296 replies to this topic

[WardenWolf]

Given the lack of posts from anyone on the Dev team (excepting Garth) today I suspect they may still be on holiday and/or recovering from the conference last week. Russ has been on Twitter, but not with any new info.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 01 April 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

If they had made it so the community had the power to create events (perhaps even paying for that ability), the framework for player based CW (once again add a monetary component), and the ability to submit maps (thus taking away some of the burden from PGI.

They could have focused on things like mechs, equipment, balance etc.

My personal view is something like...I want to make a CW based on 3025. For a fee, PGI gives me access to tools like a map setup, lobbies, etc. Then I create my own CW. I limit the tech that's involved to fit 3025 and players can come join in.

If someone wants to make a mercenary company, they can pay a fee to allow members of their corp access to their paint colors. Add in decals for a price, etc.

If someone wants to join a house, they pay a one time fee, and unlock that color scheme for their mechs.


Because it engages us.

While some steps would have come easier if done already (or can be done) prior to game release then I think this is something we can promote as a combined community.

My merc corps has logos set up and ready to go. If I have to size them and pay MC for PGI to digitize them and then allow me to put them on my choice of location then I'd throw down some MC $10-15) for it and the incorporation of my merc corp then I'd jump on it. I wouldn't begin to know how to make a map. But I could pay some MC to be on a group (or my merc corp on it) to test maps and vote on them.. Oh there's another hoop I'd throw a money ball into...

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 01 April 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[repete]

The Windows startup sound in the middle of the interview was LOL.

[Gremlich Johns]

Rage properly directed and toned will get the positive attention needed to deflate a potential issue (which Bryan created). Rage improperly directed, however, will result in quite the opposite effect (which resulted in Threads being locked.

Seek clarification of the facts surrounding the issue - read/watch carefully the offending bits
Be wary of what seems to be back-pedaling (and do not engage in it!)
Do NOT disparage those who might have the answer
Do NOT disparage those with no control over the issue (Devs, CMs, other players, etc....)
Caveat: Do not bait those who cannot provide that answer (this results in getting threads locked and annoys the pigs)

If you know somebody is going to be awfully annoyed by something you write, that's obviously very satisfying, and if they howl with rage or cry, that's honey.
A. N. Wilson


We may overcompensate for our feelings of powerlessness by attempting to control and manipulate other people and our environment. Or we may eventually burst forth with uncontrolled rage that is highly exaggerated and distorted by its long suppression.
Shakti Gawain


Consistent and unambiguous information from PGI will go a long way in precluding such Rage - after all, $5.2 million from the initial investors HAS to account for something. Those of us who are those investors are entitled to our rage - don't fan the flames.

[Team Leader]

Updated my post on the first page to include a second video that hasn't gotten the same attention. Enjoy!

[Belorion]

Gremlich Johns, on 01 April 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Rage properly directed and toned will get the positive attention needed to deflate a potential issue (which Bryan created). Rage improperly directed, however, will result in quite the opposite effect (which resulted in Threads being locked.

It also depends if the cause is a valid one. If there intention is not to make mercs carry a premium to be in a merc corp, then the rage is miss guided.

More over, peaceful advocation is a more powerful way to get your point across than blind rage.

[Ryvucz]

Gremlich Johns, on 01 April 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Those of us who are those investors are entitled to our rage....

That's the thing, we're not entitled to it, as it does no one any good.

Giving feedback and voicing (or typing in this case) our concerns without name calling, hatred or any other derogatory remark will prove more useful.

There's nothing wrong with asking for better clarification and waiting.

And once it is better clarified, post your concerns in a well mannered way.

These forums are filled with too much anger and rage to actually make it pleasing for anyone to get any worth while information from.

Not to mention direct interaction from the developers.

[Gremlich Johns]

Belorion, on 01 April 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

More over, peaceful advocation is a more powerful way to get your point across than blind rage.

[redacted]

Ryvucz, on 01 April 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

That's the thing, we're not entitled to it, as it does no one any good.

I disagree, we made the investment based on what PGI stated in its early business plan. We get our names indicated in the game notes. That entitles us to being at least rather cross.

Edited by miSs, 01 April 2013 - 05:15 PM.
political reference

[Ryvucz]

Gremlich Johns, on 01 April 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

I disagree, we made the investment based on what PGI stated in its early business plan. We get our names indicated in the game notes. That entitles us to being at least rather cross.

Sure, we can feel angry, upset and cross.

But, it is a privilege to post on these forums, it is not our right to, we are not entitled to it.

We don't need to nuke the forums over any misunderstanding or perceived wrong doing, that's just silly.

Let it be implemented first, give feedback on it. Things will change, it's just preferred to bring these things up in a not so heated manner.

