775 replies to this topic

[Butane9000]

Are we just guinea pigs to you!?!

[mau5trap]

Smegmw, on 24 March 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

Make it 150 and increase the effective range of AMS and you have a deal.

Sorry but selecting a random number for a new LRM speed is not going to resolve this fiasco.


PGI selected the 175m/s speed so that a 150kph plus light mech could no longer outrun missiles and we could finally kill them reliably. This was PGIs solution to the borked hit boxes on the spiders, embers and so on. We all B_ITCH about hitting shutdown light mechs with AC20s, ER PPC, ML, (insert weapon here) and they take no damage. The LRM bump finally gave us a reliable way to kill the lights as seen in the caustic video. The 175m/s value was carefully chosen EXPLICITLY to kill lights.


The problem is now that the LRMs are quickly destroying anything not hiding under the dish on HPG, in the cave on forest colony or in the tunnel on crimson strait. What we need are light mechs to take the damage they are delt and be destroyed quickly. Drive a small car and have an accident with a bus and the small car will end up the loser. Sorry, but that's the reality of how it should work even if it makes piloting lights more difficult and less fun.

Dialing the LRM speed back to 160 should allow AMS to do a better job. However, lights will have a better chance of outrunning LRMs and everyone and their bother will need to pack dual AMS and 7 tons of ammo. The problem remains broken hitboxes on light mechs!


*sigh*

_

Edited by mau5trap, 24 March 2014 - 04:04 PM.

[DocBach]

Butane9000, on 24 March 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

Are we just guinea pigs to you!?!

My buddy is head of testing at EA in Redwood City - pretty much he said that in the first day of a major launch, they get more feedback on errors and bugs than their internal team could reproduce in several months of testing.

So yeah, pretty much every live game relies on players to figure out what is wrong both in terms of technical issues and balance issues.

[stjobe]

mau5trap, on 24 March 2014 - 03:43 PM, said:

PGI selected the 175kph speed so that a 150kph plus light mech could no longer outrun missiles

How many times are you lot going to make me post this?

Missile speed is measured in METRES PER SECOND, 'mech speed in KILOMETRES PER HOUR.

The fastest 'mech in the game, the Commando, can travel at 171.2 kph. That's 47.5 m/s.
LRMs now travel at 175 m/s, that's 630 kph. The old speed, 120 m/s, was equal to 478 kph. The speed after the reduction, 160 m/s, is equal to 576 kph.

'Mech: 171.2 kph. Missile: 630 kph.
Missile: 175 m/s. 'Mech: 47.5 m/s.

No 'mech has ever even come close to outrunning missiles. What Lights could do before the speed increase, was to outmaneuver LRMs, but that has gotten quite a lot harder.

Which is good (says I, the inveterate Commando pilot...)

Edited by stjobe, 24 March 2014 - 03:52 PM.

[Jman5]

Paul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

About the interesting find I was talking about:

• Lower Elo players adapted to the changes much faster than the higher Elo players.
  
• LRM use spiked hugely on the day of the change and has been dropping off slowly as time goes by

That is interesting.

One interpretation of that could indicate that High Elo players are less knee-jerky to patch changes.

Another interpretation is that because the LRM is a low-skill (auto-aim lock on) and relatively easily avoided weapon, it's less effective at higher Elo. Players use their greater in-game knowledge and skill to mitigate LRM damage without altering their builds. They're faster and better at getting behind cover and have greater knowledge about what type of cover works best. Meanwhile at lower Elo, players have less skill and knowledge so they are more susceptible to being caught out in the open or catching people out in the open. This is why I think LRMs are such a tricky thing to balance. They can make a noob's life utterly miserable, but lose a lot of effectiveness as the competitive skill goes up.

Of course a third alternative is that High Elo players are more likely to get stuck in their way and are less flexible than they realize. Without a ranking system or ladder, it can be hard to tell what really works best and what just feels strong.

[Kusunoki Masashige]

Paul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Just to let you all know that I've been monitoring the LRM change and their performance on the battlefield. Yes... they are a tad fast... but far from "LRMageddon". Next patch the speed will be reduced by 15m/s. I.e. net change will be from 120 to 160 (instead of 175). I'm also reducing the amount of screenshake caused by LRM explosions slightly. (0.35 instead of 0.4)

It was important to watch the speed impact in gameplay for at least a week to see the actual change in overall gameplay. As you may or may not know, I do have the ability to remotely monitor specific and random games being played. I spent a large portion of my time last week monitoring gameplay of players of all Elo ranges. There were some interesting finds to say the least in terms of how players adapted to the speed change.

Yah no LRMs will still dominate that damn game. I am a new player, started 2 weeks before the patch. Just getting fair at the game and this LRM patch was a total F-up you kids at PGI need to pull your heads out of your tail and do Incremental changes. What the heck do you think your doing. I am playing with veteran players and their all well this is just normal PGI, mess up the game and then try and fix it....

