605 replies to this topic

[Paul Inouye]

process, on 07 August 2018 - 02:46 PM, said:

The trouble with LRMs has always been their binary performance. Uncontested and without cover, they effortlessly suppress from range. Against a smart enemy, or without sustained locks, they are nearly useless. Increasing missile speed may make them less bad in the worst case scenario, but it makes them even more potent in the best case scenario. The challenge here is to bridge the gap between extremes in performance. A mechanical alternate could be to keep LRM speed low, but also to flatten the missile arc when a direct line of sight is acquired, similar to ATMs. This gives them some direct fire potency without completely eliminating their artillery capabilities.

Will investigate the arc.

Not going against what Chris mentioned but the arc is troublesome to tune. Not making any promises but I want to find out what exactly can be done in this area.

[MisterSomaru]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 02:34 PM, said:

Lasers are being focused because of said gulf between Clan and IS as to what can be brought to the battlefield when boated. Yes, it's a couple of assaults on the extreme edge of things.. but even in lower tonnage classes, the discrepancies are there.

That being said, we're toning down the nerf substantially to make any sort of trickle down less punitive to the lighter weight classes.

Edit: What are your thoughts on negative quirks to bring specific outliers into line?

I'm not denair, but I would be more keen on the underperforming outliers to be positively quirked first in order to be a sensible option to others. If that means gimmick quirks too, then I'd be all for that since it makes things interesting. Many mechs are simply not used because they don't really do anything impactful, and variants ignored due to perceived trash hardpoints, or being underquirked. If there were some fun quirks that made specific mechs absurdly hilarious at one thing, and/or makes it relevant again in some fashion, then at least it can be fun again.
As for negative quirks, those outlying mechs have some form of weakness that can be easily exploited in some fashion anyway, so they really aren't needed. MCII may have all those high mounted hardpoints, but it has poor convergence, melts like butter under any sustained firepower, and is behind a paywall for the deathstrike. Hellbringer has excellent mounts and a lot of slots for heatsinks, but is made of wet paper. Annhilator can use dual hgauss very well, has great hitboxes, but is as fast as continental drift and as soon as the side torso armor is opened, the hgauss just explodes from a tickle. Fafnir also has great dual hgauss ability, but dies very quickly due to the CT being hittable from any angle. Kodiak 3, the only truly abused kodiak has excellent mounts for quad ballistics, straight line speed, and ammo. However, it simply cannot change direction and has gigantic hitboxes so is incredibly easy to hit even with half-assed aim. Dire Wolf can bring absolutely gigantic amounts of firepower, but has terrible hitboxes, low mounts, almost no twist range, bad agility, low armor, and low speed. Those are just a few of the offenders I can think of that have been nerfed in the past, or would be considered targets for negative quirks.

[Colonel ONeill]

I'd like to know what the percentage of the Boogeyman with 94pt alpha is. As in how many games does this loadout actually getting played. 1% of the games? Does it really matter?

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 02:34 PM, said:

[...]
What are your thoughts on negative quirks to bring specific outliers into line?

That is A LOT better than buffing/nerfing something for everybody. It is just _very_ hard to tone it right. Remember how there should have been a resize for the catapult and nova? Well, a ton of Mechs got screwed by it. I honestly doubt it's possible to find negative quirks that still leave a Mech alive but nerf him enough. But this idea is probably the best so far.

[Paul Inouye]

denAirwalkerrr, on 07 August 2018 - 02:47 PM, said:

Not only torso twisting needs buffing, but agility too since it contributes towards spreading damage when poking corners.

Will be looking at this as well.

If you have any suggestions for specific chassis for PTS, let me know.

Colonel ONeill, on 07 August 2018 - 03:01 PM, said:

I'd like to know what the percentage of the Boogeyman with 94pt alpha is. As in how many games does this loadout actually getting played. 1% of the games? Does it really matter? That is A LOT better than buffing/nerfing something for everybody. It is just _very_ hard to tone it right. Remember how there should have been a resize for the catapult and nova? Well, a ton of Mechs got screwed by it. I honestly doubt it's possible to find negative quirks that still leave a Mech alive but nerf him enough. But this idea is probably the best so far.

I wanted to ask this question because I know there will be a lot of people who hate the idea of any type of negative quirk even if it's to tone down a few outlier 'Mechs for the benefit of the entire lineup. Just getting a feel for how it would be received here in this discussion.

[MisterSomaru]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 03:05 PM, said:

Will be looking at this as well.

If you have any suggestions for specific chassis for PTS, let me know.

Again, not denair, but I would recommend mechs that have lower mounts to be looked at for accel decel. Yeah, not specific enough, but it should give a general guideline for how we feel about it. I would say more specifically, mechs that have the more low mounted firepower potential, where one has to expose a lot of the mech so as not to lob shots into the dirt.

[Chris Lowrey]

MrSomaru, on 07 August 2018 - 03:11 PM, said:

Again, not denair, but I would recommend mechs that have lower mounts to be looked at for accel decel. Yeah, not specific enough, but it should give a general guideline for how we feel about it. I would say more specifically, mechs that have the more low mounted firepower potential, where one has to expose a lot of the mech so as not to lob shots into the dirt.

