2021 replies to this topic

[Wolke]

They rejected my prolite refund request. What should be my next step according to canadian law?

[AndyHill]

Skyraxx, on 24 August 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

but I don't really feel like calling them liars. I mean to me a lie is when you say something knowing full well you're going to do the opposite or are trying to hide some truth. I doubt that's the case with PGI. I think they fully believed they weren't going to include 3pv at first, then they fully believed they were going to have separate queues. They had meetings talked it out and changed their minds, or were told by IGP to include certain features. I don't really know, that's where we'd benefit from better communication.

From what I know, the guys at PGI are nice fellows with a passion for BattleTech. However, as with most problems in MWO, they've been far, far behind the community in predicting what's going to happen. The thing is, we called their bluff a long time ago, since it was self evident that the 3rd person view would offer dramatic game changing advantages and there couldn't be separate queues because it would split the playerbase - and the 3rd person view thing would really need to be showed down a lot of throats by force.

The only real surprise for me was how terrible the 3rd person view was for the intended(?) purpose of teaching new players to operate their 'mechs. That was of course reported during the public test, but nothing happened before the release.

So you basically have two choices: PGI either lied about separate queues from the start or they completely lack the understanding of how the game works and is supposed to be run. Pick either one and the projected end result for the game is bad.

[AndyHill]

I need to post this in here as well, since it's something that has been bothering me for a while. First of all, I think a lot of the core design features have been amateurish and poorly implemented and that's all PGI.

But what if this 3rd party fiasco isn't?

Just take a step back and look at the story from the beginning. NO 3rd person was a clear design goal, something that's integral to the MWO experience and basically defines the way people interact with the game. You're the MechWarrior. The guy in the 'mech. Experience what it's like to drive a 100 ton stompy robot bristling with high-tech weapons into battle. You know what kind of a smile that puts on your face. Now imagine what kind of a smile that would've put on Russ Bullock's face when he finally gets to actually work on his dream of stomping in an online-robot. Then comes a huge change of heart with extremely dubious explanations and thoroughly half-hearted "apologies" with a totally half-arsed implementation of the 3rd person view with desperate attempts at a balance.

I can't really wrap my head around this properly. In fact, it all only starts to make sense if you choose to believe certain rumors.

What if Bullock & al. never had a change of heart? What do you do when your publisher's paper pusher demands a feature you know will be damaging to your magnum opus and cause fury in the audience? You either mutiny or try to save face - or the game's face - by stepping out advertising the good sides of the deal. You come out with explanations on how it might be good to get new people in the game with this feature - and then make the feature as balanced as possible against the 1st person view, murdering its usefulness in the claimed training purpose, because that's the least damaging thing you can do, trying to balance between the outrage of the community and the demands of your publisher.

Now, the next message after this one might be Russ Bullock posting that I'm completely wrong and it was all PGI all the time, as it well might have been. But as long as that doesn't happen, I suggest you all take a step back and look at this fiasco from another perspective. And then imagine what it would be like to be Russ Bullock driving to work tomorrow morning to check out if the forums have quieted down.

All I know is that something smells very rotten about this 3rd person crabfest, but the source of the smell just might not be the most immediately obvious one.

[Quaamik]

RANSARI, on 21 August 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

.............Personally, I think it's all part of a grand master plan to start peddling this disaster on next-gen consoles that will support F2P games. .......

MechWarrior has been peddled to consoles time and again, yet it never does well. Why?

MechWarrior requires you to think, design your mech, update it later when you get more coin, go back and do it again with another after a bit of play (and repeat, and repeat ....). People who play on consoles don't want that. They are fine with high end strategy and tactics, but don't want the behind the game tinkering that all the Mech francises have required.

A change in the player view will not solve that. Go for the console market and this will lose to other, more console friendly games.

Maybe PGI doesn't realize this. Personally though, I think they are hoping to lure console fans to running the computer version of this game. Either way - bad idea.

[Nils]

It's nice to be able to see all the mechs where they can't see me. It's like a mini UAV!

[Wytchfyre]

wow, bunch of crying here. i think its a neat option and hella more realistic than never being able to have a rear view mirror in a billion credit war machine. sheesh

[Quaamik]

KitK, on 21 August 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

OK, so I re-read B. Ekman's post. And I note the following:

Scientific method is being employed not just random development choices to rage the player base. Note that the current choice to not seperate the ques is the result of an evaluation of the design, development and testing. New information caused a change in direction. Is this not a driving principle in our very society? Yet we fault for applying standard scientific methodology.

The ques are postponed. That could be indefinately, but at least not off the table.

Based on their new information they want to rethink the solution for a way that prevents the segregation of the player base, which constantly comes up as a concern on the forums. So hey, this is a good thing right, trying to not segregate the player base with implemention of this feature.

They want a solution that also addresses other community wish list items. A wholistic approach. Again, a good thing right? It is an approach often called for in weapon balance.

So, I really think folks need to feed the good fire here instead of the flame war.

The problem, as I see it, is communication.

