552 replies to this topic

[MechFrog1]

Voyager I, on 12 August 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Just to make things clear, the reason we're still posting even though we've spent the last half a year bitching about the state of the game isn't because we want to troll people. We're desperate for the game to be good. We like Mechwarrior games. There hasn't been one in ten years. That's why a bunch of us have big golden "I gave $120 to a completely unproven studio on the dream of a Mechwarrior game" badges under our names. What's more, the game has actually been very fun in earlier phases of its life, and it's so close to being there again and more but then you guys keep doubling down on out of touch design instead of listening to the people who play your game. That investment we have in the game is why we're sticking around, even if most of us have stopped actually playing the game. If Mechwarrior wasn't something we wanted to see happen so badly and this game wasn't so close to being the one we wanted, we would have wandered off to greener pastures long ago.

I also can't stress enough that this doesn't have to be adversarial. You want to make a good game. We want to play a good game. Eat the crow, let us help you make a good game happen, and we will love you for it. We'll all (re)buy our Phoenix packages, and then the Clan package that inevitably comes out down the line, and GhostHeatGate will just be a story we chuckle over about the game going through some growing pains.

Please, just work with us. It has been literally a decade, and everyone here wants to see this work.

This is the best post in the history of the MWO forums.

[MechFrog1]

Literally, on 13 August 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

It seems that I hit a nerve by mentioning the term beta. If people want to argue about whether the game has actually been a beta or not, then that's fine. I understand that that matters to a lot of people, but in the interest of constructive debate please don't keep pulling arguments on the topic forward. My only point was that if PGI wants to claim that the game is a beta, then they need to listen to their beta testers. It's not even a very important point, since they should be listening to their players in the first place. Argument over the definition of 'beta' is semantic and irrelevant to our discussion of the state of the game.

We aren't just here to buy MC and report bugs. The community is a resource which PGI devs are alternately ignoring and misusing, and that is how we end up with poor game balance and mechanics.

I wasn't aware that we were to report bugs. Is that something we can expect to see in UI2.0?

Edited by mint frog, 13 August 2013 - 03:29 PM.

[Chronojam]

CG Anastasius Focht, on 12 August 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

Thats not true, the main game screen clearly says "Beta"

To at least 50% of developers and 100% of marketing teams, that label doesn't even mean anything anymore. "Beta" releases are routinely sold and bought and used routinely in all aspects of software, from indie games, to small-company projects like this one, all the way through situations like Google Mail's five-years-long 'beta', 'beta' software appears at every level of government, process management systems at large companies, hardware drivers (if not whole operating systems like Win 7 and 8) are regularly downloaded and used in a beta state, etc.

Speaking as a software developer, you would generally label something as beta if you want feedback. PGI is clearly beyond the point of actually integrating meaningful feedback into their process, especially/and with such little time before release. This is the home stretch before a launch, the gold master discs would be ready and machines printing boxes if this weren't a digital product in a modern era.

The idea of introducing such absurd and community-splitting features as they've done in the past weeks is a recipe for disaster in a traditional development/deployment environment. Unless you want to concede that such traditional labels do not apply, and concede that "it's beta!" is no magical shield. "It's beta!" literally invites criticism when used properly, and is eye-rollingly awful as a defense against it.

Edited by Chronojam, 13 August 2013 - 04:26 PM.

[Nekki Basara]

CG Anastasius Focht, on 13 August 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

I think what you are asking is when will the balance and mechanics changes be over and set in stone.

Actually what I was asking was a rhetorical question to see if you had copped onto the fact that the only difference you have described between the beta and post-launch game is the word "beta" attached to things. Which you obviously have not.

Chronojam, on 13 August 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

To at least 50% of developers and 100% of marketing teams, that label doesn't even mean anything anymore. "Beta" releases are routinely sold and bought and used routinely in all aspects of software, from indie games, to small-company projects like this one, all the way through situations like Google Mail's five-years-long 'beta', 'beta' software appears at every level of government, process management systems at large companies, hardware drivers (if not whole operating systems like Win 7 and 8) are regularly downloaded and used in a beta state, etc.

To further expand upon this point, Farmville (a "free to play" "MMO" game with a userbase that MWO will never even dare to dream of having) was in "beta" from 19/06/2009 until one year and ten months later, at which point the sequel was already in the works....

[CG Anastasius Focht]

Chronojam, on 13 August 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

To at least 50% of developers and 100% of marketing teams, that label doesn't even mean anything anymore. "Beta" releases are routinely sold and bought and used routinely in all aspects of software, from indie games, to small-company projects like this one, all the way through situations like Google Mail's five-years-long 'beta', 'beta' software appears at every level of government, process management systems at large companies, hardware drivers (if not whole operating systems like Win 7 and 8) are regularly downloaded and used in a beta state, etc.

