79 replies to this topic

[Moromillas]

Supersmacky, on 12 March 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

Well, at least you are comfortable in your ignorance and laziness. I am not obligated to provide information you are unwilling to get for yourself.

This coming from the guy who won't even take the time to look up the tons of easily found comments regarding the pitfalls of the 3/3/3/3 system. LOL

Actually, the onus in entirely on you to explain this. In fact, the easiest way to detect bullshit is to politely ask for a source, and just watch what happens, should they be stating something as fact. Why you can't explain something as simple as your position, is just bizarre, and this is for the OP. I can only suggest you stop making threads like this.

Supersmacky, on 12 March 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

you defacto support the idea of making public untested functionality.

Nowhere have I ever said such a thing. I explicitly said: "Just to be clear, we're talking about dev builds, and NOT releases."

Supersmacky, on 12 March 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

Are you really having that much trouble comprehending the flow of this topic or are you purposely being obtuse?

I'm asking for your reasoning as to why you think 3/3/3/3 would be detrimental, which is not an unreasonable request. And correcting you by saying that it's not fruitless or a wasted cost for studios to try a multitude of different designs, most of which turns out to not work. Your position on this is there in black and white.

[Supersmacky]

Moromillas, on 12 March 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

Actually, the onus in entirely on you to explain this. In fact, the easiest way to detect bullshit is to politely ask for a source, and just watch what happens, should they be stating something as fact. Why you can't explain something as simple as your position, is just bizarre, and this is for the OP. I can only suggest you stop making threads like this.

This is funny. So, because you won't take the time to use the search function or just read a few other topics, I am the one in the wrong. Too funny. Nice use of the word "onus" even though it is not because that has nothing to do with my suggestion. But, whatever. You don't want to educate yourself and would rather spend more time arguing, that's ok. This is like me telling you the definition of a word and you have the dictionary sitting right in front of you, but you refuse to crack it open yourself. Whatever.

Moromillas, on 12 March 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

Nowhere have I ever said such a thing. I explicitly said: "Just to be clear, we're talking about dev builds, and NOT releases."

And, again, as I said previously, I was not referring to what you said, but what the other poster said. You really just don't want to read, do you? Which goes back to your first paragraph. Even if I listed every single instance in the forums referring to the 3/3/3/3 subject you wouldn't read it. So, why bother, honestly. When you keep coming back and arguing about statements made in support of rolling out untested changes you are defacto supporting that position. Plain and simple. Otherwise, we are not arguing about pre-deployment testing because I agree whole-heartedly with that procedure.

Moromillas, on 12 March 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

I'm asking for your reasoning as to why you think 3/3/3/3 would be detrimental, which is not an unreasonable request. And correcting you by saying that it's not fruitless or a wasted cost for studios to try a multitude of different designs, most of which turns out to not work. Your position on this is there in black and white.

Again, myself and others have posted in detail their observations, feelings, opinions, etc. and you have complete access to look that up as a registered member. My point in this poll was to offer a suggestion of a different approach to the weight class limits that would provide a little more flexibility. That's all. I never claimed it was the perfect solution, would answer every issue or would with certainty be better than the 3/3/3/3 model. I think it would be, but that might just be me. I agree that studios should test out various approaching to see what works well and what does not. I have stated that already a couple of times. What I did say was that (using different words) it is a bad decision to roll out a make functionality change without first testing. Again, that was a reply to someone else, not you. The poster I was replying to when I said that suggested that PGI should just roll out 3/3/3/3 without any pre-testing because that was the only way to know whether it was a good idea or not. Are you saying that you think that is the way it should be? Should PGI roll out any functionality change of that scope and impact without first testing the change using a sampling of its player base? I think they should as it is due diligence on their behalf and shows genuine concern for their player community (the guys that pay their bills).

[Moromillas]

Supersmacky, on 12 March 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

This is funny. So, because you won't take the time to use the search function or just read a few other topics, I am the one in the wrong. Too funny. Nice use of the word "onus" even though it is not because that has nothing to do with my suggestion. But, whatever. You don't want to educate yourself and would rather spend more time arguing, that's ok. This is like me telling you the definition of a word and you have the dictionary sitting right in front of you, but you refuse to crack it open yourself. Whatever.

