1251 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

*stuff*

1) They did say they wouldn't when they said MWO will be a 1st person game. Obviously to you that could mean anything.
2) It was never "corrected in a manner as to not interfere with the more competition-oriented players". and it invalidates nothing.

It's obvious that you're talking about something which you have no knowledge of so i'll leave you to your "white-knighting".
I can't be bothered with idiots anymore.

[Telemetry]

Wolfways, on 21 September 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

1) They did say they wouldn't when they said MWO will be a 1st person game. Obviously to you that could mean anything.
2) It was never "corrected in a manner as to not interfere with the more competition-oriented players". and it invalidates nothing.

It's obvious that you're talking about something which you have no knowledge of so i'll leave you to your "white-knighting".
I can't be bothered with idiots anymore.

I think he's just pissed that the reviews are bad and the game population is dying. TeamSpeak servers are dead even in prime time. I couldn't find a 12 man group for the life of me last night and I won't play with 3pv so I didn't get to play. Hell, even pugs are having difficulty getting groups. This game is in a death spiral.

[Wolfways]

Telemetry, on 21 September 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

I think he's just pissed that the reviews are bad and the game population is dying. TeamSpeak servers are dead even in prime time. I couldn't find a 12 man group for the life of me last night and I won't play with 3pv so I didn't get to play. Hell, even pugs are having difficulty getting groups. This game is in a death spiral.

I hope not
I don't care about PGI, but i don't want the game to die (unless another company does something with the IP )...i still enjoy it.

[FLes]

Telemetry, on 21 September 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

I think he's just pissed that the reviews are bad and the game population is dying. TeamSpeak servers are dead even in prime time. I couldn't find a 12 man group for the life of me last night and I won't play with 3pv so I didn't get to play. Hell, even pugs are having difficulty getting groups. This game is in a death spiral.

True. I don't even play anymore, I just check the forums to see if some miracle happend. Like, some other developer is taking over MWO or something.

[Riptor]

I like how most positive reviews all just say "Its fun" or "its great" but never explaining why it is a fun or great game.

Meanwhile the more critical reviews (and im not talking about the 0 rating, mwo is many things but not a 0, its average at best and below average at worst) go into great detail about all the flaws the game has.

[Adridos]

Riptor, on 21 September 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

I like how most positive reviews all just say "Its fun" or "its great" but never explaining why it is a fun or great game.

Meanwhile the more critical reviews (and im not talking about the 0 rating, mwo is many things but not a 0, its average at best and below average at worst) go into great detail about all the flaws the game has.

In the end, neither of them are reviews. They are random/oranised bunch of sentences, but not a review.

A proper review does these things:

it's objective (like or dislike a feature, developer, etc. that stuff is what gets you an F if it appears in something you dared labling a review),

it summarizes both good AND bad points (so neither: "This game is fun, you should try it!", nor "This game sucks, you should keep clear!" in anything between such short sentences to a few page essays are really reviews),

it should have a summary and a final verdict, that is a finale of the whole work, not just a random rating/subjective opinion on the product (so no praising/bashing and then giving a score higher/lower than what would be the logical average),

and many more aspects that are far beyond the literacy of the average internet guy (which includes me, of course) or the so called "proffesional game reviewers." Don't call them reviews for the sake of all people who ever had the dis/pleasure of becoming a real reviewer and doing these things proffessionally, adhering to every aspect academics have put up for this subject to make something that is worth even looking at.

P.S. No offense to anyone who did a real review and posted it there (provided there is a person like that). I'm just fighting the ignorance in the gamer community.

[Wispsy]

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

I've seen the posts as well as the pictures... I guess you need glasses and a few lessons in sentence structure and reading comprehension - It has never been stated that 3pv would never make it into the game, end of story. As to their implementation of 3pv, i've already addressed that topic. Polls and threads get removed because of their utter lack of constructive criticism or feedback.