Good jobs you bunch of crackpot jokers

[mau5trap]

stjobe, on 24 March 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

Missile speed is measured in METRES PER SECOND, 'mech speed in KILOMETRES PER HOUR.

Yea, good catch.

We are Americans after all and still use a unit of measurement based upon our English ancestors thumb size. This is also be the very reason the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed back in 1999.


_

Edited by mau5trap, 24 March 2014 - 04:05 PM.

[Deathlike]

DocBach, on 24 March 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

My buddy is head of testing at EA in Redwood City - pretty much he said that in the first day of a major launch, they get more feedback on errors and bugs than their internal team could reproduce in several months of testing.

So yeah, pretty much every live game relies on players to figure out what is wrong both in terms of technical issues and balance issues.

It is still preferable to have incremental changes instead of dramatic "over the top" changes. At least then, you know when to reliably stop, instead of giving everyone the impression "you have no clue".

Jman5, on 24 March 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

That is interesting.

One interpretation of that could indicate that High Elo players are less knee-jerky to patch changes.

Another interpretation is that because the LRM is a low-skill (auto-aim lock on) and relatively easily avoided weapon, it's less effective at higher Elo. Players use their greater in-game knowledge and skill to mitigate LRM damage without altering their builds. They're faster and better at getting behind cover and have greater knowledge about what type of cover works best. Meanwhile at lower Elo, players have less skill and knowledge so they are more susceptible to being caught out in the open or catching people out in the open. This is why I think LRMs are such a tricky thing to balance. They can make a noob's life utterly miserable, but lose a lot of effectiveness as the competitive skill goes up.

Of course a third alternative is that High Elo players are more likely to get stuck in their way and are less flexible than they realize. Without a ranking system or ladder, it can be hard to tell what really works best and what just feels strong.

So, where have you been? I had not seen you all tourney, despite having done minimal participation.

I would have figured some "useful" data gathering would have done during the tourney (the timing kinda "optimal" for data gathering, but not for my patience).

[mdmzero0]

So I'm curious, what would an LRM pilot describe as the difference between "Poptarting" and "Smart, effective use of cover."
Because I hear a lot about how everyone hates the poptart builds/tactics, but when people say that LRM indirect fire is too devastating, those same people claim you need to learn "effective use of cover."

What is the difference between staying behind cover and only leaving to take a shot as to prevent damage (poptarting) and effectively using cover to avoid a massive LRM barrage?

[Nick Makiaveli]

General Taskeen, on 24 March 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Use your test server not the public servers so you can monitor/get feedback before pushing something to a game that is live...

Now how in the name of all that is unholy are they supposed to gather a decent amount of data on the test servers? Have you ever logged into them and played? I know I haven't.

Hell do they even have test servers? Either way, I'm not likely to spend my time testing something like that and the only people who would be the elite players trying to get an edge etc. Hardly what they need to test players "of all Elo" ranges.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jman5, on 24 March 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

That is interesting.

One interpretation of that could indicate that High Elo players are less knee-jerky to patch changes.

Another interpretation is that because the LRM is a low-skill (auto-aim lock on) and relatively easily avoided weapon, it's less effective at higher Elo. Players use their greater in-game knowledge and skill to mitigate LRM damage without altering their builds. They're faster and better at getting behind cover and have greater knowledge about what type of cover works best. Meanwhile at lower Elo, players have less skill and knowledge so they are more susceptible to being caught out in the open or catching people out in the open. This is why I think LRMs are such a tricky thing to balance. They can make a noob's life utterly miserable, but lose a lot of effectiveness as the competitive skill goes up.

Of course a third alternative is that High Elo players are more likely to get stuck in their way and are less flexible than they realize. Without a ranking system or ladder, it can be hard to tell what really works best and what just feels strong.

a third interpretation is high Elo does not inherently infer high skill, since Elo is determined by W/L, not something determined by individual skill. Highly skilled PUG will usually fall to a mediocre premade 4 man. That Premade 4 man, might be of average skill, but their coordination is a force multiplier. Even in 12 v 12, it's not who is the best pilot, so much as which team has the best coordination, and are willing to commit. Which is why I feel Elo, while somewhat useful for improving MM, is too flawed to base any large assumptions off of.

Those with high Elo, almost invariably play in 4man and 12 man premades. Premades are by nature more coordinated, and thus far less likely to snap and shatter at a few LRM barrages.

Still doesn't say a dang thing about individual skill of the player.

I think we also need separate Elo scores, at the very least, one reflecting our PUG stats, one for 12 man. Seen too many solo heroes get murdered in 12 man, and too many 12 man "pros" get slaughtered in PUG chaos when they realize they don't have anyone to cover their back and weaknesses to read much into any of the "stats" people seem determined to stroke in this game.

