122 replies to this topic

[Thirdstar]

Edward Steiner, on 16 March 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

PGI can call the game what they want and charge the prices that they want, you do not have to play if you don't want to. Complaining about the status of the game being called "Beta" is not going to help the game become better. This is the new business model for 90% of the games that are coming out now. This "Freemium" business model was mostly adopted after the huge whinefest on the Bioware forums about whether SWTOR is worth the sub. Many people who play games today are not able to do simple math and realize that unlimited content for a small sub fee is much cheaper than buying content in a limited content game, unfortunately they were the most vocal on the internet and now every company is using a "Facebook game" business model. To be fair, PGI has one of the best FTP models out there, as you can play and do very well in this game without spending a dime, your mechs just don't look as cool and it will take you longer to level up your mechs.

And that has what to do with my post and specially the last paragraph?
At least ATTEMPT to read the damn thing.

Edited by Thirdstar, 16 March 2013 - 09:21 PM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

valkyrie, on 16 March 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

This is a good post. I haven't paid anything beyond my initial Founder's investment, but I understand other people have already been paying in for more MC. I personally have issues with the fact that PGI is already charging money for an incomplete game, but that doesn't change anything. That's fine, I don't have to spend anything and new players don't either. Optional, I get that.

That said, the fact that some of us already HAVE paid, to me, suggests that we should have more pull and should be listened to when we make demands, rather than have our concerns deflected by the community at large because it's "in beta."

(Bold and underline to highlight the comment to which I am addressing)

If we were required to spend real money in order to play the game then I would agree with you, but the game is free to play. Anyone that spends money on MWO (and I have spent my share) is doing so knowing what they are paying for, and what sort of game MWO currently is. If you do not think MWO is worth paying into at this time (and there are valid reasons why people do not want to spend money right now) they can STILL play for free. $$ provides convenience and a reduction in grind, and visual customization.

The money we have paid into MWO does not give us a right to say how the game is developed, but PGI allows us, as beta testers, to have input. The recent change to the proposed implementation of consumables is a case in point. The community made a lot of noise and the Devs responded (correctly, IMO).

And everyone is entitles to their opinion, even if their opinion of "beta" is different from anothers.

[S3dition]

Hawkwings, on 16 March 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

I can release a ****** terrible game tomorrow that is obviously not complete, and I can call it a beta. Does that make it a beta?

Just because PGI calls this game a beta does not mean that it is.

Yes, actually. That's how betas work. They are completely arbitrary and up to the developers. Versioning is not anywhere near the discipline of the consumer, and the developer can put the status of the program at any level they wish.

[hammerreborn]

Serapth, on 16 March 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

See... I might agree with you, if the bolded statement was true.

In closed beta it was constantly undergoing tweaks... now **** happens at a snails pace.

I mean, they confirmed SRMs are doing potentially 3x too much damage... but we have to wait 2 patch cycles for a fix? What the fuc..........


I mean, its one or the other. If its in beta... iterate quickly and balance and squash bugs as fast as you can, even if it means breaking the game for a bit. This two week update cycle stuff well... it's hard to defend. Hell, released MMOs update faster than that.

They have been on a two week update schedule for a couple months now. And you don't just remove an entire section of the game without testing (they said they take on average a month of testing before a patch is released), and seeing the problem was confirmed friday(?) there was no chance in hell it was getting fixed by tuesday patch.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Thirdstar, on 16 March 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

This is what I'm saying. I don't know which part of the forum you're frequenting, but I've seen plenty of 'It's Beta' in response to good feedback.

SOme people *do* use it as an excuse when it does not apply. And some people refuse to accept it as an accurate statement no matter how correct it's usage. We are on the internet, that is par for the course.

[ThailDL]

Indeed. It's like Google.

[Thirdstar]

hammerreborn, on 16 March 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

They have been on a two week update schedule for a couple months now. And you don't just remove an entire section of the game without testing (they said they take on average a month of testing before a patch is released), and seeing the problem was confirmed friday(?) there was no chance in hell it was getting fixed by tuesday patch.

So PGI announced that they'll go much slower from now on and you're okay with that.

Also, SRM splash damage is now an entire section of a game, instead of something relatively minor that should be hotfixed?

Artemis was fixed in a day. Would we not be better off with turnaround times more like that than this?

Edited by Thirdstar, 16 March 2013 - 09:26 PM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

hammerreborn, on 16 March 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

They have been on a two week update schedule for a couple months now. And you don't just remove an entire section of the game without testing (they said they take on average a month of testing before a patch is released), and seeing the problem was confirmed friday(?) there was no chance in hell it was getting fixed by tuesday patch.

My guess is that they have to go into the code for each and every weapon to remove the "splash code", then replace it with code that allows the weapon to work correctly without splash damage, then make sure that they did not break something else. I can understand that taking a reasonable amount of time. I seriously doubt that they can just change an "X" to a "Y" and have splash damage removed.

