35 replies to this topic

[Jason1138]

"Right now the map guy(s) are probably working on new content (or even actually working on what you're speaking of right now),"


the next map isn't coming out for 7 weeks. how long do you think it should take to make a map?

[dF0X]

Jason1138, on 31 December 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

"Right now the map guy(s) are probably working on new content (or even actually working on what you're speaking of right now),"


the next map isn't coming out for 7 weeks. how long do you think it should take to make a map?

For a real company, I think 2 weeks for the kind of maps we have (kinda small).

For PGI, well, I haven't seen a new map yet. (no re lights and a couple static objects don't count)

[Corpsecandle]

Jason1138, on 31 December 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

"Right now the map guy(s) are probably working on new content (or even actually working on what you're speaking of right now),"


the next map isn't coming out for 7 weeks. how long do you think it should take to make a map?

At least. You think they're just sitting around twiddling their thumbs and taking home a paycheck? Things that I can think of off the top of my head that need to go into creating a new map.

Building the map terrain
Skinning
Random objects (trees light posts etc)
Lighting
Environment affects
Testing all of the above
Testing with a subset of mechs to verify no hidden walls or snag points
Testing with a subset of mechs to verify proper boundries
Testing with a subset of mechs to verify no random explosion points on the map
Testing with a subset of mechs to verify Environmental balancing
Testing with a subset of mechs to verify spawn points
Testing with a subset of mechs to verify Capture modes (both assault and conquest)
Matchmaking/launch modifications
Testing matchmaking changes and regressing the whole thing to make sure nothing was broken
...and I'm tired of typing.

It's a hell of a lot more work than slamming out a new map with a map generator. They're still probably hand crafting most of it at this stage AND working on a map generator so they can start speeding up the map making process.

[Zagum]

How hard can it be to add another launch option called "Training Ground", turn off the C-bills, turn off match making, turn off Win/Loss stats and use Caustic map????

What 5 minutes to put in?

[Corpsecandle]

Zagum, on 31 December 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

How hard can it be to add another launch option called "Training Ground", turn off the C-bills, turn off match making, turn off Win/Loss stats and use Caustic map????

What 5 minutes to put in?

The point is, you don't know. They didn't plan to have a feature like this, so it's entirely possible they have to rebuild the entire match launching system (granted that's probably an extreme). Remember this game was slammed out in a very short amount of time with very few people working on it, they can have all sorts of ridiculous dependencies that they didn't foresee as being an issue. That's the natural evolution of any software application.

I guess my point is, don't complain that the feature isn't out yet and then throw out arbitrary timelines because you "feel" it should be that way. If you're gonna complain, complain about something realistic. Complain about the lack of communication and transparency. Complain about this feature seeming to be low priority on their roadmap. Ask "why". Don't tell them how you "feel" it should be. When was the last time you complained about your car not running on water because you "feel" they should have invented this feature by now.

[Wintersdark]

superteds, on 31 December 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

considering they managed to allocate resources for Xmas lighting in our mechs, a version of a city map with different lighting and introduce more than a few mechs during the time it's been in 'BETA', saying 'BETA' is a bit of a poor excuse.

Irrelevant. Different people implement these things. The guys making christmas lighting are not guys making/implementing maps (particularly as a practice map would require a bunch of additional coding, because you wouldn't want to spawn there with a regular launch).

I'd certainly like to see the ability to launch solo on any current map, though, to get some "test driving" in for builds I'm working on, and to figure out controls when you're new. It sucks that you have to screw your team when you're trying things out.

[Ryokens leap]

There is a practice field, it's called pug dropping. I always test new builds and load out mods in pug before team dropping in TS.

[3rdworld]

Corpsecandle, on 31 December 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

I guess my point is, don't complain that the feature isn't out yet and then throw out arbitrary timelines because you "feel" it should be that way. If you're gonna complain, complain about something realistic. Complain about the lack of communication and transparency. Complain about this feature seeming to be low priority on their roadmap. Ask "why". Don't tell them how you "feel" it should be. When was the last time you complained about your car not running on water because you "feel" they should have invented this feature by now.

