Jump to content

Pts 5- Energy Draw- Sept 16


111 replies to this topic

#61 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • LocationClan Wolf 1st Wolf Guardians

Posted 23 September 2016 - 07:59 PM

View PostFupDup, on 23 September 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

In this game, many if not most of the nerfs being made are to weapons/mechs that are either already balanced decently or even mildly underpowered. Nerfs being made to actual top-performing things are far less common than nerfs to things that are only average.

Always nerfing is just as much of an extreme as always buffing.



That was probably in an older version of the PTS where the weapon nerfs weren't yet added.

It's not about "teams versus weapons" making an impact. It's about trying to fix things that aren't broken, and making some of those things broken as a result.

I don't agree with your first premise. your pretty much saying the weapons they balanced where a near perfect sweetspot. For you maybe but not for the game, and not for the fairness. you gotta look beyond yourself for a moment and ask what are other players experiences.

"always nerfing is the same as extreme buffing" No it's not. They need to change things given the data, and feedback from the players. you might as well tell everyone in the PTS forums to stop posting feedback.

I am sorry they are making changes other than working on ED and the concept. Go tell the tester's to stop testing and shut up with their comments.

and yea it's about a myriad of things, so yea its about weapon performance, player performance, mech performance. The effects of ED on the match and other things. I an only guess that you don't actually care about the other stuff since you thing the game was and is live the best balance ever.

Maybe your good at exploiting the game as it is, and love the meta.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 23 September 2016 - 08:03 PM.


#62 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25,550 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:03 PM

View PostBLOOD WOLF, on 23 September 2016 - 07:59 PM, said:

...
"always nerfing is the same as extreme buffing" No it's not. They need to change things given the data, and feedback from the players. you might as well tell everyone in the PTS forums to stop posting feedback.

I am sorry they are making changes other than working on ED and the concept. Go tell the tester's to stop testing and shut up with their comments.

How many people posted feedback asking for things like, for example, the very substantial nerfs to the Inner Sphere Large Pulse Laser?

Some of the testers like Ultimatum and myself are giving comments of our own: comments that most of those changes are detrimental rather than helpful.

#63 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • LocationClan Wolf 1st Wolf Guardians

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:06 PM

View PostFupDup, on 23 September 2016 - 08:03 PM, said:

How many people posted feedback asking for things like, for example, the very substantial nerfs to the Inner Sphere Large Pulse Laser?

Some of the testers like Ultimatum and myself are giving comments of our own: comments that most of those changes are detrimental rather than helpful.

you're gonna have to give me more about the so called substantial nerfs. what the cool down? or range? I really doubt it affected your performence that much.


you got video? how do we know it's detrimental unless proven to be so?

IS all kicked clan but on the PTS 5 with the nerfs. 10v10's

I am under the impression that our piloting and lack of communication and effective teamwork had way more to do with it.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 23 September 2016 - 08:10 PM.


#64 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25,550 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:09 PM

View PostBLOOD WOLF, on 23 September 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

you're gonna have to give me more about the so called substantial nerfs. what the cool down? or range? I really doubt it affected your performence that much

Did you check the patch notes?

The LPL's damage has been getting steadily reduced with each passing iteration of the ED PTS. The live server is at 11 damage, and this most recent version (PTS5) slashes it all the way down to just 8. That's pretty big. That's the same as the regular Large Laser that is lighter in tonnage and longer in range.

In exchange, you get 0.05 seconds of faster reload time compared to the live server...not a very equal trade by any stretch.

Edited by FupDup, 23 September 2016 - 08:11 PM.


#65 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • LocationClan Wolf 1st Wolf Guardians

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:12 PM

View PostFupDup, on 23 September 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:

Did you check the patch notes?

The LPL's damage has been getting steadily reduced with each passing iteration of the ED PTS. The live server is at 11 damage, and this most recent version (PTS5) slashes it all the way down to just 8. That's pretty big.

In exchange, you get 0.05 seconds of faster reload time compared to the live server...not a very equal trade by any stretch.

yea, I did. I Also realize that just reading it doesn't match up to actually seeing how it works in the game.

writing theoretical isn't the same as testing it in PTS with different scenarios

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 23 September 2016 - 08:13 PM.


