442 replies to this topic

[LynxFury]

Quote

1. People can’t distinguish friendly Mechs.
People are just upset that the convenience pressing R is not there. You don't have have that feature in any other game, unless it’s a third person action adventure game. Press left trigger to lock...
I understand this problem, and maybe that is what the Devs should try and fix a way to tell friendly Mechs from Enemy Mechs.

Not sure what other games you're thinking of. Friend and foe information is nearly automatic in just about every other game, and if there's a question an additional spot key is available. The battlefield series and more common Planet Side 2 is this way now. In MWO there's a compounded issue of not seeing what's already damaged which tends to make ECM bubbled mechs much more surviveable to direct fire at medium and long range. Almost completely gone is the capability of a DC to give precise team directed orders with well focused response from the lance in conversations such as DC: "Target is B, Dragon" (by 4 seconds, Dragon B receives punishing barrage from four other mechs. (6 seconds later).... Friendly: "B left torso critical," (by ten seconds, the dragon goes down with a precise shot to that torso). Now the lance response in any medium range engagement to that focus fire command is clumsy as lance mates struggle to find the correct target, and much less effective because the shots on the dragon are more distributed. And the secondary effects are brawl matches, or working directly against the battletech intent by teams using the most net exploiting EMC light chassis to close first with the enemy.

If bubbled mechs reduced detection by an enemy to say 600m instead of 200m it would still confer a substantial advantage without wrecking the medium and long range team game.

Quote

2. People are upset because they can’t abuse LRM or SSRM’s.
They got too used to relying on those weapons that they don’t want to try mixing it up. Put a laser, gauss rifle or auto cannon in your Mech and L2P.

I never understood why one of the most common weapons in Battletech, the LRM are considered abusive? Seriously? Why are they worse than all laser mechs, or all UAC mechs etc.? LRMs in particular, on the current maps are pretty easy to deal with as there are really few places without cover and a couple AMS equipped chassis working close can knock down almost all of them.
-
Perhaps part of the reason is the focus on DPS, with regard to weapons balance on these forums. DPS is only half the issue when evaluating weapons, particularly missiles compared to other types of weapons. Kills per damage are just as important. Missiles should be the absolute king of DPS but the worst at kills per damage. Missiles could be so much more of a skill-based if the locking retical radius were reduced however. In this game it's absolutely HUGE. They are also more difficult to skillfully avoid in the open with maneuver and speed.

Quote

In most shooters that I know of there is no way to put a square around the enemy and only very few include a weapon that can be shot around obstacles and still hit the enemy.

So you've never used "nade," mortar, or high explosive tank round with ballistic drop off in any other sim? I'm not picking on you, but suggesting that first person shooters are full of weapons that allow one to see an enemy not in their direct line of fire and effectively engage them. I can think of dozens of examples off the top of my head just from BF3 and PS2, which I also play. MWO is actually very limited in indirect options compared to most other games. Battletech has a much broader variety as well.

Edited by LynxFury, 09 January 2013 - 10:24 AM.

[kalligrapher]

Can someone let me know if I have this right (at least the basics ) ?

LRMs are made self-guiding - to counter complaints they were too hard to use
LRMs are buffed - to counter complaints that they didn't do enough damage
LRMs are buffed with Artemis - to counter complaints that they aren't effective
ECM is added - to counter issues with LRM dominated teams
Rearm costs are removed - making Artemis viable on a cost basis
TAG is buffed - to counter complaints about ECM
TAG / NARC experience is added - to counter complaints about ECM

I know it's all a little greyer than that - but as far as I can tell this entire process is a series of poorly thought out fixes slapped onto the process in an attempt to paper over the previous bad design choice. At some point in this process someone should be standing back and asking whether this process is being managed competently - does the person in charge of these design choices have the competency to handle this task.

MWO has the potential to be a wonderful game. Just because MechWarrior is a much-loved franchise it does not make every game based on it wonderful - so people on both sides of the divide have to ask the question - is this game fulfilling it's promise ?

Does MWO represent a Hans Solo or a Jar Jar Binks in the pantheon? And if it resembles Jar Jar - who's fault is this and when will it be resolved ?

[Riddler9884]

I just had an Idea, I haven't had much time to think this through, so bear with me. I am mostly pro ECM, regardless I want to play Devil's Advocate.

Has anyone bothered to do a Survey of the ECM naysayers? No I don't mean is ECM broke Yes/No Poll.

Something more like this:

Imagine the last time you almost raged because of enemy ECM.

What Mech Chassis were you driving?
Light
* Raven
* Commando
* Jenner

etc...

What distance do you maintain most of the time during a fight?
* I am a Sniper \ 1000+
* I support the Brawl \ 1000 - 500
* I am the Brawler \ 500 - 0

and this one will probably be pretty Biased

Where you PUGing? If yes, was the group organized or disorganized?

