605 replies to this topic

[Kin3ticX]

HammerMaster, on 09 August 2018 - 05:40 PM, said:

What was that last thing you were gonna "help" them with?

While I don't agree with all the stuff Tarogato suggests he tends to be pretty based unlike others that just go around barking "but mah battletech!". I don't know if I could even point to anything PGI has done that came straight from Tarogato. Last I heard, PGI doesn't even wan't to see micromanaged numbers from his spreadsheets.

[Jonathan8883]

1) All the mechs with acceleration (and linked values) <20 are garbage-truck driving experiences. I don't drive my Timber Wolf or most other big mechs because they're so slow that they're not fun to play. This applies also to the Sun Spider.
2) Weapon lock angles are already too tight for Streak SRMs. LRMs and ATMs already require massive staring, exacerbated by the way most Clan technicians consider "Elbows" as SLDF-Royal Lostech.
3) Increase the NARC pod speed with the increase cooldown. Narcs are very difficult to use without extensive practice. Open them up to use by non-expert players.
4) ECM range boost is fine. Consider boosting Active Probe ranges to counter it.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 August 2018 - 04:19 PM, said:

The Locust 3S.
#nevarforget

Q_Q

Quote

What if, heat sinks didn't impact dissipation, and some mechs just were given arbitrary heat caps that could be balanced on a case by case basis. I'm sure this would end up just like engine desync, but it seemed to work out for MW4. With that some mechs could potentially get buffs such that they can spam DPS lasers to make things interesting.

Wait, wat, then why have heatsinks in the game at all?

TBQH, that's a complicated solution to an easy problem: just make IS DHS dissipate faster, between 0.18 and 0.22 would do it.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 09 August 2018 - 08:12 PM, said:

Wait, wat, then why have heatsinks in the game at all?

That DPS. I mean, why did people mount heat sinks in MW4 at all? Well, to be honest, they didn't, they just mounted all the ERLL a Nova Cat could run and a bit of reflective armor and went to town but that's a different story (a few tweaks changed that). The main thing there is to make not all energy boats the same, burst damage monsters and that's it. Sure pulse being more DPS based could help, but those aren't going to compete with dakka any time soon without maybe some mechs that are more heavily oriented towards dissipation instead of heat caps.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 August 2018 - 09:02 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 August 2018 - 09:00 PM, said:

That DPS. I mean, why did people mount heat sinks in MW4 at all? Well, to be honest, they didn't, they just mounted all the ERLL a Nova Cat could run and a bit of reflective armor and went to town but that's a different story (a few tweaks changed that). The main thing there is to make not all energy boats the same, burst damage monsters and that's it. Sure pulse being more DPS based could help, but those aren't going to compete with dakka any time soon without maybe some mechs that are more heavily oriented towards dissipation instead of heat caps.

Meh. One problem at a time. We haven't even established an acceptable baseline, yet, so I guess I'd rather expend my effort trying to get there.

[Horseman]

Gierling, on 09 August 2018 - 05:56 PM, said:

I'd frankly be overjoyed if they made stats Solaris 7 and competitive play only.
I really Hate having viewable stats and I would delete them all and never collect them again if I ever could.
Stats for all game modes are cancer to casual play.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to view them, and for those of us who actually do care about them, having them is invaluable in tracking how our performance changes over time (including finding out if the current build and playstyle we're using on a given chassis works out over larger number of matches or has to be reevaluated).

Chris Lowrey, on 09 August 2018 - 02:33 PM, said:

What specific tool tip are you referring to in this case? As the mouse over tool Tip for Artemis makes no mention of the LOS only requirements.
I'm re-looking in and confirming everything, but when we where investigating options for changes we can target for the August patch, this was what I was told when looking into it.

Apparently that information goes back to a patch from December 18th 2012, apparently 1.2.168 . The officially published patch notes seem to have been deleted for some reason ( https://mwomercs.com...12168-18122012/ ), but I have found two copies:
https://www.skye-ran...rowser-type=web
https://www.reddit.c...tch_discussion/

Edited by Horseman, 09 August 2018 - 10:46 PM.

[Khobai]

Horseman, on 09 August 2018 - 10:16 PM, said:

Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to view them, and for those of us who actually do care about them, having them is invaluable in tracking how our performance changes over time (including finding out if the current build and playstyle we're using on a given chassis works out over larger number of matches or has to be reevaluated).

I suspect its more that he doesnt want OTHER people to view them.

It was bad judgment on PGI's part to add public stats without the ability to opt out and make them invisible to others.

