1017 replies to this topic

[Big Bad Wulf]

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.

Just dropped a few games earlier with him, he is very good with his raven 3L, nothin fancy 4 med lasers, SRM 6 W/ Artemis

[ICEFANG13]

Do you use a STD or XL? That's capped at a 245?

How many heatsinks? Speed?

Edited by ICEFANG13, 05 January 2013 - 06:40 PM.

[Big Bad Wulf]

Yeah bummer, Imagine my horror that I can't put in a 300XL, 220XL , 15DHS just over a 100kph

Edited by Marcus Wulf, 05 January 2013 - 07:01 PM.

[Stone Wall]

Thank you PGI for ECM. You have saved MWO from being MissleWarrior Online. Now we have to aim.

[DeaconW]

Stone Wall, on 05 January 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

Thank you PGI for ECM. You have saved MWO from being MissleWarrior Online. Now we have to aim.

Yeah...now it is MechQuake...so much better. For the record...LRM's are a major part of MW. Count the number of mechs that come with them standard.

Edited by DeaconW, 05 January 2013 - 06:58 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

Marcus Wulf, on 05 January 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

Yeah bummer, Imagine my horror that I can't put in a 300XL, 220XL , 15DHS just over a 100kph

It would be more logical to place an XL300 in a Jenner-K, and use an SRM-6 or SRM-4Artemis, while its true the Raven can fire all 6 missiles with Artemis, the extra speed is far better. If I ran into you with any of my light mechs I've ever made, I would cream you (no offense intended, no L2P, and no I'm the best player nyan), but with only a top speed of 100, you'd probably be better off playing a Cent-D with more missiles, and less lasers, and more speed, or a Jenner-K, speed is life for light mechs, and that build is literally the top you can go, if you aren't using an SRM-6 AND Artemis, then you'd be better off with the Jenner-K at least.

I respect you for playing the mech you prefer, like I am, I wish I could play the Jenner-D, but its such a worthless mech now, I settle for the Jenner-F.

Also, if I have your build right, if you really want to stick to the 2X, then use a 225 engine, that gains you 3KPH and .6 more heat dissipation.

Edited by ICEFANG13, 05 January 2013 - 07:13 PM.

[Big Bad Wulf]

ICEFANG13, on 05 January 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

It would be more logical to place an XL300 in a Jenner-K, and use an SRM-6 or SRM-4Artemis, while its true the Raven can fire all 6 missiles with Artemis, the extra speed is far better. If I ran into you with any of my light mechs I've ever made, I would cream you (no offense intended, no L2P, and no I'm the best player nyan), but with only a top speed of 100, you'd probably be better off playing a Cent-D with more missiles, and less lasers, and more speed, or a Jenner-K, speed is life for light mechs, and that build is literally the top you can go, if you aren't using an SRM-6 AND Artemis, then you'd be better off with the Jenner-K at least.

I respect you for playing the mech you prefer, like I am, I wish I could play the Jenner-D, but its such a worthless mech now, I settle for the Jenner-F.

Also, if I have your build right, if you really want to stick to the 2X, then use a 225 engine, that gains you 3KPH and .6 more heat dissipation.

Hi,

I dont drive light's, I just got this to test Mr. Tolkien's theory for myself. So what ever I post I have observed or experienced. The build is pretty good, took down a couple of Stalkers solo. have to watch my heat though (and remember I am not on an atlas).

I got this for nostalgic reasons, the Raven was my first TT mech (and miniature).

Yes I have no doubt you would.

Edited by Marcus Wulf, 05 January 2013 - 07:50 PM.

[Olibob]

Tolkien, Just had a quick look at your bigger sample set of 29, and the 11th one down I think you have made a mistake on. You've said it didn't match expectation, but if the other details are right (us 1 ECM, them 2) then it did... That makes 17-5 rather than 16-6 which would actually support the ECM hypothesis a bit more. I know this is a small sample set, but I really don't think having a much larger sample set would radically change the 2.66 number, just put the certainty right up. If you did get the massive sample from Garth, you could do the same thing but for the number difference of ECMs.

[Tolkien]

Marcus Wulf, on 05 January 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Just dropped a few games earlier with him, he is very good with his raven 3L, nothin fancy 4 med lasers, SRM 6 W/ Artemis

Thanks Marcus, you're pretty good yourself.

Olibob, on 06 January 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

Tolkien, Just had a quick look at your bigger sample set of 29, and the 11th one down I think you have made a mistake on. You've said it didn't match expectation, but if the other details are right (us 1 ECM, them 2) then it did... That makes 17-5 rather than 16-6 which would actually support the ECM hypothesis a bit more. I know this is a small sample set, but I really don't think having a much larger sample set would radically change the 2.66 number, just put the certainty right up. If you did get the massive sample from Garth, you could do the same thing but for the number difference of ECMs.

