205 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Nightmare1, on 14 September 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

This. It's basic experimentation iteration. If the goal is to test one variable, then you eliminate all other variables so that you can establish a baseline. Once that is accomplished, you proceed from there, adding the other variables back in incrementally.

Folks just freak out because they don't think critically any more. They see something they don't like and have a knee-jerk reaction to it rather than thinking about the reasons for why that something may exist in such a manner. I thought Paul's announcement regarding the PTS was fairly clear that this was an early, highly experimental, and unfinished build of the new rebalance. Thus, I took it with a grain of salt that they were just wanting to test what they had accomplished to date.

Going forward, I have high hopes for the rebalance and faith that PGI will get it right. It's in their best interest to do so, after all.

some folks freak out because they believe they* have all the answers, and how dare PGI not do it their way, in their order of priority and timeline.

Not that I need to name names or anything.



*(or some mythical former forumite have all the answers, even when the gaps in their plans had been shown repeatedly)

[xengk]

What interested me in this PTS are the Sensor Quirks.
Hopefully they can figure out how to reverse engineer the SQ to apply on equipment and enemy mechs.

Then ECM's ability can be replace with SQ, example: Target Acquisition Delay +5s
Enemy mech that try to lock on to friendlies in the bubble will get an extra 5 seconds delay, but will eventually acquire lock if they stare at it long enough.
However, this means it will be near impossible to lock on an ECM light circling you. Huge nerf to SSRMs.
One way to fix this is to change 360 Target Retention module to allow acquiring target lock when target is out of sight but still in range.

BAP can also get SQ that provide buff bubble to any mech in range, example: Target Acquisition Delay -5s
Lock can be acquire faster if you have BAP, something LRMboat will find very useful and might even benefit brawlers.

BAP and ECM cancel each other out in close range.
ECCM mode could be a sub-par BAP that only provide Target Acquisition Delay -1.5s.

Targeting Computer and Command Console will get Target Scan Time and Target Retention Time SQ buff bubble.

Artemis IV upgrade to give Target Retention Time +2s, doubles the normal retention time and further stack with module to get a total of 5.5 second.
With LRM's travel speed of 160m/s, missiles can travel 880m before losing lock.
Would this mean more "noob LRMboat" firing at 800+ meter or another LRMgeddon?

[xengk]

Nightmare1, on 14 September 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

This. It's basic experimentation iteration. If the goal is to test one variable, then you eliminate all other variables so that you can establish a baseline. Once that is accomplished, you proceed from there, adding the other variables back in incrementally.

They did emphasize several times that the test will be scientific.

[TheCobra]

This video adressed some of my concerns and I hope next time this is said first, but i still think that the 22nd is too close for such a patch, I think more testing is needed, since it is going to completly change the game.

I hope some of the lesser chassis are more viable with this, making the game more diverse and giving us more unpredictable games. The reward system also needs to be completly reworked with this patch, since it is going to change how the games play out, and the games are also going to be longer since it seems we will have less firepower and more durability.

One more thing: Is the ghost heat system going to get reworked along with the weapon balance pass?

[Wattila]

Mmh, the concept of infowar is interesting but it isn't really a thing in this game due to the ubiquity of ECM - you can play the game HUDless and it makes little difference. Maybe if the jesus box was brought more in line with the TT version. The idea of a range nerf fixing ECM is silly - it just makes ECM mechs relatively more powerful since the benefit cannot be passed to friendlies as easily (so it becomes more attractive to bring your own).

As far as general balance changes go, what I don't understand is why PGI is trying to balance IS and Clan tech ton for ton. The idea isn't compatible with the lore in the slightest. You could attach a tonnage penalty to Clan mechs (to make them appear heavier to MM) to arrive at approximate balance on team level and save quirks for balancing between different chassis. Competitive players would have to use the handful of viable Clan mechs but that's how it already is.

There are good arguments for symmetrical balance (it's the relatively easy thing to do), but IS being the underdog is a major part of their charm. This is just my POV but I don't need to pilot the most powerful individual mech at a given tonnage as long as my team is compensated for it. Or maybe I'm wrong and people really want to take on a Dire Wolf in a Thunderbolt and have a chance of winning, everything else being equal. But I digress.

Edited by Wattila, 14 September 2015 - 09:37 AM.

