67 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

Kael Posavatz, on 23 September 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

Ghost Heat has...issues. I'm not sure I would call it a travesty, but certainly unwieldy, difficult for new players to understand, and riddled with workarounds.

The thing is, Russ said that ED should only be implemented if it is superior to GH. And frankly I don't think it is. It closes the loopholes, and the initial iterations were simple enough to follow. But the subsequent PTS has moved away from the 1-damage:1-ED ratio and back towards every weapon having its own rules.

The bigger fault in the PTS is that we aren't really testing Energy Draw anymore. Instead we're testing adjustments to weapons, to heatsinks, to it seems like everything but Energy Draw.

Leave ED alone for a moment. It seems like there are two big failings with the PTS. I'm going to climb back into High School Science for a moment so bear with me.

1) An experiment should test only one variable at a time.
This is...impractical for a lot of reasons. But it is not unreasonable to ask that variables be limited. Instead the testing field (not the stuff being tested, but the environment it is being tested in) bares little semblance to the live server. PTS has 4v4 QP (which the live server doesn't have), and lacks FW (which plays very differently on live servers than QP does). As for the variables being tested, it often feels like someone flinging spaghetti noodles at a wall and seeing what sticks.

2) Negative data is still viable data.
Since the announcement of ED-PTS#3 or so, I've come to suspect that there is an underlying assumption that ED will be superior if the proper ancillary ratios (weapon cooldown/ED, heatsink capacity and dissipation, depth of bar, recharge rate, etc.) is found. Rather than test a number of different concepts to find something superior to Ghost Heat (ED was one proposal, Scarecrow had another, I've seen people suggest separate ED bars for each weapon type, etc). Rather than accept a negative datapoint that seems directed towards ED, PGI's interpretation has been that the ED mechanic itself is fine, it's everything else that needs to be fixed to make ED work.

Testing Criteria
ED's 'test' (that is, what determines whether or not it is viable) boils down to "is this superior to Ghost Heat Y/N?"

This reminds me very strongly of the Great Rebalancing last year. Much of it fell apart with the failure of InfoWar that diluted the Rebalancing to redoing the quirks. With InforWar PGI started with a concept that was a good idea but unworkable in practice. Rather than sit back and consider how else they could come at the problem, they flung more variables at it trying to find that magic place where it all worked. The end result was InfoWar was scrapped and with it most of the Rebalancing. Quirks moved to a systemic approach (they had largely been ad hoc previously), which was worthwhile. But on the whole MWO lost out on what, 3-4 months of development time?

My fear is that the longer this drags on, the harder it will be for PGI to justify not putting ED in, even if ED is notably inferior to GH, simply due to the time they and their players have invested in it.

I couldn't agree more with all of this. I share your concern that ED itself will be implemented not through any virtue of the system itself (ultimately it has none) but because it's become so inexorably intertwined with every other change on the PTS that it becomes impossible to separate what works from what doesn't.

[Alteran]

I'm not sure if too many people here know of the Combat Upgrade (CU) that SOE did on SWG, but this is starting to feel much like what SOE did. What did SOE do? They changed the entire combat system for an MMOG without bringing in the actual player base. They listened to their play testers and continued with going to Live with the system.

PGI - Don't do what SOE did.

The entire PTS feels like a complete weapon and combat system overhaul. Get a PTS event going so you can get real feedback and game play data. Most of all, give the Live player-base a reason to experience the PTS before the **** hits the fan and we have a SOE CU walk-out of the player base.

I don't care if people are for or against ED. I personally have my viewpoint, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is if PGI goes Live with it and the majority of the player base rejects it.

That's what matters.

If the majority of the player base accepts it, then there won't be much of an issue and most of us (for or against) will continue to play. But I've seen when systems, like this, that completely adjust and change the game play, isn't Live player tested, bomb and an entire game collapses.

Don't be SOE....

[Kuaron]

For those who would have to google the abbreviations as I just had to:

SWG = Star Wars Galaxy
SOE = Sony (or some daughter)

[SuperFunkTron]

I only read the first page of posts before writing this, but I think the spirit of the original post has some good ideas in it. For example, making aiming more difficult could be accomplished by adding heat waves or even steam, creating a visual effect just like you'd see on a hot highway in the desert in the middle of July. Another possible implementation could be the impaired movement of the battlemech, but based on an extra meter that builds up as heat is maintained over time. The underlying principle would be that momentary exposure to high heat would not affect the mech, but prolong excess heat exposure would be what causes the impairment, just as in a computer that runs too hot for too long... it can work, but the longer you ride the excess heat the larger the risk of damage. It could even be justified as an automatic safety system aimed at reducing the potential heat load. Even ammo explosion risk could be handled by this extra meter letting you know how hot your ammo boxes are running and thus increasing the risk of ammo explosion. This would take away the "random" feel and give a clear bases as to what the risks for these penalties are and how they can be mitigated by not riding excessive heat. To account for mechs that are generally known to run very hot, i.e. the clan Nova, they could be given a sort of "resistance" to heat damage, or just simply have their "heat riding" meters fill at a slower rate since the mech was designed with the intention to be running hot.