* No, I dropped in a group.
* Yes, they looked most organized.
* Yes, they looked most disorganized.

Basically what I want to figure out is if any Mech/ or Mech class is feeling the hurt than any other and If its tied to any particular play style. To a lesser and more biased extent if the ECM argument is really a problem with people PUGing.

Edited by Riddler9884, 09 January 2013 - 10:31 AM.

[Riddler9884]

Very constructive but just to clarify

LynxFury, on 09 January 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

Not sure what other games you're thinking of. Friend and foe information is nearly automatic in just about every other game, and if there's a question an additional spot key is available. The battlefield series and more common Planet Side 2 is this way now. In MWO there's a compounded issue of not seeing what's already damaged which tends to make ECM bubbled mechs much more surviveable to direct fire at medium and long range. Almost completely gone is the capability of a DC to give precise team directed orders with well focused response from the lance in conversations such as DC: "Target is B, Dragon" (by 4 seconds, Dragon B receives punishing barrage from four other mechs. (6 seconds later).... Friendly: "B left torso critical," (by ten seconds, the dragon goes down with a precise shot to that torso). Now the lance response in any medium range engagement to that focus fire command is clumsy as lance mates struggle to find the correct target, and much less effective because the shots on the dragon are more distributed. And the secondary effects are brawl matches, or working directly against the battletech intent by teams using the most net exploiting EMC light chassis to close first with the enemy.

If bubbled mechs reduced detection by an enemy to say 600m instead of 200m it would still confer a substantial advantage without wrecking the medium and long range team game.

COD had different uniforms until black ops to distinguish visually friend or foe.

Battlefield 3 only displays a Blue triangle over friendlies in hardcore only in non-Hardcore do you get a red triangle over spotted enemies (pretty close to the way MWO works).

What I meant was when I am shooting in BF3; I have to line up my shot without the aid of red square around the enemy soldier (I normally play hardcore rounds, only if a TUG is around do I get a red dot on the map).

The only thing I can concede is that it does make it considerably harder to coordinate your team to fire on a particular enemy. Although I could debate this point too, it does go against the concept the developers originally intended, where if you want to win you have to work as a team.

LynxFury, on 09 January 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

I never understood why one of the most common weapons in Battletech, the LRM are considered abusive? Seriously? Why are they worse than all laser mechs, or all UAC mechs etc.? LRMs in particular, on the current maps are pretty easy to deal with as there are really few places without cover and a couple AMS equipped chassis working close can knock down almost all of them.
-
Perhaps part of the reason is the focus on DPS, with regard to weapons balance on these forums. DPS is only half the issue when evaluating weapons, particularly missiles compared to other types of weapons. Kills per damage are just as important. Missiles should be the absolute king of DPS but the worst at kills per damage. Missiles could be so much more of a skill-based if the locking retical radius were reduced however. In this game it's absolutely HUGE. They are also more difficult to skillfully avoid in the open with maneuver and speed.

Again to clarify, I didn’t call the weapon abusive, or over powered. What I meant is that people are upset that they can’t lean on the lock on mechanic to avoid having to line up shots with direct fire weapons. I was reflecting on the player not the weapon system. I love LRM’s and use them myself but I don’t get upset when get forced into the brawl with my lasers.

LynxFury, on 09 January 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

So you've never used "nade," mortar, or high explosive tank round with ballistic drop off in any other sim? I'm not picking on you, but suggesting that first person shooters are full of weapons that allow one to see an enemy not in their direct line of fire and effectively engage them. I can think of dozens of examples off the top of my head just from BF3 and PS2, which I also play. MWO is actually very limited in indirect options compared to most other games. Battletech has a much broader variety as well.

Again to clarify, I was just pointing out there are few games where the projectile will FOLLOW the target, ANY TARGET.

Yes I am aware that

BF3 has a couple of examples but look at the circumstances around each
- Mortar can get around obstacles but is dumb fire.
- Sidewinders and Stingers only lock on to air vehicles.
- Javelin and the other jet missile only home in to tanks.

None of these could be used against every vehicle or enemy in the game.

In the end nothing directly compares to LRM’s, they home in on Mechs and Mechs are the only other thing on the map other than terrain.

[Skyscream Sapphire]

Reposting Tolkien's excellent work on gather and analyzing data from the last thread for those that haven't seen it.

