129 replies to this topic

[IraqiWalker]

A sebaceous cyst, on 12 September 2015 - 01:27 AM, said:

Iraqi when will you understand that is proposed balance pass actually is what PGI is proposing as a balance pass and they are asking us to test it and give OUR feedback on it (report what we like and what we don't like, point out what issues we see). PGI wants feedback, so please stop trying to diminish anyone who is offering their feedback. My opinion may not be the same as yours and that is perfectly fine, I don't have to like what you like and you don't have to like what I like about this proposed balance pass or anything else...I am providing MY feedback to PGI because PGI requested it

Then give actual feedback. Saying "this is dumb" is not feedback. That doesn't help anyone.

Also, again, this is not the final form of the pass, so don't treat it as such. Context is very important.

I want people to give as much feedback as possible, to either help PGI finetune the game properly, or do a proper "told you so" when they mess it up, and six months later "come up" with the ideas we suggested.

Lily from animove, on 12 September 2015 - 02:16 AM, said:

because to give proper feedback you have to use this as the "final" version to adress issues. Then PGI may change this.

No, not really. Especially in this particular case, where we know this isn't the final product. In fact, the more accurate feedback should be made while keeping in mind that this test build is actually the first step. Not the last one. Because this is the first phase.

PFC Carsten, on 12 September 2015 - 03:17 AM, said:

You are right - 10 seconds it was. But given that most weapons fire more than once every 5 seconds, DMG output still is twice as high as in TT, thus lowering TTK accordingly. Plus, in normal play, you didn't get to stuff your mech full of whatevers for maximum FLPPD.

That's why I stand by my point, TTK is the single point that need to be fixed in order to make MWO less a normal shooter and more about tactics, which, given the InfoTech-stuff, seems to be in line with what PGI is thinking/planning.

I know I'm being pedantic here, but unless you were playing pure stock vs stock. PP FLD reigned supreme in TT. Dual Gauss Devastators with the Gauss slaved to a targeting computer lets me put 30 points of damage anywhere I want, easily (except the cockpit). With TT armor values (half of MWO's), I usually had 2-3 kills by the end of the 4th turn. In fact, when playing, if I could fit a targeting computer on my mech, I did. If I couldn't, I would try to shave somethings off to fit one.


I agree that tactics should be improved in this game, and info war is a good place to do it, but we're gonna need to change other things to make that happen. As it stands, paper doll quirks are almost useless because we can easily identify our targets using line of sight, anyways, and it has no impact on direct fire weaponry. Also, our maps are too small to make information warfare matter that much.

If they can address those issues, we've got a great starting block. I personally think that we'll need to also stick some weapon quirks back into the game, because without them, the IS is in a very tough spot.

Mekanïk Destruktïw Kommandöh, on 12 September 2015 - 04:53 AM, said:

Right now new quirking system looks horribly wrong.
I could write a long post, but it doesn't matter.
The only thing, I wish, you really will listen to what community saying.
Because current state is a total meaningless mess of movement/info quirks.

I really enjoy the balance we have right now in the game.
And if you will rebuild from scratch a new balance, please, do this without me.

You really should write that long post. We need as much detail as possible. Seriously guys, pack on as much detail as possible, and tear into every bit of data. Like why the Jenner D has negative quirks on it's torso movement. Even more than the F!?

Why the Atlas variants aren't given better movement quirks, and their arms have almost no quirks to help them spread damage. Why mechs like the trebuchet, famous for having great sensors (among other things) aren't given better quirks (like letting them identify enemy chassis within an area (so long as they are not shielded by ECM, and by "identify" I mean just like the turrets used to do, you'd know there's a Centurion 200 meters to your left. Don't know what kind, just that it's a centurion. Can't even tell what the loadout is.)

So get on the test server, and grind through it all.

[Tahawus]

But seriously, I've suggested it before... PGI needs to make use of some local resources.

UBC in Vancouver has very strong computer science and statistics programs with some world class minds working on complex algorithmic problems that have a lot in common with both match making, and the economics that should be under CW.

Schedule a meeting with this guy: http://www.cs.ubc.ca...inlb/index.html, I've read a few of his papers, particularly complex system modeling and machine learning. You really should be talking to him. He might have some good ideas, and there might be a CS/Statistics Grad student looking for dissertation materials.

[IraqiWalker]

Tahawus, on 12 September 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

But seriously, I've suggested it before... PGI needs to make use of some local resources.

