519 replies to this topic

[Chronojam]

Rebas Kradd, on 02 August 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

And as far as that "Save MWO" campaign, so far it has less than 1,000 signatures (I refuse to accept on faith that every single person in the represented guilds agrees with the letter, sorry) and falls neatly into the "vocal minority" category. I simply don't see a ghost town game here, nor the much-ballyhooed "arcade shooter" motif, and a lot of that "lost Founder goodwill" seems conveniently anecdotal. We are so far from SWG territory that it's hard to be worried.

I can confirm that 1,800 people represented by the Word of Lowtax agree, and our focus is on having groups decide whether or not they agree to sign (in lieu of having every single individual pilot need to sign up since that's impractical). I can also confirm that PGI confirmed that the 8-man queue fails to find a match 1/3 of the time, so you're not helping your credibility here by trying to assert that playership is up or in a good place -- that's not a sign of a healthy playerbase. It's cool to disagree, but a lot of us have been watching playability and fun slowly decline since the start of this year, which is harder to see if you only started playing a few months ago and have no frame of reference.

The game's development didn't always appear so backwards, going back to August of 2012 people were a lot more optimistic.

Edited by Chronojam, 02 August 2013 - 06:00 PM.

[GetinmyBellah]

I understand wanting to point the game in the central direction everyone appears to believe it was going, but at the end of the day, guess what? We don't run a small game development company do we? Sure a lot of us here probably have a plethora of experience in the business world and, or running our own small company that is profitable... but what makes sense to you or I probably doesn't exist in the gaming development field no matter how smart one thinks they're. The fact is you and I have no clue what changes this company has faced internally, financial or otherwise. The fact is we shouldn't pretend to know what goes on behind the curtain. The fact is everyone here deserves the right to voice their opinion and be heard.

However, we're not going to achieve anything here by simply criticizing PGI and calling them liar's. What I am saying is stop simply bashing and be more constructive as you have on this page versus the sheer rants that have taken over so many other a page, please.

[CarnageINC]

Chronojam, on 02 August 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

I can confirm that 1,800 people represented by the Word of Lowtax agree, and our focus is on having groups decide whether or not they agree to sign (in lieu of having every single individual pilot need to sign up since that's impractical). I can also confirm that PGI confirmed that the 8-man queue fails to find a match 1/3 of the time, so you're not helping your credibility here by trying to assert that playership is up or in a good place -- that's not a sign of a healthy playerbase. It's cool to disagree, but a lot of us have been watching playability and fun slowly decline since the start of this year, which is harder to see if you only started playing a few months ago and have no frame of reference.

The game's development didn't always appear so backwards, going back to August of 2012 people were a lot more optimistic.

Well 'Word of Lowtax' people...if you supposablly have 1800 members.....and can confirm that they all agree with your small movement, you must have them all sign your letter there. Its not impractical, that is what a petition is for. Thats how people ensure that they 'voice' their opinions as a united group and make sure thier heard. How hard is it for someone to add their signature? If you want PGI to take this petition seriously you need to have the signatures, not saying "I represent '#' of people", sorry thats not how petitions are taken seriously sir.

Please post some proof of your 'confirmation' about your PGI statement about 8 man drops. I assume that this is a PGI thread or a article in a creditable news source somewhere...no? This would help 'your' credibility some don't you think?

[Chronojam]

CarnageINC, on 03 August 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Well 'Word of Lowtax' people...if you supposablly have 1800 members.....and can confirm that they all agree with your small movement, you must have them all sign your letter there. Its not impractical, that is what a petition is for. Thats how people ensure that they 'voice' their opinions as a united group and make sure thier heard. How hard is it for someone to add their signature? If you want PGI to take this petition seriously you need to have the signatures, not saying "I represent '#' of people", sorry thats not how petitions are taken seriously sir.

Please post some proof of your 'confirmation' about your PGI statement about 8 man drops. I assume that this is a PGI thread or a article in a creditable news source somewhere...no? This would help 'your' credibility some don't you think?

