337 replies to this topic

[jeffsw6]

tenderloving, on 09 April 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

Does the hard data available support the following statement? "The LBX in its current form is a viable weapon in an environment where players are informed and competent, and it is regularly used EFFECTIVELY in mid-level and high-level play against opponents of equal skill."

This is why the PGI Q/A team needs to be scheduled to play actual games using player-selected mechs and load-outs on a regular basis; I suggested one full day per week. If they did that, we would give them mechs with LB-10Xs and they'd find out those weapons are useless.

I really tried to make that weapon work. 153 drops equipped, fired 979 times for 655 hits (67%) and 3890 damage, or 5.9 damage per use. That's an 11 ton, 6 slot weapon with a 2.5s cool-down and gets only 15 shots/ton of ammo.

LB10-X is basically 1 ton and 1 slot less than an AC/10 , and generates 1 less heat; but its damage is spread in a large cone and many of the shells will miss unless you are face-hugging the target. The shell velocity is low, and it is useless beyond a few DOZEN meters, yet its range is specified as 0-540-1620.

If it weighed significantly less and took up fewer slots, I could see it being useful without any modifications to its mechanics or damage/heat/rate figures. It does have applications and is a neat weapon. It simply takes up far too much tonnage and slots right now for what it does.

tenderloving, on 10 April 2013 - 02:55 AM, said:

This is why we don't see much hard data from the dev team; they know what we can do with it, and that we are better at parsing and interpreting it objectively than they are. For whatever reason they think it's in their best interest if they try to trick us into thinking that they know things we don't, and that these issues are actually subjective and isolated without precedent in gaming history. They would like us to believe that we are operating in a vacuum and breaking new ground so that nothing we know applies.

They probably wonder if it was a mistake to provide individual players with their own weapon stats. However, if we could view the aggregate total of just those weapon stats, for specific patches, it would be ... not revealing, because it's pretty easy to figure out what works and what's gimp even without aggregate data; but it would lend additional evidence to the common-sense and play/experienced-based statements that virtually every poster makes about several armaments that are currently useless.

Killing blow data would be nice, too; it would validate QQing about point damage being a concern.

[Shumabot]

Belorion, on 10 April 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

3rd person isn't about player retention its about expanding the player base. Those are two totally different things. Next link? Moreover I don't see anything in the op about player retention. Maybe I am missing it. Feel free to post the specific line.

New player retention and expanding the player base are the same thing. The devs won't comment on current population, but anecdotally every major player group (goons, ponies, reddit, etc) are seeing significant player loss. The introduction of p2w consumables followed by a missile overnerf without a reasonable nerf to ECM, and the most recent series of bugs making this game practically unplayable (i got a hud bug or fractal goldvision in three fourths of my games last night, literally three in four) are causing them to vent players from at least those communities (and those are not small groups). Those communities also hadn't been growing before the recent series of massive missteps due to the game being an unbalanced content desert with a terrible new player experience.

Edited by Shumabot, 10 April 2013 - 05:48 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

jeffsw6, on 10 April 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

This is why the PGI Q/A team needs to be scheduled to play actual games using player-selected mechs and load-outs on a regular basis; I suggested one full day per week. If they did that, we would give them mechs with LB-10Xs and they'd find out those weapons are useless.

I really tried to make that weapon work. 153 drops equipped, fired 979 times for 655 hits (67%) and 3890 damage, or 5.9 damage per use. That's an 11 ton, 6 slot weapon with a 2.5s cool-down and gets only 15 shots/ton of ammo.

LB10-X is basically 1 ton and 1 slot less than an AC/10 , and generates 1 less heat; but its damage is spread in a large cone and many of the shells will miss unless you are face-hugging the target. The shell velocity is low, and it is useless beyond a few DOZEN meters, yet its range is specified as 0-540-1620.

If it weighed significantly less and took up fewer slots, I could see it being useful without any modifications to its mechanics or damage/heat/rate figures. It does have applications and is a neat weapon. It simply takes up far too much tonnage and slots right now for what it does.