I do not do screenshots...but to be honest there were only 2 main reasons I was convinced into buying Founders when I heard of it (really liked mw4 mercs so was looking at playing it when it came out anyway). One it was online only, pvp is the only way for me to play. The other was that design pillar stating that it is and would remain 1st person only. Considering the advantage it gave in other games punishing you for playing 1st person and considering the large advantages it gives you in this game...well you can probably see why this is what sold it to me when I the type of person who does not like to play mechwarrior in 3rd person. I still do not use 3rd person now...however I am at a disadvantage because of this.

As far as the reviews go, well what do you expect? A launch which includes nothing, no event nothing new literally nothing and a whole load of pissed off "vocal minority" which do not apparently have the right to get annoyed when the game designers do a 180 on their initial promises made at the time people could buy into it. Couple that with the fact that the majority of the developer team is not very good at their own game and seem to not have a great understanding of how their own game even works, yet make many arbitrary and unnecessary balance changes whilst at the same time bringing out very few of the originally promised features (a few mechs and a couple of maps and 12v12).

Considering the whole "we are going into open beta now and the game will be officially launched when community warfare is done" well....yeah...

Edited by Wispsy, 21 September 2013 - 07:02 AM.

[Livewyr]

Wispsy, on 21 September 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

I do not do screenshots...but to be honest there were only 2 main reasons I was convinced into buying Founders when I heard of it (really liked mw4 mercs so was looking at playing it when it came out anyway). One it was online only, pvp is the only way for me to play. The other was that design pillar stating that it is and would remain 1st person only. Considering the advantage it gave in other games punishing you for playing 1st person and considering the large advantages it gives you in this game...well you can probably see why this is what sold it to me when I the type of person who does not like to play mechwarrior in 3rd person. I still do not use 3rd person now...however I am at a disadvantage because of this.

As far as the reviews go, well what do you expect? A launch which includes nothing, no event nothing new literally nothing and a whole load of pissed off "vocal minority" which do not apparently have the right to get annoyed when the game designers do a 180 on their initial promises made at the time people could buy into it. Couple that with the fact that the majority of the developer team is not very good at their own game and seem to not have a great understanding of how their own game even works, yet make many arbitrary and unnecessary balance changes whilst at the same time bringing out very few of the originally promised features (a few mechs and a couple of maps and 12v12).

Considering the whole "we are going into open beta now and the game will be officially launched when community warfare is done" well....yeah...

[Wolfways]

Wispsy, on 21 September 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

Couple that with the fact that the majority of the developer team is not very good at their own game

To be fair they probably play competatively much less than many "gamers", and when they do they probably have everyone on the enemy team trying to kill them

[Meta Orion]

No matter what anyone says on the forums about the current state of the game, the majority of the user reviews on metacritic currently are people trying their best to be honest.

The same game with the same flaws is not going to be a 7/10 or 8/10 to man A, even though it is to man B. Two different people can write up the exact same review banging on all the same points, and the actual score could differ 5 points, for instance.


By saying, "People giving bad scores are throwing a hissy fit / aren't real fans / are lying / etc" you are doing nothing but hurting the overall community by going out of your way to try and undermine people giving their honest opinions on the game.

Just remember, the same thing is said of people who give the game a mindless 9/10 or 10/10. AFAIK far more 'green' reviews are being deleted than 'yellow' or 'red' reviews, because green reviews go out of their way to attack or insult other reviews that aren't "giving justified reviews" or whatever.

Just because someone disagrees with you on the same subject does not mean they are "petty," or "entitled," or "manchildren".



This game is in release and nothing has changed other than the removal of the "beta shield" and thus players are tearing into it in the same way it deserves to be torn into. If PGI properly listened to its core audience six months ago, a year ago, two years ago, etc. This wouldn't be happening.* Instead, we'd have a game that may or may not have roughly the same amount of content, but a much higher level of quality overall.



If you go onto metacritic and post a 0/10 review "just because," or a 10/10 review "just because," you are doing nothing to help whatever effort you think you're assisting. If you give this game a 9/10 you better have a big paragraph written up explaining why other than "It is the best mechwarrior game in the last 5 years." Well, pal, it's also the only mechwarrior game in the last 5 years. Review ignored. That applies to the contrary as well.



