540 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

I dont' understand this...

PGI has stated (numerous times) that UI2.0 will be buggy when released. It's going to have issues and they're going to fix it as we go. The fact that some talk like this is unknown and speculation shows that either people aren't listening or are just ignoring stuff like that so they can jump up and down on Tuesday about how they were "right and PGI sucks".

I just don't get it

[Roland]

Saying things are gonna be {Scrap} shouldn't make you accept {Scrap}, Sandpit.

I mean, if I tell you I'm gonna kick you in the balls, does that make it OK?

[Asmudius Heng]

Roland, on 29 January 2014 - 09:34 PM, said:

Saying things are gonna be {Scrap} shouldn't make you accept {Scrap}, Sandpit.

I mean, if I tell you I'm gonna kick you in the balls, does that make it OK?

He might be into that, it is a 'thing' to some people

EDIT: More seriously, i dont care in UI2.0 is not brilliant and gets updated as they go as long as this is a deliberate way to get the launch modules and other CW building blocks into the game quicker.

If it is just a rush to get the UI into the game quicker its not a great decision IMO

Edited by Asmudius Heng, 29 January 2014 - 09:39 PM.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 29 January 2014 - 09:34 PM, said:

Saying things are gonna be {Scrap} shouldn't make you accept {Scrap}, Sandpit.

I mean, if I tell you I'm gonna kick you in the balls, does that make it OK?

No, but you shouldn't be surprised when it happens which was my point. If there's not a single thread about someone being "surprised" about UI2.0 having issues on Tuesday I'll be very surprised. I never said it was "ok", I said there's no reason for anyone to act like they didn't know there's going to be issues with it.

If the delayed UI2.0 any more than it already has been the forum rage would be huge. We should all know this and it's EXACTLY why it's being pushed out. This is one of the rare instances where I honestly believe if it has issues you can blame the community more than PGI (opinions on how long it should take to make this change aside). The vast majority of the player population has pushed for this.
PGI has listened, and instead of saying "Ok, they've listened and we're going to have a rough few weeks with he new UI more than likely"
it's going to be "PGI sucks, rage rage rage, see? They're incompetent. I called this one! I said the new UI would be buggy! (nevermind that it was already "called" by the devs)" and "Ohhhh nooooo, PGI released the new UI and it has a bug??? I knew PGI sucked!"

Point being, noone should be "surprised" that there's going to be issues with UI2.0.

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 29 January 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

I dont' understand this...

PGI has stated (numerous times) that UI2.0 will be buggy when released. It's going to have issues and they're going to fix it as we go. The fact that some talk like this is unknown and speculation shows that either people aren't listening or are just ignoring stuff like that so they can jump up and down on Tuesday about how they were "right and PGI sucks".

I just don't get it

I suspect the issue is that its already late, and feedback from community members has been ignored, and its buggy. Which part is unknown or speculative? You have identified correctly yourself PGI have said its not what the community wanted and some suggestions will be added later.

If the product is late, that would (should?) mean more time has been available to make it a better product. The alternative is that they underestimated the job when first making commitments. That raises all sorts of other questions about PGI's ability to deliver but thats another thread.

I'm not niave enough to think that patches etc will not be required. But to say hey, we are rolling out something we don't even want to full of bugs and late because you asked for it is a bit silly. They are basically saying that UI2.0 has never been appropriately resourced since they first floated the idea.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Sandpit, on 29 January 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

I dont' understand this...

PGI has stated (numerous times) that UI2.0 will be buggy when released. It's going to have issues and they're going to fix it as we go. The fact that some talk like this is unknown and speculation shows that either people aren't listening or are just ignoring stuff like that so they can jump up and down on Tuesday about how they were "right and PGI sucks".

I just don't get it

If it is bad as some think it will be I will simply take a break and play more tanks, tired of dealing w/beta tests in the release stage.
Hopefully though they will conjure a level 20 wizard to put magics on it and shazzzzaaam, it will be epic on release.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 29 January 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

I suspect the issue is that its already late, and feedback from community members has been ignored, and its buggy. Which part is unknown or speculative? You have identified correctly yourself PGI have said its not what the community wanted and some suggestions will be added later.

If the product is late, that would (should?) mean more time has been available to make it a better product. The alternative is that they underestimated the job when first making commitments. That raises all sorts of other questions about PGI's ability to deliver but thats another thread.

I'm not niave enough to think that patches etc will not be required. But to say hey, we are rolling out something we don't even want to full of bugs and late because you asked for it is a bit silly. They are basically saying that UI2.0 has never been appropriately resourced since they first floated the idea.

