605 replies to this topic

[SilentScreamer]

Kin3ticX, on 11 August 2018 - 09:15 AM, said:

if you want to add a bit more skill to LRMs or streaks, as funny as that sounds, perhaps make the lock-on pipper less forgiving than it is now. As it is right now you can hold locks with your foot if you wanted to (yeah thats a Juju reference)

Did you miss the post Chris made on page 2? It shows in blue the new lock-on zone over the old in red. Much narrower. The discussion is LRM focused but same lock-on system applies to ATMs and Streaks.

Chris Lowrey, on 07 August 2018 - 02:32 PM, said:

Such is why LRMs got the attention they did when they did. They where considered by many to be hands down the worst weapon system in the game to the point that players where being openly hostile to friendly team members for bringing them into a match. That is a place we want no weapon in the game to be in. While it could be argued that many would want any other weapon system to get the treatment more then LRM's, because they where the heaviest offender in this regard compared to all other weapon systems, it was the squeakiest wheel that got the grease.

This does not mean that we are ignoring other weapon systems or feedback. As Paul said, we implement focused changes on a monthly basis and will not do wide balance shifts across the entire weapon roster for the many reasons we bring up in the podcast. There are a number of other weapons systems, including ones in the community doc that are also being observed that will undoubtedly come up soon enough. What we said about LRM's equally applies to everything else. LRM's are being targeted now because they are the heaviest offender when it comes to their overall place in the game. Once we get them into a state that we are satisfied with, we will move onto the next thing that come up as the heaviest offender. But that means that we intend to get them into a place where they are not a total non-factor in the game. As we have said, we are open to further changes past the ones that are being pushed in August, but we intend to ensure that the weapon does have a place amoung the other weapons in the roster and isn't just relegated to a complete non-factor.


No disagreements. It is why we are pushing a constriction of the lock on mechanics this month. Here is a better illustration of the incoming changes to the lockon angles:


This along with the removal of the Lock On boosts through Artemis will mean you will need to keep your bead on your target tighter, and longer then what many are used to under the current system.

This will also affect Streak and ATM launchers. In fact, this change was something that was initially investigated to look into streaks' behavior against Light 'Mechs back when we where looking into the missile hit location changes, but was heald off because it would have put LRM's, then the worst weapon system in the game, into an even bigger ditch then they where. Again, we are open to making further changes, but they have to come from a place that sees them as another usable option within the wider weapon roster. Yes that equally applies to all other weapons out there. But they where not as far into the ditch as LRM's where, which is why they got the attention when they did.

[Kin3ticX]

SilentScreamer, on 11 August 2018 - 09:22 AM, said:

Did you miss the post Chris made on page 2? It shows in blue the new lock-on zone over the old in red. Much narrower. The discussion is LRM focused but same lock-on system applies to ATMs and Streaks.

I guess I didn't see that

Doo eeeet naow

[R5D4]

SilentFenris, on 11 August 2018 - 08:46 AM, said:

But consider this, IF a PSR reset is done, are there truely enough Tier1 pilots for the Matchmatcher to put in match without a 2, 5 or 10 minute wait time? Especially since pilots are spread over 24 timezones and 3 Quickplay servers.

If wait time for a match is too high, you have to let Tier2 and during non-peek times, Tier3 in match with Tier1. Would the matches be that different from what we have now?

I think you are right that the matches would probably be very much the same. I think matchmaking really is a multifaceted problem involving:

1) A Shrinking player population
2) A PSR that needs to be re-worked before it gets reset
3) A matchmaker that doesn't try to evenly distribute the players it does manage to nab so that skills levels are better balanced between the two teams
4) Having too many choices for gameplay i.e. too many "buckets" for QP, Group Play, Faction Play, Solaris and subdivisions thereof dividing up the shrinking population even more (and lets not forget the different regions to top it all off) .

