110 replies to this topic

[Feral Clown]

Khobai, on 01 September 2019 - 06:58 AM, said:

I dont know you have other accounts. And how do I know these other people saying you have other accounts arnt just you posting on other accounts lying about having another account?

Oh wait now I sound like you.

You are unable to sound like me as that would mean you'd be sounding like an adult with a clue.

[Feral Clown]

Khobai, on 01 September 2019 - 07:24 AM, said:

I think the biggest problem with weapon balance in MWO is that it tries to balance weapons by only using quantitative stats. There arnt enough non-quantitative differences in weapons. You can only balance so many weapons using stats alone. And I think the number of weapons in MWO is beyond that limit.

For example if pulse lasers actually had an energy bank and fired rapid pulses that quickly depleted the energy bank faster than it recharged that would be a good example of making lasers and pulse lasers different in a non-quantitative way.

Thats how MWLL handled pulse lasers. They did a much better job of differentiating weapons using non-quantitative properties.

The biggest problem with using quantitative stats as the main means of balancing is that it makes it very apparent which weapons are the best weapons because higher numbers are better. You can spreadsheet warrior which weapons are the best. But when you use non-quantitatives to balance weapons its not always 100% apparent which weapon is the best.

You are talking nonsense again.

The amount of energy in that bank (like energy draw on PTS....just no) is, you got it quantifiable.

Thing is without realising you are kind of close to issues of quality over quantity. However your low understanding of the game puts you off the mark. Especially since you think er meds are the best energy weapons, which means you are not even considering this concept you are now speaking of.

An example of this is a players weapon stats in regards to accuracy. There's a reason pinpoint weapon stats are more meaningful than laser stats regarding accuracy. Higher accuracy numbers with lasers are meaningless because we lack a bunch of other stats to accompany it to provide more meaning. Although some very simple math with total damage done and number of games could provide a player an indication of what that qualitative number might be but not perfect or even good by a fair stretch.

So even PGI in their balancing has seen the difference in quality and quantity with various weapons and have clearly taken that into consideration balance wise. There actually is a ton of 'non-quantitative' differences in weapons which is actually a huge reason er family and their last nerf was particularly hard on them, despite seemingly a small change.

In the future you need to and absolutely should confine yourself to petitioning PGI to more accurately match players instead of grasping at straws and trying to 'think' what may or may not be considered or what PGI is doing, or not doing.

Edited by Feral Clown, 01 September 2019 - 12:33 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Feral Clown, on 01 September 2019 - 12:32 PM, said:

An example of this is a players weapon stats in regards to accuracy. There's a reason pinpoint weapon stats are more meaningful than laser stats regarding accuracy. Higher accuracy numbers with lasers are meaningless because we lack a bunch of other stats to accompany it to provide more meaning.

There you are incorrect... you have the three relevant values fired, hit and damage done.

Fired x the base damage is the total potential damage

Compare this with the hit x base damge vs damage done - the discrepancy can be explained by:

• not all shots did hit (C ACs, LBX)
  
• beam did wander off
  
• fired beyond optimal range
  
• critical damage (+)

This was in the chart in the form i offered and you were so fast to reject.

[Feral Clown]

Karl Streiger, on 01 September 2019 - 11:09 PM, said:

There you are incorrect... you have the three relevant values fired, hit and damage done.

Fired x the base damage is the total potential damage

Compare this with the hit x base damge vs damage done - the discrepancy can be explained by:

• not all shots did hit (C ACs, LBX)
  
• beam did wander off
  
• fired beyond optimal range
  
• critical damage (+)

This was in the chart in the form i offered and you were so fast to reject.

No I am not incorrect, I stated quite clearly that with simple math you could get an estimation. This is probably due to you having trouble with understanding English.

However my assertion that it is incomplete stands since you don't know where that damage was done on a mech and several other metrics.

You also whipped out the chart from an unnamed source which isn't clearly labeled. So yeah I don't take that particular data useful either.

Thank you for trying your best to stay on topic this time even though you are wrong yet again.

[Khobai]

Feral Clown, on 01 September 2019 - 12:32 PM, said:

You are unable to sound like me as that would mean you'd be sounding like an adult with a clue.

If youre attempting to sound like an adult or someone with a clue youve failed at both. multiple times. lmao.

Feral Clown, on 01 September 2019 - 12:32 PM, said:

You are talking nonsense again.

