88 replies to this topic

[Cy Mitchell]

Explanations as to why changes are made would be a good thing.

[Bombast]

Cathy, on 20 October 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:

Just be glad he's not doing the game balance or Catphracts and Ravens would be getting 100% cool down nerfs

No... the RVN-2X and CTF-4X would get rather generous buffs! Hanse Davion is nothing if not generous!

[jjm1]

Think of your future games. A reputation of whale milking and poor decisions will ream your sales like you wouldn't b...oh wait.

oh and of course: my gif of PGI making quirks

[Appogee]

I can't wait to see what lunch napkin sketches they turned into Powerpoint slides this year!



But actually, I'm a bit worried that all the announcements we are going to get are a new game mode (about 2 years overdue) and a skill tree revamp (3 years overdue).

I was hoping for something more, like a single player campaign, VTOLs (note there are landing pads on the new Terra Therma) and a bunch of new maps.

[Imperius]

Hold my beer I got this!

[TLBFestus]

Novakaine, on 20 October 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

The only reason for the nerfs is the clan meta is shifting toward uac's away from laser vomit.
They seem to be going to have an ED problem.
Which is odd because Clanners have no naughty bits and they smell bad also.
And since PGI has an insane need to keep them OP.
This is the result.
Or.......... The Nerf Dartboard really does exist.

Did someone say "DARTBOARD?"




(Wow..get to use the same graphic twice in a couple of days)

[Novakaine]

TLBFestus, on 20 October 2016 - 01:00 PM, said:

Did someone say "DARTBOARD?"




(Wow..get to use the same graphic twice in a couple of days)

Gonna get one made and send it to them.
"Honey where's the phone book?"
"Just google it dear."

[Tina Benoit]

We had a series of internal tests that we where doing regarding the jam chance back end that saw us testing some internal values. (Which was why the Huntsman initial quirk list had an internal value different to its final value.) Since we had eyes on this target at the conclusion of our tests, we decided to do a pass on tuning the jam chance quirk values a bit so that some mechs that where under served by the flat -30% modifier got a bit more of a boost, while other mechs who's quirk compounded on already exiting benefits of the chassis (High mounts, High quirk value in other area's such as cooldown, assessment of other available hard points on the frame, and omnipod options,) got a bit of a reduction. 

This was an attempt at normalizing this particular quirk value based on internal tests, it was not part of a wider balance pass outside of the Jam Chance quirks.

We currently have a series of balance related changes being examined for the Nov. patch which will be much farther reaching then this current patch. And should more directly address many of the points of concern that some have brought up here in the forums.

[Gas Guzzler]

Tina Benoit, on 20 October 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

We had a series of internal tests that we where doing regarding the jam chance back end that saw us testing some internal values. (Which was why the Huntsman initial quirk list had an internal value different to its final value.) Since we had eyes on this target at the conclusion of our tests, we decided to do a pass on tuning the jam chance quirk values a bit so that some mechs that where under served by the flat -30% modifier got a bit more of a boost, while other mechs who's quirk compounded on already exiting benefits of the chassis (High mounts, High quirk value in other area's such as cooldown, assessment of other available hard points on the frame, and omnipod options,) got a bit of a reduction. 

This was an attempt at normalizing this particular quirk value based on internal tests, it was not part of a wider balance pass outside of the Jam Chance quirks.

We currently have a series of balance related changes being examined for the Nov. patch which will be much farther reaching then this current patch. And should more directly address many of the points of concern that some have brought up here in the forums.

Thank you for the explanation. It just felt really odd that mechs that were not very popular/"high tier" were receiving nerfs, which just makes them worse. Interested to see the balance changes in November, sounds like we might be addressing the KDK-3 dakka spam?

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 20 October 2016 - 02:56 PM.

[Deathlike]

Tina Benoit, on 20 October 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

We had a series of internal tests that we where doing regarding the jam chance back end that saw us testing some internal values. (Which was why the Huntsman initial quirk list had an internal value different to its final value.) Since we had eyes on this target at the conclusion of our tests, we decided to do a pass on tuning the jam chance quirk values a bit so that some mechs that where under served by the flat -30% modifier got a bit more of a boost, while other mechs who's quirk compounded on already exiting benefits of the chassis (High mounts, High quirk value in other area's such as cooldown, assessment of other available hard points on the frame, and omnipod options,) got a bit of a reduction. 

