35 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

When I first got into the CBT: I remember Paul's attitude, and the attitude of the community. It was much much different, and I loved it.
The community was chilled out and excited for upcoming things, and Paul got to troll (with half-truths and embellishments- and then quash further questions) because the community could handle it.

Now Paul can't post about anything experimental and that might possibly happen without a waterfall of accusations and hate going to PGI/IGP... let alone troll with some embellishments and half-truths.

(If Paul made some P2W announcement back in CBT: there would have been some initial concern from those who didn't catch the embellishment integrated into the post, but overall amusement from the rest of us. If he did that now, he'd have to go into hiding...)


TL;DR
Community: Chill out: Post objectively, not reactionary.
Paul: Do funny stuff again, ignore the accusers and haters, cater to the chilled posters who still enjoy humor...

/rant

[NitroDev]

Yeah, you're on the internet, behave!

[stjobe]

From the "Consumables" thread in the Command Chair:

Quote

What the?

Who used my account to post this?!?!?!

Incoming update.. this post is about to get fried.

He's hasn't changed all that much.

[DaZur]

Admittedly this community has turned to taking itself waaaay to seriously...

[Shumabot]

I have a message for paul too.

"Do a better job and the community will stop thinking you're a snake oil salesman trying to turn the game into a korean p2w mmo in every patch."


I'll wait to see actual improvements now that he's read my message.

[Jetfire]

Livewyr, on 07 March 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Now Paul can't post about anything experimental and that might possibly happen without a waterfall of accusations and hate going to PGI/IGP... let alone troll with some embellishments and half-truths.

TL;DR
Community: Chill out: Post objectively, not reactionary.
Paul: Do funny stuff again, ignore the accusers and haters, cater to the chilled posters who still enjoy humor...

/rant

In CB, we knew everything was barely held together with scotch tape. Now we are dropping cash and even though I know everything is subject to change and I am taking risks giving them money, I make a point to give serious constructive feedback when I see things that can be better.

It seems like they would do a lot better pitching ideas to the community in the design phase, before they settle on implementation, only to re-rig implementation at the last minute. It would save a lot of time and aggravation for everyone. They seem to be good at responding to criticism though, so you can only be so hard on them.

[Tice Daurus]

Shumabot, on 07 March 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

I have a message for paul too.

"Do a better job and the community will stop thinking you're a snake oil salesman trying to turn the game into a korean p2w mmo in every patch."


I'll wait to see actual improvements now that he's read my message.

And I have a message for you.

SQUIRREL!!!

[Rakashan]

Shumabot, on 07 March 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

"... the community will stop thinking ..."

The community did that a long time ago. What you are saying is that Paul's job is to ignore all the data PGI has and everything they know that you don't about the future roadmap for the game and just make sure that the community doesn't feel like something is P2W. I got news for you. The community can be wrong. What you think, especially without any data with real experiments to back it up, may or may not have any validity. There are numerous examples of vocal minorities screwing up projects, both in and out of computer gaming. There are also plenty of examples of games which were incredibly successful after ignoring the vocal minority who said something would not work.

This is a beta and whether you really get that or not you should expect them to implement things that will be tuned or maybe even removed (see R&R in this game already). If you aren't ready for that then go away and come back when it is a finished product. Yes, things are going to be released that are not balanced. PGIs jobs is to fix them if they come out unbalanced. And before you start screaming about MGs and ECM (which *are* problems that still need attention) remember to add all the other things to the list. Lots of other weapons *have* been balanced. Netcode changes have drastically improved lag shielding issues. PGI doesn't have a 100% success record (and they don't have to yet since the game is not finished) but refusing to allow them to try things kinda defeats the purpose of beta.

[Shumabot]

Rakashan, on 07 March 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

The community did that a long time ago. What you are saying is that Paul's job is to ignore all the data PGI has and everything they know that you don't about the future roadmap for the game and just make sure that the community doesn't feel like something is P2W. I got news for you. The community can be wrong. What you think, especially without any data with real experiments to back it up, may or may not have any validity. There are numerous examples of vocal minorities screwing up projects, both in and out of computer gaming. There are also plenty of examples of games which were incredibly successful after ignoring the vocal minority who said something would not work.

This is a beta and whether you really get that or not you should expect them to implement things that will be tuned or maybe even removed (see R&R in this game already). If you aren't ready for that then go away and come back when it is a finished product. Yes, things are going to be released that are not balanced. PGIs jobs is to fix them if they come out unbalanced. And before you start screaming about MGs and ECM (which *are* problems that still need attention) remember to add all the other things to the list. Lots of other weapons *have* been balanced. Netcode changes have drastically improved lag shielding issues. PGI doesn't have a 100% success record (and they don't have to yet since the game is not finished) but refusing to allow them to try things kinda defeats the purpose of beta.

Sim city is more of a beta than this and PGIs success record would see them benched in a little league baseball team. I'll wait for this games population to grow larger than the population of the local Arbys to state I believe that they're making "pro growth decisions".

Edited by Shumabot, 07 March 2013 - 10:40 AM.

[Thuzel]

Well this is ironic

1. They may say the game is still beta, but that's irrelevant when they started regular sales. As soon as that started to happen, people got a lot more serious. As they tend to when money is involved.
2. A large portion (won't quibble numbers) of the attitude you describe comes from the meta crowd. Just about any time someone makes a statement as to balance or game play, they get shot down with the worst kind of responses. It doesn't mater if they have numbers, theories, or just opinions, they get thrown back the typical "cry moar" posts...