Tolkien, on 07 January 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

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 (2 ECM each)
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 2?, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Inconclusive (2 ECM each)
7 January 2012: With Alexei Karnov as wingman
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:0, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 1, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Inconclusive (2 ECM each)
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Inconclusive (2 ECM each)
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:3, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:4, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2/3?, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: No?
Us: ECM 1, TAG 0, Them: ECM:0, TAG 1, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:0, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes
Us: ECM 3, TAG 0, Them: ECM:1, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Yes

Us: ECM 4, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 0, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: No
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 0, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Inconclusive (2 ECM each)
Us: ECM 2, TAG 0, Them: ECM:2, TAG 3, Outcome: We Won Matched Expectation: Inconclusive (2 ECM each)
Us: ECM 4, TAG 0, 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
Us: ECM 3, TAG 0, Them: ECM:4, TAG 2, Outcome: We Lost Matched Expectation: Yes

Tonights games had the added flavour of 2 games with disconnects and one with a missing UI. The only game tonight that I put down as a "No" might actually be inconclusive but I am erring on the side of caution here. The second "No" on the 7th had Garth on our team - regrettably our team was so distracted by having a superstar in the group that we got absolutely steamrolled.



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

Total Games: 54
Inconclusive Games: 13 - these are games where the number of ECM systems is equal on both teams.
Conclusive games: 41
The conclusive games break down as follows:
Matching expectations: 33
Contradicted expectations: 8
Using the formula given on page 10 of this document: http://classes.soe.u...nter03/h5m3.pdf
I arrive at
Sigma=0.0619 which is 2.54 matches,
To reach a neutral outcome (20.5/20.5, the results would need to be shifted by 4.92 sigmas),
Assuming the distribution is normal, this gives confidence of > 99.999% - aka "better than 5 nines"
In short, the data still supports the statement that the team with more ECMs on it will tend to win.

Now that we have sufficient mass of data we can start to look at some other interesting features in the set.
The data so far says that you're 4.13x more likely to win if you're on the team that has more ECMs, this seems way too much but again let's assume that it's the case. I now ask the question "how certain is it that you are at least 2x more likely to win the match if you have an extra ECM." I do this by calculating how many sigmas the result can be shifted away from the measured result (33/8) before we arrive at a ratio of 2:1 (here 27.3333/13.6667). The answer is 2.23 sigmas which comes out to 97.4%. This is still a smallish amount of data, but it indicates that if you have more ECM on your team in a PUG game, you are 97.4% confident that you are at least 2x more likely to win than your opponents.

Deacon and others, please let me know if you spot a problem with what I am doing with the numbers here.

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.

[LynxFury]

Riddler9884, on 09 January 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

BF3 has a couple of examples but look at the circumstances around each
- Mortar can get around obstacles but is dumb fire.
- Sidewinders and Stingers only lock on to air vehicles.
- Javelin and the other jet missile only home in to tanks.

None of these could be used against every vehicle or enemy in the game.

Now your simply adding other conditions to your criteria, to which I could quibble that LRM only target one mech, which many examples of other weapons from other games that can effect more than one target. The reality is your statement about friendly and enemy identification and indirect fire weapons in other game was incorrect. If we had a more complete battletech experience, with at least a few tanks, aerotech, or infantry on the field than weapons might have a greater diversity of functions...we don't. (we'd probably both be happier as well). And at max range, a huge 48 point letters and bitxhing betty warning and something like 8 seconds to find cover or duck behind a couple of AMS equipped lance mates, LRMS are probably the easiest weapon in the game to avoid bar none.

Edited by LynxFury, 09 January 2013 - 12:18 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Love the math going into that, I feel like people spend to much time going by feelings instead of looking at real examples. I watch a lot of matches, and when it comes down to it, ECM is the deciding factor in the vast majority.

[Malzel]

kalligrapher, on 09 January 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Can someone let me know if I have this right (at least the basics ) ?

LRMs are made self-guiding - to counter complaints they were too hard to use
LRMs are buffed - to counter complaints that they didn't do enough damage
LRMs are buffed with Artemis - to counter complaints that they aren't effective
ECM is added - to counter issues with LRM dominated teams
Rearm costs are removed - making Artemis viable on a cost basis
TAG is buffed - to counter complaints about ECM
TAG / NARC experience is added - to counter complaints about ECM

I know it's all a little greyer than that - but as far as I can tell this entire process is a series of poorly thought out fixes slapped onto the process in an attempt to paper over the previous bad design choice. At some point in this process someone should be standing back and asking whether this process is being managed competently - does the person in charge of these design choices have the competency to handle this task.

No, I don't think that's an accurate or fair assessment.

