114 replies to this topic

[Ihasa]

Training Instructor, on 08 April 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Yeah, that's another thing that bothers me. They give vague information, or no information, then they act like the *paying* customers are the bad guys for requesting more information. They float an idea that gets shot down by the community, or ignore an idea that is brought up by the community, and then wonder why they get so much negative feedback. Ex: People ask for machine guns that actually do damage commensurate with their drawbacks, and the devs give them *crit-seeking* properties instead. The players justifiably ridicule them and once again ask them to simply upgrade the damage on machine guns to turn them into a weapon worth mounting, and the response is nothing but silence from the devs on this topic. Oh sorry, they said that they're "looking into it." That's an answer that's about one step removed from "the check is in the mail." That's just one example of there being a massive disconnect between sensible requests from players and a "we know what you want better than you do" kind of attitude that the development team appears to have.

How many threads and posts were there about the post-ecm Raven 3L and all the glaring problems that single chassis highlighted? It was pretty cute watching PGI pretend that there wasn't a problem, all while they attempted every solution possible other than toning down ecm, fixing streaks, or working on the Raven hitboxes. They implemented various modules, three of which actually made the 3L even deadlier, rather than making it easier to kill. They cleaned up the netcode a lot, they implemented state rewind for lasers, and then the very last thing they did was quietly announce that they had fixed the Raven hitboxes. So it turned out they knew all along exactly what was wrong with it, but the entire time their communications on that issue were almost non-existent. They could have prevented a lot of rage by simply communicating something substantial beyond "We're looking into it."

PGI needs to look at this from our perspective. If we've paid, we're investors. Investors don't get to determine the direction of the company, but they have every right to ask for clear information about the goals and direction the decision-makers have decided upon.

Got to disagree with only the last part of this. We're not investors until we own stock. We're customers. We spend our disposable income on a product, not our IRA on a return. Though we often expect the return to be good gameplay and interaction. That's really what's due us as customers. Too bad we're not getting it recently.

[Roadbeer]

Ihasa, on 08 April 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Got to disagree with only the last part of this. We're not investors until we own stock. We're customers. We spend our disposable income on a product, not our IRA on a return. Though we often expect the return to be good gameplay and interaction. That's really what's due us as customers. Too bad we're not getting it recently.

I have to disagree, any investment you are making at this point is an investment in future entertainment. After 'launch' that's a totally different story.

[Ihasa]

Roadbeer, on 08 April 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

I have to disagree, any investment you are making at this point is an investment in future entertainment. After 'launch' that's a totally different story.

Well okay. Yes we certainly invest time here. And like I said earlier, time is now a commodity/currency since the floodgates of f2p opened and can be spent anywhere.

However, people that purchased founders packs long ago are wanting to cash in on their future entertainment value, or so it would seem. Me? I got my moneys worth and feel like i can go wherever there is good pvp that isn't WoW-like anytime.

So if you view this as an investment, I'm surprised you aren't more dismayed at the way this game looks to be going, instead of just letting it ride until you feel it may or may not pay off.

[Roadbeer]

You misunderstand, look at any of my posts and I'm far from Pollyanna about this product.

But I do consider my Founders Package as an investment I made in the company with the potential for future returns of entertainment. So, in that respect, yes I do consider that I invested in this product, the same way I invest my money for a future return of profit... and with any investment, there are risks.

If they deliver... say... 80% of the product that was given to me in my investment prospectus (Developer Blogs 1-6), by launch, with the promise of the remaining 20% coming in DLC within a reasonable timeframe, then yes, my investment paid off.

Now, we can debate how true they keep to the prospectus, as that seems to be a matter of perspective. In some cases, I think they've deviated widely (3PV. "Hey, I invested in a llama farm, what's with all the pigs?") but as long as I'm getting an entertainment ROI that is greater than my initial investment, I'm ok with it.

[Thuzel]

Roadbeer, on 08 April 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

You misunderstand, look at any of my posts and I'm far from Pollyanna about this product.

But I do consider my Founders Package as an investment I made in the company with the potential for future returns of entertainment. So, in that respect, yes I do consider that I invested in this product, the same way I invest my money for a future return of profit... and with any investment, there are risks.

If they deliver... say... 80% of the product that was given to me in my investment prospectus (Developer Blogs 1-6), by launch, with the promise of the remaining 20% coming in DLC within a reasonable timeframe, then yes, my investment paid off.

Now, we can debate how true they keep to the prospectus, as that seems to be a matter of perspective. In some cases, I think they've deviated widely (3PV. "Hey, I invested in a llama farm, what's with all the pigs?") but as long as I'm getting an entertainment ROI that is greater than my initial investment, I'm ok with it.

Can't disagree with that.

[N0MAD]

I like to think we the Founders are like the Guide Dog a Blind person uses, we are not investors we are supporters, the problem I see is that PGI has discarded us and is trying to replace that support from puppies (their stated target audience) that will play with them for a few minutes then goes and chases a car.

