11 replies to this topic

[Peiper]

Summary of No Guts No Galaxy Podcast #109: Karl Berg
http://www.nogutsnog...hp?topic=1949.0

Overall, this was an eighteen minute interview with Karl Berg, systems engineer at PGI, followed by an interview with James “ROFLwaffle” of the 'War Room' podcast, followed by a discussion of future community, league and competition play, mostly speculation and observations from past play. As always, if you want to hear the whole thing, I recommend you LISTEN. LOL. [Anything in brackets is my editorial notes.] (Anything in parenthesis is clarification.) I do not work for PGI or NGNG. Enjoy!

2:52 What is a systems engineer? Works with servers, database profile, matchmaking, communications, telemetry. Engine support work like physics.

3:50 Related to Cryengine? No, had to write all the server code themselves. “None of this works on top of cryengine.” C++ on top of Linux; basically a communication layer that plugs into cryengine on the back end.

4:15 There are 3 systems engineers at PGI.

4:32 Current projects? Omnimech support. Omnimechs require a bunch more stuff for systems engineers to do. New types of items, new inventory options, new mechlab operations – because the construction for them is different especially with omnipods. [I'm really looking forward to new mechlab operations. It's been awhile since I had a ****** exam. -Peiper]

6:25 Art team is rendering omnimechs differently than our IS frankenmechs. “They are a lot more modular” (which I take to mean that rather than bolting on extra barrels to the sides of arms or adding a bunch more nipples, we'll see housing for weapon systems built into the mech chassis.)

There followed some sort of unanswered question about weapons placement regarding say, WHERE on a mech a weapon was placed after you bought it. [Did Phil realized they asked a question but didn't wait for an answer before moving on? -Peiper]

Interview with James “ROFLwaffle” of the War Room Podcast/Twitch.tv/Youtube discussion. This podcast concentrates on the metagame, competitive MWO stuff. “Playing to win.” Also talk about the difference between competitive gaming vs. casual gaming and the conflicts (mostly written/verbal) in drops.
http://www.twitch.tv/roflwaffle49/ or https://www.youtube..../WarRoomNetwork if you want to check out this podcast/twitch cast.

16:40 Karl says he's seen the spectator mode (free cameras) in action, and the mode supports two spectators at once.

17:40 James talks about MRBC, RHOD, and Marick leagues. Looking forward to private lobbies ridding us of accursed sync drops.

20:30 Phil to Karl: Was UI 2.0 really the reason we've waited so long for private lobbies? “Fer sure, yeah” - the systems engineers could write in a lot of stuff on the back end side, but while the engineers were at work on UI 2.0, there was no way they systems engineers could expose it to the clients.

A bunch of talk about player run leagues and tournaments.

28:24 (James talks of how competitive four mans get ramped up in matchmaker, running metabuilds – and matchmaker thinks that's how they always run. When they try to run for fun, matchmaker doesn't know it, and sets them up to 'pull their weight' in the balance of it all. While my Devil Dogs may not be the best players, we've found that some mechs/metabuilds are superior to others, and we can't do as well with mechs we'd rather run than those which are optimized. This leads to some great frustration on the part of my players, because they want to horse around and still have a chance to win. Matchmaker doesn't know that, and will put us in alpha lance anyway, and if we don't get at least 6 or 7 kills between the four of us, our team is sure to lose. It is interesting from my point of view, that the higher end competitive groups run into the same problem.)

I stopped around this point. Information mining among many minutes of speculation isn't my game.

[AlmightyAeng]

Thank Comstar...Peiper...you're back! It's been so long I thought I'd have to start listening to these damned 'casts. Thanks, as always!

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Ghost Badger, on 21 April 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

Thank Comstar...Peiper...you're back! It's been so long I thought I'd have to start listening to these damned 'casts. Thanks, as always!

Yeah I'd basically given up on the Podcasts when Peiper retired.

[Solahma]

14:44
Spectator mode

I really hope this becomes available publicly shortly after private matches. Would help my future plans considerably.

[Trauglodyte]

Peiper, on 21 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

28:24 (James talks of how competitive four mans get ramped up in matchmaker, running metabuilds – and matchmaker thinks that's how they always run. When they try to run for fun, matchmaker doesn't know it, and sets them up to 'pull their weight' in the balance of it all. While my Devil Dogs may not be the best players, we've found that some mechs/metabuilds are superior to others, and we can't do as well with mechs we'd rather run than those which are optimized. This leads to some great frustration on the part of my players, because they want to horse around and still have a chance to win. Matchmaker doesn't know that, and will put us in alpha lance anyway, and if we don't get at least 6 or 7 kills between the four of us, our team is sure to lose. It is interesting from my point of view, that the higher end competitive groups run into the same problem.)

