Jump to content

How Not To Complain To A Developer


152 replies to this topic

#21 CyclonerM

    Tina's Warrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 5,684 posts
  • LocationA 2nd Wolf Guards Grenadiers JumpShip

Posted 02 February 2014 - 12:22 PM

What have i started.. :)

#22 Roadbeer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationWazan, Zion Cluster

Posted 02 February 2014 - 12:24 PM

View PostThoummim, on 02 February 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

Well if they did a good job we wouldnt have to complain in the first place.


Not entirely true, people will complain about anything....
"I'm pissed I won the lottery because of these taxes I have to pay"
"This orgasm is getting annoying"
Some people in the world just are predisposed to be miserable.

#23 Bagheera

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,920 posts
  • LocationStrong and Pretty

Posted 02 February 2014 - 12:35 PM

View PostHeffay, on 02 February 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

It's a great article that some people think it doesn't apply to them because they are special snowflakes. :)


It may be a great article, but that doesn't absolve PGI's inability to effectively communicate from their end or their lack of desire to receive input from people who do express their opinions clearly, maturely, and backed with solid data. Even that isn't consistent either, some ideas adopted were pretty bad and adopted despite heavy and well reasoned objection. Occasionally a good suggestion or two slips in as well.

Also, I don't claim to be one of those people, and several of them have since given up and either left or resorted to persistent trolling. The point is that the idea there are "sides" to this problem and that one "side" is somehow completely innocent and the other not is hilariously false. It's an imperfect system and always will be; blindly defending one or the other is missing the whole picture.

Edited by Bagheera, 02 February 2014 - 12:41 PM.


#24 Roadbeer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationWazan, Zion Cluster

Posted 02 February 2014 - 01:04 PM

View PostBagheera, on 02 February 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:


It may be a great article, but that doesn't absolve PGI's inability to effectively communicate from their end or their lack of desire to receive input from people who do express their opinions clearly, maturely, and backed with solid data. Even that isn't consistent either, some ideas adopted were pretty bad and adopted despite heavy and well reasoned objection. Occasionally a good suggestion or two slips in as well.

Also, I don't claim to be one of those people, and several of them have since given up and either left or resorted to persistent trolling. The point is that the idea there are "sides" to this problem and that one "side" is somehow completely innocent and the other not is hilariously false. It's an imperfect system and always will be; blindly defending one or the other is missing the whole picture.

I don't think that this is entirely wrong, but it also seems that many people came into this with super-high expectations, which when not met, have resorted to spit-spraying posting.

Maybe because of MPBT:3025, I came in with low expectations and honestly didn't expect it to last this long, so either way, I'm pleasantly surprised.

Also, I've been on both sides of deadlines getting missed in my industry, nothing you can do about it other than to learn to not over-promise (a lesson that PGI hopefully has learned real well, new roadmap will be the test), so no sense in becoming apoplectic about it.

/shrug

#25 S3dition

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,633 posts
  • LocationWashington, USA

Posted 02 February 2014 - 01:10 PM

No matter how many times I see people applauding MW4 in these forums, it still makes me laugh. I guess you guys were all 5 years old when it came out. Horrible graphics, bad story. Mechwarrior players back then were up in arms and nerd raging about how Microsoft ruined everything and destroyed the mechwarrior franchise and how much better MW2 and 3 was. Multiplayer was limited to jump sniping and nobody took anything but a 90 or 100 ton mech. It's the reason nobody made Mechwarrior 5.

But hey, that's the nature of humanity. Just like bitching that nothing has changed in this game for 3 years when you've only been able to play it for less than 2. The developers have had a finished product the day the first line of code was written, right? Oddly enough, 2 years into WoT and they had 6 maps, 1 game mode, and around 40 tanks, most of which looked like they were modeled by an intern.