Jonathan8883, on 09 August 2018 - 06:28 PM, said:

1) All the mechs with acceleration (and linked values) <20 are garbage-truck driving experiences. I don't drive my Timber Wolf or most other big mechs because they're so slow that they're not fun to play. This applies also to the Sun Spider.
2) Weapon lock angles are already too tight for Streak SRMs. LRMs and ATMs already require massive staring, exacerbated by the way most Clan technicians consider "Elbows" as SLDF-Royal Lostech.
3) Increase the NARC pod speed with the increase cooldown. Narcs are very difficult to use without extensive practice. Open them up to use by non-expert players.
4) ECM range boost is fine. Consider boosting Active Probe ranges to counter it.

Mostly agree with all of this.

Except the last bit about ECM.

By increasing ECM's range, PGI is forgetting why they previously nerfed the radius of ECM.

WE SHOULD BE PAST BALANCING IN CIRCLES BY NOW.

Just get rid of ECM bubble stealth entirely and give ECM a completely new ability instead.

Chris Lowrey, on 09 August 2018 - 02:33 PM, said:

What specific tool tip are you referring to in this case? As the mouse over tool Tip for Artemis makes no mention of the LOS only requirements.

I'm re-looking in and confirming everything, but when we where investigating options for changes we can target for the August patch, this was what I was told when looking into it.

its a pretty easy thing to test.

just equip an LRM15+artemis and count the number of volleys it takes to kill the same mech with direct LRM fire vs indirect LRM fire. If it takes more volleys to kill the mech with indirect fire, artemis is probably working properly.

but it seems like figuring out whether artemis is working properly or not is kindve important.

Edited by Khobai, 09 August 2018 - 11:05 PM.

[Horseman]

Khobai, on 09 August 2018 - 10:31 PM, said:

I suspect its more that he doesnt want OTHER people to view them.

Check them - he doesn't have anything to be ashamed of .

Quote

It was bad judgment on PGI's part to add public stats without the ability to opt out and make them invisible to others.

Not really. When someone tries to sell bad advice citing their skill level and competence, the public leaderboards serve as a means of verification. There has been more than one "super great pro players" whose stats showed performance that was statistically detrimental to their team's success rate.

[PobbestGob]

Chris Lowrey, on 09 August 2018 - 02:53 PM, said:

What glaring errors are you referring to when it comes to your stats page?

here is an example where my scorch playtime is 68 years

[Daggett]

Horseman, on 10 August 2018 - 12:19 AM, said:

Not really. When someone tries to sell bad advice citing their skill level and competence, the public leaderboards serve as a means of verification. There has been more than one "super great pro players" whose stats showed performance that was statistically detrimental to their team's success rate.

True, although there also is a danger that really good players try to sell their proposals citing their stats too.
But having a good knowledge of the game does not necessarily mean that one automatically comes up with the best solutions to a problem. Quite often it's the fresh blood with no experience who gives the correct impulses.

So the trick here is to differentiate between advice on how to play the current game well and proposals to change some aspects of the game to make it better.

For the first one (how to play good) it really matters who is giving the advice, here a high leaderboard position is quite a solid proof that the advice can't be that bad.

But on the latter one (making the game better) looking at the leaderboard position to evaluate feedback is a big trap. Here everyone from the bloodiest noob up to the cream of the crop is equally capable of having the best solutions, and by hearing only the top 1% it's possible that a dev makes the game worse for the other 99%.

BTW, here is a nice video about that topic:


While PGI does not seem to hire a lot of their top players and fans the lesson to learn is that everyone of us is biased including you, me and all community balance doc contributors so it's probably not that bad from PGI to ignore a lot of things we bring up.

PGI's problem however is that the game does not show the success in terms of active players to prove that their way is the correct one. But that does not automatically mean that our visions would have been that much better and that the game would be in a better state if PGI would just have listened to us experienced forum warriors.

Edit:
Sorry, i digressed quite a bit, the last passages are less directed to your post but more to get a point out to other readers.

Edited by Daggett, 10 August 2018 - 01:49 AM.

[Official Human Shield]

Dear Chris and Paul,

Thank you for the direct comms and continuing to try to make this game better. It's difficult, I appreciate your efforts, and I hope you succeed.

On LRMs, as was mentioned earlier in this thread the dislike for them stems from 1) the game rewarding teammates that stay far back and lob LRMs using indirect locks; and 2) the loss of agency when one is being LRMed relentlessly with no way to directly counter it. On 2) cover and ecm do work but there are times when I want to play a slow, non-ecm mech, and it's frustrating when I have to decide between moving between cover and being LRMed, or staying put and waiting for enemy lights to get me. In such a mech, I can't poke or crest a ridge without risking a few components because I cannot regain cover fast enough. I could stay constantly in cover, but that means I don't contribute to my team. Unlike direct fire, I can't counter LRMs by shooting back, and breaking LOS still subjects me to another 2-3 swarms of missles from LRM boats that take target decay nodes. I'd suggest increasing the spread and decreasing tracking if LRMs are fired without LOS, and also breaking the lock faster once LOS is broken.

