Jump to content

- - - - -

Why You Should Play Public Test - Feedback


178 replies to this topic

#1 Kyle Polulak

    <member/>

  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 584 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:14 PM

You can respond to Russ' latest post on the PTS here!

View PostRuss Bullock, on 27 August 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

Hello MechWarriors,

As you are hopefully aware by now, tomorrow will be perhaps our largest downtime ever. This is to accommodate the move to our new data center. There are many advantages to the new data center such as being more cost effective while at the same time potentially offering greater latency performance to many our non NA customers. Besides that, there are a couple of really important reasons why you might want to make the effort to download the latest Public Test Client here and participate tomorrow...

De-sync Bug: This public test will have our latest improvement to the Crytek networking code to work properly for MWO. It would be very helpful if we could get as close as possible to regular Thursday population levels to see if indeed the issue has been improved/resolved. To be clear we can't be sure of the impact of our change until we see the bug in a high load environment, similar to live production. Also keep in mind that this isn't a fix to remove all lag from the "Internets", but to specifically address the de-sync bug.

Clan weapon balance test: As you know we have a large task on our hands to figure out the very best way to handle balancing Clan vs IS before the competitive aspects of CW come online. Over the past weeks we have been running various tests, and this public test, will be the latest one. In fact the last time we made a change to Clan weaponry there were plenty of people that stated we should do that on the test server. Well here it is, on the test server and ready for you to test. I am going to avoid telling you any of the details of what has changed. I am going to avoid telling you any of the details of what has changed. My hope is that you get to try these changes out and share your first-hand experience with us before the numbers lead to any preconceptions. Even with these changes, the Clan weapons still do more damage, have greater range, for the same or less heat, tonnage and crit space. In short they still very much fulfill the promises as originally stated on how the Clans would look and play. Within a week of the completion of this Public Test, I will follow up with another post on exactly what direction we will be taking on Clan vs IS balancing.

Thanks for your help and support.


#2 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:18 PM

Thank you for the much quicker communications lately. It has been immensely better for the whole community!

#3 Deathlike

    Member

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

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:19 PM

It's actually nice to be informed of stuff that changes.

Being in the dark makes those changes appear like "bugs" or "features", at this point it isn't always going to be a positive surprise.

#4 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:21 PM

Regarding the weapon balance changes, making ALL autocannons burst-fire and ALL PPCs spread damage would make balancing them much, much easier. You could then just tweak the FLD/spread numbers until you got a happy balance.

View PostDeathlike, on 27 August 2014 - 04:19 PM, said:

It's actually nice to be informed of stuff that changes.

Being in the dark makes those changes appear like "bugs" or "features", at this point it isn't always going to be a positive surprise.

I think in this case they are checking to see if we can even tell the difference. If true, I agree with them not telling us up front. In general I completely agree with you, though, and think transparency is paramount.

#5 Sandpit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 17,419 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationArkansas

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:24 PM

The last time PGi asked for feedback on balancing they ignored 56 pages of it and did what they wanted to anyway. Not figuring this will be much different. At least they're not telling us what crappy balance options they're going with beforehand this time.

Anyhow...

Any word on how much will be injected into test server accounts?

#6 Carrie Harder

    Clone

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 678 posts
  • LocationCarrying pugs up Mount Tryhard

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:26 PM

View PostSandpit, on 27 August 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

The last time PGi asked for feedback on balancing they ignored 56 pages of it and did what they wanted to anyway. Not figuring this will be much different. At least they're not telling us what crappy balance options they're going with beforehand this time.

Anyhow...

Any word on how much will be injected into test server accounts?

My conspiracy theory is that the lack of PTS patch notes is to avoid the amount of rage that Paul's August 8th thread received, although it's only a matter of time until the PTS changes get posted here by a forumwarrior...

#7 Tastian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 760 posts
  • LocationLayton, UT USA

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:28 PM

Will this fix the LRM locking bug?

#8 Deathlike

    Member

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

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:31 PM

View PostCarrie Harder, on 27 August 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

My conspiracy theory is that the lack of PTS patch notes is to avoid the amount of rage that Paul's August 8th thread received, although it's only a matter of time until the PTS changes get posted here by a forumwarrior...


Twitter, Reddit, and/or smurfy's might have it first.

#9 Carrie Harder

    Clone

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 678 posts
  • LocationCarrying pugs up Mount Tryhard

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:31 PM

View PostDeathlike, on 27 August 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

Twitter, Reddit, and/or smurfy's might have it first.

Hmmm, does Papa Smurfy update for PTS patches?

#10 Deathlike

    Member

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

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:33 PM

View PostCarrie Harder, on 27 August 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

Hmmm, does Papa Smurfy update for PTS patches?


Occasionally. He's done it a few times already in fact.

#11 Noesis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,431 posts
  • LocationIn the Lab

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:33 PM

*thumbs up* Will Rally the Knights

Edited by Noesis, 27 August 2014 - 04:33 PM.


#12 TygerLily

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 2,150 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:38 PM

The blind test for weapon fixes on the test server are a good idea in my opinion.

#13 Nauht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,141 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:39 PM

PGI should really try to see how 2 stars v 3 lances works out before tinkering with weapons for CW. Or tonnage limits for particular missions or a modified BV type system. But then again, who am i kidding, it's PGI. They have a rep for overnerfing and then leaving it for months unresolved as it would seem their ONLY idea of balance is to nerf weapons.

