Jump to content

Ed Is Starting To Feel Like Infowar


16 replies to this topic

#1 Kael Posavatz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 971 posts
  • LocationOn a quest to find the Star League

Posted 22 September 2016 - 10:20 PM

In late 2015, PGI set out on the Great Rebalancing. A months-long multiple-PTS effort to improve gameplay, balance, and general performance.

Some of these were much needed. The so-called 'Re-Quirkening' completely overhauled quirks, taking them from something applied on an ad hoc basis to something that was, if not scientific, then at least methodical.

InfoWar was another feature. It was something desired from the early days of closed Beta.

It didn't work.

There was a proposed change to lasers that was widely despised. Assault mechs were left groping blindly. Lighter 'scouty' mechs could see halfway across a map but lacked weapons to do anything with it.

Unfortunately the need to reallocate resources (employees) for the Steam release meant PGI up and abandoned months of work with little to show for it. And then never came back to it which is a pity. I liked the concept of it, and the PTS showed what didn't work which is sometimes the only way to figure something out.

But now it feels like we are in the same place and heading towards the same result.

The first ED PTS was okay. Not great, but showed a lot of potential. It was simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. There were no arcane rules or complex calculations that are part of ghost heat.

The follow-on PTSes (PTSii?) did away with it. Instead of one damage=one ED, weapons got their own arcane values that mostly boiled down to 'we said so'. This deprived ED of what I saw to be one of its greatest assets, the ease with which new players could grasp it.



The Energy Draw PTS also suffered, and continue to suffer, from a number of failings:

1) Players are punished for testing since nothing they do on PTS will carry over to their live accounts (ie, they are burning time playing PTS, and not even getting the c-bills they earned).

2) Players are not rewarded for PTS. Russ took to Twitter to explain that this would not be possible "Without a lot of work and I'd rather not spend our resources there". (Russ has also commented favorably on World of Tanks/Warships, they offer their players stuff to play on the test servers)

3) The population is so low that a new game-mode (4v4 QP) had to be made

3a) This does not give the players an accurate reflection of QP, and distorts any impression of ED

3b) Faction Warfare is disabled. Invasion in particular plays very differently than QP, because of homogenous tech, difference in maps and objectives, etc. As a result ED for FW looks like it is becoming "we'll cross our fingers and hope for the best"


Another issue, PTS isn't actually testing Energy Draw:
-Energy Draw, the little gauge with how much 'energy' you have and the rate it fills has remained static, or nearly so, since PTS #1

-The actual 'changes' being 'tested' are all changes to tech (weapons, heatsinks, etc.) that is already in the game.

-There has been no effort to test radically different concepts (try three bars, one pegged to each weapon type, with vastly reduced 'power')


And while this is being done...
-It seems like nothing else is happening

-Revamped Assault was supposed to be activated in spring. Now it is supposedly waiting a PTS of its own and pushed back in the schedule behind a 'fifth' QP game-mode

-FW round-tables were pitched as a forum to discuss simplistic changes to tweak FW for the better. It took more than a month to come up with a list to improve bukkets that is not simplistic, goes well beyond what round-table discussed, and, what, 5 months from round-table to injection (if it makes the December patch?)

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 22 September 2016 - 10:22 PM.


#2 Gen82

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 64 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 10:49 PM

I kinda hope it does disappear. I would rather have more game to play (maps, fw, decent modes) and they can tinker with balance in the background. In a game like this perhaps they should be continually making very minor changes and monitoring, rather than ... whatever this is.

#3 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 22 September 2016 - 10:52 PM

I think what ED PTS1 showed was, unfortunately, ED simply couldn't stand on its own merits. Something we'd long discussed before getting to this point, whenever PGI would mention damage limits, was how you really could not base a system on imposing hard limits based on damage.

And this, if for no other reason, because not all damage is created equal. And after months of talking about this, I think most people understood that this would be a bad way to go, and many assumed that PGI would have something in the works that would have had more to it than what came to mind based on the limited data we had. Unfortunately we kinda ended up with what many feared we'd end up with.

I feel like PTS1 was probably the only point where most people really felt like ED could go somewhere, and perhaps this is because the honeymoon hadn't had time to wear off for those who were still clinging to some hope that this much-hyped system could do everything we hoped it would.

#4 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 22 September 2016 - 11:04 PM

1) I wouldn't say there is an active punishment on the players. I got be fair here. I do say that testing in itself is a reward for the long run, but there is nothing wrong with insensitivising it. Throw a little rewards the testers way and bam more testing data

1) I don't think the PTS shoud carry over. Once again I wouldn't say they are punished. People if they can will play on the PTS given the chance, and you don't really need to earn anything in the way fo C-Bills at least. Running matches would be fun enough if you can get them going.

