696 replies to this topic

[Vassago Rain]

Resize the oversized phoenix mechs, please. Many people paid money for them.

You have no excuse releasing crippled robots.

Edited by Vassago Rain, 08 October 2013 - 02:21 PM.

[Voidsinger]

LakeDaemon, on 08 October 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

No offense but this is called "entitlement". A fan is a stakeholder based on what? That someone has founder tags, has 5 cockpit items, or has 6000 posts in the forum? Unless you own shares or have otherwise invested directly in the involved companies then you are not a stakeholder in any form. Community representatives? This is not a community-dedicated endeavor. Its a business that relies on consumers of a product. I hate to be the brush of reality but fans are consumers. While we have opinions and we can be polled for preferences and ideas on design questions, there is absolutely no invested obligation for PGI to consult with the fans on how they develop features or run their business.

No, a stakeholder is someone whose future decisions will be affected by the choices that are made. We have a stake in that, since our future investment in the game is determined by the path PGI takes. Obviously surveying everybody isn't going to make sense. Hence, internal stakeholders are going to be the Development Teams, creative people, IGP, owners. External stakeholders are people outside the process, the fans. They would be represented, since return on investment is going to be a function of how well those fans you deride accept features. Fans are consumers yes, and companies ignore consumer backlash at a peril to their future profits.

[Tannhauser Gate]

Bryan Ekman, on 08 October 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Phoenix Program Injected October 15th - What to expect.

• In design 1 – A twinkle in our eyes, we are still brain storming.
  
• In design 2 – Feature brief has been presented to stake holders for vetting.
  
• In design 3 – Design has been approved and is being broken down into user stories.
  
• Ready for development – Design complete, waiting for resources to be assigned.
  
• In development – Resources assigned and actively working on feature.
  
• Ready for internal test – Feature is complete and ready to be tested by QA.
  
• Ready for public test – Feature has past basic internal testing parameters and is ready for public testing.

Great info! This is way more informative and revealing to players. More of this please.

[Mogney]

When are we getting the drop weight limits for 12 mans?

[stjobe]

Vassago Rain, on 08 October 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

Resize the oversized phoenix mechs, please. Many people paid money for them.

You have no excuse releasing crippled robots.

Have I missed something here?

Neither the Shadow Hawk nor the Battlemaster pictures have any 'mech reference for size, and nobody could call the Locust oversized.

Is this that thing called humour which I've heard so much about?

[Alaskan Nobody]

stjobe, on 08 October 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

Is this that thing called humour which I've heard so much about?

What is this thing called "humour' to which you refer?
Some sort of war machine like the battlemech with which to crush our enemies?

[Monsoon]

Redshift2k5, on 08 October 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

the pp page doesn't say the flame pattern is exclusive to pp buyers, just that pp buyers get one for their regular-variant pp mechs.

Exactly, I'm surprised how many people thought it was 'exclusive' even though it never stated that anywhere. Besides a 'flame' pattern would be too popular not to make it available to everyone. Though the fact I'm getting it free on 6 (standard) chassis is great!

Thanks Bryan on the info, I love this kind of info that gives us some info and something to speculate and look forward to, though not too much speculation...as that can become harmful to some.

[Vassago Rain]

stjobe, on 08 October 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

Have I missed something here?

Neither the Shadow Hawk nor the Battlemaster pictures have any 'mech reference for size, and nobody could call the Locust oversized.

Is this that thing called humour which I've heard so much about?

http://mwomercs.com/...ix-mech-scales/

[Listless Nomad]

I see there was no mention of the Founders Atlas being given the same weapon customization pass that the regular atlas was given last patch. Any word on when this will occur or if it's being worked on? I'd hoped it was a quick fix but it's lack of inclusion isn't promising.

[Kain]

Alright! Nice post.

But all the real CW features (the real warfare) are not even in development? (Design 2)

[HugoStiglitz]

stjobe, on 08 October 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

Have I missed something here?

