41 replies to this topic

[Soy]

Escef, on 24 May 2015 - 03:36 PM, said:

Yes, as an example of something that was implemented due to forum complaints, and you responded to it by trying to be dismissive. Because it's functionality was not relevant to the idea of PGI listening or not listening.

---

Soy, you didn't have any credibility in the first place.

Again, the irony is that people will complain about lack of attention towards something, then when it does have attention of the devs, even if the solution is all ****** up, people are already on to the next thing.

They don't care enough to actually demand diligence of themselves and the creators of this game, that things be addressed pragmatically and comprehensively. They take a carrot and say "good enough".

Too me, as of late, it's dawned on me that this sort of placation has gone on for way too long and has in fact led to this mess in the first place.

---

I think it's safe to say that if I don't have credibility in this community, literally no one does.

Edited by Soy, 24 May 2015 - 03:41 PM.

[Escef]

Soy, on 24 May 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

Again, the irony is that people will complain about lack of attention towards something, then when it does have attention of the devs, even if the solution is all ****** up, people are already on to the next thing.

They don't care enough to actually demand diligence of themselves and the creators of this game, that things be addressed pragmatically and comprehensively. They take a carrot and say "good enough".

Congrats on the straw man argument. I never said any of that. Nor even implied. You are just jumping off the rails making these crazy assumptions. I don't even give a crap why.

[Soy]

...lol I made the straw man argument?
I don't even...



...why don't you walk outside, come back in, and try this whole thing over again..? I'm feeling nice today, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Escef]

Soy, on 24 May 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:

...lol I made the straw man argument?

If you don't see it than you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

[Soy]

I never said I was smart. You're the one who seems oddly concerned with coming into the thread and asserting that all fixes have come from forum requests. Which is beyond absurd. And then immediately attacking my credibility to undermine the benign initial position of "bug fixes are important, too".

I also find it funny/sad how lately the most efficient way to communicate with the devs is through outside channels, but according to you, again, forum warriors are the reason the games so great right now and completely bug free. Right.

[Y E O N N E]

I think an up-vote feature for issues would be pretty great, though I think it needs to be tied into the game itself to make it harder to spam alt accounts and allow a minority to dominate the polls; you could make it such that a voter has to complete those first 25 matches, meaning a possible spammer has to spend that amount of time in matches (playing or otherwise) to get voting privileges on that account.

I also think there should be categories. There are bugs and there are issues that are not bugs. I don't think any community is capable of directly telling its developers exactly what order things need to be worked on, but what they can do is express a rough level of desire that PGI can look at the metadata for and execute on. Say a general issue like C-ERLL burn times is in the polls and has a 70% vote in favor of being prioritized by a ghost heat bug only has 40%. However, the metadata shows that's 70% of 100 votes on the former but 40% of 300 on the latter. The categories can show PGI what the key concerns are in various areas of the game, setting up the list of issues to focus on, while the voting metadata can tell them what order to work on those concerns.

[Soy]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 May 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

There are bugs and there are issues that are not bugs. I don't think any community is capable of directly telling its developers exactly what order things need to be worked on, but what they can do is express a rough level of desire that PGI can look at the metadata for and execute on.

This notion is phrased particularly well.

Edited by Soy, 24 May 2015 - 04:05 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

F2Ps generate money by monetizing content. There are various ways to monetize content such as subscriptions (yes, premium time is a subscription) which is monetizing resources, premium kit (in MWO that is hero mechs), and vanity items (that's paint, schemes, knick-knacks, and doo-dads).

And the are various ways of monetizing those three things. PGI decided to:
-go with an optional subscription in the form of premium time by making a non-premium user's grind to be sloggish. Which is them throttling resources, and if balanced carefully is a fine way of revenue generation. However, if the resource generation is slow enough, the customers no longer have fun. Customers not having fun = bad.
-premium content in the form of premium consumables (not an issue because of leveled freemium consumables being identical) and hero/phoenix/invasion/resistance mechs. I'm glad they've gone to the Phoenix/invasion/resistance model over the hero model is there is zero performance difference between the TBR-Prime(I) and the CBill TBR-Prime. But the Dragonslayer being handily the best Victor and the Pirate's Bane being the only Locust with ECM can be construed as a form of P2W. But on the flipside of that argument: Pretty Baby.
-And lastly are the vanity items. Don't think I need to elaborate on these.

A word on content is that it extends to just about everything. Features are content. Mechs are content. Maps are content. Paint is content.

All content is needed, but is needed in varying levels. Naturally there will be more vanity items than mechs, more mechs than maps, and more maps than gamemodes.

PGI has gone the route of "MECHS! MECHS! AND MOAR MECHS!" because it generates revenue and it adds content to the game. However the introduction of that form of content has outstripped the other forms of content such as map making/overhauling and fleshing out the game modes that many consumers are left a bit bitter (including me).

And in the cycle of the introduction of various content there is maintenance needed in the form of bug fixes, visual/performance adjustments, UI tweaking, and game balance.

