1089 replies to this topic

[zztophat]

Marcus Tanner, on 14 April 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

Libraries? Really? Hook me up. That sounds like some important (if perhaps dry) reading.

I doubt there are literal libraries but is this something that happens? Yes, and constantly, across multiple industries.

Finger pointing is kept to a minimum by keeping statements ambiguous ("we" thought this was a good idea, "we" like the current implementation). But like any organization, there is someone at the top that is the "I" that is masked by the "we" because that is just how a company works. Someone is the boss and someone... one person has to like and idea for it to see use.

Most of this is kept in house and the only news of internal strife are reports of resignations, often indicating who was the decision maker that decided poorly. But even when there are drastic changes in a companies staffing the most we have to go on is rumor, like for example; a small cadre of people are responsible for the windows 8 debacle and resignations aside we have no way of telling who exactly green-lighted that mess.

[Xipe Totec]

Marcus Tanner, on 14 April 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

Libraries? Really? Hook me up. That sounds like some important (if perhaps dry) reading.

The one you'll hear quoted all the time presently is "Good to Great" by Collins (I think he ignores risk cycles, but it's very readable).

If you want to get into the grindy-stuff, I recommend Frank and Parker as a good start. If you've got a background in institutional microeconomics Akerlof and Shiller's Animal Spirits discusses the case study of the financial industry really well.

Though to be honest it's cover in most upper-level business textbooks more then sufficiently for anyone not looking to publish. On hand with me here is "Foundations of operations management" 2nd Can ed. and "Concepts in strategic management" Can. ed with both discuss the problem of feedback loops.

I got another, like, eight micro-economic textbooks all of which discuss at some length the Nash Equation and many of which apply it to offices and accounting departments, so don't run out at look for special editions.
It's also normally approached through the discussion of external member board controls as the main purpose of External Board members is to ensure that the top-end of the governance system has not gotten itself stuck in an echo chamber.

The famous case study is of Bondi Games, though it's a small world in electronic games and economics so you won't see too much published in the public view which really gets down to brass tacks on internal controls.

[StalaggtIKE]

Quote

Guardian ECM, like all features in the game, is very close to where we want it to be.

Yikes. I completely overlooked this part. All features...!? REALLY, PGI!? That's a bit of an overstatement.

Edit: Features that hopefully aren't close to where you want them:

• MG
  
• Flame
  
• BAP
  
• LRM/SSRM
  
• IW

Just to name a few.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 15 April 2013 - 05:26 AM.

[Livewyr]

StalaggtIKE, on 15 April 2013 - 05:23 AM, said:

Yikes. I completely overlooked this part. All features...!? REALLY, PGI!? That's a bit of an overstatement.

Edit: Features that hopefully aren't close to where you want them:

• MG
  
• Flame
  
• BAP
  
• LRM/SSRM
  
• IW

Just to name a few.

Now you catch why I uninstalled entirely..

Dear Leader(s) is pleased with how his project is progressing.

[StalaggtIKE]

Quote

PGI is not concerned with how to implement Angel ECM or the Null Signature System when they time comes, because they don't plan to be around then

I worry that your signature may be true.

[tenderloving]

Marcus Tanner, on 14 April 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

Libraries? Really? Hook me up. That sounds like some important (if perhaps dry) reading.

How the Mighty Fall is almost like a sequel to Good to Great. I worked at Circuit City in college and it's interesting to see how accurate the assessments are of what made it succeed and what made it eventually fail.

Tipping Point and Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell touch on this stuff in a softer, more anecdotal way.

As far as industry specific books on the inner-workings of game developers, I'm not sure.

zztophat, on 14 April 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

I have long suspected that this is a case of someone high up at PGI liking the current implementation of ECM and so even if most members of the design team and the the vast majority of the player base don't; it may not change. It does feel like in this case whoever created the ECM thinks it's great and is disregarding the opinions of anyone that disagrees or may want to tamper with their "baby".

There are several items in this game that I suspect fall into this category:

LBX/MGs
The hardpoint system- Prevents boating of small weapon systems but does nothing to address cramming large weapons into chassis/places they shouldn't go
The heat capacitance/dissipation system

[Thuzel]

Twisted Power, on 13 April 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

I would agree with many of you here about referrals. Due to ECM I no longer refer this game. Signed a founder. Isn't that ironic?

Same here. I'm no longer a "MWO evangelist". It's marginally fun for a few matches so long as you stick to PGI's pet play style, but that's it. It was a much deeper game without ECM, ironically. It's nothing but direct damage now, with just a handful of weapons being really worthwhile.

Until they fix the balance issues (ECM, Missiles, MG, LBX, AC10, etc...) it'll remain a shallow game. Even if they add community warfare to this, honestly, it still wouldn't be a compelling game because the core game suffers.

[Ravenspyre]

Thuzel, on 15 April 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Same here. I'm no longer a "MWO evangelist". It's marginally fun for a few matches so long as you stick to PGI's pet play style, but that's it. It was a much deeper game without ECM, ironically. It's nothing but direct damage now, with just a handful of weapons being really worthwhile.

