174 replies to this topic

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

I never said he was?

You implied that he was...

If you weren't, you may want to be a little more clear about that...

[ReXspec]

Roadbeer, on 07 February 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

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.

"ad hominem"

"words"

Wow... it's obvious you didn't read my post. If what I said in my post wasn't true, then it would serve you better to prove me wrong as opposed to injecting yet more bias.

And a "rodent?" I wouldn't call alienating new players or even current players to a game because of broken game mechanics a "rodent." As mwhighlander stated, not telling people critical information like this is a pretty big ******* problem.

Edited by ReXspec, 07 February 2014 - 05:55 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Checked out after you said "circlejerk", why would I wan't to read further?

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

I never said he was?

Then we are back to my wondering about the answer of "No." from DaZur.

[Sandpit]

FactorlanP, on 07 February 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

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.

Read through the official feedback threads. Those are quite well-written and detailed. The same ones wailing and flailing there would wail and flail regardless. *shrugs*

[ReXspec]

Roadbeer, on 07 February 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

Checked out after you said "circlejerk", why would I wan't to read further?

lol Truth hurts, Roady. If you think your butthurt de-values my data, then you may want to SERIOUSLY re-think the way you conduct yourself in arguments against cold, hard facts.

Besides, as I stated before, if I'm wrong, then PROVE me wrong. Don't try to be smart by saying, *insert pretentious accent here* "Hmmmmyes... I checked out after 'circle-jerk,' why would I read any further?"

Edited by ReXspec, 07 February 2014 - 06:18 PM.

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 07 February 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

You implied that he was...

If you weren't, you may want to be a little more clear about that...

I never implied or hinted at anything. I stated that I thought we needed better tutorials and info for new players. That's it. Then I simply tried to help clarify what Dazur was saying because it was getting misinterpreted. I never even disagreed with Vic. Not once. I dont' know what you're referring to?

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

Then we are back to my wondering about the answer of "No." from DaZur.

we aren't, you are. I even explained what he meant. I dont' understand why you keep harping on it

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

I never implied or hinted at anything. I stated that I thought we needed better tutorials and info for new players. That's it. Then I simply tried to help clarify what Dazur was saying because it was getting misinterpreted. I never even disagreed with Vic. Not once. I dont' know what you're referring to?

-sigh- Well, at least you had the decency to explain it...

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 07 February 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

-sigh- Well, at least you had the decency to explain it...

I was honestly just trying to help DaZur get his point across. It was getting misinterpreted. Not myself, road, nor DaZur think there shouldn't be more info and tutorials and a more robust and overall better new player experience (I know this because we actually talk and kick around ideas to one another) so I knew where he was coming from, or at least had a good idea.

This game has a very steep learning curve and a LOT of deep intricacies when it comes to heat, weapons, builds, chassis, etc. and it still baffles me how PGI thought it would be ok to go public without having a lot of tutorials (among quite a few other things, Lobbies anyone?) already in place.

But you can also only see "MM needs to be fixed" pop up so many times before you start getting a little cynical as well. Some of us just get very weary of having to scroll past 10 threads on MM just to find another thread we're interested in. It also muddles the feedback. I promise you, everything we've discussed in this thread will be disregarded and forgotten and there will be 2-3 "new" threads where you'll just have to post all of your ideas and suggestions.
again
and again
and again
and again
instead of being able to carry on a meaningful exchange of ideas that might actually come up with some good ideas that could be used and garner support from a majority of players instead of spending 3-4 pages of posts again and again just to try and get everyone on the same page and a good solid discussion going on.
Surely you can see and understand that aspect of it as well?

[Roadbeer]

ReXspec, on 07 February 2014 - 06:01 PM, said:

lol Truth hurts, Roady. If you think your butthurt de-values my data, then you may want to SERIOUSLY re-think the way you conduct yourself in arguments against cold-hard facts.

Besides, as I stated before, if I'm wrong, then PROVE me wrong. Don't try to be smart by saying, *insert pretentious accent here* "Hmmmmyes... I checked out after 'circle-jerk,' why would I read any further?"

Let me stop you right there Sparky.
Up until your snarky little post dragging me into the conversation, the only posts I had made in here were...

1. Pointing out to Vic that the information he emphatically states doesn't exist, is clearly visible on the first page of the CC, and is easily searchable.
2. Requesting that the "Lies" be categorized, or otherwise, it's just hyperbole.

But, I see that this thread has moved along it's course:
1: Victor makes, what would normally have been a good point if he could have left the teen angst out of it
2: Someone calls him on his teem angst
3: Neckbeards come to defend the Anti-PGI post by throwing their monkey feces around
4: Somehow people using logic are made to be the bad guys.

Edited by Roadbeer, 07 February 2014 - 06:19 PM.

