565 replies to this topic

[giganova]

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

Community Warfare Building Blocks




The following features are part of the Community Warfare master feature. Each of these has been identified as an isolated feature that can be developed and released independently or as a group with other blocks. Each block is not created equal, some are incredibly large, some are very small. I’m trying to find an easy way to visualize these blocks via the website, for now text will have to do.

Ready For Internal Test

• Skirmish Mode (Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch

In Development

• UI 2.0 MechLab
  
• UI 2.0 Pilot Lab
  
• UI 2.0 Misc.
  
• Attack/Defend Mode
  
• Loyalty Points
  
• Achievements
  
• Mercenary Unit Life

Ready For Development

• Matchmaking
  
• Private Matches
  
• Player Level

In Design 3

• Mercenary Life

In Design 2

• Ready Screen
  
• Loyalist Life
  
• Inner Sphere
  
• CW Economics
  
• Mercenary Unit Assets
  
• Mercenary Unit Logistics
  
• Contracts
  
• Planetary Warfare
  
• Front Warfare

In Design 1

• Loyalist Unit Life

A note on development phases.

• 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.

Quote

Community Warfare:
The first set of features for Community Warfare have been broken down and reviewed by engineering. The systems engineers have a roadmap and schedule in which they will start addressing the needs of all new systems required by Community Warfare and are working on the core layout for faction/unit gameplay. What this sums up is… engineering has done all project management breakdowns and specs for the upcoming feature and code clean-up and preparation is being worked on in a special new branch build (much like PTS). Some of the core new features, like database sharding for improved load handling, have been completed and are in that branch now..

Guess it's some Canadian double-speak that I just don't understand then...

So if some of these features were under development FIRST, then reviewed by engineers? That makes no sense. I've heard this same song and dance from PGI 6 months ago, and 8 months ago, and a year ago.

Edited by giganova, 06 December 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[Hoaggie]

Volthorne, on 05 December 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

Because Warframe isn't at all incredibly buggy, boring (read: grind early game so you can grind mid-game so you can grind endgame so you can grind rare weapons so you can grind "clan" weapons so you can grind some more because grinding), and full of power creep. Plus their patch notes are so incredibly vague that any new weapons released don't even have accompanying stats posted (or any values at all for balancing changes of any sort, 99% of the time)!

Not to mention all of the incidents where they straight-up lied to the player-base (At the very least, four major ones, from what I can tell. We've had... one major one? Just for comparison), and the fact that they encrypted drop-tables for "security" purposes - which is not shady in the least.

Yep. Digital Extremes is certainly a company to pick for a role model.

All games have bugs, and all MMOs have a grind. Free games have more of a grind than non-free games, they make money off of people that want to skip the grind.

When warframe has a serious problem, it’s usually patched within a few days. They released a new frame with their last major update, and it was totally broken, if it got knocked down its weapons would not work. By the end of the next business day they had patched the game twice and fixed the bug.
Now let’s look at how MWO solves a similar problem, smaller mechs always get knocked down by larger mechs. They removed the feature to “fix” it, still no fix.

Solis Obscuri, on 05 December 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm backing SC as well as MWO, but I know the forums will inevitably sour.

As they have in every gaming community I've seen or been a member of...

There must be come connection there.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Hoaggie, on 06 December 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Now let’s look at how MWO solves a similar problem, smaller mechs always get knocked down by larger mechs. They removed the feature to “fix” it, still no fix.

Twas not that the smaller mechs got knocked down, but rather that mechs such as the Dragon were knocking down mechs they were not supposed to, and assorted similar issues that caused it's removal.

[Volthorne]

Hoaggie, on 06 December 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

All games have bugs, and all MMOs have a grind. Free games have more of a grind than non-free games, they make money off of people that want to skip the grind.

Please compare all the hotfix patch notes of Warframe to all of PGI's patch notes for bugfixes. If your regular patches are introducing THAT many bugs then clearly something needs to be looked at in your development or testing phases of content creation. I'm not saying MW:O is perfect, but some of the stuff that shows up in Warframe's patch notes shouldn't even be happening in the first place! Like this particular gem, for instance (from hotfix 11.2.1):

Quote

- Fixed game hang/freeze when scrolling through profile selection screen.

