165 replies to this topic

[twibs]

Wow, almost 20% support for my claim. Now if even half of those kept their word... would be a start.

I ***** because I care about this game and don't want to see it fall. It's bit like telling your kids "Don't do drugs, M'kay?", but I keep telling this game "Don't do ECM, M'kay?"

[Thorn Hallis]

By "boycot" you mean you are not going to play a free to play game? Yeah, that will do.

[SiorAlpin Wolf]

we all have read the forums and concluded that there are alot of issues that need to be addressed by the developers, but keeping the community in the dark isnt helping matters, but there is no need to boycott anything.

Yes the updates are very slow and pre-update info is like getting blood out of a stone.

But the biggest problem at the moment is the net-code, and i think that because the net-code is broken it has a compounding effect on any little bug within the game mechanics, so just as a precaution i would wait until the developers announce "The net-code is fixed and working as expected" then and only then should we bombard the forums with our thoughts of what is and what isn't broken once we have played within the environment of the fixed net-code.

The net-code is like the wings of a bird.....if its broke then the bird isn't going to fly, and we can only ***** the real damage once the wings have been fixed, until then just enjoy it for what it is. Failing that get yourself into a mech with ecm and join the Mechwarrior fashion parade, before ecm it was streak cats, its the way testing stuff till it breaks works out.

[HRR Mary]

ECM is bad right now (too many advantages, no drawbacks, almost no counters), but you can play, and still win (I have not bought any ECM capable mech).

Yes it needs some tweaking.
Yes, PGI has not commented yet.
No, all matches aren't about who's having more ECM mechs. (hint : An ECM atlas cresting a ridge is quite visible, and still dies).
No, I will not boycott since it's counter-productive to what we want to achieve : We can feed PGI with experience, and gameplay statistics (remember they monitor a lot of stuff?).

Instead of trying to show off with an arm-wrestling move (that you'll loose, remember, they already have your money), and "Yet-another-thread-about-it", what about proposing actual changes?

[Revorn]

I didnt play since ECM was released. And the new Patch, didnt convinced me to come back. Well maybe next Month.

[yashmack]

I like ECM as it is
and I pilot centurions...

[John MatriX82]

ECM is not fine. It should affect only the bearer of the item, preventing lock ons only for him and allow undetected infiltration between enemy lines.

Any mech bearing BAP or Sensor range (or BAP + Sensor range module) should be able to lock an ECM bearer from 250m, and spot him for the rest of the team. Anybody else should be able to achieve locks and spots if the ECM'd mech is within 150m.

Tag can be used against them to spot them from from 0 to 750m, allowing for a better concentration of LRMs as it is now, but with increased lock on time, the same as without TAG.

ECM bearers would still have the advantage of making ARTEMIS IV on LRMs / SRMs to be useless and increase the lock on time once he's spotted, so that If they are good, they'll try to stand in the 200/300 engagement range to make lock ons harder. Stop to anything else, from counter to distrupt modes, ECM would have 1 mode only working as above.

This would make ECM-able variants to have an advantage making them difficult to spot at distance and to achieve longer lock-ons, but won't make everybody run 3Ls or 2Ds or DD-Cs only and give value to other variants unable to bring it in.

I'd also add that SSRMs should repeat lock-ons after each time you shoot them. Shoot, you lose lock-on, you need to achieve it again with BAP allowing a speed up in lock-on re-acquiring time.

This way chain firing them would be a bad idea (less trolling since for every launcher you'd lose lock on) and you would make SSRMs bearers some work to do in order to achieve lock ons, both for ECM bringing mechs as well as non-ecmed targets to achieve lock on them, making it less noob-tubes as they are now.

Edited by John MatriX82, 16 January 2013 - 03:32 AM.

[Mordin Ashe]

I won't participate. The game is harmed a lot by current ECM implementation, but I won't stop. The game isn't that much fun already, I'm not getting rid of the little fun there is left.

[Lupin]

No, get use to it.
But AGAIN field side 180m way to BIG and needs sorting.

