1251 replies to this topic

[Cybermech]

using 3pv to fight with is where the no significant advantage comes from.

while your trying to speak for the Devs I'm not sure if you know what your talking about.
yes Devs are normally not the best at the game, this is for many games unless super easy like WOT.

I still see little to nobody using it.

[Meta Orion]

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

An argument based on misinformation, misrepresenting facts, unreleated theories, and generally hyperbolic and somewhat insulting.

PGI "changing their position" is why players are upset. The quotes are all there, you admit it yourself. But then you double back on yourself and say that PGI "never" said there wouldn't be 3PV, when that's all founders were ever told. You are lying so bad your teeth are falling out and I find it incredibly insulting as a member of this community. The quotes were made, they were framed and immortalized in beautiful .jpegs and .pngs, and no amount of forum nuking or editing will change that. The quotes are no longer on the forums, I'm sure.

That doesn't mean those quotes aren't forever burned into the mind of the playerbase, as well as the internet. Stop lying to me. Stop lying to everyone in this thread.

Cybermech, on 21 September 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

using 3pv to fight with is where the no significant advantage comes from.

while your trying to speak for the Devs I'm not sure if you know what your talking about.
yes Devs are normally not the best at the game, this is for many games unless super easy like WOT.

I still see little to nobody using it.

Nobody fights with 3PV. You use 3PV for risk free scouting (cue periscope image) or to peak around corners. 3PV is CRAZY GOOD for 'wallhacks'. That's why I use it.

It doesn't matter that the vast majority of all fights are done in 1PV. What matters is that 3PV is abused as a form of 'wallhacks'. You cannot deny this.

[Gragor Bloodsoul]

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

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.

I would just like to know which Senate seat you are running for?

Your constant defense for this company is quite interesting. It seems to me that your reading comprehension is more fictional, and you are confusioning it with informational. You are taking every word to its extreme literal sense to make a confusing point. Maybe you have had so much higher learning that you can't function in a real world sense, it is quite common among Ph D's I understand.

Edited by Gragor Bloodsoul, 21 September 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[DeaconW]

Moromillas, on 20 September 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

Thank you so much for doing this MWO community.

You are welcome! (not that I speak for the whole community...)

Quote

Metacritic is supposed to be a place to get user reviews on a game. Honest reviews on a game, not ******** halfwits shouting "muh promise!" and bombing scores.

Who are you to say the low scores are "dishonest"? And what about all the 9's and 10's? You have a problem with them as well? Were those "dishonest"?

Quote

It looks incredibly dishonest, petty and vindictive.

You'll have to be more clear...are you talking about negative reviewers or the company-that-cannot-be-named-because-they-are-insecure-and-may-ban-you-for-making-negative-comments?

Quote

It means I have to refrain from mentioning MWO to anyone, so I'm not associated with this sort of thing.

Then I suppose the reviews are working...

[DrxAbstract]

Meta Orion, on 21 September 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

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.



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.

Hey i'm not saying the way they went about all of it isnt, because it certainly was. However you're comparing apples to oranges here; I didnt say PUG gameplay wasnt competitive. More like it's considered a different form of competition. Like, as i said, flag football versus the NFL... one is amateur, one is official level - PUG vs Pro. That people cant accept that the competitive level in a PUG is vastly different from that of 12mans is not my problem nor concern, that's simply the way it is and you can take that as an insult or for what it is - the simple truth. You're also twisting my words - i never said PUG players are not 'worthy' of anything, i said the level of the game they play at is simply not considered a competitive one in the sense that the environment is much more forgiving and less demanding both on the individual and team level. At the upper levels are 'competition' in this game, 3pv is not a factor. At the level where anything goes, it's on and anyone can use it. One isnt better than the other, it's simply a matter of taste. For those who want hardcore competition and the uppermost levels, 12man. For those who want to compete in a more relaxed setting, PUG. It's that simple.

Backpeddling... god i wish people would use phrases correctly.

[Cybermech]

Meta Orion, on 21 September 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Nobody fights with 3PV. You use 3PV for risk free scouting (cue periscope image) or to peak around corners. 3PV is CRAZY GOOD for 'wallhacks'. That's why I use it.

It doesn't matter that the vast majority of all fights are done in 1PV. What matters is that 3PV is abused as a form of 'wallhacks'. You cannot deny this.

