Looking at this its a complete mess. But it can be cleaned up quite a bit but a few things need to happen.
PGI - really needs to be more focused with us on what, we are testing where, we are in the process, and what the long term goals are. I think the post from paul gave some insight to the balance decisions but currently at this time it doesn't reflect in the current PTS. PGI needs to explain hey these are place holders to test radar ranges etc and there effect on the game or how big of an influence weapon quirks had. If we have an idea of what we are testing instead of get on the server and give feed back we can make a more focused analysis of what we are working with.
We need to know what phase we are on and whats next. If this is just a movement test or armor test then we can start to look at it more objectively, if we know weapon adjustments are coming than we can look at this in a microcosm instead of thinking its final product. The main issue of this all is we don't have enough information on design stage, testing goals and what we are testing in a grand scheme to provide accurate feed back
To the players
Giving feed back is hard, we are emotional people and most people have some emotional investment in this game whether they want to admit it or not. Mw2 mercs is my one of my favorite childhood memories never did table top but i love the mechs etc etc. With that here are some things that can help!
Devs are people - Calling for them to be fired or put in a dumpster doesn't really help. If anything it disenfranchises them from you guys. Being an abusive ass to people does not help.
Ex : I can't figure out what they were thinking with some of the values - shows you don't see a connection between the values used or general thought process of the dev team - acceptable
OMG russ should be fired and paul put in a blender cause these values are pants on head ******** - Bad
Avoid direct attacks or name calling most of you aren't children and wouldn't take this at your job, so why dish it on someone else. Not to say they are free from blame but be civil.
Providing feed back
This is more difficult as we don't know a lot of information so its very very difficult for us to provide accurate information. But to every complaint add an explanation why.
Example - The huginn will be extremely weak because ballistics are too heavy for the mech to run effectively and too fragile that it cant' put out good dps with srms at close range without its quirks. The other variants can accomplish everything it can do and offer more versatility i think it needs to retain some sort of buffs to its weapons systems where its srm increase or mg damage increase. -Gives reasons why what can possibly be done what the over all issue is
Huginn sucks and no one will run it because its bad
-doesn't really help at all
keep things focused. This is actually a cultural thing. For some reason we Westerners like to make threads. (raises hand I do I do) but if you go to japanese forums, they have like 1/4th the threads(at least on the official forums get them in a 4chan style thing and they go ham but thats neither here nor there_ and have a few extremely large threads where people discuss things. Please keep from making redundant threads all it does is spread information around and makes less cohesion.
I hope this helps on both ends, cause I want this to be successful, and ideally if we both work hand in hand to make this work but some steps need to be taken to get to that situation to make it effective. Have a good day ^^b


How To Have A Successful Pts And Give Feed Back
Started by Crosell, Sep 12 2015 01:07 PM
4 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 12 September 2015 - 01:07 PM
#2
Posted 12 September 2015 - 01:11 PM
Ya without knowing what is being tested and the basic plan. I don't want to give any mech feedback. I will just play a few games and wait until the next test.
Edited by Monkey Lover, 12 September 2015 - 02:55 PM.
#3
Posted 12 September 2015 - 02:23 PM
I think the players who are asking for Paul to find other work have a legitimate reason for saying this. He has been responsible for some of the most hated decisions and mechanics in the game and I believe this is driving people away. Paul may be a great guy but I personally don't think he is the right person to be in the role he is in for MWO and I've felt that way for some time. The current balance pass reinforces this opinion.
#4
Posted 12 September 2015 - 02:51 PM
Here's the problem with the approach they are using. They literally changed EVERYTHING at once. Every single mech is somehow modified, without exception. Every single clan omnipod and CT is unique in some way. I have over 120 mechs that I own and there is no way I can go through every single combination and permutation of build to find what's OP and underpowered and downright broken. This is a herculean task that even thousands of disorganized players all participating cannot help PGI much with, because they will generate thousands upon thousands of duplicate posts, directly opposing or conflicting opinions, and at the end of the day it just becomes absolute information overload for PGI. There needs to be some kind of method to their madness of how to take feedback, and it needs to be the kind of feedback where one or two loud voices don't dominate the discussion, but instead the voice of the playerbase is heard in a much more objective way. You could have the current quirk set on the PTS for a month before going live, and after that people would still be finding broken things, overpowered things, and underpowered things.
Perhaps if PGI did it like they did the champion mech rebalance, it would help. Open new feedback forums divided into clan and IS, divide it again by weight classes, and then have a thread in each of those sections for each base chassis. So one thread for timberwolf feedback, one thread for dire wolf feedback, one thread for spider feedback, etc. The end result is that each mech will have more granular data that PGI can use and form patterns from to see mech specific issues, like the ENF-5P not being able to torso twist, AT ALL, to the bigger picture of what players like and don't like.
Perhaps if PGI did it like they did the champion mech rebalance, it would help. Open new feedback forums divided into clan and IS, divide it again by weight classes, and then have a thread in each of those sections for each base chassis. So one thread for timberwolf feedback, one thread for dire wolf feedback, one thread for spider feedback, etc. The end result is that each mech will have more granular data that PGI can use and form patterns from to see mech specific issues, like the ENF-5P not being able to torso twist, AT ALL, to the bigger picture of what players like and don't like.
#5
Posted 12 September 2015 - 04:23 PM
@sharlock
I dont disagree its a mess and we are literally wandering around with every changed and absoultely no direction on what any of it means, let alone its the weekend and there is nill communication. But as with that just because pgi dropped the ball hard core. The more i stand back and look at it the more I just cant make sense of it. Its a mess but explaining to them why its a mess to us can help hopefully.....
I dont disagree its a mess and we are literally wandering around with every changed and absoultely no direction on what any of it means, let alone its the weekend and there is nill communication. But as with that just because pgi dropped the ball hard core. The more i stand back and look at it the more I just cant make sense of it. Its a mess but explaining to them why its a mess to us can help hopefully.....
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users