71 replies to this topic

[XX Sulla XX]

Rick Sanchez 1895, on 26 June 2015 - 04:08 AM, said:

It would be fine - ideal even - when a better elo would put you in games with other high elo players - but that's certainly not the way it is now and unless i missed something(?) it's not going to change.

What would be great is a system with 5 or 6 tiers in wich players from the same tier play each other. Right now players with high elo play with absolute beginners and i don't think that's fun for anyone.

That is how its going to work kinda. Say there are 8 tiers. Only tier 7-8 or 6-8 are in the same matches. You will not have tier 1 and tier 8 in the same matches.

And it will be easier to move up in tiers by having top damage and kills etc.

[Chemie]

if russ thinks he can get the "community to agree on the balance", then these will never see the light of day. Infinite public test server. maybe if they leave that open, we can just migrate there,...

[Sean Lang]

This was the most exciting part of the Town Hall to me. I understand there are a ton of unknowns, and until then it creates speculation.

But I can tell you this is a game changer, and I'm more thrilled about this then all other things mentioned!

[1453 R]

So…Piranha’s gearing up to throw out most of the current balancing band-aid stack out the lock and will be re-evaluating balance as a whole, with input from players on their test client?

Color me very highly intrigued. Looks like it’ll be time to redownload the test client on my new machine shortly here. I know for a fact that the last few public tests they tried turned them off the idea because practically no one showed up. Admittedly, part of that is because THEY KEPT RUNNING THE DAMN TESTS DURING U.S. WORK HOURS…

*Nudge nudge* Hey, Piranha…I get off work at 9:00 U.S. Central. Home by 9:30. I want to help you rebalance the game, but you need to give me a chance to do it. Maybe expand your test server hours.

Anyways. This is honestly one of the best pieces of MWO news I’ve gotten in a long time now. Let’s face it – we’ve needed this for a great long while now, it’s kind of awesome they’re finally considering it.

[Spleenslitta]

Sounds all well and good but...why don't they redo mech scaling. Make a Centurion that isn't almost as big as an Awesome.
Catapults that are smaller than Stalkers rather than larger....yup it's a tiny bit shorter but much wider and the Stalker ain't that much deeper in the chest in comparison.

Or a Raven that has a shorter torso beak...right now the Raven is longer from beak to back than the Spider is tall. Yup. This is true.
Or make the Trebuchet shorter so it's not about equal in height with the Awesome.

I don't care how much work it is....i want things to be fair.

[Koniks]

In addition to mech scaling, they've capped the engines on IS mechs, instead of just adding armor and structure to some mechs, set a lower armor cap on others.

ETA: obviously this requires some thought because of the unwillingness to break stock loadouts. e.g. the TBR's come almost fully armored stock.

Edited by Mizeur, 26 June 2015 - 12:31 PM.

[XX Sulla XX]

Sean Lang, on 26 June 2015 - 11:56 AM, said:

This was the most exciting part of the Town Hall to me. I understand there are a ton of unknowns, and until then it creates speculation.

But I can tell you this is a game changer, and I'm more thrilled about this then all other things mentioned!

I agree this was by far the most interesting part. If they can make both mech balance and match making it will be a huge improvement to the game.

Spleenslitta, on 26 June 2015 - 12:03 PM, said:

Sounds all well and good but...why don't they redo mech scaling. Make a Centurion that isn't almost as big as an Awesome.
Catapults that are smaller than Stalkers rather than larger....yup it's a tiny bit shorter but much wider and the Stalker ain't that much deeper in the chest in comparison.

Or a Raven that has a shorter torso beak...right now the Raven is longer from beak to back than the Spider is tall. Yup. This is true.
Or make the Trebuchet shorter so it's not about equal in height with the Awesome.

I don't care how much work it is....i want things to be fair.

They are. Happy now ?

[DjPush]

TheCharlatan, on 25 June 2015 - 10:47 PM, said:

I welcome the balance changes, but I tremble at the idea of a test server balance evaluation... we never came to any conclusion about balance on 90% of the mechs (almost everyone can agree that a few mechs need help. that's it. I'm not even sure we agree on which ones).

The forums will go ablaze with people complaining about mechs that got nerfed to the ground/buffed to high heavens and vice versa.
Example:
Player 1: "The Dire Wolf now sucks!"
Player 2: "No it dosen't. L2P"
Player 3: "Actually, it got nerfed pretty hard, look at my spreadsheet."
Player 4: "It's ok, look at these screenies that show me get 1000+ damage in it!"
Player 1: "Go away you elitist bittervets! I am awesome at the game and the Dire Wolf now sucks. Period."
Player 5: "At least it didn't get nerfed as hard as the Dragon..."
Player 6: "It's the pilot, not the mech."

Now multiply this for every single mech in the game.
The Forum Warrioring will be the stuff of f******* legends.
Then PGI will probably facepalm since we can not make up our minds and ignore us, making some horrible choices like 50% cooldown quirks all over again.

I don't need a balance change to say the Direwolf Sucks. INB4 "The Direwolf sucks now" Thread.

[Navid A1]

I don't know why, but i have a feeling that this change will make the gameplay experience a nightmare for some people... like no matter how hard you try and lose... your elo does not change... so you have to carry and lose again... and again ...and again.

