Jump to content

Summary Of Ngng #110: Karl Berg

News

67 replies to this topic

#1 Peiper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Dragoon
  • The Dragoon
  • 1,444 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationA fog where no one notices the contrast of white on white

Posted 08 May 2014 - 11:50 PM

No Guts No Galaxy #110: Karl Berg

https://soundcloud.c...g-110-karl-berg

Recorded: 7 May 2014

Aired: 9 May 2014

This episode is less an interview and more a podcast with Karl sitting in. There is far more discussion than question/answer and so I won't classify this as a 'summary of an interview.' It is also why there is so much commentary in the way of footnotes from me. It's less informational/newsworthy stuff and more hypothetical/discussion and like so many of you, I MUST troll the forums with my comments. MUST, I say, MUST.... The good news is, my comments are mostly segregated so you know when these guys are speaking and don't take my words for theirs.

Disclaimer: I do not work for PGI, or NGNG. My intention is to provide a thorough summary of this interview for people who cannot or will not listen but still want the information. Also, I have nothing against Hungarians. (clarifications are in parenthesis) [My editorial comments are in brackets -Peiper] There is bias in this summary. In trying to take all those words and present them in a concise, written format, I quote very little and reword most everything. It is impossible for my personality or thought processes to not tilt the meaning toward my own understanding of what was said. If there are inconsistencies between what I write and what is fact, please say so in a private message.

LAUNCH MODULE

3:00 The cast relays the woes of the first couple hours of the launch modules.

5:01 Sean says 'exspecially.' [Sean, exspecially is not a word.-Peiper] [Footnote 6]

6:00 Karl: That we cannot access the mechlab from the private lobbies was a 'design call.' It was not an oversight, but he doesn't know WHY we cannot.

7:25 It is hypothesized that there is no mechlab/private lobby connection in order to cut down on the dev time. It was the responsibility of the already backlogged U.I. Team. “Bringing in the full UI 2.0 mechlab would have been kind of sketchy.” [Peiper's theory: see footnote 1]

8:10 Sean points out that while public matches might be not working as intended, but the private lobbies are working rather flawlessly.

11:10 Karl: One premade per team may not be viable. We'll have to go back to the user statistics to see who is dropping so that wait times aren't forever. 3's definitely should be viable. The current matchmaker algorithm is old, and has been reworked a few times. So they're looking at a matchmaker rewrite to make 3's work properly. It's high priority and they're 'on it right now.'

12:00 The cast hypothesizes that 3/3/3/3 (weight limits) influence win/loss factors more than the number of premades per team. The question discussed is: If you had to choose which: premade numbers or weight limits, what would you choose? [Footnote 2]

14:07 Karl: PGI is in the middle of trying to figure out how to balance groups in drops.

JUMP JETS

15:00 Sean proposes that more heat be added to jump jets as a balance out for their bonuses in movement (to balance them against mechs who have much more limited movement because they can't jump). He proposes the longer you hold down the jump jet trigger, the more heat they produce. The example he uses is the number of jump-snipes a brawler would have to face while they try to work their way toward their targets would be lessened because the jump sniper would be overheating. [Footnote 3] The cast then agrees with him and each other.

19:20 Tyler (I think): proposes leg damage from landing. [Footnote 4] Karl says fall/drop damage hasn't been tuned at all, but it's something designers are looking at.

MECH TREE/PILOT TREE

20:30 Sean talks about how he'd like to see quirks built into the mech trees: so that rather than having the generic 8/4/1 skill tree we have now, have a skill tree appropriate for the mech or the role the mech is designed to play. Maybe have several traits to choose from, but only be able to take say 3 of 6 possible. This might help make some more maligned mechs more valuable or playable. You could even take the physical parts of the mech into account: this mech has a shield on the left arm, sloped armor here, oversized part there. [Footnote 5] Is this what PGI envisions?

20:20 Karl: would prefer to see a revised skill system. He would rather see the skill system reflect player style and preferences rather than have every mech/player the same.

