196 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

SuperFunkTron, on 06 March 2017 - 06:59 AM, said:

Was it not clear in any of my last 3 posts that I believe it makes sense that they establish a baseline in the new system rather than trying to force the old system into the new? People who are wanting a replica of the old performance in the new system are like someone trying to force a square peg in a round hole.

You satisfied with the answer, boss?

No its not clear and I am not satisfied with the answer. How do they nerf/buff without adding quirks back which you asserted above is totally acceptable...and totally ignoring the one of the stated goals of the skills tree which is to remove quirks? In other words your assertion that they will subsequently buff outliers not only doesn't make any sense given your prior statements about quirks but it also ignores PGI's stated goals.

Nowhere in the skills tree announcment has PGI suggested that any aspect of the skills tree is about balance or improving it. They do however say very clearly that IT IS about the drastic reduction in the use of quirks. Yet you are now insisting that contrary to that goal, they are going to do a 180 and commence with all of this subsequent balancing when A) historically they only have ever done so with quirks and B, they have stated that their goal is the removal of quirks.

So forgive me for not understanding where you are coming from here, because what you are asserting is TOTALLY contrary to what PGI has stated AND how they have historically balanced the game.

Edited by Bud Crue, 06 March 2017 - 07:10 AM.

[Dr Cara Carcass]

WolvesX, on 02 March 2017 - 10:09 AM, said:

Look here for the changes:
http://static.mwomer...re%20Quirks.pdf
http://static.mwomer...an%20Quirks.pdf

It might be complicated to understand the consequences, so I picked some examples and try to make it more simple to understand.

PGIs idea with this was: Compensation for the cut of skills and addition of the skill tree.

BUT there is a gigant problem and it seems they didn't get it.

---

Let me explain it with a few examples:

Two 100 Tonners.

ATLAS-D-DC vs KDK-3

3 Trees skilled. (71 SP KDK-3, 73 ATLAS-D-DC (ECM 2 more))



Now lets compare:

The Atlas lost: laser duration, missile velocity, missile cooldown, turn rate, torso turn rate, torso turn angle, ecm effectivness.

The KDK-3 lost: Nothing, because it hasn't had any quirks in the first place.

Both have gained the same, because the skill tree is the same for both.

EFFECT:You have nerfed the D-DC in comparison!

This is JUST ONE example, some are more extreme than others.



The movement pattern is basicly the same for both on PTS2.1 So the Atlas isn't better than the KDK-3 on that front.

---

And now the AWS-8T...

It loses:
Energy CD -20% (!!!)
Energy Heat Gen -10%
Laser Duration -5%
TTR -35%

And it gains THE SAME as any other 80 tonner that lost NOTHING. Don't know if PGI is trolling to be honest.

EXAMPLE ORION:

NEW:

OLD:


As you can see the Orion (of all things) got nerfed...

excluding the mobility ones: -5% BCD, -20% BV

---

Visualized Example:

HBK-IIC before the skilltree in comparison (with quirks and mastery).

Orion before the skilltree in comparison (with quirks and mastery).


AFTER THE SKILLTREE

HBK-IIC after the skilltree in comparison (with quirks).

Orion after the skilltree in comparison (with quirks).

RESULT: As you can see, the Orion would now be worse in comparison.

The reason:
1) Both got the skills removed.
2) Both got the skill tree added.
3) Only the Orion (and many other IS and Clan mechs) got its quirks nerfed / removed.

Now:
Can we agree on that taking away quirks to "balance" an universal change is a bad thing?

Those mech needed the quirks before.

IF you take away these quirks, you buff those mech who where without quirks in the first place.

---

Basic explanation (simplified):

MECH1 = 10 ; MECH2= 15.
MECH1 (with quirks) = 10+5; MECH2= 15.

But if you add the skill tree & nerf MECH1s (for example the Vindicator) quirks:

MECH1= 10 +5 -4 +3 = 14
MECH2= 15 + 3 = 18

See the flaw?
Now MECH2 (f.e. Timber Wolf) is even stronger than before in comparison with MECH1 (f.e. Summoner)

---

An other example:

- The HBK-IIC has no quirks and gets the skill tree.
- The Awesome has quirks and also gets the skill tree.

So if you take away the quirks of the Awesomes and don't take away something from the HBK-IIC, you have buffed the HBK-IIC.

