105 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

Davegt27, on 08 March 2016 - 06:30 PM, said:

what about IS streak 4's

could we get those?

thoughts

I am proposing to bring all the equal tech for IS out...

[Y E O N N E]

Mcgral18, on 08 March 2016 - 05:09 PM, said:

They are functionally identical, though.

Hitscan, X duration, Y damage, Z range

The difference is Green VS Yellow, with stat variations.
33% more heat, 30% more damage, 35% more range, 22% longer duration

That's what differentiates your Green VS Yellow laser.

Does changing those numbers really change anything?
My suggestions got quite a bit of support...just not from you or Gyrok.

A few points.

1. If the stats are different, they are not functionally identical. Function includes actual effect on target (and to you), not just the operational concept. You would not say, for example, that a small laser and a large laser are functionally identical, because they aren't.

2. If you reduce the differences in range, etc., you are making the lasers more alike. Increasing the range on the ML and decreasing the damage and range on the the cERML just makes the two guns perform more similarly which makes them more functionally identical and, simultaneously, is ignoring the point of having two dissimilar factions. So, again, if you just want the two sides to perform similarly, then quit this farcical nonsense and just allow mix-tech, because that is really what you are after.

3. Your changes got a lot of support, but that doesn't mean you are right, that people truly understand the effects of the changes, or that your changes are the only way things can or even should go. To you this is just an equation to be solved and you are following the path of least resistance. Games are not just mere equations to be solved, and to treat them that way is wholly inappropriate.

4. Apart from your changes working by reducing differences rather than by emphasizing them, my primary reason for disliking them is because you are effectively not any better than Paul. You did not create a framework to gauge the utility of one weapon relative to the others, you simply threw some darts of your own and they happened to land in a better place because you play the game more. You still have no system.

[Mcgral18]

Yeonne Greene, on 08 March 2016 - 08:49 PM, said:

4. Apart from your changes working by reducing differences rather than by emphasizing them, my primary reason for disliking them is because you are effectively not any better than Paul. You did not create a framework to gauge the utility of one weapon relative to the others, you simply threw some darts of your own and they happened to land in a better place because you play the game more. You still have no system.

And is that any worse than PGI has done in the past?

I probably over did the isSmalls, and perhaps ERPPC cooldowns, but those are numbers I would very much like to test....but we cannot.

How am I supposed to get data if it's impossible?

My framework was looking at under and over performers, and touching them.

[Moldur]

Homeskilit, on 08 March 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

Well if the weapons we have are not and have never been balanced what gives you an indication that at some point these new weapons will ever be balanced?

How long are these weapons going to remain underpowered (or overpowered) before PGI gets around to adjusting them?

Odds are the new weapons will absorb most of PGIs development time and the previous set of weapons will fail to see any improvements, hence they should not add additional weapons until what we have is balanced.

Following your same line of thinking, and picking option 2: Why not? If PGI is going to spend forever to balance weapons perfectly, which, heads up, will never ever, ever happen ever, then why not add more content, the kind that people have been dying since, what? 2012?

MWO will never have balance that is not in a constant state of flux, ever. It's a pipe dream. New tech won't break the game (unless something is the actual hand of God in comparison to everything else.) New tech will make the game different, and shift balance in various ways. To reiterate, MWO balance will never be 'fixed' ever ever.

[Y E O N N E]

Mcgral18, on 08 March 2016 - 08:54 PM, said:

And is that any worse than PGI has done in the past?

No, but it's not any better, and that's the issue. Why should I trust you over them? What are you going to fall back on when your ideas don't work? What makes you think your would-be interpretations of any collected data are better? How do you even quantify and qualify your changes before committing them to code?

I do systems and trade-off analysis for a living. Those skills very much apply here.

Quote

I probably over did the isSmalls, and perhaps ERPPC cooldowns, but those are numbers I would very much like to test....but we cannot.

How am I supposed to get data if it's impossible?

You don't actually need that particular data to start, and that's where you are going wrong. See below.

Quote

My framework was looking at under and over performers, and touching them.

That's not robust enough, since that doesn't account for the "why," and it can have the unintended consequence of nullifying other weapons.

You, as an experienced player, should be familiar enough with the game to know about how much each particular weapon characteristic (heat, damage, duration, range, cool-down, etc.) affects that weapon's usefulness on the battlefield. As such, you should be able to create weights for them. If you aren't confident in your own assessment, you can take a poll among trusted top players (i.e. SJR, EmP, etc.) to get an educated average on the level of importance for those characteristics.

You should also be capable of assessing how much more or less of a benefit you gain by increasing or decreasing the value for those characteristics. For example, we know more range is better, but we also know that after a certain point the amount of return you get for increased range tapers off. We also know that range becomes increasingly more punishing on the player the shorter it gets below another certain point. Therefore, the amount of benefit for range does not follow a linear pattern. Again, if you aren't confident, take a poll.

Then, you take your performance curves, and you set them all onto a common scale (translate the values to a 0-1 scale, for instance, using the governing equations for each). You then use those weights to take a weighted average to get a score for the weapon. This score will not tell you in what role the weapon is useful, only that (assuming they all have the same score) the weapons have an equal place on the battlefield.

Yes, it's work to do this. It's not as easy as just following your gut instinct and plugging in some new numbers that look about right and then farming for favs on the forums because Buckus Willylicker thinks that having his isML be fulfilling a comparable role as the cERML is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

For the record, and if it makes you feel better, I did do all of this. I did generate governing equations, and I did get numbers very similar to yours if I chose to balance that way. But I could also tweak the numbers in other ways to get the same score. I can make my isML stay short-reached but shoot colder, faster, and shorter and retain a niche where it can completely out-class the cERML just as the cERML retains a niche where it completely out-classes the isML.

Equitable trade-offs are the name of the game, and you have no idea what the actual value of the trade-offs you are making will be.

[Homeskilit]

Moldur, on 08 March 2016 - 09:14 PM, said:

Following your same line of thinking, and picking option 2: Why not? If PGI is going to spend forever to balance weapons perfectly, which, heads up, will never ever, ever happen ever, then why not add more content, the kind that people have been dying since, what? 2012?

MWO will never have balance that is not in a constant state of flux, ever. It's a pipe dream. New tech won't break the game (unless something is the actual hand of God in comparison to everything else.) New tech will make the game different, and shift balance in various ways. To reiterate, MWO balance will never be 'fixed' ever ever.

No game is ever fully balanced. That is known.

Therefore the goal should be to get as close to balanced as possible. Unfortunately right now the game is very far from such a state and at the rate PGi is currently making adjustments it is never going to get anywhere close to balanced.

The problem with adding more content is that it requires more resources to manage and if PGi cannot manage the game with the resources currently at its disposal how will it cope with the additional requirements?

Edited by Homeskilit, 08 March 2016 - 09:34 PM.