23:30 Karl: When the skill sets were created, they were designed to work cross-variant, and by necessity had to be rather generic. Hopefully we'll see more unique options in the future. He doesn't want to see any type of 'RNG.' Example: buying something for the Awesome 8Q that has a 50% chance to reduce PPC heat by 50%. (RNG=random number generator)

25:00 Sean talks about how every mech in a weight class feels/acts the same. Example, a Jenner is as nimble as a Locust despite being near twice the tonnage. Also suggests that the Kintaro and Shadowhawk are both 55 tons, but one does not have jump jets – so why take the Kintaro over the Shadowhawk? Perhaps design quirks that would make the Kintaro more attractive would help balance out the bonuses of the Shadowhawk's jump jets. [Good idea. -Peiper] Another cast member points out that engine size determines move and turn speed. Perhaps capping the movement bonuses for larger engines could be considered. [Footnote 7]

28:00 Karl: would like to see at minimum, each weight class have their own mech tree. Lights have agility based skills, assaults have other stuff.

MODULE SYTEM

28:35 Sean points out that the higher ELO you go, the more air/arty strikes you see. Sometimes 20 plus strikes in a match, making it a rather constant thing. Another problem is that modules for the most part are not role specific.

29:45 Karl: Remember Bryan talking about having different types of module slots. So you might have one pilot module, but have 3 weapons modules available based on role/mech type. There's already stuff in a design document regarding revamping the module system (internal PGI doc.), but there's still a lot of missing stuff there, for sure. Sean points out that right now, many modules, and especially weapons modules, are generally useless – partly because there's no reason to take them over arty/air strikes an other consumables. They generally agree on segregating module types to encourage people to take different modules, and less consumables. When weapon modules cost as much as a new mech to use, why would people bother buying them?

34:15 Karl: The weapon modules were supposed to be in addition to the current modules, but those hard(soft)points haven't been added in yet.

36:00 Karl: Module system and mech quirks are in the works (with clans). Pilot tree not currently being worked on.

36:30 Sean: Modules cost way too much. He'd rather buy several of the same module for less and equip it on every mech than buy one and have to move it around every time he switches mech. [I echo Bombadil's 'amen' on that. -Peiper]

38:18 Any new modules coming out, or current ones altered? Karl: would like to see arty/airstrike damage brought down or more spread out. Sean suggests dropping damage 25-35% and remove the possibility of a headshot. (currently AC40's from the sky) But even with that, people would still probably use arty/airstrikes because you make C-bills from damage and not so much with other modules. Karl agrees.

40:20 Karl: would like to see advanced target decay revamped, since the LRM buff, but now it's even more powerful than ever. Sean: proposes UAV's should stay up way longer, at least considering the cost of the module/consumable. The module system was a good placeholder but needs to be reworked. And Sean points out that cool shot is still a big mistake. [Throw money into the ether and coolant is magically replaced in your mech! It makes NO SENSE in Battletech or this game. -Peiper] Consumables shouldn't cause damage, but it's cool that they can be use to manipulate the battlefield (like arty forcing people off hilltops).
MWO TOURNAMENT SERIES

45:35 Sean points out that there is an application process to get into the tournament. Who determines who gets in? He thinks the tournament should be basketball bracket style, and everyone should get in: no playing favorites, no first come-first serve. PGI should tell the team captains when the match is scheduled and if you snooze you lose. He understands this is beta, but what about teams scheduling their own fights with each other? Too much grey area, and time zones play a huge factor in team participation.
FREE CAMERA for filming reviewed.

48:00 Free camera described. When flying around, teams clearly defined, you see pilot, mech, health percentage, with top-down view to watch how all mechs are moving with the option to pick a pilot and hop into the cockpit. Thanks to Brian Buckton and Carl Berg for the work with that.