That said, I wrote what I thought was a somewhat indepth review that takes in everything involving the game. That includes balance, patches, content and new added content, gameplay, as well as the developers. Overall I gave the game a 6/10. It could be a 7/10 if it had more game modes. Those are not bad scores if you take off $$$ gaming journalism glasses. I don't think I need to go into that anymore.

I still play the game sometimes. But I've lost all hope for anything changing many, many months ago. Why should I be hopeful now after release? PGI got all their money from Founders and BT fans during Beta. It is now in release and nothing is different. All I know of that changed over release was the C-Bill Orion - which, I love, but that's nothing compared to what you should expect from full release.


At this point, I'm merely hoping for MWO to die a quiet, quick death. Maybe I'll have another chance at a good MP BT/MW game 5-10 years down the line. I waited over a decade. I can wait another one. Next time, hopefully, we won't get a dev who's experience amounts to a tacked on MP component for DNF or a Pro Bass fishing minigame.

*Please don't target this single statement and go "AHA". It's just common business sense to listen to your audience and customers, especially ones who put hundreds of dollars into your product.

[DrxAbstract]

Wolfways, on 21 September 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

1) They did say they wouldn't when they said MWO will be a 1st person game. Obviously to you that could mean anything.
2) It was never "corrected in a manner as to not interfere with the more competition-oriented players". and it invalidates nothing.

It's obvious that you're talking about something which you have no knowledge of so i'll leave you to your "white-knighting".
I can't be bothered with idiots anymore.

Oh look, name calling! Not only that but i've no idea what i'm talking about... So it's white-knighting to address PGI's shortcomings, admit they've got a ways to go? I suspect it's because i refuse to accept your infantile view of the situation as the law of the land, more like, to have such a sweeping generalization used on me. In the end, you're wrong, plain and simple. Whether you accept it or not doesnt change the fact your position is built on a foundation if ignorance, spite and misinformation.

They never said they wouldnt. Obviously you lack basic reading comprehension, because i've seen the line you're referencing and, unlike you, i have it - It was never stated. Not ever. It's not how i chose to interpret the information, it's that you're applying hidden meaning to the words based on your expectations. Fact is you chose to read between the lines and convince yourself of fallacies and got burned... I thought you would have figured this out in highschool: just because a girl smiles at you doesnt mean she wants you.

That and, yes, it was corrected. Not being available in 12v12 drops - Do you know any competitive clans that run 4 man events? How does that work? So... it was removed from the section of the game where all current 'srs bsns' competition takes place and left in the portion where all the new players are and is otherwise inconsequential... Yep, resolved.

[Meta Orion]

Wolfways, on 21 September 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

To be fair they probably play competatively much less than many "gamers", and when they do they probably have everyone on the enemy team trying to kill them

That is a fair point. But I've seen some of their builds and the things they say. They have no understanding of the current meta at any one time. That's why they say things like, "SHS are viable," or "Stock mechs are competitive"

You don't say things like that to your forumites who play the game more than you and understand game mechanics better than you. You don't say things like that to guys who pull 1,000-1,500 damage regularly in their custom mechs, and then get demolished in trial mechs.

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Not being available in 12v12 drops - Do you know any competitive clans

People still do 12 mans?


New players don't use 3PV once they know how to turn it off.

I, however, use 3PV for risk-free scouting or for seeing around corners. It's broken and unhelpful to new players, and broken and gamechanging for good players.

[DrxAbstract]

Meta Orion, on 21 September 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

That is a fair point. But I've seen some of their builds and the things they say. They have no understanding of the current meta at any one time. That's why they say things like, "SHS are viable," or "Stock mechs are competitive"

You don't say things like that to your forumites who play the game more than you and understand game mechanics better than you. You don't say things like that to guys who pull 1,000-1,500 damage regularly in their custom mechs, and then get demolished in trial mechs.



People still do 12 mans?


New players don't use 3PV once they know how to turn it off.

I, however, use 3PV for risk-free scouting or for seeing around corners. It's broken and unhelpful to new players, and broken and gamechanging for good players.

Yet it has no effect in 'competitive' game play because it's disabled in 12v12 drops... So what's the issue? I dont care how people use it because its use goes both ways outside of 12mans.

