after reading 108 replies to the thread i started i noticed two things. one is alot of ppl were offended and took what i was trying to say wayyyyy off of what i ment. for this im sorry for not being clear enough. so alow me to smooth over some ruffled fethers.
original thread link here
http://mwomercs.com/...ther-riff-raff/
Now the first thing i will touch on is the title of the thread. it was (for pro gamers, WOT trolls , and other riff raff.)
what ment was there seams to be alot of people out there who seem to KNOW (so they think) how this game is going to play. and its high time for that stuff to stop. you dont know you cant know. and i know that you dont know and you cant know because this game is not out in the wild yet. and the vast majority of this seams to becoming from these persons claming to be pro gamers or experts, OR from WOT and other assorted games.
But OP you cry thats not me. cool bro never said it was you. just said it came from some ppl. if its not you dont worrie about it.
Now i noticed some ppl said Alisyn you hate WOT, EVE, and other stuff. WRONG. i dont hate World of tanks. i dont hate eve (i hate waiting for ever for skills to upgrade in eve and the long *** time it takes toget from point a to point b ) but i certanly do not hate WOT or eve. not to mention i did post about 6 or 7 other game names. the reason for this was to let ppl know that i was NOT just talking about one or two games.
And yes i know that there is alot of stuff that those games have done right. otherwise they would not be alive and kicking.
Now some one compared my rant about the Devs wont mess up to some thing about a bible and god. was funny and i get it but i think what i ment was lost on alot of ppl. Alow me to clear this up as well.
In my OPINON, our devs are bad ***. they first made this game then they have listened to a stupid amount of input from all of us on what we want and what we think. (garth or paul feel free to chime in here about some crazy things that have been asked of yall.) but what i ment was that the devs arnt gonna mess up the really obvious stuff that has been hashed and rehased over and over and over. but every one keeps saying the same stuff, thats cool that you wanna protect this game ( god knows we have waited long enough for it ) but at the same time we need to focus on the less obvious stuff.
(im not sure what that is im still working on this.)
i guess i said abunch of things with that thread that hit home for alot of you and if i offended you that was not my intention.
now on a personal note for my self. what i am really worried about is what happens to this game. now follow me for just a bit gentel readers and i will explaine my self.
There is a game called Rift. Rift was awesome. (parts of it still are) i was a beta tester for rift and i played it when it first came out up untill about 8 months ago. the reason why i dont play rift any more is because rift lost itself. its now WoW 2.0. and the reason for this is alot of ppl came from WoW. which was great for trion (the company that made the game) and good for the server populations. but the ppl that came wanted to play rift like they played WoW. and trion being a new company tryed to make every one happy. so now rift does not play like rift any more. its now WoW with better graphics. ( and i know that ppl will say that im off and that it is still rift. i watch them make the game and i can tell you that it is not the game it once was. its not bad its just not rift.
And this is what worries the ever living hell out of me. cause i see alot of ppl trying to play this not as MWO but as somthing else. now you might say im being a bit of an alarmist. and i might be.
but look at it like this, how many mmo's do you know with (keep in mind im using generics here) warriors , clerics, mages, rouges/rangers. well lets see i know WoW, Rift, Aion ,Everquest, Asherons call, Lineage, Lineage2 ,Guildwars 1 and 2, Archage, RF online,TERA, Archlord, Runescape, Perfect World, Jade empire, and i could go on but i wont.
but how many Mech mmo's do you know and i mean that use mechs or robots and that ARE WELL KNOWN THAT YOU HAVE HEARD OF.(not the ones that you had to dig for. um i got nothing except for Exteel and nothing. so yeah i really want MWO to stay MWO and not be WOT 2.0 (walking tanks edition)
end of line.