---

This makes NO sence at all: WHY WOULD THE AWESOME WITH THE SKILL TREE BUT WITHOUT ITS QUIRKS MORE EQUAL TO AN HBK-IIC THAT ALSO gets the skill tree?
---

Its basic math.

PLEASE if I get the math wrong here explain it to me!

---

It doesn't make any sence at all! Those chassis where not balanced in the first place.
THAT IS WHY you added quirks to them.
IF YOU NOW take away something from only ONE chassis it and add the same to both...

THE

BALANCE

IS

NOT

THE

SAME!

---

But this is not just an Clan / IS problem.

If you take quirks away from the Summoner (for example) the result would be the same:

Relative to the Timber Wolf the Summoner would be worse, because you added the skill tree to both, but took away from only one of the two.

---

Possible Solutions

1) Don't take away quirks from underperformers

OR

2) Give underperformers more skill points for free depending on the chassis.

OR

3) Fix "pinpoint" and call it a day...

---

English is not my first language, sorry for orthography errors!

That is waht everybody around me has been saying from the beginning. I belive PGI doesnt udnerstand their own game more and more withe very new thing they try to bring.

[WolvesX]

Cara Carcass, on 06 March 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:

That is waht everybody around me has been saying from the beginning. I belive PGI doesnt udnerstand their own game more and more withe very new thing they try to bring.

Then help me to help PGI to understand, make them know!

Twitter about this thread to Russ.

Send personal messages.

There HAS to be some way to get them to understand OR at least comment on it!

[Dr Cara Carcass]

I bet, that PGI used a script and went like if quirk >30% (lets say 50% is the actual quirk value) go and reduce to 30% because with the skill treee u can add 20% an u end up at 50% without realizing that the claners get 20% too. Which makes it 50% to 20% versus the old 50% to 0%. And therefore a nerf to the IS mechs compared to the clan mechs.

It really feels like then when i read the list of nerfs.

[Dr Cara Carcass]

WolvesX, on 06 March 2017 - 07:25 AM, said:

Then help me to help PGI to understand, make them know!

Twitter about this thread to Russ.

Send personal messages.

There HAS to be some way to get them to understand OR at least comment on it!

Urgh never used twitter or facebook - not happening. But i did discuss it with ppl from several units that do write things like this on reddit and twitter.

[SuperFunkTron]

Bud Crue, on 06 March 2017 - 07:09 AM, said:

No its not clear and I am not satisfied with the answer. How do they nerf/buff without adding quirks back which you asserted above is totally acceptable...and totally ignoring the one of the stated goals of the skills tree which is to remove quirks? In other words your assertion that they will subsequently buff outliers not only doesn't make any sense given your prior statements about quirks but it also ignores PGI's stated goals.

Nowhere in the skills tree announcment has PGI suggested that any aspect of the skills tree is about balance or improving it. They do however say very clearly that IT IS about the drastic reduction in the use of quirks. Yet you are now insisting that contrary to that goal, they are going to do a 180 and commence with all of this subsequent balancing when A) historically they only have ever done so with quirks and B, they have stated that their goal is the removal of quirks.

So forgive me for not understanding where you are coming from here, because what you are asserting is TOTALLY contrary to what PGI has stated AND how they have historically balanced the game.

How the hell am I supposed to speak for them? I simply said I don't know how they plan on handling it. Can't make it much more clear than that. If you are as angry as you seem, try calling or contacting them.

Their statement is that they want to establish a baseline before continuing to flesh out the system. If future work on developing it is not clearly implicated by that statement, I'd like you to explain what it really means. Not sure what issue that raises exactly, but it really seems to stress you out.

And I insist nothing. I stated my belief that is that outlier mechs will be adjusted one way or another in the future.

P.S. Did the removal of Timber Wolf nerfs not count as a buff/ return of quirk for you?

[Taxxian]

Well your arguments are not entirely wrong but the skill tree changes many balancing aspects and we definitely need to test it on a larger scale before complaining and tweaking the balance.

I did not read all the posts but you seem to forget that the IS Skill Tree has higher values for many nodes than the clan skill tree.

Many Mechs are buffed/nerfed by the engine-agility decoupling, that hits Clan and IS Mechs alike.

I think we should look at individual Mechs now, not overall quirks lists... the old quirks are really only a small part of what has been altered...

On the other hand we would also need to know how the new technology performs that will be upon us in just 3 months... And that again will change most everything... an Assault with 2 Missile HPs is considered useless by most tier 1 players at the moment, once it gets to fit MRM 80, those HPs will suddenly be extremely strong...

