166 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 22 March 2021 - 04:43 AM, said:

Will pgi do a new volumetric rescale for mwo then?
Or will we just be stucked with lower ttk, making mwo another generic twich shooter?

TTK was discussed often,
most time the comps wanted less ttk, the stompy robots players more, because stompy robots.
So we are back to: Does the gulag represents every player or only the comp players?

I wish.

But honestly, with all we have seen, I'm pretty sure the PTS is just to pacify us after their big failure that is the march patch. I doubt PGI is going to allow the Gulag, with their weapon balances, their quirks, their rescale, would actually go to live without a significant butchering from the people who barely play the game.

As for the low TTK, eh, the reduced sizes of mechs would increase TTK, so the increase of damage should normalize it. As for your twitch-shooter, eh, it's not that bad.

As to the representation, I'll say it again, the Gulag does not represent me for I represent myself , I simply agree with most of their changes that would lead to better MWO, and that is enough. Why not judge the changes of the gulag and decide for yourself if you agree with it?

This desire for representation is inherently problematic, it's just tribalism -- us versus them; it's genetic fallacy that something must be bad or good just because it came from something you agree or don't; it's judging something by where it comes from instead of the merit of its contents; It's someone childishly not liking something because it's not his idea or from him. It's Cognitive Heuristics, it's what allows stereotyping positive and negative, the victim complex that which someone is oppressed solely because they are in a group regardless of their actual experiences like Casuals and lurming.

That means when you argue "representation", you refuse to think. We should rise above, and think for ourselves.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 22 March 2021 - 05:19 AM.

[PocketYoda]

Alexandros, on 22 March 2021 - 04:02 AM, said:

That is how I imagined it:


Offensive Tree: Example Range o o o o o o o o o o (Each dot to give a percentage or tell us the exact values as we drag the mouse upon it)

Offensive Tree:
-Range
-Rearm (CDs)
-Heat
-Velocity
Defensive Tree:
-Armor Plating
-Structure integrity//Critical hit Reduction
-AMS ROF//LAMS HEAT
Electronics:
-Radar Deprivation
-Sensor Range //Seismic
-ECM // Stealth armor CD
UtilityTree:
-Engine Tuning
-Cool Run
-Jumpjets Range
-Consumables


-
-

That would make two tier customer base.. New players wouldn't stand a chance against maxed mechs.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2021 - 05:17 AM, said:

As for the low TTK, eh, the reduced sizes of mechs would increase TTK, so the increase of damage should normalize it.

Fast and small mechs would have the most of a rescale and the more damage would normalize, as you said.
But slow/big mechs dont get much out of the rescale, getting down faster with more damage dealt in the same time.
Overall the tkk will go down.
Then smaller, fast mechs with more firepower then before will lead to even more running in circles and less used then a little less big, slow mechs.

Maybe its time to increase the armor?
2 times was matching for the most weapons if you look at tt damage in the average at the beginning of mwo, but we are up to 2.5-3 times (in the average) over the tt damage now. And the gulag increases this even futher ...

Edited by Kroete, 22 March 2021 - 05:48 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 22 March 2021 - 05:37 AM, said:

Fast and small mechs would have the most of a rescale and the more damage would normalize, as you said.
But slow/big mechs dont get much out of the rescale, getting down faster with more damage dealt in the same time.
Overall the tkk will go down.

Smaller, fast mechs with more firepower then before will lead to even more running in circles and less used a little less big, slow mechs.

That depends on the rescale. If anything I think the volumetric rescale would normalize the sizes between mechs, like so:



That means the mechs that were generally smaller would probably be bigger and more vulnerable. The massive mechs like the atlas, grasshopper, annihilator would get more out of the shrink.

Here's another thread explaining it: https://mwomercs.com...metric-scaling/

Nightbird, on 03 March 2018 - 08:15 PM, said:

Spoiler

Edited by The6thMessenger, 22 March 2021 - 05:53 AM.

[Gagis]

Problem with TTK discussions is that theres a few possible contexts where it is different.

TTK 1v1 is already fairly high. Tanky mechs piloted by players that try to mitigate focused damage can take a really long time. A newbie not twisting their torso or positioning carefully can go down uncannily fast, no matter how large armour quirks their mech has.

