44 replies to this topic

[N0ni]

Scout Derek, on 11 March 2018 - 06:33 PM, said:

Just like imagine....

The timberwolf gets buffs... or even the stormcrow... or the Centurion...

As if. Centurion is kinda in a sweet spot imo, but as far as the Timber Wolf or Stormcrow go about getting buffs...

Never going to happen. If anything the Timber Wolf is going to be set for another round of nerfs due to "overperforming" in their Solaris data. But i would love to go to the dimension where they do get buffs.

EnochsBook, on 11 March 2018 - 03:36 PM, said:

because the community seems to disagree with PGI as to which 'Mech underperform and which ones are really good...

Because there's a difference in making balance changes and understanding the impact of balance changes by playing with them, playing the game. We the community have better understanding of what the impact will be, since we as a whole, put in more game time than PGI. While difficult to come to a consensus, we can still narrow down what's good / what's bad in the current environment.

[PocketYoda]

Do you think Urbanmech and Atlas will be in the same division?

[C E Dwyer]

Popcat, on 11 March 2018 - 03:29 PM, said:

Sorry if this has been brought up but I fund nothing in search.

I was just curious if there has been any more grapevine on this or if some of the longer term players had any thoughts about what it might mean for game balancing vs. unbalancing.

Thanks

pick a dart board any dart board.

there's your balancing.

[Seranov]

Asym, on 11 March 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

Actually, Solaris is the metric because all weapons need to be seriously nerf'd for solaris just to work..... TTK needs to be 5 minutes for the sales and marketing to work...... I think, just an opinion and as said above, that high Alpha and meta mechs will destabilize Solaris and it will need a major re-look ASAP.....

You'all will see and those of us no solaris bound will read about it !

It's funny that you keep parroting this as if your made up numbers actually mean anything. It really makes you look intelligent and experienced, pulling numbers out of a hat and acting like they're gospel.

[PocketYoda]

Asym, on 11 March 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

Actually, Solaris is the metric because all weapons need to be seriously nerf'd for solaris just to work..... TTK needs to be 5 minutes for the sales and marketing to work...... I think, just an opinion and as said above, that high Alpha and meta mechs will destabilize Solaris and it will need a major re-look ASAP.....

You'all will see and those of us no solaris bound will read about it !

I'd actually enjoy this game if all that came to pass.

Seranov, on 11 March 2018 - 07:27 PM, said:

It's funny that you keep parroting this as if your made up numbers actually mean anything. It really makes you look intelligent and experienced, pulling numbers out of a hat and acting like they're gospel.

You say that about everyone that disagrees with you and your clicklettes.. We think the same about you..

Edited by Samial, 11 March 2018 - 07:35 PM.

[Popcat]

Quote

your made up numbers

Does PGI actually release numbers so we can see them?

Quote

Do you think Urbanmech and Atlas will be in the same division?

No way the Atlas moves way faster carrying an AC 20

Do you think they take into consideration just the metrics or also what tiers play what more to note that the metrics might be skewed. Or should I just assume dart board metrics

Yes I just found the emojies

[Thorn Hallis]

Everytime PGI says they are monitoring ingame data you can expect MST3Kesque descision-making.

[PocketYoda]

Popcat, on 11 March 2018 - 08:02 PM, said:

Does PGI actually release numbers so we can see them?

No way the Atlas moves way faster carrying an AC 20

Do you think they take into consideration just the metrics or also what tiers play what more to note that the metrics might be skewed. Or should I just assume dart board metrics

Yes I just found the emojies

I'm not sure what PGI takes into consideration past the next mechpack to be honest..

[Y E O N N E]

Seranov, on 11 March 2018 - 05:44 PM, said:

I just don't think either will be nearly as potent in Solaris as they are in 12v12. They rely a lot on bursting and hiding, or straight up having other people keep attention off of them. The MCII is not so good at tanking damage, even if it's glorious at putting it out.

I expect it won't be a BAD mech, but Gauss Vomit is going to be mediocre at best in a situation where you don't have teammates to help keep the enemy from focusing on pushing you while you try to cool off to do another volley.

Did you watch the various 1v1 tournaments that went on over the last several weeks? When it came to the Assault bracket, the Deathstrike and MK II were the dominant choices, winning in both major events. Slepnirs typically came up short. Nightstars came up short. I don't even recall seeing that many Annihilators.

[Kargush]

[Bud Crue]

Popcat, on 11 March 2018 - 03:29 PM, said:

Sorry if this has been brought up but I fund nothing in search.

I was just curious if there has been any more grapevine on this or if some of the longer term players had any thoughts about what it might mean for game balancing vs. unbalancing.

Thanks

I posted a similar inquiry/attempt at discussion on HPG Outreach, and no, no one has heard anything other than Chris came in to confirm that the divisions will be divided up by variants (so a specific variant of a given chassis may be in different divisions than its chassis mates). Other than that, they are, as Paul has said: "keeping their cards close to their chest."

As the criticisms and worries put forth in the posts above make clear, I think they are missing a huge opportunity at maximizing the potential success of Solaris and building good will with the remaining community by failing to make us active participants in the manner that the divisions are determined.

