293 replies to this topic

[Silent]

Greyfyl, on 16 January 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

So why are you still coming here. Obviously you are much superior than the common forum poster, why would you continue to subject yourself to all this garbage?

We usually stick to the one or two goon related threads on these forums but every once in awhile we gotta air ourselves out and we descend on threads like this. You'll very rarely see one of us hanging out in the Suggestions forum or any thread that is arguing about 'ideas' ad nauseam.

[INSEkT L0GIC]

I think there is a difference between someone who gets paid as a game tester in an beta versus someone who plays an open beta somehow thinking they are a game tester, rather than fodder for the game testers to play against in a live environment. That's the impression I get from people that do it for a living, anyway. *shrug*

[KingCobra]

Ihasa, on 16 January 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

Using Star Trek Online as a model would be the worst thing PGI could ever do. That game has devolved into a cesspool of pay2win unbalanced Asian grindfest, where the devs there are even worse than PGI when it comes to communication, balance and content output. If it weren't for even more rabid fans and the Cryptic Defense Force, that game would have as low a player base now as it did right before it went f2p, which wasn't very many at all. Less than MWO in closed beta even.

Anyone who thinks MWO and PGI are second rate, would think that Cryptic and STO are far, far lower. The only thing PGI should take from STO and Cryptic are examples of how not do do things.

-formerly @GenXCraig, SOB fleet.

I'm sorry your not informed about STO that much on the steam stats there are over 20,000 players playing STO at any given hour of the day. I would assume MWO has about 1000-2000 any given hour of the day and I might be stretching that given past data before the counter disappeared. My whole point is the game needs more content more progression and more in depth gameplay. You ask anyone that plays MWO after even 100 games there burnt out on the repetitive cycle and there is not much content to alternate between launch and die =launch and die. The game (MWO) overall rating is a 2-4 rating on most sites why? lack of vision and lack of content to hold players longer. The average new players will spend maybe maybe 100 hours before the say good bye where most MMORPG players stay a average of 1000+ hours.

[Grraarrgghh]

KingCobra, on 16 January 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

I'm sorry your not informed about STO that much on the steam stats there are over 20,000 players playing STO at any given hour of the day.

I like how you invented more 0s to prove your point.



Taken 2 minutes ago.

Edited by Grraarrgghh, 16 January 2013 - 02:42 PM.

[Roadkill]

hammerreborn, on 16 January 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

Make this bobblehead! I want you to nod approvingly at me while I shoot people, lol.

Seconded!

I want a Garth bobblehead!

[Woky]

Mr.Grraarrgghh, a quick check with my un-named sources of dubious existence says that your screen shot was hosted in the same studio where the moon landing was filmed. That being said back at the OP from earlier I personally believe I addressed all relevant points you brought up and I believe Garth Erlam's post confirms it to be the case that just because they don't mark our posts as read they do check the forums and look into data acquired within the game itself. I for one choose to provide my best feedback behind several inches of lag shield with streaks and lasers pouring out of my ecm bubble, as thats the best way I can let them know that maybe my stats get a little padded merely due to equipment I carry into matches.

Edited by Woky, 16 January 2013 - 02:51 PM.

[Livewyr]

I kinda wished this thread was deleted..

Seeing the Title, in a red (deleted) topic would have sent me in laughing fits for an hour.

[Roadkill]

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

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'.

Garth, surely you realize that the raw number of ECM being used is not an indication of whether or not it is too powerful?

If there was only 1 ECM in every match, but the team that had ECM won every time, would that not indicate that ECM is too powerful despite the fact that matches would be averaging only 1 ECM?

Even those of us who know just how powerful it is don't always pilot ECM Mechs. It gets boring. But that doesn't change the fact that it is ridiculously powerful for 1.5 tons, 2 crits, and 0 weapon hard points.

I have posted this elsewhere, but might as well mention it here also. The best sign of ECM's power is this: what percentage of ECM-capable Mechs are equipped with ECM in missions? It is irrelevant that someone brought a Jenner and didn't have ECM. That person might just be trying to level up his Jenners, or he might be bored to death of always piloting a Raven 3L.

