46 replies to this topic

[Roheryn]

Void Angel, on 15 January 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

Finding a bug does not make your claim correct; it makes the bug need fixing.

Also, you should stop quoting dev statements in a sloppy way; it looks as if you might be taking a statement about Beagle and applying it to sensor range in general - which is not what the Dev you're quoting said. I do not think this was your intention, but you should be perhaps less... hasty... in hammering out a response.

Both the quoted statement AND the patch notes indicate that ECM is supposed to work on your actual sensor range, not a static 200m distance. Thus, this is a bug and not a design decision - your argument, and Jakob's, is still incorrect.

Please link some evidence which shows that this is not working as intended
It is 100% a design decision to make ECM shielded mechs not targetable outside of 200m if the person targeting them is using BAP. My proof is in this Post:

http://mwomercs.com/...dian-ecm-suite/

Whether or not it is a design decision to also have this same effect on Sensor modules is indeed up for debate. However since it has been asked several times in every "Ask The Devs" since ECM came out I can only assume they are aware of the problem, with the fact that the effect of sensor modules on base sensor range has absolutely no effect on an ECM shielded mech.

Either way the effect is the same they introduced an enormously out of balance system with precisely no drawbacks and the only actual counter to it is tag. Which requires a tremendous amount of things to go right (saying that other ECM's are a counter is a reasonable argument assuming you enjoy a game where 5 total variants make up such a disproportionate amount of the battlefield):

1. you have to sacrifice an energy hardpoint ( no ecm mechs must sacrifice a weapon hardpoint in order to equip ecm)
2. It must maintain line of sight on the target (ecm functions without line of sight)
3. You must stay out of 180m of the ecm mech (since they are most likely faster than you if you are using LRM's this is not really possible, ecm has value at any and all ranges)
4. It costs 1.5 tons and 2 criticals (no mech that can mount an ECM need to sacrifice anything to carry it my Raven 3L, CMD-2D, and AS7-D-DC all have the identical loadouts that they would have if they did not carry ecm, except a bit of armor on the atlas)

Edited by Roheryn, 15 January 2013 - 05:49 PM.

[Jakob Knight]

Void Angel, on 15 January 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Roheryn, resorting to straw man attacks against your opponent does not impress me with your reading level, you should know. Nor does deliberately ignoring the real point of his objection in order to harp on a non-critical error. Both of these are forms of lying, which destroy your credibility.

You're right that the Beagle doesn't increase sensor range. /golfclap. He's right that you can still use sensor modules to increase your range - and that this means your effective sensor range is higher than 200m. So he doesn't think he "knows better than everyone else," he just thinks he knows better than you and Jakob. And he's right:
This claim is false: it is factually incorrect and therefore cannot possibly be true. First, there are indeed multiple counters to ECM. ECM itself is, of course, a counter, but TAG is an effective counter as well. The range modules are also partial counters, as they increase the lock-on range to a more workable distance beyond the ECM bubble. So the latter part of this statement is completely wrong.

The former paragraph of this angry diatribe is also totally incorrect. The lock-on range for 'mechs targeting ECM is not 200m. According to the very Dev statement you quoted, it is 25% of the normal distance; 200m applies only to the default 800m sensor range Thus, adding 25% to the base sensor range will extend lock-on distance to 250m if the result is calculated multiplicatively, as is the norm. Personally, I think that the penalty and bonuses should interact additively ([1 -.75 +.25]*800) which would give us a 400m lock-on range, but this is immaterial. The fact is that he did not argue that the extra 50m range was unhelpful; he (and you) argued that it was nonexistent.

You are quite incorrect in your assessment of the situation. The range that you can lock onto an ECM protected mech is taken from the -normal- lock-on range (note the quote on this), not the modified range by equipment or modules. The devs are quite specific in the 200m range, and in no place to they note that this changes by any means currently in the game (they are quite emphatic that equipment that extends range such as BAP has no effect on this). Thus, this is not a 'bug', but 'working as intended'.

In addition, your comments about TAG being an effective counter are quite false. TAG has many disadvantages that work against it being usable in any practical sense (the most common being the inability to hold it on target for the required length of time on a battlefield tailored to block line-of-sight), but the biggest is that TAG is nullified by ECM. Something that is nullified by the thing it is meant to counter is not a counter (go fight a fire with gasoline sometime). TAG remains ineffective unless the using unit is within the range that ECM nullifies it, in which case it also remains ineffective.

Claiming ECM as a counter to itself is also illogical, as it is no different than saying the cure for a disease is to get sick. This is the same as saying there is no cure.

