482 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

MischiefSC, on 04 May 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

How much of that is a product of most matches being on Caustic? I've noticed most seem to be hot maps.

When I see cooler or neutral maps it tends to be laser and gauss heavy. Also most have restrictions designed to prevent a team stacking laservomit mechs.

Not that I'm saying you're wrong but most comp matches are designed to inhibit a stacked laservomit deck (with that special gauss filling).

Frozen City night will have the most SRM heavy decks you will see. If the assaults aren't Atlases, they are Maulers.

[pwnface]

MischiefSC, on 04 May 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

How much of that is a product of most matches being on Caustic? I've noticed most seem to be hot maps.

When I see cooler or neutral maps it tends to be laser and gauss heavy. Also most have restrictions designed to prevent a team stacking laservomit mechs.

Not that I'm saying you're wrong but most comp matches are designed to inhibit a stacked laservomit deck (with that special gauss filling).

Frozen City Night is typically extremely SRM heavy despite being a cold map. Heat is definitely not the only deciding factor when it comes to drop deck selection.

Gas Guzzler, on 04 May 2016 - 02:27 PM, said:

Frozen City night will have the most SRM heavy decks you will see. If the assaults aren't Atlases, they are Maulers.

Guess you beat me to it, by seconds!

Dimento Graven, on 04 May 2016 - 02:21 PM, said:

I see what you're saying, but I'm hoping you're not suggesting PGI balances based off the minority COMP players?

While a LOT can be learned from the comp scene as to preferential 'mech builds when it comes to min/maxing, it doesn't represent the vast majority of play, the public queues, or the previously stated 'end state' of the game in FW.

I get the frustration though. We the players, and PGI for that matter, are trapped by the public queues, originally put in as a 'stop gap' while CW/FW was built. Unfortunately due to IGP's interference and PGI's misplaced prioritizations, we're stuck having to worry about the throw away mode of 'public queues' as the primary focus of balance.

It sucks. Without the public queues as a balance consideration, we COULD have had 10v12 Clan vs. IS, and Clan tech at original full power.

As it is.. Well the game is that proverbial thorough bred horse that was 'comittee'd' into a mentally deficient camel.

Balance absolutely needs to be top down, otherwise you don't have real balance.

[Dimento Graven]

pwnface, on 04 May 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

...

Balance absolutely needs to be top down, otherwise you don't have real balance.

I suppose, ultimately, it depends on where you define 'top' at.

Though balancing based on COMP is problematic, in most COMP scenes you don't have:

• 12v12
  
• Random (or even 'voted' maps)
  
• Unrestricted (or nearly so) 'mech selection

In the Faction/Public queues you don't have:

• Artificial restrictions based on non-PGI rule sets
  
• Scenarios where you can almost 100% guarantee facing the exact same enemy pilots in subsequent rounds

So if you WERE to balance based on COMP sets you'd have 98-99 percent of the players being affected by factors they'd NEVER encounter, nor ever will.

[pwnface]

Dimento Graven, on 04 May 2016 - 02:41 PM, said:

I suppose, ultimately, it depends on where you define 'top' at.

Though balancing based on COMP is problematic, in most COMP scenes you don't have:

• 12v12
  
• Random (or even 'voted' maps)
  
• Unrestricted (or nearly so) 'mech selection

In the Faction/Public queues you don't have:

• Artificial restrictions based on non-PGI rule sets
  
• Scenarios where you can almost 100% guarantee facing the exact same enemy pilots in subsequent rounds

So if you WERE to balance based on COMP sets you'd have 98-99 percent of the players being affected by factors they'd NEVER encounter, nor ever will.

If different loadouts are better/worse than others based on the RNG on random maps and players then gameplay balance is good. If the same loadout and mech dominates on every single map, you have a problem with balance.

I'm not saying look at one specific match on one specific map to dictate balance, but you can definitely see which builds can perform the best for particular situations and use that as your consideration instead of the "multi-tool builds" that you see at mid/low tier play like a mech with.. LRM15, AC2, Flamer, 2xStreak6, 1 medium laser, 1 large laser all at once.

[MischiefSC]

Dimento Graven, on 04 May 2016 - 02:21 PM, said:

I see what you're saying, but I'm hoping you're not suggesting PGI balances based off the minority COMP players?

While a LOT can be learned from the comp scene as to preferential 'mech builds when it comes to min/maxing, it doesn't represent the vast majority of play, the public queues, or the previously stated 'end state' of the game in FW.

