198 replies to this topic

[Domenoth]

Aedwynn, on 20 November 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

Then explain to me mr wiseguy, why you replace my words with your words to prove me wrong? You pointed out where my conclusions conflict with each other? No, you point at your conclusions you mask as mine. My logic is quite simple here , and my explanation is different from your crap.

When you leave out important details you're surprised when someone tries to call attention to your omission? People have asked why we need voting and you have stated as fact a THEORY you have without providing any sound evidence or correlation to support it. However, due to your lack of any actual proof, you've chosen instead to call someone who is in a position to know a liar because his statements conflict with your conspiracy-esque viewpoint.

Before you say again that I'm putting words in your mouth:

Aedwynn, on 18 November 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

Russ lied to you.

That's a statement. It's not a proposition. It's not guarded by "IMHO...", a "perhaps...", or even a "have you considered that maybe...". You claimed it as a fact.

Aedwynn, on 20 November 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

1) They put out a new system without any testing while they knew it wouldn't work - they tried earlier. Why would anyone sane do that if they got enough time? Nobody would, which means they had no time and were in a rush, or - they are morons.

Aedwynn, on 20 November 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

...while they knew it wouldn't work...

Wow, here's another one of those things you like to slip in like it's a known and agreed upon fact. Forgive me, but I'm afraid I'm once again going to have to "replace your words with mine" or more accurately I'll have to remove your words that you haven't backed up.

Aedwynn, on 20 November 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

1) They put out a new system without any testing. Why would anyone sane do that if they got enough time? Nobody would, which means they had no time and were in a rush, or - they are morons.

Okay, so why would anyone release a system without testing it? There are plenty of reasons that don't have insanity or incompetence as a prerequisite.

• Because they know that it will lead to better things.
  
• Because they know no matter what they do people are going to complain so might as well get it over with.
  
• Because they've already focus-grouped it and know it tests well enough.
  
• Because they have enough confidence in the solution, having taken into account feedback from the previous attempt, that they believe they can make iterative improvements moving forward.
  
• Because Steam launch is approaching so they are rushed for that.

Notice that out of the five that I listed only one depends on PGI being "rushed".






What were the only two you gave any credence to?

Aedwynn, on 20 November 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

they had no time and were in a rush, or - they are morons.

Sorry, but your list seems a little lacking.

Aedwynn, on 18 November 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

2) Company always have plans in advance and they sure announce some stuff earlier. At the same time it doesn't mean they are always truthful about reasons and sometimes just lie about them (Peter Molyneux and rock paper shotgun, history of "Towns" as examples).

Nothing I've said previously claims that developers don't lie. I will make a statement now that the only way to have certainty that a developer did lie is to actually reference evidence that contradicts the statement in question. This is what you've failed to do and why I'm still involved in this discussion. You've claimed several statements by Russ are "blatant lies" when surrounding evidence tends to corroborate Russ's statements. Russ casually comments "/sigh Oceanic only, tier 5 player selecting Conquest only" indicating that Russ believes restrictive buckets lead to a poor experience for players. You claim voting is killing the population (paraphrase) while also claiming the reason for rushing it was a desperate though illguided attempt to save it. Even though the previous version was removed within 3 days because it truly was horribly received, Russ has doubled down via Twitter that voting is here to stay specifically so we can have more game modes.

But please, keep asserting that the true reason is a desperate attempt to decrease wait times while also claiming that wait times weren't an issue for players:

Aedwynn, on 17 November 2015 - 08:39 PM, said:

Wrong. Everyone was ok with waiting longer to play their fav mode.

Aedwynn, on 18 November 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

Even if new mode was announced much earlier it does not mean that current mode selection system was in the way of introducing it (And in fact it wasn't - there is nothing that prevents introducing new mode with old system, buckets aren't problem at all).

Again, thanks for stating as fact something you have no way of actually knowing. Are you in possession of the Match Maker code? Are you an expert in the field of game development? Have you compiled comprehensive statistics on all the MWO games played each day? The only way you can be considered qualified to comment on buckets and their impact is if you can say yes to at least two of the above.

