Jump to content

A Community-Driven Balance Update


1125 replies to this topic

#781 Jarl Dane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Point Commander
  • Point Commander
  • 1,803 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationJarnFolk Cluster

Posted 13 February 2018 - 11:26 AM

View Postsycocys, on 13 February 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:

Initiative folks (Dane/Tarragato/Navid and the rest) -

I can tell you with certainty that I will not be behind any balance initiative that doesn't start with accounting for adding a loadout cost to the skil buff tree and non-slotted consumables, and then tackle the base tech that sets the stage for the weapon issues. Even then you'll have a hard time getting me on board unless there's a realistically implementable plan for and energy draw system to replace the useless ghost heat mechanic.

Wish you guys the best, but you started in the wrong place to effect any sort of game balance.


Cool. Since that's not going to happen because PGI wont make those moves you're effectively saying you would rather nothing happen than something. Which is fine, that is your prerogative, it is an unfortunate stance to take, but we always knew people would support the status quo. However, so long as those people are the minority nothing changes.

#782 PobbestGob

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 197 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 11:32 AM

^^Energy draw was and would be an unnecessary replacement to an unnecessary problem. I'd like to see ghost heat removed entirely with a reduction in the heat cap, but as Dane said PGI is only open to baby steps and tiny changes, nothing so large as changing game mechanics entirely seems to reach them because they're not interested (Paul made this clear in the recent podcast). Weapons values aren't ideal, yes, but they're something.

Edited by Kill2Blit, 13 February 2018 - 11:46 AM.


#783 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,635 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 11:58 AM

Well you simply aren't going to get anywhere with weapons changes as the basis other than compounding the problems of the various mechanics that send them into imbalance in the first place.

It doesn't matter how balanced you make them look on the weapon table when the underlying mechanics are what throw the whole system into disarray in the first place.

So if that's the direction you insist on going you are just wasting the time of everyone involved.

#784 ROSS-128

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 396 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 12:02 PM

Hmm... since Clans can use standard engines now in their Battlemechs... what if instead of removing ST death on IS XLs, we added ST death to Clan XLs and made them take up 3 slots per side torso? I'd be willing to offer Clanners access to LFEs as a compromise...

Then Clan OmniMechs can be in the same boat as IS OmniMechs. :P

#785 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,954 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 13 February 2018 - 12:07 PM

View Postsycocys, on 13 February 2018 - 11:58 AM, said:

Well you simply aren't going to get anywhere with weapons changes as the basis other than compounding the problems of the various mechanics that send them into imbalance in the first place.

It doesn't matter how balanced you make them look on the weapon table when the underlying mechanics are what throw the whole system into disarray in the first place.

So if that's the direction you insist on going you are just wasting the time of everyone involved.


Couple things.
1) go look at Tarogato's posts on Reddit regarding this. Weapon stats are the only thing that Paul was apparently willing to listen to. NOT the "underlying mechanics". If PGI expressed openness to such things then they would have been given more emphasis. Note also, that as this effort evolved and was criticized and critiqued the folks pushing it DID actuall start to hint at a need to make some of the changes you are noting. Which brings us to:

2) go listen to the podcast. Paul specifically said that the unfunning effort being pushed had a "lot of BIG changes", "a lot of very specific values" and that such "big changes" were not something that PGI does (despite history to the contrary he didsay this). He indicated that that even these mere weapons stat changes were too big of a change to be considered. And such changes could only be considered if :
1) they could be iteratively implemented over time;
2) they were in accordance with PGI's plans (see the discussion about increasing TTK)
3) they had community consensus.

If the proposal which was comprised of just weapons changes -and honestly fairly minor weapons changes- were "too much, too soon, too not our idea or our goals for the game" for PGI what makes you think they would be open to changing these "underlying mechanics" that you speak of?

I'm sorry but that is not a failing of this unfunning effort, that is a failing of PGI's. Its all there in the podcast.

Edited by Bud Crue, 13 February 2018 - 12:09 PM.


#786 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,635 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 12:19 PM

Whether you, Dane (and the rest), or even Paul like it or not - there's simply not going to be any semblance of balance made without mechanics changes.

Doesn't really matter to me how you want to waste your time, but you aren't ever going to get anything close to a consensus if you aren't on their heels about the root causes.

#787 Jarl Dane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Point Commander
  • Point Commander
  • 1,803 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationJarnFolk Cluster

Posted 13 February 2018 - 12:19 PM

View Postsycocys, on 13 February 2018 - 11:58 AM, said:


...



I get what you are saying.
Why bother fighting for an inch when what we need is a mile?

But as has been alluded to by others and myself, a mile is beyond my control. Hell, an inch might asking for too much for PGI. But, be that as it may, I am not ready to just lay down and accept what is happening. Perhaps if we get enough inches the mile wont look so distant, but we aren't there, not at all.