TTK 1v12 always approaches 0 no matter how much you nerf weapons and buff armour. 12 is just too many sources of damage. 2v1 is already a significant speedup. Exposure, positioning and focused fire matter a lot more than mech statistics.

It can be really hard to tell which one people want. Many self-described stompy robot enthusiasts want to face 12 enemies alone and live, and that is strictly impossible and unreasonable outside of single player hero-centric games. In multiplayer everyone is the main character.

Edited by Gagis, 22 March 2021 - 06:25 AM.

[R Valentine]

Alexandros, on 21 March 2021 - 03:39 PM, said:

I believe that each of us is individual and unique.

If individuality and uniqueness is what you prize, then why the resistance to the Gulag? The entire point of the Gulag was to allow for a wider range of play styles to be viable at all levels of play, competitive included. I don't know how many pounds of crack you'd have to snort to think that the Gulag, and its supporters, want to "further entrench the meta". That's asinine. If we wanted the current meta to stay, no change would be required at all. It's literally already meta. What we'd actually prefer was for there to be no meta. For all play styles and weapon types to viable and for it to be up to the players and their abilities to determine the outcome of any given match.

Quote

That is what I mean with the phrase. But of course you can keep that attitude, it will serve you well in your life.

It has, indeed, served me just fine.

[Kroete]

Gagis, on 22 March 2021 - 06:17 AM, said:

Problem with TTK discussions is that theres a few possible contexts where it is different.
....
It can be really hard to tell which one people want. Many self-described stompy robot enthusiasts want to face 12 enemies alone and live, and that is strictly impossible and unreasonable outside of single player hero-centric games. In multiplayer everyone is the main character.

You a right but you are saying nothingthing about the increase in damage we had allready and nothing about the futher increase with the gulag. So lets the players out and just concentrate on damage vs armor ratio.

We had an average of 2x the damage with 2x the armor against tt in the beginning of mwo.
We have now around 2.5-3 the damage with still 2x armor, leading to less ttk.
So, why would an even lower ttk be better?

Edited by Kroete, 22 March 2021 - 06:53 AM.

[InvictusLee]

Alexandros, on 19 March 2021 - 03:56 PM, said:

What about us casual players that want the flavor of real battletech feeling? Why the game has to always shift to the minorities like "Gulag" and "champion" / "competitive people" that are not the majority?

You destroyed Gauss riffle by adding the charge , you gave the PPC splash only to clans, the same people held a campaign against the LRMS and now its a shame to play that weapon without being discriminated. Now you want to take away the fun we have from the PPCS (Since you all cry about reverting it). You keep destroying the very core of the playerbase ,the CASUALS.


Mechwarrior was about bringing different ideas to the table and surprise your enemies. Not ending up copying eachother's maximum effective builds that are already pre DECIDED by the minority.

You push a small company to do constant tuning according to your fetishes and not letting them develop SOMETHING NEW.

I am November, a loyal missile freak, and damn good at "no skill" lrms. I am ardently opposed to the gulag and 'competitive' players controlling the meta as they always have and thus reduced this game to a circle jerk between devs and like the three remaining comp players in existence.

As an official of clan dimandshank I move that we elect Alexandros as our chosen representative to air out our complaints against the gulag and those who support its structure.

[Gagis]

November11th, on 22 March 2021 - 07:01 AM, said:

circle jerk between devs and like the three remaining comp players in existence.

The devs pretty much hate comp players, which is why the devs end up being so out of touch with how their game actually works.

Just what have you been smoking?

[InvictusLee]

Gagis, on 22 March 2021 - 07:10 AM, said:

The devs pretty much hate comp players, which is why the devs end up being so out of touch with how their game actually works.

Just what have you been smoking?

Been here since before the beta. So. I am usually smoking some good ****..

[The6thMessenger]

Sjorpha, on 21 March 2021 - 03:56 AM, said:

You get less "min-maxing" the better balance the weapons have. It is the imbalances that creates a metagame where certain strategies dominate. Better balance = more variety and more viable builds.

Sjorpha, on 21 March 2021 - 03:56 AM, said:

You're never getting rid of some things. For example it will always be better to focus your builds towards a specific engagement range so you can win your trades there. This isn't really a matter of game design, it's how the world works. It's the same in the real world, if you want to be good at something you have to focus enough resources on that. There is no way to rebalance the game so that a build mixing srms er large lasers is competitive, because that build will always be operating at reduced capacity. This is one reason so many stock builds are bad. In other words, you can't get rid of boating because boating is essentially specialisation and specialisation is favoured by how reality works not just in games.