Aedwynn, on 18 November 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

In our specific case, there are multiple reasons for introducing voting system, like "old system preventing introduction of new modes", "reducing wait times", "giving players more control over deployment".

So you do realize there are more possible reasons than "moron or rushed"?

Aedwynn, on 18 November 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

3) Seeing how "giving players more control over deployment" is a bad idea (and was proven so on first attempt^[disputed])

The only thing the first attempt proved was that the first attempt was a horrible way to add voting. This voting pass, by comparison, has been received quite well and has failed to dissolve what remains of the population. My evidence to support my claim is that the first attempt caused the game to devolve into complete and total chaos with a total removal of the system after just 3 days.

• What day are we on?
  
• How many people are still talking about this (hint: you and me appear to be the only two who still care)?
  
• How many average intentional disconnects and team kills are there per game?
  
• Is the matchmaker struggling to put together matches because the population has fled en masse?

A few of the above I can only answer based on my personal experience. I've played two nights in a row in both solo and group queues without noticing any increased (or decreased) wait times. Both nights I've seen zero disconnects, zero team kills, and only minor grumbling.

Aedwynn, on 18 November 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

and "old system preventing introduction of new modes" being not true ( with WoT as example)

Again, I reject your assertion that "because WoT does it we can too" (paraphrase). I reject it based on population disparities. So until you can show me evidence that population isn't a limiting factor, I'm going to continue to reject your claim. And good luck convincing me that population isn't a factor when your primary assertion is that PGI was rushed into a bad-idea-voting-system because the population is dwindling.

Aedwynn, on 18 November 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

we can figure out main reason behind it - "reducing wait times". That is main reason to introduce that feature, all others are far less important. That explains why feature that is not really needed is introduced right now. It being rushed is a separate problem, that shows they are out of time.

Again, you claim the goal was to reduce wait times but you come to that conclusion by claiming that "voting is just bad" (paraphrase) and the only reason PGI would include it is out of desperation. You assert "voting is just bad" by citing the previous attempt. Then you either ignore or are oblivious to the fact that the previous attempt alienated the population (I was there, it was horrible).

Aedwynn, on 18 November 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

So give me a reasonable^{[I'm beginning to doubt you can be reasoned with]} explanation why they put out a broken^[disputed] system without testing it.

I have given you a reasonable explanation and linked to a corroborating source to back it up. You called my source a liar and then proceeded to concoct your own shaky explanation. I'll try once more to explain why your explanation is unlikely at best especially when presented next to the one I've already given you. This is a summary of your argument. I'll post some quotes after it so you won't have to claim I unfairly "changed your words to mine".

• MWO has a dwindling population.
  
• Voting is bad means PGI had to be rushed to ever consider adding it.
  
• Voting is bad because the previous experiment proved it.
  
• The previous experiment proved it by alienating the population (I am adding this because you left it out due to ignorance or some other motive).
  
• Voting was rushed live to save what little population PGI still has.
  
• Something that alienates the population was rushed live to save the population.

The last line makes no sense therefore something leading up to it must be incorrect. However, "PGI wants to add new games modes" is supported by previous statements made by Russ, continues to be supported by statements made after the release of voting, and actually makes sense!







Citations:

1 and 5)

Aedwynn, on 18 November 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

Surely not. It was put to shorten matchmaking time because it was getting longer due to falling population.

2, and 5)

Aedwynn, on 18 November 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

1) They put out a new system without any testing while they knew it wouldn't work - they tried earlier. Why would anyone sane do that if they got enough time? Nobody would, which means they had no time and were in a rush, or - they are morons.

3)

Aedwynn, on 18 November 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

3) Seeing how "giving players more control over deployment" is a bad idea (and was proven so on first attempt)

Edited by Domenoth, 20 November 2015 - 01:55 PM.

[Aedwynn]

Domenoth, on 20 November 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

Before you say again that I'm putting words in your mouth:

Because that's what you do.

