7
This topic is locked
We are proud to announce the introduction of regular Community Contributor Awards!
We appreciate that as our population grows, our need to be able to identify the top contributing members of our Community would also grow. These awards are to recognize and validate those players who have provided upstanding communication within the forums, and to encourage an overall more constructive environment.
One might ask, what sort of posts and members are we looking for for these awards:
The pilots who offer constructive feedback;
The soldiers who go above and beyond in their help to fledgling recruits;
The explorers who uncover new species of bugs;
The technicians who tweak to discover workarounds;
The artisans and authors who create masterpieces out of ideas;
These are the MechWarriors who have stood out from the rest,
And earned our recognition for their best contributions.
Nominations and selections are performed by Forum Staff based on individual posts.
The authors of each of the selected posts will receive 5 days of Premium Time.
On to the awards....
Training Grounds
Rushin Roulette for their reply in the thread: Can Somebody School Me On Jump Jets.
Spoiler
Rushin Roulette, on 04 October 2013 - 03:20 AM, said:
Yup. The best way to use the JJs is to (Based on light mech Jumping with 2 or more JJs);
- jump over terrain (such as a canyon in "Canyon Network") - Start jumping before you reach the drop-off, boost to about the middle of the canyon and then just boost to keep up your altitude enough to reach the other end. If possible light the JJs just before you touch down to minimise the damage to your legs.
- Jump up hills - Just simply use them. Here it is best to use the JJs just before you slow down while already running up.
- Jump onto buildings/up sheer cliffs - Imagine a 45° line from your point to the top of the obstacle and launch the JJs about 20 meters before this line would touch the top of what you want to jump up on. If you find you are climbing too high, then tap the JJs so that you "glide" to the point you want to reach.
- Reducing fall damage - To do this, you start the JJs only after you have started dropping. Your aim is to slow down enough, that you will touch the ground with a minimum of drop speed. If its a longer drop, then you ideally want to run out of JJ fuel just before you touch down.
- Jump turning - The most important part of JJs for a light pilot. Use this to drastically decrease the turning radius of your mech so that you can either escape behind cover quicker or to change directions in the circle of death. To do this you tap the JJs slightly while turning (you can tap more then once to make the turn even tighter. a 180° turn shouldnt be a problem with this method.
MWO Universe
Jman5 for their response in the thread: Why Use An LB 10-X AC?
Spoiler
Jman5, on 27 September 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:
LB10x is a pretty under-rated weapon. It always has been and it has gotten nothing but solid buff after buff for the past 6 months. Until the game does a better job of showing crit damage, and the internal items you kill, people will take it for granted. The crit system is rather complex so most players simply don't know how it works. The difference in slot size is also crucial difference for variants with double ballistic hardpoints in their side torso. Several Atlas and Orion variants come to mind. The LB10x is 1 ton lighter, which is nothing to scoff at.
The more you know about hardpoint locations and popular builds, the better you will do with the LB10X. Knowing which arm has all the weapons can let you quickly neuter a mech without wasting time whittling it down. For example, many players build their mechs asymetrically so all their weapons are on one half, while the other half is empty. Knowing this can help you get an edge in a fight.
On a different note, I like the LB10x simply because it offers a change of pace from your traditional ballistic.
The more you know about hardpoint locations and popular builds, the better you will do with the LB10X. Knowing which arm has all the weapons can let you quickly neuter a mech without wasting time whittling it down. For example, many players build their mechs asymetrically so all their weapons are on one half, while the other half is empty. Knowing this can help you get an edge in a fight.
On a different note, I like the LB10x simply because it offers a change of pace from your traditional ballistic.
Support & Feedback
Gauvan for their reply in the thread: Ready Button Is Annoying
Spoiler
Gauvan, on 02 October 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:
I don't think it needs to be removed--it's too useful a feature for 12v12 premades. But, I think that's a really small part of the player base. It adds little I can see to PUGs or PUGs with lance-sized premades. I would argue that it detracts from that audience's experience.