#26 RadioKies

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 419 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 02 February 2014 - 01:34 PM

View PostRoadbeer, on 02 February 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

Ummm, how do you figure. 24 scripted missions with a rudimentary AI does not a complex game make. Plus it's a single player game with Multi-player tacked on. You don't have to worry about things like weapon balancing, netcode, Hit reg, ad infinitium

Eh? Creating missionsn and making scripts isn't hard is what you are telling me? Have you ever tried to make a campaign for something like StarCraft/StarCraftII or to make a level with scripts like Quake/Unreal(Tournament)? Thats not a walk in the park my friend.
Also (weapons) balancing isn't needed because multiplayer is secondary? You need to balance the missions to make them playable and allthough weaponbalance isn't the biggest factor in a singleplayer when compared to multiplayer it is still required for good gameplay.
Don't forget MW4 had more weapons and a lot of units as in: mechs, choppers, tanks, hovercrafts, boats, dropships etc. The diffirent unit types had diffirent AI code. I don't know how developped the AI was, but in MWO you need 0 AI (plus Cryengine allready has AI when needed, like for the turrets). Another thing MW4 had and MWO doesn't have is movies, a story, mission briefings with text and voice over.

There are 3 things that should make a game like MWO take longer to develop when compared to games a few years back is:
1-More details (better textures and higher polygon meshes): take a lot of money and time.
2-Multiplayer oriented coding/balancing: There is more data to synchronise than just a player location, player skin, enemy location and weapons fired from point a that hit point b. Plus weapons balancing weighs more than in a singleplayer game.
3-More features are possible.

While number 1 is a great factor that slows development down for all games nowadays points 2 and three aren't that big a factor here.
2: Why is it so hard to make a multiplayer game on network code? UT99 could do a 32 (thirty two) player game without problems on a slow telephone line... BF4 has 64 player maps. We finally have 24 players (allthough I see too many 10/11 versus 12 gameS) with MWO, but still with stange HSR at times. Can somebody please tell my why, is it because CryEngine is that bad of an engine?! Balancing: Even though PGI are showing that they are trying to balance weapons it's not something that takes 70% of their thinking/programming time. I said try because the Gauss, the flamer, AC10 and especially the (non streak)SRM2 are waaaay OP and need to be nerfed more!
3: MW4 had more features than MWO has and will have untill CW or some real diffirent game modes are implemented.

I really hope that de feb 4 patch will change things. Especially disabling the nohud cfg code Not just implement UI2.0 but actually be true to be a bottleneck in PGI's development instead of an excuse to delay things (not untill UI2.0 is ready!), because I've been playing the same game over and over since closed beta. Every other game that would have been in development like this would be out of my sight, but my enthousiasm for the MW ip and the potential this game has, has kept me playing it. Thats also a reason why I submit bugs with screenshots and instructions how to reproduce them. I love big stompy mechs! It's the reason why I still play the old MW games and the mechcommanders.

@ your update:
"I don't think that this is entirely wrong, but it also seems that many people came into this with super-high expectations, which when not met, have resorted to spit-spraying posting."

Those super-high expectations where created by the Mechwarrior 5 trailer and how things would work. Like destroying a building to take away cover and maybe screw a mech over who was standing ontop of it. Also because we had things in CB that were removed, so we had a glimpse of features like tripping mechs via collision.

And to close it off, It would really help if PGI did more communicating. Just look at WolfireGames, IVSoftware and UberEntertainment, they show what they are working on via video and by doing it via YouTube and Live streaming they allso show some love they have for their product. Video's don't have to be long, just show what you are doing/thinking about.

-edit- @ S3dition, MW2 and 3 were more fun indeed but still it wasn't a bad game. Also, WoT felt like a cashgrab game with P2W elements like the top tier tanks, the special tanks and the better ammo etc.
Thank you PGI for not making MWO a P2W game.

Edited by RadioKies, 02 February 2014 - 01:37 PM.


#27 Heffay

    Rum Runner

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 6,458 posts
  • LocationPHX

Posted 02 February 2014 - 02:33 PM

View PostBagheera, on 02 February 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:


It may be a great article, but that doesn't absolve PGI's inability to effectively communicate from their end or their lack of desire to receive input from people who do express their opinions clearly, maturely, and backed with solid data. Even that isn't consistent either, some ideas adopted were pretty bad and adopted despite heavy and well reasoned objection. Occasionally a good suggestion or two slips in as well.

