1105 replies to this topic

[Chronojam]

What are you talking about? Community warfare rolled out in January 2013.

[3Xtr3m3]

chiXu, on 31 August 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

I think it's safe to say it's over for MWO.

I think this is the heart of your statement.
So, for you it is all over.

I respect your statement, so please respect mine, You are wrong.

PGI has had its ups and downs, but they are not out for the count this month or next.
The challenges and problems of creating the game they envision were more than they originally thought.
Software issues, limitations, bugs, all have setback PGI by months.
But they have not come this far, just to quit.
I hope they prove you wrong at the launch event.
But even if the launch event does not live up to expectations, I for one will not throw in the towel.
You appear to say, the end is approaching.
I will state that I see the beginning approaching.
The difference is a matter of perspective.

chiXu, on 31 August 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

26 days and counting until MWO's D-Day.

26 days and counting until the next evolution.

[ollo]

InnerSphereNews, on 27 August 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

We released some really big features in 12v12 and 3PV: Both have been a great success

LOLWUT?!

Quote

and delivered on our goals of adding more action, tactics, and deeper gameplay (12v12),

I don't see any change in tactics, best option is still: biggest blob of mechs swallows smaller blobs and wins. How you can call this 'deeper' is beyond me... If anything, it's flatter, because there are even less situations where you can make a difference with non-blob-tactics, because any action separate from the blob entitles you to a potential 3 sec death - in 8vs8 times, you could use tease/rush/confuse tactics much more successful as a single mech.

Quote

while continuing to make the game appeal to a broader audience of gamers (3PV). After releasing 3PV we saw an immediate improvement in our target demographic, with a good bump in new player retention!

Numbers? Graphs? i'll have to call BS on this one until i see some facts.

Quote

We continue to see a steady increase in online players, with more new MechWarriors joining us every day. Registrations continue to be strong with a very nice increase during the month of August.

What about the leaving players every day? Do you even track that? Again, i'd like to see some hard facts on active players and their change over time.

Quote

Behind the scenes, we have been working hard on UI 2.0, CW, and Clans. Our first UI 2.0 preview build was just delivered to me this week, and I’m really excited to get a version up on public test. This new UI framework is the gate keeper for almost everything we are working on right now, including Community Warfare (more revealed a bit later in this update).

While i understand that UI 2.0 has this function, i don't understand why it apparently takes ages to implement it if it's so important. Also wow, already the the first preview build? This week? Can we expect UI 2.0 for middle of next year then, accompanied by an again completely broken mechlab?

Quote

As for the economics, we’ve heard some talk about the reduction in C-Bill rewards. As previous replies to the community in the latest ATD have stated, we needed to rein in some of the rewards a bit as they had grown beyond our original thresholds by about 16%.

Talk = complaints mostly. Also why reduce the earnings by 35% and more if they are 16% too high (in your eyes at least)?

Quote

This is normal and common as a game evolves and players become more efficient. The addition of 12v12 also required a tuning pass to lower the earning by around 13% to account for an additional 8 players on the battlefield.

Which is complete nonsense, as you're not more likely to kill more mechs just because there are more enemies. The failed assumptions (if they even were assumptions and not 'working as intended') have been discussed in depth already, so i'll cut it here.

Quote

The future vision for CB and XP rewards includes a more granular, role based approach currently in design and development. These expanded earnings will reward players directly for performing specific roles, allowing them to distinguish themselves.

Good. It's not that we've been waiting for 2 years for some implementation of rewards that actually rewards all roles. When you say 'future', does that mean roughly another 2 years?

[Sug]

3Xtr3m3, on 31 August 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

I respect your statement, so please respect mine, You are wrong.

How is announcing CW is coming out in Winter '13, then in Spring '13, then to say we're starting "Stage 1" (which is nothing) at Launch, with the following stages coming out over the next year moving forward?

They literally have nothing to launch with after 2 years of development....

[Ronious]

The people who say nothing love everything we do. Just shut up and love it. I'm paraphrasing of course. Not very nice.

