215 replies to this topic

[Marius Evander]

SFC174, on 22 August 2018 - 06:13 PM, said:

I believe the 2 Cicada warhorns they did for PTS 1 and 1.1 were pretty rare if not unique. They suck, but they're unique

They had an event on live server after the 1st cicada warhorn PTS with a cicada warhorn rewards, after giving the impression the cicada warhorn was going to be a unique PTS reward warhorn.

[ThomasAH]

Thank you for the earlier announcement and the less conflicting rewards!

[denAirwalkerrr]

A bit late on feedback on 2.0 because had to discuss it with quite a lot of people, but here we go:

Let’s start with easier part - agility, because it’s much an easier topic then heat changes since you can just see which mechs are good now and which are still walking hunk of junk. I tried out most of the mechs who got agility changes on this PTS so let’s start out with them.

Here’s list of mechs who got relevant agility buffs, not much to comment here you can already put this stuff live:
Javelin
Jenner
Raven
Hellspawn
Enforcer
Cataphract
Grasshopper
Black Knight
All IS assaults (aside from NSR)
Arctic Cheetah
Adder
Jenner-IIC
Viper
Ice Ferret
Nova
Stormcrow
Summoner
Clan assaults (aside from BAS)

Here are mechs that got buffed but not enough (srsly please get away from ‘this mech had low stock engine so its’ agility must be bad’ mentality):
Firestarter! (! - needs bigger buffs than without it)
Blackjack
Centurion
Griffin (2N!)
Shadow Hawk
Rifleman!
Jagermech!
Orion!
Thanatos
Nightstar!
Cougar
Nova Cat!
Orion-IIC
Timber Wolf!
Blood Asp

And here is the list of mechs untouched on PTS but who need some agility buffs too:
Locust
Kintaro
Archer
Mad Dog
Sun Spider

Now to the heat. Firstly I don’t feel that limiting lasers to very low alpha is a good idea. But as a general limit which can be maximally reached it’s safe to take 2xHLL+6xERML. Which is 70. Assaults like MAD-IIC or SNV-C should have no problem with doing 1 alpha from that build otherwise they are pretty much redundant. It is fine if they will have total cap of 60 but will be able to dissipate that 10 extra heat during alpha. On IS side same goes for 3xLPL+6xERML BLR. And 3xLL+6xERML WHM. I think it can be safe to balance 1 alpha heat around these mechs.

Secondly what you did is buffing external DHS by 33%, making them same as internal. Which is bad, because it buffs DPS of heatsink boats more than anything else, while mechs with almost exclusively internal ones have their total DPS almost untouched. This can be seen on Navid’s charts of damage buildup over time https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6151236, where for HBR/WHK it takes 40s to reach live values, for DS/LBK around 60s and for WLF more than 80s.

So in general I think that hard heat cap isn’t the best thing and such a huge burst damage reduction even with compensation of some dps is too harsh.

I can’t give exact numbers because they would require quite some math from my side but here are what I would like to see on PTS is damage over time on most of builds should reach live values over 30-40s this can be done by:
-partial return of heat cap increase on HS
-reduction of heat dissipation on external HS
-increase in heat dissipation on internal HS
-changes to ‘stock’ mech’s heat cap

[FallGuy0815]

Just asking beforehand: Could you remove Escort/Incursion, maybe even conquest from the PTS? On PTS 1.(latest), i asked on NGNGtv while Chris was on and those were removed, on PTS 2.0 they were back in, but i do not really see the point to do an escort match to test changes.

Usually everyone votes for the easiest game modes anyway but i think if the vote was between Escort and Incursion, that would be a waste of every participants time anyway.

[Vellron2005]

Will I be able to patch the portal this time, or will it hang up like usual?

[NUMBERZero1032]

Hiten Bongz, on 22 August 2018 - 05:06 PM, said:

but ya ended up dragging the other lock-ons into the dirt with the typical blank-nerfing that nobody wants

I want it.

Also how were the other lock on weapons broken by the nerf?

[Gen Lee]

NUMBERZero1032, on 22 August 2018 - 11:57 PM, said:

I want it.

Also how were the other lock on weapons broken by the nerf?

ATMs have Artemis built into them, so if you make any changes to Artemis, you are making changes to all ATMs. First, Artemis has had it's missile spread increased twice in the past year. Now, in one patch, the other two of the three Artemis mechanics (50% quicker LOS lock-ons, 50% better missile tracking of target), were not just nerfed, they were completely removed altogether. This, coupled with the supposed 50% (actually closer to 70%) decrease in the targeting cone for getting missile locks, makes it much harder to get locks as well as throw ATMs up over terrain when firing.

