44 replies to this topic

[Navid A1]

PGI

I admire your resistance...
I really do...
You are successfully showing us how far you would go just not to give in to community requests even in a limited PTS.

You decreased heat cap even more... ok.... so what did you change to rectify the heat cap reduction?
lets see... Let us take a look at heat dissipation right now:


So... you reduced heat cap even more to give us more or less the same heat dissipation we have in live client RIGHT NOW????

WHY??
Why you resist so much?
I'm getting tired of this.


Let me give you the final answer before you get to PTS9.
Here:

• Increase Double heat sink dissipation to 0.2
  
• Increase cool run skill to 7.5% (15% on elite)

and this will be the resulting dissipation rates... THAT WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!




So... PGI... please stop running around in circles and DO THE RIGHT THING!

[FupDup]

Here is my own fresh spreadsheet:

Edited by FupDup, 16 September 2016 - 04:59 PM.

[Gentleman Reaper]

FupDup, on 16 September 2016 - 04:46 PM, said:

Here is my own fresh spreadsheet:


It beats PTS4...but it's inferior to PTS3 unless you can boat at least 25+ DHS (most mechs can't do that).

Umm, external dissipation is also 1.9...

Quote

External Heat Sink Dissipation Rate increased to 0.19 (from 0.17)
Engine Heat Sink Dissipation Rate increased to 0.19 (from 0.17)
Heat Capacity decreased to 0.9 (from 1.0)

Edited by Gentleman Reaper, 16 September 2016 - 04:53 PM.

[FupDup]

Gentleman Reaper, on 16 September 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:

Umm, external dissipation is also 1.9...

Which thread is that from? The sticky at the top of this forum doesn't mention external DHS.

EDIT: Found it. Andi's copypasta missed a spot.

Edited by FupDup, 16 September 2016 - 04:55 PM.

[Navid A1]

FupDup, on 16 September 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:

Which thread is that from? The sticky at the top of this forum doesn't mention external DHS.

EDIT: Found it. Andi's copypasta missed a spot.

Internals and externals both do 0.19 dissipation...

[Gentleman Reaper]

FupDup, on 16 September 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:

Which thread is that from? The sticky at the top of this forum doesn't mention external DHS.

EDIT: Found it. Andi's copypasta missed a spot.

Lol, I'm curious to see how this changes things

[FupDup]

Gentleman Reaper, on 16 September 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

Lol, I'm curious to see how this changes things

The point where PTS5 catches up to PTS3 is at 17 now.

That's much better, but I still am sad that mechs with 10-16 DHS are nerfed (they often have a hard time fitting any more than that).

Universal TruDubs are still da boss.

Edited by FupDup, 16 September 2016 - 05:02 PM.

[Navid A1]

FupDup, on 16 September 2016 - 04:59 PM, said:

The point where PTS5 catches up to PTS3 is at 17 now.

That's much better, but I still am sad that mechs with 10-16 DHS are nerfed (they often have a hard time fitting any more than that).

Universal TruDubs are still da boss.

It is more sad to know that PGI treated this change as F*ing trade off to reduce heat cap to 0.9 per DHS.

[SpiralFace]

Heat cap felt fine in the last PTS. Only the dissipation felt bad.

Now that the skill tree skills aren't capped at 5%, the 15% you get from the Threshold skill should put you at slightly higher then where it was in the last PTS.

[ScarecrowES]

You ever wonder how PGI comes up with this stuff?

I mean, I know you guys said low cap, high dissipation... but something tells me you didn't mean half-cap and mostly-the-same-dissipation.

And then to make the penalty 40% harsher on top of it? Smart.

Oh... and "we over-nerfed large lasers, and they're not good. So we'll also over-nerf large pulse lasers because those were better."

Is there anything we can do to, I dunno... take PGI's hand off the wheel here? Every time they touch something, I swear... there's no plan here. We're well beyond the scope of the goals for the ED system. We're so far off the map that we might as well be on another planet now. It needs to stop.

