174 replies to this topic

[ReXspec]

Fooooo, on 07 February 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

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.

WHY CAN'T I GIVE THIS MORE LIKES. ><

[Helmer]

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

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

Just to be clear, my statement had nothing to do with the Ghost Heat system, but followed the OPs line of reasoning that it needs to be communicated to players. In cockpit, in 'mechlab, in documentaion, and in training videos would be nice.

As far as I know the only place that Ghost Heat is officially explained is here on the forums in a Developer Post. If you will take the Developers word for it that a small percentage of the playerbase ever visits the forums, it's safe to reason a very, VERY small percentage of players know of it's existence, let alone the mechanics.

This mostly likely has caused some confusion and frustration with players who very well may have quit the game never knowing why their 'mech shutsdown. Granted, in the past most (not all) of the stock trial 'mech builds have not had to worry about this, however, with the advent of champion trial 'mechs, like the LRM Stalker, it's more and more of an issue.
Then, there are those players who spend CBills on 'mech builds that turn out to be nearly unplayable and don't understand why unless it's explained to them.


Cheers.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:

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

okie dokie sparky. I'm done with this circle argument. I've pointed out several times that I (READ THAT AS ME PERSONALLY) agreed with what Vic said and added to it.
YOU (AS IN YOU YOURSELF) keep trying to say I said otherwise

I (THAT'S ME PERSONALLY) said DaZur's(THAT'S HIS POST NOT MINE) post was misunderstood and tried to help clarify it
YOU (THAT'S YOU NOT ME OR DAZUR) keep saying I somehow in the course of that disagreed with Vic

I(THAT'S ME NOT DAZUR OR YOU OR VIC) have said SEVERAL times now that I (THAT'S ME) AGREED WITH VIC saying we needed better tutorials.

If you can't understand that..... I don't know how else to explain it. It's clear though that you and respec have no interest in this thread at this point and just want to continue arguing that I disagreed with the op for some reason and it's just derailing the topic at this point. If you'd like to discuss this further feel free to start an off-topic thread and I'll meet ya there (or if you're feeling really brave we can continue "debating" on a thread in K-Town so we don't have to worry about derailing someone else's post)

[Roland]

Quote

I (THAT'S ME PERSONALLY) said DaZur's(THAT'S HIS POST NOT MINE) post was misunderstood and tried to help clarify it
YOU (THAT'S YOU NOT ME OR DAZUR) keep saying I somehow in the course of that disagreed with Vic

No, I'm saying that your clarification of DaZur is incorrect.

[Deathlike]

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 10:31 PM, said:

No, I'm saying that your clarification of DaZur is incorrect.

I don't know if there's any more to clarify, considering what I'm inferring from response is "we know about it, and apparently that ghost heat post will suffice and not posting it elsewhere since 'you'll find out on your own'".

It is actually the most silly argument ever used for hiding ghost heat from the masses that... it would take the (K-town) cake!

Although, it seems like an initial response to "justifying ghost heat", but still devolves to "you'll figure it out".

Too bad, I don't think newbies will realize they are being punished by ghost heat and could ragequit when compared to someone else that knows about it and freaks out to thoughts of "what am I doing wrong?"

Edited by Deathlike, 07 February 2014 - 11:31 PM.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 07 February 2014 - 11:27 PM, said:

I don't know if there's any more to clarify, considering what I'm inferring from response is "we know about it, and apparently that ghost heat post will suffice and not posting it elsewhere since 'you'll find out on your own'".

It is actually the most silly argument ever used for hiding ghost heat from the masses that... it would take the (K-town) cake!"

Couldn't like just part of your post so I'm going to like my post in regards to this part of your post. Feel free to detract 1 like from me (that's if you've ever liked a post of mine lol) to even it out

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

Couldn't like just part of your post so I'm going to like my post in regards to this part of your post. Feel free to detract 1 like from me (that's if you've ever liked a post of mine lol) to even it out

Alright, I'll simplify it for you...

This is his response to Victor's overall statement of "could you please add some sort of heat scaling into the UI?"

DaZur, on 07 February 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

No.

Well, that's definitive.

Quote

I've addressed this elsewhere but the reality is virtually every single game that relies upon "data" to drive it's functional game-play mechanics, also manipulates that data in the name of influencing balance and or obtaining specific nuances out of play mechanics.

