81 replies to this topic

[Aim64C]

Recent events have convinced me that no amount of player support or involvement in the development of MechWarrior: Online will correct the abusive, manipulative, and dishonorable conduct of PGI/IGP.

The endless marketing sprees would be understandable if there was, actually, a game worth buying beneath the marketing. Critical community warfare aspects have been neglected from this game. Horrible game mechanics have been adopted despite warnings from the community, and the developers have, more than once, insulted and belittled their customer base.

If it is PGI/IGP's goal to make money off of their investment into the MechWarrior IP - I propose a different strategy than the current marketing bonanza.

Project Kerenski.

Rather than buying a few golden mechs and every top-tier mech package sure to be delivered over the next two years - I offer up $2,000 of my own toward the rights to use the MechWarrior name and the models of 'mechs in this game for a mod within the Real Virtuality game engine (ARMA 2 / ARMA 3). Rights to, potentially, monetize the MechWarrior trade mark and the models (as playable content only - no merchandising of figurines) would, ideally, be included.

Now, I do not expect that my contribution, alone, would be enough to leverage such rights. I am saying that I, personally, am willing to spend $2,000 to allow another group to use the MechWarrior name - and to simplify development by using existing (and well done) assets.

Are there others willing to make similar (if smaller/larger) contributions to such a cause?

Are there others in the community with the talents and the desire to bring such a project to life?

Edit... too much exposure to other cultures influenced a mispelling of Kerensky. I call a trial of grievance upon myself. I'm not quite sure how that will work, but I suspect it will be entertaining.

Edited by Aim64C, 14 December 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[Blurry]

Unless pressure is applied to PGI/IGP they will continue to do what they do. Sell mechs without adding content and breaking promises. Why people keep buying them.

It would be interesting to see if anything could be done but frankly the issues caused by PGI may have stained the name to the point it wont recover.

Until there is transparency withing PGI the conclusion becomes incompetence. It would be very interesting to see what a group of motivated individuals could do.

[Aim64C]

For those who are not sure what I'm talking about - the game engine I propose is that used for ARMA 3:



If Living Legends were to be re-launched - I would suggest that they reconfigure for ARMA 3. While the Real Virtuality 4 engine is not quite as "flashy" in terms of graphics and animation support as engines like Unreal and CryEngine, it does have a much more impressive support for full-spectrum simulation.

For example:





The last showcases some of the jet-centered mods added to the game. While the engine is lacking in terms of being a proper flight simulator - it is orders of magnitude better than previous iterations of the engine (which mostly focused on infantry dynamics with mechanized armor).

There would be some challenges in bringing Battletech to the engine - but it's well within the range of possibility.

[Corvus Antaka]

Yes.

If PGI doesn't get on the ball and CW & promised features do not appear soon, I expect this to be the next logical step.

I'd be willing to put a significant amount of money into such a project.

[TANTE EMMA]

When did you decide to join the dark side????

[Aim64C]

Proposed idea for 'funding' the project operating expenses once in progress:

If a two-currency system is utilized (MC vs C-Bill) - allow player-run dedicated servers to accrue the 'hard' currency (MC) based on player activity on the server. With the game engine proposed natively supporting a host of server-side scripts - this would encourage the independent development of game modes, campaigns, etc and allow those who put effort into them to be rewarded for their contribution to the game (in both raw server space and player/community satisfaction).

This also assumes an agreement could be reached with Bohemia regarding the use of their game engine. Given their actions regarding DayZ - I would say that it is more than possible their reaction would be favorable. I will be contacting them regarding the technical aspects of implementing BattleTech concepts on their game engine (for example - the game engine was designed for 'realistic' missiles - not swarms of 20 - simulating a single LRM-20 is probably more than possible - but a whole lance running two LRM 20s on each mech may pose a problem).

Though they may be unwilling to discuss things too much without much in the way of legal rights to doing such a thing in the first place.

Legal will be all kinds of fun. MechWarrior is a separate legal trade mark from BattleTech. The various rights to artwork are also held (or at least legally viewed as) separately. I would not be surprised if we got clearance from who is perceived as the primary license holder on a few of these, only to be smacked with litigation from other companies (likely hoping to coerce an out-of-court settlement as many of them don't have the finances for an enduring legal battle).

Someone get RoadBeer to be our designated lawyer. He's good at picking a side to **** off.

I've made a few posts over the months regarding what kind of game I envision:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2970211

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2971911

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2941235

More specific balance/implement ideas:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2922036

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Some of these ideas are older - and I don't expect everyone to latch on to all of the ideas - but I readily argue that the largest problem we currently have with the game balance, today, is that we are balancing in a bubble.

That bubble is purely mech-on-mech combat involving even numbered teams with fixed (and opposite) objectives in a very limited battle-space.

That AC40 jager looks a lot different when you figure that you're going to commit to a 15 kilometer march across unsecured terrain where you may encounter everything from hovercraft patrols to two lances of assaults. You'll want to work together with you lance to ensure AC20s aren't being wasted on into the dirt or into vehicles that only require a brief irradiation from a battery of medium lasers to eliminate.

