1251 replies to this topic

[MadcatX]

StoneMason, on 22 September 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

In a chain of command responsibility works both ways, including telling your superior when something flat out will not work. If you don't then it's your own people that get hurt...

The problem lies with superiors simply saying NO. If I had to wager (and this is all assumptions), I'd bet IGP told PGI to add 3PV in an attempt to appeal to a larger market. A whole lot of hate (or dislike) is heading PGI's way, and I'm not really disputing the validity of that. However, lets just say I wouldn't be surprised if some of the decisions (especially regarding monetizing) resulted from a memo from the publishers.

[Moromillas]

Ah yes, "the promise." Only, there was no promise. When players talk about "the promise," they've almost always assumed it to be so.

PGI then apologized for bad communication, quite a while ago now. If people take what you say, and make up assumptions based on it, I wouldn't exactly apologize to them, I would hope they get cancer of the {Richard Cameron}.

[Kattspya]

Moromillas, on 22 September 2013 - 12:42 AM, said:

Ah yes, "the promise." Only, there was no promise. When players talk about "the promise," they've almost always assumed it to be so.

PGI then apologized for bad communication, quite a while ago now. If people take what you say, and make up assumptions based on it, I wouldn't exactly apologize to them, I would hope they get cancer of the {Richard Cameron}.

"Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person."

How would you characterize that sentence if it is not a promise?

[ColourfulConfetti]

God, this is just hilarious, this whole thread, the sheer fact that metacritic opened reviews causes the community to erupt in a civil war. I actually posted my own review on metacritic, gave it like, a 9 out of 10, it got bombarded with at least 20 dislikes. Whole thing was pretty funny. I was pretty positive with my review, so I knew that threw off a lot of people, but I did give some legitimate reasons for why the game was good. In retrospect I think it is more a 9 than a 9.5. Some will call that score fanboyish, but I legitimately had tons of fun with the game for at least half a year, and I'm still going strong, still having tons of fun with the game. So from my view I thought the game deserved it, I mean, I cannot really name another game I played for more than 6 months and still enjoy it to such a huge extent.

Edited by PalmaRoma, 22 September 2013 - 01:18 AM.

[Ghogiel]

PalmaRoma, on 22 September 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

the sheer fact that metacritic opened reviews causes the community to erupt in a civil war.

You must be new here.

Metacritic caused nothing. This is the same as it's always been.

[sokitumi]

It's another 6/10 on pgi's wall. The pro-cons toward PGI matter little anymore now that they made their decision on releasing their game. All the bitching in the world about alt account 0/10's or {Noble MechWarrior} 10/10's doesn't matter. The game is as it stands. It is what it is.

Personally I don't see how this is at all surprising to anyone with a brain that has watched this circus unfold.

PGI - thanks for the decent arena shooter, sucks you didn't achieve much of your vision. Lesson learned on kick starters.

[ColourfulConfetti]

Ghogiel, on 22 September 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

You must be new here.

Metacritic caused nothing. This is the same as it's always been.

I always knew the community was divided on beliefs, and It really wasn't a surprise to me, more funny if anything, that everybody suddenly started going at each others throats. Before then it wasn't civil war, just occasional p!ssing contest, nothing like this, which got a huge reaction and probably one of the most prolonged sh*t flinging contest I have ever seen.

Edited by PalmaRoma, 22 September 2013 - 02:17 AM.

[Riptor]

Metacritic in a nutsheel... both for the 0s and the 10s

[Wolfways]

I don't have a metacritic account, but if i did review MWO...

Based on gameplay alone i'd say...7 maybe. Matches are fun, at least the ones where half of each team aren't lights, i don't get killed because i'm stuck on a rock, or my team are fighting in 3pv and get instantly pasted..
But, and i know i'm in the minority on this, i hate the mechlab. I believe that nearly all the problems with the meta, balance issues, alpha striking, etc. are all caused by the mechlab, so i'd knock the score down to 5.
Then again i can't leave out how PGI have handled the customer base, which is bad. Really bad. So now i'd knock the score down to 2...maybe 3 at the most.

Btw i thought this was quite funny:
"Generates petitions or biased Suggestion polls"
So did Bryan get banned from the forums for his 3pv poll?

[Moromillas]

Kattspya, on 22 September 2013 - 01:07 AM, said:

"Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person."

How would you characterize that sentence if it is not a promise?

He's talking about what's in a design doc, and actually keeping players in the loop about what's going on in the development side of things when rumors were flying around after an ambiguous twitter post.

NOT promising features for a game. Absolutely sickening. Perhaps we should all amend each sentence with "this is NOT a promise" so disgusting aberrations don't assume, judge and act, on nothing but insinuation and innuendo, and with pride. Absolutely sickening.

[Kaijin]

Wolfways, on 22 September 2013 - 03:15 AM, said:

I don't have a metacritic account, but if i did review MWO...

Based on gameplay alone i'd say...7 maybe. Matches are fun, at least the ones where half of each team aren't lights, i don't get killed because i'm stuck on a rock, or my team are fighting in 3pv and get instantly pasted..
But, and i know i'm in the minority on this, i hate the mechlab. I believe that nearly all the problems with the meta, balance issues, alpha striking, etc. are all caused by the mechlab, so i'd knock the score down to 5.
Then again i can't leave out how PGI have handled the customer base, which is bad. Really bad. So now i'd knock the score down to 2...maybe 3 at the most.

