Jump to content

Serious Issues That Need To Be Addressed For The Game To Succeed


8 replies to this topic

#1 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:50 PM

I have been testing and playing solidly for nearly two months now, taking notes and reading the forums and generally testing as I have many times in the past. FYI, I’ve been developing software for twenty years so I know a thing or two about testing. While there are some glitches with the operation of the game, they are minor and really pose no great threat to the launch of the game. Given how complex these systems are, it is inevitable that you have things that don’t work as intended and normal to fix those on the fly. Likewise, I’ve found your support staff to be fantastic when reporting bugs and concerns and are really working hard to get things right.
Sadly, that having been said, I do not think this game will have a long and successful life in its current incarnation. These are my reasons for thinking this:
  • In the current incarnation, PUGs are greatly outmatched by pre-made teams and groups. While this is fine for the pre-made groups and the fan-clans, it is not good for the casual gamer. The game must appeal to the casual gamer since they provide the highest revenue to resource use of your customer base. Basically they are the profit in the game. The current setup only encourages elitist attitudes and quickly alienates any non fan-clan player. It doesn’t take long for it to get around the gaming world that you might as well not play if you aren’t in a clan. While most other MMO games have a guild/clan system, not being in one does not directly affect your playing experience. In this game it does and that is bad design. This will, if not entirely kill the game, regulate it to being one of those marginal games that languishes.


  • The lack of true customization of avatars (mechs) is directly against the direction that every successful MMO has taken. The reason for most MMOs allowing for greater customization of their avatars, including weapons used, armor worn etc., is to have your players bond to their avatars. This makes a player emotionally buy-in and in company terms; spend more money on the game. While the battle Tec universe is very strict on load outs and customizations this is not the way you win fans across a wide spectrum of players.


  • Short, repetitive games do not allow sufficient time for players to become immersed, specially if they are a non fan-clan/elite player. Running to the middle and brawling gets monotonous very quickly and will cause your players to drop off quickly.


  • The lack of useable in-game communication tools hinders the game-play. Stopping to type is real deterrent to communicating, specially if you end up dead because you were typing.


  • The lack of true arena choices puts players in environments that they may not find enjoyable or, worst case, are frustrating to the point of damaging the players view and or attitude towards the game. By this I mean that a player who enjoys playing a lite mech is currently, and quite often, forced into a game where s/he may be pitted against nothing but Heavies and Assaults. A more Solaris-esque approach would be better where a player can choose to participate in weight-class matches or, the current ‘anything goes’ match. Likewise and for the same reasons a player should be able to choose the terrain that they wish to play on.


  • Capturing, in either capture the flag or capture resources, has absolutely no real benefit for the player(s) doing the capturing. Being relegated to taking the hill or capturing the resources often means that you give up experience and money, which is something that most players don’t want to do. The end result is that you end up with giant Turdballs going at it in the middle of the map. This gets quite monotonous quite quickly and damages the long-term playability of the game.


  • There is no long-term, ultimate goal to the game. Most successful games have a defined end-game that players strive for. Be that level 50 and killing the great dragon of grue or proceeding to the defense of the realm, an end-game is essential. This is the spot where mature and reasonably competent players go to play. It provides a wall between the advanced, and most often ‘noob intolerant’, players and the casual and new gamers – who tend to be more forgiving. A defined end-game gives a pathway for skill progress and game mastery.


  • There is no sense of US and THEM in the game. In a game of inter-player conflict a defined sense of US and THEM gives players an in-game identity. This causes the players to bond closely to their team and to the game itself. In MWO THEM can be US in the very next game and that either eliminates the emotional imperative of the conflict or, even worse, carries an interpersonal conflict from match to match. Nothing will detract from a player’s enjoyment than having a grudge from the previous game carried into chat in the next game.


  • Very poor PR. Communication to fans should be often, repetitive and timely. Currently the communication seems to be spotty, at best. Now, I’m aware that a game like this, one where there are extreme fans, will produce some very annoying posts on your board and this is going to get very tiresome to deal with – but you have to keep dealing with it. Likewise, upcoming features should be easy to find, on their own page, with dates for implementation. Communication from the game manager should be weekly and there should be someone, not a developer, designer or manager, who is dedicated to facilitating communication between your fan-base and the development team. If you don’t do this well your boards end up being a ***** and complain zone. New players who come and read your forums will stay away from the game thinking, either right or wrong, that your game is a mess.



I am sure I can think of more if I tried, but I am reasonably confident that I have hit the major issues that need to be addressed.

#2 Red1769

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 349 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 01:59 PM

I'm gonna address bullet points with numbers. You do bring up some good points...while others just doesn't apply.