Also, I don't claim to be one of those people, and several of them have since given up and either left or resorted to persistent trolling. The point is that the idea there are "sides" to this problem and that one "side" is somehow completely innocent and the other not is hilariously false. It's an imperfect system and always will be; blindly defending one or the other is missing the whole picture.


Have you seen this community*? Why would anyone ever listen to ANYTHING they ever said??




*This applies even before MWO was a twinkle in anyone's eye.

#28 BFett

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • LocationA galaxy far far away...

Posted 02 February 2014 - 03:01 PM

View PostHeffay, on 02 February 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:


Have you seen this community*? Why would anyone ever listen to ANYTHING they ever said??




*This applies even before MWO was a twinkle in anyone's eye.


http://www.bryanekman.com/

They wanted to listen in the beginning.

#29 Sybreed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 02 February 2014 - 03:06 PM

oh hell, the communication between the devs and the community was great in early CB. It went downhill when founders gained access to the game and realized the game was bare bones in terms of content and had little to no lasting appeal.

So, people asked for more in-game content so they had a reason to come back and play and all they got was wonky new mechanics like ghost heat, badly thought items like ECM, and more, more, more $$$ stuff like hero mechs and camo.

So I don't know what Russ is trying to accomplish here. Is he trying to say the community is not nice to him? If that's the case, what created this toxicity between the devs and the playerbase?

I'm just asking: what came first, the egg or the chicken?

I won't disagree with what's said in the article, but the saying "you reap what you sow" is the defining way to summarize PGI's cutthroat relation with its community.

Besides, they got a lot of thanks lately for their increased communication, so why post this now?

#30 GoManGo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 353 posts

Posted 02 February 2014 - 04:12 PM

Im sorry but PGI reminds me of (MekTek) all over again and the mistakes they made and I don't think I can stand another 10 years of BS. If they can produce a Lobby system with private matches like MechWarrior2-3-4 had the game will live if not it will fail and its not going to take 10 years.If PGI will listen to reason I do believe MWO can be salvaged from the ashes.

Posted Image

Edited by GoManGo, 02 February 2014 - 04:14 PM.


#31 990Dreams

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,908 posts
  • LocationHotlanta

Posted 02 February 2014 - 05:37 PM

View PostBFett, on 02 February 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

The first day these forums came online which happens to also be my join date.


Cause CW was promised to come with the forums.

Oh wait, no it wasn't.

#32 Roadbeer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationWazan, Zion Cluster

Posted 02 February 2014 - 05:50 PM

View PostMarack Drock, on 02 February 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

If MW4 and MWO were going to be released at the same time in 2000 (this is for argument sake), then MW4 would be the more popular because it a orverall better design ATM.


I'd disagree with that point, because the multi-player play in this would have MW4 beat to a bloody pulp, the game balance exceeds anything the release (and patches) of MW4 had.

Only thing MW4 has going for it was a great story line.

Please, your nostalgia is painting a meh title with rainbows and unicorn farts.

#33 Roadbeer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationWazan, Zion Cluster

Posted 02 February 2014 - 06:45 PM

I don't think anyone disagrees that the game needs more.
But it appears that they were kinda just phoning it in until they got their licence extended, but now that that's done, lets look for great things in 2014 (after they fix the buggy UI -_- )

#34 StompingOnTanks

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 2,972 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 02 February 2014 - 07:03 PM

View PostMarack Drock, on 02 February 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

"no one else is giving them any bad news"


I think you need to see the feedback threads on basically.. Everything. -_-

#35 GoManGo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 353 posts

Posted 02 February 2014 - 08:15 PM

Roadbeer=I'd disagree with that point, because the multi-player play in this would have MW4 beat to a bloody pulp, the game balance exceeds anything the release (and patches) of MW4 had.