3) I agree the population on the PTS is bad. Just never enough people, so the idea of at least giving goodies when testing will do some wonders. Then I repeat I don't think things need to be carried over, I also don't know how that would work, but I see your point.

3a. Ahh I have had this conversation before. While the main game is not 4v4 the practicality would remain the same. meaning the damage the weapons stats and their effects on mechs would be realitivly easy to get a scope of how they would function in the real game. The only thing that changes are the number of mechs while the PTS can emulate the weapon systems and the type of mech. It's almost a mirrored reality. So I do believe that the PTS can in some cases be a good indicator. I am more concerned about mech matchup's like stalker vs EXE and so forth.

3b) well, It would be nice, I got no objections to that.

I do believe they need to start playing with differnt numbers on the ED concept itself. I actually like some of the changes they made, when playing my enjoyment is pretty much the same, and dueling is still fun.

The other stuff I can attest to less and yea I was pretty pissed that they spent practically a whole round-table on buckets. I did like some of the stuff I heard. Like getting rewards for participating rather than just getting your unit tag on planet, and the fact that more than 1 planet might be up for contest on a given front.

#5 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,918 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 23 September 2016 - 10:24 AM

Same cod players who got info warfare nuked are trying to kill Ed that's for sure.

Atleast from what I can tell Russ is planning on atleast another 3 months of testing. This is way more than info warfare got.

View PostGen82, on 22 September 2016 - 10:49 PM, said:

I kinda hope it does disappear. I would rather have more game to play (maps, fw, decent modes) and they can tinker with balance in the background. In a game like this perhaps they should be continually making very minor changes and monitoring, rather than ... whatever this is.


Try checking out the road map, they're doing everything you requested this test is in the background.

#6 Kael Posavatz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 971 posts
  • LocationOn a quest to find the Star League

Posted 23 September 2016 - 12:06 PM

View PostScarecrowES, on 22 September 2016 - 10:52 PM, said:

I feel like PTS1 was probably the only point where most people really felt like ED could go somewhere, and perhaps this is because the honeymoon hadn't had time to wear off for those who were still clinging to some hope that this much-hyped system could do everything we hoped it would.


I hadn't really been following the ED debate prior to implementation. I did think ED had some potential. I really liked how it simplified things for new players (something that has since been lost. But that might have been because my 'testing' was largely limited to stomping around in testing grounds due to the difficulty in finding a match. What I notably did not like were the slew of changes to other gameplay mechanics. Was I supposed to be testing ED, or new weapon profiles? It seems PGI's answer (based on subsequent PTS) is "weapon profiles and other stuff, ED itself is fine."


View PostMonkey Lover, on 23 September 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

Same cod players who got info warfare nuked are trying to kill Ed that's for sure.


Haven't played cod. Don't intend to. Did InfoWar test. It was... Okay, the concept was good. The implementation was...not. But rather than consider different ways of achieving the same effect, PGI's response was to 'tinker with the numbers' until they ran out of time (needed to get ready for Steam launch) and then never came back to it.

This, and the notably horrible laser mechanic, had a lot to do with the failure of InfoWar.

I'm fine with the ED concept, but the way it is being tested is not working. It has lost simplicity and elegance. It is not tearing down the wall that Ghost Heat presents to new players, it is [I]replacing[I] the wall. And we are no longer testing ED. All the testing is aimed at weapons/heatsinks/etc.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 23 September 2016 - 12:12 PM.


#7 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 23 September 2016 - 01:07 PM

View PostMonkey Lover, on 23 September 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

Same cod players who got info warfare nuked are trying to kill Ed that's for sure.


Always interested to know what people are thinking when they refer to CoD. Cuz I played CoD:MW pretty religiously, and dabbled in MW2 before the series became a mess. When it comes to multiplayer shooters, I've played almost everything under the sun... Battlefield, Team Fortress, Halo, CoD, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Titanfall, Destiny and so on. I've also been played BT since back when you could still purchase original release FASA sets with Unseens. And I've played every single Mechwarrior title since the first (except LL). I've played a number of multiplayer-focused client-based F2P games like World of Tanks. I've played tons of strategy games, MMOs, etc etc.

And I've done game testing as a beta or PTS tester for the last few decades when time allows (who doesn't like the opportunity to play a game that won't be out for another year or influence the direction of one that's already running) - and this back before the modern era of open beta testing... back when you had to apply and be vetted to test.