[Toydolls]

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Oh look, name calling! Not only that but i've no idea what i'm talking about... So it's white-knighting to address PGI's shortcomings, admit they've got a ways to go? I suspect it's because i refuse to accept your infantile view of the situation as the law of the land, more like, to have such a sweeping generalization used on me. In the end, you're wrong, plain and simple. Whether you accept it or not doesnt change the fact your position is built on a foundation if ignorance, spite and misinformation.

They never said they wouldnt. Obviously you lack basic reading comprehension, because i've seen the line you're referencing and, unlike you, i have it - It was never stated. Not ever. It's not how i chose to interpret the information, it's that you're applying hidden meaning to the words based on your expectations. Fact is you chose to read between the lines and convince yourself of fallacies and got burned... I thought you would have figured this out in highschool: just because a girl smiles at you doesnt mean she wants you.

That and, yes, it was corrected. Not being available in 12v12 drops - Do you know any competitive clans that run 4 man events? How does that work? So... it was removed from the section of the game where all current 'srs bsns' competition takes place and left in the portion where all the new players are and is otherwise inconsequential... Yep, resolved.

Actually yes they did say they will NEVER bring 3rd pov into the game as I care very little for this subject you can find it yourself but your going to have to dig deep but no worries it's there

[Wolfways]

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Oh look, name calling! Not only that but i've no idea what i'm talking about... So it's white-knighting to address PGI's shortcomings, admit they've got a ways to go? I suspect it's because i refuse to accept your infantile view of the situation as the law of the land, more like, to have such a sweeping generalization used on me. In the end, you're wrong, plain and simple. Whether you accept it or not doesnt change the fact your position is built on a foundation if ignorance, spite and misinformation.

They never said they wouldnt. Obviously you lack basic reading comprehension, because i've seen the line you're referencing and, unlike you, i have it - It was never stated. Not ever. It's not how i chose to interpret the information, it's that you're applying hidden meaning to the words based on your expectations. Fact is you chose to read between the lines and convince yourself of fallacies and got burned... I thought you would have figured this out in highschool: just because a girl smiles at you doesnt mean she wants you.

That and, yes, it was corrected. Not being available in 12v12 drops - Do you know any competitive clans that run 4 man events? How does that work? So... it was removed from the section of the game where all current 'srs bsns' competition takes place and left in the portion where all the new players are and is otherwise inconsequential... Yep, resolved.

lol if someone says to me "I won't do this" i kind of expect them to not do it...you know, that being the normal thing to expect.
But you go ahead ignoring the proof you've been given and pretend i'm wrong and you're right because there's no way to prove your point of view.
If someone says to you "I won't do this" and you interpret that as "I might do this in the future" i can only presume you didn't do so well in english class...assuming english is your first language.

[DrxAbstract]

Wispsy, on 21 September 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

I do not do screenshots...but to be honest there were only 2 main reasons I was convinced into buying Founders when I heard of it (really liked mw4 mercs so was looking at playing it when it came out anyway). One it was online only, pvp is the only way for me to play. The other was that design pillar stating that it is and would remain 1st person only. Considering the advantage it gave in other games punishing you for playing 1st person and considering the large advantages it gives you in this game...well you can probably see why this is what sold it to me when I the type of person who does not like to play mechwarrior in 3rd person. I still do not use 3rd person now...however I am at a disadvantage because of this.

As far as the reviews go, well what do you expect? A launch which includes nothing, no event nothing new literally nothing and a whole load of pissed off "vocal minority" which do not apparently have the right to get annoyed when the game designers do a 180 on their initial promises made at the time people could buy into it. Couple that with the fact that the majority of the developer team is not very good at their own game and seem to not have a great understanding of how their own game even works, yet make many arbitrary and unnecessary balance changes whilst at the same time bringing out very few of the originally promised features (a few mechs and a couple of maps and 12v12).

Considering the whole "we are going into open beta now and the game will be officially launched when community warfare is done" well....yeah...

Well im sorry Wispsy but there was never a statement saying the game would never be 3pv.

