Jump to content

Transparency Of Rules (Bryan You Did Promise You Would Get Back To Us)


190 replies to this topic

#1 Squid von Torgar

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 814 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:52 PM

Transparency of Rules is vital in any game. Know what you can and cant do, allow you to play to the best. Its simple to see how pre-knowledge of how a game works would be beneficial to its players.

The problem with MWO is that whilst some things are noted in the patch notes there are a load of things that get ninja fixed and not mentioned at all. A good example is the recent UAC5 hotfix.

Why not mention it now has a 25% chance of jamming? Instead the community has to data mine to find out.

Please PGI could you confirm the following?

1) What value are DHS now set at (Both Heat dissipation and Heat Scale increase) for sinks inside and outside the engine?

2) How exactly do critical hits work? What is the chance of each shot doing one? What are the HP of the various components. Do engines have different hit points? What about the Side torso hit boxes of XL engines?

3) It was mentioned some time ago that weapons of the same type, mounted in the same location would generate more heat. Has this been implemented? If so by what factor is the heat raised?

4) How does CASE work exactly (I know it limits the damage from ammo explosions to that location) But does Gauss ammo explode (it shouldnt) Will Case protect against the Gauss Rifle exploding when that fix comes?

This is simple stuff, as players we should be informed so we can make good choices in the Mechlab. It also stops conjecture. So please can someone let us know? Ideally this stuff should be in the mechlab, but failing that just drop us a quick few lines?

Is there anything else anyone else would like an answer to?

***PS***

In another post where I inquired about DHS values Bryan stated he would get David to post the exact values. This was nearly a month ago.

Edited by Squid von Torgar, 22 November 2012 - 12:58 PM.


#2 Gristle

    Member

  • Veteran Founder
  • 484 posts
  • LocationN. E. Kentucky

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:54 PM

I agree - Especially item 2.

#3 Calmon

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 392 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:56 PM

I also want to know this. You need to communicate with us a bit more. There may only few who understand all the stuff behind but this 'few' talk to the mass! At least in my clan it works like this.

So stop the information hiding. Work with us!

Edited by Calmon, 22 November 2012 - 12:57 PM.


#4 Thorn Hallis

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,600 posts
  • LocationUnited States of Paranoia

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:59 PM

I'm with ya. These are interesting questions indeed.

#5 Vermaxx

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 2,934 posts
  • LocationBuenos Aires

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:59 PM

Bump for great justice.

#6 the huanglong

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 147 posts
  • LocationSomewhere else.

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:21 PM

Agreed, we can't give feedback if we can't easily explain what we are already seeing.

#7 Marzepans

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 273 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:27 PM

Double Heat Sinks. Why does the current implementation fly in the face of all the communication we've had on the subject up until now?

#8 Tekerton

    Member

  • Veteran Founder
  • 156 posts
  • Locationbehind the barrel

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:36 PM

View PostSquid von Torgar, on 22 November 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Transparency of Rules is vital in any game. Know what you can and cant do, allow you to play to the best. Its simple to see how pre-knowledge of how a game works would be beneficial to its players.

The problem with MWO is that whilst some things are noted in the patch notes there are a load of things that get ninja fixed and not mentioned at all. A good example is the recent UAC5 hotfix.

Why not mention it now has a 25% chance of jamming? Instead the community has to data mine to find out.

Please PGI could you confirm the following?

1) What value are DHS now set at (Both Heat dissipation and Heat Scale increase) for sinks inside and outside the engine?

2) How exactly do critical hits work? What is the chance of each shot doing one? What are the HP of the various components. Do engines have different hit points? What about the Side torso hit boxes of XL engines?

3) It was mentioned some time ago that weapons of the same type, mounted in the same location would generate more heat. Has this been implemented? If so by what factor is the heat raised?

4) How does CASE work exactly (I know it limits the damage from ammo explosions to that location) But does Gauss ammo explode (it shouldnt) Will Case protect against the Gauss Rifle exploding when that fix comes?

This is simple stuff, as players we should be informed so we can make good choices in the Mechlab. It also stops conjecture. So please can someone let us know? Ideally this stuff should be in the mechlab, but failing that just drop us a quick few lines?

Is there anything else anyone else would like an answer to?

***PS***

In another post where I inquired about DHS values Bryan stated he would get David to post the exact values. This was nearly a month ago.


Valid points, to be sure. My only retort would be to question the validity of the data mining data... How do we know it is accurate? Who exactly is the person coming up with the data? What methods did they use? Do they have an agenda?

All in all, I do agree that we would all benefit from better patch notes. Then again, I do wonder if the lack of certain items within the patch notes represent simple oversight or if they have greater reasoning behind it. At the end of the day, they simply do not owe us these patch notes. They are done as a courtesy as well as a way for us to determine precisely what it is we are testing.

The latter is the most pertinent to the topic at hand. If we don't know what we are supposed to test a thing then logic dictates that we cannot test it. That said, and to play my own devil's advocate, perhaps that is the entire purpose of not telling us. To see if we can perhaps discover it through our natural course of play. Curious prospect, no doubt.

#9 NaerahQc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • LocationQuebec City

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:45 PM

Back in close beta, Bryan (i think) said that he didn't want to bother taking 15 min of the programmers time to get detailed info about issues because thats 15 min where the guys were not fixing things. Well i completly disagree, i beleive he or someone else should take that time because we want those data.

#10 SicksGunz

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 226 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:52 PM

What if we just have fun and play the game? If a weapon sucks use something else. I suspect they are basing their balance decisions on game-wide statistics in terms of damage and kills generated, and not on the e-crying of 12 year olds who got their little hineys spanked.

