39 replies to this topic

[HRR Insanity]

http://games.slashdo...mmunity-warfare

Bad press... it's just the beginning.

You can still fix this... you know that right?

All you have to do is stop making terrible decisions. Ask for help. Heck, I'll help you. For free.

Just ask.

[Inconspicuous]

It seems kind of silly the extremes they will go to to not give us the separate 1pv queue for all modes...

[Hauser]

To quote one of the comments on Slashdot: I wonder what the heck the submitter / article author is smoking?

Personally I'm not happy with some of the changes on principle but their execution has been limited enough not to affect the game in a major way. I'm starting to think this community would be better of without some players.

Edited by Hauser, 01 September 2013 - 01:11 AM.

[DeadlyNerd]

Inconspicuous, on 31 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

It seems kind of silly the extremes they will go to to not give us the separate 1pv queue for all modes...

That's ego for you.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

Looks like a full smear campaign. The article has 3 pages of text and not one single positive mention. Really? Call that objective journalism?

[Tolkien]

IV Amen, on 01 September 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

Looks like a full smear campaign. The article has 3 pages of text and not one single positive mention. Really? Call that objective journalism?

When a company has a history of failing to deliver it takes a lot of text to review the past missteps. Also when they blatantly go back on a commitment to the community it drowns out the positive press they would otherwise get from raising 100k for cancer research.

This is why it's so much harder to build a reputation than it is to destroy one through mistakes and mismanagement.

Having read the article, I can't find anything in it that is wrong, and that is damning (that there can be a 3 page article about a 1 year old game full of negativity that just happens to be true).

edit> I found an error in the article slashdot references, I think russ apologized 1 day after the patch while the article says 'several'.

Edited by Tolkien, 01 September 2013 - 02:29 AM.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

Tolkien, on 01 September 2013 - 02:04 AM, said:

When a company has a history of failing to deliver it takes a lot of text to review the past missteps. Also when they blatantly go back on a commitment to the community it drowns out the positive press they would otherwise get from raising 100k for cancer research.

This is why it's so much harder to build a reputation than it is to destroy one through mistakes and mismanagement.

I was questioning the authors ethics as a journalist, his view is not objective and is aimed to hit PGI hard. Some people want war and they got friends. I'm fine with that, but I suggest everyone thinks for themselves.

[Super Mono]

IV Amen, on 01 September 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

I was questioning the authors ethics as a journalist, his view is not objective and is aimed to hit PGI hard. Some people want war and they got friends. I'm fine with that, but I suggest everyone thinks for themselves.

You have zero ideas how journalism works if you think "not saying anything nice" is a valid criticism.

[RedThirteen]

Inconspicuous, on 31 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

It seems kind of silly the extremes they will go to to not give us the separate 1pv queue for all modes...

Insufficient ACTIVE playerbase to justify splitting already thin numbers into separate queues perhaps?

[Tsig]

For one, the author openly admitted that he's never played the game. He has no idea how the changes ACTUALLY affected the game. All he has is the word-of-mouth that whoever talked to him gave him. From the wording of the article, it looks to be some of the #SaveMWO crowd and it's already been shown they want this game to die.

For two, any time you write about a game, if you're going to have the gall to call yourself a journalist, then you'd better show some of the good points of the game too. The "Ghost Heat" he mentioned is supposed to be called "Heat Penalty" and, while it currently isn't represented in the game client itself, it's also helped to curb the massive boating problem we had prior to its implementation.

Cool Shot hasn't been an issue since it was actually put into the game. Not sure why this is even an issue anymore.

The "Forums" getting dissolved was for the best, since General Discussion turned into a Thread Dump where inane stuff was posted that really had nothing to do with MWO, or was just a place to dump your general hate of the game.

3rd Person View, the newest complaint of MWO. I'm still wondering if the people that complain about it, have actually used it and tried to be GOOD with it. If the only complaint they have is that it gives an unfair scouting advantage...ok. They can fix that. It's still a new feature, it's still being adjusted. So far, nothing gamebreaking, but we shall see.

[Asmosis]

you all know putting premade teams in with pug groups is a much bigger imbalance than 3PV right?

The article is a joke really, its disappointing something that bias gets published.

[Tolkien]

You make some good points Tsig, so I'll try to answer them the best I can.

