12 replies to this topic

[Luminis]

So, since people are spamming the forums, I thought I'd make my own thread, too

The outrage these last couple days got PGI to back off and roll out a PTS to test significant changes before implementing them. That's where we're add: Testing changes. This doesn't mean we're never gonna see nerfs to Clan Lasers or anything, it literally just means that PGI is gonna test a big change before rolling it out.

Why did I feel inclined to post this, though?

Because that is the god damn right thing to do!

I can't see how anyone who wants the games balance to actually improve can oppose the idea of testing significant changes (this isn't just a .5 increase to heat, after all) before implementing them. We got a couple of saltlords (you know who you are) around who can't get over the fact that "the other guys" didn't get the nerf hammer immediately, but I think everyone else should give PGI a thumbs up for doing the right thing this time around.

[Mortalcoil]

Luminis, on 13 May 2018 - 10:12 PM, said:

So, since people are spamming the forums, I thought I'd make my own thread, too

The outrage these last couple days got PGI to back off and roll out a PTS to test significant changes before implementing them. That's where we're add: Testing changes. This doesn't mean we're never gonna see nerfs to Clan Lasers or anything, it literally just means that PGI is gonna test a big change before rolling it out.

Why did I feel inclined to post this, though?

Because that is the god damn right thing to do!

I can't see how anyone who wants the games balance to actually improve can oppose the idea of testing significant changes (this isn't just a .5 increase to heat, after all) before implementing them. We got a couple of saltlords (you know who you are) around who can't get over the fact that "the other guys" didn't get the nerf hammer immediately, but I think everyone else should give PGI a thumbs up for doing the right thing this time around.

What I find hilarious is that PGI continously does MASSIVE, sweeping changes to this game, with 0 player feedback, with 0 PTS time.

engine desync

laser revamp

but, the second they try to nerf clan lasers, that's when a PTS is needed. Where was the PTS when they nerfed IS LPL's off the planet? Where was the PTS. Where was the PTS when they dequirked 90% of IS mechs before the skill tree? Why does this 1 sweeping change get a PTS and the others don't? The only answer is because of the tears and complaining that caused PGI to cave.

Edited by Mortalcoil, 13 May 2018 - 10:32 PM.

[Johnathan Tanner]

Luminis, on 13 May 2018 - 10:12 PM, said:

So, since people are spamming the forums, I thought I'd make my own thread, too

The outrage these last couple days got PGI to back off and roll out a PTS to test significant changes before implementing them. That's where we're add: Testing changes. This doesn't mean we're never gonna see nerfs to Clan Lasers or anything, it literally just means that PGI is gonna test a big change before rolling it out.

Why did I feel inclined to post this, though?

Because that is the god damn right thing to do!

I can't see how anyone who wants the games balance to actually improve can oppose the idea of testing significant changes (this isn't just a .5 increase to heat, after all) before implementing them. We got a couple of saltlords (you know who you are) around who can't get over the fact that "the other guys" didn't get the nerf hammer immediately, but I think everyone else should give PGI a thumbs up for doing the right thing this time around.

So we get to have a pts? like we did for the skill maze? The pts where where peeps tested and said not ready needs work. And the test results where ignored kinda pts? lolz

[Luminis]

Mortalcoil, on 13 May 2018 - 10:25 PM, said:

engine desync

skill tree

laser revamp

Would you have liked a PTS for these changes? I sure as hell do. I protested plenty of the changes, too, and if I had to guess, I'd say that some of them caused a bigger uproar than the proposed ERML GH changes; PPC/Gauss GH linkage as well, IIRC.

Why did PGI listen this time? Dunno. Maybe they weren't as convinced of the nerf, maybe they've got alternative nerfs in their pocket, maybe Chris is handling things a little different, maybe MW5 development or Solaris made the idea of testing stuff more appealing to them - beats me.

Point is, pushing out the changes you listed without further testing was nonsensical and not repeating that is a bloody good thing.

/edit: And yes, I'm well aware that it's not unlikely for PGI to throw the changes up on the PTS for a weekend and roll them out to live regardless of the outcome or feedback.

Edited by Luminis, 13 May 2018 - 10:38 PM.