The range modules do -not- extend the 'normal' distance, and even if they did, calling the difference 'more workable' is greatly false. The difference, if it actually did work as you suggest, would only be about 60 meters with a massive investment of experience and c-bills. The average mech will cross that distance before any lock-on can be achieved, making such 'workable' solutions obviously no solution at all.

So, no. Your own statements are the ones that are false. If you want to prove your case, please quote a published dev article that documents exactly what you are saying (exact equipment with the range numbers against a hostile ECM field), and that this will allow for an LRM unit to lock on, fire, and have their weapons hit against the average ECM mech ( a 96kph Raven). Until you do so, it must be concluded that the only documented range is a firm 200m, and it is unaltered by any equipment that would increase sensor range.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 15 January 2013 - 07:35 PM.

[Void Angel]

Again, the developer comments and patch notes which you both have quoted, indicate that the range modules are intended as a partial counter to ECM. The developer post that is linked on this very page give the 200m figure as a default. It is not a hard number; it is 1/4*800m. If you increase the range past 800m, the effective lock-on range will increase. If the testing done is actually correct, and the number is still 200m, this is a bug, and should be reported as such. The claim that the developers have deliberately given you a counter that doesn't work out of spite just passes sense. Similarly, while you are correct that TAG does not magically allow you to turn off the enemy's ECM from 750m away, it is still an excellent counter - the fact that it's not a newbie hammer, and requires you to actually flank and position yourself does not change this fact, nor do inappropriate metaphors and factually incorrect statements. You cannot, for example, claim that TAG is ineffective both because people can hide from the laser and because 'mechs can charge you at the same time. You also cannot claim that an ECM in counter mode does not counter an enemy ECM simply because they are the same system - they turn the enemy ECM COMPLETELY OFF! THAT'S A COUNTER! The new target decay modules are designed to address the issue of cover as well. If, again, they're not working like the patch notes say they're intended to work, you should submit a bug report - claiming that the patch isn't intended to do what it says it's intended to do based on your misreading of an explanation concerning an earlier patch is not rational.

On a similar note, you seem so intent on hammering out an angry response that you haven't even read my post. First, I've already given you the numbers on the modified ranges, depending on how the game accounts for the difference - in neither case was the difference "about 60."

Regardless of how much you want to be angry and accuse the devs of nonsensical things, you can't take your ungrounded views as being more authoritative on what the devs have done than what the devs themselves say they're doing.

Edit: clarity in first paragraph.

Edited by Void Angel, 15 January 2013 - 11:26 PM.

[Jakob Knight]

I have asked before, and I will ask you one more time. Give me a dev posted article detailing the ranges that modules and equipment that increase the base sensor range (BAP, Sensor Range modules, ect) will detect an ECM unit, proving that this is so (your numbers are based on your erroneous assumption that range increase equipment increases detection range against ECMs, something stated by the devs as incorrect, so I can't take your numbers as proof). Right now, what we know is that range-increase equipment does -not- have any effect on the detection range on an ECM-protected unit, and that is being born out in in-game conditions. Further, statements from the devs that they are happy with the way ECM is performing in the game, in full knowlege of reports about ECM by players, clearly indicates that there -are- no bugs, and that things are working as intended. If you want me to accept what you say as true, against all evidence and published data to the contrary, you must provide proof.

And I think the fact that the entire issue has come to be being because the devs have done what they have is all I have to say about your statement. The devs made the mutually-exclusive denial zones in ECM. The devs engineered conditions that TAG and BAP would be unusable in countering ECM. The devs made claims that the new modules were 'must haves' to offset the problems ECM have caused to LRM users. If anything, the devs have proven, by word and action, that they do -not- support your version of how things work.

And I can certainly claim TAG is ineffective when it is ineffective. When something is unworkable in the environment it is functioning in, then claiming it is effective is just nonsensical. TAG is unworkable in the combat environment of MWO in its current form, and is therefore ineffective, and not a viable counter to ECM.

Lastly, a 'bug' is performance of a game element at odds from what that element should be doing. All evidence to date is that ECM is working as the devs intended. That it contradicts what you -think- it should be doing is irrelevant, and further proof that it is your own data that is at fault. Submitting a bug report on something not a bug accomplishes nothing.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 16 January 2013 - 06:39 AM.

[Fut]

Particle Man, on 15 January 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

you think that's how it works? They just look through the bugs list and decide which one they want to fix first?

Without anything else to go on, we have to assume that's how it works...

Who knows though, maybe they put all the issues into a hat, then draw at random.

Jakob Knight, on 16 January 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

And I can certainly claim TAG is ineffective when it is ineffective. When something is unworkable in the environment it is functioning in, then claiming it is effective is just nonsensical. TAG is unworkable in the combat environment of MWO in its current form, and is therefore ineffective, and not a viable counter to ECM.