[Bud Crue]

SuperFunkTron, on 06 March 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

How the hell am I supposed to speak for them? I simply said I don't know how they plan on handling it. Can't make it much more clear than that. If you are as angry as you seem, try calling or contacting them.

Their statement is that they want to establish a baseline before continuing to flesh out the system. If future work on developing it is not clearly implicated by that statement, I'd like you to explain what it really means. Not sure what issue that raises exactly, but it really seems to stress you out.

And I insist nothing. I stated my belief that is that outlier mechs will be adjusted one way or another in the future.

P.S. Did the removal of Timber Wolf nerfs not count as a buff/ return of quirk for you?

But you are in effect speaking for them. You are asserting that they are going to "nerf/buff the outliers and balance it out" yet they have made no statement that such is their intent. In fact they have said their intent is to remove quirks. You seem to think they will do some sort of subsequent buffing and balancing and I am simply wondering how they are going to do that given that historically they have done such balancing EXCUSIVELY with quirks, which is something they have stated as a goal to eliminate.

I'm not "angry" at your apparent claim of knowing PGI's plans, in fact I hope you are right. I'm simply wondering how such subsequent balancing plans can be instituted given their statement of intent regarding the elimination of quirks yet quirks being historically the only way they balance.

Edit:
As to the timber wolf. Yes that may count. But one instance of correcting a nerf does not overcome the historical record of nearly all other "balance" action conducted by PGI wherein once a positive quirk is removed or eliminated it is not subsequently restored.

Edited by Bud Crue, 06 March 2017 - 09:17 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Bud Crue, on 06 March 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

But you are in effect speaking for them. You are asserting that they are going to "nerf/buff the outliers and balance it out" yet they have made no statement that such is their intent. In fact they have said their intent is to remove quirks. You seem to think they will do some sort of subsequent buffing and balancing and I am simply wondering how they are going to do that given that historically they have done such balancing EXCUSIVELY with quirks, which is something they have stated as a goal to eliminate.

I'm not "angry" at your apparent claim of knowing PGI's plans, in fact I hope you are right. I'm simply wondering how such subsequent balancing plans can be instituted given their statement of intent regarding the elimination of quirks yet quirks being historically the only way they balance.

Edit:
As to the timber wolf. Yes that may count. But one instance of correcting a nerf does not overcome the historical record of nearly all other "balance" action conducted by PGI wherein once a positive quirk is removed or eliminated it is not subsequently restored.

Would have to dig around but I think I read that PGI intends to "bake in" the Quirks of some of the "outlier" Mechs in order to do "exactly" what you want... Maybe you could use the search tool or just re-read the Notes provided over the last couple months to confirm.

[Bud Crue]

Almond Brown, on 06 March 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

Would have to dig around but I think I read that PGI intends to "bake in" the Quirks of some of the "outlier" Mechs in order to do "exactly" what you want... Maybe you could use the search tool or just re-read the Notes provided over the last couple months to confirm.

Yes. After the hubbub of the mechcon presentation which stated "quirks removed" Russ subsequently tweeted that under performing mechs like "his Dragon" would have base line performance values to aid them. "Base line values" were in subsequent tweets referred to as "quirks". And yet, when the PTS was proposed nearly ever mech in need of such base line help were nerfed by removal of most or all offensive quirks. The skills tree announcment also stated as one of four goals (diversity and choice being the basis of the first three) that PGI intended to dramatically decrease the use of quirks.

With that as the history, what do you think there intentions are here? I can only note that their official posts are all consistent in the stated goal of reducing or eliminating quirks. Only Russ's tweets suggest some sort of "help" but that was from tweets in December and early January. As far as the "official" record is concerned PGI is silent on any supposed future re-buffing of the mechs they nerfed via the skills tree and PTS. Maybe they will fix this. But their stated goals and conduct since mechcon suggests that they have no intention of doing such a thing.

[Monkey Lover]

I just dont get what they're doing with these quirks. I posted just 3 below , its like they ran a script over the xml file. Some mechs are dropping 20% ballastic cool down some are dropping 5% . Some drop 5% energy some drop 15.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 06 March 2017 - 01:59 PM.

[WolvesX]

I think that they thought that these changes would "bring those chassis in line" that they wouldn't be OP with the skill tree, but...