We can defiantly take a look at that criteria for the PTS.

[denAirwalkerrr]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 03:05 PM, said:

Will be looking at this as well.

If you have any suggestions for specific chassis for PTS, let me know.

Locust
Javelin
Firestarter
Raven
Arctic Cheetah
Adder
Cougar
Jenner IIC
Blackjack
Hellspawn
Centurion
Enforcer
Griffin
Shadow Hawk
Viper
Nova
Stormcrow
Rifleman
Jagermech
Archer
Cataphract
Orion
Thanatos
Mad Dog
Nova Cat
Sun Spider
Night Gyr
Orion IIC
Timber Wolf
Zeus
Stalker
Highlander
Mauler
Banshee
Nightstar
Atlas
King Crab
Gargoyle
Warhawk
Highlander IIC
Executioner
Dire Wolf
Kodiak

Yes, all of them.

Just in case, I calmed down a lot since my last vid. I can rant on other resources but when it comes to communication with you it won’t do any good. Need to go, will tweet you video when it will be done, covering a lot of topics.

Edited by denAirwalkerrr, 07 August 2018 - 03:34 PM.

[process]

What are PGI's current thoughts about a higher-heat-dissipation/lower-heat-capacity model versus what we have now? I know this is a pretty ancient topic, but have there been any recent thoughts about how high heat capacity directly enables large energy alphas and is primarily responsible for ghost heat? I would think a modest increase in DPS is better than 50+ point alphas.

I have no idea whether this would work as intended, but I would love to try it out on a PTS where the current weapon values are maintained, double heatsinks are increased to 0.2 heat dissipation, and capacity dropped to 30-40.

[Paul Inouye]

process, on 07 August 2018 - 03:19 PM, said:

What are PGI's current thoughts about a higher-heat-dissipation/lower-heat-capacity model versus what we have now? I know this is a pretty ancient topic, but have there been any recent thoughts about how high heat capacity directly enables large energy alphas and is primarily responsible for ghost heat? I would think a modest increase in DPS is better than 50+ point alphas. I have no idea whether this would work as intended, but I would love to try it out on a PTS where the current weapon values are maintained, double heatsinks are increased to 0.2 heat dissipation, and capacity dropped to 30-40.

Discussed in the podcast and in the last part of the summary titled Future PTSs.

[MisterSomaru]

process, on 07 August 2018 - 03:19 PM, said:

What are PGI's current thoughts about a higher-heat-dissipation/lower-heat-capacity model versus what we have now? I know this is a pretty ancient topic, but have there been any recent thoughts about how high heat capacity directly enables large energy alphas and is primarily responsible for ghost heat? I would think a modest increase in DPS is better than 50+ point alphas.

I have no idea whether this would work as intended, but I would love to try it out on a PTS where the current weapon values are maintained, double heatsinks are increased to 0.2 heat dissipation, and capacity dropped to 30-40.

I feel like that would nerf brawling playstyles, which revolves around getting close enough to obliterate your target before your target can obliterate you. needing to take the time to wait even MORE before firing again makes it far less viable. It wouldn't effect mid or long range as much. Just one less laser or two, alpha, hide for a shorter time, repeat.

[Chris Lowrey]

process, on 07 August 2018 - 03:19 PM, said:

What are PGI's current thoughts about a higher-heat-dissipation/lower-heat-capacity model versus what we have now? I know this is a pretty ancient topic, but have there been any recent thoughts about how high heat capacity directly enables large energy alphas and is primarily responsible for ghost heat? I would think a modest increase in DPS is better than 50+ point alphas.

I have no idea whether this would work as intended, but I would love to try it out on a PTS where the current weapon values are maintained, double heatsinks are increased to 0.2 heat dissipation, and capacity dropped to 30-40.

As said in the TLDR notes, the next PTS will be along these lines to test this direction.

I have my own reservations going in, including the points that MrSomaru brings up, but we will see what direction the testing pushes us towards.

As said in the Podcast, PTS testing is not about testing final values, but to get data points on the direction as a whole.

To respond to a number of comments asking why we do not communicate this, I just want to say that although we do not ever treat PTS values as final release values, we still wish to acquire feedback as if they where intended release values. As we do not often want to color or distort feedback to what is being tested based on an assumption that it is not final. It is the same reason that I typically do not actively participate in the discussions on PTS, because we don't want to interject and potentially distort the data we get.

Basically, nothing we put up on PTS is ever considered in a release state. But we want feedback to be provided as if it was. So even with us telling everyone this, when it comes to provided feedback, always assume that what we present could potentially be the final product. Even if internally it is not. As that is the best way that we can collect usable data.

[Navid A1]

Just listened to the podcast.

Lots of opinions that are in direct contrast with community


[Redacted]

Edited by Navid A1, 07 August 2018 - 11:46 PM.

[process]

MrSomaru, on 07 August 2018 - 03:27 PM, said:

I feel like that would nerf brawling playstyles, which revolves around getting close enough to obliterate your target before your target can obliterate you. needing to take the time to wait even MORE before firing again makes it far less viable. It wouldn't effect mid or long range as much. Just one less laser or two, alpha, hide for a shorter time, repeat.