Quote

When warframe has a serious problem, it’s usually patched within a few days. They released a new frame with their last major update, and it was totally broken, if it got knocked down its weapons would not work. By the end of the next business day they had patched the game twice and fixed the bug.
Now let’s look at how MWO solves a similar problem, smaller mechs always get knocked down by larger mechs. They removed the feature to “fix” it, still no fix.

That problem was only under the circumstance that you had a particular piece of equipment equipped and were using it at the time of being knocked down, which affected all Frames, not just the newest one. Again, some of the bugs that show up shouldn't even be happening in the first place, and certainly shouldn't be making it to the production servers if run through an internal team of testers if they do happen (suddenly PGI's pace doesn't look so bad for the trade-off, now does it?).

Also, at least PGI doesn't throw "MOAR SHINIES!!!" at us whenever something needs a serious-serious fix. I am actually glad that collisions are gone and marked to be rebuilt from the ground up rather than have PGI leave it in while trying to fix it.

Quote

There must be some connection there.

The connection is the internet.

[Nekki Basara]

Volthorne, on 06 December 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

Also, at least PGI doesn't throw "MOAR SHINIES!!!" at us whenever something needs a serious-serious fix.

Are you sure? I mean.... total lack of new gameplay... project phoenix.... steady stream of new maps and mechs.... no game modes....

These aren't exactly game-breaking bugs, but they're not exactly irrelevant.

And let's not get started on the game-breaking bugs eh?

[DrXitomatl]

Can barely wait for all the great additions and changes to come! It's going slow but I love the game more than any other game ever already, and it is bound to only improve from the sounds of it. Keep up the great work!

See you on the battlefield,
Xito

[Volthorne]

Nekki Basara, on 06 December 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

Are you sure? I mean.... total lack of new gameplay... project phoenix.... steady stream of new maps and mechs.... no game modes....

Project Pheonix I might agree with you. Mechs are debatable. Maps, well, those are essential to establishing settings for CW (plus nearly everyone will lynch you for declaring those as "shinies"). As for game modes, we have two on the way. One this month and I'm guessing the other in one to two, judging from how the CC post is phrased.

Not to mention this is essentially a MOBA, the gameplay makes itself. It's not a (supposedly) story-driven co-op that has no story only "kill everything all the time" game modes (MW:O doesn't really either, but MOBAs are built around "kill everything". In Warframe you always end up having to kill everything, but maybe this time you press a button, and that time you stand in a certain spot).

Quote

These aren't exactly game-breaking bugs, but they're not exactly irrelevant.

I never said they were, I was pointing out that even a half-assed internal team of testers could catch 90% of them before the patches make it to the production servers. Digital Extremes is trading quality for quantity, and it shows in their product, if you bothered to play it (I'm assuming you don't, mind).

Quote

And let's not get started on the game-breaking bugs eh?

Other than hit-detection, I'm not sure what game-breaking bugs you could be referring to in MW:O.

Edited by Volthorne, 06 December 2013 - 11:52 PM.

[Brotherly Love]

Still no map choice? Still no possibility to drop against a specific enemey? Still no EU Servers? TDM praised as new game mode?

I am glad I did not spend to many $ on this game - and I am starting to regret even the few I did.

Best regards

phila


P.S.: Just because I did not post as much as you guys - that does ot mean, that I have not been playing MW:O. I had high hopes but they are dwindling with each new grab deal.

Edited by Brotherly Love, 07 December 2013 - 02:06 AM.

[Hoaggie]

Volthorne, on 06 December 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

Also, at least PGI doesn't throw "MOAR SHINIES!!!" at us whenever something needs a serious-serious fix. I am actually glad that collisions are gone and marked to be rebuilt from the ground up rather than have PGI leave it in while trying to fix it.

Is PGI paying you? Can you seriously say that PGI is doing a good job here?

The thing I was trying to get at, is that Warframe has a dedicated customer relation team, they collect feedback and interact on forums or in game. If the devs want to talk to the community, the message comes through the relations team. If there is a problem, they respond, it’s not always a fix, but they respond.

