267 replies to this topic

[Infernus1986]

there goons i kickstarted your thread
don't say i never did anything for u

[Heffay]

John Norad, on 16 September 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

Well apparently nobody knows. But it's quite obvious that many players feel ignored

It's quite obvious that some players were expecting a discussion. Horribly misguided, of course, but that's basically what happened.

It's a good thing they didn't get it. Once you start letting the customer think they can dictate how your business is run, you'll have no end to the trouble. You just need to make them think you're listening to them.

Empathy is a hell of a drug.

[Kraven Kor]

Heffay, on 16 September 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

What, and let you get the last word? Sir, this is the Internet, and there are STANDARDS to be met!

That I can at least respect and will not try to deny I am doing the same, one way or another.

But, yeah, if you want something to die on the internet, one side or the other has to stop responding. The "last word" has very little meaning anymore - in face, often, the "last post" is only ever read by the guy that posted it

And, for the record, I have not once made the claim anyone disagreeing with me is "Wrong™"

[MechFrog1]

Kraven Kor, on 16 September 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

And I'm sorry, but the community is not more toxic.

MWO's community isn't any more or less toxic than any other gaming community. The only difference between this and other games is going to be a textbook example of how badly things can turn out when you don't have experienced community management.

Edited by mint frog, 16 September 2013 - 11:20 AM.

[Tannhauser Gate]

Heffay, on 16 September 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

How do you know the developers didn't listen?

They’ve said several times that they do listen to suggestions but mostly they consider feedback as the “canary in the mine”. If enough people complain about an imbalance or issue, the dev team will look at the telemetry generated by game play to see if theres an issue. If so, they make a plan to address it based on the current state of features, time, and workload. A lot of things have to wait for other features to be added first or for manpower to become available.

So, individual feedback is listened to if it’s a good idea or suggestion. The negative feedback and positive is trend analyzed and used as a warning to look at whatever feature is being ranted over. Individual rants are not listened to per se. They simply do not have time to address every player’s druthers. That’s where ATDs come in to play but the devs have to be vague and noncommittal with answers or they risk being accused of lying to the players.

[MechFrog1]

LakeDaemon, on 16 September 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

That’s where ATDs come in to play but the devs have to be vague and noncommittal with answers or they risk being accused of lying to the players.

The best way to avoid being accused of lying to players is not to be vague and noncommittal. It's to not lie to your players when you know you have no intention of doing what you say.

[Kraven Kor]

mint frog, on 16 September 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

The best way to avoid being accused of lying to players is not to be vague and noncommittal. It's to not lie to your players when you know you have no intention of doing what you say.

"We'll have X feature by Y date" and then failing to meet that goal is problematic, but not an outright lie.

"We do not intend to include this feature" and then adding it is problematic, but not an outright lie.

"Players will never be forced to play with or against players using 3PV" and then going back on that promise day one of the feature... is kind of an outright lie. Sorry.

Now you can move past that, if you want, fine. Go ahead. But it will forever color PGI's assurances for many of us.

[Heffay]

mint frog, on 16 September 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

The best way to avoid being accused of lying to players is not to be vague and noncommittal.

Yah, the whole separate queues comment is a perfect reason why they should be vague and noncommittal. Otherwise every time they have to change their mind on something they were very specific on, they have to deal with the same {Scrap} we just saw regarding 3PV.

Change your mind? LYING!!!! Gotta stick with bad business decisions no matter how short sighted they turn out to be, right?

Kraven Kor, on 16 September 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

"Players will never be forced to play with or against players using 3PV" and then going back on that promise day one of the feature... is kind of an outright lie. Sorry.

Well, they made good on that promise at least. Kudos to PGI.

[Kraven Kor]

Heffay, on 16 September 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Well, they made good on that promise at least. Kudos to PGI.

Wait, what?

Where is the 1PV only queue, then?

That is what was promised.

3PV may be "optional" in the sense that it sucks and nobody uses it or whatever, but it is not even close to what was promised and I am not letting anyone re-write history in that regard.

And before you lump me in with the rest, I would be perfectly fine with 3PV if I could shoot down the drone, it took up a module slot, had XP unlocks, and was subject to ECM. The could even make the drone all tiny and inobvious to make it harder to shoot down.

