53 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Troutmonkey, on 22 November 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

That would be great. A question about each problem weapon system / feature that's currently being looked at would be great, especially from an official source. You could do one each patch with asking whether the changes were good, and what should be looked at next.

Too many duplicate polls asking the same things and we can't even be sure if you're seeing them. The community does come up with a lot of rubbish ideas, but there's some really good fixing that have been suggested that I would love to see the devs impliment.

Yea that was my thinking behind it. Don't allow comments, but a couple of feedback polls and maybe a poll on what would be a high priority to be adjusted next (a multiple choice of some kind) with the "winner" getting bumped up the priority list above the other choices.

That requires a few things though.

The feedback polls have to be very careful to avoid backlash fiascos (IE 3pv), if you're not going to listen to the player base then don't bother. That's actually worse than any perceived non-communication.

The "next priority" poll, the devs select the items in the poll and make it current items they are actively working on so that when the players vote on it they have the ability to move the winning suggestion to be bumped up in priority. It does no good to put up a poll and have features they don't have the ability to push up higher on the priority scale.

It all comes back to perception. The 3pv debacle did a LOT to hurt the community's perception of the devs. Regardless of what THEIR numbers and data showed them, the public poll decisively told another story in the eyes of the player. If they posted a poll along the lines of

Which would you like to see first?
Hitbox Revision
Terrain Revision (IE getting stuck on an ankle size rock)
Consumable Revision

Then ensuring whichever feature gets voted up get implemented before the others. Now those examples are just that, examples. PGI knows who works on what and could ensure that all of the options would be overseen by the same team of devs and that all of the options were in the same vein.. So we wouldn't get one option that would be overseen by the art department and another by coders and another by map designers.

I know that was a bit lengthy but I wanted to go into more detail on this. AtD is just about universally perceived as a facade. Many of the players felt that it was "rigged" and the questions were either cherry picked for ease or answered with a lot of fluff but no actual answer.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 22 November 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

Which would you like to see first?
Hitbox Revision
Terrain Revision (IE getting stuck on an ankle size rock)
Consumable Revision

TBH, my preference is always that if you added something, you need to give another patch cycle or a month (2 patch cycles) to "refine" any serious changes to be made, like the deployment of the mech movement "feature". Refining it so that we wouldn't need a "pebbles of steel" thread would have been more greatly appreciated. I bet there's still plenty of pebbles on the field that still stop mechs in their tracks...

With hitbox revision, I would've rather had Paul poll which 4 mechs of whatever # needed to be looked at. At least it would be more productive than whatever arbitrary system he's using... otherwise he's "fixing" mechs that don't really need refining (or not fixing the mechs that desperately need it). If anything, he should've put up a poll on whether the changes to the 4 mechs was effective or not. That is a more productive method instead of "just adjusting it for the sake of adjusting".

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 22 November 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

TBH, my preference is always that if you added something, you need to give another patch cycle or a month (2 patch cycles) to "refine" any serious changes to be made, like the deployment of the mech movement "feature". Refining it so that we wouldn't need a "pebbles of steel" thread would have been more greatly appreciated. I bet there's still plenty of pebbles on the field that still stop mechs in their tracks...

With hitbox revision, I would've rather had Paul poll which 4 mechs of whatever # needed to be looked at. At least it would be more productive than whatever arbitrary system he's using... otherwise he's "fixing" mechs that don't really need refining (or not fixing the mechs that desperately need it). If anything, he should've put up a poll on whether the changes to the 4 mechs was effective or not. That is a more productive method instead of "just adjusting it for the sake of adjusting".

Yes sir, that's what I was getting at. Let the player base at least give you a little guidance on what they feel are the most pressing issues. They need to remember form time to time that this may be their babies, but they're developing the game for ALL of us, not themselves or any small portion of the player base. I think it would also help alleviate at least a little of the QQ and rants on here. It's a bit harder to say "PGI doesnt' listen" or "PGI isn't doing what the majority (since it's so popular to claim the "majority" of players always seem to agree with the OP) of the players want" if the factual numbers show otherwise. But again, for that to have any meaning at all they would have to commit to actually taking the results of those types of polls to heart.
It doesn't even have to be major issues, just ANYthing relevant and pertinent at this point to show that they are actually taking into consideration where we'd like the game to go. We are the customers so we aren't entitled to anything but at the same time I don't see PGI paying its own bills.

