205 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

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.

Exactly. The current game is "reasonably close" to balanced, aside from some over-the-top quirks, badly scaled mechs, and too much of a focus on pinpoint damage. If one wants to adjust that or tinker with sensors, one does not tear down everything that already exists and start over. That would be like "testing" a few new cards in a Magic deck by changing every card in the deck and then adding the few new ones.

Again, if the ONLY goal was to test functionality, I'm not even sure they got that data based on the mess of the PTS data, and even that goal doesn't explain why everything else changed. Somebody had to be wasting their time entering those numbers for some reason, unless people there just change XML files and put them into production at random. I could have believed a half-baked attempt to "just balance sensors" if no mechs had any quirks, buffs, or debuffs, but that's not what we saw... so what DID we see? I smell back-pedaling, not balance.

[oldradagast]

Nightmare1, on 14 September 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

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.

It never ceases to amaze me the excuses people will make to justify what they think is happening vs. what is happening.

Even if we're to believe that this failed mess was "just to test sensor quirks," explain the rest of the insanity? The random buffs, debuffs, etc. Why was any of that there?

If they wanted to "just test sensors" - which is questionable in itself, they would do one of two things:
- Leave everything else as it is today, and add the sensors to see the effects produced
- Revert to a Quirkless game and see what happens when the only quirks affect sensors.

Neither option explains the random mess of buffs and debuffs we saw. So, either they are just randomly pushing things into production without any understanding of how such drek will mess up their sensor data, or they are backpedaling from a failed experiment - your choice.

[N0MAD]

Paul (in his post) went into detail admitting Quirks were a bad mistake in balancing.
There was a New Re balance planned (plenty of indications this was to go live on 22nd), most likely part of it was throwing out the current quirk system,imo, thats why all quirks were taken out of the PTS.
Population was ummm, lets just say vocally not impressed by the new system, PGI goes ohh poop this isnt going as planned.
Quick go into damage control, get the shills, make excuses..
Lets see how long before the next phase of balance is announced, wont be anytime soon imo, and then i will be betting its just adjustments to numbers even tho Paul admits Quirks are not the way to do it.
But release a new shiny, that will divert attention..

[Noth]

N0MAD, on 15 September 2015 - 08:33 PM, said:

Paul (in his post) went into detail admitting Quirks were a bad mistake in balancing.
There was a New Re balance planned (plenty of indications this was to go live on 22nd), most likely part of it was throwing out the current quirk system,imo, thats why all quirks were taken out of the PTS.
Population was ummm, lets just say vocally not impressed by the new system, PGI goes ohh poop this isnt going as planned.
Quick go into damage control, get the shills, make excuses..
Lets see how long before the next phase of balance is announced, wont be anytime soon imo, and then i will be betting its just adjustments to numbers even tho Paul admits Quirks are not the way to do it.
But release a new shiny, that will divert attention..

Before this was being put on the PTS, Russ was saying it would not be in the 22nd patch and only the best case scenario being in the Oct. 6th patch.

[N0MAD]

Noth, on 15 September 2015 - 09:07 PM, said:

Before this was being put on the PTS, Russ was saying it would not be in the 22nd patch and only the best case scenario being in the Oct. 6th patch.

link to that quote an date pls..

[Noth]

N0MAD, on 15 September 2015 - 09:28 PM, said:

link to that quote an date pls..

Townhall the day before the PTS went live and before any player knew what was going to be on the PTS, Russ stated it would not be in on the 22nd, the soonest being the Oct. 6th, and emphasized that it would not go live until it was correct (meaning Oct. 6th was the best case possible).

Edited by Noth, 15 September 2015 - 09:31 PM.

[N0MAD]

Is there a transcript to the town hall?, i wasnt able to listen to most of it..
Thanks.

[Noth]

N0MAD, on 15 September 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

Is there a transcript to the town hall?, i wasnt able to listen to most of it..
Thanks.

I don't know of any transcript, but it was in there.

Edit: you can still find the two parts on NGNGtv's twitch channel though.

Edited by Noth, 15 September 2015 - 09:39 PM.

[BearFlag]

Well, SideStrafe that was some 42 minute dance. SideSteppin', I'd say.

But the cat is out of the bag. There are things that you've said, Paul said and PGI has said which simply do not reconcile.

The most obvious is that this "rebalance" asserts it can be done with a nifty spreadsheet and therefore be "scientific", objective, fair, etc and yet weapons quirks were not included in the calcs because they're too complicated? Either you can do a comprehensive comparative analysis or you can't. And this was to be comprehensive. Admittedly, it is complicated - particularly if you bother to look at some "as loaded" mechs, as you must, to get the full picture. But, TOO complicated? Please. There are gigabytes of usable info. A truly scientific and comprehensive run would identify which unloaded package was buff or weak and even identify "as loaded" super mechs and anemic ones. This would be the starting point to reign in power creep while largely preserving players' expensive mech stables. My guess - am I wrong? - is that removing weapons quirks was actually one of the goals.