Domenoth, on 19 November 2015 - 02:24 AM, said:

You present a compelling argument except a couple of very key details.
You point out PGI didn't bother to put this on PTS noting the earlier fiasco the last time voting was added.
The previous fiasco qualifies as a fiasco because droves of people stopped playing the game for a day or if they did play, they disconnected or even team killed when they launched a game mode they didn't like.
You then claim the reason they're doing voting round 2 is because the population has shrunk too much recently and they are running around like the building is on fire trying to fix it.
So you're basically claiming PGI is attempting to prevent the playerbase from shrinking by adding a voting system that they already know is going to shrink the playerbase.

Here you are, "citing" me when I said something different with "you point out" and "You then claim". And what you do when I correct you providing my POV?

Domenoth, on 19 November 2015 - 05:16 AM, said:

No, I said what I meant. They had a total flop once before. They're not going to flippantly implement round 2 unless they see a significant enough benefit on the horizon...
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you didn't understand point number 2. I didn't go into any detail on why people hated voting. I cited the numerous atrocities committed by people "sticking it to PGI" by griefing their fellow players in an attempt to drive away those who were still enjoying the game. It was the most despicable behavior I've ever witnessed in any game I've ever played.

You agree that that's your thoughts, not mine and that you give your examples here, not mine.
So you replace my words with yours and point at them as being conflicting? Why?
Because your story doesn't make sense without going for such dirty tactic, that's why.
All you are left with is clawing at words torn out of context because there is nothing you can base your point on.
Because your "foundation" is so weak you post utter nonsense like one below to cover it up.

Domenoth, on 20 November 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

Okay, so why would anyone release a system without testing it? There are plenty of reasons that don't have insanity or incompetence as a prerequisite.
Because they know that it will lead to better things.

The very point of implementing any new system is so it leads to better things - but it is no excuse to skip testing. New content/system is always tested, because without testing instead of bringing something better it will bring something bad.
It is ridiculous to post it as reason for not testing product.

Domenoth, on 20 November 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

Because they know no matter what they do people are going to complain so might as well get it over with.

What it has to do with testing? Testing is done so new system do not bring new bugs/exploits among other things. Checking whether new feature is liked/disliked is only a part of it.
You suggest they skip testing because they don't care about what players say? Does that imply they do not care about code quality/exploits already?

Domenoth, on 20 November 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

Because they've already focus-grouped it and know it tests well enough.

Sorry, what? The very result of this implementation proves you wrong.

Domenoth, on 20 November 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

Because they have enough confidence in the solution, having taken into account feedback from the previous attempt, that they believe they can make iterative improvements moving forward.

It would be ok if previous attempt was a recent one, but gap is years long. In that case testing is a must. PTS - thats where they should do iterative improvements.

Domenoth, on 20 November 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

Because Steam launch is approaching so they are rushed for that.

A grain of Truth at last!

Domenoth, on 20 November 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

Notice that out of the five that I listed only one depends on PGI being "rushed".

Yeah, others being nonsense crap you pulled out of your *bottom* to sound credible.
That's the quality of your point - you lie and invent stuff to prove yourself right, dismissing quite obvious facts that has been layed out before you:

1) Implementation of voting system was a failure - it lead to repetitive gameplay on a few maps with 1 of 3 modes dominating the scene.
Player gathered statistics on maps played as well as PGI's attempts to fix system are self-evident proof.
Or are you saying initial vote system is a success?
2) It was implemented without testing or discussion despite players correctly predicting problems and trying focus PGI's attention on issue.
Did PGI answer that questions or paid any attention before putting system out? No.
3) 500+ vote showed people don't like voting system at all and do not mind longer wait times (read buckets) while PGI ignore that and still go on with voting without properly explaining why they do that.

Based on that it was rushed. It is fact. What I speculate on is reasons why it was rushed. And whether it was only way to go.
I asked you to present a valid reason for putting something out without testing but you failed to do that and resorted to lies.

Edited by Aedwynn, 21 November 2015 - 12:02 AM.