If you want things to be more lighthearted and fun, don't go around slinging mud...

[Tice Daurus]

Shumabot, on 07 March 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

Sim city is more of a beta than this and PGIs success record would see them benched in a little league baseball team. I'll wait for this games population to grow larger than the population of the local Arbys to state believe that they're making "pro growth decisions".

SQUIRREL!!!

[Bguk]

Closed betas have less users so the reactionaries are drowned out rather quickly by the more rational parties. Once the flood gates open, anyone who can lick a window can post anything they want. Take me for example.

[Shumabot]

Tice Daurus, on 07 March 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

And I have a message for you.

SQUIRREL!!!

[Joe Mallad]

They would save themselves a lot of backlash and trash talk if before something is to be implemented, they say hey community we can do it this way or this way or this way... And at least see our feedback FIRST before going and saying this is what website adding.

[urmamasllama]

stjobe, on 07 March 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

From the "Consumables" thread in the Command Chair:


He's hasn't changed all that much.

yup we dun got trolled hard

[Shumabot]

Yoseful Mallad, on 07 March 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

They would save themselves a lot of backlash and trash talk if before something is to be implemented, they say hey community we can do it this way or this way or this way... And at least see our feedback FIRST before going and saying this is what website adding.

Or if they communicated with their community at all, rather than releasing patch notes through IGN four days late and then describing a pay to win system that wasn't on the roadmap and which no one wanted or asked for.

PGI is literally worst in class for community engagement. It's horrific how bad of a job they do involving their community and preparing it for progress while contextualizing and explaining decisions (things that are an absolute requirement in an actual 'beta').

Edited by Shumabot, 07 March 2013 - 10:46 AM.

[Kurshuk]

Jetfire, on 07 March 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

In CB, we knew everything was barely held together with scotch tape. Now we are dropping cash and even though I know everything is subject to change and I am taking risks giving them money, I make a point to give serious constructive feedback when I see things that can be better.

It seems like they would do a lot better pitching ideas to the community in the design phase, before they settle on implementation, only to re-rig implementation at the last minute. It would save a lot of time and aggravation for everyone. They seem to be good at responding to criticism though, so you can only be so hard on them.

Exactly. They announce things that are very different from what they'd said when trying to get people to buy founders packs. Russ & Brian's comments about never selling skill for money and preventing people from acquiring a tactical advantage through money is pretty clear to me.

So when they change it and you see an outcry I think a bigger piece is to have PGI communicate things more frequently and in smaller bites.

If they'd posted this as the topic of the week and announced it as, 'We're thinking of making this change, but before we do. We want to know what you, the community that supports the game financially, have to say.'

I will say that when they announced the consumables I was pretty ready to walk away if it went in the way it was announced. I don't like gold ammo style bonuses. Even games like Star Conflict where you can get to some of, but not all of the premium currency modules I would say border on Pay2Win.

When you look at a group like ours it's pretty clear we all have hopes for the way this game will proceed. But I think that if we continue to strive to make the forums the most constructive place we can, that it provides the devs with enough information to make good decisions.

But I don't think that PGI is blameless in this instance either. When you have a sensitive community and you keep introducing change that not only changes the future of the game, but also conflicts with dev statements that convinced people to purchase founders packs to support the game. That's my issue with it. And that's why I will post that I don't agree with a proposed change if I don't.

This goes back to the consumables argument. I didn't see anyone saying it wasn't pay to win, just people arguing the efficacy of the MC vs Cbill options. The issue remains that an MC version was better than the best cbill version you could buy. Now the top levels are identical except for the purchase method. I'm totally fine with consumables now because I feel this system is supported by the devs early comments, while the original announcement did not.

Kurshuk

Rakashan, on 07 March 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

The community did that a long time ago. What you are saying is that Paul's job is to ignore all the data PGI has and everything they know that you don't about the future roadmap for the game and just make sure that the community doesn't feel like something is P2W. I got news for you. The community can be wrong. What you think, especially without any data with real experiments to back it up, may or may not have any validity. There are numerous examples of vocal minorities screwing up projects, both in and out of computer gaming. There are also plenty of examples of games which were incredibly successful after ignoring the vocal minority who said something would not work.

This is a beta and whether you really get that or not you should expect them to implement things that will be tuned or maybe even removed (see R&R in this game already). If you aren't ready for that then go away and come back when it is a finished product. Yes, things are going to be released that are not balanced. PGIs jobs is to fix them if they come out unbalanced. And before you start screaming about MGs and ECM (which *are* problems that still need attention) remember to add all the other things to the list. Lots of other weapons *have* been balanced. Netcode changes have drastically improved lag shielding issues. PGI doesn't have a 100% success record (and they don't have to yet since the game is not finished) but refusing to allow them to try things kinda defeats the purpose of beta.

I don't disagree. But I think the concern is that if one of these items gets into the product in a way that seperates C-Bill and MC usage. In a way that an MC version of something has a distinct advantage over the C-Bill version. That the item that created the imbalance will be utilized as a precedent for future items following the same trend.

Kurshuk

[Royalewithcheese]

I thought this thread was about Paul's K2. Srsly man put some DHS on that thing

[Shumabot]

Royalewithcheese, on 07 March 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

I thought this thread was about Paul's K2. Srsly man put some DHS on that thing

I noticed that too. Every time I see them post a build without dubs it becomes clear that they're dumbing down content for people who don't understand the games systems.

[Orzorn]

Game is in beta, at least according to several people.

Beta is for feedback and tweaks.

We gave feedback.

We got tweaks.

Mission accomplished.