238 replies to this topic

[WinningOne]

Codejack, on 10 February 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...ture-aftermath/

You are in the minority.

I submit to you that if you like this game and want it to succeed, you should put aside your own opinion and think about what the majority of the playerbase wants.

Eh, I used to read through and see what people thought. Unfortunately, I saw a lot of posts which said they didn't like something because it wasn't in the original game. Being closed to the idea of something because it's new is silly too me. On this issue I think the majority of players are wrong and i think the reasons they cite are weak. I think it's more likely the addition of ECM forced them to change their gameplay and their stats started to drop because they couldn't adapt.

[Eddrick]

WinningOne, on 10 February 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

Eh, I used to read through and see what people thought. Unfortunately, I saw a lot of posts which said they didn't like something because it wasn't in the original game. Being closed to the idea of something because it's new is silly too me. On this issue I think the majority of players are wrong and i think the reasons they cite are weak. I think it's more likely the addition of ECM forced them to change their gameplay and their stats started to drop because they couldn't adapt.

I'm one of the ones that's in the middle. I don't care if they nerf or buff ECM. I adapted to ECM so it doesn't cripple me.

Adapt and overcome. Also, what is in my signature (Isn’t, being ready for anything part of being a good gamer?) is something I heavly believe in and had to use so many times, it literaly became a signature phrase.

[Codejack]

WinningOne, on 10 February 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

Eh, I used to read through and see what people thought. Unfortunately, I saw a lot of posts which said they didn't like something because it wasn't in the original game. Being closed to the idea of something because it's new is silly too me. On this issue I think the majority of players are wrong and i think the reasons they cite are weak. I think it's more likely the addition of ECM forced them to change their gameplay and their stats started to drop because they couldn't adapt.

Well, first of all, that is just incredibly presumptuous of you; how do you know anything about how anyone feels?

Second, for myself, anyway, it is not a matter of being unable to adapt, but that it simply makes the game less fun.

Finally, that was entirely beside the point; do you want the game to succeed? If so, it needs to cater to the majority of its players. If not, that's fine with me, I'll just wait and see how the next company to make a Mechwarrior game does.

[Willie Sauerland]

Codejack, on 10 February 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...ture-aftermath/

You are in the minority.

I submit to you that if you like this game and want it to succeed, you should put aside your own opinion and think about what the majority of the playerbase wants.

I submit for consideration the people who use these forums are the vocal minority. The non-vocal majority are out killing big stompy robots right now. As such, you can only assume the forum users are somehow the "majority of the playerbase" but without actual numbers, you have absolutely no chance of knowing for certain.

Just sayin'...

Also, just for fun, maybe you should check out -->This Thread<-- where I use an actual BattleTech source to show ECM is working correctly.

I'm sure you will enjoy that particular conversation as well...

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 10 February 2013 - 08:21 PM.

[CHWarpath]

CoffiNail, on 08 February 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

LOL It is called tactics, being aware of your surroundings. Not just tunnel vision straight ahead. Looking around and watching for movement. I really like ECM. Even if I die to a group of mechs in an ECM bubble. It is called superior tactics. It is not stealth, it is disrupting your sensors.

Keep aware of the world around you, and you are caught less off guard.

I realize guys who work at a desk pressing a Staples Easy Button thinks they know about tactics after watching the History Channel, but seriously get real. These matches have more to do with who has the least amount of trial mechs and who built their mechs correctly than some imaginery Alexander the Great "tactics". The average player in this game is terrible, I easily out damage the heaviest mechs in game with my Raven 3L and I can place about 3rd with my Commando 2D. That is not tactics that is a well designed mech and use of ECM.

Arpacolas, on 08 February 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

Right on, it's all about tactics. Like, if you encounter a 3L in any other light, you need to be aware of it and power down. You will live longer because they'll actually be forced to AIM their MLs.

If you power down against my Atlas DC or Raven 3L I will easily make you die. Get a grip on reality.

