269 replies to this topic

[DemonRaziel]

As I mentioned in the other thread earlier, thank you for taking the time, to address the community regarding the reduced rewards, Niko. It is appreciated that IGP/PGI personnel has finally decided to comment on the issue causing an uproar on the forums since the 12v12 patch.

What I do not appreciate, however, is that the devs blatantly lied to us all, when they released the aforementioned patch.

Quote

- 12v12 gameplay is now in.
- The 8-man queue is now replaced by a 12-man queue.
- Players can launch in groups of 1,2,3,4,12. Numbers between 4-12 will be addressed when we get tonnage limits into the game.
- CB rewards have been adjusted to compensate for the additional 4 players on the battlefield.

Emphasis mine.

This is significantly different from

Quote

As an online game, MechWarrior Online requires close attention to economy balance. We have been actively monitoring and tweaking our rewards system in preparation for upcoming features and overall economy design.

Quote

It's easier to test and adjust this way: By first reducing the overall reward, we can observe the telemetry of how much less players are making overall during this period of time and thus make better judgement on the value of future rewards.

PGI was insincere to us and no one was even bothered to address the community for a while or even say a damned "sorry we tried to fool you and thought you are stupid enough to be fooled by our expanation that doesn't really add up to the facts."

Overstating? Maybe, but I'm not the only one who feels that way and it's sure not helping the comany's PR.

[Pyrrho]

DemonRaziel, on 14 August 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

What I do not appreciate, however, is that the devs blatantly lied to us all, when they released the aforementioned patch.

PGI was insincere to us and no one was even bothered to address the community for a while or even say a damned "sorry we tried to fool you and thought you are stupid enough to be fooled by our expanation that doesn't really add up to the facts."

This doesn't make any sense. I saw what you put in bold, but where was the blatant lie again?

Edited by Pyrrho, 14 August 2013 - 02:21 PM.

[WarHippy]

Niko Snow, on 14 August 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

It's easier to test and adjust this way: By first reducing the overall reward, we can observe the telemetry of how much less players are making overall during this period of time and thus make better judgement on the value of future rewards.

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time I don't. You know what you reduced the numbers by so how could you possibly need to observe telemetry on what the they are? If lets say we were earning 190k per win before and you guys feel that is a good spot for average earning to be why not leave it there until you are ready with the other sources of income? What are these current lower earnings informing you of exactly?

Niko Snow, on 14 August 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

This also helps reduce the possibility of over-shooting our adjustments and giving away too many rewards. In such a scenario, we would have to nerf those rewards permanently and be left with much upset from any players who had grown accustomed to those greater reward levels.

Yes, well these things happen but the damage would be minor if you made adjustments to these things on a weekly basis while you are getting the new system in place. Month plus time periods between adjustments is where people get used to things and become irritated by the changes.

Niko Snow, on 14 August 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

In our current development: We can confidently counter frustrations with the current rewards implementation with the knowledge that more rewards will be coming, similarly to when rewards were previously adjusted last year.

That isn't much comfort to the people with premium time ticking away.

Niko Snow, on 14 August 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Your other concerns should be addressed in future communications from the Dev Team on the upcoming rewards.

Yes I know. Hurry up and wait.

[DemonRaziel]

Pyrrho, on 14 August 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

This doesn't make any sense. I saw what you put in bold, but where was the blatant lie again?

They stated they reduced the rewards per action as there are now 12 enemy 'Mechs on which you can score these actions, and thus implied that it will add up to the original values again. But in true they also reduced the salvage which should not have been touched really, as there is also more players on your team who get their share of the salvage - if they were planning to keep the overall rewards as they were in 8v8s.

Now we are being told they they intended to reduce the overall rewards as there will be some additional rewards "sometimes in the future", that will increase the rewards back.

[mack sabbath]

In the August 8, NGNG Podcast, everyone including Garth were genuinely surprised that anyone was complaining about the new currency payouts. Check it out.

[Pyrrho]

Quote

"sorry we tried to fool you and thought you are stupid enough to be fooled by our expanation that doesn't really add up to the facts."

And this was factual? Seems more of an vitriolic opinion.

For me, I just don't understand how ranting about earning less imaginary space bucks is worthwhile.

[Tezcatli]

12 v 12 was a rather significant change. There's bound to be things that need to be fine tuned. People calm down. I don't like making less C-Bills anymore then you do. But they can't be spot on with everything they do. That's why we're here to give feedback. Raging after they've already replied to our feedback is just raging for raging sake.

[Chronojam]

Niko Snow, on 14 August 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

It's easier to test and adjust this way: By first reducing the overall reward, we can observe the telemetry of how much less players are making overall during this period of time and thus make better judgement on the value of future rewards.

This also helps reduce the possibility of over-shooting our adjustments and giving away too many rewards. In such a scenario, we would have to nerf those rewards permanently and be left with much upset from any players who had grown accustomed to those greater reward levels.

In our current development: We can confidently counter frustrations with the current rewards implementation with the knowledge that more rewards will be coming, similarly to when rewards were previously adjusted last year.

Your other concerns should be addressed in future communications from the Dev Team on the upcoming rewards.

We need this kind of information upfront, from the developers. "Sneaking in" substantial changes to the economy is not the way to build goodwill and player confidence!

[DemonRaziel]

Pyrrho, on 14 August 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

For me, I just don't understand how ranting about earning less imaginary space bucks is worthwhile.

It's your right to not care about it, it's ours to do. Those space bucks are kind of tied to real bucks in the form of MCs.