- LRMs were always lock-on guided, or if there was a point where they were dumb-fire, it was long before I came into the game.
- Initially, LRMs did 2.0 damage per missile, which was nerfed to 1.7 because LRMs were too strong, then buffed to 1.8, as the Devs experimented with and found a balanced range for missile damage.
- Artemis, for LRMs, just provides a way to get the TAG/NARC bonus without using those systems. LRMs were working more than fine beforehand, trust me, Artemis just provides an option to take on more weight and crit usage in exchange for getting the TAG/NARC bonus without doing the work.
- ECM was planned from the start to make MWO require more teamwork than an average mech first-person-shooter. It enables actual scouting, which was a very hazardous occupation beforehand, and it forces everyone to play smart, stick together, and focus fire, rather than charge off to play a one-man-army. Its counter to LRMs is intentional, but not the reason for its implementation.
- Repair and Re-arm was removed to help the new player experience. As a new player, it was easy to die a lot without winning or inflicting much damage, which meant it was easy to play several games and not make any c-bill progress. It also helped alleviate the fact that heavier builds were just inherently prohibitive to play. Personally, I liked R&R, but I can see why it was taken out, and LRM builds were only one of several configurations that benefited from this.
- TAG was buffed because it was not serving its purpose, yes. 450m was too short to be effective, because it was too easy to get caught in the bubble by a fast-moving ECM'er, or get chewed up by the mechs you were trying to TAG.
- TAG/NARC bonuses were added because some of us were putting a lot of effort into being team players and not getting rewarded for it. Those bonuses have little to do with ECM, and more do with with the fact that my TAGging might help bring down several targets faster, but I didn't even get assists for them.

This is not a series of poorly-thought-out implementations followed by haphazard hot-fixes. This is beta. Beta is where developers implement new features, monitor the result, analyze the data, and adjust accordingly to achieve balance. It's the players that need to stand back and realize that they're part of an on-going process to test and balance out the game, and they need to be more constructive with their criticism when they feel the game's systems aren't functioning optimally.

[Riddler9884]

Had not seen Tolkien's work, so he PUGed all those matches. He needs to be applauded for going that far and for enduring 54 matches . This might go a long way to justify the fact that Matchmaking is broken and Organized groups might be trolling the pugs. The Survey I proposed tries to Isolate what Mech and possibly play style is most being affected.

There could also be a survey of which Mech and variant you could not use anymore due to ECM. I just dont think some might share that info and if they did how would you make that into a poll and prevent it becoming a nitpick thread about peoples play style, then again it might be eye opening to some.

What I am trying to get to is, what makes one player consider ECM a minor annoyance and another a game braking issue?

[Nicholas Carlyle]

People considering it minor annoyances are probably those that run in groups, and tend to use it. I also thing you will probably find the top rung of players, who are just plain good no matter what don't mind it as much either.

The people who are more likely to consider it game breaking are more than likely pugging a lot. They are probably more average in terms of skill. And you'll also see a group who see an issue with the benefits of the system vs. the amount of slots and weight. As well as the fact that in invalidates other varients of the same mech.

I think really in the end it comes down to benefit vs slots/tonnage. Nothing else comes even remotely close. Period. End of story.

That is the only argument that really needs to be made.

[kalligrapher]

Malzel, on 09 January 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

This is not a series of poorly-thought-out implementations followed by haphazard hot-fixes. This is beta. Beta is where developers implement new features, monitor the result, analyze the data, and adjust accordingly to achieve balance. It's the players that need to stand back and realize that they're part of an on-going process to test and balance out the game, and they need to be more constructive with their criticism when they feel the game's systems aren't functioning optimally.

This game is not a BETA - just because they tack a Beta onto the name does not make it one by the generally accepted definition. If that was premise was true I could tack the name TURBO onto my car and expect it to go faster. This game has been widely advertised as available to all, has a fully enable payment scheme set up and gas a limited response mechanism - these forums are not a sufficient feedback mechanism.

I am getting tired of people automatically crying "it's BETA so let them off". I'm sorry - but a beta is supposed to be the final stress testing for a completed game prior to full release. Not a haphazard test bed full of bugs and denials. Just because this is a mechwarrior game - does not mean it's a good one. If all you're going to do is forgive every fault with that chant then you are pandering to failure - your own and that of this development process.

I want to be playing this game going forward but the unwillingness of this developer to respond to significant reservations from it's player base means it is unlikely. The blind support of players who are so desperate for this to work that they will accept substandard work from the design team means this game is doomed to be a bitter footnote on a much loved franchise.

ECM is the biggest symptom of their failure. It is a game breaker and the lead design on this project is so desperate to deny he has made mistakes with it's implementation that this game and the overall future of this licence will pay for it.

[Riddler9884]

LynxFury, on 09 January 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

Now your simply adding other conditions to your criteria, to which I could quibble that LRM only target one mech, which many examples of other weapons from other games that can effect more than one target. The reality is your statement about friendly and enemy identification and indirect fire weapons in other game was incorrect. If we had a more complete battletech experience, with at least a few tanks, aerotech, or infantry on the field than weapons might have a greater diversity of functions...we don't. (we'd probably both be happier as well). And at max range, a huge 48 point letters and bitxhing betty warning and something like 8 seconds to find cover or duck behind a couple of AMS equipped lance mates, LRMS are probably the easiest weapon in the game to avoid bar none.