You can either be cynical or optimistic. I choose to be the latter. It's a matter of your perspective and opinion on PGI.

Point still being any "Ehr meh gerd, this is buggy, I'm so surprised and angry" threads are going to be nothing more than trolling instead of giving honest feedback.

I'm tired of hearing "PGI doesn't listen to feedback". it's simply untrue. There were several people that involved themselves in a good exchange of ideas on NARCs, kept it constructive, on-topic, and pitched out tons of ideas on how to buff them. It worked,

Just because they don't use an idea does not mean they ignore feedback. It means they're just not giving you a reason as to why they're not doing something and to be quite frank they shouldn't have to. Their communication leaves a LOT to be desired (but it seems to be getting better) but they DO listen. There's no reason in the world why someone should think that PGI is going to spend hours (that's literal hours, if you don't believe that then try to go through ALL of the "ballistics are op" threads, consolidate it, weed out the troll posts, then review the ideas that would work and are feasible across the entire game, THEN respond to every single idea posted that wouldn't work for whatever reason, just that one subject and tell me how long that took, seriously) weeding through duplicate threads and such just to reply to everyone who has an idea.

xMEPHISTOx, on 29 January 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

If it is bad as some think it will be I will simply take a break and play more tanks, tired of dealing w/beta tests in the release stage.
Hopefully though they will conjure a level 20 wizard to put magics on it and shazzzzaaam, it will be epic on release.

I don't think it's going to be doom and gloom but make no mistakes, it's going to have issues. My biggest concern was the social portions. We literally had players in groups left behind while 1-2 players dropped in game on a regular basis. Friend list was borked beyond belief. Even on the test server it was playable and in-game was what you have now.

The mech bay is prettier but it takes a lot of clicks for some things and isn't real intuitive. It's usable and working but far from perfect.

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 29 January 2014 - 09:58 PM, said:

No, but you shouldn't be surprised when it happens which was my point. If there's not a single thread about someone being "surprised" about UI2.0 having issues on Tuesday I'll be very surprised. I never said it was "ok", I said there's no reason for anyone to act like they didn't know there's going to be issues with it.

If the delayed UI2.0 any more than it already has been the forum rage would be huge. We should all know this and it's EXACTLY why it's being pushed out. This is one of the rare instances where I honestly believe if it has issues you can blame the community more than PGI (opinions on how long it should take to make this change aside). The vast majority of the player population has pushed for this.

Well, I think what the vast majority of the population wants is for it to be both high quality, AND delivered on time.

You act like such a thing is impossible, and that people are crazy for expecting such a thing.



A question came up recently while a buddy and I were discussing this game's development.

Back in closed beta, after PGI had only been developing this game for a relatively short while, they had already developed all the core fundamentals of the game. The really hard parts, like getting mechs and combat to actually WORK in the cryengine, had already been done.

This is why so many of us were so psyched about this game. I mean, for being so early in development, it looked GOOD. And hell, it played very well too.

Now, there were netcode issues... And I think we understand that those kinds of things are very hard to fix. I don't think most folks really fault PGI for taking a good long time to fix that stuff. And the improvement there really has been dramatic. For me, hit detection is generally always working, which is great, coming from an old Mechwarrior 4 background.

But then we ask ourselves... "What happened?"

Honestly, how could the guys who implemented all of that core functionality in getting all the mechs and core combat systems, then take the better part of a YEAR to make a front end interface? It's just crazy. It's a front end connected to a database. It just doesn't seem like it's anywhere close to the same level of complexity as getting the core game working.

So then we started to wonder how it could really have happened... One guy suggested that maybe PGI actually inherited that code from Tinker & Smith, or maybe the guys who made that stuff left PGI or something. I dunno, but honestly, it seems really weird that UI 2.0 has taken as long as it has... because really, it's a UI. It's not rocket science.

Whatever though. For the same reason, that it's just a UI, I honestly don't care much... just get on with the other more important stuff.

And really, they need to start doing more rapid balance changes, because the balance changes don't depend on UI 2.0, so I'm not sure why they've been dragging their feet in that regard.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 29 January 2014 - 10:22 PM, said:

You act like such a thing is impossible, and that people are crazy for expecting such a thing.

This is where I think you misunderstand. I'm not acting like anything. I'm pointing out that opinions on the UI, PGI, length of time, etc. they have already stated it's going to have issues so there's no reason for ANYone to be "surprised" that it has issues. I'm not stating an opinion on whether that's how it should be released or PGI at all.

It's a statement of fact that PGI has said it will have issues so no one should be "surprised" and "shocked" that is has issues.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Deathlike, on 29 January 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

Not all sarcasm is translated well on the Internet. It happens.