... well, they... no. No I'm not... Lets just say that didn't work out quite the way it whould have been done.

[Bud Crue]

Monkey Lover, on 06 March 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

I just dont get what they're doing with these quirks. I posted just 3 below , its like they ran a script over the xml file. Some mechs are dropping 20% ballastic cool down some are dropping 5% . Some drop 5% energy some drop 15.

For real fun go look at some fairly objective list of mechs or at least some fairly respected list; something like metamechs.com or what have you. Now look up and write down the lowest rated, crappiest mechs on any such listing. Now go up to PGI's nerf spreadsheet for the skills tree. Yup, that's right, even the absolute worst mechs in the game are losing quirks. They are nerfing the worst mechs in the game and this is supposed to be an act of balance? So, somehow using the magic of PGI (and some commentators) the worst mechs in the game are being made worse and the skills tree, which provides the same quirks/skills to every mech on an equal basis, is somehow going to equalize those mechs to the performance levels of mechs that are superior to them in every way.

Does that make ANY sense at all?

As to the idea that PGI is going to put some future effort into balancing these mechs or correcting their nerfing, would it not make more sense to leave these low performers alone (that is leave their already crappy baseline performance as it currently exists as it is without nerfs) for the skills tree test and then BUFF them as necessary? But no preemptively nerfing them is somehow going to show the impact of the skills tree?

WHAT?

Now consider Monkey Lover's point above...the totally inconsistent nature of the nerfing being done. Even if you buy that elimination of quirks for the worst mechs in the game is for some sort of "baseline" establishment; what kind of baseline is being established when the quirks however reduced are still all over the a map?

This whole process defies reason, logic or even a remote relevance to any sort of testing protocol. In short, it is stupid and it is impossible for it to result in any useful or relevant data.

Edited by Bud Crue, 06 March 2017 - 03:58 PM.

[Kmieciu]

Cara Carcass, on 06 March 2017 - 07:36 AM, said:

I bet, that PGI used a script and went like if quirk >30% (lets say 50% is the actual quirk value) go and reduce to 30% because with the skill treee u can add 20% an u end up at 50% without realizing that the claners get 20% too. Which makes it 50% to 20% versus the old 50% to 0%. And therefore a nerf to the IS mechs compared to the clan mechs.

It really feels like then when i read the list of nerfs.

I'm sure it was a script. Otherwise they could not possibly made that many data entry mistakes (4 minutes to reach top speed lol).

I found another brilliant balancing gem:
All Stalkers lost Energy Heat Gen and Laser duration quirks (5-10% range)
Meanwhile Warhawk-C still has -13% energy heat generation and -5% pulse laser duration.

Why? Because those qurks are tied to omnipods and set-of-8 bonus. (-4-4-5=-13%).
I bet nobody at PGI even took a look at all those mechs in the mechlab.

Edited by Kmieciu, 07 March 2017 - 01:27 AM.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Kmieciu, on 06 March 2017 - 11:11 PM, said:

I'm sure it was a script. Otherwise they could not possibly made that many data entry mistakes (4 minutes to reach top speed lol).

I found another brilliant balancing gem:
All Stalkers lost Energy Heat Gen and Laser duration quirks (5-10% range)
Meanwhile Warhawk-C still has -13% energy heat generation and -5% pulse laser duration.

Why? Because whose qurks are tied to omnipods and set-of-8 bonus. (-4-4-5=-13%).
I bet nobody at PGI even took a look at all those mechs in the mechlab.

Let's just hope they did it like that just to try out the new system that may be shot down by a storm of whine from the players, so there wasn't much point in going into detail. Let's hope they'll go for some fine tuning if they decide it is a way to go.

[Kmieciu]

Maybe this whole PTS is designed to fail, just like infotech PTS and energy draw PTS...

Maybe they need it as an excuse just to prove they're trying to improve the game, while the community shots down all their brilliant ideas?

Because giving laser duration, projectile velocity and jumpjet buffs to every top performing mech is a great balancing, right?

Edited by Kmieciu, 07 March 2017 - 01:34 AM.

[WolvesX]

Kmieciu, on 07 March 2017 - 01:32 AM, said:

Maybe this whole PTS is designed to fail, just like infotech PTS and energy draw PTS...

Maybe they need it as an excuse just to prove they're trying to improve the game, while the community shots down all their brilliant ideas?

Because giving laser duration, projectile velocity and jumpjet buffs to every top performing mech is a great balancing, right?

