1251 replies to this topic

[Ghogiel]

Heffay, on 22 September 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

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?

Between 1/2-3 servers full. So 12-70ish people online depending on the time. It didn't have a big player base at all. Which is why when Russ stated his reasoning as "splitting player base"... we'll you can work it out.

[meteorol]

Heffay, on 22 September 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

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?

I really tried to play MW:LL for like 2 weeks, but it just didn't have enough players. There were times when i logged on, just to see ONE populated server with 4 guys on it. During peek times, i saw 2 full servers at maximum. Like 30 guys playing. I was really excited to play a mech game again, and quite disenchanted after i realized how low the player count was(atleast during the time i tried it)

[Moromillas]

FactorlanP, on 22 September 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

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.

"design docs that raised 5mil" March 21st, this year.
Founders packages.
Complete non-sequitur.

[Heffay]

Ghogiel, on 22 September 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

Between 1/2-3 servers full. So 12-70ish people online depending on the time. It didn't have a big player base at all. Which is why when Russ stated his reasoning as "splitting player base"... we'll you can work it out.

It looked like a fantastic product, and it's a shame it wasn't more successful. Hopefully PGI grabbed some of the developers from that to work with them.

[Apoc1138]

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.

What? So when someone says;
"Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person."

AND puts it in BOLD
AND UNDERLINES it

we are not supposed to understand that to be a promise?

that is not insinuation, or innuendo, it was a clearly written statement that first person players would never be FORCED to play against people using 3PV... they later went back on this statement, it is not hard to see how people could think that this statement was a promise and that they did in fact go back on that promise

[Apoc1138]

Moromillas, on 22 September 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

"design docs that raised 5mil" March 21st, this year.
Founders packages.
Complete non-sequitur.

he's not talking about design docs from March this year, he's talking about design docs from all through last year before and during closed beta (many of which were deleted when the new forum came online in time for open beta)
a lot of people pledged money to the project back when certain things were stated as never going to be in the game

[FactorlanP]

Apoc1138, on 22 September 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

he's not talking about design docs from March this year, he's talking about design docs from all through last year before and during closed beta (many of which were deleted when the new forum came online in time for open beta)
a lot of people pledged money to the project back when certain things were stated as never going to be in the game

Exactly.

It's unfortunate that so many of our newer members of the community don't know (or have access to) everything that happened during Closed Beta, when they were selling the Founders packs.

They would have a better understanding of why so many of us are angry.

[Ghogiel]

Heffay, on 22 September 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

It looked like a fantastic product, and it's a shame it wasn't more successful. Hopefully PGI grabbed some of the developers from that to work with them.

It was successful. Very much so. It effectively won Mod of the Year like 3 times from ModDB (though you can only win that prize once they gave a nod to it in the main category every year). Had thousands of players in it's lifetime> Was alive for and populated for several years, which is a feat most TC conversions never achieve. Many developers went onto work in the industry based solely on their efforts with the mod.

[Heffay]

Ghogiel, on 22 September 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

It was successful. Very much so. It effectively won Mod of the Year like 3 times from ModDB (though you can only win that prize once they gave a nod to it in the main category every year). Had thousands of players in it's lifetime> Was alive for and populated for several years, which is a feat most TC conversions never achieve. Many developers went onto work in the industry based solely on their efforts with the mod.

I mean commercially (well, free as it were) successful. For all its greatness, MWO is pretty much blowing it away in player base.

If it came with a built in fan base of 100,000 active players, the most likely scenario would have been for the base to be converted into a new commercial product instead of starting over from scratch.

[Draconis March]

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.

The level of customization in the game is one of my favorite things about it. I don't want to be stuck piloting pre-designed stock mechs. I like options. I like being able to decide my own armament. If I couldn't customize my mechs, I'd probably have stopped playing the game after a couple weeks due to staleness/repetition.

[MustrumRidcully]

Apoc1138, on 22 September 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

What? So when someone says;
"Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person."

AND puts it in BOLD
AND UNDERLINES it

we are not supposed to understand that to be a promise?

that is not insinuation, or innuendo, it was a clearly written statement that first person players would never be FORCED to play against people using 3PV... they later went back on this statement, it is not hard to see how people could think that this statement was a promise and that they did in fact go back on that promise

If anyone would be willing to lend me 100 $?
I plan to give it back to you next week, with interest!

1 week later:
Oops, sorry, I decided it might be better if hold onto the money. No hard feelings, right, plans change. I am sorry I didn't communicate this sooner, but I had the flu and I forgot to tell anyone to tell you guys. I'll try to get better on that.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 22 September 2013 - 09:22 AM.

[Heffay]

MustrumRidcully, on 22 September 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

If anyone would be willing to lend me 100 $?
I plan to give it back to you next week, with interest!