But how many Raven 3Ls do you see in game that are NOT equipped with ECM? How many Atlas D-DCs do you see in game that are NOT equipped with ECM?

Virtually none. Which means that ECM is BY FAR the best value for its tonnage and crit space. If it were even remotely balanced you'd see someone replace it with BAP. Or an extra double heat sink. Or SOMETHING. But that just never happens, because ECM is drastically overpowered.

As others have pointed out over and over, the current MWO implementation of "Guardian" ECM is in fact the equivalent of the tabletop game's Angel ECM (the advanced successor to Guardian ECM) + Stealth Armor + Null Signature System, but without the balancing costs of the latter two systems. How anyone could have possible thought that would be balanced is beyond me.

[Woky]

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

I personally go through the forums every day (including weekends and after work). I know you're all clamoring for information but there's a time and place for every bit of info we release. Hot topic: ECM... yes... I've got a write up on our stance on the situation but I will not release it until I can confirm 2 features I want in the game before I do so.

Hopefully this helps Roadkill. The Dev tracker sticky post helps to see some of the little tid bits the devs drop in random threads that you may miss based on crazy titles. I think this one was in the PGI heats their office with orphan meat thread.

[Ken Fury]

Roadkill, on 16 January 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

Garth, surely you realize that the raw number of ECM being used is not an indication of whether or not it is too powerful?

You realize, he sent FIVE pages to the design team... And that changes to the Dev build need testing time?

Just reread what he wrote. Please!

[Ihasa]

KingCobra, on 16 January 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

I'm sorry your not informed about STO that much on the steam stats there are over 20,000 players playing STO at any given hour of the day. I would assume MWO has about 1000-2000 any given hour of the day and I might be stretching that given past data before the counter disappeared. My whole point is the game needs more content more progression and more in depth gameplay. You ask anyone that plays MWO after even 100 games there burnt out on the repetitive cycle and there is not much content to alternate between launch and die =launch and die. The game (MWO) overall rating is a 2-4 rating on most sites why? lack of vision and lack of content to hold players longer. The average new players will spend maybe maybe 100 hours before the say good bye where most MMORPG players stay a average of 1000+ hours.

I agree with a lot of that. And none of it has anything to do with STO except the Steam player counter. I'm not saying MWO doesn't have the count of STO now, I'm sure it has way more players. I'm saying STO is one of the worst examples of how to do things well.

[Weaselfeet]

Grraarrgghh, on 16 January 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

List?

1) every problem presented is blown way out of proportion

2) no incremental change is good enough for this community

3) typically the criticism misses the "constructive" part

4) you rehash problems they have addressed every ******* day until they are fixed

5) unrealistic self-entitlement

6) narrow view of game development

7) everything is aired in public like dirty laundry rather than emailed directly to PGI

8) most ideas are myopic and don't take other playstyles/setups/people into consideration

Listen to VCRS!

http://mwomercs.com/...anuary-16-2013/

+1

Edited by Weaselfeet, 16 January 2013 - 03:15 PM.

[Shibas]

Roadkill, on 16 January 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

...
I have posted this elsewhere, but might as well mention it here also. The best sign of ECM's power is this: what percentage of ECM-capable Mechs are equipped with ECM in missions? It is irrelevant that someone brought a Jenner and didn't have ECM. That person might just be trying to level up his Jenners, or he might be bored to death of always piloting a Raven 3L.

But how many Raven 3Ls do you see in game that are NOT equipped with ECM? How many Atlas D-DCs do you see in game that are NOT equipped with ECM?

Virtually none. Which means that ECM is BY FAR the best value for its tonnage and crit space. If it were even remotely balanced you'd see someone replace it with BAP. Or an extra double heat sink. Or SOMETHING. But that just never happens, because ECM is drastically overpowered.
.

I'm pretty sure I posted this elsewhere: Correlation does not equal causation.

Just because each mech able to equip an item that is a perk of that mech is no indication that it is overpowered. That is the benefit of that particular mech is the ability to use said equipment. That would be like saying why does every Atlas-K use 2 AMSs or why do mechs with jump jets use them? It doesn't actually say anything outside the fact that people that use those mechs use the benefits of that mech.

[Roadkill]

Tank Boy Ken, on 16 January 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

You realize, he sent FIVE pages to the design team... And that changes to the Dev build need testing time?

