48 replies to this topic

[MechaBattler]

Lower heat cap, raise heat dissipation. Shy of flatout nerfing all Clan lasers. I don't think they can do too much more without going back to fat weapon quirks.

[Bud Crue]

El Bandito, on 02 November 2017 - 04:34 AM, said:

In the Battle of Luthien event Clans had 12% more wins in Invasion mode, compared to the widely touted 6% before. So balance became arguably worse, if anything.

Yes. Now I want a Dev to prove us all wrong or Make the attempt to explain to me me/us that the error of our perception (that balance is in fact worse) is due to something beyond our understanding (they have the data after all). I’d at least like to see them make an effort at helping us understand just what the heck they are doing and what actual effect that THEY think these changes are having on the game. Cuz as far as I can tell things are pretty bad, and the actions of the last several months have made them worse.

[FupDup]

Their data suggested that the IS Medium Laser was too strong, so I'd be skeptical of any other data they post if I were you...

[Tiewolf]

Data driven decision making is only as good as your data model actually displays what you want to measure and your ability to understand the meaning of the data. I have the suspicion that pgi lacks both.

The op asking the same guys for a comment, that tried to fake the data to a "IS is better then Clan" by mixing the different game modes without adjusting for the game numbers? Choose your pick but for me it was intentional and agenda driven even if the truth is obvious for everybody who actual play the game.

So don't expect much even if a dev comments this issue. Why would they? If they admit the obvious they have to act and I guess they lack the interests and the ideas to get the balance problem right.

Edited by Tiewolf, 02 November 2017 - 12:33 PM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

El Bandito, on 02 November 2017 - 04:34 AM, said:

In the Battle of Luthien event Clans had 12% more wins in Invasion mode, compared to the widely touted 6% before. So balance became arguably worse, if anything.

To use the Luthien win differential in the balance discussion PGI would have to factor out ghost drops. Winning while not facing any opponent can make win differential on that event mean more than it should.

Not Clan apologizing here...accurate numbers based on live games are what is needed and then the chips can fall where they may

[Bud Crue]

Tiewolf, on 02 November 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

Data driven decision making is only as good as your data model actually displays what you want to measure and your ability to understand the meaning of the data. I have the suspicion that pgi lacks both.

The op asking the same guys for a comment, that tried to fake the data to a "IS is better then Clan" by mixing the different game modes without adjusting for the game numbers? Choose your pick but for me it was intentional and agenda driven even if the truth is obvious for everybody who actual play the game.

So don't expect much even if a dev comments this issue. Why would they? If they admit the obvious they have to act and I guess they lack the interests and the ideas to get the balance problem right.

Bad data and bad modeling is one thing, but faking data? If we assume the later then there is no point to hoping for any understanding or actual balance of any kind. While I assume that some aspects of PGI’s...behavior...of late is indeed about driving folks toward purchases, I must also assume that no matter how self-interested or even stupid I may think their changes are they must have some good faith belief that such changes are in fact good for their product. That’s what I would like them to comment on. Screw the data. I just want to have an understanding of what they are hoping to do and why they think what they are doing is in all or any of our interests...theirs, the communities, the paying customers, anybody...how are these changes good for anyone and if they are good please explain why you think they are good and how you believe they are making the game better?

[Khobai]

Quote

Their data suggested that the IS Medium Laser was too strong, so I'd be skeptical of any other data they post if I were you...

ML was too strong in tabletop battletech even with RNG hit locations. So why wouldnt it also be too strong in MWO too with precise aiming?

PGI wasnt wrong about the ML being too good compared to Large Lasers. Two ML do more damage than a 5 ton LL for only 2 tons with only slightly shorter range. I can see how thats too good.

The problem is Light Mechs relied on MLs being above the curve compared to other laser weapons because light mechs dont have the tonnage to use large lasers.

They basically improved weapon balance but made weight class balance worse. They shouldve increased the medium laser quirks for lights and some mediums to compensate for the medium laser nerf.

Edited by Khobai, 02 November 2017 - 01:21 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 02 November 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

ML was too strong in tabletop battletech even with RNG hit locations. So why wouldnt it also be too strong in MWO too with precise aiming?

The ML may have been gold standard of TT...while guns like the PPC, CLPL, and Gauss were basically the platinum standard.

Khobai, on 02 November 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

PGI wasnt wrong about the ML being too good compared to Large Lasers. Two ML do more damage than a 5 ton LL for only 2 tons with only slightly shorter range. I can see how thats too good.

Slightly shorter range? 270 vs. 450 is a big difference. You're also forgetting about hardpoints (IS mechs can't boat them up the yin-yang like Clans).

