605 replies to this topic

[Chris Lowrey]

Jman5, on 08 August 2018 - 07:16 AM, said:

Streaks also overperform because they get a free Artemis upgrade. It significantly improves lock time for no tonnage or slot cost. I would really like to see this addressed.

Part of the reason why we are removing the Artemis lock-on bonus. The change coming in August will close the Artemis loophole for Streaks and ATMs in addition to no longer halving the time to lock onto targets for LRMs.

The Angle reduction will also make it harder to acquire / maintain locks on fast moving targets up close.

[Mister Maf]

I appreciate the effort to tame LRMs. Yeah as a single weapon system in a vacuum they're not great but when they reach a critical mass on a team they're just dumb. We shall see if these changes make a tangible improvement.

Cool shot change is also good. +1

[Ridingwolf1]

Chris Lowrey, on 08 August 2018 - 08:08 AM, said:

Part of the reason why we are removing the Artemis lock-on bonus. The change coming in August will close the Artemis loophole for Streaks and ATMs in addition to no longer halving the time to lock onto targets for LRMs.

The Angle reduction will also make it harder to acquire / maintain locks on fast moving targets up close.

No Chris. Numbers and mechanics changes will not do anything to remedy the problems. Please read Proton's post. Read mine. Read the real T1 pilot's posts. The tier system is the problem first and foremost. Separate out the skill levels of pilots by removing the win/loss variable from PSR calculations. Reset the Tier system, let us separate out the actual pilot's skills into the new Tier system, THEN start looking at weapon variables, mechanics variables and so forth. While you have real T1 pilots munching on players that made it to T1 by RNG and farming carries, you will never be able to sort out weapon and mechanics issues. This is the only way you will get clear and real data to make decisions from. You have to eliminate pilot skill from the equation as a variable and while you have turretwarrior online players composing 75% of tier 1 matches, no data you get will be valid.

Similarly, while you have T1 and T2 caliber pilots stuck in T3, T4, and T5 doldrums munching on pilots but losing match after match because of the bad tier system, lower tier data is also invalid.

Edited by Ridingwolf1, 08 August 2018 - 08:38 AM.

[Chados]

Chris Lowrey, on 08 August 2018 - 08:08 AM, said:

Part of the reason why we are removing the Artemis lock-on bonus. The change coming in August will close the Artemis loophole for Streaks and ATMs in addition to no longer halving the time to lock onto targets for LRMs.

The Angle reduction will also make it harder to acquire / maintain locks on fast moving targets up close.

That’s a programming problem for streaks that have been there since day one and rather than fix that you’re making Artemis worthless across the board? That is killing a fly with a sledgehammer and reinforces all the most negative rhetoric Dane et al. have been spewing about your balancing priorities. All you are going to do is have players reconfiguring LRM builds to boat launchers and gang up at the map edges, and good SRM bombers will simply adapt by using SRMs over streaks, mixing SSRMs and SRMs, or just parking missile mechs for lasers and guns. Is that really what you’re trying to accomplish? More boating and more map edge hiding? All I’ll do on a Cat A1 is drop Artemis, adjust ammo tonnage for the LRM15s and change my four streak 2s to SRM4s or MRM10s.

Edited by Chados, 08 August 2018 - 08:35 AM.

[MercJ]

Paul and/or Chris,

Thanks for communication, by the way - it's always appreciated when developers are opening and encouraging healthy discussion (and seem intent on implementing good changes).

I wanted to ask if you knew of any technical limitations to changing how Clan lasers distribute their damage. Would it be possible to test a weapon that builds up damage over time, instead of dealing a consistent amount per tick? e.g., a clan pilot would need to hold their lasers on target until the end of the burn to deal full damage, or risk missing out on (for example) 75% of the damage (that gets dealt at the very end of the burn curve)?

This could potentially be a single tweak that solves the high-alpha issues without removing the unique/different "faction" / lore-based "feel" to Clan weapons.

Example:
Keep all weapon values (damage, duration, heat) the same for now, and simply modify the damage curve. IS lasers deal damage consistently over the duration, but Clan lasers ramp up over the beam duration, dealing > 50% of their damage in the last 75% of the burn? This burn curve could be pretty easily tweaked, and would add another lever to adjust if necessary.

