795 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Pop counter was gone right at the start of open beta, as I never saw it.

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 07 April 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

So, AFTER they imposed the 4/8/12 player caps... got it.


Fair enough, but since the game has been longer WITHOUT group support than it's had group support.... I again have to point to AtD 34 when Bryan said most of the games players were in groups. Seems when they supported groups, that groups were the thing, and since they've made grouping difficult, it's focus has shifted to the Solo player.

And then they're "surprised" that most of their players are solo?

Exactly, at the end of Feburary, Group support is vital to Community Warfare (Bryan's words).
Then just one week later, we get this from Paul.


So, it's vital, just not THAT vital.

Meanwhile, organized groups hemorrhage players to other games that support group play.

Roadbeer, on 07 April 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

I want to follow up on this, and maybe I can give you a little perspective as to why you seem to arguing with so many "Fanboi's" (your words)

In that same interview, Bryan says that Groups will be limited to 2 or 3 in size in the public queue, but 5 days later in a detailed post from Paul with all sorts of graphs and images, that it still reflects the 4 player group.

So which is it?

Yes, we know the answer is likely 4 players and not 3, because...well... that would just be asinine to limit groups to 2 or 3 when the traditional lance is 4.

The point of this is that if the 3 at the top (Russ, Bryan and Paul) can't release a concise message, and be consistent in their statements, how are we... the great unwashed... able to do ANYTHING but argue semantics over bad information.

Another good example is that there are 2 conflicting DEV posts regarding CASE (I really don't feel like digging them up, but do it yourself, it's actually kinda funny).

And then, when the great unwashed DOES try to get information, we're either blatantly stonewalled or outright ignored.

Here's an example. When this whole nixing of the group thing came down, I asked Bryan on Twitter if there was a correlation in the size of ones friends list to the amount of MC they've purchased (trying to get a little bit MWOs data about how groups = money). Bryan replied that he could look that information up. I didn't hear back from him on it, so a few days later I asked if he had a chance to look that up, later that day I was blocked by him on Twitter.

Take from that what you will.

Sure, but lets be honest.

You made an assertion about the numbers being unreliable insinuating that the sample pool was small and slanted.

You were wrong, the sample pool is large and significant (well, according to the official communication anyway).

For me, when the basis of my deduction is shown to be wrong (and it happens) that's an opportunity for me to sit down and reflect if my deduction still holds water.

You also continue to allude to the only factor impacting on team play and the "stats" is the change to the cap. (You talk about "self fulfilment") Well I don't see that can be true at all. The game is a living moving thing and there are any number of factors that could impact on the statistics day to day. I'll expand on one.

Over the same time frame of the stats, the game went "live", it launched. Rightly or wrongly this is often a trigger for people to enter the game (be advertising, awareness or the "I don't want to be a test bunny" thought process). Lets use some numbers for demonstration purposes (CARE: I am not representing these numbers as accurate)

Lets say there were 100k founders. Now all those founders are supporting the game with real cash (different levels yes, but thats the general process of being a founder) They have limited use for in game currency. They are not buying new mechs etc at the same ratio a true F2P player is.

So at launch, the player population not only increases significantly, (lets say to 1.0m given PGI did trot out a 1.6m number at some stage) and a lot of those 900k "new" players are farming C-Bills.

This behaviour is going to increase the % of Solo Drops compared to the Team drops. Not only is the player pool larger (are therefore diluting the Team Drop percentage) but they are doing more drops too, further excasberating the analysis.

Whatever the true numbers are, the behaviour is going to be an impact on the ratio.

My point is, there are many factors that impact the stats and while your anecdotal evidence is entirely relevant to you, it's not the bigger picture. IMO, your personal experience which you shared with me seperately would be a major positive to your point and strengthen your argument. In respect of your privacy, I leave sharing those details your decision.

Now I take a best practice from your own posting style.

Have I flamed you? no
Have I said your overall argument is wrong? no
Have I said PGI is right? no
Have I called out a deduction based on a incorrect assumption? yes

You want to go back to playing the man and telling me how "perpetually dense" I am, go ahead. You may not even have to, I expect your 'fan boi's' will stampede each other trying to get in first

PS, imo telling the world that Bryan and Paul blocked you doesn't give you any credentials except amongst the people already critical of them. Every time you say it I reflect on how you identify yourself as a Troll, and I ask myself what you actually said that caused that reaction from them. For the "fence sitters", I submit to you it creates more doubt than it supports your cause.

EDIT: changed blocked word to supports in last sentence

Edited by Craig Steele, 07 April 2014 - 05:33 PM.