[DrXitomatl]

Thanks for this change. NARC still needs to be dialed back a little, it should not be the kiss of the death that it currently is. 30 seconds is long enough to take down a fresh mech. My suggestion: make it so that each missile that hits has a 1.25% chance of knocking off the NARC (ie, an LRM 40 volley would have a 50% chance of knocking it off before the 30 seconds is up, if every one of those 40 missiles hit the target).

[Ngamok]

wanderer, on 24 March 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

So right now, we're seeing a mix of missile boats and dakka-heavy stuff. I've been seeing LRM boaters, Jagermechs, a mix of classic Victor/Highlander (missile and non) and Stalkers up there with your mentioned Banshees.

I really, REALLY want the hard data, though. Speculation is not enough.

It's because LRMs can put up higher numbers where a AC+PPC is pinpoint and takes less hits to kill someone.

[WM Jeri]

DocBach, on 24 March 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

My buddy is head of testing at EA in Redwood City - pretty much he said that in the first day of a major launch, they get more feedback on errors and bugs than their internal team could reproduce in several months of testing.

So yeah, pretty much every live game relies on players to figure out what is wrong both in terms of technical issues and balance issues.

OH I so agree with this. We have extensive scripted testing and then key user testing for my companies development group and I am the conceptual design guy the articulates what and how I want something to work that affects my operations group and even after multiple iterations of testing and focus group testing when I release stuff to the floor I will be damned if some creative user on the floor does not find something. Usually small but they always find stuff and I only got roughly 1000 users.

I cannot imagine a game companies grief, no amount of testing will get all the stuff, can get the big stuff most the time but can't get all the stuff.

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

a third interpretation is high Elo does not inherently infer high skill, since Elo is determined by W/L, not something determined by individual skill. Highly skilled PUG will usually fall to a mediocre premade 4 man. That Premade 4 man, might be of average skill, but their coordination is a force multiplier. Even in 12 v 12, it's not who is the best pilot, so much as which team has the best coordination, and are willing to commit. Which is why I feel Elo, while somewhat useful for improving MM, is too flawed to base any large assumptions off of.

Those with high Elo, almost invariably play in 4man and 12 man premades. Premades are by nature more coordinated, and thus far less likely to snap and shatter at a few LRM barrages.

Still doesn't say a dang thing about individual skill of the player.

I think we also need separate Elo scores, at the very least, one reflecting our PUG stats, one for 12 man. Seen too many solo heroes get murdered in 12 man, and too many 12 man "pros" get slaughtered in PUG chaos when they realize they don't have anyone to cover their back and weaknesses to read much into any of the "stats" people seem determined to stroke in this game.

Yea its really hard sometimes assessing your PUGs, I find if I dont allow the battle to develop just a tad so I can try to gain some approximation of skill and or natural affinity on those not in my group things can go sideways fast. However it is a balancing act as I hate to cede the initative, the airborne infantry grunt just comes out of me that way.

[DocBach]

Ngamok, on 24 March 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

It's because LRMs can put up higher numbers where a AC+PPC is pinpoint and takes less hits to kill someone.

In general, however, the AC+PPC pinpoint requires the user to expose themselves to enemy fire, even if for just moment in the case of poptarters. The LRM boat can put up higher numbers without ever peeking outside of cover.

Edited by DocBach, 24 March 2014 - 05:17 PM.

[luigi256]

Hmm interesting. Lets see if I can find cover more easily in my lights with the slow down. Had no complaints before so I am happy for the "nerf"

[Mister Blastman]

What about the LRMs constantly hitting legs?

[luigi256]

WM Xitomatl, on 24 March 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

Thanks for this change. NARC still needs to be dialed back a little, it should not be the kiss of the death that it currently is. 30 seconds is long enough to take down a fresh mech. My suggestion: make it so that each missile that hits has a 1.25% chance of knocking off the NARC (ie, an LRM 40 volley would have a 50% chance of knocking it off before the 30 seconds is up, if every one of those 40 missiles hit the target).

I do not agree that it is the kiss of death exactly. As long as you are near cover it should not be too harsh. It does take you out of the fight though that much is pretty certain.

[DocBach]

WM Jeri, on 24 March 2014 - 05:12 PM, said:

However it is a balancing act as I hate to cede the initative, the airborne infantry grunt just comes out of me that way.

This so much. I'm not airborne, in fact right now I'm mechanized and might as well be a tanker, but I cannot stand to give up the initiative or to not take the initiative when a good battle drill one alpha could disrupt and destroy the enemy. I can't count the amount of times it looked like the pugs were going to close in with me to finish the fight, then I end up killed and realize they all ran off to chase down an arm less Jager and watch the force we were just about to crush eat them alive.

Edited by DocBach, 24 March 2014 - 05:20 PM.

[luigi256]

One other thought I had was for the winners of the tournament that just happened I wonder how many used missle boats. I saw a few players on my teams that had over 1200 damage in them. Not that people can't get that much with other weapons it just seems like a lot for missles. (Maybe due to the fact that they were underpowered for so long)