34 replies to this topic

[Calmon]

From my friends/family a lot of people would actually try the game. But they dislike the fact that they can only test it by joining an online match.

So is it really that hard to let us load one/all of the maps and just run our mech to get familiar with the controls/mech moving/configure the weapon groups/test weapons under specific heat sink setups?

It shouldn't cost any rep/ammo, imagine it as a "simulator". It can run completely on the client so it shouldn't create any server performance issues.

What are the problem doing it? Do PGI fear we could test more than they want? Hackers would use testing their tools? We can find map exploits easier? We could change client XML and test the game with other values? No real reasons for me.

For sure it would be nice to have features like targeting dummies or even basic bots later on but even without, it would be such an improvement. I'm sure its on the PGI list, I just want it on higher prio

[Rifter]

We asked for this in closed beta so we could actually test the game without ruining live matches and they didnt give it to us do you seriously think they are going to add it now?

[BigJim]

Rifter, on 13 November 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

We asked for this in closed beta so we could actually test the game without ruining live matches and they didnt give it to us do you seriously think they are going to add it now?

I also recall people asking for the K2's arms to be visually modded when running either nothing or something other than PPCs for months in CB, and look what turned up out of the blue last patch?

Funnily enough, it was around the same time the skins & bump-maps were changed, almost making me think some kind of work-flow was taking place..

Edited by BigJim, 13 November 2012 - 05:16 AM.

[Quxudica]

Rifter, on 13 November 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

We asked for this in closed beta so we could actually test the game without ruining live matches and they didnt give it to us do you seriously think they are going to add it now?

It's been listed as "Something they want to do" for a very long time. Honestly it should have been in the game before Open Beta, since it's such a critical part of making a good first impression. Instead we got bobble heads. /shrug.

[Card]

The more cynical and suspicious part of my brain says that if you had a 'simulator' mode available, then you could try things out before you bought it, and do all your tweaking and tuning before you threw away money on something that wasn't effective - and because of that PGI would make less money.

Unfortunately, the cynical and suspicious part of my brain is all that remains at this point.

[Rotaugen]

Work flow? You mean they are not immediately adding everything at once, and are instead using the limited man hours to try things out in parts and are concentrating on the biggest things without listing what they are until they seem to be in decent working order? Who does that?
I would like a training grounds firing range to test things out, trying each weapon on every type of mech, but game modes, maps, lobbies and VOIP for everyone are bigger items for me.

[Redshift2k5]

when someone asked if they could have 1 vs 1 matches, the Devs answered that this was very "expensive" because it's using up server space that could otherwise be used to support 12 players instead of 2.

Even single player, so much is server-side, it may not be feasible to let any number of players use up a large number of server shards.

[Arithion]

I think you all just need to be a little more patient. PGI isn't a large Dev team compared to other games that have gone through the beta stages.This means its going to take a little bit longer to get the new content out. Have a little faith, I think they will being something out during open beta to help. I don't imagine they would not give us a practive mode for testing our Battlemechs and weapons.

[Calmon]

Card, on 13 November 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

The more cynical and suspicious part of my brain says that if you had a 'simulator' mode available, then you could try things out before you bought it, and do all your tweaking and tuning before you threw away money on something that wasn't effective - and because of that PGI would make less money.

Unfortunately, the cynical and suspicious part of my brain is all that remains at this point.

I didn't have in mind you could use everything! Just the stuff you already have.

Sure its hackable and if someone really want he will be able to have everything running but cheat users are a minority and I bet hackers can make it run locally anyway...

[Blaank]

What is wrong with running it all clientside? Great I'm cheating and have a 10,000 kph atlas that fires a billion ppcs and am running around an empty map with no other players. Whoop de do.

I'd like to run stuff for the first time /not/ in a match with other players. I don't like taking untested designs and ruining the game for 7 other people.

[AlanEsh]

Redshift2k5, on 13 November 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

when someone asked if they could have 1 vs 1 matches, the Devs answered that this was very "expensive" because it's using up server space that could otherwise be used to support 12 players instead of 2.

Even single player, so much is server-side, it may not be feasible to let any number of players use up a large number of server shards.

Total ******** reasoning. If PGI's infrastructure is that bad, they're pretty much doomed.