[Wintersdark]

And group limits came way after open beta started, as I learned to play vs. Closed beta 8mans with R&R. >.<

[Koniving]

Mystere, on 07 April 2014 - 05:28 PM, said:

With all due respect, you're going to have to point to reliable sources for those. Classified or otherwise makes no difference. Let me worry about that.

Reinstall the game. End User License Agreement authorizes any and all payments for services rendered, packages purchased, etc., to be spent on MWO and other projects.
But beyond that it depends on how reliable you consider any game news sites to be and how long you want to spend on google; no one's discussed it since the big forum reshuffle and all discussions on it get promptly deleted and shut. Even then any news is just hear-say as they rarely if ever provide proof of their own. So the only solid thing is written in lawyer speak in the EULA. Enjoy. It gave me migraines.

I should also mention that you need to remember that PGI has a publisher, IGP, which loaned out money, PR campaigns, etc., and is paid most of what PGI earns through MWO.

IGP then turns and funds other, similar projects such as and clearly listed within the EULA:

Quote

12. Included Websites. The Website includes, but is not limited to, the following websites, and includes the services offered therefrom:
1. www.mwtactics.com
2. www.mwomercs.com
3. www.sinsofadarkage.com

and I'm certain that list has expanded since the last time I gave a damn.

Edited by Koniving, 07 April 2014 - 05:45 PM.

[RG Notch]

Roadbeer, on 07 April 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

No. There are some great and hard-working Devs doing what they can with this game. Albert and Karl come to mind just off the top of my head. Kyle does great with the site when a problem comes up. You're only as good as your management.

Unfortunately, those who need to be shuffled down the road are the ones who make the decisions of who to shuffle down the road.

Duh, that's why you get rid of everyone and get a new developer.

[Koniving]

InRev, on 07 April 2014 - 05:28 PM, said:

Forgive me for the threadjack, but wtf happened? Shouldn't a game look better after 2 years if development and not worse than an early beta build?

What happened is the "Free to play community."

As stated by Bryan (paraphrased) at some point: Most of our users are low-end specs.
Thus optimizations have been geared toward them over and over and over and over again.

[Craig Steele]

RG Notch, on 07 April 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

Duh, that's why you get rid of everyone and get a new developer.

What abut the money?

Try and tell an investor that you want their millions to restart a failed game or tell the founders to stump up again for a new process.

I doubt you're going to get far personally with this option.

[no one]

RG Notch, on 07 April 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

Duh, that's why you get rid of everyone and get a new developer.

They did that with MWT. I don't think it worked. Keep in mind that the publisher is still IGP.

[Wintersdark]

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

What happened is the &quot;Free to play community.&quot;

As stated by Bryan (paraphrased) at some point: Most of our users are low-end specs.
Thus optimizations have been geared toward them over and over and over and over again.

what I miss the most, visually, was a pretty recent loss: per-mech damage textures that showed internals rather than just the pigeon-poop bullet hole decals we get now (from any sort of damage source).

I cried when they took those away.

[RG Notch]

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

What abut the money?

Try and tell an investor that you want their millions to restart a failed game or tell the founders to stump up again for a new process.

I doubt you're going to get far personally with this option.

Maybe sell the investors on the fact that you learned from the blunderfest the previous developers tried to pull off. As to Founders, I'd give money to a new team a hell of a lot faster than I'd give these blundering folks another dime.

[Koniving]

Wintersdark, on 07 April 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

what I miss the most, visually, was a pretty recent loss: per-mech damage textures that showed internals rather than just the pigeon-poop bullet hole decals we get now (from any sort of damage source).

I cried when they took those away.

You mean these damage textures on my Founder's Catapult pre-colorable retexture when it had the original high resolution textures that caused low-end specs to slow to a crawl with visual lag from its awesomeness as shot by Lordred?

Lordred, on 08 April 2013 - 11:45 PM, said:

Spoiler

Specifically images 3 and 5.

Also shot when "inverse kinetics" were in MWO, where feet adjusted properly to elevation so that when walking if there was a rock you stepped on the rock rather than flew floaty in the air? Those days? I cry then too.

Edited by Koniving, 07 April 2014 - 05:51 PM.

[Roland]

no one, on 07 April 2014 - 05:44 PM, said:

They did that with MWT. I don't think it worked. Keep in mind that the publisher is still IGP.

What's funny as hell is that you can still buy into the MWT founders program if you want! Gotta jump on THAT bus!

[Ransack]

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

Spoiler

Role warfare, alienated by ghost heat and a code of conduct that punishes role-related behaviors. Quite literally one of the Devs stated that "defense" of a base or structure can be punished if you deliberately stand on it to prevent its capture.
This for example had become a punishable offense.

As has this; staging an ambush.


Information warfare, completely forsaken by monotonous map design revolving around 1 to 3 choke points on every map. It could have been given some new life with ECM, but the erroneous implementation gave it Electronic Warfare Equipment, Guardian ECM, Angel ECM, and Stealth Armor all in one neat little 2 slot, 1.5 ton package.

