552 replies to this topic

[Anders]

Helmer, on 11 August 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

Exactly. Garth posted about coolant with the misinformed notion that it wasn't going to be added, when it was something that hadn't yet actually determined. After being branded a liar for a slip up, I can understand the reluctance to not talk about something until its actually in.
In this case Occams Razor really does apply.

Cheers.

Helmy, Old buddy:

As a fellow robot, I know that you have to respect your masters, but review what you have suggested to the thread here. Aren't you just the slightest bit concerned that the community manager didn't know about the future implementation of Coolant? Ostensibly, they are all working in the same building. How on Robot Jesus' Earth do the developers not talk to the community manager about something as they knew to be explosive and divisive as coolant?

Use that cold, calculating robot logic that we all love your for to determine which is more true: 1) Garth was sent out purposely kept in the dark to take one for the team; or 2) He knew about it and lied through his teeth.

Do either of those situations give you any comfort?

Robotically Yours,
Anders

[Morhadel]

Anders
I totally agree with you, and the coolant issue was not the first time.
Garths announcement about 1pv only and then Russ announcing 3pv.

the devs of MWO are developing a very bad habit when it comes to dealing with their player base.

[Druidika]

Here's an interesting article about community management from a very experienced PR manager currently working at DICE: http://www.gamasutra...nt_.php?print=1

A small quote:

Quote

In the past five years, plenty of companies have hired community managers with no skills or experience. Why? Because experienced CMs are very rare, because they didn't want to take the time to provide the right foundation, or simply because they didn't know, and thought that talking to players wouldn't require any special skills.

That lack of experience and consideration from higher management lead some of these companies to bigger problems -- because when a community manager loses his nerves and insults players in the official forums, the word spreads very fast and the public doesn't appreciate it. What can the players rely on, if the representatives of the developer are not reliable anymore?

When you need to hire a community manager and think it doesn't require many specific skills, just ask yourself a question -- would you hire a marketing manager without any particular skills just because selling a good product is, in fact, not that hard?

It is important not to underestimate the importance of the people you hire to talk to your community, just because community management doesn't provide you immediate and calculable results, as marketing can. The people who currently say that community management isn't important are the same who said almost 100 years ago that public relations was not important -- before Ivy Lee came and proved them the contrary.

[General Discussion Kerensky]

Helmer, on 11 August 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

The post I quoted is located here . It says

"Why are the devs using "at least you don't see X build anymore!" as a justification for current balance?

In fact, why is this the ONLY dev post when it comes to 2PPC1Gauss?"

There are, as you can see, two questions posed here.

Now If you would kindly reread my statement located here you can see that I deliberately only quoted part of his statement ,as that was the part I was responding to.

If you wish to misinterpret or infer that I am speaking to something else, even after I clearly displayed the question I was responding to, then there's nothing more I can say.

I did reread your statement. Your wording suggests you are absolutely speaking for the developers, which, if your statement is correct, is a breach of your NDA.

If you're unable to see how what you posted and what you think you posted are different things, that pretty much sums up our complaints about communication far better than any statement I could make.




Cheers.

Edited by Kiyoshi Mizumura, 11 August 2013 - 03:45 AM.

[Dart Nimrod]

My English isn't well, and I didn't understand all these Elder Gods... I mean Founding Fathers said, but I trust in their knowledge of MWO universe and it's realities. So reading all of this made me a REALLY Sad Panda, 'cause it seems, that things are getting worse with every passing patch. Plus, all these hassles with lots of insults, instead of civilized essentially discussion. Especially between devs and community. I only hope that PGI will come to their senses soon enough, before all this project will roll down to hell.

[armchairyoda]

From now on, the only game dev methodologies I'm comparing this to are from Star Wars: Galaxies.

If the devs want to see how kerfuckled this game is, they need to prop up their Elo to something >1 (I assume that is the level that everything is ******** unicorns and rainbows they're playing on), get 4-man lance together, and play the game for 3+ hours straight... ON THE PUBLIC SERVERS (almost forgot that!).

Seriously dev dudes, just freeze your Elo at something like 2,000,000 (I don't know the real cap, somebody either didn't tell me or :effort:) and play the game in a marathon session as chill bros.

And run a match in that Kintaro hero if you get a chance...

I still haven't seen one and I hear the stock loadout has no issue at all with that well documented and explained in-game via tutorial heat management system you put in to discourage high alpha sniping that totally fixed it (can I have a job at NGNG now?).