Something not working as intended is a bug. PGI has gotten good about addressing game breaking bugs, but their lack of general bug maintenance makes my skin crawl. It's pathetic and amateurish and as someone that's coded various things it's telling of a few things such as how much they care, where their priorities are, and their general ability to make this game. Some of the glaring issues that just scream ineptitude is the broken gamma slider in game. Fixing that would take all of 5 to 10 minutes if they would just do it.

Visual/performance adjustments are self explanatory.

UI tweaking is pretty self explanatory too, but I'll touch on it briefly. It is content. And it is very important content. It is the first thing a user sees when they start the game up and they are required to use it in order to play said game. Some UIs are great (Planetside 2) and some are so absolutely ****** that players install the game and spend 5 minutes trying to figure out the UI before installing it (Archeage). A bad UI coupled with minor bugs such as broken buttons and sliders is usually indicative of the quality of the game itself such as how well the game works and how well balanced it is. Because if they can't fix a slider in a poorly designed menu then how can they make a well oiled, well balanced game?

Speaking of balance. It is content, and just like bugs and features (or lack thereof) is something that needs addressing that falls into the realm of bug fixing and content implementation. Because there's broken as in a gamma slider in a menu not working and there's broken as in a weapon or combination of weapons that is way underpowered or overpowered. This is important too, as poor balance leads to stagnation, which leads to a boring game, which leads to customers leaving, and so on and so forth.

And of course there are limited resources available to a company, so they need to figure out best where to allocate those resources. But as someone in an IT related field and as one of the consumers of their product, they need to have a maintenance cycle where the entire focus is on nothing but code maintenance, bug squashing, and performance tweaks. This game needs it. Badly.

But this just the ramblings of a jaded Bronze Founder.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 24 May 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

F2Ps generate money by monetizing content.

And of course there are limited resources available to a company, so they need to figure out best where to allocate those resources. But as someone in an IT related field and as one of the consumers of their product, they need to have a maintenance cycle where the entire focus is on nothing but code maintenance, bug squashing, and performance tweaks. This game needs it. Badly.

Just need to monetize it

[Bobzilla]

So many bugs and it takes them forever to fix them. If they, as a company, have put bugs on the back burner, the order in which they fix them is pretty useless. A better question is should they prioritize bugs in general.

[Soy]

Thanks for the legit post Johann, I will reread it again later tonight.

[Soy]

Bobzilla, on 24 May 2015 - 05:44 PM, said:

A better question is should they prioritize bugs in general.

Thank you; this is deep rhetoric. Kinda the reason I posted the thread - questions for ourselves and the devs in general need to be refined before everyone just spitballs random crap about 'bugs' and 'QA' etc etc until it's washed out.



When everyone is writing a different question on the blackboard, we need to address that first. I'm tired of seeing the endless treadmill of "every voice gets the microphone in turn". Cuz honestly, most cats should humbly shut the **** up.

^ This is why my 2nd post in this thread [today's angry bump] was akin to 'too many ppl talking all at once, about trivial carrot sticks, and most of em are dumb'.



Lets cut out the ******** and start from critical perspectives like Bob just suggested. This is why I said "go with it" at the end of the OP, thanks for getting this.

You know, thinking is sometimes more important than responding. Meditate on these things, I say...

Edited by Soy, 24 May 2015 - 05:55 PM.

[Zordicron]

This thread is a ******* PERFECT EXAMPLE of why PGI, Russ and crew do not come here to see what the players are talking about.

OP puts out an idea, about a fairly simple way to create a uniform way for players to provide feedback, that would remain effective throughout the rest of the games life.

First 3 responses:
PGI doesnt fix bugs
PGI just wants money
PGI wont fix bugs unless you pay for it

You know what? **** that, they have been bug fixing monthly all this year so far. And prior.

This forum has MMO syndrome. What I mean by that, is someone will post a topic, worthy of discussion, possibly a very good idea. "Genius" game design/wannabe math teachers show up, barf out some spiteful, incorrect, generalized susy come lately garbage about the dev team, then proceed to use illogical examples and "math" to attempt to disprove some thing so obviously correct it could be a postulate.

So then we get these 15 post threads of stuff that is REALLY good discussion, getting pushed off the front page by a bunch of STUPID ***** that derail a good topic with illogical, incorrect math that degrades into name calling and mud slinging because they can't let go of their illogical standpoint. Then we get 50 page mega threads about NOTHING, nothing but a bunch of idiots repeating themselves and calling their "opponent" names.

This thread is strongly on point to be that second one. Stupid ***** will continue posting here trying to have the last say until the thread is locked or dies in favor of the next hate train.

So you know what? **** y'all that can't think your way out of a paper bag that just show up to bash the devs and any logical thought some one posts on these forums, YOU are the reason PGI won't come here to see what we have to say.

[Ghost_19Hz]

Attention to detail is what separates decent games, from truly great games.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Eldagore, on 24 May 2015 - 06:09 PM, said:

YOU are the reason PGI won't come here to see what we have to say.

Then why have they NEVER

done this? Even BEFORE the haters existed?

Oh yeah because of us haters that didnt exist yet.

