Jump to content

Thanks, No, Really


84 replies to this topic

#81 pbiggz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 4,684 posts
  • LocationOutreach

Posted 19 September 2013 - 06:16 AM

View PostSandpit, on 18 September 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

They apologize for the same reasons anyone else apologizes. Either they are sincerely sorry or merely to placate someone who is upset. That doesn't make it ok. You simply cannot promise a paying customer one thing and then deliver another and expect them to say "oh, ok well I guess I'll just quietly twiddle my thumbs and wish I had gotten what I originally ordered" there is not a single successful and legal business that could run like this.


The fact is, part of this community (and you among them) still have your panties in a knot because they implemented 3pv. Despite the fact that they did it in a way that causes little or no change to anyone who prefers 1pv and gives 3pv users no advantage.

There are many reasons for this. But first, progression models for buisness. There are 2 models Im gonna talk about, the waterfall model and the cyclical model.

The waterfall model is the way you THINK games are made, and some games are made that way, but its a dangerous way to develop and I will tell you why. Essentially the waterfall model makes a detailed plan of every stage of production, however it doesn't take into account technical issues and other unforseen factors, so it's difficult to sidestep an issue without dramatically increasing your production time.

The cyclical model is more of a Design-implement-debug cycle, where features are implemented 1 by 1 and if technical issues are found, it is much easier to sidestep those issues and find solutions.

In the case of 3pv, they found that splitting ques would cause a myriad of issues such as elongated que times and artificial seperation of the playerbase, so they found a way to implement it without those issues. Then when everyone got mad they tried to clarify (admittedly badly) why they had made that decision.

Most game companies use the cyclical model to develop, anyone with sense would. This isnt about apologies, this is about you not liking a feature on a simple prinicple and refusing to listen to reason because the game isnt EXACTLY what you were told it would be.

#82 Jazerek

    Rookie

  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:31 AM

Long live the Battletech era!

#83 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:37 AM

View PostHelmer, on 17 September 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

Except for , you know, disrespecting a whole community by trashing a game to see it fail because they have issues and are looking for payback. Being negative and destructive is always easier, being a positive influence and helpful is work.



Cheers.


At this moment, it starts from the top does it not? If PGI has provided the things people have wanted (CW, private matches, better balance, better communication), it would trickle down to them better than it is currently.

It's hard to defend a game that isn't ready to meet the true critics... the players (assuming that they are honest with themselves).

#84 Least Action Jackson

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 92 posts
  • LocationJust outside the Bomb Factory

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:53 AM

Posted Image

+1

#85 frogczar

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 39 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 06:13 AM

Thank you PGI. I love this game, even as it is. I started playing this summer and I look forward to the future.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users