All I wanted of 3PV was that it "make sense and be immersive."

[Heffay]

Kraven Kor, on 16 September 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Wait, what?

Where is the 1PV only queue, then?

That is what was promised.

12v12. No one ever has to play with 3PV if they don't want.

I think the drone needs a lot of tweaking. It needs to fulfill the purpose it was created for better (new player orientation), while losing some of the tactical benefits. Shooting it down isn't the right answer (you can grief new players that way). It should be a module that is put on each mech by default, and can be stripped out. Make people choose between having the drone and the benefits it provides vs base capture, seismic, etc, etc. Plus a few other tweaks to discourage its use in tactical situations.

So you're ok with the drone with tweaks. Do they have to be your tweaks only, or are there other tweaks you will accept that don't involve shooting it down?

Edited by Heffay, 16 September 2013 - 12:05 PM.

[Kraven Kor]

Heffay, on 16 September 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

12v12. No one ever has to play with 3PV if they don't want.

I think the drone needs a lot of tweaking. It needs to fulfill the purpose it was created for better (new player orientation), while losing some of the tactical benefits. Shooting it down isn't the right answer (you can grief new players that way). It should be a module that is put on each mech by default, and can be stripped out. Make people choose between having the drone and the benefits it provides vs base capture, seismic, etc, etc. Plus a few other tweaks to discourage its use in tactical situations.

So you're ok with the drone with tweaks. Do they have to be your tweaks only, or are there other tweaks you will accept that don't involve shooting it down?

To an extent, yes.

So long as the solution is:

1. Immersive ("I can understand how it might work in real life")

-and-

2. Balanced ("I don't have to use 3PV to succeed at Role-X in Competitive Play, but I can if I want.")

Right now, in "competitive play" (where I have no business being, mind you...) I can't say where this stands.

[DeathofSelf]

Heffay, on 16 September 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

12v12. No one ever has to play with 3PV if they don't want.

Yeah, cause it's super easy to get 12 people together at the same time

Edited by DeathofSelf, 16 September 2013 - 12:21 PM.

[Heffay]

Kraven Kor, on 16 September 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

To an extent, yes.

So long as the solution is:

1. Immersive ("I can understand how it might work in real life")

-and-

2. Balanced ("I don't have to use 3PV to succeed at Role-X in Competitive Play, but I can if I want.")

Right now, in "competitive play" (where I have no business being, mind you...) I can't say where this stands.

#2 can be solved simply by making it a module. It would play in nicely with information warfare that way.

I can't think of a single build that I'd take which would have the drone as one of the modules. Even on my scouts I'd take the UAV over 3PV every single time. It's not unusual to see 2 UAVs popped a match in some of our 12 mans. 3PV isn't nearly as useful in comparison.

DeathofSelf, on 16 September 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

Yeah, cause it's super easy to get 12 people together at the same time

I don't ever recall seeing a requirement where it had to be "easy".

[DeathofSelf]

Heffay, on 16 September 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

I don't ever recall seeing a requirement where it had to be "easy".

That is a pretty ridiculous statement. "sure you can technically play 1pv only, but you probably wont ever be able to do it". That is not giving us a fair option to play in 1pv only....... I don't even know why I am wasting my time replying to you since all I have seen you do is make idiotic arguments.

[Kraven Kor]

Heffay, on 16 September 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

I don't ever recall seeing a requirement where it had to be "easy".

Easy isn't a requirement, but it "would be a nice gesture."

For instance, until they make 3PV more "immersive" and less of a magical eyeball in the sky, I really don't want to play... and I have no business in 12v12 "Competitive" play unless I just really want to inflate someone else's stats and pretend I am helping others and call my MWO-time charitable work...

So I *want* a 1PV-only PUG queue, which is what they promised.

I'm literally only asking for what PGI themselves promised, and less so for me, really, than for others as many will just not accept 3PV at all and for - to them - perfectly valid reasons.

The customer is not always right; but when ~50% of your paying customers go away because they are not getting what they thought they paid for, or further still are not getting what they are asking for, one has to question the reasons for that...

[Heffay]

Kraven Kor, on 16 September 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

The customer is not always right; but when ~50% of your paying customers go away because they are not getting what they thought they paid for, or further still are not getting what they are asking for, one has to question the reasons for that...

