Jak Darren, on 06 May 2014 - 06:55 PM, said:
Taken from Dev Blog 0:
"The initial ideas revolved around revitalizing or rebooting the series by focusing on two areas:[/color]
- Increasing the overall graphical fidelity of the entire game, especially the BattlMechs.
- Solve some of the long standing gameplay issues from previous MechWarrior games.
From these two key areas, early design pillars emerged in the form of:[/color]- Urban Combat to address circle strafing and long range sniping.
- Dynamic Battlefield further expanded on the concepts of Urban Combat and mechs having roles.
- Dynamic pacing, introduced an early version of one of the final pillars, Information Warfare."
Taken from Official Developer Update, June 15th, 2012:
"We expect to have each of the features we have announced and discussed on the website (with one exception), in the game by the Open Beta date (which cannot yet be announced other than Summer 2012).
The one exception is the Community Warfare pillar which is a complex system but extremely important. In not wanting to delay the game, logic dictates it be added post-launch. Once fans are completely familiar with creating their 'Mech and pilot trees, the depth of Community Warfare will be added, with the core of the community experience projected to be in-game within 90 days of open beta."
I want your original design pillars.
I want roles. ACTUAL roles. I want Information Warfare. Not ECM bubbles.
I want Community Warfare. Something that was PROMISED to us by the END of 2012.
I WANT WHAT YOU SAID YOU'D DELIVER.
WE TRUSTED YOU. YOU CANT EVEN PATCH IN A LOBBY SYSTEM CORRECTLY.
THIS IS NOT MECHWARRIOR, THIS IS COUNTER STRIKE IN MECHS. YOU HAVE NOT ADDED AN *ACTUAL* GAME MODE FOR TWO YEARS. "Walk forward and shoot each other and pretend the base matters in a slightly different way" IS NOT A GAME MODE.
I CANNOT BELIEVE INVESTORS STILL HAVE FAITH IN YOUR ABILITIES.Thank you, Jak. Your level of frustration matches my own, and I hope and pray PGI will actually pay attention. I have asked, several times, especially to the Support folks, whether PGI are actually paying attention or not. The answer I get is 'yes, they're paying attention', and I understand that not every suggestion being made can be set in place, or the game would be a monster. However, I never receive any sort of response to any suggestion I have made, WHICH IS IN-LINE WITH BATTLETECH AND I'VE PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION FOR HOW IT COULD BE USED IN-GAME, nor do I see responses to the GREAT and AWESOME suggestions made by others, even if I don't agree with the suggestion, in general. So, if they are paying attention, I would like to see an outline of whatever is getting ready to be used, and who made the suggestion for it.
Oh, and I would love to see the things you mentioned in your post, above.
Bilbo, on 22 May 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:
I'm not really convinced that Elo isn't working.
The problem, Bilbo, is one of range... PGI have set up a closed in range for a conceptual ranking tool that was meant to be used to rank players one-on-one, not teams. The range, as has been discussed plenty of times, is 2800, with starter pilots set to be 1500 for all players, with a reset once the Cadet games have been completed, and an initial game-range of 1300 which, after a few seconds begins to expand and can go out to the entire range of 2800. This means it's scooping up all pilots -crap, mediocre, and great- that it can find though, more often than not, you're either going to end up in a game where you're finding a lot more crap pilots or you're finding a lot more great pilots. Either way has been proving, at least since last September when I began playing, again, to end in ROFL-Stomps, whether you're on the stomping team, or being stomped, because of the PUGgies being picked up. Every game is a new episode of Gilligan's Island, with the PUGStone cops, and it's beginning to become tiring.
The means to determine piloting and gunnery skill in this game already exists, in the hit percentages of weapon types used, in the maps that have been played and the wins/losses represented by each of those, and the wins/losses represented for the 'Mechs you run. Whether your PUGgies are responsible for determining changes in your Elo is irrelevant for three reasons:
1) You are responsible for how you do in the game. If you're left out in the middle, when you were just in your group, your situational awareness is crap, and you deserve to get hammered. If you find yourself in front of the group you're presently fighting with, rather than being abreast of them, fighting alongside them, you're going to be focused, and you deserve to get hammered.
2) Regardless of the PUGgies you play with, except with respect to having one or two players from the previous match possibly on your side, and even that would have a miniscule effect, you get an equal number of group types, whether good, bad, or ugly.
3) Your piloting and gunnery skill is determined by the type of gear you have sitting on your desk, what your settings are made into for your particular style of play, and what you learn to build in the game.
Now, while Battle Value was designed for a pilot driving a single 'Mech in the tabletop game, a MechLab-based determination, including solidification of BV (including game-determined PS/GS multiplier), game calculator can easily be made for each 'Mech you have in your inventory.
Thus, what the game needs is to get rid of Elo and introduce what I've just recommended. This would get rid of unnecessary weight calculation, get rid of Elo, whose purpose simply does NOT fit for a game like this, unnecessary weight classing, and introduce a simpler, and open, system where the game-determined PS/GS-modified Battle Value is dropped into a bucket and the match maker simply works to match up teams, within 10% of one another. This way, you can allow players to drive what they want to drive, drop in teams, and have open-ended fights -with closer values, as small or as large in private matches as they want to have- than what is presently available through all of this restriction PGI has set on themselves, and on us.
Cimarb, on 22 May 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:
The problem is that they saw that 84% number and assumed wrongly on what it meant. It didn't mean 84% of the population WANTED to drop solo - it meant that 84% of the population had gotten so fed up or lost so many friends moving to other games that they had no other choice than to play solo. Both of those are assuming that 84% is even an accurate number, as I don't think PGI has even clarified whether groups were being counted as a single drop or set of individuals dropping...
Unfortunately, until Paul and, by extension, PGI stop hanging so bullishly on Elo, we will NEVER see remotely balanced games. Elo is for matching off individuals, not teams, as it fails to take into account team dynamics, though team dynamics should be a major factor, as the value of the 'Mech being driven, except for weight, is not being taken into account. Battle Value would not require team dynamics, period, just a matching of numbers within 10% of one another for an entire Company vs another entire Company. Add and match... what's the problem with that?
16
This topic is locked