This whole PTS thing has been a disaster. I've tested a lot of games... both pre-beta and live over the years. I've played games that were half-way through their dev cycle and were still nailing down core gameplay mechanics, and that testing was far and away more pointed and less haphazard than this nonsense. This is a live ******* game. After 4+ years, a developer should understand how their own game works.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 16 September 2016 - 05:17 PM.

[Navid A1]

ScarecrowES, on 16 September 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

You ever wonder how PGI comes up with this stuff?

I mean, I know you guys said low cap, high dissipation... but something tells me you didn't mean half-cap and mostly-the-same-dissipation.

And then to make the penalty 40% harsher on top of it? Smart.

Oh... and "we over-nerfed large lasers, and they're not good. So we'll also over-nerf large pulse lasers because those were better."

Is there anything we can do to, I dunno... take PGI's hand off the wheel here? Every time they touch something, I swear... there's no plan here. We're well beyond the scope of the goals for the ED system. We're so far off the map that we might as well be on another planet now. It needs to stop.

This whole PTS thing has been a disaster. I've tested a lot of games... both pre-beta and live over the years. I've played games that were half-way through their dev cycle and were still nailing down core gameplay mechanics, and that testing was far and away more pointed and less haphazard than this nonsense. This is a live ******* game. After 4+ years, a developer should understand how their own game works.

All I can say is....
F* this!

Edited by Navid A1, 16 September 2016 - 05:19 PM.

[Gentleman Reaper]

ScarecrowES, on 16 September 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

You ever wonder how PGI comes up with this stuff?

I mean, I know you guys said low cap, high dissipation... but something tells me you didn't mean half-cap and mostly-the-same-dissipation.

And then to make the penalty 40% harsher on top of it? Smart.

Oh... and "we over-nerfed large lasers, and they're not good. So we'll also over-nerf large pulse lasers because those were better."

Aside from the LPL nerf, I don't see anything wrong with the changes. I'm happy they reduced the cap further, and the dissipation feels a lot better, although I would also like to see truedubs. Everything feels squishy without quirks though

[MechaBattler]

ScarecrowES, on 16 September 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

You ever wonder how PGI comes up with this stuff?

I mean, I know you guys said low cap, high dissipation... but something tells me you didn't mean half-cap and mostly-the-same-dissipation.

And then to make the penalty 40% harsher on top of it? Smart.

Oh... and "we over-nerfed large lasers, and they're not good. So we'll also over-nerf large pulse lasers because those were better."

Is there anything we can do to, I dunno... take PGI's hand off the wheel here? Every time they touch something, I swear... there's no plan here. We're well beyond the scope of the goals for the ED system. We're so far off the map that we might as well be on another planet now. It needs to stop.

This whole PTS thing has been a disaster. I've tested a lot of games... both pre-beta and live over the years. I've played games that were half-way through their dev cycle and were still nailing down core gameplay mechanics, and that testing was far and away more pointed and less haphazard than this nonsense. This is a live ******* game. After 4+ years, a developer should understand how their own game works.

Well when you're at the helm of a studio. I look forward to seeing your perfect take on balance. But until then. We're just gonna have to make do with what level of communication we got. It's as if people believe by being condescending it will make PGI change it's ways.

[ScarecrowES]

MechaBattler, on 16 September 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

Well when you're at the helm of a studio. I look forward to seeing your perfect take on balance. But until then. We're just gonna have to make do with what level of communication we got. It's as if people believe by being condescending it will make PGI change it's ways.

"When you're at the helm of a major cruise liner, I look forward to your perfect take on how not to run the ship into giant icebergs. Until then, we're just going to have to make do with with hoping they won't just keep hitting icebergs... even though we're telling them exactly where the icebergs are. It's as if people becoming condescending when the folks at the helm repeatedly hit icebergs that were perfectly visible to everyone else will have any impact on the decision making that keeps us running into icebergs."