[ollo]

Quote

Some economic math from our telemetry data:

Average match time is 8.4 minutes.
Average CB/match is 79,069.
Average CB/hour is 564,778 if you only have 1 BattleMech to use.
New players can earn 7,981,686 in cadet bonuses during their first 3.5 hours in addition to between 1-3 million in regular game earnings.

...which means you don't want money for mechbays, camo etc. apparantly. You already need more time to buy everything in the game than it will exist, there was and is no need the CB-nerf whatsoever, but this has also been analysed already elsewhere.

Quote

It’s important to note that new or inexperienced players will be below this average, while experienced or veteran players will be above this.

So in other words, you want to punish new players even more, as if trial mech deathtraps, inexistant tutorials, unintuitive mechanics and a crippled default 3PV weren't enough already?

Quote

New players can earn enough money to buy several light or medium Mechs with just their cadet bonus, or can opt to buy 1 or 2 heavies, or 1 assault. In fact a new player can buy their very first Mech within just a handful of matches, begin upgrading and acquiring new permanent equipment for future Mechs.

That is without the mandatory DHS upgrade, optional XL engines and modules of course, assuming the new players won't experiment with equipment and upgrades and make errors in their mech designs because everything is explained so fine in the non existing tutorials and other non-existent info in the UI alongside the general mech building advises (non-existent naturally).

Quote

If your Mech is destroyed to a roaming band of Jenners early on, you can jump out of that match and into a new one right away – potentially doubling your C-Bills to 1.2 million per hour! This cuts down your time to purchase new Mechs and equipment.

Wait, what? So you're saying crappy play will double your income? I thought you'd have to perform well in the matches to get a good income, how can you achieve that when you die early? Something seems flawed here, considering the best payouts are usually on games where i don't die until end and deal out massively in the process. Oh you said 'potentially', so that means under unlikely circumstances, that only occur if certain planets are in alignment on a full moon - essentially propaganda as long as it's not backed up by facts. It should be easy to post the average income of players with more than 4 mechs.

Quote

Like game balance, we are constantly evaluating the economic environment and will continue to make small tweaks to keep the economics balanced.

How about big tweaks, like reverting the nerf? Oh, you assume people will not buy mechs with MC and premium then? Well, basing my assumptions on the reactions in the forums, it backfires because you'll get less money from mechbays - if anything, you should have increased income. But you have the data, draw your conclusions and act accordingly.

Quote

I also wanted to take time to clear up a few laundry items, mostly to do with communication and promises. I think I’ll start with a lesson from my wife: Never say never, or always. .... It’s a living breathing project that will never stay still, rather react to players, analytics and external influences, like new trends in gaming.

Same paragraph.

Quote

The community is very large, and represents a broad segment of players.

Numbers?

Quote

There are vocal minorities and silent majorities on all subjects and we always have to balance between these groups.

That means essentially: you can stick your opinions, wishes and constructive feedback up your arse, as we will do however we please and back it but by a nebulous, silent majority. That is especially handy, as it never speaks to us, so we can make up stuff on the spot.

How do you know what the silent majority wants? Because if somebody voices his opinions he's automatically becoming a member of the vocal minority! Also, WHY THE **** DO YOU HAVE FORUMS IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA LISTEN TO THE FEEDBACK? Why do there even exist subforums like "Feature Suggestions", "Gameplay Balance", "Patch Feedback" and the like if you don't intend to ******* listen to what is postulated there as all of the content here is written by the vocal minority? Actually, you have PROVEN to be blatantly ignorant of the playerbases feedback, e.g. with 3PV, ECM and new player experience.

This is what enrages me the most, i can live with many of the current flaws (3PV is not much of an issue in my book apart from competitive play), but there are people here with 5000+ posts, and you're slapping them in the face with this 'developer update' and telling them they can kiss your butts and essentially flush their passion and work put into MWO down the toilet because you're intending to continue the process of making potentially (or better: likely) game-destructing decisions based on the voices in your head. Also you're trying to divide the players in two groups, one you'll listen to (but that never says something) and the other ones actively giving feedback, that's really offending and sounds like divide-and-conquer to me, as we should now blame the casual players for your bad decisions, i presume!?

