30 replies to this topic

[Diablobo]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 15 August 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

This is a really dumb comparison.

PPC's and FLD PP damage in general has been a mess for nearly 2 years.

If an entire team of mechs fires at the same target all at once, does it really matter if one mech does 50 PP damage, or 4 mechs do it? When more than one mech fires at a single target like they are supposed to, the same thing happens. Just because one mech can do it doesn't make it OP.

Teamwork and focus fire is OP.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Diablobo, on 15 August 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

If an entire team of mechs fires at the same target all at once, does it really matter if one mech does 50 PP damage, or 4 mechs do it? When more than one mech fires at a single target like they are supposed to, the same thing happens. Just because one mech can do it doesn't make it OP.

Teamwork and focus fire is OP.

Yes, it does matter.

Because if an entire team shoots LRMs at me, they are going to hit a wall more than likely, or the ground due to Radar Dep.

If an entire team shoots PPC's/AC's/Lasers at me, I'm probably dead.

[Diablobo]

If PGI doesn't want 50 PP Alphas, they might as well make all weapons hitscan. Make all ACs fire a stream of shells like the Clans, and make PPCs have a burn time like lasers. If they did that, all the complaints about PP FLD would disappear.

When they decided not to use a cone of fire or at least some reticle bloom, the only possible outcome was that there was going to be a problem with PP burst damage. Even the least skilled among us can be more deadly than the greatest of the TT pilots. Having all weapons hit one location so reliably at any range no matter what is a bad idea.

Edited by Diablobo, 15 August 2014 - 09:11 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Diablobo, on 15 August 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

If PGI doesn't want 50 PP Alphas, they might as well make all weapons hitscan. Make all ACs fire a stream of shells like the Clans, and make PPCs have a burn time like lasers. If they did that, all the complaints about PP FLD would disappear.

When they decided not to use a cone of fire or at least some reticle bloom, the only possible outcome was that there was going to be a problem with PP burst damage. Even the least skilled among us can be more deadly than the greatest of the TT pilots. Having all weapons hit one location so reliably at any range no matter what is a bad idea.

So we agree, PGI is dumb.

[Gallowglas]

I think the only way an objective determination can be made about whether a weapon is OP is:

1) Is it taken ubiquitously by a majority of players?
2) Do the numbers show that players/teams who take the weapon perform significantly better on average than those who do not?
3) If #1 and #2 both hold true, is this limited to a specific scope (e.g. specific maps, chassis, game modes, etc.)? How does this scope impact more universal statistics?

Unless you're looking pretty closely at those things, I don't think you can really objectively approach whether a weapon is truly OP. Anecdotal experience doesn't take enough into account to truly apply. After all, someone playing with oven mitts might decide that they just can't compete with agile mechs in any of their matches. Anecdotally, it seems completely OP. However, the aggregate data probably shows that since most people aren't playing with oven mitts, this problem isn't universal.

I'll take that a step further: anecdotal experience will likely also not give an accurate picture about whether W/L, K/D disparities are due to builds you're facing or disparate Elo. For instance, I might be tempted to believe that since I died to a PPC sniper on 5 consecutive matches, it must be that the PPC is OP. The reality could be, however, that the correlation is due to an Elo mismatch and not a weapon balance problem.

TL:DR: Observational data by itself is a lousy way to balance anything.

[AlmightyAeng]

Gallowglas, on 15 August 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

I think the only way an objective determination can be made about whether a weapon is OP is:

1) Is it taken ubiquitously by a majority of players?
2) Do the numbers show that players/teams who take the weapon perform significantly better on average than those who do not?
3) If #1 and #2 both hold true, is this limited to a specific scope (e.g. specific maps, chassis, game modes, etc.)? How does this scope impact more universal statistics?

Unless you're looking pretty closely at those things, I don't think you can really objectively approach whether a weapon is truly OP. Anecdotal experience doesn't take enough into account to truly apply. After all, someone playing with oven mitts might decide that they just can't compete with agile mechs in any of their matches. Anecdotally, it seems completely OP. However, the aggregate data probably shows that since most people aren't playing with oven mitts, this problem isn't universal.