Edited by MercJ, 08 August 2018 - 08:41 AM.

[Jman5]

Mister Maf, on 08 August 2018 - 08:09 AM, said:

Cool shot change is also good. +1

Speaking of Coolshot, you know one minor thing that I think would help players would be to beef up the visuals when a player drinks a coolshot. Currently it's a barely noticeable little splash that emerges from the back and bottom of the mech. Standing in front during a fierce duel you will almost never notice it.

I would like to see a much more obvious visual cue that the player has taken a coolshot because it allows opponents to make informed decisions and makes the gameplay deeper.

So for example, if I'm dueling some hot build with a cooler one, I will often press them knowing that they will hit heat cap and lose most of their DPS very shortly. However, if suddenly I see the coolshot effect bathing his mech, I can then decide to disengage or alter my strategy.

Perhaps this is something Paul or Chris could bring up with the art team.

Edited by Jman5, 08 August 2018 - 08:58 AM.

[General Solo]

Ridingwolf1, on 08 August 2018 - 08:31 AM, said:

No Chris. Numbers and mechanics changes will not do anything to remedy the problems. Please read Proton's post. Read mine. Read the real T1 pilot's posts. The tier system is the problem first and foremost. Separate out the skill levels of pilots by removing the win/loss variable from PSR calculations. Reset the Tier system, let us separate out the actual pilot's skills into the new Tier system, THEN start looking at weapon variables, mechanics variables and so forth. While you have real T1 pilots munching on players that made it to T1 by RNG and farming carries, you will never be able to sort out weapon and mechanics issues. This is the only way you will get clear and real data to make decisions from. You have to eliminate pilot skill from the equation as a variable and while you have turretwarrior online players composing 75% of tier 1 matches, no data you get will be valid.

Similarly, while you have T1 and T2 caliber pilots stuck in T3, T4, and T5 doldrums munching on pilots but losing match after match because of the bad tier system, lower tier data is also invalid.

I agree MM needs fixing its upward bias before weapons are balanced. How is the part I disagree.

I would make a small tweak where the conditions for PSR movement on a loss are mirrored for wins.
This would provide equal opporunity to increase and decrease PSR.
Currently their are more PSR increase conditions than PSR decrease conditions, they should be the same.

For example: On a win the carriers (strong performers) carry (help) the carried (weaker performers) due to the current PSR conditions for wins, both parties increase PSR effectively placing them in the same skill pool.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 08 August 2018 - 08:55 AM.

[Ridingwolf1]

MercJ, on 08 August 2018 - 08:34 AM, said:

Paul and/or Chris,

Thanks for communication, by the way - it's always appreciated when developers are opening and encouraging healthy discussion (and seem intent on implementing good changes).

I wanted to ask if you knew of any technical limitations to changing how Clan lasers distribute their damage. Would it be possible to test a weapon that builds up damage over time, instead of dealing a consistent amount per tick? e.g., a clan pilot would need to hold their lasers on target until the end of the burn to deal full damage, or risk missing out on (for example) 75% of the damage (that gets dealt at the very end of the burn curve)?

This could potentially be a single tweak that solves the high-alpha issues without removing the unique/different "faction" / lore-based "feel" to Clan weapons.

Example:
Keep all weapon values (damage, duration, heat) the same for now, and simply modify the damage curve. IS lasers deal damage consistently over the duration, but Clan lasers ramp up over the beam duration, dealing > 50% of their damage in the last 75% of the burn? This burn curve could be pretty easily tweaked, and would add another lever to adjust if necessary.

I like the concept of this, but I still see room for manipulation. Additionally, the problem isn't laser vomit and the 94 point alpha. The issue is the pilots able to hold a burn on one component and hit the gauss there playing against players that can't do it and don't move or twist with incoming damage. There is a pilot skill gap that PGI refuses to acknowledge and it skews their data to the point of making it invalid.

[Daurock]

My thoughts in general -

On LRMs
Lots of general thoughts over the LRMs, but if the goal is to "1: Make good TEAM players better with LRMs, 2: Make bad team players worse with them, and 3: Little to no change iin overall power to them."  We probably need to make changes that actually work in that direction.

