54 replies to this topic

[Heffay]

FactorlanP, on 22 September 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

No, engaging the Community would be a discussion. There is no discussion.

It was a discussion. PGI said what they were going to do. Some players said they had issues with it. PGI explained why they did it. Some players said they had issues with it.

It provides zero added benefit to continue on from that point. At some point they have to make a decision, communicate why they did it, and then move on.

[FactorlanP]

Heffay, on 22 September 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

It was a discussion. PGI said what they were going to do. Some players said they had issues with it. PGI explained why they did it. Some players said they had issues with it.

It provides zero added benefit to continue on from that point. At some point they have to make a decision, communicate why they did it, and then move on.

You mistake me. You seem only to be talking about a single issue. I'm talking about the game development in general.

Edited by FactorlanP, 22 September 2013 - 09:50 AM.

[Heffay]

FactorlanP, on 22 September 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

You mistake me. You seem only to be talking about a single issue. I'm talking about the game development in general.

Giving the player base a voice in game development in general is a huge, huge mistake. Decisions should be dictated by data, not emotions. NO game developer has a "discussion" with the player base the way you imagine it.

[FactorlanP]

Heffay, on 22 September 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Giving the player base a voice in game development in general is a huge, huge mistake. Decisions should be dictated by data, not emotions. NO game developer has a "discussion" with the player base the way you imagine it.

If you say so. (I'm not sure how you know what I imagine, but ok)

Let's put it this way. Communication failures have played a large role in getting PGI to the point that we are at. Narrowing their communication even further isn't likely to improve communication.

My main intent is only to convey that their reliance on NGNG and Twitter for communication is poor policy. The failure to even get AtD47 Answers out on time, "because they were busy this past week", seems to be a fundamental failure in my opinion.

They have an angry group of clients right now, and failing to do something as simple as post AtD47 (one of the few methods of communication that feels like they have any interest in what the clients think) in a timely manner would seem to me to be just another lapse of basic common sense. But instead, they fail to communicate because they had other things to do?

The mind boggles...

Ok, I'm done now. Go ahead and have the last word Heffay.

[Sybreed]

Heffay, on 22 September 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Giving the player base a voice in game development in general is a huge, huge mistake. Decisions should be dictated by data, not emotions. NO game developer has a "discussion" with the player base the way you imagine it.

annnnd EVE Online and Planetside 2 prove you wrong. Actually, most multiplayer game devs try to engage in a discussion with its players. PGI, being so inexperienced and BT players being big veterans, would have benefited from having a discussion with its playerbase.

Right now, CA is probably wishing they had a discussion with their playerbase, but instead, ROME 2 is getting burned on MC.

[General Taskeen]

Uh No, Rome 2 is actually doing fine. They are on Beta Patch 3, and they are including features the players want - The publisher controlled the release date, not them. CA is a good developer and makes great games.

[Sybreed]

General Taskeen, on 22 September 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Uh No, Rome 2 is actually doing fine. They are on Beta Patch 3, and they are including features the players want - The publisher controlled the release date, not them. CA is a good developer and makes great games.

bah, IMO battles are too fast and arcadey now... too many most pits and such... managing towns is too easy also(although it's debatable), AI is literally letting you win... oh well

I'm mostly pissed about the streamlined battles and mechanics. Medieval 2 is where it's at.

Edited by Sybreed, 22 September 2013 - 01:38 PM.

[Dan Nashe]

Economic balancing can die in a fire.
As can hiding substantial advantages behind GXP.
Modules only work because you can only have 3 and you can play without pretty easily.
Do not lock anything behind a wall that takes new players longer than a month.
GXP would do that.

Do not punish new players any more.
They could consider internal DHS being 1.4 heat, that would be pretty significant.
Suddenly 15 DHS = 21 heat dissipation for 15 crits extra.
15 extra crits will get you 25 SHS, 25 dissipation.
That said, the fact of the matter is SHS have no natural role.
I would be happy seeing SHS buffed to 1.2 or something too. Or internal HS always being 2.0, DHS or SHS.
Balance around DHS is fine.

But it sounds like they recognize all that. So eh.
The key thing for me was hearing them recognize that the match maker can't handle advanced tech.
And probably won't be likely to. Having to balance weight, ELO, and tech level is too much.
And there's no workable BV :-p. Because how you build the mech matters too much. I can easily make a really really crappy mech with a high BV just by mixing weapons that are crazy incompatible with bad heat sink levels :-p.

Edited by DanNashe, 22 September 2013 - 08:53 PM.

[Riptor]

Heffay, on 22 September 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Giving the player base a voice in game development in general is a huge, huge mistake. Decisions should be dictated by data, not emotions. NO game developer has a "discussion" with the player base the way you imagine it.