If you use it to peak around corners, ok.
But I don't need to and I get all my info from using 1pv.
Why would I be denying how 3pv is being used?

Just pointing out that you don't know what your talking about what it comes to what the devs are thinking.

3pv was not meant to be in game at all, but over time from many discussions this changed.
It was to be for training and private servers (vids) and that area.
Which from that it developed into what it is now.

I don't like it, I'd prefer it do be removed since I don't see anyone using it.
But it ain't the game ender people have been trying to make it out to be.
Things change, its a game in development, it happens...

[DrxAbstract]

Meta Orion, on 21 September 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

PGI "changing their position" is why players are upset. The quotes are all there, you admit it yourself. But then you double back on yourself and say that PGI "never" said there wouldn't be 3PV, when that's all founders were ever told. You are lying so bad your teeth are falling out and I find it incredibly insulting as a member of this community. The quotes were made, they were framed and immortalized in beautiful .jpegs and .pngs, and no amount of forum nuking or editing will change that. The quotes are no longer on the forums, I'm sure.

That doesn't mean those quotes aren't forever burned into the mind of the playerbase, as well as the internet. Stop lying to me. Stop lying to everyone in this thread.

Umm... wow? Admitting to the existence of the material you are using as a basis for your argument is Not an admittance to the validity thereof. Derp.

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. More importantly, learn how not to twist words and inject your own disillusioned sense of truth into other people's comments. - What was i thinking, that's how you ended up this way in the first place

Edited by DrxAbstract, 21 September 2013 - 08:58 AM.

[DrxAbstract]

Gragor Bloodsoul, on 21 September 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

I would just like to know which Senate seat you are running for?

Your constant defense for this company is quite interesting. It seems to me that your reading comprehension is more fictional, and you are confusioning it with informational. You are taking every word to its extreme literal sense to make a confusing point. Maybe you have had so much higher learning that you can't function in a real world sense, it is quite common among Ph D's I understand.

I have crayons if that would help you.

[Toydolls]

I strongly support meeting all of you guys in MWLL this weekend My screen name is PGIsux I'll be watching for you.

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

I have crayons if that would help you.

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

Umm... wow? Admitting to the existence of the material you are using as a basis for your argument is Not an admittance to the validity thereof. Derp.

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. More importantly, learn how not to twist words and inject your own disillusioned sense of truth into other people's comments. - What was i thinking, that's how you ended up this way in the first place

Paaleeze don't give people false hope that they are smart

[Cybermech]

DeaconW, on 21 September 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

You'll have to be more clear...are you talking about negative reviewers or the company-that-cannot-be-named-because-they-are-insecure-and-may-ban-you-for-making-negative-comments?

if only that was true, so many headaches cured in 1 move.
anyone telling you that they got band for being negative is lying.

[Sandpit]

Cybermech, on 21 September 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

if only that was true, so many headaches cured in 1 move.
anyone telling you that they got band for being negative is lying.

I have to disagree here. I've posted PLENTY of negative things about the game and company lately and haven't been sanctioned but I've also done so in an articulate manner without ranting, trolling, or threatening (I would like to think I have anyhow) anyone

DrxAbstract, on 21 September 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

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.

As for this? It's just completely false and I would just suggest ignoring troll posts instead of validating them with arguments

Edited by Sandpit, 21 September 2013 - 02:19 PM.

[Riptor]

Adridos, on 21 September 2013 - 06:47 AM, said:

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.

Welp... guess all of "garm jurnalizm" fails if that is how you do a proper review.

But who am i kidding... everyone knows that game journalism is dead anyways.

[SaJeel]

This game falls in the 3-8 range, I have a problem with the 10/10 and the 0/10 this game is not worthy of either. The combat is fun, the mechlab has tremendous depth, the learn curve is waaaay to sharp for a new player, and the game as a whole is a little sparse in content

[Jman5]

Cybermech, on 21 September 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

if only that was true, so many headaches cured in 1 move.
anyone telling you that they got band for being negative is lying.

I'm pretty blown away at the number of people who seem unable to understand that as long as you keep personal insults and foul language out of it, you're fine.

Guys just imagine that instead of an internet forum, this is your workplace. Some customer comes in and starts raving about how you're all the biggest morons on the planet. That you lie at every chance you get. That you're single handedly ruining everything for the sake of a cash grab. And then he tells you he's going to go on Yelp and ruin your company because you're not listening to him.

