65 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

Gas Guzzler, on 06 February 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:

Now, the real trick is, how do they address feedback when the PTS STARTS less than 2 weeks prior to release?

Edited by Ultimax, 06 February 2017 - 07:17 PM.

[The Unstoppable Puggernaut]

Am I being more ******** than usual. Surely these ideas can be stuffed into the test environment for us to have a play around with?

I installed the test environment and used it once to do some energy draw analysis. Then they took the hamster off the wheel and it's never worked since, so I uninstalled it.

At least it could provide us an insight into how the tree's will work and allow us to plan mech designs etc etc. Even if they don't roll out that exact version, we can still provide much useful info back to them rather than the usual silly, "We know best" oh, "incoming hot fix" due next day.

If Skills Tree gets cancelled, I am going to have a fit... I've been buying modules from lazyness that I didnt actually need. I want my fake monies back

[Appogee]

I should download the new launcher in readiness, so that I can easily play on the PTS. Anyone got a link to it? Can't find it in announcements.

EDIT: Here it is https://mwomercs.com...launcher-portal

Edited by Appogee, 07 February 2017 - 01:38 AM.

[LordNothing]

Gas Guzzler, on 06 February 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:

That's what I do for all PTS's, including Energy Draw (Spoiler: it sucked, all 5 times).

Now, the real trick is, how do they address feedback when the PTS STARTS less than 2 weeks prior to release?

as usual they are not interested in feedback, only stats.

while it might be interesting to see what becomes of it, i have some serious doubts that the refunds will be worth the upgrades. geting 125 formetly mastered mechs back to the peak of perfection is going to suck.

Edited by LordNothing, 07 February 2017 - 01:52 AM.

[Marius Evander]

They dont want feedback because they want their to be imbalance that they have to fix that we all then need to pay MC to respec

[BLOOD WOLF]

LordNothing, on 07 February 2017 - 01:35 AM, said:

as usual they are not interested in feedback, only stats.

lets be certain we are getting things right. They hold feedback subservient to Objective stats. How does anyone separate the feedback that is actually accurate from the obvious B.S that I know some people are going to try to pull via various fallacies? You compare the statements to the Statistics, like any rational person would.

Feedback might be 100% inaccurate but the stats are the raw numbers from the data that shows how things performed. The only drawback to looking at stats only is you might not get the context for why. An example would be players going into the PTS and sabotaging the numbers to prove a point, those extreme ends of the data get mixed in and might be misconstrued to be a real scenario

Cadoazreal, on 07 February 2017 - 03:57 AM, said:

They dont want feedback because they want their to be imbalance that they have to fix that we all then need to pay MC to respec

Not true, and at this point you and the person who liked that should be ashamed that you made such a statement. Its incorrect, its arrogant, its not even remotely interested in the facts.

If they didn't want feedback they wouldn't bother with a PTS. I ask everyone once again to do their due dilligance,and run the PTS, and give accurate feedback, so this can be squared in a timely manner.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 07 February 2017 - 06:50 AM.

[Ori Disciple]

I'll give the PTS a shot once I can do so. They better not run an event during testing though.

[Lostdragon]

BLOOD WOLF, on 07 February 2017 - 06:48 AM, said:

lets be certain we are getting things right. They hold feedback subservient to Objective stats. How does anyone separate the feedback that is actually accurate from the obvious B.S that I know some people are going to try to pull via various fallacies? You compare the statements to the Statistics, like any rational person would.

Feedback might be 100% inaccurate but the stats are the raw numbers from the data that shows how things performed. The only drawback to looking at stats only is you might not get the context for why. An example would be players going into the PTS and sabotaging the numbers to prove a point, those extreme ends of the data get mixed in and might be misconstrued to be a real scenario


Not true, and at this point you and the person who liked that should be ashamed that you made such a statement. Its incorrect, its arrogant, its not even remotely interested in the facts.

If they didn't want feedback they wouldn't bother with a PTS. I ask everyone once again to do their due dilligance,and run the PTS, and give accurate feedback, so this can be squared in a timely manner.

If they want feedback to use in order to make the system better before it releases in the wild then why would they only have a two week PTS? That isn't enough time to gather feedback, iterate, test, and gather new feedback. At this point it looks like they are doing the PTS just to check for major bugs, get stats, and be able to say they did a PTS before releasing the new feature.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Lostdragon, on 07 February 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

If they want feedback to use in order to make the system better before it releases in the wild then why would they only have a two week PTS? That isn't enough time to gather feedback, iterate, test, and gather new feedback. At this point it looks like they are doing the PTS just to check for major bugs, get stats, and be able to say they did a PTS before releasing the new feature.

Number one you don't know if two weeks is or is not enough time. Two weeks of constant data, given players do their part is more than sufficient I would think for this type of thing.

I don't see what your major point is. Other than to make a fuss

[TLBFestus]

BLOOD WOLF, on 07 February 2017 - 08:08 AM, said:

Number one you don't know if two weeks is or is not enough time. Two weeks of constant data, given players do their part is more than sufficient I would think for this type of thing.

I don't see what your major point is. Other than to make a fuss

Wow.

I just discovered how little I care anymore when I pass up on an opportunity to comment on the irony of this post.