World of Tanks with their cruddy "big world" engine (which has evolved into something truly beautiful at this point) had Training battles set up from the start. And if 1v1 is using nearly the same resources as 12 v 12 on their network/servers... *sigh*

[SPARTAN 104]

It's called the Training Grounds. Exactly what we asked for just not the way we asked for it or even close. rofl

[RabidCicada]

Blaank, on 13 November 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

What is wrong with running it all clientside? Great I'm cheating and have a 10,000 kph atlas that fires a billion ppcs and am running around an empty map with no other players. Whoop de do.

I'd like to run stuff for the first time /not/ in a match with other players. I don't like taking untested designs and ruining the game for 7 other people.

Client Side "server" code would open them up to all kinds of hacks from people who dig around their binaries. Probably not a smart idea.

[Keisuke Nagisa]

I think the best option would be some type of base with firing ranges akin to the tutorial in MW2 (I Think) basically an area with stationary targets, another with moving targets, a "Driving" range with targets a long it another with obstacles to maneuver around while firing etc etc. Then maybe a final area with "live" npc targets moving around.

What would be even cooler is a volunteer program for training instructors that could accompany aspiring mechwarriors and train them. It would be great for newbros and people that want to help out newbros.

[Quxudica]

Keisuke Nagisa, on 13 November 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

I think the best option would be some type of base with firing ranges akin to the tutorial in MW2 (I Think) basically an area with stationary targets, another with moving targets, a "Driving" range with targets a long it another with obstacles to maneuver around while firing etc etc. Then maybe a final area with "live" npc targets moving around.

What would be even cooler is a volunteer program for training instructors that could accompany aspiring mechwarriors and train them. It would be great for newbros and people that want to help out newbros.

Newbros is an awful term that should never be used again. Other then that I agree with you, the unfortunate thing is it would simply take a lot of resources (time, man hours, money) to design something that detailed, especially with AI, and even more to integrate it with some sort of mentor system.

The best we can hope for is a relatively empty map with some doodads (read: buildings) set up as a basic driving trainer and maybe stationary targets to shoot at. To my mind though this is all that would be needed and it should have been introduced much earlier. Hawken doesn't have training in yet but it at least has the infrastructure in place for it already. (Honestly, Hawkens menus/lobby/general launcher UI blows MWO out of the water).

[Ow Chi]

Card, on 13 November 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

The more cynical and suspicious part of my brain says that if you had a 'simulator' mode available, then you could try things out before you bought it, and do all your tweaking and tuning before you threw away money on something that wasn't effective - and because of that PGI would make less money.

I don't get this line of thinking that is always confusing this issue, it's not a zero sum solution. What you are suggesting is some sort of sandbox where every item is available to play around with, where a more sensible approach is an empty map where you can run only what you already own.

That way there is still some investment, people can get a better feel for what their mech can do and how it operates.

There really is no logical reason to deny something like that, I mean we are talking about multi million dollar hi-tech machines here. Sending pilots to the front lines with no training is just looney.

[Calmon]

3rd person view?

http://nogutsnogalaxy.net/

Give us this and new players can learn to control a mech. We don't need 3rd person for this.

[Sandpit]

Everyone just seems to ignore the fact that they are running limited servers at the moment. This is the hurdle at this point. If you have 2000 players all running a single man sandbox that means 2000 separate games being handled by servers on top of all of the team matches being played. Now imagine 8000 games being played singly while team matches are going on.
10,000
15,000
You can't say these numbers are unrealistic either. If you make it available you have to assume that any number of the entire player base can use this option at one time. I know in practice this wouldn't happen due to time zones, etc. but you can't expect any less. I was a huge proponent of this idea until they explained the logistics of having that kind of server space. I think the best solution at this point lies in a good solid MM system. Then you could have drops made with specifications and make coordinated drops with people to test out things like this and have practices for units, etc.

[xenoglyph]

RabidCicada, on 13 November 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

Client Side "server" code would open them up to all kinds of hacks from people who dig around their binaries. Probably not a smart idea.

I agree, but they wouldn't have to implement it like that. They could make it very simple and just turn off the server authoritative requirements. More complex single player training could be done server side later on.

[Jun Watarase]

To put it into perspective, PGI needed 6 months to code phase 1 matchmaking, and it took them several months in closed beta to buff ammo counts for ballistics....so to answer the question, it is probably very difficult.