__________________________________________________

Footnote 1: You know how mechlab is a flash player thing, and everything is compartmentalized as to not have too much stuff happening at once? Example: the social tab is separate from the store which is separate from the mechlab. Adding or reworking the layers may make the game cumbersome and slow things down? IDK. I'm not a tech guy, but they segregated all the parts of UI 2.0 for a reason. Putting them all in the same basket again may be a step backwards in their design/attempts to streamline the game. Not that they made any attempt to streamline the mechlab. I still fracking hate the damed UI 2.0 mechlab. It WAS essential that they put in module selection for private lobbies. No one would ever drop if after every match the groups had to break up. Not that people can afford to replace consumables when they're not making any money in private lobbies anyway! -Peiper

Footnote 2: Why won't weight AND team limits work again? If you had to choose peanut butter or jelly... If they can only enforce weights, then team sizes of more than four should be considered. End the sync drop crap. Maybe make a solo-only queue and an I don't care queue of puggers really care that much. As long as they match team sizes as best they can, then it won't matter to puggers. They'll either get the benefit of being on a good team or not. In either case, how is that different than the pug lottery we have right now? I think pugs benefit from having premades on their team, but then again, I'm not stupid enough to drop alone and whine about being alone. This is a freaking TEAM GAME no matter how much they reward people for individual action over teamwork. I'm pretty sick of walls of assault mechs in drops, though. I will agree that 3/3/3/3 is more important than team numbers just for variety's sake. -Peiper

Footnote 3: Jump snipers would be less effective if they didn't allow us to frankenmech high-alpha long range builds. Same with having to weather blizzards of missiles or a 3 pack of gauss cats/boom jaggers. Again PGI's insistence on allowing the greatest possible customization for mechs kicks their own ass. I know... beating a dead horse. It does make me jealous that Sean Lang and the gang can sit and have a chat with a dev about their ideas, but our smoke signals on the island are rarely acknowledged. -Peiper

Footnote 4: Maybe if falling were factor in the game would I agree, along with death from above. But jump jet capable mechs are DESIGNED to jump and land without falling apart. I would like to see large mechs take damage more proportionally from falling/sliding down mountains as compared to smaller mechs. It doesn't make sense that the lighter the mech, the more damage it takes from landing/falling/sliding down. But JUMPING mechs should not take damage from LANDING if they are landing from a height no greater than the greatest arch of flight they were designed for. Now if a mech jumps high off a cliff, then they should take damage as they're falling much further down then the are designed to jump up! -Peiper

Footnote 5: SIZED hardpoints might make some mechs more viable too. The hunchback might be more interesting if it is the ONLY medium mech that can sport an AC/20? Geezus... You guys have no idea how frustrating it is to listen to these guys ignore such a basic issue as what makes a chassis unique to begin with. Ghost heat would be unnecessary, overpowered/exclusive ECM could be reworked, etc... It's all down to frankenmechs and how we can abuse them. So fracking frustrating to see what is a simple solution instead of endless bandaids. If you have a headache, don't break your fingers to make your headache go away! -Peiper

Footnote 6: It's a pet peeve, not meant to put Sean down. I like Sean and appreciate what he does for the community. Something bugs everyone, and sometimes it's better to make light of it than scratching your eyes out. Example: every Battletech novel I've ever read includes something like “Marjory chews her lower lip.” It's gotta be an unspoken agreement among the authors to include that description, because the only time I ever see anyone chewing their lower lips are in porn, or even more graphically, in the old movie 'Dune' whether the mentaths compulsively chew their lips as a side effect to taking spice. So, when I read the passage about a Battletech character chewing their lower lip, I picture the character compulsively munching on their bruised and irritated lower lips like the drug-addled mentaths of Dune. Drives me nuts. But I still respect the authors and if I ever finish my own Battletech novel, you bet one of them is going to be chewing their lower lip at one time or another: “Exspecially” if there's a chance of it being added to canon/published! -Peiper

Footnote 7: In tabletop mech design rules, mechs could only be given specific engines based on their tonnage multiplied by the number of hexes they moved (walking speed). Example: a 100 ton Atlas could be given a 100, 200, 300 or 400 rated engine. It's why the Awesome comes with a 240 and not a 250 or 275. In MWO we can give battlemechs ANY engine within a certain range. This significantly impacts frankenmech designs. Currently, many Jenners use 300XL's, though mine uses a 295XL in order to stuff a BAP in there and keep full armor. Under Battletech rules, a Jenner could only have engines rated at 35 ton increments. So, I could put a 280 or a 315 in there, but not a 295 or 300. Implementing the battletech scale to mech creation could make a significant impact on metabuilds. I'm sure there would still be optimal builds, but maybe with a little study, we would see how taking a 45 ton mech might be better for a certain build than a 50 ton, etc... Similar to how players may choose an 80 ton jumper over an 85 tonner, because jump jets cost 2 tons each at 85 tons. -Peiper

