Ask The Devs 39 - Answers!
#121
Posted 05 June 2013 - 08:23 AM
For this series to come back to it's original glory it needs a solid single player, and much better game play and balance.
I've yet to be impressed by anything these devs have done with this game. I dont play the older ones because I have so many times for many years I wanted a new game showing what todays technology can do for this franchise and we get this...It's just not enough. I'll likely play this through the summer but that depends if they start making the game fun.
Every mech we have gotten from them has been just a variant a poor one at that. There newest mech is a joke I'm glad it's a new mech but it's useless bought it and after a few rounds found it wasn't worth owning *blackjack* It's too weak.
Yes it's a small team but that doesn't mean I should be happy with that, I want a team like bungie or 343 you know a huge company known for excellent quality! These guys just dont cut it for me and obviously a huge amount of others. I mean only thousands play this game and not all at once by a large margin.
#122
Posted 05 June 2013 - 08:51 AM
Darth Bane001, on 05 June 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:
For this series to come back to it's original glory it needs a solid single player, and much better game play and balance.
I've yet to be impressed by anything these devs have done with this game. I dont play the older ones because I have so many times for many years I wanted a new game showing what todays technology can do for this franchise and we get this...It's just not enough. I'll likely play this through the summer but that depends if they start making the game fun.
Every mech we have gotten from them has been just a variant a poor one at that. There newest mech is a joke I'm glad it's a new mech but it's useless bought it and after a few rounds found it wasn't worth owning *blackjack* It's too weak.
Yes it's a small team but that doesn't mean I should be happy with that, I want a team like bungie or 343 you know a huge company known for excellent quality! These guys just dont cut it for me and obviously a huge amount of others. I mean only thousands play this game and not all at once by a large margin.
^ This is what is boring. It got boring before it even started. If you hate the game, if you hate pgi leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
#123
Posted 05 June 2013 - 02:13 PM
MustrumRidcully, on 31 May 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:
Or, to phrase it another way; ok, Armour is "Based on TT values", What did you base your aiming and accuracy mechanics/statistics on? Has anyone computed the consequences on weapon balance without any inaccuracy at all?
#124
Posted 05 June 2013 - 02:35 PM
Mokey Mot, on 03 June 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:
WARNING: Rather emotional, but realistic look at the current state of MW:O.
Personally, I was just trying to keep them to their own promises, ie. what I paid $120 for. What I'm disappointed in is receiving a watered down shadow of that game intended to "appeal to a wider audience" like CoD kiddies and WoT players. If the game had stayed true to it's roots and design direction as published and referred to in marketing material it could have grown into a sensible, reliable game/income stream. Instead it will burn bright with marketing and hype for a very short time, right up until people realise that the game is shallow and dull with a very low skill ceiling.
There is no "skill" to piloting a mech at all, "heat management" is a joke, point and click aiming is childish and outdated, mech roles are nonexistent, "weapon balancing" is being done before the implementation of core mechanics that will influence said balance, and finally, the one thing they specifically set out to prevent, Assaults mechs being the goal/best/endgame, is generally prevalent. All in all, a fantastic waste of potential and opportunity that will not likely show up again. Good Job letting the short sighted, money grubbing, beancounting suits take the short term grab for return on investment and ruining what could have been a classic, long lasting game.
/disappointedrant
*sigh*
#125
Posted 05 June 2013 - 06:40 PM
8RoundsRapid, on 04 June 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:
And no, for a small team, they are not doing quite well.
And don't talk generally; I have a few mates who still play all the past MW titles quite a lot.
#126
Posted 05 June 2013 - 06:49 PM
cyberFluke, on 05 June 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:
WARNING: Rather emotional, but realistic look at the current state of MW:O.
Personally, I was just trying to keep them to their own promises, ie. what I paid $120 for. What I'm disappointed in is receiving a watered down shadow of that game intended to "appeal to a wider audience" like CoD kiddies and WoT players. If the game had stayed true to it's roots and design direction as published and referred to in marketing material it could have grown into a sensible, reliable game/income stream. Instead it will burn bright with marketing and hype for a very short time, right up until people realise that the game is shallow and dull with a very low skill ceiling.
There is no "skill" to piloting a mech at all, "heat management" is a joke, point and click aiming is childish and outdated, mech roles are nonexistent, "weapon balancing" is being done before the implementation of core mechanics that will influence said balance, and finally, the one thing they specifically set out to prevent, Assaults mechs being the goal/best/endgame, is generally prevalent. All in all, a fantastic waste of potential and opportunity that will not likely show up again. Good Job letting the short sighted, money grubbing, beancounting suits take the short term grab for return on investment and ruining what could have been a classic, long lasting game.
/disappointedrant
*sigh*
Edited by Mokey Mot, 05 June 2013 - 06:50 PM.
#127
Posted 06 June 2013 - 02:08 AM
James DeGriz, on 02 June 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:
No, but what if it was phrased like this?
"We are going to make a mech for this young girl, and when the game is released we will include it in a special package deal with MC and a mechbay, taking only the smallest cut from said package and sending the rest of this money as a donation for cancer research."
