154 replies to this topic

[Iqfish]

kapusta11, on 14 September 2015 - 01:01 AM, said:

Sean has too much faith in PGI.

My faith in them would be high too if they send me a paycheck every month

[Kira Onime]

Saxie, on 14 September 2015 - 06:50 AM, said:

This.

The only thing that was said was HEY Check out our new balance wat?

There were no notes showing what the detection ranges were of the different chassis, there were no numbers showing us what the baseline was/were. Sure I don't mind that they are trying new things but NGNG can't comeback and say " oh they get flak for not trying new things", no they get flak for not communicating anything. How am I to know what exactly I'm testing if I don't know how the numbers have changed?

Just look at the new quirks they had introduced.
I don't think any single one of them was explained.

"Target aquisition delay medium +300%". Ok. so this concerns about getting a lock on an enemy. What does the "medium" mean? +300% of what?

You had to guess what most of these meant which people shouldn't have to do to begin with.

Paul is sick? Push the PTS back until he's back to 100% and have him, or someone else if you want to, write a novel about these new changes and for goodness sake, don't do a balance test during a pretty big week-end event OR give us a very good reason to go on the PTS.

[MrJeffers]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 14 September 2015 - 05:39 AM, said:

That this was being put on the live server - according to the town hall - until they discovered a hardware issue then we'd have all this but no pts

Listen to the town hall again, the hardware issue was on the PTS server, and it's why the PTS was delayed and testing didn't happen as soon as they wanted to get it started. There was no intention of rolling this out on the live servers.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Iqfish, on 14 September 2015 - 06:58 AM, said:

My faith in them would be high too if they send me a paycheck every month

or if I were being paid to be positive

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 14 September 2015 - 07:44 AM.

[Fuggles]

truly dropped the ball in regards to communication, I never even got to make it onto test before it was down so I didn't get to play but it seemed pretty obvious that the offensive part of the triangle was excluded.

not telling us that and not mentioning module changes, skill tree changes or at least a vision for IS vs clan balance was something that shouldn't have happened.

obvious stuff like dires and timbers being able to configure valid loadouts with no negatives only positives is clearly something that we are there however to test.

regarding weapon quirks, I think they need to be there. that "flavor" for IS that they brought is invaluable with the different otherwise redundant variants. take the hunchbacks for example and look at the H, G, GI. they are all extremely similar in hard points but giving each one a weapon specific quirk helps distinguish the variants. it doesn't always have to be straight up X cooldown to ve viable, but something to set each one apart from each other.

weapon quirks also allow you to not make overall weapon balance so cut and dry, for instance PPCs vs lasers. as long as the game has been out the meta has fluctuated back and forth on ones good the other is garbage. at least now if you want to use PPCs go grab yourself a PPC mech and have fun vs the old, PPCs are better so they get installed on every mech with an energy slot.

[Tarogato]

XX Sulla XX, on 13 September 2015 - 10:06 PM, said:

...

If this does not make clear where balance needs to start I do not know what will. IS needs to have a counter to Clan lasers. We need IS ER Small and Mediums. And we need X-Pulse lasers. Or if that for some reason cant happen then Clan lasers need nerfed or IS lasers need buffed.

Also this needs to be fixed before you can give all of the quirks to mechs to make them different and viable etc etc.

Lets fix this basic problem. Short range things are not bad. But the mid range games are played at favors Clans to a huge degree.

Sean Lang, on 13 September 2015 - 10:26 PM, said:

I get what your saying, but as I pointed out in the video. I think it is important to fix some of the foundations of the issues we see with balance

Coincidentally, I just made a post that addressed this. I don't think you can get anymore fundamental than altering the base values for many weapons in the game, and I found a few examples of where to improve them: http://mwomercs.com/...weapon-balance/

tl;dr:

- Buff IS small and medium lasers by making them cooler like TT - helps IS compete against clans at close range
- Reduce heat on cMPL to be closer to TT because it's not being used very much currently
- Reduce damage on all Clan pulses by 1, closer to TT and helps IS compete with Clans.
- Reduce damage on cERLL by 1, closer to TT and helps IS compete with Clans
- Increase pinpoint damage factor on cERPPC, closer to TT and might incentivise people to use it over cERLL and gauss.
- Reduce cooldown on IS PPC and ERPPC, because compared to TT, cERPPC in MWO has way too much dps.
- Reduce heat on AC/2 to 0.6, so that it deals 3.33 dmg/heat just like the AC/10 and AC/20.
- Buff the dps on MG and Flamer - they're supposed to be a lot stronger in TT.