_________________________

The following is NGNG's own list of subject matter. This will be replaced in due time with my summary. -Peiper
NGNG#110
* Hosts: Phil "Sean Lang", Daeron "Bombadil"
* Co-Hosts: Brandon "Cattra Kell", Tyler "JagerXII"
* Special Guest: Karl Berg, Senior Systems Engineer @ Piranha Games
* Discussion Topic: Launch Module
* 3-3-3-3 and only 1 premade per random battle
* Private Matches
* Want access to 'Mech Lab in Private Matches
* Discussion Topic: Jump Jets
* Do they need a downside to their obvious advantages?
* Add more heat?
* More fall damage?
* Discussion Topic: 'Mech Tree
* Could this be improved? How?
* Discussion Topic: Module System
* Could modules be used to help facilitate role-warfare?
* Ideas and possibilities
* PGI announces official FIRST ENGAGEMENT Team Tournament (Beta)
* Alpha version of Spectator Mode is receiving upgrades
* BattleMaster T-Shirt pre-orders shipping next week and will be in-stock

Edited by Peiper, 09 May 2014 - 09:25 AM.
activated "Use first tag as prefix "


#2 XX Sulla XX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,094 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 02:04 AM

What they need to do is not nerf jump jets again but just make weopons have less convergence at range. Jump jet brawlers are fine. Snipers of all kinds can change the game into something were the fight is a long range stand off.

The more I listen to this the more I hope they are not listening to NGNG. While they do have some good ideas they have a ton of terrible ideas also.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 09 May 2014 - 02:16 AM.


#3 ReguIus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Infernal
  • The Infernal
  • 137 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 02:18 AM

I'm inclined to agree with your sentiments. However at the moment I don't think it would be a good idea to allow 2-12 groups to drop against pugs. A while back when the matchmaker allowed 12 groups to play against pugs... Most games ended just as you would expect. Only times a 12 man group actually had a chance of losing was when they're up against a highly skilled 4 man groups and/or their opponent's tonnage were off the charts. In a way that's a way to balance games but not exactly something PGI is looking at. 12 mans vs. the pugs could be doable if VOIP was implemented and even then it's on the edge. I'd like to drop with more than 4 guys myself, but I don't want this game to turn into CB again. It was horrible.

Regarding jump jets... I'd just like to add that one thing making JJ capable mechs so much better than others is the fact that they can "glide" over any obstacle as if there was no friction at all from your legs scratching at the surface. The fact that this system gives you all the benefits for just investing into ONE jump jet is silly.

Now I completely agree with the sized hardpoints and I've a advocated them a long time. I don't want MW 4 system where you could plug in absolutely as much small weapons as you possibly could, but a hybrid where you'd have a maximum numbers of weapons allowed and maximum amount of critical space that has been allocated to them. I agree that this would, with a bit of design and work, remove the need for Ghost Heat. It is also very intuitive and most importantly it will make some mech chassii to stand out from the others in some meaningful way.

Cheers.

#4 Chemie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 2,491 posts
  • LocationMI

Posted 09 May 2014 - 03:15 AM

View PostKurbutti, on 09 May 2014 - 02:18 AM, said:

I'm inclined to agree with your sentiments. However at the moment I don't think it would be a good idea to allow 2-12 groups to drop against pugs. A while back when the matchmaker allowed 12 groups to play against pugs... Most games ended just as you would expect. Only times a 12 man group actually had a chance of losing was when they're up against a highly skilled 4 man groups and/or their opponent's tonnage were off the charts. In a way that's a way to balance games but not exactly something PGI is looking at. 12 mans vs. the pugs could be doable if VOIP was implemented and even then it's on the edge. I'd like to drop with more than 4 guys myself, but I don't want this game to turn into CB again. It was horrible.

Regarding jump jets... I'd just like to add that one thing making JJ capable mechs so much better than others is the fact that they can "glide" over any obstacle as if there was no friction at all from your legs scratching at the surface. The fact that this system gives you all the benefits for just investing into ONE jump jet is silly.

