561 replies to this topic

[Jez]

This game deserves the slamming its getting on Metacritic. MWO doesn't even have the basics that every game should have at launch. It is simply amazing that PGI went ahead with launch without:
- documentation of features
- a tutorial (don't say we have one b/c what we have now is in beta test and is only good for mech movement),
- in game communication tools (especially crazy since this is a multiplayer game)
- in game music (there's not even atmospheric audio in the mech lab)

These are freaking basic core stuff that any multiplayer, MMO, or online game should have! MWO and PGI are going to take a pounding and rightfully so.

[Lonestar1771]

Everyone knew that people were going to slam PGI and MWO. Even PGI knew that, but instead of correcting the issues they ignored them and continued on business as usual. I think it's laughable that people blame this community when PGI is the one that created it.

[Kraven Kor]

Aethon, on 17 September 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

This is precisely why I originally came here. I have since come to the conclusion that MWLL was a superior game in virtually every way, especially considering the features that were due to be released soon...that is, until PGI shut it down because they were afraid of competition from a free mod that was more professionally made than their own commercial product. This both speaks well of MWLL's dev team, and very poorly of IGP/PGI.

Oh well...once MWO dies, MWLL can resume, and we will end up with a better game, with more content and fewer bugs.

I respectfully and vehemently disagree. MW:LL had no continuity (once you logged off a server you lost all progress, generally.) The graphics were far, far worse (though environments "looked better" in many ways, the mechs themselves were kind of terrible, but that is just my opinion. And the die-respawn-die-respawn-die gameplay was, to me, infuriating.

Zerberus, on 17 September 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

This is entirely false and the people that continue to perpetuate it on these forums need to get their facts straight.

The MW:LL team stopped of their own free will without any contact from PGI or IGP.

Now mind you, that is not to say that they would not have been stopped eventually, but it factually did not happen even remotely the way you portray it.

Aethon, on 17 September 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

So, what you are saying is that Russ Bullock did not talk to the MWLL dev team and tell them they had to cease development at the end of that year, NOT add persistent stat tracking and the mechlab, etc.

You obviously were not there, and obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

And you *were* there?

I seem to recall the MW:LL guys explaining the entire situation and there were no mentions of PGI/IGP rattling their saber or anything. Could be wrong.

Heffay, on 18 September 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

Nope, and for this very good reason alone.

Did you know they are also trying to sabotage the wikipedia page for MWO? The administrators finally had to lock it down after removing all the misinformation.

Was there in fact an uproar over 3rd Person View?

Yes.

Does this uproar thus have a proper place in the history books for MWO?

Yes.

Nobody is "sabotaging" the Wiki page. Just trying to get their version of events mentioned, and quite frankly, the way they reversed their stance on all this earned PGI that black eye. I know you want to paint this as some smear campaign, but PGI did this to themselves and that fact belongs on the wiki page. It actually happened. The wording of it might need to be carefully considered, sure, but it is an event that did occur during the development of MWO and it deserves to be mentioned.

If PGI wants to overcome their mistakes, they need to own up to them. They have, to an extent, but that Wiki page needs to include an as-unbiased-as-possible mention of the 3PV fiasco.

[Magic Murder Bag]

Kraven Kor, on 18 September 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

I respectfully and vehemently disagree. MW:LL had no continuity (once you logged off a server you lost all progress, generally.) The graphics were far, far worse (though environments "looked better" in many ways, the mechs themselves were kind of terrible, but that is just my opinion. And the die-respawn-die-respawn-die gameplay was, to me, infuriating.





And you *were* there?

I seem to recall the MW:LL guys explaining the entire situation and there were no mentions of PGI/IGP rattling their saber or anything. Could be wrong.



Was there in fact an uproar over 3rd Person View?

Yes.

Does this uproar thus have a proper place in the history books for MWO?

Yes.

Nobody is "sabotaging" the Wiki page. Just trying to get their version of events mentioned, and quite frankly, the way they reversed their stance on all this earned PGI that black eye. I know you want to paint this as some smear campaign, but PGI did this to themselves and that fact belongs on the wiki page. It actually happened. The wording of it might need to be carefully considered, sure, but it is an event that did occur during the development of MWO and it deserves to be mentioned.

If PGI wants to overcome their mistakes, they need to own up to them. They have, to an extent, but that Wiki page needs to include an as-unbiased-as-possible mention of the 3PV fiasco.

The problem is that it's nearly impossible to have an unbiased view of the 3PV debacle (or anything for that matter). It's human nature that everyone has some degree of bias, and this....mess......overclocked most of the player base's bias faster than my ASUS Sabre tooth motherboard on a good day. Of course I'm not defending PGI here as i believe that they have figuratively shot themselves in the grognards with an LB-X AC10 on many points in their development, but that doesn't stop me from playing the game itself (least till the angry horde causes the servers to shut down permanently).

[AC]

Sam Donelly, on 17 September 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

Aaaaaand nope, nothing up their sleeves. All Champion mech trials for launch? Sounds like they finally acknowledged that stock mechs are terribly uncompetitive.