Until they fix the balance issues (ECM, Missiles, MG, LBX, AC10, etc...) it'll remain a shallow game. Even if they add community warfare to this, honestly, it still wouldn't be a compelling game because the core game suffers.

Pretty much. If you aren't sporting ACs and lasers you might as well just put your mech out in the open to be an easy kill. Hell, I just picked up a mech that is primarily aimed at ballistics and using ACs versus what I was playing was just basically night and day. It's sadly disappointing that the role I generally play (more of support or distracting as the big hit taker) are completely worthless in this style of game play as it caters completely for the Call of Duty style gamer who wants quick easy kills that require no tactics or little skill (aiming an alpha of AC20s at a vulnerable part isn't as much skill as many claim) just isn't fun. The entire mech experience has been lost.

[Livewyr]

And we made fun of Hawken soo much...
now look at us.. we're a Hawken wannabe.

Flat plane long range combat.. with PPCs.

[Krondor]

Thuzel, on 15 April 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Same here. I'm no longer a "MWO evangelist". It's marginally fun for a few matches so long as you stick to PGI's pet play style, but that's it. It was a much deeper game without ECM, ironically. It's nothing but direct damage now, with just a handful of weapons being really worthwhile.

Until they fix the balance issues (ECM, Missiles, MG, LBX, AC10, etc...) it'll remain a shallow game. Even if they add community warfare to this, honestly, it still wouldn't be a compelling game because the core game suffers.

Add another Founder that feels the same way. It's sad.. I used to really enjoy this game. Now I can only do about a dozen matches before I get exceptionally bored or annoyed.

[Kyrs]

Starting to wonder if I will ever buy MC again! It been more that 2 months that I've stop buying in the hope they would understand I'm not going to pay for crappy game with Stealth Ninja.

p.s. PGI are you still wondering why my mech in my mechlab name like so ?

my SDR-5D name is: CHEATER ECM
my RVN-3L: BIGESS CHEAT
my AS7-D-DC: PGI SUCK BAL

[Billygoat]

So pretty much this then:

Meanwhile, in PGI's ECM Balance meeting...

Grand Poobah: Hey guys, sit down. Have some awkwardly named, tasteless snacks Sooooo... you might all have heard that the tiny minority of peripheral demographic on those forums we set up for some reason think there's something wrong with that sweet *** ECM system that I designed. They say it's like, get this, too powerful and does loads more stuff than it should? What a load of bull, huh?

Balance Minion: Well, actually, some of the more thorough posts there actually have some good id--

Grand Poobah: YEAH, so total bull right? Hey Balance Minion, did I see you looking at the jobs section of the newspaper at lunch on Monday? You might want to keep that up. Just sayin'. Anyway, what does everyone else think?

Everyone else: Yeah, total bull sir! Those forums nerds don't know **** all!

Grand Poobah: I thought so! I knew you'd all agree with me. Okay! Let's break for lunch. Good talk, guys, good talk.

[RJGatling]

Xipe Totec, on 14 April 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

The more I think of it, the more current ECM remind me of Windows 8.

Windows 8 still gets praised as great and innovative and "exactly as intended" despite being kinda a terrible failure (functionally and sales-wise), especially by everyone at Microsoft. This is largely because their CEO furnished insights into its development and so many of the people involved have retained their position by being mewling yes-men.

This is an especially large problem in the gaming industry, which tends to run on tyrannical and mercurial systems. This is not to say PGI is necessarily that way, but that anyone who has worked in the industry for an extended period of time tends to take "don't cross the boss," as the natural state of being.

There are literally libraries of books on the damage this tends to bring about, but it remains a continuing trend which is hard to buck. Doubly so in new projects being filled by people who may be industry vets but lack heavy paper (AAA releases, degrees) to back them in confrontations.

This is the entrenched management, good ole' boy network that brought us the outstanding success of GM in the 80s. Nepotism and cronyism at its finest. The ability for corporate lackies who have the disability to manage inner working politics better than their actual jobs at hand beating out anybody with a real solution or desire to overcome a true market problem.

Personally, I suspect igp/pgi or whatever is suffering from other problems currently, or perhaps a few bad seeds inept at their jobs rather than a corporate culture bred for generations on it. I think trying to make it competitive in a handful of professional nobodies vs. good gameplay for the masses is a more likely reason.

[DocBach]

Why is this thread one of three pinned if nobody cares whats said here?

[zztophat]

DocBach, on 16 April 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Why is this thread one of three pinned if nobody cares whats said here?

I ignore pinned threads all the time

[Twisted Power]

DocBach, on 16 April 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Why is this thread one of three pinned if nobody cares whats said here?

Appearances.

[DocBach]

Twisted Power, on 16 April 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

Appearances.

"this is such an important issue to us that we're going to sticky it - to let you all know its working as intended"

[Xipe Totec]

Hammacher Schlemmer, on 15 April 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

This is the entrenched management, good ole' boy network that brought us the outstanding success of GM in the 80s. Nepotism and cronyism at its finest. The ability for corporate lackies who have the disability to manage inner working politics better than their actual jobs at hand beating out anybody with a real solution or desire to overcome a true market problem.