UBC in Vancouver has very strong computer science and statistics programs with some world class minds working on complex algorithmic problems that have a lot in common with both match making, and the economics that should be under CW.

Schedule a meeting with this guy: http://www.cs.ubc.ca...inlb/index.html, I've read a few of his papers, particularly complex system modeling and machine learning. You really should be talking to him. He might have some good ideas, and there might be a CS/Statistics Grad student looking for dissertation materials.

There's thinking outside the box, and then there's thinking outside the friggin dimension. This is possibly the smartest idea I've read within the last year. Easy.

[Nightshade24]

Koshirou, on 11 September 2015 - 11:24 PM, said:

Whoa, good thing they started it before putting the Marauder up for pre-order. Looks like I'm going to save my money after all. Or invest it into a different game, seeing as how this "no weapon quirks anymore" translates into "IS players need not bother with MWO anymore".

what about clan players? due to lack of quirks most of them already "need not to bother with MW: O anymore' in the messed up world a Panther is better then an adder, a Thunderbolt is better then it's high tech brother the Summoner, A nova can't beat a hunchback 4P and apparently the ACH's compititon is a 35 ton Firestarter instead of the similar role and playstyle and same tonnage 30 ton spider. (ACH is the only mech I think that doesn't need a weapon quirk besides for LRM 5, LBX 2, and Flamers, sensors is a must for what traditionally is a dedicated artillery spotter)

Anyway- this is just the public test. They could possibly have stripped the quirks of weapons to focus on the new ones instead of having 50% fire rate gauss rifle grid irons running around pretending nothing changed.
That or to see how it would go without said quirks and debate then which is better to do- have or do not have the weapon quirks.

[Koshirou]

Nightshade24, on 12 September 2015 - 03:07 PM, said:

what about clan players?

Well, they will have to find a different reason for their whining without IS opponents, otherwise they'll be fine.

[Slow and Decrepit]

Well what little I got to test,(just fooling around in the testing grounds since I couldn't get a match) I'd say that I'm very happy that my Dragon Slayer finally got some attention even if it's not armor. It at least twist like it used to when I had a XL350 and it only has a standard 300 in it now. My Maulers seem to move about the same except that they now stop like a Pretty Baby. My Dire's now have no way of defending themself in case of a light attacking. I'd dare say that a full lance would be cake for the avg FS or Frozen Cheater! If that were to not change, there would be no reason to me to ever bring a Assault over 85 tons. Being that I can't play lights, and most mediums, due to nervous system damage, I would be forced to play heavys. I would like to try this more, but the server is down.....

[Col Jaime Wolf]

i think once a baseline is established from the metrics that can be gained with this rebalance we can finally start hammering out proper weapons balance.

one mechs quirks are a horrible way to make a bad weapon good when that weapon should work equally as well on any other mech.

not really a fan of the one trick ponies.

[NocturnalBeast]

beleneagle, on 12 September 2015 - 06:09 PM, said:

Well what little I got to test,(just fooling around in the testing grounds since I couldn't get a match) I'd say that I'm very happy that my Dragon Slayer finally got some attention even if it's not armor. It at least twist like it used to when I had a XL350 and it only has a standard 300 in it now. My Maulers seem to move about the same except that they now stop like a Pretty Baby. My Dire's now have no way of defending themself in case of a light attacking. I'd dare say that a full lance would be cake for the avg FS or Frozen Cheater! If that were to not change, there would be no reason to me to ever bring a Assault over 85 tons. Being that I can't play lights, and most mediums, due to nervous system damage, I would be forced to play heavys. I would like to try this more, but the server is down.....

Yeah, PGI really needs to work on getting knockdowns and real collision damage back in the game, so lights can not sit under the legs of assault mechs, where you can't even bring your weapons to bear on them. No this should not be an acceptable strategy, it takes no skill and is just abusing a flaw in the game mechanics.

Also, sucks that you are battling cancer, but you should be thankful that you are still able to play games, or are even still alive at all, I wish you the best.

Edited by Ed Steele, 12 September 2015 - 06:24 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Nightshade24, on 12 September 2015 - 03:07 PM, said:

what about clan players? due to lack of quirks most of them already "need not to bother with MW: O anymore' in the messed up world a Panther is better then an adder, a Thunderbolt is better then it's high tech brother the Summoner, A nova can't beat a hunchback 4P and apparently the ACH's compititon is a 35 ton Firestarter instead of the similar role and playstyle and same tonnage 30 ton spider. (ACH is the only mech I think that doesn't need a weapon quirk besides for LRM 5, LBX 2, and Flamers, sensors is a must for what traditionally is a dedicated artillery spotter)

Anyway- this is just the public test. They could possibly have stripped the quirks of weapons to focus on the new ones instead of having 50% fire rate gauss rifle grid irons running around pretending nothing changed.
That or to see how it would go without said quirks and debate then which is better to do- have or do not have the weapon quirks.