[Mordin Ashe]

I watched the video again and I must say, the attitude they are taking is the only right one. Previous quirks were "we just feel like that" and look how it ended.

That being said, Sean really has incredibly strong anti-clan bias. I can't see this guy speaking a single time without hearing "Clans stronger than IS". Not a single video without him saying that. I know the whole PGI is strongly IS loyalist because of their continous ignorance of Clan drawbacks and emphasis on Clan strengths, and, well, Sean is the posterboy of it.

Sean. I like your attitude in that scientific thingie regarding your algorithm. It is the right thing to do, and as a responsible consumer, I rewarded this PTS by purchasing more stuff. But damn, you hate the Clans! Why did you say A but didn't say B when speaking about the Clans? You say Clans have range advantage. Where, for god's sake, where? Have you palyed CW lately? Everywhere where range is involved Clans have nothing to counter IS ERLL meta. Is it our CERMLs that have higher range? Well really? With all IS Mechs quirked the way they are... catching my drift?

Another thing you comkpletely ignored. Heat. Yes, Clan Mechs can load up lasers and heat sinks, but unlike IS we really need them. You build IS Mech with 7 MLs, give him average generic quirks every IS Mech has now. Load it up with heat sinks. You do the same with Clan Mechs. The result? IS can fire how many times before overheating, 6x, 7x? Clanner can twice. Are you even capable of acknowledging this? No fight can be done in two alphas in MWO, that is why IS are much better brawlers and win 1 on 1 vs Clans so much. Clanners can perhaps core the enemy but thats it, you drop dead because you can't fire more than twice. You can, of course, downgrade the weapons, but then you are loosing your advantage while still not being as coll or fire as often as IS Mechs.

Another thing, beam duration. It is much more difficult for Clanners to make their imaginary damage bonus count when you need 50% more time to apply that damage. At this point in game it makes no difference between firing IS AC5 and ML - both are almost as fast! Sean, when was the last time you actually took out Clan Mech with 5-6 MLs and went shooting stuff up? You can do that easily with IS Mechs, beam duration is RIDICULOUS! Have you ever watched Thunderbolts firing their MPL meta?

These things look "okish" on paper but in game they make huge difference. Perhaps because Clans have no reasonable -beam duration quirks while IS has plenty.

Heat. Clans are hot as hell. Never mentioned. I've hard you saying some time ago that "Clans feel like they are cooler than IS". What a load of bull, just do the math, they are much hotter. Much hotter, requiring heat management skills almost no other IS Mech does due to ridiculously strong quirks. If you look at smurphy stats tab it may not look like much but hey, you aren't fighting smurphy tabs, you are fighting strongly quirked Mechs... You know that with proper quirks Clan ML hsa almost double the heat of IS ML, right? Right?

So please, please, PLEASE! Stop using that ridiculous bias of yours. Clans have slightly higher damage and some weapons take up less space. That is ofset by longer duration (transfered to flat damage debuff according to players skill), much higher heat (no quirks, higher base hear = huge difference), omnimechs that limit you basically to energy builds only (we can't downgrade pointlessly big engines for more space to take ballistics), higher price (never mentioned but hey, most players care about c-bills in some form).

Start mentioning these things! Why every time I hear you saying that Clans are stronger that IS but nothing about the rest? Why you say A but not B that balances that A? Would you be a politician I would get it, but when I see you in a video talking about scientifically measuring Mechs and then using this bias BS, tell me, what am I supposed to think?