Are you saying PGI takes out broken mechanics to work on them? Are you sure? Because they haven’t said boo about collisions since taking them out. They've even added more broken mechanics, and are planning to shove more broken systems at us.

Paul Inouye' said:

MechWarrior Online is being designed to put you the player in the seat of the pilot. It is 100% first person view only. Being the pilot is one of our key design pillars and 3rd person breaks that pillar on multiple levels as seen in many of the other 3rd Person discussions.

Edited by Hoaggie, 07 December 2013 - 02:05 AM.

[Hoaggie]

Brotherly Love, on 07 December 2013 - 02:04 AM, said:

Still no map choice? Still no possibility to drop against a specific enemey? Still no EU Servers? TDM praised as new game mode?

I am glad I did not spend to many $ on this game - and I am starting to regret even the few I did.

Best regards

phila


P.S.: Just because I did not post as much as you guys - that does ot mean, that I have not been playing MW:O. I had high hopes but they are dwindling with each new grab deal.

You, sir, are a member of the silent majority that PGI thinks they are making happy.

The fact that they are drawing members like you out should shock them.

[Chemie]

giganova, on 06 December 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Guess it's some Canadian double-speak that I just don't understand then...

So if some of these features were under development FIRST, then reviewed by engineers? That makes no sense. I've heard this same song and dance from PGI 6 months ago, and 8 months ago, and a year ago.

I take your 2 quotes to mean that CW is "ready for development"...which is what we had been lead to believe at least 3 times over the past 18 months. It's been ready...many times...just never started.

Edited by Chemie, 07 December 2013 - 10:57 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Zerberus, on 02 December 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

Thanks for the Update

One thing that bothers me and it would be sweet to get a straight answer....



This strongly implies that planetary control can and will (also) be decided by the outcome of mindless arena brawling with zero actual tactical or strategic considerations.

This is something I very strongly oppose, and I do firmly believe that I am not alone in this. Just the simple notion of territory control being decided by a WWE Royal Rumble actually disgusts me to a certain degree....

Can we please get confirmation if this is in fact the case? I can live with either answer, I just want to know what I`m getting in to.

Oh, and please make it possible to only deselect TDM while still having conquest + Assault in the queue. I like the current "any" option but have no interest in playing TDM, only griefing the former assault blob, and that is in nobody`s best interests. But it is the inevitable result of me dropping into a TDM match.

Can only back up what you have said, and that the idea of team death match being a mode specific, for CW makes me shudder, and shoulders slump..the last time I played soldiers where the winners were the side with the last plastic solider standing up, was at the age of a bout 9, the idea that game developers think this is a cool way to capture a planet is very very sad.

The fact that people will get to chose which maps to play at a strategic level also follows on with the sad theme, as a volcanic planet will only have one map (in the current availble) to chose from Terra Therma, and yet battles for this planet will never involve that map if people are given a choice.

my support of this game has taken some knocks, but it just gets more point and click, without any planning or thought month after month, when there is any actual progress..

still why should I worry, about CW being dumbed down so much it becomes a pointless addition, because at the rate of developement, there won't be enough people to sustain it..

[Chemie]

what is the difference between assault and TDM? With longer cap times, the only time you get capped is you let 4 mechs into your back field and ignore them for a LONG time....you deserve to lose. We already have TDM and adding another game mode just fractions a small player base

[C E Dwyer]

Honestly the format means nothing, though as pointed out, the deaf members of the community get even less out of a video stream than the little we get here.

only three things are of any point in developing right now, stopping the crashes which are damaging the game, UI2 and CW

the rest are not going to save this game from the scrap pile, hot air is hot air if its on a stream or in text..

[Level1Firebolt]

It's clear that PGI really just has to cater to their battletech fans at the moment as game activity has been dropping like a rock. Proof? Just go by the community. MWO Youtube videos that used to get views as high as 10k+ are now not even getting 1k. Podcasts are barely getting 100 listeners. The turnover of posts on MWO forums (and on other sites, like reddit) have dropped to very low levels.

