605 replies to this topic

[Dingbat67]

I would like to echo what others said here. You can play darts with the balance issue all you want, the things that have hurt the game the most are the engine desync, the over-complex skill tree and the current Tier system where bad players eventually wind up in Tier 1. Of the three items that could be rectified the quickest at least experimentally, I would think fixing the Tier system so that people of similar skill levels play against each other would go a long way making the game a more pleasant experience for everybody.

It's not fun for the lower skill players to get consistently stomped by the better players and I'm sure that it's not fun for the good players to go seal-clubbing either. That or in QP, good players are mixed with bad players and the matches can often end where the good players tried to carry but the bad players / non-team-players caused the match to be a loss.

Adding incentives to actually _use_ the built-in VOIP might also be a way to encourage communication.

The game was at it's best state of balance and fun right before the new skill tree was introduced.

The nice thing about experimenting with the matchmaking is, _I assume_, doesn't require any changes on the client side code. So you could do whatever you need on the back end to try new things.


****
For the record, when you did implement the new skill tree, I was very thankful that PGI gave us plenty of SP to compensate for all the grinding we did in our existing mechs.

Edited by Dingbat1967, 09 August 2018 - 02:27 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Chris Lowrey, on 09 August 2018 - 12:31 PM, said:

To my understanding as currently implemented, yes.

Now that's one thing you really have to fix.

I mean really, after all this time? (Always)

That must've been throwing off the god damn numbers, no wonder Indirect Fire LRMs are working a lot better than what they were supposed to be. That's the only thing you really need to fix.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 August 2018 - 02:20 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Chris Lowrey, on 09 August 2018 - 12:31 PM, said:

To my understanding as currently implemented, yes.

Wait... Wut? Atermis on LRMs has always required LoS, based on your own in-game tooltips and much testing.

I think that definately needs checking and, from my feel in-game, it is the case that LRMs tighten up with LoS. They seem to smash CT's a lot harder.

Feel like you have that one wrong.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 09 August 2018 - 02:27 PM.

[HammerMaster]

The6thMessenger, on 09 August 2018 - 02:15 PM, said:

Now that's one thing you really have to fix.

I mean really, after all this time? (Always)

That must've been throwing off the god damn numbers, no wonder Indirect Fire LRMs are working a lot better than what they were supposed to be. That's the only thing you really need to fix.

So this needs to be clarified.
This is a "you made your own problems" issue if true.
Afficiandos and detractors both called for LRM to be used closer to team. If Artemis was working out of LOS then as a previous poster stated, no wonder there was zero incentive.

[Chris Lowrey]

justcallme A S H, on 09 August 2018 - 02:22 PM, said:

Wait... Wut? Atermis on LRMs has always required LoS, based on your own in-game tooltips and much testing.

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.

[Bulletsponge0]

So the weapons changes will be based solely on telemetry. But, how confident can we be in that telemetry? Looking at the weapons stats on my profile, there are many glaring errors. I assume those stats are directly from the telemetry that PGI is now using for balance decisions. it doesn't exactly inspire confidence that PGI is getting the most accurate information possible in order to make the most informed decisions possible.

Edited by Bulletsponge0, 09 August 2018 - 02:47 PM.

[Chados]

Chris, how is the restriction of Artemis to a spread reduction only-a lower one than in 2016-justify its tonnage cost? And how do you justify buffing ECM *along with* nerfing Artemis by removing its lock reduction and tracking strength bonuses? Why wouldn’t you test one of these *alone* to see if you get the result you want before you fundamentally alter the game balance in this way and risk rendering AMS and Artemis both irrelevant?

[Chris Lowrey]

Bulletsponge0, on 09 August 2018 - 02:47 PM, said:

So the weapons changes will be based solely on telemetry. But, how confident can we be in that telemetry? Looking at the weapons stats on my profile, there are many glaring errors. I assume those stats are directly from the telemetry that PGI is now using for balance decisions. it doesn't exactly inspire confidence that PGI is getting the most accurate information possible in order to make the most informed decisions possible.

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

[Bulletsponge0]

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

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

Things like it showing how I've never used a weapon in a match, zero time equipped, but have fired it hundreds of times...

or weapons that are averaging more damage per shot than they are suppose to (of example, for me, the IS AC-5 is averaging 5.13 damage per hit, I know its possible, but HIGHLY unlikely.. I'm not a potato pilot, but I'm not good enough to hit for perfect damage every time with crits, never hitting a destroyed component, never hitting past optimal range, etc... this also applies to the AC-10 (10.00 damage per hit) and the AC-20 (19.56 damage per hit))

[The6thMessenger]

Bulletsponge0, on 09 August 2018 - 03:06 PM, said:

Things like it showing how I've never used a weapon in a match, zero time equipped, but have fired it hundreds of times...

or weapons that are averaging more damage per shot than they are suppose to (of example, for me, the IS AC-5 is averaging 5.13 damage per hit, I know its possible, but HIGHLY unlikely.. I'm not a potato pilot, but I'm not good enough to hit for perfect damage every time with crits, never hitting a destroyed component, never hitting past optimal range, etc... this also applies to the AC-10 (10.00 damage per hit) and the AC-20 (19.56 damage per hit))

Did you checked weapon stats on your profile?