I used to be able to use a Timberwolf, despite it being horribly nerfed, to poptart with jumpjets, get a quick lock on someone I can see over a ridge or on top of a platform, and fire my ATMs at them before dropping back down to safety. No longer does that work, pretty much killing off one of the last viable strategies for the mobility-nerfed Timberwolf. Most other mechs that can run ATMs don't even have jumpjets, which means that they can't even poptart to get those locks, requiring them to move into open positions to get their own locks that force them to usually take more damage than they end up dishing out. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that they screwed up big time with this update. In trying to discourage the worst kind of LRM usage, they ended up making LRMs, and the worst usage of them, even more appealing.

Edited by Gen Lee, 23 August 2018 - 03:11 AM.

[cougurt]

Hiten Bongz, on 22 August 2018 - 06:52 PM, said:

Streaks no, but ATMs come with Artemis baked-in, so ATMs got two nerfs directly due to Artemis getting the nerfbat (lock speed and tracking).

Anyways I'll be participating in the PTS again, sure. I'm still salty over my dang ATMs though, plz roll out a missile/Artemis PTS next. Lol

Gen Lee, on 23 August 2018 - 03:10 AM, said:

ATMs have Artemis built into them, so if you make any changes to Artemis, you are making changes to all ATMs. First, Artemis has had it's missile spread increased twice in the past year. Now, in one patch, the other two of the three Artemis mechanics (50% quicker LOS lock-ons, 50% better missile tracking of target), were not just nerfed, they were completely removed altogether. This, coupled with the supposed 50% (actually closer to 70%) decrease in the targeting cone for getting missile locks, makes it much harder to get locks as well as throw ATMs up over terrain when firing.

I used to be able to use a Timberwolf, despite it being horribly nerfed, to poptart with jumpjets, get a quick lock on someone I can see over a ridge or on top of a platform, and fire my ATMs at them before dropping back down to safety. No longer does that work, pretty much killing off one of the last viable strategies for the mobility-nerfed Timberwolf. Most other mechs that can run ATMs don't even have jumpjets, which means that they can't even poptart to get those locks, requiring them to move into open positions to get their own locks that force them to usually take more damage than they end up dishing out. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that they screwed up big time with this update. In trying to discourage the worst kind of LRM usage, they ended up making LRMs, and the worst usage of them, even more appealing.

i'm aware that ATMs are supposed to have built in artemis, but to my knowledge that doesn't mean anything in terms of their functionality in MWO. so, if i'm not mistaken, the only thing that's changed is that they no longer benefit from increased lock on speeds. spread and tracking should be completely unaffected by any changes made to artemis.

Edited by cougurt, 23 August 2018 - 04:00 AM.

[Harrels Badgerton]

A nice clean incentive and I'll be glad to try the PTS again, those changes were great

[MrKvola]

ATMs and streaks got fixed, not nerfed. Selecting Artemis should have had zero effect on them in the first place.

The way that weapons work in MWO changing the Artemis subsystem does not affect ATM base stats (i.e. spread) - so they will function the same, just without the Artemis hack (that is selecting Artemis when you boat only ATMs and get reduced lockon time).

[Kuaron]

Tbh, I’m more interested in the actual changes than another 2 mio CBs.
When do we get told what they are?

[D V Devnull]

It's not even PTS Time, and there's plenty to chat about... Wow!

---

Sereglach, on 22 August 2018 - 04:05 PM, said:

Any chance of throwing in the Demon girl from last week? The big FP event made getting matches on the PTS quite difficult; and sadly life kept me from playing PTS more than Friday Night. I think I only managed to get in 5 matches.

Hey, doesn't hurt to ask, right?

Rampage, on 22 August 2018 - 04:16 PM, said:

I am in.

You know what would be really nice? You guys could design a exclusive warhorn, badge, decal or hanging item and give them out as part of the rewards for PTS testers. I will bet that would bring out enough people to run 8v8 or 12v12 on the PTS server. For some reason gamers love "exclusive" stuff.

SFC174, on 22 August 2018 - 06:13 PM, said:

I believe the 2 Cicada warhorns they did for PTS 1 and 1.1 were pretty rare if not unique. They suck, but they're unique

Cadoazreal, on 22 August 2018 - 07:42 PM, said:

They had an event on live server after the 1st cicada warhorn PTS with a cicada warhorn rewards, after giving the impression the cicada warhorn was going to be a unique PTS reward warhorn.

I'm with the folks who want a WarHorn or other Cockpit Item. GXP and MechXP can be earned from normal gameplay.

Also, the Emerald Cicada WarHorn is actually kind of nice when you want to 'bug' someone. Agreed on it being odd that one was given out on a Normal Event, however. But hey, those who put in the work on the PTS have more of those, right?