So, lets look at what separates good LRM taem players from bad ones - Good ones are probably moving with the rest of their group, getting their own locks, and occasionally sharing a little armor.  Bad ones are the ones sitting behind cover, well behind their teammates, simply lobbing their missiles at anything the rest of their team manages to get a good lock on.  The thing is, the damage of good and bad guy are almost the same at the end of the match, despite all the good things the good player did.  Any LRM changes should reward people closer, and capable of attaining their own locks.

As another example, a Scrublord LRM^™ Is likely not using the lock on feature of Artemis, and may well not be using artemis at all.  Sitting in the back, behind cover, and lobbing lrms at defenseless opponents is not actually using any of the featuers of artemis, other than the spread bonus.  Reducing/Removing the lock-on bonus of artemis does nothing to hurt him.  So, if the basic goal of reducing LRM power is to be acheived, (especially in the hands of bad players) the appropriate nerf is to the BASELINE stats of LRMS.  I think the recent velocity change, and heat changes should stay. Velocity is a needed improvement to mechs that are shooting at other mechs near cover, and the LRM should be very dangerous to a mech out in the open.  However, the base SPREAD of the launchers should be wider, making the launchers a bit less reliable when not assisted by other equipment.

Now, with a lower baseline power of the weapon, we can look at ways to improve further mechs that do choose to use other equipment.  Artemis, if anything, should improve lock-on times when a target is in LOS even further than they currently do - this allows him to shoot at fleeting targets more quickly, and allows him to better cleave through mechs with partial radar derp, or ecm, etc.  The spread bonus of artemis launchers may even be able to be dropped entirely if these bonuses get high enough.

As for TAG and NARC
- TAG isn't particularly useful now, unless you're using it to "Replace" artemis on a mech.  The visible laser combined with the very low duration once the laser is off the mech makes scouting/sharing information fleeting at best.  For changes to this system, I actually think it doesn't need any changes other than the current "Lock and Spread" Bonuses it does now.  Artemis is good for mechs that poke and retreat, TAG is for mechs that poke and STAY out.
- Narc is REALLY good in a team setting, when you know you have lots of launchers, and an open map, when applied by a mech that no one can find.  Probably too good.  A simple, moderately effective change here would be to DOUBLE the ammo, and HALF the duration, making the light mech poke out a little more often to actually narc people.  Another simple change would be to reduce/remove the spread improvement that NARC applies - simply making it a "Beacon" instead.  It would still be very powerful in the hands of good teams, but it wouldn't mean death quite so quickly when Narc'd

Edited by Daurock, 08 August 2018 - 05:05 PM.

[Chris Lowrey]

Jman5, on 08 August 2018 - 08:35 AM, said:

Speaking of Coolshot, you know one minor thing that I think would help players would be to beef up the visuals when a player drinks a coolshot. Currently it's a barely noticeable little splash that emerges from the back and bottom of the mech. Standing in front during a fierce duel you will almost never notice it.

I would like to see a much more obvious visual cue that the player has taken a coolshot because it allows opponents to make informed decisions and makes the gameplay deeper.

So for example, if I'm dueling some hot build with a cooler one, I will often press them knowing that they will hit heat cap and lose most of their DPS very shortly. However, if suddenly I see the coolshot effect bathing his mech, I can then decide to disengage or alter my strategy.

Perhaps this is something Paul or Chris could bring up with the art team.

I can ask the Art team what our options are when it comes to that, but that would be entirely in their hands.

[Ridingwolf1]

OZHomerOZ, on 08 August 2018 - 08:51 AM, said:

I agree MM needs fixing its upward bias. How is the part I disagree.

I would make a small tweak where the conditions for PSR movement on a loss are mirrored for wins.
This would provide equal opporunity to increase and decrease PSR.
Currently their are more PSR increase conditions than PSR decrease conditions, they should be the same.

For example: On a win the carriers (strong performers) carry (help) the carried (weaker performers) due to the current PSR conditions for wins, both parties increase PSR effectively placing them in the same skill pool.

I agree with you completely here, however I feel this would take too long to separate out the wheat from the chaff so to speak. But it is still a great idea, probably the better solution than mine. My only concern for it is the time it would take before they would get usable data to make real and meaningful changes to balance, if there are still any, afterwards.

