13 replies to this topic

[Shae Starfyre]

Things to concider when upset about the work being done on MWO:

Game Design Development Time Alloitment of engineers/developers/project managers, QA, etc.

General Monthly Updates:

Core Game development: 10-15% (tweaking code relevant to short term fixes)
Short Term Fixes/New Content: 10-15% - this may increase if the game will not launch or core features are broken (this is arguable what this entails, but we, the people, do not dictate this, some project manager does, who evaluates the people's opinions and merges it with the game design concepts as best they can).

The above is the reason that each update is less than the public would hope for as they are working towards the below ideology

The Long Road (And remember, a lot of what we see as game breaking now, may not be in the long run):

Long term fixes: 2-5% (These are backlogged until they can get to them; they may, occassionally, spend a little time in preparation of long term fixes, but for the most part, will become short term fixes in the future if at all).
Long Term Game Deigns/Changes/Additions: 68-72% (this is where the bulk of our money is going; the 2-5 year design plan; and beta closure).

Aside from not being an employee, but being in the software development industry, the above numbers may be slightly off. However, keep in mind, that everything we complain about has to follow a certain process:

1.) Project Managers read issues as they are discovered, and they evaluate enhancement recommendations internally and externally (This is a lot of information, and they prioritize them based on current game development, this is why some things that seem an easy fix are placed on the backlog until it coincides with future development).
2.) Requirements analysis is performed on ready for sprint items; next update related content. so the engineers/developers can code the changes.
3.) Developers/engineers work the code (pre-pre-beta).
4.) QA Tests.
5.) Developers/Engineers rework code based on anything found that does not work.
6.) QA Tests again.
7.) (rinse and repeat 3-6 until the code is as complete as possible).
8.) Inject new code into public space.
9.) Discoveries happen, and are placed on the backlog and prioritized - (If the game will not launch or the issue is obviously game breaker like the missile arcing issue recently, an immediate update will be done as soon as possible).
10.) The cycle begins again.

The fact that they put out an update once a month with the content that they do is incredible.

I work with a global HR/Payroll software company (no graphical content of the magnitude that we see in MWO), and our updates are once every quarter (3 months).

Hats off to PGI, and glad to assist in the long term goals by buying MC every month.

Edited by Aphoticus, 07 June 2013 - 04:43 AM.

[El Bandito]

Hey, I heard switching some numbers around for weapon balance takes a whole month.






Hint: It does not.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 June 2013 - 04:44 AM.

[Shae Starfyre]

It's probably true; because those numbers, although it may seem like a find and replace situation requires a lot of planning before hand do to potential side affects (how it may effect other aspects of the code).

Not to mention they would never ever put all of their resources into one project like changing those numbers; especially if the long term plan is clan weapondry. Imagine changing the numbers now, and then clan weapons change everything, what a waste of resources, especially if they could give us a new mech once a month. Give me the mech instead. Weapon balance will be flushed out in time.

Edited by Aphoticus, 07 June 2013 - 04:49 AM.

[El Bandito]

Aphoticus, on 07 June 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

It's probably true; because those numbers, although it may seem like a find and replace situation requires a lot of planning before hand do to potential side affects (how it may effect other aspects of the code). Not to mention they would never ever put all of there resources into one project like changing those numbers; especially if the long term plan is clan weapondry. Imagine changing the numbers now, and then clan weapons change everything?!?

Please, please do not bring up clan weapons in to this. Clan weapons have nothing to do with the current balance. We have no idea if this game will even survive until the clans. The community as a whole (which I have more respect than PGI balance department) has no clear idea on how to even implement the Clans without making the game imbalanced and I am willing to bet PGI is scratching their heads over it too.


Look, is it game breaking to just add 0.1 damage to SRMs if everyone thinks SRMs lack damage? (it will not affect any other codes, I assure you) And patch it at least bi-weekly so that PGI can get faster feed backs, and thus reaching faster balance?
What PGI lacks is frequent and small balance patch--consequently they derp big time when their patch (with drastic changes) finally hits--and PGI's attempt at cleaning their mess using hotfix makes the solution just as bad as the problem, from what I experienced.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 June 2013 - 05:00 AM.

[Shae Starfyre]

El Bandito, on 07 June 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

Please, please do not bring up clan weapons in to this. Clan weapons have nothing to do with the current balance. We have no idea if this game will even survive until the clans. The community as a whole (which I have more respect than PGI balance department) has no clear idea on how to even implement the Clans without making the game imbalanced and I am willing to bet PGI is scratching their heads over it too.


Look, is it game breaking to just add 0.1 damage to SRMs if everyone thinks SRMs lack damage? And patch it bi-weekly?
What PGI lacks is frequent and small balance patch--consequently they derp big time when their patch (with drastic changes) finally hits--and PGI's attempt at cleaning their mess using hotfix makes the problem just as bad--from what I experienced.

You think that all they do is read these posts and drink coffee planning the next sale?

Of course they are thinking on clan weapons, clan warfare, or anything else on the horizon; All I am saying is that it is too soon to determine a lot of balance issues.

How do you know that these so called 'big derp changes' are implemented without future content in mind?

