62 replies to this topic

[Nik Reaper]

Well, there is that one thing to consder, they used crysis engine , and it made a lot of ppl cry.. and they needed a LOT of time to make it behave they way it does now.... ah the days of no minimap and other fun times..... so yeah, they are slow and too small for there own good , I guess they found that a bigger dev team is not viable with the income, or they like a high pay x) .

[Nik Reaper]

Well, one could say they aren't great at what they do, can you get us someone better to touch this game or any BT licence property?

[Iqfish]

Marack Drock, on 29 November 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

No, because I am not in contact with any and the license has already been sold to PGI for the next 15 or 20 years.

I thought it was 2016?

[Rebas Kradd]

You really have not been paying attention, Marack. The IGP issue has been leaked from multiple sources, not just Russ, and as early as summer '13. That's why I find it credible. It didn't just materialize conveniently when PGI had a new mech pack to sell, despite claims of PGI's critics.

There were also legitimate issues cited by Karl Berg (albeit months and months late) for the development slowdowns - need for new infrastructure, hit registration problems far worse than what we have now, deep CryEngine bugs, etc. that fit with Russ's narrative just fine.

Marack Drock, on 29 November 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

Cryptic Studios had a dev team of 75 when they started STO...It has 3 million active players and is an awesome game.

Do the math, dude...75 devs is twice what PGI has.

Marack Drock, on 29 November 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

Also prove to me that Russ is telling the truth (because PGI has a history of saying crap in this game).

Again, if all you have behind your argument is mistrust and cynicism, I'm not going to bother. All that I'll say is to repeat that other rumblings generally match up with what he's said. I won't deny that PGI overpromised and that they've had a lot of inexperience to overcome, but I'm okay with that. It's an explanation grounded in the real world, with real people, and it's shown major signs of improvement this year.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 29 November 2014 - 03:00 PM.

[Mech42Ace]

I heard (forget where) that they have the game license till 2020; which is good because it's an even number.

[Iqfish]

Mech42Ace, on 29 November 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

I heard (forget where) that they have the game license till 2020; which is good because it's an even number.

Like they own the Wing Commander License?

[Rebas Kradd]

Marack Drock, on 29 November 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

Also if all this stuff is "off record" and just conjured by no one but the Secret Squirrel Club then there is nothing for me to debate about as it is not proof. It is speculation. You have only leaked one post by one PGI employee who was talking about delays that could have been resolved when this game was first in development. Also it doesn't take 2-3 years to develop hitboxes.

You're missing the point. You have multiple sources all generally saying the same thing - Russ, Karl, the other leak which does NOT claim to be speculation - and while it's open to debate, it's still multiple leaks from more knowledgeable sources (within the game). That's more credible to me than multiple statements from the community, which has no evidence at all to back it up.

Also, nobody said they ONLY did hitboxes for 2-3 years. Stop being pedantic. They worked on all kinds of things during those years, and you know it.

Marack Drock, on 29 November 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

The Publishers cannot make the Developers do anything no matter how much they Nag. Those excuses are not viable for the delays this game has faced from 2011 to now. Also IPG wasn't off the publishing until September.... But wait there was not resistance when PGI released Clans, UI2.0, and Merc Unit Creation.... so the whole IPG was stopping us is just a load of bull because development happened with them on the watch. It is PGI's fault if no development happens. Publishers don't develop and they don't control. They advise or refuse.

That's really not the case at all.

At this point it's clear that you're simply impatient and don't want to hear it, so I will stop trying to convince you.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 29 November 2014 - 05:09 PM.

[StompingOnTanks]

-Eases tension with huge bowl of fresh chocolate chip cookies-

Anyway, IMO it seems more and more often that publishers screw up game devs in general. The perfect example is EA, who routinely buys out small but well known game dev companies and then rips their souls out before making them pump out yearly trash like they're running a sweat shop.

Normally I don't buy into the whole "corporations are evil" BS (not that I particularly like them), but in this case I can see the damage that large, corrupt, greedy businesses run by fat guys in suits is doing to the creativity in the game industry.

I applaud PGI's separation from IGP as I think that is a major factor in how quickly the game has progressed for the past few months. It is time to put game developing back into the hands of game developers. In fact, I would like it if every game studio self-published their games with no big publisher over their shoulders the entire time.

Thus my huge support of indie developers and companies like Valve and Renegade Kid (they make DS games. They made Dementium I and II which were awesome and worth a buy if you own a DS and like horror games.)

[StompingOnTanks]

Marack Drock, on 29 November 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

I do agree. But.. wasn't IPG made to publish this game?

Yeah, but I guess they screwed up apparently.

[Tarl Cabot]

Perigren, on 29 November 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

For me the O in MW:O is the problem. Online only games lack substance imo. A campaign would go a long way to bring me back in to the fold.

