77 replies to this topic

[Soy]

I like how Thontor thinks the amount of content being patched doesn't matter if it's a constant stream or if it's staggered.

Yeah, it's called getting burnt out on half a game. Much easier to do so if the content is NOT constantly coming and things are delayed or skipped over, instead in big chunks every couple months that are all sorts of fubared.

Welcome to game "playing".

Edited by Soy, 07 May 2013 - 03:07 PM.

[Tennex]

Soy, on 07 May 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

I like how Thontor thinks the amount of content being patched doesn't matter if it's a constant stream or if it's staggered.

Yeah, it's called getting burnt out on half a game. Much easier to do so if the content is NOT constantly coming and things are delayed or skipped over, instead in big chunks every couple months that are all sorts of fubared.

Welcome to game "playing".

it probably has an effect on retaining the playerbase.

i would love it if they patched maps in on the first patch of the month. and new mech in at the second patch of the month. or vice versa. either way the point is to release content so that they keep players interested for an optimal amount of time.

Putting new maps with new mech together exhausts the content at a faster rate. becuase you can play both the new map and the new mech at the same time.

i'll be honest this patch pretty much had nothing for me. to free players or players not interested in the month's hero mech. this patch was basically no patch, content wise.

Edited by Tennex, 07 May 2013 - 03:15 PM.

[Soy]

The only thing that appealed to me in regards to actual gameplay or mechanics, was the speed fix.

Everything else was kinda... well... more random *** fluff.

[DrunkDrivin]

Itkovian, on 07 May 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

They already stated that the big fixes are coming on the 21st.

That's how it always is, BTW. First patch of the month is new hero mech, other MC goodies, alongside some minor fixes. Then the second patch is the big one (usually with new chassis entirely, big changes, new maps, etc).

Regardless, the May 21st patch is going to be pretty intense.

Hardly intense. They are fixing things that have been broken far to long. And only a few at that. At best this has been the most rough beta (of any type) I have ever seen, and I beta'd STO. 80% merchandising and 20% pseudo progress.
I love me the dev's. I have no doubt that if they were giving the time and resources to do what they actually want (besides the guy that just wont give up on the broken-*** ECM) this game would be in much better shape. A quality product is about resource management, and all they are managing is scrounging to get our resources.
I am going to relish all of the rage threads when all the fanboi's find out that they are delaying or not fixing most of the bugs to crank out UI2.0. Then not working on those bugs trying to prepare for CW. THEN having a horribly dysfunctional game when they "release it".
This game had potential. At this point it would take a (marketing) miracle.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

What I'd like to understand, and maybe god forbid a dev could explain, what is so hard about altering damage/heat/range/spread on a weapon?

I'll go ahead and allow that missiles and LRM's in particular are a different beast. So lets just leave them out.

What I want to understand is, if the team says "PPC's are not working how we want", what do they need to do to implement whichever fix they choose?

How hard is it for them to change the value of PPC's from 10 damage to 9, or the heat from whatever to whatever.

Because the way the apologists here act, it seems like it is the end of the world for them to do it, which is why it takes 3-4 months for weapon changes to happen?

I've seen devs code games, and normally they try to make stuff like that easy to do, since sometimes it can take a lot of changes to find balance.

Maybe PGI doesn't have that luxury?

[Tennex]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 07 May 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

What I'd like to understand, and maybe god forbid a dev could explain, what is so hard about altering damage/heat/range/spread on a weapon?

I'll go ahead and allow that missiles and LRM's in particular are a different beast. So lets just leave them out.

What I want to understand is, if the team says "PPC's are not working how we want", what do they need to do to implement whichever fix they choose?

How hard is it for them to change the value of PPC's from 10 damage to 9, or the heat from whatever to whatever.

Because the way the apologists here act, it seems like it is the end of the world for them to do it, which is why it takes 3-4 months for weapon changes to happen?

I've seen devs code games, and normally they try to make stuff like that easy to do, since sometimes it can take a lot of changes to find balance.

Maybe PGI doesn't have that luxury?

its not very hard at all. they don't have a real balance team. the person doing balancing has other jobs as well. so he likes to put it off.

and when he finally does get to it. it has to be tested for like a month. before it gets to us. -.-

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Tennex, on 07 May 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

its not very hard at all. they don't have a real balance team. the person doing balancing has other jobs as well. so he likes to put it off.

and when he finally does get to it. it has to be tested for like a month. before it gets to us. -.-

I just have a hard time believing that only ONE dev can change that variable.

Seems like if they decide to do it, any of the coding devs could go in and do it.

And why do you need to test a heat change for a month? Take the week after a patch to test, then use the week before the patch to put it in.

Then let us do the heavy testing.

It's not like what they've been doing is working.