Only thing MW4 has going for it was a great story line.

Please, your nostalgia is painting a meh title with rainbows and unicorn farts.

Let me tell you what road yes the original Mechwarrior4 vengeance and Mechwarrior4 Mercenaries Multiplayer platform was the best of all the series.You could set up matches anyway you like not some AI controlled Scrap that just drives players away like MWO does. PGI/IGP was given a great core game to follow in those 2 PC games alone not counting Mechwarior2 and Mechwarrior3. Then there was the best multiplayer platform for MechWarrior of all time the MSN GAMMING ZONE which hosted million of MechWarrior players over its 10 year life span.

If Microsoft had not pulled the plug on the zone MechWarrior's would still be playing MechWarrior3-Mechwarrior4 Mercenaries on it and all the expansions.I know your trying to defend PGI and the Devs but dammit they just made MWO wrong to start with.Plus its was PGI/IGP the killed what was left of the old MechWarrior community that had supported the games for years and tried to sub plant them.No wonder there bitter then on top of everything else there are no leagues.

You have to wonder if the Devs even ever knew what MechWarrior was let alone know how to build a MechWarrior game to start with.

Posted Image

Edited by GoManGo, 02 February 2014 - 08:16 PM.


#36 BFett

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • LocationA galaxy far far away...

Posted 02 February 2014 - 09:12 PM

View PostDavidHurricane, on 02 February 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:


Cause CW was promised to come with the forums.

Oh wait, no it wasn't.

Since you are taking my statement out of context let me help you find out where I'm coming from.

My response was "2 years, 3 months, 2 days and still no Community Warfare." with regards to how long PGI has been working on the game starting at the concept stage and working up to where we are today. This means that PGI had an idea about Community Warfare and what it might look like at the launch of the website. Give them 2 months to iron out the ideas and present it to the community to generate hype.

#37 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 02 February 2014 - 09:43 PM

View PostMarack Drock, on 02 February 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

Its also an example of people who don't listen to the community.

Dude how can you explain 3 years of nothing.
I did calculations in 3 years we have gotten 20 mechs (give or take), 6 maps (night and snow version don't count as they are the same map just a different setting), 2 gamemodes, and Glass that requires windex badly. EXPLAIN THAT!!! It took 2 years for MW4 Vengeance.


Most games take 2-6 years to develop, depending upon the game, graphics, and depth. This game, for not existing 3 years ago, and for being in open beta for, what, 2 years? Not too bad so far. They are a small company taking on a project that normally is created by much larger outfits.

If Vengeance took 2 years to develop, it would probably be because they used a lot of stuff from MW3, already had a library of things to use on the game, and have a much larger team to create the project. PGI is small, and has to make each piece of this game on it's own, no vast library to reference to, and no previous coding to copy, use, or even look at. They are also a lot less experienced in a game of this type, and are having to learn much of the ropes of a game like this on their own.

A lot of people don't realize the depth and work that goes into creating something. As an artist, I know that creation times will very from person to person and art team to art team. What takes me 10 minutes to just sketch, and 30 minutes or more to draw and finalize, might take someone else hours or days, or even a fraction of my time... Creating a game is a whole different beast, and seems a lot harder than many people think. (I've tried to create game levels in games that have world creators. Not easy. And that's just one world, not even touching code or making the whole game work!)

#38 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 02 February 2014 - 09:51 PM

View PostBFett, on 02 February 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

Since you are taking my statement out of context let me help you find out where I'm coming from.

My response was "2 years, 3 months, 2 days and still no Community Warfare." with regards to how long PGI has been working on the game starting at the concept stage and working up to where we are today. This means that PGI had an idea about Community Warfare and what it might look like at the launch of the website. Give them 2 months to iron out the ideas and present it to the community to generate hype.


