552 replies to this topic

[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 do 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.

[Literally]

It's like you're trying to talk to me, but then your reply has nothing to do with the issues I've raised.

I don't care whether you define this as a beta product or not. The term beta has no solid definition.
Regardless, PGI claims that we are still beta testers, but ignores our feedback.

If this were not the case, then #saveMWO would have an official response. Instead, it's being ignored even in today's Ask The Devs responses. I'm really happy you liked the improvement that a coder made to the 12v12 optimization, but tell me what exactly that has to do with the problem that the developers have accepting feedback in game balance and mechanics.

[Panboy]

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

The suggestion they dont listen to feedback is not born out by the facts, people posted early in this thread the 12v12 patch had some performance issues, within a day or so they released a hotfix that addressed this, and the day after i saw player after player saying "Yay my FPS are improved, thank you PGI".

You are quite right they did respond to a problem with game performance, That was a tangible thing they could see understand and repair.

The problems players are having is any feedback related to game play that's not a purely mechanical problem is either being ignored or the players are being told they are on an Island, or to sit in the corner.

Also the fact the fixes to balance PGI have implemented are so out of left field it leaves us all scratching our heads and asking why.

Players I think would be happy if it went a little more like this.

Player A : PGI Snipers are overwhelming the game plz fix?!

PGI : Yes we see that were gona try something.

Player A : Yay thanks! for listening!

PGI : Rolls out Ghost heat.

Many players : OH GOD WHY

PGI : Mistakes were made! our bad we'll fix that right away.

[CG Anastasius Focht]

Literally, on 12 August 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

I don't care whether you define this as a beta product or not. The term beta has no solid definition.
Regardless, PGI claims that we are still beta testers, but ignores our feedback.

I think this is likely the root of your problem, you are trying to redefine it as something other than a Beta.
It clearly states on the launch screen its a Beta, and will remain a Beta until PGI decide its not.

As such your expectations are out of synch with the reality.

My point about the optimization hotfix proves they are reading and acting on feedback, just not all of it.

Thats pretty much normal, its impossible to act on every opinion, because there are many and they often differ.

You can not make all of the people happy all of the time.

What makes your view on balance and mechanics better than mine, and mine better than the person standing next to me ?

The model is not that of an assurance contract

Assurance contracts operate as follows:

In a binding way, members of a group pledge to contribute to action A if a total contribution level is reached (often a monetary threshold, or a quorum of N members making the same pledge).

The model is instead clearly one of you pays your money and takes your chance, there is nothing in the contract either written or implied that says PGI must accept and act on player feedback.

Its tilting at windmills to insist otherwise.

Given whats been delivered thus far, im personally inclined to trust they have the best interests of the game at heart.

Im glass half full kinda guy, when i compare this model with the older off the shelf out of the box model of MW4 Mercs, its a vast improvement imo.

You get to try it for free, you dont have to pay a cent unless you want to, and you DO get an input via the forums in the games development and evolution.

With Mercs you paid your money, took your chance and if you didnt like it tough.
With MWO you can try before you buy, and even have some input in the development.

But there is a difference between input and executive control, i think you are confusing your role here.

You are of course free to start your own project and have full executive control over it

[CG Anastasius Focht]

Panboy, on 12 August 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

You are quite right they did respond to a problem with game performance, That was a tangible thing they could see understand and repair.

The problems players are having is any feedback related to game play that's not a purely mechanical problem is either being ignored or the players are being told they are on an Island, or to sit in the corner.

Also the fact the fixes to balance PGI have implemented are so out of left field it leaves us all scratching our heads and asking why.

Players I think would be happy if it went a little more like this.

Player A : PGI Snipers are overwhelming the game plz fix?!

PGI : Yes we see that were gona try something.

Player A : Yay thanks! for listening!

PGI : Rolls out Ghost heat.

Many players : OH GOD WHY

PGI : Mistakes were made! our bad we'll fix that right away.

I hear what you are saying

In Mercs i had a Victor with twin UAC20's so naturally i gravitated to a twin AC20 build here, then ghost heat kicked in and it changed the dynamic i was used to.

But if you read the BT novels you see again and again the same scenario, mechwarrior is handed a tactical scenario thats hard and against the odds, but with perserverance and flexibility our hero wins through.

Thats how i play the game, if i get given lemons im looking for a way to make lemonade.

As another saying goes if you cant change the world, change yourself.

If the developers throw me a curve ball, im under no illusuons i can demand they change it back.