Edit: I am NOT a programmer. But, on the topic of Artemis, I can see a distinct difference in the implementation. Each missile weapon in MWO has it's basic functionality "baked in", and is ostensibly unchangeable. Artemis was, at it's core. simply new code which adjusts the flight path of the missiles, but did not otherwise change how the weapon functioned. Artemis does not cause an individual missile to do more damage, nor to travel at a different speed, it just changes the flight path. But, most importantly, (I think) since Artemis was created AFTER the basic code for the weapons was "complete" it is easier to change the way it works. The splash damage is "baked in" as well, and requires a different method to adjust.

Edited by Tickdoff Tank, 16 March 2013 - 09:30 PM.

[hammerreborn]

Thirdstar, on 16 March 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

So PGI announced that they'll go much slower from now on and you're okay with that.

Also, SRM splash damage is now an entire section of a game, instead of something relatively minor that should be hotfixed?

Well I remember what happened when they changed LRM trajectory last time, and I'd rather not have to go through that again.

Tickdoff Tank, on 16 March 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

My guess is that they have to go into the code for each and every weapon to remove the "splash code", then replace it with code that allows the weapon to work correctly without splash damage, then make sure that they did not break something else. I can understand that taking a reasonable amount of time. I seriously doubt that they can just change an "X" to a "Y" and have splash damage removed.

And what he said

[Mackman]

Thirdstar, on 16 March 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

Didn't read your second post before making mine, apologies. Note edited post.

Fair enough. I misread your initial post as well. My bad.

[Tennex]

they knew what it meant when they announced open "beta"

and they knew what it means in the industry

[Demoned]

I'll take a game that is labeled as "beta" and is fullish of bugs.
but i would not take a game, that claims "full release" and is full of bugs.

at least you get a warning here, that basically says "yeah we're still working on it"

NT Hackman, on 16 March 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

If this game is still in beta, why would Piranha charge money for MC, hero mechs, and premium time when the game is "incomplete?"

well they do have severs and a team to pay,
said before many times i know but, hey its the truth.

Edited by Demoned, 16 March 2013 - 09:32 PM.

[Bashars]

Beta or Not I dont really care.... the game is fun and I enjoy playing. I spent $60 and feel that more then 10+ months of playing is well worth it. And I really dont care what some website has to say about what Beta is and is not. I payed money to these guys and they list it as beta and that what I think of it as. And I am not some fanboy that will just go with whatever is said... but I see no reason in getting all worked up about the terms Beta.

[Thirdstar]

Tickdoff Tank, on 16 March 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

My guess is that they have to go into the code for each and every weapon to remove the "splash code", then replace it with code that allows the weapon to work correctly without splash damage, then make sure that they did not break something else. I can understand that taking a reasonable amount of time. I seriously doubt that they can just change an "X" to a "Y" and have splash damage removed.

Edit: I am NOT a programmer. But, on the topic of Artemis, I can see a distinct difference in the implementation. Each missile weapon in MWO has it's basic functionality "baked in", and is ostensibly unchangeable. Artemis was, at it's core. simply new code which adjusts the flight path of the missiles, but did not otherwise change how the weapon functioned. Artemis does not cause an individual missile to do more damage, nor to travel at a different speed, it just changes the flight path. But, most importantly, (I think) since Artemis was created AFTER the basic code for the weapons was "complete" it is easier to change the way it works. The splash damage is "baked in" as well, and requires a different method to adjust.

I hate trotting out 'other games' but I have to make my point. So, other games manage to hotfix issues more serious than this in short time span, some of whom have LESS resources/money than PGI.

Why are you advocating in favour on slower response times? How could that possibly be a good thing?

[Gaan Cathal]

Edward Steiner, on 16 March 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

PGI can call the game what they want and charge the prices that they want, you do not have to play if you don't want to. Complaining about the status of the game being called "Beta" is not going to help the game become better.

You have completely missed the point, while it's a safe assumption this was intentional, I'll explain anyway. Too many members of this forum respond to any complaint or criticism of MWO with "**** NOOB! IZ BETAZ! U IZ CHOOZE 2 PAY!", which is ********* since the point of a Beta is to absorb and respond to complaints and criticisms about the game.

Edward Steiner, on 16 March 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

This "Freemium" business model was mostly adopted after the huge whinefest on the Bioware forums about whether SWTOR is worth the sub. Many people who play games today are not able to do simple math and realize that unlimited content for a small sub fee is much cheaper than buying content in a limited content game, unfortunately they were the most vocal on the internet and now every company is using a "Facebook game" business model.

Huh. No. The Freemium business model predates the release of SWToR by several years, infact SWToR is one of the last wave of subscription MMOs that launched at completely the wrong time and discovered that the post recession market was far less welcoming to being leeched on a monthly basis. Some have responded to this by adopting the Freemium payment model (SWToR, AoC, STO, MWO) and some by adopting a Box-Payment model (GW2, SW). The only MMOs that appear to be able to still leverage success from the sub model are ones that established themselves in prior waves, notably WoW and EVE.