Personally I'm sick of the weapon nerfs. It gives no stability to the game and homogenizes weapons to the point of blandness.

Edited by Nauht, 27 August 2014 - 04:42 PM.


#14 Crunk Prime

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 255 posts
  • LocationJamalia

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:43 PM

Quote

Well here it is, on the test server and ready for you to test. I am going to avoid telling you any of the details of what has changed. I am going to avoid telling you any of the details of what has changed. My hope is that you get to try these changes out and share your first-hand experience with us before the numbers lead to any preconceptions. Even with these changes, the Clan weapons still do more damage, have greater range, for the same or less heat, tonnage and crit space.


This is the worst idea Ive ever heard. Why would you activley avoid telling people cold hard facts about stats on things?

Unless they have been changed so much that they fear some kind of backlash from people who see the stats.

#15 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:44 PM

View PostCimarb, on 27 August 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

Regarding the weapon balance changes, making ALL autocannons burst-fire and ALL PPCs spread damage would make balancing them much, much easier. You could then just tweak the FLD/spread numbers until you got a happy balance.


I think in this case they are checking to see if we can even tell the difference. If true, I agree with them not telling us up front. In general I completely agree with you, though, and think transparency is paramount.


I think all autocannons burst fire with lower shot counts for the IS, and leaving IS PPCs / ER PPCs as they are should be more than sufficient.
Example:
20 - IS: 4, Clan: 5.
10 - IS: 3, Clan: 4.
5 - IS: 2, Clan 3.
2 - IS : 1, Clan 2.
This would actually create a positive use for Inner Sphere AC/2s, which would have 2 damage per bullet, while the IS AC/5 would have 2.5 damage per bullet, the IS AC/10 would have 3& 1/3 damage per bullet (totaling 10), and the IS AC/20 would have 5 damage per bullet, giving a real reason to use the AC/20.

Meanwhile the Clan UACs would still spread quite a bit more. The IS UAC/5 could be given a 3rd shot, much like the Clan UAC/5. This can allow the restoration between the standard range of the AC/5 and the increased range of the IS UAC/5, giving more reason to make a choice. Better range with the IS UAC/5 over the IS AC/5, or better pinpoint damage with the IS AC/5.

(And if you want but unnecessary, you can give people a real reason to use Clan ACs aside from exploiting the ghost heat loopholes by having them run a similar shot count to the IS, as the Clan standard ACs / LBXs are heavier than Clan UACs; I'm serious go check them.)

Though if adding a targeting computer speeds up Clan ER PPCs, then a speed adjustment for IS PPCs to current IS ER PPC levels and slightly speeding up the IS ER PPC to either 1/2 or 1/3 of the potential Clan ER PPC boost from Targeting Computers is a solid idea.

Edited by Koniving, 27 August 2014 - 07:03 PM.


#16 Koniks

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 1,301 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:50 PM

They'd still have to balance the C-LPLs and rebalance the C-ERMLs and C-MPLs. There needs to be some downside for slapping a 50-70+ point alpha with an effective range between 400-700ms on the Timber Wolves. They can get off more than one alpha before having to worry about heat. Even if you twist, that's a fair chunk of armor gone.

#17 101011

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Infernal
  • The Infernal
  • 1,393 posts
  • LocationSector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha, on a small blue-green planet orbiting a small, unregarded yellow sun.

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:52 PM

View PostMizeur, on 27 August 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

They'd still have to balance the C-LPLs and rebalance the C-ERMLs and C-MPLs. There needs to be some downside for slapping a 50-70+ point alpha with an effective range between 400-700ms on the Timber Wolves. They can get off more than one alpha before having to worry about heat. Even if you twist, that's a fair chunk of armor gone.

I never thought I would see the day where people called for pulse laser nerfs, but here we are...balance the chassis, not the faction.

Edited by 101011, 27 August 2014 - 04:54 PM.


#18 TheMagician

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 779 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:58 PM

Your original promise on the clans was that they would not be superior to the IS. Keeping their weapons farther, cooler, and more damage than IS does not meet that promise, it counters it. I'm not sure what promise you are suggesting that you are still meeting. Perhaps you have other ways to make the clans less... formidable, such as making their XL similar to the IS, or giving IS the ability to use clan weapons.

It's a shame too, because you guys had the IS really well balanced against each other, and then the clans threw it all off.

#19 Verkhne

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 2
  • 299 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 05:01 PM

hmmm more Clan nerfs incoming....I knew I should not have bought weapon modules yet!

#20 Nightmare1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,628 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationPeeking over your shoulder while eating your cookies.

Posted 27 August 2014 - 05:01 PM

"I am going to avoid telling you any of the details of what has changed."

He was so excited about that tidbit that he said it twice! :)

Frankly, I would rather know beforehand. As someone who uses a fairly narrow slice of weapons, equipment, and Mechs on the regular servers, I like to branch out and experiment on the Test ones. Knowing what will be different would help me make more informed decisions about whether I like a system or not if it's one I don't typically run.

Also, it will help me evaluate the systems most important to me. I have too many RL obligations tomorrow to spend the day sitting in front of the PC trying every weapon system so that I can take notes and try to puzzle out what all is different.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users