We keep going round and round the topic:

My first observation was making the assumption people didn't like NOT HAVING a big red square IDENTIFYING the target was more of a wise crack than anything. I conceded that It makes coordinating the team to fire on target harder (Not Impossible), but it ECM does not do anything to prevent direct fire.

My second observation was about how people might not want to go through the trouble of lining up a shot instead of spending all round spewing lrm rounds.

MY REMARK WASN'T ABOUT THE WEAPON IT WAS ABOUT THE PLAYER REFUSING TO CHANGE TACTICS/PLAY STYLE.

I refuse to quibble over half a sentence I wrote, that you keep derailing into another topic.

Edited by Riddler9884, 09 January 2013 - 01:29 PM.

[Malzel]

ECM is just more visible than other factors, so it gets singled out as the culprit when things don't go the way folks wanted them to. The fact of the matter is that player skill and team communication is what wins and loses battles, not a 1.5 ton piece of equipment. It just happens to be that in PUG matches, that 1.5 ton piece of equipment is more common than teamwork and communication!

The problem with Tolkien's research is that it's conducted in PUG matches, where the team composition and loadouts are random, and teamwork and coordination ranges between non-existent, at worst, to great but limited to 4-man lances, at best. Given that ECM was implemented to require balanced team builds and coordination between team members, it's not being tested in a suitable environment to give us any meaningful data. There are too many variables and no controls in this "experiment," so his results can only be used to prove that ECM can be problematic in PUGs, where the teamwork and balanced team composition that ECM is supposed to encourage are rarely present, (Which we already knew) not that ECM is balanced or unbalanced as a concept. A more valid approach would be to conduct the same study in 8-man drops, where teams will be more logically constructed and teamwork and communication will be present on both sides. There, I would stake money on the fact that player skill, teamwork, and team tonnage totals will decide the outcome before the number of ECM on both sides does.

Edit:

kalligrapher, on 09 January 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

This game is not a BETA - just because they tack a Beta onto the name does not make it one by the generally accepted definition....This game has been widely advertised as available to all, has a fully enable payment scheme set up and gas a limited response mechanism - these forums are not a sufficient feedback mechanism.

Forgive me, but I'm tired of seeing this mindset crop up.

That's a narrow, if not ignorant, take on the matter. It's still a Beta because a large number of game systems, including but not limited to: faction warfare, collisions/knockdowns, CTD bugs, FPS bugs/issues, Mechlab features, netcode, hitboxes, game modes, and many mech designs are still in development/testing. In order to balance an MMO, a large base of playtesters is required. Triple-A game studios can hire that army of testers to do that in-house, but MWO is a fan-supported dream, and PGI and Infinity are busting their ***** to try and make that dream come true, but they don't have the resources to do all the testing in-house and present us with a perfect, finished product. Thus, we have open Beta with working payment plans, so they can continue to fund the development of a game that thousands of BT and MW fans across the world want to enjoy. Thank you, kindly.

You are correct, though, that these forums are not the best method for sharing feedback with the Devs. These forums simply provide an outlet for the masses to post their less-than-useful "I don't like this, fix it" threads, while the serious portion of the community takes time to put together rational discussions of game mechanics and how to better them. The bug polls in the other subforums are better way to communicate with the Devs, and the best method to voice your concerns directly is by e-mail to support@mwomercs.com.

You are participating in a beta test. Either become part of the process, or get out of the way and let us carry on.

Edited by Malzel, 09 January 2013 - 02:08 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Malzel, on 09 January 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

ECM is just more visible than other factors, so it gets singled out as the culprit when things don't go the way folks wanted them to. The fact of the matter is that player skill and team communication is what wins and loses battles, not a 1.5 ton piece of equipment. It just happens to be that in PUG matches, that 1.5 ton piece of equipment is more common than teamwork and communication!

The problem with Tolkien's research is that it's conducted in PUG matches, where the team composition and loadouts are random, and teamwork and coordination ranges between non-existent, at worst, to great but limited to 4-man lances, at best. Given that ECM was implemented to require balanced team builds and coordination between team members, it's not being tested in a suitable environment to give us any meaningful data. There are too many variables and no controls in this "experiment," so his results can only be used to prove that ECM can be problematic in PUGs, where the teamwork and balanced team composition that ECM is supposed to encourage are rarely present, (Which we already knew) not that ECM is balanced or unbalanced as a concept. A more valid approach would be to conduct the same study in 8-man drops, where teams will be more logically constructed and teamwork and communication will be present on both sides. There, I would stake money on the fact that player skill, teamwork, and team tonnage totals will decide the outcome before the number of ECM on both sides does.