The best i can do is respectfully leave my feedback and then get on with the task of finding a way to make the new circumstances work for me

[MrPils]

12 v 12 has made an individual's efforts completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how well or how badly you do, it has absolutely zero effect on the outcome of the game. Played maybe 5 hours since 12 v 12 landed and i've yet to get my 10th win. I don't know how many games i've played in 12v12, but it must be over 50. My k:d however is still going up (now over 3, was 2.88) - in other words I'm doing more damage and getting more kills but it just doesn't matter. As I am now irrelevant to the outcome of a match in this game, this game is now irrelevant to me. Uninstalled, will try again if smaller games come back.

[Belorion]

Literally, on 12 August 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

It's like you're trying to talk to me, but then your reply has nothing to do with the issues I've raised.

That's ok, you guys never address any of the issues other people raise. If instead of trying to bait people into argument, you actually had discussions in a civil manner then you would have a much better chance of swaying people to your side.

Being perma trolls of the forum just means people start to ignore you.

[Gwaihir]

Belorion, on 13 August 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

That's ok, you guys never address any of the issues other people raise. If instead of trying to bait people into argument, you actually had discussions in a civil manner then you would have a much better chance of swaying people to your side.

Being perma trolls of the forum just means people start to ignore you.

For every single person yelling "But it's still in beta!", you can't have it both ways.

OK, sure, it's still a beta. If that's the case, then I'd expect to actually see things working like a beta should: That means rapid iteration and testing of things like weapon balance. That's exactly what a beta is for. Sadly, we haven't seen anything even close to that. We've gotten a stale poorly balanced game that's been the same since February, and which to all appearances is only getting worse with the addition of more complicated unnecessary mechanics that do nothing but hurt picking up new players.

You can't hide behind the shield of "It's just a beta" to deflect criticisms of the game, while none of the activities typical of a beta take place. Either it's in beta with all that entails, or it's not in beta, and should be held to a different standard.

[Viper69]

Literally, on 12 August 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

I don't care whether you define this as a beta product or not. The term beta has no solid definition.
Regardless, PGI claims that we are still beta testers, but ignores our feedback.

Even when we were closed beta the only thing they marginally listened to us about was delaying OB, and they only admitted they needed to delay it for one measly week. They went OB to start more cash rolling in but kept it under the open beta tag as to not be under the scrutiny of websites that rate games because its not an official release.

Literally, on 12 August 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

If this were not the case, then #saveMWO would have an official response. Instead, it's being ignored even in today's Ask The Devs responses. I'm really happy you liked the improvement that a coder made to the 12v12 optimization, but tell me what exactly that has to do with the problem that the developers have accepting feedback in game balance and mechanics.

They cant give an official response because it would mean they acknowledge problems even if they dont agree that they are problems. Its the party line of just moving along and push dissenting opinions to the side in favor of the more favorable opinions. Do you think PGI would have even told us FPV was in the works if it didnt accidentally get slipped in that NGNG podcast? Hell no they wouldn't have. Then they tell us "Too bad its coming weather or not you like it so how about giving us some ideas to help implement this game feature so we can then say it was your idea not ours."



On the other hand and less inflammatory I do hope the game succeeds because losing this genre would only hurt gamers. I just wish they would have taken a different path but no changing that now.

Edited by Viper69, 13 August 2013 - 05:35 AM.

[Belorion]

Gwaihir, on 13 August 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

For every single person yelling "But it's still in beta!", you can't have it both ways.

OK, sure, it's still a beta. If that's the case, then I'd expect to actually see things working like a beta should: That means rapid iteration and testing of things like weapon balance. That's exactly what a beta is for. Sadly, we haven't seen anything even close to that. We've gotten a stale poorly balanced game that's been the same since February, and which to all appearances is only getting worse with the addition of more complicated unnecessary mechanics that do nothing but hurt picking up new players.

You can't hide behind the shield of "It's just a beta" to deflect criticisms of the game, while none of the activities typical of a beta take place. Either it's in beta with all that entails, or it's not in beta, and should be held to a different standard.

That is an excellently written criticism. If more of your fellows made posts like that then these forums would be a better place and PGI might still walk among us.

As for the whole beta not beta argument, we are rapidly approaching release which will make that argument obsolete.

I am currently on a project that is in beta and rapidly nearing release. It would be nice to have the luxury to address all the concerns of the beta pool, but its not always possible. Yes people can claim a tweak here and a tweak there should be easy, but it is also time consuming analyzing the results. Moreover the closer in time the changes are made the less reliable the data. A proper length of time to gather what is the actual data verses waiting too long to adjust to find changes is I am sure a difficult line to balance on.

