17 replies to this topic

[MauttyKoray]

Why does the PTS exist?

TO TEST THINGS

So the whole laser lock on thing that people went nuts about? It was the whole point, to test it, to see if it was a mechanic that would be viable in the game. There was no point in giving PGI such a ridiculously hard time about the mechanic when it was simply on the PTS, not the live server.

Its the same with all the other mechanics they're 'testing'. They're in the PTS specifically for that reason, TO TEST. Instead of making balance changes in the live server they can simply run the PTS and collect data/feedback without affecting the main player base where it matters.

So, next time PTS runs, instead of getting all ***** fitty and SPAMMING the general forum with GARBAGE POSTS. Try to actually be helpful, start a poll like was done for the laser lock-on mechanic. Use the PTS feedback forum under support/feedback instead of the General section.

MAKE HELPFUL FEEDBACK POSTS instead of just bitching and whining that you don't like it. (like people have been doing all week with the voting system instead of providing feedback/suggestions to change it)

Edited by MauttyKoray, 07 November 2015 - 01:38 PM.

[Juodas Varnas]

I liked the Laser-lock mechanic (it wasn't perfect, but with some changing it could've been something interesting)

[MauttyKoray]

Juodas Varnas, on 07 November 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

I liked the Laser-lock mechanic (it wasn't perfect, but with some changing it could've been something interesting)

I think a better mechanic for it would have been to only let lasers hit targets at optimal ranges without lock, and then when locked they could make use of their maximum range. Or something like half of max range without lock (with full optimal) and then full max range with lock.

Edited by MauttyKoray, 07 November 2015 - 11:24 AM.

[Monkey Lover]

I liked it, it gave the game more depth and made targeting/info gathering/team work more worth it. I seen so many people refuse to hit the r button it's no wonder they had to scrap it.

[MauttyKoray]

Monkey Lover, on 07 November 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

I liked it, it gave the game more depth and made targeting/info gathering/team work more worth it. I seen so many people refuse to hit the r button it's no wonder they had to scrap it.

I found that it made lasers far too complicated than what was necessary, having to remember over twice the ranges for lasers could get confusing. Something like what I posted above could have simplified the mechanic and possibly made it much more tolerable while still playing into the target/info gathering.

[Monkey Lover]

MauttyKoray, on 07 November 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

I found that it made lasers far too complicated than what was necessary, having to remember over twice the ranges for lasers could get confusing. Something like what I posted above could have simplified the mechanic and possibly made it much more tolerable while still playing into the target/info gathering.

I agree, I wanted to see more work go into it. In my view it needed to do less to smaller laser. Visuals or sound effects on the HUD for the range maybe even with modules. Increase visual damage from lasers on mechs would be nice.

Let's hope.they came up with a better idea.

[Elizander]

I'd still prefer No Lock = No cirts mechanic.

Monkey Lover, on 07 November 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

I agree, I wanted to see more work go into it.  In my view it needed to do less to smaller laser. Visuals or sound effects on the HUD for the range maybe even with  modules. Increase visual damage from lasers on mechs would be nice.
Let's hope.they came up with a better idea.

Well PGI balance mechnics is sort of known for 'blanket' solutions to things like weapon groups when it's clear that a more hands-on approach is needed to each weapon type in the general category (or mech category). Hopefully they'll do this with more meticulous detail in the future.

[MauttyKoray]

Monkey Lover, on 07 November 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

I agree, I wanted to see more work go into it. In my view it needed to do less to smaller laser. Visuals or sound effects on the HUD for the range maybe even with modules. Increase visual damage from lasers on mechs would be nice.

Let's hope.they came up with a better idea.

The visuals were there they said. I didn't actually look but they said the range displayed would change. So it would display the reduced range, but when you mouse over a targeted enemy the range would change to the higher one. It just seemed too complicated for such a small mechanic involving a single type of weapon.

[MauttyKoray]

Elizander, on 07 November 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

I'd still prefer No Lock = No cirts mechanic.

Well PGI balance mechnics is sort of known for 'blanket' solutions to things like weapon groups when it's clear that a more hands-on approach is needed to each weapon type in the general category (or mech category). Hopefully they'll do this with more meticulous detail in the future.

Hence the PTS sessions. They stated before the first one that they were going to run a bunch of PTS sessions testing a ton of different things, armor, weapons, mechanics, etc, so that they didn't have to make changes to the live servers and disrupt gameplay. They also stated that many of the changes would probably never make it to the live servers once the entire series of PTS sessions (again which they stated had no 'end' until balance was fully done) ended anyway.

