18 replies to this topic

[Agent 0 Fortune]

"Aggressive" balance changes need to occur weekly. More than weekly is probably too frequently as you will not get good results. But it is imperative that a semblance of game balance be achived by launch and this simply cannot be accomplished on a bi-weekly patch schedule.

[Lootee]

But I've already gotten used to logging in bi-annually to see if things have gotten better.

This idea is going to throw off my whole schedule.

[TheFlyingScotsman]

The bi-weekly changes are in place to balance the amount of content produced and enacted in any given period and the amount of time the devs have to work on said content.

It isn't as simple as, "We want X weapon to do X, so lets type in some numbers somewhere and case closed" Coding is much more intensive and non-linear than that. What would be simple to change in the mechanics of a pen & paper game is vastly more difficult and intensive with computer programs.

The fact that the updates are bi-weekly to begin with is surprising, considering the size of the staff and the funding quantities. If it was easy, the game would have been released by now.

[jeffsw6]

He's right, though, they wasted so much time before "release" that they do not have time to accomplish anything on balance by September.

They should be using the Public Test Server for this. Sadly, that's not what it is for.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

make your own mech game if they are not doing it good enough for you!

[Deathlike]

So... what you're saying is that you want a frequently broken MWO...

I'm sure PGI can oblige.

[jeffsw6]

Deathlike, on 13 July 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

So... what you're saying is that you want a frequently broken MWO...

Now that they have a test server, I think that's what they should use it for. I imagine we can agree about that!

[Devil Fox]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 13 July 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

make your own mech game if they are not doing it good enough for you!

MW:LL did... look what happened to them...

[TheFlyingScotsman]

MW:LL was better than MWO, if less well supported in terms of updates and staff.

[Valore]

Umm.

You're asking for MORE patches, from a dev team that actually FORGOT to include changes and had to panic hotfix them in, EVEN THOUGH they only patch bi-weekly at this point.

You really need to think this through

[Deathlike]

jeffsw6, on 13 July 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

Now that they have a test server, I think that's what they should use it for. I imagine we can agree about that!

2 hours twice on the same day wouldn't reasonably be "enough" by testing standards.

Otherwise, the Word of Paul is absolute and must be the truth! See Paul 7:11 about SRMs @ 2.5 damage and Splatcats.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 July 2013 - 08:14 PM.

[Donnie Silveray]

I don't personally believe they'll have 2 hour test server openings for balance changes. The 2 hour spurts were likely putting 12v12 in a highly controlled and monitored envirionment to observe every facet of the gameplay, possibly in real time. Server load, performance, all that nuances. I imagine when they use the test server for balance changes they'll have longer periods to gain more telemetry and data so they can reproduce it within reasonable doubt.

[Billygoat]

PGI used to try to patch weekly back in closed beta, but they missed their weekly patch day and postponed to the following week so often that we were on a de facto bi-weekly schedule for some time before they changed the "official" schedule.

They can't do it. Simple as.

[Theodor Kling]

Deathlike, on 13 July 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

So... what you're saying is that you want a frequently broken MWO...

I'm sure PGI can oblige.

In a way..yes.. that's what I would want, balancing means lots of patches with( hopefully) less and less broken games. But a slow pace of simple numbers balancing like in the past means that it takes way too much time. The number of iterations to achieve some resemblance of balance is not changed by weekly patches, but the time is.
Of course TheFlyingScotsman is right, some things just take time to code. But others do not. Simple things like buffing PPCs heat a little ( a little! max one, maybe even just 0.5 for a first pass,remember, drastic jumps have brought us the history of LRMs), or a few variables for grouping of missiles.. simple numbers stuff should have been changed way more often.
But I fear it is of no use by now: Most simple number changes they are willing to make are made, and those left to do like SRM dmg depend on solving other, more complex things first.
But then again: The new alpha heat system, wether you agree with it on principle or not, might need some simple number tweaking as well.

Billygoat, on 13 July 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

PGI used to try to patch weekly back in closed beta, but they missed their weekly patch day and postponed to the following week so often that we were on a de facto bi-weekly schedule for some time before they changed the "official" schedule.

They can't do it. Simple as.

For content and complex sollutions, yes. But heat and dmg tweaking could have been done weekly without problem.

[Billygoat]

Theodor Kling, on 13 July 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

For content and complex sollutions, yes. But heat and dmg tweaking could have been done weekly without problem.

I agree wholeheartedly. We've been saying this for 12 months now. Unfortunately, PGI have never shown themselves either willing or capable of doing this. Why, I don't know. Maybe project management is massively **** about having a "cadence" and refuses to do anything outside of it.

Also, a wad of c-bills says the public test server only gets used for bughunting and never for balance. I will buy the 3 crappiest Awesomes if it does.

Edit: **** = "rear centre torso heat exhaust port-focused"

Edited by Billygoat, 13 July 2013 - 09:20 PM.

[jeffsw6]

Deathlike, on 13 July 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

2 hours twice on the same day wouldn't reasonably be "enough" by testing standards.

Otherwise, the Word of Paul is absolute and must be the truth! See Paul 7:11 about SRMs @ 2.5 damage and Splatcats.

I agree. I didn't mean to suggest that 4 hours a week of test server runs is enough for balance issues, but they could just ... leave the test server on all the time.

Billygoat, on 13 July 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

I agree wholeheartedly. We've been saying this for 12 months now. Unfortunately, PGI have never shown themselves either willing or capable of doing this.

The arrogance of Paul is matched only by Bryan's characterization of hundreds of dissatisfied forum posters as being "on an island." Because, you know, the game is in the best state it's ever been.

I will say this, though: The new Downfall parody videos are entertaining and spot-on.

[xRaeder]

Apostal, on 13 July 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

MW:LL did... look what happened to them...

Still a better game than this.

[King Arthur IV]

bi weekly balancing? if we actually got changes every two weeks we wouldn't be crying at all and i dont mean one change at a time.

for instance the up coming patch will feature the new heat system but ppc and erppc will not be in the same group till another patch. there is also a current vote for srm buff to 2.0 damage and it is pretty clear people want it now but this will also be delayed to a further patch.
why arnt these 3 things all in the same up coming patch?

another example is seismic and arty strikes. one is clearly o.p. and one is clearly u.p. for testing purposes why cant they be slightly altered? give arty strike a buff in splash aoe or just damage per shell and seismic a range nerf. just do small things and small number alterations, instead of weeks of internal testing. why is there even that much internal testing if this is suppose to be beta?

they have a patch every two weeks but they dont seem to make use of it in terms of balancing. i will say one thing, iv stopped crashing since last patch and im grateful they have been working on that side of it but the weapons balancing a so sluggish because they do not use the bi weekly patches to their full potential.

[Appogee]

We're not really even getting two-weekly patches.

Much of what is patched is just frippery that doesn't add the features most needed, nor address the main issues.

I want to believe in PGI. But the rate of progress this year - on things that matter - has been glacial.

Edited by Appogee, 14 July 2013 - 01:34 AM.