1017 replies to this topic

[LynxFury]

Marcus Wulf, on 04 January 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

Again if what you are saying is true I should be experiencing the increase in ECM capable mechs in my own drops, which I have not.

I'm glad you said that, because I now know you either are kidding, trolling, or don't pay much attention to the mechs around you on either side. Have a good night.

[Tolkien]

Marcus, Lynx and Snib,

Before anyone loses an eye over this, I'd like to point out that I have been collecting data to try and get a statistical answer to at least part of the question.

Funny thing is that you could both be right - my data shows that the team with more ECMs tends to win, but I can't say that the team with more ECMs on it doesn't also tend to be the more organized team. It stands to reason that the more organized team will do better than a disorganized team, so no debate there, and the data is also showing that the team with more ECM tends to win more often, so it is at least correlated with victory too, if not causative.

Personally I find ECM such a good tool that I tend to think that the people that take it are thinking tactically and playing the meta-game for all it is worth.

My post with the 3rd set of data added from earlier tonight is literally up just a few from here.

Edited by Tolkien, 04 January 2013 - 04:58 PM.

[HiplyRustic]

Wrede, on 04 January 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

how can ecm be considerd balanced, when in pugs team with most ecm, always winns no eceptions

Not "with no exceptions", as I've had wins that went the other way. My anecdotal experience is that the team with the most ECM tends to win a significant majority of the time in pugs. Some maps are far worse than others in that regard, with the city being the worst of the lot. No question in my mind though, it's ugly out there if you're on the wrong side of the ECM equation.

[StUffz]

Tolkien, on 04 January 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

Marcus, Lynx and Snib,

Before anyone loses an eye over this, I'd like to point out that I have been collecting data to try and get a statistical answer to at least part of the question.

Funny thing is that you could both be right - my data shows that the team with more ECMs tends to win, but I can't say that the team with more ECMs on it doesn't also tend to be the more organized team. It stands to reason that the more organized team will do better than a disorganized team, so no debate there, and the data is also showing that the team with more ECM tends to win more often, so it is at least correlated with victory too, if not causative.

Personally I find ECM such a good tool that I tend to think that the people that take it are thinking tactically and playing the meta-game for all it is worth.

My post with the 3rd set of data added from earlier tonight is literally up just a few from here.

Have you gathered the data from random team or have you asked fixed/organized groups to gather the data for you?

I would at least try to let 2 fixed group play against each other and they should go through the ECM tests step by step. This gives a more accurate data analysis rather than relying on data of mixed players.

I'll throw a thesis in here that the team who communicates verbal also benefits more from teamplay rather than relying purely on ECM. However we also must consider that teams who wants to win at all cost will tend to take ECMs.

[StalaggtIKE]

@StUffz: I do not believe anyone is denying the fact that better players typically win. Instead, that a substantial advantages is granted to the team that carries ECM versus one without.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 04 January 2013 - 05:28 PM.

[Fabian Wrede]

pugs are by defenition not organized, only way to get a teams organiced is by voice com and doing random dróps in pugs can't do that unless in 4 man teams

[StalaggtIKE]

Wrede, on 04 January 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

pugs are by defenition not organized, only way to get a teams organiced is by voice com and doing random dróps in pugs can't do that unless in 4 man teams

I guess I just happen to be a great leader or run into a lot of like minded puggers, because within a couple of seconds of match start, we typically hash out a plan.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 04 January 2013 - 05:33 PM.

[Tolkien]

StUffz, on 04 January 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

Have you gathered the data from random team or have you asked fixed/organized groups to gather the data for you?

I would at least try to let 2 fixed group play against each other and they should go through the ECM tests step by step. This gives a more accurate data analysis rather than relying on data of mixed players.

I'll throw a thesis in here that the team who communicates verbal also benefits more from teamplay rather than relying purely on ECM. However we also must consider that teams who wants to win at all cost will tend to take ECMs.

I have to mention that all the testing has been done in random drops, the only consistent element has been me and 1 friend who was helping me collect the data being on the one of the two teams. Rather than having a group of the same players play repeatedly as you're suggesting I actually would prefer to have data from arms length (games that are totally randomly selected and don't have to be collected by players on the field). To my mind the random factors will tend to average out over a large set of games, whereas having the same players might actually lead to an interaction between their play style and the outcomes, so in my test I'm hoping that my consistent presence isn't actually a factor.

To this end I've asked another player on the other side of the ECM debate who is quite good at collecting data to see if he can get some in the same way, then I can compare the outcomes of the two data sets to see if they are at least close.