When developing software, you don't just implement something without looking at the long term situation.

It may seem game breaking now, but whose to say that it will be so in 2 years? You are looking too closely at what is, and not what will be.

A lot of people on these forum see things from the perspective of one mech against another and not as a team game. Granted, it is good to voice these concerns, sure; it is how the PMs get their feedback.

But to come right out and say it is imbalanced may be lacking insight.

God my grammer is bad!

Edited by Aphoticus, 07 June 2013 - 05:06 AM.

[El Bandito]

Aphoticus, on 07 June 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

You think that all they do is read these posts and drink coffee planning the next sale? Of course they are thinking on clan weapons, clan warfare, or anything else on the horizon; All I am saying is that it is too soon to determine a lot of balance issues. How do you know that this so called big derp changes do not have the big picture in mind? When developing software, you don't just implement something without looking at the long term situation. It may seem game breaking now, but whose to say that it will be 2 years from now? You are looking to closing at what is, and not what will be. A lot of people on the forum are. Granted, it is good to voice these issues, sure; it is how the PMs get their feedback. But to come right out and say it is imbalanced may be lacking insight.

Making big derp changes such as introducing Angel ECM function to regular ECM (still here), LRM and SSRM splash (still needs to be fixed), LRM trajectory (fixed via hotfix but made LRMs weak as hell until June), SRM trajectory (fixed recently) are clearly looking at the long term situation, right? All of the things I listed above were in fact undesirable in general. PGI does not trust the community in regards to balance, but what they internally test and reveal to us is pretty bad in many situations.

I waited 6 months for them to actually do something concrete about the ECM, I am not going to wait another 6 months for them to fix other obvious and glaring balance issues at present. I would much rather be playing another game. PGI needs to understand that to keep your future plans intact, you need to keep the present population content.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 June 2013 - 05:16 AM.

[Shae Starfyre]

Just an example of game balance I have seen since playing:

First, there was no way to prevent Missiles save getting close or using terrain.

Then, ECM came, and seemingly broke a few aspects of the game.

Then they enhanced beagle active probe and some of the other targeting enhanced devices.

Then the Szeimic thingy came to being, which does not nessessarily effect targeting, but it is part of the bigger intel aspect of what ECM originally did to the game.

How did they come up with these things? Scratching their heads trying to figure out how to solve the balance issue of ECM? No; they have a long term plan, and more intel based stuff is on the horizon.

The same can be said of nearly anything they implement; even weapon balance; although, I will admit, that these numbers will be constantly revisted over the period of MWO due to future content as clan mechs come out.

If anyone things that clan technology will just be another varient is sorely mistaken, and the balance issues will require adjustment again, and again, as time goes on.

Namais, on 07 June 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

OP probably sounds quite reasonable to someone who has never played any other online games in the last 20 years and has not had their expectations set by the far more impressive development pace of other titles.

Also..

PM don't just prioritize easy fixes; they spend a lot of time in determine the scope of people's opinions and how it coincides with the over all game concept. But, thanks for simplifying it.

Oh, and on the other game development side of your post; I have not been impressed with a lot of those other games, so I do not share that thought.

There are very few games, what do they call them, Triple A developers, that have very little to offer in longevity. If, what PGI/IGP are planning with this game, as I have read between the lines thus far, will be a tactical game unparellel to any seen before. It will just take them time.

Edited by Aphoticus, 07 June 2013 - 05:21 AM.

[Felbombling]

Everybody knows PGI works hard and is a fairly small team. I appreciate everything they have done and the timeframe in which they have done it. The biggest gripe I have with them is their lack of forethought on many core game mechanics. I mean, I would never come to the conclusion that a game with pin-point accurate weapons convergence, a 2-3x weapon firing rate, a very forgiving heat system and nearly limitless customization freedom in the Mech Lab would produce a heavy weapon boat alpha strike meta game style. But that's just me.

[El Bandito]

Aphoticus, on 07 June 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

Just an example of game balance I have seen since playing: First, there was no way to prevent Missiles save getting close or using terrain. Then, ECM came, and seemingly broke a few aspects of the game. Then they enhanced beagle active probe and some of the other targeting enhanced devices. Then the Szeimic thingy came to being, which does not nessessarily effect targeting, but it is part of the bigger intel aspect of what ECM originally did to the game. How did they come up with these things? Scratching their heads trying to figure out how to solve the balance issue of ECM? No; they have a long term plan, and more intel based stuff is on the horizon. .

Give this man a cigar, at least he is being consistent about being wrong.

From what I have seen, PGI was exactly scratching their heads and adding tons of stuff just so they don't break their current precious ECM (which is in fact Angel ECM). If ECM was a soft counter rather than total cockblock to LRMs and SSRMs then there wouldn't have been more complications arising from introducing all those counters to ECM.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 June 2013 - 05:23 AM.

[Shae Starfyre]

El Bandito, on 07 June 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

Making big derp changes such as introducing Angel ECM function to regular ECM (still here), LRM and SSRM splash (still needs to be fixed), LRM trajectory (fixed via hotfix but made LRMs weak as hell until June), SRM trajectory (fixed recently) are clearly looking at the long term situation, right? All of the things I listed above were in fact undesirable in general. PGI does not trust the community in regards to balance, but what they internally test and reveal to us is pretty bad in many situations.

