15 replies to this topic

[Spleenslitta]

There is no need for the beta testers to respond in person to these requests or their results since they would break the NDA if they did.
This is not a thread to discuss things. No discussion. Only requests. The beta testers shouldn't reply with PM's or anything else.
Just perform the requested tests and report their findings to the developers which is the normal activity of a beta tester.

So what is this about? - Most of us are not in beta but have certain concerns regarding this and that.
Things that we would have tested out if we were in beta ourselves.
This is where we request that the beta testers do this on our behalf so that when we finally get to play the game our concerns have been seen to.

For example-

-The AC 2 has never been a very popular weapon so i was concerned it might not receive enough beta testing.
A lot of fans are concerned about the AC 2's firepower through it's high firerate when comparing it to the other weapons such as the PPC and the ER PPC since they weigh mostly the same.

AC 2 weighs 6 tons + ammo. ER PPC/PPC 7 tons. Is the firerate of the AC 2 enough to make up for it's low powered induvidual shot?
Could a beta tester test the AC 2 and make certain that it is balanced when the rest of us get to play?


Again i state that there is no need for the beta testers to respond here and say they are testing it out or the results of their tests.
Furthermore this thread is not meant to be a place where we discuss anything. It's only meant to handle these requests.
Nothing more.

Just pick up requests and see to it that when we arrive to the battlefields of MW:O it truly is the paradise of constant warfare that we always dreamed of.

Any other requests?

Edited by Spleenslitta, 28 June 2012 - 06:32 PM.

[SinnerX]

Please make sure the game is fun and keep my seat warm.

That's all I can think of.

[Five by Five]

You got me thinking about weapons balance,.... I'm sure several of us think about weapon balance occasionally.

But there is a problem using people's raw subjective perceptions (as relayed through form posts, email, message boards, ect..) and occasional anecdotal in-game situations, mainly being, well, it is subjective.

Now, there is a pretty good way to use players' subjective perceptions objectively, and that is to collect weapon usage stats. How many times does a weapon type drop into a match, on what maps, is it a stock config or custom config, class of mech? Just some example dimensions to check, there are more, potentially a lot more depending on what kind of factors/analysis the devs want to examine.

But basically, if the community almost never touches a weapon on any map type, then it is probably under powered, and if you see a weapon dominating the usage status on all map types, it might be over powered.

The main concept is once the initial "gut-feel" balancing is done, collect enough data to use numbers to tune the balance to avoid or correct accidental nerfing and/or overpowering.

Edited by Five by Five, 28 June 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[Spleenslitta]

Five by Five, on 28 June 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

You got me thinking about weapons balance,.... I'm sure several of us think about weapon balance occasionally.

But there is a problem using people's raw subjective perceptions (as relayed through form posts, email, message boards, ect..) and occasional anecdotal in-game situations, mainly being, well, it is subjective.

Now, there is a pretty good way to use players' subjective perceptions objectively, and that is to collect weapon usage stats. How many times does a weapon type drop into a match, on what maps, is it a stock config or custom config, class of mech? Just some example dimensions to check, there are more, potentially a lot more depending on what kind of factors/analysis the devs want to examine.

But basically, if the community almost never touches a weapon on any map type, then it is probably under powered, and if you see a weapon dominating the usage status on all map types, it might be over powered.

The main concept is once the initial "gut-feel" balancing is done, collect enough data to use numbers to tune the balance to avoid or correct accidental nerfing and/or overpowering.

I must be missunderstanding something. You got me confused. English is my 2nd language you see.
I didn't urge the beta testers to give us answers through Email or that kinda stuff.

Could you explain things in a more simplified way? I just don't understand this request....if i don't understand a beta tester might not either.

[Corpsecandle]

He's trying to say that passive metrics (how often due people use this weapon in combat?) may be more valuable than direct user feedback.

To which I may have to disagree. In a beta like this, only a small portion of the population will actually be running with "optimal" rigs. They'll probably focus on what's shiny rather than the actual numbers. So passive data collection wouldn't be all that valuable in this situation.

