88 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

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.

EXCELLENT PATCH NOTE CONTENT, RIGHT THERE BUDDY!!!11!!

[WrathOfDeadguy]

We need to see the actual data that brought this on. Clearly PGI's perception of some of these 'Mechs differs greatly from the playerbase's experience with them. UACs are great guns, yeah, but none of the 'Mechs that got their quirks reduced are exactly apex predators. ENF-5P has been the jokemech of its chassis since R1 dropped, and the Shadow Hawk in general hasn't been more than merely average in the last two years.

Give us numbers. Prove that the changes were justified, and that they were somehow more necessary than the changes that didn't get made.

[Imperius]

WrathOfDeadguy, on 20 October 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

We need to see the actual data that brought this on. Clearly PGI's perception of some of these 'Mechs differs greatly from the playerbase's experience with them. UACs are great guns, yeah, but none of the 'Mechs that got their quirks reduced are exactly apex predators. ENF-5P has been the jokemech of its chassis since R1 dropped, and the Shadow Hawk in general hasn't been more than merely average in the last two years.

Give us numbers. Prove that the changes were justified, and that they were somehow more necessary than the changes that didn't get made.

Here is why they don't tell you Because when they do you ask for this because your opinion on balance differs from the one who makes the balance changes.

Edited by Imperius, 20 October 2016 - 06:16 PM.

[The Amazing Spider Man]

Bud Crue, on 20 October 2016 - 05:03 PM, said:

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?

Clear as mud. When the worst mech in the game gets nerfed I prefer more reasoning beyond "because we said so".

[Deathlike]

For the record... I do remember a lot of these "we'll adjust balance" like this before (like before the game's "launch") and it honestly boggles my mind.

These changes alone make no sense in the context of why would it be done absent of other changes in the pipeline.

There are actually better ways of going about this, but let's be clear... there's no reason to do this unless there's some sort of global UAC change that's happening soon™. If that is even the case, why couldn't you just hold such changes off until AFTER/WHEN that change happens (there shouldn't be any other dependencies on an a UAC quirk change)?

The dumbest thing that can actually happen here is like holding out on LBX quirk improvements (mostly on spread) when you know there are also beneficial LBX changes down the line. Right now, you're doing the reverse... nerfing in advance before any potential positive UAC changes come down the line. I'm not even sure why this is even done, since it's not like most of the mechs were outliers in said changes (especially the Mist Lynx).

I slept on the explanation and I've come to the conclusion to balk at it due to it being totally illogical on its face. There's literally NO reason for it at all.

[LORD ORION]

Mcgral18, on 20 October 2016 - 05:53 AM, said:

I don't want moar robots, I want words


Words from the mouth of our beloved balance department, explaining some of the changes they do
They may help the community understand why a thing was done...because some changes are just nonsense, and the lack of changes disgusting.

I have a pretty good guess, they are metric driven changes for the upcoming energy draw implementation.

[Bud Crue]

The Amazing Spider Man, on 21 October 2016 - 05:42 AM, said:

Clear as mud. When the worst mech in the game gets nerfed I prefer more reasoning beyond "because we said so".

Yup. But hey, if that is the rationale for the the recent UAC cool down pass (See Ms. Benoit's explanation above), I can only assume they would have something equally...explanatory...to say about the Spider nerf too.

[Roughneck Cobra]

Believe what people are missing is the obvious, they are pre-reducing the Jam chance so even minor 'Dakka' builds produce less damage because the Alpha nerfer systems on its way, that the Dakka can avoid.

Surprised I didnt read that in all the posts here, its PGI's way of balancing something they know is gonna end up ruining the game.

[El Bandito]

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

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 is just the kind of horse dung that got the Victor and the Highlanders shafted. PGI decided in 2014 that JJs were too damn powerful, AFTER nerfing those JJs to hell and gone, and decided back then that all mechs with JJs should receive little or no quirks as compensation. Thanks to that outdated thinking, my Victors are still languishing in the garage as arguably the worst Assault mech in the entire game. Little quirks and crap JJs. Been like that for two years, now.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 October 2016 - 06:23 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Roughneck Cobra, on 21 October 2016 - 06:05 AM, said:

Believe what people are missing is the obvious, they are pre-reducing the Jam chance so even minor 'Dakka' builds produce less damage because the Alpha nerfer systems on its way, that the Dakka can avoid.

Surprised I didnt read that in all the posts here, its PGI's way of balancing something they know is gonna end up ruining the game.

Nah, if that were the case then the Dragon, Cataphract and Zeus (at least) would have all been hit too.