They probably wonder if it was a mistake to provide individual players with their own weapon stats. However, if we could view the aggregate total of just those weapon stats, for specific patches, it would be ... not revealing, because it's pretty easy to figure out what works and what's gimp even without aggregate data; but it would lend additional evidence to the common-sense and play/experienced-based statements that virtually every poster makes about several armaments that are currently useless.

Killing blow data would be nice, too; it would validate QQing about point damage being a concern.

One of the best things about the new player stats is that it can actually tell us how "easy" it is to use certain weapons.

I never knew how much worth the lower beam duration of the LPL was worth. Was it even noticeable? Now I can just go out and use MLs and LPLs and see how much damage I deal and how damage I could have dealt if I had hit with my beams the entire time.
I can see if the different projectile speeds make a difference in damage done.

There are things we still won't be able to see, unfortunately - for example, how much we actually hit the hit location we aimed for (this would be hard to gather since you can't mindread).

(FTR: 50.4 % damage utilization with LPLs. 52.2 % with MLs. 47.9 % with MPLs. 47.48 % with LLs. Huh... Lower duration means worse for me? Or is this is a range problem?)
AC/20 64 % accuracy, but only 44.7 % damage utilization. I guess I should stop using it as sniping rifle.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 10 April 2013 - 06:13 AM.

[tenderloving]

Belorion, on 10 April 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

3rd person isn't about player retention its about expanding the player base. Those are two totally different things. Next link? Moreover I don't see anything in the op about player retention. Maybe I am missing it. Feel free to post the specific line.

Same thread, Page 3:

Roadbeer, on 21 March 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Thank you. Fair answer. Follow up question: If the forum and the voters represent a small portion of the player base and their opinions do not necessarily represent the player base as a whole, but a core element (something I can somewhat agree with as it seems, outside of the help, faction and suggestion sub-forums, most of the posters are just venting). Where are you getting your statistical information from that this option is desired?

PGI Response:
We did an analysis of our data and found that players in general were having a hard time learning how to control their BattleMechs. We spent time studying their behaviours, observing, and then formulated a series of improvements. You have already seen some of them (new user controls). We did some market research, looked at the target demographic that we engaged initially but did not retain (played a few matches and left), and found that many players were not able to easily grasp the concepts of their `Mech, especially movement. 3rd person will help solve some of these issues, along with a new UI, training and testing grounds, and other features coming down the pipeline.

Hope that answers your question.

TLDR: We're losing players for some reason and we have interpreted this reason to be lack of 3rd person rather than lack of healthy new player experience.

Edited by tenderloving, 10 April 2013 - 06:12 AM.

[Shumabot]

Quote

TLDR: We're losing players for some reason and we have interpreted this reason to be lack of 3rd person rather than lack of healthy new player experience.

That paragraph comments on lack of player retention, not the reasons for player loss. The issues are not the same thing.

[tenderloving]

Shumabot, on 10 April 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

New player retention and expanding the player base are the same thing.

Shumabot, on 10 April 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

That paragraph comments on lack of player retention, not the reasons for player loss. The issues are not the same thing.

:/

[Belorion]

Shumabot, on 10 April 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

New player retention and expanding the player base are the same thing.

No they aren't. Player retention is the % that try the game and stay. Expanding the player base is appealing to a larger market segment.

If they are fp only and get 1000 people to try the game and retain 75% as opposed to having both views getting 2000 people to try it and only retaining 60% of players they have increased their player base by 450 players by having a greater market appeal but a worse player retention.

Quote

PGI Response:
We did an analysis of our data and found that players in general were having a hard time learning how to control their BattleMechs. We spent time studying their behaviours, observing, and then formulated a series of improvements. You have already seen some of them (new user controls). We did some market research, looked at the target demographic that we engaged initially but did not retain (played a few matches and left), and found that many players were not able to easily grasp the concepts of their `Mech, especially movement. 3rd person will help solve some of these issues, along with a new UI, training and testing grounds, and other features coming down the pipeline.

does not mean:

Quote

TLDR: We're losing players for some reason and we have interpreted this reason to be lack of 3rd person rather than lack of healthy new player experience.

