1080 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

mania3c, on 29 December 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

than you didn't understood me..

Now make same "objective" study ..when enemies are filled with fast light and medium mechs..

Than we can cry to nerf beam weapons..

in short: There is nothing objective on this study..

I play all sorts of Mechs. Which includes lights and mediums engaged with equivalent classes who are more effected by beam spread due to mobility and more obtuse angle arrangements across a Mech due to proximity with the short game and movement.

It is using actual in game data to apply conclusions, how can that not satisfy your concerns with looking at "real" data. After all your argument was for situational concerns, so don't you consider real game data over 1000's of samples and situations incorporating gaming balance and mechanics a more sensible way to review these things.

Question: Do you think that when a ML hits in range it applies 5 instantaneous damage to the location it hits? Otherwise beam effects obviously have some significance to these weapons that is absent from the ballistic mechanic.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Since Calibers are being brought up, I tried googling for threads that discuss that.

Here is one: http://mwomercs.com/...se/page__st__40

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 29 December 2013 - 08:40 PM.

[mania3c]

Noesis, on 29 December 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

I play all sorts of Mechs. Which includes lights and mediums engaged with equivalent classes who are more effected by beam spread due to mobility and more obtuse angle arrangements across a Mech due to proximity with the short game and movement.

It is using actual in game data to apply conclusions, how can that not satisfy your concerns with looking at "real" data. After all your argument was for situational concerns, so don't you consider real game data over 1000's of samples and situations incorporating gaming balance and mechanics a more sensible way to review these things.

Question: Do you think that when a ML hits in range it applies 5 instantaneous damage to the location it hits? Otherwise beam effects obviously have some significance to these weapons that is absent from the ballistic mechanic.

I know how lasers and ballistic works..

I have question for you: How you made that statistic and analysis ? If you somehow make analysis damage dealt TO you while using various mechs, we could have something..

If you used just stats of shots made BY you, your analysis is near useless in a big picture.

Edited by mania3c, 29 December 2013 - 09:01 PM.

[Varent]

mania3c, on 29 December 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

I know how lasers and ballistic works..

I have question for you: How you made that statistic and analysis ? If you somehow make analysis damage dealt TO you while using various mechs, we could have something..

If you used just stats of shots made BY you, your analysis is near useless in a big picture.

the fellow has a point.

[Elkfire]

This has probably already been posted, but aren't Autocannons supposed to fire a stream of shells in the BT canon? And wouldn't that go a long way towards balancing them, if their pinpoint damage was reduced that way?

As for PPCs, I'm not sure exactly how to balance those except for maybe making them less like lightning bolts and more like comets/fireballs (still with the lightning aesthetic, but with a larger 'head' that tapers down towards the 'tail') to spread the damage more.

Basically, reducing pinpoint damage would help both weapon systems be less problematic. While we're at it, we could give Gauss rifles a similar minimum range mechanic to PPCs and take out the silly charging mechanic, so they're still 'sniper weapons', but without a mechanic that makes it...difficult to snipe.

Edited by Elkfire, 29 December 2013 - 09:18 PM.

[Varent]

Elkfire, on 29 December 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

This has probably already been posted, but aren't Autocannons supposed to fire a stream of shells in the BT canon? And wouldn't that go a long way towards balancing them, if their pinpoint damage was reduced that way?

As for PPCs, I'm not sure exactly how to balance those except for maybe making them less like lightning bolts and more like comets/fireballs (still with the lightning aesthetic, but with a larger 'head' that tapers down towards the 'tail') to spread the damage more.

Basically, reducing pinpoint damage would help both weapon systems be less problematic.

Canon wise no. They can fire either a stream or a solid slug. It depends on the make and model of the autocannon.

[Elkfire]

Varent, on 29 December 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

Canon wise no. They can fire either a stream or a solid slug. It depends on the make and model of the autocannon.

Well. I figure if they're willing to put in a single one of those modes of fire and not the other, they could switch them up to try and help balance them. Maybe they could put in the stream mechanic if you hold down the fire key, but make successive shells do a little less damage?

Edited by Elkfire, 29 December 2013 - 09:24 PM.

[Varent]

Elkfire, on 29 December 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Well. I figure if they're willing to put in a single one of those modes of fire and not the other, they could switch them up to try and help balance them. Maybe they could put in the stream mechanic if you hold down the fire key, but make successive shells do a little less damage?

Could be interesting... a better idea would actually be to institute the different makes and models of the weapons into the game, make some of them cost more, some less, maybe some more durable and some less durable. Though I would say overall there is a lot more pressing matters in the game then that =p

[Elkfire]

Varent, on 29 December 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

Could be interesting... a better idea would actually be to institute the different makes and models of the weapons into the game, make some of them cost more, some less, maybe some more durable and some less durable. Though I would say overall there is a lot more pressing matters in the game then that =p

Definitely. Doesn't hurt to toss ideas around though in the hopes that they actually read one of these innumerable threads and decide they like something.

[Varent]

Elkfire, on 29 December 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

Definitely. Doesn't hurt to toss ideas around though in the hopes that they actually read one of these innumerable threads and decide they like something.