The funding was not available for a single person campaign model. Without the funding PGI obtained for an Online version of the game you would have Mektek Mercs or or MWLL, which both lacked any serious population and financial backing.

Even in the single person games you still had to "level" up, the grind to higher levels/better mechs, a completed/finished game that took a few years to make. For the most part those days are gone unless you have some serious financial backing, a solid foundation. Without the f2p model and kickstarter, as well as the initial IGP backing, MWO would not be here, nor is it likely PGI would have continued working on a single player MW game.

For me MWO atm like our version of MPBT Solaris but without the Bars/Arenas (lobbies), which currently hampers the community from even having a Succession War scenarios while we wait for PGI to flesh the game with CW. There is a league currently doing that but it is a third party, only the combat part takes place in MWO.

You make of it what you can. I actually would like to see CW to be more than system to system, a more planetary conquest, sector to sector, city to city, etc and not a generic planetary system +/- setup with no real surface details.

And that would include initial raids be conducted by light/med lances (generally no assaults).

That is what I would like to see. About the only time I rage is when my mouse loses focus with the game but I THINK I may be the cause, static electricity running through the mouse, causing it to re-initialize. Now to find my anti-static strap...

[Insidious Johnson]

PGI might finally be getting a clue. Niko fired. Paul spayed and or neutered from making his infamous "balance" attempts. I hear Russ has actually grown a pair and stopped making the game for his torso twist challenged child. Still does not repair the damage of trust between the gone and forgotten founders and PGI. Selling tickets for the overdue witch burnings would go a long way. They've consistently sought out under performers who wonder why their psychotic vagaries were not enough to sate the appetites of community who just wanted to big stompy robot on a star map for control of the galaxy. So many mechwarriors gone....for good. PGI .... would that it could.

[100mile]

Fact is you can't reason with anybody that liked Mech Assault....If they want to play CoD in Mechs then they won't like this game...

PGI has done an excellent job of moving forward since they dropped IGP. They were hoding things up and not letting PGI concentrate on what they needed to. We are less then 3 weeks away from having the first iteration of CW released...Have a little more patience..we are almost there...

[StompingOnTanks]

Marack Drock, on 02 December 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

I am not saying the game is 100% trash. I am saying there is nothing for me if all it is going to be is constant unceasing grinding for the rest of its life. I want a story not endless grinding. I have run out of patience because of the lies and I still don't know what CW will be like. If it is great than I will redact all I have said wronging PGI. If not.... I will flame them for a long while until its done right. I don't like endless grinding to the point of World of Tanks. Cause that is what it is right now. Just constant grinding without story or purpose.

The devs did mention Player-Vs-Enemy in one of the podcasts. It is a possibility they are willing to look at after Clan Wars is out. Personally, I would love to have this game with a co-operative campaign mode with missions based on events in the Clan Invasion or Succession Wars (or both).

[girl on fire]

Rebas Kradd, on 29 November 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

You really have not been paying attention, Marack. The IGP issue has been leaked from multiple sources, not just Russ, and as early as summer '13. That's why I find it credible. It didn't just materialize conveniently when PGI had a new mech pack to sell, despite claims of PGI's critics.

There were also legitimate issues cited by Karl Berg (albeit months and months late) for the development slowdowns - need for new infrastructure, hit registration problems far worse than what we have now, deep CryEngine bugs, etc. that fit with Russ's narrative just fine.



Do the math, dude...75 devs is twice what PGI has.





Again, if all you have behind your argument is mistrust and cynicism, I'm not going to bother. All that I'll say is to repeat that other rumblings generally match up with what he's said. I won't deny that PGI overpromised and that they've had a lot of inexperience to overcome, but I'm okay with that. It's an explanation grounded in the real world, with real people, and it's shown major signs of improvement this year.

i agree i don't think there was ever malicious intent, or a conscious desire to deceive. I don't think they are out to cheat people, but yeah, their vision was definitely much grander than their ability.

That said, they do need to start fulfilling some of the significant aspects to make this an actual game, as opposed to a contextless death match arena matchmaker, 'cause Marak is right that this is all that MWO has ever been and it's been that way for far too long.

How much can you lean on the excuses without delivering at some point? A lot of people have already left because that inexperience is often perceived as incompetence, or worse, a cash grab with no intention of fulfilling the obligations to their community... Honestly? I can't blame the people who feel that way. Three years is a long time to wait for a game to become a game. To me, MWO still feels like a beta.

Edited by girl on fire, 04 December 2014 - 08:37 AM.

