23 replies to this topic

[Dirk Le Daring]

There are some tears flowing about the changes.

I do not usually make a post like this, but feel it needs to be said. To those who refused to partake in the test.

Stop whinging about the changes.

There was a public test of the changes, a test you could have partaken in and thus had a say as to what you thought before it went live.

You have no reason to complain.

[Diznitch]

this would only be the case if everyone on PTS said they were ok with the reduction. everyone else has a right to complain since they were ignored.

[Jolly Llama]

Dirk Le Daring, on 01 December 2015 - 06:47 PM, said:

There are some tears flowing about the changes.

I do not usually make a post like this, but feel it needs to be said. To those who refused to partake in the test.

Stop whinging about the changes.

There was a public test of the changes, a test you could have partaken in and thus had a say as to what you thought before it went live.

You have no reason to complain.

The public tests have always been pointless as a method of feedback. All the way back to UI 2.****, PGI ignores problem feedback from the public tests.

[Xetelian]

I couldn't go on the PTS because I have limited internet.

Does it seem fair that I might complain about the skill tree nerfs when I couldn't test?

[Tuis Ryche]

I didn't need to log on to that test server to form an opinion about increasing the gauss cooldown. I do have reason to complain about this attempt at 'balance'. The criticism was aired well before and apparently ignored.

Now you get to hear more complaining.

[Khobai]

Yep and ECM is the perfect example. all they did was lazily halve it's range while completely ignoring all player feedback.

[Gas Guzzler]

Dirk Le Daring, on 01 December 2015 - 06:47 PM, said:

There are some tears flowing about the changes.

I do not usually make a post like this, but feel it needs to be said. To those who refused to partake in the test.

Stop whinging about the changes.

There was a public test of the changes, a test you could have partaken in and thus had a say as to what you thought before it went live.

You have no reason to complain.

You realize that not everyone's feedback was listened too right?

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Khobai, on 01 December 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

Yep and ECM is the perfect example. all they did was lazily halve it's range while completely ignoring all player feedback.

I still hold out hope that the real fix (the mechanical rework from PTS... 3, maybe?) is going to be part of their InfoTech Patch once that finally gets off the ground.

[Bonger Bob]

lack of people being willing to go to PTS to trial changes to then have their input ignored is what caused the problem we have now.

The main game IS the PTS now, and PGI still don't listen.

[Drunk Canuck]

Khobai, on 01 December 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

Yep and ECM is the perfect example. all they did was lazily halve it's range while completely ignoring all player feedback.

ECM range is fine, and it is so much easier to pummel non ECM Mech's with LRMs

[Jun Watarase]

State of every PTS ever :

Testers : Hey PGI this is a terrible idea, don't do it

PGI : Nope, it's going into the next patch/PTS with no changes.

[Khobai]

Drunk Canuck, on 01 December 2015 - 07:08 PM, said:

ECM range is fine, and it is so much easier to pummel non ECM Mech's with LRMs

It was easy to pummel non ECM mechs when ECM didn't exist so I fail to see your point

The problem with ECM is "lrms vs ECM mechs" not "lrms vs non-ECM mechs". ECM still stupidly hard counters lrms when it should only soft counter them

Edited by Khobai, 01 December 2015 - 07:17 PM.

[FupDup]

Contrary to what PGI tells us, the primary purpose of the PTS is not to gather feedback.

In reality, the primary purpose is to test hardware. They want to see if there are any bugs or glitches. They want to see if the game will crash, stutter, or explode when they implement a new change. That's it. Feedback is secondary at most.

PGI isn't alone on this; Blizzard seems to do the same thing with their own PTS sessions, at least for HoTS that is.

Edited by FupDup, 01 December 2015 - 07:15 PM.

[Nightmare1]

I did the PTS and said, "Don't do the agility nerfs."
They did it anyways, so I think I can complain.

[Jun Watarase]

FupDup, on 01 December 2015 - 07:15 PM, said:

Contrary to what PGI tells us, the primary purpose of the PTS is not to gather feedback.

In reality, the primary purpose is to test hardware. They want to see if there are any bugs or glitches. They want to see if the game will crash, stutter, or explode when they implement a new change. That's it. Feedback is secondary at most.

PGI isn't alone on this; Blizzard seems to do the same thing with their own PTS sessions, at least for HoTS that is.