So I've played a lot of games who've provided most of MWO's DNA, and I've tested a LOT of games over the years. I also HATE Energy Draw. It is one of the most fundamentally flawed systems I've ever tested.

So when we're saying CoD players, what do we really mean here? Cuz I generally feel that this reference is thrown out to mean "any player who doesn't agree with my position," and rarely has any actual correlation to an actual argument or comparison against that game.

#8 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 23 September 2016 - 01:11 PM

No, you got it backwards.

The "Great Rebalance" PTS sessions started out extremely horrible in the first iteration but then gradually became more playable and decent as future versions were released.

This new Energy Draw PTS, on the other hand, started out decent but is getting worse and worse over time as PGI stacks on more and more unnecessary direct nerfs to weapon systems and equipment.


Also, it's worth noting that the Ghost Range mechanic was a crime against humanity.

#9 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,918 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 23 September 2016 - 01:19 PM

View PostScarecrowES, on 23 September 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:


Always interested to know what people are thinking when they refer to CoD. Cuz I played CoD:MW pretty religiously, and dabbled in MW2 before the series became a mess. When it comes to multiplayer shooters, I've played almost everything under the sun... Battlefield, Team Fortress, Halo, CoD, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Titanfall, Destiny and so on. I've also been played BT since back when you could still purchase original release FASA sets with Unseens. And I've played every single Mechwarrior title since the first (except LL). I've played a number of multiplayer-focused client-based F2P games like World of Tanks. I've played tons of strategy games, MMOs, etc etc.

And I've done game testing as a beta or PTS tester for the last few decades when time allows (who doesn't like the opportunity to play a game that won't be out for another year or influence the direction of one that's already running) - and this back before the modern era of open beta testing... back when you had to apply and be vetted to test.

So I've played a lot of games who've provided most of MWO's DNA, and I've tested a LOT of games over the years. I also HATE Energy Draw. It is one of the most fundamentally flawed systems I've ever tested.

So when we're saying CoD players, what do we really mean here? Cuz I generally feel that this reference is thrown out to mean "any player who doesn't agree with my position," and rarely has any actual correlation to an actual argument or comparison against that game.


It's thrown out there for players who want this game to be dumbed down, quick kills and if they had thier way respawns :)

#10 Kael Posavatz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 971 posts
  • LocationOn a quest to find the Star League

Posted 23 September 2016 - 01:27 PM

View PostFupDup, on 23 September 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

No, you got it backwards.

The "Great Rebalance" PTS sessions started out extremely horrible in the first iteration but then gradually became more playable and decent as future versions were released.



I stand by what I said. The Concept--what PGI was trying to do--was good. How PGI went about implementing it wasn't. It was, as you put it, initially "extremely horrible" (I was being polite).

View PostMonkey Lover, on 23 September 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:


It's thrown out there for players who want this game to be dumbed down, quick kills and if they had thier way respawns :)


I don't want it dumbed down, I don't want quick kills, and I don't particularly want respawns either.

Something easy to understand, consistent, and not particularly brutal to newcomers would be nice, however.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 23 September 2016 - 01:40 PM.


#11 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 23 September 2016 - 01:58 PM

View PostMonkey Lover, on 23 September 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

It's thrown out there for players who want this game to be dumbed down, quick kills and if they had thier way respawns Posted Image


Dumbed down might be fair reference for CoD... it is notoriously casual-friendly. In fact, you could argue the bar of entry for CoD is lower than most any FPS around. This is one reason I left the series after the second MW. However, this really isn't an argument that can be used against those who don't want ED, is it? The primary argument against ED is that it's a fundamentally flawed system that doesn't actually work. Nothing to do with making the game EZ mode, right?

Quick kills, not so much a fair reference for CoD. Part of the casual-friendly nature of CoD means having a higher average TTK and a lower skill requirement than most (perhaps all) of its competitors. Vanilla CoD has some of the most forgiving gameplay in the genre. Another reason I left the series. But this argument would be contradictory for MWO, right? Isn't the purpose of ED, as expounded by PGI, an effort to increase TTK? This would put it more in-line with CoD and it's casual-friendly nature, rather than in line with more skill-based or tactical type shooters which feature much LOWER TTK. Generally speaking, in shooters, the easier you are to kill, the more cerebral the gameplay is.

Respawns are largely immaterial to the "casual-friendly" argument and comparisons to CoD either way. Respawns have no actual influence on the skill required to play a game, the particular association of thought to reward, strategy, etc. Respawns are a function of what works for a given game mode. Most modern shooters feature an array of modes, some of which have respawns and some that don't - CoD has both.