Hey remember when the United Nations made it a rule that England actually had to drag all 65 million UK residents out to New York in order to have their votes count? Boy howdy did that make quite a stir but that's just how you ensure they voice their opinion because we all know that representative systems are completely unheard of in classical-thru-modern society. I mean, when that whole Rome thing fell apart, we knew we could never again stand behind particular representatives to present a united front with a clear message. Letter-writing campaigns never provide sample letters for that exact reason, because we know scientifically that lobbying works best when everybody has a slightly-different set of requests and a confused overall message.

Back to reality!

It is well known that the Word of Lowtax is one of the largest groups and has been for some time, and as a legendary founder you ought to remember the census threads to that effect in the earliest days of 2012 showing we were already at least as large as the #2 and #3 groups combined. We have a leadership cabal who have the support of our comrades. It is not uncommon for large groups to have a spokesman, or spokesmen, speak for them -- that's why the word spokesman exists.

Anyhow, here's the proof of my "confirmation" that PGI themselves posted. It was actually miSs transcribing what Paul said in response to a direct question from me actually, so I think I know what I'm talking about here a little bit more than you! I'd think that as a legendary founder, you would follow Ask The Devs threads.

miSs, on 26 July 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

Chronojam: How come we always fail to find a match in the 8-man queue, has PGI realized why we fail to find a match so often, and is there a plan to rectify this problem?

Answer from Paul: 8-man matches fail approximately 25-30% of the time.

I believe this should help my credibility but it has the unfortunate side effect of making you look incompetent, so you have my apologies.

Edited by Chronojam, 03 August 2013 - 11:54 AM.

[Reno Blade]

Chronojam, on 03 August 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

...

Anyhow, here's the proof of my "confirmation" that PGI themselves posted. It was actually miSs transcribing what Paul said in response to a direct question from me actually, so I think I know what I'm talking about here a little bit more than you! I'd think that as a legendary founder, you would follow Ask The Devs threads.

Quote

Chronojam: How come we always fail to find a match in the 8-man queue, has PGI realized why we fail to find a match so often, and is there a plan to rectify this problem?

Answer from Paul: 8-man matches fail approximately 25-30% of the time.

I believe this should help my credibility but it has the unfortunate side effect of making you look incompetent, so you have my apologies.

I think most people stopped reading right there. Paul also mentioned the reason.
It's the imbalanced teams (going for "best competitive builds" or "FOTM" ppc boats because they need/want to win at all cost. The cost is the fun of 8mans.
Nobody like the 8mans if facing teams using 6 snipers + 2 basecap lights every freaking time to be "competitive".
You might blame PGI for not offering enough "reason" to use medium mechs, but in the end the community is the strongest factor for the "reason" why 8mans are so low populated!
The amount of 8mans reduced over the last months of PPC-online and it will take months to get it back up. Be patient and help to restore the 8mans.

Some people ask why/when we get 8mans into the pug-queues, but that would be horrible unfair to everyone in that pug-queue. If 8mans get frustrated of the "meta game" what you think of pugs? They already get stomped vs 4man premades (who don't like the 8man stomp-fest, but keep stomping pugs). Getting stomped by 8man or 7man premades would be even worse.

Not to ask for much, but can't you get all your 1800 lowtax into the 8mans to "populate" the queue and maybe even ask your guys nicely to use something else than their "best competetive builds". (like 1-4-2-1 (L-M-H-A) setups for 8mans with less snipers and less ECM for more fun)

Oh and about player-numbers: the first hype after closed beta ebbed down and this time of the year is summer time. Vacations, BBQ and swimming pool instead of sitting in front of your PC, melting and playing the game you played for over 1 year already.
Everyone likes news, patches and content. Thats nothing new. But as I said, the time for summerbreak also reduces player numbers, so don't blame it all on PGI !

[Mythanthalus]

I have been wondering how the lighter mechs can be rewarded for objective based successes instead of just bang-dead play. I understand that a light mech can circle the opponent, but the damage is so low that it takes forever, as intended) to take any other mech down, hence the very reason for a light mech is to achieve objectives on the field. Why else would a fast, light mecha be needed?

A suggestion or two:
1.) perhaps there can be a way to track/award cooperative objective success across the board.

2.) give out monetary awards based on participation/objective completion if game is won via objective achievement (base capture victory)

3.) Implement field advantages based on field achievements such as activiation of artillery, defensive measures, or field altering objectives such as bridges.