The problem with the current ready button is that it takes only one player who is inattentive, rude or trolling to keep the other 23 people waiting. There are good odds that this will happen consistently in PUGs. One fix would be to force drop after a majority (say 2/3) of members on each team click ready--the majority would have to contain the commander (if any) as an accommodation to large pre-mades.
The problem with the current command function is less acute, but it's more of a hindrance in PUGs than a help. There are two distinct issues.
First, as has been noted by other posters in different ways, there is no basis for evaluating the volunteer commander in a PUG scenario. Having some barrier to entry is probably good. Even then, I worry that it just becomes an excuse for drama. Even a competent leader is going to lose and when that happens the minority of rude players is going to heap abuse on them.
Second, the ability to reorganize lances doesn't mesh with PUG play. It would be far more helpful, in my opinion, to have some intelligent automatic sorting--grouping by weight class as best as possible, for example, with premade lances excluded. At least indicate pre-made groups in the UI so a commander can make more informed sorting decisions.
The problem with the current ready button is that it takes only one player who is inattentive, rude or trolling to keep the other 23 people waiting. There are good odds that this will happen consistently in PUGs. One fix would be to force drop after a majority (say 2/3) of members on each team click ready--the majority would have to contain the commander (if any) as an accommodation to large pre-mades.
The problem with the current command function is less acute, but it's more of a hindrance in PUGs than a help. There are two distinct issues.
First, as has been noted by other posters in different ways, there is no basis for evaluating the volunteer commander in a PUG scenario. Having some barrier to entry is probably good. Even then, I worry that it just becomes an excuse for drama. Even a competent leader is going to lose and when that happens the minority of rude players is going to heap abuse on them.
Second, the ability to reorganize lances doesn't mesh with PUG play. It would be far more helpful, in my opinion, to have some intelligent automatic sorting--grouping by weight class as best as possible, for example, with premade lances excluded. At least indicate pre-made groups in the UI so a commander can make more informed sorting decisions.
Community Hyperpulse Generator
Valcrow for their thread detailing their 3D-Printed Sarah's Jenner.
Spoiler
Valcrow, on 02 October 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:
So I had initially had a few pics up, but I don't think anyone actually clicks on links. so here's the whole story 
Enjoy! ________________ We're excited to show off the latest project we've been working on for the last little while. It's been challenging keeping quiet about it with all the excitement surrounding MW:O. With the game leaving beta, launch party, etc. We also didn't want to ruin the surprise for the people receiving it. But here it is finally! Sarah's Jenner in 1:60 scale, hand painted, free standing, posable 3D printed model.
For those that don't know, Sarah's Jenner was launched in memory if a 5 year old fan who had lost the battle to cancer. She and her father was a huge fan of MW:O, and for $10 you could purchase the Sarah Jenner and all proceeds was donated to the Canadian Cancer Society. The response was overwhelming, far exceeding the donation expectations. Sarah's Jenner had a unique skin designed just for her, complete with rainbows, unicorns, band **** and teddy bears. These decals were painstakingly reproduced with tiny brushes. -possibly the most time consuming part of the process... but the results are well worth it! 
Those hearts are roughly one square millimeter. I'm not actually an experienced model painter... The painters I had in mind couldn't do it, so I took the task on myself. My painting experience includes an Atlas.. and that's about it. 
