44 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

ScarecrowES, on 16 September 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

It might make a lot of sense if we imagine PGI is only looking at numbers on a screen... in some sort of spreadsheet or whatever... without any sort of context.

I believe that's closer to reality than you think.

Quote

I mean, if PGI is getting a printout of all their combat data over the PTS server, and they see that in the column for large lasers that the LPL is pulling far away from other large lasers in terms of their total performances, that might lead you to believe that LPLs are simply too good.

LL's (at least on the IS side) were never great either... but nerfing LPL (for both sides) is an exercise in overnerfing... a tool our balance overlord has mastered.

Quote

After all, didn't PGI say something akin to "LPLs are performing better than we want compared to other large lasers?" Something to that effect?

It would make more sense to BUFF LLs (particularly the IS version) instead. Of course we have to get the reverse.

Quote

Because if you only look at specific data points and don't provide any level of context at all... either by comparing extensively with other data or by, you know, actually ASKING people what they think, then yes... the results you achieve might be construed as "reaching."

I don't think our balance overlord is asking the right questions.. it's whether he understands it when played in reality/practice.

Quote

Even "balance by dartboard" has a higher chance of landing on a correct choice than "balance through a complete lack of understanding and misrepresentation of data."

That assumes the "dartboard" has "good answers/ideas". It has all the bad ideas on it, and then some. Your chances of getting anything right is astronomically low.

Edited by Deathlike, 16 September 2016 - 07:08 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Deathlike, on 16 September 2016 - 07:08 PM, said:

I believe that's closer to reality than you think.



LL's (at least on the IS side) were never great either... but nerfing LPL (for both sides) is an exercise in overnerfing... a tool our balance overlord has mastered.



It would make more sense to BUFF LLs (particularly the IS version) instead. Of course we have to get the reverse.



I don't think our balance overlord is asking the right questions.. it's whether he understands it when played in reality/practice.



That assumes the "dartboard" has "good answers/ideas". It has all the bad ideas on it, and then some. Your chances of getting anything right is astronomically low.

Oh, I agree with all of this. I hope the tone of my post suggested that. At this point, I'm not sure if PGI is really looking at feedback, and is looking only at numbers instead.

Or... slight correction... is only looking at numbers, except when someone tweets them how much they like the PTS... THAT feedback they'll listen to.

"DON'T!!! STOP!!!"

"What's that? Don't stop, you say? Alright. Full speed ahead it is!"

Edited by ScarecrowES, 16 September 2016 - 07:24 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

I admire PGI's willingness to change things with this PTS, despite the misguided-ness of half the changes throughout these PTS iterations, I am still kinda glad that they are doing this, just wanted to put that out there (even if I dislike ED with a passion).

With that out of the way, I'm not sure I understand their unwillingness to go with true dubs or why it was necessary to nerf single heat sinks.

I still don't think they are going far enough for pulse to really fulfill their "DPS" role. I still stand by my suggestion from previous threads.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 September 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

I admire PGI's willingness to change things with this PTS, despite the misguided-ness of half the changes throughout these PTS iterations, I am still kinda glad that they are doing this, just wanted to put that out there (even if I dislike ED with a passion).

With that out of the way, I'm not sure I understand their unwillingness to go with true dubs or why it was necessary to nerf single heat sinks.

I still don't think they are going far enough for pulse to really fulfill their "DPS" role. I still stand by my suggestion from previous threads.

What kills me about all these changes to the sinks...

Moving away from the TT system by removing penalties and simply plopping the 30 points of the penalty scale right on top of main heat scale is what ultimately CAUSES these problems with the heat system in the first place. Everyone seems to recognize that, and PGI seems to be moving a bit more toward overall TT end-values.

The thing is, they're still working within the current flawed system. They pulled down the part of the heat scale that was defined by the mech, but left the rest. You can't do that. That's why balancing is getting so screwed up. There's a very good reason the system was designed the way it was, and it's worked largely change-free for over 3 decades.

What needs to happen, and I really hope this is becoming clearer at this point - since we seem to be steadily marching in that direction anyway - is we need to just throw the TT system in there. Numbers, mechanics, everything.

Every iteration of this PTS we go through, and players give their feedback... what they keep saying they want, TT provides. It's just frustrating to me that we're throwing everything at the problem but the one solution that has ALWAYS worked.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 16 September 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

What kills me about all these changes to the sinks...

