1911 replies to this topic

[Mawai]

Void Angel, on 30 July 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

There is a difference between "doing what I wanted," and "totally ignoring feedback," and you should not abuse words that way.

Also, pointing out the recognized fact that strike consumables are simply the best options for a module slot isn't "speaking for the community." It's citing fact. You can dispute the fact if you like, but citing it isn't presumptive.

Ok .,. I should drop this but it is so difficult ...

"There is a difference between "doing what I wanted," and "totally ignoring feedback," and you should not abuse words that way."

I completely agree with the statement ... but it does not apply in this situation.

Please read my posts ... and then tell me "what I wanted".

None of my posts say "what I wanted" at all. NONE of them. I did not propose ANY solutions. I pointed out issues or possible problems with their planned design with the implied suggestion that they should take these issues into consideration when planning the release of this feature ... I did not suggest what changes (if any) might be appropriate ... my opinion was that the issues presented would likely become game play problems or customer service issues on release. That is all.

PGI then chose to do nothing regarding that feedback.That's fine ... they decided to ignore it. It is not a matter of doing what I wanted vs. ignoring the feedback ... it is a matter of doing SOMETHING about the feedback (either design change or communications or whatever they want) vs not showing any sign that the feedback might have been read, considered or otherwise acknowledged.

I am also NOT referring to my feedback individually ... lol, I don't think anyone can reasonably expect an answer. However a couple of brief design posts like the ones Niko now has in the Command Chair section ... sent out BEFORE they made the changes would have been sufficient to avoid a lot of complaints even if they didn't make any changes. It should be part of customer relations 101.

[Void Angel]

No, Cimarb, it's not an "opinion," as the term is commonly used. Strikes are mathematically and tactically superior to all exclusive alternatives. They are required for serious team play at all levels, for example; and while some modules are situationally useful or even required (Target Decay for LRM boats comes to mind,) 'Mechs had enough slots that you never had to choose between those modules and a strike. All of this is true; some people may dispute it, but the demographic information that we have bears it out. Your reasoning is faulty: if you apply your own logic to your own post, it's only your opinion that my assertion is opinion and not a citation of fact. Of course, you could respond that it's only my opinion that your opinion of my opinion is opinion, but then that would be your opinion that my opinion that your opinion of my opinion is opinion...

This is called infinite regression, and is an indication of unworkable logic.

Mawai, I don't have to know what you wanted done in order to see you didn't get it - your entire post oozed disapproval, and you come right out and accuse PGI of "ignoring" feedback. Let's be honest about our positions here, please. You're trying to say, "well, I didn't want anything," but if you think it through, that's not correct. You wanted something other than what you got, or you'd have no basis for complaint - not having defined your expectations, or actually asked for anything doesn't change the fact that your disappointment requires some kind of standard to be disappointed against. Put another way, a negative expectation is still an expectation.

But what I'm really trying to hammer through to you is that simply not having lengthy community discussions about game design in no way means that PGI has ignored feedback. Game developers do pay attention to feedback, and PGI has repeatedly demonstrated that they both listen to feedback and seek it out. Think about it; remember all the endless debate that can go on here. Now imagine that PGI opened up and listened to a forum war on every major subject in their game design. And we thought the game had slow spots in its develomnent before! Also remember that you'd be dealing with feedback that was inferior to PGI's knowledge; players don't have access to PGI's game telemetry - and most players have no realistic concept of game design. Witness all the people who say, "this game would be perfectly balanced if they'd only slavishly imitate all the tabletop rules!" Or the guy on the PPC thread who thinks PPCs and Gauss Rifles would be "balanced" without heat scale or other mechanics - if they just increased their cooldowns to 8 and ten seconds, respectively (because This Thing would be totally balanced if it could freely alpha every 10 seconds!)

Listening to feedback isn't the same as talking endlessly about proposed changes with people who don't know how to balance a game and still feel themselves competent to make sweepingly ignorant statements as though they were knowledgeable. I cannot aggree that announcing the changes beforehand would have precluded complaints. On the contrary, it would only provide more apparent justification for positions like yours. The only way for PGI to actually preculde such complaints would be to propose changes and then either change their plans based on player feedback or allow players to pick from alternatives. This would be a disaster; a game designed by committee.

PGI isn't obligated to pre-announce and endlessly discuss changes before they're made. They can and do monitor our feedback, even soliciting it occassionally in order to determine the direction of game design when they feel it's appropriate - but they don't have a duty to endlessly respond directly to every issue we raise.

Edited by Void Angel, 31 July 2014 - 08:25 AM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

It really doesn't matter for the purposes of this thread.

[Void Angel]

The nature of responsible interaction with the community doesn't matter in a thread dedicated to interaction with the community? OK.

[TheCaptainJZ]

This thread is primarily for interaction with Karl. I'm not saying discussion with others is not ok, but it should be limited and/or taken to another thread. Just my 2 cents.

