Ultimately the two of you are both right and wrong simultaneously. There's sway in the words of both, and as PGI has explained they look at a balance between the bickering as a good sign. If the bickering tilts one way or the other, depending on the tilt PGI can then determine its progress.
Unfortunately, the progress either way is whether or not the "2% minority" are happy or unhappy with the game.
Thus, while the bickering may influence the decisions one way or another, ultimately none of it really matters in their eyes.
I'm not the happiest person with the way the game is made. I love the game and at the same time I despise a fair bit of the mechanics introduced to balance past mechanics which were erroneously introduced for one reason or another. Of the two core balancing issues, one was completely unnecessary and its the core heat system.
I understand why it was made, aside from the misconception at the time it was introduced to allow for faster paced combat in what would otherwise be a slow-paced simulation as opposed to something that might pick up lots of new blood and twitch gamers. Ironically most of us come to MWO to get away from twitch games.
Obviously its a sound business decision. But its caused a lot of issues, requiring mechanics that have caused outcries and disheartened core players.
The new players pick up interest. But some of us relics are at a crossroad between whether we are pleased or not. At times, I'm appalled. At times, I'm thrilled. Will I continue playing? Most definitely. Will I always have fun? Probably not.
However I've come up with something to do since I'm learning game development. At some point I'll become part of a company. When I do, I plan to put what I learn here to use.
As progress is done on MWO I keep note of what was done, whether or not it is well received and if not, I keep track of how I would do them differently. What is done well I'll also keep track of and venture to keep it. That way I know when I pick up the reigns some day down the road, I'll know what was wrong, what was right, and what could have been done better when I make my attempt.
A sampling of the things to have done differently for my list include but are certainly not limited to:
- Choose an engine for both high fidelity while delivering on said high fidelity, that can support picture in picture with ease. (Cryengine was chosen for its great graphics, but upon the realization that most of the F2P community runs low-end machines, the overall focus has been high on low-end machines and so high-end users have watched their "very high" mean less than "medium" did in closed beta. PGI has said in the past this part has nearly been solidified and soon the high end optimizations and graphics would be given. We're eagerly waiting for this.)
- Convergence only available on "turrets" and arm-mounted weapons with lower arm actuators. Most other weapons get their own reticles.
- Plan from the beginning to support humanoid, chicken-walker, and quadrupedal mechs.
- Include King Crab.
- Do not implement a rising thermal threshold system under any circumstances; it led to the required development of ghost heat.
- Allow angle adjustments to missile fire -- i.e. control over whether LRMs fire directly toward a target or fire overhead at an arch by allowing the torso or arm pitch to dictate missile control.
- From the beginning, plan to implement weapon variants to diversify the battlefield.
- Utilize a non-punishing form of optional-entry repair and rearm, where the level of R&R varies with your upgrades or difficult to access tech, not your standard tech. With this, include a hardcore option available to merc corps where the most competitive players would surface.
- Multiple types of ammunition for regular ACs. AC/10 ammo option for LB-10, with the "Lost Tech" trait attached to LBs so that the trade off to carrying the LB over a regular (when both can fire AC/10 ammo) is that while the AC/10 is 1 ton heavier and 1 slot more, the LB comes with a repair bill when damaged.
- Use the lore to create the weapons as opposed to tabletop. In lore, single shot ACs are ultra-rare. There's exactly one single-shot UAC/20 variant mounted on a mech and that is on the Cauldron Born. All others are multi-shot burst and/or MG-style UACs. The only innersphere AC/20 that is referred to as a single shot weapon is mounted on a 100 ton tank designed to take on the Atlas in head to head combat. 90% of the regular ACs and UACs in lore are 2 to 100 shot weapons to deal their damage. Lasers vary from continuous beam, low damage weapons to charge-up-and-fire-instant-damage weapons. And that just lists regular inner sphere medium lasers and its 44 unique variants.
- In a server authority environment, the LRMs had to be cut back to their bland state due to the taxing server refresh rates required, causing lots of lag and other issues. While maintaining server-side control, switch the animations to a client-side control, where while the general location of the missiles are kept up to date in both cases, actual animations are handled on the client's computer and thus the DNA double helix flight path could be permitted without incident on the server end. Visual quality with minimal sacrifice.
The list goes on and on. It helps keep me sane.
MicroVent, on 06 October 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:
PGI please extend the Pheonix pack as long as possible past the 15th. Speaking for myself only I had a work injury that has caused me to tighten up. I could swing the 80+Saber but I need to be careful for a few more weeks. No $$ to be made being hurt let me tell you.
On this, I don't think the main project can be extended. Though they may allow time for the Saber package. Contact support?
If you can swing whatever amount for a level of Phoenix now I suggest doing it; and the saber may still be open for a while. Give it a shot.
support@mwomercs.com
Good luck mate.
Edited by Koniving, 06 October 2013 - 05:42 PM.
19
It'd look like I ripped it off with my arms! O_O!
This topic is locked