1. As a PUG, it is brutal. This is where matchmaking should really take it into consideration. Agreed as a whole on this point. Considering the size of the group should be considered at the very least with matchmaker. Just two people that are a premade aren't gonna make a real big difference in a PUG setting with 12 v 12, not even with 8 v 8. A group of four on the other hand...

The matchmaker will probably be a constant issue...just a guess on my part.

2. What lack is there? You can change the colors, the armor amounts (depending upon mech weight), weapons, upgrades, eventually decals, various cockpit items...what more do you want? They've even talked about eventually having different types of Atlas skulls and such later on. The most limiting things are crit space, weapon hardpoints, and engine limits and those are there for balance reasons and/or each mech supposed to have their own pros and cons (those aren't the only things, heat comes to mind). The "avatar" is the pilot, not the mech. And that I do believe is where your focus on this point should be, however low priority it probably is for the devs given the various problems that they have. If it was about the pilot, I would agree...but customization of the mech is good.

3. Until you get a very good match where there is a lot of sniping and not much going on...actual tactics are being used, players on both teams are communicating even through the chatbox...some of that you're just not gonna avoid. More and different game modes could potentially help, but I do believe that's a different discussion. Semi-agree here...there are exceptions. Even as a PUG.

4. This I'd have to agree for the most part. The biggest thing is knowing when to stop and type.

5. The lack of choice of where to fight is a good thing. Mostly because otherwise, all you'll face is x-mech(s) optimized for that particular field. It's to encourage variety in builds...where specialists are risky business. Again, you touch upon the matchmaker on this one...but a light has it's role too. In some cases, that light can even solo an assault or annoy them so much that they start trying to go after him so that your own heavies and assaults can take him down. Tactics and team play for the most part (most you can say against that is lack of communication). Or ignoring that light can also get them killed much faster. But also vice versa, that light could end up as fodder. The Solaris style matches are certainly something that people have been wanting, so agreed on that one.

6. Agreed. There is the occasional exception.

7. The long-term goal is supposed to be the modules. Though that may not be the case anymore according to ATD 45...since I guess role warfare is a mythe and assault mechs are the end all be all? Whatever happened to that design piller?! Otherwise, you're just gonna have to wait for Community Warfare to come in. And hope it's not messed up at all or very little gripes...

8. This is one of those differences between PUG and premade come in. Community Warfare as well. In a PUG setting, unless your faction symbol becomes a part of the matchmaker, and even then, lone wolves and mercs could still be on either side, you'll never really eliminate this. TKing happens very little in my experience...at most, you'll dread seeing someone again, be glad to see them, or dread that they're on your team.

9. No arguement from me personally here. Most I can come up with is that they're busy developing the game for Launch in September. But I would still like at least a small preview of what might be in next patch or two.

I doubt I'll respond back, but just some things to think about or for you to maybe elaborate on for the sake of discussion.

#3 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 26 August 2013 - 02:21 PM

View PostRed1769, on 26 August 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

I'm gonna address bullet points with numbers. You do bring up some good points...while others just doesn't apply.

2. What lack is there? You can change the colors, the armor amounts (depending upon mech weight), weapons, upgrades, eventually decals, various cockpit items...what more do you want? They've even talked about eventually having different types of Atlas skulls and such later on. The most limiting things are crit space, weapon hardpoints, and engine limits and those are there for balance reasons and/or each mech supposed to have their own pros and cons (those aren't the only things, heat comes to mind). The "avatar" is the pilot, not the mech. And that I do believe is where your focus on this point should be, however low priority it probably is for the devs given the various problems that they have. If it was about the pilot, I would agree...but customization of the mech is good.

5. The lack of choice of where to fight is a good thing. Mostly because otherwise, all you'll face is x-mech(s) optimized for that particular field. It's to encourage variety in builds...where specialists are risky business. Again, you touch upon the matchmaker on this one...but a light has it's role too. In some cases, that light can even solo an assault or annoy them so much that they start trying to go after him so that your own heavies and assaults can take him down. Tactics and team play for the most part (most you can say against that is lack of communication). Or ignoring that light can also get them killed much faster. But also vice versa, that light could end up as fodder. The Solaris style matches are certainly something that people have been wanting, so agreed on that one.




To Clairify:

2. I understand, from the purist point of view, that specific mechs have specific possible weapon loadouts and that is the way it is. If you want a EM tank you get this type of mech, a missle boat, take this type. I think that logic is very flawed. One should be able to excange and mix and match hardpoints for enough money. Like it or not, the mech is the think that the player is controlling and ipso facto is the player's avatar. If the mechwarrior purists were right about the strict adherance to the way things are done on the board game, we wouldn't have had to wait for a decade for a mechwarrior game -- there would be mechwarrior toys in the store and we would be up to Mechwarrior V movie. The goal is to make things more FUN and often you need to move away from Dogma to do that. From a corporate revenue standpoint, having people pay real money to swap that energy slot for a ballistics or missle slot is a fantastic idea.

