512 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

AP514, on 28 March 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

In stead of fixing bugs these guys are putting out new content ( BUGGED )

Actually, they've been doing both; remember the netcode? Hey, big fixes there! There've also been bug fixes in patch notes as I recall. So, this is empirically wrong, and you have no reasonable basis for this claim.

AP514, on 28 March 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

They have dropped the economy ( Purchase of Ammo and Repairs )

Because it wasn't working; you'd end up playing other 'mechs just to be able to afford the rent on your Atlas, as it were. The economy was driving a lot of negative behaviors, such as people dropping into matches with arms still blown off, or with only their internal structure repaired. Since it wasn't working, PGI scrapped it, as they should - this is called "game development," and is a Good Thing.

AP514, on 28 March 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Knock down is out of the game and will most likely never return (Lights are love'n this )

Might I introduce you to Jenner Football? This was a highly abused mechanic and was removed because it wasn't working for the game. Again, this is called game development, and is a Good Thing. Some kind of collision mechanic is coming back into the game, but likely not in the same form as before. Thank heavens.

AP514, on 28 March 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

ECM is not true ECM ( But a combo of 2 ECM's )

Streaks are Broken (they are supposed to have to require a new lock every time they are to be fired. making Streak Lights with ECM way OP )

...
"The defendant is charged with assault with a nerdly weapon, unlawful use of a rulebook, and practicing rules lawyering without a license. How does your client plead?"

"Your honor, my client pleads... he pleads not guilty. On the grounds that you're not a real BattleTech fan, your honor. I'm so very sorry."

"I find your client in contempt of everything. Bailiff, take him away."

AP514, on 28 March 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

These guys are just running around Putting out fires..They have lost their Direction

They're fixing problems while releasing new content and juggling a rewrite of the game engine on the side. This game is moving forward; your dislike of a handful of development decisions, or even the direction development is taking, does not change this. Direction can and will change during development - that's what Beta is for. PGI has done and is doing a great job developing this game thus far, and no amount of bolded underlining or Improper punctuation will change that.

PS: Not that the Tabletop Rules have any authority in this game, but TT ECM was a literally magical electronic warfare system which would interfere with sensor spotting, or even laser targeting, which passed through its bubble. Complaints that ECM isn't working like it "really" should invariably ignore applicable rules and assume that BattleTech balance rules for an incompatible game format should somehow be slavishly followed in MWO - but only when the book-waver doesn't like something.

Edited by Void Angel, 28 March 2013 - 06:35 PM.

[L Y N X]

WE are a little off topic ... But Void Angel, There is a collision mechanic present, it may only be 1 point of damage for collisions over a certain combined speed, but it's there... ever notice leg damage at teh start of a match as mech walk over top each other? Earlier today, I have a match on Toulamine (sp) desert map where a light mech was on cap and my Cat A1 was out of ammo, he was stationary so I rammed it, it have red leg damage and I broke it off. Legged the enemy mech with a physical collision. It is not much damage right now but the mechanic is still present.

Back on topic... it would be nice to know when to expect this first iteration of community warfare, best I can piece together is it will come after UI 2.0, which is possibly out in May?

[Void Angel]

Oh, I know there is; but it's an artifact of the old system; the problem for now is that light 'mechs can still actually run through other machines if they get high enough velocity, among other things. Collision mechanicsin the game are not where PGI's said they want them to be, so we'll be seeing more changes on that score at some time in the future. The problem with people pining for the "good old days" is, well, it's this. The mechanic needed more than a quick desperation fix (that would be "running around putting out fires,) so they removed that part of the game system until they could give it the treatment it deserved. The game still works well without it, and it's not really a problem in a sane world.

On topic, I think they were hoping to get community warfare up in the next couple of months, but I wouldn't expect a hard time until they're close to releasing it. Otherwise, you get people shrieking on the forums, complaining that what they were "promised" is now being somehow withheld from them, that the company is failing, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, and Fenris has swallowed the sun.