[Deathlike]

Hey Karl,

I'd like to know the details on a particular thing... with respect to capping on Conquest and Alpine and how the Capture Accelerator functions.

Basically, what is the actual "time" to all related cap changes (both full max controlled -> neutral and neutral->allied controlled on Conquest) and how does the Capture Accelerator bonus function?

For instance, it is specific to the mech capturing as in the following two possibilties:

A) The player capturing has their rate increased, while another player/teammate who doesn't have it equipped gains zero bonus.

Player with Cap Accel = 1.15
Teammate that assists you = 1
Speed of Capping Total = (Players with Cap Accel * 1.15) + (Players w/o Cap Accel)

B ) The player capturing has their rate increased, while another player/teammate will gain that bonus while they are with you... and stacks even further if that teammate has cap accel. Is it additive/cumulative or multiplicative of a stack?

Additive/Cumulative:
Speed of Capping Total = (1 + (.15)*(Number of Players on Cap)) * (Number of Players on Cap)


Multiplicative:
Speed of Capping Total = 1 * (1.15)^(Number of Players on Cap) * (Number of Players on Cap)

I just wanted to understand its overall function so I can properly figure out the lengths. Just ask whoever's responsible for this info... thanks.

Edited by Deathlike, 01 August 2014 - 09:46 PM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Hey Karl,
I just read a post that was talking about how hard it is for new players to be introduced to this game via dropping in a group with a friend, since that puts them both into a more competitive group queue.
Currently, there is no really good way to teach new players how to play by dropping with them as the competition is fierce. One possible way to alleviate the pressure would be to have newer players play in matches with less players total, perhaps 8v8, 6v6, or 4v4. I realize you can do this in a private match, but only if you have 2 players with activated premium time, and it also forces you to know and set up all those players in any event. Is it possible or feasible for all matches to be, say 8v8 until a player has played a certain number of matches? I don't think it's a solution to the problem, but maybe something that can be done in the meantime.

[Kinski Orlawisch]

Hi.
1. Why can you skill the Clan SSRM2/4 moduls, but not buy them?
2. Why has the Catapult A1(C) less mechmodul Slots than the Catapult A1? (2/3)
3. Why are so many problems with laag/ moonwalking/syncronisation Problem since the last patch occuring?
4. When do we get propper informations about the patch 19.08.2014

[Wintersdark]

Karl,

Lately, I have been experimenting with AMS, given how recent missile improvements have made SRM's and LRM's more effective.

My issue, however, is that we don't really know how AMS targets missiles, and how a wide variety of not at all uncommon edge cases work out.

We know AMS is a hitscan weapon, that will destroy a missile in theory every .286s. Now, simple math gives us easy answers, but situations are much more complex now. Let's assume streaming missiles (as with clans they're very common).

AMS starts firing the moment a missile enters its range, and destroys the first say .3 seconds in (ping and such causing some delays). After it is destroyed, does AMS target the nearest missile? The furthest? These are important questions, because if it targets the nearest missile (arguably what you'd expect it to do) that means it has less and less time to destroy missiles and will quickly be caught in a situation where it cannot do sufficient damage to missiles before they impact, wasting damage.

If you gave multiple AMS, do they target the same missile? Different missiles?

These questions become very much more important once you start talking about clan mechs firing streams of LRM's at closer ranges.

I'd like to test it personally, but this is the sort of thing that's extremely hard to test from a player perspective, and there are so many unknowns.

[Jman5]

Hey Karl, did you guys do anything to the matchmaker this last patch? Finding matches seem to take longer.

[p4r4g0n]

@Karl Berg

As you may be aware, Paul's proposed PPC/Gauss solutions here is attracting a significant amount of discussion. There has been recurring suggestions about convergence (see this post for an illustration of reticle convergence) as well a variable cone of fire based on movement (and other similar concepts) in preference to Paul's proposed solutions.

I was wondering if you or someone from PGI could clarify why convergence is not doable / acceptable as I understand that this was implemented during Closed Beta but was removed for some reason. Do similar reasons apply to a variable cone of fire implementation?

It would be nice to have a clear answer on these issues for the record as these concepts have been repeatedly brought up every time pin-point front loaded damage is discussed on the forums and frankly, it would be great to be able to lay these to rest as its an incredible waste of time and effort for people to keep re-hashing them every time.

With respect to the matchmaker's recent revamp, I was curious if the ability to use a tonnage or weight class modifier previously mentioned by Russ when discussing possible ways to balance Clan vs IS matches (not sure where) was included in the re-design?

Any clarification that you might be able to provide on the above issues would be greatly appreciated.

Edited by p4r4g0n, 07 August 2014 - 06:58 PM.

[Void Angel]

I envy you the faith in mankind that allows you to believe that a clear, on-the-record response will stop people rehashing it. =P
But it's an excellent question, and I'd like to know, too.

