1911 replies to this topic

[DarkonFullPower]

Well now that everything back in full swing here again I guess I'll get back to trying to get my question answered. It's gotta happen sooner or later.

Are empty ammo slots counted in the crit roll, or are they ignored?

[DragonsFire]

DarkonFullPower, on 19 October 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

Well now that everything back in full swing here again I guess I'll get back to trying to get my question answered. It's gotta happen sooner or later.

Are empty ammo slots counted in the crit roll, or are they ignored?

I believe this may have been answered outside of this thread in a previous Ask The Devs or somewhere else. I'll see if I can dig it up for you, but from what I remember, once ammo in that location is expended, it is no longer counted against the crit roll.

In a similar vein, if there is still ammo left, say 3 shots of AC20 ammo in your Right Leg, and it gets crit, you take the damage equal to the remaining ammo count (3) as opposed to the full ton ammo count (7).

[p4r4g0n]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 19 October 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

I agree that this could be a good idea. In general, in the rare times that I hop on for a short time to drop solo, I would much rather tag along with an organized group.

That said, this may not help to maintain the balance of the number of groups on each side, and the sizes of those groups, and the skill level of those groups, and the weight class distribution between the two sides. When those things are out of whack, we get pre-determined stomps in the group queue much more often than we do in the solo queue.

One thing I forgot to mention. IMO if solo player opt in is implemented, it should be restricted so that no more than 1 solo player is placed in a lance i.e. no more than 3 solo players per team. This allows groups of 3 to remain together instead of being broken up as fillers for other groups.

[SnagaDance]

p4r4g0n, on 20 October 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

One thing I forgot to mention. IMO if solo player opt in is implemented, it should be restricted so that no more than 1 solo player is placed in a lance i.e. no more than 3 solo players per team. This allows groups of 3 to remain together instead of being broken up as fillers for other groups.

People were talking about only a single solo player being added to one whole group of 12, never more. Purely as a mechanism to speed up the creation of drops in the group que.

[p4r4g0n]

Better to put it out there than not given some of the comments made on this issue in the past.

On a related note, if a solo player who opted to drop in both queues drops in group queue, there should be some kind of indicator in the Ready screen or when hitting Tab to indicate which queue he / she is in. Unless of course, the option is restricted to allowing the solo player to drop only in solo or only in group due to technical constraints.

[SnagaDance]

p4r4g0n, on 20 October 2014 - 11:39 PM, said:

Better to put it out there than not given some of the comments made on this issue in the past.

True, true.

p4r4g0n, on 20 October 2014 - 11:39 PM, said:

On a related note, if a solo player who opted to drop in both queues drops in group queue, there should be some kind of indicator in the Ready screen or when hitting Tab to indicate which queue he / she is in. Unless of course, the option is restricted to allowing the solo player to drop only in solo or only in group due to technical constraints.

I think most times it would be pretty obvious with unit tags and all but for those times when it's not a simple symbol would be not too hard to implement I guess. Or maybe a little bit of text saying 'solo dropping' or 'group dropping'.

[Ultimax]

Hi Karl,

I just wanted to add a small point from the recent NGNG podcast.

The concept was Elo per mech vs. Elo per weight class.


Your explanation why it would be problematic per mech if players weren't playing the mechs frequently enough made perfect sense.


Instead of full on separate Elo, I think a small modifier that could be from the design team's assessment of that mechs tier or (probably easier) a small modifier to the weight class Elo per mech, as opposed to it's own independent score.



That's all, great podcast it was fun hearing you speak on the MM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Ultimatum X, on 27 October 2014 - 04:54 PM, said:

... stuff right above ...

Phil's point that a CDA is not equal to a SCR is valid (judging by the Chassis leader board, no medium is equal to a SCR).

One option for implemention would be a global adjustment on a variant-by-variant basis using a similar computation to the one that was done for groups.

While this won't solve everything, it should help some.

[Heffay]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 27 October 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

Phil's point that a CDA is not equal to a SCR is valid (judging by the Chassis leader board, no medium is equal to a SCR).

One option for implemention would be a global adjustment on a variant-by-variant basis using a similar computation to the one that was done for groups.

While this won't solve everything, it should help some.

Quirks will help solve that too. If you balance the mechs (which quirks will allow), then you don't need modifiers.

Modifiers just muck up the math in the long run.

[Jman5]

When you run these weekend tournaments do you notice much movement or "upsets" in Elo and the prediction accuracy? I'm particularly curious about some of the high performers who have pretty high Elo. Most of them stick pretty hard to premade group queue. I would imagine that when many of these guys have to jump down into the solo queue for 100-200 matches it can disrupt Elo a bit.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Heffay, on 28 October 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

Quirks will help solve that too. If you balance the mechs (which quirks will allow), then you don't need modifiers.

Modifiers just muck up the math in the long run.

I agree that quirks will help, and I am very anxious to see what happens on Nov 4th, but the best thing about a minor Elo modifier for each variant would be that it could be dynamic. In the long run, as different chassis and variants get tweaked to help balance the playing field, the modifiers would change, and highlight the need for additional tweaks (or removal or scaling down of the quirks).