It's definitely hard to say it, because i already dropped 200$ on this game with founder and PP and really, really want a successful MW-franchise to make Wot and CSS obsolete, but i'm starting to think that there's no way MWO will survive in your hands, and it perhaps is the best if you continue to screw up so much because there is a slight chance you will go bankrupt or at least will otherwise abandon MWO so that a competent company can take over and bring us the game we're craving for.

Quote

You will have already noticed a new form of communication since spring, largely due in part to focusing our efforts on the Ask the Devs format, and the monthly Creative Director updates.

Oh, you mean the cherry-picking-questions-as-we-please-ignoring-the-pressing-issues and the we-describe-our-world-of-unicorns-and-rainbows? That's not communication, that's propaganda.

Quote

Launch Event
With that out of the way, I’m really looking forward to the Launch Event in San Francisco, I’m very excited.

I hope you bring umbrellas as rotten-tomato-protection. But as you again can cherry-pick the applicants, you may just filter for ones that have 0 forum posts, so you're garanteed to only have the silent majority at your party.

Edited by ollo, 31 August 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[mack sabbath]

I read this, then looked at the game today and cringed a little.

http://mwomercs.com/...78#entry2710078

Chronojam, on 31 August 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

What are you talking about? Community warfare rolled out in January 2013.

Thanks CJ

Edited by Die Primate Die, 31 August 2013 - 09:54 AM.

[NATIONALCAPITALGAMING]

Sug, on 31 August 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

How is announcing CW is coming out in Winter '13, then in Spring '13, then to say we're starting "Stage 1" (which is nothing) at Launch, with the following stages coming out over the next year moving forward?

They literally have nothing to launch with after 2 years of development....

While I enjoy MWO and have hopes for it, three words sum up PGI for me.

Pathetic
Grandiose
Illusions.

Lies, lies lies. Development delays. Overpriced goods and services. Obvious disregard for majority of the community in the 3PV arena. A less than stellar public relations initiative and an abrasive CEO.

And how in the world does the game seem so stale when they have had 2 years to do this? Launching with more mechs and precious little else doesn't make it a launch event. It makes it a pig wearing lipstick.

PGI is infuriating. I'm a huge fan of the MW franchise. I'm not leaving, but holy hell. I have seldom seen a software company handle anything this poorly. And I've seen a few.

PGI - huge disappointment. IGP's involvement probably isn't helping the cause either.

[C E Dwyer]

Ranik Selesky, on 28 August 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

While I hate some of what SOE has done with Planetside 2. It doesn't even compare to what PGI has done to MWO.

I was refering to soe selling off the european everquest2 servers, to a german company who's corperate parent makes claims that pc games are the main cause of young people going postal with fire arms

[Tolkien]

I think the gaming media might finally be catching on to what is happening here...

(publications as well as blogs)
Penny arcade report The hardcore mechwarrior online community is in open revolt
GameFront A cautionary tale: The rage of the mechwarrior online community
Starburst Magazine Mechwarrior Online faces widespread accusations of false advertising
The Mittani MWO A failure to communicate
Loaded Dice What happened to mechwarrior online?


And just to play devil's advocate, I did some reading up on IGP and think that blaming them might be premature.

My reasoning is that the president of IGP is a guy called Kelly Zmak. Kelly has a very very long history of game making going back to ghostbusters on the atari, and including the original Mechwarrior, homeworld, and MW3 plus MW3 pirate's moon!

This guy might have had the 3pv shoehorned in, but he has been around long enough to know a thing about keeping to a schedule and delivering on promised content. I don't think we can blame all of the sh*twizardry we have seen around here on IGP.

link> http://www.mobygames...veloperId,3299/

Edited by Tolkien, 31 August 2013 - 11:44 AM.

[Lady Licker]

Well, looks like customer satisfaction hasn't taken any turns for the better in the last few months.

[CyBerkut]

Chronojam, on 31 August 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

What are you talking about? Community warfare rolled out in January 2013.

Pffft.... Community Warfare started back when Russ leaked in that podcast that 3PV was being looked at... in the forums, that is.

[Granimal]

Protection, on 27 August 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

You did it now Princess Bubblegum is on a rampage!