Here is the official virtual jenner (top) replaced with a photo of our physical Jenner (bottom) for comparison for those that might not know what a Sarah Jenner is. So how did this project begin? You might have seen my previous 3D print of an MW:O Atlas. Well the folks at NGNG took notice and brought the idea up, that they wanted to bring Sarah's Jenner into reality, and present it as a gift to Sarah's father. They offered to cover some of the costs, and I was in-between projects and looking for something new and inspiring to do, so it was a perfect matchup. There were also many lessons learned from making the Atlas that I wanted to apply, why not make something cool for an awesome cause at the same time. I should also mention here that we weren't the first people to have this idea. Horned Owl on the MWO forums created a full colour Sarah Jenner for her father as well. Though the approach and end result are substantially different. Most notably, Horned Owl's comes fully finished from the printer at Table Top scale. While ours requires assembly, is lot larger, has moving joints, and silver thermo-plastic instead of full colour sandstone. We decided to make it 1:60 scale, which seems to be somewhat of a standard in armorcast models. Which puts the Jenner at around 150mm tall. Almost exactly as tall as the atlas. 
Slightly taller than a marker. 
The arms are roughly as big as a quarter. Imagine painting a shark in the area of quarter of a quarter. It was hard -at least for me, I know you experienced painters out there can paint the alphabet on a grain of rice. You have my respect. So if that wasn't hard enough. I had to make 3 of them. 
One was a prototype. The other 2 were gifts. The first one I print to test all the tolerances, and mechanical issues that arise from going virtual to physical, and to make sure that it actually prints properly. This time around, I didn't want any noticeable seams like the atlas had on it's legs. I didn't want to print with any supports that would mar the surface finish, and I wanted it all to snap together requiring only small dabs of glue to solidify everything. I'm happy to say that I achieved all of those goals and corrected almost all the design flaws seen on the Atlas. 
NGNG wanted one for Sarah's father, and one to PGI. I assembled and painted the prototype and revised tolerances and mechanical function of parts as I waited for the other two Jenners to finish printing. It took 2 full days to print all the parts. But it actually went quite smoothly, I designed, prototyped, and assembled and re-designed version 2 in a span of a week and a half, between work. 
These pictures kept me going throughout the process. Just had to get the details right. (top ingame Jenner, Bottom Physical) 
Each one was sent out with a NGNG stand for added baddass-ness. To be displayed with it if they so choose. And here's a slew of pictures! Assembled from 39 parts excluding pins. 
To answer the inevitable question: We don't distribute the 3D print or working files. And it is not for sale. Sorry! And thanks again to PGI for running the Sarah campaign. Thanks to all of you who bought a Sarah mech and/or Donated to Charity! And NGNG for partnering with us on this project! Both Sarah mechs should have arrived at their destinations by the time you're reading this. We'll have more stuff for you to see soon once we get those uploaded! stay tuned... Thanks for visiting. Valcrow __________ LINKS: edit: NGNG article Other 3D printing stuff This article
Enjoy! ________________ We're excited to show off the latest project we've been working on for the last little while. It's been challenging keeping quiet about it with all the excitement surrounding MW:O. With the game leaving beta, launch party, etc. We also didn't want to ruin the surprise for the people receiving it. But here it is finally! Sarah's Jenner in 1:60 scale, hand painted, free standing, posable 3D printed model.
For those that don't know, Sarah's Jenner was launched in memory if a 5 year old fan who had lost the battle to cancer. She and her father was a huge fan of MW:O, and for $10 you could purchase the Sarah Jenner and all proceeds was donated to the Canadian Cancer Society. The response was overwhelming, far exceeding the donation expectations. Sarah's Jenner had a unique skin designed just for her, complete with rainbows, unicorns, band **** and teddy bears. These decals were painstakingly reproduced with tiny brushes. -possibly the most time consuming part of the process... but the results are well worth it! 
Those hearts are roughly one square millimeter. I'm not actually an experienced model painter... The painters I had in mind couldn't do it, so I took the task on myself. My painting experience includes an Atlas.. and that's about it. 