[Coolant]

It's new content, something significant after a long delay of not much content...we should all be excited and want it to come out in Feb regardless of it's initial condition. They can change it in subsequent patches, be grateful for new content and stop whining

[Almond Brown]

PGI can't win here and they know that. Their past attempts have seen nothing but derision from the "Forum" Community no matter the subject matter. There is little wonder they even bother except they know that the "Forum" community are not as "insightful" about game design as they think they are and likely make up only a small portion of the actual games total base community.

Regardless, it is a pretty good bet that the Dev do not read most of the petty and hateful shite this Forum produces nowadays anymore anyways. Would you? LOL!

P.S. Kudo's to the OP for the attempt but your are wasting your breath. As noted. Haters will Hate! It is in their nature. As sad as that is...

P.S. Any amount of time provided to have a "early" look at the new Skill system, via the PTS, is certainly a welcome thing.

Edited by Almond Brown, 07 February 2017 - 09:10 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Coolant, on 07 February 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

It's new content, something significant after a long delay of not much content...we should all be excited and want it to come out in Feb regardless of it's initial condition. They can change it in subsequent patches, be grateful for new content and stop whining

Eh, I didnt think there was a need to overhaul the whole thing, just needed to fix that pinpoint skill. Content for the sake of content should not be encouraged. I could honestly do without it, but since we are getting it I am left concerned with any negative consequences of it.

[Lostdragon]

BLOOD WOLF, on 07 February 2017 - 08:08 AM, said:

Number one you don't know if two weeks is or is not enough time. Two weeks of constant data, given players do their part is more than sufficient I would think for this type of thing.

I don't see what your major point is. Other than to make a fuss

Actually, I do know that two weeks is not enough time because unlike you I know a thing or two about software development. The point that keeps going over your head is PGI is rushing this out without allowing any time to iterate it. There will likely be only minor changes before it goes live and all the major balancing will be done after go live. I hope you can understand why that is bad.

[Alan Davion]

Almond Brown, on 07 February 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

PGI can't win here and they know that. Their past attempts have seen nothing but derision from the "Forum" Community no matter the subject matter. There is little wonder they even bother except they know that the "Forum" community are not as "insightful" about game design as they think they are and likely make up only a small portion of the actual games total base community.

Keep in mind though, how many people do you see in game vs how many people you see on the forums?

If there are only, for example, 10,000 people that play the game, but only 1,000 of those people actually visit the forums, and actually "try" to improve the game, who do you listen to?

The 1,000 people who actually use your forums, or the 9,000 people who don't?

For what it's worth, I've only seen maybe a dozen names that I recognize from the forums actually in game, and over the course of time I've spent with the game I've had to have seen at least a thousand names in the game, most of which I've not actually seen on the forums.

So, when 10% of your player base is saying "Hey, this needs to be looked at", vs the 90% of players who literally can't tell their a$$ from a hole in the ground, you would be stupid to ignore the vocal minority. What happens if you drive off the 1,000 who are trying to help you and you're left with 9,000 complete idiots?

If the forumites meet PGI's decisions with derision, it's for a god damned good reason.

Edited by Alan Davion, 07 February 2017 - 11:37 AM.

[JediPanther]

I'm not going to bother to download the game twice just for a test version and be a free unpaid tester. Two weeks won't let them do any thing except say we did a pts before launch and we have more useless data in which we will do nothing with. If you're good at some thing never do it for free.

[Gas Guzzler]

Alan Davion, on 07 February 2017 - 11:36 AM, said:

Keep in mind though, how many people do you see in game vs how many people you see on the forums?

If there are only, for example, 10,000 people that play the game, but only 1,000 of those people actually visit the forums, and actually "try" to improve the game, who do you listen to?

It kind of depends, as its pretty obvious that the average forum participant has a pretty weak understanding of the game. There are also a disproportionate number of TT buffs on the forums who seek to make the game more like TT, which isn't good for a real time MechWarrior game.

[Nik Reaper]

The best they can get from one of these PTS sessions is if we like it or not, and if it functions as intended or not , so might as well spare our self's from a buggy release day followed by several patches and do the work they are so bad at, ei. testing the product before release...

Edited by Nik Reaper, 07 February 2017 - 12:27 PM.

[Alan Davion]

Gas Guzzler, on 07 February 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

It kind of depends, as its pretty obvious that the average forum participant has a pretty weak understanding of the game. There are also a disproportionate number of TT buffs on the forums who seek to make the game more like TT, which isn't good for a real time MechWarrior game.

My example was completely hypothetical. Really had nothing to do with the people who don't understand the game as well as others, or the TT grognards. I guess I should have said that before.

[Gas Guzzler]

Alan Davion, on 07 February 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

My example was completely hypothetical. Really had nothing to do with the people who don't understand the game as well as others, or the TT grognards. I guess I should have said that before.

I didn't say it wasn't, I was just trying to say that just because there is a minority population actively discussing ways to change the game doesn't meant that what they are discussing would be the right way to change the game for the rest of the population.

For example, polling 100 registered Democrats about their views on the current administration and then taking the results of that poll and claiming it represents the US as a whole. (No political argument here, just an example).