If they SAID that they need to test 3PV, for some reason, and listed in the release notes that the segregated options will be there, but turned off for X number of days of gameplay to force test the new system, people would have responded better. Instead, they made no mention of the segregated option and many didn't notice it (or don't trust it will ever be turned on).

Also, if they had defaulted to current 1PV and made 3PV an option you could select or toggle to people may have reacted more positively.

The reality is that it is a completely different game with 3PV as an option than it is without. With 3PV:
- sniping becomes harder and shorter lived.
- cover becomes more effective, because you can peek over it
- scouts can scout much safer

Considering that this "beta" is rolling well past the one year point (close to 2 years?), it's almost more of a soft release. Major game changers should not be being introduced into a beta this mature and this close to expected launch - unless they were planned and tested all along and were kind of a "bait and switch" to get people to test a game who would be dedicated to it, to then switch and market it to a different audience. I would assume that elements introduced 1 month before the "planned" launch are not going to be removed from the game, maybe just tweaked. That leads me to assume that what we have now is likely what we will get as the permanent game.

Edited by Quaamik, 25 August 2013 - 08:27 AM.

[BattleTechMan]

At first I was really upset at PGI, but the more I think about it, i think its IGP fault. Let me explain why I think this is. In an age where developers ram unwanted features on the developers and customers alike, I think Im gonna blame them. Ive been playing since march or may of early closed beta last year. At that time the games vision was one that kicked some serious ***. Community warfare, U.I. 2.0 and other features were promised. 3pv on the other hand was promised not to ever be in the game, and coming from just the developer PGI I believed them. The problem is shareholders and publishers like IGP make pisss poor decisions, and force it on the developers. In less than 6 months from announcing 3pv its now in game, where other features like U.I. 2.0 have been lagging for over a year. Why? Because IGP forced PGI to divert resources from things like U.I. 2.0 and community warfare to things that they think will pull in gobs of cash, things like 3pv. And when we cry foul, poor PGI who is under a contract to defend whatever decisions IGP makes, makes them look bad to us. Just look at the apology made. Seems more like a forced one by IGP than PGI. Money diverted from the Founders program to other games, and forced features on developers and customers alike, are all hallmarks of bad publishers ruining games like usual, not bad developers.

So in conclusion, I am asking IGP and any of the staff to just go away. Thank you for getting the cash flow going for this great game, but you are out of touch with your customers, and you need to back off, or better yet, just let PGI make the development decisions before you kill your money makers so to speak. Would be even better if PGI could just drop the crappy developer and move on to a crowd funding system with no publisher. At nearly $16 million and counting for games like Star Citizen, people are crying for a new way do make video games, and to get rid of out of touch, poor decision making, lame non- playing video game publishers.

[Quaamik]

AndyHill, on 25 August 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

............What do you do when your publisher's paper pusher demands a feature you know will be damaging to your magnum opus and cause fury in the audience? You either mutiny or try to save face - or the game's face - by stepping out advertising the good sides of the deal. You come out with explanations on how it might be good to get new people in the game with this feature - and then make the feature as balanced as possible against the 1st person view, murdering its usefulness in the claimed training purpose, because that's the least damaging thing you can do, trying to balance between the outrage of the community and the demands of your publisher............

As good (or better) possible explanation as any.

Still Sucks. (both the explanation and 3PV)

IF that was the reason, communication could have still solved much of the issue. To wit:
- Explaining that the 1PV only groupings would be temporarily off, to force testing of the 3PV system.
- Explaining that situations beyond their control (ie: management / stakeholders / publisher) forced them to add it.
- Stressing that there WILL be an option for 1PV vs 1PV only games, but only after a given amount of testing to prove out 3PV.

If the true intent (forced by the publisher) is that there will ONLY be a mixed 1PV/3PV game group, then the DEVs should have stressed to them that there were public statements made to people who had paid money for this that that wouldn't happen. Any corporate lawyer would immediately understand that going back on that is a breach of contract, and the publisher would have realized that launching with that (as opposed to just testing) gives ammo to a class action lawsuit if they didn't offer any tester who was unhappy with that choice a refund. No publisher would launch a game with a feature they expected to either have to pay out money on or immediately fight a lawsuit on. It doesn't make (corporate) sense. Not when a simple feature (separate groups) would eliminate the issue.

PGIs communication on this sucks.

[Sam Slade]

Wolke, on 25 August 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

They rejected my prolite refund request. What should be my next step according to canadian law?

Ignore them and send the request to your bank/financial institution. The key phrase is 'bait and switch' regarding goods promised as opposed to goods delivered. You may want to delay your request until the game has actually launched as then there are no gronds for a 'TBA'(to be announced) defence.

However, it is worth noting that PGI as a company can attest that the statements made by employees as to the intended state of the game where never a reflection of the company(PGI) position. This is an argument that PGI would have with your bank/financial institution not you but it could really end up being bad for individuals at PGI who had no real say in the development and implementation of 3PV(ergo not fair for said individuals and the start of a long and unrewarding three way argument).

There is a good deal of grey area but long story short consumer law trumps stupid internetz terms and conditons everytime and anyone who acts otherwise is silly.