Respawns are one of a number of means to provide incentive to play an objective over one's own personal interest - whether respawns make sense depends on the investment required to achieve the objective. The debate over respawns in MWO is one centered around what works for the modes in THIS game. PGI chose modes that require respawns to function properly. MWO would absolutely work without respawns if its modes were designed along those lines. One thing you can definitely say as a positive for CoD is that its modes are incredibly well thought-out and tuned. MWO, not so much. Perhaps PGI COULD learn a thing or two from CoD here.

#12 Davers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanada

Posted 23 September 2016 - 02:39 PM

View PostMonkey Lover, on 23 September 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

Same cod players who got info warfare nuked are trying to kill Ed that's for sure.

Atleast from what I can tell Russ is planning on atleast another 3 months of testing. This is way more than info warfare got.



Try checking out the road map, they're doing everything you requested this test is in the background.


I could be wrong, but Russ' tweets kinda made me think we have gone as far as the PTS can take us so we need to go live to test.

#13 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,918 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 23 September 2016 - 03:04 PM

View PostDavers, on 23 September 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:


I could be wrong, but Russ' tweets kinda made me think we have gone as far as the PTS can take us so we need to go live to test.


I'm not sure what Russ plans on for testing. I hope he does some live server test as 4v4 assaults battles isn't cutting it but the main one I was looking at to say we have a long time before it would even go live would be.....

Russ Bullock‏ @russ_bullock
At any rate no reason to panic as ED would be a Nov patch item at the earliest and I am leaning towards a Live test event.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 23 September 2016 - 03:05 PM.


#14 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,918 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 23 September 2016 - 03:14 PM

View PostScarecrowES, on 23 September 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:



Quick kills, not so much a fair reference for CoD. Part of the casual-friendly nature of CoD means having a higher average TTK and a lower skill requirement than most (perhaps all) of its competitors. .




Lol good luck mwo this is what they want.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 23 September 2016 - 03:15 PM.


#15 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,119 posts

Posted 23 September 2016 - 06:58 PM

Unlike Infowar and lockon mechanic, they don't have a launch to worry about. And the feedback from energy draw hasn't been whole sale negativity. Mostly it's been the same handful of people arguing back and forth. With the odd person coming in to say it's bad and then go about their business. Either way I don't get the impression they're going to bow to diaper filling like last time. Russ already has a date in mind.

I agree they realized that ED isn't a fix all. Hence the weapon changes and testing lower heat capacity+higher dissipation. Which is indeed hurt by the lack of PTS population. We need more data. And also for people to stop filing their posts with "PGI is so dumb if only they would...". As if anyone wants to dig through ridicule just to get at the nugget of legitimate feedback that might actually be of help to balance.

#16 Kael Posavatz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 971 posts
  • LocationOn a quest to find the Star League

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:57 PM

Okay, there is no Steam launch equivalent, but there is 'other stuff' they need to be doing. 1)World Championship/MechCon 2)FW Bukket fix 3) Announcement for major may/june patch (not necessary, but a historical trend and Russ has indicated that there will be a 'big announcement'.) 4) Assault Game mode (requires PTS of its own, and originally slated for spring 2016), 5) Fifth QP game-mode that may be arriving before revised Assault game-mode.

The FW thing in particular is worrying because the Round-Tables were supposed to focus on specific changes that PGI could implement with a relatively short turn-around (one reason why the RT was so very limited in scope), but it's going to take five months to go from RT to patch (longer if you start counting from when RT was announced, or even first mentioned).

The thing with ED is that we aren't testing Energy Draw. There have been no changes to the fundamental ED system since what, PTS#2? All of the test articles, that is, the things being tested, have been to everything but Energy Draw. I've seen a lot of comments on this or that weapon system, or on how heatsinks work, but very little after the first two PTS have actually addressed the actual Energy Draw mechanic.

Now Russ is talking about patching the PTS into the live server because of low PTS population and because he doesn't want to spend the resources to reward players for participating in PTS. (World of Warships, for example, doesn't try to track in-game currency, but players could earn premium time, a bunch of 1-battle camo patterns, and a bunch of signal flags for achieving certain criteria on the test server).

I've talked with some people and no one can recall a game that patched a test version of the game onto their live servers, and then removed it after collecting feedback to make updates/alterations/etc. If someone can think of an example, by all means, let us know.

#17 Tombs Clawtooth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 152 posts

Posted 23 September 2016 - 09:17 PM

View PostMonkey Lover, on 23 September 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

It's thrown out there for players who want this game to be dumbed down, quick kills and if they had thier way respawns Posted Image


You mean community warfare?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users