[Homeless Bill]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 07 May 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

How hard is it for them to change the value of PPC's from 10 damage to 9, or the heat from whatever to whatever.

Because the way the apologists here act, it seems like it is the end of the world for them to do it, which is why it takes 3-4 months for weapon changes to happen?

As a game developer, I'm usually in PGI's corner. People just don't get how hard some of these things are. But this isn't one of those times. In my mind, every patch should be making small adjustments to balance.

If the heat on a weapon is 9, and you're guessing it needs to be somewhere around 13, why not move it to 10 and see what happens? After another week, move it one more and see where things are at. But PGI waits three months and moves it all at once. We either get no changes or an explosive nerf with far-reaching consequences, and it's a ****-poor balancing strategy.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Homeless Bill, on 07 May 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

As a game developer, I'm usually in PGI's corner. People just don't get how hard some of these things are. But this isn't one of those times. In my mind, every patch should be making small adjustments to balance.

If the heat on a weapon is 9, and you're guessing it needs to be somewhere around 13, why not move it to 10 and see what happens? After another week, move it one more and see where things are at. But PGI waits three months and moves it all at once. We either get no changes or an explosive nerf with far-reaching consequences, and it's a ****-poor balancing strategy.

This is generally what I think as well. And I made sure to pose it as a question to the devs instead of assuming it's easy. If it's hard for them to change heat values, come tell us? Yeah they will catch flak for coding the game poorly, but I know I would personally cut them some slack if I knew it was hard to change.

If it's not hard though (which I suspect is the case), why isn't it happening?

When we hit open beta, they could have had the weapons generally balanced in about 3-4 months, and then they could have made some minor adjustments once HSR started going in.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Enjoyed this so much had to post it in two places.

Love this tweet from some schill game covering company


GamerAssaultWeekly ‏@GAWeekly2h
A new update is out for [/color]#MechWarriorOnline and brings a huge amount of content @PiranhaGames! Go check it out http://bit.ly/ZF9BtA

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 07 May 2013 - 03:53 PM.

[Tennex]

i have suspicions that Misery is using the decal system.

its teeth and eyes seem to not light up/be ontop when highlighted in the mechlab... maybe this is the backend decal system doing work?

can anyone confirm if this is true for the flame/fang also?

Edited by Tennex, 07 May 2013 - 03:59 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Thontor, on 07 May 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

read every word, very carefully

you keep throwing the 4-5 patches out there... like only every other patch matters...


If you are getting burnt out, you only have yourself to blame. I learned a long time ago how to manage my playing time to prevent myself from getting burnt out. Every game is different...

You obviously aren't reading...I'M NOT THE ONE SAYING 4-5 PATCHES.

The apologists are.

Every time I complain about this patch, someone comes in and says "PGI ALWAYS DOES 1 BIG PATCH WITH A LOT OF FIXES AND CONTENT and 1 SMALL PATCH WITH JUST MC ITEMS AND A SMALL AMOUNT OF FIXES"

If that is true, that means we only have 4-5 real patches left, and 3-4 MC/minor fix patches.

Do you understand now? The caps/bold were so you actually read what I am posting.

[Soy]

Thontor,

Nice job completely deflecting the entire point of the comment - that players prefer constant content rather than chunks of content in modern online games, particularly FOTM FPS types. We get that this is a beta, but it's more like a trickle with glitter than a real stream of stuff every patch.

Edited by Soy, 07 May 2013 - 04:08 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

To reiterate, the apologists are saying that this patch has very little content, but that I should expect that because there will be a bigger patch on the 21st.

If that is how it's suppose to go, we only get 4-5 real patches.

Is that true?

Why do people keep saying that to me?

[Sug]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 07 May 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

What I'd like to understand, and maybe god forbid a dev could explain, what is so hard about altering damage/heat/range/spread on a weapon?

No idea. In my mind I picture an excel spreadsheet with all the weapon values.

I'm sure that's probably not how it really is but ...why isnt' it?

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sug, on 07 May 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

No idea. In my mind I picture an excel spreadsheet with all the weapon values.

I'm sure that's probably not how it really is but ...why isnt' it?

Well I don't know about a spreadsheet. But there should be code for that particular weapon. And in that code there should be some line that says damage=10. Or something.

And when you change damage=10 to damage=9. The weapon does less damage.

That is a VERY simplistic explanation. But if it's not like that I would hope they would explain.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Thontor, on 07 May 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

I have understood from the beginning...

We are getting off on a tangent... you keyed in on the last line of my earlier post like it made the rest irrelevant. Essentially you changed the subject.

Yes, there is a pattern of certain stuff in the first patch of the month, other stuff in the second patch.. which you find significant is a matter of opinion.

But the real big things, like UI 2.0 and CW, could be implemented in either patch, because they don't fit within the regular monthly schedule.

