111 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

Void 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.

It's extremely difficult to predict the effect of a large number of changes when testing is outside the context of the expected circumstances. This is exactly right. So making the sorts of changes we see on the PTS, the huge number of changed variables per session that get modified, it's impossible to tell with less than 100 players testing 4 v 4 exactly what will happen if those same changes play out in thousands of matches per day 12 v 12.

In this way, our info is limited and our testing data mostly worthless. It's data out of context.

There's a reason that $100 million AAA games with hundreds of testers and tens of thousands of testing hours during development still come out with game-breaking bugs and balance problems... it's very hard to predict what will happen once a system gets into the wild based on limited testing in a rigidly-controlled environment.

However, when it comes to individual weapon balancing it's very easy to predict what different results we'll have because we know both how a baseline performs from years' worth of experience on Live, and with reasonable expectation of what each change will do. You don't really need to test what effect dropping an LPL from 11 to 8 damage will have. The result is known pretty well without testing.

I think we're largely on the same page here. I'm of the opinion that quite a lot can be theory crafted without the need for testing, but I too feel the need to stress that certain things... not necessarily weapon balance... need context. And sadly, said context can't necessarily be provided in an environment that doesn't reflect the one the changes will actually be played in.

[Ultimax]

Void Angel, on 26 September 2016 - 09:35 PM, said:

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?

There aren't enough people on the PTS for PGI to come up with any meaningful data.

That doesn't mean experienced players can't come to their own conclusions about what amounts to grade school math level of differences between weapons that are already known quantities.

This isn't nuclear physics, try not to get carried away.

Void Angel, on 26 September 2016 - 09:35 PM, said:

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.

Are you seriously this dense? Energy Draw simply compounds those nerfs and makes it worse.

These aren't confounding variables, these are pretty straightforward numbers changes.


PGI is probably going by feel from PTS to PTS when they make weapons nerfs, they are getting input from some of their "secret squirrels".

Edited by Ultimax, 27 September 2016 - 12:24 PM.

[Kael Posavatz]

Ultimax, on 27 September 2016 - 09:05 AM, said:

There aren't enough people on the PTS for PGI to come up with any meaningful data.

To be fair, we don't know what data PGI has scraped out of the PTS. They almost certainly have seen things we have not, whereas we are largely limited to our own anecdotes and what we can infer from our experiences.

Their testing strategy doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Had I proposed an experiment designed the same way in college my professors would have likely had some very pithy things to say. On the other hand, I'm not sure that testing one adjustment to one weapon would make a lot of sense either.

The two biggest problems I see are that, first, we've moved away from actually testing the mechanics of energy draw to fiddle with everything else, and two, the environment in which we are testing bares little semblance to the environment in which the live game exists.

[Void Angel]

I think they're trying to get some kind of data to get some semblance of balance before setting the system loose live, and the current PTR reflects the current end state of that process. PGI is on the horns of a dilemma here: making balance choices based on a small PTS population is dangerous and difficult; they run the risk of compounding errors leading to a significantly unbalanced final build. That's going to cause significant unrest, particularly with the number and volume of the Salt Island crowd. But, if they take their time to slowly and methodically test every change, it's going to take forever. A perfect system a year from now just won't cut it. And, if they release the system without any balance passes, they'll get hammered too - by the same people, in many cases.

So they're making the best of it, extrapolating from limited data and trying to correct for the unknown with past experiences. How well they do that remains to be seen. I can guarantee one thing, however: no matter what they do (or would have done,) there will still be people loudly proclaiming to have known it all along, and that PGI should have listened to them, based on their arrogance and willingness to extrapolate dogmatically from incomplete data - the same things of which they accuse PGI.

Edited by Void Angel, 27 September 2016 - 11:35 AM.

[Deathlike]

Ultimax, on 27 September 2016 - 09:05 AM, said:

PGI is probably going by feel from PTS to PTS when they make weapons nerfs, they are getting input from some of their "secret squirrels".

I'm told they have no power or influence (our balance overlord doesn't give a damn about their feedback).

[Reno Blade]

For what I can see from the numbers alone:
- Penalties for overdraw feel strong with the 1.4 multiplier
- ED is very close to the current GH numbers for most weapons, while cERML get a bit more penalty and Large lasers get less penalty (but also less damage).

- Large Laser and LP are quite close, but cooldown and duration differentiate them enough for 2 ton difference.
- CERLL and cLP are very close, but duration is too close (1.2 for cLP and 1.25 for cERLL)
With the reduction of dmg of LL and LP to 8 dmg the boating of LL/LP are a lot less useful (dmg/tons) which offsets the fact you can now use 4 at the same time.
This is not too bad, as you just need to invest more tonnage for weapons, but less to heatsinks. (compared to the heavier ballistics)

ED in general works as expected with the current PTS5 numbers, why I suspect there will be no/less changes to the ED system.
Weapon value balance seem to improve, but the ballistic boats can still outperform the rest (including mixed builds).