[mike29tw]

Nightmare1, on 14 September 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

This. It's basic experimentation iteration. If the goal is to test one variable, then you eliminate all other variables so that you can establish a baseline. Once that is accomplished, you proceed from there, adding the other variables back in incrementally.

Yeah, I mean, the purpose of this test if to figure out the sensor quirks, so they naturally take out every other quirks and......

LMAO, sorry, can't keep a straight face.

[Felio]

Sean Lang, on 13 September 2015 - 10:30 PM, said:

This is incorrect. As I mentioned in the video, I stated you had to whipe clean current weapon quirks to get a better understanding. Also I mentioned that adding small weapon quirks here and there could help distinguish a variant from one another and chassis v chassis. But even then, you would not see massive 20-50% quirks like how you do with weapon quirks, but small ones instead. It's still on the table, but for the first iteration, clean slate is needed.

The trouble with small quirks is that they are often functionally zero. They don't actually change any outcomes -- a hit with a projectile is almost certainly a hit with or without a 10% projectile speed quirk, for example. You could play hundreds of games and have it never actually do anything.

[Nightmare1]

mike29tw, on 14 September 2015 - 09:49 AM, said:

Yeah, I mean, the purpose of this test if to figure out the sensor quirks, so they naturally take out every other quirks and......

LMAO, sorry, can't keep a straight face.

It never ceases to amaze me how small-minded people can be, incapable of seeing the bigger picture and ready to believe the worst of every situation.

[Mawai]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 September 2015 - 07:56 AM, said:

some folks freak out because they believe they* have all the answers, and how dare PGI not do it their way, in their order of priority and timeline.

Not that I need to name names or anything.



*(or some mythical former forumite have all the answers, even when the gaps in their plans had been shown repeatedly)

Yep. Though the problem with PGIs testing methodology is that they randomly place unbalanced IS and clan mechs into random groups on opposing teams. This makes it virtually impossible to judge whether any variants of any chassis of either clan or IS are actually balanced against themselves or anyone else.

The only thing the PTS session tested was the new sensor and infotech code and related quirks. Something that should not have really needed a PTS session for testing. The PTS session was an environment incapable of properly testing the balance changes that they have made so far just due to the nature of the test. Any feedback on any mechs will simply reflect the player experiences in a mixed opponent and ally environment of completely unbalanced clan and IS weaponry.

So, I don't think it has much to do with PGIs priorities or timelines but rather with their fundamental incompetence in structuring an effective test session. Honestly, the entire event would seem to have been set up to cause maximum concern in the community while returning minimal returns in terms of useful feedback. (Other than the fact that very few people seem to think the values used in the test e.g. atlai variants ... are the right direction for balancing).

It is almost as if whoever put together the PTS session was thinking ...

"Hey! Let's structure the test session in such an ineffective way that the feedback will be useless and thus prove that the community has nothing useful to contribute so we can continue to ignore them."

[Bishop Steiner]

Mawai, on 14 September 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

Yep. Though the problem with PGIs testing methodology is that they randomly place unbalanced IS and clan mechs into random groups on opposing teams. This makes it virtually impossible to judge whether any variants of any chassis of either clan or IS are actually balanced against themselves or anyone else.

Can't really argue with that. Whether in testing or actual game play, IMO, mixed Tech queues do cause issues with getting consistent telemetry for balance, let alone simple immersion, flavor, etc.

Don't know how bad it would pooch wait times, but truth to tell, at least for the time being, I would rather see segregated queues, just so we can get reams of data, sans variables.

[CygnusX7]

Is structure alone the right way to make mechs more durable?
I'm sure TTK goes up but there really isn't much point in being alive if all our weapons are gone.

[Mystere]

Stefka Kerensky, on 13 September 2015 - 10:38 PM, said:

Moreover, everybody can shoot at enemy with or without sensors. So, although that part is cool, sensors quirks are pretty pointless, imo.

Well, you can't shoot what you can't see, especially because not all maps as as clear as Alpine Peaks. (Hint, PGI! Hint! )

[Alex Morgaine]

Sean Lang, on 13 September 2015 - 10:30 PM, said:

This is incorrect. As I mentioned in the video, I stated you had to whipe clean current weapon quirks to get a better understanding. Also I mentioned that adding small weapon quirks here and there could help distinguish a variant from one another and chassis v chassis. But even then, you would not see massive 20-50% quirks like how you do with weapon quirks, but small ones instead. It's still on the table, but for the first iteration, clean slate is needed.