I'll go check that out and edit the post if needed. edit: Seems you were right, that swings it from 16-6 to 17-5... b'oh, thanks for pointing that out. I'll modify the post next time I add some data.

DeaconW, on 05 January 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

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

Sure, I've fired you a message with my skype id

Edited by Tolkien, 06 January 2013 - 03:59 AM.

[Evgeny Bear]

ECM is just ******* up the game in its current state.

It is everything that is parted into different Modules before.
it is IFF Jammer, it is ECM, it is ECCM and Radar disruptor....

it renders not only every missile useless, it also cloaks every premade team, also ECCM is usless. It just renders certain mechs useless scince we have no tonnage or BV limitation... every premade team just uses either an Atlas DDC or a Raven 3L with ECM.

I am ok in having such modules (except the radar disruptor feature... not even MW4 was going this way...
with its total ****** up balance) Just part it into different modules with tonnage counter. But rendering all missiles usless takes away the diversity of the game and purpose for different Mechclasses+ types.

The dev team just screwes balance with every new feature they want ambitiously to put in without fieldtesting it... They have great ideas but some stuff is just halfassed done (Narc... BAP) and other is just total OP until it takes 6 weeks or more and one gazillion whine threads.

I just stop to play premade matches... maybe that was the plan for "improving MM with groups".

Edited by Andar89, 06 January 2013 - 05:39 AM.

[Sinthrow]

Pilot skill dosn't mean that much anymore, it all about mech set up and team set up. that is the sad state of this game right now.
The dev knew that ecm was op.. their solution was to only put it on a few mechs. great, now we have a hand full of op mechs. it also was released along with 8 man drops. now if you don't have ecm you can't compete.
Lets turn this around. what if only 4 mech where not able to put ecm on.. would anyone pilot those 4 mech?
If the dev make more modules like this, I doubt this game will even make it to release. There will be too many upset gamers to support it and I know I will not. Balance is key. or maybe just make a stock mech setting. I would love to game there right now.

[Marcus Tanner]

Sinthrow, on 06 January 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

Pilot skill dosn't mean that much anymore, it all about mech set up and team set up. that is the sad state of this game right now.

This is nonsense.

Sinthrow, on 06 January 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

Balance is key. or maybe just make a stock mech setting. I would love to game there right now.

This is not.

---

ECM won't save a bad team from getting rocked, and even overwhelming ECM superiority won't save 8 PUG players from an 8-man team. ECM is still by far the most efficient way to use tonnage, and that's a problem.

[StUffz]

DeaconW, on 05 January 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

Yeah...now it is MechQuake...so much better. For the record...LRM's are a major part of MW. Count the number of mechs that come with them standard.

Yes and no. MW (the pc games) has the benefit to equip the mechs as if they are omnis. In their standard equipment it appears in most cases that LRM are long range fire support and they are not equipped for long duration combats (one to two tons of ammo per launcher).

Archer: The 'Mech has been used in a variety of roles, the most common of which is its intended role of indirect fire support and bombardment of enemy fortifications.

Catapult: The Catapult is an offense oriented, second-line fire-support BattleMech initially produced on a limited contract for the Terran Hegemony.

Apollo: The Apollo is designed to be a long range fire support 'Mech.

Longbow: The Longbow has seen service in the armies of the Inner Sphere since the days of the Star League and is one of the most well known fire support 'Mechs in existence.

Just a few mech samples to name but this should clear that LRM are mostly seen as fire support and not "game" deciding.

So depending on your setup LRM can be a major weaponry but this requires a good front line team to harrass the enemy with hit and run spotting tactics.

It may now sound dumb, but you are correct that MW appears like most egoshooters but that is somehow where we should give feedback to the mission reward that it needs more attention.

Sorry for going a bit off topic. I just wanted to correct that LRM is rather a second line weaponry depending on the lineupt of your lances.

Edited by StUffz, 06 January 2013 - 10:30 AM.

[Gremlich Johns]

ClaymoreReIIik, on 02 January 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

If you take "rock, paper, scissors" as the definition of a balanced game the current implementation of ECM creates a game where ECM equipped Mechs are "Rock" and "Scissors" at the same time and come with a special rule saying "Paper cannot be played".

Only problem is that it has turned into "Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock"

[Long Draw]

I don't know, the way things seem to be going the past few months in this game, I'm thinking the developers might want to rethink their decision to sell battle bonuses for real world currency.

[Tolkien]

Latest update to the data collection follows


Methodology is still the same as usual: I drop into PUG games with 1 friend on skype. - He helps me count up ECM on the enemy team during the match. In the latest data sets I'm also making an effort to look for disconnects at the start of the game, and not counting the matches where a team loses a player right at the start.

