1911 replies to this topic

[Nothing Whatsoever]

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

it's better to simply nerf the weapons 25% instead.

Indeed, but do you think that will happen?

---

I'd rather to go back to original armor values and reign in weapon damage, while looking to keep how most weapons currently feel with their rate of fire (cooldown, beam durations, projectile speeds and so on), but that's even more unlikely at this point than simply boosting max armor and distributing.

---

Looking at current weapons against our current doubled armor values, weapons are ~25% better in relation from TT numbers; and if it is really important to keep that one particular torso armor allocation rule of the torso section armor allocation, well that's fine by me.

Armor would simply be redistributed amongst all sections instead of increasing Torso sections and the legs, but a 25% boost to Max Armor would still help some with current weapon values.

What I figured was, with how convergence works in MWO, that boosting up Torsos would help a tad more than other sorts of armor boost and allocations/redistributions, but any armor boost at this point would be nice to see (such as through more quirks) if weapons aren't changing, or simply address weapons head on as you bring up.

Gotta get ready for work now!

---

And here's the armor rules too, for anyone curious about them:

Spoiler

[Void Angel]

Praetor Knight, on 03 November 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

Indeed, but do you think that will happen?

Since that's what's been happening - yes.

[shellashock]

Hey Karl, I know that this really isn't your field, but it would be nice to get an answer. Russ had said a long time ago (May 2013?, can't remember), that they were not happy with the Oxide's performance and they wanted to enhance it and he asked if the community wanted anything particular done to it (add energy hardpoint in the head, give it jumpjets, etc). Now that the quirk system is in and there are quite a few buffs for the Oxide, is this the enhancement Russ talked about or is there still going to be a pass done on the Oxide's hardpoints? The other people here probably can fill in any blanks I left here if they still have the post from Russ's comment on the Oxide. Nice work so far by the way PGI!

[p4r4g0n]

Hi Karl,

It was previously stated that Host State Rewind is ineffective once latency hits 500ms. I have been working on the assumption that the 500ms limit applied only to the player's latency.

However, since I occasionally seem to need to lead some targets, I wonder if this limitation may be affected by the combination of both the target's and my own latency e.g. target 250ms latency, mine 330ms latency? (This is most clearly observable using lasers)

If not, there is no apparent technical reason from what I understand of how HSR works that would require leading a target. Is this just a visual discrepancy caused by the time lag between when I fire and the server notifies the client to indicate a hit i.e. reticle turns red / paper doll flashes?

Alternatively, is this an issue limited to lights and displaced hitboxes which has been an issue in the past?

Edited by p4r4g0n, 05 November 2014 - 11:59 PM.

[Cimarb]

p4r4g0n, on 05 November 2014 - 09:11 PM, said:

Hi Karl,

It was previously stated that Host State Rewind is ineffective once latency hits 500ms. I have been working on the assumption that the 500ms limit applied only to the player's latency.

However, since I occasionally seem to need to lead some targets, I wonder if this limitation may be affected by the combination of both the target's and my own latency e.g. target 250ms latency, mine 330ms latency? (This is most clearly observable using lasers)

If not, there is no apparent technical reason from what I understand of how HSR works that would require leading a target. Is this just a visual discrepancy caused by the time lag between when I fire and the server notifies the client to indicate a hit i.e. reticle turns red / paper doll flashes?

Alternatively, is this an issue limited to lights and displaced hitboxes which has been an issue in the past?

I am pretty sure it is the combined latency, but would be dependent on which directions they were moving.

For example, if they are both moving in the same direction and same speed, the difference between the two latencies would be what mattered, but if they were going the opposite directions it would be the combined latency.

Think of it like a moving car: if you are both driving side by side, it does not seem very fast, but if you are going opposite directions, it seems way faster than it actually is.

[Li Song]

Question about quirks and modules:

I noticed that the way the bonuses on the modules is specified in the files have changed from being straight additive to being a factor that's supposed to be multiplied in (like 1.12 for a 12% increase). This prompted the question of how the values are applied.

Example: Consider a mech with an AC/20, 10% bonus to ballistic cooldown and 10% bonus to AC/20 cooldown equipped with an AC/20 cooldown module and fast fire.