Edited by Void Angel, 28 March 2013 - 08:46 PM.

[QuaxDerBruchpilot]

Void Angel, on 28 March 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

They're fixing problems while releasing new content and juggling a rewrite of the game engine on the side. This game is moving forward

Well if this game is moving forward, then only at a snails pace. Apart from getting a new mech every month (which isn't the most important part in this game for me, but ofc this is my personal opinion only), I cannot see major improvements:

• We are encountering the same bugs that we encountered 3 month (or more) ago. They are implementing WAY MORE bugs with every patch then they are solving.
  
• We don't see any new maps
  
• We don't see any improvement in match making (one of the biggest fails for me atm) - you still get thrown in without tonnage balance
  
• Collision - now change. And please don't get me wrong. It's not that I want to play "Jenner Football" . But the complete lack of any collision is really getting annoying

As a friend of mine had put it yesterday: "this game was fun some time ago". Sadly for me it isn't right now. I really do hope PGI can speed up with solving bugs and implementing key game functions. To me this is far more important then the ability to enter a Clan War right now.

Judging by the time it takes to find a match at the moment (8-mech-groups especially, but not only!!), I suppose that a large part of the player base has an identical feeling.

[Void Angel]

Quax1102, on 29 March 2013 - 01:25 AM, said:

I cannot see major improvements:

• We are encountering some of the same bugs that we encountered 3 month (or more) ago. They are implementing WAY MORE bugs with every patch then they are solving.

I fixed that for you.



While some bugs may persist, other issues have seen huge improvements, such as the netcode, "amber screen" hud failures, the netcode, crashing and stability in matches, and the netcode. It also bears mentioning that you have no way of evaluating the prevalence of a bug in regard to its frequency of occurrence in matches, or its relationship to hardware. People will experience and report bugs in a beta test; suggesting that this means the game is more buggy when it has in fact become more usable and stable is not reasonable based on the information available to us.

Quax1102, on 29 March 2013 - 01:25 AM, said:

• We don't see any new maps

Wait, what? They JUST MADE two huge new maps.

Quax1102, on 29 March 2013 - 01:25 AM, said:

• We don't see any improvement in match making (one of the biggest fails for me atm) - you still get thrown in without tonnage balance

The issue you're complaining about is part of steps taken to improve matchmaking; PGI is certainly tuning the matchmaker, and it would be nice to see better tonnage balance - but contrary to popular opinion, tonnage balance isn't disregarded by the matchmaker. The matchmaker takes tonnage into account, but will allow greater and greater variances in that regard (in all variables, in fact) if it is unable to find a match for you.



In order to balance the matchmaker, PGI must first:

• Sort out Elo so the data isn't skewed; the unavoidable chaos of a newly-implemented Elo system will bounce data all over the place as everyone is seeded at the same time - this will not be a factor once Elo is established, but the point is that data isn't applicable to how matchmaking will work once Elo is sorted out. In order to balance the matchmaker, Elo has to be allowed to settle. Only then can PGI begin to:
  
• Collect a large amount of demographic data on matchmaking. PGI needs a large sample of raw data collected using the same matchmaker - they cannot make changes to the matchmaker at this time, or their entire testing process would be invalidated. They would have no real basis for any changes; it'd be like throwing darts at a map to plan your vacation. Once a large enough data sample is collected, they can:
  
• Analyze the data. PGI needs to know the answers to a number of questions: How reliably are players matched with others of the same Elo? How often do tonnage mismatches take place, and to what degree? To what extent does tonnage mismatching affect the outcome of matches? How do these and other factors interact with each other to affect match outcomes? How does the actual code of the matchmaker affect these factors in relation to each other, and what can a change to this code be expected to do to matchmaking in practice? Only once questions like these are answered can PGI move on to:
  
• Live testing of changes to finalize the system.

We are obviously not seeing live changes to testing (yet), though it's possible that PGI is hotfixing changes and just not telling us specifically (since they've already told us they're monitoring the system and will be tweaking it.) This is not necessarily a bad thing - PGI does not have unlimited resources, and if their data suggests the matchmaker is working well enough for now, they might well make a valid choice to improve other systems (this is, in fact, how a standard development cycle works.)