Not all of it is the same, because it always depends on where you are on the "ELO scale", which obviously, nobody truly knows... yet, you can kinda guess at it some of the time.



You have to realize the level of discourse is completely different between a complaint thread and a newbie help thread. You know you have to have different expectations in the various kinds, including troll threads.

1. Point taken, so if I accused you of being something your're not, then my apologies.
2.Not where I was going with that. Still, that is all the more reason for some people to ****.
3. I understand that, and I expect different things, but I don't tolerate stupid people well. FTR, I consider a person to be stupid when they are ignorant by choice.

Mudhutwarrior, on 29 January 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

Only more than a years worth of threads everyday makes it so. I know your on the wrong side and its frustrating for you but take my challenge if this is too much for you to handle and you cant be the big fish in a small pond.

Drop your premade into 12 mans as fill like we pugs fill your matches. If its not so bad for us it won't be so bad for an expert like you.

No, information properly gathered from a suitable sample size makes it non-anecdotal. Forums are not unbiased, and therefore are not evidence. Know the subject before you try to jump in.

[REDACTED]

I have dropped in 12 mans. We won some, we lost some. Same as when I run a 4 man or solo drop. Tonight my four man has several stomps, ie 4-12 losses etc. We also won one 12-1.

See the problem is that you can't imagine someone defending something that doesn't serve them directly. I am not a high Elo player or else my KDR would be a bit higher than the .37 it is now. Granted, I am not a KDR *****, I ignore stripper poles, and am happy to die in a delaying action if it helps us win.

So yea, I am fine with the 2-12 group size idea.If I drop solo, and wind up against a 12 man, so? Not like I lose a body part or $100 if I lose the match. If I win, I will screenshot it and brag like a ************ though!!

Don't forget I've seen you fight, and I've had friends say you do the same thing I saw. Run out in the open, get killed, and start whining about whatever killed you or bitching that no one supported you.

Edited by Destined, 30 January 2014 - 10:22 AM.
no auto-fornication please.

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 29 January 2014 - 10:12 PM, said:

You can either be cynical or optimistic. I choose to be the latter. It's a matter of your perspective and opinion on PGI.

Point still being any "Ehr meh gerd, this is buggy, I'm so surprised and angry" threads are going to be nothing more than trolling instead of giving honest feedback.

I'm tired of hearing "PGI doesn't listen to feedback". it's simply untrue. There were several people that involved themselves in a good exchange of ideas on NARCs, kept it constructive, on-topic, and pitched out tons of ideas on how to buff them. It worked,

Just because they don't use an idea does not mean they ignore feedback. It means they're just not giving you a reason as to why they're not doing something and to be quite frank they shouldn't have to. Their communication leaves a LOT to be desired (but it seems to be getting better) but they DO listen. There's no reason in the world why someone should think that PGI is going to spend hours (that's literal hours, if you don't believe that then try to go through ALL of the "ballistics are op" threads, consolidate it, weed out the troll posts, then review the ideas that would work and are feasible across the entire game, THEN respond to every single idea posted that wouldn't work for whatever reason, just that one subject and tell me how long that took, seriously) weeding through duplicate threads and such just to reply to everyone who has an idea.


I don't think it's going to be doom and gloom but make no mistakes, it's going to have issues. My biggest concern was the social portions. We literally had players in groups left behind while 1-2 players dropped in game on a regular basis. Friend list was borked beyond belief. Even on the test server it was playable and in-game was what you have now.

The mech bay is prettier but it takes a lot of clicks for some things and isn't real intuitive. It's usable and working but far from perfect.

I read your comments more of 'resigned' than 'optimistic', which is probably as good as it gets when PGI themselves are saying you know what, its gunna fall short of expectations, yours and ours. We take it or leave it right. But you can't really be surprised on the upside or downside, which I think is the thrust of your whole point.

Thats not to say I know how you feel better than you, just thats how it comes across to me.

On the subject of feedback, I find it hard to rationalize they are listening if they don't give feedback. Communication is 2 ways and if they're not saying anything, the logical assumption is they're not hearing or not understanding anything IF THE GOAL IS COMMUNICATION.

If they're goal is something else, then you could make the argument.

This is not a 2 dollar company, this are millions involved here. I just can't believe they cannot afford a person to review threads under a filter from the community itself (oh you know, sample A has 350 posts, review please). Its at most $50k per year if that was a full time job. The real question is, would that $50k translate into a greater commercial return. Some would say yes, some would say no.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Roland, on 29 January 2014 - 10:22 PM, said:

Well, I think what the vast majority of the population wants is for it to be both high quality, AND delivered on time.