[Five by Five]

Closed Beta testers play, Devs collect stats. Open Beta testers play, Devs collect stats. Everybody plays, Devs collect stats. Stats used by Devs to validate if their concept for a weapon's usefulness is being met, or if they need to adjust weapons to bring them into intended balance.

What I'm saying is, if the beta testers are choosing not to play a weapon (and later the community as a whole), especially in situations where the devs thought/think it should be used, then that is an indication of balance failure.

[Lokust]

I honestly almost think that to make the AC/2 work they would have to deviate from the tabletop values, especially for tonnage. AC/5's always seemed like such a better buy. AC/2's always felt kinda like wasted space on the tabletop.

Edited by Lokust, 28 June 2012 - 05:23 PM.

[Kraskiez]

Weapon balance is not being looked at, currently the focus is on finding bugs, errors, hit box fails, etc. Game play tweaks are going to come later I assume in an open beta, though this hasn't stopped immense discussion on balance issues.

[Five by Five]

Corpsecandle, on 28 June 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

To which I may have to disagree. In a beta like this, only a small portion of the population will actually be running with "optimal" rigs. They'll probably focus on what's shiny rather than the actual numbers. So passive data collection wouldn't be all that valuable in this situation.

Well, your right about the early beta tester not running optimal rigs. Still, they will improve their load over time. Also as the size of the test group expands and we go into open play. And that is the problem with passive stats, it can take time for trends to emerge, especially if the devs have done a good job with the initial balancing. But, the good side of waiting for the trends to emerge is avoiding making large changes to weapon balance before players have had time to explore the optimal loads. Once a balance change is made, it will again take sometime for the new optimal layouts to emerge. Thus, hopefully (I'm assuming a good initial balance) changes can be smaller and made less often.

I remember in the MW4 open beta, pulse lasers where used in the first couple of days and then very quickly disappeared, they were way too underpowered. So, in the case were a weapon's balance is really off, even the early beta testers are likely to find it.

Lokust, on 28 June 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

I honestly almost think that to make the AC/2 work they would have to deviate from the tabletop values, especially for tonnage. AC/5's always seemed like such a better buy.

Well, that is why I included the part about using the stats to see if their concept for how the weapon should be used is met, because the devs may well agree that the ac-2 is worthless and meant to be that way except for a very few limit situations.

[Corpsecandle]

Ah, sorry if I made it sound like your metrics idea was poor long term...That is far from the case as the more people who join the more opinions there will be and passive stats will be the neutral party. I was speaking in terms of the Beta alone. So individual feedback is extremely valuable in a Beta environment, but metrics become king in a live environment. The OP made a request of beta testers, so that's where I directed my focus.

[Tterrag]

Make sure that melting an atlas's face with a light is possible if you would.

[Broad5ide]

Even if the AC2 is under powered at Release it's not like it can't be fixed later. If for some reason beta testers fail to address the balance of your favorite weapon, bring it up when you get into open/closed beta or even at release if it takes that long. Ideally devs will never stop listening to user input.

[Mallet]

Seriously though, of the testers, what percentage do you think are actually testing the product vs playing because they can. I would bet it's 50% testing, 50% other.

[Spleenslitta]

Corpsecandle, on 28 June 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

He's trying to say that passive metrics (how often due people use this weapon in combat?) may be more valuable than direct user feedback.

To which I may have to disagree. In a beta like this, only a small portion of the population will actually be running with "optimal" rigs. They'll probably focus on what's shiny rather than the actual numbers. So passive data collection wouldn't be all that valuable in this situation.

Thank you for clarifying things for me.

[Spleenslitta]

There is one thing i would request of you guys. With all due respect i didn't want this to be a thread were we discuss and make theories on weapon balance.
It's just a thread were we put up requests for tests. I will edit this in the OP.

[Zorob]

The A/C 2 main purpose was to provide Mechs assigned to AA lances to help fight off the aeroships and the VTOLs in the board game. If the Devs are going to bring thoses in later in the game you might need them then. This is a big if!