1
what i ment in my riff raff post (read for feather smoothing)
Started by Alisyn Chaynes, Jul 03 2012 08:52 PM
9 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 250 posts
Member
Posted 03 July 2012 - 09:33 PM
Devs are just creative people. In the case of game developers, you have to be pretty invested in it, as you're generally spending most of your life doing it, for not nearly the compensation you could be doing writing boring crap for banks and insurance companies. I know, I've done both.
The thing though is, when you're coding, you're pretty well heads down. And to some extent, this is good. But any programmer worth their grain in salt, is somewhat (or majorly) an egomaniac. They feel they know what's right about everything. Plenty of people have kept heads down, busted out code they think was the cat's pajamas, and end up with with something only they would play.
It's a double-edged sword. If you listen to too much community feedback, you end up with a schizo application. If you keep your head down completely, there's a good chance you end up missing the mark. That's why SCRUM-style release cycles are so wide spread in business apps. Unfortunately, you don't see it as much in games, as the model doesn't really pan out, since people have a tendency to consume, then drop it and rarely come back.
Everyone who posts in these forums has their own opinion on what would be awesome. Each of them also has different methods of communication. The fact that some are confrontational is just their way. To invalidate it due to the negativity isn't really constructive.
The issues, as specifically focused on MWO are this: MWO has a small group of hopefuls that frequent these forums. They're split into 3 camps.
As you said, Rift suffered from the attempt to please everyone. All you end up with is a washed out world. Trion actually did an exceptional job with it, but it's just not compelling enough to please anyone. SWTOR had the same issue, but was less successful in the attempt. Eve, on the other hand, just picked one group and said "here's what we're focusing on". Their market share was somewhat pre-determined from the beginning, but at the same time their following is pretty strong.
For me? I prefer the later. I feel a product developed specifically for something, and augmented to please other groups is better (such as Eve, and now Dust 514). Games like WoW are a perfect storm. Anything that radically grows a market share is a rarity in any business. To try to duplicate it is just an exercise in futility. It's better to just throw darts and see if any stick. That's the point of investment capitol firms. Then again, I came from games that were all very specialized, coming from smaller shops (for the most part). We had things like MUDs and MUXes, and shareware games. Our games of note were written by some nerd in his mom's basement, like MULE and Zork. It was acceptable back then.
Back in regards to MWO, I feel the BloodBowl franchise is a closer example of what they should be looking at, then WoT. Cyanide got busted for making a game similar to the BB concept. The agreed to make it BB specific, and just license it from Games Workshop. The issue is, Cyanide wanted this.. real-time action version of the game. They said "we like the fluff of bloodbowl, but we're going to reinvent it." The issue was, BB had been around for 4+ versions. It'd had years of perfection to make the game enjoyable. They tossed a lot of that out. In the end, they decided to make the game run in 2 modes. "Classic" (or tabletop) and "Blitz" (or the action version). They felt that the action version would make the game appealing to the people who weren't classic BB players.
But it failed. Very few people played it, and those that did, found "oddities" in the game that didn't make sense to them. The people who kept buying the game, and who supported it, were the people playing the classic game. It was a fixed/closed market, but it was a known quantity. Over time they tried to augment both, but certain aspects just didn't work right. It wasn't until they started basically fixing it to be the same as the TT version that it worked. It's like a bad haircut. If you start clipping parts off, and you don't know what you're doing, soon you end up bald.
That's my greatest fear of MWO. When I hear things like "We're balancing mechs based on role" and "We've tweaked some of the values to fix this issue." Yes, I see your point on some of them, but once you start cutting, you need to be extremely concise about what you're doing, else you're going to end up the laughing stock of the school.
I keep thinking that it would become apparent that specialized games, who survey their market first, and provide a tight group to initially support either succeed or fail, but rarely founder in limbo for a while until they fail; like most modern games. It hasn't really sunk in yet, but I still have hope that it's on the way. That's really what you see in most of the indie games out there. They take a tight concept, they produce it within bounds and without a lot of feature creep and indecision from the non-creative parts of your organization, and then they either succeed or fail quickly. A few more Kingdoms of Amalur, Homeland, and SWTOR, and maybe people will start to wise up. If not so much from learning from history, as learning from their pocketbook.