Tsig, on 01 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

For one, the author openly admitted that he's never played the game. He has no idea how the changes ACTUALLY affected the game. All he has is the word-of-mouth that whoever talked to him gave him. From the wording of the article, it looks to be some of the #SaveMWO crowd and it's already been shown they want this game to die.

I'm actually glad he mentions he's never played the game as it shows he has integrity. Do keep in mind that the title of the article is "A Cautionary Tale: The Rage of the Mechwarrior Online Community" so he is not writing about the game, he is writing about the community, so talking to members of the community is what you do to write an article like that. I am not a part of #saveMWO, though having listened to all 3 of their town hall meetings I'm 99% sure they are not trying to destroy the game. Some of their members might have said dumb stuff but if you go the vcrs podcast and listen through all 4 hours you might be pleasantly surprised to hear their hearts are in the right place *mostly*.

Tsig, on 01 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

For two, any time you write about a game, if you're going to have the gall to call yourself a journalist, then you'd better show some of the good points of the game too. The "Ghost Heat" he mentioned is supposed to be called "Heat Penalty" and, while it currently isn't represented in the game client itself, it's also helped to curb the massive boating problem we had prior to its implementation.

Well again I have to point out he's not writing about the game, he's writing about "The Rage of the Mechwarrior Online Community", so while I do agree he should have mentioned some of the nice things the community has done like raise ~100k for cancer research via the Sarah's Jenner, it's debatable if that fits into an article about rage. I do think he should have mentioned it though since it would show that the community has a caring side and is not just a group of rabid fanatics.

Tsig, on 01 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Cool Shot hasn't been an issue since it was actually put into the game. Not sure why this is even an issue anymore.

You're right, but as I remember it the MC version of cool shot was originally 1 slot for 18 heat, while the cbill versions were 2 slots for 9+9 heat. It wasn't until the forums screamed bloody murder that Paul revised consumables to have the cbill versions == the MC versions in terms of function. I still remember a post of his saying 'think of it this way it's an advantage to have two smaller uses'. I guess he didn't consider using 2 module slots for the same effect to be a disadvantage? derp? The article could have been clearer on the issue but it does still discuss the salient points that lead to community disturbance. The inclusion of a coolant function that the devs said they were generally against and the *near* inclusion of a consumable that would grant a pay to win style advantage.

Tsig, on 01 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

The "Forums" getting dissolved was for the best, since General Discussion turned into a Thread Dump where inane stuff was posted that really had nothing to do with MWO, or was just a place to dump your general hate of the game.

I don't actually have much opinion on this one since I didn't really hang around the General forums and actually didn't notice their being split very much. Some people got quite stirred up by it though so that's why it's in the article.

Tsig, on 01 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

3rd Person View, the newest complaint of MWO. I'm still wondering if the people that complain about it, have actually used it and tried to be GOOD with it. If the only complaint they have is that it gives an unfair scouting advantage...ok. They can fix that. It's still a new feature, it's still being adjusted. So far, nothing gamebreaking, but we shall see.

This one I do have strong feelings on it, not because the current implementation is too strong (we both know they are going to buff it since it is supposed to be to help new users....). The disappointment on my side comes from all of the media in 2012 prior to the founders program opening up talking about a 'sim' and an exclusively first person view game. When I first pitched in $120 to support development it was stated clearly by the devs that 3pv would never come in.
They eventually backtracked on this to 'broaden the appeal' but at least promised that people would never have to use or have to play against others using 3pv so that calmed me down.

They stuck it in anyway and didn't give us the separated queues they said they would which is a complete jerk move to make... This despite pretty overwhelming evidence the players don't want it.

So yeah, as a sim fan and a founder who handed over $120 I was fine that community warfare was 6+ months late, and now delayed even past launch, I was fine that the clans were supposed to show up in June are now a year out, I was even fine to give them another $80 for that overlord pack since they were still supposedly working on the game they had advertised to us back in 2012. 3pv is the first time they've outright lied and not just 'missed another deadline'.

So the current 3pv is not helping the new players it is supposed to help because it sucks, but at the same time it lets people peek over ridges (try frozen city night, and you can often see a drone peeking over the crow's nest at the corner) and is a slap in the face to those who gave them money *specifically* to fund a 1pv sim game, not mechassault online.

I have cancelled my overlord pack until we get the split queues and would refund my founders pack if I could since I would not have purchased it to support a 3pv mechwarrior game. This is why I and a few others are upset.