So to me, if you want to improve the matches then the biggest issue to tackle would be problem #4 as it in turn amplifies problems 3, 2, and 1. However, at this stage in the game I don't know that you could make any changes to #4 without backlash and possibly worsening problem #1 - Shrinking the player base further.

Problem #3 - Matchmaker distribution is probably the easiest one to address right now by adding a second pass to the matchmaking that, after it matches 24 people, it then tries to better distribute "player skill" between the two teams using the current PSR. Problem #2 - PSR inaccuracy could then be looked at and a new algorithm devised. Maybe after these changes are in then you could look at Problem #4 and find some way to consolidate the disparate "buckets" and hopefully reverse Problem #1 - a shrinking player base.

Edited by R5D4, 11 August 2018 - 09:46 AM.

[Jonathan8883]

SilentScreamer, on 11 August 2018 - 09:22 AM, said:

Did you miss the post Chris made on page 2? It shows in blue the new lock-on zone over the old in red. Much narrower. The discussion is LRM focused but same lock-on system applies to ATMs and Streaks.

Wow, that's terrible. Full stare required...no chance to look to the side to maneuver or move in anything other than a straight line while locked on. That's an LRM-killer.

[Horseman]

@Paul Inouye , since we're talking balance already, is there any chance for an updated version of the heat scale table and weapon system multiplier list ( https://mwomercs.com...cale-the-maths/ ) to be published at some date?

[Chados]

Jonathan8883, on 11 August 2018 - 10:09 AM, said:

Wow, that's terrible. Full stare required...no chance to look to the side to maneuver or move in anything other than a straight line while locked on. That's an LRM-killer.

Exactly. That’s what I’ve been hollering about in the last four or five pages.

[tacorodwarrior]

Can we please try to remove the extra heat threshold given by heat sinks? If Assault Mech X with just an engine equipped has a max heat of say 100, no matter how many heat sinks you add that heat threshold does not increase just the cooling rate of the mech.

[Reno Blade]

While it might sound nice to make missile locks more difficult on paper...
The problem comes from different launchers requiring different skills for tracking your target.
1. LRM, when sitting in the back and lobbing 80 LRMs without anyone chasing you, the tighter aiming has no effect.
2. ATM/LRM, when fighting closer and trying to manouver at the same time, you need to stare until get a lock AND until your missiles finally land (e.g. in a faster medium like the Trebuchet at 500m range) and getting cored in the meanwhile (even with faster LRM velocity)
2. Streaks, when "brawling" with a light, you will have much more problems getting a lock -> the actuall effect looking for.

The main problem from LRMs and Streaks (even some degree SRMs/MRMs) come from the amount you can fire at once and how often.
Compare a Trebuchet, Catapult, SuperNova.
The Treb has nice cooldown, but a single/dual LRM15 is still pretty weak and you have to be fast to not be fodder.
The Cat is decent with dual 15s, but nothing fancy
The SuperNova on the other hand, can sit at 600-800m and fire 80 LRMs at someone, even with the Clan LRM being streamfire and get over 2000 dmg if not disrupted.

Making missile weapon GH more strict would at least reduce the amount fired in one volley. Increasing cd in general would reduce the dps and make quirks more useful while also increasing the usefulness of backup weapons.

[justcallme A S H]

After 23 odd pages the main issue here still remains. PSR - Experience bar, not a measurement of skilk.

Until the whole PSR system accurately ranks players based on their skill, people will continue to think things are horribly unbalanced because they are playing against players they should never be pitted against, or at least, very rarely.

Player A:
170 average match score, KDR 0.9 and WLR 0.9 / Aporox Rank 25,000 Jarls List (of 35,000)

Player B:
350 average match score, KDR 2.0+, WLR 2.0 / Rank 1,000 Jarls List.

Player A and player B are both in Tier 1, that is a fact... And that right there is an absolutely fundamental flaw and possibly the biggest flaw in MWO that results in so many players thinking things are 'OP or unbalanced' which is simply due to their skill level.