Trying to increase player retention doesn't mean they are having a problem with players leaving the game. Unless ALL video games share that same problem. There is always player churn. All games try to up their player retention. Neither of those things are "A problem with players leaving the game." The only people to say otherwise would be politicians, sith lords, and people with personality disorders.

ETA: And I haven't ruled out that politicians and people with personality disorders have a high co-morbidity rate.

Edited by Belorion, 10 April 2013 - 06:33 AM.

[tenderloving]

http://thesaurus.com...e/retention?s=t

look at the words in the antonyms section.

Quote

Trying to increase player retention doesn't mean they are having a problem with players leaving the game.

You literally just said "Trying to decrease the rate at which players leave the game doesn't mean they are having a problem with players leaving the game." Remember the context here, and the action they are taking. (3rd Person) They have a problem.

Edited by tenderloving, 10 April 2013 - 06:39 AM.

[Ghogiel]

Tennex, on 08 April 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

But with no real experience of balance in a competitive multiplayer under their belt how can they be so stubborn.

I no rite! There are reams of forum posts by people who have no real experience of balancing in a competitive multiplayer.

[tenderloving]

Ghogiel, on 10 April 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

I no rite! There are reams of forum posts by people who amassed years of experience in multiple genres and platforms with what works and doesn't work in a competitive environment.

Fixed this for you.

[Belorion]

tenderloving, on 10 April 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

http://thesaurus.com...e/retention?s=t

look at the words in the antonyms section.

You literally just said "Trying to decrease the rate at which players leave the game doesn't mean they are having a problem with players leaving the game."

No, I said the rate of players leaving the game isn't saying they have a problem. All games have players leave the game all of the time. Its only a problem if your net population is decreasing rather than increasing. Even if they are holding stead it isn't necessarily a problem depending on the size of the player base. Nowhere have I seen them say that they have a negative population rate.

Saying they want to retain more players isn't saying they have a problem. All games want to retain more players.

Edited by Belorion, 10 April 2013 - 06:43 AM.

[bookwood]

Tennex, on 09 April 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

you guys introduce a ton of balance issues in patch bugs.

if you spent more time testing for bugs instead of balance changes that will never go into the game. and simply applying balance changes live.


you wouldn't have such a buggy game. which in turn makes it easier to balance

dude, don't waste your time.... obviously they try to grab as much money as they can instead of investing it. they do not listen to the community (ECM, weapon balance - "work as intended") and they don't use the money they got to build up a properly working QA.

[Greyfyl]

New player retention and expanding the player base may not be the same thing, but let's not pretend they aren't closely related. It doesn't matter if you expand your player base by 100k simply by adding 3rd person if the new player retention rate is only 2% due to a basically buggy and unbalanced game design.

[Greyfyl]

Belorion, on 10 April 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

No, I said the rate of players leaving the game isn't saying they have a problem. All games have players leave the game all of the time. Its only a problem if your net population is decreasing rather than increasing. Even if they are holding stead it isn't necessarily a problem depending on the size of the player base. Nowhere have I seen them say that they have a negative population rate.

Saying they want to retain more players isn't saying they have a problem. All games want to retain more players.

In order to help retain more new players they are contemplating putting in a feature that 90+ percent of their current playerbase is vehemently against. Think about that for a minute and then try to say with a straight face 'they don't have a problem with retaining new players'.

[Belorion]

Greyfyl, on 10 April 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

In order to help retain more new players they are contemplating putting in a feature that 90+ percent of their current playerbase is vehemently against. Think about that for a minute and then try to say with a straight face 'they don't have a problem with retaining new players'.

Where are you getting 90+ percent? I have no problem with third person. Especially so because they are giving players the option of not playing against people with 3rd person turned on. Any poll you point to on here is suspect. Forum goers represent a small segment of the population of the game.

Moreover you are not taking into account the people that may have a problem with 3rd person, but not enough to leave the game over it. What percent are actually willing to quit the game if they implement 3rd person? I think not that many.

