196 replies to this topic

[WolvesX]

SuperFunkTron, on 10 March 2017 - 06:12 PM, said:

Ok, so now that we have confirmed that was the topic, I do recall them saying that they wanted the baseline to see how the mechs behave and will adjust accordingly in the future as the game is a constant development process. They are clearly aware of the issue and them not addressing it how you want does not mean it was considered.
That doesn't sounds like they ignored it so much as they are waiting for live system data to adjust in relation to a baseline value with fewer quirks rather than using quirked values as a start point.

You don't need any kind of live data to predict the effect of these changes.

They are nerfing them because they are going to release new weapons in 3 months, making IS mechs unplayable for at least 3 months.

This game didn't release yesterday, it "released" years ago.

[SuperFunkTron]

WolvesX, on 10 March 2017 - 06:22 PM, said:

You don't need any kind of live data to predict the effect of these changes.

They are nerfing them because they are going to release new weapons in 3 months, making IS mechs unplayable for at least 3 months.

This game didn't release yesterday, it "released" years ago.

They seem to feel otherwise and they explained why during that discussion. They provided a basis for their thinking as well. I'm not interested in arguing about. Until we see how it works in practice and there is data and enough player experience confirming that a mech is underperforming in the new system, there is no sense being angry.

[WolvesX]

Yeah, you are right. I should way less passionate about this. Its not even my game, I'm just a player.

[SuperFunkTron]

WolvesX, on 10 March 2017 - 06:36 PM, said:

Yeah, you are right. I should way less passionate about this. Its not even my game, I'm just a player.

This got awkwardly emotional now... I don't recall talking about about passion.

They said they were aware of the concern and even alluded to ways that they would likely address it once they have data and evidence. I'm confused as to what is upsetting here if they heard the concern and are keeping an eye on it.

[Monkey Lover]

SuperFunkTron, on 10 March 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

Just in case you missed it:

Node Changes
- Minor node rearrangements throughout multiple branches.
- A handful of value changes through the Firepower, Survival, and Mobility trees.
- Survival tree has been expanded to allow for two things:
- Armor Hardening, Skeletal Density, and Reinforced Casing node counts expanded allowing for higher levels of investments within the tree.
- Node layout has been greatly altered to give more player choice between paths allowing for more heavy investment in Armor Hardening versus more investment in Skeletal Density.

Mobility System Changes:
- Have further tuned a series of lights and 'Mechs defined by mobility to further increase their base mobility attributes.




They actually listed some of the changes they intend to make.

Thats all really nice but that doesnt change the fact they're removing more quirks on some but nothing on others?

They're screwing up the basic balance we have

Leaving out mobility as they rolled this into the engine so they say...

CDA-3M Energy Heat Gen -5%
CDA-X5 Missile Cooldown -15%,-Energy Cool down -10% and Energy heat gen -10%



Or on the clan side

kdk1 and kdk2. They ripped all the quirks off the kdk2 and now the mobility is the same on both?

Edited by Monkey Lover, 10 March 2017 - 08:28 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

SuperFunkTron, on 10 March 2017 - 06:12 PM, said:

Ok, so now that we have confirmed that was the topic, I do recall them saying that they wanted the baseline to see how the mechs behave and will adjust accordingly in the future as the game is a constant development process. They are clearly aware of the issue and them not addressing it how you want does not mean it was considered.
That doesn't sounds like they ignored it so much as they are waiting for live system data to adjust in relation to a baseline value with fewer quirks rather than using quirked values as a start point.

Lol how can anyone think this is a good idea? You can adjust values with using quirks we been using for the last year. Good luck getting data from pos mechs people never use.

[SuperFunkTron]

Monkey Lover, on 10 March 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

Thats all really nice...

Yeah, it is.

Monkey Lover, on 10 March 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

They're screwing up the basic balance we have

Do you really expect the balance from the live server to translate directly into the new system? With engine decoupling, changed component health, the new upgrade tree etc... I don't really see how not establishing a baseline in a new system is a bad idea.

Monkey Lover, on 10 March 2017 - 08:38 PM, said:

Lol how can anyone think this is a good idea? You can adjust values with using quirks we been using for the last year. Good luck getting data from pos mechs people never use.

In what analytical scenarios do you ignore establishing a baseline? If people don't use a mech, then there won't be data, simple as that. Would you go to a doctor demanding that he doesn't create a baseline and uses your individual heart rate as a comparison point for a stress test? Would you have compare a car's performance upgrades to an arbitrary tuning shop or use the base model without mods as a place to understand improvements made comparatively?

It's funny that you think objectively balancing mechs can be done without establishing a baseline for mechs that would be affected greatly by the new system.

[Bud Crue]

SuperFunkTron, on 10 March 2017 - 09:44 PM, said:

Yeah, it is.