That being said I don't protest the weapon quirks at all, most of my favorite IS Mechs need them to be anywhere near viable to begin with (yep, Catapults, looking at you). But really, you can't go about your biases like that... Stop being blinded, stop using words that were spot on one year ago when Clans arrived but haven't been true for good 10 months now. Please, stop being a jackass.

[KraftySOT]

The new sensors is a great system.

But if you think that alone, without weapon quirks, .xml changes for broken weapons, and an IS vs Clan weapons pass, will balance this game...youre on crack.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mordin Ashe, on 14 September 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

I watched the video again and I must say, the attitude they are taking is the only right one. Previous quirks were "we just feel like that" and look how it ended.

That being said, Sean really has incredibly strong anti-clan bias. I can't see this guy speaking a single time without hearing "Clans stronger than IS". Not a single video without him saying that. I know the whole PGI is strongly IS loyalist because of their continous ignorance of Clan drawbacks and emphasis on Clan strengths, and, well, Sean is the posterboy of it.

Sean. I like your attitude in that scientific thingie regarding your algorithm. It is the right thing to do, and as a responsible consumer, I rewarded this PTS by purchasing more stuff. But damn, you hate the Clans! Why did you say A but didn't say B when speaking about the Clans? You say Clans have range advantage. Where, for god's sake, where? Have you palyed CW lately? Everywhere where range is involved Clans have nothing to counter IS ERLL meta. Is it our CERMLs that have higher range? Well really? With all IS Mechs quirked the way they are... catching my drift?

Another thing you comkpletely ignored. Heat. Yes, Clan Mechs can load up lasers and heat sinks, but unlike IS we really need them. You build IS Mech with 7 MLs, give him average generic quirks every IS Mech has now. Load it up with heat sinks. You do the same with Clan Mechs. The result? IS can fire how many times before overheating, 6x, 7x? Clanner can twice. Are you even capable of acknowledging this? No fight can be done in two alphas in MWO, that is why IS are much better brawlers and win 1 on 1 vs Clans so much. Clanners can perhaps core the enemy but thats it, you drop dead because you can't fire more than twice. You can, of course, downgrade the weapons, but then you are loosing your advantage while still not being as coll or fire as often as IS Mechs.

Another thing, beam duration. It is much more difficult for Clanners to make their imaginary damage bonus count when you need 50% more time to apply that damage. At this point in game it makes no difference between firing IS AC5 and ML - both are almost as fast! Sean, when was the last time you actually took out Clan Mech with 5-6 MLs and went shooting stuff up? You can do that easily with IS Mechs, beam duration is RIDICULOUS! Have you ever watched Thunderbolts firing their MPL meta?

These things look "okish" on paper but in game they make huge difference. Perhaps because Clans have no reasonable -beam duration quirks while IS has plenty.

Heat. Clans are hot as hell. Never mentioned. I've hard you saying some time ago that "Clans feel like they are cooler than IS". What a load of bull, just do the math, they are much hotter. Much hotter, requiring heat management skills almost no other IS Mech does due to ridiculously strong quirks. If you look at smurphy stats tab it may not look like much but hey, you aren't fighting smurphy tabs, you are fighting strongly quirked Mechs... You know that with proper quirks Clan ML hsa almost double the heat of IS ML, right? Right?

So please, please, PLEASE! Stop using that ridiculous bias of yours. Clans have slightly higher damage and some weapons take up less space. That is ofset by longer duration (transfered to flat damage debuff according to players skill), much higher heat (no quirks, higher base hear = huge difference), omnimechs that limit you basically to energy builds only (we can't downgrade pointlessly big engines for more space to take ballistics), higher price (never mentioned but hey, most players care about c-bills in some form).

Start mentioning these things! Why every time I hear you saying that Clans are stronger that IS but nothing about the rest? Why you say A but not B that balances that A? Would you be a politician I would get it, but when I see you in a video talking about scientifically measuring Mechs and then using this bias BS, tell me, what am I supposed to think?