[ICEFANG13]

It would be true, after the slight change to ECM, there does seem to be less of it around (the close to 16th patch?) I will tell everyone what I told my team.

"The Stalker may be my favorite mech, oh no, I'll never touch it, but in 4 mans, everyone wants to run the new mech, and that means less ECM"

Try 8 mans, tell me ECM isn't around, I'll tell you LOLZ!

I also have this to say about Raven-2X and 4X

"Kill it as fast as possible, and don't let it hit you, we don't want the 3Ls getting master any faster than we can slow them down"

@Marcus Wulf

When you say you see 2x's out there, remember this, they are for the 3L's master tech, and nothing else, right now, there is no reason to bring a 2X over a Jenner-K (except if you want to run an SRM-6 with Artemis), and someday in the not too far future, you won't see any lights other than:
Jenner-F
Commando-2D
Raven-3L
The newest one.

Seriously, name a build, and I can tell you how they can do it better, even the few that the others can do better, is completely negated by ECM superiority.

[StalaggtIKE]

ICEFANG13, on 04 January 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

It would be true, after the slight change to ECM, there does seem to be less of it around (the close to 16th patch?) I will tell everyone what I told my team.

Must be for other reasons, like using other chassis to get master unlock, because that patch only made ECM stronger. Prior to the patch the ECCM was sometimes countering more than one ECM.

Paul Inouye said:

ECM counter nullifies another Mech running with ECM disrupt. The key word there is "Mech", as in not plural. Previously 1 Mech in Counter mode would be nullifying any enemy Mechs in range when it was supposed to only nullify the 1 closest Mech.

Source: ECM PATCH NOTES CLARIFICATION

[ICEFANG13]

Yeah I know it was a buff, the reason there is less is because of the Stalker.

[Blood78]

Bleh, till ECM is balanced I can't play MWO. The precious 15-30min I can get some game time in is being wasted piloting ECM mech which I have ton of EXP on already or have to sink it into other crappy non-ECM variants.

[Big Bad Wulf]

ICEFANG13, on 04 January 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

@Marcus Wulf

When you say you see 2x's out there, remember this, they are for the 3L's master tech, and nothing else, right now, there is no reason to bring a 2X over a Jenner-K (except if you want to run an SRM-6 with Artemis), and someday in the not too far future, you won't see any lights other than:
Jenner-F
Commando-2D
Raven-3L
The newest one.

Seriously, name a build, and I can tell you how they can do it better, even the few that the others can do better, is completely negated by ECM superiority.

I drive the 2x (yes, yes the Jenner has a better laodout but its fugly!) just to test Mr. Tolkien's theory last year when we discussed about the topic because I wanted to see for myself if it really affected gameplay as an individual. I am very much surprised that I did very well using terrain and speed to mask my movements during scouting roles. The 4 energy and 1 missile Hard point gives you enough firepower to harrass and or finish off Badly injured mechs.

Yes you can tell me how a chassis can be defeated by ECM and all, but real drops do not reflect your statement. From what i have observed is that ECM is a personal choice equipment and is employed as such I have rarely seen it used in a tactical manner (actually only once) as to conclusively say that it was a major factor in wining a match.

I will continue my solo drops in a non-ECM mech and perhaps I might run into a group that would make me say that you are right, but at this particular moment, based on my drops, I say that your claims are as real as the 2013 apolcalypse.

I did a 4 man drop early morning (10 drops total) (2 x Cats, Catapharct and a Dragon) ECM wise the otherside always had more, I guess our 10 wins is a fluke since it does not match the Stats.

[Big Bad Wulf]

Tolkien, on 04 January 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

Marcus, Lynx and Snib,

Before anyone loses an eye over this, I'd like to point out that I have been collecting data to try and get a statistical answer to at least part of the question.

Funny thing is that you could both be right - my data shows that the team with more ECMs tends to win, but I can't say that the team with more ECMs on it doesn't also tend to be the more organized team. It stands to reason that the more organized team will do better than a disorganized team, so no debate there, and the data is also showing that the team with more ECM tends to win more often, so it is at least correlated with victory too, if not causative.

Personally I find ECM such a good tool that I tend to think that the people that take it are thinking tactically and playing the meta-game for all it is worth.

My post with the 3rd set of data added from earlier tonight is literally up just a few from here.

Hi,

Would you mind if I dropped with you? 'coz I am still not seeing what you are, perhaps I am looking at it differently.

