1139 replies to this topic

[Dawnstealer]

For 3rd person? Dump it. This isn't an arcade: it's a simulator (...kinda). Unless that "3rd person view" is from a UAV launched from that mech, which would actually be kind of cool now that I think about it, it just makes the game a bit cartoony.

Also it takes away the ability of scouts to flank a big without them noticing.

[repete]

FiveDigits, on 05 June 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

His response:

Quote

@frosenberger the Quickdraw offered more to the meta game at this point, so we pushed it up a cycle.

Well, I'm a little ... dunno ... yeah ... now you know.

Edit: Source

I...I...Ummm..<long pause>....<sigh>...<screwed up face>...Really? <sigh>. Alright. Well since you seem to have established a line of communication can you ask "Can you go in to more detail on what you mean by "[The Quickdraw offers more at this point over the Orion?]"".

Edited by repete, 05 June 2013 - 02:14 PM.

[Genewen]

Yelland, on 05 June 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

Doesn't 3rd person make a fundamental change to gameplay? Is that what PGI wants? Hmm, is it what I want? Not so sure. I like being in cockpit view and even, like everyone else. Same limitation or handicap so to speak.

Can an official poll be made in game? Like at the start of a match "do you want 3rd person?" See what the numbers say, maybe I am too old school, a minority.

What PGI wants to achieve with that is a bigger new player influx from more arcade-y games, since more players normally means more cash. In ingame survey would not make any sense, because the players they target are not in the game yet.

[repete]

Destined, on 05 June 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

Stay on-topic and constructive.

For everyone's understanding and reference, is that directed at anyone in particular or just 'in general'?

Ngamok, on 05 June 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

I don't know. What RG Notch makes perfect marketing sense. As popular as the Orion is going to be, it makes sense to push it back to provide the Hero mech before the other variants like they did with the Highlander.

IF that is the reason, then perhaps. Do you have some information clarifying that to be the reason for pushing it back?

Hammertrial, on 05 June 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

Omg they released a different heavy mech instead of another heavy mech!!!

QqqqqqqqqqQqqqQqqqQQQQQ

I think the Orion tears are more delicious than cap raging ones

You really don't get it do you...PLEASE re-read most of the criticism of the 'Mech change. Most of the criticism is based in being told one thing and then another thing happening.

[repete]

tyrone dunkirk, on 05 June 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

I have an idea so profound, I came out of my long lurking silence to speak it: Why don't we take the team working on 3rd person, and devote their resources to releasing 'mech concept art in a fashion that is both timely, and easy to notice? ( as I recall, the Victor's announcement was relegated to a buried section on the announcements forum, rather than the front page. )

Theory: Because as stated previously by PGI, "[...the people who work on X aren't necessarily the people who work on Y...]".

I've seen it said elsewhere in this thread, though not from the horses mouth, that Bryan is the only person working on 3PV. Please note this is unconfirmed (To me at least) so don't take it as gospel from me. But if true, that would mean what you were asking was "[Why doesn't Bryan spend more time on releasing concept art?]".

Edited by repete, 05 June 2013 - 02:25 PM.

[BlackWidow]

InRev, on 05 June 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

Hammertrial, listen. I really don't want to engage in a heated tete-a-tete because I feel like it cheapens the discussion, so I'm going to take a step back and try to cool my rhetoric. I hope you do the same.

There are a lot of very confused and disappointed people in this community right now because they interpreted PGI's statements incorrectly. If you haven't, that is all well and good, but the rest of us have. Further, these misconceptions are allowed to persist for very, very long periods of time without any formal statement from PGI. Eventually the rumors turn into commonly accepted facts and the truth gets completely lost. None of this would happen if PGI was more active in engaging the community and communicating with us more clearly. Keeping us in the loop really isn't hard and it would solve soooo many problems! For instance: the Flea. It was pushed back and they told us relatively promptly and gave us a legitimate reason. No real uproar.

Now, with the Orion, we have 2 conflicting reasons as to what happened, and it transpired 2 weeks before the commonly believed release date. In the official Orion thread, there are dozens of people excitedly talking about the damn thing under the impression it was soon coming. A PGI rep saying "sorry guys, this is being pushed back because of ____" in timely, professional manner would have put out a lot of fires.