[Roadbeer]

N0MAD, on 08 April 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

I like to think we the Founders are like the Guide Dog a Blind person uses, we are not investors we are supporters, the problem I see is that PGI has discarded us and is trying to replace that support from puppies (their stated target audience) that will play with them for a few minutes then goes and chases a car.

I like the analogy.

I do have to disagree with the "Target Audience" statement. I'm the one who lead Bryan down that line of questioning and I found that it was a very safe answer, because it applied not only to myself, but my girlfriends 15 year old son, and until last year when he passed away, my 76 year old father who enjoyed intricate flight simulators.

I think people read whatever they wanted into that comment and found anyway to use it so it didn't apply to them. And to be fair to Bryan, I'm surprised he even included 'male'.

Edited by Roadbeer, 08 April 2013 - 04:25 PM.

[Barghest Whelp]

N0MAD, on 08 April 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

I like to think we the Founders are like the Guide Dog a Blind person uses, we are not investors we are supporters, the problem I see is that PGI has discarded us and is trying to replace that support from puppies (their stated target audience) that will play with them for a few minutes then goes and chases a car.

You've made a very good point there.

I think part of the problem is that they're trying to use a standard model for f2p, which I feel won't work with a mechwarrior title. Why? Simply because it's a niche. You either love mechwarrior or you hate it. It's like marmite basically. It takes time to get in to, and it requires a bit of tinkering and thinking.

The standard model of f2p works really well with shallow instant gratification games, because it's really easy to get the 99% in on the game, and once they've had a taste of what p2p feels like, they'll spend a bit of cash. Some of them will stay and spend larger sums over longer periods of time, but most of them will stop playing after a while and as a result also stop spending. Those types of games are usually p2w, but only on certain items, and it's usually only really small bonuses compared what's available for the f2p players.

The point is, that those games usually have a large amount of players joining the game, and leaving again pretty soon after. It is because a large percentage of those player spend a little bit that the game can survive. The studios that make these games usually run multiple games at minimal maintenance, with only a small amount of content added every so often to make the large spenders that stay happy.

This is never going to work with a mechwarrior title. No matter how many players you get to sign on, very few will stay, and even less will pay. That's why it's even more important to nurture those that stay. Making this a cheap p2w title will kill the game completely, because they'll loose way too many players over it.

I have a strong feeling that they're going to try to figure out some sort of way to sneak in p2w with CW. Probably by offering different custom makes of various weapons and equipment with slight bonuses, and then some of them are only available for MC. But they're not "better" of course, they're just "different".

Anyways, I'm jut ranting now, so I better stop.

[N0MAD]

I think his statement was pretty clear as I recall it stated..18 to 25 year old males with disposable incomes. I have several comments on that, firstly I don't know whats happening to the 18 to 25 male population if they are spending their disposable income and time on anything else than impressing the female population and expanding their social circle, secondly I did read somewhere (sorry no link and cant even remember the source) where it stated the 30+ age group where fast becoming the stable dedicated and paying audience for a lot of the Specialised gaming titles. Either way a bad choice of words considering I believe the bulk of the MW fan base would be well over the age of 18 to 25. Dunno just sounded to me like..screw you old MW fans, we don't really care about you (ok so im thin skinned).

[Viper69]

I would never buy anything based on the D&D 4th edition crap.

[Roadbeer]

N0MAD, on 08 April 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

I think his statement was pretty clear as I recall it stated..18 to 25 year old males with disposable incomes. I have several comments on that, firstly I don't know whats happening to the 18 to 25 male population if they are spending their disposable income and time on anything else than impressing the female population and expanding their social circle, secondly I did read somewhere (sorry no link and cant even remember the source) where it stated the 30+ age group where fast becoming the stable dedicated and paying audience for a lot of the Specialised gaming titles. Either way a bad choice of words considering I believe the bulk of the MW fan base would be well over the age of 18 to 25. Dunno just sounded to me like..screw you old MW fans, we don't really care about you (ok so im thin skinned).

The 18-25 crowd was a player assumption, not the quote from Bryan

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Our target demographic has always been (in very simple non-marketing terms): the male action gamer looking for a little bit more than your average shooter. You can lump in someone who likes anything from Call of Duty to Flight Sims into that bucket.

That's a pretty broad representation of the gaming market.

[N0MAD]

Barghest Whelp, on 08 April 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

I have a strong feeling that they're going to try to figure out some sort of way to sneak in p2w with CW. Probably by offering different custom makes of various weapons and equipment with slight bonuses, and then some of them are only available for MC. But they're not "better" of course, they're just "different".

Anyways, I'm jut ranting now, so I better stop.