Don't forget the major problems they found in the engine coding, and then some more bugs that were causing some massive problems, then HSR being needed to stop the "LAG Shield" and then the LRMageddons... etc... CW got placed on the back burner a couple of times, and they had to figure out the battle system first before they worked on CW. That means that time must be taken away from the "2 years, 3 months, 2 days" time frame. Give about a year or two to get the combat system nailed down and working relatively well enough... and we are left with 3 months. Can you conceptualize, code up, implement and get working flawlessly a whole CW yourself in that time? While at the same time addressing game bugs, UI2.0 (as the first "conceptualization" didn't seem to cover everything it needed to, and needed to be replaced/updated),etc?

Give them time, I'm sure it's been getting worked on. Just other items jumped in front and had to be done first is all.

Edited by Tesunie, 02 February 2014 - 09:52 PM.


#39 GalaxyBluestar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,748 posts
  • Location...

Posted 02 February 2014 - 10:14 PM

the most telling part of the article is this part...

Quote

What surprises me, though, is when an unsatisfied gamer takes their argument the route of 'do this, otherwise I want a refund' or 'I won't buy this game.' Those people are literally saying 'please treat me like a number.' They are expressing the assumption that a studio would always treat people in the worst possible way unless there's the threat of monetary or reputational damage. Essentially, making that statement is saying 'you shouldn't listen to me because I have a thought, just listen to me because of my money or the way I can impact your ratings or your reputation.'


since when has a customer compliant justified treating that complainer as someone who should be dismissed as "a number?" when someone says "hey i don't like your 3 wheeled car" and say they refuse to buy it especially when years of advertising said it would come with four wheels is disingenuous.

there is a line where justification for the designs {or lack of them} in reply to the complainer becomes a wall of deceit and i think russ broke that when he admitted CW will only be able to be built by 2015, not siting all the struggles with the UI front and backend to make it possible. not admitting how little of the advertised plans were actually being made but were held up in figuring how to make it work but instead says nothing {lack of communication} used continuous CW deadlines strung through out 2012-13 to keep numbers up for purchases such as the phoenix pack. russ and co strung the whole playerbase along on a false hood to justify to microsoft that the game was financially viable to extend the licence instead of just telling us what the real position was at the time. this could also be microsoft's fault, the "backers/investors" who may still be tieing russ's hands on what he can tell us. he still say's he's only alowed to divulge so much info right?

this is why people have had a right to complain and if you treat them merely as numbers for reacting in an understandable fashion {because they don't know the truth of the situation and you, the dev are deliberatly misleading them} then expect the numbers to go down... but not just in complainers.

View PostS3dition, on 02 February 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

No matter how many times I see people applauding MW4 in these forums, it still makes me laugh. I guess you guys were all 5 years old when it came out. Horrible graphics, bad story. Mechwarrior players back then were up in arms and nerd raging about how Microsoft ruined everything and destroyed the mechwarrior franchise and how much better MW2 and 3 was. Multiplayer was limited to jump sniping and nobody took anything but a 90 or 100 ton mech. It's the reason nobody made Mechwarrior 5.

But hey, that's the nature of humanity. Just like bitching that nothing has changed in this game for 3 years when you've only been able to play it for less than 2. The developers have had a finished product the day the first line of code was written, right? Oddly enough, 2 years into WoT and they had 6 maps, 1 game mode, and around 40 tanks, most of which looked like they were modeled by an intern.


about MW4 sooooo very true i left the series behind after vengence, was overall a let down. i very much treasure my mech chest, MW3, MW3 Pirate's moon and MC Gold. marvelous!

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 02 February 2014 - 10:21 PM.


#40 Stormwolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 3,951 posts
  • LocationCW Dire Wolf

Posted 02 February 2014 - 10:30 PM

I look at it this way, MWO is to Mechwarrior as Master of Orion 3 was to Master of Orion franchise. Both are largely incomplete games that were rushed out the door and never delivered on what they promised.

Why is this bad you ask? Well, MOO3 was pretty much the franchise killer of the series. Not dealing with any kind of criticism as a developer is ultimately self destructive. The feedback given about 3rd person view and the implementation of things like ECM are some good examples here.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users