Then they should make an announcement saying that they wont listen to your PTS feedback because its meant to gather hardware data.

I bet they wont dare to do it though.

[FupDup]

Jun Watarase, on 01 December 2015 - 07:15 PM, said:

Then they should make an announcement saying that they wont listen to your PTS feedback because its meant to gather hardware data.

I bet they wont dare to do it though.

No, because that would massively reduce the traffic of people trying it out. And as we've seen in the past, even now the PTS has a hard time maintaining an effective population for a week...

[Arandmoor]

Dirk Le Daring, on 01 December 2015 - 06:47 PM, said:

There are some tears flowing about the changes.

I do not usually make a post like this, but feel it needs to be said. To those who refused to partake in the test.

Stop whinging about the changes.

There was a public test of the changes, a test you could have partaken in and thus had a say as to what you thought before it went live.

You have no reason to complain.

IMO, people shouldn't complain.

They should offer feedback. If I was a dev who had to deal with a community this whiney, I'd ignore them too.

Why? Here's why.

When you listen to your community and balance according to whining, bitching, and complaining you get the following:

Complaint: "Gauss CD is too long! Gauss is garbage tier now!"
Context: Player pilots dual gauss sniper-boats almost exclusively.

Result of balancing based on this feedback: Gauss gets buffed or left alone. This player is happy, but the game is less balanced for everyone else.

What the devs need to do is balance based on the data.

Data: Dual gauss mechs average more kills than everyone else, but deal less overall damage than average.
Analysis: This is not necessarily a problem.
Context: Players who pilot dual gauss do extremely well in terms of kills and victories while in their dual gauss mechs. However, that same pool of players demonstrate a significantly lower average performance rating when outside their dual gauss mechs when compared to players in builds that only carry a single gauss rifle. Similarly, this average performance spike does not occur with other popular long range weapon groups.

Strangely enough, an unrelated analysis shows that gauss rifles also tend to run out of ammunition far faster than autocannnons.

Result of balancing based on unbiased data analysis:

Gauss rifles are obviously too powerful when paired. Single Gauss rifles see a bit of a bump over the average, but not nearly as bad a dual gauss. Reducing the rate of fire reduces gauss power, and also reduces their tendency to run out of ammo.

I'd rather have the devs analyze data and balance based on that rather than listen to the feedback of people complaining about their favorite weapons not being powerful enough.

Now, that's not to say that community feedback should NOT be taken into account at all. I would just prefer that the performance data come first, with community feedback being used to decide on specifics. For example, there are multiple ways to nerf the gauss rifle, should it be proven to be overpowered. Considering how many people are fans of the TT game, and would riot over Gauss Rifle damage being decreased from 15 to 12 (myself included), I think the RoF nerf is a good alternative.

FupDup, on 01 December 2015 - 07:15 PM, said:

In reality, the primary purpose is to test hardware.

It's also there to collect telemetry data.

The developer that balances purely based on forum feedback, is a very poor developer.

Sometimes the players are correct, and the balance feedback they give is accurate.

Most times though, players don't actually want balance. They want to win.

Edited by Arandmoor, 01 December 2015 - 07:24 PM.

[JC Daxion]

Well i for one, will play it out a while, and get to understand the new systems.. and give myself time to get used to it. Any change unless outrageously over powered will be thought of as bad to start..

down the road.. people might figure out new play styles and say, hey it's not so bad. But even 20 drops is not gonna give you enough time to adapt, when you been playing one way for 100's if not 1k's

[FupDup]

Arandmoor, on 01 December 2015 - 07:19 PM, said:

It's also there to collect telemetry data.
---

To be specific, telemetry data that rarely results in any changes from the PTS.

[Hydrocarbon]

FupDup, on 01 December 2015 - 07:16 PM, said:

No, because that would massively reduce the traffic of people trying it out. And as we've seen in the past, even now the PTS has a hard time maintaining an effective population for a week...

The last 2 PTS's had virtually zero testers. 99% of the whining was from people who didn't even log on. Why should PGI listen to those turds?

Personally I have issues with the some changes, but by & large I enjoy them. The first PTS was okay albeit scary for short-ranged IS mechs, the 2nd was fantastic, the third was fun too.



The BIG thing that everyone is missing: ALL MECHS had their agility nerfed. A global nerf makes your enemies slower too. Yes most IS mechs got accel/decel and twist quirks, but they needed it.