These can elevate the tactical level of play that will not remove the boom-yer-dead feel, but will give an active war-time feel to each skirmish.

I have been wondering how the lighter mechs can be rewarded for objective based successes instead of just bang-dead play. I understand that a light mech can circle the opponent, but the damage is so low that it takes forever, as intended) to take any other mech down, hence the very reason for a light mech is to achieve objectives on the field. Why else would a fast, light mecha be needed?

A suggestion or two:
1.) perhaps there can be a way to track/award cooperative objective success across the board.

2.) give out monetary awards based on participation/objective completion if game is won via objective achievement (base capture victory)

3.) Implement field advantages based on field achievements such as activiation of artillery, defensive measures, or field altering objectives such as bridges.

These can elevate the tactical level of play that will not remove the boom-yer-dead feel, but will give an active war-time feel to each skirmish.

[keith]

Reno Blade, on 03 August 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

I think most people stopped reading right there. Paul also mentioned the reason.
It's the imbalanced teams (going for "best competitive builds" or "FOTM" ppc boats because they need/want to win at all cost. The cost is the fun of 8mans.
Nobody like the 8mans if facing teams using 6 snipers + 2 basecap lights every freaking time to be "competitive".
You might blame PGI for not offering enough "reason" to use medium mechs, but in the end the community is the strongest factor for the "reason" why 8mans are so low populated!
The amount of 8mans reduced over the last months of PPC-online and it will take months to get it back up. Be patient and help to restore the 8mans.

Some people ask why/when we get 8mans into the pug-queues, but that would be horrible unfair to everyone in that pug-queue. If 8mans get frustrated of the "meta game" what you think of pugs? They already get stomped vs 4man premades (who don't like the 8man stomp-fest, but keep stomping pugs). Getting stomped by 8man or 7man premades would be even worse.

Not to ask for much, but can't you get all your 1800 lowtax into the 8mans to "populate" the queue and maybe even ask your guys nicely to use something else than their "best competetive builds". (like 1-4-2-1 (L-M-H-A) setups for 8mans with less snipers and less ECM for more fun)

Oh and about player-numbers: the first hype after closed beta ebbed down and this time of the year is summer time. Vacations, BBQ and swimming pool instead of sitting in front of your PC, melting and playing the game you played for over 1 year already.
Everyone likes news, patches and content. Thats nothing new. But as I said, the time for summerbreak also reduces player numbers, so don't blame it all on PGI !

u blame the players for wanting to win? maybe the blame should go with the devs for not changing the weps sooner. how hard was it to make the srms to 2.0 dam. that made them decent again, bringing many mechs usable. they could have LONG ago undid all the PPC buffs to bring them back down. once they took away that right buff bringing them into line with all other ranges weps. making other weps usable bringing a new meta. this could have came over the course of maybe 4-6 weeks. instead we had 3+ months of PPCs.

[CarnageINC]

Chronojam I was simply stating if you don't have all your members sign a petition and only have a few guys saying "I represent all these guys" it can not and will not be taken seriously by someone with authority to change things. Calm your sarcasm and think about it. Would it not look more impressive if you had more signatures. In my opinion...and I'm sure to many others also, it would look a lot better.

Just because your a particular spokesman for your unit does not necessarily mean all your members agree with you. I'm a member of Head Hunters of Davion and I have seen some of my unit leaders rally to your cause. But they don't speak for me because I have yet to signed your petition. One thing you can say is that you represent all those folks who did sign your petition, which stands at 878 as the time of this posting. Now that sir is cold hard facts no one can dispute with you.

While your pie chart is a good effort forward in a productive conversion, unlike your sarcasm which just makes you kinda childish and defensive, it still does not show or represent 1800 MWO players as you claim, it just shows all of us that you may represent 320 people. Prove you have all those MWO players, not just the numbers from a multi-gaming organization. Or don't prove it, if you wish. Just don't expect the people of the forum and PGI to take your numbers serious. That is what the petition is for, so you have cold hard proof you do speak for these people.

I will accept the quote for what it is, on that sir, you have proved your point which you should of done to begin with.