5. I understand your point, and i personally enjoy the randomness. But some people like to master a specific environment with a specific build. In essence to become the master of the ice-cave or the uber lava runner. Having the option to choose does no harm if, the team-making imbalances are corrected. Is there something wrong with someone in a locust not wanting to go into river city because they get hung up on stuff all the time? An atlas not wanting to go to the snowfield because they can be seen from across the map? There is really not much difference between that and only wanting to participate in assault matches. Just because it's not your cup of tea, doesn't mean it isn't someon else's.

Hope that clears up my opinion.... just remember there is a reason that opium and opinion share the same root; or as my father used to say "Opinions are like armpits -- everyone has a couple and they usually stink" :)

#4 Red1769

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 349 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 03:49 PM

I have to say something because of those last comments...that's hysterical and very true in some instances, others are reasonable so long as you're open minded enough. And it does clear up some things.

2. I can see that as one of the many ways to do omni-mechs. I'm not a purist, just to clarify. And I can see that happening later rather than sooner. I think a lot of people would like to avoid that though...because of the possiblity of there being no real difference between mechs of the same weight, although some can argue that anyway with certain varients. I really don't care either way, you won't make everyone happy (again). Personally I think they struck a pretty good in compromise between the two groups for the standard inner sphere mech.

5. There is the training grounds to do that. The locust example just includes needing practice or telling the dev team "hey, this is where I'm getting hung up, can you check it out?" The Atlas example is just a risk that he has to take. Of course, if he has the build for it, he can force them back too. But is one of those things I can see in private matches between individuals and/or teams or even tournaments. To clarify my position, I don't really care either way...I can see both sides for and against. You won't make everyone happy either way.

#5 Destructicus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 1,255 posts
  • LocationKlendathu

Posted 26 August 2013 - 05:54 PM

View Postnehebkau, on 26 August 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

The lack of true customization of avatars (mechs) is directly against the direction that every successful MMO has taken. The reason for most MMOs allowing for greater customization of their avatars, including weapons used, armor worn etc., is to have your players bond to their avatars. This makes a player emotionally buy-in and in company terms; spend more money on the game. While the battle Tec universe is very strict on load outs and customizations this is not the way you win fans across a wide spectrum of players.





This isn't an MMO bud
There's plenty of customization
And your points about the lack of a "long-term, ultimate goal" are wrong as well
Currently we have modules, while lacking, that's part of it
The second part will eventually be Community Warfare.....whenever PGI gets around to it...

Anyways, you're a little late to party here, most of what you've stated has been stated time and time again already by most of us and nothing has changed.
Personally I'm hoping PGI can turn this game around with the help of an act of God by launch, but I don't really see it happening.
We'll see
Next patch is September 3rd, hopefully it's substantial as we know almost nothing about it besides that it'll have KTO's CT fix

Edited by Destructicus, 26 August 2013 - 05:57 PM.


#6 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 26 August 2013 - 06:21 PM

View PostDestructicus, on 26 August 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

[indent=1]

This isn't an MMO bud


There's plenty of customization

And your points about the lack of a "long-term, ultimate goal" are wrong as well



You mean it isnt:
(M)assively
(M)ulti-player
(O)online

so how many concurrent games of 24 players does it take to hit the massive multi-player part? I think you were confusing a MMORPG with a MMOFPS or MMOSIM.

I think you are missing my point about customization -- and I don't think that plenty = good enough. I think if they ignore this they will do a diservice to their game and potential micro-transaction revenue.

As far as long-term goals are concerned: where is the web-page that details where the game is going? Where is the "welcome to Rev1 of MWO. In rev2 we add "something" (expected release date xxx). In rev3 we add "something else" (expected release date xxx)"? Unless it's written down, with dates, for everyone to see it doesnt exist -- first rule of software deliverables.

As far as being a broken record, there is an old saying :
"If you want to get someone to listen to you, tell them what you are going to be telling them, then tell them, then tell them what you just told them."

Edited by nehebkau, 26 August 2013 - 06:22 PM.


#7 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 26 August 2013 - 06:27 PM

View PostRed1769, on 26 August 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

To clarify my position, I don't really care either way...I can see both sides for and against. You won't make everyone happy either way.


And usually the loudest voices complaining about it are the fewest in number and the most rabid of the fan base. I have a friend who used to work for bioware in Edmonton. He quit developing games because he couldn't deal with all the abuse the game-fans would hurl at him and his team.