And, again, as I said previously, I was not referring to what you said, but what the other poster said. You really just don't want to read, do you? Which goes back to your first paragraph. Even if I listed every single instance in the forums referring to the 3/3/3/3 subject you wouldn't read it. So, why bother, honestly. When you keep coming back and arguing about statements made in support of rolling out untested changes you are defacto supporting that position. Plain and simple. Otherwise, we are not arguing about pre-deployment testing because I agree whole-heartedly with that procedure.

Again, myself and others have posted in detail their observations, feelings, opinions, etc. and you have complete access to look that up as a registered member. My point in this poll was to offer a suggestion of a different approach to the weight class limits that would provide a little more flexibility. That's all. I never claimed it was the perfect solution, would answer every issue or would with certainty be better than the 3/3/3/3 model. I think it would be, but that might just be me. I agree that studios should test out various approaching to see what works well and what does not. I have stated that already a couple of times. What I did say was that (using different words) it is a bad decision to roll out a make functionality change without first testing. Again, that was a reply to someone else, not you. The poster I was replying to when I said that suggested that PGI should just roll out 3/3/3/3 without any pre-testing because that was the only way to know whether it was a good idea or not. Are you saying that you think that is the way it should be? Should PGI roll out any functionality change of that scope and impact without first testing the change using a sampling of its player base? I think they should as it is due diligence on their behalf and shows genuine concern for their player community (the guys that pay their bills).

Your parable is a poor one. I'm not asking for something similar to a definition. I'm asking for YOUR reasoning, for the OP in YOUR thread, something that YOU made. It's not supposed to be a hard question, that you've danced around it for so long is just unsettling. You say, you're not a fan of 3/3/3/3 and think it would be detrimental, a "mostly negative experience," yet don't bother to explain why you're of this opinion. Why can you not answer this? Why would this be absent in the first place? And this is just the first two lines in the OP.

An accurate parable, would be asking an author that has made extraordinary claims in a book for something substantive, only to get back "Oh, just look it up." and "Then you're not looking hard enough." While at the same time becoming incredibly defensive and snide. Saying that I've not used searches to look for this is just a flat out lie. I've ALREADY looked for these remarks you're talking about, well BEFORE you mentioned to "just look them up." Expecting me to wade through hours of crap just to try and decipher your reasoning is just ridiculous. Like I said, the onus is entirely on you to explain this. That you flat out refuse to explain this, and become defensive and snide looks incredibly deceptive.

AGAIN, this is ANOTHER attempt at straw man, I did not say anything remotely like that. AGAIN, I explicitly said: "Just to be clear, we're talking about dev builds, and NOT releases."

Who told you that there wasn't any testing of this on the player base? Where are you getting this from?

Before you trundle on down the path of "we gave them money," let me tell you right now that purchasing from them, does NOT grant you ANY rights to the licence.

[Whatzituyah]

Finally someone who sees my way I just can see it now its like a chess board when you know the opposite team is going to have this many pawns, 2 knights, 2 bishops, 2 rooks, 1 queen, and 1 king. It makes it feel like a board game not a video game of course were not rolling dice, taking turns, writing down things, calculating, and etc but its just that simple. Simple makes it boring in my eyes I am a guy who likes to play risk, monopoly, and even battletech if I can find people to play with!

[Dramborleg]

Moromillas, on 11 March 2014 - 10:13 PM, said:

Please tell me you're joking. This is actually how the industry works, a lot of the things you see in video games are a direct result of testing of getting a swath of concepts into a build, most of which get dumped when found out they just don't work well.

If only they had finished all the testing back in the -- waddaya call it? -- oh yeah, beta testing phase so when they released the game it would actually be finished.