1 week later:
Oops, sorry, I decided it might be better if hold onto the money. No hard feelings, right, plans change. I am sorry I didn't communicate this sooner, but I had the flu and I forgot to tell anyone to tell you guys. I'll try to get better on that.

Lend?

Did you lend money to PGI, or did you purchase a product from them? And that product you purchased... was it exactly as advertised?

[Tamerathon]

Heffay, on 22 September 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

I mean commercially (well, free as it were) successful. For all its greatness, MWO is pretty much blowing it away in player base.

If it came with a built in fan base of 100,000 active players, the most likely scenario would have been for the base to be converted into a new commercial product instead of starting over from scratch.

Living Legends was killed by PGI.

[Moromillas]

Apoc1138, on 22 September 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

What? So when someone says;
"Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person."

AND puts it in BOLD
AND UNDERLINES it

we are not supposed to understand that to be a promise?

that is not insinuation, or innuendo, it was a clearly written statement that first person players would never be FORCED to play against people using 3PV... they later went back on this statement, it is not hard to see how people could think that this statement was a promise and that they did in fact go back on that promise

No, it's not hard to see. But surely it's not hard to see why assumptions make me violently ill. Amazing how people will cling to their assumptions like a leech on a pigs ***.

I thought I explained it well enough. There's nothing to indicate it's a promise in the OP, and no, underlining a block of text doesn't count. Thinking it's a promise shows very lax guidelines for what is and isn't a promise. Saying it is a promise, without knowing for sure, is disgusting and monstrous.

Apoc1138, on 22 September 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

he's not talking about design docs from March this year, he's talking about design docs from all through last year before and during closed beta (many of which were deleted when the new forum came online in time for open beta)
a lot of people pledged money to the project back when certain things were stated as never going to be in the game

More "promises" I'm sure.

[sokitumi]

Heffay, on 22 September 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Lend?

Did you lend money to PGI, or did you purchase a product from them? And that product you purchased... was it exactly as advertised?

I remember the 2009 video being on their 'video' section of the site throughout CB. THAT was a game I'd like to play.This? Not as much. It's pretty much just a multiplayer version of every other game in the franchise. And even this multiplayer has far less to offer than older mw's. So yeah, how can you fault people for at least expecting what was shown to them or even expecting a product on the level of at least HALF of old mw's multiplayer?

[DeaconW]

Apoc1138, on 22 September 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

What? So when someone says;
"Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person."

AND puts it in BOLD
AND UNDERLINES it

we are not supposed to understand that to be a promise?

that is not insinuation, or innuendo, it was a clearly written statement that first person players would never be FORCED to play against people using 3PV... they later went back on this statement, it is not hard to see how people could think that this statement was a promise and that they did in fact go back on that promise

I applaud your (and others) efforts, but to sycophants like Heffay and Moromillas, no amount of evidence will convince them. I put them on ignore...and recommend others do the same.

[Draconis March]

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Yes the quotes exist, but here's where you and everyone thinking like you falls short: Unless you're a complete failure at the English language, nowhere does it say in any of them 3pv will never happen. Learn to read, bud.

Wow. The massive quantities of hypocrisy in this post are staggering.

Is trolling not a moderation-worthy offense anymore?

[DeaconW]

Draconis March, on 22 September 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Wow. The massive quantities of hypocrisy in this post are staggering.

Is trolling not a moderation-worthy offense anymore?

Only posts opposing PGI's actions get moderated...not the ones supporting them no matter what the hard evidence shows...

I moderate them personally by placing those individuals on ignore. I don't mind discussing issues with people who have passionately different opinions than mine...I do mind people who, by their statements, prove that they are simply untrustworthy and therefore not worth my time.

[EyeDie I]

whats new since beta?backspace works.

i enjoy MWO but its release hasnt solved bugs.look on the cryengine3 site and it isnt even mentioned as a cry3 game,doesnt look as good as other cry3 games.runs on DX9 like the 14year old everquest 1 does.i thought release might mean i wouldnt have to delete my shader folder everyday to stop game freezes there is still alot of work to be done to earn more than a 5/10,i will say 'play MWO it is fun,but it still needs fixing'

[Ghogiel]

EyeDie I, on 22 September 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

whats new since beta?backspace works.

i enjoy MWO but its release hasnt solved bugs.look on the cryengine3 site and it isnt even mentioned as a cry3 game,doesnt look as good as other cry3 games.runs on DX9 like the 14year old everquest 1 does.i thought release might mean i wouldnt have to delete my shader folder everyday to stop game freezes there is still alot of work to be done to earn more than a 5/10,i will say 'play MWO it is fun,but it still needs fixing'

I wouldnt read too much into that, Cloud Imperium isn't even on there yet...