269 replies to this topic

[MCXL]

This guy. :|

[Draco Argentum]

MCXL, on 06 November 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

I wrote it out because graphs, while a great tool, can actually mislead people. There are aspects I would like to graph better, but overall its more important to think the process through to understand the change.

That, and the posts are more aligned with the idea, "I'm teaching you." not, "I'm Showing you."

If graphs were going to work Mustrum's would've had it covered ages ago.

[MCXL]

That's pretty much true. Munstrum posted his TT converted stats thread after this one, (though only by like an hour which is pretty nutso we had to be mind melding or something.)

I go a lot deeper than just the math on the guns though so representing everything ona graph is hard. How do I talk about player choice with a graph?

[Draco Argentum]

MCXL, on 06 November 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

That's pretty much true. Munstrum posted his TT converted stats thread after this one, (though only by like an hour which is pretty nutso we had to be mind melding or something.)

I go a lot deeper than just the math on the guns though so representing everything ona graph is hard. How do I talk about player choice with a graph?

He had it all fully graphed with multiple parameters in the closed beta forums though. PGI ignored it then too.

[MCXL]

I never saw a post about converting the weapon values to an adjusted TT, but he did do some weapon balance posts. Maybe I am wrong, I like Munstrum's posts, his graph skills are nice.

[Targetloc]

Draco Argentum, on 06 November 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

If graphs were going to work Mustrum's would've had it covered ages ago.

I reckon there's at least 6 or 8 more graphs needed.

[MCXL]

Targetloc, on 06 November 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

I reckon there's at least 6 or 8 more graphs needed.

I made you a chart.


Clearly you can see the problem in the system.

Edited by MCXL, 06 November 2012 - 10:06 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

MCXL, on 06 November 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

I made you a chart.


Clearly you can see the problem in the system.

You failed to list an entry for "charts read and understood by PGI systems designer".

Oh, wait, maybe you didn't.

[Squidhead Jax]

MustrumRidcully, on 07 November 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

You failed to list an entry for "charts read and understood by PGI systems designer".

Oh, wait, maybe you didn't.

It's there, it just hugs the X-axis so closely you can't see it.

[MustrumRidcully]

Slowpoke Jax, on 07 November 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

It's there, it just hugs the X-axis so closely you can't see it.

That's what I meant with my second sentence.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 07 November 2012 - 06:39 AM.

[Squidhead Jax]

MustrumRidcully, on 07 November 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

That's what I meant with my second sentence.

I know, stating the obvious and all that.

[Targetloc]

http://xkcd.com/1131/

[Vapor Trail]

MCXL, on 06 November 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

I made you a chart.


Clearly you can see the problem in the system.

http://mwomercs.com/...ehind-14-sinks/

I'm helping! I'm helping!

*Clap clap clap!*

(sometimes I just want to shoot my inner 6-year old).

Edited by Vapor Trail, 07 November 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[somerandom18]

RAM, on 05 November 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

First, I clearly disagree with any assessment that ignores the proper canonical recycle of the weapons as it serves nothing more than to obfuscate the issue due to uninformed sensationalism and prevents far more accurate analyses. For example the argument is not why they sped it up from 1/10 but rather why they changed them from what they actually should be – this is especially evident when it is called out as an important point to remember…

Nevertheless, very interesting comparison of heat to mana – although while I see what you are doing I am not sure it completely captures the intricacies of the actual system.

Cheers!


RAM
ELH

I LOVE PEOPLE WHO SIGN THEIR POSTS... RAM IS MY HEROOOOOOOOO


somerandom18

[MCXL]

Chapter Four: Players, Progression, Power. coming late tonight. (Also seeing Skyfall. So that's cool I guess.)

Before that though I want to make a couple of things clear.

I don't dislike this game, I enjoy playing it.

I don't think that the design team at PGI is, 'stupid', 'bad' or any of the other adjectives that have been thrown around in excessive amounts on the forums.

I'm invested to the point as a player that I will do just about anything to try and help this game succeed.

As frustrated as I have been at times when talking about the games overall systemic balance and while I do think that PGI as a whole has made several critical errors I do still support their efforts wholeheartedly. I just want the game to keep improving, as we have a long way to go from 'beta' to 'launch'.

Another thing I would like to point out is that while Chapter One and Two are completely based on Factual analyses I would like to reiterate that changes from the TT can and will be made, and that's ok. if PGI wants to have heat be much less manageable than in TT thats a completely valid design decision, and can be something that defines the game. The facts are that in doing so they have unevenly effected the heat inefficiency of things to such a degree that drastic changes might be required to re balance the game, both in the heat and armor levels of mechs.