Edited by Tolkien, 01 September 2013 - 03:20 AM.

[Tsig]

Asmosis, PGI has already stated they're working on something for groups of 2-11...until we see more about that, the current system is going to continue to be used. To be entirely honest, whether I'm solo dropping or dropping with 3 of my friends, I really can't tell the difference between players that are grouped and players that aren't. Even when I drop with 3 of my friends and we stick together and focus fire...I still lose about as often as I win. It's entirely dependent on the rest of the team whether or not we'll win. If the other 8 players on our team bite it before we've managed to kill off 8 of the enemy team...then we're not going to win, because we've all likely gotten the {Scrap} kicked out of us too. If one team has superior teamwork, then that team will win, whether that team has a 4-man premade on it or not.

[Tolkien]

Tsig, on 01 September 2013 - 03:23 AM, said:

Asmosis, PGI has already stated they're working on something for groups of 2-11...until we see more about that, the current system is going to continue to be used. To be entirely honest, whether I'm solo dropping or dropping with 3 of my friends, I really can't tell the difference between players that are grouped and players that aren't. Even when I drop with 3 of my friends and we stick together and focus fire...I still lose about as often as I win. It's entirely dependent on the rest of the team whether or not we'll win. If the other 8 players on our team bite it before we've managed to kill off 8 of the enemy team...then we're not going to win, because we've all likely gotten the {Scrap} kicked out of us too. If one team has superior teamwork, then that team will win, whether that team has a 4-man premade on it or not.

I think the game also tends to snowball out of control, such that a loss of 2 mechs to 0 is nearly impossible to come back from. I also get the feeling that in this game an individual or small group usually can't win the match for their team, but they can certainly lose it if they suicide, or get caught out of position.

[Cybermech]

you know what tolkien you and your crying babbies can go else where.
I'm sick of you guys ruining MY game time, from all the crying on the forums for the last year that HAS FORCED people not to look at these forums.
Over the next while I will be pushing for more strong hand to deal with the EVER continuing problem that has been destroying this game.

what the hell did we the community do to you guys to deserve all these problem for over a year now?
why do we have to log on and put up with this EVERYDAY?
how many times do I have to point out the crying on this forums has done more damage then anything else?

[redacted], your involved, you been in every post linking these lies and then pretending that they are facts.
no there not and you know it.

"saveMWO" should rot in the hell it deserves to be in.

Edited by Egomane, 01 September 2013 - 04:13 AM.
CoC violation

[Muffin Stump]

This is a fun game.

[AlexEss]

IV Amen, on 01 September 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

I was questioning the authors ethics as a journalist, his view is not objective and is aimed to hit PGI hard. Some people want war and they got friends. I'm fine with that, but I suggest everyone thinks for themselves.

it is ok..the author would not know journalism if it jumped up and bit him/her in the behind. It is the curse of the modern media, anyone with a keyboard think they can be a "journalist".. Most of them fail very hard at the basics.

[Tsig]

Tolkien, on 01 September 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:

This one I do have strong feelings on it, not because the current implementation is too strong (we both know they are going to buff it since it is supposed to be to help new users....). The disappointment on my side comes from all of the media in 2012 prior to the founders program opening up talking about a 'sim' and an exclusively first person view game. When I first pitched in $120 to support development it was stated clearly by the devs that 3pv would never come in.
They eventually backtracked on this to 'broaden the appeal' but at least promised that people would never have to use or have to play against others using 3pv so that calmed me down.

They stuck it in anyway and didn't give us the separated queues they said they would which is a complete jerk move to make... This despite pretty overwhelming evidence the players don't want it.

So yeah, as a sim fan and a founder who handed over $120 I was fine that community warfare was 6+ months late, and now delayed even past launch, I was fine that the clans were supposed to show up in June are now a year out, I was even fine to give them another $80 for that overlord pack since they were still supposedly working on the game they had advertised to us back in 2012. 3pv is the first time they've outright lied and not just 'missed another deadline'.

So the current 3pv is not helping the new players it is supposed to help because it sucks, but at the same time it lets people peek over ridges (try frozen city night, and you can often see a drone peeking over the crow's nest at the corner) and is a slap in the face to those who gave them money *specifically* to fund a 1pv sim game, not mechassault online.