Here is the official virtual jenner (top) replaced with a photo of our physical Jenner (bottom) for comparison for those that might not know what a Sarah Jenner is. So how did this project begin? You might have seen my previous 3D print of an MW:O Atlas. Well the folks at NGNG took notice and brought the idea up, that they wanted to bring Sarah's Jenner into reality, and present it as a gift to Sarah's father. They offered to cover some of the costs, and I was in-between projects and looking for something new and inspiring to do, so it was a perfect matchup. There were also many lessons learned from making the Atlas that I wanted to apply, why not make something cool for an awesome cause at the same time. I should also mention here that we weren't the first people to have this idea. Horned Owl on the MWO forums created a full colour Sarah Jenner for her father as well. Though the approach and end result are substantially different. Most notably, Horned Owl's comes fully finished from the printer at Table Top scale. While ours requires assembly, is lot larger, has moving joints, and silver thermo-plastic instead of full colour sandstone. We decided to make it 1:60 scale, which seems to be somewhat of a standard in armorcast models. Which puts the Jenner at around 150mm tall. Almost exactly as tall as the atlas. 
Slightly taller than a marker. 
The arms are roughly as big as a quarter. Imagine painting a shark in the area of quarter of a quarter. It was hard -at least for me, I know you experienced painters out there can paint the alphabet on a grain of rice. You have my respect. So if that wasn't hard enough. I had to make 3 of them. 
One was a prototype. The other 2 were gifts. The first one I print to test all the tolerances, and mechanical issues that arise from going virtual to physical, and to make sure that it actually prints properly. This time around, I didn't want any noticeable seams like the atlas had on it's legs. I didn't want to print with any supports that would mar the surface finish, and I wanted it all to snap together requiring only small dabs of glue to solidify everything. I'm happy to say that I achieved all of those goals and corrected almost all the design flaws seen on the Atlas. 
NGNG wanted one for Sarah's father, and one to PGI. I assembled and painted the prototype and revised tolerances and mechanical function of parts as I waited for the other two Jenners to finish printing. It took 2 full days to print all the parts. But it actually went quite smoothly, I designed, prototyped, and assembled and re-designed version 2 in a span of a week and a half, between work. These pictures kept me going throughout the process. Just had to get the details right. (top ingame Jenner, Bottom Physical) 
Each one was sent out with a NGNG stand for added baddass-ness. To be displayed with it if they so choose. And here's a slew of pictures! Assembled from 39 parts excluding pins. 
To answer the inevitable question: We don't distribute the 3D print or working files. And it is not for sale. Sorry! And thanks again to PGI for running the Sarah campaign. Thanks to all of you who bought a Sarah mech and/or Donated to Charity! And NGNG for partnering with us on this project! Both Sarah mechs should have arrived at their destinations by the time you're reading this. We'll have more stuff for you to see soon once we get those uploaded! stay tuned... Thanks for visiting. Valcrow __________ LINKS: edit: NGNG article Other 3D printing stuff This articleFrom the Periphery
While we do not intend to make a habit of awarding posts from the Off-Topic forums,
There is one post which has long deserved some recognition...
This one-time award goes to Roadbeer for their epic thread: Why You're Probably Wrong About...
Spoiler
Roadbeer, on 13 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:
Ok, I see a lot of posts on a wide variety of topics. Many of which are either not thought out, rage filled, based off of assumptions, or just completely fallacious. This makes my job as a troll, very easy. So let me help you and inform you why the post your about to make is completely wrong-headed and about to be trolled. Allow me to state, that paying attention to anything I say in this thread only hurts me in the long run because not only will I not have the opportunity to troll you, but more than likely, your thread will not end up in K Town. We denizens of K Town need your bad threads to survive.
TL:DR: L2Topic.
1. Redundancy:
You have just made the 172nd thread on the topic. By this point, no matter how well thought out your post is, you’re just making noise. When I see 5 threads on the first page about the same thing and yours’ is the most recent, you’re going to get “This thread is new and exciting”.
Why you’re probably wrong: You may have the best solution on the topic, which is so simple to implement a child could code it, and not only will revolutionize the topic, but make food taste better to boot. Creating your own thread on the topic just makes you a narcissist. When the devs are paying attention to the volume on the topic, they’re not counting threads, but posts. Your idea is just as valid as an OP as it is on page 22.