I get the frustration though. We the players, and PGI for that matter, are trapped by the public queues, originally put in as a 'stop gap' while CW/FW was built. Unfortunately due to IGP's interference and PGI's misplaced prioritizations, we're stuck having to worry about the throw away mode of 'public queues' as the primary focus of balance.

It sucks. Without the public queues as a balance consideration, we COULD have had 10v12 Clan vs. IS, and Clan tech at original full power.

As it is.. Well the game is that proverbial thorough bred horse that was 'comittee'd' into a mentally deficient camel.

10 v 12 never worked. Was already tried. Would not work in a fps without more changes than 12 v 12 requires. Even most tabletop players hated Clan/IS balance for that matter. Hence the evolution of tabletop to a 1 to 1 tech balance.

The game shouldn't be balanced for comp play exclusively, no. However the refinement of mechanics that goes on there is a great crucible for identifying overall balance mechanics.

[MischiefSC]

Gas Guzzler, on 04 May 2016 - 02:27 PM, said:

Frozen City night will have the most SRM heavy decks you will see. If the assaults aren't Atlases, they are Maulers.

Fair enough, that map is a snuggled fest. Admittedly big SRM boats are hot too.

Again though, more of the point I made prior - if you removed most the restrictions and dropped on, say, canyon/swamp/forest/polar, even tourmaline, wouldn't it be a pretty laser heavy deck?

Admittedly I'm looking forward to getting my guys to take a full wave of 12 5lpl Banshees to Grim this weekend if we can. A 60 LPL wave of comedy gold. Put a single extra MPL on one so it's a cumulative 666 damage and call it the Beast Wave.

<3 maulers but they're too damn fat.

Edited by MischiefSC, 04 May 2016 - 04:14 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

MischiefSC, on 04 May 2016 - 04:02 PM, said:

10 v 12 never worked. Was already tried. Would not work in a fps without more changes than 12 v 12 requires. Even most tabletop players hated Clan/IS balance for that matter. Hence the evolution of tabletop to a 1 to 1 tech balance.

The game shouldn't be balanced for comp play exclusively, no. However the refinement of mechanics that goes on there is a great crucible for identifying overall balance mechanics.

When was 10v12 ever actually tried in game? As far as I can remember, PGI has always said that it can't be done because it would screw up the public queues.

[MischiefSC]

Dimento Graven, on 04 May 2016 - 04:46 PM, said:

When was 10v12 ever actually tried in game? As far as I can remember, PGI has always said that it can't be done because it would screw up the public queues.

Was tested with tt values on test server when Clans first came out. Clans were stomped relentlessly - this isn't TT, hits are not dice rolls. So you'd need to super-buff Clans beyond tt values - Except then when the IS has 1 guy who's ask or disco it's totally one sided. Or just the opposite.

Asymetric balance didn't work in TT and will work worse here. How do you force player populations to split 60/40 or 70/30? It will inevitably migrate to experienced players in Clans and new players in IS so a system of vets farming nubs?

Doesn't work mechanically and isn't sustainable in any case.

[Dimento Graven]

MischiefSC, on 04 May 2016 - 05:12 PM, said:

Was tested with tt values on test server when Clans first came out. Clans were stomped relentlessly - this isn't TT, hits are not dice rolls. So you'd need to super-buff Clans beyond tt values - Except then when the IS has 1 guy who's ask or disco it's totally one sided. Or just the opposite.

Asymetric balance didn't work in TT and will work worse here. How do you force player populations to split 60/40 or 70/30? It will inevitably migrate to experienced players in Clans and new players in IS so a system of vets farming nubs?

Doesn't work mechanically and isn't sustainable in any case.

If true, (and I don't really believe it was tested as you say, MAYBE there were rumors of it, and then WHO was doing the testing? The scrubs at PGI? LOL...) the test starts out with the wrong premise, first and foremost because this game has NEVER had TT value in it, so "testing with table top values" is ******** to begin with.

No, it was NEVER implemented in game, any rumors of testing are ********.

[MischiefSC]

No, it was on PTS and a ton of players took part in it. Focus fire and numbers > most other factors. MMake a posy on it. Tons of people on the forums took part in it, I was working long hours that week. It went for a couple of days. Was definitely some competitive players involved as well, trying to remember names. It's been a bit. Make a new thread, I've no doubt you'll get a ton of first-hand responses.