That being said I don't protest the weapon quirks at all, most of my favorite IS Mechs need them to be anywhere near viable to begin with (yep, Catapults, looking at you). But really, you can't go about your biases like that... Stop being blinded, stop using words that were spot on one year ago when Clans arrived but haven't been true for good 10 months now. Please, stop being a jackass.

so the fact the TBR, SCR and DWF and ACH are all the strongest Mechs in their classes, and thus the game fits in with that Anti-Clan bias how?

KraftySOT, on 14 September 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

The new sensors is a great system.

But if you think that alone, without weapon quirks, .xml changes for broken weapons, and an IS vs Clan weapons pass, will balance this game...youre on crack.

not meant to. one step at a time. Which is the antithesis of the Paul method of balancing. Hence why it may be confusing to MWO player community. Most of whom still think Paul is actually in charge of balance (hasn't been in over a year.....)

[KodiakGW]

8:45 into video. This system is on spot. So, this is what we are basically going to get.

Then they need to leave the PTS system running 24-7 after deployment because I will never purchase another mech without being able to drive it 5 times to see if I like it. It's a waste of my time earning in game money, and waste of my real money. There is too many variables to see if it fits with my game play style.

For instance. GI with huge negative percentage acceleration and deceleration quirks. The additional structure is going to not make any difference if I hit 100% throttle and move out like an Atlas trying to get out of a bad situation. I would have never purchases it if I knew that is what they were planning on doing.

[Bishop Steiner]

KodiakGW, on 14 September 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:

8:45 into video. This system is on spot. So, this is what we are basically going to get.

Then they need to leave the PTS system running 24-7 after deployment because I will never purchase another mech without being able to drive it 5 times to see if I like it. It's a waste of my time earning in game money, and waste of my real money. There is too many variables to see if it fits with my game play style.

For instance. GI with huge negative percentage acceleration and deceleration quirks. The additional structure is going to not make any difference if I hit 100% throttle and move out like an Atlas trying to get out of a bad situation. I would have never purchases it if I knew that is what they were planning on doing.

why are people still acting like these are in any way finalized quirks, or even more than testing out ideas, and variables?

[MischiefSC]

Sean Lang, on 13 September 2015 - 10:26 PM, said:

I get what your saying, but as I pointed out in the video. I think it is important to fix some of the foundations of the issues we see with balance (skill tree values being tuned down is also coming on PTS soon).

So I'd say I don't think introducing new weapons systems is the answer, but if this is done and done correctly, introducing them will be a lot easier (balance wise) in the near future if PGI chooses.

I'm 100% on board with the foundational fixes. In fact I'm really happy to see we're revisiting the fundamentals and putting new concepts like the sensor changes on the table. That's all great stuff that got lost in the outrage.

The problem for testing is this -

did my new build work better because there was less Clan mechs on the other team or because it functions better? The weapon and performance imbalance in the PTS environment is so far out of scope IS to Clan right now that productive determination is next to impossible.

If there is one universal feedback from every forum and every comment, every single thread, it's this -

Need to balance weapons first.

I can't give you useful test data nor feel like I can trust the other changes that are being made with weapons out of balance as badly as they are. And in 'weapons' I include factors like hardpoints, hardpoint placement and means of deploying the weapons.

I'm 100% down for the sensor changes. I think there is a lot more that needs done there, new components, new approaches to the whole sensor/ECM meta that needs to happen to make it relevant. The current changes are a concept I'm happy to work with but in no way, shape or form are they a balancing factor on mechs for anything more than like 5% of a mechs viability. 1 extra high mounted energy hardpoint is worth more than every single variable for sensor balance. In CW IS vs Clans is at least 60%, often close to 80%, played with 0 sensor data at all. Sucks for new players but anyone who's played a while barely noticed after 4 or 5 games in pug queue. Plays like everyone has ECM.

I'm 100% down for mobility/big structure changes. They were largely invisible though due to weapon changes. The most massive buffs to structure equated to one half of one alpha strike for any Clan build I was playing, all of which were more heat efficient, faster burning and generally more agile than they are in live. I didn't even know Atlases got a structure buff and found them easy to solo without losing armor on any single component while in a Timber Wolf.

