452 replies to this topic

[Sudden Reversal]

God I hate this ECM implementation.

The divide between casual 'pug' and hardcore grows ever wider.

Won't matter as long as hardcore equates to buckets of disposable income, but I fear that lies with the great unwashed.

[StalaggtIKE]

IrrelevantFish, on 17 February 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

They're a small company without a dedicated PR department, and peopled by real human beings with actual emotions who are probably just a mite frustrated with all the name-calling and melodrama they have to sort through on this forum. Can you blame them for reticence or snippiness?

I believe I more than stated my feelings on this matter, so I'll keep this short and sweet.
I am a customer.
Can I blame them?
Yes.

Quote

You've just made my point for me. Passion is the most powerful inhibitor of rationality. If you were a bit less passionate, maybe you'd realize that all the insults in the world won't make PGI work any faster/better (more likely, it will do the opposite), waiting a few more months is hardly onerous, and without sitting in on all the company meetings you don't have sufficient information with which to judge them.

So I repeat: if you can't say something nice or useful, don't say anything at all.

So you suggest we treat them as one would a special needs child in a sandbox; just smile and hope they don't hurt themselves. Brilliant.

Asmudius Heng, on 17 February 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Lots of people have posted well thought out non inflammatory posts about ECM and have asked very nicely for better feedback from the devs.

Lots of people have also lost their s h i t about this as well.

As the above, very reasonable, posters have suggested. The issue is half about ECM but half about the lack of empathy from PGI for people who see serious issues with ECM and feel very disconnected from the beta process and what might be happening in the future.

While PGI reps might be very annoyed at the people who yell and scream, the majority of posters in this thread have put forth well reasoned, very polite suggestions and post about the entire issue.

We are keeping our cool and just want to get some feedback after a very long time of PGI being very, very quiet about this issue.

Thank you for stating the point I was trying to convey in a more accessible and efficient format. Perhaps it will be easier to digest.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 17 February 2013 - 09:03 PM.

[Haitchpeasauce]

ECM + SSRM ... bad. A bit lop-sided when one mech gets speed, targeting protection, and guided weapons all at the same time.

ECM in PUGs ... bad. Communication is hard enough already.

Limiting the number of ECM mechs to 3 makes the game more fun. We do it in our in-house games.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

lol I enjoy a lot less is more than both yes answers combined

[Alvor]

To summarize TAG should always work & Streaks/Regular LRMs should always work if using Canon BT/MW.

Number of (regular) missiles hit per salvo in current MWO is OP. On average only about 50%-60% should be hitting i.e. LRM20 average 12 missiles hit per salvo.

All this information was taken from http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Main_Page which is one of the best resources for Battletech information.

http://www.sarna.net...rdian_ECM_Suite

Guardian ECM Suite is typically used to shield allied units from such equipment by emitting a broad-band signal meant to confuse radar, infrared, ultraviolet, magscan and sonar sensors.[2] Affected systems include Artemis IV, C3 and C3i Computer networks, and Narc Missile Beacons. A Guardian can jam a Beagle Active Probe (or its Clan equivalent), but the probe-equipped unit will be aware of the jamming. The greatest drawback to the Guardian is its limited range 180 meters. Sensors can sometimes override this jamming, though by that point the enemy unit is already within visual range and can track the opposition with their own eyes.[2]

http://www.sarna.net...Angel_ECM_Suite

Angel ECM Suite is an experimental version of the Guardian ECM Suite operating on a broader spectrum and greatly advances ECM technology on the battlefield.
Game Rules
The Angel ECM Suite represents a great advance in ECM technology from the standard Guardian model. Angel suite completely blocks the following systems on enemy units: Artemis IV,Artemis V, Beagle Active Probes, Bloodhound Active Probes and their Clan equivalents, C3 Master Computers and C3 Slaves, Streak Missile Launchers and Narc missile beacons. Streak missiles may be fired at units affected by the device, but they function as standard missiles.
When using ECCM rules, the Angel ECM Suite counts as two ECM/ECCM units (depending on how it is set) for the purposes of determining the ratio of ECM to ECCM in a given area.

http://www.sarna.net...cquisition_Gear

Target Acquisition Gear (TAG) is an advanced targeting device for use by artillery spotters. The TAG unit works by firing an infrared laser beam to designate the target and transmits that data via a tight-beam laser communication system to the guidance systems of friendly "smart" bombs and missiles. TAG is compatible with systems such as Arrow IV Homing Missiles or LRM munitions.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Streak_SRM

