740 replies to this topic

[Tegiminis]

Adridos, on 29 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

That's really nice and they really did a great job and a possibly great Singleplayer game, but since they made this a multiplayer experience, there are other factors that need additional work/reevaluation by the rest of the team.

I didn't say otherwise? Read up and you'll see I'm actually very critical of the design/community team.

Just felt that it'd be nice to temper all this negativity with one ray of sunshine.

[Hubis]

RG Notch, on 29 July 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

LOL this is the same argument that PGI made when it pushed 3rd person. Apparently there is a huge silent majority that wants 3rd person. I assume the argument could be made that the silent majority is perfectly happy with the game as is and the complainers are on an island no? Or is that logic only applicable when it suits you?

The point is that arguing whether you have a "majority" or not is immaterial, relative to the content of the ideas presented.

You know WHO ELSE had support of a majority?

RG Notch, on 29 July 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

It must hurt to be in PGI's shoes now, trying to argue that you know more than the player base at large based on well pretty much nothing but a bunch of people claiming to represent hundreds. Why are your arguments more believable than PGI's?
Also, I'd say there's some pretty clear evidence that this is a vocal minority. PGI would actually listen if it weren't, if it's not and they aren't listening, again why would anyone have hope for the future?
If the whole purpose is just to show the obvious issues that PGI has mostly acknowledged as issues, really why bother? Oh I forgot people get some recognition and attention. I fail to see how summarizing the issues that have been evident on the forums since OB is on any use, other than to get high fives and forum likes.
All you are in fact doing is helping PGI keep on keeping on by giving vague confirmation that they have seen this list of issues they already know about. With no end game plan for what to do if this is ignored like all the other times these issues have been brought up, all you're accomplishing is giving PGI time to slough towards launch with no real pressure.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to claim here.

1) You point out cases where PGI hasn't listened to "5,000 users" with the clear implication that they represent a large portion of the player base.
2) You then assert that if we did represent a large portion of the player base, PGI would have to listen to us (with no evidence that they're not). This assertion is basically completely contradictory to your previous point, not to mention the fact that it doesn't really logically follow anyways.
3) You seem upset about the fact that we're somehow removing pressure from PGI to improve the game before launch without any sort of logic as to how, when the entire point of this venture is to do the exact opposite.

Basically, I don't think you really understand how "reason" works and that you should probably just withdraw from any future demonstrations of ignorance before you embarrass yourself further.

Jackson Jax Teller, on 29 July 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

The anti 3rd person thing was brushed off because 5000 ppl saying no was deemed the vocal minority. Im trying to tell you that until you breach that milestone, you dont have as much as you think as theyve dismissed out of hand groups that are much larger than the numbers you claim now.

I see what you're saying; however, honestly I think the take-away from that is more "PGI is going to do whatever they want to do regardless of raw numbers," so the best course of action would be to convince them that they need to change things and that it's in the best interests of the project to do so, rather than to simply point to a disorganized mob (regardless of size).

Edited by Niko Snow, 29 July 2013 - 10:16 AM.
Charlie Chaplin Removed

[RG Notch]

Gwaihir, on 29 July 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

Stop being obtuse. No silly ultimatums, demands, or other polemics from us would even be worth the digital bits they're written on.

All we can say is hey, look, we (this very large group of players) used to really enjoy this game, and used to have a ton of people playing it. Now, we have vastly fewer people playing, for these reasons. If you (PGI) starts showing real progress on fixing (Stuff), then folks will probably come back, and keep playing and buying stuff. If not, then populations will likely continue to dwindle and die.

No "Fix this or else!", just rationally laying out what we've all seen happen over the last 7+ months.

So like I said, no real purpose. Do you seriously believe that one of the issues on that list isn't known and mostly acknowledged as issues by PGI? Do you seriously think that they don't know about the population drop off? This movement brings nothing new to the table.
I'm not talking about what they say, that's just PR spin often. I talking about whether or not they know that player numbers are dropping? or whether they know that every issue in that list is an issue?
If not please list which issue they don't know about and please explain how the people who have access to the real numbers don't know about player drop off.
If they know about these issues what is the purpose? I'm being serious? What would this hope to accomplish?
I believe they already know all this and are either working on fixing them or not as they see fit. Why would this movement change anything?

[Gwaihir]

Tegiminis, on 29 July 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

I didn't say otherwise? Read up and you'll see I'm actually very critical of the design/community team.

Just felt that it'd be nice to temper all this negativity with one ray of sunshine.

I would like to repeat this as many times as possible, because despite the large amount of doom and gloom, the fundamental game fun-ness in terms of looks, feel, sound, and "tactility" is unbeatable. I'm hardly a white knight, but is legitimately really good.

The total lack of balance and responsiveness is what's killed my desire to play. Luckily, that is LEAGUES easier to fix than the fundamental feel of actually playing the game.