(Out of curiosity I also tried to count TAG systems on each team to get a gage of how often one can count on having a friendly TAG system around without having to take it yourself - TAGs are harder to count though since I have to notice the beam or get the target info and notice it)
Our side always has 1 ECM since I piloted a trollmando 2D or Craven 3L for the duration of the tests.
13 Games
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: Yes
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
Next 5 games: Done 1 January 2013 All in a craven 3L
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
Next 11 games: Done 4 January 2013 all games in a craven 3L
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won 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:?, TAG ?, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Inconclusive (Barely saw the other team)
Us: ECM 3, TAG 1, Them: ECM:3, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: No
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Inconclusive (2ECM each)
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes* (we actually had a friendly disconnect but managed to pull it out anyway)
Us: ECM 3, 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 Won Matched Expectation: No
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:3, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 1, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: No
6 January 2012: With DeaconW as wingman
Us: ECM 4, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won 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:3, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 3, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 3, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes
6 January 2012: With Alexei Karnov as wingman\
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: No
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, 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:2, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Inconclusive
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 2?, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Inconclusive




The hypothesis is that the team with more ECM systems will tend to win.

Total Games: 39
Inconclusive Games: 9 - these are games where the number of ECM systems is equal on both teams.
Conclusive games: 30
The conclusive games break down as follows:
Matching expectations: 24
Contradicted expectations: 6
Using the formula given on page 10 of this document: http://classes.soe.u...nter03/h5m3.pdf
I arrive at
Sigma=0.073 which is 2.19 matches,
To reach a neutral outcome (15/15, the results would need to be shifted by 4.11 sigmas),
Assuming the distribution is normal, this gives confidence of 99.99%
In short, the data still supports the statement that the team with more ECMs on it will tend to win.

The small amount of data makes going any further than this with the analysis a bad idea, but so far the data shows that the team with at least 1 more ECM than the other will tend to win 4x more often than the other. To be clear I do not trust this ratio as I haven't done any evaluation of the confidence interval on the standard deviation, and don`t believe I should until I have more data on hand.

Again, I have asked Garth for some data (~1000 random games) and he wrote back that he's at least going to look into it for me, though the odds of it happening seem pretty slim. Either way I appreciate that our community manager is trying to help me out.

Edited by Tolkien, 06 January 2013 - 11:50 PM.

[StUffz]

Just for those who aren't strong in math formulas. Does your calculation mean that about 2 mechs with ECM is the break even point for each match to keep the match balanced?

Edited by StUffz, 06 January 2013 - 01:07 PM.

[Bad Brad Keselowski]

This little set of data represents what you feel. More ECM = win. That's why I mostly drop in a D-DC (I'm a terrible light pilot). But I don't think ECM is that broken as the game makes it look like (Disclaimer: I only speak for PuG-games!). Looking at Tolkien's data - every time they out-ecm'd the other team by 2 or more to zero they won.

Tweaking the matchmaking and giving both teams equal amount of ECM would make it a lot better. If you run without ECM against 2 or more you can't help ranting about the matchmaking system.

Another change that has to make imho is the TAG-laser. At its current state it's difficult to handle against ECM. TAG should be a counter - what you tag, can you shoot.

For example: seeing thermal shadows around and you tag at them, when they are in the ECM bubble, your missile sloooooooowwwwwwwwly lock on the target, with both mechs moving you have a very hard time trying to get the lock on. When you tag a mech under ECM protection, your lock should close as fast as normal.

Another example: being in a Stalker pestered by an ECM light, there's not much you can do but run for cover. Try to fire at another mech at this point with LRM, not possible. ECM doesn't let you lock on the missiles. So again, when you tag another target, you should be able to fire lock-on at it, no matter if you get jammed by ECM or not.

ECM takes (don't know ecactly) 1,5 tons but nothing else. Switching from disrupt to counter in a given situation, that's it. A TAG takes 1 ton, 1 energy slot and: LOS. So, imho, this justifies TAG to outmatch ECM.

Just to be clear: You can only shoot at a tagged mech under no matter which ECM conditions when you use the tag yourself. When you try to shoot at a mech who's tagged by an other player, current rules should apply.

Edited by Bad Brad Keselowski, 06 January 2013 - 02:39 PM.

[StUffz]

Ehm, as soon as you have an enemy marked with TAG, you can hit with LRM even without waiting for a target lock regardless of ECM or not. But your problem is not the ECM on the light but the light mech itself (Assault counter and laggshield).

Edited by StUffz, 06 January 2013 - 02:19 PM.

[Bad Brad Keselowski]

lol, thanks, didn't know about that!