I've seen all the material people cite and it's English 101. The only reason you'd conclude PGI's standing was 'no 3pv ever!' is because that's what you wanted and that's the expectation you formed through your misinterpretation of clearly worded information. I have a couple lawyer friends and while neither of them specialize in this kind of material, both of them agreed if you presented your case in a court of law your own evidence would get your case dismissed. It's quite simple - PGI never stated 3pv wouldnt make it into the game, despite how many times and different ways you say otherwise, it's simply not the case.

[Wolfways]

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

Yet it has no effect in 'competitive' game play because it's disabled in 12v12 drops... So what's the issue? I dont care how people use it because its use goes both ways outside of 12mans.

Well i don't know about anyone else but every time i drop i'm competing, even if it's a pug (unless i'm just testing some new build, in which case i'm still competing...just not as much ).

[DrxAbstract]

Toydolls, on 21 September 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

Actually yes they did say they will NEVER bring 3rd pov into the game as I care very little for this subject you can find it yourself but your going to have to dig deep but no worries it's there

Actually it's not. Someone just like you posted those pictures and cited the quotes and they were just as wrong as you are now - there is no evidence to support your claim because they never said they wouldnt do it, end of story. The only way to reach any conclusion otherwise requires twisting of words, and misconstruing the meaning or taking it entirely out of context. Such as using a year old quote of a Dev saying "MWO is 100% first person" as 'evidence' to support the argument of 'They said it would never be 3pv!' And really, how desperate does a person have to be to take such a comment so out of context to prove their point? It was a response to someone asking what view modes were currently available in the game, and by currently, that means At That Time. Dev says "MWO is 100% First Person" - How do you get "MWO will always be First Person" from the statement "MWO is 100% First Person"?

That's like going to a car dealership, asking if the cars only have 1 window, being told "yes, the cars have 1 window" then having it explained to you "Our cars have 1 window because it's important to the vehicle's aerodynamics, so 2 windows will be difficult". Then coming back a year later throwing a tantrum like a child and screaming at the dealer because cars now have 2 windows and your justification for your behavior is that the car dealer told you their cars would never have more than 1 window... That is the position you are supporting. That is why you are wrong.

[DrxAbstract]

Wolfways, on 21 September 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

Well i don't know about anyone else but every time i drop i'm competing, even if it's a pug (unless i'm just testing some new build, in which case i'm still competing...just not as much ).

Eh well you might be 'competing' but that doesnt make it real competition. Like comparing flag football to the NFL - there different rules for the official form of the competition, and 3pv is not available at this game's official level of competition.

[Meta Orion]

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

Yet it has no effect in 'competitive' game play because it's disabled in 12v12 drops... So what's the issue? I dont care how people use it because its use goes both ways outside of 12mans.

The issue is that no one does 12 mans.

By nature ALL matches are "competitive." 3PV affects every match it's in regardless of how often it is used or by whom. And currently, because it's disabled in 12v12 pre-mades, that's probably 95% of all matches.


The issue is that 3PV was added to "help new players" and it's going the way of 3PV in MW4. Which I'm sure we're all aware of how that went. ppc/gauss poptart sniper meta utilizing 3pv for riskfree scouting and spotting ontop of a heavily campy based meta


Your argument upsets me dearly.

From Bryan:

"After designing, developing, and testing the MWO’s 3PV, we quickly realised that 3PV offered no significant advantage over 1PV."



That means they have no idea how to play their own game. Which is something I figured. Most dev teams aren't as good at the game as "competitive" players are. The difference is that most dev teams will look at an evolving meta and try to understand it to some degree, or even reach out to 'pro teams' or whathaveyou in order to get an understanding on what the community feels needs to be addressed, as opposed to what the dev team feels needs to be addressed balance wise.

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Eh well you might be 'competing' but that doesnt make it real competition. Like comparing flag football to the NFL - there different rules for the official form of the competition, and 3pv is not available at this game's official level of competition.

Please stop this. Your argument is falling apart and you're simply backpedaling. What is "real competition?" You're arguing semantics.

Is 12v12 "real" competition? Why is a lone wolf trying his best in a PUG not worthy of "real competition?" You're just undermining and insulting players who do not go for premades. Please stop it. Please.