[Void Angel]

I have to disagree with you, because Science. You never want to try to change two variables when you can change one, or change three when you can change two, etc. If you implement a by-variant adjustment (one variable,) you'd end up skewing the overall demographic numbers (another variable) by putting chassis that were underperforming in the first place into higher/lower-Elo matches where their shortcomings would be either magnified or concealed. This would cause a tendency to over- or under-correct, making the balance process longer.

So, adding variables actually makes the balance process less efficient and effective - in other words, it just mucks up the math in the long run.

[Void Angel]

Hey, Karl, I see that the new quirks for the Locust include extra leg structure. This is a much-needed adjustment, but I have to offer an observation to preface my question on this topic:

Part of the problem with the Locust is that its legs are disproportionally weak for its size. Following a linear progression, the Locust ought to have 10 internal structure and 20 max armor - after all the Commando has 12/24, and the Spider has 14/28. However, the design team gave the Locust a mere 8/16 structure/armor - in essence a 20% reduction in leg durability. I don't believe this was a design decision on their part; they just imported the canon numbers from tabletop BattleTech.

This was a mistake; I won't bore you with the nuts and bolts, but the Locust (or any 20-ton or lighter 'mech) could easily reach speeds that gave it an extra +1 modifier to its target number to get hit. Because of the bell-curve nature of the 2D6 system, this made the Locust significantly harder to hit than heavier chassis, and thus the legs (and arms, for lower tonnages) were reduced. This relationship does not exist in MWO - the difficulty of hitting a fast-moving target is linear and dependent on the weapon you're using as well as the target's speed.

So! Finally my question is: Do you know if the design guys have identified this facet of the Locust's design problems, or is the same issue going to recur every time they release a 20-ton or lighter BattleMech?

[Cimarb]

Void Angel, on 30 October 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

...every time they release a 20-ton or lighter BattleMech?

I call dibs on the first Agromech!!!

[Void Angel]

Go to town.

[Cimarb]

Void Angel, on 31 October 2014 - 12:10 AM, said:

Go to town.

But I am in town already...I am confused as to your directive...

[Rebas Kradd]

Karl, the other day I hit upon a community suggestion that I actually liked(!!!)...

Right now, if players don't care what gamemode they get, they can check all of them and therefore give the matchmaker an easier time finding them a match.

What if we did the same concerning weight classes? Create a 100% voluntary option for solo queue players to create a 4-mech "dropship" containing a mech of each weight class and allow the matchmaker to choose his class when slotting him into a game. Surely the matchmaker would have an easier time with such players?

I know this is a feature that'd require a bit of work, but you've said that gouging wait times is a priority for you.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 06 April 2015 - 08:55 AM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Void Angel, on 30 October 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

Hey, Karl, I see that the new quirks for the Locust include extra leg structure. This is a much-needed adjustment, but I have to offer an observation to preface my question on this topic:

Part of the problem with the Locust is that its legs are disproportionally weak for its size.

Spoiler

Following a linear progression, the Locust ought to have 10 internal structure and 20 max armor - after all the Commando has 12/24, and the Spider has 14/28. However, the design team gave the Locust a mere 8/16 structure/armor - in essence a 20% reduction in leg durability. I don't believe this was a design decision on their part; they just imported the canon numbers from tabletop BattleTech.

This was a mistake; I won't bore you with the nuts and bolts, but the Locust (or any 20-ton or lighter 'mech) could easily reach speeds that gave it an extra +1 modifier to its target number to get hit. Because of the bell-curve nature of the 2D6 system, this made the Locust significantly harder to hit than heavier chassis, and thus the legs (and arms, for lower tonnages) were reduced. This relationship does not exist in MWO - the difficulty of hitting a fast-moving target is linear and dependent on the weapon you're using as well as the target's speed.

So! Finally my question is: Do you know if the design guys have identified this facet of the Locust's design problems, or is the same issue going to recur every time they release a 20-ton or lighter BattleMech?

Yeah I can see how that should definitely be on the table for consideration.

But I'd guess one other way to handle this could be through quirks depending on mech geometry.

One thing I'd love to see considered is boost overall armor by 25%, by separating the shared front and back torso sections and adding any remainder to the legs.

Here's an example for the different tonnages about what I mean:

Spoiler

[Void Angel]

Altering canon to that degree isn't something I'd really like to see, honestly. 'Mechs are supposed to have to make the choice between frontal and rear torso armor - if they need 25% more armor to be effective, it's better to simply nerf the weapons 25% instead of engaging in a spiral of buff creep over time.

[Wintersdark]

Void Angel, on 01 November 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

Altering canon to that degree isn't something I'd really like to see, honestly. 'Mechs are supposed to have to make the choice between frontal and rear torso armor - if they need 25% more armor to be effective, it's better to simply nerf the weapons 25% instead of engaging in a spiral of buff creep over time.

Exactly why you don't want to just "buff the worst" all the time. Nerfs need to happen too, or you end up with power creep.