PGI should just take clan mechs out of the game, give people who bought them refunds and just roll back the timeline to like 3045 or something, then the game would be much easier to balance and they would not have to release mechs that are Clan mechs in appearance only.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

@ belenegeale take this as you will im not giving you medical "advice" in any capacity. just sayin if one is against a hard place with little options it really cant hurt to try.

http://gerson.org/ge...gerson-therapy/

to others that might be inclined, dont bother flaming, I dont really care.

[quantaca]

Ed Steele, on 12 September 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

PGI should just take clan mechs out of the game, give people who bought them refunds and just roll back the timeline to like 3045 or something, then the game would be much easier to balance and they would not have to release mechs that are Clan mechs in appearance only.

LOL, they'd go bankrupt, but yes it would be easier to balance wich is why they should first have brouight out a PTS with wich to test different weapon balance setups so they didnt need quirks for IS or atleast not that many and then do their IW quirks.

btw if they implement this they can rewrite their tutorial to incorporate all the info which means the current one was kind of a waste of time and making it harder to detect a mech will have an enormous impact on low lvl solo que with a lot of people just milling around not knowing what to do and then dying from "ghost" hits while teammates think what a stupid team is this cant they see im fighting 3 mechs here, seriously the NPE would be even worse then it is now and having modules (like for instance seismic) would be even more OP.

the weapon quirks put a number of IS mechs on mostly even footing with clan mechs, now this may not be lore but it is a sort of balance and seeing as this is an online real time FPS and not a tabletop game with dice rolls and RNG and BV-points that weapon balance was needed to make it a game and to keep it fun for both sides. yes some quirks should have been revisited but completely removing them is just stupid it takes flavour out of the mech, oh i know people say but you can only build using the quirks but well whats stopping you now to build the 3 ballistic hunchbacks into AC20 versions atleast the quirks nudge you to an AC10 AC20 and a gauss variant providing more variation on the battlefield, the hunchback 4j who's gonna use it as an LRM boat now ? id make it and SRM/laser boat just like the other missile variant but people will also prob make both variants into LRM boats instead of 1 LRM and 1 SRM variant ...

and on the subject of crazy quirks, huggin dragon 1N grid iron ... they werent really overpowered, they could be annoying to fight yes but they also had huge flaws AND they were fun to use, piloting those was a "completely" different experience, but i could get the toning down those quirks by 10 or even 20 %.

but this what they have now with all the movement quirks ? it doesnt make sense, like the ac20 hunchback, it moves like a light mech it doesn't feel like you're piloting a 50T mech, you'd almost expect to be able to make dodging rolls like in other shooters

[IraqiWalker]

Nightshade24, on 12 September 2015 - 03:07 PM, said:

what about clan players? due to lack of quirks most of them already "need not to bother with MW: O anymore' in the messed up world a Panther is better then an adder, a Thunderbolt is better then it's high tech brother the Summoner, A nova can't beat a hunchback 4P and apparently the ACH's compititon is a 35 ton Firestarter instead of the similar role and playstyle and same tonnage 30 ton spider. (ACH is the only mech I think that doesn't need a weapon quirk besides for LRM 5, LBX 2, and Flamers, sensors is a must for what traditionally is a dedicated artillery spotter)

Anyway- this is just the public test. They could possibly have stripped the quirks of weapons to focus on the new ones instead of having 50% fire rate gauss rifle grid irons running around pretending nothing changed.
That or to see how it would go without said quirks and debate then which is better to do- have or do not have the weapon quirks.

I have yet to see a universe where the summoner is inferior to the thunderbolt when both have no quirks.

[Tahawus]

I suspect everyone would be happier if PGI invested in figuring out a way to give clan mech's their full capabilities of lore (yes, I'm an IS pilot), but penalizing them appropriately, Ideally, by making them work as a binary against an IS company, or giving them an equivalent penalty in the weight they bring to the fight.

I have to think that this is the simpler solution technically than trying to manage a massively complex quirk system.

[Night Thastus]

The problem is with the whole "Binary vs company" or "10 v 12" is that that ONLY works for CW. In pug drops, the matches are mixed, so it wouldn't work at all. Therefore they need to quirk/balance 'Mechs outside of numbers.