The amount of energy in that bank (like energy draw on PTS....just no) is, you got it quantifiable.

obviously the amount of energy in the bank is quantifiable. all weapons have quantifiable properties. but well balanced weapons have both quantifiable and non-quantifiable properties.

what makes it non-quantifiable is the fact that. you have to wait long periods of time for the energy bank to replenish. that makes it fundamentally different from other weapons which have relatively fast cooldowns and alters how you play the game accordingly.

are you better off with a weapon that fires constantly, reliably, and consistently but only does moderate dps? or are you better of with a weapon that does very high burst dps but has a long recharge time? that is not easily quantifiable. because both weapons can be good depending on the situation and overall strategy/tactics being used. You cant definitively from spreadsheet warrioring which one is always better than the other without actually trying both weapons out.

again its really no different than how RACs have non-quantifiable properties compared to standard ACs. Yes you can look at the quantitative stats of RACs. But theyre used in such a fundamentally different playstyle from standard ACs that the only real way to determine what situations RACs are better/worse than ACs is to actually test them out.

RACs were a great addition to the game because of their non-quantifiable aspects. We need more weapons like that.

Edited by Khobai, 02 September 2019 - 07:18 AM.

[Imperius]

I tried to read this thread but I can’t turn anymore for some reason. Oh look something to make a post about and now I’ve shut down... weird ghost heat on these Guass rifles...

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 02 September 2019 - 06:28 AM, said:

If youre attempting to sound like an adult or someone with a clue youve failed at both. multiple times. lmao.



obviously the amount of energy in the bank is quantifiable. all weapons have quantifiable properties. but well balanced weapons have both quantifiable and non-quantifiable properties.

what makes it non-quantifiable is the fact that. you have to wait long periods of time for the energy bank to replenish. that makes it fundamentally different from other weapons which have relatively fast cooldowns and alters how you play the game accordingly.

are you better off with a weapon that fires constantly, reliably, and consistently but only does moderate dps? or are you better of with a weapon that does very high burst dps but has a long recharge time? that is not easily quantifiable. because both weapons can be good depending on the situation and overall strategy/tactics being used. You cant definitively from spreadsheet warrioring which one is always better than the other without actually trying both weapons out.

again its really no different than how RACs have non-quantifiable properties compared to standard ACs. Yes you can look at the quantitative stats of RACs. But theyre used in such a fundamentally different playstyle from standard ACs that the only real way to determine what situations RACs are better/worse than ACs is to actually test them out.

RACs were a great addition to the game because of their non-quantifiable aspects. We need more weapons like that.

Why are you so bad at sussing out how mechanics get used in the game?

You are going to make all of your in-game judgements based on how long you know the weapon will be up and how long it will be down (which are quantities!). That means you are going to dump the entire bank every go unless you happened to just kill the target with a brush, because to do anything else would be to waste your armor. You will then back-off to recharge. RACs are used in exactly that same capacity, the caveat with them being that they typically fire much longer than their jam bar would suggest because RNG on that weapon is mucked.

Pragmatically speaking, having a weapon with a long recycle time between its lengthy bursts is not any different than getting to fire a couple of hot, heavy pulse blasts and then having to wait for your heat to drop before you can do it again, if the overall output is similar. The differences in the pilot actions required to manage both your take on the pulse lasers and the current take are so minuscule as to be non-existent. What really makes RACs different from UACs is the spool-up time (note that presence of another quantity!) precluding them, full-stop, from making snap-shots; this isn't on these theoretical pulse lasers.

The qualitative aspects do nothing to balance a weapon; they only alter the number of variables you have to tweak at your disposal. What balances it are the quantifiable components assigned to those qualitative aspects. How long is my spin/charge-up? How long is my jam duration? How big is my energy bank? How much heat per shot do I generate? How much damage per shot do I do? What's my max range? What's my optimum range? What's my minimum range?

[Feral Clown]

Khobai, on 02 September 2019 - 06:28 AM, said:

If youre attempting to sound like an adult or someone with a clue youve failed at both. multiple times. lmao.



obviously the amount of energy in the bank is quantifiable. all weapons have quantifiable properties. but well balanced weapons have both quantifiable and non-quantifiable properties.

what makes it non-quantifiable is the fact that. you have to wait long periods of time for the energy bank to replenish. that makes it fundamentally different from other weapons which have relatively fast cooldowns and alters how you play the game accordingly.

are you better off with a weapon that fires constantly, reliably, and consistently but only does moderate dps? or are you better of with a weapon that does very high burst dps but has a long recharge time? that is not easily quantifiable. because both weapons can be good depending on the situation and overall strategy/tactics being used. You cant definitively from spreadsheet warrioring which one is always better than the other without actually trying both weapons out.

again its really no different than how RACs have non-quantifiable properties compared to standard ACs. Yes you can look at the quantitative stats of RACs. But theyre used in such a fundamentally different playstyle from standard ACs that the only real way to determine what situations RACs are better/worse than ACs is to actually test them out.