2. “Fix the damn bugs!”
You just made a one off thread listing a handful of bugs that are affecting you. Usually you’re going to add a lot of capital letters and exclamation points, ranting and raving about how it has become unplayable for you.
Why you’re probably wrong: Many times when I see one of these posts, I check the feedback and support forums for a corresponding thread from the OP. 90% of the time there isn't one. I’m also willing to bet cashy money that a support ticket hasn't been sent in. I realize that your issue is important to you, but it may not be affecting 80%+ of the other players in the game, so it’s something they have to investigate and work on. If it’s not something they can resolve with a hot-fix, and without the existence of a magic wand, it probably means that it’s given a level of priority in the bug-stomping queue. Just because it’s a huge issue to you, doesn't mean that it’s a huge issue to anyone else. These rants are going to get “YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary)”. Usually, these threads also fall under topic 1. Redundancy. The amusing thing about these threads is it usually involves suggesting…
3. Roll back the patch:
In your tirade about (insert bug(s) here) and how it’s completely ruined your game-play, you probably suggested rolling back the patch to make the game playable for you, because you were doing fine last week.
Why you’re probably wrong: A rollback is an absolute LAST RESORT for a developer. In my 20 years of beta testing, I can literally count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen a patch rolled back. Usually these involve a total show stopper where most, if not all, play has been effected and can’t be resolved with a hot-fix. Many patches involve several bug fixes, (Some companies are better at communicating this than others, PGI I give a 6 out of 10 when it comes to their patch notes) more than a few of those bugs may have been affecting other players the way the new bug is affecting you. So your suggestion is to roll back the patch and make a game unplayable for others so that it can be playable for you? Also, many times a rollback can cause more problems than it fixes as it usually requires rolling back the server as well as client versions.
3. Divert resources:
Your frustration about (insert gripe here) has just led you to write a lengthy thread on the topic about how the people doing (this) should be diverted into doing (that).
Why you’re probably wrong: Think of the world of computer programming as a microcosm of the rest of the working world. There are many different skill sets that do not cross over. Those people who model content have a widely different skill set from those who write/analyze code. In short, you’re asking a plumber to fix your light socket. Also, if that were possible, chances are, that a month down the road, you would be writing another post about how there isn't enough content.
4. Beta status:
You've just gone on about how this product IS or IS NOT Beta.
Why you’re probably wrong: Many people are using an outdated model of what qualifies as Beta status. Others believe in the concept that as soon as a product has been monetized that it is no longer Beta. Both of you are wrong.
Back in the day, if you wanted to Beta test a product, you would be charged for the disc, shipping and a nominal fee, this is usually around the same cost +/- of what the Elite Founders package was. Now we’re in a world where an entire game can be downloaded in the time it takes to eat lunch, at a relatively minimal cost to the developer compared to disc production. And without a major publisher pushing the title, these companies need to get funding from somewhere, ergo (Latin), you have Beta entry packages and micro transactions during the development to fund future development.
In short, until the entire industry redefines what the meaning of the word Beta now means, the game is Beta until the developer says it isn't.
5 NERF:
You just had your head handed to you on a stick for the 10th time by something you perceive is an imbalance in the game, and you feel compelled to come to the forum and post your QQ rant on the topic.
Why you’re probably wrong: During the development process, things get tweaked and adjust the state of the meta. It’s not that one system is OP, it’s that its natural counter has changed or hasn’t been implemented yet. Most of the time, you are looking at the symptom and not the disease.
Let’s take ECM as an example. ECM is part of the Information Warfare pillar of the game. Without the rest of the IW being fleshed out, ECM is standing alone. Imagine how the game would look if just missiles were in it completely, and just small lasers and AC5 were the only other aspects of the combat pillar implemented at this time. You would be screaming about how LRMS are OP and stupid and needed to be removed because those mechs that can carry them are ruling the roost. You’d want all mechs to be able to carry LRMS and the mech that did it best would be OP as well.