Beyond weapons balance, do please look at PSR. The issue is that I cannot depend on the matchmaker to give me consistent team and enemy skill in my matches. I could have incredibly skilled pilots on my team and also tactically challenged pilots in the same solo QP match, and I can never tell how it will go from match to match. A short term solution could be simply to reset PSR every 2 seasons with larger changes in the algorithm, and let the players sort themselves out over approximately half a season?

For consideration, and I wish you every success because I like this game.

[Horseman]

Daggett, on 10 August 2018 - 01:40 AM, said:

But on the latter one (making the game better) looking at the leaderboard position to evaluate feedback is a big trap. Here everyone from the bloodiest noob up to the cream of the crop is equally capable of having the best solutions, and by hearing only the top 1% it's possible that a dev makes the game worse for the other 99%.

While PGI does not seem to hire a lot of their top players and fans the lesson to learn is that everyone of us is biased including you, me and all community balance doc contributors so it's probably not that bad from PGI to ignore a lot of things we bring up.

PGI's problem however is that the game does not show the success in terms of active players to prove that their way is the correct one. But that does not automatically mean that our visions would have been that much better and that the game would be in a better state if PGI would just have listened to us experienced forum warriors.

Absolutely, but at the same time, one cannot make a qualified opinion on the game's present state and balance without some level of familiarity with the game, understanding of its' mechanics and a grasp of PvP balance (see: "clantech should always win" and "unsupported solo assaults should not have any weaknesses").

Edited by Horseman, 10 August 2018 - 07:19 AM.

[Gierling]

Horseman, on 09 August 2018 - 10:16 PM, said:

Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to view them, and for those of us who actually do care about them, having them is invaluable in tracking how our performance changes over time (including finding out if the current build and playstyle we're using on a given chassis works out over larger number of matches or has to be reevaluated).

Certainly, but I find their existence to pollute my experience of the game. Because I am aware of them and I can't get away from them. I often find myself not playing mechs I enjoy because I don't want to impact my stats with them and often playing mechs I flat out don't enjoy to get my stats to something respectable with them. I once spent a month and a half grinding in an UZIEL just because I wanted to get it up to what I consider a respectable point. That was a miserable unenjoyable time and I still feel compelled to go play that mech because I'm embarrassed to have stats so bad on my record.

Granted the counter argument exists of "Don't have OCD" or "Don't care about your reputation", but frankly one wonders why you even bother having stats in the casual game modes (QP). Stats make casual or experimentive play a punitive experience.

I'm not disputing that stat tracking is important to the competitive experience (essential even) and I certainly don't think they should be removed completely. I'm just very comfortable saying that the casual and competitive scenes in ANY game are populated by people with vastly different motivations and expectations. Stats are a huge positive for the competitive scene and a huge negative for the casual scene and overall community. I wish more developers would understand that and make Stats something that is part of the competitive experience and not even bother with them at all for casuals.

Edited by Gierling, 10 August 2018 - 09:29 AM.

[Chris Lowrey]

Horseman, on 10 August 2018 - 07:17 AM, said:

Absolutely, but at the same time, one cannot make a qualified opinion on the game's present state and balance without some level of familiarity with the game, understanding of its' mechanics and a grasp of PvP balance (see: "clantech should always win" and "unsupported solo assaults should not have any weaknesses").

I often break it down into "Battletech Balance" vs. "PvP balance" arguments. Its something that is defiantly one of the more challenging aspects of the game to find a middle ground on since "Battletech Balance," like many other tactical or table top war games, has almost an expectation of progression / superiority worked into the core systems. In those settings weapon load out / survivability / Mech combat performance scales with tonnage and tech with no real in-game drawback outside of speed since the system is designed to either reinforce a numbers vs. quality game asymmetry typical of many war-games, and historic wars, (an Allied Sherman Tank is historically not the equal to an Axis Tiger Panzer but the Allies could field almost 3 inferior tanks for every 1 Axis' superior tank,) or a single player progression system where there is always a sense of advancement to bigger and better things. (Which is pretty much how every Battletech single player game achieves it's progression system, and why you typically don't see players getting access to late game Assault 'Mechs from mission 1 in any BT videogame.)

