471 replies to this topic

[Lostdragon]

dimstog, on 01 July 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

As for PGI listening or not, I don't think they are not listening. I just think that they have heavily prioritized on features for release and have left actual balancing for later - or at least I hope they have.

Hopefully they are not that stupid.

[KingCobra]

As I played MechWarrior4 Mercenaries on GameRanger http://www.gameranger.com/ the other day a few things came to my mind the biggest one was why MWO was not as fun as this old game? I thought first it was the players around me that made the game fun then how the mechs were x10 more maneuverable than mechs in MWO and then how my mech could stay alive even with just one weapon and I could still make a difference in the battle before I died. Next I thought about all the maps this old game had and the 10 different game mode types it had also the ability to host games for mission play and Co-op and also the ability to set the games up for tonnage map weather and much more. PGI has in fact dumbed down MWO to the point it is just no fun in many ways from the great MechWarrior titles before its creation. In the older games I might even spend part of my day off just building and saving configurations for every mech I owned. For the $30.00-$50.00 USD and its $20.00-$30.00 USD for the expansions I bought over the years it was a real bargain. Then one of my buddies on comms said hey A-hole start shooting or I will shoot you my self and I just started laughing. MWO does not even have live chat or the social ability to allow players to have fun and create a environment of friendships teams or leagues so the game can live a long life. MWO does have some great things going for it but if Russ and Brian only think about the $ amount and total control of the game I think the IP and lore that has given me many hours of fun and laughs will just fade away and above all else I don't wish this to happen. Some times Free is just not enough to make a game fun exciting and long lived.

Edited by KingCobra, 01 July 2013 - 07:02 AM.

[Perihelion Jack]

I am not a founder, but I started playing on the 1st day of OB; and I have seen quite a bit of trial and error happen during my time with this game. That is to be expected. "...It's Beta."

The OP has many good points, but the one I have to say is the most troubling is the declining frequency of the interaction from the PGI folks with the community. In particular, that they seem to prefer using other avenues of social media over the forums on their own website. If I didn't know about MWO, the first thing I would do is go to the official website. If I then come here and read hundreds of vitriolic threads about how the game is dying, without seeing much at all from the developers in the way of content updates, response to community concerns, and just active posting in general; I probably don't even download it, much less spend any money.

Balance is a issue, and PGI should be using the Beta testing community to figure it out. I'm sure they do to some extent, but we wouldn't know it due to lack of adequate communication from the development team. Fans of the BT lore and gamers who like to win will always be at odds over some aspects of the game's design, but that doesn't mean that one side should be dismissed or either side ignored.

Missed deadlines with poor communication makes a lot of people nervous, and nervous people don't spend money. Hiring some people dedicated to community relations is just good business, and the increased sales generated from happy customers would more than offset the expense.

[Victor Morson]

Aphelion Dax, on 01 July 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

The OP has many good points, but the one I have to say is the most troubling is the declining frequency of the interaction from the PGI folks with the community. In particular, that they seem to prefer using other avenues of social media over the forums on their own website. If I didn't know about MWO, the first thing I would do is go to the official website. If I then come here and read hundreds of vitriolic threads about how the game is dying, without seeing much at all from the developers in the way of content updates, response to community concerns, and just active posting in general; I probably don't even download it, much less spend any money.

We used to get a LOT of updates over here; PGI also at one point did in fact open a dialogue to other units. Several changes that were for the better came about in that dialogue too - you know that cargo ship on Forest Colony that makes the water area a viable option?

That didn't exist originally. Several units were really asking for it to break the map up.

A lot of gun tuning happened too - good gun tuning - but things have since been re-tuned a dozen times over and in no clear direction.

[Jonny Taco]

dimstog, on 01 July 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

As for PGI listening or not, I don't think they are not listening. I just think that they have heavily prioritized on features for release and have left actual balancing for later - or at least I hope they have.

They are listening, however their stance is that... People are complaining but still playing the game allot so their complaints are not justified... Just listen to the most recent invterview from ngng.. Russ literally said exactly what I just said.

Dealing with their community, is easily their biggest issue.

[Teralitha]

Roland, on 25 June 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

Because there are certain principles of mech design which enable skillful use.

For instance, if you take a mech which is just a bunch of random crap, with no focus, then that mech is gonna be trash.... There's no way to make terrible configurations into good configurations.

This isn't to say that a big part of the issue is that many weapons need to be buffed up... many configurations (such as all of the machine gun based mechs) are terrible because the MG's are artificially terrible compared to the original TT statistics upon which those configurations were originally designed.