#11 Calmon

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 392 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:55 PM

View PostSicksGunz, on 22 November 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

What if we just have fun and play the game? If a weapon sucks use something else. I suspect they are basing their balance decisions on game-wide statistics in terms of damage and kills generated, and not on the e-crying of 12 year olds who got their little hineys spanked.


What if some people have fun to understand the game, have fun in building effective mechs, have fun in writing guides for people, have fun in helping balancing the game, etc.

World has different people, you know?

Edited by Calmon, 22 November 2012 - 02:01 PM.


#12 Hawker

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 106 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:59 PM

Well to be honest, in TT everything was transparent because you could look it up and it leveled the playing field, though some didn't know as much and they would suffer for it in tournament play.

It is good to know the actual specifics of various things like crit rates, heat dissipation and the like, especially weapons' performance and stats. Of course then people can complain, but they always complain.

#13 SicksGunz

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 226 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:13 PM

It's just that everyone cries for this weapon or that weapon to be boosted, and then they finally get their wish, and NOW the pace of the game is collectively cranked waaaaay up from where it was in closed beta, and people are crying that they're dying too fast.

#14 MrPenguin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,815 posts
  • LocationSudbury, Ontario

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:15 PM

Actually, they DID say it was a 25% increase.

#15 Alexa Steel

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 505 posts
  • LocationSirius VI-A, Free Worlds League

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:53 PM

View PostNaerahQc, on 22 November 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Back in close beta, Bryan (i think) said that he didn't want to bother taking 15 min of the programmers time to get detailed info about issues because thats 15 min where the guys were not fixing things. Well i completly disagree, i beleive he or someone else should take that time because we want those data.

These values should be written down in their GDD, that would take like 5 minutes to grab them from it. Of course that is me assuming that their documentation is up to date.

#16 FerretGR

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 1,428 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:06 PM

View PostTekerton, on 22 November 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Valid points, to be sure. My only retort would be to question the validity of the data mining data... How do we know it is accurate? Who exactly is the person coming up with the data? What methods did they use? Do they have an agenda?


If you've been hanging around the forums since CB, you'd know that there are some very good and responsible testers here who work together to mine data in-game. They've been very transparent about their methods, posting data and analysis on the forums. The original in-engine DHS bug is an example of data mined correctly by these folks.

#17 Team Leader

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,221 posts
  • LocationUrbanmech and Machine Gun Advocate

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:13 PM

Anyone up for some digital anarchy?
WE DEMAND ANSWERS PGI!!!

#18 Z0MBIE Y0SHI

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,152 posts
  • LocationStrana Mechty

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:16 PM

Can you link the part in the PS?

Not trying to call you out, but I'd like to see that with my own eyes.

#19 Bryan Ekman

    Creative Director

  • Administrators
  • 1,104 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:46 PM

Courtsey of Mr. Bradley.

Quote

1) Double heat sinks internal to the engine are set to increase the heat scale by 2 points and provide -0.2 heat/sec cooling. Double heat sinks that you add to your Mech increase the heat scale by 1.4 points and provide -0.14 heat/sec cooling. (For reference, single heat sinks increase the scale by 1 and cool -0.1 heat/sec. The heat scale starts at 30 and is then is increased based on the heat sinks in your Mech.)


2) Each time the internal structure of a Mech takes damage, there is a chance that the hit will cause at least 1 critical hit. There is a 25% chance of causing 1 critical hit, a 14% chance of causing 2 critical hits, and a 3% chance of causing 3 critical hits (for a total of a 42% chance of any sort of critical hit). Each critical hit will randomly hit a weapon or piece of equipment in that location; the chance of a particular piece of equipment being hit is proportional to how many critical slots it occupies. Each critical hit damages the weapon/equipment an amount equal to the damage that caused the critical hit.

For example, an Atlas AS7-D is hit with an AC/5, for 5 damage to its left torso’s internal structure. The attacker gets lucky and this results in 3 critical hits. Two of the crits hit the LRM 20 and 1 hits the heat sink. The heat sink will take 5 damage and the LRM 20 will take 10 (5 x 2 = 10).

Currently, all engines have 15 points of health while all other items have 10. One of the changes going through QA right now, and that will be applied to an upcoming patch, is lowering the health of the Gauss rifle to 3 points. And, sometime soon, we plan on doing a full pass on the health of all the items.

Critical damage to the side torso hit boxes of XL engines deals damage to the engine as a whole. However, it should be noted that, currently, critical damage to your engine will not disable it, but simply add to your repair bill. This is likely to change when we do the pass on the health values.

3) This has not been implemented.

4) First, Gauss ammo does not explode, but the Gauss rifle does (for 20 points of damage). However, it was discovered that the Gauss rifle explosion was not working properly. The fix has been completed and will be implemented in an upcoming patch.

When ammo (or a Gauss rifle) explodes, it can cause large amounts of damage. If the explosion destroys the internal structure of a location, any remaining damage is transferred inward, to the internal structure of the next location. Arms and legs transfer to the appropriate side torso, side torsos transfer to the center torso. CASE prevents the explosion from transferring past the location in which it is installed.

For example, if you have CASE installed in your left torso, any explosion that starts in, or transfers into, your left torso will never transfer any damage into your center torso.

Some of you may notice that this doesn’t do anything for Mechs with XL engines, and yet many of the canon default loadouts include XL engines and CASE in the side torsos. We are currently considering some additional tweaks that would ensure that this is not a completely useless combination.


#20 The Cheese

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,480 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:51 PM

Thank you, Mr Ekman, that's useful information.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users