Personally, I suspect igp/pgi or whatever is suffering from other problems currently, or perhaps a few bad seeds inept at their jobs rather than a corporate culture bred for generations on it. I think trying to make it competitive in a handful of professional nobodies vs. good gameplay for the masses is a more likely reason.

It's the cell based structure probably. It sound super efficient, but it's actually got a lot of QA problems and is notoriously difficult to manage. TBH it's the management systems which are the source of like, 80% of the problems in games.

A quick example of why. Let us say we have 10 people, 3 per team with one manager. Let us distribute them in a non-crash scenario (crashing is when you are compressing time) and take the cell-system versus the non-cell system. In a non-cell system you there is typically a "lend" system to cover minor fluctuations in output. Jim has a cold, so Jill slides to team C for a half day, because there is a sense of group responsibility. This does not require high level interference for smoothing.

Now let us make it a cell structure. Jill is a half day up on her work this week, patch day is coming soon and Jim has had a cold, Jill is unlikely to show any initiative to aid Jim, because Jill is solely assessed by her cell-work. This creates a misalignment of motives and can lead to the classic "tragedy of the commons," where people pitch in when asked, but only when asked.

This is how the military works and is also one of the reasons why the military is so famously inefficient. It tends to get replicated because people think that's how businesses/organizations work. It isn't how long-lasting businesses tend to work unless they have a government subsidy or monopoly, but a lot of the old school game producers and managers are not exactly good with people so they tend to be drawn to more dictatorial structures.

[Grayseven]

ShadowVFX, on 03 April 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

After reading the reply thread to the ECM discussion, I have to say that I'm extremely disappointed in your response to ECM.

ECM is not a "fun" gameplay mechanic. It's only total counter is another ECM unit. This is terrible asymmetrical game balancing. PPCs helped a bit, but notice that LRMs are nowhere to be seen anymore? Damage reduction aside, TAG + LRMs just aren't a good enough counter to use against ECM teams.

I've found myself getting more disinterested with MWO over the last couple weeks, but now that I know ECM isn't changing in any significant way, I'm simply demoralized. I was hoping someone at your company would realize that perhaps BAP could be a useful counter to SOME aspects of ECM...but no. It's completely trumped by a piece of equipment that is supposed to be its opposite counterpart. Hilarious.

Honestly, at this point I don't know how long I can keep playing MWO before I don't come back. I have NEVER played a game of MWO where I thought to myself "Thank GOD for ECM. This makes the game AWESOME!". Then again, I don't play an ECM mech, so maybe I'm missing out on all the fun.

Conclusion: I'm really disappointed to hear that your company thinks ECM is working as intended. Simply put, it is not.

Something I don't quite understand, maybe you can shed some light on it...

ECM affects two weapons systems: LRM's and SSRM's. Every other weapon system has a full and unmitigated effect on an ECM equipped mech. With Ballistic HSR in effect, light ECM mechs now have more dangers on the battlefield than they ever had before, especially with the proliferation of dual AC/20 Jagermechs that, when they hit, pretty much drop any light mech in its tracks.

How, then, is ECM "unbalanced"? If you are in an LRM boat, or a SSRM boat then you are screwed not by ECM but by your own short-sightedness for not taking into account the very real possibility that you will come into contact with an ECM equipped mech, be it 3L or D-DC. If you are PUGing and do not have TAG or a PPC to counter ECM you can't scream that ECM is unbalanced because your PUG-mates don't have a counter so you can use your weapons.

Whining about ECM is a crutch for bad load-out and pilot decisions. I can take my Jenner out with the exact same load out I put in my 3L and be just as effective, so it isn't the 3L or the ECM.

So you can't hit mechs with or in the cover of ECM with LRM's or SSRM's...that just means it is time to use lasers, ballistics or regular SRM's. And if you concentrate on the ECM mech through team coordination...even in a PUG...you remove that coverage.

Just like an Atlas' right torso is a "first target" because that is where the Gauss/AC20 is, so too will the location of ECM now be the primary target for anyone fighting against an ECM equipped mech once the fixed ECM hardpoint is introduced. This one change will make it possible to remove ECM coverage without fully destroying the mech and will change the balance of play.

ECM is a non-issue for anyone who doesn't boat one of the two weapon types it effects. For the rest of us, it's just a minor inconvenience.

[Ryebear]

You are ignoring the fact that the very real danger of an ECM equipped mech is the radar masking it provides for mechs within the bubble making them impossible to target or focus fire with line of site and the fact that if someone is scouting the mechs dont pop up of friendly units radar.

If I hop in an ECM mech I will immediately be able to increase my teams chances of winning even without firing a shot just be being either near my team mates or near enemy mechs.

Literally a floating ECM bubble with no weapons, that is 12.5% of my teams total potential firepower not being utilized, is able to greatly affect the outcome of a match. THAT is the problem with ECM. The effects on SSRM/LRMs is second do that, there ARE counters to that with TAG and PPCs.