[Shumabot]

Belorion, on 10 April 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

Where are you getting 90+ percent? I have no problem with third person. Especially so because they are giving players the option of not playing against people with 3rd person turned on. Any poll you point to on here is suspect. Forum goers represent a small segment of the population of the game.

Moreover you are not taking into account the people that may have a problem with 3rd person, but not enough to leave the game over it. What percent are actually willing to quit the game if they implement 3rd person? I think not that many.

I'm also not really against third person in this game. I likely will only use it to stare at my paint jobs, but without knowing how they plan to implement it, railing against a third person camera is kinda silly. This community doesn't think 90% about anything. Not even 90% of people think flamers are bad.

Belorion, on 10 April 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

No they aren't. Player retention is the % that try the game and stay. Expanding the player base is appealing to a larger market segment.

If they are fp only and get 1000 people to try the game and retain 75% as opposed to having both views getting 2000 people to try it and only retaining 60% of players they have increased their player base by 450 players by having a greater market appeal but a worse player retention.



does not mean:



Trying to increase player retention doesn't mean they are having a problem with players leaving the game. Unless ALL video games share that same problem. There is always player churn. All games try to up their player retention. Neither of those things are "A problem with players leaving the game." The only people to say otherwise would be politicians, sith lords, and people with personality disorders.

ETA: And I haven't ruled out that politicians and people with personality disorders have a high co-morbidity rate.

Read my post above yours. PGI has directly commented on its own inability to retain new players, and logically player churn without a fresh source of players equals a drop in population size. You can see that anecdotally when you look at any of the games major communities, reddit, goons, ponies, 4chan, and a lot of the varied smaller groups are seeing their player numbers rapidly fall off.

[jeffsw6]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 April 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

AC/20 64 % accuracy, but only 44.7 % damage utilization. I guess I should stop using it as sniping rifle.)

Indeed, its ammo is rather precious to be used on targets outside of effective range.

Belorion, on 10 April 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

Where are you getting 90+ percent? I have no problem with third person. Especially so because they are giving players the option of not playing against people with 3rd person turned on.

My prediction is that there will be so few players who want to join a 3rd-person drop that it will be unplayable, because "no games found" will be the most frequent result when someone chooses 3rd-person and hits launch.

I could be wrong, but I think there will be two types of players in 3rd-person matches: legit noobs, and people preying on them, because the ELO mechanism does not work when there are too few available players.

[Shumabot]

Quote

My prediction is that there will be so few players who want to join a 3rd-person drop that it will be unplayable, because "no games found" will be the most frequent result when someone chooses 3rd-person and hits launch.

I say the same thing about conquest and I'm surprised every time.

Quote

I could be wrong, but I think there will be two types of players in 3rd-person matches: legit noobs, and people preying on them, because the ELO mechanism does not work when there are too few available players.

http://en.wikipedia....o_true_Scotsman
This forum should acquaint itself with this fallacy. It uses it constantly.

[Greyfyl]

Belorion, on 10 April 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

Where are you getting 90+ percent? I have no problem with third person. Especially so because they are giving players the option of not playing against people with 3rd person turned on. Any poll you point to on here is suspect. Forum goers represent a small segment of the population of the game.

Moreover you are not taking into account the people that may have a problem with 3rd person, but not enough to leave the game over it. What percent are actually willing to quit the game if they implement 3rd person? I think not that many.

Of course the polls on here mean nothing to you, it goes against your whole point so how could it possibly be valid? I won't even go into how MW4 was ruined by the combination of 3rd person and poptarting, but I will add this....does this already small community need to be split up into 3rd person and non-3rd person groups? I gaurantee you whether you want to believe it or not, that a huge percentage of the current community will never join a 3rd person queue unless it's the ONLY choice. With 1st person still in the game, 3rd person serves no purpose other than to splinter an already tiny playerbase.

[Roland]

Greyfyl, on 10 April 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

I won't even go into how MW4 was ruined by the combination of 3rd person and poptarting

I don't think you can really say it was "ruined", given that thousands of us played in leagues where we had FFP turned on.