RACs were a great addition to the game because of their non-quantifiable aspects. We need more weapons like that.

You contradict yourself and every argument you give is based on what your personal needs/desires are. Then saying someone is elitist about balance and knowledge in a video game, while a day later espousing such nonsense as limiting voting based on IQ or social standing is such an unbelievable disconnect from the real world and a video game it is astounding.

As far as your further display and ignorance of the game in trying to decipher the maze of nonsense in your head about quantitative measurement of weapons, where we were talking about lasers, you are missing the point. Quality vs. Quantity.

Racs and AC's in your example is actually perfect, you just don't know why. That you as well think that Racs have non-quantifiable properties is a perfect example. Spin up, jam times, pellets, range, are all things you can measure and judge.

Another disconnect is that you flip your arguments based on your current mood. You've touted in the past jams=no fun. But I can fully appreciate you like a weapon that requires the user to hold one button and mindlessly spray toward the general direction of an enemy.

We are circling back though because you can't make an argument, based on your lack of knowledge and understanding, such as not understanding the point or appreciating what quantifiable even means.

You absolutely need to understand and confine yourself to trying to get PGI to balance out teams and accurately rate people. Likely it is far too late, but that is the only real issue preventing you from enjoying the game. Everything else is just you blowing air.

Edited by Feral Clown, 02 September 2019 - 06:11 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Feral Clown, on 02 September 2019 - 06:10 PM, said:

You absolutely need to understand and confine yourself to trying to get PGI to balance out teams and accurately rate people. Likely it is far too late, but that is the only real issue preventing you from enjoying the game. Everything else is just you blowing air.

Oh, that ship sailed the habor... in June 15?
With that bullcrap of PSR. unless you really really log every step of a player compare that with other players of that ream and modify this by with the enemy performance and do other stuff to get the right information from the data... you better drop all this points snd replace it with W/L.

W/L is the only value that includes choice of mech, weapons map knowledge, precision, team work and handling. So the Elo system was the better system and only failed because of the poor MM metric in putting teams together.

Of course its a stupid idea with thise game modes to try to have a MM at all. Simple because you don't know your friends you don't know the enemy and yiu don't know game mode or terrain.... to get a MM from a lot "Don't know doesn't sound loke a good idea doesn't it?

Not to mention that PSR was a waste of time because you already had the "c-bill" income. so what pgi did was to replace 10,000 C-Bills with 100points or 50 or a roll of 3d6 and call it a day.

You find similar poor handling in the balance, see the idea of energy draw... you don't need a second limit when your first "resource" is done right the heat system.
A correct heat system would have prevented a lot of crap since CB

[Feral Clown]

Karl Streiger, on 02 September 2019 - 08:16 PM, said:

Oh, that ship sailed the habor... in June 15?
With that bullcrap of PSR. unless you really really log every step of a player compare that with other players of that ream and modify this by with the enemy performance and do other stuff to get the right information from the data... you better drop all this points snd replace it with W/L.

W/L is the only value that includes choice of mech, weapons map knowledge, precision, team work and handling. So the Elo system was the better system and only failed because of the poor MM metric in putting teams together.

Of course its a stupid idea with thise game modes to try to have a MM at all. Simple because you don't know your friends you don't know the enemy and yiu don't know game mode or terrain.... to get a MM from a lot "Don't know doesn't sound loke a good idea doesn't it?

Not to mention that PSR was a waste of time because you already had the "c-bill" income. so what pgi did was to replace 10,000 C-Bills with 100points or 50 or a roll of 3d6 and call it a day.

You find similar poor handling in the balance, see the idea of energy draw... you don't need a second limit when your first "resource" is done right the heat system.
A correct heat system would have prevented a lot of crap since CB

You are correct that ship has likely long since left the dock. My point is, it is the one and only thing that Khobai should have been focusing on given his understanding of the game.

There is also a matchmaker thread written by a friend of mine, you should check it out since you like maths.
https://mwomercs.com...thread-we-need/

Saying wlr says all you say it does doesn't make a ton of sense though. Someone like Proton who has a very high wlr record can do so in any mech and unless you are talking CW, maps are random. So if someone like Proton or Bear Claw can achieve high wlr in quick play it does as you assert show map knowledge to be able to work what they brought.

You are of coarse wrong about having no point to a match maker. The point is to keep similar skilled players, playing with and against other similarly skilled players or baring that even out the talent/deficits per side to try and achieve a bit of balance.

[Imperius]

Match maker is why I quit this game. Sorry but carrying potatos gets old real fast. MWO just needs to be laid to rest at this point.