeting and tracking system. mech standard radar was 720 meters. magscan magnetic anomaly detector slightl less, and seismic only about 3 hexes/90 meters for target acquisition.

you do not have iron sights.
your mech does the pointing and shooting and all the rest involved for you thanks to its software intelligence, you merely convey to it what to shoot at to the best of your ability. or did they add barrelcams to all the weapons and i missed it? or were you that guy outside his mech mid match laying on it's arm with what looked like a dreamcatcher standing in front of you on the arm?

Edited by steelblueskies, 02 January 2013 - 04:29 AM.