I would prefer to see a straight 12 by 6 by 6 system where the top 12 players get ^, the middle 6 get =, and the bottom 6 get v, regardless of which team won. Just like worse players shouldn't be carried in groups or by RNG, good players shouldn't be penalized by being on teams that aren't good.

[Gazbeard]

Just finished reading the whole thread ... Well done to Chris and Paul for engaging with the community but as others have said, it does feel (slightly) more like damage control than taking onboard advice and suggestions.

That said, the recurrent theme of the PSR rankings and how they're calculated are still the most important topic for me - if you want to understand the importance of seggregating the different skill levels, just go play World of Tanks for a day or two - it has no player skill based MM at all (all the MM is based on the classes of tank - light/medium/heavy/artillery) and it is a major cause of salt and playerbase churn.

PSR needs at least 11 levels to spread out the player base and the promote/demote criteria needs focussed more on what a player does than what the battle result is. It should even factor in how much damage a player RECEIVES because that would encourage heavier mechs to lead the fight and may shift meta down the weight classes for LRM boats etc.

Sidenote - two of my favourite current LRM boats are an Arctic Cheetah and a Jenner IIC - enemy firing lines on Polar Highlands do not expect to be getting serial enemas early in the match when they're camping 800 metres out from the centre of the map.

Another aspect that PGI seem to be ignoring or overlooking is the global geography of their player base. Check the server stats - why do so many English speakers around the world turn OFF the EU servers? For me it's because I could play (e.g.) 100 battles on the EU servers and have only 3 or 4 battles where any other player responds to a "Hi guys" in voice comms in the drop ship and no-one talks during the battle. Even then, I'd wager a month's rent that those who did say "hi" back would be Americans or Aussies who'd accidentally left the EU server selected after a night playing in FP with their unit.

But why is the global range of the playerbase important to remember?
Several reasons, such as right now is the long summer holidays in UK & EU with all the teenagers off school and sitting at their computers all day and evening ... but zero marketing to them being done by PGI, and zero assistance going out to non-NA content creators to reach all those potential customers ... just look at this screen shot from Twitch a few minutes ago ...



Even an Alpha access game like Star Citizen has more viewers than MWO. A very niche survival game like The Long Dark has more viewers than MWO. And worst of all, the Retro arcade games have x10 more viewers than MWO. This speaks volumes regarding how unpopular MWO has become in the last year.

And that all started with the constant nerfs to Clan mechs and statements from both Paul and Russ that they prefer IS, plus a perception amongst the players that Russ has made a statement at sometime to the effect that he never wanted Clan in MWO to begin with. Couple all that with several publicly streamed appearances by Russ presenting announcements and changes to the game where he was apparently drunk ... and the confidence of potential players towards PGI has evaporated.

The problems within gameplay go far beyond the alpha-strike potential of a few mechs, and way beyond the metrics of a few weapons.

• Replace PSR with a correctly thought out and implemented ranking system, including creating an Academy training part that emphasises voice comms and team play over deaf mute yolo warrioring (MWO not YWO)
  
• Build a proper community contributor / content creator support program, plus affiliate marketing or referral program.
  
• And, clean-up the public presentation of the game and company by certain senior executives ... including addressing the public perception of bias against Clan by those same executives.

Only then will in-game balancing measures be received without large mountains of salt, and you can focus on new maps, revamping faction play, etc. in addition to balancing weapons and mech stats.

I honestly want MWO to continue long into the future. I want it to be a fun and entertaining game to play and to encourage my 10-year old to begin playing it (with voice comms with his friends), but right now cannot recomend it to his friends' parents as suitable due to the seal clubbing they will endure from the broken ranking system and dwindling player population.

Get out from behind the spreadsheets PGI - commit every member of staff (even the office cleaner and tea lady) to playing 1000 battles in the next 3 months then have a staff conference to discuss their experiences in-game ... you'll soon see that PLAYERS know best what is working or not working in the game.

[Hydrocarbon]

My main suggestion: DIFFERENTIATE MECH & WEAPON ROLES. People loved the 2016 quirkening because there were so many ways to play the game. You noticed a year too late that the skill tree destroyed that.