I could live with the reduced earnings (not like the fact, but accept it) if they openly stated they want to reduce them instead of making a cover story that went down the drain pretty much right away.

Chronojam, on 14 August 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

We need this kind of information upfront, from the developers. "Sneaking in" substantial changes to the economy is not the way to build goodwill and player confidence!

QFT

Edited by DemonRaziel, 14 August 2013 - 02:45 PM.

[Pyrrho]

I guess the amount of ire this subject raises has to do with time spent vs. goals met.

I have a nice surplus of C-Bills, and I have not spent MC since I made the call to get 2 more mechbays (the only worthwhile MC purchase IMHO). That said, my goal is not to master every chassis from every weight class. My goal is to do what I find fun, which more often than not involves running around in my CDA-3C yelling "wheeeeeee" at top speed. I meet this goal fairly often.

I do hope that the developers will find a way to make their economy work for everyone.

Best of luck, Raziel.

[Deathlike]

Die Primate Die, on 14 August 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

In the August 8, NGNG Podcast, everyone including Garth were genuinely surprised that anyone was complaining about the new currency payouts. Check it out.

Surprised?

It begs the fun question is commonly posed by people, often...

"Do the devs play their own game?"

Garth should REALLY try to play the game from a starting newbie's POV before making a statement. This means 0 MC, so ZERO acceleration of what we're getting (this also means ZERO premium time too). Then, you can make a better assessment of the situation.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 August 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[soapyfrog]

We know there is at least one alternate currency (loyalty points) that will be added soon to the game, it's possible this will compensate for slower c-bill generation.

[xCico]

Niko Snow, on 14 August 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

It's easier to test and adjust this way: By first reducing the overall reward, we can observe the telemetry of how much less players are making overall during this period of time and thus make better judgement on the value of future rewards.

This also helps reduce the possibility of over-shooting our adjustments and giving away too many rewards. In such a scenario, we would have to nerf those rewards permanently and be left with much upset from any players who had grown accustomed to those greater reward levels.

In our current development: We can confidently counter frustrations with the current rewards implementation with the knowledge that more rewards will be coming, similarly to when rewards were previously adjusted last year.

Your other concerns should be addressed in future communications from the Dev Team on the upcoming rewards.

Thank you for responde, all devs should be like this, helpful, not just ''Stay on the topic'' and that, help and information, thats all we need

[Deathlike]

It would make more sense to "overpay us" and then nerf as necessary (at least people would understand)... OR you could actually pay us as is, but with newly added bonuses to make up for that.

The problem is that you cannot just do the nerfing w/o also buffing something else (as in, actually adding new bonuses in). It doesn't help the people that play the game as currently constituted by just producing an outright nerf.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 August 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Deathlike, on 14 August 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

It would make more sense to "overpay us" and then nerf as necessary (at least people would understand)... OR you could actually pay us as is, but with newly added bonuses to make up for that.

The problem is that you cannot just do the nerfing w/o also buffing something else (as in, actually adding new bonuses in). It doesn't help the people that play the game as currently constituted by just producing an outright nerf.

What if they have been "overpaying us" ever since R&R was removed?

You say it is easier to overpay and then nerf as necessary, but judging from some of the complaints over imaginary money on this thread, I cannot believe that to be true.

[DemonRaziel]

Hotthedd, on 14 August 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

What if they have been "overpaying us" ever since R&R was removed?

Then they should have told us right away before they made the changes. Also, if they felt like they are overpaying us, they would probably not announce they are going to introduce new rewards.

[Hotthedd]

DemonRaziel, on 14 August 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

Then they should have told us right away before they made the changes. Also, if they felt like they are overpaying us, they would probably not announce they are going to introduce new rewards.

What if they did not realize they had been overpaying us until recently?

The simple fact is that cadets still get their bonus, and those of us who have been playing for a long time *should* have plenty of C-bills by now, unless we have been spending everything we make on the newest shiniest toys. In real life, we would call these people "spoiled" or "entitled".

[Deathlike]

Hotthedd, on 14 August 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

What if they have been "overpaying us" ever since R&R was removed?

You say it is easier to overpay and then nerf as necessary, but judging from some of the complaints over imaginary money on this thread, I cannot believe that to be true.

They should've tweaked it prior to adding Savior/Defensive Kills.. which has actually accelerated C-bills/XP growth (mostly XP, since it had noticeably affected me more). That was the last known major C-bills addition to 8v8 for your reference.

The thing is.. if regular players to this game are actually doing worse, imagine how the newbie is faring. That's the true test of the system.

Remember that XP growth acceleration makes the ETA to buying a new mech shorter (especially when you're trying to master them),. Having gone through a major double XP weekend a long while back (at least 1 or 2 of them prior), it made it difficult to keep up with the C-bills growth to make the next Atlas purchase.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 August 2013 - 05:10 PM.

[Homeless Bill]

Niko Snow, on 14 August 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

As we move closer to the game’s Launch on September 17, our developers will be addressing the community in an official post on our forums with a focus on C-Bill earnings and other reward systems.

Thanks for the heads up. I really hope this isn't just an empty promise. We've been promised quite a few Command Chair posts that either never materialized or took a ridiculous amount of time.

[Deathlike]

Homeless Bill, on 14 August 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

Thanks for the heads up. I really hope this isn't just an empty promise. We've been promised quite a few Command Chair posts that either never materialized or took a ridiculous amount of time.

Well, I have a link to a broken promise in my sig currently, so good luck with that.