Working monitors are promised after the return of knockdowns, which would be after community warfare, which would be after UI 2.0, which was to come in December 2012. o.O;

Engineers were made before the Founder's program. They have never been put into the mechlab though they continue to exist today within the game's files. The dude's even got a beard and the ugliest orange-red jumpsuit I've ever seen.

Heat penalties did in fact exist in closed beta. 80% heat and higher, you'd receive equipment damage to the following, one at a time, completely at random: Heatsinks, Ammunition, Weapons, Actuators (accuracy, convergence if arms. Movement, 'tendency to yaw' if legs,) gyro (no effect), Engine (only affects repair/rearm costs), cockpit systems (no effect at the time). At 101% no matter what the conditions, if you had ammunition it instantly detonated. All completely removed.

Repair and rearm. Needed some serious reworking, but kept things pretty interesting.

The graphics were a lot better back then.

That spoiler brings back fond memories.

[InRev]

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

What happened is the "Free to play community."

As stated by Bryan (paraphrased) at some point: Most of our users are low-end specs.
Thus optimizations have been geared toward them over and over and over and over again.

It just doesn't make sense, though, because free-to-play games can still look good on higher end PCs while running well on lower end ones, if necessary. War Thunder springs to mind. It looks amazing on powerful machines but it's still possible to dumb it down so that it runs on weaker ones.

Why remove top-end capability instead of just improving the lower-end? :-\

[Roland]

I remember when you could actually see shit on Forest Colony.


I don't recall the effects of actuator damage... I DO remember that ammo explosions were WAY cooler than they are now. I've asked PGI about that, and Thomas said they are just like they always were.. but it just seemed like you heard ammo "popcorning" off in mechs a HELL of a lot more back in closed beta. I can't explain why this is no longer the case, although it could be because ammo exploded more back then.

[Koniving]

InRev, on 07 April 2014 - 06:01 PM, said:

It just doesn't make sense, though, because free-to-play games can still look good on higher end PCs while running well on lower end ones, if necessary. War Thunder springs to mind. It looks amazing on powerful machines but it's still possible to dumb it down so that it runs on weaker ones.

Why remove top-end capability instead of just improving the lower-end? :-\

Much of it had to do with breaking DX11 support at some point and an on going memory leak. But then it never came back.
Also consider War Thunder has an engine made specifically for it.
PGI had a very great idea with a piss poor engine for it. To scale, land-based combat in mechs over 5 stories tall, with pilots inside with visuals extending up to 5,000 meters so far, on an engine designed for a high fidelity visual experience in the form of a first-person-shooter engine on CoD style railroads where at any one moment that never, ever, pushes more than 300 meters with most of its details at 150 meters or less.

Add to that MWO is extremely processor heavy and still does not properly use the graphics cards.

But yeah this is off topic.

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

Sure, but lets be honest.

You made an assertion about the numbers being unreliable insinuating that the sample pool was small and slanted.

You were wrong, the sample pool is large and significant (well, according to the official communication anyway).

For me, when the basis of my deduction is shown to be wrong (and it happens) that's an opportunity for me to sit down and reflect if my deduction still holds water.

Well, your sources and mine differ on this fact, So I continued my argument using your data which came from PGIs public announcements.

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

You also continue to allude to the only factor impacting on team play and the "stats" is the change to the cap. (You talk about "self fulfilment") Well I don't see that can be true at all. The game is a living moving thing and there are any number of factors that could impact on the statistics day to day. I'll expand on one.

This is where you and I have differed in many conversations. The only way I can sum it up is this example:
You plant a garden and water it for several months, then you stop watering it and a drought resistant grass starts to invade your garden, then you suddenly are amazed that your beautiful garden is choked with grasses.

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

Over the same time frame of the stats, the game went "live", it launched. Rightly or wrongly this is often a trigger for people to enter the game (be advertising, awareness or the "I don't want to be a test bunny" thought process). Lets use some numbers for demonstration purposes (CARE: I am not representing these numbers as accurate)

See, you're already wrong here, shortly after Closed Beta is when the large group function was removed, so your "live" players and most of the Open Beta players had no concept that there was once a larger group function, nor have they really been provided with any tools to find one outside visiting the forums or in-game "spam".

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

Lets say there were 100k founders. Now all those founders are supporting the game with real cash (different levels yes, but thats the general process of being a founder) They have limited use for in game currency. They are not buying new mechs etc at the same ratio a true F2P player is.