#66 Kin3ticX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 2,902 posts
  • LocationSalt Mines of Puglandia

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:34 PM

View PostAnTi90d, on 23 September 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:


white-knights, arse-kissers and yes-men



At this point if you say its crap you are just a bittervet or not being constructive

#67 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • LocationClan Wolf 1st Wolf Guardians

Posted 23 September 2016 - 10:42 PM

View PostKin3ticX, on 23 September 2016 - 08:34 PM, said:


At this point if you say its crap you are just a bittervet or not being constructive

I wan't actually video detail where a player can visual see how the PTS is working. 2v2'-12v12. With mechs that have different loaduts and such. then While the PTS is running, get the feedback of what doesnt work and what does. Or we can have videos such as the one by FantasticTuesday where it's just him and a long dioulouge speaking to himself about the system of ED and the PTS changes with weapons and such. Good job all he did was tell people his opinion and nothing else.

Kudo's to the players that are actually trying to get full 12 mans going. Highest I seen was 10v10. FOR SCIENCE.

When they start giving me objective evidence that I can actually look at to make a conclusion if your huge wall of text post is validated then I might pay some mind. Until then PGI is only ever going to just look at the PTS and ignore the Post written by most people.

To be fair, post that speculate new mechanics and other things are good for discussion. The world relies on objective facts to make conclusions. If you don't bring those, don't be mad that Changes are being made. Don't be mad either that they gave feedback and a change was made that didn't reflect what you wanted. They are listening to a different people and reading the numbers. There is no ECHO-Chamber that never is useful for testing anything.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 23 September 2016 - 11:01 PM.


#68 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,493 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 24 September 2016 - 06:39 AM

I'm disturbed about Russ's announcement that ED could just be going live for, as Russ's twitter announcement seems to imply, some random event that is going to be designed to get feedback from a live environment. What happens to all the people who don't pay attention to announcements or forums and DO NOT REALIZE that it'd only be temporary for feedback purposes? Especially considering that a lot of the changes either aren't popular or haven't gone far enough to achieve the desired goal, or both. The only result I can see is a lot of angry people giving up on the game and walking away if it's not done right and/or isn't made absolutely clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's just a test.

While not averse to some of the changes, there are plenty of changes that I personally don't feel go anywhere near far enough to achieve the desired goals (no, I'm not talking about nerfs -per say- and I've made my opinions known in several threads . . . no need to repeat). I can only hope that there's still going to be a good number of more iterations between now and whenever they do this "live feedback event" to at least achieve decent goals for the changes they're trying to make. Otherwise, we're going to end up with a lot of angry players and probably lose a massive swarm of players who hate the current state of affairs and may or may not realize that it's even just a "test event".

#69 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,422 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 24 September 2016 - 11:56 AM

I'm seeing a lot of theorycrafting and knee-jerk reactions. Long diatribes or explanations that tell me the people making them don't really know how this whole testing thing works. If the LPL, for example, really is underperforming, you can expect it to show up on the testing. Outputting reams of data analysis and walls of text will not - and should not - be given much immediate credence when PGI is trying to get actual, empirical data. They may be quite useful, if correct, in evaluating that data once its collected - but these analyses aren't written to that end.

Might wanna work on that, guys. Why should PGI credit either side of these arguments when they know that you don't have that empirical data set to work from - and that you should know it too, but don't seem to care?

#70 Praslek2

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts

Posted 25 September 2016 - 05:06 AM

We'll see.

I'm sure by the end of this everyone will be firing a single weapon at a time, the way God intended.

#71 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 26 September 2016 - 05:15 AM

View PostVoid Angel, on 24 September 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

I'm seeing a lot of theorycrafting and knee-jerk reactions. Long diatribes or explanations that tell me the people making them don't really know how this whole testing thing works. If the LPL, for example, really is underperforming, you can expect it to show up on the testing. Outputting reams of data analysis and walls of text will not - and should not - be given much immediate credence when PGI is trying to get actual, empirical data. They may be quite useful, if correct, in evaluating that data once its collected - but these analyses aren't written to that end.

Might wanna work on that, guys. Why should PGI credit either side of these arguments when they know that you don't have that empirical data set to work from - and that you should know it too, but don't seem to care?


Just to weigh in here. We're talking about math. There is no behind-the-scenes wizardry involved in this game where PGI has all this data that we ourselves don't have because of this intimate knowledge of their too secret systems. Everything that you need to know about how the systems work, how weapons perform, how balance changes... all of this is on full display for anyone to see.

Anyone with basic math skills can roll through the numbers and tell you exactly how much Max DPS, sustained DPS, practical this and blah blah that you could ever want to know about any weapon in the game just from its printed stats alone.