More graphs here:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5412207

[Deathlike]

Reno Blade, on 27 September 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

For what I can see from the numbers alone:
- Penalties for overdraw feel strong with the 1.4 multiplier
- ED is very close to the current GH numbers for most weapons, while cERML get a bit more penalty and Large lasers get less penalty (but also less damage).

- Large Laser and LP are quite close, but cooldown and duration differentiate them enough for 2 ton difference.
- CERLL and cLP are very close, but duration is too close (1.2 for cLP and 1.25 for cERLL)
With the reduction of dmg of LL and LP to 8 dmg the boating of LL/LP are a lot less useful (dmg/tons) which offsets the fact you can now use 4 at the same time.
This is not too bad, as you just need to invest more tonnage for weapons, but less to heatsinks. (compared to the heavier ballistics)

ED in general works as expected with the current PTS5 numbers, why I suspect there will be no/less changes to the ED system.
Weapon value balance seem to improve, but the ballistic boats can still outperform the rest (including mixed builds).



More graphs here:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5412207

You're leaning too much on stats and not practicality.

CERLL will be a thing (lowered duration+lowered damage).

CLPL and LPL will be as much less of a thing (increased duration, laughable cooldown, lowered damage IIRC?).

ISLL will not even be a consideration (increased duration+lowered damage). ISERLL will be more of a thing (lowered duration+lowered damage).

CERMED will be a serious thing, and on occasion people will take the penalty to run a 5th CERMED (lowered duration).

That's what actual testing tells me.

Edited by Deathlike, 27 September 2016 - 01:42 PM.

[Reno Blade]

Deathlike, on 27 September 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

You're leaning too much on stats and not practicality.

CERLL will be a thing (lowered duration+lowered damage).

CLPL and LPL will be as much less of a thing (increased duration, laughable cooldown, lowered damage IIRC?).

ISLL will not even be a consideration (increased duration+lowered damage). ISERLL will be more of a thing (lowered duration+lowered damage).

CERMED will be a serious thing, and on occasion people will take the penalty to run a 5th CERMED (lowered duration).

That's what actual testing tells me.

Yes the LL/LP balance seems a bit off for the tonnage/range difference.
I'd prefere to have them distinct more, maybe even move to something like this:

Reno Blade, on 27 September 2016 - 02:01 AM, said:

I updated the Pulse laser values for phase #3 to better reflect the "dps" nature of Pulse lasers to give a slight advantage over normal lasers.
Included also heat/duration for the rest, so to see the difference.

• LL 10 dmg, 8 heat, 10 draw - 6s cd, 1.2s duration
  
• ERLL 10 dmg, 9 heat, 10 draw - 6s cd, 1.4s duration
  
• cERLL 11 dmg, 9 heat, 11 draw - 6s cd, 1.5s duration
  
• LP 4 dmg, 3 heat, 4 draw -> 2s cd -> 0.6s duration
  
• cLP 4.6 dmg, 3.3 heat, 4.6 draw -> 2s cd -> 0.6s duration
  
• MP 2.5 dmg, 1.5 heat, 2.5 draw -> 1s cd -> 0.5s duration
  
• cSP 2 dmg, 1.1 heat, 2 draw -> 0.75s cd -> 0.4s duration
  
• ML 4dmg, 3 heat, 4 draw - 2.5s cd, 1s duration
  
• SL 2dmg, 1 heat, 2 draw - 2s cd, 0.8s duration
  
• cERML 5dmg, 4 heat, 5 draw - 3s cd, 1.2s duration

e.g. over duration of 72seconds, you can fire:

a LL 10 times, for 100 dmg and 90 heat,
or a ML 20 times for 80 dmg and 60 heat
or LP about 27 times for 108 dmg and 81 heat
or cLP 27 for 124.2 dmg and 89.1 heat

[ScarecrowES]

Source Mystic, on 28 September 2016 - 08:57 AM, said:

Well If you can not understand basic game theory that is not my problem or concern. It is easy to tear someones idea down.
I could argue my points but everything is there. Weapons would look similar but function differently , neither do I see you coming up with any better solution.


There is no REASON in arguing a point to a person thats mind is already closed and and will not even listen and it really does not matter pgi will do what they are going to do. Standard lasers are a joke right now and there is a reason mpl and lpl rule the meta Balancing a weapon should go both ways and each should have a reason to be in the game. Each should have a up and a down side.

Effecting Change is hard
Sustaining status quo is easy

I am not arguing for a weapon system or that one weapon be better than another.
I advocate a symmetric balance between weapon systems

If you like the way pgi runs the game and constant nerfs and 5 weapons that dominate fine I get it. You like easy games that do not challenge you to think or Use team tactics it is far easier to play a heavy or assault put 3 or 4 lpl on them that gets dps , burst ,ppfld, range and a great heat to damage ratio.


The system I advocate is really simple but would add more tactics and different ways to play IT WOULD NOT SLOW PLAY DOWN unless you do what pgi is doing now and make all cooldowns 3 seconds or more which I do not agree with , until you get to burst and ppfld weapons. Then and only then I can see a cold-downs from 4 - 6 seconds that could be justified if and only if damage on the weapon is high enough to make it actually burst. Pgi seem seems to have a problem with burst weapons and makes them inferior to all others with the single exception of clan erppc.