[Gas Guzzler]

MischiefSC, on 04 May 2016 - 04:10 PM, said:

Again though, more of the point I made prior - if you removed most the restrictions and dropped on, say, canyon/swamp/forest/polar, even tourmaline, wouldn't it be a pretty laser heavy deck?

Canyon you will typically have SRM lights, lasers or SRMs on mediums, typically lasers on heavies and then AC5 Maulers for assaults I would say is the most common.. It kind of depends on how much tonnage is allowed.

Swamp is a heavy brawl map, you will definitely see tons of SRMs, some will mix some lasers in to go for mid range support, but definitely lots of SRMs and brawly lasers.

Forest, I haven't played as much, but it seems like brawling can be very effective there as well since there is a lot of cover. On conquest I'm not sure that there is a great place to set up with lasers and range. Of course its a map where you can probably mix some laser vomit in because there is the opportunity for some mid range engagements.

Polar on light weight drops is full brawl. On heavier wait drops you will probably see Maulers and lasers, with SRM lights.

Tourmaline has a pretty strong mixed brawl and mid range game. You can try to do an ER LL line but it doesn't work as well as it used to. Definitely expect Maulers, fire support dakka mechs, etc. On high tonnage matches, there is more of a long range game, because assaults are slower and have to traverse great distance to get into brawling range, so longer range stuff (Gauss, ERLL) happens.

I don't know, you get it all in pretty equal portion there. Except LRMs.

[MischiefSC]

Gas Guzzler, on 04 May 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

Canyon you will typically have SRM lights, lasers or SRMs on mediums, typically lasers on heavies and then AC5 Maulers for assaults I would say is the most common.. It kind of depends on how much tonnage is allowed.

Swamp is a heavy brawl map, you will definitely see tons of SRMs, some will mix some lasers in to go for mid range support, but definitely lots of SRMs and brawly lasers.

Forest, I haven't played as much, but it seems like brawling can be very effective there as well since there is a lot of cover. On conquest I'm not sure that there is a great place to set up with lasers and range. Of course its a map where you can probably mix some laser vomit in because there is the opportunity for some mid range engagements.

Polar on light weight drops is full brawl. On heavier wait drops you will probably see Maulers and lasers, with SRM lights.

Tourmaline has a pretty strong mixed brawl and mid range game. You can try to do an ER LL line but it doesn't work as well as it used to. Definitely expect Maulers, fire support dakka mechs, etc. On high tonnage matches, there is more of a long range game, because assaults are slower and have to traverse great distance to get into brawling range, so longer range stuff (Gauss, ERLL) happens.

I don't know, you get it all in pretty equal portion there. Except LRMs.

I'll take your word for it. Most the matches I've watched were far more laser heavy than srms but that could be dated.

Huzzah my SRM Orion is meta now!

Did you play in the 10v12 test server? Someone says that actually that never happened and was, apparently, a mass hallucination or something. Back with TT values when Clans were first released. I downloaded the PTS client but couldn't make it. Did you play it?

[Gas Guzzler]

MischiefSC, on 04 May 2016 - 07:14 PM, said:

I'll take your word for it. Most the matches I've watched were far more laser heavy than srms but that could be dated.

Huzzah my SRM Orion is meta now!

Did you play in the 10v12 test server? Someone says that actually that never happened and was, apparently, a mass hallucination or something. Back with TT values when Clans were first released. I downloaded the PTS client but couldn't make it. Did you play it?

No I didn't. But have you looked at some of the MRBC matches from this season? Watch the EmP vs Lords series, recordings should be somewhere.

[Koniving]

Would say I had an idea and point to my link, but PGI deleted it because... discussion about solving problems, bah.

The entire thread (which asked for solutions to the alpha strike problem), not just the post it refers to.

[Ultimax]

Mister Blastman, on 04 May 2016 - 02:03 PM, said:

Good.

I want the weaker players to suffer. I often see folks arguing against adding more skill to the game because often they are set in their ways and have become lazy or they realize they can't handle added depth.

This game needs more depth and if that means bad players are worse at the game, too bad.

Power draw will limit alphas and it will not make the game harder.

Giving mechs more survivability will not make the game harder.


The game as it is right now punishes mistakes, hard. That's the game I want.

Power Draw isn't going to add depth, it's just going to limit how high alphas are and make life slightly easier for bads.

So the exact opposite of what you profess to want.

Edited by Ultimax, 04 May 2016 - 07:29 PM.