And the vast majority has no ******* clue what it takes to do some thing like this. Problems arise, which is why deadlines get pushed back.

They've made a decision to go forward so that other things could be delivered. No point in fussing over what they didn't do, let's focus on what they did. These devs do appear to have chronological issues, but they are by no means deceptive, rude etc like some I've seen in other games.

I enjoy the game as is. For anyone who doesn't, I can't understand why they don't leave some feedback and go away for a few months. Not like there aren't other games to play. Go buy a old game on Steam for $5 and have fun. Get Mass Effect and have a blast!! (Fair warning, you will get sucked in and wind up buying 2&3)

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 29 January 2014 - 10:45 PM, said:

This is not a 2 dollar company, this are millions involved here. I just can't believe they cannot afford a person to review threads under a filter from the community itself (oh you know, sample A has 350 posts, review please). Its at most $50k per year if that was a full time job. The real question is, would that $50k translate into a greater commercial return. Some would say yes, some would say no.

I've stated the exact same thing. Several times. I've moaned and groaned at and to PGI just as much as everyone else has. I've also called out players for just being Dbags and offering nothing to the thread or community in general. I've called out PGI when they've really done something I see as "bad". I've also said praising things about what they get "right" in my opinion. I've suggested ideas, complained about others, and try to give unbiased opinions on things like balance.

The title of this thread says a lot. I mean c'mon. Think about what the OP is saying with that title.

[Craig Steele]

Nick Makiaveli, on 29 January 2014 - 10:45 PM, said:

No, information properly gathered from a suitable sample size makes it non-anecdotal. Forums are not unbiased, and therefore are not evidence. Know the subject before you try to jump in.

His argument wasn't the content of the threads, but the number of.

That is a satistic which (allowance for troll and alt re posting obviously) goes to the core of his statement, a volume of the population shares the concern.

You may or may not disagree with their individual view, but if 1k different people are starting threads on the subject there at least 1k people who think its something is amiss.

The fact that your solitary opinion (as in, its yours) is different does not change that statistic, it makes it 1k to 1. No doubt others share your view, and thats the challenge isn't. Hence why the volume statistics have there place.

Sandpit, on 29 January 2014 - 10:52 PM, said:

The title of this thread says a lot. I mean c'mon. Think about what the OP is saying with that title.

No argument from me, agreed.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Craig Steele, on 29 January 2014 - 10:52 PM, said:

His argument wasn't the content of the threads, but the number of.

That is a satistic which (allowance for troll and alt re posting obviously) goes to the core of his statement, a volume of the population shares the concern.

You may or may not disagree with their individual view, but if 1k different people are starting threads on the subject there at least 1k people who think its something is amiss.

The fact that your solitary opinion (as in, its yours) is different does not change that statistic, it makes it 1k to 1. No doubt others share your view, and thats the challenge isn't. Hence why the volume statistics have there place.

Didn't say he was wrong about his facts, just that his conclusions were based on faulty data.

Forums are NOT unbiased. They consist ONLY of people who chose to come here. Thus it is not a representative sample. So I really don't care if a poll shows 10K-1, it doesn't make it a reliable number. Happy people rarely come to the forums to gush about the game. Unhappy people show up and complain.


**EDIT**
I can spell, and I can type. Apparently I cannot do both at the same time.

Edited by Nick Makiaveli, 29 January 2014 - 10:56 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Nick Makiaveli, on 29 January 2014 - 10:50 PM, said:

And the vast majority has no ******* clue what it takes to do some thing like this. Problems arise, which is why deadlines get pushed back.

They've made a decision to go forward so that other things could be delivered. No point in fussing over what they didn't do, let's focus on what they did. These devs do appear to have chronological issues, but they are by no means deceptive, rude etc like some I've seen in other games.

While your sentiment here I can sympathise with, I still can't get past a couple of things.

Yes complicated job, yes stuff happens. But this is not a 2 dollar company. They should know what can and can't be done, they should be able to deliver within market expectations. They are after all charging market rates for their product, I don't think its unreasonable for the market to say hey, if your charging market rates we expect market performance. That includes making commitments and sticking to them and talking to your customers. I am not going to make excuses anymore for PGI on this subject, if they're getting better I look forward to evidence of that.

As for rude, yeah I kinda think Paul comments leave a lot to be desired for average Joe. His strengths are probably not in communicating to the masses imo.

Nick Makiaveli, on 29 January 2014 - 10:55 PM, said:

Didn't say he was wrong about his facts, just that his conclusions were based on faulty data.