If player A was in Tier 4, where he belongs, and not in Tier 1 - Player A would no longer be slaughtered game in game out. He can sit there and stare at his opponent who is also stating back at him while they are still unable to hit the same component twice after their 10,000 games a piece.

More details below
https://mwomercs.com...69#entry6105069

Edited by justcallme A S H, 11 August 2018 - 08:23 PM.

[HammerMaster]

1st time seeing this locking narrowing on pic.
Serious WTH.
So a big problem with TTK is stare down causing CT death.
SO NOW.. you want machines using weapons the are decried as garbage now have absorb MORE DIRECT FIRE DAMAGE to apply SPREAD DAMAGE.
FAIL.


FAIL!

[R5D4]

justcallme A S H, on 11 August 2018 - 01:01 PM, said:

After 23 odd pages the main issue here still remains. PSR - Experience bar, not a measurement of skill.

Until the whole PSR system accurately ranks players based on their skill, people will continue to think things are horribly unbalanced because they are playing against players they should never be pitted against, or at least, very rarely.

Player A:
170 average match score, KDR 0.9 and WLR 0.9 / Aporox Rank 25,000 Jarls List (of 35,000)

Player B:
350 average match score, KDR 2.0+, WLR 2.0 / Rank 1,000 Jarls List.

Player A and player B are both in Tier 1, that is a fact... And that right there is an absolutely fundamental flaw and possibly the biggest flaw in MWO that results in so many players thinking things are 'OP or unbalanced' which is simply due to their skill level.

If player A was in Tier 4, where he belongs, and not in Tier 1 - Player A would no longer be slaughtered game in game out. He can sit there and stare at his opponent who is also stating back at him while they are still unable to hit the same component twice after their 10,000 games a piece.

I agree with this to some extent (as noted in my post above) but a few questions come to my mind:

a ) Is there general consensus that Jarlist method for calculating "player skill as rank" is superior to the way MWO calculates skill today?
b ) Could the Jarlist method be directly translated into calculating PSR in MWO?
c ) If it was used what would be the cutoff for Tier 1 using a Jarlist ranking (top 100 players? 5000?)

Edited by R5D4, 11 August 2018 - 01:43 PM.

[GoatHILL]

justcallme A S H, on 11 August 2018 - 01:01 PM, said:

After 23 odd pages the main issue here still remains. PSR - Experience bar, not a measurement of skilk.

Until the whole PSR system accurately ranks players based on their skill, people will continue to think things are horribly unbalanced because they are playing against players they should never be pitted against, or at least, very rarely.

Player A:
170 average match score, KDR 0.9 and WLR 0.9 / Aporox Rank 25,000 Jarls List (of 35,000)

Player B:
350 average match score, KDR 2.0+, WLR 2.0 / Rank 1,000 Jarls List.

Player A and player B are both in Tier 1, that is a fact... And that right there is an absolutely fundamental flaw and possibly the biggest flaw in MWO that results in so many players thinking things are 'OP or unbalanced' which is simply due to their skill level.

If player A was in Tier 4, where he belongs, and not in Tier 1 - Player A would no longer be slaughtered game in game out. He can sit there and stare at his opponent who is also stating back at him while they are still unable to hit the same component twice after their 10,000 games a piece.

I've been saying this for a while. I believe PSR is a workable system if they would reset everyone at the very least every 6 months but on a curve.

That 170 guy would go back to tier 4. The 350 guy would stay tier 1.

[Kin3ticX]

justcallme A S H, on 11 August 2018 - 01:01 PM, said:

After 23 odd pages the main issue here still remains. PSR - Experience bar, not a measurement of skilk.

Until the whole PSR system accurately ranks players based on their skill, people will continue to think things are horribly unbalanced because they are playing against players they should never be pitted against, or at least, very rarely.

Player A:
170 average match score, KDR 0.9 and WLR 0.9 / Aporox Rank 25,000 Jarls List (of 35,000)

Player B:
350 average match score, KDR 2.0+, WLR 2.0 / Rank 1,000 Jarls List.