What exactly do you think the Founders and Closed Beta players had by the time it went Open beta. IIRC, there were less than 10 mechs at the time of OB, and maybe 6 or 8 more by the time "launch" came around. Much of the modules and other systems were basically broken or ineffectual so to say that the Founders came out w/o a need for Cbills or having everything they need is somewhat ridiculous. Furthermore I'm completely lost at what any of this has to do with what I've been talking in about in 3 different threads with you so far, but let's soldier on.

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

So at launch, the player population not only increases significantly, (lets say to 1.0m given PGI did trot out a 1.6m number at some stage) and a lot of those 900k "new" players are farming C-Bills.

Actually, by Launch, a large portion of the playerbase had already become disgusted with the grouping mechanic and had left the game and the 12 player queue was already showing signs of being a ghost town. So the 1.6m number at this point is accounts, not active players, but I digress.

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

This behaviour is going to increase the % of Solo Drops compared to the Team drops. Not only is the player pool larger (are therefore diluting the Team Drop percentage) but they are doing more drops too, further excasberating the analysis.

Whatever the true numbers are, the behaviour is going to be an impact on the ratio.

Ok, we've gotten somewhere, however, none of this 'analysis' reflects on the fact that without group support and the fact that creating a group has always had it's problems, you attribute peoples desire to solo ignoring the fact, that for the most part, they don't know any better.

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

My point is, there are many factors that impact the stats and while your anecdotal evidence is entirely relevant to you, it's not the bigger picture. IMO, your personal experience which you shared with me seperately would be a major positive to your point and strengthen your argument. In respect of your privacy, I leave sharing those details your decision.

PS, imo telling the world that Bryan and Paul blocked you doesn't give you any credentials except amongst the people already critical of them. Every time you say it I reflect on how you identify yourself as a Troll, and I ask myself what you actually said that caused that reaction from them. For the "fence sitters", I submit to you it creates more doubt than it supports your cause.

I'm going to combine these two points as, I have made no bones about sharing the House Marik data to show how they have impacted groups with their decisions, and it was sharing this data,along with a long conversation between myself and others on Twitter that ultimately resulted in "spamming" which was probably a contributing factor. But believe me, I know people who have been blocked for much less. They don't like having uncomfortable facts show to them. That's why you don't see them very active on their own forums.

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

Now I take a best practice from your own posting style.

Wow, you do go on don't you? You're kind of all over the place here, makes it difficult to respond...

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

Have I flamed you? no
Have I said your overall argument is wrong? no
Have I said PGI is right? no
Have I called out a deduction based on a incorrect assumption? yes

Ok, this isn't my best practices, it's yours. You answer your own questions in an attempt to show you're being objective. In mine you'd have asked the questions requiring that I answer before you move on. It's kind of a trap that you fell into in that other thread, or maybe it was this one, either way, I got to use Algebra to destroy your argument. That was kinda neat.

Edited by Roadbeer, 07 April 2014 - 06:25 PM.

[Koniving]

Roland, on 07 April 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

Spoiler

I remember when you could actually see shit on Forest Colony.


I don't recall the effects of actuator damage... I DO remember that ammo explosions were WAY cooler than they are now. I've asked PGI about that, and Thomas said they are just like they always were.. but it just seemed like you heard ammo "popcorning" off in mechs a HELL of a lot more back in closed beta. I can't explain why this is no longer the case, although it could be because ammo exploded more back then.

Actuators were repeatedly reported as bugs; hence their eventual removal in my opinion. But I recall times when I'd put my arm crosshairs on a Catapult (no lower arm actuators, no miss-aim-ability) with a damaged arm, and have one ML firing WAY off to the left or right.

Lot more, due to the heat penalties. Health 'cooked' away on the ammo every time you hit 80% or above.
But in general there were a LOT more sound effects. Like here, listen to the SRMs. Not firing. Reloading.


Other graphical memories.

Spoiler

Here, watch the Asphalt when I fall.

Oh remember how streaks were OP cause they only went CT? Watch them in there. Now compare it to this.

Btw.. Old, never released computer voice. Also never released "Commander's" voice, now replaced with non-sensible beeps.

Now if you go under water, your mech frame is perfectly fine, but your 'glass' turns into cloth flags waving in the wind!
Moved the vid above out of the spoiler. It was from a "series" I started when I watched other peoples videos and what they complained about when it came to perfectly valid strategies. This particular one targeted a fact stated by another player that "battlemechs should not be able to hide underwater."

Edited by Koniving, 07 April 2014 - 06:25 PM.

[Ransack]

DUDE! that second video was EVIL!

[Roland]

It would be freaking tragic if they really did have things like actuator damage affecting your aim and stuff, but removed it because it was reported as a bug... Rather than simply explaining that it wasn't actually a bug.

I mean, that's exactly the kind of stuff that folks wanted out of this game... The only thing that was missing was some explanation of what was happening.