Edited by armchairyoda, 11 August 2013 - 05:17 AM.

[Panboy]

Morhadel, on 10 August 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

MWO ignores the one problem that causes all the others. PIN POINT ACCURACY
the MW universe, the MW canon, the MW lore, the MW mechs, the MW weapons, and the MW armor was all designed for random hit locations which translates into CONE OF FIRE in a PC game.

Everything PGI is doing is just giving you an aspirin every time you say it hurts instead of removing the knife from your back.

I dont know what MW games you have played but all the ones Ive played being Mechwarrior 1 2 3 4, Mechwarrior 3050. And a few others with the Title "Mechwarrior" Which I think is what you mean by MW, None of which have had any kind of random Cone of fire, Even the ACs in MW3 that caused your mech to recoil still behaved predictably. the random hit chance and dice rolls existed only in Battletech table top and Mechcommander games.

You really need to do some fact checking before you post authoritatively on a subject. Don't confuse Battletech with Mechwarrior, they are both based in the same universe but play with vastly different rules.

[Helmer]

Anders, on 11 August 2013 - 01:21 AM, said:

Helmy, Old buddy:

As a fellow robot, I know that you have to respect your masters, but review what you have suggested to the thread here. Aren't you just the slightest bit concerned that the community manager didn't know about the future implementation of Coolant? Ostensibly, they are all working in the same building. How on Robot Jesus' Earth do the developers not talk to the community manager about something as they knew to be explosive and divisive as coolant?

Use that cold, calculating robot logic that we all love your for to determine which is more true: 1) Garth was sent out purposely kept in the dark to take one for the team; or 2) He knew about it and lied through his teeth.

Do either of those situations give you any comfort?

Robotically Yours,
Anders

I think just about any explanation is within the realm of possibility. Given your two solutions, I believe neither to the be the case. Both explanations involve purposely telling the community a lie knowing that the truth would be revealed and damage their credibility.
As I said, Occams Razor.

Regardless of the real reason the incident happened, PGIs credibility was damaged. I can sympathize and understand why people feel betrayed and have trust issues. Which is why a few small, easy changes to communication from PGI would be appreciated.



Beep Boop.

[jrgong]

Helmer, on 11 August 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

I think just about any explanation is within the realm of possibility. Given your two solutions, I believe neither to the be the case. Both explanations involve purposely telling the community a lie knowing that the truth would be revealed and damage their credibility.
As I said, Occams Razor.

Regardless of the real reason the incident happened, PGIs credibility was damaged. I can sympathize and understand why people feel betrayed and have trust issues. Which is why a few small, easy changes to communication from PGI would be appreciated.



Beep Boop.

Perhaps you would be so bold as to suggest an alternative, based on your deep and intimate knowledge of PGIs inner workings, rather than merely responding with "you're wrong beep beep [insert more robot noises]".

[Literally]

Thanks Panboy for getting us back to the point here. I don't think trying to make MWO into a tabletop sim is the answer to any of our problems, Morhadel. What we need is an incremental and logical loop of actual play testing and small numbers changes. If that results in a clear need to make big changes, then I absolutely support bold things that change the experience! Can you imagine cone-of-fire as a fun thing though? I certainly cannot. We can change this abysmal current meta game without making players wear mittens at the keyboard.

[Literally]

jrgong, on 11 August 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Perhaps you would be so bold as to suggest an alternative, based on your deep and intimate knowledge of PGIs inner workings, rather than merely responding with "you're wrong beep beep [insert more robot noises]".

Maybe I just really need something to laugh about, but I appreciated the beep boop. Helmer's last post may not have been perfect, but it was the best thing anyone representing PGI has done so far in this thread for sure.

I liked it because Anders is a robot you see.

[Helmer]

jrgong, on 11 August 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Perhaps you would be so bold as to suggest an alternative, based on your deep and intimate knowledge of PGIs inner workings, rather than merely responding with "you're wrong beep beep [insert more robot noises]".

Did I say Anders was wrong? He asked me my opinion, I stated what I personally believe based on my particular viewpoint. It's possible that one of Anders suggestions is correct .

I've already posted before, but , as you asked so nicely, I'll post a few alternate possibilities.

1) Garth made an assumption based off an earlier conversation.
2) Coolant was scrapped early on, then brought back into the discussion. Garth made a mental slip.

All of this is academic, speculative , and very much off topic at this point. Let's just agree that "Coolant gate" happened , and it damaged PGIs credibility.