[p4r4g0n]

Being able to point to a Karl Berg post that says *stuff* seems to work well in stopping useless debates .... sometimes

Best part of it is that since all Karl's and other PGI replies in this thread are in one thread, they're easy to find and link back to.

Edited by p4r4g0n, 07 August 2014 - 10:30 PM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Plus, this thread has been highly reputable with all the good infos from Karl and others.

[Deathlike]

Hi Karl,

I just wanted to get feedback and the official stance on this particular issue.

Elo as currently constituted is simply 1 value for each weight class... so Lights all have the same Elo value and Mediums, and etc.

Why can't we have multiple Elo values for each chassis or particularly for each variant? For instance, a Locust realistically DOES NOT perform anything like the best of the 35 tonners. Even then, it's hard to give the same Elo value to variants of the non-3L variant of the Raven because most people would find that the the Raven-3L is the best of the bunch.

So, what do you think about this... the flaws or your druthers on the matter?

I could probably try to dig up Homeless Bill's solution on the matter... which is essentially giving each new chassis or new mech an Elo value, based on what the averages of the current weight class and/or particularly the current chassis average.

For a new player, you'll give them a new Elo for each weight class anyways, so that's a non-issue.

For a new player that got their first mech... let's use a Jenner in the the example. They bought their first Jenner-D... and then looking to obtain the Jenner-F. So, naturally, the game would try to use the Jenner-D's Elo, and then lower it through some formula to factor in the "newness" or the "starting from scratch" because no efficiencies have been gained.

When this new player goes to a Raven or Firestarter, the average of the Jenner is used, but initially lowered (because it's a new chassis, so it doesn't get played the same. The starting Elo could be lowered further if the next mech was a Locust as an example.

As a player gains more chassis and more variants, it is easier to give a better "starting Elo" value, instead of continuing to use the same "shared value" for a Locust compared to a Jenner.

That's the overall jist of the idea.

I hope you strongly consider revising Elo (and indirectly the MM) to take this into consideration. It's clear to everyone that you don't compare to very different mechs with the same Elo... if you need an average for the purposes of stats... that's one thing. Playing two different mechs that have two different playstyles, builds, or whatever just by mech construction designs with the same Elo doesn't make sense.

Note that this has LESS of an impact on Clans due to the omnipod design. However, for the sake of proper balance AND telemetry, you would benefit from refined data gathering that is a lot more practical and productive.

Edit: Homeless Bill said it best...
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Edited by Deathlike, 09 August 2014 - 12:22 PM.

[Void Angel]

It would take an amazing amount of time for Elo to adjust to player skills if you did it that way - and once you get used to a weight class, most 'mechs in their class do work much the same. The similarities are generally more important than the differences, at the very least. If you want to shield players from taking Elo losses from trying new 'mechs, it might be better - and would certainly be more workable - to just implement an adjustment for a new chassis/variant based on how many experience points have been earned in it.

[Wintersdark]

Void Angel, on 09 August 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

to just implement an adjustment for a new chassis/variant based on how many experience points have been earned in it.

Actually, this is a very good idea. A Elo adjustment for piloting a chassis that hasn't had it's skills done yet (and as such is obviously new) would be pretty welcome to be able to bring in a new chassis and not be thrown to the wolves in it.

I dunno if it's necessary to shield players from taking Elo losses in a new chassis, simply because Elo isn't an awesomeness score. Losing Elo isn't a punishment. If you play a lot of newer chassis (say, you often buy and level new mechs - I do this, for example) then your Elo ends up lower, and is as such representative of your average play.

[Goose]

Deathlike, on 09 August 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

Teh Elo we Need, not Teh Elo we Deserve

I sort'a get they need to do something to keep smurfing from abusing bona-fide newbies, but why even this complex? Just start 'em out at whatever one standard deviation (low) is at time of first game …

[Stealth Raptor]

I have a question about unit names. As i have heard Canon unit names have been reserved by pgi. My unit has represented one of the canon units throughout many previous mechwarrior games, and we want to make sure it isnt taken. my question is with CW phase 1 coming out, are the canon unit names being saved, and if so can we get a list so we can know to grab it if it is available? We really dont want to lose the opportunity to grab our proper name if it will become available

[TheCaptainJZ]

Stealth Raptor, on 09 August 2014 - 06:49 PM, said:

I have a question about unit names. As i have heard Canon unit names have been reserved by pgi. My unit has represented one of the canon units throughout many previous mechwarrior games, and we want to make sure it isnt taken. my question is with CW phase 1 coming out, are the canon unit names being saved, and if so can we get a list so we can know to grab it if it is available? We really dont want to lose the opportunity to grab our proper name if it will become available

iirc, there is a thread in the merc corps section made in closed beta with names. Not sure how helpful that is but there is a thread around here somewhere.