Actually, TAG does a decent job of countering ECM. I wish it was slightly easier to accomplish, but while using TAG you can get a missile lock on an ECM enabled Mech. Of course, part of the difficulty I'm having is that I'm the one trying to TAG the ECM, get the lock, and fire my own missiles - all while keeping my target painted with TAG. It's a pain, but when it works, and I see the missile damage on my target, it's a great feeling.

If I had a spotter with TAG designating targets for me, ECM would be annoying still - but much easier to deal with.

Although I don't really like that ECM is a catch-all device for all Electronic Warfare, I don't think it's as unstoppable as people make it out to be.

Edited by Fut, 16 January 2013 - 07:10 AM.

[Void Angel]

Jakob Knight, on 16 January 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

I have asked before, and I will ask you one more time. Give me a dev posted article detailing the ranges that modules and equipment that increase the base sensor range (BAP, Sensor Range modules, ect) will detect an ECM unit, proving that this is so (your numbers are based on your erroneous assumption that range increase equipment increases detection range against ECMs, something stated by the devs as incorrect, so I can't take your numbers as proof). Right now, what we know is that range-increase equipment does -not- have any effect on the detection range on an ECM-protected unit, and that is being born out in in-game conditions. Further, statements from the devs that they are happy with the way ECM is performing in the game, in full knowlege of reports about ECM by players, clearly indicates that there -are- no bugs, and that things are working as intended. If you want me to accept what you say as true, against all evidence and published data to the contrary, you must provide proof.

And I think the fact that the entire issue has come to be being because the devs have done what they have is all I have to say about your statement. The devs made the mutually-exclusive denial zones in ECM. The devs engineered conditions that TAG and BAP would be unusable in countering ECM. The devs made claims that the new modules were 'must haves' to offset the problems ECM have caused to LRM users. If anything, the devs have proven, by word and action, that they do -not- support your version of how things work.

And I can certainly claim TAG is ineffective when it is ineffective. When something is unworkable in the environment it is functioning in, then claiming it is effective is just nonsensical. TAG is unworkable in the combat environment of MWO in its current form, and is therefore ineffective, and not a viable counter to ECM.

Lastly, a 'bug' is performance of a game element at odds from what that element should be doing. All evidence to date is that ECM is working as the devs intended. That it contradicts what you -think- it should be doing is irrelevant, and further proof that it is your own data that is at fault. Submitting a bug report on something not a bug accomplishes nothing.

OK. Once more. The link you posted has the Dev quote. I do not need to give more quotes, because you already gave them. You are reading it wrong, apparently because you are angry. Being angry at something that only happened in your own mind is insane. Dev quotes posted by you and Roheryn say that: A) 200m is a variable (default,) not a hard number (25% of the normal sensor range, by default,) and B) The sensor modules and target decay modules are intended specifically to help LRM boats deal with ECM. These are official communications from the devs. You're not going to get away with ignoring them and pretending that you're reasonable by asking "again" for information I've already pointed out to you.

Since the 200m value is a default value derived by multiplying the normal (800m) sensor range by .25, changing the normal sensor range should yield a different value. The only way you can claim that this is not intended is to claim that the devs' explanation doesn't mean what it says. This is a factual claim for which you must provide proof - where is the dev published article specifically stating that sensor range increasers (other than the BAP, which is specifically listed as countered by ECM) are not intended to affect ECM, or that the lock-on range is set to 200m? Nothing you've quoted thus far shows that: in the original ECM explanation, a formula is given, and 200m specifically listed as a default, not a hard value. Similarly, in the patch notes, which supercede game information from earlier patches (such as 1.1.161) clearly states that the new modules are intended specifically to help LRM boats deal with ECM. In short, I've shown you, twice, why you are wrong. Can you show me why you're right?

You can't "ask one more time" for something I gave you in the post to which you are responding, but here it is again. Please feel free to either present evidence that actually supports your point of view (instead of contradicting it,) or simply stop posting nonsense.

Edited by Void Angel, 16 January 2013 - 10:08 PM.

[Void Angel]

Particle Man, on 15 January 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

you think that's how it works? They just look through the bugs list and decide which one they want to fix first?

Fut, on 16 January 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Without anything else to go on, we have to assume that's how it works...

I don't think that we have to assume that they're prioritizing unimportant fixes over important fixes just because we have nothing to go on - in fact, doing that would work against them, so unless we have something to go on, we should assume that's not how it's done. =)

On the other hand, thanks for the point about TAG. A counter isn't "unworkable" just because it doesn't make ECM totally useless - and I know from a fact from using it that it works quite well to balance out ECM.