174 replies to this topic

[FactorlanP]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 04:47 PM, said:

I wish they communicated more here on the forums but after the last post regarding a balance adjustment by Paul and watching the usual suspects rage and pick it apart it reinforced my understanding of why they don't.

Honestly, I think Paul invited them to respond the way they did. I'm sure he thought he was being cute, or funny... But snarky stuff isn't what the community needs from this Dev team right now.

Clear concise communication with some level of discussion is the order of the day.

That's just my opinion.

[Victor Morson]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

That's all a player needs to know. They don't need to know history, detailed mathematical algorithms, or it's hotly contested implementation. They simply need to know what it is, what causes it, and how to avoid it.

Yep, exactly.

That's why Paul's charts are useless and confused people, but Smurfy's chart is instantly clear. It's a nice "X gun times Y amount equals Z penalty" reference. That is literally all pilots need to know.

Edited by Victor Morson, 07 February 2014 - 04:55 PM.

[Dymlos2003]

FactorlanP, on 07 February 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Honestly, I think Paul invited them to respond the way they did. I'm sure he thought he was being cute, or funny... But snarky stuff isn't what the community needs from this Dev team right now.

Clear concise communication with some level of discussion is the order of the day.

That's just my opinion.

It was a test. Too see how volatile the community still is. By the thread, easily still. Since NONE of them can stay on topic.

Quote

[color=#959595]What needs to happen is that when somebody is in the mechlab, if they have a configuration that CAN cause Ghost Heat, there needs to be a pop up warning that says something to the effect:[/color]

You have 3 PPCs equipped. If you fire all 3 PPCs together or within 0.5seconds of each other you will incur Additional Heat.


[color=#959595]Simple as that. Of course the same warning should pop up when you are buying a mech that can generate Ghost Heat.[/color]

I like this idea as well

[Victor Morson]

Dymlos2003, on 07 February 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

It was a test. Too see how volatile the community still is. By the thread, easily still. Since NONE of them can stay on topic.

Given we have been lied to and screwed over by unpopular things over and over again, with no signs of changing, then UI 2.0 finally gets dropped out and is worse than UI 1.0 why would anyone ever need to even think about how volatile the community is?

Now is the time for reassurances and devs listening, not Paul "Poking the Dragon."

Edited by Victor Morson, 07 February 2014 - 05:00 PM.

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

That's all a player needs to know. They don't need to know history, detailed mathematical algorithms, or it's hotly contested implementation. They simply need to know what it is, what causes it, and how to avoid it.

The problem is though, that Ghost Heat is a poorly designed system.

It's NOT that simple. You can't just say, "Don't fire more than 2 weapons together or you will incur extra heat!" because the number of weapons creating the penalty changes, as well as the amount of penalty, depending on weapons and how much over the threshold it goes.

The mechanics of the system need to be explained to players.

The reason why you can't explain those mechanics easily, is because those mechanics are BAD.

[Dymlos2003]

Victor Morson, on 07 February 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

Given we have been lied to and screwed over by unpopular things over and over again, with no signs of changing, then UI 2.0 finally gets dropped out and is worse than UI 1.0 why would anyone ever need to even think about how volatile the community is?

Now is the time for reassurances and devs listening, not Paul "Poking the Dragon."

I fine UI 2.0 to be fine, not perfect, but it will get better over time. The "community" just needs to shut up or get a binky or something. We can't talk about anything with out people getting off topic or spewing "PGI SUXORS"

[Roadbeer]

Victor Morson, on 07 February 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

Given we have been lied to...

[Citation Needed]

[Wolf Ender]

It's hard for people in this thread to separate "PGI sucks, we hate PGI" from "the game mechanics pgi implemented should be shown in the game to every player and not just the ones who browse the forums"

i have my beef with PGI too, but overall I like the fact that they've created this game. first MW title we have had in a long time.

as someone else wrote earlier "i was prepared to disagree with victor" because normally I think he goes a bit too far. on this however I agree. players deserve to know how much extra heat their PPCs are going to generate. And it's not just PPCs...The fact that SRM4 and SRM6 share heat scale is another important thing that people need to know in the mechbay before they spend their cbills

Edited by Wolf Ender, 07 February 2014 - 05:07 PM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

Its a technical game so all the data should be out there.

I suggest if you want to believe in fairy dust try Skyrim where its full of magic protected by mages in high towers.

[Sandpit]

FactorlanP, on 07 February 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Honestly, I think Paul invited them to respond the way they did. I'm sure he thought he was being cute, or funny... But snarky stuff isn't what the community needs from this Dev team right now.

Clear concise communication with some level of discussion is the order of the day.

That's just my opinion.

Eh, I personally think he was just trying to be light-hearted

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

The problem is though, that Ghost Heat is a poorly designed system.

It's NOT that simple. You can't just say, "Don't fire more than 2 weapons together or you will incur extra heat!" because the number of weapons creating the penalty changes, as well as the amount of penalty, depending on weapons and how much over the threshold it goes.

The mechanics of the system need to be explained to players.

The reason why you can't explain those mechanics easily, is because those mechanics are BAD.

I'm nto saying 2 weapons. What I'm saying is all that needs to be explained is what it does, how it scales as you fire more weapons, and how to avoid it. Anythign else is not needed. Good, bad, or indifferent is subjective and isn't going to help new players understand it.

[Khobai]

Just remove ghost heat. Problem solved. Don't need to document something that doesn't exist.

Fix weapons in other ways (Ppc splash damage and ac burst fire)

[FactorlanP]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

Eh, I personally think he was just trying to be light-hearted

I have no doubt that that is what he was "trying" to be...

But like I said, that isn't what this Community needs right now.