Streak Missile Launcher Unlike a standard SRM whose shotgun effect may result in some misses and some hits, Streak guidance gives the lighter launchers the effective average firepower of the heavier and more wasteful SRM systems, but with considerably less variation in damage effects. The only disadvantages are that Streak launchers are incompatible with other missile target acquisition technologies such as the Artemis IV FCS and Narc Missile Beacon, their specialized ammunition is much more expensive, and some users are willing to accept partial hits rather than not be able to fire on demand.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/LRM

Long Range Missiles are designed to engage the enemy at great distances at the expense of damage dealt. Adapted towards the profusion of electronic jamming on the battlefield and the effectiveness of current armor designs, these missiles are capable of indirect fire and disperse over a smaller area than Short Range Missiles. Inner Sphere LRM launchers achieve this range by firing at a ballistic launch angle, making them less accurate at close range. Clan LRM launchers do not suffer from this effect, in addition to being smaller and more compact, thanks to their technological advantage. LRMs are highly upgradable, able to fire a variety of warheads and benefit from devices such as Artemis IV FCS.[1]

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/CBT_Tables

Number of Missiles Hit Table
Die Roll (2D6) Number of Missiles Fired
2 3 4 5 6 9 10 12 15 20
2 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 6
3 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 6
4 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 9
5 1 2 2 3 3 5 6 8 9 12
6 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 12
7 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 8 9 12
8 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 8 9 12
9 2 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 12 16
10 2 3 3 4 5 7 8 10 12 16
[u]11[/u] 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 12 15 20
[u]12[/u] 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 12 15 20

[DocBach]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 18 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

lol I enjoy a lot less is more than both yes answers combined

This is pretty telling. The answers are very un-biased, with no loaded questions, and very straight forward. Almost 1,000 people have voted, which is pretty sizable.

[IrrelevantFish]

Asmudius Heng, on 17 February 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Lots of people have posted well thought out non inflammatory posts about ECM and have asked very nicely for better feedback from the devs.

Unquestionably. I'm a firm believer in constructive criticism (emphasis on "constructive"), and the majority of those who've contributed to this thread have offered exactly that. To them, I can only say, "Kudos and carry on."

Asmudius Heng, on 17 February 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Lots of people have also lost their s h i t about this as well.

And those are the people my comments were directed at.

Asmudius Heng, on 17 February 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

As the above, very reasonable, posters have suggested. The issue is half about ECM but half about the lack of empathy from PGI

And yet many have failed to show PGI the same level of empathy they're demanding. For example, what if PGI expects some feature(s) that are coming soon will disrupt game balance further? That would mean that if they rejigger ECM mechanics now, they'd just have to re-rejigger once those features were released. Leaving things alone for now could save them a great deal of time, effort, and expense. Would doing so really be so unreasonable?

And what do you think the community's response would be if they offered that explanation? I suspect it would be something along the lines of, "But I want it balanced now!" Could you blame PGI for keeping quiet in hopes of avoiding a bit of whining and controversy?

Now, is it possible that PGI's decision-making process isn't that reasonable? Certainly. My point is that we don't know, and even if we did, hurling insults, accusations, and recriminations (no matter how deserved) wouldn't be helpful. Calling someone an insensitive jerk never seems to improve behavior, especially if it's the truth.

StalaggtIKE, on 17 February 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

I am a customer.
Can I blame them?
Yes.

No, you can't.
You are not a customer.
You are an investor and a beta tester.

The distinctions are important, even if they're not obvious. Whenever you pay PGI, you are speculating on MWO's future, betting that what you get in the final release will be as-good or better than what you get now.

However, it may not be the same (case in point: the recent modification to camo spec), and it may even be worse, but that is the risk you are taking, whether you realize it or not. You don't have any more right to a return on your investment or a seat at the table than a venture capitalist does when he plows a few mil into a start-up.

And as a beta-tester, your primary function is not to have fun (though I find it to be a major side-effect) but to aid PGI in improving the game in preparation for the final release.

Those are the realities. If you find them unacceptable, then you should close your wallet, quit playing, and quietly walk away.

StalaggtIKE, on 17 February 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

So you suggest we treat them as one would a special needs child in a sandbox; just smile and hope they don't hurt themselves.

No, I suggest we treat them as one would an artist during a critique: with unflinching honesty but constant encouragement, and (unless you're an experienced game developer) the understanding that they may grasp something you don't. This is far more likely to achieve the desired result than calling them insensitive jerks. That rarely results in improved behavior, especially if it's true.