They made them that way with the unrealistic slot system and the heat scaling. If stock mechs are so absolutely horrid (and they come from battletech), perhaps your battletech game needs a closer look at balancing.

[Heffay]

Kraven Kor, on 18 September 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Was there in fact an uproar over 3rd Person View?

Yes.

Does this uproar thus have a proper place in the history books for MWO?

Yes.

Nobody is "sabotaging" the Wiki page. Just trying to get their version of events mentioned, and quite frankly, the way they reversed their stance on all this earned PGI that black eye. I know you want to paint this as some smear campaign, but PGI did this to themselves and that fact belongs on the wiki page. It actually happened. The wording of it might need to be carefully considered, sure, but it is an event that did occur during the development of MWO and it deserves to be mentioned.

If PGI wants to overcome their mistakes, they need to own up to them. They have, to an extent, but that Wiki page needs to include an as-unbiased-as-possible mention of the 3PV fiasco.

Well, according to the Wikipedia administrators, it doesn't belong there as it's overblown, people were petitioning for changes, the trusted sources weren't really trusted sources, etc, etc, etc.

Small vocal minority. End of story.

[Deathlike]

Magic Murder Bag, on 18 September 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

Does anyone even pay attention to Metacritic anymore at this rate?

It's the new ForumWarrior game for those that defend/hate PGI. Why play MWO when you can fake reviews?

Heffay, on 18 September 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

Well, according to the Wikipedia administrators, it doesn't belong there as it's overblown, people were petitioning for changes, the trusted sources weren't really trusted sources, etc, etc, etc.

Small vocal minority. End of story.

You can't always sweep things under a rug and pretend it didn't happen. Otherwise, there's just more unnecessary rage to be had.

[Mindwiper]

AC, on 18 September 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

They made them that way with the unrealistic slot system and the heat scaling. If stock mechs are so absolutely horrid (and they come from battletech), perhaps your battletech game needs a closer look at balancing.

BEST JOKE EVER!

[Jacob Side]

Jez, on 18 September 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

This game deserves the slamming its getting on Metacritic. MWO doesn't even have the basics that every game should have at launch. It is simply amazing that PGI went ahead with launch without:
- documentation of features
- a tutorial (don't say we have one b/c what we have now is in beta test and is only good for mech movement),
- in game communication tools (especially crazy since this is a multiplayer game)
- in game music (there's not even atmospheric audio in the mech lab)

These are freaking basic core stuff that any multiplayer, MMO, or online game should have! MWO and PGI are going to take a pounding and rightfully so.

Any game I play online I don't use the in game voice. I don't want to listen to 12 years old screaming in my ear or self entitled whiners complain about everything under the sun

OH NO!!!! no music! Guess what happens to the music slider, yup the sucker get turned the hell off....

Game is so terrible because no in game music. Going to delete it off my hard drive right now.

Content is coming guys hold your horses seriously.
PGI does not have to tell us when or why things are not out yet.
Really they don't.....

[Heffay]

Deathlike, on 18 September 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

You can't always sweep things under a rug and pretend it didn't happen. Otherwise, there's just more unnecessary rage to be had.

But the "incident" doesn't meet the standards that Wikipedia sets for information. They've tried to submit it over and over again, and it keeps getting rejected for a number of reasons. Heck, the people getting rejected are starting to accuse the Wikipedia mods of being IGP employees!

It's just ridiculous.

[Jakob Knight]

Heffay, on 18 September 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

Well, according to the Wikipedia administrators, it doesn't belong there as it's overblown, people were petitioning for changes, the trusted sources weren't really trusted sources, etc, etc, etc.

Small vocal minority. End of story.

I.e....mob rule is the way to go.

Having read some of the wiki entry on the subject before it was pulled, I agree some of it didn't belong on the wiki. At the same time, it deserves mention in the same way 'future prospects' or 'history' deserve to be there, as facts affecting the definition of the game.

An unbiased view would simply list the facts. "On date XXXX, Developer PGI released the following statement <insert relevant and contextual quote about seperate queues and that no one would be forced to participate in 3PV matches>. On date XXXX, PGI implemented Third Person View option without the promised split queues and forced all games being played to offer this mode. The issue, prefaced by a history of further and further divergence from initial statements that such a mode would not be part of the game and similar actions on other issues, sparked outrage and a split within the community and towards PGI. A statement apologizing for not notifying the playerbase of their intent to disgard their previous statements before implementation was made shortly thereafter, but included language some within the playerbase felt fell far short of what was needed and exposed more concerns about the decision making process that lead to the situation in the first place."

Such an entry as above are the cold facts, stripped of any of what the actions inferred or the rightous anger over the broken promises. No one could reasonably dispute what was reported, and it would still inform outside researchers of the situation at this point in MWOs game history. The entry of other games with similar periods in their history includes such mention (Star Wars Galaxies comes to mind). The question is if either side would leave it in, as it is not really as severe as the actions deserve, but those concerned with the impact of it upon MWO's earnings and reputation would also see it as a threat and exert influence to have any mention of it removed (bad publicity is the only sin to corp suits).

My own opinion.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 18 September 2013 - 09:09 AM.

[LoveLost85]

Heffay, on 18 September 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

Nope, and for this very good reason alone.