Another recent example is the sniping meta. When you look at the weapon system as a whole, everything has its natural counter. LRMs were through the roof on damage and it was the niche player who was sniping, because they were good at it. As soon as LRMs were dialed back severely, sniping became the low risk/high reward meta. So, the market floods with them.
Before you begin your rant about how unbalanced an item is, look at everything that surrounds it, rather than just saying that an element needs to be nerfed. If you don’t, this leads to the Law of Unintended Consequences and a lesion in Cause/Effect. Sometimes I believe the Devs actually do take your hair-brained ideas and make a change just to show you how wrong you really were.
6. BUFF:
Why you’re probably wrong: (see 5. NERF).
7. (Random game) does it like this:
You just spent your time making a thread about how (insert title) does it better and that the developer should follow their example.
Why you’re probably wrong: Nobody wants to be known as a (insert title) clone but with (insert difference). If the game was that great, you wouldn’t even be looking at this title and you would be investing every second of your life available to you over there. The game development community isn’t that spread out, everyone knows what the other is doing. If that system were the benchmark of how to do stuff, everyone would be doing it.
8. (Random Company) does it like this:
Many electrons have just died in your thread about how (Mega game developer) has it hands down over the way they do things differently / better than this one does.
Why you’re probably wrong: One word, resources. A lot of the time, I’ll see the poster use some title with a decade long history of generating money and its latest version has spent multiple years in development. You’re comparing apples to truck tires. These mega-titles have many of the best in the industry working for them, getting paid large salaries, and have entire teams devoted to each aspect of the game. You don’t have that here. Plus, you name any game developer in the last 50 years (Yes, I’m even talking about board games) and I can point to a handful of abysmal failures they’ve developed as well. Time will tell which side this title will fall into, but if you’re going to make the comparison, look to a title that has an equal amount of time and staff attributed to it. Otherwise you just sound ignorant.
9. Pay2Win:
The latest form of monetization implemented has you completely apoplectic about how your pocket is being raided to be competitive.
Why you’re probably wrong: Take the money factor out of it for a second. Is there any way that the system can’t be countered in anyway by normal time sink means? Is there a free equivalent of it in the game that is close but not 100% equal to it? If the answer is yes to either of those questions, then shut up, it’s not P2W. I’ve played P2W titles, where even if all the time sinks were removed, it would take close to a year to achieve the same power with what can be purchased with (insert X amount of ‘gold’ coins”). We’re not even close to that here.
10. Why I’m not playing/paying:
You just posted a lengthy thread about why you are no longer playing or paying for the game, you have a laundry list of complaints that continue to go unaddressed and you are fed up enough to post on it.
Why you’re probably wrong: You’re preaching to the choir. Those who agree with you are going to pile on, those who don’t are going to troll. You claim that you’re providing a service to the community and helping the company with your feedback. However, if you truly cared, you’d take your multi-faceted thread and compose it in an Email, CC it to everyone with a title in the company, and make your personal plea to those who are actually going to read it. In reality, you’re just complaining and fishing for rep on a forum.
In short (too late) if you don’t want to be trolled, moved to K Town or just plain locked, read the advice above and realize that you’re probably wrong and that your thread is just going to be bad. That’s ok, I’ll be visiting it soon, and I’ll probably get more rep for a snide remark than you’ll get for your entire long winded rant.
I think I just wrapped up 2000 words that are going to be moved to off topic or K Town… meh. The MODS are cruel and capricious.
Yes, I am acutely aware that I am violating the spirit of this thread by writing this thread.
TL:DR: L2Topic.
1. Redundancy:
You have just made the 172nd thread on the topic. By this point, no matter how well thought out your post is, you’re just making noise. When I see 5 threads on the first page about the same thing and yours’ is the most recent, you’re going to get “This thread is new and exciting”.
