53 replies to this topic

[WardenWolf]

So I had a Twitter conversation with Russ Bullock over the weekend, in which he reiterated that double heatsink balancing is going to be ongoing. I am still personally concerned about the direction it is going, especially with the impending patch tomorrow, but as Russ asked me to 'spread the word' I am doing so.

You can see our conversation here: https://twitter.com/russ_bullock

For those who want to just read it in simpler format, though, here is how it went down:

To Russ on Nov 2: "Announced changes to DHS are making lots of #MWO players sad / angry / cut themselves today " [yes, I was being a bit melodramatic]

From Russ on Nov 3: "No reason for cutting yourselves. Double heat sinks give a great advantage. But we don't want a game where you have to have them to compete or it turns the entire game into a laser boating show. Analysis and balancing continues. But again they still provide a very good and appropriate advantage for the cost/risk/reward."

To Russ on Nov 4: "Appropriate risk / reward is great, not doubt about that, but if everyone agrees that DHS are broken currently then why make them even worse? I'm not looking for a massive advantage or anything like that, but I'd like to see large energy weapons be as viable in the game as other weapons like Gauss and LRMs are at the moment. There is a lot of good feedback from players in forums about how this change will specifically make configs worse than they are now. Please check it out and see the math!"

From Russ on Nov 4: "Bottom line is my comment was mostly saying it's a very sensitive balance and we need to be very cautious with any changes. I'm sure we will implement the DHS fix but we need more time to test balance. Spread the word. Thanks for the patience."

To Russ on Nov 4: "Looking forward to a good final balance on DHS someday And maybe a name change, if they end up not being a full double? "

So lets keep up the good, constructive feedback - and try to give them in-game data they can track about how heat is an issue. They are open to further balance.

Edited by WardenWolf, 05 November 2012 - 10:32 AM.

[Z0MBIE Y0SHI]

That stupid [color=blahblahblah] thing gets so damned annoying, lol.

I very much liked his Nov.3rd comment on the subject.

Edited by Z0MBIE Y0SHI, 05 November 2012 - 10:34 AM.

[TheUnderking]

Do they really need any more in game data about how LRM's are the best thing ever?

Gonna make this my sig once these forums decide to let me do so: Dont worry guys, PGI's got us covered in the new patch by buffing those underused LRMs, by increasing direct fire accuracy, and allowing us to keep the missile bays open and nerfing those imba lasers and high heat autocannons.

[Tabrias07]

People have had the same complaints about the economy, alternating every patch. One patch you make millions, next patch you make zilch, this patch you make less but still a profit.

Tuning takes time.

[Joseph Mallan]

Quote

From Russ on Nov 4: "Bottom line is my comment was mostly saying it's a very sensitive balance and we need to be very cautious with any changes. I'm sure we will implement the DHS fix but we need more time to test balance. Spread the word. Thanks for the patience."

Ok. This sounds reasonable. I should have been more aware that TPTB were testing what the Breaking point is first so they can work to a better balance. I understand what he is saying, I still think we could have fixed the engine sinks first then looked at what is good balance after that was squared away.

I am going to throw this out in the ring right now. Double sInks will get back to somewhere near but not over 0.2 per dbl sink. And there will be much crying as it does.

[WardenWolf]

Joseph Mallan, on 05 November 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

I am going to throw this out in the ring right now. Double sInks will get back to somewhere near but not over 0.2 per dbl sink. And there will be much crying as it does.

I'm hoping you are right. My best-case outcome right now is that the Devs know they don't want a full 2x DHS, but rather than give us that and then slowly nerf it down (say to 1.8, eventually) which would come with a lot of complaints they are starting low at 1.4 and will increase it over time. That still means a lot of freaking out now, but would end on a more positive note instead of starting out fine and ending with everyone pissed off.

[MustrumRidcully]

I know, dev time is worth a lot, but it would help if we'd actually see someone pop in, give a well-reasoned reply instead of just "we're doing X because we believe it'll work".

Heck, it would help to know they actually are aware and have looked into some of the big balance analsys posts plenty of posters made over the past few weeks. IT would help even more if we knew why they are invalid...

[Osa Eris Xero]

Point him at some of the math topics showing where the heat balancing went wrong. If you can get him to acknowledge that he's read them and sees the problem, we can probably chill the **** out as a community and let the balancing act work it's magic, but saying "we're going to tweak DHS" is just changing the size of the bandaid on the arm some poor sob got sawed off.

