205 replies to this topic

[Hans Von Lohman]

Appogee, on 14 September 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

Anyone else finding it hard to reconcile the claims originally made about the re-balancing being ready for release on 22 September, with the claims now that what we saw on the PTS was only one aspect of a far broader set of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?

They already said it won't be on the 22nd. Your facts are out of date I am afraid.

[Appogee]

Hans Von Lohman, on 14 September 2015 - 02:45 PM, said:

They already said it won't be on the 22nd. Your facts are out of date I am afraid.

Yes, I know that. At the Town Hall last week, after a couple of months of saying it would be 22 September, they said "probably not until October 6, maybe later".

That doesn't change anything I said. For months they've been talking up a rebalancing on 22 September. Now Sean Lang pops up to tell us we shouldn't get upset about what we saw on the PTS because it was only the first piece of a much larger rebalance that contains a whole lot of other stuff we haven't seen or heard about til now.

Draw your own conclusions. Either the earlier claims about a rebalancing on 22 September were just hype not grounded in actual progress of the rebalancing, or this revelation about a much larger rebalance is just spin to cover up for the disaster that unfolded on the PTS.

Edited by Appogee, 14 September 2015 - 03:01 PM.

[stjobe]

Hans Von Lohman, on 14 September 2015 - 02:45 PM, said:

They already said it won't be on the 22nd. Your facts are out of date I am afraid.

What he's saying is that they originally said the re-balance was good to go on the 22nd. Then they "discovered a hardware issue" and postponed it. THEN they put it on the PTS and now they say it's just a first step on a long road.

That's what's hard to reconcile. How could what we saw on the PTS have ever been good to go live?

Edit: Ninja'd. I'll just say it smacks a bit too much of PGI saying they were working on CW when later it came to light that they were not; they weren't even sure they'd keep the MechWarrior license.

Edited by stjobe, 14 September 2015 - 03:02 PM.

[Mystere]

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.

I vehemently object! MWO is a thinking person's shooter!

[Jugger Grimrod]

I could get use to this. At least it's some kind of explanation - even if you don't like what you hear.

More of this, please!

[stjobe]

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, no.

If you want a baseline, you don't "eliminate" all other variables, you control for them; i.e. you make sure they don't change. Like, say, most of them disappearing. Or if you can't stop them changing, you document how they change and by how much.

Once you've controlled all variables, you can start changing one (or a group) to see how that affects the setup. Later you can change other variables, one at a time or in groups to see what that does.

If they really wanted a test of how the InfoWar, mobility, and structure quirks affected balance, they shouldn't have ripped out the weapon quirks.

Unless, of course, they don't intend to put them back in - but that's crazy; that's handing the game over to the Clans. No amount of sensor, mobility, or structure quirks can make up for the advantage in tonnage, heat, and damage output the Clan weapons have over the IS ones.

[Nightmare1]

stjobe, on 14 September 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

Yeah, no.

If you want a baseline, you don't "eliminate" all other variables, you control for them; i.e. you make sure they don't change. Like, say, most of them disappearing. Or if you can't stop them changing, you document how they change and by how much.

Once you've controlled all variables, you can start changing one (or a group) to see how that affects the setup. Later you can change other variables, one at a time or in groups to see what that does.

If they really wanted a test of how the InfoWar, mobility, and structure quirks affected balance, they shouldn't have ripped out the weapon quirks.

Unless, of course, they don't intend to put them back in - but that's crazy; that's handing the game over to the Clans. No amount of sensor, mobility, or structure quirks can make up for the advantage in tonnage, heat, and damage output the Clan weapons have over the IS ones.

Yes, you can also control for them. However, given the amount of forum whining from people complaining about power creep, it makes sense to me that PGI would scrap the weapon quirks before doing anything else. Once they get the Mech's passive quirks (armor, structure, InfoTech, etc.) fixed right, then they can gradually and carefully add the active quirks (i.e. - weapons) back on to avoid power creep.

To me, it just seems like PGI is trying to give folks what they want, and the ForumWarriors here just keep moving the goal posts.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Appogee, on 14 September 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

Yes, I know that. At the Town Hall last week, after a couple of months of saying it would be 22 September, they said "probably not until October 6, maybe later".