The thing though is, when you're coding, you're pretty well heads down. And to some extent, this is good. But any programmer worth their grain in salt, is somewhat (or majorly) an egomaniac. They feel they know what's right about everything. Plenty of people have kept heads down, busted out code they think was the cat's pajamas, and end up with with something only they would play.
It's a double-edged sword. If you listen to too much community feedback, you end up with a schizo application. If you keep your head down completely, there's a good chance you end up missing the mark. That's why SCRUM-style release cycles are so wide spread in business apps. Unfortunately, you don't see it as much in games, as the model doesn't really pan out, since people have a tendency to consume, then drop it and rarely come back.
Everyone who posts in these forums has their own opinion on what would be awesome. Each of them also has different methods of communication. The fact that some are confrontational is just their way. To invalidate it due to the negativity isn't really constructive.
The issues, as specifically focused on MWO are this: MWO has a small group of hopefuls that frequent these forums. They're split into 3 camps.
- Battletech people
- People who played MechWarrior CG at some point
- SciFi/Fantasy Wargammers who think big robots are cool
As you said, Rift suffered from the attempt to please everyone. All you end up with is a washed out world. Trion actually did an exceptional job with it, but it's just not compelling enough to please anyone. SWTOR had the same issue, but was less successful in the attempt. Eve, on the other hand, just picked one group and said "here's what we're focusing on". Their market share was somewhat pre-determined from the beginning, but at the same time their following is pretty strong.
For me? I prefer the later. I feel a product developed specifically for something, and augmented to please other groups is better (such as Eve, and now Dust 514). Games like WoW are a perfect storm. Anything that radically grows a market share is a rarity in any business. To try to duplicate it is just an exercise in futility. It's better to just throw darts and see if any stick. That's the point of investment capitol firms. Then again, I came from games that were all very specialized, coming from smaller shops (for the most part). We had things like MUDs and MUXes, and shareware games. Our games of note were written by some nerd in his mom's basement, like MULE and Zork. It was acceptable back then.
Back in regards to MWO, I feel the BloodBowl franchise is a closer example of what they should be looking at, then WoT. Cyanide got busted for making a game similar to the BB concept. The agreed to make it BB specific, and just license it from Games Workshop. The issue is, Cyanide wanted this.. real-time action version of the game. They said "we like the fluff of bloodbowl, but we're going to reinvent it." The issue was, BB had been around for 4+ versions. It'd had years of perfection to make the game enjoyable. They tossed a lot of that out. In the end, they decided to make the game run in 2 modes. "Classic" (or tabletop) and "Blitz" (or the action version). They felt that the action version would make the game appealing to the people who weren't classic BB players.
But it failed. Very few people played it, and those that did, found "oddities" in the game that didn't make sense to them. The people who kept buying the game, and who supported it, were the people playing the classic game. It was a fixed/closed market, but it was a known quantity. Over time they tried to augment both, but certain aspects just didn't work right. It wasn't until they started basically fixing it to be the same as the TT version that it worked. It's like a bad haircut. If you start clipping parts off, and you don't know what you're doing, soon you end up bald.
That's my greatest fear of MWO. When I hear things like "We're balancing mechs based on role" and "We've tweaked some of the values to fix this issue." Yes, I see your point on some of them, but once you start cutting, you need to be extremely concise about what you're doing, else you're going to end up the laughing stock of the school.
I keep thinking that it would become apparent that specialized games, who survey their market first, and provide a tight group to initially support either succeed or fail, but rarely founder in limbo for a while until they fail; like most modern games. It hasn't really sunk in yet, but I still have hope that it's on the way. That's really what you see in most of the indie games out there. They take a tight concept, they produce it within bounds and without a lot of feature creep and indecision from the non-creative parts of your organization, and then they either succeed or fail quickly. A few more Kingdoms of Amalur, Homeland, and SWTOR, and maybe people will start to wise up. If not so much from learning from history, as learning from their pocketbook.