Edited by Void Angel, 29 March 2013 - 07:43 PM.

[L Y N X]

Void, you and I choose to look at things with a positive outlook. A greater percentage of the world's population chooses to be pessimistic in their outlook. if you prove them wrong you only **** them off, you certainly do not change their outlook. you just make them angry for looking like a donkey. Food for thought...

[Void Angel]

Hah! I get accused of negativity all the time; I just refuse to allow the professionally dissatisfied to dominate the discussion. If I refuse to speak up, I lend my silent consent to their ideas - I'm not going to spend a lot of time debunking nonsense, but I refuse to allow a toxic subculture of complainers dominate MWO player culture as a whole.

You are correct, of course, that "a word to the wise is sufficient, but a fool hates instruction." If someone's really intent on a point of view, facts won't sway them - but I'm not just after them. =)

[Grimmnyr]

Void Angel, on 29 March 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Hah! I get accused of negativity all the time; I just refuse to allow the professionally dissatisfied to dominate the discussion. If I refuse to speak up, I lend my silent consent to their ideas - I'm not going to spend a lot of time debunking nonsense, but I refuse to allow a toxic subculture of complainers dominate MWO player culture as a whole.

You are correct, of course, that "a word to the wise is sufficient, but a fool hates instruction." If someone's really intent on a point of view, facts won't sway them - but I'm not just after them. =)

I refuse to consent to your refusal. The world is not negative nor positive, but both, in equal measures. Much like the "force", things remain in balance. Self lobotomy with alcohol is the best way (if you are legal).

[Void Angel]

You consent is immaterial, and your statement nonsensical. Talking as though I lack my own agency does not make it so. I do not require your consent any more than does gravity.

[QuaxDerBruchpilot]

Void Angel, on 29 March 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

We are obviously not seeing live changes to testing (yet), though it's possible that PGI is hotfixing changes and just not telling us specifically

Well, ofc the whole topic is subject to personal view and expectations. But as I stated in another thread, I think community would be a lot calmer if PGI just presented a roadmap of when to fix what. That's one thing I really don't understand. Why don't they keep us updated on their progress in all these matters.

Why not e.g. tell communitiy "We are working on 3rd-level matchmaking right now. We need another 4 weekends of player events to gather enough data to verify our concept. Our current schedule is to put a first beta of final matchmaking in at August, 1st."

Now would that be some kind of communictation? Not informing the community on anything is like saying "sorry we are unable to fix it and we simply don't know how to move on, and basically we don't give s*** on your opinion, as there are far more people outside the forum that are a relevant target group than you freaks here" ([/exaggeration off ]

But given the fact that they only spread out new ideas using game magazines instead their own forum, this is nothing to be expected anyway soon.

[Void Angel]

They HAVE told us they're working on the matchmaker, like they told us they were working on the netcode; some people don't care; they just keep voicing the same old complaints, even when the problem has been rectified - see post above about "no new maps." And as I pointed out before, if PGI sets too specific a timeline, they get burned. Saw that in WoW, over and over. Any time a change or feature got pushed back or reconsidered, the Self-Righteousness Scouts were all over the boards, frothing at the mouth and claiming that Blizzard "lied" to them, didn't care about the players, and on, and on, and on.

In point of fact, PGI has and does give us rough timelines: they did it with the netcode fixes, for example. I believe that Community Warfare is planned (tentatively) within the next month and a half or so, but I might be thinking of another announcement. The point here is that if PGI gives specific information, it still won't satisfy the professionally discontent; too much of their self-image relies on waggling their fingers and saying "I told you so." Some of us would always like more information, and that might be warranted, but giving out timelines when you can't be sure of meeting them tends to just feed the trolls. Every game developer I've seen has limited the information they give out in this manner, and I'm willing to bet that it's a common practice for good reason.