Will the correct cooldown value be:

(4 - 0.1*4 - 0.1*4)*0.88*0.95

or

(4 - 0.1*4 - 0.1*4 - 0.05*4)*0.88

or

(4 - 0.1*4 - 0.1*5 - 0.05*4 - 0.12*4)

or something entirely different?

[Goose]

Say, Karl: If you have found a constant Elo modifier for team size, shouldn't there also be one, or sixteen, for the leveled status of a 'Mech? "L'ill Johnny is holding out for Anchor Turn as his first basic …"

[Featherwood]

Greetings, mr. Berg,
recent patch has brought many cvars I used in my user.cfg locked. Most importantly those two:

r_DepthOfField
r_HDRGrainAmount
they set now to 1 and something between 0.1-1.0 for some reason. Do you know or could ask responsible engineers why it had been done? That is irritating! Please help us to roll back this change, I kindly ask you. At least you can hadlock them to

r_DepthOfField=0
r_HDRGrainAmount=0.0
to make all players equal in happiness of playing with clear sky. Cheers!

P.S. If you could be so kind to check why another cvar is locked to 0, I will be also grateful.
I used to run with g_skipIntro = 1 in my systemoverride.cfg, but now it is ignored and preset to 0, so I have to press ESC to skip all those stupid intros, and that is, well, stupid and boring. I would like to be able to choose it myself and do not waste my time on intros. Regards.

[Grey Ghost]

Featherwood, on 09 November 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

recent patch has brought many cvars I used in my user.cfg locked. Most importantly those two:

r_DepthOfField
r_HDRGrainAmount

Yes Mr Berg, they were unlocked in the April 29th 2014 patch, and locked out again sometime after without any mention. Screenshots and info at this link. http://mwomercs.com/...ks-not-working/

[Cimarb]

Karl mentioned that they were working on adding those variables to the in-game GUI, so it may be part of that process.

[Void Angel]

Li Song, on 06 November 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

Question about quirks and modules:

I noticed that the way the bonuses on the modules is specified in the files have changed from being straight additive to being a factor that's supposed to be multiplied in (like 1.12 for a 12% increase). This prompted the question of how the values are applied.

Example: Consider a mech with an AC/20, 10% bonus to ballistic cooldown and 10% bonus to AC/20 cooldown equipped with an AC/20 cooldown module and fast fire.

Will the correct cooldown value be:

(4 - 0.1*4 - 0.1*4)*0.88*0.95

or

(4 - 0.1*4 - 0.1*4 - 0.05*4)*0.88

or

(4 - 0.1*4 - 0.1*5 - 0.05*4 - 0.12*4)

or something entirely different?

As I understand it, the quirk bonus values are additive. The current system came about because PGI responded to reasonable feedback (as they have in the past) about weapon-specific quirks pidgeonholing certain 'Mechs too strongly - e.g. some people actually LIKE using a Gauss Rifle on their Hunchback 4G. So, PGI just split the planned bonuses down the middle and applied half of them to the weapon class, while the intended weapon (the AC/20 for the 4G) gets the full bonus. I'd assume the other bonuses of that type work the same way.

If you allow +% bonuses to multiply each other's totals - "multiplicative" stacking - you create a situation where each successive bonus gets more and more powerful as you stack them together. As an example: if you have 15%, 10%, 10%, and a 12% bonuses to damage on your Hypothetical Flying Monkey Cannon (base damage 500,) adding them all together would give you a total damage of 735, plus extra to animals, constructs, and young girls in blue dresses. If you multiply them in series, however, you get a total of 779, rounding down. That's almost another 9% bonus, just because of the multiplicative stacking. Depending on how our fictional game ("War Maidens of OZ") works, that extra damage might be more or less significant - but you're still getting 9% extra for adding bonuses. This would make our game almost entirely impossible to balance beyond a few min-maxed builds - and in that case, the whole monkey customization system becomes nothing more than a way to punish players for exploring the game!

So in general, it's best to always have your bonuses stack "additively" in order to avoid compounding bonuses. Exceptions exist, such as in vanilla WoW where Shamans had a talent that reduced the casting time of Lightning Bolt (while leaving its spellpower multiplier, which was based on its casting time, intact,) but in general it's a great rule.

Edited by Void Angel, 09 November 2014 - 02:28 PM.