SWToR might have broken the 'subscription value' barrier if it had been an excellent game. It wasn't, not by any stretch of the imagination, and F2P was an inevitability more or less from release day. It's certainly not any sort of innovation or initiative on Bioware's part (lets face it, the last things they did requiring either were ME1 and DA:O).

There are several examples of the Freemium model done successfully, STO being one of the most prominent. I'd say MWO is shaping up to have a fairly good model, the only 'essential' purchase being Mechbays which are eminently reasonably priced. Having a captive collector audience associated with the IP to gouge helps a lot there.



On an largely unrelated note, do you think when CW comes out you'll be Edward Redacted004, or Edward Inappropriate104?

[valkyrie]

Tickdoff Tank, on 16 March 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

The money we have paid into MWO does not give us a right to say how the game is developed, but PGI allows us, as beta testers, to have input. The recent change to the proposed implementation of consumables is a case in point. The community made a lot of noise and the Devs responded (correctly, IMO).

And everyone is entitles to their opinion, even if their opinion of "beta" is different from anothers.

Wrong-o. We do have a say. The fact that you can pay into this game right now is a double-edged sword. On one hand, we're paying (in some cases) PGI for an incomplete game. On the other, all we have to do to make them listen to use is stop paying, and waste their money by continuing to play for free.

PGI effectively opened up voting on their game design by opening up the pay system. It's now a democracy, and we vote in cash. That's the only good thing about the pay system right now - we now have leverage over them in the form of their paychecks.

Oh, and there's a definition for beta, one that strongly suggests that this is the time in which any issues with game design, balance, and other things, are all open to critique by the general public, and should be critiqued. Through adversity, we will make this game strong.

[Ryvucz]

More of a perception issue.

I feel that this is adequately stamped Beta.

It is still being tested, we are helping them find bugs, do server stress tests and most of all, giving feedback.

"But they taksies our monsies!"

Yeah? So do kickstarter programs, and a lot of those haven't even launched yet or allowed any kind of testing.

(Posted because I do not read BOLD n3wb gripes, also, I hate streaks)

[Thuzel]

Serapth, on 16 March 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

"Beta" prevents it from being reviewed.

Nitpicking or not, that's a big point.

Good point.

The main beef I have with it is how much it's used as an excuse. Just about any time something negative is said, people trot this little gem out like it excuses everything. My point is that once they started accepting regular payments, then the beta argument should have lost most of its power. In any case, it's pretty evident that either PGI doesn't really understand what the term is supposed to mean, or they're pushing a perpetual beta on us. They're still obviously making vital design and feature decisions on a regular basis, and drastically altering the overall model.

The truth is that, in software terms, MWO is still in alpha, even though the business end of it went "GA" at the end of last year.

[Serapth]

Ryvucz, on 16 March 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

More of a perception issue.

I feel that this is adequately stamped Beta.

It is still being tested, we are helping them find bugs, do server stress tests and most of all, giving feedback.

"But they taksies our monsies!"

Yeah? So do kickstarter programs, and a lot of those haven't even launched yet or allowed any kind of testing.

(Posted because I do not read BOLD n3wb gripes, also, I hate streaks)

For the record, my gripe has NOTHING to do with the money.

I've gotten my founders money from this game many times over.

My issue is their slow pace of fixes. If its a beta, act like its a beta and fix ****. If we spend 24 hours getting nuked from above by ****** up missiles, so be it.... so long as you fix that mistake quickly too. We should be seeing patches on a daily basis, should be seeing Elo tweaks almost non-stop... weight matching should sure as hell have been attempted... even if it resulted in slow matches and needed to be pulled out. That's the kind of stuff you do in beta!

In "closed beta", things moved nice and quickly. In open beta, it became much more glacial.

Edited by Serapth, 16 March 2013 - 09:43 PM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Thirdstar, on 16 March 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

I hate trotting out 'other games' but I have to make my point. So, other games manage to hotfix issues more serious than this in short time span, some of whom have LESS resources/money than PGI.

Why are you advocating in favour on slower response times? How could that possibly be a good thing?

How do you know it is more or less complicated?

I remember in City of Heroes, many people were asking for the ability to change the colors of the power effects (blue fire, red energy or whatever), and it seemed like a rather basic change to make. The Developer (Backalley Brawler, best Dev in any game EVER) chimed in with a long explanation about how many "easy" changes are non-trivial and risk breaking things that they really should have no business breaking.

As it stands, the devs said April, which is only a couple of weeks away. Thinking that they are lazy or incompetent is just rude. They will get it fixed when they can, if you think you can do better, then fix the code yourself and show us how it is done.