[Dramborleg]

Whatzituyah, on 12 March 2014 - 11:11 PM, said:

Finally someone who sees my way I just can see it now its like a chess board when you know the opposite team is going to have this many pawns, 2 knights, 2 bishops, 2 rooks, 1 queen, and 1 king. It makes it feel like a board game not a video game of course were not rolling dice, taking turns, writing down things, calculating, and etc but its just that simple. Simple makes it boring in my eyes I am a guy who likes to play risk, monopoly, and even battletech if I can find people to play with!

You might find David Sirlin's Chess 2 interesting. Rules on Imgur because Sirlingames.com seems to be down.

[Reitrix]

Supersmacky, on 12 March 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

To translate: let's just do it without any testing and see what happens.

Thus, my reply to that comment which let to your comment. So, it is really you that is not keeping up and creating straw men. My replies are not in regards to a reasonably tested product change, but to the "let's just see what happens" mindset of the original poster. I actually agree with you about testing and it was never my position otherwise. So, I would appreciate it if you would stop creating straw man arguments in order to try and win this one. Unless, of course, you believe untested functionality should be released to a public production environment in which case I thoroughly disagree with you.

The problem with using the Test Server is twofold. Firstly, it takes just as much development time to put up a functioning Test Build as it does to put it on the Live Server.
Secondly, There are simply not enough players who make use of or are even aware the Test Server exists.

The reason why i advocate shipping the 3/3/3/3 MM into the Live Build is due to that limited and easily manipulated player pool.

With the new MM system in the Live Build, you access 100% of your active players.
With the new MM system in the Test Servers, you access a couple hundred players if you are lucky.

On the Test Server, you are not only accessing a tiny part of your active players, but also at a very specific time of day for a very limited time.
It is simply far too limited in scope to truly assess the viability of the new MM system.

In the Live Environment, you can very clearly see (from PGI's end) the kind of drop class trends that would make or break the new system.

There are many times i would have preferred PGI use the Test Server. The new UI and DX11 could have had far more testing than they did. Weapon Balance changes should go through there like crazy. But those are the sort of things that small scale testing works for.
The MM System does NOT work in the extremely limited environment of the Test Server, and should be pushed onto the Live Server with a plan for quickly rolling back if the data shows that it wont work properly.

Finally, it is most certainly NOT exciting in random matches to discover that 8 of your opponents 'Mechs are Assaults. Yes, we will know there WILL be 3 Assaults on the other side.
But what are they? Awesomes? VIctors and Highlander meta poptarts? 3 DDCs? LRM boat Stalkers? Banshees? What about the Heavies? Will we be fighting BoomJagers or Gausscats? maybe a Dragon Brawler? Quickdraws? What kind of Lights are needingt to look out for? Locusts or Firestarters?

Scouting will be just as important for your team as it ever was. Not that many full PuG drops even know what Scouting truly means anyway.

[Supersmacky]

Reitrix, on 13 March 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

The problem with using the Test Server is twofold. Firstly, it takes just as much development time to put up a functioning Test Build as it does to put it on the Live Server.
Secondly, There are simply not enough players who make use of or are even aware the Test Server exists.

The reason why i advocate shipping the 3/3/3/3 MM into the Live Build is due to that limited and easily manipulated player pool.

With the new MM system in the Live Build, you access 100% of your active players.
With the new MM system in the Test Servers, you access a couple hundred players if you are lucky.

On the Test Server, you are not only accessing a tiny part of your active players, but also at a very specific time of day for a very limited time.
It is simply far too limited in scope to truly assess the viability of the new MM system.

In the Live Environment, you can very clearly see (from PGI's end) the kind of drop class trends that would make or break the new system.

There are many times i would have preferred PGI use the Test Server. The new UI and DX11 could have had far more testing than they did. Weapon Balance changes should go through there like crazy. But those are the sort of things that small scale testing works for.
The MM System does NOT work in the extremely limited environment of the Test Server, and should be pushed onto the Live Server with a plan for quickly rolling back if the data shows that it wont work properly.