[AndyHill]

That's assuming separate queues are possible in the first place, which I don't think is the case. Just not enough people. For that reason it's also probably something IGP would never authorize if they're behind the idea. Also coming out with the statement that the publisher forced a feature upon us would be very bad for the game (as I think the 3rd person view in itself already is) and poor handling of relations with IGP.

[Zyllos]

This is my problem to 3RD person:

• It's meant to help new players but has so many drawbacks it just penalizes them.

• Why no arm movement?
  
• Drone gives away position from across entire map.
  
• Precise aiming is pretty difficult in a game where aiming your weapons makes you king.
  
• No minimap really disorientates new players.

• Removing the drawbacks will favor 3RD person in competitive players.

• Giving full motion is not so much a problem, and I think must be added for 3RD person.
  
• Removing the drone would bring back the "hiding behind wall/building and seeing all" tactic.
  
• Precise aiming needs to be fixed anyways, so I see this as a good thing.
  
• Adding a minimap makes 3RD person superior to 1ST person.

• With penalties, 3RD person is useless and hurts new players, without penalties, 3RD person is overpowered.

With this above, PGI, I personally think there is two options. Either make 3RD person useful and fun to use and obsolete 1ST person, as per all the older MWs. Or just completely remove 3RD person. Your current "in between" implementation is going to hurt this game more in the long run.

I personally like 3RD person (if they had none of the drawbacks) because I like seeing the entire action of the mech. If the arms would have moved independent of the torsos like 1ST person, this would make 3RD person so sweet to look at. I mainly use 3RD person for the visceral combat and look it provides, not the benefits it provides. It almost feels like Mech Commander but with a single mech, to me.

Either way, I suggest either remove the penalties of 3RD person all together, or just remove 3RD person, as it's not doing the community any favor for being in it's current state.

[Coralld]

Isant PGI and IGP one and the same? They couldn't find a publisher so they also became the developer and their own publisher if I am not mistaken.

Also, they abandoned the separate groups idea, this was even stated in Russ'es so called "apology". So we will never get it.

[Straker]

I'm not filled with PGI hate or rabidly against 3pv. However, I did discover something that NEEDS to be brought up. 3pv and widescreen resolutions such as using multiple monitors. I play using 5670x1080 resolution, which is very wide. The following are some pics that show a tactical advantage without ray trace errors. Instead of looking over things, I use it to look around.



This is normal 1pv



Without moving, I can easily scout both sides of the ship in total safety.



Face hugging a hill in 1pv.



Without moving I can easily see around the corner and the mech standing there.

Please please do not consider nerfing wide resolutions and multi monitor displays to fix this. There is nothing more immersive then having a center monitor for your front window and two more for side windows. I specifically built my system for this gamr.

In my opinion the easy fix is to simply make 3pv "camera drone" module. Make it stock in trial mechs and free for everybody. New players get it, and if advanced players want the tactical advantage they need to give up a module spot.

[Anais Opal]

If MWO goes 3rd person only I'm done, finito, out of here.

MWO should be the 'Mech simulator it was originally designed, and loudly touted by PGI, to be.

If they make 3rd person the preferred view with bells and whistles, its game over PGI, it will be forever known as the game that officially killed the MechWarrior franchise on PC.

[Timto]

3rd person only or mainly? then I'm done too... that is no more a simulation

[Straften]

Straker, on 25 August 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

I'm not filled with PGI hate or rabidly against 3pv. However, I did discover something that NEEDS to be brought up. 3pv and widescreen resolutions such as using multiple monitors. I play using 5670x1080 resolution, which is very wide. The following are some pics that show a tactical advantage without ray trace errors. Instead of looking over things, I use it to look around.



This is normal 1pv



Without moving, I can easily scout both sides of the ship in total safety.



Face hugging a hill in 1pv.



Without moving I can easily see around the corner and the mech standing there.

Please please do not consider nerfing wide resolutions and multi monitor displays to fix this. There is nothing more immersive then having a center monitor for your front window and two more for side windows. I specifically built my system for this gamr.

In my opinion the easy fix is to simply make 3pv "camera drone" module. Make it stock in trial mechs and free for everybody. New players get it, and if advanced players want the tactical advantage they need to give up a module spot.

QFT. You saved me the effort of uploading these points as screenshots.

Time to roll out some double CB for a week to make up for this **** PGI. After you remove it of course. Love you guys, but fix this now, your community is understandably outraged.

[repete]

Wolke, on 25 August 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

They rejected my prolite refund request. What should be my next step according to canadian law?

What is your "prolite refund request"? Do you mean "polite"? What were you asking for a refund for/on? I've not heard of refund request issues for Project Phoenix. Were you asking for a refund on something else?

[Imperius]

It's not as broken as ECM so quit crying 3rd person is just fine. Oh they can see my 100 foot tall mech Oh noes!

[repete]

Imperius, on 25 August 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

It's not as broken as ECM so quit crying 3rd person is just fine. Oh they can see my 100 foot tall mech Oh noes!

With all due respect, please stop telling me (Or anyone else) how to behave or what to think. I have not come in to this forum and told you how to think/behave on any subjects (Other than this post perhaps).