[Roughneck Cobra]

Bud Crue, on 21 October 2016 - 06:19 AM, said:

Nah, if that were the case then the Dragon, Cataphract and Zeus (at least) would have all been hit too.

Take a look at the medium line that can carry twin UAC's or even one on the IS side, might change yer tune.

[El Bandito]

Roughneck Cobra, on 21 October 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

Take a look at the medium line that can carry twin UAC's or even one on the IS side, might change yer tune.

Yeah, the Shawk-5M is such a scary mech with twin UAC5s. So scary, it has to equip Standard engine to fit those guns in the first place. It definitely deserved the nerf.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 October 2016 - 06:23 AM.

[Roughneck Cobra]

El Bandito, on 21 October 2016 - 06:22 AM, said:

Yeah, the Shawk-5M is such a scary mech with twin UAC5s. So scary, it has to equip Standard engine to fit those guns in the first place. It definitely deserved the nerf.

And this is why PGI doesnt have to explain any changes really.

Why these forums arent worth the post time! Laters.

[Deathlike]

Roughneck Cobra, on 21 October 2016 - 06:23 AM, said:

And this is why PGI doesnt have to explain any changes really.

Why these forums arent worth the post time! Laters.

Well, if they nerf your favorite mech or weapons that isn't OP (by comp play standards anyways), you would probably change your tune.

[GreenHell]

I'd laugh my *** off if this was "Pre-Nerf's" for E-Draw...
Oh wait...

[El Bandito]

Roughneck Cobra, on 21 October 2016 - 06:23 AM, said:

And this is why PGI doesnt have to explain any changes really.

Why these forums arent worth the post time! Laters.

Why, cause PGI can't handle criticisms on their flawed implementation of blanket changes?

Edited by El Bandito, 21 October 2016 - 06:36 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Roughneck Cobra, on 21 October 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

Take a look at the medium line that can carry twin UAC's or even one on the IS side, might change yer tune.

Help me out here...?

5M Nerfed. I honestly don't recall EVER seeing one in game in two years of play.
5P Nerfed. Rarely played it before, will rarely be played in the future.

Wolverine can't carry two, Cicada can't carry two. What other IS mediums can carry two Uacs and have jam chance quirks? Edit: Were ANY of these IS mediums in danger of being OP even under the test server ED rules?

Edited by Bud Crue, 21 October 2016 - 06:42 AM.

[LordNothing]

id actually prefer more flux in the balance. event little temporary 'what if' type balance tweaks just to see what it does to the game. it would be better than metas that last for months or even years. i fully expect a new meta before the kodiak anniversary. but it would be nice if it was more like every 1-3 months we get a mixup.

Edited by LordNothing, 21 October 2016 - 07:21 AM.

[Bud Crue]

LordNothing, on 21 October 2016 - 07:12 AM, said:

id actually prefer more flux in the balance. event little temporary 'what if' type balance tweaks just to see what it does to the game. it would be better than metas that last for months or even years. i fully expect a new meta before the kodiak anniversary. but it would be nice if it was more like every 1-3 months we get a mixup.

Is that "flux" that you speak of like a Kodiak-3 on one side of a teeter-totter and the rest of the mechs on the other?

I'd have no problem with the sort of "what if" type balance adjustments you mention if they actually appeared to be...ya know...about balance. But nerffing crappy mechs to make them crappier in the face of the current balance situation is absurd and honestly just stupid from a customer relations point of view. The subsequent "explanation" (see above) for this quirk pass doesn't help. This is all made even more absurd when one actually looks at PGI's own historical statements about what quirks are supposed to be for in the first place. May as well nerf the Vindicator next because the Phoenix Hawk looses its arms so quickly. Mechs have to be "normalized" after all. Geezus.

[LordNothing]

Bud Crue, on 21 October 2016 - 07:36 AM, said:

Is that "flux" that you speak of like a Kodiak-3 on one side of a teeter-totter and the rest of the mechs on the other?

I'd have no problem with the sort of "what if" type balance adjustments you mention if they actually appeared to be...ya know...about balance. But nerffing crappy mechs to make them crappier in the face of the current balance situation is absurd and honestly just stupid from a customer relations point of view. The subsequent "explanation" (see above) for this quirk pass doesn't help. This is all made even more absurd when one actually looks at PGI's own historical statements about what quirks are supposed to be for in the first place. May as well nerf the Vindicator next because the Phoenix Hawk looses its arms so quickly. Mechs have to be "normalized" after all. Geezus.

i was thinking more along the lines of buffs to seldom used mechs/equipment. as opposed to pointless nerfs that dont do what was intended and never get reversed after they prove to be a failure.