MechaBattler, on 22 August 2018 - 04:44 PM, said:

What if the PTS was carried out in stages by weight class. So first stage could be 20 to 35 ton 4v4. Then 40 to 55 ton 4v4, etc, etc. You'd get a focused idea on how the changes are effecting each weight range.

FupDup, on 22 August 2018 - 04:50 PM, said:

The thing is that the live game is a big sandbox inhabited by all robots simultaneously. Checks and balances that are in place for normal play won't be in place for class restricted situations. For example the crap agility and speed of mechs like the Dire Whale won't be a factor when all of your enemies are also in big fat assaults. The ankle biting power of the Piranha won't be as huge when you're up against Wolfhounds instead of fatties. Etc.

And of course the smaller player count is a really huge factor that makes the data collected much less accurate.

MechaBattler, on 22 August 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

Well my concern is that we're not getting a very wide range of mechs. Mostly heavies and assaults. With the odd light or medium thrown into the mix. But then again I'm not looking at the data, only my own limited few matches. Be nice if they posted that kind of thing at the end of each PTS.

Probably the reason that we're limited to 4v4 in PTS is that PGI just can't get enough people to really try it out. But using weight classes to stage things doesn't seem like a good idea either. Frankly however, this would be the time for them to also figure out how to have the matchmaker assemble rounds depending on number of people in the queue, as well as how many are playing. That way, people aren't sitting around a while in order to get a match to play... be it either 4v4, 8v8, or even a 12v12 match. Heck, this could even give PGI the ability to bring back some of the older versions of maps that were more suited to smaller player counts.

Andi Nagasia, on 22 August 2018 - 04:56 PM, said:

looking forward to it,
im expecting some Faction Flavor this time,
perhaps keep IS as 0.2Dubs, but decrease Clan to 0.18to balance smaller DHSs,
perhaps also increase SHS to 0.15(up from 0.14) to help SHSs just abit more,

Eh... I would only recommend lowering Clan DHS to 0.19, unless PGI is going to increase Clan Component Health. Otherwise that could dip in the direction of Clan Mechs always being too much like 'Glass Cannons', and that would cause unwanted imbalancing in Faction Warfare. We don't want more "Delete Button Alpha" Builds of a new kind to show up under this Altered Heat System.

Axys Rageborn, on 22 August 2018 - 05:21 PM, said:

I hope its similar to last time but this time round, SHS increase heat cap and DHS increase dissipation. Give two different directions to play which would be an interesting concept.

That would be an idea to further differentiate the choices. Although, I then wonder about that '10 HP' on the SHS. Maybe they're too thick for what they do?

Hiten Bongz, on 22 August 2018 - 05:06 PM, said:

Why didn't we get a missile balance PTS? Who the heck asked for Artemis to be nerfed into the ground? LRMers don't even use it, but ya ended up dragging the other lock-ons into the dirt with the typical blank-nerfing that nobody wants (remember Alpha Balance 1.X?). Poor show.

Even worse, the few builds that did use Artemis LRMs were either running Large-Scale Missiles with little ammo, were to be used in an up-front positioning, and/or were poptart setups. On top of that, those noteworthy cases had extremely few Missile Hardpoints. None of the Missile Systems deserved to get returned to being "Always Hiding, Trash Tier Junk" and/or "Should NEVER use, even if they were your only option" for doing stuff. Further, I was personally trying to make sure I could stick with a team when I did my LRM/ATM/SSRM operations. Now this is going to force people with Lock-On Missiles to always hide further away than they should have been, and I really do NOT like that even one little bit! Those changes were way too far over the line, and a bunch of them need to be undone. Those missile changes have even gone and harmed things for those whose physical body are not fully functional, either because of age or damage incurred involuntarily. Like you've said, there should have been a Missile PTS in the first place for that level of changes to be checked.

FallGuy0815, on 22 August 2018 - 11:07 PM, said:

Just asking beforehand: Could you remove Escort/Incursion, maybe even conquest from the PTS? On PTS 1.(latest), i asked on NGNGtv while Chris was on and those were removed, on PTS 2.0 they were back in, but i do not really see the point to do an escort match to test changes.

Usually everyone votes for the easiest game modes anyway but i think if the vote was between Escort and Incursion, that would be a waste of every participants time anyway.