[Bulletsponge0]

The6thMessenger, on 09 August 2018 - 03:08 PM, said:

Did you checked weapon stats on your profile?

yes.. look at your profile weapon stats, I guarantee there will be things that simply don't add up

hell, according to the stats, my IS UAC-10 is averaging 15.34 damage per hit

[TheCaptainJZ]

The weapons stats on the webpage have been widely believed to be inaccurate with examples like the above.

[denAirwalkerrr]

As promised:

[The6thMessenger]

Bulletsponge0, on 09 August 2018 - 03:11 PM, said:

yes.. look at your profile weapon stats, I guarantee there will be things that simply don't add up

hell, according to the stats, my IS UAC-10 is averaging 15.34 damage per hit

Huh, my AC20 is at 20.333 damage/hit.

[DRlFTER]

Perhaps it is including crit hit damage.

[cougurt]

the stats page is completely busted, it says i've dealt 12,331 damage with IS small pulse in 7 matches.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Sezneg, on 09 August 2018 - 02:03 PM, said:

On the subject of "distorting" the game - large quirks were interesting and fun. Did the 50% cooldown/duration LPL spider 5k really make the game worse? Did the 30% range 30% duration 30% cooldown spider 5v make the game worse? These quirks made these mechs playable and gave them character that was fun.

Balance is good. Fun is better. Balanced fun is best.

I don't doubt that somewhere on a spreadsheet the current setup looks more "balanced" to someone, but it sure as hell is not fun to play.

The Locust 3S.
#nevarforget

Jman5, on 09 August 2018 - 06:58 AM, said:

So I just want to make one final point for why I like the idea of a Heat Capacity Cap, but I don't like the idea of tacking on a Dissipation Buff.

Go build something like this:
https://mwo.smurfy-n...8cca1a66843b292

Then max Heat Gen, Heat Containment, and Cool run.

Now count how long after your cooldown for those HLL end until you can fire again.

It's pretty quick right? 25 DHS with skills makes your heat dissipation something like 4.675 HPS. If you guys bump up Heat dissipation, builds such as this suddenly might become 100% heat efficient.

This is why on the one hand I'm excited to try out a capacity cap, but I'm also hesitant to see heat dissipation buffed.

If you guys cap Heat Capacity to 50 and leave Heat Dissipation alone, I think we would wind up with a more targeted rebalance. Again, I think the concern about off-target builds getting screwed is largely misplaced. As long as you include the 10 internal DHS toward Capacity limit it will only very minimally impact the performance of DPS builds because most of those builds carry very few external heatsinks (if any).

However if you do something extreme like drop capacity down to 30, and then jack dissipation through the roof you're going to wind up effecting every build significantly. Worst case, you're going to see-saw the other way and overpower DPS builds.

Yeonne Greene, on 09 August 2018 - 07:22 AM, said:

If you lock cap at 50 and then don't at least buff dissipation for IS, what you will see is the death of laser vomit on IS Heavies. When one IS 52 point alpha takes you to 80% with 20 DHS at the baseline, and it takes 11.5 seconds to fire again and the Clan 'Mech gets a 54 alpha taking it to 86% with 26 DHS at the baseline while still only taking 9.7 seconds to fire again, there is a problem. It becomes more evident when you start swapping to cMPL boats, when you throw Gauss builds into the mix, and when you examine ballistic builds being same heat with less DHS.

What the dynamic heat cap does is effectively blunt the Clan dissipation advantage. By locking the cap, and locking it low, you place that advantage on center stage.

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.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 August 2018 - 04:19 PM.

[Tarogato]

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

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

I made a post about this. https://www.reddit.c...erly_worthless/

The profile stats are completely useless. Your web/database guy needs to spend a lot of time fixing it up, because it's an absolute mess, it's inconsistent, and inaccurate, and the way it presents the information is not even useful anymore.

I'd love to help out with this kinda thing if you guys are interested - I have ideas.

[HammerMaster]

Tarogato, on 09 August 2018 - 05:20 PM, said:

I made a post about this. https://www.reddit.c...erly_worthless/

The profile stats are completely useless. Your web/database guy needs to spend a lot of time fixing it up, because it's an absolute mess, it's inconsistent, and inaccurate, and the way it presents the information is not even useful anymore.

I'd love to help out with this kinda thing if you guys are interested - I have ideas.

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

Edited by HammerMaster, 09 August 2018 - 05:45 PM.

[Gierling]

Tarogato, on 09 August 2018 - 05:20 PM, said:

I made a post about this. https://www.reddit.c...erly_worthless/

The profile stats are completely useless. Your web/database guy needs to spend a lot of time fixing it up, because it's an absolute mess, it's inconsistent, and inaccurate, and the way it presents the information is not even useful anymore.

I'd love to help out with this kinda thing if you guys are interested - I have ideas.

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.