So, in essence, what he's saying is... people will be "utilizing this info" to "change their play". I don't see that as a positive or negative, but it would change behavior most certainly.

Quote

In the absence of knowledge of "ghost-heat" for most new players it's simply accepted as a nuances that needs to be learned and dealt with, in much the same way a virtual aircraft pilot learns to handle stall characteristics of a given aircraft.

So, we must just "accept it as part of the heat system"?

You know, back in the older games, there was very little mystery to the heat system. In MW4, a PPC would general X amount of heat on your mech, assuming you used the same chassis and same # of heatsinks... you could at least predict how hot you were. It would've been interesting to had mechanics that were based on how much existing heat you had, but nonetheless, heat generation was predictable.

The problem is, you'd have to find out if you boated the Y required # of weapons to trigger it. That is not exactly self-evident, particularly when the PPC and ERPPC are chained together, like SRM6s are chained to SRM4s. However, LRM5s are not chained to the LRM10, LRM15, and LRM20. In essence, it's all guesswork w/o smurfy's.

Quote

"We" who have been around for a long enough time to see what we had before versus post Ghost Heat implementation appreciate the impact because we are intimately close to it... can see it, feel it... In particular because we know it's there.

I don't know who "we" is referring to (white knights, or people who complained about the lack of heat penalties? It's not obvious). So, I guess it amounts to "space magic heat"? Seriously, even MW4 had some "documentation" about the heat scale, it unfortunately it wasn't in the manual... it was acquired through other means (looking in the data, and some published-paid for info).

Making it the "mystery" box is not good for the community... it separates the people that know (the meta-users) and people that don't know (newbies) further. Making heat penalties hidden is a very divisive mechanic on not just mech building, but applied skill/knowledge.

[ReXspec]

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 10:31 PM, said:

No, I'm saying that your clarification of DaZur is incorrect.

Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, talking to Sandpit and his circle-jerk flunkies is like talking to a brick wall.

Even if you present all the evidence in the world that prove there are fallacies in their arguments and ask for evidence of their claims, they will never provide you with them because they think they are always right.

It's better to move on, Roland... don't waste your time.

Deathlike, on 07 February 2014 - 11:56 PM, said:

Alright, I'll simplify it for you...

This is his response to Victor's overall statement of "could you please add some sort of heat scaling into the UI?"



Well, that's definitive.



So, in essence, what he's saying is... people will be "utilizing this info" to "change their play". I don't see that as a positive or negative, but it would change behavior most certainly.



So, we must just "accept it as part of the heat system"?

You know, back in the older games, there was very little mystery to the heat system. In MW4, a PPC would general X amount of heat on your mech, assuming you used the same chassis and same # of heatsinks... you could at least predict how hot you were. It would've been interesting to had mechanics that were based on how much existing heat you had, but nonetheless, heat generation was predictable.

The problem is, you'd have to find out if you boated the Y required # of weapons to trigger it. That is not exactly self-evident, particularly when the PPC and ERPPC are chained together, like SRM6s are chained to SRM4s. However, LRM5s are not chained to the LRM10, LRM15, and LRM20. In essence, it's all guesswork w/o smurfy's.



I don't know who "we" is referring to (white knights, or people who complained about the lack of heat penalties? It's not obvious). So, I guess it amounts to "space magic heat"? Seriously, even MW4 had some "documentation" about the heat scale, it unfortunately it wasn't in the manual... it was acquired through other means (looking in the data, and some published-paid for info).

Making it the "mystery" box is not good for the community... it separates the people that know (the meta-users) and people that don't know (newbies) further. Making heat penalties hidden is a very divisive mechanic on not just mech building, but applied skill/knowledge.

See my post above this quote.

Edited by ReXspec, 08 February 2014 - 12:28 AM.

[ReXspec]

Helmer, on 07 February 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

Just to be clear, my statement had nothing to do with the Ghost Heat system, but followed the OPs line of reasoning that it needs to be communicated to players. In cockpit, in 'mechlab, in documentaion, and in training videos would be nice.