I make my living figuring out the best ways to accomplish anything that needs to be accomplished in perhaps the most stringent and complex industries in the world. My bread and butter is overcoming technical challenges and developing processes, tools, whatever to produce consistent high-end results.

So you better believe I would absolutely take over control of this ship if I could. Hitting even ONE iceberg is a problem - it's a mistake, minor course correction. Hitting them over and over, even though anyone can see them coming... that's a problem with who's at the helm.

And I've already said my peace on what to do with the heat system. I've proven it out mathematically every single time someone has questioned it. It already works, and could be implemented in less than a day.

[Tarl Cabot]

The heat cap needed to take a hit. As for dissipation rate, it would matter if there were actual heat penalties (movement/agility w/2-3 thresholds) to make a player consider holding his fire for a tad longer instead of pushing it closer to the heatcap.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 16 September 2016 - 06:01 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Tarl Cabot, on 16 September 2016 - 06:01 PM, said:

The heat cap needed to take a hit. As for dissipation rate, it would matter if there were actual heat penalties (movement/agility w/2-3 thresholds) to make a player consider holding his fire for a tad longer instead of pushing it closer to the heatcap.

Indeed... and the Table-Top heat system, which I've been advocating for, does these things.

It produces a soft cap for mechs that's 30 points lower than Live, but doesn't remove those points because there are builds that absolutely need them to work effectively. Instead of dropping them outright, you put penalties on them that makes players think twice about using them if they don't have to. You drop dissipation to TT levels (or increase it depending on which version of the game you're talking about), and add the TT variable dissipation for the penalty meter. This produces a dual scenario of high-cap, low dissipation and low-cap/high dissipation depending on player actions. Get into penalties and keep firing, watch as you continue to suffer those penalties and never cool off. Get into penalties and stop firing all together, watch as you cool off even faster.

I've tested and tested and tested using the base TT values for cap and diss against their modified versions in MWO... TT works better. It has more consistent results across all mechs, and produces exactly the restrictions players keep asking for, AND the rewards players keep asking for.

Similar burst damage compared to live servers for most mechs, lower practical alpha caps, lower total damage output, higher level of skill to maximize output.

The only think the system DOESN'T do is replace ghost heat. But the community has figured that one out too. Dynamic cooldowns. Though in my version, each weapon gets a slight boost to its cooldown at baseling, and each additional one you add pulls the cooldown back. This doesn't mess up the heat system, and doesn't mess with alphas (both of which the heat system fixes already), it just meters the damage out over a longer period of time. Reduces burst damage, but not at the cost of total output.

Heat system solves MOST of your problems, this one solves the matter of all that "icky" boating, without actually removing the viability of boating. For certain mechs that can't do ANYTHING but boat, having to meter out your damage a little more won't harm those in the long run... they'd do that anyway. For the rest, lower burst output.

Oh! And skills. Instead of BUFFING your heat cap and dissipation, I'd have skills remove a nerf to your heat cap and diss... so the best a mech can ever be is the base truedubs allow. Fresh mechs at -15% cap, basic's at -7.5% cap, elite at full cap. WAY easier to balance this, and much more fair across all mechs.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 16 September 2016 - 06:19 PM.

[cazidin]

But how much will PGI decrease capacity by to compensate for giving in to our demands? Logically, it should be buffed back up to 1 and go no lower than 0.8... but I wonder if they'd make it 0.5 or 0.6 for spite's sake?

[East Indy]

Navid, stop beating around the bush and tell us what build you're desperately trying to drop in all the time, but due to PTS changes, apparently can't.

[Deathlike]

I'm more distraught at the total unnecessary nerfing of both IS and Clan LPLs.

I feel like these changes are even more of a reach than before.

[ScarecrowES]

Deathlike, on 16 September 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

I'm more distraught at the total unnecessary nerfing of both IS and Clan LPLs.

I feel like these changes are even more of a reach than before.

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 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.

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?

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."

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."

Edited by ScarecrowES, 16 September 2016 - 07:03 PM.