552 replies to this topic

[Belorion]

Chronojam, on 07 August 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Hahaha, sure they have! Enjoy your Ghost Heat and C-bill reductions.

I don't recall either of those things being in that letter.

Did you even read your own letter?

[Roland]

I think you would find that you likely agree with most of the key points of the #saveMWO movement, Belorian.

[DemonRaziel]

Belorion, on 08 August 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

I don't recall either of those things being in that letter.

Did you even read your own letter?

[color=#000000]- Decisions made contrary to constructive community feedback[/color]
[color=#000000]- improve the new user experience[/color]

These 2 would apply here, I believe.

[Tarzilman]

Ok, after a few more games I've chosen to go one step back after my last post. I can see some tactical challenges after involving 12vs.12 but I still think, there's much chaos on the battlefield regarding to the smaller maps. Something therewith has to be adjusted urgently!
But it's still a big and awful stinking t*rd of sh*t what you did with the CB rewards! You really have to reverse it! It can't be, that now you earn less CB for being longer in each match! Before the patch, the CB rewards were good, not too much, not to less.  Now it's just frustrating and I'm sure, players will get less desire for playing MWO.
Please just reverese the CB changes!

Edited by Tarzilman, 08 August 2013 - 06:46 AM.

[Kunae]

Yes, as part of the hot-fix to correct some fps issues, please return C-Bill rewards to the scale as existed last week.

[Kraven Kor]

Kunae, on 08 August 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

Yes, as part of the hot-fix to correct some fps issues, please return C-Bill rewards to the scale as existed last week.

Or at least closer to that scale on a good match, maybe?

[Belorion]

DemonRaziel, on 08 August 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

[color=#000000]- Decisions made contrary to constructive community feedback[/color]
[color=#000000]- improve the new user experience[/color]

These 2 would apply here, I believe.

Only in the context of the one person. That is hardly a community response. Specific individuals can't use a blanket statement to push their agenda.

If those two issues were truly a community concern then they should have been included in the letter.

[Leafia Barrett]

Kraven Kor, on 08 August 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

Or at least closer to that scale on a good match, maybe?

If the issue is kill assists, then nerf kill assists (or rather, leave them nerfed as they are now). Put the rest back to pre-12v12.

[Belorion]

Roland, on 08 August 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

I think you would find that you likely agree with most of the key points of the #saveMWO movement, Belorian.

I read the letter.

I agree with one of the key points. One I have raised here on the forums.

The rest are too generic to agree with. They are either things PGI already does, or things that PGI has already stated they are going in the future.

Quote

Appoint community representatives from player groups to provide objective game feedback for your design team

They already did this. Its Garth. They most certainly don't need to appoint more. Payroll is expensive let them use it on development not on pandering to mob.

Quote

Aggressively iterate on simple and inexpensive game balance (weapons, mech quirks) with help from the public test server

They already stated they are doing this. They made the statement prior to the letter coming out. They are doing this for launch. They most certainly should NOT do this normally or you get yoyo changes that people can't keep up with.

Quote

Abandon tabletop values and fittings where logical

This has been their modus operandi the whole time.

Quote

Use external focus testing to help with prioritization and vetting of balance changes

They have been working toward the test servers for some time. Now they are here. Prior to the letter. I have seen several detractors criticize PGI for implementing the test severs because "they should be using the live servers since this is beta".

Quote

Improve the new user experience

UI 2.0... 3PV... Testing Grounds... Community Mechs for trials... A new tutorial mode on the horizon... This is most of what they have been doing.

Quote

Provide a roadmap for private lobby/queue support

They have been working on lobbies and chat period. We will have to see what its like when it comes out. Demanding a road map is just throwing an eTantrum because you are impatient.


The only thing from the letter that is something I agree with was that Segregation of 8 man and 4 man player queues was a bad idea. One I might point out was due to listening to the forums. They have recently stated they will be doing something for mid range groups of people. I hardly think its due to #saveMWO, as people have been asking for a reverse of the grouping change since it went into place.

Nothing there will make or break MWO esp since they have been doing most of it already. Now specifically they may have been doing things that SOME people don't agree with, well that isn't included in the letter. I have seen the supporters of the letter put forth some terribad ideas on weapon balance, mech balance, and other mechanics that are either fine or if they do change shouldn't go the direction of their suggestions.