Just reread what he wrote. Please!

I read it several times. The takeaway was that one of the reasons they think ECM is okay is because its use overall is going down. That perception is patently false, and I wanted to make sure Garth was aware of how false it is.

Woky - yes, hopefully Paul's post (when he finally posts it) will be good news.

[Roadkill]

Shibas, on 16 January 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Just because each mech able to equip an item that is a perk of that mech is no indication that it is overpowered. That is the benefit of that particular mech is the ability to use said equipment. That would be like saying why does every Atlas-K use 2 AMSs or why do mechs with jump jets use them? It doesn't actually say anything outside the fact that people that use those mechs use the benefits of that mech.

Yes, actually, it is.

Not every Atlas K uses 2 AMS. Not every Stalker 5S uses 2 AMS. Why not? Because - despite the fact that those two chassis have that ability as a unique characteristic - AMS is reasonably well balanced and so people sometimes choose to install something else. I've seen more Atlas Ks carrying ZERO AMS than I've seen ECM-capable Mechs not carrying ECM.

I see a lot of Jenners (well, relatively speaking... one doesn't see "a lot" of Jenners at the moment due to ECM) that aren't carrying Jump Jets. I never use 'em myself, but I've Mastered all 3 Jenners. Why? Because JJ are reasonably well balanced and so carrying them - or not - is just an option. There are other things you can do with 2.5 tons on a Jenner than give you at least as much capability as carrying 5 JJ.

Many Mechs have configs that aren't making full use of their weapon hardpoints. Those hardpoints are options because weapons are reasonably well balanced. I'd wager that very few Hunchback 4Gs actually mount 3 ballistic weapons, for example.

That's not the case with ECM. If your Mech can carry it, you carry it. Installing anything else would be stupid because ECM is by far the best value for tonnage/crit spaces available. And that means it is overpowered, or unbalanced, or however you'd like to say it. It does too much for too little cost.

[Serapth]

Roadkill, on 16 January 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

Yes, actually, it is.

Not every Atlas K uses 2 AMS. Not every Stalker 5S uses 2 AMS. Why not? Because - despite the fact that those two chassis have that ability as a unique characteristic - AMS is reasonably well balanced and so people sometimes choose to install something else. I've seen more Atlas Ks carrying ZERO AMS than I've seen ECM-capable Mechs not carrying ECM.

I see a lot of Jenners (well, relatively speaking... one doesn't see "a lot" of Jenners at the moment due to ECM) that aren't carrying Jump Jets. I never use 'em myself, but I've Mastered all 3 Jenners. Why? Because JJ are reasonably well balanced and so carrying them - or not - is just an option. There are other things you can do with 2.5 tons on a Jenner than give you at least as much capability as carrying 5 JJ.

Many Mechs have configs that aren't making full use of their weapon hardpoints. Those hardpoints are options because weapons are reasonably well balanced. I'd wager that very few Hunchback 4Gs actually mount 3 ballistic weapons, for example.

That's not the case with ECM. If your Mech can carry it, you carry it. Installing anything else would be stupid because ECM is by far the best value for tonnage/crit spaces available. And that means it is overpowered, or unbalanced, or however you'd like to say it. It does too much for too little cost.

A agree with you completely. ECM doesn't have enough downside to equiping.

I just want to chime in and say, the reason I dont equip AMS often is simply because I play positionally pretty well, meaning 99% of my AMS ammo is spent shooting into the wall in front of me.

I REALLY wish they would add a manual override for AMS.

[hammerreborn]

Roadkill, on 16 January 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

Garth, surely you realize that the raw number of ECM being used is not an indication of whether or not it is too powerful?

If there was only 1 ECM in every match, but the team that had ECM won every time, would that not indicate that ECM is too powerful despite the fact that matches would be averaging only 1 ECM?

Even those of us who know just how powerful it is don't always pilot ECM Mechs. It gets boring. But that doesn't change the fact that it is ridiculously powerful for 1.5 tons, 2 crits, and 0 weapon hard points.