Now I completely agree with the sized hardpoints and I've a advocated them a long time. I don't want MW 4 system where you could plug in absolutely as much small weapons as you possibly could, but a hybrid where you'd have a maximum numbers of weapons allowed and maximum amount of critical space that has been allocated to them. I agree that this would, with a bit of design and work, remove the need for Ghost Heat. It is also very intuitive and most importantly it will make some mech chassii to stand out from the others in some meaningful way.

Cheers.


The intent would not be 11 premade on one side and zero on the other. The whole idea is to balance (aproximately) the number of teamed players on each side.....

#5 Barantor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,592 posts
  • LocationLexington, KY USA

Posted 09 May 2014 - 03:58 AM

Jumpjets: I don't know why you can only put one on if you want or up to a maximum? I don't recall reading anywhere in the lore where any of the custom mechs had a bit less jump power than the variant it was based on? It always seems to be it can either jump like the mech it is based on or they took it out completely. I think that having the ability to only have one jumpjet on a jump capable mech is folly.

Mech Trees: I've always thought that each mech should have it's own tree after the basics. Mastery of the Awesome should allow you to be able to fire with less/no/altered ghost heat since it is supposed to have PPCs. Mechs that are not as great now could be brought up to snuff with quirks and unlocks rather than attempts at boosts via hero mech variants.


I still want some other news group in either the MMO scene or even a group from MWO to be able to ask the devs some questions besides NGNG. I still feel that NGNG softballs questions and just has more discussion sit downs rather than asking some of the tougher concerns that happen here, on reddit and elsewhere on the net.

#6 ReguIus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Infernal
  • The Infernal
  • 137 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 04:50 AM

View PostChemie, on 09 May 2014 - 03:15 AM, said:


The intent would not be 11 premade on one side and zero on the other. The whole idea is to balance (aproximately) the number of teamed players on each side.....


I'm all for it. It just doesn't seem realistic to me that you can match both the players and the tonnage in practice so that the game remains "balanced". Well of course if given enough time, but that's just it.

#7 vondano

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 136 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 09 May 2014 - 04:58 AM

do the dev listen to those podcast? cause a lot of great ideas are thrown in there...

why are they sooooo slow at fixing their game???

a lot of small fixes could bring this game BACK to life (yeah i think its pretty dead right now... sorry)

#8 Monkeystador

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:03 AM

View PostPeiper, on 08 May 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:



Footnote 4: Maybe if falling were factor in the game would I agree, along with death from above. But jump jet capable mechs are DESIGNED to jump and land without falling apart. I would like to see large mechs take damage more proportionally from falling/sliding down mountains as compared to smaller mechs. It doesn't make sense that the lighter the mech, the more damage it takes from landing/falling/sliding down. But JUMPING mechs should not take damage from LANDING if they are landing from a height no greater than the greatest arch of flight they were designed for. Now if a mech jumps high off a cliff, then they should take damage as they're falling much further down then the are designed to jump up! -Peiper



Lets me rephrase that. If a mech is designed for arcing jump that would bring him 100 meter forward the mech does not take damage if he falls from it's highest point.
But if the mech jumps more vertical. i.e. from a state without a forward movement like most jump snipers, it is possible to exceed the save free fall height for that mech.

Edited by Monkeystador, 09 May 2014 - 05:04 AM.


#9 Redshift2k5

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Stone Cold
  • Stone Cold
  • 11,975 posts
  • LocationNewfoundland

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:09 AM

Weight (or 3333) AND # of premades AND Elo per team is probably too many factors, which may be possible but not within an acceptable queue time.

I'd rather see 3/3/3/3 instead of limited premades, especially since "one premade per team" treats all teams as equal- making 2 or 3 much less desirable than a full 4.

#10 Ultimax

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,979 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:12 AM

View PostXX Sulla XX, on 09 May 2014 - 02:04 AM, said:

What they need to do is not nerf jump jets again but just make weopons have less convergence at range. Jump jet brawlers are fine. Snipers of all kinds can change the game into something were the fight is a long range stand off.

The more I listen to this the more I hope they are not listening to NGNG. While they do have some good ideas they have a ton of terrible ideas also.


Seriously, I'm doing some massive facepalming here.

