659 replies to this topic

[hammerreborn]

Tekadept, on 17 June 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

True, but that is still different to a decent structured video dev diary, more of an informal chat, I stopped listening to NGNG personally a while ago, however it is better then nothing. But compared to what other developers are doing these days from the smallest of indie to "some" of the bigger ones it seems like they are unwilling to put themselves out there.

I don't know about that. Look at the Marvel Heroes forums. Not even out for a month and the fanbase is almost as bad as here for the tiniest delay/bug. I haven't had a free hero that normally costs 20 bucks drop yet, BURN THIS MFER DOWN!

InRev, on 17 June 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

True true, but I have noticed people starting to call PGI out on Twitter very recently, which could cause this strategy to backfire.

Also, I'm not sure if a company should be avoiding or dodging criticism by moving to sterile, controlled channels, but rather they should be addressing it, but that's just me. I tend to expect more from companies, the government, organizations, etc. Call me a rabble-rouser

You know, there's criticism, and then theres the 15th "3rd person" poll. There's criticism, and then theres

http://mwomercs.com/...25#entry2461225

http://mwomercs.com/...competence-lvl/

http://mwomercs.com/...-race-post-yay/

http://mwomercs.com/...ng-tournaments/

http://mwomercs.com/...ng-me-with-gxp/

http://mwomercs.com/...-hardcore-mode/

http://mwomercs.com/...im-than-hawken/

And that was just picking the most troll headline in each subforum (balance got 2 because there wasn't any on the first page in the mechs & loadouts).
===========================================

And to be fair, if you only took the complaints about 3rd person in this very discussion, how many pages of the current 28 do you think that would be? I'd guess at least 19.

[InRev]

Tekadept, on 17 June 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

Remember founders didn't actually "FUND" MWO directly

Oh I know, the studio funds it. However, the Founders injection could and would be seen as indicative of potential financial support for the project from the existing fanbase. Sort of like a base-line, so to speak

Edited by InRev, 17 June 2013 - 07:36 PM.

[CutterWolf]

Scarcer, on 17 June 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

Dude or dudet. More intellegent arguments have been made against 3PV, even the people who worked to put graphs together and keep track of information admit it may not be accurate.

Stop pretending it's the entire community participating, and only the same community that will ever play this game.

I consider all points of view and all possibilities; but you act like you have Peripheral Vision Loss

No respect as long as you act like it's the prophesy of a lifetime.

Ok, let's do that shall we? "These others" who are outside of our peripheral vision the ones that don't get on Facebook, Twiter and the MWO forums or if they do they don't post or vote. Why should "we" who do post and vote consider them at all since they have so little concern for this game that they can't even be bother to post their concerns (good or bad) or vote? Answer: We should not consider them at all. I know that sounds hard but you know what life is hard and if you don't stand up for yourself and voice your concerns then you get whatever those who do want. Why? Because we have no idea what they want and assuming what it is they want is a no go since "we", you and anyone else can make up whatever they want and claim it is the wants of this group outside of our peripheral vision.

So since you have already told us that you did not care to vote on 3PV you have no dog in this fight. You placed yourself in that very group outside of our peripheral vision which means now you can't voice your concerns over a clearly overwhelming vote for no 3PV. I'm sorry you want 3PV but if you really wanted it that bad then why did you not take the time to click the "yes" vote and aply the passion you have showen in this thread in that one back then?

Now on with player ques. Let's see now, we have 3PV view, 1PV view, and 1PV hardcore merc vs merc. So that's 3 gues, and then lets throw in NA & UK server splits so that's 3 ques per server that brings us up to 6. And then lets throw in the PUG game vs normal 3PV & 1PV 12v12 drops (non-merc vs merc games) thats another 2 ques per server. So let's see, that 10 total ques on average running. Anyone see an issue getting games? OOOp's forget about ELO and weighted drops into that mix that should making find games really fun!

This is what we fear, one view/game mode is going to win out over the other. PGI beleaves from their own statements that it will be 3PV So why should anyone at "this" time taking into account their known track record think for one min that CW will not end up in 3PV with the option to switch between 1PV and 3PV at anytime during the game? It only make since that this is what will happen since PGI has clearly stated that 3PV is where they fill will be their biggest player base. Why would they go threw all the trouble to making CW to limit it to the smallest player base which is what "they" think is true?

Think about it......................

Edited by CutterWolf, 17 June 2013 - 07:44 PM.

[InRev]

hammerreborn, on 17 June 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

*snip*

Honestly, PGI really have a mess on their hands with the 3PV fiasco. It just wasn't well handled to begin with and has just gotten worse with time. It's a PR nightmare.

However, it's also a weird situation because either:

A) the forums represent a small but vicious minority whose opinion is irrelevant, thus meaning PGI shouldn't be shying away from the criticism due to its insignificance

or

the forums are important, thus making PGI's approach to 3PV all the more baffling considering the vitriol towards it.

I hope this isn't a false dichotomy fallacy, but something just doesn't add up for me. If the forums don't matter, why would PGI need to avoid them? They should just keep on their merry business. If the forums do matter, why does PGI ignore their input? The sheer volume of criticism would be indicative of needed change.

I don't get it.

[Coolant]

Sug, on 17 June 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Yeah my bad. I'm not sure where I got that idea.

Oops, how come you didn't highlight the, "we will investigage 3rd person in the far off distance..." - post was back in july, almost a year ago....3rd person still not in the game and probably won't till a full year has past since that post.

[Grimmnyr]

Rebas Kradd, on 17 June 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

The hardcore, sim-purist sect of an already relatively small player base is not going to be enough to support any game.