[wicm]

Aedwynn I agree with many of your points (read my early post), but I can tell you that Domenoth is a nice person who is not prone to lying ( he runs with my unit sometimes and is not a wack job, we have others for that). You both make valid points. That being said the only way this could be settled if from first hand input. Pgi could end the contention by simply replying to some of their own post and getting involved in this discussion to even a small degree. This change wrong or right has divided the community and a small amount of input would help, or at least give us a PGI dev to focus our rage on

[Aedwynn]

@Wicm, @Domenoth. Well, I can go overboard sometimes. For that I apologize. I agree that lack of information and replies from PGI is a problem.

[PFC Carsten]

Try it over at Twitter - that in addition to the sean-lang-focus-group seems to be the target audience for Emperor Russ.

[MovinTarget]

My 2 cents...

I have played a ton in the past few days and the diversity is definetely better, but not for the reasons anyone would suspect...

Just yesterday I had multiple games on Terra therma and i have done more conquest this week than i've done in a month.

It's because of players trying to job the system as far as I can tell...

If you watch the vote percentages they spike right at the end of the countdown. This is because some players see that their favored map/mode appear to be secured so they try to save their vote by switching it to different map/modes so they can grow their multiplier. The funny thing is that I think often many players try to do the same thing and suddenly the vote swings to a map/mode no one really wanted.

I would suggest that if voting is here to stay, HIDE THE VOTE PERCENTAGES.

I would hope this would encourage users to vote for what they want and not try to manipulate the system.

Either that or show in the pre-launch screen who was responsible for the winning map/mode so we know who to kill first

Okay kinda joking about that last part. You could just show the percentage results at the end so players could see how close the voting was.

Edited by MovinTarget, 21 November 2015 - 08:14 AM.

[MovinTarget]

Okay this Voting may be moot... I just dropped on a game that specifically had Terra Therma on the Pre-launch screen, but we dropped on Caustic instead.

[Threat Doc]

Piranha... {two thumbs up}!

[Crucii]

Feedback Quickdraw (QKD) hitbox changes:

After several hours of testing (with my QKD-5K) I have to say that the new hitboxes are awful. The QKD never felt that fragile before. It feels like that all damage is redirected to the shoulder hitboxes and that of cause isn’t a good thing (90% of all QKDs have a XL engine equipped).

Before the changes the QKD was / could be played like a Banshee / Mauler, utilizing his huge arms as shields. Losing one of those wasn’t a big thing because in most cases the arms were only equipped with a single medium laser. This combined with good (not too good!) shoulder hitboxes made the QKD “viable” even with a XL.

With the actual changes to the hitboxes the QKD lost his ability to shield damage properly with his arms, making the QKD an extremely soft target even with proper damage spreading by twisting.

Up to now, there was nothing wrong with the QKD and his hitboxes! So please, roll back the changes on the QKD hitboxes and make the QKD viable again.

Side note:
If you guys are implementing the changes to the QKD-5K quirks as announced for the 01.12. the chassis is “dead” anyway. Minus 15% on ML heat gen, minus 15% on ML range and minus 15% on LL duration, are you guys serious?! We are talking about the QKD-5K and not about some uber TDR-5SS or something like that. The suggested quirks are a nerf of > 50% to nearly all Its quirks. Since the release of the QKD a way back in time, the QKD was most of the time a dust collector not worth playing it. With the actual quirks though, it’s good enough so that people are playing it (at least a few). Please, reconsider your quirk suggestions for 01.12.2015. Don't make the QKD-5K a dust collector, again.


Regards,
Crucii

Edited by Crucii, 22 November 2015 - 01:55 AM.

[Wildstreak]

MovinTarget, on 21 November 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

I would suggest that if voting is here to stay, HIDE THE VOTE PERCENTAGES.

I would hope this would encourage users to vote for what they want and not try to manipulate the system.

Either that or show in the pre-launch screen who was responsible for the winning map/mode so we know who to kill first

Okay kinda joking about that last part. You could just show the percentage results at the end so players could see how close the voting was.

