45 replies to this topic

[Agent 0 Fortune]

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.

[sycocys]

Unfortunate side effect of non-testing rage clowns to some degree I suspect.

(should be needless to say,but this isn't directed towards you.)

Edited by sycocys, 16 October 2015 - 06:28 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

multi tiered problem.

1) Non testing rage clowns
2) General community apathy
3) No tangible incentive to test. "Altruism" seldom works on the Intrawebz.
4) Extreme hassle. As outlined in my Topics. Since a huge part of the test is specific to clan lasers, was incumbent to test Clan mechs. Since I don't own any, had to buy a set. No biggy, it's free, tons of MC, Cbills, XP, etc. The you get to unlock all your skill trees in PGIs slow as mud UI. Same with Modules. Etc. Why? Because if you don't play them like you would in a live match, the info is useless. After an hour prepping Executioners, spent the next hour getting no match. Add into that things like people having to download it, and patch it, on limited bandwidths, etc, and you get limited participation.
5) Because those people using Premium time do not get reimbursed for time spent on PTS that could have been played live.
6) Because PGI is too thick to incentivize it by making it an event where players get to keep cbills, xp, rewards etc, which WOULD have drawn large crowds.....and literally cost PGI nothing.

So, yeah, like you, I tried it early in the week, and aside from having to relearn unquirked mechs, liked it.

But that is just a few WHYS that it is failing.

[Alex Morgaine]

Loyalty adder with the current (l) skin, make a unique hard point type that carries a gauss and (er/p)SLs and an AP :3

The skin should be incentive enough.
For IS, (L) urban 63 (p), with endo to adjust the ac20 to a gauss, and .5 tons extra ammo :3

Say, 6+(whatever # to get data they need) active drops where you get a match score of 50+ to keep people from afk farming

[Night Thastus]

When they add some rewards, perhaps more players will come. Can't make the game really grindy and expect us to lose valuable premium time/grinding time going into a server where we literally earn no c-bills or XP.

:c

[DAYLEET]

I tired of pressing Join and then go bake a turkey.

[BigBucket]

Too much in the way of rewards and the like would only result in excess folks playing for those reasons instead of the intended one. To help with testing and feedback.

You get practically limitless C-bills, MC, and GXP to help you test a wide variety of game mechanics still in the works. So even showing up just "to play" and try out some new mechs or builds will help with the testing by increasing server population. If this isn't something that interests you then no harm no foul.

Edited by BigBucket, 16 October 2015 - 08:27 PM.

[SkyHammyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 October 2015 - 06:33 PM, said:

1) Non testing rage clowns

I like this.
I like it a whole lot better than, "Ghost Damage."

[Bishop Steiner]

BigBucket, on 16 October 2015 - 08:26 PM, said:

Too much in the way of rewards and the like would only result in excess folks playing for those reasons instead of the intended one. To help with testing and feedback.

You get practically limitless C-bills, MC, and GXP to help you test a wide variety of game mechanics still in the works. So even showing up just "to play" and try out some new mechs or builds will help with the testing by increasing server population. If this isn't something that interests you then no harm no foul.

Player verbal feedback is usually overrated anyhow. Most players are bad at it, if they bother at all. More players means more data and telemetry, and THAT is the real goal of PTS and such. Player trends, and such, mean more than players opinions.

[BigBucket]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 October 2015 - 09:17 PM, said:

Player verbal feedback is usually overrated anyhow. Most players are bad at it, if they bother at all. More players means more data and telemetry, and THAT is the real goal of PTS and such. Player trends, and such, mean more than players opinions.

More players will tend to help with the testing, on that I think we agree. However, throw in a tournament or challenge of any kind and player behavior would most likely change. In my opinion, this would lead to more people playing only their "A" mechs and more people focused on gaming whatever rules the tournament/challenge had than actually playing "normal" matches. The end result is that we would still be in pretty much the same boat as far as comprehensive data goes.

I guess I feel that if the privilege of getting to preview and critique what the developers are cooking up for us plus have nearly unlimited in game resources to play around with isn't enough incentive then nobody is being forced to play PTS.

[Bishop Steiner]

BigBucket, on 18 October 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

More players will tend to help with the testing, on that I think we agree. However, throw in a tournament or challenge of any kind and player behavior would most likely change. In my opinion, this would lead to more people playing only their "A" mechs and more people focused on gaming whatever rules the tournament/challenge had than actually playing "normal" matches. The end result is that we would still be in pretty much the same boat as far as comprehensive data goes.

I guess I feel that if the privilege of getting to preview and critique what the developers are cooking up for us plus have nearly unlimited in game resources to play around with isn't enough incentive then nobody is being forced to play PTS.

True, but even playing one's "A" mech gives invaluable data...because those are "A" mechs for a reason. When we see a trend for "serious" play of everyone pñlayign lasers for instance, the telemetry is telling us lasers are inherently unbalanced, or they would not see such heavy use when it counts.

If anything, that may be more useful than people playing randoms sample mechs because...why not? Trends are super important for determining what is good or bad.

Also, over the course of a weekend, let's say everyone enters it with current Laser Meta Mechs, but because of the changes to lasers and ecm, realize lasers are weak on PTS and shift overwhelmingly to LRMs ezmode to game the tournament? That data tells PGI that lasers and or ecm are overnerfed, and numbers need to be adjusted.

The telemetry is useful specifically because players are creatures of habit, who gravitate to the path of least resistance.

[Doman Hugin]

Not if the challenge is geared towards testing, could be as simple as play x matches with xxx type of mech on PTS, get a reward.

That way you are not worried about performance and can actually review the changes.