[WarZ]

I sincerely doubt if even 5% of the people on the forums here whining and crying about laser lock, went on PTS and actually played with it. Most just b****ed it down because they hated the idea, without trying it.

Sure it was a poor idea, and I didn't like it in concept. However on test, I really didn't care that much, except for the fact that you got ZERO hit notices on any weapon without lock (not just lasers). The hit indicator is a big deal and highly useful tool. Effectively removing it from half of your shots was not a great idea.

But the volume of crying did not come from going to PTS. Just from general bitching of those who didn't like the idea / any change to their meta.

For a suggestion, I encourage them to nerf laser ranges instead to achieve the result they sought.

[MauttyKoray]

They did nerf laser range (at least on the ER models) and it successfully brings them inline with standard lasers while giving the ER a trade off for better optimal for more heat/burn time.

[Darian DelFord]

The problem is we told them the last PTS the ghost damage mechanic was the wrong way, and they did not listen nor even try to come up with a 2ndary means. So when it showed up for the 3rd PTS of course folks went ballistic. Especially when there are so many other and better ways to do it.

[Lostdragon]

PGI has conditioned the community to understand they only respond to rivers of tears and flames, so that is what they get for feedback.

[Deathlike]

MauttyKoray, on 07 November 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

I think a better mechanic for it would have been to only let lasers hit targets at optimal ranges without lock, and then when locked they could make use of their maximum range. Or something like half of max range without lock (with full optimal) and then full max range with lock.

I would've been OK with that. Often times laser vomit happens far past optimal range (because you can), so reducing the effectiveness of that would actually be more appropriate. It's not the same kind of threat.

WarZ, on 07 November 2015 - 12:59 PM, said:

I sincerely doubt if even 5% of the people on the forums here whining and crying about laser lock, went on PTS and actually played with it. Most just b****ed it down because they hated the idea, without trying it.

Sure it was a poor idea, and I didn't like it in concept. However on test, I really didn't care that much, except for the fact that you got ZERO hit notices on any weapon without lock (not just lasers). The hit indicator is a big deal and highly useful tool. Effectively removing it from half of your shots was not a great idea.

But the volume of crying did not come from going to PTS. Just from general bitching of those who didn't like the idea / any change to their meta.

For a suggestion, I encourage them to nerf laser ranges instead to achieve the result they sought.

I've already tried it AND hate it.

The thing is that in a 4v4 environment, it's very different than from an 8v8 environment... let alone the current 12v12 environment. I literally had to adjust my playstyle during that transition as I couldn't do the same things previously. It's not like the meta or weapons really changed during that period of time.

It's not even as if the concept couldn't have been modified in a more positive way, but honestly the game struggles to pick the Doritos that YOU want when your targets are clustered together. There's very little rhyme or reason to what the game decides to pick when there are too many objects in front of the reticle.

[BearFlag]

It true there's a lot of griping. But it's also true that PGI has specifically linked this testing with their "Balance Initiative." So it's not surprising the players are reacting strongly to test elements that may become live.

I didn't like the lock mechanic or the long range nerfs (yes I played). Both arbitrarily modify a table that has been sacrosanct forever. The table is goofy (full damage to half range then linear fall off), but at least it was constant. The latest PTS's have made it a variable and the forums have gone crazy with ideas to tweak it. Some of these ideas are even more arbitrary than PGI's - like the laser "minimum range" idea where laser damage peaks at "optimal" range and diminishes on either side.

I'd like to see PTS a more a casual test of various ideas. I'd love to test the straight linear decay of lasers from origin point, for example. Big laser nerf that need not be combined with any other effect. What about the CoF that many support?

Any way, I hope Russ was serious about running frequent tests. They need not all carry the possibility of near term implementation. Just test and see what happens.

[Mystere]

WarZ, on 07 November 2015 - 12:59 PM, said:

Sure it was a poor idea, and I didn't like it in concept. However on test, I really didn't care that much, except for the fact that you got ZERO hit notices on any weapon without lock (not just lasers). The hit indicator is a big deal and highly useful tool. Effectively removing it from half of your shots was not a great idea.

Here is some food for thought. How can your Mech know you hit something if what you hit was not targeted?

I say that's a small but still nice touch in the Information Warfare aspect. As such, if there is anything in the locking mechanic that needs to be moved to the live environment, it is this.

Edited by Mystere, 07 November 2015 - 05:37 PM.

[Jman5]

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[Lostdragon]

Jman5, on 07 November 2015 - 06:15 PM, said:

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

https://youtu.be/LN1SXkfOAyU