It's seem like they have a list of nerfs a mile wide for something that costs tonnage and is supposed to actually...provide an advantage - and they also seem unable to comprehend how awful the terrain code is and that it shouldn't be that punishing to non-JJ mechs.

It doesn't seem to matter though, the PGI devs seem willing to swing the wrecking-ball of nerf at anything and everything on the periphery of jumpsniping without actually touching perfect convergence at all.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 09 May 2014 - 05:22 AM.


#11 Monkeystador

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:14 AM

If they would just have added ELO for teams. You know of Bert , Ernie and the Monster play together they get their own ELO.
So EACH TEAM has their own ELO. Each combination of players gets their OWN ELO.
Same as Blizzard does with SC2.
Team balancing problem solved. S O L V E D

Edited by Monkeystador, 09 May 2014 - 05:14 AM.


#12 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:16 AM

View PostPeiper, on 08 May 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

12:00 The cast hypothesizes that 3/3/3/3 (weight limits) influence win/loss factors more than the number of premades per team. The question discussed is: If you had to choose which: premade numbers or weight limits, what would you choose? [Footnote 2]


Here's a few thoughts.

When we had MMv2 (strict weight class matching), people were literally dominated if they did not excel in the chassis that they fielded. So, the results were very predictable based on that notion. This issue gets worse if you fielded a sub-par chassis (sorry Awesome), so you had to literally carry in the mech that wasn't optimal. That was primarily an issue if you were a bad player, but you would get benefited from this to a degree by natural degree. Sync dropping WITH COMPETENT PLAYERS would affect this greatly whenever it was successful.

When we had MMv3 (Elo "skill" based matching), what ended up happening was that tonnages were very lopsided. However, the games that were produced were "reasonably close" in that people used carried in the mechs that they were in. Any differentiation of skill was there for all to see, except on a more long term basis favored going heavier (aka, you have a much better TTK in an assault than a light, assuming equal skill in both chassis).

This indirectly introduced some problems on certain maps.. like OLD Alpine in Conquest... where lacking lights would be detrimental to success. While it allowed for more competitive games, it also brought rampant complaining about "equal tonnage".

Weight limits will never solve the skill gap between players. If I can kick your ass in a Jenner, I can surely do a better job in a Victor.

Premade numbers simply doesn't correlate to winning... rather the ACT of actually working together makes a difference. This is very visible when you see newbies in trial mechs (still trying to figure out how to shoot, which doesn't really give them a chance to learn to be a good teammate). When people are receptive to "working as a team", more often than not, they win. However, loadouts, weights, and other things can contribute to a difference in play, but people are more likely to whine less if people are "playing at their level" regardless of the result (it sucks to lose an 12-11 game, but it happens) than every mach is a roflstomp going either way. If you're "doing your own thing" and getting killed, you're probably not being a good team player to win on a consistent basis... If you're still trying to "figure out" the targeting button, you're probably not going to contribute whether the team is rolling or being rolled.

It is somewhat "hard" to quantify a team and their skilled players vs others, but it is far easier to figure out which players know what they are doing, from those that don't.

Quote

15:00 Sean proposes that more heat be added to jump jets as a balance out for their bonuses in movement (to balance them against mechs who have much more limited movement because they can't jump). He proposes the longer you hold down the jump jet trigger, the more heat they produce. The example he uses is the number of jump-snipes a brawler would have to face while they try to work their way toward their targets would be lessened because the jump sniper would be overheating. [Footnote 3] The cast then agrees with him and each other.


If JJs make you overheat while jumping over a hill, that's a problem. "Heat penalties" I guess could be OK, but won't really solve the actual problem that's been repeated time and time again... pinpoint convergence. Most jump snipers tend to cool down just fine when pressured, WHICH IS A RESULT OF POOR BRAWLING AND THE STATE OF SRMS. FFS, FIX THAT FIRST AND FOREMOST.

Quote

19:20 Tyler (I think): proposes leg damage from landing. [Footnote 4] Karl says fall/drop damage hasn't been tuned at all, but it's something designers are looking at.


They haven't really tweaked that since Open Beta. It was a serious problem when lights were losing their legs in mid combat... which is arguably WORSE than "pebbles of steel".