Finally, it is most certainly NOT exciting in random matches to discover that 8 of your opponents 'Mechs are Assaults. Yes, we will know there WILL be 3 Assaults on the other side.
But what are they? Awesomes? VIctors and Highlander meta poptarts? 3 DDCs? LRM boat Stalkers? Banshees? What about the Heavies? Will we be fighting BoomJagers or Gausscats? maybe a Dragon Brawler? Quickdraws? What kind of Lights are needingt to look out for? Locusts or Firestarters?

Scouting will be just as important for your team as it ever was. Not that many full PuG drops even know what Scouting truly means anyway.

I get what you are saying and on some points I agree. Still, rolling out any functionality change without reasonable testing in advance against a group of real users, not developers, is better than rolling it out publicly. Real users always do things and find things that development and QA miss. In the end PGI may decide what they have is perfect and make no changes, but better to test with a subset of users that roll something out to production without doing so. Sure you can get the end product out faster if you forgo this step, but it generally provides for a lower quality product/experience in the end.

I do disagree with you about the time it takes to put up a test server. You already have the code, all you need is the hardware. They can image the existing environment to the test server(s) and then apply the code changes there. The time "hit" they would take is negligible to the dev cycles they will waist if they roll out untested/buggie code to production and have to try and address/test them on the fly. Left alone potential revenue that would be lost while getting is ironed out.

And exactly how many players do you think would be sufficient for a test of the 3/3/3/3 model? Having a hundred or so (probably less depending on your test cycle) committed to spending X hours for Y time frame play on the test server to get their feedback would be sufficient from a purely testing sense. PGI could even offer them some sort of incentive to participate (free mech, premium time, etc). Would that catch everything? No. But that isn't the goal of a that sort of testing. It is to catch the big fish--the things that are glaring that you want to avoid rolling out to your general populace. I am part of a beta test group right now that has specific times for specific lengths of time that we access the server and put the product through its paces. The code is already there, but the feedback of the test team will 1) make sure the experience is what the developers want and 2) allow glaring issues to be caught. They could just roll it out as is, but they want the best possible experience for the end users and minimal post roll out development work.

I also agree that facing 8 assaults is generally no fun. That is why, in part, I agree with PGIs idea. However, that is also why I made this poll about an alternative that would NOT allow for a match to have 8 assaults. There would always only every be 4 of any given class.

All of this is academic, however, because PGI is going to do it how they choose to do it.

I guess when it comes down to it I am an advocate for more options, not fewer. For more challenges, not less. For greater flexibility, not rigidity.

[WarZ]

PGI's class matching is fine as it is with one caveat. It should be :

3 light, 4 medium, 3 heavy, and 2 assault (3,4,3,2)

Then it will give some actual weight and dimension to the matches. Otherwise we are too close to what we have now.

[Lukoi Banacek]

WarZ, on 13 March 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

PGI's class matching is fine as it is with one caveat. It should be :

3 light, 4 medium, 3 heavy, and 2 assault (3,4,3,2)

Then it will give some actual weight and dimension to the matches. Otherwise we are too close to what we have now.

LOL

[GrandLocomon]

I don't agree with the OP because you'll always end up with teams running only 2 mediums. I think having some wiggle room is a good idea, but not like this.

Edited by GrandLocomon, 13 March 2014 - 08:35 PM.

[Onlystolen]

Lukoi, on 13 March 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

LOL

Constructive Criticism at its finest

[Lukoi Banacek]

Onlystolen, on 13 March 2014 - 08:40 PM, said:

Constructive Criticism at its finest

Aw c'mon man, that's funny. You don't see the humor in that? Seriously, lighten up.

[Toadkillerdog]

While I approve of the basic idea here, this system requires much better weight matching to reduce the effect of varied teams. For instance, while your proposed worst case scenario doesn't sound bad, just going by weight class means you could potentially have 4 atlai, 4 orions, 2 shadowhawks, and 2 jenners (team weight of 880) vs 2 awesomes, 2 dragons, 4 cicadas, and 4 locusts (team weight 520). That brings you to a weight difference of 360 tons, well beyond the limit for a broken game. Meanwhile, using the system they proposed with the same mechs gives you team weights of 795 vs 600 at the worst, with a difference of 195 tons. While this is still definitely bad, it's almost half the difference in your proposal. For yours to work, it would have to counter heavier mechs by giving the top of the next weight class, IE give orions to replace assaults and such, which I'm sure is much harder to program.