Moving away from the TT system by removing penalties and simply plopping the 30 points of the penalty scale right on top of main heat scale is what ultimately CAUSES these problems with the heat system in the first place. Everyone seems to recognize that

I'm not going to get into a quote war because Hotthedd has already exhausted me from the other thread, but penalties won't magically fix anything just like they didn't in MW4. Penalties are more for immersion than anything, much like the ECM effect on PPC.

Being shutdown is the ultimate penalty and the one that has always been the harshest between MW4 and MWO and is the reason a lowered capacity is good enough to stop stupidly high energy alphas by itself (mind you Gauss would still be a problem which is why it needs heat and fixing).

[davoodoo]

8 dmg 8 heat is lpl vs ermed 7 dmg 6 heat or hell even is med, 5 dmg 4 heat(95m optimal range isnt worth 5 tons and loss of 2 dmg)... seems legit.

Edited by davoodoo, 17 September 2016 - 04:24 AM.

[Amerante]

davoodoo, on 17 September 2016 - 04:18 AM, said:

8 dmg 8 heat is lpl vs ermed 7 dmg 6 heat or hell even is med, 5 dmg 4 heat(95m optimal range isnt worth 5 tons and loss of 2 dmg)... seems legit.

Thats entirely not the case I think.
It really depends on how many free tons and weapon hardpoints do you have, and how heat effective you are...
It is more complex than that...

Otherwise i would go TT heatneutral medlas boat...

Another think about lasers that noone seemed to mention but i think it is really important, that it doesn't have traveling time.
And while it is duration based, you can corrent on your aim while shooting, so most often than not you will hit a desired location, just not doing full damage to it (and when armor is gone this is really means a lot).

[cazidin]

Amerante, on 17 September 2016 - 06:12 AM, said:

Thats entirely not the case I think.
It really depends on how many free tons and weapon hardpoints do you have, and how heat effective you are...
It is more complex than that...

Otherwise i would go TT heatneutral medlas boat...

Another think about lasers that noone seemed to mention but i think it is really important, that it doesn't have traveling time.
And while it is duration based, you can corrent on your aim while shooting, so most often than not you will hit a desired location, just not doing full damage to it (and when armor is gone this is really means a lot).

True. Lasers are hitscan. This is both a blessing and a curse, however. If the duration is too long, your damage will be spread out - and thus the damage you do is less precise. At this time, PGI has nerfed LPL damage 3 times (from 10, to 9, now to 8...), burn duration (from .67 to .80), etc.

[davoodoo]

Amerante, on 17 September 2016 - 06:12 AM, said:

Thats entirely not the case I think.
It really depends on how many free tons and weapon hardpoints do you have, and how heat effective you are...
It is more complex than that...

Otherwise i would go TT heatneutral medlas boat...

Another think about lasers that noone seemed to mention but i think it is really important, that it doesn't have traveling time.
And while it is duration based, you can corrent on your aim while shooting, so most often than not you will hit a desired location, just not doing full damage to it (and when armor is gone this is really means a lot).

You suggest ill take inferior option because tonnage will force me??

No, ill grab lighter mech instead or rely on ballistics and either way ill skip mech without insufficient hardponts.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 September 2016 - 12:10 AM, said:

I'm not going to get into a quote war because Hotthedd has already exhausted me from the other thread, but penalties won't magically fix anything just like they didn't in MW4. Penalties are more for immersion than anything, much like the ECM effect on PPC.

Being shutdown is the ultimate penalty and the one that has always been the harshest between MW4 and MWO and is the reason a lowered capacity is good enough to stop stupidly high energy alphas by itself (mind you Gauss would still be a problem which is why it needs heat and fixing).

I'd actually argue the opposite here. In TT, the fear of the penalties you'd get BEFORE shutdown was always more than shutting down itself.

I can guarantee that if you institute penalties that reduced player movement, that ALONE would make people think twice about carrying penalties. Imagine you're in a peek-and-poke laser boat, peek twice, and now find yourself taking twice as long to peek out and back thanks to reduced speed, accel, and decel. Poking NOW would make you a sitting duck. You couldn't do it again without serious risk.

Whereas on Live, you could peek and poke endlessly, you couldn't sustain that under a penalty system. That changes the entire nature of this playstyle.

Beyond that... if we put the sorts of penalties in that people want... HUD fade and fizzle ends up hurting long range mechs and PPFLD, because it gets tough to accurately set your shots over long range. That PPFLD PPC/Gauss monster everyone fears gets de-clawed. Other things like loss of sensor data or even target lock makes it hard to target a mech's vulnerabilities, and may maybe even make it impossible to use lock-on weapons.