Quote

Footnote 1: You know how mechlab is a flash player thing, and everything is compartmentalized as to not have too much stuff happening at once? Example: the social tab is separate from the store which is separate from the mechlab. Adding or reworking the layers may make the game cumbersome and slow things down? IDK. I'm not a tech guy, but they segregated all the parts of UI 2.0 for a reason. Putting them all in the same basket again may be a step backwards in their design/attempts to streamline the game. Not that they made any attempt to streamline the mechlab. I still fracking hate the damed UI 2.0 mechlab. It WAS essential that they put in module selection for private lobbies. No one would ever drop if after every match the groups had to break up. Not that people can afford to replace consumables when they're not making any money in private lobbies anyway! -Peiper


They completely did the store wrong, as the info you really needed should have been copied from the "purchaseable section". It would simply be easier to "abolish" the "purchaseable section" in the mechlab and "update" the store section to the level of the "purchaseable section". It reeks of stupid/silly redundancy.


Quote

Footnote 2: Why won't weight AND team limits work again? If you had to choose peanut butter or jelly... If they can only enforce weights, then team sizes of more than four should be considered. End the sync drop crap. Maybe make a solo-only queue and an I don't care queue of puggers really care that much. As long as they match team sizes as best they can, then it won't matter to puggers. They'll either get the benefit of being on a good team or not. In either case, how is that different than the pug lottery we have right now? I think pugs benefit from having premades on their team, but then again, I'm not stupid enough to drop alone and whine about being alone. This is a freaking TEAM GAME no matter how much they reward people for individual action over teamwork. I'm pretty sick of walls of assault mechs in drops, though. I will agree that 3/3/3/3 is more important than team numbers just for variety's sake. -Peiper


Solo+Group queues are preferred. It might be very difficult to match Elo when you're trying to put a team of 5 or more together, but at least people can understand that plight. People do want to play together more, but the consequence to a limit degree would be stomps due to overall skilled superiority and LESS about the group size.

Edited by Deathlike, 09 May 2014 - 05:18 AM.


#13 General Taskeen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,737 posts
  • LocationCircinus

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:24 AM

View PostPeiper, on 08 May 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

15:00 Sean proposes that more heat be added to jump jets as a balance out for their bonuses in movement (to balance them against mechs who have much more limited movement because they can't jump). He proposes the longer you hold down the jump jet trigger, the more heat they produce. The example he uses is the number of jump-snipes a brawler would have to face while they try to work their way toward their targets would be lessened because the jump sniper would be overheating. [Footnote 3] The cast then agrees with him and each other.


I assume, although I don't know if this is correct, that Sean is getting this idea from MW:LL, which in turn got the idea from TT. NGNG used to plug for MW:LL, so I imagine they've played it. Although jets have way, way more advanced programming built in for them in that game.

#14 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:26 AM

Quote

11:10 Karl: One premade per team may not be viable. We'll have to go back to the user statistics to see who is dropping so that wait times aren't forever.

This supports what people were saying, that PGI was misinterpretting their data, and when Paul said only 18% of drops were premades, he literally meant drops, and not actual players... such that each group dropping was only counting as 1 "drop" in his numbers.

Because frankly, if only 18% of players actually grouped, then they wouldn't have any trouble limiting the number of groups per team to 1... the fact that they can't make full teams effectively with that limitation in place suggests a significant percentage of their playerbase is actually playing in groups... which would make more sense given the previously released statistics regarding grouping (where it used to be the majority of all players dropped in groups).


Quote

14:07 Karl: PGI is in the middle of trying to figure out how to balance groups in drops.

This post presents a way to use a dynamically generated BV to handicap teams, creating a sliding scale of benefits for smaller groups.

#15 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:29 AM

View PostMonkeystador, on 09 May 2014 - 05:14 AM, said:

If they would just have added ELO for teams. You know of Bert , Ernie and the Monster play together they get their own ELO.
So EACH TEAM has their own ELO. Each combination of players gets their OWN ELO.
Same as Blizzard does with SC2.
Team balancing problem solved. S O L V E D


It won't work in MWO.

I'll use a Warcraft 3 example (another Blizzard game) of which I understood the MM mechanics of (a little bit).