Do you really expect the balance from the live server to translate directly into the new system? With engine decoupling, changed component health, the new upgrade tree etc... I don't really see how not establishing a baseline in a new system is a bad idea.

In what analytical scenarios do you ignore establishing a baseline? If people don't use a mech, then there won't be data, simple as that. Would you go to a doctor demanding that he doesn't create a baseline and uses your individual heart rate as a comparison point for a stress test? Would you have compare a car's performance upgrades to an arbitrary tuning shop or use the base model without mods as a place to understand improvements made comparatively?

It's funny that you think objectively balancing mechs can be done without establishing a baseline for mechs that would be affected greatly by the new system.

We had a baseline in the existing system. How is rearranging the skills we currently all have or may purchase with modules via the new system going to somehow make that existing baseline different? What mechs suck now are going to suck in that "new" system. Is it really your poisiton that this will be otherwise...and that nerfing those already known to be bad mechs is going to help that? That by careful selection of nodes you are going to make a St. Ive's Blues vVindicator some how magically comparative with a Kodiak 3, which has access to those same nodes to select from? And that same Vindicator has such a possibility from those OP nodes that we need to nerf it beforehand just in case? Really?

We are talking about the nerfing of mechs that are KNOWN -objectively, comparatively known- to be crap and making them worse...and that's how you think a baseline is established? By that logic it would make just as much sense to BUFF the known over performers and say "this is necessary to establish a base line". How does that make any sense?

[SuperFunkTron]

Bud Crue, on 11 March 2017 - 05:30 AM, said:

We had a baseline in the existing system. How is rearranging the skills we currently all have or may purchase with modules via the new system going to somehow make that existing baseline different? What mechs suck now are going to suck in that "new" system. Is it really your poisiton that this will be otherwise...and that nerfing those already known to be bad mechs is going to help that? That by careful selection of nodes you are going to make a St. Ive's Blues vVindicator some how magically comparative with a Kodiak 3, which has access to those same nodes to select from? And that same Vindicator has such a possibility from those OP nodes that we need to nerf it beforehand just in case? Really?

We are talking about the nerfing of mechs that are KNOWN -objectively, comparatively known- to be crap and making them worse...and that's how you think a baseline is established? By that logic it would make just as much sense to BUFF the known over performers and say "this is necessary to establish a base line". How does that make any sense?

SuperFunkTron, on 10 March 2017 - 09:44 PM, said:

Do you really expect the balance from the live server to translate directly into the new system? With engine decoupling, changed component health, the new upgrade tree etc... I don't really see how not establishing a baseline in a new system is a bad idea.

As I clearly stated above, these are some of the changes they made. If you played the PTS, you would be able to confirm that it played quite differently from the live server.

You do understand what a base line is, right? Moving things toward a less quirked value, closer to the BASELINE point to which that quirk applies is how you get closer to a baseline value. The only time that you would buff to get to a baseline is if there are negative quirks. This is a concept that makes sense. I can't force you to understand logic in this case, you're going to have to arrive at it on your own. I suggest listening to some of the podcast so you can hear them explain it in their own words.

Of all comparisons, why would you choose to use a vindicator compared to a kodiak 3? These mechs are not only grossly mismatched in terms of weight, but are known to be on opposite ends of the utility spectrum. The vindicator is not supposed to be equal to the kodiak. Again, listen to what they said about the kodiak in the podcast. Large mobility nerfs, more fragile weapons, different heat mechanics in the new system..... these are other factors to consider.

I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated, but the new system is not a 1:1 translation of the old. How can you expect that quirks should be translated directly with all of the changes like heat management, mobility and engine decoupling, component health, and varying tree bonuses? That is like arguing that because both dogs and cats are house pets, a dog should land as safely as a cat when you drop it from 10 feet high.

Simply, different system, different baseline. If you have issues with that, good luck fighting reality.

[Bud Crue]

SuperFunkTron, on 11 March 2017 - 07:43 AM, said:

...
Simply, different system, different baseline. If you have issues with that, good luck fighting reality.

You keeping speaking of a baseline. Yet go look at the quirk changes. They didn't eliminate them...which would maybe get closer to some sort of logic of making the worst mechs worse for some sort if magic land of baseline establishment that you keep insisting upon. But go look closely. They left hundreds of quirks. They are ALL OVER THE MAP, on this.

How does having some mechs...some very good mechs...keeping quirks while others...some very bad mechs....losing all of there quirks, while literally hundreds of other mechs having them reduced or in a few cases left alone help your establishmen of a "baseline"? Under any testing protocol you care to name, this is about as far away from how to establish a baseline as is mathematically possible.

They are messing with thousands of variables simultaneously for no good reason other then to make sure that in the future they have an excuse for non stop perpetual change of the system going forward OR to obsolesce half the mechs n the game to encourage future sales.