This was an attempt at normalizing this particular quirk value based on internal tests, it was not part of a wider balance pass outside of the Jam Chance quirks.

We currently have a series of balance related changes being examined for the Nov. patch which will be much farther reaching then this current patch. And should more directly address many of the points of concern that some have brought up here in the forums.

Had this been posted BEFORE the patch, people wouldn't have said as much as they did.

It's still unclear what's actually in future patches regarding balance... even if it's just an outline, it's not known to anyone but yourselves... which is counterproductive in figuring out what, let alone why this is being done.

Noone in their right minds would consider using a CUAC2, let alone an CLBX2 on a Mist Lynx unless that was super quirked to K-Town and back... so when we see said numbers, it's hard to get any idea w/o it having being said in the patch notes, or even a Command Chair post stating all of this.

TL;DR

Telling noone about these changes in advance w/o context let's everyone to their imaginations on why we think whoever's balancing the game is out of touch.

Translation: There is no real hint, much less the PTS that there was any hint of actual balance changes or plans to tweak things. This is news to me.

Edited by Deathlike, 20 October 2016 - 02:59 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Tina Benoit, on 20 October 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

We had a series of internal tests that we where doing regarding the jam chance back end that saw us testing some internal values. (Which was why the Huntsman initial quirk list had an internal value different to its final value.) Since we had eyes on this target at the conclusion of our tests, we decided to do a pass on tuning the jam chance quirk values a bit so that some mechs that where under served by the flat -30% modifier got a bit more of a boost, while other mechs who's quirk compounded on already exiting benefits of the chassis (High mounts, High quirk value in other area's such as cooldown, assessment of other available hard points on the frame, and omnipod options,) got a bit of a reduction. 

This was an attempt at normalizing this particular quirk value based on internal tests, it was not part of a wider balance pass outside of the Jam Chance quirks.

We currently have a series of balance related changes being examined for the Nov. patch which will be much farther reaching then this current patch. And should more directly address many of the points of concern that some have brought up here in the forums.

The PTS patch notes did have small blurbs along with the changes, which were not found (and tend not to be) on the live patch notes


Extending them to the live patch notes would help, ever so slightly, in reception.


Now, we just need to wait a month to see any changes at all...How long has the KDK-3 been the best mech in the game? Complete with powerful quirks?

Edited by Mcgral18, 20 October 2016 - 04:07 PM.

[Dirus Nigh]

Bombast, on 20 October 2016 - 06:08 AM, said:

They nerfed both the Enforcer and Jagermech, so I think it's pretty clear this is some sort of Anti-Davion conspiracy, and any other mechs nerfed were just casualties of war, only changed to obscure this secret attack against the Federated Suns.

Save us, Hanse Davion!

Obviously the work of the Capellans.

[Novakaine]

Tina is a Capellan?
Then this obviously reeks of propaganda!

Edited by Novakaine, 20 October 2016 - 04:20 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Tina Benoit, on 20 October 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

We had a series of internal tests that we where doing regarding the jam chance back end that saw us testing some internal values. (Which was why the Huntsman initial quirk list had an internal value different to its final value.) Since we had eyes on this target at the conclusion of our tests, we decided to do a pass on tuning the jam chance quirk values a bit so that some mechs that where under served by the flat -30% modifier got a bit more of a boost, while other mechs who's quirk compounded on already exiting benefits of the chassis (High mounts, High quirk value in other area's such as cooldown, assessment of other available hard points on the frame, and omnipod options,) got a bit of a reduction. 

This was an attempt at normalizing this particular quirk value based on internal tests, it was not part of a wider balance pass outside of the Jam Chance quirks.

We currently have a series of balance related changes being examined for the Nov. patch which will be much farther reaching then this current patch. And should more directly address many of the points of concern that some have brought up here in the forums.

Thank you for the interaction and response. Dev input is always welcome, even if it is just for damage control.

As to the comment above:

What target? Balance of some sort? How does that "target" suggest fairly lame mechs need to be made lamer relative to the top performers?

The 5P was over served by its ballistics quirk? ALL it has to offer is a the 2 UAC5 build. If anything it needs better than 30% in such a fragile mech if it is to have any realistic value (see also the Dragon btw). A similar observation, based on your own leader board data, can be said for the DD and the 5M. These mechs are simply not over served by an extra 10% jam chance reduction.