I believe they have already started down that road, the consumables as first introduced were P2W, the community backlash was the only thing that made them think it was to blatant. While there will be statements to the contrary the Cicada Hero is P2W in the fact its the only Cicada that carries Missile racks introduced at a time when missiles were lets say competitive (and I daresay they will get that way again). Same can be argued with the Pretty Baby it carries the biggest engine of it class again introduced when BIG maps were introduced and where speed is a definite advantage. Now we have Hero mechs introduced BEFORE their class is made available to the general not paying public. I for one definitely believe they have started down the road to P2W. PS....Roadbeer.. not been able to find the whole post by Brian, I will stand corrected sir, my bad.

Edited by N0MAD, 08 April 2013 - 05:10 PM.

[Carl Wrede]

Tennex, on 07 April 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

they are becoming more organized
patches are bimonthly. QandA are weekly and Monthly updates are well.. monthly (so much better than before. god you should have seen the tears)

and i completleyl agree that the forums should not be treated like the enemy. The customer is always right. people say that because the customer is your source of income and essentially your boss.

pissng off your boss will get you as far in real life as pissng off the player base in a online game.

Reminds me on how well it worked for SOE when they pissed off their entire playerbase in StarWars Galaxies with their new game experience that promptly killed the game.

[Mavairo]

STO was bad.. now it's garbage of the Bargain Bin Variety.
It's loaded with pay to win. Not pay to diversity. pay to win. There are ships that are out right /facerollingly superior to every other choice out there in a given category. (Jemhadar Attack ship for Escorts, Vesta for sci)
Worse yet it's community is full of nothing but morons that can't pvp worth a damn and spend all their times whining on the forums about DPS when healing is so far and away more powerful than damage and CC, that it takes quite literally perfect timing to generate a single kill, from massed dual heavy cannon fire, + science debuffs after numerous fake out alphas on the premade stage to get the job done.

It's grindy beyond the pale now. The whole game has become a complete joke knock off of an asian grinder. Not only this but gear dependency has gone through the roof, as has dependency on the grind to gain reptuation bonuses has replaced large swaths of Player Skill Necessity.

Worst of all you don't get any thing good out of PvP other than the joy of playing against other people. Everything you do in STO that isn't a lock box ship or some other garbage from the Cstore, is done through facerolling the keyboard... I mean doing pve. Pve so face roll friendly that you can beat it in a Shuttle craft at level cap.

Player Skill used to be the deciding factor in matches, either in healing or damage dealing. Now? To overcome the asian grind's gear and reputation effects you better be ontop of the heap. (for the record I was. And still am near it) if you don't have the grind done yourself.

Now? all that free healing and damage gains from rep bonuses, elite fleet shields, and duty officers (all of these have to be ground, heavily... and without being able to acquire a single one of these things through pvp) gives newbies a crutch to such an extent that they can often survive, or even be ''competitive'' against a Skilled player that's not done the asian grinding fully yet.

STO is beyond lame now, and it makes me cringe to see PGI starting down the same route that Craptic, has done.

I wish you luck with Neverawinner but with Craptic at the helm it wont' take too long for you to dump the lame game like it was a cheap ******'s corpse in a dumpster.

Edited by Mavairo, 09 April 2013 - 08:01 PM.

[Thuzel]

N0MAD, on 08 April 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

I believe they have already started down that road, the consumables as first introduced were P2W, the community backlash was the only thing that made them think it was to blatant. While there will be statements to the contrary the Cicada Hero is P2W in the fact its the only Cicada that carries Missile racks introduced at a time when missiles were lets say competitive (and I daresay they will get that way again). Same can be argued with the Pretty Baby it carries the biggest engine of it class again introduced when BIG maps were introduced and where speed is a definite advantage. Now we have Hero mechs introduced BEFORE their class is made available to the general not paying public. I for one definitely believe they have started down the road to P2W. PS....Roadbeer.. not been able to find the whole post by Brian, I will stand corrected sir, my bad.

Just my opinion, but I'd agree with that conclusion.

Though some of those actions seem to be PGI's attempt to discover the bearing potential of the player base with regards to P2W. The reason I've had that thought was the time line for the implementation of consumables.

I don't remember the exact dates, but the speed of the turnaround on that was very fast. In fact, it was so fast that I find it hard to believe that they could have an initial implementation announced, retracted, modified, and re-announced without some prior planning. That's especially true when you consider the glacial pace of everything else around here. That's just speculation on my part however, I have no proof.

If that's the case, then PGI is looking to strike some kind of balance between monetization and P2W mechanics and they hopefully won't go much further down that road now that they've seen the player's reaction. Of course, that assumes a lot of things. Primarily, that PGI was paying attention, and also that they believe the non-P2W crowd will bring in more money than the casuals.

Aside from that, I think one thing can be said for certain. PGI is not afraid to take advantage of the higher spending limits of the typical MWO player. With the sole exception of the latest 3050 hood ornament sale, PGI has shown very little fear of over-pricing and for me that's an immediate warning sign.

Edited by Thuzel, 10 April 2013 - 07:39 AM.