Edited by Void Angel, 30 March 2013 - 07:52 AM.

[roflplanes]

Void Angel, on 28 March 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

"The defendant is charged with assault with a nerdly weapon, unlawful use of a rulebook, and practicing rules lawyering without a license. How does your client plead?"

"Your honor, my client pleads... he pleads not guilty. On the grounds that you're not a real BattleTech fan, your honor. I'm so very sorry."

"I find your client in contempt of everything. Bailiff, take him away."

You literally just made me laugh out loud. A lot. Thank you.

[DD Hawks]

Dear PGI,

Can you please give us some clear guide on what Community Warfare will be like. It does not need to be a detailed list of things. But I have seen so many different ideas that the Forums have found from this source or that source. Trying to stumble through the BS and understand what we will be playing for is getting hard.

The Merc group I belong to has almost given up playing until we have some CW goal to work for. Now there is rumors that we will have to individually PAY to be a group.

Please give us hope on what direction this great game we are helping by testing, paying for MC, and/or telling friends to play.

[Pando]

DD Hawks, on 30 March 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

Dear PGI,

Can you please give us some clear guide on what Community Warfare will be like. It does not need to be a detailed list of things. But I have seen so many different ideas that the Forums have found from this source or that source. Trying to stumble through the BS and understand what we will be playing for is getting hard.

The Merc group I belong to has almost given up playing until we have some CW goal to work for. Now there is rumors that we will have to individually PAY to be a group.

Please give us hope on what direction this great game we are helping by testing, paying for MC, and/or telling friends to play.

Do not necro threads. There is already a consolidated community feedback thread in "general discussion." What you want, this is not the place for it.

THANK YOU

[Mr T]

Pando, on 31 March 2013 - 04:14 AM, said:

Do not necro threads. There is already a consolidated community feedback thread in "general discussion." What you want, this is not the place for it.

THANK YOU

Wtf? How is that in any way and shape a necro? it was like 9 hours after the last reply...

[DD Hawks]

I want to know what they consider Community Warfare and a reason to stay playing this game. I just put my reasons for wanting a posting that was not several months old and I want it from the PGI staff. There are too many rumors and misconceptions for my to find the truth.

They have gone to a monthly "this is the plan" setup but I can not see the long term plan for this game.

I do not want a response just to the Pay to group that is the current hot seat.

The Merc group I belong to has been off-line because we do not have a reason to play other than "blow up this guy for the 27,182,768th time."


edited for spelling:

Edited by DD Hawks, 31 March 2013 - 04:09 PM.

[MentalPatient]

So with the way MWO is now, with pug matches, it inserts you into a random map, of which there are only a few. With CW on the horizon, I have been wondering how the Map situation will work. Supposedly in CW, we will be battling for turf in the inner sphere, with hundreds if not thousands of planets to conquer. Given the devs have only given us a limited number of maps so far, and don't seem to be churning them out very quickly, this makes me wonder how all these planets will be represented.

I highly doubt they will ever have the resources to create even one map per planet, so that leaves us with a few options. Either they will create a decent amount of planet type maps, such as generalised planetary terrain, like tourmaline, or the frozen city map, basically a non specific terrain which has certain features which might be interchangeable for different planets with similar features. Or, they will give us more specific maps, like the river city one, which are very distinct and frankly I think won't fit the scenario of travelling and fighting for different worlds.

I really wish there was some way they could give us many varied maps rich in detail, but I think that would require them to totally rethink their engine, with some kind of random terrain generation which the server makes, and then sends us as a mission file when joining the game. To me that is the ideal situation, however I can't imagine that is what we are getting.

I know they are hiring many more people to work on the game, and most likely for level and mech design, but I really hope they find a good and believable way to represent the inner sphere, rather than a random selection of maps which are reused for different worlds.

Edit: A third and not so desirable option they might take is they will reduce the number of contest able planets to ones of key importance, with say, 20 or so planets representing the whole inner sphere.