Mechs like the spider with 4 MG's, for instance... this is a stock config in BT, not because it's supposed to critically hit mechs, but rather because those 4 machine guns are supposed to be cranking out 8 damage every round once the thing is in close range.

So, certainly, weapons balance needs to be improved for certain weapons, but at the same time many terrible configurations just still gonna be terrible.

For instance, I saw a spider running around yesterday with a flamer and an LBX10. The thing was moving at what had to be, maybe 60 kph? Even if they made the flamer and LBX into workable weapons, that config is always gonna be trash.

Im talking about the balancing factors, not the weapon choices. For example... upgrades. Because of upgrades, you have the "optimized" vs the Stock(for lack of a better word) players.

Upgrades were a novel idea but upgrades and double heat sinks should be removed from the game. It shouldnt be "good players with optimzed mechs" its should just be... "good players with mechs"

PGI has gone against their philosophy that only skill matters. It has soiled the purity of the competition

[Teralitha]

Orzorn, on 25 June 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

It doesn't help that there is no ladder in this game to gauge player skill, and thus, also gauge what are the most powerful (And thus, on the flip side, the weaker) builds. Dota balances by directly interacting with top tier players, and looking at the tournaments and what heroes aren't just used a lot (because they might just have good synergy), but used almost to the point of exclusion to others (which is what happened with Anti-Mage a while ago).

PGI is looking at large data, but the thing is, many people do not care what they play. I mean, I see MG + flamer Blackjacks for god sakes. Many players either do not care what they use, or use frankenmechs and still manage to win because their ELO is lower and they're also playing against frankenmechs. You know, I wish I had that luxury, but when almost every game has a handful of mechs and builds shining, its clear what builds are the most powerful.

That is because those players are just trying to have fun.

[Teralitha]

8RoundsRapid, on 25 June 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Basically, your defense argument of 'why would they post, look at what happens when they do!' is weak and not rooted in reality. PGI made the rules of this game, now they want to ignore the rules they made and hide away from the mean internet people? Sorry, not gonna happen. They ruined yet another chance at having a real mechwarrior/battletech first person video game, and they expect thanks and niceties on the internet for their troubles? **** on that. And yes, I am bitter about it. How many more chances is this franchise going to get?

As long as people keep giving them money.... I wont be.

[Victor Morson]

lartfor, on 01 July 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

They are listening, however their stance is that... People are complaining but still playing the game allot so their complaints are not justified... Just listen to the most recent invterview from ngng.. Russ literally said exactly what I just said.

Dealing with their community, is easily their biggest issue.

Do you have a link?

Because if he honestly had the balls to say that because we're still playing out of love for the franchise that our opinions are not justified, I am going to endlessly quote the hell out of that on the forums. How many crappy movies have you watched because you like the franchise they're apart of?
Flashback 2012: We Told You So. We Really Did.

In just a few posts alone, you can see we clearly called every massive problem with the game before closed beta ended.. or in some cases, even began!

I've honestly wanted to avoid bothering going here, but this is from Garth's Linkedin page (messaged to me by a fine forum user that will remain anonymous):

Quote

"My position as Community Manager is quite a hydra of a beast - I am in charge of over a dozen moderators on our forums; I speak with our publisher multiple times per week via conference calls; I write the majority of our 'copy'; I answer dozens of personal messages from players; I answer emails from players; I deal with any large issues on our forums; I play a couple rounds of the game with the fans; I talk with the publishers, marketing, and our moderators via skype; I post weekly screenshots/Q&A's/wallpapers/week in reviews/and podcasts.

All in all, I do my best to interact with our community, make sure they feel heard, and tell them what we are doing on our end. I interact with them in-game to see how our systems work. I make sure our marketing is aware of trends in our fans outlook and thinking, as well as what people in general are talking about. I also want to make sure the fans know we're listening, and pop into threads as often as I can.

Essentially, I try to act as the face of Piranha Games and MechWarrior Online to our players, and want them to have the best experience with our game possible."

Bolting, underlining, etc. mine. Does this sound like reality to you folks?

[Deathlike]

Victor Morson, on 04 July 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

Bolting, underlining, etc. mine. Does this sound like reality to you folks?

There's idealism, and then there's reality.

I deal with reality, and that is nothing close to it.

[Victor Morson]

By the way, No Guts, No Galaxy has lost all credibility and respect from me as a BattleTech source, to be honest. They've become a total yes-man propaganda machine that won't challenge anything PGI does on one hand, while seeming to have no understanding of balance on the other.