Speaking as a software developer, you would generally label something as beta if you want feedback. PGI is clearly beyond the point of actually integrating meaningful feedback into their process, especially/and with such little time before release. This is the home stretch before a launch, the gold master discs would be ready and machines printing boxes if this weren't a digital product in a modern era.

The idea of introducing such absurd and community-splitting features as they've done in the past weeks is a recipe for disaster in a traditional development/deployment environment. Unless you want to concede that such traditional labels do not apply, and concede that "it's beta!" is no magical shield. "It's beta!" literally invites criticism when used properly, and is eye-rollingly awful as a defense against it.

Then we are once again back to the who should have the final say in the creative process, the players or the developers.

It can never be the former, because you can never make 100 percent of the people happy 100 percent of the time.

The final decisions must be made by the developers.

Case in point.

Sydney Australia needs a second airport, But everytime some study suggests a location, we get a hundred or more local protesters with banners and signs saying hell no, this is a bad idea.

Someone is always going to be unhappy with the final choice.

If a fast food chain wants to open a franchise in a new suburb, there will always be a vocal minority protesting hell no, not here.
The rest of the silent majority will say nothing , and no doubt patronise the place from time to time.

What im seeing here is a number of people demanding PGI listen and do what you want, that cant ever work.
Lets for the sake of argument say they did just that, there would then be another group insisting they do it their way.

The creative process can and does benefit from input, but it must also have someone making final decisions and those decisions will never make everybody happy.

Personally i look at what ive been given so far, and it makes me confident they will continue to deliver a great product.

I doubt it will ever meet all of my expectations and pre conceived notions of "Battletech/Mechwarrior", and it clearly isnt going to meet those of some here.

But id rather have it than not, for me the positives outweigh the negatives one hundred to one.

And with that ladies and gentlemen, im done with this one

You can insist you should have direct creative control, the reality will, as it must be, remain otherwise

Good luck with that

Edited by CG Anastasius Focht, 13 August 2013 - 05:06 PM.

[Chronojam]

#saveMWO townhall number two is currently live at www.twitch.tv/wales_grey if you want to listen in

[Allen Wren]

Townhall Number Two is over, but here's the Official Audio Recording: http://soundcloud.co...hall-number-two

[Belorion]

Allen Wren, on 13 August 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

Townhall Number Two is over, but here's the Official Audio Recording: http://soundcloud.co...hall-number-two

I listened to the recording. It was better than the first one.

The one key issue that was brought up again and again is that the PGI team doesn't communicate as much as it used to. It was speculated in the recording (and I agree) that a major reason for this is the negativity on the forums. It is also mentioned that the #saveMWO movement should be free from negativity in its efforts.

Yet many of the #saveMWO tags I see floating around are in the signatures of forum goers spewing just as much vitriol as ever, and insulting the other members of the forums when someone disagrees with them.

Calling people intellectually dishonest, pathological liars, low elo players, lucky not to be choking on their own tongue... etc. isn't furthering your cause.

[Nekki Basara]

I don't think you understand what calling someone "low-Elo" means. It's not an insult, it's a suggestion of approximate skill based on deliberate manipulation of smurf accounts by insanely good players to experience gameplay metas at all levels of play via aggregation of build data. IE: if you ain't seeing just massed highlanders, it's because your Elo is too low to see only the cream of the crop.

[Belorion]

Nekki Basara, on 14 August 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

I don't think you understand what calling someone "low-Elo" means. It's not an insult, it's a suggestion of approximate skill based on deliberate manipulation of smurf accounts by insanely good players to experience gameplay metas at all levels of play via aggregation of build data. IE: if you ain't seeing just massed highlanders, it's because your Elo is too low to see only the cream of the crop.

so

Quote

I am glad for you that your Elo is in the "trying daily to not asphyxiate on my own tongue" range <snip>

Wasn't meant as a baiting disparagement?

I see you mention highlanders now, but the original discussion was one of the 2PPC+1Gauss Cataphract reigning or not reigning dominant over all since November of last year.

As none of us know what elo we or anyone else has, its a bit presumptive to try and classify anyone's elo regardless of the context or reason.

PS: To his credit the original post that stated the insult has been edited and now reads differently.

[Nekki Basara]

I would have called it rhetorical hyperbole myself, but to be fair the game just plain is more fun at low Elo levels.

And yes, the Highlander replaced the Cataphract for two main reasons: it's bigger and tougher, and you can if you like mount a third PPC.

And no, we do know roughly what Elo people are at, since tracking of W/L and K/D ratios is part of it. I have a terrible K/D but a good W/L (due largely to the pubstomp days and my inability to killsteal) and I tended to see more than my share of 2PPC/Gauss platforms back while I still bothered to patch. There's a reason the competitive types track every possible stat, and that's because more data allows a better picture of the playerbase.