Did you know they are also trying to sabotage the wikipedia page for MWO? The administrators finally had to lock it down after removing all the misinformation.

agreed on all counts. additionally I think its pretty funny that all these people who try and ruin the game, trash talk it, sabotage it, try and drive off new players ect probably still drop almost every day and probably still buy MC. of course they will deny it, but even a totally naïve person can see through that im sure. its a great IP, a great game, and in relation to other mmos mwo is coming a long very nicely and at a great pace, to say otherwise just shows how ignorant a person can be imo. just look at firefall, the mmofps by some of the people who made WoW, its in beta still after like 7 years.

[Jez]

Jacob Side, on 18 September 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

Any game I play online I don't use the in game voice. I don't want to listen to 12 years old screaming in my ear or self entitled whiners complain about everything under the sun

OH NO!!!! no music! Guess what happens to the music slider, yup the sucker get turned the hell off....

Game is so terrible because no in game music. Going to delete it off my hard drive right now.

Content is coming guys hold your horses seriously.
PGI does not have to tell us when or why things are not out yet.
Really they don't.....

Are your standards so low that you find it acceptable for a modern day PC multiplayer FPS game to launch with only a 5 line, non-scrollable, 2-mode (global and team), chat window as its only communication tool? Really? You're going to make the argument that this game doesn't desperately need basic comm tools such as hot key messages (announcing what target you are engaging, call for help, etc) or map pinging? Screw that! PGI came up awfully short on damn near industry-standard comm tools for a product that is officially launched.

Game isn't terrible for not having music but it does immediately show that the quality of production is pretty poor. You realize that there is no audio (background music, atmospheric sounds, sound effects) at all while in mech lab. Let that sink in for a moment...there is no audio of any kind at all and this is a launch product. Not a beta, not an alpha, this is launch. Damn man, how the hell can you be okay with that?

In-match audio is not much better. We got Bitchin Betty, weapons fire, explosions, foot stomps, jump-jets. That's it. Oh wait...I forgot about the Heavy Metal's little tune that goes off everytime it makes a kill. There are no environmental sound effects of any kind. Like I said earlier, it doesn't make the game horrible but it makes it pretty obvious that the quality of production is just not there.

Edited by Jez, 18 September 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[Deathlike]

Heffay, on 18 September 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

But the "incident" doesn't meet the standards that Wikipedia sets for information. They've tried to submit it over and over again, and it keeps getting rejected for a number of reasons. Heck, the people getting rejected are starting to accuse the Wikipedia mods of being IGP employees!

It's just ridiculous.

Wikipedia has low/biased standards. Anything political or controversial - they are pretty much just as bad as any other resource.

However, since there IS an "apology/non-apology" post by Russ affirming the existence of "said problem", it doesn't suddenly become "something you don't add/mention".

Even in the EVE wiki page has mention of actual bad things that have happened to the game (I'm not one to verify since I don't play/care), so it's kinda one of those things that the playerbase has kinda forgiven and forget (to a degree).

In MWO, I haven't seen much forgiveness (if anything, just more denial than anything) and definitely not a lot of forgetting.

Edited by Deathlike, 18 September 2013 - 09:19 AM.

[Zerberus]

LoveLost85, on 18 September 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

agreed on all counts. additionally I think its pretty funny that all these people who try and ruin the game, trash talk it, sabotage it, try and drive off new players ect probably still drop almost every day and probably still buy MC......

^^ You just made me get it!

The Vocal minority is trying to drive off as many players as they can, so that some day they will eventually be the vocal majority. It`s pure genius!


... Or the dumbest idea yet to come from these forums.. Time will tell...

Edited by Zerberus, 18 September 2013 - 09:22 AM.

[Blowfeld]

So the beta is live now. Good job, will play once the beta is over for real.

[Heffay]

Deathlike, on 18 September 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Wikipedia has low/biased standards. Anything political or controversial - they are pretty much just as bad as any other resource.

However, since there IS an "apology/non-apology" post by Russ affirming the existence of "said problem", it doesn't suddenly become "something you don't add/mention".

Even in the EVE wiki page has mention of actual bad things that have happened to the game (I'm not one to verify since I don't play/care), so it's kinda one of those things that the playerbase has kinda forgiven and forget (to a degree).

In MWO, I haven't seen much forgiveness (if anything, just more denial than anything) and definitely not a lot of forgetting.

Well, the people trying to push the Wikipedia update shot themselves in the foot by petitioning others to update it as well. Once something goes from an incident to a crusade, it is no longer appropriate for wikipedia.

[Viper69]

Nice to know your totally unbiased poll worked out for you 12 mans.

[LoveLost85]

Zerberus, on 18 September 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

^^ You just made me get it!

The Vocal minority is trying to drive off as many players as they can, so that some day they will eventually be the vocal majority. It`s pure genius!


... Or the dumbest idea yet to come from these forums.. Time will tell...

woe is me and my inability to read tiny print with passive aggressive insults. well played sir, your a genius.

[Scav3ng3r]

LoveLost85, on 18 September 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

passive aggressive

I do not think these words mean, what you think these words mean.