Player A and player B are both in Tier 1, that is a fact... And that right there is an absolutely fundamental flaw and possibly the biggest flaw in MWO that results in so many players thinking things are 'OP or unbalanced' which is simply due to their skill level.

If player A was in Tier 4, where he belongs, and not in Tier 1 - Player A would no longer be slaughtered game in game out. He can sit there and stare at his opponent who is also stating back at him while they are still unable to hit the same component twice after their 10,000 games a piece.

They probably hand out tier 1 like free candybars to in part create an illusion that everyone is a hero in a videogame.

[HammerMaster]

Zero Sum PSR.
How long have we been calling for this?

[justcallme A S H]

R5D4, on 11 August 2018 - 01:40 PM, said:

I agree with this to some extent (as noted in my post above) but a few questions come to my mind:

a ) Is there general consensus that Jarlist method for calculating "player skill as rank" is superior to the way MWO calculates skill today?
b ) Could the Jarlist method be directly translated into calculating PSR in MWO?
c ) If it was used what would be the cutoff for Tier 1 using a Jarlist ranking (top 100 players? 5000?)

I was in no way suggesting that it should be used to rank in game for PSR. It is more complicated than that as the values that PSR uses if the core issue with PSR. That and the fact it isn't Zero Sum.

I was simply using it to make a point of someone that is 25,000 out of 35,000 players in terms of raw data is in Tier 1 - which is 100% true.
And thst player should simply never, ever be there - That is also 100% true.
Because they are in Tier 1, playing against players that are massively more skilled, such players think there are imbalances where they are none - This is also 100% true.

You can see this is evident by reading posts in this thread... By players who are in Tier 1, but should be in Tier 3-4.


Anyway I covered all of this back in May, click below to have a good read. It just needs to happen, simple as that.

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6105069

Edited by justcallme A S H, 11 August 2018 - 03:19 PM.

[R5D4]

justcallme A S H, on 11 August 2018 - 03:17 PM, said:

I was in no way suggesting that it should be used to rank in game for PSR. It is more complicated than that as the values that PSR uses if the core issue with PSR. That and the fact it isn't Zero Sum.

I was simply using it to make a point of someone that is 25,000 out of 35,000 players in terms of raw data is in Tier 1 - which is 100% true.
And thst player should simply never, ever be there - That is also 100% true.
Because they are in Tier 1, playing against players that are massively more skilled, such players think there are imbalances where they are none - This is also 100% true.

You can see this is evident by reading posts in this thread... By players who are in Tier 1, but should be in Tier 3-4.


Anyway I covered all of this back in May, click below to have a good read. It just needs to happen, simple as that.

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6105069

My misunderstanding, I have heard others talking about the jarlist this way so I assumed that was how you meant it as well.

[Tlords]

Reno Blade, on 11 August 2018 - 08:25 AM, said:

As I mentioned before, the InfoWar PTS was one of the big opportunities that could easily change the gameplay, mostly for long range (missiles) and the light/med vs heavy/assault mech balance/feel.

The only downside you had on that PTS was that:
a.) the Laser dmg without lock -> while interesting idea, it was too much on top of the big change that the sensors had
b.) there was no skill tree that could counter the problem you describe (bold part).
With proper skill tree to support a LRM/ATM long range loadout, there is no reason not to implement some form of InfoWarfare.

So, question here, if this is going in a direction you want to consider:
Let's take a look again at the (original or new) InfoWar changes and see if this is improving the gameplay...

Yes, Yes, and Yes... Something along these lines would be very interesting. I'd love to see info warfare... A some real flavor to mechs...

The Piranha could be a pure striker with no info warfare boost. Something like the Pirate's Bane locust could provide 100% sensor range boost for Seismic and maybe - I don't know - be able to target mechs on Seismic.

A Direwolf could have the sensor package of medium mech providing quicker locks and being harder to lock. A Cyclops could share all of its targeting benefits with the entire team within 300m.