[Zordicron]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 May 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

I think an up-vote feature for issues would be pretty great, though I think it needs to be tied into the game itself to make it harder to spam alt accounts and allow a minority to dominate the polls; you could make it such that a voter has to complete those first 25 matches, meaning a possible spammer has to spend that amount of time in matches (playing or otherwise) to get voting privileges on that account.

I also think there should be categories. There are bugs and there are issues that are not bugs. I don't think any community is capable of directly telling its developers exactly what order things need to be worked on, but what they can do is express a rough level of desire that PGI can look at the metadata for and execute on. Say a general issue like C-ERLL burn times is in the polls and has a 70% vote in favor of being prioritized by a ghost heat bug only has 40%. However, the metadata shows that's 70% of 100 votes on the former but 40% of 300 on the latter. The categories can show PGI what the key concerns are in various areas of the game, setting up the list of issues to focus on, while the voting metadata can tell them what order to work on those concerns.

About OP:

It is a good idea. Something built into the launcher might be a good thing. Something built right into the game UI on the "home page" might be another.

About the quoted stuff:
This is a good start, i agree on categories being needed. Some bugs are going to be grpahical, some code, some models, maps, etc. Obviously, these types of categories would also fall onto respective departments at PGI. I doubt our network guys are going to be put in charge of a map fix for example.

If there is a category system, PGI can actually look at priority, AND then also delegate things based on current dev projects AND who does what related to the bugs. Working on a new map, but player vote bug number one is a map bug? Well guess that new map is going to need to wait a little bit while map crew squashes a bug. Player voted the map bug number 8/ New map, THEN bug, or maybe one person split off the new map team to get the bug, making a minor slow down in new map but also starting work on the bug.

IMO this thread should focus on the discussion of the implementation of said vote/feedback system rather than on history of bugs and other policy at PGI, and especially "what bugs we want". Know what, lets nail a system down first before we decide on vote topics ok?

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 24 May 2015 - 06:16 PM, said:

Then why have they NEVER

done this? Even BEFORE the haters existed?

Oh yeah because of us haters that didnt exist yet.

Continued derailment, GTFO of this thread you are not helping.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Soy, on 24 May 2015 - 05:49 PM, said:

Thank you; this is deep rhetoric. Kinda the reason I posted the thread - questions for ourselves and the devs in general need to be refined before everyone just spitballs random crap about 'bugs' and 'QA' etc etc until it's washed out.



When everyone is writing a different question on the blackboard, we need to address that first. I'm tired of seeing the endless treadmill of "every voice gets the microphone in turn". Cuz honestly, most cats should humbly shut the **** up.

^ This is why my 2nd post in this thread [today's angry bump] was akin to 'too many ppl talking all at once, about trivial carrot sticks, and most of em are dumb'.



Lets cut out the ******** and start from critical perspectives like Bob just suggested. This is why I said "go with it" at the end of the OP, thanks for getting this.

You know, thinking is sometimes more important than responding. Meditate on these things, I say...

The recent Founder poll about the next map to update and them asking the Phoenix buyers about potentially reopening the Phoenix pack has the potential to set a huge precedent for PGI in terms of community involvement.

The Founder map poll, they said, "here are three maps we're going to fix. Here's a poll letting you pick which one you want fixed first."

The Phoenix poll, they said, "you, the community, have asked to reopen the Phoenix pack. Here's a poll for you Phoenix pack owners to decide."

They can potentially do the same with features, additional maps, bug fixing, et cetera by consolidating the thousands of voices in the community into a few select and more easily managed options by condensing things down from a thousand ideas from a thousand voices into a few ideas the thousand voices can consolidate down into by saying, "hey, this is what we're planning on doing, what do you, the community, want to see prioritized?"

EDIT:

This is PGI's rodeo, I'm just glad they're starting to finally own it.

Edited by Lord Scarlett Johan, 24 May 2015 - 06:32 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Eldagore, on 24 May 2015 - 06:21 PM, said:

Continued derailment, GTFO of this thread you are not helping.

Only replying to the guy that started it. ***** at him

[Soy]

Eldagore, on 24 May 2015 - 06:21 PM, said:

Know what, lets nail a system down first before we decide on vote topics ok?

Good... some more solid rhetoric.

More critical thinking needed on the concept before filling it in with agenda ****.

And less vapid talk, yus.

But still - enough talk to keep this thread above garbage threads, kthx gg.

Edited by Soy, 24 May 2015 - 06:57 PM.

[Void Angel]

Soy, on 24 May 2015 - 02:17 PM, said:

Slightly surprised to see this only gets 3 actual responses... since it's actually an idea that bears discussion at the very least.

Instead the forums are, as usual, flooded with worthless threads from mongos with topics like "heavy queue is bigger than the others"........ like yeah, no ****ing **** Sherlock - that's been the case since forever.

Honestly I don't say this sort of thing much, particularly lately, but... it's pretty indicative to me that people don't even want to improve the game cuz they don't even know what the issues are.

I think I could count on one hand how many people actually have a firm understanding of this game that post on this official forum more than once every couple months. It's really hard to deny on a daily basis when skimming thru this wasteland of zombie pilots.

You know the term "mongo" is racist, right?