Cheers.

[DisasterMedic]

armchairyoda, on 11 August 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

(can I have a job at NGNG now?).

You nearly qualify, but last I heard the acronym was changing to NPNP once it was publicly outed that they are truly No Payment No Podcast. How can you get a job if you apply to the wrong entity?

[Literally]

Wow Helmer, you tried to come back and then failed horribly here. Let me clue you in.

Helmer, on 11 August 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

Did I say Anders was wrong? He asked me my opinion, I stated what I personally believe based on my particular viewpoint. It's possible that one of Anders suggestions is correct .

Stop digging yourself deeper. You're not making yourself look better by waffling back and forth and then getting defensive. I'm going to spell this out for you: you are posting here as a representative of PGI. Don't act like you know what you are talking about and then backpedal to complain that it was "just your opinion". You are not here to tell us your opinion. If you want to tell us your opinion, then log out and post it under an account where your name isn't written in green.

Helmer, on 11 August 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

All of this is academic, speculative , and very much off topic at this point. Let's just agree that "Coolant gate" happened , and it damaged PGIs credibility.

Who are you even talking to? We don't need you to reassure us of something that we already know. PGI screwed up communicating internally and externally about coolant flush, and that's not the focus of our discussion. If you have something to say about the balance discussion then go ahead, but don't sidetrack and then tell people that they are the ones off topic.

Let me be clear: if you are not speaking for PGI, then DO NOT POST UNDER YOUR MODERATOR ACCOUNT. If that's not in your moderator guidelines then add it in right now so you don't forget.

[Helmer]

Literally, on 11 August 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Wow Helmer, you tried to come back and then failed horribly here. Let me clue you in.



Stop digging yourself deeper. You're not making yourself look better by waffling back and forth and then getting defensive. I'm going to spell this out for you: you are posting here as a representative of PGI. Don't act like you know what you are talking about and then backpedal to complain that it was "just your opinion". You are not here to tell us your opinion. If you want to tell us your opinion, then log out and post it under an account where your name isn't written in green.




Who are you even talking to? We don't need you to reassure us of something that we already know. PGI screwed up communicating internally and externally about coolant flush, and that's not the focus of our discussion. If you have something to say about the balance discussion then go ahead, but don't sidetrack and then tell people that they are the ones off topic.

Let me be clear: if you are not speaking for PGI, then DO NOT POST UNDER YOUR MODERATOR ACCOUNT. If that's not in your moderator guidelines then add it in right now so you don't forget.

Backpedal on what, exactly? I am not waffling . There are multiple conversations and points being brought up.

The coolant slip up, and my take on possible reasons behind it is a totally separate question from the Gauss/PPC question. I answered my opinion. Anders asked a question, I answered. And ,yes, my opinion holds just as much weight, or not, as anyone else.
I usually avoid posting on the forums as I am a natural target for attack, as this thread has proven.

>>If you have something to say about the balance discussion then go ahead, but don't sidetrack and then tell people that they are the ones off topic.<<

I said that this discussion was off track. This does include my own statements answering individuals who keep asking questions and seem intent on inferring things I have not stated. Communication , when respectfully stated can be a great , productive thing.




Cheers.

[Chronojam]

Baron von Mechthofen, on 08 August 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

PGI's balancing and mechanics changes, thus far, have done nothing to diminish the dominant strategy and the single most dominant build the game has seen. It's been seven months -- there is no time for it to "shake out" and it's not magically fading as you seem to believe. I argue that PGI's most recent balancing attempts have done nothing but reinforce this dominant strategy and its dominant build by decreasing the viability of once competitive builds, such as the twinned AC/20s on an XL-equipped large-torsoed heavy.

I further argue that the winning way to combat the dominant metagame and its dominant build does not necessarily lie in the way of unintuitive, arbitrary penalties ("ghost" mechanics). Never once should an attempt at balancing the past five, six, seven months of play have introduced a heat penalty to the SRM-2 launcher of all things. Boosting mech survivability across the board, increasing ammunition to compensate (ballistic weapons on the whole have long suffered usability problems, often due to low ammo per ton), and vying to make other weaponry actually useful is a good start.

Consider the LB-10X autocannon. PGI should immediately abandon all misguided attempts to ensure it does 10 damage per hit, first of all. What role is there for such a heavy weapon that, because of outdated decades-old tabletop guidelines, must do ten and only ten damage? Please, don't introduce bizarre critical-boost mechanics that reduce time-to-kill for all mechs just because of some misguided attempt to allow an LB-10X to do more than 10 damage without just changing the numbers to be greater-than-ten. The LB-10X currently has no role, in part due to being hamstrung like this; give it a role, make it worthwhile instead of worthless.