Consider that PGI nerfed both the LL and LPL, so obviously that's going to throw things out of whack. Using the current LL as the baseline means you'll have to nerf a pretty huge chunk of this game's weaponry, so let's not do that.

Edited by FupDup, 02 November 2017 - 01:20 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

The ML may have been gold standard of TT...while guns like the PPC, CLPL, and Gauss were basically the platinum standard.

Gauss/ML was pretty much the best thing you could run on a custom mech. Assuming no clan tech because clan tech was broken as hell.

ML was platinum standard too IMO. Nothing else gave you 5 damage for only 1 ton.

Quote

Slightly shorter range? 270 vs. 450 is a big difference. You're also forgetting about hardpoints (IS mechs can't boat them up the yin-yang like Clans).

its not enough of a difference to be worth 3 extra tons though compared to two medium lasers.

and the addition of the er medium laser made that range disparity even smaller.

I get why medium lasers needed to fire slower.

Quote

Consider that PGI nerfed both the LL and LPL, so obviously that's going to throw things out of whack. Using the current LL as the baseline means you'll have to nerf a pretty huge chunk of this game's weaponry, so let's not do that.

Well PGI did it in the wrong order. They shouldve nerfed medium lasers first. Since the medium laser is essentially the baseline for all other laser weapons.

Edited by Khobai, 02 November 2017 - 01:32 PM.

[Cementi]

I to feel that balance, while still weighted toward clan's is certainly closer than it has been in the past.

The problem is the ability to faction flip with impunity. Getting down to the 5% mark is pretty good. Problem is tryhards typically have no loyalty toward any particular faction. They will always flip to which ever side has the advantage and since those types typically play far more than everyone else their extra skill amplifys the problem.

You should have to choose a side, Clan or IS. End of story.

However for those that own both clan and IS mechs on the same account simply allow people to drop in a crossfaction mech in factionplay. However do that and you pay repair and rearm for those mechs only. ie say an IS player drops with three IS mechs and one Clan mech. A modest fee for ammo and any damage that is incurred to the Clan mech would be taken out of the pay. Maybe even put in an interesting salvage system where you can get crossfaction stuff from FP.

It won't happen though so faction balance won't happen. Instead we will get solaris cause apparently 2v2 and 1v1 is fun and engaging content. Sorry I forgot, that's a feature, mechpacks are content.

[Tiewolf]

Bud Crue, on 02 November 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

Bad data and bad modeling is one thing, but faking data? If we assume the later then there is no point to hoping for any understanding or actual balance of any kind. While I assume that some aspects of PGI’s...behavior...of late is indeed about driving folks toward purchases, I must also assume that no matter how self-interested or even stupid I may think their changes are they must have some good faith belief that such changes are in fact good for their product. That’s what I would like them to comment on. Screw the data. I just want to have an understanding of what they are hoping to do and why they think what they are doing is in all or any of our interests...theirs, the communities, the paying customers, anybody...how are these changes good for anyone and if they are good please explain why you think they are good and how you believe they are making the game better?

I never said pgi "faked" data. I strongly believe pgi didn't fake any raw data. They just added numbers that had nothing to do with each other and had different bases values.
But I agree that I want to see pgi's big over all
plan on how to balance the game. But I can't see it and I suspect pgi has no plan that lead unavoidable to a balanced gameplay.

[naterist]

Remember when he said that post skill tree hed continue to push for no death but higher heat/mobility penalties on st loss in IS-XL even after newtech? What happened to that? Lets give that a shot, with some improvement to IS dhs, which are bigger than the clan version. Doesnt even have to be a general buff to is dhs, give them lower heat capacity, and higher heat loss (more slots=more surface area= faster heatloss) and give clas higher heat capacity but slower heat loss. Boom, realism, balance, and playstyle differentiation all in one tweak.

[Vonbach]

Balance? Clan lasers need to be nerfed and big time. But it'll never happen IS will be nerfed over and over.

[Agent 0range]

There are some obvious buffs you could give to IS to balance things without breaking the clans current builds

IS cannot fit many DHS, the value for IS DHS need to increase to compensate
FF and ENDO need an additional bonus like reduced crit or a small % to heat Disipation
IS LFE need reduced penalties for side torso loss than Clan XL

EDIT
And make the Targeting computer the same IS finally break the clans code and improve their own making them identical.

Edited by Agent 0range, 02 November 2017 - 02:00 PM.

[Tiewolf]

Cementi, on 02 November 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

I to feel that balance, while still weighted toward clan's is certainly closer than it has been in the past.

Sorry but no. I just have to look at the statistics of my own mechs to see the big gap between the performance of my clan and is mechs.

