740 replies to this topic

[Stalkerr]

Garth, you are my favorite poster on the Citadel.

[gwarm]

Garth, thank you for assuring us that well reasoned criticism does not fall onto deaf ears. These forums can be a dark place sometimes.

[RG Notch]

Garth Erlam, on 31 July 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

[color=cyan]I've responded many times now thanking them for taking the time (and putting in the effort) to get their opinions across in ways that aren't "I died to PPCs so thats bollocks innit?!" or "this game is the worst game ever and i hate it and when I played 40 games last night i only one like half of them and gowse killed me a bunch of times it sucks!!11111one"[/color]

I really do appreciate their efforts, and have informed them as such. Comments like yours aren't adding to the conversation, so either state something, or let people who are giving their (respectful as always, right gents?) opinions do so.

So, you've thanked them for complaining like reasonable adults? Have you actually acknowledged that anything will occur or is this simply to keep the forums from bursting into flames again so that you won't have to reorganize it again to try to hide the fact that these self same complaints keep coming up and getting ignored?
Is that all people want? For you to say keep it nice and polite? Don't people actually want something to change?
I have stated several things, they just aren't what the people here want to hear.
I have stated all this has happened before, and nothing has happened. Why should they expect different results?
All I get from your response is that you are happy they aren't acting like raging little children but I don't see you saying anything will change. I get it, it helps you do you job if people aren't acting like loonies. But getting people to not act like loonies isn't the same as actually doing anything to help the game.
Does PGI admit that these issues are important and something will be done or are you just happy that this will hopefully concentrate dissent somewhere out of the way and let you folks get to launch with less strife on the forums?
I have seen no evidence of the former, but you post seems to confirm the latter. It seems PGI is hoping that this campaign will give them enough time to make it to launch and then hopefully all the new players will drown out the old "whiners"
This just smacks of PR spin, we're listening, we're looking into it! Then some crazy system comes out that no one likes or asked for. Prove that this isn't just stalling and actually respond, not say we hear you but we're not going to do anything.
Is that opinion allowed? Does that add to the conversation? Or should I just ignore past actions and rely simply on hope?

[gwarm]

RG Notch, on 31 July 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

So, you've thanked them for complaining like reasonable adults?

Feedback and constructive criticism is not complaining. I don't understand why you have such a chip on your shoulder.

[MechFrog1]

give it a rest, Notch.

[Gwaihir]

RG Notch, on 31 July 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

wall of text

Literally none of that is up to Garth, and ranting about it won't change that, even if the rants are sorta right.

Edited by Gwaihir, 31 July 2013 - 08:40 AM.

[RG Notch]

gwarm, on 31 July 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

Feedback and constructive criticism is not complaining. I don't understand why you have such a chip on your shoulder.

I don't understand how I'm the bad guy for pointing out how these "campaigns" have gone before and how I'm such an awful person because I actually want something to change rather than be happy some one said they heard my feed back and then nothing. The idea of feedback is that something changes. If you keep getting the same feedback shouldn't you investigate why you keep getting that feedback? Is simply saying thanks for more polite feedback what you want? Are standards that low? Isn't a community manager supposed to manage a community? Does manage just mean keep pliant and quiet? Shouldn't there be some back and forth?
I'm not expecting one on ones with the dev team, I would simply like them to say there are legitimate complaints and what PGI intends to do about them. Their track record is to vaguely acknowledge some folks might possibly have some minor issues but we're happy where things are.
Ask us questions like the SRM poll, admit that lots of people aren't pleased an that things will change. Or keep on keeping on and hope that hordes of 3PV fans show up at launch.

[gwarm]

RG Notch, on 31 July 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

I don't understand how I'm the bad guy for pointing out how these "campaigns" have gone before and how I'm such an awful person because I actually want something to change rather than be happy some one said they heard my feed back and then nothing. The idea of feedback is that something changes. If you keep getting the same feedback shouldn't you investigate why you keep getting that feedback? Is simply saying thanks for more polite feedback what you want? Are standards that low? Isn't a community manager supposed to manage a community? Does manage just mean keep pliant and quiet? Shouldn't there be some back and forth?
I'm not expecting one on ones with the dev team, I would simply like them to say there are legitimate complaints and what PGI intends to do about them. Their track record is to vaguely acknowledge some folks might possibly have some minor issues but we're happy where things are.
Ask us questions like the SRM poll, admit that lots of people aren't pleased an that things will change. Or keep on keeping on and hope that hordes of 3PV fans show up at launch.

It isn't so much your message as it is your delivery.

[Stalkerr]

So notch, it's clear you want change like the rest of us. Do you have any concrete action steps you would like to suggest?

[Rasako]

I've been thinking for a long while on this and I feel that this thread and at this time in the game's development cycle is time for me to come out and voice my opinion. Firstly, I deeply appreciate what PGI is doing with this game as it is the last bridge of connection that I have with my father who is a long time battletech fan and our relationship is flimsy as cardboard at best. This game has given me hope that I will be able to spend time with him and have fun, while bringing others to the game so we can all have a fun robot stomping experience!