[IraqiWalker]

Tahawus, on 12 September 2015 - 07:48 PM, said:

I suspect everyone would be happier if PGI invested in figuring out a way to give clan mech's their full capabilities of lore (yes, I'm an IS pilot), but penalizing them appropriately, Ideally, by making them work as a binary against an IS company, or giving them an equivalent penalty in the weight they bring to the fight.

I have to think that this is the simpler solution technically than trying to manage a massively complex quirk system.

We got a 20 ton increase, and half the clan pilots wanted to quit, even though they were still winning. I highly doubt they can handle an asymmetrical game despite them proclaiming they want the game to be accurate to lore.

They want the game to be accurate to clan power, while ignoring any weaknesses the clans had.

[Tahawus]

Night Thastus, on 12 September 2015 - 07:53 PM, said:

The problem is with the whole "Binary vs company" or "10 v 12" is that that ONLY works for CW. In pug drops, the matches are mixed, so it wouldn't work at all. Therefore they need to quirk/balance 'Mechs outside of numbers.

Hence the weight penalty for public matches. I.e. a clan mech equates to an IS mech of higher weight. This is where balancing could come in to make sure that the Nova isn't being considered equivalent to a thunderbolt...

IraqiWalker, on 12 September 2015 - 07:58 PM, said:

We got a 20 ton increase, and half the clan pilots wanted to quit, even though they were still winning. I highly doubt they can handle an asymmetrical game despite them proclaiming they want the game to be accurate to lore.

They want the game to be accurate to clan power, while ignoring any weaknesses the clans had.

I agree, clan specific pilots are, for the most part, a bunch of self-entitled whiners. Still, I think PGI will get less push back, giving IS a tonnage or mech advantage, and clans a more traditional lore based mech than trying to balance it with quirks.

But, to be more traditional about it, Clan players should also be penalized (cbill and xp) for shooting at other people's targets (i.e. any assist, or non-kill most damage) as well as being prohibited from using arty strikes. I would be more than happy as an IS player to let clan players have a full up clan mech from lore under those circumstances.

[A sebaceous cyst]

IraqiWalker, on 12 September 2015 - 01:42 PM, said:

Then give actual feedback. Saying "this is dumb" is not feedback. That doesn't help anyone.

Also, again, this is not the final form of the pass, so don't treat it as such. Context is very important.

I want people to give as much feedback as possible, to either help PGI finetune the game properly, or do a proper "told you so" when they mess it up, and six months later "come up" with the ideas we suggested.

And once again Iraqi please tell me where I said "this sucks" and gave no further explanation. Why are you trying so hard to police what other people post? I don't see any PGI tags around your name and last I checked Russ Bullock was the president of Pirana games not you. You don't have to like my opinion but you really have no right to tell people their opinion is invalid or "not constructive" if it doesn't match your viewpoint of how a post should be written. This is an open forum and realistically about the only "feedback" you have provided here is to criticize what others have written (either negatively or positively)...so by virtue of your own criteria how is saying "your opinion sucks" really adding anything to the conversation you are trying to police (even though no one has asked you to moderate/police this discussion)? As I have said before PGI has asked the community to post their opinions and their feedback and that is what I have done (maybe it wasn't as detailed a post as you want it to be but honestly I am sorry but I don't write anything for your approval nor am I asking anyone to only write posts subject to my satisfaction)...bottom line here is that I am politely asking you to stop harassing me (and anyone else for that matter) if you don't like what I post.

[IraqiWalker]

A sebaceous cyst, on 12 September 2015 - 08:31 PM, said:

And once again Iraqi please tell me where I said "this sucks" and gave no further explanation. Why are you trying so hard to police what other people post? I don't see any PGI tags around your name and last I checked Russ Bullock was the president of Pirana games not you. You don't have to like my opinion but you really have no right to tell people their opinion is invalid or "not constructive" if it doesn't match your viewpoint of how a post should be written. This is an open forum and realistically about the only "feedback" you have provided here is to criticize what others have written (either negatively or positively)...so by virtue of your own criteria how is saying "your opinion sucks" really adding anything to the conversation you are trying to police (even though no one has asked you to moderate/police this discussion)? As I have said before PGI has asked the community to post their opinions and their feedback and that is what I have done (maybe it wasn't as detailed a post as you want it to be but honestly I am sorry but I don't write anything for your approval nor am I asking anyone to only write posts subject to my satisfaction)...bottom line here is that I am politely asking you to stop harassing me (and anyone else for that matter) if you don't like what I post.