So please, give PGI the benefit of the doubt. I very much want MWO to succeed, and the more polite, patient, and constructively critical we tester-investors are, the more likely that is to happen.

Edited by IrrelevantFish, 19 February 2013 - 02:42 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

IrrelevantFish, on 19 February 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

And yet many have failed to show PGI the same level of empathy they're demanding. For example, what if PGI expects some feature(s) that are coming soon will disrupt game balance further? That would mean that if they rejigger ECM mechanics now, they'd just have to re-rejigger once those features were released. Leaving things alone for now could save them a great deal of time, effort, and expense. Would doing so really be so unreasonable?

And what do you think the community's response would be if they offered that explanation? I suspect it would be something along the lines of, "But I want it balanced now!" Could you blame PGI for keeping quiet in hopes of avoiding a bit of whining and controversy?

Now, is it possible that PGI's decision-making process isn't that reasonable? Certainly. My point is that we don't know, and even if we did, hurling insults, accusations, and recriminations (no matter how deserved) wouldn't be helpful. Calling someone an insensitive jerk never seems to improve behavior, especially if it's the truth.

People who cry for balance NOW when new highly disruptive featuresmay be coming will always cry and be put in their place.

The people who are being reasonable in this thread are asking for information more than exact balance. The vagueness of the comunications about ECM is what is causing angst, not the fact that balance and rebalance will happen.

I would be MUCH happier if they said that large changes could still happen as new features and content disrupt the balance of the game as it is.

However we get conflicting messages when we see developers saying things are close to balanced, or working as intended, then turn around and say that everything might be changed.

It is the language and inconsistency that is troubling - and the attitude that inflames things.

I deal with people who demand I change my products on the fly who have no idea of the development costs and time - but I do not get snippy with them when I have official communications EVER. Internall sure, but I also realise the rediculous customer is usualy a minory, the ill informed customer is the one I am more happy to deal with because I can give enough detail to make them understand the process.

PGI does this very well with many part of their game too. The communication now is vastly better that before and I applaude them for it. Great comunication about ELO, weapons changes, and many more in the command chair, and clarification from devs who pop into inflamed threads and cool it down.

However non of this happens with anything to do with ECM.

It is the gaping hole in their communication, and a very obvious one. I was totally chuffed to hear that they were planning an in depth comand post on ECM changes but that has not happened. The last we heard was there were some features that would impact ECM and nothing could be said til they were fleshed out.

That was a long while ago. Even a single post by Paul saying yes, we know this is still a hot topic and development of these additional features is taking some time but if you could be patient it is on our agenda but we understand there are frustrations in the community but the upcaoming changes will alter balance so dramatically in the info war area that any changes we do before it would be more frustrating.

Instead - total communication blackout an snarky comments on podcasts and in threads.

So I hope that clarifies things form my perspective anyway.

[IrrelevantFish]

Asmudius Heng, on 19 February 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

So I hope that clarifies things form my perspective anyway.

Actually, it does. That was an excellent post, and I hope someone in PGI has a chance to read it. I'm less concerned about the blackout than you are, but it sounds like I'm in the minority, and I agree that there's little PGI can do to stop the whiners from whining. After reading your post, it seems like more information about the decisions they've made and the reasoning behind them would be better than staying tight-lipped, even if those decisions/reasons are controversial.

EDIT: One thing I must add, though, is that ECM does appear to be balancing itself out. I'm not entirely sure how/why, as I haven't noticed any particular change in tactics, but I'm seeing fewer mechs with ECM, more and more games where ECM-free teams triumph over ECM-heavy teams, and an increase in the effectiveness of missile boats. I still think a bit of adjustment would be nice, but it doesn't seem nearly as urgent as it did a week ago.

Edited by IrrelevantFish, 20 February 2013 - 04:07 AM.

[Shadowsword8]

IrrelevantFish, on 20 February 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

EDIT: One thing I must add, though, is that ECM does appear to be balancing itself out. I'm not entirely sure how/why, as I haven't noticed any particular change in tactics, but I'm seeing fewer mechs with ECM, more and more games where ECM-free teams triumph over ECM-heavy teams, and an increase in the effectiveness of missile boats. I still think a bit of adjustment would be nice, but it doesn't seem nearly as urgent as it did a week ago.

I think you're imagining things. I haven't noticed any signifiant change on ECM frequency, or winning rate for ECM-free teams.