You're making up stats now. You're referring to the statistics from PGI that talk about the Founders retention rate, and are attributing a reason to them leaving that is probably wildly inaccurate.

[Kraven Kor]

Heffay, on 16 September 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

You're making up stats now. You're referring to the statistics from PGI that talk about the Founders retention rate, and are attributing a reason to them leaving that is probably wildly inaccurate.

As a general statement, my post stands. About 50% of founders "still play" per PGI, and the other 50% of founders have moved on or are not playing for one reason or another.

I think my assessment as as wildly accurate as it can be, given the information I have. It's just an opinion, naturally. Or an 'educated guess' at least.

I'm not making up stats. I'm assuming things based on the information I have, as are you.

[Infernus1986]

http://mwomercs.com/...79#entry2753479

Rip Forum discussions
well its a good thing they can only "moderate" these forums

[Tannhauser Gate]

Kraven Kor, on 16 September 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

"Players will never be forced to play with or against players using 3PV" and then going back on that promise day one of the feature... is kind of an outright lie. Sorry.

To be fair, I don’t see this as a deliberate lie. It was a pledge made before changes in the vision.

The vision changed twice (at least). First to have 3PV after all (business needs to keep new players etc...). That’s when Bryan said 3PV and 1PV would never play against each other responding player feedback and fears. Then it changed again when they created their version of 3PV and realized it was far less tactically unfair than people feared. Separating the queues became unnecessary which is HUGE. It was what most of us were afraid of / vehemently against to begin with.

So, Bryan made that pledge based on the vision at the time. The game modes testify to this point. Hardcore mode is still there which means they intended to have separate queues.

Personally, I think splitting queues was a terrible idea and its FAR better to have a gimped 3PV view for newbs and pic taking while the game still remains mostly 1PV. Im glad they were able to make a gimped 3PV and I hope it stays that way or even more gimped. It definitely needs rebalancing. Whatever, is way better than splitting queues and having Hardcore mode et al..

Edited by LakeDaemon, 16 September 2013 - 01:05 PM.

[Kraven Kor]

LakeDaemon, on 16 September 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

To be fair, I don’t see this as a deliberate lie. It was caused pledges made before changes in the vision.

The vision changed twice (at least). First to have 3PV after all (business needs to keep new players etc..). That’s when Bryan said there would be queues and 3PV and 1PV would never play against each other (he was responding player feedback and fears). Then it changed again when they created their version of 3PV and realized it was far less tactically unfair than people feared. Separating the queues became unnecessary which is HUGE. It was what most of us were afraid of / vehemently against to begin with.

So, Bryan made that pledge based on the vision at the time. The game modes testify to this point. Hardcore mode is still there which means they intended to have separate queues.

Personally, I think splitting queues was a terrible idea and its FAR better to have a gimped 3PV view for newbs and pic taking while the game still remains mostly 1PV. Im glad they were able to make a gimped 3PV and I hope it stays that way or even more gimped. It definitely needs rebalancing.

I disagree.

First: Had the vision merely changed and they had intended to give us the split queues then changed their mind, that communication would have - not should have but Would Have - been addressed prior to the patch. I assure you PGI "had a plan" even if it was a poorly thought out one so far as the split queues. My theory is they had decided to drop it, knew it would go over like a lead balloon, and figured they would do it like that scene in Mad Max where the Road Warrior is going to pull the arrow out of that guy's leg and they count to 3 but Max pulls it on 2 to get it over with

Second: Split queues were a hard-won compromise over months and months of discussions and assurances. Forgiving and Forgetting is nice and all, but this was not an oversight. Or, at least, if it WAS an oversight, I am even more flabbergasted and appalled. At leas the "get it over with" theory seems like there is someone at the helm; "Oh, yeah, we forgot we had promised split queues and introduced the patch without them... oops..." is... well, I'd hate to see a restaurant or financial firm run like this, yes?

Lastly: Gimped 3PV does not give the 3PV players what they want / need, and only ****** off the anti-3PV crowd without a split queue. Lose-lose.

Now again, this is all opinion and I could be wrong or in the minority or whatever. But, if this wasn't deliberate, it was beyond stupid from a business and management standpoint.