[4er3BaPa]

Too many bonuses for this 1.5 tons gadget
+ broken netcode + hit-bug + topspeed = legal cheats
Welcome to Lagshield Club! Congratulation you are buguser now

[Kernfeuer]

LoL? Boycott?!

Oh boy...had to login just to wrote NO!

Seriousley..take an break if you cant stand it anymore...this crap is far from constructive feedback..so pls re-think and write in a well thought and nicely manner or just take an break..

[Ilwrath]

I don't think ECM is that bad. It only get bad when your team has zero while the premade team has lots.

The matchmaking is the real problem,, and the worst netcode in gaming history.

If you have such issues with it I think the sane thing to do is to take a break. Unless you are stupid like me and activated founders premium time because you expected actual development progress

[twibs]

ECM is only half of the problem, the other is PGIs unwillingness to address our concerns about the ECM

[twibs]

Well, this surely looks promising: (posts 38 and 40)

http://mwomercs.com/...-communication/

We'll see if we get some good answer

[Carl Wrede]

Welcome to ECM Online!

Get one today and you will be an elite pilot instantly! MWO has made you an offer you cant refuse

[Solis Obscuri]

Solis Obscuri, on 15 January 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

The forums can get raucous and whiny, true, but I've seen far worse.

And frankly, putting up with some forum trolls is probably better in the long term than going into an echo chamber of professional sycophants and people who are completely ignorant of how your game plays, write the people who do understand it off as a "vocal minority" and make decisions that run your game into the ground in the process...

Paul Inouye, on 16 January 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

a vocal minority

OHGOD

[Ransack]

PurpleNinja, on 15 January 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

I really wonder if your signature was created by the time Battletech table top game was launched.
Was it?

sorry, I don't get it. I have tons of sig's. That one is kinda old for me.

[Grraarrgghh]

Hey twibs, quit being such a brat and use forum search for once.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1749106

Just posted today you putz.

EDIT:

And again he just posted

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1750287

Now can we stop with these moronic threads?

Edited by Grraarrgghh, 16 January 2013 - 04:42 PM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Rofl.
NO!

These threads have got to stop. And by stop I mean PGI deleted them all and every time they come up because they're so damn annoying.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 16 January 2013 - 04:39 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Oh, and FYI twibs:

Garth Erlam, on 16 January 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

I sent a 5 page 'suggestions from the forums' email to design a couple days ago, with multiple links to ECM ideas.

The reason we don't reply about it, is we don't have a definitive change we can tell you yet. "It might be one of these things or maybe something else" isn't going to help anything, and will lead to more confusion than understanding. An 'incremental change' requires we have data to see how it's actually working. If we went off of Mech popularity the day after a patch where a Mech was released, well, you can imagine how accurate it'd really be.

The fact is ECM numbers are dropping - in both pub games (a LOT), and in competitive games (a fair amount - the average is much, much lower than 'all eight Mechs'. Are we looking at changes? Yes. Am I going to post here every time we have an idea in testing? No. Why not? I'd literally spend my entire work day posting changes that occurred from the day before. And most of it would never make it to the live game, and would cause people to choose the ones that weren't used as 'that would have worked instead' (see: Dual Heat Sinks.)

We're not trying to hide info from you - it's just that barraging you with data that, by and large, won't be used isn't a good use of anyone's time. I try to tell people when I am forwarding their ideas, but when you're sending ten at a time, in a short amount of time, it's tough to justify saying "thanks sending this!" over and over, and then getting PM's saying you clearly didn't, because that exact change wasn't used in the next patch.

That said, we do listen, we do look at your ideas, and we do value your info. I try to answer PM's as fast as I can, but again, I'd spend an entire day responding, and then responding to the responses, and so on. We do see, and we do appreciate, and I am constantly forwarding your comments.

I hope you all understand this isn't an attack on you guys, or saying you're all shouting blasphemy. It's, sadly, a time thing. Were I able to clone myself, every single suggestion would get a reply, kudos, and a free bobblehead of me agreeing with your assertions.