[MechaBattler]

Players are pretty biased. You will definitely get people voicing their outrage over the changes and not dropping once in the PTS. Because they don't care to test the changes. They just want to protect their favored meta. Players are biased as hell and should not always be used as a barometer for changes.

But PGI should take a good look at data from it. Assuming people actually test it. : /

[Luminis]

MechaBattler, on 13 May 2018 - 10:37 PM, said:

Players are pretty biased. You will definitely get people voicing their outrage over the changes and not dropping once in the PTS. Because they don't care to test the changes. They just want to protect their favored meta. Players are biased as hell and should not always be used as a barometer for changes.

But PGI should take a good look at data from it. Assuming people actually test it. : /

Shouldn't be too hard to get a couple of the comp teams to play a few matches on the PTS, honestly. Most of them have the knowledge to adapt and, from what I've seen, prioritize good performance over faction allegiance

[MechaBattler]

Luminis, on 13 May 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

Shouldn't be too hard to get a couple of the comp teams to play a few matches on the PTS, honestly. Most of them have the knowledge to adapt and, from what I've seen, prioritize good performance over faction allegiance

Just concerned with popular opinion dictating balance.

[Karl Streiger]

The time for serious balance changes was the Closed Beta. With a decent balancing concept and strategy PGI would have created a Metric that would have allowed them to forecast the outcomes of balance changes like (speed, burnduration....)
Any further testing and changes would have been unneccessary.

However - PGI does change weapon systems still on every patch - so this is either incompetence or what I want to believe its strategy - people need to respec more often.
So called weapon balance patches is nothing more of PGIs concept of new content.

[Luminis]

Karl Streiger, on 13 May 2018 - 10:45 PM, said:

The time for serious balance changes was the Closed Beta. With a decent balancing concept and strategy PGI would have created a Metric that would have allowed them to forecast the outcomes of balance changes like (speed, burnduration....)
Any further testing and changes would have been unneccessary.

However - PGI does change weapon systems still on every patch - so this is either incompetence or what I want to believe its strategy - people need to respec more often.
So called weapon balance patches is nothing more of PGIs concept of new content.

That's one hell of a bar you're setting there.

What competitive game that's getting continuous content update (even if it's just new Mechs, those are factors affecting balance) gets by without changes post bets?

[Karl Streiger]

Luminis, on 13 May 2018 - 10:49 PM, said:

That's one hell of a bar you're setting there.

What competitive game that's getting continuous content update (even if it's just new Mechs, those are factors affecting balance) gets by without changes post bets?

First it seems like new "content" but it isn't new content. MWO is a battletech game so with exception of the PGI created Mechs - you can exactly guess what a Mech will look like.
This with your concept gives your an idea were a "issue" might appear - > PPC Stalker - so you can plan to avoid this.

Next - done it in 2015? Collected some player stats and extracted weapon hit and weapon damage and got a idea how effective a weapon was. Unfortunately I did not have "clean" stats but PGI should have clean stats - when implemented in 2012 - by changing minor values you would have known - oh when in increase velocity by 40m/s 2% more shots will hit the target, oh damage goes down by 1% in total...hm maybe this means with faster bullets people engage and hit at larget distances.
You know stuff like that.
Then you think that a weapon will get 5% more hits and to test it you increase speed by 100m/s - the Closed Beta would have been perfect for this.

But now? They should already know what happens when you do a balance shift from value X to value Y. There should also be a whole database of data that should allow them to forecast a shift in Meta when you do this. (for example the UAC daka build is 5% less effective compared to a vomit build - when changing the laser by value Z it becomes less effective. And suddenly you only see daka builds.

[Thorqemada]

PTS does not matter as only a tiny fraction of Players ever does playtesting on it - and even this tiny fraction of Players can agree bout ****!

[El Bandito]

I only trust the PTS players on finding out bugs, not on actual balance changes.

[lazorbeamz]

Keep 6 erml and 2 HLL. Reduce damage and or heat for laser weapons. But do it to all laser weapons inculding IS. Relative position of clan and IS lasers should stay same.

Edited by lazorbeamz, 14 May 2018 - 04:27 AM.