Neither the Shadow Hawk nor the Battlemaster pictures have any 'mech reference for size, and nobody could call the Locust oversized.

Is this that thing called humour which I've heard so much about?

My guess is that he looked at the pictures, which do make the Shadow Hawk look large compared to the Battlemaster, but then again it's all about perspective. The Shadow Hawk look like the camera was a little bit closer for that shot, and it was closer to the building so the shadow looks just as large as that of the Battlemaster, even though they are no where near the same size.

[Tannhauser Gate]

Voidsinger, on 08 October 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

No, a stakeholder is someone whose future decisions will be affected by the choices that are made. We have a stake in that, since our future investment in the game is determined by the path PGI takes. Obviously surveying everybody isn't going to make sense. Hence, internal stakeholders are going to be the Development Teams, creative people, IGP, owners. External stakeholders are people outside the process, the fans. They would be represented, since return on investment is going to be a function of how well those fans you deride accept features. Fans are consumers yes, and companies ignore consumer backlash at a peril to their future profits.

I think that's wishful thinking, my friend. They are concerned about active players more than fans. They are more concerned about metrics of users in and out of games than the druthers of fans..some of whom play seldom. They have said it over and over - the players are canaries in the mine. We arent stakeholders who somehow "rely on the outcome of the game". Im a huge supporter of PGI but it is a business and fans are just consumers.

I think we should agree to disagree on this one. Peace

[stjobe]

Monsoon, on 08 October 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

Exactly, I'm surprised how many people thought it was 'exclusive' even though it never stated that anywhere.

You think it perhaps may have something to do with the word "EXCLUSIVE" in the description?


Edit: Made it a tad more obvious, since it seems a lot of people have missed it.

Edited by stjobe, 08 October 2013 - 02:47 PM.

[MilitantMonk]

This is communication done right! Keep it up!

[stjobe]

Vassago Rain, on 08 October 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...ix-mech-scales/

Cheers, but next time please at least TRY to make the shots the same. I'm not saying the SH isn't too large, but your shot of the HBK is taken from a completely different vantage point and perspective.

[Albert Cowboy Teuton]

Quote

Fixed were users could see out of the world when using 3rd person near a vertical piece of terrain.

but... that was the only good thing about 3rd person view... Seeing outside of the world, think about how great that souds!

[Chavette]

Best CDU yet. Few words, alot of info. Exactly what we need.

[Vassago Rain]

stjobe, on 08 October 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Cheers, but next time please at least TRY to make the shots the same. I'm not saying the SH isn't too large, but your shot of the HBK is taken from a completely different vantage point and perspective.

Not my shots. Twitter stuff.
I want PGI to set a grand total of 4 minutes aside to measure them up, and take a pic with all the phoenix mechs and one old mech,

[HugoStiglitz]

LakeDaemon, on 08 October 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

I think that's wishful thinking, my friend. They are concerned about active players more than fans. They are more concerned about metrics of users in and out of games than the druthers of fans..some of whom play seldom. They have said it over and over - the players are canaries in the mine. We arent stakeholders who somehow "rely on the outcome of the game". Im a huge supporter of PGI but it is a business and fans are just consumers.

I think we should agree to disagree on this one. Peace

Coming from a Software Engineering, a stakeholder is anyone who would use the software in any way (sales, use, ect.), in this case the stakeholders would be PGI as a business, IGP as a business, anyone specified in the contract giving the MW rights to PGI (IDK if they need to answer at all to Catalyst), and the players. Identifying who the stakeholders are in this way can be tricky at times.
In a business sense a stakeholder would be anyone who has something invested in the product, in this case it would knock out the players.

Now you aren't going to ask a bunch of players if it's OK to create a feature, but you can look on the forums to see if the players have any ideas or wants pertaining to a feature you are going to present to the other stakeholders (PGI upper management and IGP).

[Krievian]

Thanks again for another internal document-esque update.