The number of patches is irrelevant to whether or not PGI is going to get the big things in the game before their launch goal date.

UI 2.0 is just fluff. Aside from the ability to do tutorials (lord knows why we needed a new UI for that, but whatever) it does nothing for game play.

CW could be good, but i'm not sure I think it will be.

But I guess in the end, you think this patch was a good patch with lot of content? Due too....a paint scheme, a hero mech, 4 new trial mechs, a champion mech you can't buy this patch but they made sure took up a lot of the patch note space, and like 6 fixes that probably should have just been hotfixed in?

Ok?

But it still doesn't account for people continually telling me I should have lower expectations for this patch, because the second patch of the month will be bigger?

That's just silly talk.

And I still don't see how with the current rate of release, how they get this game ready for release based on THEIR expectations in 8-9 patches.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 07 May 2013 - 04:31 PM.

[TexAce]

You can now see the team list while start up sequence is running

[Stone Profit]

Thontor, on 07 May 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

read every word, very carefully

you keep throwing the 4-5 patches out there... like only every other patch matters...


If you are getting burnt out, you only have yourself to blame. I learned a long time ago how to manage my playing time to prevent myself from getting burnt out. Every game is different...

Clearly they feel that PGI owes them constant entertainment and is at fault for these individuals playing more than they should, thus getting "burned out". Personally, I play more some weeks and less others, and sometimes I play other games or (gasp) real life without playing mwo (other than the odd game or two) for a week or more. But since these idividuals refuse to accept responsibility for their own entertainment, it is clearly PGIs fault for not giving them enough content to waste their entire lives playing mwo, and that is clearly a high crime. Thankfully, it is players like you and I who will remain in the game for years to come, whilst they are off demanding another developer "hurry the **** up already!" so they can focus on whatever game they are trying to waste their lives with at that time.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 07 May 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

UI 2.0 is just fluff. Aside from the ability to do tutorials (lord knows why we needed a new UI for that, but whatever) it does nothing for game play.

CW could be good, but i'm not sure I think it will be.

But I guess in the end, you think this patch was a good patch with lot of content? Due too....a paint scheme, a hero mech, 4 new trial mechs, a champion mech you can't buy this patch but they made sure took up a lot of the patch note space, and like 6 fixes that probably should have just been hotfixed in?

Ok?

But it still doesn't account for people continually telling me I should have lower expectations for this patch, because the second patch of the month will be bigger?

That's just silly talk.

And I still don't see how with the current rate of release, how they get this game ready for release based on THEIR expectations in 8-9 patches.

Expectations are what lead to disappointment. Some accept what comes, and enjoy it, while others demand more. Im just glad to know that I am content with this patch, as I will be with patches to come, ad nauseum.

[DrunkDrivin]

Stone Profit, on 07 May 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

Clearly they feel that PGI owes them constant entertainment and is at fault for these individuals playing more than they should, thus getting "burned out". Personally, I play more some weeks and less others, and sometimes I play other games or (gasp) real life without playing mwo (other than the odd game or two) for a week or more. But since these idividuals refuse to accept responsibility for their own entertainment, it is clearly PGIs fault for not giving them enough content to waste their entire lives playing mwo, and that is clearly a high crime. Thankfully, it is players like you and I who will remain in the game for years to come, whilst they are off demanding another developer "hurry the **** up already!" so they can focus on whatever game they are trying to waste their lives with at that time.


Expectations are what lead to disappointment. Some accept what comes, and enjoy it, while others demand more. Im just glad to know that I am content with this patch, as I will be with patches to come, ad nauseum.

The real issue is that a lot of people have been looking forward to MWO because they are rabidly in love with this game. The rate of bugs being introduced to squashed is not to most peoples liking. I am not even speaking of the vocal minority. Almost every single match I am in someone has a random bug that severely affects their game play and ***** about it during the match.

The longer it takes to fix the bugs, if at all, the worse the game looks overall even in beta. That means more people walking away, less revenue and in the end a less awesome MW experience. Some say that its too simple a view, but it really isn't.There are plenty of examples of MMO's with bad starts and the events leading up to them can be seen here in MWO.

Having only 3-4 updates before "launch" vs 10 is huge. Many small tweaks will be far superior and yield better results that completely screwing each patch with more bugs than they fix, and adding knee jerk buffs/nerfs. Are there still going to be new bugs each patch? Sure there are. Are they going to have a better idea where it came from due to less changes each patch? Yes.

In response to those saying the community "we are expecting too much from the devs". You are right. The devs are not the problem. Those making the decisions and plan are not delivering consistent quality. If I pay for something I want a quality product and to have fun. Other people feel this way too, it's only natural. Right now it's not a quality product and 1/2 the games are not fun due to (insert name of any the major bugs).

Edited by DrunkDrivin, 07 May 2013 - 06:35 PM.