That doesn't change anything I said. For months they've been talking up a rebalancing on 22 September. Now Sean Lang

and lots of other parrots

stjobe, on 14 September 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

Edit: Ninja'd. I'll just say it smacks a bit too much of PGI saying they were working on CW when later it came to light that they were not; they weren't even sure they'd keep the MechWarrior license.

They did this for a year or so

Nightmare1, on 14 September 2015 - 03:48 PM, said:

keep moving the goal posts.

hey that sounds familiar. Heffay like

[Davers]

RocketDog, on 13 September 2015 - 10:36 PM, said:

Quirks up to 10 or 20% are fine and help differentiate the mechs (which you need if you want us to buy new content).

Quirks of 50%+ are not fine.

Why is this so hard to understand?

It's only hard to understand because the best information and answers came from an unofficial podcast based on opinions and private conversations between Sean and PGI instead of anything official.

PGI don't talk people good.

[Khobai]

Quote

It's only hard to understand because the best information and answers came from an unofficial podcast based on opinions and private conversations between Sean and PGI instead of anything official.

This. PGI should be conveying important information directly to its players. Not through third party channels.

Quote

Yes, you can also control for them. However, given the amount of forum whining from people complaining about power creep, it makes sense to me that PGI would scrap the weapon quirks before doing anything else. Once they get the Mech's passive quirks (armor, structure, InfoTech, etc.) fixed right, then they can gradually and carefully add the active quirks (i.e. - weapons) back on to avoid power creep.

Then they shouldve said thats what they were doing. Instead they just removed weapon quirks and incited discord among the players. Which couldve been easily averted with a better explanation of the rebalancing process.

A little communication goes a long way.

Edited by Khobai, 14 September 2015 - 05:15 PM.

[InRev]

Appogee, on 14 September 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

Draw your own conclusions. Either the earlier claims about a rebalancing on 22 September were just hype not grounded in actual progress of the rebalancing, or this revelation about a much larger rebalance is just spin to cover up for the disaster that unfolded on the PTS.

Either way, both scenarios represent a ******** maneuver by PGI. They don't come out of this mess with very much dignity, that's for sure.

[Alistair Winter]

Ok, finally had time to sit down and see the video.

Phil, I don't know if you get paid to do this work, but if you did get paid for that video, congrats on a job well done. If you do this pro bono, thanks a lot. It was a good video. I didn't expect it to be worth watching a 40 minute monologue, but it was.

I think the big picture is that PGI is not very good at communicating with the players. Like I said in my first post on page 1, it's really frustrating when they don't tell us the purpose of testing. This isn't the first time they've made this mistake. They are totally frivolous in the way they use feedback from the players, as if constructive, positive feedback is some inexhaustible well they can tap into whenever they want. It's not. Compare the forums in 2015 with the forums in 2012. A lot of people who used to offer fantastic feedback have packed up and left, or are now content to just post sardonic comments on the forum, because no one took them seriously.

PGI needs to tell the players why we're testing things, what's being tested, what kind of feedback they're looking for and when they need it.

In terms of communication, I also think PGI hasn't really communicated a clear vision for IS vs Clans, which is something I thought you covered very well in the video, Phil. Homogenization is bad, and Clan mechs need to have different strengths and weaknesses versus Inner Sphere mechs. The Orion should indeed compete with the Timber Wolf.

In a game like Starcraft, there's no doubt about the strengths of each faction (Terran, Protoss and Zerg) and it's something the devs openly discuss. In MWO, the devs haven't clearly defined the strengths and weaknesses of Clans vs Inner Sphere, which makes it harder to appreciate what they're trying to do. Assuming they have a clear vision of what to do. On top of this, Russ Bullock has previously said that the Timber Wolf will always be the best heavy mech, which really adds fuel to the fire of people who believe that Clan mechs should be blatantly superior. If he had said "Timber Wolves will always be superior in open engagements at range, while Orions will always be superior in a close range brawl", players would have a better understanding of the dynamic between the two 'factions'.

As a minor note, it's quite sad to hear you talk about Paul's revelation that weapon quirks made the game harder to balance. This is something players have been shouting to PGI since quirks got started, only to have the valid feedback fall on deaf ears. I've personally made the case several times, but I'm obviously not the only one.

This past week has been really weird because I think PGI has the right idea in many ways. I'm probably considered a very negative bittervet by many, but I've actually been white knighting PGI pretty hard this last week. I even had to defend PGI against Gas Guzzler's criticism, which is the equivalent of pigs flying on the forum. But there's a lot of positive things going on right now.