[Mr Hunter]

Just stay the hell away from my shadowhawks and its all good for me Oh and burn the files that contain the quirk system code

[XX Sulla XX]

Navid A1, on 26 June 2015 - 05:56 PM, said:

I don't know why, but i have a feeling that this change will make the gameplay experience a nightmare for some people... like no matter how hard you try and lose... your elo does not change... so you have to carry and lose again... and again ...and again.

It works exactly the other way. Russ said the current system does not let people move up in Elo unless they are playing in good groups. With the new system you can perform well in a loss and still move up. New system sounds a LOT better.

[Navid A1]

XX Sulla XX, on 26 June 2015 - 06:47 PM, said:

It works exactly the other way. Russ said the current system does not let people move up in Elo unless they are playing in good groups. With the new system you can perform well in a loss and still move up. New system sounds a LOT better.

I don't think that's how it works currently. Current system only takes win and loss into account regardless of your performance.

IIRC, russ said that they want to make it so that if you lose and did very good, your elo won't change. (as opposed to the current system which makes it go down in a loss)


feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

Edited by Navid A1, 26 June 2015 - 08:00 PM.

[Zordicron]

PhoenixFire55, on 26 June 2015 - 12:25 AM, said:

1. Until hit reg is 100% reliable for all weapons, all and any weapon/mech balancing changes are meaningless.

HEY, that's MY line, since forever.
Anyway, new HSR code is coming on July 7. If it works like they hope, it is going to change the game forever. I fully expect massive laser nerfs and mega alpha reductions in general, or this truly will become CoD with mechs.

[Novakaine]

[Duke Nedo]

Navid A1, on 26 June 2015 - 07:59 PM, said:

I don't think that's how it works currently. Current system only takes win and loss into account regardless of your performance.

IIRC, russ said that they want to make it so that if you lose and did very good, your elo won't change. (as opposed to the current system which makes it go down in a loss)


feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

Guess he meant that in practice you need to be in a good group to consistently win (against the Elo-odds) and actually move significantly.

I am a bit worried what this will do with gameplay in the soloqueue though... higher Elo have some selection for careful play individually...

[Abisha]

how about fixing balance issues without renewing the whole table?.
sounds like a much better plan other then dramatic chances.

dramatic chances=unhappy customers pure simple.

[LordKnightFandragon]

TBR/SCR/HBR and any Clan mech that is better then the MLX better look out, your gunna be TBR/SCRd and VTRd all at once.....and then PGI will call them balanced.

WHK: -17.5% CERPPC velocity, +30% energy CD time, no armor quirks

DWF: +50% to all weapon CD timers, +25% UAC Jam chance.

TBR: Even more laser time nerfs, plus -50% to every spot of agility one can think of. same goes for HBR and SCR, and heck, just cuz its so OP, Gargles.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 26 June 2015 - 09:30 PM.

[Gattsus]

XX Sulla XX, on 25 June 2015 - 09:41 PM, said:

Ok so in the town hall Russ said they are redoing all of the mech balancing and will be testing in probably a couple of weeks. This will be based on an internal system where they look at things like hard point location, number of hard points, agility, etc etc.

They are also redoing/replacing Elo depending on how you want to say it. It will not longer be based on just winning or loosing but in your performance. If you loose but do top damage you will not loose points but might gain them. If you win but do nothing you might not gain any points.

Also players will be put in Elo buckets and top players will not be playing against lower tier and new players. This new system should make it easier for players to get outof Elo Hell even if they are not playing in a good group.

------

Over all I like the sound of these two changes. It also explains the lack of quirk changes to mechs. I think every one should install the test client and help them test it out before it goes live.

Does any one have any thoughts?

Is Ghost Heat going to be shelved?

[XX Sulla XX]

Navid A1, on 26 June 2015 - 07:59 PM, said:

I don't think that's how it works currently. Current system only takes win and loss into account regardless of your performance.

IIRC, russ said that they want to make it so that if you lose and did very good, your elo won't change. (as opposed to the current system which makes it go down in a loss)


feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

Yes I was talking about the new system allowing players to move up by performing well in losses.

Abisha, on 26 June 2015 - 09:10 PM, said:

how about fixing balance issues without renewing the whole table?.
sounds like a much better plan other then dramatic chances.

dramatic chances=unhappy customers pure simple.

Honestly a big number of the mechs needed looked at. And I do not mind dramatic changes IF they are good ones. So not so pure or so simple.

Gattsus, on 26 June 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

Is Ghost Heat going to be shelved?

He didnt really go into great detail on it. The main thing I took away from it is they were taking a fresh look at over all balance. Part one of that seemed to be a rational system for evaluating mechs and what nerfs and buffs they needed. Then when you know that you can design a system around it. I would think you always will have to have something that serves the same function as ghost heat even if you do not have it.

[Chuck Jager]

Team Chevy86, on 25 June 2015 - 10:00 PM, said:

Loose.

Lose?

I can't even.

"I can't even" come up with something constructive to say, and I am also not quick enough to troll this player originally. I have more respect for folks who steal candy from children while beating them at chutes and ladders.

People who correct other peoples spelling are called public employees (teachers).
p.s wonder how long it takes some one to point out "technically speaking" X% of teachers work in a private system