657 replies to this topic

[aardappelianen]

denAirwalkerrr, on 27 June 2018 - 02:51 AM, said:

Then we’ll be able to build 120-150+ damage one alpha builds who won’t die from that alpha.

Sure but if a mech could do that only once and then have its heatsinks melted so it could only fire one laser at a time from that moment on then i think thats fine

[justcallme A S H]

Sam Slade, on 27 June 2018 - 01:50 AM, said:

Something like... fixed torso weapons firing directly forward and only arm mounted weapons getting to converge?

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

hrmpf.

okay; can we test this..?
and after that: can we test the community's proposal?

the community is a resource - why the heck do you refuse to use it? to be blunt: I don't see any dev in the game on a daily basis - while most guys involved in the proposal ARE. what's the hurt in trying it?

imagine a big car-producing-company; customerS: "We wanna by a red car. actually, lots of them" - PGcedes "okay.. we'll produce a couple of pink and brown ones".

[Heretron]

After reading the initial post I instantly thought about adapting my playstyle to the changes that might come. Not about my playstyle being KILLED.
This even makes no sense. It's like: "Hell, there's a structure blocking my line of fire. This game is unplayable!" Go around, change your position, ADAPT! But massive rant seems to be meta nowadays, no matter what changes are being suggested.

[Bud Crue]

I've been so blind.
-chuckles-

It just occurred to me what this is all about.
-chuckle and a sigh-

Go look at the leader boards guys. https://leaderboard.isengrim.org/stats See the spike in numbers since Battletech launched? Now, think about the nonstop sales PGI has been doing for the last two months in order to hook these new players and draw them in to the sunk cost fallacy that keeps so many of us playing? So lots of new folks with lots of new mechs happily playing MWO, blissfully unaware that the norm around here is for PGI to break there stuff on a fairly regular basis. What happens to these folks comfortable view of their new game and their brand new mechs if next month Chris/Paul dump a bunch of nerfs in like they have done nearly every month for the last year?

This PTS, is an inoculation.
It is nothing more than their attempt to get these folks used to the dart board in a slow and seemingly rational way. It shows -nay it proves- to the new folks that PGI doesn't just nerf their stuff randomly, heaven forbid! No, they study these things! They get player input! They run PTSs to make sure they have data, real honest to god data! AND THEN they can break your stuff...with your help.

So don't worry about reduced damage -go back over the last few nerf passes, particularly the ones that they pulled back on- nerfs to clan lasers were and remain inevitable (see Paul's comments in this regard). Some silly gauss recoil or longer cool down or whatever as well. Hell, the Piranah is out for cbills soon so we will be getting a nerf to MGs soon as well (but they will say it is due to the preponderance of the weapon's use vs other weapons in their tonnage class or something similar...probably a mention of internal values in there). Etc. Etc. Etc.

History is pretty easy to review and the patterns paint a pretty clear picture of the inevitable. But all these new players are unaware of this stuff. Unaware of the way PGI punishes what you buy...nearly every month (if you're interested new guys, go back and look at the past patch notes over the last year). That broad brush nerfs to address over performers that also trash under performers is the status quo. PGI needs something to get the new folks used to the way things are done, so they drive them away slowly and not all at once. This PTS is a perfect opportunity for them to show the new guys that they are not into random nerfs, like us old players are used to, but rather that they actually -wink, wink- invoke nerfs driven by player feedback and PTS driven data. Its frankly a pretty good way to get the new folks used to the whole never ending snipe hunt that is PGI's search for balance and I can't believe I didn't see it as soon as I read Chris's post.

[NUMBERZero1032]

No. Bring back twisting agility through engine rating for pilots to mitigate damage better.

[NUMBERZero1032]

Oh, and while we're at it, have two phases for the PTS. Phase 1: your proposal for changes. Phase 2: community balance sheet.

[Chester Rico]

Oh for the love of Blake, haven't we already been here 2 months ago?

Why not buff other stuff (e.g. AC20, SRM, SPL) instead of nerfing? Increase armor values or skill tree armor node values if you want higher TTK so badly.

All you're doing is making the game less fun by constantly nerfing everything.

[Jonathan8883]

So...when do they post a link to the PTS and when does this start?

[Agent of Change]

Looking forward to see what this looks like.

I think this is probably a pretty good move but I don't see how you we are going to be able to judge this without spiraling into another round of "whack-a-mole" balancing unless the IS quirks and under-performing weapons are also addressed.

To the people screaming about "BUFF NOT NERF" things, it cuts both ways. we can agree to disagree on TTK. But tamping down the over performing weapons becomes an implicit buff of everything down teh chain as it moves the median effectiveness on teh spectrum of functional weapons. The Same as "buffing" under-performers is an implicit "nerf" of the things higher on the scale. Ideally you need a mix of both, only asking for bigger numbers or 'better' performance from things puts you in a power creep cycle.

This is looking at something that needs to be addressed for sure... but i think there is a lot of work that needs to be put in to comprehensively adjust weapon balance.