Btw i thought this was quite funny:
"Generates petitions or biased Suggestion polls"
So did Bryan get banned from the forums for his 3pv poll?

I cannot argue with any part of this post. It's right on the money, Wolfways. Every bit of it. Solaris is the only circumstance a mechlab should have come into play, and maybe for war-fighting mechwarriors as a reward for an excessive number of 'loyalty points', one hardpoint could be modified. There was already a system for weapon balance in place. Stock mechs already had their roles defined. All PGI had to do was multiply armor by a factor of 5 to account for aimed shots, and then they could have spent their time on CW instead of this endless number juggling they've been up to.

[Wolfways]

Kaijin, on 22 September 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

I cannot argue with any part of this post. It's right on the money, Wolfways. Every bit of it. Solaris is the only circumstance a mechlab should have come into play, and maybe for war-fighting mechwarriors as a reward for an excessive number of 'loyalty points', one hardpoint could be modified. There was already a system for weapon balance in place. Stock mechs already had their roles defined. All PGI had to do was multiply armor by a factor of 5 to account for aimed shots, and then they could have spent their time on CW instead of this endless number juggling they've been up to.

I actually like the sound of that. Everyone in stock mechs but after many battles (many, many battles) you earn the right to slightly customize a mech

[Heffay]

Kaijin, on 22 September 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

I cannot argue with any part of this post. It's right on the money, Wolfways. Every bit of it. Solaris is the only circumstance a mechlab should have come into play, and maybe for war-fighting mechwarriors as a reward for an excessive number of 'loyalty points', one hardpoint could be modified. There was already a system for weapon balance in place. Stock mechs already had their roles defined. All PGI had to do was multiply armor by a factor of 5 to account for aimed shots, and then they could have spent their time on CW instead of this endless number juggling they've been up to.

Your vision of the game seems mind-numbingly boring. I like having a limited progression scheme. It's basic game design 101. Your method would have catered only to the 50 or so remaining people who still played MW:LL.

[Ghogiel]

Heffay, on 22 September 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

Your vision of the game seems mind-numbingly boring. I like having a limited progression scheme. It's basic game design 101. Your method would have catered only to the 50 or so remaining people who still played MW:LL.

Mechlab was a planned feature for MW:LL from the very beginning. That was one of the features we had to cancel in spring in 2012 due to it being seen as a competing feature of another MW project...

Edited by Ghogiel, 22 September 2013 - 06:24 AM.

[Cybermech]

DeaconW, on 21 September 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

From the newly revised "Uniform Code of Mechwarrior Justice"...

I have seen multiple posts critical of PGI (but not necessarily offensive) "moderated" recently, including some by friends of mine. Why do you think they split up the general forum several months ago and then added these terms to the CoC? You can interpret this all in a rose-colored-glasses light if you wish. I personally believe they have shifted to damage control mode. Understandable, but unfortunate. They didn't have to go this way...

They did have to go this way, since holding the hands of those who are complaining was needed.
General Discussions got split up because lots of stuff got lost into the pages.
The idea that General Discussion got split up to reduce the effectiveness of those who want to post their ideas is just priceless.
You would have to forget ALOT of stuff to come to stick with that conclusion.
Like everyone else I had to same thought for maybe 3 days, it did not take me long to realise the need for the change.

[Kattspya]

Moromillas, on 22 September 2013 - 04:32 AM, said:

He's talking about what's in a design doc, and actually keeping players in the loop about what's going on in the development side of things when rumors were flying around after an ambiguous twitter post.

NOT promising features for a game. Absolutely sickening. Perhaps we should all amend each sentence with "this is NOT a promise" so disgusting aberrations don't assume, judge and act, on nothing but insinuation and innuendo, and with pride. Absolutely sickening.

I might be confused but are you saying that the design docs that raised 5mil is nothing but insinuation and innuendo? Or are you saying that he is? Perhaps sarcasm?

[Heffay]

Ghogiel, on 22 September 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

Mechlab was a planned feature for MW:LL from the very beginning. That was one of the features we had to cancel in spring in 2012 due to it being seen as a competing feature of another MW project...

Interesting. I never really followed MW:LL, but I was always under the impression that it didn't have a big player base. I've heard 50 people would be online at a time playing it, but don't know the actual numbers. How big was the MW:LL community when you shut it down?

[Moromillas]

Kattspya, on 22 September 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

I might be confused but are you saying that the design docs that raised 5mil is nothing but insinuation and innuendo? Or are you saying that he is? Perhaps sarcasm?

Oh this should be interesting. Alright, lets see how you arrived at this 5 million raised figure.

[Kattspya]

Moromillas, on 22 September 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

Oh this should be interesting. Alright, lets see how you arrived at this 5 million raised figure.

A dev statement?

[FactorlanP]

Moromillas, on 22 September 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

Oh this should be interesting. Alright, lets see how you arrived at this 5 million raised figure.

It's pretty common knowledge.

During Closed Beta when they were selling the Founders packages, everyone in Closed Beta had to have a forum account here. Some enterprising folks simply analyzed the forum membership roles and counted the number of each Founder Tag type. They even had nifty little programs that automated the process.

Then some simple maths to have a total.

Edited by FactorlanP, 22 September 2013 - 07:25 AM.