(on a side note)
A good example of where I'm at and how I feel about things presently is that if I see another round of big packages come out before I see major improvement and implementation of things like CW then I'll jsut about write this game off and not spend any mroe money because at that point my perception really is that PGI is mroe concerned about cash grabs than content. RIght or wrong, true or false, that's how things become perceived to be.

I would like to note that one simple post from a forum moderator turned an entire thread from the typical rant, rage, troll, and QQ fest into a productive and constructive conversation. Take note PGI, see how taking 5 minutes of time to post something like that can affect the community?

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 22 November 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

(on a side note)
A good example of where I'm at and how I feel about things presently is that if I see another round of big packages come out before I see major improvement and implementation of things like CW then I'll jsut about write this game off and not spend any mroe money because at that point my perception really is that PGI is mroe concerned about cash grabs than content. RIght or wrong, true or false, that's how things become perceived to be.

At this point, I expect a Clan Pack before CW. That's how confidently sad I am at the rate this is progressing. In fact, I expect it around the time the Saber Pack mechs are available for global consumption.

Quote

I would like to note that one simple post from a forum moderator turned an entire thread from the typical rant, rage, troll, and QQ fest into a productive and constructive conversation. Take note PGI, see how taking 5 minutes of time to post something like that can affect the community?

TBH, he deleted a post (which I guess was much less productive, but more honest about the situation as it stood). Rather than rehash it, I did try my best to write a new one, but with a little less vitriol... but I don't expect it to live long enough. I don't have have patience for people that try to hide from what they have done and be unapologetic about it.

I've felt little impact from any PGI/IGP Community Manager either way in terms of actually getting results.

Edited by Deathlike, 22 November 2013 - 10:34 PM.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 22 November 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

TBH, he deleted a post (which I guess was much less productive, but more honest about the situation as it stood). Rather than rehash it, I did try my best to write a new one, but with a little less vitriol... but I don't expect it to live long enough. I don't have have patience for people that try to hide from what they have done and be unapologetic about it.

I've felt little impact from any PGI/IGP Community Manager either way in terms of actually getting results.

I was just pointing out how Niko posting in here and communicating with a single post asking for some feedback changed the whole course of this thread and went a long way into turning it from the typical QQs and arguments we see on here into something quite a bit more constructive. I don't feel that happened because of any other reason than the simple fact of the players posting in here felt there was actually someone willing to listen to their ideas and feedback.

Again, it's all about perception. Niko posted, asked some questions, and actually made it seem like someone on the PGI side of thigns was listening and actually cared about what players were saying and it shows in this thread. Look at the posts prior to his post and then look at the posts after. Huge difference that just a single post of communication made.

Can you imagine what that would do if we had even that small sliver from the devs on a semi-regular basis? I think it would alter the entire behavior and mentality of the community. There's always going to be that 10% that are just malcontent no matter what you do but I honestly think the majority of the community would be very appreciative and cooperative in this regard.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 22 November 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

I was just pointing out how Niko posting in here and communicating with a single post asking for some feedback changed the whole course of this thread and went a long way into turning it from the typical QQs and arguments we see on here into something quite a bit more constructive. I don't feel that happened because of any other reason than the simple fact of the players posting in here felt there was actually someone willing to listen to their ideas and feedback.

That assumes a lot. Right now their actions or inaction on certain things tells a bigger story IMO. Not everything has to be responded to, but the serious stuff does and that doesn't seem to get their attention as it should.

Quote

Again, it's all about perception. Niko posted, asked some questions, and actually made it seem like someone on the PGI side of thigns was listening and actually cared about what players were saying and it shows in this thread. Look at the posts prior to his post and then look at the posts after. Huge difference that just a single post of communication made.

Perception is really got them into trouble in the first place. Sometimes being proactive on the issues is better than being completely reactive (and at worse, completely delayed and could have been resolved quicker than it can be).