[Li Song]

Thanks Void Angel but I never asked for guesses, how it's "best" done nor for the implications and side effects. I'm well aware of them. I asked for the specific expression involving quirks, modules and efficiencies.

Edited by Li Song, 09 November 2014 - 03:33 PM.

[DarkonFullPower]

DragonsFire, on 20 October 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

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.

If you could that would be great. Couldn't find anything. I remember the "Crits and You" guide said that it did work, but I'm looking for conformation from Paul or another admin so I can quote it in the future.

[Clint Steel]

Hi Karl, it has been said that ELO predicts whether a team is going to win or lose, and your ELO only changes if this prediction is wrong, is this correct? If so, then is it possible MM could be putting a player on the "losing team" many times in a row, and their ELO never will drop, since it was expected? If that is the case as well, then could there be a system that tries to put the player (or group of players) on an alternating "winning" or "losing" team?

[Shlkt]

Clint Steel, on 10 November 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

Hi Karl, it has been said that ELO predicts whether a team is going to win or lose, and your ELO only changes if this prediction is wrong, is this correct?

That's not true. Your Elo always changes after a match. If you surprised the matchmaker by winning when you were expected to lose (or vice versa) then the subsequent Elo adjustment will be greater. This was confirmed in the NGNG podcast #124, I believe.

However it should be noted that if the MM is doing its job then teams will be pretty even. Therefore your Elo will be going up/down by about the same amount after every match. Large Elo differences are more likely to occur in the group queue.

[Goose]

Wat

Elo only moves if MM blows it's prediction; But the prediction isn't made 'till all the seat are filled …

[p4r4g0n]

Goose, on 10 November 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

Wat

Elo only moves if MM blows it's prediction; But the prediction isn't made 'till all the seat are filled …

Actually, your Elo changes regardless of whether the match outcome follows the MM's prediction or not. The difference is in the degree of change. If result as predicted, small change. If result not as predicted, larger change.

[TheCaptainJZ]

The earliest material on the Matchmaker in the Command Chair said that if the prediction is right, your score may not change at all or may change a small amount. However, they have tweaked the matchmaker a lot since that was written. Still, I'd go with what P4r4g0n said. It's probably mathematically possible for the change to be 0, but more than likely, it will be a little more than that.

[Shlkt]

TheCaptainJZ, on 11 November 2014 - 01:11 AM, said:

It's probably mathematically possible for the change to be 0, but more than likely, it will be a little more than that.

The formula never goes to 0, but the game does enforce a maximum (2800) and minimum (100?) Elo rating. Once you hit 2800 you're not allowed to go higher.

The actual adjustment to your Elo rating after a match is directly proportional to the MM's prediction. If you had a 75% chance of winning and you lost, then your Elo rating would drop by 75% of the K-Factor. The K-Factor is normally 24 or 32 points; it varies by implementation.

If you had won then your Elo rating would go up by 25% of the K-Factor.

Since the algorithm never predicts a 100% or a 0% chance to win then your Elo rating adjustment is always a non-zero number (unless you're already at the maximum/minimum Elo rating as described above).

[Mawai]

Shlkt, on 11 November 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

The formula never goes to 0, but the game does enforce a maximum (2800) and minimum (100?) Elo rating. Once you hit 2800 you're not allowed to go higher.

The actual adjustment to your Elo rating after a match is directly proportional to the MM's prediction. If you had a 75% chance of winning and you lost, then your Elo rating would drop by 75% of the K-Factor. The K-Factor is normally 24 or 32 points; it varies by implementation.

If you had won then your Elo rating would go up by 25% of the K-Factor.

Since the algorithm never predicts a 100% or a 0% chance to win then your Elo rating adjustment is always a non-zero number (unless you're already at the maximum/minimum Elo rating as described above).

Actually, your numbers can't be correct since if the matchmaker predicts a 51% chance of winning and a 49% chance of losing then this would result in a 51% or 49% * K factor change in Elo based on your example which is incorrect ... whereas in that case the change should be near zero.

The formula is probably more like ..

change = (50-%win)/50 * k-factor ... and is applied only if the matchmaker prediction is incorrect.

So if you have a 75% chance of winning and you lose then your change in Elo would be (50-75)/50 * k-factor = -k-factor/2 while the side which won when expected to lose would have an Elo change of (50-25)/50 * k-factor = +k-factor/2.