Edited by Belorion, 08 August 2013 - 07:37 AM.

[tuffy963]

Skyfaller, on 07 August 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

12 vs 12 in poorly designed maps (too small and all have bottlenecks) just leads to idiotic head-on combat. No room to maneuver, no possibility for scouts and mediums to do anything.

Which is sillier...

A map that has one or two recognizable bottle necks

OR

8-12 schmoes that insist on trying to get through said bottleneck all at the same time

Our teams have already documented those spots on each map. We do not go into them, but we do shoot people who come out of them.

[Kunae]

Kraven Kor, on 08 August 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

Or at least closer to that scale on a good match, maybe?

Nah, they're using false logic to rationalize the change. 12v12, you're going to average the same damage and kills/assists as you did in 8v8. You not only have 12 targets, rather than 8, but you also have 11 team members to share the rewards with, rather than 7.

If they revert the $$ change, it will work out to the same as previous.

[Kraven Kor]

Belorion, on 08 August 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Only in the context of the one person. That is hardly a community response. Specific individuals can't use a blanket statement to push their agenda.

If those two issues were truly a community concern then they should have been included in the letter.

Only in the context of each given person and their pet complaints.

Hence the wording of the letter.

Not all of us agree on the specific issues or fixes, so some points had to be boiled down to more generic statements.

[Belorion]

Kraven Kor, on 08 August 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Only in the context of each given person and their pet complaints.

Hence the wording of the letter.

Not all of us agree on the specific issues or fixes, so some points had to be boiled down to more generic statements.

That's my point exactly. No matter what they do it won't collectively make the #saveMWO people happy because its not *their* fix.

[Roland]

Belorion, on 08 August 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

They already did this. Its Garth. They most certainly don't need to appoint more. Payroll is expensive let them use it on development not on pandering to mob.

What? Garth isn't a representative from the community. He's a PGI employee.

Quote

They already stated they are doing this. They made the statement prior to the letter coming out. They are doing this for launch. They most certainly should NOT do this normally or you get yoyo changes that people can't keep up with.

They aren't really doing this in the manner suggested. The notion here is that the test server could be used to test out changes to things like weapons balance values.

The key notion here is that the test server can be up more than just one day a week, and they can make changes without having to worry about everything being broken... because it's just the test server. For instance... many folks have suggested things like boosting the LBX damage per pellet. That's a perfect thing to test on the test server. It's a trivial change to make, slap it on the server and see what the result is. If LBX start getting used, but aren't the ONLY weapon used, you know you've got something good. If they become dominant, you dial it back. If they still don't get used, you buff them more.

The fundamental idea is that you can make those simple value changes and throw them into the wild, and immediately get real world testing results regarding how the community will ACTUALLY use those weapons. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would be opposed to such an idea.

Quote

They have been working toward the test servers for some time. Now they are here. Prior to the letter. I have seen several detractors criticize PGI for implementing the test severs because "they should be using the live servers since this is beta".

Again, the key notion here is that most games that have test servers have them up all the time. They're a place where the devs can put anything they want to test, and do not need to worry about breaking things. If a change being tested totally ruins everything, it's fine, because it's only the test server. Folks can still play on the real server.

The fact that test servers are only up for a few hours, once a week, really limits the ability for this process to take place.

Quote

UI 2.0... 3PV... Testing Grounds... Community Mechs for trials... A new tutorial mode on the horizon... This is most of what they have been doing.

Well, some of the guys in the townhall, specifically Maus, actually suggested ideas that would go a good deal further towards improving the new user experience.

Currently, failures in matchmaking, combined with terrible trial mechs, severely hamper the new user experience.

Guys in trial mechs get put with top players by the matchmaking system, and it can't possibly be fun for them. It's going to drive them away, if they just get turbo-cored while they are stumbling around trying to figure out how their mech works (pro-tip: It's a trial mech, so it doesn't work anyway).

Quote

They have been working on lobbies and chat period. We will have to see what its like when it comes out. Demanding a road map is just throwing an eTantrum because you are impatient.

No, demanding a roadmap is a reasonable request, since many folks have continually invested money in this game specifically for those features, which have continued to be pushed further and further back.