[JudgeDeathCZ]

For me this is not update at all.Just sumarization.
You are talking about communication but I do not see ANY valid information in this "update" .
And PGI do you know what is killing this game for me?LACK of COMMUNICATION.I remember that future roadmaps and then CDUs for rly valid information and some CC posts...but now...NOTHING.
We know nothing when/if we will have UI 2.0/CW/MASC/next mech/next map.And even if you apologize for lack of communication you are doing it again!
Hell we even do not know what will be next hero mech 2 days be4 patch...

[Anjian]

Tolkien, on 31 August 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

I think the gaming media might finally be catching on to what is happening here...

(publications as well as blogs)
Penny arcade report The hardcore mechwarrior online community is in open revolt
GameFront A cautionary tale: The rage of the mechwarrior online community
Starburst Magazine Mechwarrior Online faces widespread accusations of false advertising
The Mittani MWO A failure to communicate
Loaded Dice What happened to mechwarrior online?

Sounds like we did get "community warfare" after all.

[Commander Kobold]

Thuzel, on 30 August 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

I think that's the only reasonable way to look at it. What we engaged in with PGI for the Founder's sale was not a typical (legal) investment but more of a contract. We exchanged money in return for future promised items and services.

So the question now is, did they make good on their end? In order to determine that, we have to decide what constitutes the material aspects PGI's side of the agreement. Personally, I'm still compiling that list but I can already tell you that "no 3pv in mixed mode" is on there and they've definitely breached it.

You'd be wrong,I saw the original founders packages all the founders are entitled to are the Mechs Forum badge premium time that was part of the package the founders got exactly what was included in the package minus their names in the credits as of yet, claiming that the game being a specific way was part of the package is a falsification.

Wired, on 30 August 2013 - 09:33 PM, said:

Even if the project has stopped, this is still a good example of the gameplay the 3pv crowd actually wants. They are flighty beasts.

you have no proof of this

Anjian, on 31 August 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

Sounds like we did get "community warfare" after all.

it's funny when people claim to be hardcore about a beta game (I don't buy it either but it still technically is a beta) it goes right up there with people claiming to be competitive in a game that has yet to have any competitive aspects in it.

JudgeDeathCZ, on 31 August 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

For me this is not update at all.Just sumarization.
You are talking about communication but I do not see ANY valid information in this "update" .
And PGI do you know what is killing this game for me?LACK of COMMUNICATION.I remember that future roadmaps and then CDUs for rly valid information and some CC posts...but now...NOTHING.
We know nothing when/if we will have UI 2.0/CW/MASC/next mech/next map.And even if you apologize for lack of communication you are doing it again!
Hell we even do not know what will be next hero mech 2 days be4 patch...

If you really read the forums you'd know about UI 2.0 and they said CW will be (at least in some form) enabled at/during the launch party. I still don't see why people post like this without actually reading the Dev posts instead of skimming them then raging.

[warp103]

Tolkien, on 31 August 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

I think the gaming media might finally be catching on to what is happening here...

(publications as well as blogs)
Penny arcade report The hardcore mechwarrior online community is in open revolt
GameFront A cautionary tale: The rage of the mechwarrior online community
Starburst Magazine Mechwarrior Online faces widespread accusations of false advertising
The Mittani MWO A failure to communicate
Loaded Dice What happened to mechwarrior online?


And just to play devil's advocate, I did some reading up on IGP and think that blaming them might be premature.

My reasoning is that the president of IGP is a guy called Kelly Zmak. Kelly has a very very long history of game making going back to ghostbusters on the atari, and including the original Mechwarrior, homeworld, and MW3 plus MW3 pirate's moon!

This guy might have had the 3pv shoehorned in, but he has been around long enough to know a thing about keeping to a schedule and delivering on promised content. I don't think we can blame all of the sh*twizardry we have seen around here on IGP.

link> http://www.mobygames...veloperId,3299/

wow more news about the revolt. lol . Now wait 3 week when all the gaming news outlets see how MWO been run aground.
What really get me is this part from the news.
"Some players made blog posts calling Russ out for the apology, including one by a published BattleTech author that dissected the apology point by point".

you have BattleTech publisher, basically calling you out you know you have and/are trouble.
Not to talk about all that money PGI had to cough up.

