301 replies to this topic

[Snowbluff]

RestosIII, on 27 October 2016 - 02:23 PM, said:

[Mystere]

topgun505, on 27 October 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

Shrugs.

Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.

I used to run 6 SPL on my ACH. I purposely dropped it to 5, not because of heat efficiency, but to practice using it in a post-ED environment (where I was assuming 30 damage would be the cap).

Really shouldn't be THAT difficult to adapt. Yeah, I have (exactly) 100 mechs, as I'm sure a lot of hardcore players have. But how many of yours are ACTUALLY used? I probably have 10 that don't have dust collecting on them.

Sigh! Here's another one of the low-information types.

It's not about being able to adapt.

That's it! I really hope The Donald Wins! **** the planet! **** humanity! Let it all burn down to hell and back many times over in a ball of nuclear fire!

Edited by Mystere, 27 October 2016 - 03:20 PM.

[RestosIII]

Mystere, on 27 October 2016 - 03:15 PM, said:

Sigh! Here's another one of the low-information types.

It's not about being able to adapt.

That's it! I really hope The Donald Wins! **** the planet! **** humanity! Let it all burn down to hell and back many times over in a ball of nuclear fire!

Best summary of this year? Neon Genesis Evangelion. Some people understand what's going on, but most do not, but the one thing everyone can agree on is that nobody wins. That, and at the tail end it gets really sloppy due to budget cuts, and is full of depression and perverts.



On the subject of ED, people seem to think that we're unwilling to adapt. That's not the case. We adapted to it while running the PTS for testing. We just didn't like what we knew it would turn the game into. I could theoretically adapt to running my Timber Wolf Prime lore loadout on the live server, but that would mean I would be turning a mediocre build into a build I would get yelled at/reported for running. I do not want that.

[Novakaine]

Gas Guzzler, on 27 October 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

Were they "LRMIN' LIKE BOSSES"? Because yeah, great way to experience "tissue paper mechs". Using a loadout that doesn't require so much staring might work out better, but if you gave them the advice "use lurms" then, well, you probably sealed their fate.

The people I have tried to get in the game didn't like the grind, so I guess that means THAT is the reason for bad new player retention, based on your logic there.

Are you seriously trying to get under my skin?
[Redacted]
I'm just illustrating an observation of mine.
Agree or disagree if you want fine by me either way.
[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 27 October 2016 - 05:00 PM.
insults

[RestosIII]

Novakaine, on 27 October 2016 - 04:23 PM, said:

[Redacted]

Woah woah woah. Hold up, please don't. Normally my few threads don't last long because of fighting, but this one has gotten to page 14 without major name calling. I don't care who started it, it's going to stop right here, got it?

Edited by draiocht, 27 October 2016 - 05:00 PM.
Quote Clean-Up

[a gaijin]

I personally prefer Ghost Heat over ED.

But what I think would be ideal would be for a heat management system to be implemented based on real-world physics and get MechWarrior a bit back closer to being the sim that it was/should be.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

RestosIII, on 27 October 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

Woah woah woah. Hold up, please don't. Normally my few threads don't last long because of fighting, but this one has gotten to page 14 without major name calling. I don't care who started it, it's going to stop right here, got it?

UR A BUTT /endthread

[RestosIII]

Lone Wanderer, on 27 October 2016 - 04:46 PM, said:

I personally prefer Ghost Heat over ED.

But what I think would be ideal would be for a heat management system to be implemented based on real-world physics and get MechWarrior a bit back closer to being the sim that it was/should be.

Real world physics? Eh.... Those don't work well with Battletech/Mechwarrior. A Heat Scale though that works similarly to TT? Yes please. I'm probably remembering wrong since I haven't been able to play it in a long time due to it despising my computer, but didn't MW4:Mercs have a heat scale system that slowed your turn rate at higher temperatures, or am I remembering a modded version of it?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 October 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

UR A BUTT

Edited by RestosIII, 27 October 2016 - 04:53 PM.

[Novakaine]

My apologies brother.
Manners maketh man.

[a gaijin]

Hunka Junk, on 27 October 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

ED has been sold to a Japanese macross outfit.

It was actually traded for the new skill tree.

I am completely lost.

What were we talking about again?

Geez I'm hungry now. Time for sushi!

[Mole]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 October 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

UR A BUTT /endthread

Okay, I lol'd at this.

[a gaijin]

RestosIII, on 27 October 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

Real world physics? Eh.... Those don't work well with Battletech/Mechwarrior. A Heat Scale though that works similarly to TT? Yes please. I'm probably remembering wrong since I haven't been able to play it in a long time due to it despising my computer, but didn't MW4:Mercs have a heat scale system that slowed your turn rate at higher temperatures, or am I remembering a modded version of it?

Well you know what they say, "if at first you don't suceed, try try again."
Real world physics would work given the proper amount of resources to research it, code it, and implement it, and I don't think it would be a "stupendous" burden on the already over worked PGI coding team (PGI coders, if I am wrong please call me out on that!)

Anyhow, my main point is that I would prefer to see MWO move more towards being a sim shooter that MechWarrior Deathmatch, though I admittedly enjoy it as it is now. And I have not tried CW/FP ...yet.
Want to try it though but haven't found a proper step-by-step "how to get into FP/CW" yet.

Okay but back to main point: MWO as a sim? Yes, please!