Fair enough, but I think the main issue most of the vocal community has with the pts was lack of info to explain all the (not official thank... hell, Kerensky and Blake, why not) changes, and the scitzo feeling of the quirks, from the enforcers -3500 twist to the all structure buff no weapons left atlas D. Now that the reasoning is public, that's good to know you guys never intended on making... that... the official setup, but I will say yeah, don't just drop the current quirks unless something is being balanced up and the quirk in question breaks balance.

Hoping for the best on live servers still, and the academy on live... If it were multi enabled so you could bring new friends ala private or something... just a suggestion you know...

[Hans Von Lohman]

One idea I just saw was to have weapon convergence become linked to your lock on. It would be a binary state.

If you lock onto your target, you get what we have now, all weapons focus at the range of the target. If you don't have a lock, then weapons lock/converge onto an imaginary range that is "X" meters in front of you, probably 1000 or perhaps a player defined range in your mech setup.

Right now your weapons converge onto your gunsight range when you have no lock, which moves dynamically as you pan around to point at various terrain and mechs.

That would make lock-ons a hell of a lot more important, and by extension info warfare that much more critical.

It would also make ECM more powerful, so I suggest we really consider nerfing it to just be a lock on delay device, not a lock on prevention device.

[Mystere]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 September 2015 - 10:49 PM, said:

Can't remotely fix weapon quirks and balance wen you have those insane and wildly disparate quirks in place. Gotta retun them to baseline, then tweak.

Baseline. That's a word quite a number of people did not even think of while freaking out.

[Papaspud]

CygnusX7, on 14 September 2015 - 01:16 PM, said:

Is structure alone the right way to make mechs more durable?
I'm sure TTK goes up but there really isn't much point in being alive if all our weapons are gone.

Also you have to ignore that all the money payout is for damage done, kills, etc, not how much you tanked. Let's see, do I want to be the target or the shooter.hmmmmmmm really tough choice there.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mystere, on 14 September 2015 - 01:37 PM, said:

Baseline. That's a word quite a number of people did not even think of while freaking out.

some thought about it. It jsut didn't fit their agenda to mention or acknowledge it.

[Appogee]

Anyone else finding it hard to reconcile the claims originally made about the re-balancing being ready for release on 22 September, with the claims now that what we saw on the PTS was only one aspect of a far broader set of sweeping changes yet to be completed and which won't be launched until well into the future when they're all ready and tested?

[Alex Morgaine]

I think info warfare in a semi persistent battle map like the original rendition of Atlerac valley of WoW fame (long battles. Leave on destruction but if the Que is open you can rejoin asap, your disabled mech would have a global/ cw only timer of 15 minutes if you really wanted to solo que while waiting to rejoin the fight, objectives to bring in simple npc assets like turrets, maybe basic infantry/light vehicles/vtol to guard or charge down an assault path, hold a damaged area or clear enemy assets ala conquest to set forward deployment point for spawning allies via drop ship, with a primary base on each end. If you can handle more then 24 units, it'd probably be a nightmare when deathballs form, but a scout squad could cut behind and force them to either break up, or charge in recklessly hoping the enemy isn't too far in Thier territory...

...

Nerdgasm, sorry. Um... so yeah info warfare for larger longer maps in both time and space then what we got...

... money/xp gained could update on death or every thirty minutes our something

[Tahribator]

They can already nerf the Clan weaponry instead of throwing away one year of IS quirk progress and killing the hard-achieved diversity along with it. Clan 'Mechs barely have any notable weapon quirks and are in a perfect position to be fiddled with.

Seriously the 'Mech diversity in this game has never been greater and there has never been more reasons to take out different variants other than the obvious "good one". I'm extremely disappointed that they took this obscure route. Plus, seemingly random and arbitrary quirks to "differentiate" variants in the PTR are killing the flavor of the chassises themselves.

I'm not even sure if the video is meant to be damage control or spin. It's hard to encrypt 40 minutes worth of Phil's ramblings, I gave up after minute 20. Plus he never mentioned the stuff he talks about in the video on the stream on the day PTR released.

Edited by Tahribator, 14 September 2015 - 02:34 PM.