[Gwaihir]

RG Notch, on 29 July 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

If they know about these issues what is the purpose? I'm being serious? What would this hope to accomplish?
I believe they already know all this and are either working on fixing them or not as they see fit. Why would this movement change anything?

I don't think we hope to accomplish anything specific with this, other than as a hail mary. Many, even most of our players have given up on MWO getting good, so why not give it one more try and get a unified voice saying it? The game has so much potential, that we may as well. We're all hugely invested in the game getting good, and wanting to have something fun to play for years to come.

If you have other ideas about how to help, I'm literally all ears.

Until then, all we can really realistically do is keep reasonable posting without all the usual forums hyperbole and hope to break through the bubble.

Edited by Gwaihir, 29 July 2013 - 09:01 AM.

[Hubis]

RG Notch, on 29 July 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

So like I said, no real purpose. Do you seriously believe that one of the issues on that list isn't known and mostly acknowledged as issues by PGI? Do you seriously think that they don't know about the population drop off? This movement brings nothing new to the table.
I'm not talking about what they say, that's just PR spin often. I talking about whether or not they know that player numbers are dropping? or whether they know that every issue in that list is an issue?
If not please list which issue they don't know about and please explain how the people who have access to the real numbers don't know about player drop off.
If they know about these issues what is the purpose? I'm being serious? What would this hope to accomplish?
I believe they already know all this and are either working on fixing them or not as they see fit. Why would this movement change anything?

This is silly. You believe that PGI is fully aware of all these issues and is working on fixing them (or not) however they see fit despite no external indication to this extent, and then ask for evidence that contradicts your unsubstantiated assumption.

Even if PGI is looking into all these issues, or is aware of them and has decided not to, they have made no clear statement to this effect. At the least, a response that addresses all these points in terms of "We will look into it" / "We are aware of it and are working on it" / "We are aware of it but disagree that it's a problem" would be a big step forward.

Basically, it seems like you regard any attempt to engage with PGI and actually participate in the feedback process as a complete waste of effort -- yet you somehow find spending the time to (poorly) argue that view in this thread to be wholly worthwhile.

Edited by Hubis, 29 July 2013 - 09:03 AM.

[fil5000]

Gabledeath, on 29 July 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

Did this thread just lose a page? It seems like it was longer...

Its kinda telling imo that the Sarah's mech this is the biggest advertising theyve ever gotten for this game and its a cooincidece it happens less than a month before launch

It's pretty coincidental, yeah. The mech has been ready for a while but I understand there were issues in getting the payment methods and charity funding sorted out. Let's not bring what is undoubtedly a good deed into a discussion of the current state of the game, eh Jackson?

[Ramblin]

LOBBIES

• Having a lobby system in place would allow teams to "Train" new pilots on the nuances of the game. Thus lessening some of the burden on PGI to improve the "new player experience" by putting a small to moderate percentage of the burden on the community.
  
• A lobby system that allows players/teams to choose their opponents would pacify a small to moderate percentage of the community enough to allow them time to make the changes to balance and mech variants that we can be certain they already know about. Best way to quiet a crying baby is to hand them their favorite toy.
  
• Having a lobby system that allows units to drop in "practice" matches allow people to test builds and techniques that would ultimately lead to finding balance/build/bug issues MUCH faster. Lets face it, the VAST majority of us are just trying to win the drops were in. There are very few of you trying to actually beta test anything here.
  
• A lobby will allow leagues and tournaments that are designed and run by the community. This will NO DOUBT bring back a good number of players and thus,. increase PGI/IGP's revenue. This is a business and if business is good, we know the game will continue to grow and maybe even thrive.

Putting together a list of things that PGI is already aware of seems like a monumental waste of time. We know they already know there are balance issues. We know they are aware and we know they are going to go forward on THEIR time schedule to get this fixed. Lets not waste time on a battle we cant win. Lets push for a lobby to be implemented... like yesterday.

For those of you who are unaware, there are several forum sections that are chock FULL of peeps reporting/crying/lamenting/threatening/suggesting on the balance issues
http://mwomercs.com/...al-discussions/
http://mwomercs.com/...feedback-12231/
http://mwomercs.com/...feedback-12231/
Those are just some of them. There are many others.

Lets try and do something real here.

( I dont buy the argument that we need to focus on something small because building a lobby into the game would be too hard so they wont do it... My retort would be, "so were going to tell them we need the known bugs fixed? Thanks captain obvious" )

[Hubis]

Ramblin, on 29 July 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

LOBBIES

• ...
  
• A lobby system that allows players/teams to choose their opponents would pacify a small to moderate percentage of the community enough to allow them time to make the changes to balance and mech variants that we can be certain they already know about. Best way to quiet a crying baby is to hand them their favorite toy.
  
• ...
  
• A lobby will allow leagues and tournaments that are designed and run by the community. This will NO DOUBT bring back a good number of players and thus,. increase PGI/IGP's revenue. This is a business and if business is good, we know the game will continue to grow and maybe even thrive.