Bad idea. Let me explain.

PGI has created a mech baby-boom. The problem of course is that the more mech types there are the less distinguished any one new mech or family is. I used to be able to tell a mech at a glance - no more. This is a huge dilemma if you want to sell mechs. There are only so many parameters that can be tweaked to create "character." Astoundingly, one argument is that the new system will create that distinguishing character. The opposite will prove out. Furthermore, after looking at these new quirks it appears they're aiming for in-family difference and that these differences are pseudo-role oriented. Given that these pseudo-roles are repeated in other families, you're not creating difference, but likeness. Unless the Mechlab is being retired, players will always determine "role" in their build out and in game.

First level to apply "character" is to the outsider looking in - which is the same level at which the mech is visually identified - family. The mech family should have differences with others and similarities with siblings. Even with this, wildly different capabilities in-family due to hardpoints is inevitable. Balance is going to mandate weapons quirks positive or negative.

What's more, PGI NEEDS weapons quirks. I know that some players are vehemently against them, but given the proliferating mechs and the need to distinguish families/mechs, weapons quirks WILL come back even if they're eliminated near term. PGI needs to get used to the idea that balance tools may be informative. But giving character to myriad mech families and models is hands on. There is no automatic tool to create character, story, content.

Clan/IS

You can talk about give-and-take and Yin and Yang all day, Phil. But leveling is leveling. Leveling with character is still leveling. And it's a terrible idea. It would all but rip the soul out of a game which already lacks most of the soul of BT. There are no interesting alien races in the game, no Cylons, no Klingons, no Zerg. There are lifeless, watered-down factions of IS and the same of clan. But there is Clan and IS difference right in the mechs that fight. Remove it and what's the point of Clans and factions at all? A FPS in mechy things.

Balancing should occur on each side, separately and within their own tech sphere. Of course, the Clan can't be crazy OP, but they should be very tough. Near parity in assaults, advantage to Clan in mediums and heavies. Advantage to IS in lights. Close to what we have because....change is not always good. Balancing between the two should occur at the match level. In open play the MM and in CW 12v10. Yes, I said it again. 12v10, 12v11, 12v9. Whatever works.

I had much more to write about things as they are. But I'm tired, have already written too much and want to play the game. IV Four, with your evil AC5 quirks, power up. Daddy's coming.

[N0MAD]

Q1: What changes in the big balance patches?

A: Unfortunately, balance pass does not go live sept 22, need more time. First public test was going to be tomorrow 3 PM, but might be pushed back because of hardware problem discovered JUST today. Will try to fix it as soon as possible and do the test. Either way, trhe realized that they simply wouldn't be able to adequately incorporate player feedback between test and sept 22 patch. So, they just have to push the final release back, probably october - either oct 6, or a later october patch.

Notes that the first experience of this is probably going to be pretty strange for people because everything is different. Method analyzeseverything about the mech to derive a strength to input for balancing purposes to adjust. Will have visible even in front-end, PGI ratings for a chassis' offense, defense, etc. It's all ready, but not tested by all the playerbase, and they know it's gonna need that. Going to set up dedicated forum section for feedback, down to the individual chassi/variant level. They really sound like they want to take as much feedback as possible. Possibly incorporate feedback for a second round of testing by sept 22nd or oct 6, then final release a few weeks later.

This does not include adding/removing hardpoints from mechs, or relocating hardpoints, etc. Rescaling is still on the table, but is also not included in this. However, everything else is on the table, adjustments for every single quirk type is included, plus new sensor quirks for more role warefare - example perhaps a locust is better at sensors than an assault mech.

(Literally spent 8-9 minutes talking about this!)



Ok found this on Reddit..and listened to the relevant part of video.

Underlined the parts that seem relevant to my post...

These quotes seem to imply that indeed the build on the PTS was indeed planned to go live first on the 22nd then was re dated to the 6th.

First underline, states it will not go live 22nd, implying that at one stage it was planned to go live then..

Second underline, claims the FINAL release is being pushed back, again implying the final release was planned for 22nd.

Third underline, implies everything is well ready for release..

To me all those implications tend to tell me the PTS was indeed intended to go live, with some adjustments for player imput.

No where either in transcript or the video does anyone mention this PTS was to test sensor changes only, but implies several times that its near ready to go live..

Edited by N0MAD, 15 September 2015 - 10:18 PM.