I still think PGI is headed roughly in the right direction and they're finally doing a lot of the things educated players have been asking for the last few years. It's a good thing. But I'm disappointed about the lack of communication, both in regards to the PTS specifically and in regards to their overall vision for the gameplay, the balance between weight classes, roles and Clans vs Inner Sphere. If PGI wants the players to be involved, they need to improve communication. Otherwise, many of us will just go back to being spectators who contribute nothing to the conversation. And they lose a lot of good for when they want players to, say, help test their Oceanic servers without any kind of rewards.

Communication plz.

EDIT: Jesus, that turned out longer than intended.

TL;DR

• PGI needs to communicate more about the purpose of public testing, what kind of feedback they want and when they need it.
  
• PGI needs to have a clear vision for Inner Sphere vs Clan balancing, role warfare and weight class balancing and they need to make sure all the players understand their vision.
  
• PGI is headed in the right direction, but lack of communication makes the whole process more painful than it needs to be.

PS: Good point about game modes too, Phil. I hope you're discreetly shouting this in PGI's ear.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 14 September 2015 - 08:35 PM.

[Mazzyplz]

so how to prevent our variants to be pigeonholed into roles?

i don't need my missile hardpoint mech to be just a stale lurmboat, i also want the option to run srm on it; and the way they are doing this balance looking forward is picking a role for each mech so that doesn't bode well for many variants off the bat

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Alistair Winter, on 14 September 2015 - 08:30 PM, said:

Ok, finally had time to sit down and see the video.

Phil, I don't know if you get paid to do this work, but if you did get paid for that video,

They do

[Sean Lang]

Just wanted to say thanks to all for the positive responses and to let people know a video just like this will be put out BEFORE the next PTS and ALL FUTURE PTS' of the sort.

Alistair Winter, on 14 September 2015 - 08:30 PM, said:

Ok, finally had time to sit down and see the video.

Phil, I don't know if you get paid to do this work, but if you did get paid for that video, congrats on a job well done. If you do this pro bono, thanks a lot. It was a good video. I didn't expect it to be worth watching a 40 minute monologue, but it was.

PS: Good point about game modes too, Phil. I hope you're discreetly shouting this in PGI's ear.

@Alistair Winter, well I can tell you it took a few hours away from my weekend (free-time) which the wife understood I was a little frustrated and gave me the thumbs up to head up to my 'office'. Spent an hour recording the video, another 20 minutes editing, rendering took like 4 hours (could've turned down a few quality settings I have in sony vegas) and then another hour and half processing on YouTube, very worth the time and effort!

So in the end it was very well received and just reinforces the idea that clear, concise communication on sensitive topics is needed and I'll do my best to make sure it's done just like that in the future.
So stay tuned for another PTS announcement in the near future with some changes, adjustments and new things kicking online very soon!

Edited by Sean Lang, 15 September 2015 - 12:38 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Sean Lang, on 15 September 2015 - 12:37 AM, said:

Just wanted to say thanks to all for the positive responses and to let people know a video just like this will be put out BEFORE the next PTS and ALL FUTURE PTS' of the sort.

That is a very very good call.

As for the video itself, I basically have no problem with the concepts tried out in the PTS but I think the way radar deprivation module works don't go very well together with target retention quirks, so I think a change like this would require radar deprivation module changed so it reduces target retention instead of hard countering it.

In other words radar deprivation should only nullify the basic target retention of 2s, so it would remove retention for mechs that have no quirks or target retention module, but for those that have they would still get the retention minus 2s.

You could also make ECM play directly against those sensor values instead of the way it works now.

Edited by Sjorpha, 15 September 2015 - 12:44 AM.

[Errinovar]

ShinVector, on 13 September 2015 - 10:25 PM, said:

I all for wiping out weapons quirks as it was a mess that grew bigger and bigger and left the former 'Tier 1s' in the dust.

But they clearly did not explain IS vs Clan rebalanacing at all.

Here is my problem with that... a major point of the quirkening 2.0 was to bring under performing mechs up to snuff, and while it may have succeeded a little too well, at least it got people playing different mechs. Because at the end of the day most players default to a simple logic: A: If I use this mech, can I go out there and perform reasonably well? If no.. never going to use this mech except as a troll build. If yes, question B: If I use this mech am I going to have to work harder than a person piloting (meta mech) to achieve the same score? If yes... never going to use this mech except as a troll build. If no.. then everything is ok and it is probably a meta mech.