They are ignoring their own long and well documented history of balancing errors and the reality that it is the community who brings these errors to their attention both before and after they make them. They ought to have a forum contest/polls/PTS or other mechanism to allow at least some part of the community to vet/poke holes in/test or otherwise provide them with input as the division-ing process is occurring (preferably) or to alter or tune their pre launch conclusions. But waiting to "fine tune" the divisions only after the mode launches is just -ONCE AGAIN, LIKE ALWAYS going to build rancor at whatever failings or fumblings do occur as a direct result of their not engaging us before hand. Its short sighted, self-defeating and just so typical that I can hardly stand it.

Edited by Bud Crue, 12 March 2018 - 02:03 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Popcat, on 11 March 2018 - 04:02 PM, said:

Sorry for the ignorance what's that mean?

It is just a cheap shot at the Dev Team and folks think it makes them seem COOL around here. Everyone does it, even if they don't know why... It is very sad really.

Edited by Almond Brown, 12 March 2018 - 03:44 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Almond Brown, on 12 March 2018 - 03:44 AM, said:

It is just a cheap shot at the Dev Team and folks think it makes them seem COOL around here. Everyone does it, even if they don't know why... It is very sad really.

Not so much a "cheap shot" as it is a summary of the collective attitude that much of the community has toward PGI's historical mis-understanding of balance and their knee-jerk approach thereto. I think of a cheap shot as one that is unexpected and perhaps below the belt. The "dart board" criticisms of PGI merely reflect history.

From a macro scale laughable lack of awareness of how their own game works, which inspired them to assert that the skills tree would allow them to eliminate all quirks; to individual misunderstandings of chassis like the Grasshopper of which they nerfed all non meta variants throughout 2016 but ignored the 5P which was the meta at the time; or the Kodiak which Russ repeatedly noted through the mech's launch and subsequent thereto as being potentially problematic for balance because the Kodiak 5 (the FIVE!) was going to be such a "powerhouse", seemingly unaware that the game was being dominated by the 3...until the community explained reality to them. Or we can look to weapons nerfs like the UAC jam chance nerfs or SRM spread nerfs, the ISSPL nerf, etc. to see other ways that PGI has historically hurt the performance of already under performing weapons while leaving that which is dominant alone (gauss/vomit for example) while asserting that the nerfs in question were about balance!

So no the historical use by many in the community of referring to PGI's balance efforts is not a cheap shot but merely a casual and easily understood metaphor for what PGI historically has done from a balance perspective.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited by Bud Crue, 12 March 2018 - 04:15 AM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Yeonne Greene, on 11 March 2018 - 03:38 PM, said:

Man, that's a dubious claim if I've ever seen one.

They could certainly be keeping close tabs on the data and failing to properly interpret or use it to fix the game.

[CygnusX7]

Grey clouds.

[process]

I expect the divisions will be roughly bracketed by weight, with current overperforming chassis being bumped up a weight class and vice versa, within 10 tons. As the mode progresses and data is collected, the brackets should be dynamically adjusted to account for consistently over/underperforming chassis/variants.

PGI should absolutely not draw any weapon balance data from 1v1, since the format will favor low heat DPS builds, but they should pay attention to help adjust HP quirks and hitboxes. Maybe weapon quirks for chassis/variants with low hardpoint counts. I.e., in 1v1 there's no reason why a 60 ton mech should consistently be losing to 50 ton mechs.

Edited by process, 12 March 2018 - 05:50 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Kaeb Odellas, on 12 March 2018 - 04:49 AM, said:

They could certainly be keeping close tabs on the data and failing to properly interpret or use it to fix the game.

They nerfed the Locust 3V...

[Khobai]

Quote

I expect the divisions will be roughly bracketed by weight

my guess is itll be something like this:

division 7 = bad lights
division 6 = bad mediums + mediocre lights
division 5 = bad heavies + mediocre mediums + good lights
division 4 = bad assaults + mediocre heavies + good mediums + very good lights
division 3 = mediocre assaults + good heavies + very good mediums
division 2 = good assaults + very good heavies
division 1 = very good assaults

assaults like the annihilator pretty much have to be in a division by themselves (with the other good assaults like deathstrike). because what other weight classes can really take on an annihilator 1v1?

and light mechs like the spider are just so bad (2 hardpoints lolol). they also pretty much need their own division.

my guess is the middle divisions will see the most variation for weight classes. theyll probably be the most interesting divisions to play in. not that solaris will be all that interesting...

Edited by Khobai, 12 March 2018 - 06:43 AM.

[vettie]

EnochsBook, on 11 March 2018 - 03:36 PM, said:

IIRC, it was stated in the last podcast that PGI keeps close tabs on the in-game performance of all 'Mechs variants.
Presumably, these stats will be used to determine a chassis' division, which should be quite entertaining, because the community seems to disagree with PGI as to which 'Mech underperform and which ones are really good...

It is my opinion (for what it is worth) that what is considered a "good" variant by PGI and the community can be crap depending on it's weapon loadout and the skill of the pilot (me for example).

I know I have bought some chassis variants simply because they were considered 'top tier' variants, then duplicated the loadouts and did just terrible in said variant.

Back to the store, after some study and research, bought a different variant of the same mech, put my own loadout in it and have done very well with it.

While I do agree there are some variants that are not up to par (being nice), there are some there are some less glamourous mechs that can be very good. Again, just my opinion.

[JRcam4643]

Yeonne Greene, on 11 March 2018 - 03:38 PM, said:

Man, that's a dubious claim if I've ever seen one.

Almost every dev talk I see they mention how small there staff is. Considering that what ever staff they have are also trying to make MW5 I can believe they are seeing the data. It just takes them a really long time to analyze it and do anything about it.