Okay, the new player experience is terrible. A tutorial and practice mode will greatly benefit old and new players alike.
To date we have no word on any feature like this, which is a mistake for reasons listed above.

Feel me bro?

[Corpsecandle]

3rdworld, on 31 December 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

Okay, the new player experience is terrible. A tutorial and practice mode will greatly benefit old and new players alike.
To date we have no word on any feature like this, which is a mistake for reasons listed above.

Feel me bro?

Oh most definitely. The learning curve on this game is Everest high and new players need a frickin staircase with a few elevators thrown in to get them far enough up the mountain to make the game remotely enjoyable.

To be fair though, PGI has recognized the need for additional player support and they've done a lot to address the issue. They put together that new pilot training site, a stop gap to be sure, but proof of progress. The UI revamp is scheduled for early next year which should help out. The cadet bonus has been a measured success in regards to getting new players into a mech they actually want to play in.

Will tutorials help, damn straight, will a shooting range help, most definitely especially in the OPs case (but I'd argue to really get a benefit for general new players they would need to add some sort of AI component). But it's unfair to expect a single feature like a practice area to be the end all solution to the new player experience, and completely disregard all the OTHER work they've done to try and help new players along.

Ugh, I really hate defending PGI as I agree their expectations to successfully launch without any new player support is absurd and a private playroom seems like a no-brainer, but I can say that I have been pleased with the attempts they've made so far. Are they complete solutions? Far from it, but the steps they've taken have bought a little good will from me and so I'll hold out hope for the time being.

[Qicmee]

Zagum, on 31 December 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

How hard can it be to add another launch option called "Training Ground", turn off the C-bills, turn off match making, turn off Win/Loss stats and use Caustic map????

What 5 minutes to put in?

Already many good answers here. I just wanted to add a couple of comments.

I assume your "5 minute fix" solution would use as much connection & server resources as a full 16 person game. Not everybody needs this training/checkout area, but it would still require a ton of additional open sessions since individual new players would use it a lot. It wouldn't be a cheap investment, and the benefit is limited.

Now that we're in open beta, they cannot just toss something out there. Any new training/checkout area has to be fully functional. As mentioned, anybody working on this feature, isn't working on the game I'm playing.

[SlXSlXSlX]

I hope you can see, later, how rude and condescending that comes across Quick MEEEEEE. Why worry about new players right, make the current 1900 happy. Dont devote resources to helping new players, there would be what? Let me quote your reponse to devoting resources to grow the community....

"new players would use it a lot. It wouldn't be a cheap investment, and the benefit is limited."

Well arn't you special.

[Acenan]

We are talking about a test room right? a square white box with some dummy targets will do realy.
You don't realy need the grand canyon, do you?

If PGI needs hel.....ffs ANYONE can make a square white box with some dummy targets.

[3rdworld]

They knew the new beta tester experience was atrocious But I guess they thought the new player experience would be better for some reason.

Either way, we told them this in CB, they did not listen.

[Sabazial]

stjobe, on 31 December 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

The devs have to eat too.

I chuckle whenever anyone states this, you do realise the devs are on a set wage paid by the publisher and don't live hand to mouth from games sales right?

[BlackBeltJones]

Let them charge us MC for a Testing Grounds. I would spend for that.

[Wintersdark]

Belphegore, on 31 December 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

I chuckle whenever anyone states this, you do realise the devs are on a set wage paid by the publisher and don't live hand to mouth from games sales right?

...

Good lord.

Seriously, if the game doesn't work out, the publisher doesn't make a good enough profit, the dev's lose their jobs. So, no, of course they aren't getting paid directly from game sales, but their livelihoods depend on it nevertheless.

And it's not binary, either. If the game makes less money than planned, less gets devoted to ongoing development. Corners get cut, dev staff/hours get cut, servers get removed. Game does well? Makes more money? Dev's get bonuses, more funds are allocated to building and improving the game.

Try thinking things through a bit.