This is one of those things that really just kind of grinds on me about the game. I understand ELO and matchmaking. What I do NOT get is why the information pulled for ELO and MMing is based solely on my w/l record with a mech's weight class. The Atlas is completely different than the Awesome. The Awesome 8 series is completely different than the 9 series. My ability to perform well in a brand new mech with no efficiencies and that is 100% stock is vastly different than that of a mech which I've piloted since week 1 of Closed Beta with maxed efficiencies, all tier 2 tech, and the current "meta" weapons. So, why isn't that factored in?

[Solahma]

I agree, a mech specific ELO would be the closest thing to balancing specific builds, pilot skill, and playstyle. Not perfect, but better than MMing based on an entire weight class.

[Goose]

Peiper, on 21 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

28:24 (James talks of how competitive four mans get ramped up in matchmaker, running metabuilds – and matchmaker thinks that's how they always run. When they try to run for fun, matchmaker doesn't know it, and sets them up to 'pull their weight' in the balance of it all.

We have only four Elos per player why?

[Deathlike]

Trauglodyte, on 21 April 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

This is one of those things that really just kind of grinds on me about the game. I understand ELO and matchmaking. What I do NOT get is why the information pulled for ELO and MMing is based solely on my w/l record with a mech's weight class. The Atlas is completely different than the Awesome. The Awesome 8 series is completely different than the 9 series. My ability to perform well in a brand new mech with no efficiencies and that is 100% stock is vastly different than that of a mech which I've piloted since week 1 of Closed Beta with maxed efficiencies, all tier 2 tech, and the current "meta" weapons. So, why isn't that factored in?

I had argued this way back when Elo was implemented for such reasons. Some mechs are inherently better than others (like the Cataphract-3D or Ilya over the other Cataphracts) and that's to be expected. You can get "better metrics" with that.

Even Homeless Bill suggested stuff to that effect sometime before the new year (Dec 2013) and that didn't get anywhere.

Also, there SHOULD BE a "Elo handicap" for non-basiced and/or non-elited out mechs like a 5 to 10% reduction of some predetermined Elo value (calculated through averages with a start point defined from your other mechs overall and/or same weight class).

However, we really can't have nice things.

Goose, on 21 April 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

We have only four Elos per player why?

"Simplification".

[Sprouticus]

Deathlike, on 21 April 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

I had argued this way back when Elo was implemented for such reasons. Some mechs are inherently better than others (like the Cataphract-3D or Ilya over the other Cataphracts) and that's to be expected. You can get "better metrics" with that.

Even Homeless Bill suggested stuff to that effect sometime before the new year (Dec 2013) and that didn't get anywhere.

Also, there SHOULD BE a "Elo handicap" for non-basiced and/or non-elited out mechs like a 5 to 10% reduction of some predetermined Elo value (calculated through averages with a start point defined from your other mechs overall and/or same weight class).

However, we really can't have nice things.




"Simplification".

Pretty much.

I have said since the start that Elo should be per mech if you have greater than X number of matches in that mech (say 25) and then per class. But PGI disagrees.

I also think an non mastered Elo handicap should be implemented and would love to see a group handicap (+Elo when in a group of 2, +y when in 4, etc).

Again, PGI disagrees.,

Edited by Sprouticus, 21 April 2014 - 12:36 PM.

[Lazor Sharp]

I don't normally listen to the pod casts, but when i saw that Karl Burg was on, i had to listen to it.....

about 2/3 through, they talk about lobbies...... I really hope Russ listen's to this pod cast, maybe it will inform him of a lack of several important features......

this pod cast and what Karl has posted, has given me new hope for the future of this game......

Edited by Lazor Sharp, 21 April 2014 - 03:04 PM.

[Peiper]

Lazor Sharp, on 21 April 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

I don't normally listen to the pod casts, but when i saw that Karl Burg was on, i had to listen to it.....

about 2/3 through, they talk about lobbies...... I really hope Russ listen's to this pod cast, maybe it will inform him of a lack of an important feature......

this post cast and what Karl has posted, has given me new hope for the future of this game......

If you're talking about turning turrets on and off, and the ability to use the 'attack/defend' mode type drops, I agree. I would definately like to use the attack/defense and turret stuff to go along with storyline and planetary capture type mission.

As far as the 'post cast' and what Karl has posted. Where/what are you referring to?

EDIT: Oh, you mean http://mwomercs.com/...e/page__st__420

Edited by Peiper, 21 April 2014 - 03:01 PM.

[Lazor Sharp]

http://mwomercs.com/...courtesy-phone/

possibly the best thread on the fourms.........