Perhaps they erred by waiting too long, but rapid changes are what we had during closed beta and was responsible for some of the yoyo missile op/up changes.

They have also been busy working on other things such as UI 2.0, the new user tutorial, 12 v 12, dx11, a new engine update, and other things all leading up to launch. From atd #44 they have stated that at this point weapon balance changes are one of the top priorities leading up into launch.

[Gwaihir]

Fffffffffffff me just lost a huge reply thanks to the back button. God d amnit.

Time to type this out again.

[Belorion]

Gwaihir, on 13 August 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

Fffffffffffff me just lost a huge reply thanks to the back button. God d amnit.

Time to type this out again.

I hate it when that happens.

[Literally]

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.

[Chronojam]

Gwaihir, on 13 August 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

Fffffffffffff me just lost a huge reply thanks to the back button. God d amnit.

Time to type this out again.

I've lost plenty in this thread alone. I've started saving them to clipboard routinely. Here's one I just pulled out of notepad, that touches on your beta remarks. The linebreaks get a little messed up from notepad unfortunately

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 do 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.

[Nekki Basara]

CG Anastasius Focht, on 12 August 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

MWO is still a work in progress folks, changes and elements , sometimes for the better sometimes for the worst are part of the process.

To take another tack at the issue, at what point do you forsee the game reaching a static state with no more changes?

[Belorion]

Nekki Basara, on 13 August 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

To take another tack at the issue, at what point do you forsee the game reaching a static state with no more changes?

This game will never be static with no more changes. Such is the benefit of Agile development.

[Nekki Basara]

Yup. However CG Anastasius Focht was strongly implying that it will someday magically hit "release" and then it's never going to change ever.

[Kunae]

Belorion, on 13 August 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

I am currently on a project that is in beta and rapidly nearing release. It would be nice to have the luxury to address all the concerns of the beta pool, but its not always possible. Yes people can claim a tweak here and a tweak there should be easy, but it is also time consuming analyzing the results. Moreover the closer in time the changes are made the less reliable the data. A proper length of time to gather what is the actual data verses waiting too long to adjust to find changes is I am sure a difficult line to balance on.

Is it an MMO? If not, then the comparison isn't really relevant.

Assuming it isn't an MMO, the unfortunate part is that PGi appears to be using the same methodology to develop an MMO as you are, doing a stand-alone piece of software.

The different types of end-product really require different development processes.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about the type of project you're working on.

"Agile" methodology is a silly thing to try to wrap around MMO development.

[Belorion]

Kunae, on 13 August 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong about the type of project you're working on.

"Agile" methodology is a silly thing to try to wrap around MMO development.

Agile is a perfect development methodology to apply to the MMO world. It means there will be continuously new items in game. It is also one of the few viable development methodologies left for games. Game development for monolithic releases was becoming non-viable.

Wow started down that path and the new crop of games has taken it further.

[CG Anastasius Focht]

Nekki Basara, on 13 August 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

To take another tack at the issue, at what point do you forsee the game reaching a static state with no more changes?

I think Belorian has answered this.

The game is clearly designed to evolve over time, reflecting the original game and its timeline. I find that exciting and an improvement over the out of the box tittles you can pick up at the local games shop.

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

Im confident that day will come, though i cant predict when that day will be.


What i can predict is that when that day comes there will be some who dont like the result, who will say it should have been this way or should have been that way. Thats par for course in any project like this

There will always be a percentage of the audience who percieve a flaw in the final result

Case in point



At first glance a nice enough creation, but look long enough and some will see flaws

The leg/torso ratio is off some have said, the legs too short, the torso too long
And its a valid criticism

But at the end of the day i have to take the view that despite this, its a unique creative expression of the canon/source material.
It will be different because of that, and that id rather have it, than not have it on my shelf.

I take the same view with MWO, its a unique creative expression of the original concept it wont or cant be exactly as i or others might expect, but id rather have it to enjoy than not.

To give an example as someone who builds physical models i find the idea of ammo being stored in an arm feeding a torso mounted weapon a bit strange, how do you pass ammo through whats often a comparatively small shoulder actuator.
But i dont sweat these small things, they dont stop me from enjoying the game as a whole.

To touch again on the actual topic, i must admit if i had a choice of 12v12 or 8v8 i think i would choose the later, especially on the smaller maps.
And yes i would prefer my dual AC20's didnt attract the ghost heat penalty.
But its small stuff as far as my experience goes, it doesnt detract from the fun of lining up a target and putting 20 points of ballistic damage onto the target
Small stuff aside, ill always have fun doing that.

Edited by CG Anastasius Focht, 13 August 2013 - 02:47 PM.