Edited by nehebkau, 26 August 2013 - 06:29 PM.


#8 Destructicus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 1,255 posts
  • LocationKlendathu

Posted 26 August 2013 - 07:40 PM

View Postnehebkau, on 26 August 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:


You mean it isnt:
(M)assively
(M)ulti-player
(O)online

so how many concurrent games of 24 players does it take to hit the massive multi-player part? I think you were confusing a MMORPG with a MMOFPS or MMOSIM.

I think you are missing my point about customization -- and I don't think that plenty = good enough. I think if they ignore this they will do a diservice to their game and potential micro-transaction revenue.

As far as long-term goals are concerned: where is the web-page that details where the game is going? Where is the "welcome to Rev1 of MWO. In rev2 we add "something" (expected release date xxx). In rev3 we add "something else" (expected release date xxx)"? Unless it's written down, with dates, for everyone to see it doesnt exist -- first rule of software deliverables.

As far as being a broken record, there is an old saying :
"If you want to get someone to listen to you, tell them what you are going to be telling them, then tell them, then tell them what you just told them."


You used MMO in the context of an MMORPG
Given the fact you named features prominent in most MMORPGS
With your logic any game with multiple simultaneous online games is an MMO, by your logic, CoD is an MMO
Massively Multiplayer is more often than not used to describe a game that has hundreds or thousands of players in the same instance online, together simultaneously
WoW, EVE, Rift, Planetside 2
We can argue semantics all you want, but the context you used the word in is wrong.
Also
There is a content tracker updated by one of the guys from NGNG, it's the most reliable thing we have so far
There have also been multiple dated features in multiple posts made by actual PGI staff
Few of which actually met their deadline
We were supposed to get CW late spring, early summer, and thats straight from PGI
So yeah, it did exist, you stated yourself you've only played 2 months, but a lot of the issues the community has been dealing with have been ongoing for months

#9 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 28 August 2013 - 07:17 AM

View PostDestructicus, on 26 August 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:


You used MMO in the context of an MMORPG
Given the fact you named features prominent in most MMORPGS
With your logic any game with multiple simultaneous online games is an MMO, by your logic, CoD is an MMO
Massively Multiplayer is more often than not used to describe a game that has hundreds or thousands of players in the same instance online, together simultaneously
WoW, EVE, Rift, Planetside 2
We can argue semantics all you want, but the context you used the word in is wrong.
Also
There is a content tracker updated by one of the guys from NGNG, it's the most reliable thing we have so far
There have also been multiple dated features in multiple posts made by actual PGI staff
Few of which actually met their deadline
We were supposed to get CW late spring, early summer, and thats straight from PGI
So yeah, it did exist, you stated yourself you've only played 2 months, but a lot of the issues the community has been dealing with have been ongoing for months


Well, first, from wikipedia on CoD:
"As of November 11, 2011, the Call of Duty series has sold over 100 million copies. As of March 31, 2012 there are 40 million monthly active players across all of the Call of Duty titles, with 10 million Call of Duty: Elite users and 2 million paying annual members. Over 1.6 billion hours of online gameplay have been logged Modern Warfare 3 since its 2011 release"

I think that qualifies and massive but there is a single-player component to the game so it isn't truely an online game even with its multi-player element. The primary consideration for an online game is that connection to remote servers is required for play -- which MWO has. Massive is a relative term and given that 10K people purchased sarah's jenner I think there are a lot of players here and you can't deny this game is multi-player. The persistent world portion is what you seem to be getting hung up on and that's not a requirement for an MMO game. But you are right, this distracts from other things.

The major thing that you said -- that indicates where there is a problem with game direction is

View PostDestructicus, on 26 August 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

There is a content tracker updated by one of the guys from NGNG, it's the most reliable thing we have so far


So, you are trying to say that a fan-run site is the source of deliverables for PGI? A fan-run site? Does it matter that developers post there? No. As a developer i've promised things to clients only to have the designers say no. A developer gets told what to develop and writes the code to meet the requirement. Developers don't design, developers don't implement policy. So, when a developer posts on a fan-site it would be similar to a assembly-line worker promising that the next year's model of car will have 2,000 HP.

The simple fact that there is no MWO future development roadmap provided by the people who are RESPONSIBLE for making those decisions and who are held accountable when those deliverables are not met speaks volumes. Lets look at Star Citizen -- go to their web-site and you find videos and text about where things are going as well as deliverables etc. Whats worse, is that many of you are taking these un-official quips as being some type of contract and then getting bent out of shape when things go sideways.

I've seen lack of proper communicaion and disjunction between players and management killed games before -- several much bigger then this game.

Edited by nehebkau, 28 August 2013 - 07:40 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users