Problem is the community is pulled in about 10 different directions on what they want and what they want first.

[mania3c]

Varent, on 29 December 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

Problem is the community is pulled in about 10 different directions on what they want and what they want first.

Worse is..whatever they will do (PGI), it will be always "wrong thing/too early/too late"..

I agree tossing ideas around can't harm.. but sometimes I am really confused by people suggestions.. leading from bad to worse.. honestly, I believe this thread (not post) is nice example of this..but as long as people are not attacking each other, I am all for brainstorming ...

[Noesis]

mania3c, on 29 December 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

I know how lasers and ballistic works..

I have question for you: How you made that statistic and analysis ? If you somehow make analysis damage dealt TO you while using various mechs, we could have something..

If you used just stats of shots made BY you, your analysis is near useless in a big picture.

I don't deny that greater sampling would provide greater confidence, mentioned that already in the study. But seeing as it is a "comparative" study with a similar baseline then it still has relevance to compare across that sample and is not useless at all, especially when it is making this comparison across 1000's of games. This since it identifies a disparity for this sample data, so a problem still exists as represented.

And I'm more than aware that PGI/IGP would have to review these potential findings in a more holistic fashion with a greater representation of the figures.

I merely providing empirical evidence based on my own research to highlight a potential issue.

Edited by Noesis, 29 December 2013 - 10:03 PM.

[mania3c]

Noesis, on 29 December 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

I don't deny that greater sampling would provide greater confidence, mentioned that already in the study. But seeing as it is a "comparative" study with a similar baseline then it still has relevance to compare across that sample and is not useless at all, especially when it is making this comparison across 1000's of games. This since it identifies a disparity for this sample data, so a problem still exists as represented.

And I'm more than aware that PGI/IGP would have to review these potential findings in a more holistic fashion with a greater representation of the figures.

I merely providing empirical evidence based on my own research to highlight a potential issue.

Empirical evidence is probably the problem..

It's like making analysis what food taste the best..and you will go to Asia and ask people there.. Conclusion? NERF RICE! It's too tasty... Rice is AC and Asia is current meta..you just proved exactly what is not needed.. I didn't need stats to see what is happening in the game..okey..you made effort and make fancy table about it...but still your conclusion is just dangerous..

You concluded that ACs are problem..and basically asking to poison the Rice, so people can enjoy wider variety of food in Asia.. which is wrong..first.. you are poisoning food, while there is nothing wrong with..second..it will lead that people in Asia will just eat second most popular food there...if you understand what I want to say..

in short..statistic used wrong are very dangerous because it leads to wrong assumptions and while it could fix short term symptomes, problem remains and can be even bigger.. and I believe that's exactly what you did my friend.. but no offense..

Edited by mania3c, 29 December 2013 - 10:17 PM.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 29 December 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

Problem is the community is pulled in about 10 different directions on what they want and what they want first.

But it is for PGI to decide these priorities not the players, even if they would be wise to scale importance of these issues based on player interest.

UI 2.0 and CW are both important major features players want to see.

But a balanced game would at least provide confidence for CW so that the economy and understanding of tech is realised so that sensible strategic decisions can be made when the tech acquisition issues become relevant.

More so, having more diversity in the game play would promote extra player interest as then there would not simply be one dominant Meta in terms of roles. This just from a good business sense of player inclusion due to variable tastes and a less predictable game with considered equivalence to roles should be of interest to PGI. This improving the potential enjoyment for the player base by empowering variable tactics and roles being utilised and not having a predictable game or considered go to play styles for effectiveness.

This again doesn't mean that Assaults wouldn't be the biggest and the baddest on the field but at least would provide an understanding that the game is sufficiently balanced to afford other roles to do their jobs with considered significance.

At present we are simply seeing a dominance in the game play with pin point ballistics in a direct fire support arrangement being the go to role to play. And so for balance it is useful to ensure that other roles are encouraged to be of relevance, which is one of the understanding principles of game play balance.

Encouraged however, not meaning new FOTM or removing the existing options that are there for the current dominant meta with these changes. And may only require "small subtle" changes to create this apparent shift as opposed to a complete shake up of game play mechanics etc. However a consistent identified issue with ballistics is their pinpoint application of damage, but there are many other elements of game play that could be modified to achieve these shifts in confidence to other roles by equivalence. Hence why there might be several potential solutions to the problem and thus permutations in opinion as to how to solve the problem.

Edited by Noesis, 29 December 2013 - 10:25 PM.

[Varent]

mania3c, on 29 December 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

Empirical evidence is probably the problem..

It's like making analysis what food taste the best..and you will go to Asia and ask people there.. Conclusion? NERF RICE! It's too tasty... Rice is AC and Asia is current meta..you just proved exactly what is not needed.. I didn't need stats to see what is happening in the game..okey..you made effort and make fancy table about it...but still your conclusion is just dangerous..