[Bishop Steiner]

Doman Hugin, on 18 October 2015 - 05:10 AM, said:

Not if the challenge is geared towards testing, could be as simple as play x matches with xxx type of mech on PTS, get a reward.

That way you are not worried about performance and can actually review the changes.

Performance actually drives trends. You want to know what is OP and unbalanced? Dangle a reward....everyone will head toward whatever is most ezmode to get it.

If MWO didn't have SUCH extremes between meta and non meta,. this would be less so. And true, if one for instance wanted to gauge changes to autocannons or srms right now, well, yeah, good luck with that.

[Sarlic]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 October 2015 - 06:33 PM, said:

multi tiered problem.

1) Non testing rage clowns
2) General community apathy
3) No tangible incentive to test. "Altruism" seldom works on the Intrawebz.
4) Extreme hassle. As outlined in my Topics. Since a huge part of the test is specific to clan lasers, was incumbent to test Clan mechs. Since I don't own any, had to buy a set. No biggy, it's free, tons of MC, Cbills, XP, etc. The you get to unlock all your skill trees in PGIs slow as mud UI. Same with Modules. Etc. Why? Because if you don't play them like you would in a live match, the info is useless. After an hour prepping Executioners, spent the next hour getting no match. Add into that things like people having to download it, and patch it, on limited bandwidths, etc, and you get limited participation.
5) Because those people using Premium time do not get reimbursed for time spent on PTS that could have been played live.
6) Because PGI is too thick to incentivize it by making it an event where players get to keep cbills, xp, rewards etc, which WOULD have drawn large crowds.....and literally cost PGI nothing.

So, yeah, like you, I tried it early in the week, and aside from having to relearn unquirked mechs, liked it.

But that is just a few WHYS that it is failing.

7) Communication need to work from both sides. I only see a single communication line and that's from the Community and not from PGI.

PGI really need to be more transparant about the PTS. (The ones Inouye wrote are far too small Which by any means i appreciate their effort so far regarding changes. But not on how, what and specifically why these changes are made. What Community idea's and feedback have been looked into? What kind of PTS proposals are used, and which not?

Edited by Sarlic, 18 October 2015 - 05:19 AM.

[Doman Hugin]

That is also true, but i bought leveled and built a couple of pure laser mechs both IS and clan in the PTS to test them, i probably wouldn't have done that if it was a performance type challenge, i'd use mechs I could utilize a lot better.

And yes a few replies to player posts in the PTS forum would have felt a lot more engaging with PGI.

Edited by Doman Hugin, 18 October 2015 - 05:20 AM.

[BigBucket]

Doman Hugin, on 18 October 2015 - 05:10 AM, said:

Not if the challenge is geared towards testing, could be as simple as play x matches with xxx type of mech on PTS, get a reward.

That way you are not worried about performance and can actually review the changes.

A challenge geared towards helping PGI gather test data seems logical. Can I change my vote?

[Screech]

They should have turned off the MM and removed the group queue from the PTS. This would have helped out a lot more then complaining about lack of turnout. Having people sit in an endless queue for hours on end is a sure way to make sure they never, and I mean ever, try to get on again.

[oldradagast]

sycocys, on 16 October 2015 - 06:27 PM, said:

Unfortunate side effect of non-testing rage clowns to some degree I suspect.

(should be needless to say,but this isn't directed towards you.)

Or, maybe we have better things to do with our time than redownload the entire game, play a bunch of matches that prove what we already know - the game doesn't need another idiotic and illogical mechanic like "ghost damage" tacked onto another random weapon system, and then get shouted down by White Knights who will praise anything that "shakes up the meta" no matter how stupid, random, or ill conceived the idea is. And once we're done wasting our time with all that, we have zero reason to believe that PGI will listen to any logical arguments against their proposals based on past history.

Edited by oldradagast, 18 October 2015 - 05:47 AM.

[Doman Hugin]

oldradagast, on 18 October 2015 - 05:45 AM, said:

Or, maybe we have better things to do with our time than redownload the entire game, play a bunch of matches that prove what we already know - the game doesn't need another idiotic and illogical mechanic like "ghost damage" tacked onto another random weapon system, and then get shouted down by White Knights who will praise anything that "shakes up the meta" no matter how stupid, random, or ill conceived the idea is. And once we're done wasting our time with all that, we have zero reason to believe that PGI will listen to any logical arguments against their proposals based on past history.

So you have no practical idea how these changes will work in the game, cannot be bothered to even try, and expect people to listen to you. OK. (where's my ignore list again)

[oldradagast]

Doman Hugin, on 18 October 2015 - 05:53 AM, said:

So you have no practical idea how these changes will work in the game, cannot be bothered to even try, and expect people to listen to you. OK. (where's my ignore list again)

The wiser part of the community has tried for a while now to wake them up to the core problem of the game - the pinpoint damage issue. Instead, we get an endless cycle of weapon specific nerfs that are inconsistent and illogical. The problem isn't specifically lasers, gauss, PPC's, or whatever the next weapon of the month is - the problem is that a "skilled" player can just click a pixel on the screen and drill a nearly instant hole through the target at long ranges with perfect precision.

Until that fundamental issue - which has plagued this game since nearly the beginning - is addressed in a logical and consistent fashion across all precision weapons, they will not really be solving the problem. Simple reading skills and a wit of common sense is all that's needed to know that the game doesn't "ghost damage" or any more nutty, inconsistent, weapon specific nerfs. I don't need to download the PTS game to understand that - if you do, that's your problem, not mine.

Edited by oldradagast, 18 October 2015 - 06:06 AM.