I agree. But i'd rather lessen it, if I can, because it is the root of imbalance as you have admitted. One would think that the people who cared more about balance should be aversive to the root of it.

To be fair, that's kind of what the Gulag did with other weapons. The UAC changes that they were planning, that's part of it. The Min-Maxer banks on the fact that it's basically 2x the UAC at the price of one 86-85% at a time, and now the 0% Jam rework that makes it consistent makes it also less min-maxy. That increased the floor, and reduced the ceiling.

The ATMs at 3 damage/missile however at between 120-245m is still a massive missed opportunity. Could have been at 2.5/2.0/1.5 damage/missile and 120-270m, it's still pretty min-maxy but not that much that it's stupidly risky high-reward. With what they did retaining the high-damage but just making it hotter, it just rewards poptarting.

I agree that it's the same in the real world -- but this ain't the real world, it's just a game, it's a PVP game where there must be a semblance of balance. And potential avenues of imbalances can ruin the experiences of others, that's why I opt to minimize it if I can.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 22 March 2021 - 05:50 PM.

[YueFei]

Kroete, on 22 March 2021 - 06:52 AM, said:

You a right but you are saying nothingthing about the increase in damage we had allready and nothing about the futher increase with the gulag. So lets the players out and just concentrate on damage vs armor ratio.

We had an average of 2x the damage with 2x the armor against tt in the beginning of mwo.
We have now around 2.5-3 the damage with still 2x armor, leading to less ttk.
So, why would an even lower ttk be better?

Under-performing weapons are buffed or have quality-of-life improvements (like higher velocity). People who were using those weapons were previously at a disadvantage, and with the changes they'll do more damage. Against the currently-top-of-the-line weapons, TTK will be the same as it is now. Against the underperforming weapons, TTK will be about the same as compared with the current best performing weapons.

But the holistic approach being taken is to make TTK more dependent on pilot input by improving baseline agility and re-scaling mechs to be smaller overall. All of these factors were supposed to have been taken together as a whole. Ultimately you'll be able to survive longer with active defensive piloting.

Instead we're getting it piecemeal, but keep in mind that TTK doesn't really change much unless you were facing a lot of enemy players who were gimping themselves by choosing crappy weapons. If you were already facing players who tended to choose the more effective weapons, you're not gonna see TTK change much at all.

Edited by YueFei, 22 March 2021 - 11:42 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Alexandros, on 19 March 2021 - 03:56 PM, said:

What about us casual players that want the flavor of real battletech feeling? Why the game has to always shift to the minorities like "Gulag" and "champion" / "competitive people" that are not the majority?

You destroyed Gauss riffle by adding the charge , you gave the PPC splash only to clans, the same people held a campaign against the LRMS and now its a shame to play that weapon without being discriminated. Now you want to take away the fun we have from the PPCS (Since you all cry about reverting it). You keep destroying the very core of the playerbase ,the CASUALS.


Mechwarrior was about bringing different ideas to the table and surprise your enemies. Not ending up copying eachother's maximum effective builds that are already pre DECIDED by the minority.

You push a small company to do constant tuning according to your fetishes and not letting them develop SOMETHING NEW.

Wow, I don't even like this gulag idea really, but this is quite possibly the WORST take I've ever seen on this website.

[Kroete]

YueFei, on 22 March 2021 - 11:41 PM, said:

Under-performing weapons are buffed or have quality-of-life improvements (like higher velocity). People who were using those weapons were previously at a disadvantage, and with the changes they'll do more damage. Against the currently-top-of-the-line weapons, TTK will be the same as it is now. Against the underperforming weapons, TTK will be about the same as compared with the current best performing weapons.

I only see some buffs for some weapon, no nerfs.
If you have only inrease in damage, but no nerfs, int cant be the same ttk.

Old 3+1+1, new 3+2+1, thats not the same.

You, gagis and the 6th try to defend the gulag, but noone has said why lower ttk is good, they evaded the question and now you tried to cheat me about that?

After that i must say the gulag is drifen by an agenda, from elitist players for more elitism comp playstyle and the people dont understand their own system or cheat to force their changes.