Here's where you said "this sucks" and gave no real explanation:

A sebaceous cyst, on 12 September 2015 - 12:47 AM, said:

How would I sum up this "balance pass"? Well, just look at the Battlemaster...one variant has 5ish negative quirks and 0 positive quirks while another variant has 1-2 negative quirks and 10+ positive quirks...can someone from PGI please explain to me how these two Battlemasters are equal to each other?????So far all this proposed "balance pass" has done is make me appreciate our current quirk system infinitely more! Generally I have really liked the direction PGI has been taking in the past year...until now. Even though this is just the initial proposal I honestly see far more imbalance than balance. Someone should start a petition to stop this balance pass before there is another mass exodus

You don't even mention which Battlemasters you're talking about. You don't discuss what the quirks are. You literally say nothing other than "this sucks".

It's not that I don't like your post. There is nothing in your post. I specifically highlighted that you're treating this as a final version, and on top of it, you didn't offer feedback.

I'm not even saying that your opinion is invalid. You didn't post much of an opinion.

Hell, I'm not even trying to police anyone. I'm just saying that if you're making feedback, make it right, and work with the context. There are a lot of people who are already calling the end times, and we really don't need any more of them treating this like a final version.

For the record, I'm not forcing you to do anything. I can't even do that. What I am doing is pointing and saying "that's neither helpful, nor correct" It's not even a matter of disagreeing with your opinion. by all means. Tear the whole PTS a new one. I want you to do that.

[A sebaceous cyst]

IraqiWalker, on 12 September 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

Here's where you said "this sucks" and gave no real explanation:


You don't even mention which Battlemasters you're talking about. You don't discuss what the quirks are. You literally say nothing other than "this sucks".

It's not that I don't like your post. There is nothing in your post. I specifically highlighted that you're treating this as a final version, and on top of it, you didn't offer feedback.

I'm not even saying that your opinion is invalid. You didn't post much of an opinion.

Hell, I'm not even trying to police anyone. I'm just saying that if you're making feedback, make it right, and work with the context. There are a lot of people who are already calling the end times, and we really don't need any more of them treating this like a final version.

For the record, I'm not forcing you to do anything. I can't even do that. What I am doing is pointing and saying "that's neither helpful, nor correct" It's not even a matter of disagreeing with your opinion. by all means. Tear the whole PTS a new one. I want you to do that.

Why do I need to give greater details than that? Because you think it should be in my post? Do you think PGI doesn't know what quirks it gave mechs? It is no great mystery, go on the PTS and you will see what I am talking about if it is unclear to you, I am not making it up the quirks are there on the PTS, log on looks at the various Battlemasters an you will see exactly what I stated . It is no one's "job" on this or any other forum to only post information in a way that meets your criteria or makes you happy. You may not find my post "helpful or correct" but that is YOUR opinion...I don't write to make you happy and I am sorry if you think everyone in the MWO community should only post things in the way you think they should best be presented. I am asking you for the 3rd time now, please stop harassing me.

[Nightshade24]

Ed Steele, on 12 September 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

PGI should just take clan mechs out of the game, give people who bought them refunds and just roll back the timeline to like 3045 or something, then the game would be much easier to balance and they would not have to release mechs that are Clan mechs in appearance only.

I do not think PGI has the power to do that.

Clans are the majority of the purchases to PGI and the biggest part of it's income in the past few years- There are people who own many golden mechs and they are not alone, this is effectively removing thousands of dollars from PGI and this will not improve balance as they possibly will not able to fund any form of balance

on top of that the biggest appeal of MW: O at least back in the day besides being the first MW game in forever is that it will be set prior to the invasion- Also rolling back the timeline will hurt sa many IS mechs in game are only out around 3050, we got some planned for 3052 and 3053- reverting timeline also mean removal of some mechs- in some cases requiring fake variants to get all 3, and then also preventing any more future packs in detail and limited to only a few mechs

Reverting to 3049 is a bit messy, people are very happy we're already moving forward on schedule with it being 3051- this means we got several months until the IS get an omnimech as well as cool guys like the raven 3m. We are inching closer to old faves like the Bushwacker and such.


however your response is very valid and I wished this all started in 3048 instead and have CW happen in 3049 (this way the clan invasion feels like a stronger impact as there is already a balance of IS powers and then suddenly the clans move in)

The up coming reballance does show some hope- however we need to polish it out either way over a long time...-