Edited by Wraeththix Constantine, 03 July 2012 - 09:41 PM.
#3
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 91 posts
Member
- LocationIn my Phoenix Hawk LAM
Posted 03 July 2012 - 09:38 PM
Wraeththix Constantine, on 03 July 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:
Devs are just creative people. In the case of game developers, you have to be pretty invested in it, as you're generally spending most of your life doing it, for not nearly the compensation you could be doing writing boring crap for banks and insurance companies. I know, I've done both.
The thing though is, when you're coding, you're pretty well heads down. And to some extent, this is good. But any programmer worth their grain in salt, is somewhat (or majorly) an egomaniac. They feel they know what's right about everything. Plenty of people have kept heads down, busted out code they think was the cat's pajamas, and end up with with something only they would play.
It's a double-edged sword. If you listen to too much community feedback, you end up with a schizo application. If you keep your head down completely, there's a good chance you end up missing the mark. That's why SCRUM-style release cycles are so wide spread in business apps. Unfortunately, you don't see it as much in games, as the model doesn't really pan out, since people have a tendency to consume, then drop it and rarely come back.
Everyone who posts in these forums has their own opinion on what would be awesome. Each of them also has different methods of communication. The fact that some are confrontational is just their way. To invalidate it due to the negativity isn't really constructive.
The issues, as specifically focused on MWO are this: MWO has a small group of hopefuls that frequent these forums. They're split into 3 camps.
As you said, Rift suffered from the attempt to please everyone. All you end up with is a washed out world. Trion actually did an exceptional job with it, but it's just not compelling enough to please anyone. SWTOR had the same issue, but was less successful in the attempt. Eve, on the other hand, just picked one group and said "here's what we're focusing on". Their market share was somewhat pre-determined from the beginning, but at the same time their following is pretty strong.
For me? I prefer the latter. I feel a product developed specifically for something, and augmented to please other groups is better (such as Eve, and now Dust 514). Games like WoW are a perfect storm. Anything that radically grows a market share is a rarity in any business. To try to duplicate it is just an exercise in futility. It's better to just throw darts and see if any stick. That's the point of investment capitol firms. Then again, I came from games that were all very specialized, coming from smaller shops (for the most part). We had things like MUDs and MUXes, and shareware games. Our games of note were written by some nerd in his mom's basement, like MULE and Zork. It was acceptable back then.
I keep thinking that it would become apparent that specialized games, who survey their market first, and provide a tight group to initially support either succeed or fail, but rarely founder in limbo for a while until they fail; like most modern games. It hasn't really sunk in yet, but I still have hope that it's on the way. That's really what you see in most of the indie games out there. They take a tight concept, they produce it within bounds and without a lot of feature creep and indecision from the non-creative parts of your organization, and then they either succeed or fail quickly. A few more Kingdoms of Amalur, Homeland, and SWTOR, and maybe people will start to wise up. If not so much from learning from history, as learning from their pocketbook.
The thing though is, when you're coding, you're pretty well heads down. And to some extent, this is good. But any programmer worth their grain in salt, is somewhat (or majorly) an egomaniac. They feel they know what's right about everything. Plenty of people have kept heads down, busted out code they think was the cat's pajamas, and end up with with something only they would play.
It's a double-edged sword. If you listen to too much community feedback, you end up with a schizo application. If you keep your head down completely, there's a good chance you end up missing the mark. That's why SCRUM-style release cycles are so wide spread in business apps. Unfortunately, you don't see it as much in games, as the model doesn't really pan out, since people have a tendency to consume, then drop it and rarely come back.
Everyone who posts in these forums has their own opinion on what would be awesome. Each of them also has different methods of communication. The fact that some are confrontational is just their way. To invalidate it due to the negativity isn't really constructive.