How long would your company allow him to stay in your office screaming these things before you have him escorted off the premise?

This isn't rocket science guys.


Would you just shrug and let this guy continue to disrupt everything? If you wouldn't act like this in real life, why do you think it's ok to act like this on an official forum? The internet is not some magical alternate reality where you can do and say anything you want.

[DeaconW]

Cybermech, on 21 September 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

if only that was true, so many headaches cured in 1 move.
anyone telling you that they got band for being negative is lying.

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

Quote

Petitions / Call Outs
Any MechWarrior who-

• Generates petitions or biased Suggestion polls; or
  
• Demands response or acknowledgement of their posts or concerns; or
  
• Negatively calls-out one or more staff members; or
  
• Posts intentions to disrupt support and/or services, or urges others to; or
  
• Posts intentions to quit, or urges others to;

Is guilty of Rioting against ComStar and shall be moderated.

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...

[Literally]

I have to agree with Deacon. As I was saying in this thread one page ago before my posts were deleted, this kind of argument is inevitable. MWO will continue to be a controversially rated game here and on Metacritic, completely regardless of how good or bad MWO itself actually is. The game has problems, but the real problem is that the developers have repeatedly chosen to spit on the community. This is what happens when developers actively alienate their community.

[Moromillas]

DeaconW, on 21 September 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

You are welcome! (not that I speak for the whole community...)



Who are you to say the low scores are "dishonest"? And what about all the 9's and 10's? You have a problem with them as well? Were those "dishonest"?



You'll have to be more clear...are you talking about negative reviewers or the company-that-cannot-be-named-because-they-are-insecure-and-may-ban-you-for-making-negative-comments?



Then I suppose the reviews are working...

Cherry picks and replies to each sentence.
Condones meta-bombing.
Calls them reviews.
******* crazy conspiracy theories.


Who are you to say who are you to say to anyone? See how stupid that is? It shows you have nil respect for others. If I want to say that, making multiple fake accounts just to put as many 0's as possible on metacritic to skew the score, is dishonest, then I can, and so can everyone else. If you don't like it, well that's tough, please go.

[DeaconW]

Moromillas, on 21 September 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Cherry picks and replies to each sentence.
Condones meta-bombing.
Calls them reviews.
******* crazy conspiracy theories.


Who are you to say who are you to say to anyone? See how stupid that is? It shows you have nil respect for others. If I want to say that, making multiple fake accounts just to put as many 0's as possible on metacritic to skew the score, is dishonest, then I can, and so can everyone else. If you don't like it, well that's tough, please go.

I don't think "cherry picking" means what you think it does. I addressed every one of your original points directly. And I really have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't talking about multiple accounts...I was talking about "0" reviews, which, unless you can prove there are multiple accounts, are legit. I made one review. And yes, I will probably go, soon. Watching the train-wreck is hard to look away from, however. BTW, you avoided my question...are you as upset over all the 9 and 10 reviews? And I have every right to be here, just like you. Deal with it.

[Moromillas]

DeaconW, on 21 September 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

I don't think "cherry picking" means what you think it does. I addressed every one of your original points directly. And I really have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't talking about multiple accounts...I was talking about "0" reviews, which, unless you can prove there are multiple accounts, are legit. I made one review. And yes, I will probably go, soon. Watching the train-wreck is hard to look away from, however. BTW, you avoided my question...are you as upset over all the 9 and 10 reviews? And I have every right to be here, just like you. Deal with it.

Wow, really? Go look it up. You implied the meta-bomb isn't dishonest, with "what about all the 9's and 10's," then tacked on ******* crazy conspiracy theories for added effect.

Here you go ******.
https://twitter.com/...112515641774080
Yep, legit.

[DeaconW]

Moromillas, on 21 September 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Wow, really? Go look it up. You implied the meta-bomb isn't dishonest, with "what about all the 9's and 10's," then tacked on ******* crazy conspiracy theories for added effect.

Here you go ******.
https://twitter.com/...112515641774080
Yep, legit.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem...I wasn't defending multiple accounts...I was defending legitimate "0" votes. Keep your fantasy that the game is getting low marks because of a "vocal minority"...and welcome to my ignore file.