Same thing stated a million times. I get the intent. I get that the biggest overall changes you guys wanted to do was the sensor stuff and reworking mobility from the ground up. That's awesome, it's good stuff and let's keep with it.

It is however adjustments of 1-20% of a mechs total performance value while weapons are like 50-60%. To reiterate because this keeps getting walked past in all the responses I've seen from PGI, I don't feel like I can provide useful feedback or trust the telemetry gathered for the value of sensor, mobility and structure changes while weapons are out of balance. Keep what we've got updated on PTS, save obviously for the typos. We can make adjustments to it from there as a baseline. But we need to shift to balancing weapons FIRST, so the more nuanced data can be effectively tested.

[JohnnyWayne]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 September 2015 - 08:23 AM, said:

so the fact the TBR, SCR and DWF and ACH are all the strongest Mechs in their classes, and thus the game fits in with that Anti-Clan bias how?

Even though I don't think PGI is biased or Phil is, he has valid points. Most of the advantages clans have are negated by the way they are. That is something most people dont take into account. Like more DHS than IS due to crit space but also way more heat.Same goes for weapons - less weight but also cant take smaller engines.

In the end clan weapons might are better suited for this type of game (alpha strike baed then retread and cool off). The biggest point IS weapons are lacking is range. That needs to be quirked BUT - when new weaponsystems come over time they will be ridiculously OP. And probably noone will give a **** because IS players stand up and cry that it was the same with clans and that gives them legitimation to that.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:

I'm 100% on board with the foundational fixes. In fact I'm really happy to see we're revisiting the fundamentals and putting new concepts like the sensor changes on the table. That's all great stuff that got lost in the outrage.

The problem for testing is this -

did my new build work better because there was less Clan mechs on the other team or because it functions better? The weapon and performance imbalance in the PTS environment is so far out of scope IS to Clan right now that productive determination is next to impossible.

If there is one universal feedback from every forum and every comment, every single thread, it's this -

Need to balance weapons first.

I can't give you useful test data nor feel like I can trust the other changes that are being made with weapons out of balance as badly as they are. And in 'weapons' I include factors like hardpoints, hardpoint placement and means of deploying the weapons.

I'm 100% down for the sensor changes. I think there is a lot more that needs done there, new components, new approaches to the whole sensor/ECM meta that needs to happen to make it relevant. The current changes are a concept I'm happy to work with but in no way, shape or form are they a balancing factor on mechs for anything more than like 5% of a mechs viability. 1 extra high mounted energy hardpoint is worth more than every single variable for sensor balance. In CW IS vs Clans is at least 60%, often close to 80%, played with 0 sensor data at all. Sucks for new players but anyone who's played a while barely noticed after 4 or 5 games in pug queue. Plays like everyone has ECM.

I'm 100% down for mobility/big structure changes. They were largely invisible though due to weapon changes. The most massive buffs to structure equated to one half of one alpha strike for any Clan build I was playing, all of which were more heat efficient, faster burning and generally more agile than they are in live. I didn't even know Atlases got a structure buff and found them easy to solo without losing armor on any single component while in a Timber Wolf.

Same thing stated a million times. I get the intent. I get that the biggest overall changes you guys wanted to do was the sensor stuff and reworking mobility from the ground up. That's awesome, it's good stuff and let's keep with it.

It is however adjustments of 1-20% of a mechs total performance value while weapons are like 50-60%. To reiterate because this keeps getting walked past in all the responses I've seen from PGI, I don't feel like I can provide useful feedback or trust the telemetry gathered for the value of sensor, mobility and structure changes while weapons are out of balance. Keep what we've got updated on PTS, save obviously for the typos. We can make adjustments to it from there as a baseline. But we need to shift to balancing weapons FIRST, so the more nuanced data can be effectively tested.

and this, is what we are lacking from the Chicken Little Nation. Constructive feedback. Critical, but constructive. Amazing how much more useful that is then the butthurt footstamping being posted.....(of course, no one reads what they say so why bother..... oh, because all they ever post has been largely butthurt footsomping?)