Realize the Weapon & Defense skill tree nodes are FAR MORE USEFUL to 95% of the population than mobility. When both the top & bottom 1% avoid certain nodes, that means they're FAR BELOW effective levels. Buffing mobility nodes means higher TTK for people that can use them, it also means those people just might use less weapon nodes and/or long-duration lasers. That's called WIN-WIN for you goals.

LRM's will ONLY ever be accepted if they are risk/reward for direct fire. Increase artemis/LOS bonuses (namely decrease spread), increase indirect-fire spread. Ideally increase lock time based on distance so short range doesn't suck so hard & to discourage people hanging 800m+ behind the team; could also help if damage is reduced past 600m.

Ignore Phil's idea that more laser duration is helpful, it's a nerf but a viable nerf. Add duration to clan lasers so their "damage per second of duration" matches or exceeds IS; could also decrease IS duration proportional to range difference. Also play MW3 & MW4 to see how short laser duration is.

Increase JJ effectiveness or remove the stupid PPC/Gauss heat linking. It's clear poptarting is virtually dead, either help make it an option or make non-poptart jumpjet usage more viable.

Edited by Hydrocarbon, 08 August 2018 - 09:17 AM.

[XX Sulla XX]

Hydrocarbon, on 08 August 2018 - 09:14 AM, said:

Increase JJ effectiveness or remove the stupid PPC/Gauss heat linking. It's clear poptarting is virtually dead, either help make it an option or make non-poptart jumpjet usage more viable.

It would be nice to have effective JJs for the 90% of play that does not involve gauss/ppc poptarting.

[MechaBattler]

Reading through the posts. I think we can all agree that baseline agility was set too low. And the mobility tree only helps in cases where the mech has decent agility. Since it's percentage based, you're not getting much if you're an assault. So in my opinion you should raise agility across the board. OR at the very least increase the skill agility values based on weight class. With current values starting at the light end and then working your way up. That way heavier mechs have reason to invest.

I'm not sure that the targeted LRMs nerfs are going to achieve what you want. If anything people will stay in the back more. Instead of penalizing people who sit in the back. Reward those that get in line of sight, risk reward comes in to play then. Also the reason it's deadweight is because it requires extra equipment just to ensure it's usability and efficiency. It's not something you can just slap on as part of a build. It requires too much investment.

I know everyone is spazzing out to avoid getting their favorite toys nerfed. But I think there were some good ideas in the PTS. The C-ER Medium should be something that lights and mediums invest in. But the heat makes it prohibitive for mechs with limited tonnage and space. If it had been given better heat efficiency. This would have solved this problem. And the low damage would keep it from being overly abused by the high end of the weight spectrum.

I actually found the triple LL change to be a good idea. It puts it firmly in the assault and heavy spectrum. Forces people to wait on longer burn times. Combined with recoil, it can really spread the damage out for gauss+LL builds. Though I suppose people will just go LPL. But then you have a range trade off at least. Which would put them closer to where the IS range is.

The first changes for pulse lasers also felt like they could sustain better. But my own experience with pulse lasers is limited. so take that for what you will.

Edited by MechaBattler, 08 August 2018 - 02:27 PM.

[XX Sulla XX]

MechaBattler, on 08 August 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

Reading through the posts. I think we can all agree that baseline agility was set too low. And the mobility tree only helps in cases where the mech has decent agility. Since it's percentage based, you're not getting much if you're an assault.

I think that is the consensus of most people. Although you probably need to be careful and not change it for the already over performing mechs like the MCII. Well at least not change it in the positive direction.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 08 August 2018 - 09:26 AM.

[Ridingwolf1]

It was very awesome of Chris and Paul to engage us in this conversation. It shows a good first step in the right direction. However, I feel that you two are looking for someone to provide you with a mathematical tweak or formulaic idea that can fix everything wrong. This isn't possible until you stop looking at the idea microscopically and start looking at it from the perspective of research/experimental scientists. When we have an experiment that goes wrong, we don't look at data and equations first. We start at the beginning of our methodology and look for variables that were not controlled, methodological approaches that were wrong, and equipment calibrations. This is macroscopic analysis and is what is required to fix experiments gone wrong. Looking at data when the experiment itself is flawed will only ever get you more flawed data. You two need to take the same approach. The problems with MWO balance start at the very bottom, the flawed matchmaker and PSR system. Until you fix this every data point you have is experimentally invalid.