[Noth]

N0MAD, on 15 September 2015 - 10:13 PM, said:

Q1: What changes in the big balance patches?

A: Unfortunately, balance pass does not go live sept 22, need more time. First public test was going to be tomorrow 3 PM, but might be pushed back because of hardware problem discovered JUST today. Will try to fix it as soon as possible and do the test. Either way, trhe realized that they simply wouldn't be able to adequately incorporate player feedback between test and sept 22 patch. So, they just have to push the final release back, probably october - either oct 6, or a later october patch.

Notes that the first experience of this is probably going to be pretty strange for people because everything is different. Method analyzeseverything about the mech to derive a strength to input for balancing purposes to adjust. Will have visible even in front-end, PGI ratings for a chassis' offense, defense, etc. It's all ready, but not tested by all the playerbase, and they know it's gonna need that. Going to set up dedicated forum section for feedback, down to the individual chassi/variant level. They really sound like they want to take as much feedback as possible. Possibly incorporate feedback for a second round of testing by sept 22nd or oct 6, then final release a few weeks later.

This does not include adding/removing hardpoints from mechs, or relocating hardpoints, etc. Rescaling is still on the table, but is also not included in this. However, everything else is on the table, adjustments for every single quirk type is included, plus new sensor quirks for more role warefare - example perhaps a locust is better at sensors than an assault mech.

(Literally spent 8-9 minutes talking about this!)



Ok found this on Reddit..

Underlined the parts that seem relevant to my post...

These quotes seem to imply that indeed the build on the PTS was indeed planned to go live first on the 22nd then was re dated to the 6th.

First underline, states it will not go live 22nd, implying that at one stage it was planned to go live then..

Second underline, claims the FINAL release is being pushed back, again implying the final release was planned for 22nd.

Third underline, implies everything is well ready for release..

To me all those implications tend to tell me the PTS was indeed intended to go live, with some adjustments for player imput.

No where either in transcript or the video does anyone mention this PTS was to test sensor changes only, but implies several times that its near ready to go live..

You made a claim that they were back pedaling on the release date because of the response to the PTS, which they were not. They pushed it back because it could not make it in and also said that they wouldn't have it go live until it was correct. Having preliminary dates and pushing them back

Also that isn't an actual transcript, more just a summary. In the video Russ states that he expects a lot of problems to come to light. And flat out states, best case scenario of Oct. 6th. Every single claim that they are backpedaling or expected this to be ok to release pretty much falls apart if you just listen to the townhall. He furthers it with saying, "if successful", instead of saying "it will" when it comes to changing the meta. They knew very well, that the balance change was not going to be release ready. They are doing what the community has asked for forever, more PTS to take public feedback so they can make changes and only release when the community says ok.

Instead of the community doing this, they get blasted with the typical hatred that this forum likes to throw at them, burying many of the valid constructive ideas and feedback.

[Koshirou]

N0MAD, on 15 September 2015 - 08:33 PM, said:

There was a New Re balance planned (plenty of indications this was to go live on 22nd), most likely part of it was throwing out the current quirk system,imo, thats why all quirks were taken out of the PTS.

Except they weren't. Only weapon quirks were. PTS Mechs were overloaded with ridiculous structure, movement and sensor quirks.

I don't get the thinking here. Weapon quirks even in the 10-20% range were too much, while introducing movement quirks pf 50%+, structure quirks of essentially 75-100% and scanning quirks in the hundreds of % is just dandy?
That just doesn't add up in my eyes.

[Noth]

Koshirou, on 15 September 2015 - 11:41 PM, said:

I don't get the thinking here. Weapon quirks even in the 10-20% range were too much, while introducing movement quirks pf 50%+, structure quirks of essentially 75-100% and scanning quirks in the hundreds of % is just dandy?
That just doesn't add up in my eyes.

10-20% increase for say a medium laser that is easily boated is much more potent than changes to structure or movement. Firepower is pretty much king and one of the main reasons why infotech is so useless in the current iteration. For example most the structure perks allowed at most one extra alpha, if that to be taken, compared to the weapon perks which drastically increased a mechs viability.

Edited by Noth, 15 September 2015 - 11:46 PM.

[Lily from animove]

Koshirou, on 15 September 2015 - 11:41 PM, said:

Except they weren't. Only weapon quirks were. PTS Mechs were overloaded with ridiculous structure, movement and sensor quirks.