You concluded that ACs are problem..and basically asking to poison the Rice, so people can enjoy wider variety of food in Asia.. which is wrong..first.. you are poisoning food, while there is nothing wrong with..second..it will lead that people in Asia will just eat second most popular food there...if you understand what I want to say..

in short..statistic used wrong are very dangerous because it leads to wrong assumptions and while it could fix short term symptomes, problem remains and can be even bigger.. and I believe that's exactly what you did my friend.. but no offense..

I like this analogy, it made me smile. +1

[Noesis]

Varent, on 29 December 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

I like this analogy, it made me smile. +1

Problem with MWO atm. is that unless you use a zoom module it can simply leave a bad taste in the mouth.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 29 December 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

Problem with MWO atm. is that unless you use a zoom module it can simply leave a bad taste in the mouth.

Only issue I have is the lack of community warfare and drop weights.

[mania3c]

Noesis, on 29 December 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

More so, having more diversity in the game play would promote extra player interest as then there would not simply be one dominant Meta in terms of roles. This just from a good business sense of player inclusion due to variable tastes and a less predictable game with considered equivalence to roles should be of interest to PGI. This improving the potential enjoyment for the player base by empowering variable tactics and roles being utilised and not having a predictable game or considered go to play styles for effectiveness.

This is what I can agree with..but again..please.. Understand that nerfing AC will just shift weapon meta somewhere else and will not provide any diversity we want..Just think about ACs for a bit..how they works, check smurfy for numbers, think about opportunities when ACs are good and when ACs are bad..and it's pretty clear that ACs are powerful in current meta by design..they are supposed to be.. not by error.. for a first time since I am playing MWO, meta and weapon usage make sense..

But as you said..we need diversity.. which wont be provided by gutting weapon system which is actually supposed to be good in current environment. PGI needs to provide more opportunities and space for different playstyle..by maps, modes, objectives..something what will encourage us pilot these light and medium mechs and be mobile..this alone will encourage us to mount missiles and beam weapons to be competitive in this environment.. and when we have diverse gameplay, than we can look at weapons and make analysis if something is really wrong with them..

Edited by mania3c, 29 December 2013 - 10:45 PM.

[Lykaon]

mania3c, on 29 December 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

Empirical evidence is probably the problem..

It's like making analysis what food taste the best..and you will go to Asia and ask people there.. Conclusion? NERF RICE! It's too tasty... Rice is AC and Asia is current meta..you just proved exactly what is not needed.. I didn't need stats to see what is happening in the game..okey..you made effort and make fancy table about it...but still your conclusion is just dangerous..

You concluded that ACs are problem..and basically asking to poison the Rice, so people can enjoy wider variety of food in Asia.. which is wrong..first.. you are poisoning food, while there is nothing wrong with..second..it will lead that people in Asia will just eat second most popular food there...if you understand what I want to say..

in short..statistic used wrong are very dangerous because it leads to wrong assumptions and while it could fix short term symptomes, problem remains and can be even bigger.. and I believe that's exactly what you did my friend.. but no offense..

Funny point of perspective but,the real problem is rice is not a mechanic in a video game.It's not because ACs and direct fire weapons taste best and are thus popular it's because these weapon types perform best and by leaps and bounds over other weapon system choices.

And I have been saying for some time now that it's not ACs or direct fire weapons that are busted.It's how damage is applied that is the issue.

As long as mechs remain as fragile as they are now when confronted with 30 - 40 point alpha strikes of front loaded pinpoint damage we will not find any meaningful weapon balance or for that matter any meaningful role warfare that merits taking a medium or lighter heavy that would be crippled with the first hit they take.

I really think all of these AC/direct fire nerf/discuss threads are looking at the wrong end of the equation it's not weapons dealing damage it's how armor takes damage that is busted.

[mania3c]

Lykaon, on 29 December 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

Funny point of perspective but,the real problem is rice is not a mechanic in a video game.It's not because ACs and direct fire weapons taste best and are thus popular it's because these weapon types perform best and by leaps and bounds over other weapon system choices.

And I have been saying for some time now that it's not ACs or direct fire weapons that are busted.It's how damage is applied that is the issue.

As long as mechs remain as fragile as they are now when confronted with 30 - 40 point alpha strikes of front loaded pinpoint damage we will not find any meaningful weapon balance or for that matter any meaningful role warfare that merits taking a medium or lighter heavy that would be crippled with the first hit they take.

I really think all of these AC/direct fire nerf/discuss threads are looking at the wrong end of the equation it's not weapons dealing damage it's how armor takes damage that is busted.

still question remains..why these weapons perform best? We are running in circles here I feel ...but once again.. I believe reason why they are so used and so effective is current meta..not weapon itself..it's all about damage, big slow mechs..so it's just race who can pack more firepower..

I am not saying ACs are not overused these days..they are..I am just saying that ACs are not problem here.. it's just symptom of few different issues..and it seems you agree with me here (so I am not sure why my analogy seems wrong to you because it's pretty much what you said)

However I am not sure about armor part..can you be more specific about "how armor takes damage"? It's a bit confusing for me..

Edited by mania3c, 30 December 2013 - 01:04 AM.