1251 replies to this topic

[Apoc1138]

Moromillas, on 22 September 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

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.


More "promises" I'm sure.

I sure hope that you've either not given PGI any money, or that they never make any changes to the game that you disagree with

I remember when I used to w k for PGI, oh happy days

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.

ah, you PLAN to give it back, that'd be fine then, if you'd said I WILL give it back to you next week, then I'd have to send the boys round

Edited by Apoc1138, 22 September 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[Sean von Steinike]

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.

So, when they make the game p2w, don't add community warfare, don't add UI2.0 and such, you'll be still defending them I am sure. And why shouldn't they? Players like you won't hold them accountable for anything.

[Sandpit]

I just want to state something here. It has been 2 years since it was stated but it WAS stated that 3pv would NEVER be introduced. No I do not have screenshots because why would I have felt the need to retain actual written proof of this at the time? I'm not lying, I have no need or reason to. If you don't want to believe that it was said that's fine but do not ridicule, bash, or call into question my integrity. I know what was said and written and it was one of the cornerstone designs of this game. I don't care if you believe it or not really. It makes no difference to me because your opinion on the matter doesn't dictate what my wallet gets spent on isn't based on your perspective of the situation. It was said and I was deceived. You can dispute the validity of that all you want but that won't change what I do with my money in support of this game

[Listless Nomad]

Sandpit, on 22 September 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

I just want to state something here. It has been 2 years since it was stated but it WAS stated that 3pv would NEVER be introduced. No I do not have screenshots because why would I have felt the need to retain actual written proof of this at the time? I'm not lying, I have no need or reason to. If you don't want to believe that it was said that's fine but do not ridicule, bash, or call into question my integrity. I know what was said and written and it was one of the cornerstone designs of this game. I don't care if you believe it or not really. It makes no difference to me because your opinion on the matter doesn't dictate what my wallet gets spent on isn't based on your perspective of the situation. It was said and I was deceived. You can dispute the validity of that all you want but that won't change what I do with my money in support of this game

http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

[sokitumi]

Listless Nomad, on 22 September 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

The best part of that post is the fantastic edit where investigating suddenly becomes releasing, special game settings becomes "default", and "far off distance" ended up being way closer than the other "design pillars" of the game.

Quote

Edit:
It's been over a year since this was posted. As I mentioned..."We will investigate 3rd person in the far off distance for special game settings, but this is very far off in the distance." We're now at that far off distance.

Edited by Paul Inouye, 26 July 2013 - 02:42 PM.
Clarifying the future.

Dont get me wrong here, I could care less about 3pv. And really could care less also about them going back on their word about design pillars, it only served to illuminate for most what some of us knew or suspected all along.

Edited by sokitumi, 22 September 2013 - 11:22 AM.

[Sandpit]

Listless Nomad, on 22 September 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

Point? I'm talking back when founders were being given the option to invest product unseen. Even if I were to go with the example you just gave that still would not excuse forcing me to play against that feature

[FactorlanP]

Remember when it was a running joke in Closed Beta, anytime somebody asked about 3PV, Paul had a canned response that he just linked...

[Slaytronic]

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.

nope in fact a lot of them are working on star citizen now win for me bet they get paid better then going to piggi also

Tamerathon, on 22 September 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Living Legends was killed by PGI.

true story

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

Mackman, on 17 September 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

[/i]

I think this is especially appropriate here. All the "true Mechwarrior fans" are taking to Metacritic to, as Azantia above pointed out, exact "payback" against the devs of MWO. These people talk about how "disappointed" they are by the state of the game, and then go and make sure that the game never has a chance to get better. They talk about how excited they were to see where the game was going, and then they try to stop it in its tracks.

If you truly hate this game, then I'm sorry for you: I would advise you stop playing. If you enjoy this game, and want to see it succeed, then don't go and vent your anger at Metacritic. Don't open up that review box and think, "Now is the time for payback!"

Instead, think: "Judging the game on its own merits, how can I honestly review this free-to-play game to new people who will likely check here to see if it's worth playing?" Use the review to help MWO, not to kill it.

Exactly, to stop this game is the best way. It fully showed itself (wasn't that Launch?), and we have seen enough to calculate the dates when we will have a good Battletech MechWarrior game of MWO. And that dates are not in the nearest decades. So, I'm sorry, but imo it's much better to stop now and let some more worthy developers pick up the banner and make a better game with better attitude.

Edit: I gave the game 4. For pure current combat gameplay, which is very good in my opinion. But as matchmaking, meta-game, simulator feel, CW and Battletech relevance are poor or non-existent, their part of the overall score is 0. So, only 4 from me.
I still play the game at least a couple times a week, but yes, I wish MWO to give way to some better BT game.

Edited by Duncan Jr Fischer, 22 September 2013 - 12:19 PM.

[Sandpit]

Sooooo...... if I give it a two and give a myriad of reasons as to why I do so I'm somehow killing the game as opposed to giving it an honest review based on MY opinion of the game in it's current state?