Edited by warp103, 31 August 2013 - 06:43 PM.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

Omni 13, on 31 August 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

If you really read the forums you'd know about UI 2.0 and they said CW will be (at least in some form) enabled at/during the launch party. I still don't see why people post like this without actually reading the Dev posts instead of skimming them then raging.

I know UI 2.0 "maybe" at launch and CW will be discussed at launch event party...but nothing for sure or can you show me that info?

[R 13]

I know this will just get buried by the next 80 posts about how hard 3PV sucks, or how there are no TT rules that support jump sniping, etc. etc.

But I'm going to post it anyway and hope someone actually gets something from it:

Most of what I read anymore is non-constructive bickering over stuff that doesn't even matter. People have gotten so microscopically focused on minutia that they've lost sight of the fact that the game is still a work-in-progress, still optionally FREE to play if you are so inclined, and best of all, is a 'Mechwarrior game....not a knock-off, wannabe, generic clone. A legitimate Mechwarrior title: a phoenix resurrected by PGI/IGP from the fires of MSGS, FASA Interactive, Microprose, Activision, etc.

Steeped in lore and supported by a robust universe, with the blessing of the creator of it all no-less, it's so much more than big stompy robots. If you don't get that, you really need to read a book or two.

As for the "issues" everyone's all up in arms about....you guys need a hobby aside from finding people who are wrong on the internet....
Weapon balance will "always" be an issue depending on your perspective. 'Can't hit squat with a PPC or Gauss?...you're gonna have a bad time right now, particularly in competitive play. I fully expect the release of Clan Tech to throw the largest monkey wrench possible in the Meta. LRMs with no minimum range, PPCs that do the damage of a Gauss, weigh less, and take up fewer crits than a current PPC? Yeah, it'll be a mess.....The devs and programmers are human, but I also expect them to sort it out in the end for the same reason: They're human: they observe, reason, and learn.

As a (good) competitive 12v12 player, and oft-pug-dropper, 3PV has had NO IMPACT at all on my gaming experience. I don't use it, and I have yet to encounter a situation where I'm at all convinced that I was killed or disadvantaged by someone else using it.

Why? You ask? How could I think that?!? Well, because I'm not actively TRYING to find a problem with it just so I can whinge about it on the internet.

I think IGP/PGI have done a good job so far and the only thing I would fault any of them for would be possibly TOO MUCH transparency and occasionally speaking in absolutes ("never" "always", etc.) ...because that's just given the trolls something on which to focus their nerd-rage.

It's not easy to take something with as much canon baggage as the Mechwarrior/Battletech universe and get it right such that it has both mass appeal (necessary for making money and keeping the fun alive) and cater to the harder core folks who've played the TT and every prevous MW in existance.

As one of those hardcore folks (TT and PC games back to crescent-hawk, etc), I'm perfectly willing to allow n00bs their 3PV pretty-mech view, if it means I get to play a Battletech-based Mechwarrior game without having to mod some other game, or run something in Win '98 compatibility mode.

Thanks for all you do.
As a Geek/Yuppy/Technophile with slightly too much free time and slightly too much disposable income, I am your target demographic and I support what you are doing.

[nitra]

R 13, on 31 August 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

I know this will just get buried by the next 80 posts about how hard 3PV sucks, or how there are no TT rules that support jump sniping, etc. etc.

But I'm going to post it anyway and hope someone actually gets something from it:

Most of what I read anymore is non-constructive bickering over stuff that doesn't even matter. People have gotten so microscopically focused on minutia that they've lost sight of the fact that the game is still a work-in-progress, still optionally FREE to play if you are so inclined, and best of all, is a 'Mechwarrior game....not a knock-off, wannabe, generic clone. A legitimate Mechwarrior title: a phoenix resurrected by PGI/IGP from the fires of MSGS, FASA Interactive, Microprose, Activision, etc.

Steeped in lore and supported by a robust universe, with the blessing of the creator of it all no-less, it's so much more than big stompy robots. If you don't get that, you really need to read a book or two.