That being said, I deeply believe that the biggest issue with game balance is Hit Detection and Convergence. Hit detection will probably never be perfect, as much as I wish it would be, but a lot of weapons' effectiveness is really skewed by hit detection and it is hard for players to really grasp how effective a weapon can be (SRMs being a prime example as some players seem to have little issue with them and I feel that mine are utter trash as a weapon due to hit detection issues). Before anything MAJOR is changed about the current metagame I feel that hit detection should be a top priority, since this is the most likely culprit for the death in brawlers builds as seen by the resurgence of brawlers with the SRM damage buff.

On top of this, there are many ideas for fixing high pin-point alpha strikes and I feel that some form of reactive reticule/convergence is the best way to fix this, but at the same time I also believe that without proper implementation it would be negated by chainfiring just as the heat penalty system is negated.

Other than my previously mentioned points, I feel the game is in a fairly solid state. The game really just needs a driving force other than C-bill grinding to keep long-term players and a better new user experience. Matchmaking needs help and from what I have read PGI has plans that will most likely alleviate the matchmaking issues somewhat. The major system that this game desperately needs however, is community warfare. That is the major driving force that will keep people playing this game and attract new players, and if done right, could easily make this one of the best games out on the market PERIOD, not just in the free-to-play space.

I just want to take this time to again thank all of you for doing your part as fellow community members of Mechwarrior Online and trying to constructively consolidate your ideas, opinions, and concerns. I also want to thank you PGI for taking this beloved franchise and breathing new life into it. I wish nothing but the best for this game and its players.

Edited by Rasako, 31 July 2013 - 08:57 AM.

[Wilburg]

RG Notch, on 31 July 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

I don't understand how I'm the bad guy for pointing out how these "campaigns" have gone before and how I'm such an awful person because I actually want something to change rather than be happy some one said they heard my feed back and then nothing. The idea of feedback is that something changes. If you keep getting the same feedback shouldn't you investigate why you keep getting that feedback? Is simply saying thanks for more polite feedback what you want? Are standards that low? Isn't a community manager supposed to manage a community? Does manage just mean keep pliant and quiet? Shouldn't there be some back and forth?
I'm not expecting one on ones with the dev team, I would simply like them to say there are legitimate complaints and what PGI intends to do about them. Their track record is to vaguely acknowledge some folks might possibly have some minor issues but we're happy where things are.
Ask us questions like the SRM poll, admit that lots of people aren't pleased an that things will change. Or keep on keeping on and hope that hordes of 3PV fans show up at launch.

Actually these were your first decent posts in a lot of pages. And it´s pretty simple why, you started with "you idiots really think they´re going to do something" and are now at "There are problems, but I really lost faith as PGI wasn´t constructive in the past". You are smart enough to see the difference

Edited by Wilburg, 31 July 2013 - 08:50 AM.

[John Norad]

Well the relationship between players and PGI developed into this current state. It didn't start that way.
So let's not forget there are two sides to this, and there's a reason why some people have stopped posting and some other people have started using a rougher tone.
If it weren't for the feeling that PGI started going their own way and ignoring much of what the players criticise, things might look quite a bit different.
I'm pretty sure Notch has his reasons, too.

Personally I'm under the impression that at some point the devs decided to change course and steer development into a different direction than originally announced, and subsequently reduced communication since they knew this decision would meet a lot of displeasure. Like they knew they were going to do things the fans wouldn't like. But for some odd reason felt it was necessary or that they had to do it, and didn't expect the players to understand.
While I do kinda understand business decisions like that, I don't agree with the way it was done. And I don't think it was necessary. Provided my suspicion is true. And I think that relying on statistics and 'contemporary game devlopment 101' (like blue/orange color palette, intentional boost-nerf cycles, casual gameplay, and all that rubbish) is not the be-all and end-all.
I do think that creating a high quality mech simulation, basically that creating a good game, will/would sell. Too many companies nowadays just try so sell bad games or rely too much on PR and market analysis mumbo jumbo.

Rasako, on 31 July 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Other than my previously mentioned points, I feel the game is in a fairly solid state. The game really just needs a driving force other than C-bill grinding to keep long-term players and a better new user experience.

You're basically talking about long term motivation and goals. Those should be part of a well thought out and tested (!) concept. It's getting a bit late for that. Repair and rearm or anything with a remote resemblance to economy isn't in, yet, or anymore. All the while players gather huge amounts of C-Bills, making the introduction of any C-Bill based economy more than problematic.

Edited by John Norad, 31 July 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[GaussDragon]

John Norad, on 31 July 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

-Interesting points-

I think you bring up some interesting points but I have to abstain from forming a really concrete opinion on their motivation. What I do know is that they shut us out and and started going down a really unpopular road which created a negative feedback loop that started elevating our frustrations higher and higher and higher until #saveMWO happened. I'll go into this more perhaps when we get together again to discuss more specific details about what we hope to see. What I'm certain of, however, is our understanding of this game and how it works in practice. That, we can make quite a thorough commentary on and it's a big reason the new heatscale system exasperated us.

[keith]

https://twitter.com/...602345491742721
this bothers me. the ghost heat just makes it so u can fire as much reducing your "dps" if u don't know what your doing. a decent pilot will just fire every .5 sec or macro still outputing the same out of dam as before. it won't affect the role of a sniper very much.