Why you’re probably wrong: You may have the best solution on the topic, which is so simple to implement a child could code it, and not only will revolutionize the topic, but make food taste better to boot. Creating your own thread on the topic just makes you a narcissist. When the devs are paying attention to the volume on the topic, they’re not counting threads, but posts. Your idea is just as valid as an OP as it is on page 22.
2. “Fix the damn bugs!”
You just made a one off thread listing a handful of bugs that are affecting you. Usually you’re going to add a lot of capital letters and exclamation points, ranting and raving about how it has become unplayable for you.
Why you’re probably wrong: Many times when I see one of these posts, I check the feedback and support forums for a corresponding thread from the OP. 90% of the time there isn't one. I’m also willing to bet cashy money that a support ticket hasn't been sent in. I realize that your issue is important to you, but it may not be affecting 80%+ of the other players in the game, so it’s something they have to investigate and work on. If it’s not something they can resolve with a hot-fix, and without the existence of a magic wand, it probably means that it’s given a level of priority in the bug-stomping queue. Just because it’s a huge issue to you, doesn't mean that it’s a huge issue to anyone else. These rants are going to get “YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary)”. Usually, these threads also fall under topic 1. Redundancy. The amusing thing about these threads is it usually involves suggesting…
3. Roll back the patch:
In your tirade about (insert bug(s) here) and how it’s completely ruined your game-play, you probably suggested rolling back the patch to make the game playable for you, because you were doing fine last week.
Why you’re probably wrong: A rollback is an absolute LAST RESORT for a developer. In my 20 years of beta testing, I can literally count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen a patch rolled back. Usually these involve a total show stopper where most, if not all, play has been effected and can’t be resolved with a hot-fix. Many patches involve several bug fixes, (Some companies are better at communicating this than others, PGI I give a 6 out of 10 when it comes to their patch notes) more than a few of those bugs may have been affecting other players the way the new bug is affecting you. So your suggestion is to roll back the patch and make a game unplayable for others so that it can be playable for you? Also, many times a rollback can cause more problems than it fixes as it usually requires rolling back the server as well as client versions.
3. Divert resources:
Your frustration about (insert gripe here) has just led you to write a lengthy thread on the topic about how the people doing (this) should be diverted into doing (that).
Why you’re probably wrong: Think of the world of computer programming as a microcosm of the rest of the working world. There are many different skill sets that do not cross over. Those people who model content have a widely different skill set from those who write/analyze code. In short, you’re asking a plumber to fix your light socket. Also, if that were possible, chances are, that a month down the road, you would be writing another post about how there isn't enough content.
4. Beta status:
You've just gone on about how this product IS or IS NOT Beta.
Why you’re probably wrong: Many people are using an outdated model of what qualifies as Beta status. Others believe in the concept that as soon as a product has been monetized that it is no longer Beta. Both of you are wrong.
Back in the day, if you wanted to Beta test a product, you would be charged for the disc, shipping and a nominal fee, this is usually around the same cost +/- of what the Elite Founders package was. Now we’re in a world where an entire game can be downloaded in the time it takes to eat lunch, at a relatively minimal cost to the developer compared to disc production. And without a major publisher pushing the title, these companies need to get funding from somewhere, ergo (Latin), you have Beta entry packages and micro transactions during the development to fund future development.
In short, until the entire industry redefines what the meaning of the word Beta now means, the game is Beta until the developer says it isn't.
5 NERF:
You just had your head handed to you on a stick for the 10th time by something you perceive is an imbalance in the game, and you feel compelled to come to the forum and post your QQ rant on the topic.
Why you’re probably wrong: During the development process, things get tweaked and adjust the state of the meta. It’s not that one system is OP, it’s that its natural counter has changed or hasn’t been implemented yet. Most of the time, you are looking at the symptom and not the disease.