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

we aren't, you are. I even explained what he meant. I dont' understand why you keep harping on it

Because he said, "No, don't do what Vic says", but then you say, "Oh, when he said not to do what Vic says, he meant don't do a bunch of extra stuff", but then since you admit that Vic didn't say any of that extra stuff, we're back to the fact that the original response of "No, don't do what Vic says" was nonsensical and foolish.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

Because he said, "No, don't do what Vic says", but then you say, "Oh, when he said not to do what Vic says, he meant don't do a bunch of extra stuff", but then since you admit that Vic didn't say any of that extra stuff, we're back to the fact that the original response of "No, don't do what Vic says" was nonsensical and foolish.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. You're trying to make something out of nothing.
Vic said A
Da said B
People misinterpreted what Da said, I helped clarify what he meant.
I then injected me idea as to what players needed and what they didn't need for various reasons. There's nothing more to what I said I promise. That's it. There was no ulterior motive or plot, I tried to help clarify someone's statement and then gave my own personal opinion on it

[ReXspec]

Roadbeer, on 07 February 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

Let me stop you right there Sparky.
Up until your snarky little post dragging me into the conversation, the only posts I had made in here were...

1. Pointing out to Vic that the information he emphatically states doesn't exist, is clearly visible on the first page of the CC, and is easily searchable.
2. Requesting that the "Lies" be categorized, or otherwise, it's just hyperbole.

But, I see that this thread has moved along it's course:
1: Victor makes, what would normally have been a good point if he could have left the teen angst out of it
2: Someone calls him on his teem angst
3: Neckbeards come to defend the Anti-PGI post by throwing their monkey feces around
4: Somehow people using logic are made to be the bad guys.

I tend to ignore the emotional parts of people's arguments, Roady. And try to draw valid information out of a post--no matter how much "teen-angst" it is ridden with. It would probably serve you well to do the same.

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 06:15 PM, said:

I was honestly just trying to help DaZur get his point across. It was getting misinterpreted. Not myself, road, nor DaZur think there shouldn't be more info and tutorials and a more robust and overall better new player experience (I know this because we actually talk and kick around ideas to one another) so I knew where he was coming from, or at least had a good idea.

This game has a very steep learning curve and a LOT of deep intricacies when it comes to heat, weapons, builds, chassis, etc. and it still baffles me how PGI thought it would be ok to go public without having a lot of tutorials (among quite a few other things, Lobbies anyone?) already in place.

But you can also only see "MM needs to be fixed" pop up so many times before you start getting a little cynical as well. Some of us just get very weary of having to scroll past 10 threads on MM just to find another thread we're interested in. It also muddles the feedback. I promise you, everything we've discussed in this thread will be disregarded and forgotten and there will be 2-3 "new" threads where you'll just have to post all of your ideas and suggestions.
again
and again
and again
and again
instead of being able to carry on a meaningful exchange of ideas that might actually come up with some good ideas that could be used and garner support from a majority of players instead of spending 3-4 pages of posts again and again just to try and get everyone on the same page and a good solid discussion going on.
Surely you can see and understand that aspect of it as well?

I've been a forum goer (and in some cases a moderator) for years now. Yeah, addressing the grievances of a community can get tedious, but I've always run by (and thus reacted to) this adage: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."
If there is a grievance that any part of a community addresses, then it serves the developer to at least acknowledge them or that grievance in turn.

But you have to realize, that just because someone DOES make a case for a supposed grievance, doesn't make that person anti-<insert developer name here>. On the contrary. People are posting on the forums in the hope that the grievance will get fixed (or at the very least, addressed in the form of a moderator explanation). The willingness to address grievances shouldn't be discouraged, it should be encouraged.

However, I do agree with you on one thing: Personal attacks against the devs are never productive. No matter how true the insults may be, no matter how well-deserved they may be, IT DOESN'T FIX THE PROBLEM. If anything, it alienates the devs to the player-base and can create the potential for the devs to make even WORSE decisions in regards to development for the game.

Yes, I've been guilty at taking shots at Paul, Russ, and various other devs, but I'd like to think I presented verifiable data along with my prods. What I'm saying is, that just because someone DOES express some anti-PGI sentiment, doesn't mean the valid info that they may present along with this sentiment should be automatically discredited.

To make my point relevant to this topic in particular, Victor made EXCELLENT points about addressing ghost-heat, but (from what I'm reading) you're rejecting those points because of the anti-PGI sentiment. The appropriate response would've been to look for the information in the posts--find the "diamonds in the rough," so to speak, and create a reasonable, amicable counter-argument (or agreement) in turn.

Edited by ReXspec, 07 February 2014 - 06:48 PM.

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

I don't understand what you're getting at here. You're trying to make something out of nothing.
Vic said A
Da said B

No Sandpit, that is not what happened.

He didn't simply say some unrelated thing. He, directly in response to what Vic said, said "No."

He was not merely making some other unrelated statement. He was arguing against what Vic said.

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 07 February 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

I tend to ignore the emotional parts of people's arguments, Roady. And try to draw valid information out of a post--no matter how much "teen-angst" it is ridden with. It would probably serve you well to do the same.