[BFett]

Stalkerr, on 31 July 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

So notch, it's clear you want change like the rest of us. Do you have any concrete action steps you would like to suggest?

Personally, I do have several action steps that I believe may ease some tensions the community has.

1) A development road-map much like the one in PlanetSide2 so the community may vote on upcoming features and prioritize which features should be worked on immediately and which should be pushed out by several months.
2) A public reply to the letter that has been sent to PGI explaining what items will be looked at and why certain items will not be looked at until after launch.
3) Additional Dev Blogs to inform the community as to where the game is headed and to update old information.

4) Any other good ideas that I have forgotten.

[Gwaihir]

keith, on 31 July 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

https://twitter.com/...602345491742721
this bothers me. the ghost heat just makes it so u can fire as much reducing your "dps" if u don't know what your doing. a decent pilot will just fire every .5 sec or macro still outputing the same out of dam as before. it won't affect the role of a sniper very much.

Yea, that's really bad. The worst thing is, Russ is the CEO, he's a business guy, and it's not his job to know the intricacies of game mechanics. So that probably means he asked Paul or something to get that answer. That someone in a design job thinks "Ghost heat" does anything like what Russ tweeted, while at the same time lumping in SRMs, LRMs, and AC2s (along side DoT lasers) in to "Pinpoint alpha" is a damned embarrassment. They should know better, and even if they don't/didnt, they should be able to listen to the many, *many* people telling them straight up.

Edited by Gwaihir, 31 July 2013 - 09:58 AM.

[RG Notch]

Stalkerr, on 31 July 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

So notch, it's clear you want change like the rest of us. Do you have any concrete action steps you would like to suggest?

What's left to do? Seriously, they've had this feedback for months. They've gotten well written polite critiques as well as crazy *** rants. They have to know these are issues to many people. The fact that they aren't addressing them in any sane way is shocking. You apparently have some super secret Plan. Why not enlighten the masses or is this just for the "top units"?
One thing I don't want is any direct input from a tiny group of "competitive" players, how that would be any better than the internal testers PGI is using and apparently signing off on these changes.
Garth's response just convinces me that they aren't interested in the actual feedback, but like people complained about me, they just want the delivery to be better. They want the forums to seem calmer and don't want to new people coming in and seeing the constant bashing of PGI, which in most cases PGI has brought on themselves.
All he said was thanks for being polite. Did he say the people in charge are aware that there are major complaints and that the game is not in the best shape ever? Did he say the complaints are valid and that we are not on an island?
That would be a first step. That and not being afraid of us. We're only dangerous when ignored and mistreated. If they engaged us a tiny bit more it would help.
Again not asking for one on ones or for devs to jump in every thread or even any thread. I just wish they would do command chairs like they promised on hot button topics. I wish they would at least tell us why they are doing things and what they believe will be accomplished. If the thought process behind some of these changes was known people might, if not agree with the specific changes, at least have a clue as to why they are happening.
I don't expect them to bow to every complaint but to just ignore all the feedback, or just let us know they heard it is part of what feeds the anger of many folks.
Basically, I don't think we the players should have to take ANY more steps. We've been there and done that and PGI doesn't do more than say "looking into it". Honestly, what should we have to do to help them salvage their game? If they think they don't need us, as evinced by their treatment of our feedback, then so be it.
In all seriousness what step could possibly make them take notice if nothing has worked so far? Do you actually have a plan or are you hoping Garth's tepid response is enough?

[Sybreed]

keith, on 31 July 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

https://twitter.com/...602345491742721
this bothers me. the ghost heat just makes it so u can fire as much reducing your "dps" if u don't know what your doing. a decent pilot will just fire every .5 sec or macro still outputing the same out of dam as before. it won't affect the role of a sniper very much.

I don't like the system as much as anyone else as I think it's too convoluted and arbitrary, but I'll be honest here, I heard there were a lot more varied builds in-game and I appreciate that. If only PGI got the same result using a system that made more sense...

In other words, the system isn't very well thought out, but if it makes for a more fun game (for me at least), I can endure it...

[Nekki Basara]

RG Notch, on 31 July 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

One thing I don't want is any direct input from a tiny group of "competitive" players, how that would be any better than the internal testers PGI is using and apparently signing off on these changes.

Have you read any of the posts which explain why competitive players are the exact people you want to go to for feedback? Because it doesn't look like you have.

[Aware]

RG Notch, on 31 July 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Basically, I don't think we the players should have to take ANY more steps. We've been there and done that and PGI doesn't do more than say "looking into it". Honestly, what should we have to do to help them salvage their game? If they think they don't need us, as evinced by their treatment of our feedback, then so be it.
In all seriousness what step could possibly make them take notice if nothing has worked so far? Do you actually have a plan or are you hoping Garth's tepid response is enough?

I don't know that anyone here would disagree that we shouldn't have to take steps. Talking for myself here I haven't really done enough to give up just yet despite everything that has gone on previously.


I don't think any of us want to save the game for them because at the end of the day we can't it is all up to them. We want to save the game for us.