Instead, it was dropped on us out of the blue almost as an afterthought. If PGI knew that we expected it to be in the June 18th patch then they should have told us it wouldn't be coming a long time ago. If they didn't know, then they really need to get in touch with their playerbase.

My ultimate point is that there are way too many people who have no idea wtf PGI is doing for this to be a group of outliers. In fact, it seems to be the norm whereas people such as yourself, who do seem to know what they are thinking, are far more rare, and this has to be rectified.

Cool your rhetoric all you like. But, heated flames towards developers about broken "promises" is exactly why:

A. They don't like to promise things, expecially not too far in advance
B. They EMPHATICALLY state, and REPEATEDLY do so that ANY and ALL proposed addition/changes to the game, roadmaps, mech, maps, balance, objectives, features et al ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME.


I personally believe the only reason they pulled the Orion/Quickdraw switch-er-oo is to hammer that point home. You are owed nothing.

[repete]

InRev, on 05 June 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

I genuinely cannot recall, off the top of my head, a company with which I have had direct interaction that is more inept than PGI in handling customer and public relations. It's truly astounding how incompetent they are in terms of human interaction.

I would not say something behind someone's back that I would not say to their face, so I say it here. Please note this is not a personal attack, so please do not take it as such:

A point which hangs in the air for me is having a community manager that has been as sarcastic and flippant as Garth has been (In the past?). I remember the Ask the Devs with questions of what is your favourite food/drink which (IMHO) added nothing to the conversation or player's general aware of MWO. I remember the NGNG episodes with flippant/dismissive answers from PGI's Community Manager. Is Garth hard working? No doubt. Has his style of community management reflected either Garth's personality and/or what PGI thinks of (some of) it's community? Perhaps.

[repete]

Moku, on 05 June 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

You guys should have a PR team screen your official posts so you can keep your message positive without causing unnecessary face palms.

Trust me. As someone who works somewhere where many comms go through External Relations/Corporate Comms/Marketing, doing so is no guarantee of better results, and is probably impossible (Or at least inefficient) when you engage with your customer base in this manner (i.e. an open access community forum).

[Zeus X]

Bryan Ekman, on 04 June 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

• Third Person view will be pushed to test servers in the next 30-60 days.

Why is this even considered?

This is absolutely disgusting.

[Corvus Antaka]

BlackWidow, on 05 June 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

I personally believe the only reason they pulled the Orion/Quickdraw switch-er-oo is to hammer that point home. You are owed nothing.

Except quality customer service and a reputation.

As if gaming companies are somehow outside the sphere of normal human relations and expectations. You don't promise what you can not deliver in any business while maintaining a reasonable expectation of quality or returning customers.

PGI can do what they want, but they should learn from these mistakes and change their strategy for announcement and releases rather than dissappointing expectations.

[Yelland]

Genewen, on 05 June 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

What PGI wants to achieve with that is a bigger new player influx from more arcade-y games, since more players normally means more cash. In ingame survey would not make any sense, because the players they target are not in the game yet.

so nothing more than "stay true to yourselv... err I mean income". No game should try to be everyone's game. Ah well, it's not my game I just play it. Guess it's ok to possibly lose me if they gain 5 others who would otherwise not try MWO. (will keep my pantyhose on for now, as it may not end up affecting my experience)

BTW MechAssault? It wasn't a bad game but for obvious reasons they didn't call it MechWarrior for Xbox.

[Grimmnyr]

Yelland, on 05 June 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

Doesn't 3rd person make a fundamental change to gameplay? Is that what PGI wants? Hmm, is it what I want? Not so sure. I like being in cockpit view and even, like everyone else. Same limitation or handicap so to speak.

Can an official poll be made in game? Like at the start of a match &quot;do you want 3rd person?&quot; See what the numbers say, maybe I am too old school, a minority.

This has been echoed countless times since PGI flip-flopped on 3rd person view and it generally falls on deaf ears unless you are on social media and support 3rd person view. I personally will quit the game for good if 3rd person view is not implemented in a way that I do not have to be in the same game as well people who are using it.

[repete]

verybad, on 05 June 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

And you've paid how much for the Orion so far?

Go read the multiple posts in this thread of people who have "Bought MC and multiple 'Mech bays in prep for the Orion".

verybad, on 05 June 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

it's just a ******* game.