-Marcus

[Marcus Tanner]

Marcus Wulf, on 04 January 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

See all you have are anecdotes, why not show how you actually dropped with a majority of ECM capable mechs and how it was essential to you winning.

i.e. Dropped with all ECM capable mechs opposition had LRM boats and SSRM's only they were unable to hit us we sluaghtered them.

It would be hard to do that. We don't have after-game lobbies to talk to the other side. People aren't going to answer if you ask the other team how many LRM tubes they have at the beginning of a match, because that's valuable information for winning.

In-game, it's remarkable difficult to count LRM tubes that don't fire. If you never see them launch missiles, you don't know how many they're bringing (or if they're bringing any at all).

I have certainly found it critically important to be able to flip ECM on and have an incoming flight of LRMs lose target on me. Just killing off volleys in flight has saved me from hundreds of points of damage within a given match.

When you're running ECM, you often just can't be sure how many of the mechs on the other side are boned for lack of LRM targets. It can be easy to convince yourself that the mech you just killed simply didn't bring LRMs or streaks.

Marcus Wulf, on 05 January 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

[directed at Tolkein] Would you mind if I dropped with you? 'coz I am still not seeing what you are, perhaps I am looking at it differently.

This is an incredibly reasonable and sensible suggestion. Two thumbs way up.

Edited by Marcus Tanner, 05 January 2013 - 12:41 PM.

[Tolkien]

Marcus Wulf, on 05 January 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

Hi,

Would you mind if I dropped with you? 'coz I am still not seeing what you are, perhaps I am looking at it differently.

-Marcus

Sure, I've logged into the client and sent you a mail with my skype details.

[CatHerder]

Simpler still - remove the ECM protection bubble on disrupt, and make it do what it was meant to do: grant a light mech or the C&C mech (AS7-D-DC) a little more protection so they can do their jobs a little more calmly.

The protection bubble was pulled out of who knows who's butt, and is the only thing making ECM the OP garbage it currently is. This is exacerbated when you factor in the lag shield that fast mechs enjoy.

Bottom line: the disrupt bubble should go away until the lag shield is completely and utterly fixed. Only then does it make ANY sense to even try it. Secondly, ECM counter should counter ALL enemy ECM units in its bubble. This automatically negates the packs of ECM lights we see in the battlefield applying ECM superiority with absolute impunity.

Both of those solutions are viable, don't break canon (in fact move closer to it), don't break current gameplay as badly as ECM did when it came out, and can be implemented (relatively) immediately. When the lag shield is fixed (which takes more time, and effort, and there's a very good chance you won't be able to get a 100% perfect fix - if you don't believe me go ask the COD or BF3 devs if they've been able to fix their hitbox issues, which is what this boils down to), you can try to put it back and make it work how it is now. But it's IDIOTIC to try to keep pushing the line that ECM is fine the way it is when clearly the community is nearly unanimous in its contempt for the current implementation.

[ICEFANG13]

Marcus Wulf, on 05 January 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

I drive the 2x (yes, yes the Jenner has a better laodout but its fugly!) just to test Mr. Tolkien's theory last year when we discussed about the topic because I wanted to see for myself if it really affected gameplay as an individual. I am very much surprised that I did very well using terrain and speed to mask my movements during scouting roles. The 4 energy and 1 missile Hard point gives you enough firepower to harrass and or finish off Badly injured mechs.

Yes you can tell me how a chassis can be defeated by ECM and all, but real drops do not reflect your statement. From what i have observed is that ECM is a personal choice equipment and is employed as such I have rarely seen it used in a tactical manner (actually only once) as to conclusively say that it was a major factor in wining a match.

I will continue my solo drops in a non-ECM mech and perhaps I might run into a group that would make me say that you are right, but at this particular moment, based on my drops, I say that your claims are as real as the 2013 apolcalypse.

I did a 4 man drop early morning (10 drops total) (2 x Cats, Catapharct and a Dragon) ECM wise the otherside always had more, I guess our 10 wins is a fluke since it does not match the Stats.

Ok what is your 2X build?

Tolkien, I would love to play with you too, I play the Jenner-F mostly, one of the 3 last light mechs currently.

[DeaconW]

ICEFANG13, on 05 January 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Ok what is your 2X build?

Tolkien, I would love to play with you too, I play the Jenner-F mostly, one of the 3 last light mechs currently.

Ooo...can i get in on this too?

[DeaconW]

Tolkien, on 04 January 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

Using the formula given on page 10 of this document: http://classes.soe.u...nter03/h5m3.pdf

Tolkien, I did look at this and it looks like you are using it correctly. The small sample size is the biggest issue.