Anyone can do this. The cold hard numbers tell us a LOT. The LPL should out perform all other large lasers if for no other reason than because it requires the most investment. Do the numbers support the LPL performing better? Significantly better? I don't see how anyone could argue it is.

#72 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 26 September 2016 - 02:21 PM

View PostSource Mystic, on 26 September 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:


Well if you just want a game where lpl gets best average dps , range, burst and best heat in the game. Lets just continue to play LPL warrior no changes are needed.

If you want a actual dynamic system that encourages different builds and actually forces people to think if they have (X) I need (Y) If they have (Y) I need (Z).

This this system encourages team play even more. and would cause people to try to create synergy in their team in their formations to fill in the short comings of builds by using two three or entire lance to counter as well.

Attack targets that your build is strong against and avoid targets that you are week against. I would rather have a stable system that needs less to no nerfs or management. I advocate Point vs counter point rather than 5 weapons that hands down are best in almost every situation.


So what we are really are talking about is a game that balances itself because weapon values are equal for that type of weapon. Ether sustained dps , burst /max damage over a shot period of time or a place in-between where standard lasers should go.

So you have to adjust tonnage on the one weapon that has been the meta forever. Please that is just laziness and I do not even want to hear about lore and weapon values . THIS GAME is not lore it is pgi's re-imagined batteltech mech warrior. And in such it needs to be balanced for a online fps not a dice and paper rpg.

It is a little late for them to be true to the original game.

I for one vote for a system that makes people think and one build is never the meta because you can just use a build to counter it. because each weapon type has a weakness and a strength. This kind of balance is what this game needs for diversity of builds and to get away from meta's that are simply dakka ,lpl and mpl .

I for one are sick of the meta cycle of :

1 Over-quirk mech or weapon

2 Mech /weapon becomes most efferent weapon in game

3 It Becomes meta

4 Everyone migrates to those builds

5 Everyone complains about above builds and weapons

6 Pgi Not only nerfs the mech or said weapon but guts it..... causing the next best to be the meta for the entire cycle to play out again.


Diminishing values in a closed system does nothing but brings down the entire system


If weapons were actually balanced against each other correctly. If someone said this (insert weapon or mech here ) is two strong and needs to be nerfed. The response would be well use this (insert diferent mech or weapon here.) Then try playing like this and gave some tactics with the build.

Pgi' would have a lot less game management issues if they adopted this system then they could work on new elements maps and things that people get excited about instead of fighting a system that can never be balanced.



The above point vs counter point system is better than the meta cycle that never has balance because values are always changing and in 90% of the time drastically nerfed causing more imbalance.


But you keep advocating a game model that advocates a limited meta that favors a hand full of weapons that can not be countered except to use the same weapons Against them.

Choose Meta and a few weapons and mechs that are hands down best in all situations at all times

OR a game that has balanced weapons and mechs that can counter each other encourages diversity teamwork and forethought. And also discourages complaining and gives pgi more time to give us what we actually want new weapons new maps and new elements to play with and expand how we play.

Does this question even have to be asked ?


Is the larger font and bold typefacing supposed to make the words less asinine?

You literally have no idea what I'd do with the LPL since I've never rendered my opinion on the matter. But what I can tell you is that the ideas you've expressed in the quoted post are terrible.

Let's start with your rock-paper-scissors concept here. Great for an RTS, absolutely ridiculous here. How, exactly do you propose to set up a match were a rock-paper-scissors dynamic actually works when you are essentially in a random mech, assigned to a team with other random mechs, against a team with random mechs, and playing what are ostensibly random maps and modes? How do you expect such a system to actually WORK?

Moreover, everything you've said about weapon balance here makes absolutely NO sense. I'm sorry, it really doesn't. Your rationale here is... LPL is better than other large lasers (which it absolutely SHOULD be), so make it worse. But now that it's not worth the investment of extra weight, heat, and crit space (you've made it perform at the level of the weaker, lighter, cooler, and smaller large lasers), your suggestion is to also make it weaker, lighter, cooler, and smaller.

That's pretty terrible.

What is the point of creating two identical weapons? And you can't say "but we're going to make them function differently later." I've already got a ready reply for you... NO. Simply making the weapon function differently, all other stats being the same, won't make them balanced. Just ask the LBX. If you want to make the LPL a DPS weapon, for instance, the stats will still have to reward players with increased damage over time as a trade off for lower initial damage. Trying to produce the same damage differently isn't going to balance the weapon.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 26 September 2016 - 02:31 PM.