I'll take that a step further: anecdotal experience will likely also not give an accurate picture about whether W/L, K/D disparities are due to builds you're facing or disparate Elo. For instance, I might be tempted to believe that since I died to a PPC sniper on 5 consecutive matches, it must be that the PPC is OP. The reality could be, however, that the correlation is due to an Elo mismatch and not a weapon balance problem.

TL:DR: Observational data by itself is a lousy way to balance anything.

1) I disagree. Medium lasers are therefore OP. Frankly, they're not. But they're the most common weapon you see, employed on nearly every chassis and tonnage class, either as main or backup weapons.

2) More valid, but I don't think it captures enough. It's pretty easy to do PASSABLE with LRM's. To be a total badass with them? That takes serious effort. And...skill being equal, you're going to get better performance out of Direct-Fire EVERY TIME compared to LRM's. For teams that are really coordinated and work well? They're gonna bring those LRM's to bear and do well with them as a team...but they're not wiping the floor with damage using them...they're softening you up for Direct-Fire carnage.

3) I like your scope addendum. It's important.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 15 August 2014 - 11:26 AM.

[Wildedge]

Agreed and BUMP

[Gallowglas]

Ghost Badger, on 15 August 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

1) I disagree. Medium lasers are therefore OP. Frankly, they're not. But they're the most common weapon you see, employed on nearly every chassis and tonnage class, either as main or backup weapons.

You misunderstand me. I mean that balance can't be done without observing all three in tandem, not just one item by itself.

[Belorion]

Stupidity is OP!!!! Nerf it!

[Angel of Annihilation]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 15 August 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

This is a really dumb comparison.

Guess which weapons were featured heavily in the recent PGI Tournament?

Guess which weapons weren't seen beyond the first round?

PPC's and FLD PP damage in general has been a mess for nearly 2 years.

CERLL's nerf was a mess. And it didn't need to go down how it did. The main issue with them was the range.

Agree on the C-ER LL. The only real complain anyone has was it had such as massive range. 900m for full damage compared to 675m on the IS version. Dropping that 900m down to 750m would have pretty much shut everyone complaining up with resulting to a drastic nerf.

Of course the same things could be said about JJs. All anyone every commented to complained about was how 1-2 JJs was too effective allowing almost the same jump capability as someone mounting 4 or 5. The simple solution there was to make it so most mechs required at least 3 JJs to actually jump and the problem would have been solved. Instead they did a massive blanket nerf to JJs that totally borked them up for most builds.

Not sure about the rest though. I never felt PPCs were really OPed because they just generate way too much heat. Also it takes 4 PPCs to equal the same danger level as an AC/40 jaggy and that = massive heat any way you look at it.

[Sandpit]

Ghost Badger, on 15 August 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

But we WORKED for that win.

There's your problem. There's a few around here that think that makes something "op" or "up". You guys actually played as a TEAM. I love listening to solo type players talk all their smack and berate group players and then you see a game like you described and that's a great game, except some don't want a great game they want "me shoot you die, me am 1337!" and can't understand why they can't just take out 4-5 enemy mechs all by their lonesome, so they scream "op" and hope the weapon tearing them up gets nerfed in the name of "balance".

You know how they don't let people comment on the feedback threads anymore unless they've logged in and played since the last patch? They should do the same for every other aspect of this game. If you haven't dropped in the group queue, you shouldn't be allowed to comment on it. If you haven't dropped in the solo queue, you shouldn't be able to comment on it.

Actually, better than that, they really should have two sections of the forums. A "group" section that is only accessible to people who have dropped in the group queue. That way the talks of balance are specific to the group queue.

Then have a "solo" section, and same rules apply. No droppy solo queue, no talky solo section.

Finally have a 12man section. If you don't drop 12man, you don't comment on 12man.

That would clear up a LOT of clutter on the forums. Give devs a better idea of which queues are experiencing which imbalances and give players a better idea of who is experiencing what. I think that's probably one of the best ideas I've ever had regarding this game and community lol

someone should really make a thread about that!
seriously
someone should really get on that...
still waiting...