Quote

Can you imagine what that would do if we had even that small sliver from the devs on a semi-regular basis? I think it would alter the entire behavior and mentality of the community. There's always going to be that 10% that are just malcontent no matter what you do but I honestly think the majority of the community would be very appreciative and cooperative in this regard.

Outside of those that are always be bitter, it doesn't help that they themselves (well, probably mostly Paul, and occasionally Bryan) tell us that "we're the vocal minority" and all the other related stuff... stuff that should never be said from a dev's mouth, or at the very least should have come with an apology. I don't expect the most heartfelt warmth embrace/man hug, but sometimes I think people being out of touch with the community aren't always willing to admit that mistakes were made (and there are plenty, and it probably won't be the last either). Insight is received through understanding and actual testing/trials of the past... not trying to bang your head against the wall assuming there is only "my way or the highway". It doesn't play well with the public.

It's kinda like blaming people when you stub your own toe. It doesn't make sense, yet it still happens. The meta is what it is not because of the players.. it's because the devs allow the players to do things that the players shouldn't. Sometimes these things don't seem to dawn on them, but I guess we'll find out one way or another of the results.

In sum, there are no "wrong answers"... just bad answers.

Edited by Deathlike, 22 November 2013 - 11:25 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Niko Snow, on 22 November 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Some may have seen our Forum Awards and Halloween contest: What sort of other community events would you like us to run?
How do you feel we can improve our front-line support?
How can we make the community feel more like a self and welcoming environment for you?

i'll be honest with you the day's i felt like not participating on the forums in any shape or form were when i found representitives of the companies communtiy behaving as badly as the bad customers in some cases because they felt like it. never vent at customers

when such disatisfaction conversations, rumours/conspiracies whether or not they concern you appear on other sites such as reddit it is just as contentious to post snarky remarks to those already angered. fuel on fires do no help for the company whom you represent and are infact completely unecessary as customers have everyright to conduct their own conversations through outside channels.

when finding anger or upset patrons/customers, do not break your own ruleset also to rub their face in it, ie not just deleting sigs but replacing them with "trollish" content.

bad behavior done which may not even be addressing others behavior only spreads further discontent. it creates a totally unwelcoming and demoralising enviroment. many lose all confidence in participating in feedback when they feel they have to communicate through channels made be people of such reactionary behavior as bad as the people being admonished.

i'm sure you've learned these lessons, saddly the hard way and that is my honest opinion.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 22 November 2013 - 11:30 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I don't really need contests or special activities on the forums. I don't mind them, of course.*

I like to have information on how the game is developing, what the developers are planning. I want to be kept up to date and see the progress (and if there is no progress, I don't mind reading some details on technical challenges that you wrestle with.)

I like to know why certain things were done the way they were. I like to know how you work (for example, how do you decide that weapon X needs a nerf/buff/change and how to you estimate what change is the best one, or at least the one you eventually implement)

And I like to see responses to feedback. "Yes, we hear that people don't like X, but X is the way because *elaborate, well thought out post/blog article/command chair post".

As an example:
The heat system has been talked about so often, about what people think is wrong or right about, for example. I would really love to hear fully thought out post, not small snippets or single sentence, on how you see it, how it affects balance, how you fine tune things and where you would want to go and what technical or other practical challenges you might see.


---
*If you want any contests, I might love to see a "community-designed mech" contest or something like that, that eventually leads to a design being chosen for the game (visual design more important here than loadout). Espeically after I've seen the fan-driven Marauder contest. (Startrek Online did something similar for finding the design for the next Enterprise. I presume it would be a non-canon design to not run into any legal troubles other )

RG Notch, on 22 November 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

Are you insane? One of the worst things PGI/IGP does is manage this community! Go look at how often and in regards to what the "community manager" posts here. Their utter flub of the 3PV implementation is what drove away a huge portion of the people who left. I guess it's good community managing to tell your founders that they aren't the demographic you're looking for, or to tell people complaining that things have never been better.....
Now if you mean they are good at hiding criticism and sweeping issues under the rug or pretending everything is fine I could agree.

Is Garth still around? Is he okay?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 23 November 2013 - 03:58 AM.