I have cancelled my overlord pack until we get the split queues and would refund my founders pack if I could since I would not have purchased it to support a 3pv mechwarrior game. This is why I and a few others are upset.

Tolkien, on 01 September 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

I think the game also tends to snowball out of control, such that a loss of 2 mechs to 0 is nearly impossible to come back from. I also get the feeling that in this game an individual or small group usually can't win the match for their team, but they can certainly lose it if they suicide, or get caught out of position.

I agree with you about the snowball and for 8v8, yes, 2-3 mechs to 0 did tend to snowball, but I've seen a lot of much closer matches with 12v12. I've seen several matches come back from a 5-0 deficit to make it a much closer game...but that might have been because the 5 mechs that died did quite a bit of damage before they died and the other team just wasn't focus firing well enough.

As for 3PV, when I bought my founder's pack, I didn't care one way or the other about how much of a sim this game was going to be. As long as it played like a Mechwarrior game and not a Mechassault game, I'm happy. So, on this point, I guess we're just going to have different opinions about it. I respect your opinions on 3PV, but I do not agree with them.

[Tolkien]

Cybermech, on 01 September 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

you know what tolkien you and your crying babbies can go else where.
I'm sick of you guys ruining MY game time, from all the crying on the forums for the last year that HAS FORCED people not to look at these forums.
Over the next while I will be pushing for more strong hand to deal with the EVER continuing problem that has been destroying this game.

what the hell did we the community do to you guys to deserve all these problem for over a year now?
why do we have to log on and put up with this EVERYDAY?
how many times do I have to point out the crying on this forums has done more damage then anything else?

[redacted], your involved, you been in every post linking these lies and then pretending that they are facts.
no there not and you know it.

"saveMWO" should rot in the hell it deserves to be in.

Cybermech you make yourself hard to like, but I'll try.

The reason I complain isn't to try to destroy anything, it's to try to effect change in a positive direction. No one complains about something they don't care about unless they have some sort of a personality disorder or serious problems. The vast majority of people complaining one way or the other are doing so because they honestly believe their reasoning and opinions on the topic. For example, reload and rearm was an issue that caused a lot of digital ink to be spilled on both sides of the debate. Some believe to this day they were wrong to take it out, while others believe to this day that it was the first bullet they dodged. I'm pretty indifferent on that issue but I think it shows how reasonable people can both disagree, and be vocal about their opinions.

Generally in life if you don't stand up for yourself and your beliefs you'll be taken on a ride and if you don't like where that ride goes you'll have no one to blame but yourself. I'm guessing because of your spelling of 'babbies vs. babies', 'your vs. you're' 'there vs. they're' that you're a younger guy and might not have learned this lesson the hard way yet, but do keep an eye out for your own sake.

I also resent the suggestion that I have forced anyone to not look at the forums as I am a pretty easy guy to talk to, and don't think I'm unpleasant or abusive.

Edited by Egomane, 01 September 2013 - 04:14 AM.
quote cleaned up

[Tolkien]

Tsig, on 01 September 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

I agree with you about the snowball and for 8v8, yes, 2-3 mechs to 0 did tend to snowball, but I've seen a lot of much closer matches with 12v12. I've seen several matches come back from a 5-0 deficit to make it a much closer game...but that might have been because the 5 mechs that died did quite a bit of damage before they died and the other team just wasn't focus firing well enough.

I think 12v12 has been better about snowballing and is an improvement. I think this just comes down to the bigger number in the denominator, where in a 2v2 game the first loss would leave the other team at a 2v1 disadvantage, in 12v12 it's an ~8% difference and much more recoverable.

Tsig, on 01 September 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

As for 3PV, when I bought my founder's pack, I didn't care one way or the other about how much of a sim this game was going to be. As long as it played like a Mechwarrior game and not a Mechassault game, I'm happy. So, on this point, I guess we're just going to have different opinions about it. I respect your opinions on 3PV, but I do not agree with them.

That's fair and thank you for hearing me out. I do want to say that right up until 3pv I was still actively trying to bring my friends into the game, and back in the day even bought one a basic founder's pack prior to open beta so he could come check it out. I also bought the overlord pack when that came out since I really wanted them to keep toiling away at the long delayed but still awesome ideas they had presented in 2012.... with 3pv though... well now I feel explicitly lied to and that twigged something in my brain. Anyway, that's enough out of me for now.