If you read any of the posts about 8-mans they are dominated by teams who are mostly made of ECM mechs. There is a reason for that, here's a tip it has nothing to do with team work.

Here is why your post is silly. Take two identically skilled groups. One group has ECM and one group does not. Who wins most of the time? I'm not debating that the non-ECM group can win, but I would venture that 75% of the time the ECM group would win.

Also balancing for PUGs which are dominated by new players who PGI needs to keep this game going is VERY, VERY important. ECM is counter to this.

[LynxFury]

Riddler9884, on 09 January 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

My first observation was making the assumption people didn't like NOT HAVING a big red square IDENTIFYING the target was more of a wise crack than anything. I conceded that It makes coordinating the team to fire on target harder (Not Impossible), but it ECM does not do anything to prevent direct fire.

It absolutely does prevent direct fire as well--or at least it does for responsible team players. In fact that's my biggest gripe with it. In a firefight, seconds are precious and the race is often to achieve the first kill which puts one team at a big advantage and tilts the balance towards cascading failure of the other team. Lack of friend or foe identification and the attendant extra time to locate and confirm an enemy or even better yet locate and confirm THE enemy your drop commander would like you to kill, is the equivalent of preventing direct fire. It's also prevents direct fire on critical parts of the mech your firing at until you're at point blank range.

Perhaps that will get somewhat to your question about what sorts of player styles are bothered by the current implementation of ECM the most. This might as well:

For myself, I tend to enjoy the medium mechs the most with a bit of stretching room either side. I don't own a pure weaponed "boat" mech. Most of my configs put most of the firepower in one range, with a second group to stay engaged until I get into that range. A slowish mostly LRM mech with quad pack of small or medium lasers. A moderately fast small or medium laser based mech with a large laser or an AC5/10 for example.Or perhaps a few large lasers and a short range ballistic or missile. They tend to be simple designs built with a purpose but also with a bit of flexibility so they stay in the fight regardless of circumstance.

I used to like PUG and 8x8 equally well and played both in competitive leagues as well as on my own in this and in other games. After ECM, my unit quickly realized we need to be shoehorned into one very narrow play style and tiny selection of mech...or loose just about every match regardless of how well we were playing as a team. That is a sign of game failure. While most of us realize that the weapons capability and geometry of mechs will favor some chassis over others regardless of the game design, in every other version of the game, with few exceptions, the final version resulted in at least a significant chance of winning even if not fighting with the best chassis; if we had to put a number on it, we might say the range of mech battle value per size was within 10% or so. My gut hunch is mostly due to ECM, that range is more like 50% now. In Battletech terms, I'd put a battle value of ECM at 1000, (max is 2551 for Inner Sphere TROs). It's about the most lop sided piece of equipment we've seen in a mech warrior game since the shoot through hills sixpack (or 7 for many players) ER-large Nova cat of early MW4 days--just as overwhelming and counter intuitive as well.

Sadly I only play about once a week now so I don't get too rusty. Even being a multiple decade battletech fan with board game, multiple versions on line, a full collection of books, being a planetary league admin, recently running into the group my wife and I used to play MW3 and share life stories with over dial up, and all the rest, isn't enough to overcome my strong distaste for this one component and its effects on game play--its unbalance, it's negative effect on team work, it's distillation of preferred chassis, it's destruction of the mid and long range play, its negative effect on missile which are supposed to be a huge component of battletech, and its complete lack of emulating either battletech or real world sensor combat.

PGI your baby is ugly--please fix it.

Edited by LynxFury, 09 January 2013 - 02:20 PM.

[Tolkien]

Malzel, on 09 January 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

ECM is just more visible than other factors, so it gets singled out as the culprit when things don't go the way folks wanted them to. The fact of the matter is that player skill and team communication is what wins and loses battles, not a 1.5 ton piece of equipment. It just happens to be that in PUG matches, that 1.5 ton piece of equipment is more common than teamwork and communication!

The problem with Tolkien's research is that it's conducted in PUG matches, where the team composition and loadouts are random, and teamwork and coordination ranges between non-existent, at worst, to great but limited to 4-man lances, at best. Given that ECM was implemented to require balanced team builds and coordination between team members, it's not being tested in a suitable environment to give us any meaningful data. There are too many variables and no controls in this "experiment," so his results can only be used to prove that ECM can be problematic in PUGs, where the teamwork and balanced team composition that ECM is supposed to encourage are rarely present, (Which we already knew) not that ECM is balanced or unbalanced as a concept. A more valid approach would be to conduct the same study in 8-man drops, where teams will be more logically constructed and teamwork and communication will be present on both sides. There, I would stake money on the fact that player skill, teamwork, and team tonnage totals will decide the outcome before the number of ECM on both sides does.