[CHWarpath]

Adridos, on 08 February 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

• In Tournament-level gameplay, the use of an ECM suite is to nullify the effects of other electronics, such as missile beacons, active probes, and fire control systems. It can also cut a unit off from a C3 Network.
  
• In Tactical Operations, additional uses for an ECM suite are shown as optional rules, including defeating other ECM and generating ghost targets.

Considering all of us get a C3 for free with no tonnage and crit requirements and ECM nullfies it, it's pretty safe to assume it is actually correct on the game rules for the ECM to disallow targetting (done by C3).

I'm sorry I had to burst out into laughter when I read "tournament level". Is that like get 7 DC Atlas's with a Raven 3L and ownzer the noobs? Please

[Eddrick]

CHWarpath, on 10 February 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

I'm sorry I had to burst out into laughter when I read "tournament level". Is that like get 7 DC Atlas's with a Raven 3L and ownzer the noobs? Please

I'm sure any kind of "Tornement Level" rules wouldn't allow such a thing. Both, BV and/or Tonnage Restrictions will not allow that.

Currently, we have no such balance methods. People can bring whatever they want, without restriction. Untill, we get good balance or restrictions set in place. Competitive play, can't be taken seriously.

[Koniving]

Eddrick, on 10 February 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

This part bothers me a little, too. If ECM already grants stealth. Then, what should Stealth Armor grant? Otherwise, there is no point in even considering adding Stealth Armor.

That was the point, emphasizing a logical fallacy in the fact that ECM provides stealth. Therefore if we have stealth armor do the same thing, it's essentially ECM on all mechs. The only way to fix it is to either A) not have stealth armor [not an option they already announced it] or B ) remove stealth from ECM.

I get the feeling it'll have something like "un-targetable up to 600 meters" or something stupid. Which wouldn't be that stupid, but it's like why choose that over ECM with ECM's current setup?

Edited by Koniving, 11 February 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[Koniving]

CHWarpath, on 10 February 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

I'm sorry I had to burst out into laughter when I read "tournament level". Is that like get 7 DC Atlas's with a Raven 3L and ownzer the noobs? Please

Got one for ya!



6 DDCs, 1 Awesome, 1 Raven 3-L. "Tournament level" matches for ya on the opposing team. All that ECM doesn't do much good, however, when all you do is brawl in big stompy 'Mechs.

Edited by Koniving, 11 February 2013 - 10:09 AM.

[Codejack]

Willie Sauerland, on 10 February 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

I submit for consideration the people who use these forums are the vocal minority. The non-vocal majority are out killing big stompy robots right now. As such, you can only assume the forum users are somehow the "majority of the playerbase" but without actual numbers, you have absolutely no chance of knowing for certain.

The first law of statistics is that you can only work with the data you actually have. Most of these polls have several hundred responses, which is similar to the numbers they poll for national elections with usually pretty accurate results.

Willie Sauerland, on 10 February 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

Also, just for fun, maybe you should check out -->This Thread<-- where I use an actual BattleTech source to show ECM is working correctly.

I'm sure you will enjoy that particular conversation as well...

Not really, because you are either lying or you just aren't playing this game.

Where does it say that ECM prevents LRMs from tracking or SSRMs from firing at all? Where does it say that it prevents detection outside the bubble when you have LOS? Where does it say that it cuts off IFF? Where does it say that it counters TAG?

ECM in this game is just crazy bull@$%#.

Edited by Codejack, 11 February 2013 - 10:37 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Yes, I prefer for ECM, and the whole game for that matter, to closer mimic that of TT. However, at the end of the day, you must decide would you rather the game succeed or be a "for the moment trend", until something better comes out. If you want the game to succeed, longevity is the key. What will have people coming back for more?

In my case it's diversity. I like a game that I can try numerous combinations of weapons and tactics and still feel that I have an equal chance of success. I also enjoy a challenge; you wont find me pug stomping. However, if a particular weapon or strategy works better than others, then it's asinine to go with a lesser one. I will occasionally partake in fighting as the underdog. However, that can be fun only for so long. My point is, balance is important to me. And currently, there are some glaring issues in MWO.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 11 February 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

Codejack, on 11 February 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Not really, because you are either lying or you just aren't playing this game.