I don't get the thinking here. Weapon quirks even in the 10-20% range were too much, while introducing movement quirks pf 50%+, structure quirks of essentially 75-100% and scanning quirks in the hundreds of % is just dandy?
That just doesn't add up in my eyes.

this was covered quite well in the video, 300% scanning may just mean an increasemen of 2 or 3 seconds. So the big % are actually in absolute values not that much. But whats the point of -100% scans when you need 3 seconds anyways to get target acquisition. At this point all the + or - is pointless, because the point of "too long" is reached. and then it doesn'T matters if 4 seconds, 6 seconds or 100 seconds. This is time past a "valid choice".

I think clanmechs, or better said, Omnipod quirks were a prime example of how the scinece was messy. There existing quirks for long range, medium and short range scans. But some mechs and their pods are used in combnation with others EITHER in long or short range. yet the quirks will buff one of these more than the other. No one actually balanced around the builds people field.

[Koshirou]

Noth, on 15 September 2015 - 11:44 PM, said:

10-20% increase for say a medium laser that is easily boated is much more potent than changes to structure or movement. Firepower is pretty much king and one of the main reasons why infotech is so useless in the current iteration. For example most the structure perks allowed at most one extra alpha, if that to be taken, compared to the weapon perks which drastically increased a mechs viability.

Sooo... what you're saying is that trying to put "firepower" on an equal footing with durability, mobility and most of all sensors as a balancing axis does not make sense?

Glad we cleared that up.

[TanE]

TL,DR:

The PTS test would have been much more accepted, when there were a plan that had been told to the community. The explanation of Paul is good, but I missed specific informtions what have been done and what has to be tested.

Best way I would say after the first rund of the PTS rebalance test:

First:
Make 3 Layouts for each Mech that got changes (same for Omnipods):
1 with minimal changes
1 with average changes
1 with big changes
Values are only for this session and could be changed.

Second:
Write a short and easy compilation in the forums what you have done, that you made changes in 3 "Tiers" (in this case for studying Information warfare and new other quirks) and which Mechs have what kind of changes.

Result:
Less rage, more motivation, more specific data!

[Noth]

Koshirou, on 16 September 2015 - 12:11 AM, said:

Sooo... what you're saying is that trying to put "firepower" on an equal footing with durability, mobility and most of all sensors as a balancing axis does not make sense?

Glad we cleared that up.

No, I'm telling you that 10-20% increase in weapons is still more powerful than 100%+ in infotech and 50%+ in durability. Thus cannot be on equal footing if using the same percentage modifiers. Further weapons can be balanced on their own, rather than rely on mech quirks for balancing.

Edited by Noth, 16 September 2015 - 12:24 AM.

[Koshirou]

Noth, on 16 September 2015 - 12:19 AM, said:

No, I'm telling you that 10-20% increase in weapons is still more powerful than 100%+ in infotech and 50%+ in durability. Thus cannot be on equal footing if using the same percentage modifiers.

So why remove weapon quirks, which obviously should be a powerful balancing tool then, in favor of obscene-value structure and movement quirks?

Quote

Further weapons can be balanced on their own, rather than rely on mech quirks for balancing.

Errm... you do kinda realize that the major problem with weapon balancing is that not all Mechs can carry the same amount or type of weapons?

[Noth]

Koshirou, on 16 September 2015 - 12:45 AM, said:

So why remove weapon quirks, which obviously should be a powerful balancing tool then, in favor of obscene-value structure and movement quirks?


Errm... you do kinda realize that the major problem with weapon balancing is that not all Mechs can carry the same amount or type of weapons?

Weapon quirks were removed (though still on the table in a much lesser, possibly more generic form) to go back to baseline to balance them.

Weapon balance has a whole slew on things that tie into it. Quirks on mechs, were on of them. Without them, there is one less factor that has to be taken into account when balancing weapons.

[oldradagast]

Noth, on 16 September 2015 - 12:48 AM, said:

Weapon quirks were removed (though still on the table in a much lesser, possibly more generic form) to go back to baseline to balance them.

Weapon balance has a whole slew on things that tie into it. Quirks on mechs, were on of them. Without them, there is one less factor that has to be taken into account when balancing weapons.

Except that they didn't "go back to baseline" - they added insane structural quirks, movement buffs and debuffs, etc.

Again, this is nothing but backpedaling by PGI since their planned Unbalancing was a complete failure and resulted in a rightfully hostile response by the community.

Nobody "rebalances" anything by ignoring half the values of interest (weapon quirks), changing a majority into something random and unlike what's in production (movement and durability buffs / nerfs), only to claim to be testing just one other thing (sensors.)

No, this trainwreck was close to the final intended product. There simply is no other reason all that time would have been spent coming up with all those different quirk values and then releasing them. Now that reality hit PGI like a 2x4, they need to spin things away. Quick, buy a Marauder - maybe it will only have combat related buffs instead of sensor buffs!