Which some people devote a lot of time / energy / passion / money on, so for them it is important, even if you don't classify it as such. Game of Thrones is just a TV show. Hop on a GoT forum somewhere and say "Hey! It's just a TV show!" and see what happens.

Edited by repete, 05 June 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[Hammertrial]

repete, on 05 June 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

For everyone's understanding and reference, is that directed at anyone in particular or just 'in general'?



IF that is the reason, then perhaps. Do you have some information clarifying that to be the reason for pushing it back?



You really don't get it do you...PLEASE re-read most of the criticism of the 'Mech change. Most of the criticism is based in being told one thing and then another thing happening.

And you have yet to provide a developer post stating that the 18th was an Orion release date.

Making assumptions and then having those assumptions be wrong isn't PGIs fault.

Tell me, were you also upset at the Red Wedding, when you learned that a character you assumed was going to live gets killed? After all, you were told it would be a wedding, and instead tons of people got killed!

Edited by Hammertrial, 05 June 2013 - 02:56 PM.

[BlackWidow]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 05 June 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Except quality customer service and a reputation.

As if gaming companies are somehow outside the sphere of normal human relations and expectations. You don't promise what you can not deliver in any business while maintaining a reasonable expectation of quality or returning customers.

PGI can do what they want, but they should learn from these mistakes and change their strategy for announcement and releases rather than dissappointing expectations.

<sad panda>

I must say I'm a bit taken back by this coming from you.

People must REALLY love the Orion.

I personally think PGI has given me nothing but quality in both service and product. Now, as far as reputation goes...(all Duke Nukem jokes aside. They didn't start that mess, they just tried to finish it) what exactly have they done to tarnish their rep?

You quoted my post earlier but left out the actual relevant part:

heated flames towards developers about broken "promises" is exactly why:

A. They don't like to promise things, expecially not too far in advance
B. They EMPHATICALLY state, and REPEATEDLY do so that ANY and ALL proposed addition/changes to the game, roadmaps, mech, maps, balance, objectives, features et al ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME.

[repete]

Haroldwolf, on 05 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

...even the Champion

Mate. As good as FD is, I don't think even he could make the airplane^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HChampion look good.

[BlackWidow]

Hammertrial, on 05 June 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

And you have yet to provide a developer post stating that the 18th was an Orion release date.

Making assumptions and then having those assumptions be wrong isn't PGIs fault.

Tell me, were you also upset at the Red Wedding, when you learned that a character you assumed was going to live gets killed? After all, you were told it would be a wedding, and instead tons of people got killed!

+1 for relative internet segue.

[Corvus Antaka]

BlackWidow, on 05 June 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

<sad panda>

I must say I'm a bit taken back by this coming from you.

People must REALLY love the Orion.

I personally think PGI has given me nothing but quality in both service and product. Now, as far as reputation goes...(all Duke Nukem jokes aside. They didn't start that mess, they just tried to finish it) what exactly have they done to tarnish their rep?

You quoted my post earlier but left out the actual relevant part:

heated flames towards developers about broken "promises" is exactly why:

A. They don't like to promise things, expecially not too far in advance
B. They EMPHATICALLY state, and REPEATEDLY do so that ANY and ALL proposed addition/changes to the game, roadmaps, mech, maps, balance, objectives, features et al ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME.

I agree BlackWidow.

Still, PGI should learn from stuff like this so it doesnt happen again. The orion delay kind of sucks, but it's not the end of the world. However, this is exactly why companies should tread carefully, and if I was PGI, in the future, I wouldn't announce stuff until I was 100% sure it would actually make it in. We've seen this happen too often, and it is bad PR for PGI.

[repete]

BlackWidow, on 05 June 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Complaining about MOAR MECHS = </facepalm>

People keep saying this, so I'll keep responding. No. We are not complaining about "MOAR MECHS". We're complaining about being told one thing and then something else happening (Again).

[Yelland]

you know what... PGI needs to do something different. Instead of looking for ways to cater (give in) to a wide audience, they need to market their strengths better. MWO has strength, advertise what it does best.

I've decided 3rd person is a detractor for me -

I believe play testers will feel it. A 3rd person game plays differently, there is a different tension level and that is just one aspect. 3rd person is a dilution. Part of the reason poptarts are reviled, gameplay is diluted, watered down. Losing tactical and tactile immersion. While I feel spatial restrictions of 1st person helps drive immersion.