Edited by Kroete, 23 March 2021 - 12:56 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 23 March 2021 - 12:55 AM, said:

You, gagis and the 6th try to defend the gulag, but noone has said why lower ttk is good, they evaded the question and now you tried to cheat me about that?

Cheat you? Wow.

I have never defended the low TTK of the Gulag, I simply liked their changes. I simply pointed out that they may have reduced the TTK in mind of their rescale that may increase the TTK.

There is also planned global increase in agility later the patches, so I think that will also increase TTK.

Kroete, on 23 March 2021 - 12:55 AM, said:

After that i must say the gulag is drifen by an agenda, from elitist players for more elitism comp playstyle and the people dont understand their own system or cheat to force their changes.

Honestly, something like that is in the back of my mind too, there are some SEEMINGLY self-serving changes and bias against homing weapons. Like the LRMs and SSRMs flat out nerfed, ATMs retained their ultra-specialized use, etc.

But after all that is said and done, it's still pretty good for the game that it's going to get better attention than from PGI, and it's still being worked into PTS. If you still have complaints with it after you tried their balance scheme out, you are welcome to voice it out.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 March 2021 - 01:13 AM.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 23 March 2021 - 01:08 AM, said:

Cheat you? Wow.

Reread and you will see that i said that to the quoted yuefei.

Edited by Kroete, 23 March 2021 - 01:17 AM.

[Gagis]

The best weapons, is MPL, clan ERPPC, UAC5 and UAC10 are all unchanged in the proposal. AC2 is getting a small increase in velocity.

These are the best weapons that are currently in a good level and determine the fastest ways to winning. The goal is to bring suboptimal weapons such as other lasers up to their level, not to raise the entire bar. If some weapon actually ends up overtaking the MPL in the PTS, that is EXACTLY the kind of information we need to be testing for, and it will need to be toned down then.

In addition to that, minute changes to TTK are an extremely small aspect of balance and gameplay and it is dishonest to focus on that aspect alone when figuring out how to make underused weapons feasible. I don't think extra armour or something like that will be necessary since TTK already is fairly long, but I'd be interested in having a discussion about universal armour buffs too. That idea just isn't relevant here or now.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 23 March 2021 - 01:16 AM, said:

Reread and you will see that i said that to the quoted yuefei.

It's more of clarification for "they evaded the question".

That's still a wow on the cheating part. Like wow.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 March 2021 - 01:32 AM.

[Kroete]

Gagis, on 23 March 2021 - 01:16 AM, said:

The best weapons, is MPL, clan ERPPC, UAC5 and UAC10 are all unchanged in the proposal. AC2 is getting a small increase in velocity.

These are the best weapons that are currently in a good level and determine the fastest ways to winning. The goal is to bring suboptimal weapons such as other lasers up to their level, not to raise the entire bar. If some weapon actually ends up overtaking the MPL in the PTS, that is EXACTLY the kind of information we need to be testing for, and it will need to be toned down then.

In addition to that, minute changes to TTK are an extremely small aspect of balance and gameplay and it is dishonest to focus on that aspect alone when figuring out how to make underused weapons feasible. I don't think extra armour or something like that will be necessary since TTK already is fairly long, but I'd be interested in having a discussion about universal armour buffs too. That idea just isn't relevant here or now.

5 best performers, the rest will be changed to match them.
And you are talking about a "minute changes to TTK" if you buff the majority of the weapons?
Letting ttk out is a way to not talk about the whole balance and just a part of your agenda for comp play.
Do you try to cheat me or do you not understand what you are doing?

Edited by Kroete, 23 March 2021 - 01:37 AM.

[Gagis]

Good balance is the same for competitive play and casual play. There is no conflict of interest so I have no idea what you are insinuating.

And yes, I am talking about minute changes to TTK. The change will be minor, since fast kills happen with the best weapons. An MPL Vulcan or dakka Blood Asp will kill you exactly as fast in the PTS as it kills you now. TTK is currently long, so any small change is extremely unlikely to make it unreasonably fast since power creep should not happen if we test things properly and don't let something become better than the current top weapons. I consider such a small change perfectly acceptable, especially if there are agility changes and mech rescales coming, which ought to dramatically increase TTK.

We can talk about armour buffs later. PTS is only limited to balance of power between different weapon systems, many of which are currently way below the curve.

Edited by Gagis, 23 March 2021 - 01:51 AM.