That's why so many of our weapons are just not balanced (and may not be capable of balancing). It's like trying to balance Clans across Solaris-style combat with the Inner-Sphere - not possible to do and still keep the clans as the clans.

[Tekadept]

Hmm how much do you need to change of an IP so you dont get sued Thats a better idea, create your own IP for a game, but make the "flavour" similar to battletech universe

[Aim64C]

Proposed sound track inclusions:







I'll have to get a hold of these (this?) guy as well. I mean... C'mon, this:



Can you just see it? An Atlas walks through a field (wearing a straw hat), spouting flamers at a group of fleeing locusts - a flock of Ravens in pursuit. A cicada darts up and away, UAC5s chattering noisily as it goes....

Just take about anything done by whoever/whomever RTPN is - it's got that excellent crunchy-metallic guitar sound to it with outstanding percussion and the electro-tehcno highlights that would fit perfectly within mechanized combat.

[Aim64C]

Tekadept, on 14 December 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:

Hmm how much do you need to change of an IP so you dont get sued Thats a better idea, create your own IP for a game, but make the "flavour" similar to battletech universe

I've thought about this, considerably.

It is an option that can be explored... however, there are no guarantees with ideas like that. While Rift was able to take many design and concept elements from WoW and implement them with only a few legal issues - the same may not be able to be said in our case.

The reality is that so many of these universes have drawn inspiration from each other at some point or another that the property rights to imagery has gotten blurred. We've seen cases where someone sues Pixar for Monsters Inc - but if you look at "Aaah - Real Monsters" from 'back in the day' on Nickelodeon - you see many commonalities across all of the art-work.

Then you also have the question of whether or not developing a similar "critical system" would generate grounds for a lawsuit - even if it was just to make you swallow legal fees out of spite. Companies with on-staff lawyers can afford intimidation by litigation against companies that would have to pony-up to contract legal defense for each incident. While I'm more than confident in my ability to participate in legal battles - I do not have confidence in my knowledge of specific laws and historic cases regarding those subjects.

I could be vastly over-estimating the risk... or I could be vastly under-estimating it in either case.

The other issue is simply marketing. We want Battletech/Mechwarrior. Creating an alternate lore and system is not necessarily wrong or anything - it just isn't MechWarrior/Battletech - and that name conveys a lot of meaning to many people. It would be sad to have to completely leave the realm and lore of Battletech to produce a game close to what we wanted from Battletech.

[Antonius Prime]

If this situation keeps the same traits over time, I would be in for what I can spare.

[torgian]

I'm up for it.

[Aethon]

Aim64C, on 14 December 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

Recent events have convinced me that no amount of player support or involvement in the development of MechWarrior: Online will correct the abusive, manipulative, and dishonorable conduct of PGI/IGP.

The endless marketing sprees would be understandable if there was, actually, a game worth buying beneath the marketing. Critical community warfare aspects have been neglected from this game. Horrible game mechanics have been adopted despite warnings from the community, and the developers have, more than once, insulted and belittled their customer base.

If it is PGI/IGP's goal to make money off of their investment into the MechWarrior IP - I propose a different strategy than the current marketing bonanza.

Project Kerenski.

Rather than buying a few golden mechs and every top-tier mech package sure to be delivered over the next two years - I offer up $2,000 of my own toward the rights to use the MechWarrior name and the models of 'mechs in this game for a mod within the Real Virtuality game engine (ARMA 2 / ARMA 3). Rights to, potentially, monetize the MechWarrior trade mark and the models (as playable content only - no merchandising of figurines) would, ideally, be included.

Now, I do not expect that my contribution, alone, would be enough to leverage such rights. I am saying that I, personally, am willing to spend $2,000 to allow another group to use the MechWarrior name - and to simplify development by using existing (and well done) assets.

Are there others willing to make similar (if smaller/larger) contributions to such a cause?

Are there others in the community with the talents and the desire to bring such a project to life?

Edit... too much exposure to other cultures influenced a mispelling of Kerensky. I call a trial of grievance upon myself. I'm not quite sure how that will work, but I suspect it will be entertaining.

PGI did not even want MWLL's competition, and that game had been around for years before PGI started any work on MWO; they would never allow you to do this.

[Aim64C]

Aethon, on 14 December 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

PGI did not even want MWLL's competition, and that game had been around for years before PGI started any work on MWO; they would never allow you to do this.

If I remember correctly, it was MW;LL that decided to suspend work on their project voluntarily so as not to compete with the MWO project for a player base.

Or that was all a smoke-screen.

Regardless - I'm both creative and persuasive when I need to be. I've already considered several possible venues of recourse. One of which involves a visit to one of my friends in 'Canadia.' Another challenges a judge to find something to order a lock put on.

I may be a bit more brazen than sensible at this particular point in time - but sometimes that is what is necessary.

[Aethon]

Aim64C, on 14 December 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

If I remember correctly, it was MW;LL that decided to suspend work on their project voluntarily so as not to compete with the MWO project for a player base.

PGI closed down MWLL. If you do not believe me, use the wayback machine to look up the version of the MWLL website from the day the ORIGINAL announcement was made.