Actually, those game modes are useful to have in a PTS, and something I would enjoy checking my Mech Builds on during the course of a PTS. I didn't really get to last time, and would more than appreciate the chance to see how it performs. It really tests your Mech when you're trying to complete a destruction objective in as little time as possible but without overheating, sort of like a certain MechWarrior 2 Mission that I remember, "Silver Staff" (Video for Example - From someone else, but still useful for reference)... If anything, I think that Skirmish is the most useless and should be removed. Most other game rounds devolve into that anyway, and things in the BattleTech Universe and earlier MechWarrior games are all centered around Mission Objectives that involved Non-Mech Targets.

---

And now, everyone, pardon me while I scram. See you all at the PTS!

~D. V. "This post took me way too dang long to type, I think... 1.5 Hours or more? That video hunt took too long." Devnull

[Tranderas]

Andi Nagasia, on 22 August 2018 - 04:59 PM, said:

id except some Clan nerfs, having -5% something to make up for clans +10% +20% +50% other things,

Clans are already marginally worse than IS as is. Further, Chris and Paul have suggested in the past that any clan vomit nerfs will also come with IS armor quirk reductions, and the heat cap reduction doesn't help problem IS weapons like LPLs, SPLs, and LGauss.

Lowering the heat cap is the wrong way to look at the problem; Quirks and small buffs are the way to go.

[Arkhangel]

Rampage, on 22 August 2018 - 04:16 PM, said:

I am in.

You know what would be really nice? You guys could design a exclusive warhorn, badge, decal or hanging item and give them out as part of the rewards for PTS testers. I will bet that would bring out enough people to run 8v8 or 12v12 on the PTS server. For some reason gamers love "exclusive" stuff.

Isn't just gamers. People just like to feel "special." it's why coupons, limited time offers, whathaveyou are viable and standard market tactics

[Arkhangel]

Hiten Bongz, on 22 August 2018 - 06:52 PM, said:

Streaks no, but ATMs come with Artemis baked-in, so ATMs got two nerfs directly due to Artemis getting the nerfbat (lock speed and tracking).

Anyways I'll be participating in the PTS again, sure. I'm still salty over my dang ATMs though, plz roll out a missile/Artemis PTS next. Lol

Well, in fairness, what a lot of guided missile users forget is Artemis FCS only ever was was something to increase missile accuracy when direct fired. Indirect's always been meant more as suppression or harassment, or hitting the enemy from an angle they don't expect.

cougurt, on 22 August 2018 - 06:18 PM, said:

artemis wasn't really supposed to affect streaks and ATMs anyway, so i do approve of that change. that said, it may be a good idea to improve the base lock on speed to compensate.

would actually be a good idea, as long as they keep the reduced lockon radius. faster lockons, but you still have to keep your crosshairs centered long enough.

[SilentScreamer]

Tranderas, on 23 August 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

Clans are already marginally worse than IS as is. Further, Chris and Paul have suggested in the past that any clan vomit nerfs will also come with IS armor quirk reductions, and the heat cap reduction doesn't help problem IS weapons like LPLs, SPLs, and LGauss.

Lowering the heat cap is the wrong way to look at the problem; Quirks and small buffs are the way to go.

Quirks are not likely to be greatly changed by heat cap. Quirks generally help mechs with bad hitboxes or poor hardpoints.

If Lower Heat Cap leads to reduction or removal of Ghost Heat Penalties, I say go for it.

Edited by SilentScreamer, 23 August 2018 - 09:23 AM.

[Six-Pack]

Wish you could revisit the KDK nerfs. While the KDK-3 with its' ballistic builds is still relevant, the other variants just fall short of current 100t meta. Now with the 81 d/s torso twist on Atlas they're going to become obsolete with their gimped torso twist angle and speed as well as lackluster accel/deccel which is counterintuitive considering that KDK sport mostly high rated engines.

IMO KDK should be more agile and nimble then the Atlas and have no armor quirks emphasizing the difference between Clan and IS line of thinking.

[Tina Benoit]

The details of this PTS Session had been added to the post!

[IronEleven]

I think you're going to need more than a little "Play more lights and mediums pls" note to convince people to play weight classes that are dead weight in a 4v4 format with no tonnage balancing.

[Sable]

Although it is a test session i think PGI went the wrong direction with this. The whole point is to curb alpha striking while encouraging splitting up damage to smaller max outputs spread over a period of time instead of all at once. How is that accomplished when you can alpha strike strike MORE efficiently because of faster cooling? If you can still pump up your total cooling from skillstree that means you can have a heat cap closer to 55-60. I think 40 was a good point if it was left unaffected by the operations tree but since you can gain extra heatcap i think lowering it to 35 would actually accomplish the goal of curbing high alphas. PGI has to accept that if they want to curb high alphas they need to bite the bullet and accept that they need to drastically change the way people will have to play. I mean really... a deathstrike can fire without consideration to heat now with the faster cooling and the heatcap at 50.