[Y E O N N E]

Vee Vee, on 27 June 2018 - 12:14 AM, said:

Absolutely, I have thought quite often about scaling heat that way but unfortunately I think it would need a lot of rebalancing weapons, particularly the cooler autocannons, maybe I'm wrong but I feel like you could fire quite a few dakka builds constantly on a non-linear heat dissipation if laser boats are limited by heat. To re-iterate I'd love to see a PTS with the community balance changes I think they would make the game more fun by bringing more weapons closer to the meta and don't look hard to implement.

That depends on how fast dissipation is at the top. If it's equal to DHS at 0.15, as now, then ACs are not going to be too good there. If it's something more, then perhaps.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 27 June 2018 - 05:18 AM.

[Haipyng]

Nerfs are almost always perceived negatively by players. Even very small changes can alter the "feel" of their chosen avatar in the way it moves, handles, deals or absorbs damage. It breaks player perception that they "own" their mechs and weapon systems. After all, BMW doesn't come into our garage at night to deactivate a couple of cylinders on our car's engine, or switch out for smaller rotors on our brakes to balance it with other cars on the road. I would think you would want them to retain that sense of ownership so they will feel comfortable spending real money on these things in the future.

I get that it is easier to nerf a few things than buff many things and that is exactly why extra care should be taken to test new mechs and changes before implementation, by a wide segment of players. The ouch factor shouldn't be on the player's (read as customer's) side when it comes to fixing a problem.

PTS is a great idea. Creating an incentive for players to participate in testing is a great idea as well. A wide segment of players is going to give you the best data and they are far more likely to find the holes where they can wriggle out an advantage and create trouble down the line. Also being more open with your figures and formulas is also a great idea. There are plenty of math geeks out there that just love breaking things down and looking at them from all angles.

[Y E O N N E]

Agent of Change, on 27 June 2018 - 04:51 AM, said:

To the people screaming about "BUFF NOT NERF" things, it cuts both ways. we can agree to disagree on TTK.

Not really, because at the end of the day the core issue is whether TTK needs to go up or down.

[Rick T Dangerous]

NUMBERZero1032, on 27 June 2018 - 04:10 AM, said:

Oh, and while we're at it, have two phases for the PTS. Phase 1: your proposal for changes. Phase 2: community balance sheet.

Better yet:

Phase one: PTS with what PGI came up with.

Phase two: never turn off PTS. Let it run, who likes the nerfes can go play there.

Phase three: Devs start playing the game to have the chance to develop some basic understanding of it.

[Mawai]

Daruwind, on 26 June 2018 - 10:04 AM, said:

NO MORE NERFS!
START BUFFING THINGS FOR CHRIST SAKE!!!!

"Buffing" = more damage, less heat, higher rate of fire = LOWERED TIME TO KILL = DYING FASTER
"Nerfing" = less damage, more heat, lower rate of fire = INCREASED TIME TO KILL WITH WEAPON = MECHS LAST LONGER

BALANCE = adjusting weapon system values to obtain a generally fun experience with time to kill that is not too fast. Longer time to kill is generally more enjoyable, single shot kills are difficult to impossible, player can make a mistake or run into multiple opponents and might survive the encounter even if heavily damaged. Lowered time to kill/high alpha means players die faster and mistakes or bad luck results in even faster deaths. Faster deaths typically leaves less room for strategy, less time for a team to recover and respond to an opponent and generally more opportunities for the match to turn into an unbalanced steam roller.

Get it?

Buffing stuff to equal the best weapons or builds currently available means:
1) Folks switch to whatever the new best choice is
2) Everyone dies faster
3) Power creep generally goes up since the balance won't be perfect and everything gets buffed to the level of whatever the current meta is ...

Basically, buffing is a trap that leads to a game which isn't fun or playable in the long run with greatly decreased time to kill.

Nerfing means that the most effective outlier builds are made less effective so that everyone can survive longer. Players who have jumped on the meta band wagon then have to adjust to whatever the new meta becomes. However, in general the time to kill will not increase in this circumstance and general game play will usually improve with the side effect of lots of "BOO HOOS" or tears from folks whose favorite builds become marginally less effective.

This is the entire reason why balancing using nerfs will generally (almost always) make more sense than buffing everything else to the level of whichever current weapon system outperforms. The exception would be for extremely underperforming weapons where small buffs might be justifiable. (On the other hand some folks are calling for SPL, SL and other buffs ... but I can recall when Arctic Cheetah builds using multiple SPL were extremely effective ... then folks riding assaults started to call for nerfs to SPL ... so there are clearly multiple sides to every balance question ... but in general nerfs are the better approach ... get used to it.)

[PobbestGob]

buffing underperforming weapons doesn't decrease TTK, it just means people will die to more things. There's already an established TTK with the weapons people actually use nowadays (lasers, gauss). Buffing c-srm and small pulse etc brings those meh weapons up to the gauss/lasers so people have a reason to use them. No power creep there either. And while we pursue "perfect balance" we lose the whole point of this game, which is to have fun. If the game's not fun who cares how balanced it is, nobody will play. Repeated nerfs, ghost heat, unnecessary recoil, crippling mobility, etc is not fun. The import/export functionality was a great addition to the game. let's get more changes like that and less nerf nerf nerf every month.