Even in game, it's like ELO and weight matching mean nothing. I get matched to the same people over and over again, and huge weight disparities are becoming increasingly common. I remember trying to sync drop with 7 other friends a couple of months ago- it was very hit or miss. Nowadays with the very small player base, we haven't missed ONE sync drop.

Also, while it's cool that some groups are still organizing competitive events, it is on a very, very small scale as many players who are competitive or sought to be just quit after so much time with no content being released.

If MWO is to survive, it really needs to start listening to the players it has left. The players that are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on mechs (Project Pheonix, heros, etc). The time for catering to new players has passed, and it's very apparent that PGI cannot develop content fast enough (or at all, really) to sustain interest for newcomers.

[Hoaggie]

THATONE, on 07 December 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

It's clear that PGI really just has to cater to their battletech fans at the moment as game activity has been dropping like a rock. Proof? Just go by the community. MWO Youtube videos that used to get views as high as 10k+ are now not even getting 1k. Podcasts are barely getting 100 listeners. The turnover of posts on MWO forums (and on other sites, like reddit) have dropped to very low levels.

Even in game, it's like ELO and weight matching mean nothing. I get matched to the same people over and over again, and huge weight disparities are becoming increasingly common. I remember trying to sync drop with 7 other friends a couple of months ago- it was very hit or miss. Nowadays with the very small player base, we haven't missed ONE sync drop.

Also, while it's cool that some groups are still organizing competitive events, it is on a very, very small scale as many players who are competitive or sought to be just quit after so much time with no content being released.

If MWO is to survive, it really needs to start listening to the players it has left. The players that are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on mechs (Project Pheonix, heros, etc). The time for catering to new players has passed, and it's very apparent that PGI cannot develop content fast enough (or at all, really) to sustain interest for newcomers.

I totally agree, PGI killed its own player base over a feature that really adds nothing to the game.

[Nekki Basara]

Volthorne, on 06 December 2013 - 11:48 PM, said:

Project Pheonix I might agree with you. Mechs are debatable. Maps, well, those are essential to establishing settings for CW (plus nearly everyone will lynch you for declaring those as "shinies"). As for game modes, we have two on the way. One this month and I'm guessing the other in one to two, judging from how the CC post is phrased.

To be fair, the one this month is the same one we had since closed beta, but with LESS IN IT. How hard is it to remove lines of code? Hint: not very. Maps are useful for CW, but since CW is still on the same horizon it's always been on... meh. Mechs are now worthless, given the lack of variation between variants and the definitive obsolescence hierarchy. It'd be LOVELY if they could make some tradeoffs so a different mech in the same weight bracket might have different properties that make it fit one style over another, but not so much. That's a failing of Battletech in general though, so I can't blame PGI for that fully. I can blame them for not taking the various stuff FASA/Fanpro/Catalyst did to make mechs more interesting and sticking more of that in though.

Volthorne, on 06 December 2013 - 11:48 PM, said:

Not to mention this is essentially a MOBA, the gameplay makes itself. It's not a (supposedly) story-driven co-op that has no story only "kill everything all the time" game modes (MW:O doesn't really either, but MOBAs are built around "kill everything". In Warframe you always end up having to kill everything, but maybe this time you press a button, and that time you stand in a certain spot).

I never said they were, I was pointing out that even a half-assed internal team of testers could catch 90% of them before the patches make it to the production servers. Digital Extremes is trading quality for quantity, and it shows in their product, if you bothered to play it (I'm assuming you don't, mind).

I tried it, it didn't run so well on my PC and I didn't particularly like the default "plae gaem" mode which had high level players doing all the work and me doing nothing so I didn't give it much thought after that. TBH it seems like the kind of thing that'd be great on a console rather than a PC, or at LAN parties.

Volthorne, on 06 December 2013 - 11:48 PM, said:

Other than hit-detection, I'm not sure what game-breaking bugs you could be referring to in MW:O.

I said lets not get into it. TBH I don't want to type that much.

[Vaan]

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

Community Warfare Building Blocks
The following features are part of the Community Warfare master feature. Each of these has been identified as an isolated feature that can be developed and released independently or as a group with other blocks. Each block is not created equal, some are incredibly large, some are very small. I’m trying to find an easy way to visualize these blocks via the website, for now text will have to do.