ECM will always be blatantly OP as long as:

- It's cost is negligible, as it imply no compromise with the rest of the loadout. At 1.5 tons, it means a most one less heat sink and a bit of leg armor shaved off.

- It bring multiples avdantages, has area of effect, require no line of sight, doesn't generate heat, and so on.


To make it balanced, one of the following should be done:

A/ Increase it's requirments enough that you will actually THINK about putting it in your ECM-capable mech, or not putting it in.

B/ Remove the null-sig system from ECM, and put it as a separate upgrade (with 14 critical slots).

C/ Create a ECCM module, weighting 1.5 ton, and giving immunity to ECM. Alaivable for all chassis. At first everyone will use one, so people will stop using ECM. Players will then stop using ECCM, as it would be useless, and people would again start using ECM. A balance point bewteen ECM and ECCM use will be reached eventually.

[WolvesX]

bump.

[PropagandaWar]

one thing that threw me off was the modules. I was under the impression that Streaks would lock with modules a little further out than the current 180-200 spread. Not that Im a big streak user but It doesnt seem thats the case.

[Teralitha]

IrrelevantFish, on 20 February 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

EDIT: One thing I must add, though, is that ECM does appear to be balancing itself out. I'm not entirely sure how/why, as I haven't noticed any particular change in tactics, but I'm seeing fewer mechs with ECM, more and more games where ECM-free teams triumph over ECM-heavy teams, and an increase in the effectiveness of missile boats. I still think a bit of adjustment would be nice, but it doesn't seem nearly as urgent as it did a week ago.

Fewer ECM mechs on the field means a more fun and balanced game. The more ECM on the field means a less fun and less balanced game.

It would seem that no ECM on the field at all would give you the most fun and balanced game. Simple logic is... simple.


Logic is winning this poll. (sorry I dont like writing long winded posts, I prefer short, and to the pin point, but I guess if simple logic isnt enough you have your long winded posts to read as well, PGI)

Edited by Teralitha, 20 February 2013 - 10:46 AM.

[Teralitha]

ECM is a nerf to situational awareness. A skill, which I was quite good at(am still good at). Good situational awareness can allow you to get the first(and often last)hit on enemy mechs, but now ECM allows you to get the first hit, without having any situational awareness skill at all. Its noob tech.

1000 votes.... just a few more..

Edited by Teralitha, 20 February 2013 - 12:08 PM.

[Yankee77]

Teralitha, on 20 February 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

ECM is a nerf to situational awareness. A skill, which I was quite good at(am still good at). Good situational awareness can allow you to get the first(and often last)hit on enemy mechs, but now ECM allows you to get the first hit, without having any situational awareness skill at all. Its noob tech.

1000 votes.... just a few more..

The thing is that having and obtaining situational awareness is _fun_. Having a peice of gear that makes it much more difficult is less fun and downright annoying.

In short, the "disrupt" effect of ECM is a game system which directly makes the gameplay experience less enjoyable. And that's something that simply should not exist in a modern game.

I personally don't mind the null sig effect, it does enhance gameplay and adds tactical depth. But disrupt is just bad gameplay, IMO.

Thank you.

[Teralitha]

only 18 more votes til we hit 1000, the biggest poll in MWO history,....

[DocBach]

Teralitha, on 20 February 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

only 18 more votes til we hit 1000, the biggest poll in MWO history,....

"It's not scientific, 1,000 players isn't a good representation of the active player base, they're emotionally charged so people voted negatively, the questions were way biased and leading...."

[Monky]

For whatever reason, it seems ECM is a bigger negative than a positive to the users polled.

Huh. How about that.

[DocBach]

the choices were too misleading, there were hanging chads on some of the positive votes. RECOUNT! I was told many times in this thread that this poll would be exactly like all the other ECM threads showing the community love ECM! These results can't be correct!!

[Teralitha]

DocBach, on 20 February 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

"It's not scientific, 1,000 players isn't a good representation of the active player base, they're emotionally charged so people voted negatively, the questions were way biased and leading...."

I guess one could speculate that. Like... day one of ecm, they only mildly disliked it... a couple months later that dislike grew into intense hatred. Would that be what you call.. emotionally charged? Or is it from dev responses on the subject that got ppl emotionally charged.... Either way... the poll is valid.

The poll is unbiased and the results are fair. Almost 1000 players have made their opinions and feedback known.

Or would you prefer 2000 votes? How many total voters polled will it take to get noticed?

Edited by Teralitha, 20 February 2013 - 06:32 PM.