I have posted this elsewhere, but might as well mention it here also. The best sign of ECM's power is this: what percentage of ECM-capable Mechs are equipped with ECM in missions? It is irrelevant that someone brought a Jenner and didn't have ECM. That person might just be trying to level up his Jenners, or he might be bored to death of always piloting a Raven 3L.

But how many Raven 3Ls do you see in game that are NOT equipped with ECM? How many Atlas D-DCs do you see in game that are NOT equipped with ECM?

Virtually none. Which means that ECM is BY FAR the best value for its tonnage and crit space. If it were even remotely balanced you'd see someone replace it with BAP. Or an extra double heat sink. Or SOMETHING. But that just never happens, because ECM is drastically overpowered.

As others have pointed out over and over, the current MWO implementation of "Guardian" ECM is in fact the equivalent of the tabletop game's Angel ECM (the advanced successor to Guardian ECM) + Stealth Armor + Null Signature System, but without the balancing costs of the latter two systems. How anyone could have possible thought that would be balanced is beyond me.

All spiders have JJs, so JJs are drastically overpowered? Until the JJ trajectory nerf all Jenners used them as well.

There we have it folks, JJs are overpowered because they are used by the people that can use them.

Worst argument, ever.

[Shibas]

Roadkill, on 16 January 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

Yes, actually, it is.

Not every Atlas K uses 2 AMS. Not every Stalker 5S uses 2 AMS. Why not? Because - despite the fact that those two chassis have that ability as a unique characteristic - AMS is reasonably well balanced and so people sometimes choose to install something else. I've seen more Atlas Ks carrying ZERO AMS than I've seen ECM-capable Mechs not carrying ECM.

I see a lot of Jenners (well, relatively speaking... one doesn't see "a lot" of Jenners at the moment due to ECM) that aren't carrying Jump Jets. I never use 'em myself, but I've Mastered all 3 Jenners. Why? Because JJ are reasonably well balanced and so carrying them - or not - is just an option. There are other things you can do with 2.5 tons on a Jenner than give you at least as much capability as carrying 5 JJ.

Many Mechs have configs that aren't making full use of their weapon hardpoints. Those hardpoints are options because weapons are reasonably well balanced. I'd wager that very few Hunchback 4Gs actually mount 3 ballistic weapons, for example.

That's not the case with ECM. If your Mech can carry it, you carry it. Installing anything else would be stupid because ECM is by far the best value for tonnage/crit spaces available. And that means it is overpowered, or unbalanced, or however you'd like to say it. It does too much for too little cost.

Pretty sure you missed the first sentence.

Shibas, on 16 January 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

...Correlation does not equal causation.

Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all hard points are optional, but that's just crazy me talking. Except an engine, I'm pretty sure an engine is required, though I guess you could use a bicycle generator in the cockpit and pedal your way to victory.

That whole post is kind of a checklist of Grrraaaagh's post. A narrow minded over exaggerated comment with little basis or explanation on the matter other than "people that use mechs that can use an equipment, use it."

[Roadkill]

hammerreborn, on 16 January 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

All spiders have JJs, so JJs are drastically overpowered? Until the JJ trajectory nerf all Jenners used them as well.

There we have it folks, JJs are overpowered because they are used by the people that can use them.

Worst argument, ever.

Worst reading comprehension, ever.

Spiders are a bad example at the moment because they're new. Jenners are a better example, and as already pointed out not everyone uses JJ in Jenners. That's because JJ are reasonably well balanced, so it's actually a reasonable choice whether or not you should use them.

Not so with ECM. If you can use it, you should. If you can use it and you aren't, you're hurting your team.

[Roadkill]

Shibas, on 16 January 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

That whole post is kind of a checklist of Grrraaaagh's post. A narrow minded over exaggerated comment with little basis or explanation on the matter other than "people that use mechs that can use an equipment, use it."

Nope. Your failure to understand the point doesn't make the point any less valid.

Not everyone uses AMS on Mechs that can use it.
Not everyone uses JJ on Mechs that can use them.
Not everyone uses BAP on Mechs that can use it.
Not everyone uses TAG on Mechs that can use it.
Not everyone uses max armor on their Mechs.
The list goes on and on.

But everyone uses ECM on Mechs that can use it. It's very nearly 100%.

That's because ECM is too powerful for it's cost.