I bet we could finally give a serious boost to LRMs now that we know that a mech can't just sit back and spam them forever, right? They become less a weapon of continuous annoyance, and more an actual support platform.

No... I think the opposite of you here. I think once you start penalizing people... even MINOR penalties, as long as they're immediately recognizable... will do more to change how people play than any amount of hard-capping you can do. The psychological effect of seeing that penalty indicator on your screen would be enough to make players take action.

[davoodoo]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 September 2016 - 12:10 AM, said:

I'm not going to get into a quote war because Hotthedd has already exhausted me from the other thread, but penalties won't magically fix anything just like they didn't in MW4. Penalties are more for immersion than anything, much like the ECM effect on PPC.

From what i remember penatlies in mw4 constituted screen flicker which wasnt even obtrusive in aiming... and maybe very high dmg on overheat if you count that.

If thats the extend of what you want to do with penatlies then yeah, dont bother unless you want **** to be immersive

[Rayden Wolf]

Could someone do the math with SHS? I'm thinking about a KDK with 11 ErMeds and as many SHS one can fit in there. Maybe something like 40.

[Kaptain]

Would love to see ScareCrows idea tested. Tired of data-sheet PTS changes that don't account for community feedback/experience.

[ScarecrowES]

Kaptain, on 17 September 2016 - 12:19 PM, said:

Would love to see ScareCrows idea tested. Tired of data-sheet PTS changes that don't account for community feedback/experience.

ED could adapted in less than a day to replicate the TT mechanics... but without penalties I'm not sure it's a fair representation. It would have SOME effect due to the mechanics alone, but you'd have to see penalties in action to get the full effect. Movement penalties can probably be done pretty easy... those are technically already in the game and you'd just need the existing mechanics adapted... but the HUD/sensor stuff probably needs some artist work and coding. The movement penalties hurt peek-and-poke play, and the HUD stuff hurts PPFLD.

You really need to feel those penalties to see why they matter, I think.

I fear that PGI, with their usual half-assed way of doing things, would throw the system onto the server without penalties, and players would get only some of the effect. It WOULD dial back on the DoT, but not really affect alphas the way the system is designed without penalties. And I don't think it would hurt redlining the way penalties do either.

Would saying to players "imagine THIS, but with penalties" be enough?

[Kaptain]

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

ED could adapted in less than a day to replicate the TT mechanics... but without penalties I'm not sure it's a fair representation. It would have SOME effect due to the mechanics alone, but you'd have to see penalties in action to get the full effect. Movement penalties can probably be done pretty easy... those are technically already in the game and you'd just need the existing mechanics adapted... but the HUD/sensor stuff probably needs some artist work and coding. The movement penalties hurt peek-and-poke play, and the HUD stuff hurts PPFLD.

You really need to feel those penalties to see why they matter, I think.

I fear that PGI, with their usual half-assed way of doing things, would throw the system onto the server without penalties, and players would get only some of the effect. It WOULD dial back on the DoT, but not really affect alphas the way the system is designed without penalties. And I don't think it would hurt redlining the way penalties do either.

Would saying to players "imagine THIS, but with penalties" be enough?

They could simply disable things(temporarily) rather than have artists spend time on visual effects for a test. At given pointS along the penalty bar just completely disable target info, minimap, damage readout, cross hair, ecm, target lock and so on. This would represent a worse case senario for those afraid that hud penalties would be as ineffective as previous MW games and one would certainly "feel" them.

This also gives me an idea for full implementation(if that were ever to become a thing). Perhaps permanent damage to vital combat and information systems could be implemented at the top of the penalty scale. Lower down on the scale something may work screwy... higher up perhaps it is knocked out completely.

Edited by Kaptain, 17 September 2016 - 01:55 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

And all the TT movement penalty thresholds would not need to be replicated, it would need only about 3-4 thresholds and would not need to start until 40%/60%/80% or 45%/60%/75%/90%, etc, while the penalties would be 15%/25%/35%/45% movement/agility reduction.

[ScarecrowES]

Kaptain, on 17 September 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

They could simply disable things(temporarily) rather than have artists spend time on visual effects for a test. At given pointS along the penalty bar just completely disable target info, minimap, damage readout, cross hair, ecm, target lock and so on. This would represent a worse case senario for those afraid that hud penalties would be as ineffective as previous MW games and one would certainly "feel" them.

This also gives me an idea for full implementation(if that were ever to become a thing). Perhaps permanent damage to vital combat and information systems could be implemented at the top of the penalty scale. Lower down on the scale something may work screwy... higher up perhaps it is knocked out completely.

We'd have to see just how punishing the system becomes and work in mechanics as it seems appropriate.