I fight for my inch, useless as it may be, because it's still closer to going a mile then giving up will get us.

#788 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,635 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 12:22 PM

View PostMech The Dane, on 13 February 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:


I fight for my inch, useless as it may be, because it's still closer to going a mile then giving up will get us.


The problem is that even if you get your inch or even miles of them, its in the route of a circle. You aren't accomplishing anything except changing numbers that put you right back where you started.

#789 Jarl Dane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Point Commander
  • Point Commander
  • 1,803 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationJarnFolk Cluster

Posted 13 February 2018 - 12:23 PM

View Postsycocys, on 13 February 2018 - 12:22 PM, said:

The problem is that even if you get your inch or even miles of them, its in the route of a circle. You aren't accomplishing anything except changing numbers that put you right back where you started.


Some times that's the best place to be.

#790 Sigmar Sich

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 1,059 posts
  • LocationUkraine, Kyiv

Posted 13 February 2018 - 12:34 PM

View PostBud Crue, on 13 February 2018 - 12:07 PM, said:

I'm sorry but that is not a failing of this unfunning effort, that is a failing of PGI's. Its all there in the podcast.

I do not believe it is a failing of community effort. It is a start. Nobody said it will be an easy fight or immediate victory.
PGI have its faults, but community effort was far from perfect, despite containing some good ideas. (And some flipping bads, like LGR range)
________________________
next is to everyone, not about quote

Podcast wasn't bad: PGI is listening. PGI said what form of feedback they need (not direct numbers, but more general ideas and problem reports).
My view on MWO problems - no one have the full picture. PGI, community - we all have different pieces of the puzzle (and no group in community have them all, get over your egos).

If community will manage to create a solid feedback channel both with PGI, and within itself - it is an absolute win.
To waste this opportunity for a riot like "PGI, you ignored us! Have at you!" would be stupid.
Rework community suggestion in requested form, reach consensus on each aspect, speak to PGI. If fail, then it will be PGI fault.

P.S. And about community consensus, if you guys will be absolutely honest with yourselves, you will notice some resemblance between PGI and yourself. About how usual feedback is ignored if it doesnt fit your plans, and real discussion only happens on a major outcry, like PPC+Gauss.

#791 Verilligo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 789 posts
  • LocationPodunk, U.S.A.

Posted 13 February 2018 - 12:41 PM

If we're going to take the route of inches to reach a mile, perhaps some attention should be given to the granularity of those inches. If you were to approach the balance team with the idea that once every month a small group of community members could submit a change approved by the wider community to a SINGLE weapon with the caveat that PGI be allowed to alter or reverse that particular change in later months, would that be small enough to keep Paul from losing his mind? Could we get Chris on board with that?

#792 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 13 February 2018 - 12:48 PM

View PostJohnathan Tanner, on 13 February 2018 - 02:59 AM, said:

Just like you lol, And don't count the will of the people out just yet my friend.


In the end, it's the cash flow that matters. As such, it depends on just who these "the people" are and what they decide to do.

#793 Daemon04

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 199 posts
  • LocationYou can google Mozartkugel or you can scan an Austrian.

Posted 13 February 2018 - 01:29 PM

Thank you all for trying change this game for the better.

Ill be supporting tarogato and his spreadsheat-magic as well as everyone else who wants this game to thrive and prosper.

Im good with all the proposed changes relating the weapons so far.

Though I gotta say that my issues lie significantly on:

the rescaling (looking at my dear firestarters)

engine desync (some mediums do feel like im piloting a friggin heavy or assault)

skill tree (im still thinking that mechs need individual skill trees rather than a general one).

oh i almost forgot my biggest concern - oneshotable xl engines but thats for another time.

#794 Kin3ticX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 2,926 posts
  • LocationSalt Mines of Puglandia

Posted 13 February 2018 - 02:06 PM

you wouldnt put an energy draw bar to nerf alphas just like you wouldnt put a jump jet jump jet bar to nerf jump jets.

Nested bars are bad on the order of Atomic Longtom.

#795 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,954 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 13 February 2018 - 02:21 PM

View PostSigmar Sich, on 13 February 2018 - 12:34 PM, said:


Podcast wasn't bad: PGI is listening. PGI said what form of feedback they need (not direct numbers, but more general ideas and problem reports).
My view on MWO problems - no one have the full picture. PGI, community - we all have different pieces of the puzzle (and no group in community have them all, get over your egos).



I don't think you and I heard the same podcast.

#796 Scyther

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,271 posts
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 13 February 2018 - 02:31 PM

I'd strongly suspect that 'no mechanics changes' is a way of saying one of two things. Either:

-We won't/can't allocate the programming resources to make fundamental changes in the way this engine operates.

or

-The profitability of MWO is on a thin enough edge that there is no way we will risk losing current playing customers in hopes that a mechanics change will attract more players/spending.