[Kyone Akashi]

I wonder if it's a matter of budget, meaning whether Piranha has lost anything due to IGP's handling, and how much it costs to maintain the Battletech license. This would certainly affect the studio's ability to afford resources to expand the game. Compared to what a small studio like Frontier has been churning out for its own beta in terms of content and features, it does feel as if PGI has maybe a dozen employees ... including marketing and community.

Of course, it is easy to get the wrong impression, as we simply lack a grasp of what is going on behind the curtains. But considering how many years it's been ... whew.

Marack Drock, on 02 December 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

Same. That would make this game worth my time. Endless grinding I can get anywhere.

I don't even mind to grind, per se. But I've got friends who, whilst being fans of Battletech, dislike the idea of fighting against other human players in general, and I myself would greatly appreciate some more variety. PvP always requires balancing, which means you can't have missions with differently sized forces like you'd have in most story campaigns, not to mention improved immersion by NPCs looking and acting like they're actually part of a military lance rather than running off on their own or sporting "controversial" loadouts and paintjobs.

Sure, I'd take a story campaign, but I think in terms of longevity what I'd rather like to see would be a sort of "randomly generated missions" where the map, objective, participating forces and tactics are all randomised. This at least would ensure that you don't just play a campaign and that's it, but instead get a "fresh" mission every time you play, with the developer releasing new "modules" to add maps, objectives and forces as content patches to keep things alive. A bit like the Mass Effect multiplayer, if you will, just more tactical. I've sunk hundreds of hours into that one...

[Vassago Rain]

http://raymondchabot...-for-sale/26192

It's ogre.

[Rebas Kradd]

girl on fire, on 04 December 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

A lot of people have already left because that inexperience is often perceived as incompetence, or worse, a cash grab with no intention of fulfilling the obligations to their community... Honestly? I can't blame the people who feel that way.

I can...to an extent. There have been reasons for the delays, foremost among them the slow size of their staff and the disruptive milestone goals they were required to meet by a publisher in the usual now-now-now shovelware mindset. Those reasons completely reframe almost everything that's happened. Yet they have been conveniently ignored by a lot of PGI's most hostile opponents, and there is no excuse for the willful ignorance they demonstrated on Twitter during the Transverse fiasco.

girl on fire, on 04 December 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

Three years is a long time to wait for a game to become a game. To me, MWO still feels like a beta.

Three years is really not a long time for the development of a video game.

[Kyone Akashi]

Rebas Kradd, on 05 December 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

Three years is really not a long time for the development of a video game.

Not per se, but how different does the game actually look compared to where it already was three years ago?

Undoubtedly it has expanded, but not nearly at the same efficient pace the initial Alpha was developed. At least I assume that crafting the foundation for everything is more complicated than deploying new maps and 'mechs or implementing controversial consumables.
I mean, it took 1 1/2 years just to do an interface overhaul, and then it actually ended up looking/feeling worse than before (to the point that two of my friends have quite the game over it ... over an interface update!).

By no means I want to sound like a "Negative Nancy", so don't get me wrong here. The initial Alpha felt so fluid and polished that it turned into the reason for why I became a Founder, and by now I have played for so many hours that I consider my investment having yielded an appropriate amount of entertainment. In short, I had a lot of fun. But that doesn't change that I still perceive a number of pretty glaring flaws and untapped potential, so right now I've put my account on ice until some day Community Warfare actually launches.
I never used to really think about this, but ever since I've signed up for Elite Dangerous, I got to see a stark contrast in development speed - even when it comes to minor details which I've now pretty much given up on ever seeing in MWO, such as choosing your pilot's gender.

Some of the fault may well rest with IGP, and I remember official posts hinting very strongly at it from around the time PGI purchased its freedom. Maybe it is also a lack of funds that forces them to operate on a very tight budget. Or perhaps lack of long-term experience, having led to some bad calls. Or a mixture of it all. The result is the same: the game did not actually go very far over the years.

We'll see what the future holds.

[Heffay]

Kyone Akashi, on 06 December 2014 - 02:10 AM, said:

I mean, it took 1 1/2 years just to do an interface overhaul, and then it actually ended up looking/feeling worse than before (to the point that two of my friends have quite the game over it ... over an interface update!).

UI 2.0 wasn't just an interface overhaul. It was an overhaul of the entire back end of the game. The original architecture was based off of a proof of concept build, and when code gets to a certain level of sophistication it has to be designed for growth. UI 2.0 was about getting the back end *and* interface up to modern standards so the game could scale going forward. Think of it as a rewrite of the entire game aside from the actual gameplay.

And based off their ability to hit targets in 2014, I'd say it was a huge success, even if the interface portion of it still needs some significant tweaks.

[Mazzyplz]

was IGP ever prosecuted for fraud? i'd like to know about this.

good thing is that they went under and they can scam gamers no more, we did it guys! *pops champagne*