[SpiralFace]

MischiefSC, on 04 May 2016 - 07:14 PM, said:

Did you play in the 10v12 test server? Someone says that actually that never happened and was, apparently, a mass hallucination or something. Back with TT values when Clans were first released. I downloaded the PTS client but couldn't make it. Did you play it?

It never happened.

NGNG ran a clan vs IS weekend testing 10 v 12 that did jack all to actually prove a point. Since it was private matches with a series of random's and comp players, the side that typically "won" was the side with the most comp players that knew how to build, knew how to deathball, and knew how to focus fire. Hardly anything that would ever provide solid data, as which ever side had more of them (be it on the 10 side or the 12 side,) typically won.

There has NEVER been a PGI run 10v12 PTS. clan PTS was still 12v12.

[Dimento Graven]

SpiralFace, on 04 May 2016 - 09:44 PM, said:

It never happened.

NGNG ran a clan vs IS weekend testing 10 v 12 that did jack all to actually prove a point. Since it was private matches with a series of random's and comp players, the side that typically &quot;won&quot; was the side with the most comp players that knew how to build, knew how to deathball, and knew how to focus fire. Hardly anything that would ever provide solid data, as which ever side had more of them (be it on the 10 side or the 12 side,) typically won.

There has NEVER been a PGI run 10v12 PTS. clan PTS was still 12v12.

Admittedly what you describe sounds VERY different from what he describes. Was the PTS "EVER" setup with TT values on armor, weapons, etc?

Just trying to clarify the confusion and statements being made.

I KNOW it's been QUITE a while since the Clans were released, so possibly fuzzy memory is obscuring actual facts...

[Sjorpha]

The only test I remember from clan release was a player run project of setting up private 10 vs 12 clan vs IS matches, SJR with JagerXII was part of it if I remember it correctly. Obviously this took place directly after clan release, not before.

I don't remember a 10 v 12 PTS at all, and certainly nothing about "TT values", and I was definitely following the news around clan release closely. I'm not going to believe that for a second unless I see positive evidence that it happened.

I do remember a clan vs IS official test run running for a day or weekend after the first pass of nerfs to clan mechs, to see if those nerfs achieved the goal of balancing the factions (they didn't), but that was 12 v 12 and I think it was in the regular queue not PTS.

[Dimento Graven]

Sjorpha, on 05 May 2016 - 04:36 AM, said:

The only test I remember from clan release was a player run project of setting up private 10 vs 12 clan vs IS matches, SJR with JagerXII was part of it if I remember it correctly. Obviously this took place directly after clan release, not before.

I don't remember a 10 v 12 PTS at all, and certainly nothing about &quot;TT values&quot;, and I was definitely following the news around clan release closely. I'm not going to believe that for a second unless I see positive evidence that it happened.

I do remember a clan vs IS official test run running for a day or weekend after the first pass of nerfs to clan mechs, to see if those nerfs achieved the goal of balancing the factions (they didn't), but that was 12 v 12 and I think it was in the regular queue not PTS.

Yeah, that's what I vaguely remembered too, and of course no weapon, armor, or anything else of TT values in game. In fact the only thing 'close' to TT values was the short little bit when CLOSED BETA had just been released. I think armor values were the original values (where now it's more or less, depending on quirks, doubled).

Anyway, you can't run a 'TT' value test in this game because one of the primary pillars of game balance was the heat affects table, which we ain't got.

PLUS, TT system supposedly represented a '10 second' time frame, which we obviously do not have, for god's sake it would probably make the game pace incredibly slow were they to implement a 10 second refresh on ALL weapons...

Well, again, what this game in its current form, really needs for balance and TTK issues is a heat affects table, not ghost heat, not significant quirkenings, not power draw.

[DrxAbstract]

Dimento Graven, on 05 May 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

PLUS, TT system supposedly represented a '10 second' time frame, which we obviously do not have, for god's sake it would probably make the game pace incredibly slow were they to implement a 10 second refresh on ALL weapons...

Or change the cooldown, damage and heat figures so they can fire much, much faster but are capped to their maximum TT damage and heat generation potential in those 10 seconds... to at least give the perception of fast-paced fighting. I mean there's nothing really wrong with a PPC or Laser that fires 2, 3 or 50 times per 10 seconds as long as their damage and heat are adjusted accordingly... Which PGI never did. Hence Double Armor, Ghost Heat, Hover Jets, Quirk Balancing, etc.