Chromojam I'm not try to pick a fight with you or your movement. I have yet to use sarcasm and insults in any of the various threads about your movement. I've been lurking and watching to see what your movement is really try to accomplish. I applaud most of your supporters efforts to keep things on track and stay united on this subject. By having a productive conversion/debate about your movement will only make you and most importantly, your cause, look better to the community.

Sarcasm and insults just make you look like your losing your argument. Throwing out numbers without proof is another thing that makes you look like your losing your argument. If you want to be taken seriously defend and nurture your stand with facts not fiction and emotion.

[Akulakhan]

CarnageINC, on 03 August 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Chronojam I was simply stating if you don't have all your members sign a petition and only have a few guys saying "I represent all these guys" it can not and will not be taken seriously by someone with authority to change things. Calm your sarcasm and think about it. Would it not look more impressive if you had more signatures. In my opinion...and I'm sure to many others also, it would look a lot better.

Just because your a particular spokesman for your unit does not necessarily mean all your members agree with you. I'm a member of Head Hunters of Davion and I have seen some of my unit leaders rally to your cause. But they don't speak for me because I have yet to signed your petition. One thing you can say is that you represent all those folks who did sign your petition, which stands at 878 as the time of this posting. Now that sir is cold hard facts no one can dispute with you.

While your pie chart is a good effort forward in a productive conversion, unlike your sarcasm which just makes you kinda childish and defensive, it still does not show or represent 1800 MWO players as you claim, it just shows all of us that you may represent 320 people. Prove you have all those MWO players, not just the numbers from a multi-gaming organization. Or don't prove it, if you wish. Just don't expect the people of the forum and PGI to take your numbers serious. That is what the petition is for, so you have cold hard proof you do speak for these people.

I will accept the quote for what it is, on that sir, you have proved your point which you should of done to begin with.

Chromojam I'm not try to pick a fight with you or your movement. I have yet to use sarcasm and insults in any of the various threads about your movement. I've been lurking and watching to see what your movement is really try to accomplish. I applaud most of your supporters efforts to keep things on track and stay united on this subject. By having a productive conversion/debate about your movement will only make you and most importantly, your cause, look better to the community.

Sarcasm and insults just make you look like your losing your argument. Throwing out numbers without proof is another thing that makes you look like your losing your argument. If you want to be taken seriously defend and nurture your stand with facts not fiction and emotion.

Point 1: The Goons are literally a hivemind. When one speaks they all agree. Even if they didn't, do you ALWAYS agree with your congressional representative? Doubtful. But, guess what, they still represent you.

Point 2: Saying that one signature cannot represent more than one person is absolutely ridiculous. The poor dude you're arguing with is probably using sarcasm to protect his battered mind from the fact that you don't seem to understand concepts such as representative democracy, petitions, and agency.

Point 3: Attacking someone who's trying to, in their mind, "save" a game, or at least evoke positive change within that game is the lowest of the low. There's nothing more insulting than trying to degrade something they believe in, as petty as a game or not. You sir, are being the jerk.

Edited by Akulakhan, 03 August 2013 - 03:06 PM.

[Crocjaw]

Andrew Cranston, on 25 July 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

For the love of god just give us lobbies so that we can arrange our own drops, then we can make our own balance/CW while you continue your glacial pace towards CW next year.

This sounds like a good idea

[MustrumRidcully]

Reno Blade, on 03 August 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

I think most people stopped reading right there. Paul also mentioned the reason.
It's the imbalanced teams (going for "best competitive builds" or "FOTM" ppc boats because they need/want to win at all cost. The cost is the fun of 8mans.
Nobody like the 8mans if facing teams using 6 snipers + 2 basecap lights every freaking time to be "competitive".
You might blame PGI for not offering enough "reason" to use medium mechs, but in the end the community is the strongest factor for the "reason" why 8mans are so low populated!
The amount of 8mans reduced over the last months of PPC-online and it will take months to get it back up. Be patient and help to restore the 8mans.

Don't blame the players for playing the game that someone else created for them.