[Snowbluff]

RestosIII, on 27 October 2016 - 03:55 PM, said:

Best summary of this year? Neon Genesis Evangelion. Some people understand what's going on, but most do not, but the one thing everyone can agree on is that nobody wins. That, and at the tail end it gets really sloppy due to budget cuts, and is full of depression and perverts.

I've seen the End of Evangelion. IMO, I'm glad that the budget was cut. The anime is much better when self contained.

[RestosIII]

Snowbluff, on 27 October 2016 - 05:02 PM, said:

I've seen the End of Evangelion. IMO, I'm glad that the budget was cut. The anime is much better when self contained.

But dat line-art ending. Meanwhile, 4.0 please hurry up and be released. I need more Evangelion music, and the new Godzilla's soundtrack can only last me so long.

[Kaptain]

Wait, what? How can this be? I thought ED won the war!?!? I'm sure I read that somewhere...

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Bud Crue, on 27 October 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

I dis. Leader board stats. Look em up.

Here you go. Found out the number of players that had played at least 29 matches in a season (one month). Didn't include player names b/c I don't want to get moderated.

Season 1-> 31871
Season 2-> 28314
Season 3-> 26602
Season 4-> 27111 (so far, ends in a few days)

dp(season 1->2) ~ -11%
dp(season 2->3) ~ -6%
dp(season 3->4) ~ +2%

dTotal since leaderboard started ~ -15%



Shame it doesn't go back farther like the steam charts huh?

P.S. Steam charts actually show minute player gains through this same period, ironic.

Edit: I have a tendency to make careless algebraic mistakes, let me know if you see one.
Edit2: Not interested in debating or arguing anything with this post... just figured I'd share it.

Edited by Ex Atlas Overlord, 27 October 2016 - 07:08 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Ex Atlas Overlord, on 27 October 2016 - 06:59 PM, said:

Here you go. Found out the number of players that had played at least 29 matches in a season (one month). Didn't include player names b/c I don't want to get moderated.

Season 1-> 31871
Season 2-> 28314
Season 3-> 26602
Season 4-> 27111 (so far, ends in a few days)

dp(season 1->2) ~ -11%
dp(season 2->3) ~ -6%
dp(season 3->4) ~ +2%

dTotal since leaderboard started ~ -15%



Shame it doesn't go back farther like the steam charts huh?

P.S. Steam charts actually show minute player gains through this same period, ironic.

Edit: I have a tendency to make careless algebraic mistakes, let me know if you see one.
Edit2: Not interested in debating or arguing anything with this post... just figured I'd share it.

So now you want to limit your data to only those that played "at least 29 matches per season" and yet earlier you considered Steam data to be gospel. Man, move those goal posts any further and I think we are out of the stadium.
But I actually agreed with you in the first place (go look at the post history). I think the actual numbers are in fact lower, but you are the one focusing on evidence -of your subjective choosing- to act as prima facia evidence of objective outcomes. Good on ya and your "29 matches" How about 1? That would be more relevant to your coveted Steam "facts" no?

Edited by Bud Crue, 27 October 2016 - 07:32 PM.

[Deathlike]

Bud Crue, on 27 October 2016 - 07:27 PM, said:

So now you want to limit your data to only those that played "at least 29 matches per season" and yet earlier you considered Steam data to be gospel. Man, move those goal posts any further and I think we are out of the stadium.
But I actually agreed with you in the first place (go look at the post history). I think the actual numbers are in fact lower, but you are the one focusing on evidence -of your subjective choosing- to act as prima facia evidence of objective outcomes. Good on ya and your "29 matches" How about 1? That would be more relevant to your coveted Steam "facts" no?

It feels like selected facts made by PGI for things.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Bud Crue, on 27 October 2016 - 07:27 PM, said:

So now you want to limit your data to only those that played "at least 29 matches per season" and yet earlier you considered Steam data to be gospel.

1) I considered steam data to be the only easily attainable data.... and still do. You really shouldn't try to put words in peoples mouths.

2) I'd happily do that for the leaderboards over a wide range of matches played.... if it didn't take 20 minutes of clicking page through page to find what I was looking for. How about you go find me the number the players that played 200 matches or more, 100 matches or more, 50 matches or more, and one match or more... for each season.... and then PM the names so I can verify. Then I'll make some more graphs and post those too. It would be interesting to see how player retention changes as the number of matches a month increases.

3) I'd say an average of essentially one match a day is a good place to start considering people part of the regular player pool, do you think that someone that only plays a few matches a week or less should be included? Do you think it should be more than one match a day on average? Or are you just going to dismiss the raw data no matter where the line is drawn?

Edited by Ex Atlas Overlord, 27 October 2016 - 07:43 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Deathlike, on 27 October 2016 - 07:33 PM, said:

It feels like selected facts made by PGI for things.

"Selected" indeed.

Its funny, I mean I agree with Atlas's contention that player numbers are down. I think his whole pretense that there is no change in the game without ED nor has there ever been change and that is why numbers are down is utter hogwash.
Ya think the changes of Phase 3 had something to do with player numbers dropping? The comments of Russ from the April town hall? The Kodiak 3 and the allowance of it to stay utterly OP? The rescale rendering most IS lights unplayable? How did those changes affect player numbers. According to Atlas, not at all since they are somehow not changes.

Whatever.