The issues, as specifically focused on MWO are this: MWO has a small group of hopefuls that frequent these forums. They're split into 3 camps.
- Battletech people
- People who played MechWarrior CG at some point
- SciFi/Fantasy Wargammers who think big robots are cool
As you said, Rift suffered from the attempt to please everyone. All you end up with is a washed out world. Trion actually did an exceptional job with it, but it's just not compelling enough to please anyone. SWTOR had the same issue, but was less successful in the attempt. Eve, on the other hand, just picked one group and said "here's what we're focusing on". Their market share was somewhat pre-determined from the beginning, but at the same time their following is pretty strong.
For me? I prefer the latter. I feel a product developed specifically for something, and augmented to please other groups is better (such as Eve, and now Dust 514). Games like WoW are a perfect storm. Anything that radically grows a market share is a rarity in any business. To try to duplicate it is just an exercise in futility. It's better to just throw darts and see if any stick. That's the point of investment capitol firms. Then again, I came from games that were all very specialized, coming from smaller shops (for the most part). We had things like MUDs and MUXes, and shareware games. Our games of note were written by some nerd in his mom's basement, like MULE and Zork. It was acceptable back then.
I keep thinking that it would become apparent that specialized games, who survey their market first, and provide a tight group to initially support either succeed or fail, but rarely founder in limbo for a while until they fail; like most modern games. It hasn't really sunk in yet, but I still have hope that it's on the way. That's really what you see in most of the indie games out there. They take a tight concept, they produce it within bounds and without a lot of feature creep and indecision from the non-creative parts of your organization, and then they either succeed or fail quickly. A few more Kingdoms of Amalur, Homeland, and SWTOR, and maybe people will start to wise up. If not so much from learning from history, as learning from their pocketbook.
+1
very well writen reply wraeth thank you. wish more ppl had figured out what you have.
Edited by Alisyn Chaynes, 03 July 2012 - 09:41 PM.
#4
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 250 posts
Member
Posted 03 July 2012 - 09:43 PM
Alisyn Chaynes, on 03 July 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:
Very well written reply wraeth thank you. wish more ppl had figured out what you have.
Eh, it's like a magic 8-ball. Sometimes you get that, sometimes you get irrational posts about ponies.
#5
-
- Elite Founder
-
- 2378 posts
Member
- LocationShoebox in't middle of t'road
Posted 03 July 2012 - 11:31 PM
One of the problems is that "MechWarrior" means different things to different groups of people. At one end of the spectrum you have those who want it as close to the original concept, within the confines of a PC game as possible. At the other end you have those that insist that very little other than names and appearance can be transferred over, all else has to b sacrificed to "gameplay". For those that decry MechAssault please note that it only had Mech in the title and was a reasonable game for what it was and was intended to be.
The Devs have their own vision and this is what we will get, no doubt disappointing nearly everybody for not doing this or that in the way they wanted. The thing is, for BT sims, it's the only game in town. So lets just enjoy what we get and hope it's a sucess. To do that it needs to appeal to a wide range of people without loosing it's main fan base. A juggling act that I hope will prove successful.
The Devs have their own vision and this is what we will get, no doubt disappointing nearly everybody for not doing this or that in the way they wanted. The thing is, for BT sims, it's the only game in town. So lets just enjoy what we get and hope it's a sucess. To do that it needs to appeal to a wide range of people without loosing it's main fan base. A juggling act that I hope will prove successful.
#6
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 93 posts
Member
Posted 04 July 2012 - 12:03 AM
I only know of one other Mech MMO and that is Perpetuum Online. Mind you this is basically EVE with mechs instead of ships... but still can be called "Mech" MMO
Edited by Malacay, 04 July 2012 - 12:03 AM.