Hi there,

I don't think I will be able to address all of the good points being made here, but I want to discuss how there are at least two ways to look at the ECM question. Many of the good points you are bringing up are that the game will change and evolve as new features are added that make PUGging less pug-like. For example I am pretty sure we will have much better PUG coordination once we have the following:

1) Lobbies to arrange teams prior to matches and discuss who will be taking what role
2) Integrated voice chat so we can communicate effectively with random strangers during matches
3) A matchmaking system that takes player experience into account - or maybe no matchmaker and just letting the teams see each other so that both sides have to agree it is "balanced" before dropping, the way MPBT3025 did it.

I have to agree that once we can get our hands on the tools to coordinate effectively as a team in game, the mechanics that rely on tight teamwork will make much more sense.

The second way I look at the ECM question though is just down to cost:benefit. Even if we like where the game is with all of the effects that ECM has brought (e.g. jamming locks absent TAG, IFF interference, etc. etc.) there's still the contention that ECM is doing way too many good things for the bearer for 1.5 tons, and that it should be at the very least split into a few 1.5 ton modules. Frankly I would mount a 1.5 ton module that just screwed up missile locks, since I like that much more than an AMS. That's personal opinion though, some people might choose the AMS.

As to your concern that the tests I carried out aren't well suited to PUGs, I have to disagree since the number of man/woman-games going into pugs far outstrips the number of man/woman-games going into coordinated 8v8's. The balance should follow the bulk of the player base.

Even if we go for the conceit that eventually the PUGs will look much more like the 8v8's when these nice future features are in, we still have to look at the rate at which progress is being made and the amount of work left to be done to get the game from where it is now to that idealized future state. One example is the long standing lag shield problem - as far as I can tell the ad for a lead network programmer is still up and unfilled, meaning that they will do their best but that they seem to want to bring in a specialist to really solve it.

Sorry for being so long winded with this, but let me sum up my thoughts.

-I believe the game is now, and will be for the foreseeable future primarily composed of PUGs.
-I believe a game should be balanced for the play mode most users are playing it in
-I have gathered data that very strongly indicates that in PUGs ECM is overwhelmingly correlated with victory (I can't prove causality, but hey...)
-Even if we imagine a perfect future game version that has all of the lobbies, communication facilities, match balance, and solved latency issues the ECM would still be a singularly useful piece of equipment.

It's because of the above that I keep bringing it up in ask the devs, and here.

[Wun]

Malzel, on 09 January 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

The problem with Tolkien's research is that it's conducted in PUG matches,

PuG matches make or break the economic viability of this game. Only a small percent of the people that play this game will ever get into territory conquest. Your arguement is basically the same as MMORPG players claiming there are no game play problems because the top level raiders can do everything easy. Focus on the top 1% and your player base will shrink to only the top players.

Quote

That's a narrow, if not ignorant, take on the matter. It's still a Beta because a large number of game systems, including but not limited to: faction warfare, collisions/knockdowns, CTD bugs, FPS bugs/issues, Mechlab features, netcode, hitboxes, game modes, and many mech designs are still in development/testing.

They are taking people's money. The gameplay may still be in a beta state but the game economy is NOT. If the game was truly a beta, they could decide hero mechs are too expensive and halve the MC pricing of them tomorrow with no problem. How many people wouldn't be on the forums screaming for real money refunds if they did that now?

Edited by Wun, 09 January 2013 - 02:27 PM.

[Malzel]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 09 January 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

If you read any of the posts about 8-mans they are dominated by teams who are mostly made of ECM mechs. There is a reason for that, here's a tip it has nothing to do with team work.

Also balancing for PUGs which are dominated by new players who PGI needs to keep this game going is VERY, VERY important. ECM is counter to this.

I did read your posts, and I've played in 8-mans, but that doesn't change my perception. The issues in 8-mans are the "Steiner scout lances" of 6 Atlas-D-DC w/ ECM teams, and the "wolfpacks" of ECM lights. The former is just player over-reaction and really isn't that difficult to overcome, and the latter will be solved once the netcode/hitboxes of lights get sorted out. As for the Atlases, If you pit 6 D-DCs against 2 D-DCs and 4 Atlas-Ds/RSs, those 6 D-DCs will have some trouble. 2 ECM is the same as 4 ECM before you get into brawling distance, and once you are in brawling distance, the D's have more firepower than the D-DCs, and ECM won't stop that much of that firepower.