But then, I remember Bryan talking about battle fronts moving based on outcomes of turf wars. This to me implies larger numbers of planetary systems. So that leads me to believe we will be getting more certain maps which will represent different planet types.

Edited by MentalPatient, 01 April 2013 - 01:10 PM.

[Ari Dian]

Quax1102, on 25 March 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

I wonder how they can seriously think of "community warfare" and "Clan Wars" with a game at hands that features more bugs then content. There's nearly not a single game in which at least one of our team suffers from one or the other freaking bug. No HUD. No battlegrid. Nor IFF marker. Freeze. CTD. Capzone not working. .. continue as to your comfort.

GREAT. I really look forward loosing battles in clan war because this piece of software cannot run smooth for more then 5 minutes.

Just a thought.

The last time i heard someone saying the capping is bugged, was when i was sitting on the other side of the cap point and disabling his cap without him notice it. he just was to stupid to see me, see my ECM, or know that you cant cap when there is an opponent with you in the cap field.
Some of the so called bugs are selfmade problems or pure stupidity.

Yes, the "no HUD", no map, bugged map are bugs that happen as well to me from time to time. But i have to say i didnt had any of these since the last patch. Might be lucky.
But of all these bugs only the no HUD is a really problem that prevent you from fighting.

And honestly, i would prefer new features that we are waiting for since long time over a 100% working game. Just because it will not work. You cant fix all bugs and polish everything to work fine before you start to add new content. You would NEVER make progress this way. just because you will add new or even old bugs again each time you add new content.

[Elbola Ierocis]

I like the sound of the system but nervous about the effect of LP in relation to faction ranks and units.

Top down dictacting to the player that they're in a unit due to a set of points when online players like to play with friends of their choosing, never a good businesses model telling players who they are allowed to play with. Sure it will create elite units, green units, and regular, but it will infringe on the time honoured "clan/guild" system, a primary reason why a lot of people play online games.

Rank should never be releated to loyalty points or body count. Some of the best commanders are coordinating the feints, pushes, and flanks. Not really rushing to steal their team member's kills. But I reserve judgement on this idea till I see how it is implimented. As long as it stays far far away from the WoW pvp rank model, it may have a hope.

Quote

The last time i heard someone saying the capping is bugged, was when i was sitting on the other side of the cap point and disabling his cap without him notice it. he just was to stupid to see me, see my ECM, or know that you cant cap when there is an opponent with you in the cap field.
Some of the so called bugs are selfmade problems or pure stupidity.

Couple days ago, cap bug. The only other enemy mech was on the other side of the map fighting my team mates. HUD, IFF, and no battlegrid seem to hit me 1 out of 10 matches.

Edited by Elbola Ierocis, 02 April 2013 - 11:39 AM.

[Splinters]

Elbola Ierocis, on 02 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

I like the sound of the system but nervous about the effect of LP in relation to faction ranks and units.

Top down dictacting to the player that they're in a unit due to a set of points when online players like to play with friends of their choosing, never a good businesses model telling players who they are allowed to play with. Sure it will create elite units, green units, and regular, but it will infringe on the time honoured "clan/guild" system, a primary reason why a lot of people play online games.

Rank should never be releated to loyalty points or body count. Some of the best commanders are coordinating the feints, pushes, and flanks. Not really rushing to steal their team member's kills. But I reserve judgement on this idea till I see how it is implimented. As long as it stays far far away from the WoW pvp rank model, it may have a hope.

I'm not sure enough details of CW have been officially released to verify the assumptions listed in the above statement.

CW may require premium time but it is not clear about what groupings are allowed or not allowed. One of our questions may be will the "House Units" like Kurita Swords of Light, Davion RTCs, etc be allowed to be units for player groups or do we all have to be non-canon Mercernary units?

I must admit if I was PGI I wouldn't say a word about CW since no matter what they say it will result in untold amounts of speculation, assumptions, follow-up questions that will only further enrage the community. They just need to release CW as soon as resonably possible and have a command post when they do. Anything else will just waste time answering more questions.

-S