Man - this is fun... real flavor on mechs... A viper could share radar dep with light mechs running within 100ms of it... The Archer could come with a 50% reduction in lock time for LRM 20s and 50% increase in LRM 20 missile velocity, where the Catapult would get 15% reduction in lock times and 100% increase in target decay...

Lots of options for adding flavor to mech...

Edited by Tlords, 11 August 2018 - 06:54 PM.

[Chados]

HammerMaster, on 11 August 2018 - 01:37 PM, said:

1st time seeing this locking narrowing on pic.
Serious WTH.
So a big problem with TTK is stare down causing CT death.
SO NOW.. you want machines using weapons the are decried as garbage now have absorb MORE DIRECT FIRE DAMAGE to apply SPREAD DAMAGE.
FAIL.


FAIL!

Indeed.

[0Jiggs0]

justcallme A S H, on 11 August 2018 - 01:01 PM, said:

After 23 odd pages the main issue here still remains. PSR - Experience bar, not a measurement of skilk.

Until the whole PSR system accurately ranks players based on their skill, people will continue to think things are horribly unbalanced because they are playing against players they should never be pitted against, or at least, very rarely.

Player A:
170 average match score, KDR 0.9 and WLR 0.9 / Aporox Rank 25,000 Jarls List (of 35,000)

Player B:
350 average match score, KDR 2.0+, WLR 2.0 / Rank 1,000 Jarls List.

Player A and player B are both in Tier 1, that is a fact... And that right there is an absolutely fundamental flaw and possibly the biggest flaw in MWO that results in so many players thinking things are 'OP or unbalanced' which is simply due to their skill level.

If player A was in Tier 4, where he belongs, and not in Tier 1 - Player A would no longer be slaughtered game in game out. He can sit there and stare at his opponent who is also stating back at him while they are still unable to hit the same component twice after their 10,000 games a piece.

More details below
https://mwomercs.com...69#entry6105069

Agreed. I think a lot of the balance tail-chasing stems from this issue. PSR matches players by veterancy, which is not the same as, or correlate with, in-game performance. So for all intents and purposes, there is no performance-based matchmaking at all. Meaning there is no baseline of player performance to judge the game's mechanics against. The difference between a strategy that dominates low-performing players, but is useless against high-performing players would appear identical in the telemetry to a strategy that does the opposite. How can anyone know whose opinion to listen to, or what data to use? In theory, a player being matched with others of similar skill should have a W/L and K/D closer to 1:1. Why? Because the player's opponents are equally skilled. The player is where he/she belongs and has no skill advantage or disadvantage to anyone. This would be the ideal place to take telemetry data from. Now take a player who doesn't play the game often enough to get beyond Tier 4, and has ratios 3:1 or higher. Is that due to high skill? Especially weak opponents? OP build? Scumbag strategy? It can't be determined because PSR only really shows how long they've been in-game. Use the same example, but now the player is Tier 1. How did the ratio get so high? The same questions apply, and no clear answer can be deduced for the same reason.

I'm hopeful about the mobility aspects of the next PTS. If done well, new builds and mechs will be opened up for players like myself, who dislike the sluggish, boat-like feel of many heavies and assaults. But if PGI is serious about addressing TTK and balancing the game, they need to take a serious look at matchmaking. It simply doesn't exist right now.

[Khobai]

Adding a functional matchmaker is no longer a feasible solution.

Because for a matchmaker to function properly a game needs a consistently high population of players to draw from. That way the game can match skilled players against other skilled players and doesnt have to put skilled players in lower skill games.

However MWO lacks that consistently high population of skilled players. Thats why a functional matchmaker is a pipedream.


The best PGI could probably do at this point is adjust the XP bar system to weed people out of tier 1-2 who dont belong there. But an actual working matchmaker isnt gonna happen.

Edited by Khobai, 11 August 2018 - 11:12 PM.