You CANNOT establish a baseline in this manner. It isn't possible. It guarantees that those elements already at the lowest performance threshold in your schema -in any schema- are going to be made objectively worse performers. Unless you can provide some alternative reality wherein an objectively bad mech is made as good as a known superior mech when both are presented with the same options, then all quantitatively hurting your inferior performers will do is GUARANTEE their continued inferior performance in ANY...ANY...system. That is your baseline.

[Bud Crue]

SuperFunkTron, on 11 March 2017 - 07:43 AM, said:

Of all comparisons, why would you choose to use a vindicator compared to a kodiak 3? These mechs are not only grossly mismatched in terms of weight, but are known to be on opposite ends of the utility spectrum. The vindicator is not supposed to be equal to the kodiak. Again, listen to what they said about the kodiak in the podcast. Large mobility nerfs, more fragile weapons, different heat mechanics in the new system..... these are other factors to consider.

Really? I need to explain this?

Ok, so you see, we know the Vindicator is crap compared to the Kodiak. You state effectively as much above. Yet you are arguing that in order to know that the Vindicator really is crap in this system as well as in the new system we need to nerf it in that new system to help establish a "baseline" because performance is SOOOO different in that new system. This is what you argue above, yet you now claim to not understand the comparison. Really?

[SuperFunkTron]

Bud Crue, on 11 March 2017 - 08:38 AM, said:

Really? I need to explain this?

Ok, so you see, we know the Vindicator is crap compared to the Kodiak. You state effectively as much above. Yet you are arguing that in order to know that the Vindicator really is crap in this system as well as in the new system we need to nerf it in that new system to help establish a "baseline" because performance is SOOOO different in that new system. This is what you argue above, yet you now claim to not understand the comparison. Really?

I'm done, intentional ignorance is not going to lead to anything and you are set on your perspective of their efforts being garbage. Understand it how you like, continue to ignore PGI's explanations and assume that you know the entire situation and all the data that has an influence on the situation.

[Bud Crue]

SuperFunkTron, on 11 March 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

I'm done, intentional ignorance is not going to lead to anything and you are set on your perspective of their efforts being garbage. Understand it how you like, continue to ignore PGI's explanations and assume that you know the entire situation and all the data that has an influence on the situation.

I have never claimed to know "the entire situation and all the data that has an influence on the situation". All I have claimed is the same knowledge that we all have: That there are objectively bad mechs in this game.

You agree with that above.

All I am asserting is that the new system will not make those bad mechs suddenly superior or even as good as those mechs that we also know are superior to them.

Nerfing those bad mechs as part of that new system will not give us any new "data" that we don't already have, namely that bad mechs need quirks to be viable or competitive.

You have repeatedly argued that in order to know -what what already know- in the new system is that it is necessary to remove those quirks so that we can once again learn that crappy mechs in the current system will still be crappy in the new system. You are in essence arguing that in order to make this earth shattering discovery it is necessary to remove the quirks from those mechs that are bad -even with those quirks- so as to establish a baseline of performance to verify their badness.

What exactly am I being "intentionally ignorant" of here? A logical baseline to make that comparison would be from where we are right now so as to see the impact of the new system on those mechs and their KNOWN quirks, and adjust from there; rather than to preemptively change nearly every mech in the game to DIFFERENT and brand new degrees. If you think that is a logical or reasonable means of establishing a baseline of performance in ANY system, then yes I agree, it is pointless to discuss this further.

PGI is after all going to PGI and they have made clear that neither of our opinions are of much account.

[Duke Nedo]

SuperFunkTron, on 11 March 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

I'm done, intentional ignorance is not going to lead to anything and you are set on your perspective of their efforts being garbage. Understand it how you like, continue to ignore PGI's explanations and assume that you know the entire situation and all the data that has an influence on the situation.

Bud is right dude, the changes PGI has made to quirks when migrating them to the PTS has a very large dose of "random" to them. They are somewhat systematic about moving agility into the base stat and reducing velocity, but there are all kinds of other random stuff going on.

I am still convinced that as long as the Night Gyr is not nerfed (really, the engine decoupling should not affect it much since it's already rather slowish with its locked 300 engine on a 75 tonner), no other mech should be. None.

[Monkey Lover]

SuperFunkTron, on 11 March 2017 - 07:43 AM, said:

.

Of all comparisons, why would you choose to use a vindicator compared to a kodiak 3? These mechs are not only grossly mismatched in terms of weight, but are known to be on opposite ends of the utility spectrum. The vindicator is not supposed to be equal to the kodiak. Again, listen to what they said about the kodiak in the podcast. Large mobility nerfs, more fragile weapons, different heat mechanics in the new system..... these are other factors to consider.

.

You're right they're not the same but again I can't see how you can nerf a spirit bear by taking away all its armor quirks but leave the kdk3 alone. How can you nerf the kdk2 and leave the kdk1 alone.