I think that depends entirely on the values. In theory it would be very friendly to brawling weapons like SRMs and ACs.

[MisterSomaru]

process, on 07 August 2018 - 03:32 PM, said:

I think that depends entirely on the values. In theory it would be very friendly to brawling weapons like SRMs and ACs.

I don't feel that way. One has to think about it from every angle and how players will adjust. a few mechs/builds may come out of it better, others worse.I'm just going by my own experiences with my gameplay and how others play.

[Ridingwolf1]

Hi there Paul, Chris, and whoever else is reading this.

This perspective comes from the mind of a research scientist who does macro and data analysis daily.....when not laid out flat on my back from surgeries.

First, I think LRMs and lasers are in a decent place. I don't think any of the ideas discussed in the podcast will resolve the current player issues because the issues are not based solely on data points but a more macro idea and this is player skill. As already pointed out, no matter what happens to either, the skilled player is going to still perform at the same level.

I propose a macro level idea to solves both issues, in my mind anyway, and that is this:

Remove win/loss from PSR calculation at the end of matches.
Reset PSR, everyone starts over at T5.

These two combined should allow for skilled players to progress the way their own skill allows them to progress as opposed to the experience bar the tier system currently is. I can't express enough how disheartening it is to work your butt of in a match and not only be top of your team but top four for both teams, then lose and get an = for PSR. I have gotten and witnessed others getting top damage for teams and/or top match score while PSR calculation gave them an =. Match score, through various awards for lance in formation, ECM, etc etc, should provide all the teamwork bonus, not an additional variable based on the team that wins or loses. Along the same lines, someone that is on a winning team but gets a match score of 40 shouldn't bet an = or even ^ because they got carried. Low scores like this happen less frequently for high skilled players than it does for low skilled players and thus should balance out both the weapons themselves and the issues in MM.

Secondly, instead of number crunching to find a balance for weapon systems, again because the entire discussion devolves down to personal skill, look at what the complaints and where the complaints are taking place. From my perspective, it is happening on certain maps most notably Grim Plexus, Polar Highlands, and Caustic Valley. I can't vouch for difficulties on Grim Plexus when facing LRMs, but I can for Polar Highlands and Caustic Valley. For both I suggest a deepening of the trenches and adding more vertical rock features to hide from them.

Finally, a micro data crunching idea for LRMs is, again based on my own personal analysis, is a debuff to the number of missiles hitting, that can't be overcome by the addition of narc or other tools, when the target is not visualized by the pilot. The chief complaint from people about LRM boats isn't so much the LRMs themselves, it is the complete refusal to participate in the team, as victory is totally dependent upon communication and teamwork. Having 2, 3, 4, and sometimes 5 mechs avoiding the battle zone by 600-700 or more yards is demoralizing, especially when the majority of them are going to be heavy and assault mechs. Not having THAT much tonnage near the front line is death for teams.

Thank you for your time. I hope this was tactful and easy enough to read.

[Password1234]

Well if actual criticism like navids post gets deleted nothing I care about is obviously going to get done

[Marius Evander]

podcast 7:00min "the K2 is too tanky because of these quirks" ..............




................................................ no......... its alive because its a 65 ton mech that was rescaled to the size of a 40-45 ton mech while other 75 ton mechs (black knight) were rescaled taller than 100 ton mechs................. It also has pretty good ST CT ST spread on hitbox's......... those tiny structure quirks are not the main reason it lives decently long / is decently tanky.

great im 7 mins in and already disillusioned.

[Paul Inouye]

Cadoazreal, on 07 August 2018 - 04:07 PM, said:

podcast 7:00min "the K2 is too tanky because of these quirks" ............................................................ no......... its alive because its a 65 ton mech that was rescaled to the size of a 40-45 ton mech while other 75 ton mechs (black knight) were rescaled taller than 100 ton mechs................. It also has pretty good ST CT ST spread on hitbox's......... those tiny structure quirks are not the main reason it lives decently long / is decently tanky. great im 7 mins in and already disillusioned.

Exactly, it's got the size benefits from the rescale and like you said, the torso spreads. Does it need those extra points in armor? Not likely.

[A Headless Chicken]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:

Exactly, it's got the size benefits from the rescale and like you said, the torso spreads. Does it need those extra points in armor? Not likely.

Must be because 'lights and mediums are working as intended' - hogwash. Only 20 tonners play like actual lights now while the rest of the lights are just essentially fast mediums. Sure, the Urbie is overquirked, but if you give it (and by extension, other lights) quirk removal, then they just become flat out useless. Hitting a light isn't a question of skill anymore, it's like hitting the broad side of a barn. All that, plus the constant nerfing of small calibre weapons which further invalidates the light class.

Thanks for the rescale that helped a handful amd demolished a whole class.

Edited by A Headless Chicken, 07 August 2018 - 04:45 PM.

[kjubert]

A feedback thread where criticism and "negative" feedback gets redacted?
U know, populists use this behaivor too. Why even bother making this thread if u go your way anyway?
It feels like it doesnt matter if several smart people disagree. I am dissapointed