Ready For Internal Test

• Skirmish Mode (Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch

In Development

• UI 2.0 MechLab
  
• UI 2.0 Pilot Lab
  
• UI 2.0 Misc.
  
• Attack/Defend Mode
  
• Loyalty Points
  
• Achievements
  
• Mercenary Unit Life

Ready For Development

• Matchmaking
  
• Private Matches
  
• Player Level

In Design 3

• Mercenary Life

In Design 2

• Ready Screen
  
• Loyalist Life
  
• Inner Sphere
  
• CW Economics
  
• Mercenary Unit Assets
  
• Mercenary Unit Logistics
  
• Contracts
  
• Planetary Warfare
  
• Front Warfare

In Design 1

• Loyalist Unit Life

A note on development phases.

• 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.

Quote

Community Warfare:
The first set of features for Community Warfare have been broken down and reviewed by engineering. The systems engineers have a roadmap and schedule in which they will start addressing the needs of all new systems required by Community Warfare and are working on the core layout for faction/unit gameplay. What this sums up is… engineering has done all project management breakdowns and specs for the upcoming feature and code clean-up and preparation is being worked on in a special new branch build (much like PTS). Some of the core new features, like database sharding for improved load handling, have been completed and are in that branch now.

We will update as each feature of Community Warfare enters development so you will know what order to expect things to start appearing. Right now all development is heavily, under the hood.

Another feature that will be updated is the Match Maker. A full analysis has been performed on the current system and fixes/updates are now planned. This is not a trivial update and may be included with the release of Phase 1 Community Warfare. Tonnage limits, grouping, Elo calculations are all reliant on these changes and we will fill you in with more detail, as these tasks move into production.

HEY PGI Devs, Kindly response to this? Is this what we called double standards?

[Volthorne]

Nekki Basara, on 07 December 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

To be fair, the one this month is the same one we had since closed beta, but with LESS IN IT. How hard is it to remove lines of code? Hint: not very. Maps are useful for CW, but since CW is still on the same horizon it's always been on... meh. Mechs are now worthless, given the lack of variation between variants and the definitive obsolescence hierarchy. It'd be LOVELY if they could make some tradeoffs so a different mech in the same weight bracket might have different properties that make it fit one style over another, but not so much. That's a failing of Battletech in general though, so I can't blame PGI for that fully. I can blame them for not taking the various stuff FASA/Fanpro/Catalyst did to make mechs more interesting and sticking more of that in though.

All fair points. That doesn't change the fact that PGI is definitely making forward progress in terms of development, even if the steps are miniscule right now. Could they put in a little more effort to make the game interesting and cool? Sure, I don't disagree.

DE is basically going nowhere fast (they've had to redesign the damage system once (which is still badly designed/balanced after the rework), and have reworked bosses multiple times, removed, renamed, and reimplemented a mission "type", and designed ONE whole new set of map tiles after a year(ish) - which equates to a single map for comparison).

Quote

I tried it, it didn't run so well on my PC and I didn't particularly like the default "plae gaem" mode which had high level players doing all the work and me doing nothing so I didn't give it much thought after that. TBH it seems like the kind of thing that'd be great on a console rather than a PC, or at LAN parties.

Let me put it this way: gameplay is so quick - even "quicker" than CoD if that's a Thing - that playing on a console is basically torture from some of the stuff I've read (think ME3MP except most of the enemies run 1.5x as fast as Husks). Especially some of the mastery tests which serve no purpose except to lock away content because reasons.

Quote

I said lets not get into it. TBH I don't want to type that much.

My bad. Sorry.

Edited by Volthorne, 07 December 2013 - 08:17 PM.

[xTurinx]

Heffay, on 05 December 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

That word... I don't think you're using it right.

Last I checked Vaporware referred to items (real or electronic) that are never actually delivered despite repeated proclamations and promises of delivery in the near future.

Ala UI2.0 and CW

I wish I had kept a running list of all the times dates or time frames were given for the release of UI2.0 and CW to see how much they have slipped from initial statements. I'm betting CW is at least a year behind initial estimates.