In games like Warcraft 3 (or even Starcraft), such an "paired matching" has its own ranking. The problem with that is it gets complicated over time.

Blizzard's games ASSUME that the paired matching stays pretty solid for the most part... not playing with "other friends" like we do in MWO as often. This often gets VERY complicated very quickly... with actual PLAYER retention, and playing with others that aren't online very often. This becomes difficult to track AND get accurate at the same time.

What's more realistic is to have a "group Elo multiplier"... kinda like the idea that ECM is a "force multiplier". Working in groups successfully should improve this value in an attempt to figure out "how valuable you are" as a group member. Separating this from "solo Elo" is ideal, but not perfect either. People can be pretty bad solo (particularly when you're starting out as a newbie). As you get better in groups, one would hope this transfers solo (but not always), as it becomes a personal reflection of your skills over time. Now, I get that some people REFUSE to play solo, so it becomes a rather tricky process, and requires some thought into the calculations, but ultimately you can't just have "fixed Elos" with players. You have to put a separate Elo factor to measure your presence in a premade and whether or not you are helping the team, or just another rock to be carried over the hill.

#16 SgtMagor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:44 AM

Jump jets- Don't you think that mechs that have them already pay a penalty in lost tonnage, and slots? not for nothing you should be able drop of any height of cliff , and time your jet activation you should have enough fuel to break your fall. why does everyone think that jump jets mechs are the problem for poptarting, weapon convergence has always been the problem. if a mech is moving there should be no possible way to have 2 or 3 ppcs and a ballistic weapon cause pinpoint damage hitting the same area. there should be spread damage if a mech is jumping, and that goes for mechs with out jets too, if your mech is moving there should be spread damage!...

Edited by SgtMagor, 09 May 2014 - 05:51 AM.


#17 kesuga7

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,022 posts
  • LocationSegmentum solar - Sector solar - Subsector sol - Hive world - "Holy terra"

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:47 AM

The more Jumpjets your mech has
the less amount of heat you get from using them ?

View PostSgtMagor, on 09 May 2014 - 05:44 AM, said:

Jump jets- Don't you think that mechs that have them already pay a penalty in lost tonnage, and slots?

1 tonn of a jumpjet has waaay more benefits then 1 double heatsink

Edited by kesuga7, 09 May 2014 - 05:47 AM.


#18 CyclonerM

    Tina's Warrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 5,681 posts
  • LocationA 2nd Wolf Guards Grenadiers JumpShip

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:47 AM

View PostPeiper, on 08 May 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

Footnote 5: SIZED hardpoints might make some mechs more viable too. The hunchback might be more interesting if it is the ONLY medium mech that can sport an AC/20? Geezus... You guys have no idea how frustrating it is to listen to these guys ignore such a basic issue as what makes a chassis unique to begin with. Ghost heat would be unnecessary, overpowered/exclusive ECM could be reworked, etc... It's all down to frankenmechs and how we can abuse them. So fracking frustrating to see what is a simple solution instead of endless bandaids. If you have a headache, don't break your fingers to make your headache go away! -Peiper

THIS! Please Paul read this..

And you should get quite some heavy leg damage when jumping off from a mountain in Alpine Peaks..

In a novel a Rifleman gets its back armor heavily damaged just sliding on its back down a ravine..

Edited by CyclonerM, 09 May 2014 - 05:53 AM.


#19 Redshift2k5

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Stone Cold
  • Stone Cold
  • 11,975 posts
  • LocationNewfoundland

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:49 AM

And belatedly, thanks a bunch for actually putting this together for those of us who have trouble making the time to keep up with podcasts.

#20 Heffay

    Rum Runner

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 6,458 posts
  • LocationPHX

Posted 09 May 2014 - 05:55 AM

View PostPeiper, on 08 May 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

5:01 Sean says 'exspecially.' [Sean, exspecially is not a word.-Peiper]


Just a small point of order from a linguistics point of view: That is what is known as a dialect, and isn't incorrect. It is still proper pronunciation according to the dialect rules he was raised under. Dialects also change over time. For example, "ain't" used to be considered the "proper" way of contracting "is not", but that changed roughly a century ago.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users