While one could think that way with reason, I think they just didn't get what they are actually doing.

Why would one invest money and thoughts into a system just to scrap it again and again?

The sad truth is, I think the guys @ PGI aren't good players.

Look @ the developers of Paradox for example. Some of them are the BEST players on the planet of their own game. In a compedative multiplayer game (like 4v4). A team of PDX devs would DESTROY most players of PDX games. I face if you take the best PDX devs the best player of the community, I think the best community player would still win, but it would be an extremely hard fight.

Compare this to MWO.

Imagine IREX, EVIL or other units would 4v4 or 12v12 PGIs staff.

I call 100% wins for the community teams without even the slightest hint of a chance for PGI and that is part of the problem. They don't "understand" the implications of the system they created.

[Oberost]

WolvesX, on 07 March 2017 - 02:13 AM, said:

Why would one invest money and thoughts into a system just to scrap it again and again?

Do you see a lot of man/hours or thoughts invested into this system?

Kmieciu, on 07 March 2017 - 01:32 AM, said:

Maybe they need it as an excuse just to prove they're trying to improve the game, while the community shots down all their brilliant ideas?

This ^^ seems to me the reason behind this mess. This or pure and raw incompetence...

Edit: we all know now that PGI just spended the last year working in their demo of MW5, so little surprise that this "great" skill tree is the result of having MWO in maintenance mode.

Two separate teams developing both games? Come on...

Edited by Oberost, 07 March 2017 - 02:30 AM.

[Kmieciu]

Oberost, on 07 March 2017 - 02:26 AM, said:

Do you see a lot of man/hours or thoughts invested into this system?

Some guy wrote a webapp that works better than the in-game skilltree UI.
He did it for free, in his spare time:
https://nbarnes.gith...l_tree_planner/

[Bud Crue]

Oberost, on 07 March 2017 - 02:26 AM, said:

Do you see a lot of man/hours or thoughts invested into this system?


This ^^ seems to me the reason behind this mess. This or pure and raw incompetence...

Edit: we all know now that PGI just spended the last year working in their demo of MW5, so little surprise that this "great" skill tree is the result of having MWO in maintenance mode.

Two separate teams developing both games? Come on...

Buckle up and put the Tin foil hat on:

Consider too the history. Remember the first CW round table and Russ's admission regarding their development of that mode? They didn't just let it stagnate -for what was it 7 months- they didn't have a single person even monitoring it. That was admitted to. Now add that to the announcement regarding MW5. The current level of power creep and the tech advance. Now the boondoggle of this skills tree. Whats that say to you?

Some might say that they are trying to do too much and they just need to focus. Nah, I see a pattern far more nefarious.
To my cynical little mind this pattern suggests they are only doing what is necessary to sell as many mechs as possible to fund MW5 development. Go start a post about "hey what is the new tech or new mech you are most excited for" and see the posts and potential future customers role in. Now go put up a thread about "how to fix CW or how to improve the skills tree" and you...just like PGI...will see where the real interest of the player/customers lie (not in improving the game). They are not stupid (in this regard). If they need to have a pretense of fulfilling past promises (skills tree) in order to get to the point where they can throw as much OP nostalgia mechs at the remaining whales to keep the lights on, it is in their best interest to do it. In this scenario there is zero need to put up anything more than a pretense of effort toward skills tree, balance or even game play mechanics...everything that counts is about mechs and $.

I hope that isn't true. But if they were willing to abandon their "end game content" for that long before, what makes you think they are really putting forth "real" effort into anything else that doesn't directly make them money -like the skills tree- now? The only real effort we ever see from these folks is that which is focused on selling mechs. Think about this: The new resistance heroes. When has PGI reconfigured hard points and added weapons and even god forbid ECM to new variants just because the players asked them to? But in a scenario where they don't care about balance, but ONLY care about sales they are happy to add ECM to the new Enforcer. Happy to add a ballistic mount to the Black Knight. Some folks said please and they said "Yes! Just Buy Em!" Now they can -as always- claim that they meant those features to be included, but still it sure is suggestive.

I don't really believe any of the above, but patterns of behavior form patterns for a reason. What's PGI's reason for ther pattern? To make an engaging immersive Mechwarrior game that they advertised all those years ago and that we are still waiting for, or is it to make as much money off this run at the franchise and move on to another project? What's the pattern of behavior suggest to you?

Hats off.