Quote

The only thing from the letter that is something I agree with was that Segregation of 8 man and 4 man player queues was a bad idea. One I might point out was due to listening to the forums. They have recently stated they will be doing something for mid range groups of people. I hardly think its due to #saveMWO, as people have been asking for a reverse of the grouping change since it went into place.

But that's the point, man. #saveMWO wasn't some elite group of folks who hate PGI. It was a huge number of players.. a few hundred, who represented THOUSANDS more.

The ideas they presented didn't represent some kind of set of outliers. They were things that most folks in the community really do want.

[Tayleron]

Please revert C-Bill changes. My friends are already on the verge of quitting due to the length of the grind, once they realize it'll take them even longer to get a mech they won't stick around. Even I'm on the edge about sticking around with this change, I've devoted a lot of time to this, but I can't spend weeks saving up for a single mech, it's a waste of my time. I'm not spending $15 on a single mech, sorry, that's ********, Without getting new mechs to develop I'm quickly going to drift away since building and testing the mechs is my favorite part of it all.

With so little C-Bills it feels like Planetside 2 all over again, massive grind for little payoff. No incentive to stick around or put money into it. Planetside 2 was uninstalled by my friends and I despite a solid game because it felt like there was no progression. I hope MWO doesn't go the same way or I'm going to regret that Overlord purchase mighty quick.

[Kraven Kor]

Belorion, on 08 August 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

That's my point exactly. No matter what they do it won't collectively make the #saveMWO people happy because its not *their* fix.

I disagree.

I think there are certain players / parties that may fall into your description there.

Many others would be happy with "some movement back towards original design goals" and would accept not-ideal solutions or solutions that don't 100% match their own desires.

For instance, I would be happy with literally any new, interesting, game modes that felt more like a military mission and not specifically those game modes I have pushed for.

I would be happy with a different solution to boating / high alpha than the return to TT heat penalties, so long as it made sense and was less convoluted and easier to see for a new player than the current "ghost heat penalties."

Most of us, believe it or not, or actually fairly reasonable.

We just want the game they sold the Founders on last year.

[Belorion]

Roland, on 08 August 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

No, demanding a roadmap is a reasonable request, since many folks have continually invested money in this game specifically for those features, which have continued to be pushed further and further back.


But that's the point, man. #saveMWO wasn't some elite group of folks who hate PGI. It was a huge number of players.. a few hundred, who represented THOUSANDS more.

The ideas they presented didn't represent some kind of set of outliers. They were things that most folks in the community really do want.

Its a few hundred that *think* they represent thousands more. I don't see thousands of people signing the letter.

[Belorion]

Kraven Kor, on 08 August 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

I disagree.

I think there are certain players / parties that may fall into your description there.

Many others would be happy with "some movement back towards original design goals" and would accept not-ideal solutions or solutions that don't 100% match their own desires.

For instance, I would be happy with literally any new, interesting, game modes that felt more like a military mission and not specifically those game modes I have pushed for.

Aren't they pushing for Lobby mode to be in before release?

Kraven Kor, on 08 August 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

I would be happy with a different solution to boating / high alpha than the return to TT heat penalties, so long as it made sense and was less convoluted and easier to see for a new player than the current "ghost heat penalties."

See this is one of those places. If they revered the heat penalty and did something else instead you would see other people complaining just as loudly.

Heat has always been the way of limiting too much damage at one time in MWO. An alternative I have seen put forth frequently is some how nerfing aiming. Something I am vehemently against.

[Kraven Kor]

Belorion, on 08 August 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

See this is one of those places. If they revered the heat penalty and did something else instead you would see other people complaining just as loudly.

Heat has always been the way of limiting too much damage at one time in MWO. An alternative I have seen put forth frequently is some how nerfing aiming. Something I am vehemently against.

I think that there would be less of an uproar over heat penalties (slower convergence, slower arm/torso movement, slower acceleration, etc.) than over "ghost heat penalties" (new player: "WHY DO I SHUTDOWN AND EXPLODE EVERYTIME I FIRE????")

Again, just my opinion.

I could be wrong.

PGI is, apparently, taking the bet that I am.

We shall see.

[Belorion]

The could always add a popup when grouping weapons that states:

"You have grouped more than 2 PPC's in one firing group. Firing more than 2 PPC's at once incurs additional heat."