PGI's own stated goals for mechs is that each variant is to have equivalent value to every other mech regardless of its role. This was stated by Paul back when quirks were first introduced. If that is the "target" then how on earth does nerfing mechs as middling as the DD, 5M and 5P provide that equal value? Especially in light of actual game data that can be viewed via the leader boards over the last year?

In other words: there is no way nerfing under performing or even nominally performing mechs helps provide that equivalent value, which PGI has stated is the goal of quirks.

[Bombast]

Tina Benoit, on 20 October 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

We had a series of internal tests that we where doing regarding the jam chance back end that saw us testing some internal values. (Which was why the Huntsman initial quirk list had an internal value different to its final value.) Since we had eyes on this target at the conclusion of our tests, we decided to do a pass on tuning the jam chance quirk values a bit so that some mechs that where under served by the flat -30% modifier got a bit more of a boost, while other mechs who's quirk compounded on already exiting benefits of the chassis (High mounts, High quirk value in other area's such as cooldown, assessment of other available hard points on the frame, and omnipod options,) got a bit of a reduction. 

This was an attempt at normalizing this particular quirk value based on internal tests, it was not part of a wider balance pass outside of the Jam Chance quirks.

We currently have a series of balance related changes being examined for the Nov. patch which will be much farther reaching then this current patch. And should more directly address many of the points of concern that some have brought up here in the forums.

Fine words. Fine words indeed.

But a liar! Who sent you? Romano? Takashi? ComStar?

Who do you work for?!?

[The Amazing Spider Man]

Fine and all but what's the explanation here?

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

[Dirus Nigh]

Novakaine, on 20 October 2016 - 04:20 PM, said:

Tina is a Capellan?
Then this obviously reeks of propaganda!

Tina is a young charismatic French lady. She is the perfect weapon to manipulate the Davian people.

[Bud Crue]

The Amazing Spider Man, on 20 October 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

Fine and all but what's the explanation here?

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Well it is obvious no?

Internal values were tested. A target was involved. They had their eyes on it. They then decided to do a pass on it. They then normalized based on internal tests.

Clear?

[Ultra-Laser]

Tina Benoit, on 20 October 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

We had a series of internal tests that we where doing regarding the jam chance back end that saw us testing some internal values. (Which was why the Huntsman initial quirk list had an internal value different to its final value.) Since we had eyes on this target at the conclusion of our tests, we decided to do a pass on tuning the jam chance quirk values a bit so that some mechs that where under served by the flat -30% modifier got a bit more of a boost, while other mechs who's quirk compounded on already exiting benefits of the chassis (High mounts, High quirk value in other area's such as cooldown, assessment of other available hard points on the frame, and omnipod options,) got a bit of a reduction. 

This was an attempt at normalizing this particular quirk value based on internal tests, it was not part of a wider balance pass outside of the Jam Chance quirks.

We currently have a series of balance related changes being examined for the Nov. patch which will be much farther reaching then this current patch. And should more directly address many of the points of concern that some have brought up here in the forums.

Its been said already, but I'd like to reiterate that if your overlords had included and abbreviated version of this information in the actual patch notes then there would be a good chance this thread would never have happened. On some level it actually makes PGI's seeming silence even more baffling, as its hardly a secret if you just came here and told us.

The lesson I take from this is that too much information is better than to little. If you give an explanation that people don't like that's their own issue, but if you leave people in the dark then they have nothing to assume but the worst.

P.S. How did you actually find out about the UAC business? Was it covered in a staff meeting or did you have to bug one of the programing team about it?

[Spam Lanwalker]

Bud Crue, on 20 October 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

I loath the very thought of being disrespectful to a host and especially one giving a speech, but still, I kinda hope, that someone has the decency to get drunk (or not) at mechcon and mutter -loud enough for Russ to hear, but still a mutter- something along the lines of "whatever I'm on an island" just as he is about to do one of his big reveals. Video evidence of same, heaven forbid, and the offending miscreant has a full ultimate pack coming (seems an appropriate reward). It would be so perfect, but alas I expect the folks actually attending are those who are serious white knights or tourney participants. Still, I can dream.

i would do this just for the luls if i could get there but plane tickets across the world are above my pay grade atm xD