45 replies to this topic

[Burktross]

Amsro, on 18 October 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

I would test it, but I'm not interested in another 7 gig download. Instead of using the PTS, the changes should be patched into the live server for 1 week for live testing.

I'd rather it function like a patch.

As in, you have two folders:
"MWO Core" and "MWO Test"

The "MWO Test" files are only the files modified in the PTS. This means that if the only thing changed is the skill tree, you only redownload the modified .xml or whatever files-- not #^&#&* dire wolf models.

The "MWO Core" is loaded first, and then the new, modified files from "MWO Test" and loaded over it. For anyone who knows how Doom Modding works-- it's like how a pwad overrides files from an iwad. For Source Modders, it's how game directory files are loaded over .gcf and .pak files.

What we end up with is a faster, easier download, so that more people may be inclined to actually participate because we don't need to redownload the whole game.

Edited by Burktross, 18 October 2015 - 09:12 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Water Bear, on 18 October 2015 - 08:03 AM, said:

I totally agree. However I am not convinced the PGI uses the information they have intelligently.

There are a bevy of statistical tests and machine learning algorithms that could be used in an attempt to objectively balance this game (and many, many others) and I see no reason to believe that this game's developers use any sort of scientific or mathematical tools.

I have always had this complain about competitive video games; It's more of an industry wide idiocy than one specific to MWO, it seems.

Edit: Let me add to that that there are many, many places on the internet to hire freelance computer science specialists in fields like machine learning, data mining, and statistics. It would be completely affordable to hire one such person for like $90/hr for a few weeks and have them set up the data collection back-end.

I guess I'm saying that, in my ignorance, it shouldn't be that difficult a task to overcome from a financial aspect.

Or it could be, sitting on top of the total data stack that we aren't, they are interpreting the data different for other factors.

I don't claim to know more than they do about the telemetry for their own game, which is a failing a lot of the arguments on here seem to fall into. (Not this one, just saying) Is people make blanket statements, without the actual on the job experience to back it up. Even some of our departed Forum Intellectuals who made such claims, never actually backed it up.

So it's really hard to say. It's not that I don't agree with you, it's just there is so much we don't know. In part because PGI is still really bad about transparency, overall. But in truth, most businesses are.

rolly, on 18 October 2015 - 09:00 AM, said:

THIS. Hear hear.

Once the I read the initial change reviews of others and the general sentiment, I really don't feel any agency to participate in the PTS.
It is a waste of download time, won't get me anywhere and whatever I may think, the folks of PGI won't give a lick on my review, and will in all likelihood do whatever Russ or Paul fits with their personal image of how umpteenth reiteration of MW:O will be. If there was actual return and a sense of agency, (Ie. My contribution matters to the wellbeing, viability and growth of of this game, rather than what I'm willing to part from my wallet...) then perhaps I would have.

It wouldn't have hurt them to transfer over GXP earned, or say do another silly counting contest where if I did 100 play tests I get 100 MC or a free set of Clan ER lasers.

think you might have misinterpreted my post. I am actually wanting people to get on the PTS, just listing reasons, excuses, etc why they are not. Especially post 1....I'm actually calling most of the forum ragers buttclowns, for clarification.

[Water Bear]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 October 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:

Or it could be, sitting on top of the total data stack that we aren't, they are interpreting the data different for other factors.

I don't claim to know more than they do about the telemetry for their own game, which is a failing a lot of the arguments on here seem to fall into. (Not this one, just saying) Is people make blanket statements, without the actual on the job experience to back it up. Even some of our departed Forum Intellectuals who made such claims, never actually backed it up.

So it's really hard to say. It's not that I don't agree with you, it's just there is so much we don't know. In part because PGI is still really bad about transparency, overall. But in truth, most businesses are.

Your skepticism is warranted. As a grad student, I take for granted the knowledge of science that I have studied. (Edit: I also make this assumption based on the fact that PGI has mentioned how they do their changes sometimes, often by using community sourced "tier" grading).

Part of the reason I feel the way I do is the following. Statistics can be used to determine whether or not data indicates a departure from the hypothesis of "balance", which in the context of this game means whether or not using a certain mech or class of mechs confers an unfair advantage. For example, you could statistically test the hypothesis that using a clan mech does not improve your chances of winning.

Putting statistics aside for the moment, there are machine learning algorithms that have been used to achieve truly remarkable results in many real world fields. For example, machine learning has been used to develop the face-detection algorithms that you use on your phone every day, and for which the error in detection is on the order of 1 in a million. (http://www.vision.ca...viola04ijcv.pdf the modern technique, for the curious).

Taking for granted what I consider to be the obvious truth that not all mechs in this game are balanced, and that this game has a balance mechanism already in place (quirks), I tacitly assume that nobody has used the powerful tools of science and mathematics to balance this game.

Since similar observations hold with respect to other competitive games (fairly obvious apparent imbalance, born out by the few numbers that ever get published) I assume a similar conclusion about them.

Edited by Water Bear, 18 October 2015 - 10:37 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 16 October 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

After joining multiple PTS games over the last few days it appears that the PTS crowd has dried up. It is a shame because the PTS gameplay exceeded the Prod servers.

Agree. A new mech or piece of equipment comes out. Even better; a new mech with a new weapon system.

If I play 4 drops in it and say "it's crap because it's too slow/hot/heavy!" What is that opinion worth?

If I play 25 drops and have double basics, is my opinion more useful?

How about 100 drops and having tried dozens of loadouts?

You can have an opinion after 5 drops. You can have something useful to contribute after 25 and after 100 you can say you understand it.

Letting a few dozen people do 5 drops isn't a test. It's an opinion poll. We asked to provide input but we are not engaged in doing so. That sucks. I see a lot of potential here for both really good and really bad changes and would like to help point that toward really good. A lot of people talk about wanting to be involved in that process but getting 24 to show up is another issue.

At this point we should just try to set up private matches as we can.

[rolly]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 October 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:

think you might have misinterpreted my post. I am actually wanting people to get on the PTS, just listing reasons, excuses, etc why they are not. Especially post 1....I'm actually calling most of the forum ragers buttclowns, for clarification.

I agree with you that getting people on PTS would be beneficial. I don't think they are entirely excuses and echo a lot of sentiment at least for me. I wanted to add that in several of the reasons, the general apathy can/does stem from the lack of agency this community feels. Not sure if I am or fit into the classification of a "forum rage clown".

I do not see enough validation or acknowledgement cited by PGI staff to merit spending time on the PTS as I have while testing other games. Perhaps it does happen, I just have not personally seen a cause and effect relationship or hard survey data. With other games, when I did participate in PTS there I had more or less direct feedback and acknowledgement of my time, both extrinsic and intrinsic.

[MischiefSC]

Forum rage clown is a good phrase. If I can get out of work before today turns into tomorrow I will find us a mascot. I have certainly had my forum rage clown moments.

I get people not being interested in putting that effort in. Apathy is a reasonable excuse - it's a game, if you don't have enough ***** to give to test balance stuff that's totally reasonable.

My frustration is with my fellow rage clowns. All the rage over changes people felt were untested or lacked input, all the cries for pts builds, all the outcry for getting just what we got. Then nobody really shows.

Again, that's okay, but we waived any reasonable right to complain about the changes we get. Sure we can complain but that's just regular batching. We had a chance to create and give feedback on an iterative balance project but we couldn't be arsed.