As someone who encouraged Vote Manipulation, no.
Before the multipliers, majority of games were Frozen City rolls due to the Assaults ALWAYS being put into Charlie Lance. In Skirmish, this means whoever spawned in Assaults spawns in A4/B4, climbs up and gets wiped by a C4 rush from the opposing team. Right now Frozen Skirmish gives massive benefits to the team spawning in Delta/Echo rows.
Frozen Assault is somewhat better, the Delta team changes start position very little but the other team really changes start locations much better.
Canyon is similar, Skirmish is somewhat predictable while Assault can result in cap rush NASCARing.
HPG due to map design has no problems, Tourmaline has no problems due to size.
Those were the favorite maps before weighted voting was added. With Frozen Skirmish being #1, the C4 rush auto-wipe got old real quick.

Crucii, on 22 November 2015 - 01:27 AM, said:

Feedback Quickdraw (QKD) hitbox changes:


Side note:

Probably would have been better to put this in the PTS section.
QKD-5K is not nerfed, it is changed like many other Mechs. Everyone knew a lot of weapon specific quirks were going away and requested that. In exchange, you get a generic Laser buff, Maneuverability and small Structure buffs. Means you have to learn a different playstyle than currently. If you cannot use that playstyle, then the 'new' Quickdraw is not for you, that does not make it a dead Mech.
Hitboxes were probably changed in anticipation of the new system, I do believe they should have waited on hitbox changes until seeing how PTS went.

[MovinTarget]

@Wildstreak
I am still in favor of the weighted votes (though I think it should max out at 6-8).

I am not in favor of individuals trying to manipulate the system. You should just vote for what YOU want.

People are manipulating the system to nearly always get what they want -or- mess up the voting to set up something nobody wants.

Edited by MovinTarget, 22 November 2015 - 07:03 AM.

[JaegerDjinn]

MovinTarget, on 22 November 2015 - 06:57 AM, said:

@Wildstreak
I am still in favor of the weighted votes (though I think it should max out at 6-8).

I am not in favor of individuals trying to manipulate the system. You should just vote for what YOU want.

People are manipulating the system to nearly always get what they want -or- mess up the voting to set up something nobody wants.

You know I was thinking the same thing. PGI needs too slap the little kids hands that like too play with the voting. You should only get one pick maybe two, I understand you might pick the wrong map first. But that is it. We have players just sittting and playing with the map or mode select.PGI please stop them by only allowing up to two selections per vote.

[MovinTarget]

If you didn't know your preferred map/mode is leading in votes you should still be voting for it. That is not what is happening and the only way I can see to keep peeps honest is to not let them know which map/mode is winning until the decision is made.

Edited by MovinTarget, 22 November 2015 - 03:15 PM.

[JaegerDjinn]

That wont work because they can still sit and click the maps till it drops. Its like when you get that player who thinks it is fun ttoo play with commander and lance leads. You have too take it away from them. Same here you have too stop the multiple selections too stop the problem. Only then will you get an true picking system. I have started too waiting till the seconds too make my pick and it seems too work better.

[MovinTarget]

It may have to be a combination of both our ideas.

Hide percentages for those that try manipulate the system and only give them 2 chances to pick.

The multipliers stay so that if you don't get what you want, you get a better chance next time.

[Jaegon]

Is the academy integrated with the game now, or is it still in a separate client? I don't see where to play it...

[MovinTarget]

Go to home tab and click tutorials

[FumblerX]

InnerSphereNews, on 16 November 2015 - 06:32 PM, said:

Upcoming Patch - Tuesday, November 17th @ 10AM – 1PM PDT
Patch Number: 1.4.35.0
Patch Size: 27 MB

• Fixed an issue where the mouse could stray outside the client window.

I have dual monitor, and i play in Full Window, and the mouse in game was fine like it was before.
After this patch i am unable to click out of the game with the mouse.
It happens if i am playing any flash or html5 video on the other screen (Youtube or Twitch).
I am unable to click anywhere and the cursor is on the on the other screen. i can Alt-Tab and use the keyboard to navigate the windows but the click on the mouse is not working.

Anyone having this issue?

Edited by FumblerX, 24 November 2015 - 04:00 PM.

[A sebaceous cyst]

Just curious, because I dont see any mention of it in the patch notes...when is the "expand all" button saving between games and logouts/logins going to be fixed? I mean if our voting multiplier can save game after game and even after we log out for days its still the same when we log back in so why can't the expand all selection do the same?