6 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Alright, The Plan ( http://www.mwomercs.com/theplan ) has obviously not been updated for a VERY long time... please update that?

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

The 'Plan' was normally updated by Bryan Ekman,

- But it's been quite a while since we've heard from him. (after the 'Transverse' flop)
- I think he's been keeping a very low profile.

But, with Russ's current activity and Tina also involved now, perhaps that area can be 'revisited'. With all the changes that have happened to the game and some of the 'listed' items within 'The Plan' no longer being developed, it may need a complete revamp.

9erRed

[Threat Doc]

I don't know about a COMPLETE revamp, but yes, it would be something of a chore to get it back in shape. Really, I would like to see some tentative time ranges, as well, such as "Q4 2015 Tentative", or "Q1 2016 Goal".

[Tarogato]

Kay Wolf, on 18 April 2015 - 05:35 PM, said:

I don't know about a COMPLETE revamp, but yes, it would be something of a chore to get it back in shape. Really, I would like to see some tentative time ranges, as well, such as "Q4 2015 Tentative", or "Q1 2016 Goal".

Eh, it would mean somebody (probably Russ or Paul) would have to decide goals, and putting them onto a page would imply a commitment of some sort, even if tentative. I don't think they wanna risk breaking any more commitments of that sort, they're already walking a thin line and doing their best to improve their reputation, which has been slow but steady progress.

Besides, remember that one time Russ said "yeah ill try to have the next month roadmap up this weekend" and then it wasn't posted until late on Monday and it didn't really contain anything we didn't already know, nor was it even formatted and a pleasure to read? Yeah.

Maybe if Tina is feeling REALLY adventurous... but she's already got enough on her plate. Better off removing The Plan from the site completely. When asked about it on Twitter, Russ didn't seem to be fully aware that it even existed. I lol'd.

Edited by Tarogato, 19 April 2015 - 04:58 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Tarogato, you make some excellent points, and I thank you for them. Still, I think that, as a means of continuing to improve their reputation, they NEED to post some goals, even tentative ones, they think they might possibly be able to reach, and then they need to strive for those goals. And, not only have those in The Plan, but make sure they outline the next three to five closest goals in their Command Chair posting, and do that for each Road Map and/or Command Chair they do. I feel as if they are not holding their own feet to the fire and, as a result, they are not doing what they should be doing, at all. Okay, it's a free-to-play game, but most people who've supported this game have already spent far more money, and far more time, playing this game, than any other in their lives, so we should get something else good out of it, don't you think?

[Rebas Kradd]

Kay Wolf, on 19 April 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:

Tarogato, you make some excellent points, and I thank you for them. Still, I think that, as a means of continuing to improve their reputation, they NEED to post some goals, even tentative ones, they think they might possibly be able to reach, and then they need to strive for those goals. And, not only have those in The Plan, but make sure they outline the next three to five closest goals in their Command Chair posting, and do that for each Road Map and/or Command Chair they do. I feel as if they are not holding their own feet to the fire and, as a result, they are not doing what they should be doing, at all. Okay, it's a free-to-play game, but most people who've supported this game have already spent far more money, and far more time, playing this game, than any other in their lives, so we should get something else good out of it, don't you think?

At last we can agree on something. This month-at-a-time business is making me nervous; a long-term plan would greatly improve consumer confidence. And preferably one that's discrete and laid out, instead of cobbled together from five different tweets and Townhalls.

They do seem to be focusing on the "Backlog" side of things for 2015. VOIP, mechlab, new player experience, and Russ mentioned that it's time to address efficiencies. Maybe we'll still get that command flower too, hey?

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 20 April 2015 - 02:31 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Rebas Kradd, on 20 April 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

This month-at-a-time business is making me nervous

It doesn't make me nervous, it pisses me off! It's damned irresponsible for them to just go where the wind blows and not really share any manner of plan with some actual sense of timing. I KNOW they're not going to hit everything right on the beat they're saying it's supposed to be on, but for heaven's sake, if they tell us they're working on something, and the date is "tentative", meaning it may not happen exactly on-time, I would be a cheer leader for them, again. However, this inconsistency PGI have been consistently displaying, hehe, is really what's wearing on my nerves and, likely, the nerves of many.

Quote

a long-term plan would greatly improve consumer confidence. And preferably one that's discrete and laid out, instead of cobbled together from five different tweets and Townhalls.

Yes, we certainly can agree on some things.

Quote

They do seem to be focusing on the "Backlog" side of things for 2015. VOIP, mechlab, new player experience, and Russ mentioned that it's time to address efficiencies. Maybe we'll still get that command flower too, hey?

Is it being described as a flower, rather than a wheel, now? I'm eager to see it, but I think I want to see what Russ was talking about the other night -IIRC- in the Town Hall, with the upcoming tutorial, and the introduction of AI units. Use that as a gateway to other AI units, including 'Mechs, and then to PvE missions/campaigns and/or to PvP missions/campaigns (one group of players have a certain number and type of missions to complete, while another group also has a certain number and type of cross missions to complete, a series of missions and counter-missions that have to be fought through in order to win a world). Truthfully, I would rather see a bunch of these missions (and counter-missions) all played in PvP, whether they relate to taking a world, or not, and whether they relate to strategic placement of forces and/or order of execution on missions, as planned out by the attacking and defending Commanders, or if they're just for RP purposes, than I would in PvE. PvE missions are great, I'm all for them, I played every BattleTech/MechWarrior game that has ever emerged, with the exception of MPBT: 3025, but the challenge is simply not the same in PvE as in PvP.

Now, tanks, toads, aircraft, and AI 'Mechs I'm all for, as well, especially if -as in MW4: Mercs- their AI values can be pumped up, so please don't misunderstand. If this is where PGI are taking us, then I'll be more likely to stick around. However, if they're just dangling the carrot, I would prefer they give me a road map to things they're more likely to get to, then hit me with the stick.