[El Bandito]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 02 November 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

To use the Luthien win differential in the balance discussion PGI would have to factor out ghost drops. Winning while not facing any opponent can make win differential on that event mean more than it should.

Not Clan apologizing here...accurate numbers based on live games are what is needed and then the chips can fall where they may

Yes, GD is also a factor. However, in Tuk Clans had GD too. I am using overall win ratio for both events.

[Asym]

Tiewolf, on 02 November 2017 - 01:42 PM, said:

But I agree that I want to see pgi's big over all plan on how to balance the game. But I can't see it and I suspect pgi has no plan that lead unavoidable to a balanced gameplay.

Here's what I think is the crux of the issue: everybody is talking about "now" (present) and PGI is enacting changes for a Strategic change "then" (future).... We are seeing the De-evolution of the battle-space in preparations for "something else"... IMHO that is Solaris; where it seems everyone can't wait to be and TTK is everything.....TTK is the Solaris metric.... TTK with full capability weapons at point blank ranges would be significantly shorter even with the Skill Tree Survival modes max'd... I may be wrong, but a lot of very smart players left after the Skill Tree changes in May because they saw a paradigm shift coming and did not want to take that trip..... If PGi had come and said we are doing "x" to implement "y" that would have given the community an ultimatum...as it is, they can drag this change out and NOT significantly influence their profit margin...
?????

Edited by Asym, 03 November 2017 - 10:19 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Asym, on 03 November 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

Here's what I think is the crux of the issue: everybody is talking about "now" (present) and PGI is enacting changes for a Strategic change "then" (future).... We are seeing the De-evolution of the battle-space in preparations for "something else"... IMHO that is Solaris; where it seems everyone can't wait to be and TTK is everything.....TTK is the Solaris metric.... TTK with full capability weapons at point blank ranges would be significantly shorter even with the Skill Tree Survival modes max'd... I may be wrong, but a lot of very smart players left after the Skill Tree changes in May because they saw a paradigm shift coming and did not want to take that trip..... If PGi had come and said we are doing "x" to implement "y" that would have given the community an ultimatum...as it is, they can drag this change out and NOT significantly influence their profit margin...
?????

As good a guess as any. My view of what they are up to is far more cynical. Meh. But your last point is really what I am getting at with my request for Chris to give us an update. PGI would be, I think, well served if they just leveled with their community. Treat us less like marks to be conned and more like share holders who have a vested interest in their success.

They still have a rabidly loyal community to their product and if they want to keep that community (regardless of how niche) they need to start dealing with it more openly or even more of us are going to leave. The population trend doesn’t lie. It is gradually dropping over time. They are not going to stem those losses by pissing off the few of us who are still here (and still spending) with hamfisted mechanics changes and a refusal to honestly discuss those changes and their impact. 5 months of nearly all nerfs to mechs and weapons and nary a word of explanation other than essentially: “our data says so”. That just doesn’t cut it.

IMHO, balance has never been worse in the three years that I have played. Not just tech balance but the once asserted goal of all mechs having a role and being of equal value type of balance. If they want me to keep spending (and I get the impression that I am not a lone voice here) they need to start explaining and start convincing me that they aren’t totally batshi7 crazy with what they have been up to of late.

[HGAK47]

Bud Crue, on 03 November 2017 - 10:59 AM, said:

Snip~
They still have a rabidly loyal community to their product and if they want to keep that community (regardless of how niche) they need to start dealing with it more openly or even more of us are going to leave.

Not just tech balance but the once asserted goal of all mechs having a role and being of equal value type of balance. If they want me to keep spending (and I get the impression that I am not a lone voice here) they need to start explaining and start convincing me that they aren’t totally batshi7 crazy with what they have been up to of late.

This mostly sums up how I feel. Im willing to spend more money if the PGI path is good and wise. Theres loads of stuff I want to buy but Im being cautious with my spending purely because I feel the same as you.

[Bud Crue]

HGAK47, on 03 November 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

This mostly sums up how I feel. Im willing to spend more money if the PGI path is good and wise. Theres loads of stuff I want to buy but Im being cautious with my spending purely because I feel the same as you.

Yeah. I’m typically not cautious though. I’m pretty sure I spend far more than the average whale and I am often happy to do so. I will happily keep doing so, if they can convince me that they have some rational basis for doing what they have been doing of late. But that is on them. They need to prove to me that this mess (and it sure seems like a mess to me) either isn’t really a mess, is a mess that is leading somewhere...less messy, or is actually a mess and they recognize it and are going to try and fix a it. But whatever, they need to start communicating and communicating in what appears to be an honest and forthright manner, if they want to get any more $ out of me.

Edited by Bud Crue, 03 November 2017 - 11:23 AM.