Didn't you just complain about a poster being presumptious.
Your entire argument always comes down to this quote, that everyone else is lying or doesn't play this game.

Quote

ECM in this game is just crazy bull@$%#.

Then LEAVE.

[Volthorne]

Willie Sauerland, on 10 February 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

Also, just for fun, maybe you should check out -->This Thread&lt;-- where I use an actual BattleTech source to show ECM is working correctly.

You may think you won that thread but you should check the second page where I fairly well curb-stomped your argument using *gasp* the rules from the source book!

[Codejack]

Volthorne, on 11 February 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

You may think you won that thread but you should check the second page where I fairly well curb-stomped your argument using *gasp* the rules from the source book!

Even the page he linked to himself contradicted what he said. We are dealing with people who are either mentally deficient or are intentionally lying.

[Peter von Danzig]

I am fine with the idea that ECM provides some stealth. But it shouldn't work within a range of - let's say - 500 or 600 meters. And it should be possible to counter with TAG properly.

Even that would be quite or too powerful.

[Codejack]

Peter von Danzig, on 11 February 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

I am fine with the idea that ECM provides some stealth. But it shouldn't work within a range of - let's say - 500 or 600 meters. And it should be possible to counter with TAG properly.

Even that would be quite or too powerful.

I would even be OK with the range being as low as ~400m, if it didn't completely prevent missile locks inside its range.

A great deal of the problem is that you cannot keep fast lights in a certain range. Even if they are engaging someone else, the terrain is such that you are unlikely to be able to find a spot that is both within the window that you can shoot and won't have your missiles hit a hill or building on the way, and that is doubly true for bases.

[Roughneck45]

ECM is fine.

There is just an epidemic of SENSOR DEPENDANCY amongst the player base.

They also need more equipment to have counterplay with ECM, starting with BAP. It should greatly increase the detection range, maybe even reduce the minimum range as well.

Edited by Roughneck45, 11 February 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Roughneck45, on 11 February 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

ECM is fine.

There is just an epidemic of SENSOR DEPENDANCY amongst the player base.

They also need more equipment to have counterplay with ECM, starting with BAP. It should greatly increase the detection range, maybe even reduce the minimum range as well.

Is it fine or does it need counters? Make up your mind.

This is not CoD, we are in giant expensive robots. We should be sensor dependent, it's called an investment.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 11 February 2013 - 01:48 PM.

[Willie Sauerland]

Codejack, on 11 February 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Mindless and pseudo-intellectual drivel...

Given there was a well reasoned argument in the post I showed you, there was plenty there for you to work with. However, given you are simply crying, I'll leave you alone now so you can go get your group hug.

I do not agree with you and the fact you are not willing to even listen to the other opinion shows your inability to cope with views other than your own. The level of conversation in your world must be dreadful...

[Codejack]

Willie Sauerland, on 11 February 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Given there was a well reasoned argument in the post I showed you, there was plenty there for you to work with. However, given you are simply crying, I'll leave you alone now so you can go get your group hug.

I'll let you get back to therapy.

Willie Sauerland, on 11 February 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

I do not agree with you and the fact you are not willing to even listen to the other opinion shows your inability to cope with views other than your own. The level of conversation in your world must be dreadful...

I read the post; I pointed out that ECM in MWO does a host of things that are listed NOWHERE in anything that you linked to.

Quote

Where does it say that ECM prevents LRMs from tracking or SSRMs from firing at all? Where does it say that it prevents detection outside the bubble when you have LOS? Where does it say that it cuts off IFF? Where does it say that it counters TAG?

What's the counter-argument, other than that you think it should be this way? Well, I think that it should be different, so your argument boils down to you being right and me being wrong, period.

Good day.

Edited by Codejack, 11 February 2013 - 05:27 PM.