To clarify, there were two options: cease and desist, or finish up some of the current assets, stop all development on a specific date (new years 2012), and remove the mechlab and persistent stat tracking that were in development. Only bugfixes were permitted beyond that date.

The MWLL team elected to keep the mod available to everyone while avoiding legal action, so they cooperated.

Edited by Aethon, 14 December 2013 - 10:16 PM.

[Aim64C]

Aethon, on 14 December 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

PGI closed down MWLL. If you do not believe me, use the wayback machine to look up the version of the MWLL website from the day the ORIGINAL announcement was made.

I'm familiar with what you are talking about. Unfortunately - I actually tend to believe the follow-up talk that clarified that the person who made the post was only partially informed. I realize that is not the popular interpretation - but it is the one I see as most probable.

Regardless, as I said - I can be persuasive and creative with how I become so.

I suspect, in nine to twelve months, PGI will be looking for a way to salvage their Christmas bonuses (or sweeten them, depending upon the parachutes built into their scheme). Depending upon what kind of reaction this gets - we might be able to stuff their stocking.

[Aethon]

Aim64C, on 14 December 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

I'm familiar with what you are talking about. Unfortunately - I actually tend to believe the follow-up talk that clarified that the person who made the post was only partially informed. I realize that is not the popular interpretation - but it is the one I see as most probable.

Regardless, as I said - I can be persuasive and creative with how I become so.

I suspect, in nine to twelve months, PGI will be looking for a way to salvage their Christmas bonuses (or sweeten them, depending upon the parachutes built into their scheme). Depending upon what kind of reaction this gets - we might be able to stuff their stocking.

Ok, let me put it this way: I was involved, and was there for the meeting when the decision was made. Given what you know about PGI, is it really that hard to believe?

[Smitti]

Aim64C can you PM me your email address please?

[Aim64C]

Aethon, on 14 December 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

Ok, let me put it this way: I was involved, and was there for the meeting when the decision was made. Given what you know about PGI, is it really that hard to believe?

Belief and probability are different concepts, entirely.

MechWarrior - Battletech ... they are larger concepts and communities than PGI.

Perhaps you were involved - perhaps you weren't. It's water under the bridge. I'll give you a little food for thought - if the community can raise $5M, easily, on Founders Packages... what would a mere $1M raised in the hopes of liberating the IP from PGI be good for?

Keep in mind that I roomed with a masters of accounting with a focus in auditing while I, myself, have a security background.

Use your imagination.

[Rebas Kradd]

Aim64C, on 14 December 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

I've already considered several possible venues of recourse. One of which involves a visit to one of my friends in 'Canadia.' Another challenges a judge to find something to order a lock put on.

Honestly, I wish you'd just do this.

A mod may be legally possible, but you'd still run into the same problem LL did: a divided fanbase. And as far as execution, it's easy to envision doing a better job when you see only the problems, and I certainly don't have the industry experience to say otherwise. But I could just see a mod working hard to address five strands that were broken in MWO, only to unravel fifty other strands that MWO did get right. It's a complicated thing.

Any time you ask me to believe that some group is either evil or incompetent, I hesitate. That's just too easy. I know it often doesn't take more than just a few chinks in the armor (or the misappropriation of a game engine) to bring down an organization. But the reality is, and I know I'm coming from a believe-the-best-of-people standpoint here, that PGI certainly looks intentional with its approach. They look like they have a reason for doing things the way they are.

And that could mean a LOT of things that we would never be told, because it would undermine consumer confidence. If they were having their development scale stretched by 5x PURELY because they couldn't scratch their nose without getting smacked by a CryEngine problem, and that it was literally slowing EVERYTHING down and preempting anything but the most essential tasks...do you think they would ever tell us? No way. They'd lose the base. That's my (limited) understanding of consumer relations - you lie, omit, and massage the truth, because the blunt truth loses customers. That's just the way of it and it's not changing. I am NOT apologizing for the screaming hubris of PGI in selling BLING MECHS after delaying for a bloody YEAR on CW and UI2.0 and the glacial pace of everything else, nor on their apparent cluelessness in anything related to new player attractiveness.

What I'm saying is that another explanation OF YOUR OWN MAKING seems much more plausible - that someone pulled the plug on this project a long time ago and that it's turned into a cost-recovery slog that will either get shut down the moment PGI is out of the red, or linger on supplying them with a trickle until the operating costs exceed the income.

I mean, such a skeleton budget situation would explain the most things. It would explain why there's been paid virtually no attention to anything peripheral in this game. It would explain the slow development pace on things that are getting worked on. It would sufficiently explain (because they're not about to admit that the problem is really just zombied) their PR failures and why they never bother to acknowledge their spectacularly and repeatedly blown deadlines, and then turn around and have the audacity to ask for ever more expensive packages and BLING MECHS, of all things. Mostly, it would get us out of assuming that they're all just idiots. Life isn't that black and white in my eyes. The grey realities of business, corporations and bottom lines seem a far likelier explanation, if no less unfortunate for us.

I've sent you the rest of my thoughts via PM.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 15 December 2013 - 12:06 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Just wait.

If PGI's business model is working, this will never happen.

If their business model isn't, just wait for the crash n burn.