This is from a few pages ago but I just want to say, this guy has it figured out.

[Literally]

Helmer, on 11 August 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

I said that this discussion was off track.

I'm sorry, before we move on I need to know whether this is the position of PGI, or your personal opinion. I cannot tell whether a mod is stating the rules to me, or whether a player is just trying to change the topic.

[Morhadel]

Panboy, on 11 August 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

I dont know what MW games you have played but all the ones Ive played being Mechwarrior 1 2 3 4, Mechwarrior 3050. And a few others with the Title "Mechwarrior" Which I think is what you mean by MW, None of which have had any kind of random Cone of fire, Even the ACs in MW3 that caused your mech to recoil still behaved predictably. the random hit chance and dice rolls existed only in Battletech table top and Mechcommander games.

You really need to do some fact checking before you post authoritatively on a subject. Don't confuse Battletech with Mechwarrior, they are both based in the same universe but play with vastly different rules.

Mechwarrior the RPG, the Mechwarrior books.I didn't get confused. My friends and I actually pulled out some old characters and played some MW last night. I am into the genre, so for those only into pc gaming I should have clarified that only in PC MW has there been PPA all other sources of MW and BT relied on either random hit or cone of fire.
So for you laymen change MW to BT in this statement

Morhadel, on 10 August 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

the MW universe, the MW canon, the MW lore, the MW mechs, the MW weapons, and the MW armor was all designed for random hit locations which translates into CONE OF FIRE in a PC game.
.

MW3 had abysmal multiplayer, because the main builds where Bushwackers or Caldron Borns stripped down with only UAC20s. But MW3 got the Mechlab right. MW-M$ oh i mean MW4 had a horrible Mechlab, but they did that to try to cure the boating but also instituted a damage limit. You could NOT kill someone with an alpha strike, your damage was capped off when the location hit became critically damaged. MWO doubled all armor nerfs your weapons and ghosts your heat. Problem still not fixed just makes some weapons suck.

Literally, on 11 August 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

Thanks Panboy for getting us back to the point here. I don't think trying to make MWO into a tabletop sim is the answer to any of our problems, Morhadel. What we need is an incremental and logical loop of actual play testing and small numbers changes. If that results in a clear need to make big changes, then I absolutely support bold things that change the experience! Can you imagine cone-of-fire as a fun thing though? I certainly cannot. We can change this abysmal current meta game without making players wear mittens at the keyboard.

So you don't play any FPS games. I can see whee you could be confused.
You make it sound like your going to shoot your foot off when you fire at an enemy mech. CoF incorporates a deviation from your aim-point based on factors such as movement and what your firing. Don't worry you won't be able to shoot your self and your shots will still go in the direction you aim.

1 CoF
2 Straight line fire
3 Set distance convergence
all examples of fixing and balancing things like alpha builds without having to nerf, ghost, or otherwise manipulate weapons, heat, mechs, armour.
None of these nerf aiming, they actually make aiming harder, requiring the pilot to use skill, not just point and click.

Edited by Morhadel, 11 August 2013 - 01:16 PM.

[Literally]

Morhadel, on 11 August 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

So you don't play any FPS games. I can see whee you could be confused.

You're very funny. I agree with your statements on where the game is right now, but I don't think turning MWO into BT or Red Orchestra is the solution. Cone of fire most certainly is a nerf to aiming, there's no point in arguing against that.

Our mechs have specific separate hit boxes and the player's fast decisions over what they need to cut off their opponent is what makes a FPS like this great. I my opinion, the solution is to let it still be easy to disable equipment on your opponent, but very very hard to kill them outright. A large buff to internal structure would accomplish this naturally, making the game feel more strategic and brutal at the cost of being less snipey-tacticool. This would also have the nice effect of buffing brawling and making mechs that use hard points spread around the body more effective. Since PGI loves stock mechs so much, you'd think they'd go right for that.

[Belorion]

Literally, on 10 August 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

Garth, you owe Chronojam a public apology in this thread. If you can't do that, or have someone proofread your statements before you press the post button, then perhaps it would be best if you simply don't post on these forums at all.

Of course he does not. PGI should be holding players to the code of conduct laid out in the tos.