'(^.^)'

Yes, I've blown up my share of times, and it is wrong, it does no one any good.

[Viper69]

I would not take either of these guys words with a grain of salt. After all they told us in similar interviews, no 3rd person and no coolant flushing. So believe what you will about what you are watching.

[Belorion]

Buddahcjcc, on 01 April 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Like stalking someone's Youtube account
lol



like this?

http://mwomercs.com/...-p2play2gether/

Your post is the one that STARTED the rage mister "peace is better than rage"

Yes, my post did break the story, but you will notice the tone of my post isn't filled with rage. I also advocated letting PGI actually tell us what is going on.

[Ryvucz]

Buddahcjcc, on 01 April 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

Worked out so well for ECM huh?
Wait and see what its like in game.

Months of QQ later after telling up "its working as intended" they finally admitted it was broken.

They did tweak it eventually, did they not?

We are testing the game, after all... give things time, let them run their numbers without blowing up on them.

Key word in bold - wait and see is still my preferred method.

"When it goes live, you can't use BETA as an excuse"

Although this is true, I can argue that their internal testers are not thousands of different players.

Test things, give feedback, play nicely.

PLAY... NICELY.... '(O.O)'

[Belorion]

Buddahcjcc, on 01 April 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

yes and their lack of doing exactly that for days is what fueled the rage. Its nice everyone has these 20/20 hindsight glasses they can put on now so that they can make fun of anyone who was upset by that interview.

If you are going to bust my balls on a rage post you should dig up the thread I started when they were splitting out 8 mans from the pug drops, instead of breaking the solo pug droppers into their own queue. I blame being a little tipsy for the color of that post, but in that thread I calmed down after a while and started suggesting better ways to divide the queues.

I still think solo puggers in their own queue and the groups together would be a better division.

Edited by Belorion, 02 April 2013 - 03:40 AM.

[WVAnonymous]

In before lock.

[Gremlich Johns]

Belorion, on 01 April 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

I also advocated letting PGI actually tell us what is going on.

which they have yet to do in understandable context

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

One item brought up that I think needs consideration is asymmetric game modes ...

Right now, all we have is (poorly - but that's a different thread) balanced teams each trying to accomplish the same objectives.

I can (very quickly) think of four different game modes that would mix things up ...

Attack / Defend the base

• Attacker Victory Conditions: Defenders destroyed or forced to withdraw for a period of time
  
• Defender Victory Conditions: Attackers destroyed or unable to occupy the base for a period of time

Attack / Defend the Dropship

• Attacker Victory Conditions: Defenders destroyed or Dropship destroyed
  
• Defender Victory Conditions: Attackers destroyed or Dropship lifts off

Attack / Defend the Convoy

• Attacker Victory Conditions: Defenders destroyed or some percent of the convoy doesn't reach "Point B"
  
• Defender Victory Conditions: Attackers destroyed or some percent of the convoy makes it from "Point A" to "Point B"

Raid / Defend the Factory

• Attacker Victory Conditions: Defenders Destroyed or Destroy a Certain Building (and only the attackers know which one)
  
• Defender Victory Conditions: Attackers destroyed or the objective building is not destroyed (they might know which buildings are "high value", but not which one is the primary target)

Add active defenses (turrets, sensors, etc.) to the base, convoy (or route), dropship, factory perimeter, etc. and you could set up for some interesting balances between the number of mechs on each side.

Possibly allow the defenders to get on the map a couple of minutes early to set up their defenses (maybe with consumable sensors, turrets, etc.), if they're outnumbered.

I so want to see what they're going to do with Community Warfare ...

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 01 April 2013 - 05:56 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 01 April 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

One item brought up that I think needs consideration is asymmetric game modes ...

Right now, all we have is (poorly - but that's a different thread) balanced teams each trying to accomplish the same objectives.

I can (very quickly) think of four different game modes that would mix things up ....

They cannot even do combined arms, what makes you think they have the skill to pull anything you propose off?

[Syllogy]

Gremlich Johns, on 01 April 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

which they have yet to do in understandable context

Or maybe they have, but you are too busy being a sour puss to see what's going on.

[Corvus Antaka]

Belorion, on 31 March 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

In there somewhere he says that Merc Corps will have to work with the House troops from the faction they are working with...

We don't know what that means right now, so we don't know they will only be fighting other Merc units.

I think this is key. Segregating mercs/houses to not fighting each other would be ********. Also, small merc units with 10-20 members need as much viability as huge ones with 300+, otherwise small groups will just join houses and the merc scene will be dominated by only a very few massive merc corps.

[Syllogy]

Gremlich Johns, on 01 April 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

They cannot even do combined arms, what makes you think they have the skill to pull anything you propose off?

And it's because of your extensive experience in the Video Game Industry that you know how much skill they actually have?