#7
-
- Elite Founder
-
- 3420 posts
Member
- LocationBerlin/ Germany
Posted 04 July 2012 - 01:47 AM
did he say ponies? 
now for real... i get most of what you are saying and can just sign it... swtor also mainly failed because of the "WoW syndrome"...
i only wish that PGI are real hardliners on what they plan with MWO, and stick to it... i have seen more then one game go broken because of the devs listening to ALL the whining and hating threads in forums... and if you follow ALL colmplaints, it can only end in a big mess...
and btw, the people crying for "change this change that" the most, are the ones who´ll leave the game after a few month anyway and leave the game (possibly) destroyed for the fans...
so far the devs are doing a real good job with MWO, and all i have seen so far is what i would love to play... so i believe, that they are very capable of doing a good job even in the future... never forget, you can tell them your opinion, but you should not try to force them to follow it, because every single one of us may have different views on things. for me, btw, this has NOTHING to do with WoT, and i wish ppl wouldn´t ALWAYS compare both games...
if one day we have to compare WoT and MWO, something went wrong imho...
now for real... i get most of what you are saying and can just sign it... swtor also mainly failed because of the "WoW syndrome"...
i only wish that PGI are real hardliners on what they plan with MWO, and stick to it... i have seen more then one game go broken because of the devs listening to ALL the whining and hating threads in forums... and if you follow ALL colmplaints, it can only end in a big mess...
and btw, the people crying for "change this change that" the most, are the ones who´ll leave the game after a few month anyway and leave the game (possibly) destroyed for the fans...
so far the devs are doing a real good job with MWO, and all i have seen so far is what i would love to play... so i believe, that they are very capable of doing a good job even in the future... never forget, you can tell them your opinion, but you should not try to force them to follow it, because every single one of us may have different views on things. for me, btw, this has NOTHING to do with WoT, and i wish ppl wouldn´t ALWAYS compare both games...
if one day we have to compare WoT and MWO, something went wrong imho...
#8
-
- Elite Founder
-
- 155 posts
Member
Posted 04 July 2012 - 02:15 AM
Wraeththix Constantine, on 03 July 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:
That's my greatest fear of MWO. When I hear things like "We're balancing mechs based on role" and "We've tweaked some of the values to fix this issue." Yes, I see your point on some of them, but once you start cutting, you need to be extremely concise about what you're doing, else you're going to end up the laughing stock of the school.
I keep thinking that it would become apparent that specialized games, who survey their market first, and provide a tight group to initially support either succeed or fail, but rarely founder in limbo for a while until they fail; like most modern games. It hasn't really sunk in yet, but I still have hope that it's on the way. That's really what you see in most of the indie games out there. They take a tight concept, they produce it within bounds and without a lot of feature creep and indecision from the non-creative parts of your organization, and then they either succeed or fail quickly. A few more Kingdoms of Amalur, Homeland, and SWTOR, and maybe people will start to wise up. If not so much from learning from history, as learning from their pocketbook.
great post, and those are my fears as well.
if you start "balancing" and tweaking the game too much to reach a bigger audience it could very well be that at some point the game doesn't feel like its original (in this case Battletech) anymore.
i was (still am i guess) very concerned about the double armor change, without them increasing ammo per ton at the same time as well.
well, 7th of august will be my time to check the status of the game and the betaboards and then i will probably know if i was too concerned
Edited by Cid, 04 July 2012 - 02:19 AM.
#9
-
- Elite Founder
-
- 3420 posts
Member
- LocationBerlin/ Germany
Posted 04 July 2012 - 02:59 AM
or just to say it in simple mmofps terms: less QQ, more pewpew 
#10
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 65 posts
Member
Posted 04 July 2012 - 03:58 AM
TL/DR - Maybe you could post your observations and comments about a thread you (or anyone else for that matter) started, in that very same thread. It is not locked, so it is completely fine to post there. Really no need to start a pointless thread explaining another thread of yours, that should not have existed in the first place.
Attention whoring is bad, m'kay?
Attention whoring is bad, m'kay?
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