But the reality is that this kind of balance is often ill-suited for a PvP experience where the expectation going in is that every option presented to the player should be relatively balanced against one another and it should come down to the superior team / player, not the superior equipment or load-out to win. On the weapon end, this manifests itself in a lot of things we need to keep an eye on. Long term exposure sustained DPS vs. High upfront damage peek and poke, Spread / volley weapons vs. highly accurate pin-point fire, Close vs. Long range, but the more challenging aspect comes in the way tonnage scales, and with it, firepower, survivability, and access to not only more powerful weapons, but the ability to take more numerous amounts of them. All while keeping within the bounds of Battletech construction rules which by design had been built to support the scaling more associated with its table top war gaming roots of "bigger is better."

The last part drives a number of things on our end. While we know that Heavies and Assaults are very popular within both the game and the franchise, within the context of a PvP multiplayer game, they still need to be balanced to a point where light and medium 'Mechs can still legitimately compete and pose a threat against them. Same with Clan vs. Inner Sphere balance. While we want to preserve as much of the core of what makes Battletech / Mechwarrior what it is, we do need to mind that the core game we are building is a PvP multiplayer shooter. So at its core, the superior team / player should be the one that wins, not the one who brings the superior 'Mech or load-out.

[Gierling]

Horseman, on 10 August 2018 - 12:19 AM, said:

Check them - he doesn't have anything to be ashamed of .
Not really. When someone tries to sell bad advice citing their skill level and competence, the public leaderboards serve as a means of verification. There has been more than one "super great pro players" whose stats showed performance that was statistically detrimental to their team's success rate.

That's basically the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

We should judge peoples discussion points on whether they make sense or not. Just trusting them because they come from someone high on the leaderboards doesn't tell you whether the point is well reasoned, sound, applicable etc.

It's also very toxic to the community as a whole to tie your credibility entirely to your leaderboard position. So essentially if you want to have your input considered you have to play this game like a job, using meta builds and never goofing off or trying to have a good time... Frankly most peoples stats could be readily improved if they played the game in a way that was less enjoyable for them, making that the requirement for credibility is absolutely bad for the community.

I don't dispute how useful stats are to the competitive community, nor how they make perfect sense there. I'm just pointing out that they have an inverse effect on the casual crowd and don't make much sense there. Doubly so if you have people using them to justify shouting down people offering their feedback.

[Gierling]

Horseman, on 10 August 2018 - 07:17 AM, said:

Absolutely, but at the same time, one cannot make a qualified opinion on the game's present state and balance without some level of familiarity with the game, understanding of its' mechanics and a grasp of PvP balance (see: "clantech should always win" and "unsupported solo assaults should not have any weaknesses").

That is a fair point, but it can degenerate into gatekeeping of the highest order. At what point is someone qualified to have thier opinion listened to and not shouted down? You are going to have everyone up to the 99.99th percentile stating that everyone below them is an idiot who shouldn't be listened to, is bad at the game, etc.

You need to be able to interpret comments contextually, and understand that talking about QP isn't the same as talking about competitive play isn't the same as talking about any other random part of the experience. Casuals absolutely have the right to offer their input and their input is entirely useful. If someone tells you something isn't fun, it's usually because it isn't fun. It's up to you to place that in an appropriate context. Certainly look at someones leaderboard stats when they are citing their experience in very fine grained competitive play. However there is an enormous amount of valuable feedback you can get from casuals.

I don't think instituting and enforcing an unofficial class system is really the best way to build a vibrant and healthy community.

[Kin3ticX]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 August 2018 - 09:28 AM, said:

I often break it down into "Battletech Balance" vs. "PvP balance" arguments. Its something that is defiantly one of the more challenging aspects of the game to find a middle ground on since "Battletech Balance," like many other tactical or table top war games, has almost an expectation of progression / superiority worked into the core systems. The way weapon load out / survivability / Mech combat performance scales with tonnage and tech with no real in-game drawback outside of speed since the system is designed to either reinforce a numbers vs. quality game asymmetry typical of many war-games, and historic wars, (an Allied Sherman Tank is historically not the equal to an Axis Tiger Panzer but the Allies could field almost 3 inferior tanks for every 1 Axis' superior tank,) or a single player progression system where there is always a sense of advancement to bigger and better things. (Which is pretty much how every Battletech single player game achieves its progression system, and why you typically don't see players getting access to late game Assault 'Mechs from mission 1 in any BT videogame.)