[iLLcapitan]

Thanks for listening to the community PGI, you really nailed it this time. I can only imagine how rewarding this must be for Tarogato, MechDane and the folks who put in a lot of work, heart and soul. A little screenshake on C-gauss to shake things up a little - this will surely save the game in a witty way!

No more random darboard nerfs, buffs, uppers, downers - finally we're getting a logical, deliberate approach. I am convinced that by killing off the remaining tryhard playstyles you'll get people back on board IN DROVES. Who could possibly deny the fun in having a leveled playing field, where everything is equally bad? Bonus: the lurm guy behind me can do the same damage as I do and everybody gets to feel reel good!

I acknowledge my mistake iof perceiving an ill-willed pattern on your part over the last couple of years, by misjudging your dartboard-o-balance as boneheaded, your stubbornness on topics like the long-russ or negative quirks on TBRs as misguided - I was so wrong, you DO listen to the real community, lets call them the silent majority.

To people who say that stuff like a stock MWOWC or GH on goose-peep is killing the fun and feels disconnected from what the people want - be gone you foul spirit I say, you just lack the insight. Those naysayers were all doom and gloom before Solaris came live and look at that flaming success now. Same goes for the silly fools still enjoying FP, better be happy they don't shut those server slots, just look at the puny playercount there compared to the bursting Solaris buckets. Way to invest time/manpower PGI!

Ok I'm off to twitter now, to sing the song of praise there because as the late Sam Becket put it: “When you're in the **** up to your neck, there's nothing left to do but sing.”

[Marius Evander]

Im sorry to red pill you all, but here are the facts.

P.G.I. intentionally do not balance the game when they balance the game.

When sales figures drop in a meta a new meta has to be created to get anyone with money but not enough time to open their wallets again to get whaever becomes good.

KDK-3 cuac nerfs into oblivion, make people buy and level srm builds srm spread increased, make people get small pulse boat builds, small pulse nerf, make people get more medium and large laser build mechs.

If the "Balance" never changed we would all get bored and scream for more maps / modes etc a lot louder, instead keeping us too busy chasing the meta keeps people playing and paying.

The PTS will maybe get people the 1st day for a few hours then no one will bother, they wont add loot bag incentives to the PTS to get us to play it, because they want it to be inconclusive so they can once again push their PTS live to change up the game.

The game is being balanced in QP/FP/Solaris NOW for a Stock mode competition that the majority will never play. Lrm buffs, ammo buffs, std heatsink buffs.

Just chase the meta or leave the game, nothing else will ever happen.

If they wanted to Balance the game they would have learnt by now to give buff +% damage quirks to mechs with only 1 or 2 ballistic slots when kdk nerf happened, would have given 6 laser harpoint mechs +% damage to small lasers quirks when the 12 small pulse boats got the weapon nerfed, etc etc, they didnt, they dont, they wont, they want you to look for a new meta, keep playing and leveling mechs and buying more xp / spending more $$..

Wake up to the Corporate world in which we live, no one does anything for anyone else, its all about chasing the greenback, you dont do what your customers want, you do what you need to do to get them to spend money.

Am I happy about this? hell no.

[SFC174]

What needs to be said has already been said in this thread.

Personally I'm torn. I'm a big fan of the community balance proposal. It does include some small dmg nerfs to Clan lasers which I think are fair. But it also includes many buffs to underperforming weapons.

I feel as though Chris and Russ have had a particular goal all along, and only heard the feedback that supported what they already wanted to do. I went back and read that balance thread and there sure seemed to be a lot more interest in the community proposal than in Clan Gauss recoil (or other nerfs). In fact, I think most of the people who even said they'd be interested in that choice were suckered in by the illusion of choice. They believed they had to choose between what Chris suggested (much like, say, the 2 party political system in the US - its not really much of a choice) so they chose the least odious choice of what was presented.

In the end, even proposing a C-Gauss recoil shows a marked disconnect from the game experience. And attempting to draw feedback and data on nerfing Clan Gauss/Vomit by introducing different changes to both weapons is not going to give you good data (as opposed to nerfing cooldown or dmg on both components simultaneously - introducing the recoil along with dmg/cooldown/duration changes on the lasers changes the skillset and skill cap required. If you do that, you have too many confounding variables). But perhaps that's what Chris, et al want. Crap data allows you to draw whatever conclusion you want without risk of someone calling b.s.

In summary, if they're not going to do the community suggestion, all they should really be doing on the PTS is nerfing Clan ERML and HLL by 1 and 2 pts dmg respectively, while reducing duration, cooldown and heat by 5% each (quibble over the specifics if you like). These are the only 2 clan lasers that really need any noticeable changes. Alpha and dps goes down slightly. Rate of fire and sustainability goes up. The ultra scary high alpha builds <sarc off> get a noticeable dmg nerf, but the builds have more versatility.

Oh yeah, and buff the damn C-SPL to 5 dmg please.

[SneekiBreeki]

If only MekTek would be resurrected and we could get some newer mods for mech4 mercs... *sigh*