As much as I would like to see some basic changes to the way the game works, it is entirely possible that small tweaks to existing systems is all we will ever get. It's not 'in development' anymore. Thus, best to find the ones we can most easily live with and push for those.

Edited by MadBadger, 13 February 2018 - 02:31 PM.


#797 Sigmar Sich

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 1,059 posts
  • LocationUkraine, Kyiv

Posted 13 February 2018 - 04:34 PM

View PostBud Crue, on 13 February 2018 - 02:21 PM, said:


I don't think you and I heard the same podcast.

We did, we did. It depends on perspective.
This community uprising feels like last ditch effort, i feel the same, but let's be smart about it.

Community team doesn't need guys rushing in suicide push against PGI team (at least if not backed by whole team, which is not the case). In the end blue team will have -1 mech the dane. And i do not want that.
We all are one team, community and PGI. Let's act like it, even if we are rarely met with symmetry.

#798 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,104 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 13 February 2018 - 05:30 PM

I tried 2x LPPC on the Pirates Bane Locust, i think it does need cooldown buff to 2.5s. I get that it's supposed to be done en-mass, but considering it's target weight-class, i think LPPC needs to be a lot powerful than what it is. If we decrease cooldown like that, at least it will not suffer the PPFLD damage-quality barrier.

#799 UnofficialOperator

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,493 posts
  • LocationIn your head

Posted 13 February 2018 - 05:44 PM

Posted Image

#800 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,954 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 13 February 2018 - 05:51 PM

View PostSigmar Sich, on 13 February 2018 - 04:34 PM, said:

We did, we did. It depends on perspective.
This community uprising feels like last ditch effort, i feel the same, but let's be smart about it.

Community team doesn't need guys rushing in suicide push against PGI team (at least if not backed by whole team, which is not the case). In the end blue team will have -1 mech the dane. And i do not want that.
We all are one team, community and PGI. Let's act like it, even if we are rarely met with symmetry.


TLDR: I hear what you are saying but, I think that we really aren’t on the same team; PGI and the community. Not even remotely. Yet it is entirely within PGI's ability to change that.

Giant extended metaphor incoming:

On the Red side (to extend your metaphor) of this match we have PGI. Their team is about first and foremost playing to the objective of making money. Nothing else matters more than that objective. If they can get to that objective through unmitigated power creep via mechs with more and higher hard point (while asserting that it is buffs and quirks that are the source of that power creep and not the mechs) then they will gladly provide unmitigated power creep. If they think some hand waving about balance will get them there then their hands will wave away. If they think a good show of trying to achieve that balance via their super secret metrics and formulas, well then, they will tell claim to be using those metrics accordingly. But make no mistake the $ objective is all that matters at their tier.

Ironically that simple objective style of game play gets a wee bit problematic as their unit members can’t agree on how to best to play the meta in order to get there. You have the leader of their unit, Russ, who believes e-sports and focusing all things to that end, is how best to achieve victory. Paul who thinks higher TTK is the best spot on the map from which to dominate, but only if you get there as slowly as possible and with the entire team in consensus on how to leave the drop zone. Then there is Chris who thinks the team, regardless of the mechs or builds they play, should all act and perform identically, but only if the statistics support such a baseline of performance. Outliers are someone else’s problem. Predictably with that much chaos at the top, the Reds never make the MWOWC since they don’t understand what each other is up to, how they play or why.

On the other side we have the Blue team of the community. In their way they are just as handicapped as the Reds, being saddled with goods, bads, loreholes and comp folks all who want very different things from the match. But where the Reds want nothing but to play to the $ objective, the Blues want more than anything to have a fun gaming experience.

So how do we get these two sides to meet? Dane and crew tried their way and why did it fail? Because the teams are not only approaching the game from different basic perspectives but they are inherently on unequal footings (and this is where the metaphor dissolves if it hasn’t already fallen apart). See the Red team controls and dictates EVERYTHING, from the rules of the game, to how they will allow the Blue team to even come to the match. And at least some of us on the Blue team do not agree with those dictates nor do we trust the Red team in how they make those determinations in the first place.

So no. We are not on the same team. We are straight up adversaries. And if PGI wants to be one my team, or to get me to join their team and give them my $ as part of their objective base rush, then they need to stop ******* around with their pure objective driven way of playing and occasionally try to engage us enemies in a good communal brawl, all together. But PGI is too afraid of approaching the Blue team as equals. They keep hideing behind those rocks of iterative when it suits us balance, of data except when the data doesn’t match game play reality, of tier distinctions and modal differences so they can keep playing a peek and poke where the only thing guaranteed is a new mech on the field every month. That sort of play style may work for the comp teams but at PGI’s level of play…all it is doing is prolonging the inevitable end of a crappy boring game; a game that need not be crappy or boring if they would just engage the Blue team.

Edited by Bud Crue, 13 February 2018 - 05:51 PM.






6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users