You mean the people who funded PGI and made it possible for them to make this game when no publisher would touch it?

InRev, on 17 June 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

This actually brings up an interesting question: what was PGI's goal with this game?

Were they trying to make a game with widespread, mainstream appeal in the first place? Were they targeting a niche audience but shifted gears after the massive Founders windfall, seeing more potential? Were they targeting a niche audience, but discovered that said audience couldn't actually fund their game, even after the massive Founders windfall?

I'm very curious now, even though it may seem a goofy question.

No, they got picked up by IGP, who siphoned off some of the founders money to develop Mechwarrior Tactics. I do wish that PGI had been able to get the following that Start Citizen did on their own.

[BlackBeltJones]

Coolant, on 17 June 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Oops, how come you didn't highlight the, "we will investigage 3rd person in the far off distance..." - post was back in july, almost a year ago....3rd person still not in the game and probably won't till a full year has past since that post.

Probably the same reason you omitted "...for special game settings, but this is very far off in the distance"
Now we can debate what "far off in the distance" means. I hardly believe that the far off distance refers to 1 year from the post date and I can't believe they refer to items in the far off distance intending them to precede full release.

[Lord Rip]

hammerreborn, on 17 June 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

I don't know. Hero mechs are the cash cow most likely. I think that 3rd person only players will focus on paints (which are far more money than cockpit items) and the first person will focus on the cockpit. You might split the player base, but it's a gamble I'm willing to see through. If they can increase the playerbase by enough it'll offset the cost of the split.

Only time will tell

It certainly will, but time can be a B*iT*cH in that it only goes forward and you can never go back. If it could I would roll it back to recover the Founders money I apparently wasted. Truth be told I would MUCH rather play the game we had before open beta.

[hammerreborn]

BlackBeltJones, on 17 June 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

Probably the same reason you omitted "...for special game settings, but this is very far off in the distance"
Now we can debate what "far off in the distance" means. I hardly believe that the far off distance refers to 1 year from the post date and I can't believe they refer to items in the far off distance intending them to precede full release.

Okay, then why no complaints about 12v12, after all, the first picture clearly says 8v8. PGI LIED, MWO DIED!

Things change, it was announced in July this was coming, you'll get over it.

[Victor Morson]

hammerreborn, on 17 June 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

Okay, then why no complaints about 12v12, after all, the first picture clearly says 8v8. PGI LIED, MWO DIED!

Things change, it was announced in July this was coming, you'll get over it.

Because they've said 12v12 is the goal from day 1.

They said no 3rd person from day 1.

This was only an issue because people hate 3rd person so much it was one of the very first questions that came up the second the game was announced. Seriously.

[BlackBeltJones]

hammerreborn, on 17 June 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

Okay, then why no complaints about 12v12, after all, the first picture clearly says 8v8. PGI LIED, MWO DIED!

Things change, it was announced in July this was coming, you'll get over it.

ah yes, the famous "it is a 100% 8v8 game only" quote.

[hammerreborn]

Victor Morson, on 17 June 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:

Because they've said 12v12 is the goal from day 1.

They said no 3rd person from day 1.

This was only an issue because people hate 3rd person so much it was one of the very first questions that came up the second the game was announced. Seriously.

Correction, they said no 3rd person in the near future on day 1. Just like 12v12. Funny how that works!

[Lord Rip]

hammerreborn, on 17 June 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

Okay, then why no complaints about 12v12, after all, the first picture clearly says 8v8. PGI LIED, MWO DIED!

Things change, it was announced in July this was coming, you'll get over it.

It was promised long ago to be 12-v12 and WE HAVE been bitching about it, specifically what is taking it so long. The answer appears to be because they were more concerned with 3PV.

[BlackBeltJones]

OK. What if the 3PV crowd plays infantry and combat vehicles. Problem solved.

[hammerreborn]

Lord Rip, on 17 June 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

It was promised long ago to be 12-v12 and WE HAVE been bitching about it, specifically what is taking it so long. The answer appears to be because they were more concerned with 3PV.

BlackBeltJones, on 17 June 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

OK. What if the 3PV crowd plays infantry and combat vehicles. Problem solved.

You'll get over it.

[InRev]

hammerreborn, on 17 June 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

You'll get over it.

May I use a strawman? Just for fun? It's really hard to resist . . .

GAH I'm going to do it!

If my mother was murdered, I would eventually get over it. That still doesn't mean it should happen!

Wheeeew, I needed to get that out of my system.

[IceSerpent]

hammerreborn, on 17 June 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

You'll get over it.

Just out of curiosity, you do realize that "get over it" means "don't dwell on the past events, move on to more productive pursuits", which when referring to a game translates into "hit uninstall button and play something else", right?

[Sug]

Ed Steele, on 17 June 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

No, they got picked up by IGP, who siphoned off some of the founders money to develop Mechwarrior Tactics.

Yikes. That's the reason people should be asking for refunds. That game is semi atrocious.

[White Bear 84]

Well this is a thoroughly interesting conversation, i love teh good banter and a bit of QQ'ing... ...but...

MrTarget: Why ditch the Orion from June's update?
A: We wanted to offer a mech with a slightly different meta game.

[Deathlike]

hammerreborn, on 17 June 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

To be fair, people aren't calling them lying ******** on twitter when trying to get a response. The tone of the comments is far different there

@Paul Your new balance change is so AWESOME!!! It will help MWO!!!11!1
(except the change does nothing, really)

Edited by Deathlike, 17 June 2013 - 08:42 PM.