Let’s take ECM as an example. ECM is part of the Information Warfare pillar of the game. Without the rest of the IW being fleshed out, ECM is standing alone. Imagine how the game would look if just missiles were in it completely, and just small lasers and AC5 were the only other aspects of the combat pillar implemented at this time. You would be screaming about how LRMS are OP and stupid and needed to be removed because those mechs that can carry them are ruling the roost. You’d want all mechs to be able to carry LRMS and the mech that did it best would be OP as well.
Another recent example is the sniping meta. When you look at the weapon system as a whole, everything has its natural counter. LRMs were through the roof on damage and it was the niche player who was sniping, because they were good at it. As soon as LRMs were dialed back severely, sniping became the low risk/high reward meta. So, the market floods with them.
Before you begin your rant about how unbalanced an item is, look at everything that surrounds it, rather than just saying that an element needs to be nerfed. If you don’t, this leads to the Law of Unintended Consequences and a lesion in Cause/Effect. Sometimes I believe the Devs actually do take your hair-brained ideas and make a change just to show you how wrong you really were.
6. BUFF:
Why you’re probably wrong: (see 5. NERF).
7. (Random game) does it like this:
You just spent your time making a thread about how (insert title) does it better and that the developer should follow their example.
Why you’re probably wrong: Nobody wants to be known as a (insert title) clone but with (insert difference). If the game was that great, you wouldn’t even be looking at this title and you would be investing every second of your life available to you over there. The game development community isn’t that spread out, everyone knows what the other is doing. If that system were the benchmark of how to do stuff, everyone would be doing it.
8. (Random Company) does it like this:
Many electrons have just died in your thread about how (Mega game developer) has it hands down over the way they do things differently / better than this one does.
Why you’re probably wrong: One word, resources. A lot of the time, I’ll see the poster use some title with a decade long history of generating money and its latest version has spent multiple years in development. You’re comparing apples to truck tires. These mega-titles have many of the best in the industry working for them, getting paid large salaries, and have entire teams devoted to each aspect of the game. You don’t have that here. Plus, you name any game developer in the last 50 years (Yes, I’m even talking about board games) and I can point to a handful of abysmal failures they’ve developed as well. Time will tell which side this title will fall into, but if you’re going to make the comparison, look to a title that has an equal amount of time and staff attributed to it. Otherwise you just sound ignorant.
9. Pay2Win:
The latest form of monetization implemented has you completely apoplectic about how your pocket is being raided to be competitive.
Why you’re probably wrong: Take the money factor out of it for a second. Is there any way that the system can’t be countered in anyway by normal time sink means? Is there a free equivalent of it in the game that is close but not 100% equal to it? If the answer is yes to either of those questions, then shut up, it’s not P2W. I’ve played P2W titles, where even if all the time sinks were removed, it would take close to a year to achieve the same power with what can be purchased with (insert X amount of ‘gold’ coins”). We’re not even close to that here.
10. Why I’m not playing/paying:
You just posted a lengthy thread about why you are no longer playing or paying for the game, you have a laundry list of complaints that continue to go unaddressed and you are fed up enough to post on it.
Why you’re probably wrong: You’re preaching to the choir. Those who agree with you are going to pile on, those who don’t are going to troll. You claim that you’re providing a service to the community and helping the company with your feedback. However, if you truly cared, you’d take your multi-faceted thread and compose it in an Email, CC it to everyone with a title in the company, and make your personal plea to those who are actually going to read it. In reality, you’re just complaining and fishing for rep on a forum.
In short (too late) if you don’t want to be trolled, moved to K Town or just plain locked, read the advice above and realize that you’re probably wrong and that your thread is just going to be bad. That’s ok, I’ll be visiting it soon, and I’ll probably get more rep for a snide remark than you’ll get for your entire long winded rant.
I think I just wrapped up 2000 words that are going to be moved to off topic or K Town… meh. The MODS are cruel and capricious.
Yes, I am acutely aware that I am violating the spirit of this thread by writing this thread.