#73 Ultimax

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,979 posts

Posted 26 September 2016 - 05:33 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 24 September 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

I'm seeing a lot of theorycrafting and knee-jerk reactions. Long diatribes or explanations that tell me the people making them don't really know how this whole testing thing works. If the LPL, for example, really is underperforming, you can expect it to show up on the testing.



1) I've been playing this game for years, I've been playing numbers based MMOs & online games for years. I don't need "reams of data" to know that going from 7 heat for 11 damage to 8 heat for 8 damage, while also having a worse CD than right now - on top of losing heat cap, losing dissipation, losing skill tree bonuses and having a 30 alpha limit drop your potential LPL alpha down to "24" for 3 of them is a massive nerf-hammer.

2) I've tested the weapons that were nerfed, several of them clearly will not be used by players who actually intend on winning.

3) I don't think you are in touch with the reality of the PTS. There is minimal player presence there, because there is zero incentive of any kind. The idea that PGI is collecting useful empirical evidence is a fantasy-land scenario.

Edited by Ultimax, 26 September 2016 - 05:36 PM.


#74 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25,550 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 26 September 2016 - 05:34 PM

View PostUltimax, on 26 September 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:



1) I've been playing this game for years, I've been playing numbers based MMOs & online games for years. I don't need "reams of data" to know that going from 7 heat for 10 damage to 8 heat for 8 damage, while also having a worse CD than right now is an atomic nerf-hammer.

2) I don't think you are in touch with the reality of the PTS. There is minimal player presence there, because there is zero incentive of any kind. The idea that PGI is collecting useful empirical evidence is a fantasy-land scenario.

It's 11 damage on the live server, not 10. That makes the nuclear nerfhammer that much harder. :\

#75 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • LocationClan Wolf 1st Wolf Guardians

Posted 26 September 2016 - 05:56 PM

View PostUltimax, on 26 September 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:



1) I've been playing this game for years, I've been playing numbers based MMOs & online games for years. I don't need "reams of data" to know that going from 7 heat for 11 damage to 8 heat for 8 damage, while also having a worse CD than right now - on top of losing heat cap, losing dissipation, losing skill tree bonuses and having a 30 alpha limit drop your potential LPL alpha down to "24" for 3 of them is a massive nerf-hammer.

2) I've tested the weapons that were nerfed, several of them clearly will not be used by players who actually intend on winning.

3) I don't think you are in touch with the reality of the PTS. There is minimal player presence there, because there is zero incentive of any kind. The idea that PGI is collecting useful empirical evidence is a fantasy-land scenario.

nice conspiracy at the end there.

#76 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,422 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 26 September 2016 - 09:35 PM

View PostUltimax, on 26 September 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:



1) I've been playing this game for years, I've been playing numbers based MMOs & online games for years. I don't need "reams of data" to know that going from 7 heat for 11 damage to 8 heat for 8 damage, while also having a worse CD than right now - on top of losing heat cap, losing dissipation, losing skill tree bonuses and having a 30 alpha limit drop your potential LPL alpha down to "24" for 3 of them is a massive nerf-hammer.

2) I've tested the weapons that were nerfed, several of them clearly will not be used by players who actually intend on winning.

3) I don't think you are in touch with the reality of the PTS. There is minimal player presence there, because there is zero incentive of any kind. The idea that PGI is collecting useful empirical evidence is a fantasy-land scenario.

You might want to go to the emergency room for that self-inflicted gunshot wound to the foot. If there's not enough people on the PTR to generate good numbers, then won't we have to wait for the live servers for testing? Aren't your anecdotal opinions also similarly invalid? Self-important hand-waving about how you're such an experienced gamer doesn't change the fact that you're ignoring confounding variables - unimportant things like the presence of energy draw.

You'd know all "about fantasy-land," but if you see me there, it's just your imagination.

#77 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,422 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 26 September 2016 - 09:49 PM

View PostScarecrowES, on 26 September 2016 - 05:15 AM, said:

Just to weigh in here. We're talking about math. There is no behind-the-scenes wizardry involved in this game where PGI has all this data that we ourselves don't have because of this intimate knowledge of their too secret systems. Everything that you need to know about how the systems work, how weapons perform, how balance changes... all of this is on full display for anyone to see.

Anyone with basic math skills can roll through the numbers and tell you exactly how much Max DPS, sustained DPS, practical this and blah blah that you could ever want to know about any weapon in the game just from its printed stats alone.

Anyone can do this. The cold hard numbers tell us a LOT. The LPL should out perform all other large lasers if for no other reason than because it requires the most investment. Do the numbers support the LPL performing better? Significantly better? I don't see how anyone could argue it is.