Seriously, without quirks we will have about 8-10 mechs that people actively use and the rest will suck in comparison. Why play a huggin without quirks, nobody played it much before, so suddenly information warfare is going to make it not suck again? Or how about the cents, they were decent until the only canonical "quirk" (zombie mech) was fixed.. as Sean said above the hunchback is generally superior to the centurion at 5 tons less due to geometry and hard point placement. And I haven't heard anything that gives me a shred of hope that they are going to address this issue in any meaningful way. Movement quirks mean jack if your primary damage dealer is low slung and highly vulnerable and there is another mech that fulfills the same slot with better hard points at higher elevations in a more defensible location. I am also very skeptical when I hear of how they have every variable in the spread sheet for comparison but then I hear that top speed via max engine is taken into account, mainly because that attribute is already balance via weight and vulnerability if you go with the XL. Sure a Cent-D can strap a 375 on and move, but at the cost of most of its firepower, and I have my suspicions as to whether the paper numbers are actually reflecting what a given load out plays like in the field.

[ShinVector]

Errinovar, on 15 September 2015 - 01:47 AM, said:

Why play a huggin without quirks, nobody played it much before, so suddenly information warfare is going to make it not suck again?

Why play an Ember right now ?
*Quick answer: People don't nowadays because it has been rendered obsolete.

My point/opinion is... It weapon quirks is fun but a mistake.
Removing all weapons at least puts back most IS mech back to their natural order/Tier.
Question is Clan vs. IS next... How to fix that without disturbing IS vs. IS balance.

*One wild idea... Giving IS Mechs 50% defensive armour/defence bonus.
Sure Clan can long range but IS mechs are harder to take down...

Should it be in the form of more armour of damage resistance..
Cbill and XP bonus due to damage done also needs to be considered.

Many ways.. pros cons.. to approach this issue.

Edited by ShinVector, 15 September 2015 - 01:59 AM.

[Errinovar]

ShinVector, on 15 September 2015 - 01:54 AM, said:

Why play an Ember right now ?
*Quick answer: People don't nowadays because it has been rendered obsolete.

My point/opinion is... It weapon quirks is fun but a mistake.
Removing all weapons at least puts back most IS mech back to their natural order/Tier.
Question is Clan vs. IS next... How to fix that without disturbing IS vs. IS balance.

*One wild idea... Giving IS Mechs 50% defensive armour/defence bonus.
Sure Clan can long range but IS mechs are harder to take down...

Should it be in the form of more armour of damage resistance..
Cbill and XP bonus due to damage done also needs to be considered.

Many ways.. pros cons.. to approach this issue.

Again, that is the problem, the natural order shouldn't exist especially in a game where people are encouraged to spend money on mechs, via bundles or pre-orders. It pretty much sucks to spend money on a mech only to find out it pretty much sucks in comparison to the meta. That whole tier system needs to be dealt with so at least if you decide to roll out in your non-meta mech you can at least have a decent performance without having to work twice as hard as the meta. Without finding this kind of balance, I have to wonder how well MWO will be received on Steam.

Quote

Quick answer: People don't nowadays because it has been rendered obsolete

Tell you one thing I should be thankful for, this answer right here is pretty much accurate and has more than convinced me not to spend anymore money on this game.. Sorry, spending money on a mech and having it rendered obsolete in 6 months to year is not a good business model for attracting long term players willing to spend money.

Edited by Errinovar, 15 September 2015 - 02:18 AM.

[ShinVector]

Errinovar, on 15 September 2015 - 02:12 AM, said:

Again, that is the problem, the natural order shouldn't exist especially in a game where people are encouraged to spend money on mechs, via bundles or pre-orders. It pretty much sucks to spend money on a mech only to find out it pretty much sucks in comparison to the meta.

Some people also believe that an Atlas should be able to take and destroy hordes of lights and only sustain minimal damage. (A ridiculous lore thing, popular with the older generation. )

If you are buying mechs for META/P2W in mind. You may be doing it wrong.

Better to buy them because you really want them or to support the game maker.
This game is F2P model after all and they need to pay bills to keep the servers and content running.

Edited by ShinVector, 15 September 2015 - 03:47 AM.