As far as I know the only place that Ghost Heat is officially explained is here on the forums in a Developer Post. If you will take the Developers word for it that a small percentage of the playerbase ever visits the forums, it's safe to reason a very, VERY small percentage of players know of it's existence, let alone the mechanics.

This mostly likely has caused some confusion and frustration with players who very well may have quit the game never knowing why their 'mech shutsdown. Granted, in the past most (not all) of the stock trial 'mech builds have not had to worry about this, however, with the advent of champion trial 'mechs, like the LRM Stalker, it's more and more of an issue.
Then, there are those players who spend CBills on 'mech builds that turn out to be nearly unplayable and don't understand why unless it's explained to them.


Cheers.

Thanks Helmer. Yes, I am aware of what you were talking about, I was more referring to this.

I appreciate the clarification though.

Edited by ReXspec, 08 February 2014 - 12:33 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Deathlike, on 07 February 2014 - 11:56 PM, said:

Making it the "mystery" box is not good for the community... it separates the people that know (the meta-users) and people that don't know (newbies) further. Making heat penalties hidden is a very divisive mechanic on not just mech building, but applied skill/knowledge.

It's key that this is a major system in the game; not a minor supporting system, too. It's not as if it makes a small amount of difference or only matters to hardcore players; it's very easy to totally screw yourself over as a newbie without information on how to avoid it.

If it is here to stay, it definitely needs UI. A lot of macro using players would probably stop too, if they just added a simple little safe/unsafe light somewhere to the cockpit, too.

[Sandpit]

Victor Morson, on 08 February 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

It's key that this is a major system in the game; not a minor supporting system, too. It's not as if it makes a small amount of difference or only matters to hardcore players; it's very easy to totally screw yourself over as a newbie without information on how to avoid it.

If it is here to stay, it definitely needs UI. A lot of macro using players would probably stop too, if they just added a simple little safe/unsafe light somewhere to the cockpit, too.

that's part of the problem with PGI in general though. (It seems to be changing lately but only time will tell) I've posted several times that it seems like PGI enjoyed playing the "Teehee I know something you don't know" game like it was funny or cool. That's a horrible way to do business. In alpha and closed beta stages I expect a bit of that. It really seemed like even though they launched they never got out of that mindset though.
They would tease things, or say "big things" coming, without giving any information to players. They would make mechanic changes and then expect the players to make do by figuring things out on their own. it's a HORRIBLE way to do things, especially when we're talking about a game with such a steep learning curve.

The new player experience needs a LOT of help. Good documentation (in game not on the forums) needs to be included. Players were having problems understanding how to control a mech due to torso twisting and such? That's not a new players' fault, that's the company's fault for not giving basic tutorials and good explanations on how things work.

3PV to explain that? Please, I can explain it with a 30 second video and using modern-day tanks as an example. (torso is the turret of a tank, it aims independently of the direction your treads or feet are moving).

So yes, I agree completely with you there.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 08 February 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

that's part of the problem with PGI in general though. (It seems to be changing lately but only time will tell) I've posted several times that it seems like PGI enjoyed playing the "Teehee I know something you don't know" game like it was funny or cool. That's a horrible way to do business. In alpha and closed beta stages I expect a bit of that. It really seemed like even though they launched they never got out of that mindset though.
They would tease things, or say "big things" coming, without giving any information to players. They would make mechanic changes and then expect the players to make do by figuring things out on their own. it's a HORRIBLE way to do things, especially when we're talking about a game with such a steep learning curve.

They still do it, but that's besides the point. The PGI/IGP gamefeed twitch streams stopped altogether once 12-mans were added (all of them were 8-mans). It's because whatever the meta ended up becoming was essentially force fed back to PGI and it came out with the infamous quote "Paul, you need to fix the game" (or something like that).

So unfortunately, what goes around comes around... whenever it comes to changes to balance or mechanics. Just because they know what they added, it comes back to haunt them and then some.

Edited by Deathlike, 08 February 2014 - 03:06 PM.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 08 February 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

They still do it, but that's besides the point. The PGI/IGP gamefeed twitch streams stopped altogether once 12-mans were added (all of them were 8-mans). It's because whatever the meta ended up becoming was essentially force fed back to PGI and it came out with the infamous quote "Paul, you need to fix the game" (or something like that).