Would love to see this game you are referring to. Because what we have now is a far cry from it. If you want to be lenient, and say its there, its just needs to fleshed out then you may have a point. As it stands the game that is on our hard drives has lil to do with lore, no back story and is lacking in fundamental descriptions of how the in game tech works. while this may be unfair to some extent your observation of all this lore is also inaccurate as its not in game . could be ? yes . but so far no.

Quote

As for the "issues" everyone's all up in arms about....you guys need a hobby aside from finding people who are wrong on the internet....

Umm battle tech is this communities hobby.. im not even sure how you can even state that in a serious manner

Quote

Weapon balance will "always" be an issue depending on your perspective. 'Can't hit squat with a PPC or Gauss?...you're gonna have a bad time right now, particularly in competitive play. I fully expect the release of Clan Tech to throw the largest monkey wrench possible in the Meta. LRMs with no minimum range, PPCs that do the damage of a Gauss, weigh less, and take up fewer crits than a current PPC? Yeah, it'll be a mess.....The devs and programmers are human, but I also expect them to sort it out in the end for the same reason: They're human: they observe, reason, and learn.

obviously your skimming the forums because the major issues is not about the weapon balance its about the end product not being the same thing marketed when we bought in . While some may have differing expectations on what that may be, the game as it stands is not what was sold in june 2012. Thus the backlash.

As far as the weapon balance goes it was highlighted back in closed beta what the problem was (convergence) and several several solutions to that problem was discussed but PGI shot them all down in favor of what we have now . If they would have tackled the problem from the start they would have a lot less issues than they have now but they stubbornly keep pursuing their implementation, although its proven its self quite flawed.

Quote

As a (good) competitive 12v12 player, and oft-pug-dropper, 3PV has had NO IMPACT at all on my gaming experience. I don't use it, and I have yet to encounter a situation where I'm at all convinced that I was killed or disadvantaged by someone else using it.

Why? You ask? How could I think that?!? Well, because I'm not actively TRYING to find a problem with it just so I can whinge about it on the internet.

You cant tell if 3pv is putting you at a disadvantage , your to busy working on the mechs you can see. The pics and videos speak for them selves 3pv is flawed even more so for noobs it is just a plain broken feature. it was discussed to death back in the original 3pv thread and every major point that was outlined against 3pv was not addressed by pgi . and even their own goals were not addressed. 3pv is a big fat failure. for something to be bull headed through and end up in such a mess one would have to be obtuse not to question pgi's efforts into implementing what they created.

Quote

I think IGP/PGI have done a good job so far and the only thing I would fault any of them for would be possibly TOO MUCH transparency and occasionally speaking in absolutes ("never" "always", etc.) ...because that's just given the trolls something on which to focus their nerd-rage.

"The nerds focusing their nerd rage" is actually consumers providing what should have been considered valuable feed back to improve the overall game. This transparency you speak of is more akin to obsidian. These "trolls" dont need any more fodder than what was outlined back in 2012 because pgi outlined a entirely different game than what we have today.

Quote

It's not easy to take something with as much canon baggage as the Mechwarrior/Battletech universe and get it right such that it has both mass appeal (necessary for making money and keeping the fun alive) and cater to the harder core folks who've played the TT and every prevous MW in existance.

Actually it is apparently quite easy. all thats required is standing behind what you say and following through with results.
if we had a first person tactical shooter with varied game play and the the outline for community war fare we would have a lot more positive community than what we have today.

Quote

As one of those hardcore folks (TT and PC games back to crescent-hawk, etc), I'm perfectly willing to allow n00bs their 3PV pretty-mech view, if it means I get to play a Battletech-based Mechwarrior game without having to mod some other game, or run something in Win '98 compatibility mode.

Expectations for some its alot lower than others.
speaking for my self, with this being 2013 and being part of a 5million dollar + campaign to get this game created i have a bit higher expectations . more akin to getting what i payed for back in 2012.

Quote

Thanks for all you do.
As a Geek/Yuppy/Technophile with slightly too much free time and slightly too much disposable income, I am your target demographic and I support what you are doing.

while I appreciate the hard work they have done i am not going to quit pushing for the orginal vision that i was sold in 2012
for there is no reason why they can not accomplish this . they had the money , they had the fan base, we should have had the game.

Edited by nitra, 31 August 2013 - 08:11 PM.