All in all, it would make the game much more interesting by encouraging a variety of weapon types to be used, increase laser type meaning (a range vs heat consideration would further develop the risk/reward of using large lasers up close), and slowing down the time to death and increasing time to kill.

I would really like to see the selection of mechs develop beyond who can boat what kinds of generic builds, and really make us think more about how our pilot is affected by the environment and mechs themselves. This should be a thinking man's shooter, and forcing us to consider more variables for added benefits and strategic gains would really add more interest.

[Alteran]

Kuaron, on 24 September 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

For those who would have to google the abbreviations as I just had to:

SWG = Star Wars Galaxy
SOE = Sony (or some daughter)

SOE = Sony Online Entertainment

[Kael Posavatz]

Alteran, on 24 September 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

The entire PTS feels like a complete weapon and combat system overhaul. Get a PTS event going so you can get real feedback and game play data. Most of all, give the Live player-base a reason to experience the PTS before the **** hits the fan and we have a SOE CU walk-out of the player base.

After the first couple PTS, all of the changes have focused on weapon and combat systems. There are have been very few if any changes to the actual ED mechanic.

Second, Russ has indicated that he is unwilling to invest the time and resources needed to inject rewards into live accounts of players who run in the PTS. I think that he means tracking things like c-bill earnings within the PTS, but he wasn't actually this specific. PGI has also demonstrated a willingness to run short-duration live-server events during PTS.

The answer to this has been to discuss copying the test server to the live server for a 'weekend event'. This would require a large patch to the live server at the beginning (to implement) and then another large patch (to take it down) at the end. This would address various short-comings such as the low population, inability to do proper 12v12 QP test, any FW test, etc.

I am not aware of any other game that has even proposed such an action

[ScarecrowES]

Kael Posavatz, on 24 September 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

After the first couple PTS, all of the changes have focused on weapon and combat systems. There are have been very few if any changes to the actual ED mechanic.

Second, Russ has indicated that he is unwilling to invest the time and resources needed to inject rewards into live accounts of players who run in the PTS. I think that he means tracking things like c-bill earnings within the PTS, but he wasn't actually this specific. PGI has also demonstrated a willingness to run short-duration live-server events during PTS.

The answer to this has been to discuss copying the test server to the live server for a 'weekend event'. This would require a large patch to the live server at the beginning (to implement) and then another large patch (to take it down) at the end. This would address various short-comings such as the low population, inability to do proper 12v12 QP test, any FW test, etc.

I am not aware of any other game that has even proposed such an action

In fairness, I'm not aware of any game that initiates action on a test server with no clear purpose or direction and using systems that are not in a near-final state of polish. Very rarely have I ever seen a test session used for experimentation, and NEVER with core systems.

[Alteran]

Kael Posavatz, on 24 September 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

After the first couple PTS, all of the changes have focused on weapon and combat systems. There are have been very few if any changes to the actual ED mechanic.

Second, Russ has indicated that he is unwilling to invest the time and resources needed to inject rewards into live accounts of players who run in the PTS. I think that he means tracking things like c-bill earnings within the PTS, but he wasn't actually this specific. PGI has also demonstrated a willingness to run short-duration live-server events during PTS.

The answer to this has been to discuss copying the test server to the live server for a 'weekend event'. This would require a large patch to the live server at the beginning (to implement) and then another large patch (to take it down) at the end. This would address various short-comings such as the low population, inability to do proper 12v12 QP test, any FW test, etc.

I am not aware of any other game that has even proposed such an action

You're right, the ED mechanic itself has barely changed since it was first put in. I actually don't mind the ED mechanic since it doesn't really impact my play style. As I've posted in this forum many times, I don't use the high Alpha, I prefer the DPS build with a 30ish pt shot to keep my heat down.

As for the test, well I've been on the side where the system went live and a majority of the player base rejected it... Only the Dev's wouldn't reverse what went Live and a healthy MMO population died in months.

I don't want to see that happen here.

EDIT: Here's the interview with John Smedley. 2nd page is the SWG portion: http://www.warcry.co...ith-the-SOE-CEO

Edited by Alteran, 24 September 2016 - 09:15 PM.