Im sure the guys in sw galaxies or warhammer online thought the same way... guess where they are now?

If you completly ignore the community.. you are ignoring your customers wishes. Ignore your customers wishes and you wont get paid anymore... interesting isnt it?

Now i dont say listen 100% all the time to your customer base.. cause sometimes your customers dont really know what they want and ofcourse they are not the ones having to code all this {Scrap}.

But sticking your fingers into your ears going "LALALALALA I CAAAAAANT HEAAAAR YOUUUU" is also a surefire way to lose customers and their money youre after. After all if you dont make a product FOR the customer and only for yourselfe... can you really expect anyone to fork over cash for it?

Keep your ear on the pulse of the community without it ruling every decision you make.. that is how a dev team is successfull. Outright ignoring your customers and forcing your "view" of how the game should be onto them will only result in people abadoning your product, gaming history has hundrets of these examples but no example of a game that completly ignored its communities and got away with it.

Edited by Riptor, 22 September 2013 - 10:56 PM.

[Peter2k]

Listening to you're paying customers and having discussions about things is not a bad thing.
No one asks here for blindingly doing what everyone is shouting for, but selling a product the customers want is good buisness.

Blackberry is sitting on lots of there phones that no ones interested in, and people are standing in lines for the new iPhone.
Thinking what people want, and knowing what you're actual customers want are not realy the same thing.
Free to play (or any heavy online) titles that do well seem to listen to their customers, as it seems.

U know the paying core audience, wasn't it EvE that had a shiny useless over prized item (like 60/80$)?
Who would buy something like this if not you're most devoted fans?

[Cybermech]

how hard is it to get the time line around PPC's right.
Its a very rare moment to see the actual time line being discussed.

Its starts with PPC shooting off in random directions.
This random direction problem got reduced dramatically.
During this time PPC were still missing but still had decent enough hit detection.
You could use, 1x erppc + 1xguass on a dragon, 3xPPC awesome stock fit on caustic, 1xerppc + any weapons.

Then one of the major issues with PPC's got fixed, the graphics for the round (what you see) was slower then the ballistic on the server.
With this fix then came the boating of PPC's on stalkers and others.
The the PPC heat was dropped down roughly a month later.
Which is when the PPC fest began.

Edited by Cybermech, 23 September 2013 - 04:32 AM.

[Jetfire]

General Taskeen, on 22 September 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

The entire "heat system" needs to be redone.

It is currently

Low Disappation Rates/High Threshold (High Heat Weapons per TT values)

Needs to be

High Disappation Rates (SHS and DHS is higher)/Low Threshold (this is how Mech Warrior 3 Did it)



Check out that Stock Puma with only 11 DHS firing, but being raised to the fixed low threshold, but disappating heat quickly. ER PPC did 15 Heat like in this game, but they did heatsinks over all, much better.

This is the only viable solution I have heard. DHS needs to be like XL engines, a big advantage with a big cost. This would make builds choose HS's that fit the mech playstyle be it brawler, flanker or long range support.

[VagGR]

i ve managed to listen up to 5.10...thats as far as i can go...

[Sybreed]

Jetfire, on 23 September 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

This is the only viable solution I have heard. DHS needs to be like XL engines, a big advantage with a big cost. This would make builds choose HS's that fit the mech playstyle be it brawler, flanker or long range support.

that's not really the best way to balance the game now is it? Just makes people who played more have even more of an advantage over those who can't.

[van Uber]

Heffay, on 22 September 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Giving the player base a voice in game development in general is a huge, huge mistake. Decisions should be dictated by data, not emotions. NO game developer has a "discussion" with the player base the way you imagine it.

As some here already has mentioned: EVE-online. Not only do the developers rely on player feedback on their dev-blogs, the CSM has stakeholder status, so they get to be among the groups that prioritize features and projects. EVE is thriving once again because of that.

But that is far more than good communication, that is collaboration. PGI would do well with just good communication. They would have mitigated a lot of flak this summer if they just spoke up a bit. Instead they managed to postpone their monthly developer update until it arrived mid month and eventually being so late that it suddenly became a "summer edition". It was really terrible when a lot of what was written in those updates just were rehashes of what had happened, not what was to come. Then we were supposed to get a "trickle of blogs" in august regarding CW. Now that information is postponed to the launch party. Perhaps for good reason, but we don't know, because they don't communicate. And this AtD is the second time when they manage to miss the deadline. I don't think they don't care, but it sure leaves that impression.

Instead we get information through third-party services and social media. Trying to get a clear picture of vision and roadmap is becoming quite the task. Basically, it's a terrible way to communicate and why they keep doing this is beyond me.