Niko Snow, on 28 June 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:
Selection of an "official" Community Liason places us in a predicament where we start listening to one individual more than the group as a whole, and any individual is subject to their own biases and beliefs
All evidence indicates that virtually all the "big names" on the forum make far better observations about game balance, display a superior understanding of the game-play and mechanics, and in general, would do a substantially superior job of actually making balance decisions than the staff at PGI.
For that reason, I'd give my proxy to just about any of those guys, if it would cause PGI to listen, hear, and understand more readily. Currently it is obvious that you (PGI) do not.
It's not that I'm 100% sure that FupDup is always going to channel exactly what my opinion is. It's that I am 100% sure FupDup is smarter, when it comes to game balance, than Paul, Bryan, etc. If he represents me but disagrees with me about some things, so what; it's still an improvement upon what we have now, which is a game that is getting steadily worse, not better, with respect to meta-game and armament balance.
Ask anyone with a clue what they think about the recent Pulse Laser heat/dmg output "normalization." They'll tell you those changes were so idiotic as to be utterly beyond belief.
I'm trying to state it very simply: That decision was so stupid, I can't ******* believe it actually got applied.
The only reason there isn't huge outrage about it is Pulse Lasers basically sucked before, and now, they just suck a tiny bit more. It would be like if MGs went from 0.04 dmg/shell instead of 0.037 dmg/shell, except there were no mechs who had to depend largely on MGs for damage.
With all the politeness I can muster, I would like to know if you (Niko Snow) understand the statements I'm making, above. If you don't, I can keep on explaining it.
Helmer, on 28 June 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:
Rest assured. Just about every thread, post, and idea is forwarded. If you'd like, I can start jumping into threads and saying "Heard and forwarded", but that gets old fast.
Every thread, post, and idea? I'm not saying that's an exaggeration just to accuse you of misrepresenting the way things work, but surly, that must be an exaggeration? It obviously isn't practical for you to forward "every thread, post, and idea" to Paul/Bryan/whoever, so there must be some aggregation going on. If player concerns reach them at all, I don't know. But I hope those guys don't spend a significant portion of their week reading the forum, facebooking, twittering, etc.
You see, we don't understand how you aggregate player feedback. What many of us seem to think, though, is however you do it ... doesn't work.
That is why I would rather just throw my name, and the hundreds of dollars I've spent on MC, behind some player I largely agree with, who can represent me and others. Because right now, I'm done spending money on MW:O. You guys ruined the game for me by making the meta worse and
worse and
WORSE with every major patch. I am sure as hell not the only person who feels this way.
I've got more money to spend on MC. I'd like those new mechs in that Phoenix pack. I still have some mechs I haven't mastered, too, and I buy camo and consumables with MC, and Premium Time, blablah. I've got plenty of entertainment dollars to spend, and PGI can have them, if you can fix the damn game balance! Right now, playing the game is just aggravating for me. It is not fun at all. That's why I am not purchasing any MC right now, or pre-ordering the Phoenix pack, and why I let my Premium lapse. That's why I am spending more time complaining to you on your forum than I am playing your game! That's not "negative feedback," it's just "feedback!" Take it that way, and do something useful with it. Nerf PPCs, prioritize that public test server, or something.
Helmer, on 28 June 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:
There is very much a difference between listening and hearing. Trust me , PGI is hearing... there are just more considerations that many don't think about other than their or their group's viewpoints.
I don't know what they hear, but they sure don't understand how the game is played. They don't even understand how to use available data to drive their balance decisions. Remember them saying MGs were fine? Now they are 150% stronger and they are STILL trash. Now, I'm encouraged by the fact that MGs are still being adjusted.
Where is the PPC adjustment? They think it's fine, obviously. Why do they keep making HUGE changes to LRMs, obviously a tricky weapon to get working right, and chasing players away? Why do they keep adding more complexity, such as BAP countering ECM, Seismic Sensor, etc. etc. when there are far easier fixes available for game-play problems that they have not tried yet?
Don't tell me they are play-testing things. They don't, and we know they don't. There are plenty of examples of huge ****-ups that got released and would have been discovered in the first hour of pre-release testing.
The simple fact is, PGI have a great deal of trouble admitting when they have made bad balance decisions. Do you think that's undue emotion? It's not. It is an observation supported by evidence. Undue emotion or ego would be basically telling the players to **** off about MGs and trolling them by saying, oh man, that 6 MG Spider would core out an Atlas in seconds. Yeah, that's a nice thing to say to the dedicated players who want your game to be successful.
There is very clearly "undue emotion" at work on the PGI side of things. Why else would I have mail from a PGI staffer, complaining about how players gripe about the game? It's sad and pathetic!