I waited 6 months for them to actually do something concrete about the ECM, I am not going to wait another 6 months for them to fix other obvious and glaring balance issues at present. I would much rather be playing another game. PGI needs to understand that to keep your future plans intact, you need to keep the present population content.

Perhaps they would be more content with positive feedback, knowledge of things related to game design, and an over-all knowledge of the future that this game could be?

You read these post and actively participate in them, for which I applaud you, but your take is biased to your precepts of what the game should be, and not what it could be. So it seems by what you write "introducing Angel ECM function to regular ECM" as it seems clear by now, that it is intended to be loosely based on cannon, right?

If this game is to be based loosely on cannon, can the argument about Angel ECM be sound anymore? And if it cannot, what does that say about any other aspect of balance you bring up? Is it skewed by cannon?

Just food for thought. I suggest everyone just take a step back and ponder the big picture, is all.

[Shae Starfyre]

Namais, on 07 June 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

Splitting hairs but I don't think they were scratching heads trying to fix ECM. I think they were flat out refusing to change ECM and scratching their heads trying to think of ways to deflate it's value without deviating from the original design (god knows why). It's completely barse ackwards either way and as a mechanic about as much fun as growing ones fingernails.

I think you are right about flat out not fixing it; I believe they have a more dynamic concept in mind that allowed ECM, as it is, to be fine.

I just don't get it it seems, because I battle daily, and feel that my KD Ratio being close to 1 give or take, screams balance. In a game like this, save coordinated team play, no pugger should have much better.

Almost all of my games, as a lone wolf (never ever played on a team) shares two things in common. 1.) close games, 2.) average scoring across the board.

Are not the majority of those who play, puggers?

Namais, on 07 June 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

Hard to disagree with that.



Your assumption that noone has doesn't imply that you've kept up with the feedback and suggestion forums over the last year.

Granted.

Edited by Aphoticus, 07 June 2013 - 05:37 AM.

[El Bandito]

Aphoticus, on 07 June 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

I think you are right about flat out not fixing it; I believe they have a more dynamic concept in mind that allowed ECM, as it is, to be fine. I just don't get it it seems, because I battle daily, and feel that my KD Ratio being close to 1 give or take, screams balance. In a game like this, save coordinated team play, no pugger should have much better. Almost all of my games, as a lone wolf (never ever played on a team) shares two things in common. 1.) close games, 2.) average scoring across the board. Are not the majority of those who play, puggers? Granted.

And that's PGI's problem. They think ECM is fine as is--against overwhelming negative feedbacks.

At least 50% of my games had been one-sided and I pug too. Everything is relative.

Aphoticus, on 07 June 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

Perhaps they would be more content with positive feedback, knowledge of things related to game design, and an over-all knowledge of the future that this game could be? You read these post and actively participate in them, for which I applaud you, but your take is biased to your precepts of what the game should be, and not what it could be. So it seems by what you write "introducing Angel ECM function to regular ECM" as it seems clear by now, that it is intended to be loosely based on cannon, right? If this game is to be based loosely on cannon, can the argument about Angel ECM be sound anymore? And if it cannot, what does that say about any other aspect of balance you bring up? Is it skewed by cannon? Just food for thought. I suggest everyone just take a step back and ponder the big picture, is all.

Oh, I do give them positive feedback--such as the last patch. I made 3 threads commending them. Still does not excuse PGI's slow paced balancing, and bad decisions in that regard.

Perhaps you are biased towards PGI to certain degree? Especially since you are relatively newcomer. (newcomers tend to be less skeptical and cynical about PGI)

How about we just agree to disagree on the competence of PGI, instead?

Edited by El Bandito, 07 June 2013 - 05:56 AM.

[Shae Starfyre]

El Bandito, on 07 June 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

And that's PGI's problem. They think ECM is fine as is--against overwhelming negative feedbacks.

At least 50% of my games had been one-sided and I pug too. Everything is relative.



Oh, I do give them positive feedback--such as the last patch. I made 3 threads commending them. Still does not excuse PGI's slow paced balancing, and bad decisions in that regard.

Perhaps you are biased towards PGI to certain degree? Especially since you are relatively newcomer. (newcomers tend to be less skeptical and cynical about PGI)

How about we just agree to disagree on the competence of PGI, instead?

So be it! as I always say, what's one more opinion amongst nearly 7 billion?

[DaZur]

IMHO the biggest problem with this game is it's an open beta...

So few players understand or for that matter can appreciate that everything we are seeing and experiencing used to take place behind closed doors and did not extend past the developers, publishers and a select handful of beta-testers.

Development pillars? Proposed content? Bugs & Glitches? GUI implementation? Balance? Pfffft... All decided and and implemented before any public entity even touched a bit of code.

Typically a project like this would have been close-door development for at least 2 years...

This unorthodox development process PGI has taken has proven to be their worst enemy... No matter how many times they iterate this is a beta production... It's difficult to accept when they are collecting money for content.