I am honestly alarmed if PGI is taking balance advice from some of their affiliated groups, as quite honestly they have developed an absolutely terrible reputation with other units not just in skill and builds, but in everything else as well. They are both coming off as horribly flaky and are basically just PUG gamers flying under one banner.

Frankly I think NGNG needs to cut it out, but they won't, because they'd lose these circlejerk podcasts where, if what you saying is accurate, they are mocking people for continuing to play the game and using that as an indicator that everything is fine.

It's not like we can just pick up and go to another MechWarrior game, guys.

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 July 2013 - 11:23 AM.

[Garth Erlam]

Victor Morson, on 23 June 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Communication goes a long way.

For example with the alpha nerf I ranted on, I've said before and will say again.. just one tweet would have quelled community rage. A simple "Hey we heard your feedback, we're looking into it!" would have done the trick.

That's the primary job of a community manager and partly why I'm saying that stuff too. These guys used to be very involved but lately it feels like there is a complete disconnect.

We've heard your feedback, and we're looking into it.

Also it's a complete fallacy we don't 'listen to fans.' I send reams of suggestions emails to design weekly - many of which make it into the game - and I've said this many times. People want Paul to personally come into their post and do a two hour discussion with them on their ideas, and that flat out won't happen.

[Deathlike]

Garth Erlam, on 04 July 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

We've heard your feedback, and we're looking into it.

Also it's a complete fallacy we don't 'listen to fans.' I send reams of suggestions emails to design weekly - many of which make it into the game - and I've said this many times. People want Paul to personally come into their post and do a two hour discussion with them on their ideas, and that flat out won't happen.

It would be better if you personally put a weekly list of ideas you've forwarded to them, instead of looking nice in the Cicada and being inconspicuous.

Otherwise, we assume you're picking and choosing threads you like personally, instead of picking solid arguments/discussions made by others even if you disagree.

Edited by Deathlike, 04 July 2013 - 11:27 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Garth Erlam, on 04 July 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

We've heard your feedback, and we're looking into it.

Also it's a complete fallacy we don't 'listen to fans.' I send reams of suggestions emails to design weekly - many of which make it into the game - and I've said this many times. People want Paul to personally come into their post and do a two hour discussion with them on their ideas, and that flat out won't happen.

Hey there Garth!

I want to absolutely stress, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that is not what I want to happen. Period. If you've had a chance to read the OP, I specifically state that you guys shouldn't have to come into threads, at all. But instead, when major hot button issues come up here on a specific system or the like, it should be regularly addressed via social media, including twitter.

More updates - with more specific details than "problems" and "looking into it" is all we want. I think what you are saying would be a mistake, too.

For example, if you say - dropped a tweet explaining what people think of the feedback to Paul's mentioned alpha nerf system (which has been overwhelmingly negative) - this would all go away. Something I say in the OP even. Or, say, explaining what options you're looking into for fixing the PPC.

Also, if you guys were trying to open any dialogue with the competitive community - I'm talking e-mail surveys here, not long conversations - you'd likely see tons of problems before they happened, as I think is rather evident in my flashback thread. Just compare where Russ thought lance balance would be today versus where the competitive scene thought it would be, and please consider where we are today.

This is why I'm saying what I am. I have no interest in dragging you guys into forum flame wars. You should stay above it. But you should also not ignore it.

You guys used to be awesome at this. I don't know what changed this year. Lots of people rumor that IGP made you stop interacting with the community entirely but that sounds more than a little far fetched to me. I don't know what happened, but we're just not getting info.

Again: Going into forums and engaging in debates is bad. Reading the forums and posting PGI's overall thoughts with more specific detail (X is broken, we're looking into a few ways to fix it!) is good.

EDIT: Again, if we sound angry/frustrated/tired, it's been over a year and many things that were "fixed" are now entirely terrible. I've always been highly optimistic until the last couple of months, with month after month of serious issues being ignored (like the one role meta) while "fixes" happen in the absolute strangest places without rhyme or reason, or even a hint that the community was consulted at all. It all feels very, very random (not slow and methodical as some have suggested), and it is doubly so when these changes aren't being discussed in any venue.

Page 1:

Quote

Communication goes a long way.

For example with the alpha nerf I ranted on, I've said before and will say again.. just one tweet would have quelled community rage. A simple "Hey we heard your feedback, we're looking into it!" would have done the trick.

That's the primary job of a community manager and partly why I'm saying that stuff too. These guys used to be very involved but lately it feels like there is a complete disconnect.

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 July 2013 - 11:57 AM.