YOU need a simple game for a simple mind get it.

Good lord.

You might want to actually look up which side of an argument I tend to be on before you make with the accusatory "YOU blah blah blah" BS.

Here's some reality for you... you can make the stats for two weapons identical, but once you make those weapons function differently one will become better than the other by default. That's a fact. One will be invariably better than the other, which will necessitate that you change their stats to compensate for their mechanics.

Once you recognize that the difference in mechanics necessitates a change in stats, you'll also notice it is a base fallacy to assume to balance by stats alone, irrespective of function.

That you argue for both symmetry and differentiation AT THE SAME TIME shows you simply have no clue what you're talking about. You can have one or the other, not both.

Now, you don't like how weapons function on Live in that there appear to be clear winners and losers. Not surprisingly, you single out as winners the version of a weapon series that produces the most damage in the shortest amount of time, but refuse to acknowledge that they also weigh the most (by a lot more than the next lowest in the category), require more crit space, have shorter range, and produce more heat (thus requiring more heat sinks) than the next lower alternative.

Is improved output not a reasonable reward for significantly increased investment? You're arguing no... which makes no sense. Then arguing to make output equal regardless of investment. Then investment equal at the new equal output.

Sorry... no. I get what you are saying. I understand your goal. I might even support that goal - it's just a terrible idea you've presented. The methodology and premise are both flawed.

And that you've somehow reasoned that burst weapons are somehow inferior in MWO is... yeah.

[Y E O N N E]

Deathlike, on 27 September 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

You're leaning too much on stats and not practicality.

CERLL will be a thing (lowered duration+lowered damage).

CLPL and LPL will be as much less of a thing (increased duration, laughable cooldown, lowered damage IIRC?).

ISLL will not even be a consideration (increased duration+lowered damage). ISERLL will be more of a thing (lowered duration+lowered damage).

CERMED will be a serious thing, and on occasion people will take the penalty to run a 5th CERMED (lowered duration).

That's what actual testing tells me.

Can confirm all of this.

6x cERLL Kodiak is stupidly powerful at the long range game on PTS.

[ScarecrowES]

Source Mystic, on 29 September 2016 - 10:39 AM, said:

So my problem with you is three fold

You accept this!!
You do not have a solution to fix it.
You are criticizing people that do take initiative.


So ether come up with a better original idea or kindly STFU.

3 things.

I don't accept it, I just don't like your terrible ideas.

I'm sure I do have a solution, but it's not YOUR solution, so what does it matter to YOU?

I'm not criticizing you OR your initiative. I'm criticizing your idea.

Try to be a little less butt-hurt.

Besides... this whole argument ends with one simple fact: The weight and crit size of weapons cannot be changed. PGI will not change them because to do so would break stock loadouts. So the LPL will stay at this much weight, and this many crits... and since that's more weight and crits than other large lasers, it's output HAS to be better. The end.

[Leopardo]

Scarecrow and mystic - guys I really like what you both writes it makes sense
And interesting. We all don't like how they(pgi) realising they' r ideas of balance. They don't care about
Reading forum . very sad to see that we going to have actually a nerf
And more imbalance then we have now. Espesially lpl and mgs

Edited by Leopardo, 30 September 2016 - 11:50 PM.

[Ragnahawk]

There needs to be a larger gap between gauss and ppcs. Like a 7 second gap. Otherwise its just a shooting range for big groups that all run ppc and gauss with easy mode kills.

[Graugger]

ACs globally need another second added to their cooldowns.

[Y E O N N E]

Graugger, on 09 October 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

ACs globally need another second added to their cooldowns.

Clan lasers already run the field on PTS and that would only make things worse.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 09 October 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

Clan lasers already run the field on PTS and that would only make things worse.

I'm assuming/hoping that Graugs is being sarcastic.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Leopardo, on 30 September 2016 - 11:49 PM, said:

Scarecrow and mystic - guys I really like what you both writes it makes sense
And interesting. We all don't like how they(pgi) realizing they' r ideas of balance. They don't care about
Reading forum . very sad to see that we going to have actually a nerf
And more imbalance then we have now. Especially lpl and mgs

you know that they don't read the forums, how do you know that? I have seen pgi staff members respond to post recently. So better get the facts right before you post. Second, they are only balancing according to what was on the PTS, just because some forums post on balance isn't looked at or an idea you especially liked wasn't introduced doesn't mean you should assert that they don't read the forums.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 09 October 2016 - 04:54 PM.

[Leopardo]

yeah - the STUFF is answered and reads , but the russ and the guys who made the balance- is not)

[Cold Darkness]

considering that most forum proposed balance changes are bogus, id say not listening to it is a good thing.

[Reno Blade]

If you did not already do so, please consider taking part of the Survey poll here:
http://mwomercs.com/...tem-and-values/