If it happens to be that 6 Assault Snipers and 2 Light Cappers is what it takes too win, this is exactly what you'll see in competitive play. Yes, it's boring, but don't expect players to deliberately make choices that make them less likely to win. Losing against other teams because you deliberately picked a weak group composition is no more fun then fighting with cheese against cheese.
If PGI didn't intend those 6 Assault Snipers + 2 Light Cappers to be the ultimately 8v8 man teams, they need to change the game. Don't hope for the players the change. PGI has the source for the game, no one has the source code for players.

[Donner]

Take your time guys. I am a huge supporter of your group, I have easily spent 100's of dollars on this game. I hope to see the final product of community warfare, but not a "half-baked" product. Time is essential to any proper planning and implementation of a feature to nearly any existing entity.

[POWR]

Chances are, they're keeping a bunch of stuff unrevealed for the release, so there's something big for that. Then, the community warfare stuff, we'll not see anything substantial in that for a while. I can almost see the whining posts about "WOW! choosing faction allegiance was the big community warfare patch?!?!? another PGI lie/scam/steal/".

Proper development of complex features takes time. Not 1 month's worth of time, or 2, or even 6.

[caesar]

Please dear god, no 3rd person view.

[Rebas Kradd]

Chronojam, on 02 August 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

I can also confirm that PGI confirmed that the 8-man queue fails to find a match 1/3 of the time, so you're not helping your credibility here by trying to assert that playership is up or in a good place -- that's not a sign of a healthy playerbase.

You're right, I wouldn't be helping my credibility by asserting that.

Fortunately, I did no such thing. I simply deflected the doomsday predictions of others. I suspect the game is holding steady right now and will probably expand more upon the release of the new features.

Besides, I'm not exactly isolated in my stance on PGI, either. My 100-man club plays often. They do their own 8-mans (internal matches) and don't all just evaporate because external 8-mans are scarce. That would be a narrow player indeed. A few such people exist, perhaps. But it's unreasonable for some people (not necessarily you) to predict that the game is a twitching corpse in an attempt to bully PGI into things.

[caesar]

Please, no 3rd person. Talk about game killing...

[The Wolfpack75]

Redshift2k5, on 25 July 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

Great update. I really do hope you can delivery on your promises to deliver "detailed posts and reveals ahead of Community Warfare’s test server debut and final release."

Can't wait for the new map, and it looks like I will need to decide on a Medium mech chassis to invest in!

Completely agree, I know that control of information is key when developing any software for release. However, lately it feels we are getting more vague answers about possible features that we may at some point in the future see happen - the proverbial carrot on a stick while we (the money spending gamers) are the donkeys pulling the cart.

I would much rather that PGi wait until they can provide solid information with real dates and/or substantial write ups before they talk about a feature. With Community Warfare: it has been teased but no date has been set, a write up has been promised but not delivered (and any question about when it will arrive goes unanswered). Why even let us know that it is coming when we don't have any idea what it will be?
Same with the clan arrival, UI 2.0, 3pv (I worry that feature is coming because this is going to be dumbed down into a Mechassault version of the MechWarrior line for consoles), more modules, more mechs, etc.
We give feedback, we ask questions and we are rewarded by being teased with tiny bits and morsels but we don't get a large chunk of actual meat (or rather carrot to go back to us being treated like a***es).

Edited by RioWolf75, 04 August 2013 - 12:12 PM.

[LexxMerc]

caesar, on 04 August 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Please, no 3rd person. Talk about game killing...

Поддерживаю!
И ещё сюжетную линию бы потолще

[PoLaR]

Buff my pulse lasers!

Wub wub wub wub...

[Intelekt]

http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

I second this. Mech warrior is, and has always been a Mech SIM. Adding 3rd person allows the player to remove themselves from the cockpit. It also breaks the game's Lore, which has a deep history.

Please, please, do not implement 3rd person view. If you must do so in some fashion, make it an option to look at your Mech, but not play it. The idea would be that if you go into "Mech view mode" during a match, your mech powers down until you return to first person.

Even a measure like this could be game breaking. The game is based on sight lines, engagement points, and a "table top" digital experience in a way. Adding a way to change those sight lines and potentially get more information from outside of the Mech cockpit could potentially ruin the spirit of mech warrior.. So please, your initial take on 3PV above was correct and proper for Mech Warrior, leave it that way.