So unfortunately, what goes around comes around... whenever it comes to changes to balance or mechanics. Just because they know what they added, it comes back to haunt them and then some.

Ok?
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you making a suggestion?

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 08 February 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

Ok?
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you making a suggestion?

My point was... they do a lot of "marketing", like calling the next mech "controversial" to drum up interest in the game, which is fine, but not always a good idea. For instance... "big things in July" was mocked outright, because IIRC that month's whine dedication was the "new movement code", which essentially became "stuck on rocks" aka "pebbles of steel". I personally was not adverse to the concept movement slowdowns due to being bigger or whatnot... it was the weak/faulty implementation to make something like a pebble/decoration on a map, becoming essentially "a hidden stopping force" that affected play to a negative degree.

In any case, they simply have to stop being so "cute" with their ideas, and "do a good job the first time". Marketing will only enhance or exacerbate the issues that come with poor ideas, poor implementations, and poor execution.

Edited by Deathlike, 08 February 2014 - 03:51 PM.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 08 February 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

My point was... they do a lot of "marketing", like calling the next mech "controversial" to drum up interest in the game, which is fine, but not always a good idea. For instance... "big things in July" was mocked outright, because IIRC that month's whine dedication was the "new movement code", which essentially became "stuck on rocks" aka "pebbles of steel". I personally was not adverse to the concept movement slowdowns due to being bigger or whatnot... it was the weak/faulty implementation to make something like a pebble/decoration on a map, becoming essentially "a hidden stopping force" that affected play to a negative degree.

In any case, they simply have to stop being so "cute" with their ideas, and "do a good job the first time". Marketing will only enhance or exacerbate the issues that come with poor ideas, poor implementations, and poor execution.

Oh I agree here as well.
http://mwomercs.com/...se-information/

I've said as much. (Also for those that like to do the whole "Look he's a white knight" because he didn't jump on my bandwagon of run for cover from the falling sky and the "PGI never lets posts criticizing them stay up" thing in order to play the victim part better)

The two largest issues I've had with PGI (opinions on "they lied to me" aside) are their communication and professionalism. They don't act like a multi-million dollar professional company at times. I also understand that at the same time they are human and they'd like to be "part of the crowd" sometimes with their levity.

That's why I think the whole "PGI argggh I hate them" when it comes to things like Paul's latest "nerf" post are blown waaaaaaaaaay out of proportion. They seem to be getting better but as always, only time will tell

[DaZur]

Just an interesting observation...

95 posts in this little exchange of ideas and at best I counted two members that I might accept as reasonably recent players and not one.... out of 95 posts... not one new "green" player lending their voice to proclaim the existence and the mechanics behind ghost heat to be so vexing as to leave them dumbfounded.

Makes one wonder where the outrage is being voiced?

Edited by DaZur, 08 February 2014 - 07:53 PM.

[and zero]

DON'T WORRY GUYS THE ARBITRARY, INEFFECTIVE, AND UNINTUITIVE GHOST HEAT SYSTEM IS IMPROVING NEW PLAYER RETENTION.

lol.

[Roadbeer]

and zero, on 08 February 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:

DON'T WORRY GUYS THE ARBITRARY, INEFFECTIVE, AND UNINTUITIVE GHOST HEAT SYSTEM IS IMPROVING NEW PLAYER RETENTION.

lol.

Yeah, because so many new players get on the forums, and even the ones who do, probably wouldn't know about it if you Chicken Littles didn't bring it up every 30 seconds.

But I forgot, this is serious business.. (do I really need to finish that sentence?)

[and zero]

Roadbeer, on 08 February 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

Yeah, because so many new players get on the forums, and even the ones who do, probably wouldn't know about it if you Chicken Littles didn't bring it up every 30 seconds.

But I forgot, this is serious business.. (do I really need to finish that sentence?)

I don't exactly see how you are trying to troll me here as you simply reinforced my point.

[DaZur]

and zero, on 08 February 2014 - 09:22 PM, said:

I don't exactly see how you are trying to troll me here as you simply reinforced my point.

Interesting... When you guys drone on it valid... when we do we're trolling.

Like I stated much earlier in this diatribe, apparently everyone is welcome to their opinions around here so long as they align with the forum intelligentsia.