[Silent]

Roadbeer, on 22 November 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

Yes, because ONLY the competitive scene is capable of spotting imbalance. Currently you have someone from SoK QQing in every relevant thread that arty/air is OP, so they should listen to HIS opinion? Get over thine self.

The top units and players are probably going to have a better idea of what works and what doesn't when it comes to gameplay because more often then not they are the people that are playing the game the most.

[Sam Slade]

What you need to do is rebuild the community from the ground up. Looking at the cold hard facts your PR is in a bad place right now:
- initial game reviews where not good
- The majority of the community still regards you in the same way boat owners regard insurance companies... no trust, no gratitude, just a necessary evil. You need to get that trust back...even if you flat out brbe to do it.
-
You need events that engage people with very little effort: what happened to the timeline?

Have you aquired the rights to the plethora of fiction set in the battletech universe?

If not, buy the rights and start running simple Davion vs Kurita, Liao vs Stiener, Marik vs, Mercs/Free Agent battles that add alligence as a factor in the matchmaker... it's a VERY rudimentary clan wars system but it may garner a bit of emotional investment... more so if you billed it as Battle at blah blah blah Week as per blah blah blah story. People made an emotional investment in this game when they put down money on a Founders or Phoenix or whatever pack... you've given them nothing to hang your hat on in that respect and it's fast making MWO a flash in the pan remake.

People would enjoy the game WAY more with a sense of emotive achievement then grindy fight for cbills... there is a huge volume of fiction associated with this IP... use it.

[Roadbeer]

Silent, on 23 November 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

The top units and players are probably going to have a better idea of what works and what doesn't when it comes to gameplay because more often then not they are the people that are playing the game the most.

You and I are going to have to disagree with this. It's been my experience that (for the most part) competitive teams rarely play unless there is training or match-ups. You don't frequently see them outside with "the great unwashed" PUGing. I'm not saying that this is always true, like I said, it's been my experience so that's all I have to base my opinion on.

Having said that, getting to Niko's question:
1: I think the Star League awards and things like the Halloween contest were great, keep them up.
2: Most of the other things that the FORUM mods could do to engage the Forumites has already been discussed in this thread (as far as contests/content).
3. I'm a HUGE fan of a non-commentable poll in regards to bug/feature fix (Sandpit, you stole my thunder as I was just thinking of that before I got to your post on it).
First week of the month, put up a multiple choice poll listing the issues that have appeared on the forum over the previous month of things that would be a quick fix. With the exception of a few glaring examples a lot of balance issues seem to be down to juggling fractions so minor tweaks seem to be all that's necessary.
Run it for a week, at the end of the week, put up a new poll with options like
1. Too High,
2. Too low.
3. about right tweak up
4. about right tweak down.
and run that poll for a week.
Results of that poll appear on the PTS 2 weeks later for testing. then a poll for (Issue)
1. Feature appears fixed.
2. Feature is still too powerful.
3. Feature is still too weak
4. Feature needs tweaking up
5. Feature needs tweaking down
And keep working with the poll and tweaks on PTS until the majority feels it is fixed, then put it live. You could have numerous polls on various features running.
Also, along with this. Run PTS 24/7 so everyone can check on the issues, those 2 hours blocks are somewhat inconvenient. I realize that you're trying to get live metric data when someone can monitor the PTS, but I don't think you're really getting good data in those short blocks.

I think someone needs to put together a section that thoroughly explains how systems work. There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about how core systems behave. Engineers aren't very good at explaining things to laymen and I have actually seen forum arguments where two sides will quote the exact same paragraph from a dev and use it to prove their point. There is no way to say "RTFM N00b" because there is no FM, and finding information requires wading through dozens of posts to find your answer, and when you do, someone will inevitability point to some obscure post and say "That was in August, this is how it works now (link)." And the information needs to be updated when changes occur.

The patch notes need to be more concise. When they say things like "Numerous bug fixes" doesn't tell us anything. 1. It doesn't tell us what has been allegedly fixed so we can see if it actually has been fixed or made worse. 2. It doesn't inform us how hard the Devs have actually been working. Does numerous mean 3 or 30?