Forums are NOT unbiased. They consist ONLY of people who chose to come here. Thus it is not a representative sample. So I really don't care if a poll shows 10K-1, it doesn't make it a reliable number. Happy people rarely come to the forums to gush about the game. Unhappy people show up and complain.


**EDIT**
I can spell, and I can type. Apparently I cannot do both at the same time.

Statistics suggest that for one complainer, 99 more leave silently.

You're right that positive feedback is even less so, but don't discount the silent ones who are represented by a few. (statistically, not democratically )

[Nick Makiaveli]

Craig Steele, on 29 January 2014 - 10:59 PM, said:

While your sentiment here I can sympathise with, I still can't get past a couple of things.

Yes complicated job, yes stuff happens. But this is not a 2 dollar company. They should know what can and can't be done, they should be able to deliver within market expectations. They are after all charging market rates for their product, I don't think its unreasonable for the market to say hey, if your charging market rates we expect market performance. That includes making commitments and sticking to them and talking to your customers. I am not going to make excuses anymore for PGI on this subject, if they're getting better I look forward to evidence of that.

As for rude, yeah I kinda think Paul comments leave a lot to be desired for average Joe. His strengths are probably not in communicating to the masses imo.

If they were manufacturing physical products and missing deadlines like this, I would be demanding a refund. (So to speak.)

But programming doesn't work that way. You write it, you run it, and you get {Scrap} results. If you are lucky, it's a typo, you find it and move the decimal place back or change a - to a + and you are off to the races!! But often time it's just the way you meant it. So that means debugging and figuring where your logic is off, or which part of the program is doing something wrong, or if someone else's section is glitching yours etc.

Point being, you can't tell if the problem will take 1 man-hour to fix or 100. Or perhaps you get halfway thru the project and realize there is no way this will work. So back to the drawing board. Again, no way to know how long it will take to come up with the right idea and then code it.


As to Paul's comments, one man's insult is another's hilarious joke.

Speaking of jokes, here's a recipe for a gluten-free, lactose-free, and low-carb pizza. Take 1 raw tomato, and eat it.

[Craig Steele]

Nick Makiaveli, on 29 January 2014 - 11:07 PM, said:

But programming doesn't work that way. You write it, you run it, and you get {Scrap} results. If you are lucky, it's a typo, you find it and move the decimal place back or change a - to a + and you are off to the races!! But often time it's just the way you meant it. So that means debugging and figuring where your logic is off, or which part of the program is doing something wrong, or if someone else's section is glitching yours etc.

As to Paul's comments, one man's insult is another's hilarious joke.

Speaking of jokes, here's a recipe for a gluten-free, lactose-free, and low-carb pizza. Take 1 raw tomato, and eat it.

Yet they are still the ones proclaiming they have it hand. They are ones saying we are so good at this, we feel we can charge you for the priveledge of using our expertise.

If it was easy they would be out of a job. No one is saying it's not hard. What I am saying is if they are going to charge for a service at a market rate, they should be accountable to the market they are charging. I just don't see that, although some are of the view thats changing. What I see still is like it or lump it, shove off.

BTW,Funny joke, liked that, but needs salt

[Deathlike]

For the sake of argument, if anyone has actually read the feedback from all 3 tests (I have, but I don't remember every little detail), the one common theme that came up with UI 2.0 is the mechlab. There is no "complete loadout" section in most of the repeated comments. That doesn't even begin to explain how those that reported back, did not like the other mechlab details (as in, overclicky, oversaturated, and overthought).

To say that PGI doesn't listen doesn't begin to tell you what they do listen to. It is as if you pick 1 good thing out of a 100 (more like 10) more important things, and then act on it. It doesn't make you a good listener.. it simply means you are "selectively" listening and that's not the most productive thing. Yes, they said they'll have "a smurfy" mechlab type interface... but you came to this conclusion after the 3rd test??? WHAAAAA???

Had this been addressed before the 2nd or 3rd test had concluded (IIRC these tests were more or less a month apart), this recurring issue would have been at least mitigated, if not resolved. What blind faith are we supposed to use while they finally get the most important part of the game (the mechlab) resolved before March (let alone Feb 4)? It's mindblowingly bad to everyone that has repeated the same stuff to PGI the first two times!

Settling for mediocrity at this point is not a win, it's a terrible fate that you don't realize how much whining from the playerbase can be...

Edited by Deathlike, 30 January 2014 - 12:03 AM.

[Sandpit]

Tuesday will tell but they have said those issues you've mentioned will be addressed. We can only wait to see what issues it has