Balance is going to be worse.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 11 March 2017 - 09:43 AM.

[Bud Crue]

To me, ignoring the nerdslap fest Superfunktron and I are having above, is I just don't understand how any of these nerfs support or further the stated goals of the skills tree:

Improve customization, promote increased mech and build diversity, transition to an individual mech skill tree and reduce quirks.

Yes, the last one obviously. But the first three? Even if I buy that there heart is pure and there are good reasons to make the quirk changes that they made (they aren't and I don't), the even temporary nerfing of that many mechs, to that degree and in such a random manner:
- will hurt customization (now I need to spend MORE nodes over here to get my crap mech back to at least its crappy levels of performance that it had before at the cost of nodes other, better mechs, can avoid);
- will harm diversity (wut? They nerfed my Dragon? They nerfed my Vindicators? They NERFED MY ZEUS!! Screw that I am not going to play those); and
- will, I suppose, aid in transitioning folks to the single mech based skills tree because all folks are going to bother skilling out and playing are the best mechs...and yes, some of them still have offensive quirks.

Those stated goals are not being served by the preemptive nerfing of mechs. So be it. Fine, establish your baseline, collect your data in some new era of PGI being proactive and engaged with balance. Sweet.
In the meantime WTF are me and all my nerfed crap mechs supposed to do until PGI gets around to un-nerfing them?
How are they going to collect any data if no one is playing what they just gutted? I mean raise your hand if you plan on playing the Adder B with LBX to help understand its new performance without quirks? Are you are going to play your newly nerfed Grasshopper J when the 5P is ready to go? Getting that newly nerfed Cicada out to play when the Viper is sitting there?.

I want the supporters to be right. I truly hope that the supporters of the skills tree and its nerfing of all that I enjoy is just the beginning of a new era of balance and mech performance idealization. Really I hope you are right and PGI is going to be addressing all of this with their coveted "data". Until then, I guess I will just putz around the mech lab waiting for your hopes to be realized.

[Cato Phoenix]

Build diversity - I've already figured out what 70% of my skills are going to be on almost all mechs.
Basically:
Mobility:22
Operations:13
Sensors: 11
Consumables: 9

Leaving 35 for FP/survival.

And all those mechs I've made plans for?

Boats. Boats boats boats. Not enough points to do more than one branch of the FP tree.

I don't know how I'm going to skill my WHM 6R with 2x AC10 and MLAS. You only get a benefit from the firepower tree from non boating if you dump -more- SP into it. I know how I'm going to skill all my clan laservomits though.

[Koshirou]

OP is completely correct. People who disagree are fanboys (or -girls), terminally obtuse, or both.

But on a related note: How about PGI just eliminate variants of chassis? I can no longer see a justification for them, since you do not need to level up three variants (which therefor have to exist) of a given chassis.

[Bud Crue]

Koshirou, on 12 March 2017 - 02:57 AM, said:

But on a related note: How about PGI just eliminate variants of chassis? I can no longer see a justification for them, since you do not need to level up three variants (which therefor have to exist) of a given chassis.

In effect they already have.

The loss or reduction of quirks makes the variants of several chassis indistinct from one another. Players are going to naturally skill out and play the one or two variants from each chassis that have inherently better "baseline" characteristics. After a while those variants that are of lesser value will simply cease to exist in the game.

Lets face it the reason sites like metamechs.com rank certain variant above others is because certain variants are better. Be it higher hard points, more hard points, quirks, what have you. Some are in fact better than others. As part of their new effort at establishing a "baseline" by reducing offensive quirks, PGI has made several chassis essentially identical, but for some very minimal quirks (e.g. the various 5% energy quirks that Crabs will have, the uniformity of Black Knights but for some minimal PPC quirks that remain, etc.). Under such a system I expect the players will naturally eliminate the "lesser" variants of a chassis as they segregate to those variants that have clearly superior "baseline" characteristics.

Example: the Grasshopper 5P with its superior hard points is often cited as the "best" of the hoppers. Under the current system the H is a contender, but it has some quirks that makes it so. Losing those quirks under the new system will make the H less desirable and make the superiority of the 5P even more apparent. Players will see this, and that is what they will play: the best mech with the best attributes. Same will be the case with other chassis, like the Battlemaster 2C vs the others, etc.

Why skill out an objectively inferior mech that has no quirks to help it be competitve? Sure some of us have the XP to do it, so what the hell, but what is going to get played in the actual game? Just like now we will see a limited number of those mechs that are the best; but I think to an even greater degree, as the loss of quirks will make that "best" vs everything else distinction even more crystal clear for several chassis.

So no PGI does not need to eliminate all but one variant of each chassis, with the upcoming changes, we will do that for them.

[WolvesX]

We need a bigger boat.