Red Worms, on 12 August 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:
The C-Bill nerf plus getting stuck on every tiny hill on every map (Mount Doom is just awful) makes me want a refund for my Overlord purchase. Is that even possible?
It's just sad to see a game I was thoroughly enjoying again loose the sense of reward you got for a win.
After the heat penalty I got my refund. I hard to argue long and hard and make several very pointed (and well founded) legal threats before they finally caved in and gave me my refund. Mind you, my refund was on a different account. The things they said to try and keep me from getting my refund horrified me. Here's one of the quotes:
What I said:
Not to mention your change to walking up steep surfaces has also meant none of the mechs without jumpjets can deal with or walk over ankle high pebbles or even chain link fences. Low shin high wall? Have to walk around it. A 17 meter tall, 100 ton Atlas charging forward at 55 km/h, the mightiest of mechs, survivor of horrific onslaughts. Stopped by a chainlink fence and a 1.5 meter tall rock and a knee high hill of more than 20% gradient. No amount of 'fixing' sans complete reversal will fix this.
Quote
Senior Game Master Reppu:
Movement code changes: The pebbles can be annoying (granted I've yet to have issues with them myself) they don't annoy me as much as watching a 100 Ton Atlas climbing an 85 degree cliff face. There's no way this change will be reversed.
So basically, you're perceiving that the value of the Mechs are being undermined, when in reality their value is really a question of perspective. It's important to keep in mind that between now and the release of the Phoenix project a number of other aspects of the game can change in ways that will likely affect those Mechs as well as the currently existing Mechs. There's absolutely nothing with this either as per Section 2 of the terms of use. (Section 2 summarized: it's our content, we can change it at our discretion).
It was at that point I had to explain to him how law (specifically consumer/marketplace laws concerning changing the fundamental mechanics of an object after purchase and before receiving it so that it could no longer serve the initial desired purpose that motivated the purchase in the first place) overrides a contract when they two are in conflict. He still insisted he didn't take law for a reason so it wasn't his fault and he'd say nothing more on the matter. The 48 hour deadline warning and a threat to force-pull the money back and blacklist them with my bank I issued seemed to motivate them to consider otherwise.
Either way, I regret spending any money on my primary account with this game. I get the impression the team is too used to dealing with releasing games like the old MechWarrior 1/2/3/4 where they -might- do one patch long into the game's life cycle, but otherwise, release date equaled complete.
I came back PGI at a friend's insistence to give the new patch a try. While the previous patches neutered all of my mechs (since I went high energy builds and an AC20 Jaeger), you've shown over the last few patches that you never want people to use a PPC/ER PPC again, the C-bill reward is just laughable and seems like an underhanded way to force others to pay for MC. I can also see that the problem of many weapons not working properly and doing any real noticeable damage at point blank (even weapons with zero minimum range) is still a real issue. Especially for assaults versus competent lights.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you can handle a FTP, open beta constant rolling model. You simply don't have the experience, and it's not something you can just flounder about, jump in off the deep end and learn as you go. It just doesn't work. Although opinions are cheap and everyone has one, I'd suggest considering sticking to what you can and do 'decently' well and just make stand alone, purchase to play games as you always have. Mind you, after showing this game and it's recent patch notes to several of my colleagues who've been making games longer than anyone else in your company (they were programming some of the first text adventure games back on the days of some of the first after punch card mainframes). Even they say what you've done over the last 5 patches doesn't make any sense and in some cases, seems like implausibly extreme overkill.
So, take it from me, take it from two colleagues of mine who have combined 60 years experience in making games, or take it from an entire community, almost none of which say you're doing the right thing. You're hard pressed to find support for your attempts to 'fix' things, PGI. Maybe you should have a think about what that means for a moment.
Edited by Stuart Orland, 13 August 2013 - 02:13 AM.