It's their responsibility to handle the Community, they need to learn how to do it one of these days. It's my opinion that they have bungled how they handle the community and continue to do so.

As evidence, I would point you to how well received Matthew Craig's posts usually are... Or Thomas' (can't spell his last name)... They communicate well.

Look at the difference between Paul's post that we are discussing and the one the next day where he explained that they were looking at both Jump Jets and quirks for the Highlander/Victors. And that they aren't real happy with the TTK right now. That post was much better, and better accepted.

My advice to Paul... Stop trying to be cute/funny/Poking the Dragon/whatever talk to us in an informative manner. The tone of the conversation will be much improved if you do.

[ReXspec]

DaZur, on 07 February 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:

Really? That's what you derived from my post... Victor is the one who posed the question of if it's ludicrous that heat scaling is not documented... I just offered my opinion.

Truth is I have no horse in the race. Few of my builds are overtly impacted by GH and the few that do, I'm more than capable of managing them.

Fact is as much as Victor hates the GH implementation, I hate overly complicating the explanation of things that for most players, the mechanics behind it does not make a hill of beans because they are not really that complicated. I see GH in the same vein... It's there, one learns to manage it and that's that.

For a large percentage of the US population Hot Dogs are a tasty treat until one become knowledgeable to the contents and the mean of manufacturing.

I see the same thing with Ghost heat... Regardless of how egregious people attempt to paint it IMHO, it's not nearly as so to players... particularly new players... until someone convinces they it's a fermenting dog pile.

I'm sorry to say half of the complaints launched at this game by new players amounts to nothing more than parroted rhetoric without context... because well, everyone else is complaining about it, I might as well do it to. GH is no different IMHO...

The circle-jerk, white-knight, opinions between you, Roadbeer and Sandpit do nothing to change the game for the better or add anything to the solutions for this obvious problem.

What ya'll need is to address facts without injecting your obvious bias and come to an informed consensus.

And right now, the lack of in-game, U.I.-based documentation of ghost heat is a FACT.

The over-complexity and convoluted reasons behind ghost-heat is a FACT.

Moderators saying that there are MANY inherent weaknesses (such as the ones stated above) in the system is a FACT.

What you three are doing is ignoring the elephant in the room, or attempting to hide the elephant in the room and saying it is gone, as opposed to actually getting rid of it.

Edited by ReXspec, 07 February 2014 - 05:45 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

DaZur, on 07 February 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

I'm all for some explanation, something to give context to the mechanic...

That said, some GUI based convoluted explanation to something that is as simple as 2 + 2 = 4 unless you fire them in alpha, then they equal 5 does not need a full blown GUI to preface the mechanic.

Say you were in some engineering field and I gave you a function based on the tensile strength of a given material. The function curve of that material you're testing is f(n) = x - y for Σ value x.

Oh, I forgot to yell you, except when x = 5, the value of f(n) is 20,000, and NOT AT ALL a number you would expect.

What you're saying is, no, we don't need to tell people that when x = 5, (when your weapons are alpha strike'd) something goes horribly wonky with the function. THAT'S A ******* HUGE PIECE OF INFORMATION YOU'RE NEGLECTING TO TELL PEOPLE.


I usually don't pay attention or agree with Victors views most of the time, but you are dead wrong. If there is a vitally important piece of information like "don't fire 3 or more of this weapon at the same time or you'll probably blow yourself up" THAT NEEDS TO BE DISPLAYED TO THE USER IN A VERY OBVIOUS LOCATION, like the GUI maybe?

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

I'm nto saying 2 weapons. What I'm saying is all that needs to be explained is what it does, how it scales as you fire more weapons, and how to avoid it. Anythign else is not needed. Good, bad, or indifferent is subjective and isn't going to help new players understand it.

What makes you think that Vic was asking for anything more?

[Sandpit]

FactorlanP, on 07 February 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

I have no doubt that that is what he was "trying" to be...

But like I said, that isn't what this Community needs right now.

It's their responsibility to handle the Community, they need to learn how to do it one of these days. It's my opinion that they have bungled how they handle the community and continue to do so.

As evidence, I would point you to how well received Matthew Craig's posts usually are... Or Thomas' (can't spell his last name)... They communicate well.

Look at the difference between Paul's post that we are discussing and the one the next day where he explained that they were looking at both Jump Jets and quirks for the Highlander/Victors. And that they aren't real happy with the TTK right now. That post was much better, and better accepted.

My advice to Paul... Stop trying to be cute/funny/Poking the Dragon/whatever talk to us in an informative manner. The tone of the conversation will be much improved if you do.

And I think the community needs to lighten up itself just a bit. There's far too much doom and gloom.

I think they just need to hire a dedicated PR guy period. Neither Paul nor Russ are very good at PR or public speaking to be honest.

By the same token I can guarantee you that no matter what tone they took, some would jst nitpick it, complain, cheer, and groan just as they do now.

[Iqfish]

There is no biased poll in this topic.

Victor, I'm disappointed.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

What makes you think that Vic was asking for anything more?

I never said he was?

[FactorlanP]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

By the same token I can guarantee you that no matter what tone they took, some would jst nitpick it, complain, cheer, and groan just as they do now.

I disagree. Sure there will always be folks who don't like a change. That's normal. But if they would learn how to communicate with us, the over all tone would be greatly improved.

It would improve my tone, I know. I've had my share of "WTF are they doing?!" posts.

[Roadbeer]

ReXspec, on 07 February 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

ad hominem..

words...

What you three are doing is ignoring the elephant in the room, or attempting to hide the elephant in the room and saying it is gone, as opposed to actually getting rid of it.

Or, just pointing out that the elephant in the room is really just a rodent, and you're all jumping up and down on the table like the housewife in a 50's sitcom.