[Whatzituyah]

Toadkillerdog, on 13 March 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

While I approve of the basic idea here, this system requires much better weight matching to reduce the effect of varied teams. For instance, while your proposed worst case scenario doesn't sound bad, just going by weight class means you could potentially have 4 atlai, 4 orions, 2 shadowhawks, and 2 jenners (team weight of 880) vs 2 awesomes, 2 dragons, 4 cicadas, and 4 locusts (team weight 520). That brings you to a weight difference of 360 tons, well beyond the limit for a broken game. Meanwhile, using the system they proposed with the same mechs gives you team weights of 795 vs 600 at the worst, with a difference of 195 tons. While this is still definitely bad, it's almost half the difference in your proposal. For yours to work, it would have to counter heavier mechs by giving the top of the next weight class, IE give orions to replace assaults and such, which I'm sure is much harder to program.

Good point but I don't like to have a close match up of mechs I don't want a game to match class to class and ton to ton thats going to be boring I would like to see it be a random thing maybe like there could still be 3 atlas but that dosnt mean theres going to be 3 atlases on the otherside or something else exactly 100 tons.

[Egomane]

I removed some posts for being unconstructive and insulting flamebaits.

Please remember to treat each other with respect, even if you disagree on a specific topic.

[Moromillas]

Why can't the OP explain his position? Why should anyone take this thread seriously?

Not agreeing or disagreeing with any suggestion, I would like to know why he thinks 3/3/3/3 would be detrimental. It's not suppose to be a difficult question.

[Supersmacky]

Moromillas, on 14 March 2014 - 02:15 AM, said:

Why can't the OP explain his position? Why should anyone take this thread seriously?

Not agreeing or disagreeing with any suggestion, I would like to know why he thinks 3/3/3/3 would be detrimental. It's not suppose to be a difficult question.

I stated my position initially and as MY OPINION. It was clearly stated as a caveat for anyone reading the post to make the decision right away to read further or disregard. As previously stated, myself and others have written extensively on the forum if you choose to look elsewhere for it. If you do not, that's fine with me. Your choice. I arrived at this idea after doing my own reading and having discussions with other players.

I believe the 3/3/3/3 is too restrictive, will produce a less challenging and boring experience. I also believe it will ultimately not resolve any of the problems PGI states it is intended to address and will likely introduce new issues. This is MY OPINION which is what led me to suggest a modified alternative. There is absolutely no criteria to making a poll with a suggestion other than being a registered member of the forum. I am stating this again because you obviously missed it before. If you miss it this time, I can't help you. Agree or disagree, that's fine. Seems almost everyone else got the purpose of the poll so I do not understand the mystery here.

Oh, by the way, be sure to vote

[WarZ]

Lukoi, on 13 March 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

Aw c'mon man, that's funny. You don't see the humor in that? Seriously, lighten up.

Sorry Lukoi, it was a serious statement, not a joke. I actually think that will be a superior experience, creating more tactical situations vs the normal stand on line and hammer, which having an overabundance of assaults creates.

[Dan Nashe]

Restrict premades to 3 of one mech class.
But let the match maker build TEAMS with up to 4 of any weight class.
So if all the premades are dropping 3 assaults, there's room for PuGs to get into games!

You can hardwire a minimum of 1 into the system if you want.
(So worst case scenario is 3/1/4//4)

Remember how it works:
Now more than one group on each side.

Group size is limited to 4, so limiting the premade to 3 of one size doesn't limit the MATCH to the same restriction.
That would be true even if you allowed groups up to 11 (and only matched groups with other groups that are the same size, +-2 -- and if the group can't find a match, just kick them out of the system with a warning saying "insufficient opposing groups of sufficient size).

Worst case would be 3/3/2/3 + One Wild Card.

Although you'll still be able to guess what's on the other team, based on what's in your own group.