But the reality is that this kind of balance is often ill-suited for a PvP experience where the expectation going in is that every option presented to the player should be relatively balanced against one another and it should come down to the superior team / player, not the superior equipment or load-out to win. On the weapon end, this manifests itself in a lot of things we need to keep an eye on. Long term exposure sustained DPS vs. High upfront damage peek and poke, Spread / volley weapons vs. highly accurate pin-point fire, Close vs. Long range, but the more challenging aspect comes in the way tonnage scales, and with it, firepower, survivability, and access to not only more powerful weapons, but the ability to take more numerous amounts of them. All while keeping within the bounds of Battletech construction rules which by design had been built to support the scaling more associated with its table top war gaming roots of "bigger is better."

The last part drives a number of things on our end. While we know that Heavies and Assaults are very popular within both the game and the franchise, within the context of a PvP multiplayer game, they still need to be balanced to a point where light and medium 'Mechs can still legitimately compete and pose a threat against them. Same with a Clan vs. Inner Sphere. While we want to preserve as much of the core of what makes Battletech / Mechwarrior what it is, we do need to mind that the core game we are building is a PvP multiplayer shooter. So at its core, the superior team / player should be the one that wins, not the one who brings the superior 'Mech or load-out.

I'll throw on a flame suit just to point out that LRMs imo should be more or less tuned to be strong enough for an inferior pilot to seldom or occasionally defeat a superior pilot in 12v12 solo play. Since LRMs are literally a spam / homing missile its the perfect candidate as a FOOS strategy just like streaks. Whether or not you guys call it a FOOS internally...i dont know..but I think it is. Other players that are too tied up with "A BATTLETECH GAME" sometimes just include LRMs for the sake of LRMs without much more thought than that.

Making LRMs good in bracket builds is a whole other issue and I don't really think its possible short of some kind of shoehorned reverse boating system. It's the whole specialist vs swiss army knife thing. So obviously I assume you do the tuning primarily with LRM boats.

Also, I don't think you'd have much a PR problem with LRM tweaks & buffs if the state of the game balance was otherwise bitchen for all the other play options.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 10 August 2018 - 10:01 AM.

[Daggett]

Gierling, on 10 August 2018 - 09:27 AM, said:

I'm not disputing that stat tracking is important to the competitive experience (essential even) and I certainly don't think they should be removed completely. I'm just very comfortable saying that the casual and competitive scenes in ANY game are populated by people with vastly different motivations and expectations. Stats are a huge positive for the competitive scene and a huge negative for the casual scene and overall community. I wish more developers would understand that and make Stats something that is part of the competitive experience and not even bother with them at all for casuals.

I fully agree, many successful games have casual and ranked modes for exactly this reason.
Personally i wish MWO had some sort of "ranked" switch so i can test things out or run "fun builds" without influencing my stats.

So far i tried to ignore my stats and run whatever i wanted, but once i see a chance to get into the top 10 it's very hard to not run the most efficient builds. And yesterday i even made it to the very top of the medium matchscore leaderboard, so i don't think i will give that up by running my "underperforming-but-fun" pet mechs today...

Horseman, on 10 August 2018 - 07:17 AM, said:

Absolutely, but at the same time, one cannot make a qualified opinion on the game's present state and balance without some level of familiarity with the game, understanding of its' mechanics and a grasp of PvP balance (see: "clantech should always win" and "unsupported solo assaults should not have any weaknesses").

True, a new player will lack the expertise to assess for example what's currently over- or underpowered. But he can tell us other things like what's frustrating for a new player. He may not be able to point out why exactly he is frustrated and how to fix it, but this feedback may still be more valuable for the long-term success of a game than for example knowing what's the meta flavor of the month or which weapon needs some love.

Edited by Daggett, 10 August 2018 - 10:58 AM.

[dwwolf]

TTK will always remain low with pin point damage application.

In MWO weapons fire was sped up 2.25 to 3 times generally...and armor values are 2x as high.

In BT maximum hit chance for any given location is 1/6 ...or in other words the effective armor values are 6x higher.

So in effect MWO has a double whammy : weapons were made more powerfull relative to armor......and we allow pin point damage application.

And somehow we are surprised TTK is low ?

[Damnedtroll]

Probably will get booed with my comment but for me, to buff TTK and removing most of the problems (?) from laser boating and high alpha would be:

1) nerfing heat capacity... hit everyone, but a little bit more the high damage low tonnage clan weapons boating.
2) diminish top speed while hot like a pie... yep you will need to pay more attention to Heat.
3) make the reticle move up and down like it was in mw3 while speeding. Following the mech footstep. Yep no headshot at 600m at 100kph with that and a lot more spreading.

For the rest I like the game, lurms are not a problem, rarely die from it but it make you duck for cover. Good support weapon.

NB: The only addition I would like would be dedicated melee mech with hatchet like Hatchetman, axeman and Berserker.

Edited by Damnedtroll, 10 August 2018 - 01:03 PM.