These to me are the big ones (though all your points are good). Making lobbies available towards the start of the CW feature roll-out instead of as the last thing would really buy PGI a LOT of good-will from the competitive groups, as well as take a lot of the pressure off of them to roll out the player-versus-player components of CW as quickly as possible. It's not all that anyone wants, but it's close enough that we can definitely make due until the rest of the system is complete.

[Ramblin]

How would the community feel about a "pay to play" lobby system?

Meaning that in order to enter the lobby area you would have to have "premium time"? If we can make it financially advisable then maybe they would be more willing to push it through? ... Just a thought

[fil5000]

Ramblin, on 29 July 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

How would the community feel about a "pay to play" lobby system?

Meaning that in order to enter the lobby area you would have to have "premium time"? If we can make it financially advisable then maybe they would be more willing to push it through? ... Just a thought

Wouldn't be a million miles away from how War Thunder and WoT handle grouping up with more than a couple of people.

[Hubis]

Ramblin, on 29 July 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

How would the community feel about a "pay to play" lobby system?

Meaning that in order to enter the lobby area you would have to have "premium time"? If we can make it financially advisable then maybe they would be more willing to push it through? ... Just a thought

I think that'd work just fine. Or do something like deduct 5 MC (about $0.02) from each player when a private lobby launches. It's not an onerous amount -- low enough that I'd be happy to use it for league play or even practices, but high enough that I'd still be part of the regular queue most of the time.

[Ramblin]

Hubis, on 29 July 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

I think that'd work just fine. Or do something like deduct 5 MC (about $0.02) from each player when a private lobby launches. It's not an onerous amount -- low enough that I'd be happy to use it for league play or even practices, but high enough that I'd still be part of the regular queue most of the time.

Like that idea... Would have the same effect on me. Would hit the normal lobbies most nights but, league play and practices would be in the "private lobbies"

[grayson marik]

well, but if i had to use mc to use the lobby, i want xp and cb in those matches.

[Protection]

Maybe I'm alone on this, but I am against any idea that would lock out free players from a core gameplay element such as a basic lobby. People with 0 mc should still have opportunity to play organized games with friends and guildmates.

[Gwaihir]

I don't think you'd be alone there at all, personally.

While I wouldn't mind paying a token amount of MC for a lobby game, I think there's a huge number of our people at least that would say no, **** that.

[Chronojam]

Rippthrough, on 28 July 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

There were no competitive groups running 8 splatcats or swarms of ravens, even when they were bugged.

While this is true, I was in several matches where we had a single Raven 3L I'd tag along with in a Dragon and we were still accused, post-game, of only winning because we had a group of At Least Three Ravens. It's absurd.

[Chronojam]

Basically this guy and the guys making the "cheese build" accusations probably paid $100+ on a video game they're not very good at, so when competent pilots come along, of course it's cheese builds and not superior strategy, coordination, and piloting/aim. Don't get me wrong, certain weapons are currently overpowered because of the fact that the metagame has been trending in a certain direction and the fact that certain weapons or mechs were left underpowered and worthless -- but this reliance on screaming about cheese builds is ridiculous. Especially when competitive groups are loudly and clearly protesting broken mechanics and demanding better balance and a role for every mech/weapon/playstyle, it's intellectually dishonest to blame those same groups for the problems they never caused.

[Rotaugen]

Red Orchestra 2 is a multiplayer only game, and even it has a single player tutorial that teaches all the basic functions of the game. That would go a LONG way in helping the new player experience. I have RL friends that I walked through the basics of MWO, and they liked it much better after that.

[John Norad]

Gwaihir, on 29 July 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

I would like to repeat this as many times as possible, because despite the large amount of doom and gloom, the fundamental game fun-ness in terms of looks, feel, sound, and "tactility" is unbeatable. I'm hardly a white knight, but is legitimately really good.

The total lack of balance and responsiveness is what's killed my desire to play. Luckily, that is LEAGUES easier to fix than the fundamental feel of actually playing the game.

Agreed.

Yet before they start fixing this, which is fixable, IMHO they have to fix something equally fundamental - their own attitude and professionalism.
From the time of MW:O development, one thing seems pretty clear to me: communication with the (future) customers is not straightforward, and there seems to be a lot of (dev) ego and bias involved.
They have to change that.
Being professional means staying focused, staying objective, being critical, being open, having a working QA (not only for development, but also for the company), not taking things personal, not laughing at customers and fans (even on the quiet) but taking them seriously if necessary.

From my point of view it seems PGI hasn't really adhered to all these aspects. But that's just my 2 cents worth.
They did everything right in the graphical 'look and feel' department.
But a bunch of other things are lacking (communication, usability, long term motivation concept, development frequency/patch iterations), many of which could've probably been avoided.

Edited by John Norad, 29 July 2013 - 01:22 PM.