I suppose you're right in that we don't necessarily have to have the art mechanics in place for the HUD for the test... we COULD literally just turn things on and off. It would feel less "fair" than intended, but for test purposes that might be ok. Ideally, when you're at low penalty stages, your HUD would start to shimmy and fade... maybe some of the elements sould dart around and back a bit. It's more distracting than anything, but it serves as a warning that worse things are coming if you keep going.

Eventually, you get up to high heat penalties, and your reticle becomes unreliable... one second it's there, the next it's not... it's position jumps a bit here and there. Your sensors aren't working properly, so maybe on your minimap the positions of enemies get a bit scrambled. Maybe you can't get target info anymore, so you lose the ability to see that big IS XL-using heavy in front of you has a cherry ST. Maybe you can't maintain a reliable target lock so your LRM's and Streaks don't really work right anymore.

So would players feel analog on/off penalties would be ok for testing - knowing that more gradiated penalties would actually appear in the game later if implemented? Would players be able to understand that and be willing to make a mental guess as to how that feels? I'd leave that up to you guys to decide.

There ARE harsher and more permanent penalties in MWO currently than just shutting down... after shutdown you can have damage applied to your CT for going over your limit. I'm not strictly opposed to having certain things permanently knocked out as a component of the heat system, but it would have to be done very carefully. It cannot be random, has to be very predictable, and the penalty has to be in proportion to what you did to get there. Nothing like the sometimes-insta-deat override mechanic in the game.

Personally, I'd rather simulate TT's pilot heat damage by applying damage to the head instead of CT. This also serves to simulate damage to other essential mech components as well. Maybe apply teeny amounts of damage to the head at rates related to the degree to which you're carrying heat penalties. Spend too much time overheating during a match, and you eventually destroy the pilot/cockpit. You'd have to spend a lot of the match in high heat to make this happen, and it would feel totally fair when it did.

[ScarecrowES]

Tarl Cabot, on 17 September 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

And all the TT movement penalty thresholds would not need to be replicated, it would need only about 3-4 thresholds and would not need to start until 40%/60%/80% or 45%/60%/75%/90%, etc, while the penalties would be 15%/25%/35%/45% movement/agility reduction.

I'd rather penalties start almost immediately on the penalty scale and have them be very small... if only for the psychological effect. To me, not having penalties start until 40% for example tends to imply that that's still free heat that I can use without harm - whereas if I start penalties much lower, even if they're completely meaningless, it tells me "oh hey, I might want to back off here." From a practical perspective, of course, the penalties I receive that low are unlikely to really hurt me, but from a mental perspective, it may be enough to change how I proceed.

In the end, though, it depends on how it plays, more than anything, so I'm open to it either way.

A thing to consider about movement penalties... we have 2 choices here.

TT knocks points off your movement rating directly, so it's technically the same amount for every mech, regardless of how fast they can move. It'd be like taking 20kph off any mech that reaches a certain penalty rating, regardless of whether that mech normally operates at 130kph or 60kph.

This hurts slow mechs way more than fast ones. I suggested a deviation from TT in this regard by using a percentage of your movement, rather than a hard reduction. I think this is better... but I'd leave it up to the community to decide whether a percentage is better or a hard reduction is better.

The percentage hurts fast mechs more, and the fixed amount hurts slow mechs more.

[davoodoo]

Im rather interested about to hit penatlies.

We got pinpoint accuracy so what?? cooldown increase?? helps venting while reducing dps, direct dmg reduction?? it just feels wrong, range reduction?? not punishing enough, burn time/travel time increase?? not punishing enough.

[ScarecrowES]

davoodoo, on 17 September 2016 - 03:05 PM, said:

Im rather interested about to hit penatlies.

We got pinpoint accuracy so what?? cooldown increase?? helps venting while reducing dps, direct dmg reduction?? it just feels wrong, range reduction?? not punishing enough, burn time/travel time increase?? not punishing enough.

Difficult to simulate and requires a bunch of behind the scenes mechanics, in the end.

To-hit mechanics make sense in the scope of TT, because dice rolls determine where your shots hit. Player skill determines that in MWO. Easiest way to simulate something interfering with the pilot/mechs's ability to accurately fire on an enemy is to actually make it more difficult. The suggested HUD mechanics do that.

Players tend to HATE randomness, and to-hit modifiers are essentially adding greater degrees of randomness to an already random system - ok for TT, bad for MWO. Adding randomness to a fixed system would probably be met with a negative reaction from players here. I wouldn't want to push our luck.