I'm quoting your earlier post after a later one to point out part of what I'm talking about in the post you quoted of mine. The first quote here boils down to "I'm an expert gamer, and my opinion is authoritative - you don't understand reality if you disagree." This is precisely what knee-jerk type reactions I'm talking about. Similarly, while it's not wrong to math things out (one of my favorite quotes from my WoW days is "raid dps is a math problem with graphics, and you have the wrong answer,") you still have to remember that we're not using that math against a standard baseline like a target dummy, or even a raid boss encounter. You also don't have access to sufficient data sets to even superficially attempt a complete model.

It's not my intent to dismiss theorycrafting out of hand, but I do urge just a bit of uncertainty. You can easily math basic weapon stats, but it's harder to math out the interlocking effects of player actions, energy draw, and hardpoint distribution on a spreadsheet. Too many posts in this thread are rock-solid certain that their incomplete modeling must predict live play - but if you could do that, MMO games wouldn't have balance issues. There'd be an industry standard that people would all use, and that would be that. This isn't the case, obviously - and we should remember that.

#78 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 26 September 2016 - 10:04 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 26 September 2016 - 09:49 PM, said:

I'm quoting your earlier post after a later one to point out part of what I'm talking about in the post you quoted of mine. The first quote here boils down to "I'm an expert gamer, and my opinion is authoritative - you don't understand reality if you disagree." This is precisely what knee-jerk type reactions I'm talking about. Similarly, while it's not wrong to math things out (one of my favorite quotes from my WoW days is "raid dps is a math problem with graphics, and you have the wrong answer,") you still have to remember that we're not using that math against a standard baseline like a target dummy, or even a raid boss encounter. You also don't have access to sufficient data sets to even superficially attempt a complete model.

It's not my intent to dismiss theorycrafting out of hand, but I do urge just a bit of uncertainty. You can easily math basic weapon stats, but it's harder to math out the interlocking effects of player actions, energy draw, and hardpoint distribution on a spreadsheet. Too many posts in this thread are rock-solid certain that their incomplete modeling must predict live play - but if you could do that, MMO games wouldn't have balance issues. There'd be an industry standard that people would all use, and that would be that. This isn't the case, obviously - and we should remember that.


I believe you're giving our balance overlord too much credit here.

This game in balance-wise in terms of weapon stats is the least complicated... which is usually reinforced through repetition with comp players (they try a lot of stuff when they are curious or bored).

The problem however that this is much more complicated in other games... like Path of Exile (which I'm playing while I'm writing this post)... you have to balance a host of different things (skill tree, uniques, skills themselves), as you have to "break" the game to find the imbalances (and even then, not everyone agrees with the solutions).

In the case of MWO, you have mechs (shapes, weapon locations), weapons (which rarely change stats in MWO), and quirks.. all of which aren't hard to test and figure out when #s change.

The reality is that it's not that complicated to test these things at a higher level.. not just the simple math-SpreadSheetWarrior, but also the how it would play out (not difficult to project numerical changes).

Unless the changes are primarily mechanical (which ironically isn't that complicated with ED), there isn't something that's difficult to test with numbers. It's not hard to predict what will occur.

If there were mechanical changes like the abhorred "ghost locking" from last year's PTS changes (not just other "infowar" related stuff)... there would be a lot of other things to test on live servers and there would be some predictions (and some unknowns as well). This simply isn't the case with Energy Draw.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 September 2016 - 10:08 PM.


#79 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,422 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 27 September 2016 - 01:10 AM

Who's giving credit to anyone? I'm arguing against bad thought and hysteria, not supporting this or that change. And there is a LOT of each floating around here right now: "shifting the LPL toward being more of a DPS weapon" becomes "being a dps weapon, like dakka," just to start. I see people finely slicing and folding the data to get where they want to go, all while tacitly assuming that we have an unlimited number of hardpoints... and that's just the first page.

However, Energy Draw does affect balance in ways which are difficult to directly model. The mechanic itself is quite simple, but it doesn't follow that all of its effects will be simple as well - I refer you to the Mandelbrot Set. If you remember that you have to balance the equation of (tonnage x range x heat x burst damage x space x beam duration x sustained damage) / hardpoint, the spreadsheet you model it on is going to look rather four-dimensional - it's going to look like life, which is why we do testing.

#80 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,362 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 27 September 2016 - 03:15 AM

Updated graphs for PTS5 if you are interested to compare PTS2 and PTS5 with current GH values for most weapons.
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5412207





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users