On the whole, I think the Mods and volunteers do a fine job considering the level of nerdrage. There have been a couple missteps, but I think they DO allow quite a bit of neckbeardery before the thread needs to get moved. So /applaud to you guys. A lot of the communication issues don't necessarily have to do with you, but if you have any pull, get those who DO provide the information to give it to us harder, faster and better.

[Deathlike]

Here's an example of a response that, should've been answered with a reasonable time frame:
http://mwomercs.com/...attern-clarity/

It took what, 2-3 weeks for a response? I don't demand immediate answers, but these are the kinds of things that are not taken well from a slow response.

[Sandpit]

oh lord, yes!

the whole "lets dig through, search, and read 12 different posts just to get some detailed information on how a module and system works. This game has actually taken some of this for granted I think. Many of the original player base (IE founders) are hardcore BTech fans or at least are familiar with Btech in general. So we at least had a working knowledge of what many of the tech and items would do at least in a general sense.
Players unfamiliar with these things have little to no chance on getting a clear definition which I just don't understand. The good news is, all the devs need to do is look to Smurfy. and take cues. I'm hoping the new mechlab will alleviate some of this but as it stands now, boo! Good call on that Road

[Sidekick]

Victor Morson, on 22 November 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

Fixed that for you!

Also the community manager doesn't even know why everyone hates Ghost Heat so much, because he doesn't even know the hard limits and thought they were much higher. Truly the voice of the people.

I am sorry to disagree. The GhostHeat affair may be dire, but it can be seen as a first step into the favor of non-boating builds. I can´t even tell if and how GH has affected the gameplay. AC40 Jags still work fine, PPC builds still work fine... all that has happend is that some "extreme" builds became less functional.

So: No, I am not against ghost heat. So please don´t say "everyone" hates it.
I mostly recognize opposition to the method of implementation (lack of explanation, transparency, and overall logic of GH) and only little opposition to the mechanic itself.

And this is where the CM come in. Did the CM invent Ghost Heat? No. But they tried to explain the mechanic.

[Roadbeer]

Sidekick, on 23 November 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

So: No, I am not against ghost heat. So please don´t say "everyone" hates it.

It's a common tool when you are unable to articulate your point correctly.

Opinion + Hyperbole = FACT

Welcome to the internet gaming world

[Sandpit]

Roadbeer, on 23 November 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

It's a common tool when you are unable to articulate your point correctly.

Opinion + Hyperbole = FACT

Welcome to the internet gaming world

Don't forget complex mathematical equations to explain WHY your opinion somehow becomes a fact lol

[Alaskan Nobody]

Sandpit, on 23 November 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Don't forget complex mathematical equations to explain WHY your opinion somehow becomes a fact lol

Oh come now, everyone knows that if it is them saying it, it must be fact.

[Sandpit]

Shar Wolf, on 23 November 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Oh come now, everyone knows that if it is them saying it, it must be fact.

I have found in life (I am not retail but I do deal in a customer service type position) that "they" do and say a LOT of things, especially when "they" have given some really bad info or just flat out were false.

[AdamBaines]

I wish I could like this more then just once....perfect Roadbeer.

[fil5000]

Roadbeer, on 22 November 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

Yes, because ONLY the competitive scene is capable of spotting imbalance. Currently you have someone from SoK QQing in every relevant thread that arty/air is OP, so they should listen to HIS opinion? Get over thine self.

In fairness, Victor said "get their input", he didn't say "immediately implement everything they say".

Edit: To respond to Niko's question - mods could add a lot more value to the forums by being open and transparent. The current methods of hiding/deleting posts as opposed to replacing the moderated content with what's been removed and why can make it look as though someone's trying to hide something even though I imagine this is rarely the case. I'd also suggest a review of some of the more... creative policies I've heard mention of, such as banning people from posting if they've said something negative but haven't played the game in a while. Stuff like that doesn't make it look like you're fostering community, it makes you look petty and vindictive (and honestly it's probably funnier to just add a mod edit to the person's post with how long since they last logged in to the game and let people judge for themselves if the opinion is informed or not).

Edited by fil5000, 04 December 2013 - 02:14 PM.