[Teralitha]

Garth Erlam, on 04 July 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

We've heard your feedback, and we're looking into it.

Also it's a complete fallacy we don't 'listen to fans.' I send reams of suggestions emails to design weekly - many of which make it into the game - and I've said this many times. People want Paul to personally come into their post and do a two hour discussion with them on their ideas, and that flat out won't happen.

Id rather Paul get canned and replaced. He is terrible lead designer, at least in this kind of game.

Also based on what youve said, Apparently only emailed suggestions get forwarded to devs? So all forums suggestions are nothing?

Edited by Teralitha, 04 July 2013 - 11:41 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Teralitha, on 04 July 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

Id rather Paul get canned and replaced. He is terrible lead designer, at least in this kind of game.

It's my impression Paul is not responsible for gun-to-gun balance and is probably not the right person to pin blame for the situation on.

As I've said there are MANY great thing about MW:O, but where it absolutely collapses right now is one-note meta game balance.

Teralitha, on 04 July 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

Also based on what youve said, Apparently only emailed suggestions get forwarded to devs? So all forums suggestions are nothing?

Again, just a little more social media feedback would solve all of this.

[TimePeriod]

I have this gut feeling that since this game is mostly based around F2P with P2W elements and micro transactions this does not seem to warrant that much attention from the development team. Which is why everything is degrading and becoming worse rather then improving.

[Victor Morson]

TimePeriod, on 04 July 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

I have this gut feeling that since this game is mostly based around F2P with P2W elements and micro transactions this does not seem to warrant that much attention from the development team. Which is why everything is degrading and becoming worse rather then improving.

First off, one thing PGI is not guilty of is P2W. That part they've handled exceptionally, and it's going right along side the art, sound, and (recent) map design that I think can be held up as things MW:O is in fact doing very well.

Second, every problem we are yelling about would only stand to improve their profits, encouraging more players to stick around and others to start playing. I'd feel good about recommending MW:O again if I could say "You can design your own 'mech!" without meaning "You can design your own sniper."

Worse yet, when PGI finally does fixing sniping they're likely to massively overreact and make it completely useless, if past trends continue. I don't want that. I just want it on parity with other roles. Otherwise you're just trading "Always snipe" meta for "Always brawl" meta. We've already had that. Not again!

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 July 2013 - 12:21 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Garth Erlam, on 04 July 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

We've heard your feedback, and we're looking into it.

Also it's a complete fallacy we don't 'listen to fans.' I send reams of suggestions emails to design weekly - many of which make it into the game - and I've said this many times. People want Paul to personally come into their post and do a two hour discussion with them on their ideas, and that flat out won't happen.

Then come to us, open a thread, and post some detailed thoughts. Then we at least actually knows where he stands, how he thinks the game works, and what must be done about it.

We might still disagree, but at least we wouldn'T see glimpses of ideas that often look bad and leave us only with one conclusion hanging: PGI doesn't really have a good idea what they are doing.

You say "ECM is close to where we want it to be". Why is that? Why is it as it is, why do you think this is best for the game?

You say "Here's this complicated heat penalty solution for boating" but we get so little insight in the reasoning process, but we see a lot of questionable end results, that we have to believe the reasoning process is flawed.

My impression is that PGI has an idea and wants to stick with it, no matter the critics. If the critique is not valid, then you can show how it isn't.

But please, really show. Don't just mention mythical 3-second-to-core-an-Atlas Jenners that cannot even exist in M:WO.

Or don't do any of this, and deal with the fact that people will critique you and think that you're poor at communication.

[Deathlike]

MustrumRidcully, on 04 July 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Then come to us, open a thread, and post some detailed thoughts. Then we at least actually knows where he stands, how he thinks the game works, and what must be done about it.

We might still disagree, but at least we wouldn'T see glimpses of ideas that often look bad and leave us only with one conclusion hanging: PGI doesn't really have a good idea what they are doing.

You say "ECM is close to where we want it to be". Why is that? Why is it as it is, why do you think this is best for the game?

You say "Here's this complicated heat penalty solution for boating" but we get so little insight in the reasoning process, but we see a lot of questionable end results, that we have to believe the reasoning process is flawed.

My impression is that PGI has an idea and wants to stick with it, no matter the critics. If the critique is not valid, then you can show how it isn't.

But please, really show. Don't just mention mythical 3-second-to-core-an-Atlas Jenners that cannot even exist in M:WO.

Or don't do any of this, and deal with the fact that people will critique you and think that you're poor at communication.

You sir, deserve a cookie in the shape of an Urbie.