I am sorry there isn't a quick solution for you and your stubborn refusal to look at the foundation of the game for issues first is disheartening and quite frankly revolting. I am bowing out of this discussion now. You have the information you need. You have had it for years. You have it from literally hundreds of players spending thousands of hours playing. You have it in a couple dozen posts just in this thread. I wish you two the best in figuring out how to balance the game without first balancing the huge gulf in player skill level.

I hope you two have an amazing day and rest of the week!

Edited by Ridingwolf1, 08 August 2018 - 09:34 AM.

[Felbombling]

Metachanic, on 08 August 2018 - 07:13 AM, said:

Hugging isn't abusing, outmaneuvering mechs with 3-5 times your tonnage is the only way to survive against them. AoE damage mechanics strike me as a terrible idea. Low-skill, and heavily weighted against lighter mechs, which are already struggling (with notable exceptions).

This assumes you're earning 2.6SP per match, or 2,080XP. A little tricky to maintain that average for many or most players, especially without premium time or consistent win streaks. This is outside the scope of balance, but a major reason the grind is so strong is that it drains your XP and your CB.

Back in Closed Beta knockdowns were a thing... until the Dragon Bowling Massacre happened. lol At any rate, I'm not against fire and maneuver, etc, but Light Mechs crotch riding and phasing through Assault Mechs should not be a viable tactic.

As for your comments on the XP gain rate, you have to factor in the 2x multiplier, grab-bag events, natural free XP accumulation, etc. Getting 2080XP per match on a seven hour session of MechWarrior: Online, with the same Mech, would be a tall order. Playing that same Mech five games a night for a week is doable, especially during an event that offers XP or Free XP rewards. At least that has been my overall experience.

[Panthros]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

Moving the timeline to add the more advanced 'Mech technology will elilmitate a ton of 'Mechs currently in the game no matter how much buffing/quirking you do.

Paul, what about accepting in-balance and having Company and Binary battles? This would be an interesting PTS test. Can a team of 10 with a little more competitive mechs defeat a team of 12 IS mechs?

Edited by Panthros, 08 August 2018 - 09:55 AM.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

Chris Lowrey, on 08 August 2018 - 08:08 AM, said:

Part of the reason why we are removing the Artemis lock-on bonus. The change coming in August will close the Artemis loophole for Streaks and ATMs in addition to no longer halving the time to lock onto targets for LRMs.

The Angle reduction will also make it harder to acquire / maintain locks on fast moving targets up close.

I can't help but feel that all this time and effort by both PGI and the community debating minutia of changes and adjustments to weapons systems could be better spent making a more robust matchmaker so that players feel that not only are they having matches with their peers but they are contributing to overall team performance, which results in more enjoyable matches, where it will have a vastly larger and more measurable impact on match quality than adjusting a weapon system + - .5 damage, .1 duration, etc... Why isn't rolling back some changes and focusing on matchmaker on the table? As Proton mentioned, I've watched people play TurretWarrior Online ™ and there is nothing you can do to fix that, or improve their TTK, yet all their data are rolled into these balance decisions.


If one particular build is OP, it's not a huge issue on 12v12 until one team has 4 of them and the other team has none. As poor as PSR is in regards to predicting player performance, having matches with T4-T1 players isn't a big deal until you put most of the T1 players on one team. Things like this. And there are simple changes you could implement very quickly to improve matchmaker and bridge the gap to matchmaker 2.0, like taking into account W:L of that player in that chassis, overall, and last 10(maybe more?) matches, then dividing the players so the teams achieve average W:L ratio that is very close.


I understand that when there is a problem, it is human nature to want to make adjustments to things they can control, but that may not always be the solution to the problem. At the end of the day, the squishy thing behind the keyboard is a part of the equation, you just have to accept it and sometimes the answer to some of these problems is that the people need to change. It's okay to tell some one standing still in the open in front of 12 enemies isn't going to be a viable approach.

Edited by r0b0tc0rpse, 08 August 2018 - 10:02 AM.