5 replies to this topic

[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.

Edited by Ridingwolf1, 07 August 2018 - 02:04 PM.

[SilentScreamer]

Hi Ridgewolf1, I think your post is well organized, just a few of my thoughts on a few of your points

Ridingwolf1, on 07 August 2018 - 01:43 PM, said:

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.

A Reset has been proposed by many players as most agree that the current PSR system is more of XP bar. This will not resolve weapon balance VS player skill and will result in rage among both skilled players and new players as their playstyles conflict.

- Experienced and High Skill players prefer direct fire weapons. Other experienced players know to stick to cover, unlock radar deprevation, carry AMS to minimize emeny LRM effectiveness. Survival is dependent on working with the team and knowing how to move/twist to minimize damage taken.

- New and Lower Skill players find LRMs effective because they are easy to score damage with team feeding lock-on. LRMs are also very effective as new pilots do not stick to cover and rarely have full Skill Unlocks on Radar Deprevation. Survival is usually dependent on which team has the best pilots in best builds to lead tge team and carry the match.

If you put everyone back at Tier 5 you will put new pilots through weeks of agony as they are eaten alive by laser/autocannon fire from experienced players while their LRM loaded mechs become easy kills as they do not have the skills or experience to survive a free-for-all. Experienced pilots will also rage at "bad builds" and inexperienced pilots in-match. I do not think we are at that point.

Reseting Tiers down 1 would be better than putting everyone in 5. Ex: 1s become 2s, 2s become 3s, 4s & 5s would both fill reset Tier 5.

Ridingwolf1, on 07 August 2018 - 01:43 PM, said:

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.

Agree with you here. Some weapons do better on certain maps. If PGI confuses Weapon Balance with Map-Favored-Playstyle/weapon-type....woe to us all.

[Tarl Cabot]

Simply copying a post in response to some of the statements by SilentScreamer

Tarl Cabot, on 08 August 2018 - 06:21 AM, said:

• Players are not taught/shown the value of AMS - Current trial mechs - only Atlas and Nova has AMS....and lower tier players then learn to flock to LRMS because of the perceived benefits and ease of use.. If 90% of the Trial mechs, both current and others that are rotated out, had AMS, they would be shown the actual value of massed AMS while still in the learning stages.
  
  • IDF to AVOID being fired upon, last longer in the fight. Even if team is being rolled, the last man standing.
    
  • Higher damage numbers because newbies are still learning the game and are setup with trial mechs that for the most part do not come with AMS.
    
  • Trial mechs, primarily Champion mechs voted in by the community without any real oversight on who would actually be using said mechs in said environment.
• Lower Tier players do not take AMS because they are not aware there is a counter to LRMS. It is not on most of their training wheels (trial mechs)
  
• Majority of upper tier players do not take AMS because generally there has not been a need, until PGI does something to bring to focus some buffs done to LRMS then they are slow to change.
  
• The above but the player him/herself is confident they are able to avoid and not die to LRM but not willing to spare the weight/slots to take AMS that could BENEFIT the team as a whole.... then have 10 out of 12 with that mindset..
  

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 08 August 2018 - 07:22 AM.

[Xetelian]

Reset PSR
Make it solely based on average match score
Make it possible to be demoted (it is currently barely possible for most)
Set everyone to tier 3

The low guys will sink
The high guys will float up

Guys like me will be in tier 3 where they are supposed to be.

[T e c h 4 9]

As I do not know enough about how PSR is calculated, I can't speak to how resetting PSR would affect things like matchmaking, it doesn't necessarily appear to me that PSR is an actual indication of a player's skill in this game. I don't even know if average match score is a good indication. Maybe the Jarl's List ranking is a possibility, but honestly I'm not sure. I seem to be stuck in the middle of Tier 2, and I'm what I would consider an average to above-average player; the JL has me around 22,300-ish right now ranking out of 57,000-ish active players. Looking at the top 25 I notice that their average match scores are all 380+ with a KDR of 3+. Having said that, based on looking at all the metrics for the top 25 players, I'd classify the #1 (best) player in that group of top 25 to be Nova [EmP], with the best survival rate (75%), 9.8 KDR and 427 Avg. match score.

So, I think the metrics in the Jarl's List could be used to rank players instead of whatever the PSR is currently using.

Now, as far as all the other discussions going on about nerfing, buffing, LRMS, lasers, etc., my take on all this is actually pretty simple:

1) LRMs should be line-of-sight, or, indirect if the team is equipped with TAG, NARC or a C3 computer on a spotter (which is not in this game -so add it), or a UAV is up. This would eliminate all the LRMageddon issues IMHO. Sure, maybe new players might still get LRMd to death, but that's not a balance issue, that's a player inexperience issue.

2) As has been suggested before, Energy Draw system. Though I don't necessarily agree on how others have suggested to implement such a system (i.e., I don't think it should apply to ballistics or missiles), I still think some system like this is a better way to go as opposed to nerfing (clan) lasers. What I would say is this: engine size should determine the amount of energy available to utilize energy weapons (which would limit energy weapon alphas by default to the size of the engine, also giving an incentive to take a larger engine). Meaning, bigger engine = more power for energy weapons = more energy weapons you can fire in an alpha = higher alpha.

3) regarding mobility nerfs, I honestly think each chassis should have a baseline mobility level (based on a minimum engine size) that can then be altered by increasing the engine size above that to gain some mobility, as well as skill tree improvements. Now, I certainly believe that the mobility of each weight class, as a general rule, should be less as you go up in weight, but I also think there can be certain exceptions to that (maybe via quirks) to give some flavor to each chassis. At the end of the day, a 100 ton assault mech should generally not have the same mobility as a 65 ton heavy is what I'm saying here.

[General Solo]

OZHomerOZ, on 09 August 2018 - 03:10 PM, said:

I 'll try to explain it with the graphic below which I obtained by butchering your graphic in photochop. soz



In my mind MM worked pretty good when it was first released due to the fact that the good players were in T1 already or they got their shortly (Months afterwards)

Now the problems is that after all this time (years), every man and his dog has also eventually arrived at T1 due to the upward bias shown in the graphic above.

An analagee would be traveling to mars, some use rockets, others walk (I dunno rainbow bridge maybe), they all get their in the end. Just the better ones get their alot fasta.

TLDR:
In my mind MM worked pretty good when it was first released due to the fact that the good players were in T1 already or they got their shortly (Months afterwards)

Now the problems is that after all this time (years), every man and his dog has also eventually arrived at T1 due to the upward bias shown in the graphic above.

An analagee would be traveling to mars, some use rockets, others walk (I dunno rainbow bridge maybe), they all get their in the end. Just the better ones get their alot fasta.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 09 August 2018 - 03:21 PM.