I've been a forum goer (and in some cases a moderator) for years now. Yeah, addressing the grievances of a community can get tedious, but I've always run by (and thus reacted to) this adage: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."
If there is a grievance that any part of a community addresses, then it serves the developer to at least acknowledge them or that grievance in turn.

But you have to realize, that just because someone DOES make a case for a supposed grievance, doesn't make that person anti-<insert developer name here>. On the contrary. People are posting on the forums in the hope that the grievance will get fixed (or at the very least, addressed in the form of a moderator explanation). The willingness to address grievances shouldn't be discouraged, it should be encouraged.

However, I do agree with you on one thing: Personal attacks against the devs are never productive. No matter how true the insults may be, no matter how well-deserved they may be, IT DOESN'T FIX THE PROBLEM. If anything, it alienates the devs to the player-base and can create the potential for the devs to make even WORSE decisions in regards to development for the game.

Yes, I've been guilty at taking shots at Paul, Russ, and various other devs, but I'd like to think I presented verifiable data along with my prods. What I'm saying is, that just because someone DOES express some anti-PGI sentiment, doesn't mean the valid info that they may present along with this sentiment should be automatically discredited.

To make my point relevant to this topic in particular, Victor made EXCELLENT points about addressing ghost-heat, but (from what I'm reading) you're rejecting those points because of the anti-PGI sentiment. The appropriate response would've been to look for the information in the posts--find the "diamonds in the rough," so to speak, and create a reasonable, amicable counter-argument (or agreement) in turn.

I didn't reject anything he said. I still don't understand where that's coming from?
I don't agree with anyone that says ghost heat is "bad" or should be removed, etc. because I dont' agree with that opinion on ghost heat regardless of who said it because my personal opinion is different.

I've said two or three times now that I agree with needing better tutorials and such for new players. What I didn't agree with was the idea of needing a detailed history, math used to determine, etc. ghost heat.
I still contend what players need is how it works (IE how weapon firing and grouping affects it), when it works (IE chain vs. group firing), and how to avoid it. That's all. Again, I haven't attacked anyone or their ideas here. I've simply stated my own opinion on it and tried to help clarify what another player was stating.

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

No Sandpit, that is not what happened.

He didn't simply say some unrelated thing. He, directly in response to what Vic said, said "No."

He was not merely making some other unrelated statement. He was arguing against what Vic said.

and what does that have to do with ANYthing I said? Simply because I clarified what Dazur was saying?

[BlackBeltJones]

I'm sure PGI attempted some sensible and concise in-game documentation regarding GH then they got to the part about 3 AC/2s in chainfire. That's when they stopped issuing cyanide pills to their employees.

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 07:10 PM, said:

I didn't reject anything he said. I still don't understand where that's coming from?
I don't agree with anyone that says ghost heat is "bad" or should be removed, etc. because I dont' agree with that opinion on ghost heat regardless of who said it because my personal opinion is different.

I've said two or three times now that I agree with needing better tutorials and such for new players. What I didn't agree with was the idea of needing a detailed history, math used to determine, etc. ghost heat.
I still contend what players need is how it works (IE how weapon firing and grouping affects it), when it works (IE chain vs. group firing), and how to avoid it. That's all. Again, I haven't attacked anyone or their ideas here. I've simply stated my own opinion on it and tried to help clarify what another player was stating.

And holding an opinion is alright (although I tend to think that, in the case of appealing to a dev to improve a game, opinions backed by information and suggestions toward fixing a grievance tend to hold more validity), although you did say that threads like this "pop up so many times before you start getting a little cynical..."

Again, I understand where you are coming. Clarifying what DaZur said is fine, but being cynical cannot be a justification for writing off what Victor (or his would-be defenders) was saying.

Edited by ReXspec, 07 February 2014 - 07:24 PM.

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 07:10 PM, said:

and what does that have to do with ANYthing I said? Simply because I clarified what Dazur was saying?

Your clarification was incorrect. That's not actually what he said.
Vic said to provide documentation of Ghost heat. He said no.

[Sephlock]

How about a little popup (NOT THE KIND THAT FORCES YOU TO CLICK "OKAY") when you put enough of a given weapon to cause ghost heat? (ofc there is still the problem of people chain firing ac/2s and getting ghost heat, but hey ;P). There could be a little blurb about heat systems not being able to handle the load of simultaneous firings...

[Fooooo]

It should be documented much better indeed.

Mainly in game. Lab and battle.



For one a nice little colouration on the heatbar would instantly help newbies (as long as its explained somewhere what it means)

For instance just like this pic, the blue bit of the heat bar would be accrued ghost heat. Don't worry about anything else, I know 2ERLL don't give you ghost heat etc, just look at the heat bar. (basically heat you would NOT have suffered if you didn't fire so many weapons etc)

Spoiler

I feel just that single addition would help newer players understand they are suffering heat they dont have to etc.

Tho all the other additions mentioned in the thread would also be welcome.