[Chronojam]

Belorion, on 14 August 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

I listened to the recording. It was better than the first one.

The one key issue that was brought up again and again is that the PGI team doesn't communicate as much as it used to. It was speculated in the recording (and I agree) that a major reason for this is the negativity on the forums. It is also mentioned that the #saveMWO movement should be free from negativity in its efforts.

Yet many of the #saveMWO tags I see floating around are in the signatures of forum goers spewing just as much vitriol as ever, and insulting the other members of the forums when someone disagrees with them.

Calling people intellectually dishonest, pathological liars, low elo players, lucky not to be choking on their own tongue... etc. isn't furthering your cause.

Basing an argument off a lie is not good for discussion, so you'll please excuse me for pointing out a liar when he lies.

[Belorion]

Chronojam, on 14 August 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

Basing an argument off a lie is not good for discussion, so you'll please excuse me for pointing out a liar when he lies.

You seem to have a pretty creative view of what is and isn't lying. People that agree with you are telling the truth, and everyone else is lying?

[Chronojam]

Belorion, on 14 August 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

You seem to have a pretty creative view of what is and isn't lying. People that agree with you are telling the truth, and everyone else is lying?

You were intentionally creating a narrative harmful to balance discussion specifically to dissuade continued analysis. And it was based on spurious claims and dishonest dates. That's intellectual dishonesty fueled by straight-up lies.

I would hope that people agree with well reasoned thought when presented alongside factually accurate information and date references; and I would hope that people look upon your outlandish and unsubstantiated claims with great suspicion.

Do not feel so obligated to lie simply because you wish to disagree, that's a harmful attitude. There are plenty of people who disagree with my positions without telling lies.

(For some context, Belorion was even recently claiming once that 2PPC/1Gauss had only existed for around a week, and would go away without developer intervention)

[Belorion]

Chronojam, on 14 August 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

You were intentionally creating a narrative harmful to balance discussion specifically to dissuade continued analysis. And it was based on spurious claims and dishonest dates. That's intellectual dishonesty fueled by straight-up lies.

I would hope that people agree with well reasoned thought when presented alongside factually accurate information and date references; and I would hope that people look upon your outlandish and unsubstantiated claims with great suspicion.

Do not feel so obligated to lie simply because you wish to disagree, that's a harmful attitude. There are plenty of people who disagree with my positions without telling lies.

Your fellow goon above me on this very same page seems to agree with me that the 2PPC+Guass meta wasn't the dominant meta before the patch that introduced heat penalties for mixed PPC types.

Nekki Basara, on 14 August 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

And yes, the Highlander replaced the Cataphract for two main reasons: it's bigger and tougher, and you can if you like mount a third PPC.

Prior to the heat change one would see 4PPCs, 3PPCs+Gauss, 3PPCs... I fail to see how you proved that I was lying in that statement.

Your claim that the 2PPC+Gauss Cataphract was the dominant meta since Nov. of last year seems untrue by virtue of other higher alpha builds being seen quite frequently. In fact in most of the 8 mans I dropped in there were few Cataphracts. You can't explain that away with Elo, considering the 8-man queues have less people in them.

[Nekki Basara]

When you say this:

Belorion, on 14 August 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

Your fellow goon above me on this very same page seems to agree with me that the 2PPC+Guass meta wasn't the dominant meta before the patch that introduced heat penalties for mixed PPC types.

In response to this:

Quote

I tended to see more than my share of 2PPC/Gauss platforms

THAT is why people accuse you of lying. It most definitely was the dominant beast in the meta, with other PPC builds like the quad and hex-Stalkers being slow and largely ineffective counters.

[Chronojam]

To elaborate on that point, the fact he cannot see that is why people have started to call him a pathological liar. It's not meant as an insult, it's meant as an explanation.

[Belorion]

Nekki Basara, on 14 August 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

When you say this:

In response to this: THAT is why people accuse you of lying. It most definitely was the dominant beast in the meta, with other PPC builds like the quad and hex-Stalkers being slow and largely ineffective counters.

Seeing a fair share =/= dominant.

Chronojam, on 14 August 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

To elaborate on that point, the fact he cannot see that is why people have started to call him a pathological liar. It's not meant as an insult, it's meant as an explanation.

Not people, just you and your kin.

[Nekki Basara]

I said "more than". Jesus christ, are you even capable of reading? Understanding basic binary mathematical operators? What is it that you just can't seem to grasp that I did not say what you are trying to convince us I said?

[Aware]

Thunderklaws, on 13 August 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

Who else cant wait to see the reception on September when the beta criticism shield drops off?

I just really want to know what is actually going to be in the game at "Launch".