If PGI did that, the package would sell like hotcakes, and the Mech doesn't even need to get used. Let's face it, all it would have over a normal Jenner is colour scheme, it hasn't been stated to be a "Hero" mech. I read the basic posts on the original forum for it. She loved streaks. If the timeline allowed it, they could give her a tribute modified Jenner IIC for it - add maybe a couple of small lasers to it at the exchange of the engine size or possibly the removal of a tonne of ammunition. However, this is a plain ol' Jenner, or possibly a second Champions mech. It probably won't be one people would willingly take into combat because it offers limited advantages over a normal, c-bill-purchased Jenner. Wait and see how they implement this mech before you start saying that the decision was a bad one.
Yes, I agree, morally it is a strange choice to give the girl a tribute that can be destroyed. But really, that's what the game is about. PGI knows what people buy. When you die and see inside other people's cockpits, how many statues do you see? In my experience, I can recall maybe four since they were added. A statue would be the best option, but where would they put it? The next few maps are Volcanic and Asteroids. You can't throw a Jenner statue into either environment. They have said that an Island City map coming up, but we don't know how far off that would be after the Quickdraw surprise announcement. If it's performed sooner rather than later, it's more likely people will buy it.
#128
Posted 06 June 2013 - 05:45 AM
Quote
A: Yes, eventually we will have an API for players to get access to stat information.
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2424969
#129
Posted 06 June 2013 - 06:58 AM
So to some level an explicit export is unneeded.
#130
Posted 06 June 2013 - 07:11 AM
Belorion, on 05 June 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:
^ This is what is boring. It got boring before it even started. If you hate the game, if you hate pgi leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
I know you care about the game, but if the devs adopt that kind of attitude instead of actually getting their act together, you're not going to have a game to care about. There aren't enough white knights to keep the servers running if the majority quits because they're bored as hell.
#131
Posted 06 June 2013 - 07:24 AM
InRev, on 06 June 2013 - 07:11 AM, said:
I know you care about the game, but if the devs adopt that kind of attitude instead of actually getting their act together, you're not going to have a game to care about. There aren't enough white knights to keep the servers running if the majority quits because they're bored as hell.
There isn't near as much negativity centered around MWO as the QQ crowd would have people believe.
#132
Posted 06 June 2013 - 07:45 AM
#133
Posted 06 June 2013 - 08:50 AM
Darth Bane001, on 06 June 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:
Minority of posts in this thread maybe. All the negative posts all over these boards are made by a small group of people. You just keep seeing the same names pop up again and again trying to spread the gospel of how this game is bad. Judging by what is being said in my merc corp everyone is pretty happy with the latest patch, and the current state of things. We have even seen an increase in players returning after a long break. If you think they are slow to fix problems you obviously have never been involved in a large software development project before.
and I do play it
Edited by Belorion, 06 June 2013 - 08:50 AM.
#134
Posted 07 June 2013 - 09:08 PM
#135
Posted 08 June 2013 - 10:01 AM
Tarriss Halcyon, on 06 June 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:
No, but what if it was phrased like this?
"We are going to make a mech for this young girl, and when the game is released we will include it in a special package deal with MC and a mechbay, taking only the smallest cut from said package and sending the rest of this money as a donation for cancer research."
If PGI did that, the package would sell like hotcakes, and the Mech doesn't even need to get used. Let's face it, all it would have over a normal Jenner is colour scheme, it hasn't been stated to be a "Hero" mech. I read the basic posts on the original forum for it. She loved streaks. If the timeline allowed it, they could give her a tribute modified Jenner IIC for it - add maybe a couple of small lasers to it at the exchange of the engine size or possibly the removal of a tonne of ammunition. However, this is a plain ol' Jenner, or possibly a second Champions mech. It probably won't be one people would willingly take into combat because it offers limited advantages over a normal, c-bill-purchased Jenner. Wait and see how they implement this mech before you start saying that the decision was a bad one.
Yes, I agree, morally it is a strange choice to give the girl a tribute that can be destroyed. But really, that's what the game is about. PGI knows what people buy. When you die and see inside other people's cockpits, how many statues do you see? In my experience, I can recall maybe four since they were added. A statue would be the best option, but where would they put it? The next few maps are Volcanic and Asteroids. You can't throw a Jenner statue into either environment. They have said that an Island City map coming up, but we don't know how far off that would be after the Quickdraw surprise announcement. If it's performed sooner rather than later, it's more likely people will buy it.
all they need to do is give it ECM, boom, sold
#136
Posted 08 June 2013 - 10:26 AM
#137
Posted 08 June 2013 - 10:36 AM
#138
Posted 08 June 2013 - 04:30 PM
Rebas Kradd, on 31 May 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:
[redacted] As a developer myself Its easy to tell that you havent the slightest clue what goes in to developing testing and releasing even the smallest feature.
Game developers these days typically work something like 60 -70 hours a week if they are lucky and the qa staff for a game typically works even longer hours for close to minimum wage. (Note these are generalities and do not necessarily represent working conditions at pgi as I have no direct knowledge of those conditions)
[redacted]
Edited by miSs, 12 June 2013 - 10:17 AM.
inflammatory
#139
Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:13 PM
14 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 14 guests, 0 anonymous users