[Konflict]

Here's the problem, and its a big problem, with this testing. We are spending our own $'s MC/CBills on these DHS setups so they can get data. and if it doesn't work we have to spend our own $'s MC/CBills to revert back. They should have a test server open and copy our accounts there so we can test with that.

[Lefty Lucy]

So basically, F math, we're going by our guts here!

[WardenWolf]

Osa Eris Xero, on 05 November 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

Point him at some of the math topics showing where the heat balancing went wrong. If you can get him to acknowledge that he's read them and sees the problem, we can probably chill the **** out as a community and let the balancing act work it's magic, but saying "we're going to tweak DHS" is just changing the size of the bandaid on the arm some poor sob got sawed off.

I know Bryan and Garth have both posted (briefly) in the massive thread about configs that are negatively impacted by the planned change. I also private messaged both of them with a link to a thread I made, which in turn links to that larger one. I will include Russ on that private message as well, so that he has a direct link to at least some of the math threads on this subject. Thanks for the idea!

[Khobai]

Balance tuning is really not that complicated. I did a simple graph in excel showing the break even points for SHS and DHS for various engine sizes. It took me 10 minutes to do and it shows exactly where DHS need to be in order to be worthwhile compared to SHS. For DHS to outperform SHS for the majority of builds, they need to dissipate at least 0.17 heat per second.

[Joseph Mallan]

Lefty Lucy, on 05 November 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

So basically, F math, we're going by our guts here!

Lfty look at the Economy we have been through in the last month or so. And we are still only testing Lone Wolf economy balancing! As a US Marine I did not buy my own bullets beans and band aides! The House did... or was it the Senate?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 05 November 2012 - 10:55 AM.

[Rotaugen]

Lefty Lucy, on 05 November 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

So basically, F math, we're going by our guts here!

No guts, no galaxy....

[SpiralRazor]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 November 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

I know, dev time is worth a lot, but it would help if we'd actually see someone pop in, give a well-reasoned reply instead of just "we're doing X because we believe it'll work".

Heck, it would help to know they actually are aware and have looked into some of the big balance analsys posts plenty of posters made over the past few weeks. IT would help even more if we knew why they are invalid...

Exactly this.. Honestly Russ, that was a bit of sophistry... Are your employees incapable of posting some math, like many of us here on the forums can do?

[RayzerEdge]

Stephen Colbert logic lol...I dont get my information from studies and research...and certainly not from books!

[WardenWolf]

Rotaugen, on 05 November 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Lefty Lucy, on 05 November 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:
So basically, F math, we're going by our guts here!

No guts, no galaxy....

LOL!

SpiralRazor, on 05 November 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Exactly this.. Honestly Russ, that was a bit of sophistry... Are your employees incapable of posting some math, like many of us here on the forums can do?

I'm sure they can - and I bet they do a ton internally. It would be nice to see some of that produced on the forums for us to view, so we can see where they are headed. In fact, I think Bryan has stated he wants to get one of the devs named David on here to explain the way the 1.4x DHS will work in tomorrow's patch. Has anyone seen if that dev has been posting anything?

[Lars Redgren]

Perhaps the solution here is not to increase DHS, but to lower the big laser weapon's head buildup. I think a PPC at 7 and an ERPPC at 10, and maybe an ERLL at 8 would be much more worthwhile as a weapon with 1.4 "D"HS.

Assuming we all agree that big laser weapons produce too much heat to be viable. No one seems to consider how DHS will affect ballistic or missile weapons.

[wanderer]

Do I agree DHS are broken?

Yep. Because they don't perform like they should inside an engine at the moment. Not because they're overpowered.

DHS are how energy weapons keep up with ammo-based weaponry, and castrating them in the name of "internal testing" is facepalmingly bad.

The one, ONE thing we have as a baseline from TT at this point that's right on the mark are heat sinks. Except DHS. Those have to be something else less effective according to the same "internal testers" that couldn't figure out they were broken after weeks of testing them, while we did it in ONE DAY.

Show me the "broken builds" with "exponential increases in firepower" you've mentioned from having DHS the way they should be.

I'm betting about one day's worth of mathhammering from the beta forums would break that argument down. Heck, half a day.

[Random Numbers]

Well until they actually do a weapon balance pass, specifically on large weapons, the heat sink issue doesn't really grab my attention too much.

We still have fairly useless PPCs, AC/10s, ERLarge lasers.

Not sure why they have the PPC firing a bolt of energy when its a BEAM weapon. Not sure why they made the AC/10 and 20 rounds so slow an atlas can sidestep them.