I do hope that Paul and the gang recognize this and other constructive threads as what they are, thoughtful well reasoned feedback on a game we love, rather than an attack on PGI or the team making the decisions.

-MCXL

EDIT: Also, that feel when you have almost as many thread views as some of the stickies.

Thanks for the continued support.

Edited by MCXL, 07 November 2012 - 03:45 PM.

[Targetloc]

MCXL, on 07 November 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

I don't dislike this game, I enjoy playing it.

I don't think that the design team at PGI is, 'stupid', 'bad' or any of the other adjectives that have been thrown around in excessive amounts on the forums.

I'm invested to the point as a player that I will do just about anything to try and help this game succeed.

QFT x100

I love the game. It's tons of fun. The feel is right. The pace of battle; the flow; the roles and tactics...

for a certain set of equipment/builds anyway.

[Tuhalu]

Targetloc, on 07 November 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

I love the game. It's tons of fun. The feel is right. The pace of battle; the flow; the roles and tactics...

for a certain set of equipment/builds anyway.

I feel that way too. And wish I could get rid of the caveat at the end.

[MCXL]

Just 1000 more replies to go...

[Squidhead Jax]

Tuhalu, on 07 November 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

I feel that way too. And wish I could get rid of the caveat at the end.

So much this.

[Kalthios]

Slanski, on 05 November 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

A very thought out and constructive post MCXL.

The confusion stems from the incomplete quantitative adaptation of board game values. All TT weapon damage values should read:

Mech heat dissipation=(10HS + installed HS)/10seconds

Medium Laser: 5 damage/10 seconds, resource cost 3 heat/10 seconds (0.5 DPS)
AC10: 10 damage/10 seconds, resource cost 3 heat/10seconds, 1 ammo (1 DPS)
LRM20: 20 damage/10 seconds, resource cost 6 heat/10seconds, 20 missiles (2 DPS)

By tweaking rate of fire for the sim and putting raw damage instead of DPS values into the formula the devs have made a classic physics mistake. The formula lacks the denominator from the game (seconds). Balance changes into something not recognizable from the board game. The same goes for the heat/resource cost, which was implemented without its adaptation to 3 second cycles.
By then arbitrarily putting weapons on different RoF the actual DPS of the weapons has been warped (making the AC2 into a monster and the non heat constrained Gauss into a nightmare).

Expected values in MWO (implied at 3 seconds cycle):

Medium Laser: 1.5 damage/3 seconds, 0.9 heat/3 seconds (0.5 DPS)
AC10: 3 damage/3 seconds, 0.9 heat/3 seconds (tripple ammo per ton) (1 DPS)
LRM20: 6 damage/3 seconds, 1.8 heat/3 seconds (tripple ammo per ton) (2 DPS)

Actual values in MWO (against twice armor, so half resulting DPS to get TT comparison):

Medium Laser: 5 damage/3 seconds, 4 heat/3 seconds (1.6 raw DPS, 0.8 converted DPS)
AC10: 10 damage/2.5 seconds, 3 heat/2.5 seconds (4 raw DPS, 2 converted DPS)
LRM20: 40 damage/4.25 seconds, 6 heat/4.25 seconds (9.41 raw DPS, 4.7 converted DPS)

So the LRM20 ends up 2.35 times as deadly as in TT, AC10 is twice as deadly, MLas is 1.6 times as deadly.
LRM 20 goes from 0.6 heat/second to 1.41 heat per second, AC10 goes from 0.3 heat per second to 1.2 and MLas from 0.3 heat per second to 1 (trippling the load on the heatsinks).

TL;DR:

Stop implementing TT per shot damage values and their per shot heat and start implementing TT DPS values and heat per second values!

The Devs have developed a nice game, but if we continue to damage control and tweak from a base that lacks a denominator, we will end up with weapon loadouts and mechs that will be unrecognizable by canon and the fanbase. You incentivize competative players to build bastardized builds around very few weapon systems that have an off DPS/ton (Heat/s)/ton advantage.

This 1,000 times. Put armor back at default, and balance weapon dps and hps according to TT properly.

For example:

PPC
ROF: 1 shot every 3.33 seconds
Heat Per shot: 3.33 heat
Damage per shot: 3.33 damage
DPS: 1
HPS: 1
Faster firing while maintaining balance.

MCXL, thank you for the post, it really highlights how much PGI has broken the game's balance. That's a little harsh, but I think they should strive for making MWO more similar to table top, through balance, and full implementation of critical hits and the heat system.

Edited by Kalthios, 07 November 2012 - 06:41 PM.