Is ECM an important component In 8-man groups? Yes. Do you need 6 of them? No. the group with better communication and focused fire would win every time, regardless of the number of ECM, as long as they use their own ECM wisely. (And provided it wasn't an LRM-heavy composition that is the metaphorical paper to ECM's scissors, but that's a valid outcome.) This is my experience with them. The issue in PUGs is randomly-generated, uncoordinated teams, not ECM, and the issue in 8-mans is a lack of tonnage restrictions, not ECM. Both suffer from netcode issues, not from ECM.

When proper matchmaking debuts, I agree it might be appropriate for it to match ECM-for-ECM, just like it does for Assault-for-Assault, but I maintain that ECM is just an easy scapegoat, not a game-breaking issue.

Edit:

Wun, on 09 January 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

They are taking people's money. The gameplay may still be in a beta state but the game economy is NOT. If the game was truly a beta, they could decide hero mechs are too expensive and halve the MC pricing of them tomorrow with no problem. How many people wouldn't be on the forums screaming for real money refunds if they did that now?

You conveniently left out the important part regarding the functioning payment plans and MC prices:

Malzel, on 09 January 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

In order to balance an MMO, a large base of playtesters is required. Triple-A game studios can hire that army of testers to do that in-house, but MWO is a fan-supported dream, and PGI and Infinity are busting their ***** to try and make that dream come true, but they don't have the resources to do all the testing in-house and present us with a perfect, finished product. Thus, we have open Beta with working payment plans, so they can continue to fund the development of a game that thousands of BT and MW fans across the world want to enjoy. Thank you, kindly.

Edited by Malzel, 09 January 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[Riddler9884]

I will usually state ECM isn't that bad, but Mr. Tolkien I have to completely concede to you, I would tip my hat if I wore one.

If that isn't compelling I don't know what is.

LynxFury I hope the Devs do something so you can go on enjoying the game.

Edited by Riddler9884, 09 January 2013 - 02:49 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

Here's some education regarding the nature of ECM as PGI does not implement it:

(info in italics is from wiki. My personal experience with EW/ECM/etc concurs with what is provided there)

Electronic warfare (EW) refers to any action involving the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or directed energy to control the spectrum, attack an enemy, or impede enemy assaults via the spectrum. The purpose of electronic warfare is to deny the opponent the advantage of, and ensure friendly unimpeded access to, the EM spectrum. EW can be applied from air, sea, land, and space by manned and unmanned systems, and can target communication, radar, or other services. EW includes three major subdivisions: Electronic Attack (EA), Electronic Protection (EP), and Electronic warfare Support (ES).

This is what PGI is thinking of


The term Information Warfare (IW) is primarily an American concept involving the use and management of information technology in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent. Information warfare may involve collection of tactical information, assurance(s) that one's own information is valid, spreading of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize or manipulate the enemy and the public, undermining the quality of opposing force information and denial of information-collection opportunities to opposing forces. Information warfare is closely linked to psychological warfare.

This is not what is being done in MW:O except for some marginal IFF aspects (denial of info collection capabilities (degarding the IFF). If Imitative Communications Deception (ICD) over a mandatory use MW:O in-game VOIP was being performed, maybe, but that concept is still in the realm of the following:


Radio jamming is the (usually deliberate) transmission of radio signals that disrupt communications by decreasing the signal to noise ratio. Unintentional jamming occurs when an operator transmits on a busy frequency without first checking whether it is in use, or without being able to hear stations using the frequency. Another form of unintentional jamming occurs when equipment accidentally radiates a signal, such as a cable TV plant that accidentally emits on an aircraft emergency frequency. The concept can be used in wireless data networks to disrupt information flow.

This is specifically what is affecting the NARCs and mech IFF, the following is obviously only related to radars:


Radar jamming and deception is the intentional emission of radio frequency signals to interfere with the operation of a radar by saturating its receiver with noise or false information. There are two types of radar jamming: Mechanical and Electronic jamming.

This definitely NOT what PGI has implemented. It is being used, because it can be, as a cloak. That is not how the equipment actually functions. My personal experience with any jamming, whether radio or radar, is that NOBODY's sensors or radios work as in tended. If a friendly mech is in the ECM bubble generated by that Raven's ECM suite, his equipment acts the same way as the affected opposing mechs 0- his IFF does not work and his radar appears to be malfunctioning and cannot get a missile lock on.

ECM cannot be functioning all the time without significant heat generation. There should be some added to that generated by the weapons systems. ECM should affect EVERY mech around it within or without the "bubble". If PGI cannot make appropriate changes, then it needs to call the ECM suite something else that reflects what it really is - an Electromagnetic Field Disruptor, Electromagnetic Spectrum Camouflage, or, and more simply, a cloak.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 09 January 2013 - 02:51 PM.