True they don't always agree with us (oh no, they don't listen!) but I do find they do read and consider well scripted stuff. Though once they decide not to pursue a course, doesn't matter how often or eloquently a person reposts it (Sorry Ulti, Carrion, Myself, etc, lol)

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 September 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

why are people still acting like these are in any way finalized quirks, or even more than testing out ideas, and variables?

qft

Also, to reiterate, Russ and PGI have said it's all getting balanced, the whole thing, on PTS before it goes live.

I'm happy with that. Overjoyed even. That's all I'm asking. I'm pleased we've got a new build going today. People need to back up a bit and realize we're getting a shot at a total rebalance from the ground up. That's awesome and we need to move past the 'ZOMG TYPO IN TWIST QUIRKS ON THIS MECH MWO FAIL 4EVER'.

I get being upset. I do. We need to get past the glee of feeling like we have a legitimate gripe to harp on forever. I get that it makes people feel superior and smart and perceptive and on the internet everyone likes to be critical and insulting because there's not an actual person there to them but at this point...

Maddy. Whammy. Eyes on the prize people, eyes on the prize. Game needs balanced, we have a great opportunity to help work on that, time to move past the zomg freakout and focus on fixing the game. For my Maddy and Whammy. Err, the good of the games community.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

qft

Also, to reiterate, Russ and PGI have said it's all getting balanced, the whole thing, on PTS before it goes live.

I'm happy with that. Overjoyed even. That's all I'm asking. I'm pleased we've got a new build going today. People need to back up a bit and realize we're getting a shot at a total rebalance from the ground up. That's awesome and we need to move past the 'ZOMG TYPO IN TWIST QUIRKS ON THIS MECH MWO FAIL 4EVER'.

I get being upset. I do. We need to get past the glee of feeling like we have a legitimate gripe to harp on forever. I get that it makes people feel superior and smart and perceptive and on the internet everyone likes to be critical and insulting because there's not an actual person there to them but at this point...

Maddy. Whammy. Eyes on the prize people, eyes on the prize. Game needs balanced, we have a great opportunity to help work on that, time to move past the zomg freakout and focus on fixing the game. For my Maddy and Whammy. Err, the good of the games community.

Get you hands off MY Whammy.

[KodiakGW]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 September 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

why are people still acting like these are in any way finalized quirks, or even more than testing out ideas, and variables?

Because exactly what I said at the beginning of my post. They think what they presented is spot on. Did you not get that? They are going to fix typos and make minor adjustments to some stats. For the most part what you saw is what is going to be live.

[Bishop Steiner]

KodiakGW, on 14 September 2015 - 08:44 AM, said:

Because exactly what I said at the beginning of my post. They think what they presented is spot on. Did you not get that? They are going to fix typos and make minor adjustments to some stats. For the most part what you saw is what is going to be live.

OK. Sure. You're right.

SMH.

[KodiakGW]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 September 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

OK. Sure. You're right.

SMH.

Go ahead an shake your head. We'll see which one of us is right. I just processed refund on Origins pack. Not going to waste any more time arguing.

[MischiefSC]

KodiakGW, on 14 September 2015 - 08:44 AM, said:

Because exactly what I said at the beginning of my post. They think what they presented is spot on. Did you not get that? They are going to fix typos and make minor adjustments to some stats. For the most part what you saw is what is going to be live.

Not according to Russ, or the original post from Paul.

Look, I've been hugely critical of PGI on this and a ton of other things but you need to not buy trouble. They are saying it's spot on in context of the general feel of sensor and mobility changes. That the big effort they put into creating an equation to baseline in some changes worked and I'm willing to agree with that. It needs a lot of work but it's a pretty huge set of changes that came in with a discernable baseline and you can see what the intent is. It's far from random. Sure several are way off and a number of the outliers (top and bottom tier) need adjusted but in general the concept is there, in place, without a huge manual review from scratch of every mech, variant and omnipod.

Also, again, nothing is going live until it's all balanced. Weapons, mobility, sensor changes, etc.