[Galen Crayn]

http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

Wow!!! Paul edited his own Post one year later to tell us that special game mode means the default one. Nice

Edited by Galen Crayn, 22 September 2013 - 12:06 PM.

[Heffay]

Sandpit, on 22 September 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Point? I'm talking back when founders were being given the option to invest product unseen. Even if I were to go with the example you just gave that still would not excuse forcing me to play against that feature

The point is that 3PV was always on the table. It was a risk you chose to ignore.

[Deathlike]

Galen Crayn, on 22 September 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

Wow!!! Paul edited his own Post one year later to tell us that special game mode means the default one. Nice

The irony of this is that all the stuff that PGI forces on by default (Arm Lock, Throttle Decay, start in 3PV, including Glow Textures) I've turned off.

Gee, I wonder why.

[StandingCow]

Galen Crayn, on 22 September 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

Wow!!! Paul edited his own Post one year later to tell us that special game mode means the default one. Nice

I guess all the game modes are special to them... *facepalm*

[Sandpit]

Heffay, on 22 September 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

The point is that 3PV was always on the table. It was a risk you chose to ignore.

no, no it wasn't. That's my point. Before this game was coming out of closed beta it WAS stated. I ignored nothing. Again, you don't have to believe me it doesn't change my stance on the situation.

[Listless Nomad]

Sandpit, on 22 September 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

no, no it wasn't. That's my point. Before this game was coming out of closed beta it WAS stated. I ignored nothing. Again, you don't have to believe me it doesn't change my stance on the situation.

Tell me, honestly, how many people you see using 3pv in a given match? I might see one or two, and they are usually rather bad players at that. 3pv is awful.

Was it a waste of dev resources? Yes.

Did they change their stance on implementing it? Undoubtedly.

Do I feel misled? Of course.

Did I ever believe that anything said in a CLOSED BETA was not subject to change? Absolutely not.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, as you are so fond of repeating. Some people's minds are made up and thats, that. However, you asked me for my point and I'm giving it to you as best I can. At the very least, we knew this was coming since July 2012. Thats a handful of months after closed beta began, and a few months before the October Open Beta launch. Anyone that read Paul's message and didn't think 3pv would eventually come was lying to him/herself.

I would much rather have the game be 1pv only. However, I've come to terms with the fact that 3pv is here, and its here to stay. My peace of mind has been aided by the fact that 3pv is terrible and not many people use it. PGI has made some awful, awful decisions throughout this game's development, and I would not count myself as one of their supporters. They succeeded in making a view mode that is universally hated, is terrible to play with, and does very little to help new players do much of anything. But in my honest opinion, 3pv itself is nothing to get worked up over. Rail against their communication. Rail against their design choices. Rail against their attitude. Don't rail against a feature barely anyone uses. You might as well complain about Artillery Strike consumables at that point.

[StandingCow]

Look, I think we all understand that things are subject to change... but something has to be said for those of us that believed what they told us in their design pillars, then again over and over in bold, underlined, and all caps... something that would not happen.

And then... it happens. So, call it what you will, I still felt lied to. *shrug*

[Sandpit]

Listless Nomad, on 22 September 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Tell me, honestly, how many people you see using 3pv in a given match? I might see one or two, and they are usually rather bad players at that. 3pv is awful.

Was it a waste of dev resources? Yes.

Did they change their stance on implementing it? Undoubtedly.

Do I feel misled? Of course.

Did I ever believe that anything said in a CLOSED BETA was not subject to change? Absolutely not.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, as you are so fond of repeating. Some people's minds are made up and thats, that. However, you asked me for my point and I'm giving it to you as best I can. At the very least, we knew this was coming since July 2012. Thats a handful of months after closed beta began, and a few months before the October Open Beta launch. Anyone that read Paul's message and didn't think 3pv would eventually come was lying to him/herself.

I would much rather have the game be 1pv only. However, I've come to terms with the fact that 3pv is here, and its here to stay. My peace of mind has been aided by the fact that 3pv is terrible and not many people use it. PGI has made some awful, awful decisions throughout this game's development, and I would not count myself as one of their supporters. They succeeded in making a view mode that is universally hated, is terrible to play with, and does very little to help new players do much of anything. But in my honest opinion, 3pv itself is nothing to get worked up over. Rail against their communication. Rail against their design choices. Rail against their attitude. Don't rail against a feature barely anyone uses. You might as well complain about Artillery Strike consumables at that point.

Here is the thing. They force you to play against it and it is a feature that gives an extremely unfair advantage through exploit possibilities (peeking around corners for scouring purposes to name one). It also leads to me not trusting that Anything they have stated will be included "soon" that enticed me to invest in this game will ever manifest which means I will no longer support the game monetarily.

[Nekki Basara]

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.

It caused people to buy a game just to play the mod. That's pretty successful in my book.

[FactorlanP]

Nekki Basara, on 22 September 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

It caused people to buy a game just to play the mod. That's pretty successful in my book.

That's very true. I bought a game I wouldn't have otherwise purchased because of MW:LL.