134 replies to this topic

[Trauglodyte]

Freaking Joe and Roadbeer get the responses all about muffins. REALLY?!? Freaking turds

[Roadbeer]

Trauglodyte, on 14 April 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

Freaking Joe and Roadbeer get the responses all about muffins. REALLY?!? Freaking turds

The muffin is a metaphor

[Dimento Graven]

Bryan Ekman, on 14 April 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

Yes that's fair. When we have details, posts will go up. For now this was just a behind the scenes comment for those that like to know what we're discussing internally.

Right, but the internal discussions could result in a, "No, we're not doing that."

Just like lifting/changing the pre-made group size restrictions of the 2-4 pre-mades.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

The muffin is a metaphor

So are turds!

[DragonsFire]

Dimento Graven, on 14 April 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

Right, but the internal discussions could result in a, "No, we're not doing that."

Just like lifting/changing the pre-made group size restrictions of the 2-4 pre-mades.

No information at all or insight on what's being discussed? Personally I prefer the insight approach, even if changes to said insight have to happen.

There will be those that will be upset regardless of the decision and at this stage anything that's listed as a commitment needs to go through as that so I completely understand why they would want to be cautious on something like that.

[Dimento Graven]

DragonsFire, on 14 April 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

No information at all or insight on what's being discussed? Personally I prefer the insight approach, even if changes to said insight have to happen.

There will be those that will be upset regardless of the decision and at this stage anything that's listed as a commitment needs to go through as that so I completely understand why they would want to be cautious on something like that.

I'm not saying that at all, however, there are ways to communicate facts in such a manner as to not leave them quite so open to interpretation.

There's a crazy amount of items posted here from PGI, that at first glance look like one thing, but, until you stop, and read and interpret what was said, you find out mean something completely different.

After all, how many times have perfectly reasonable people read the recent posts from PGI about integrated VOIP, and have come away thinking that PGI has said "yes" they're going to do it, and "very soon", when that is NOT AT ALL what PGI actually said?

There's an over abundance of ambiguity. Much of my own personal frustration comes from that aspect of the communication from PGI.

In the case of VOIP, it's pretty much clear they haven't even decided "yes or no", they're only going to discuss it.

[DragonsFire]

Dimento Graven, on 14 April 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

I'm not saying that at all, however, there are ways to communicate facts in such a manner as to not leave them quite so open to interpretation.

There's a crazy amount of items posted here from PGI, that at first glance look like one thing, but, until you stop, and read and interpret what was said, you find out mean something completely different.

After all, how many times have perfectly reasonable people read the recent posts from PGI about integrated VOIP, and have come away thinking that PGI has said "yes" they're going to do it, and "very soon", when that is NOT AT ALL what PGI actually said?

There's an over abundance of ambiguity. Much of my own personal frustration comes from that aspect of the communication from PGI.

In the case of VOIP, it's pretty much clear they haven't even decided "yes or no", they're only going to discuss it.

Unfortunately I've seen clear and direct statements completely misunderstood or interpreted how the reader decides they want to, so there will always be a chance of that happening regardless of the statement and it's apparent clarity.

I agree that ambiguity around a feature or something coming up can be at times frustrating but there are simply times where a clear cut answer isn't known.

The large majority of answers I've seen thus far from Karl and others have generally been on the technical but concise side, no interpretation needed.

Edit: Either way, I do understand where you're coming from and the concern you're voicing.

Edited by DragonsFire, 14 April 2014 - 01:20 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

DragonsFire, on 14 April 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

Unfortunately I've seen clear and direct statements completely misunderstood or interpreted how the reader decides they want to, so there will always be a chance of that happening regardless of the statement and it's apparent clarity.

I agree that ambiguity around a feature or something coming up can be at times frustrating but there are simply times where a clear cut answer isn't known.

I get that, and the way to communicate that is for PGI to preface everything they're about to say with, "We don't know yet, however, we ARE discussing it, and when we make a decision as to whether or not we will fully integrate a VOIP solution, we will let you know."

They could then follow with an itemized list of discussion points:

"Certain things about integrating VOIP concern us:

1. The affects of removing C3 integration

2. Develop our own VOIP solution, or should we fully integrate a 3rd party VOIP?

3. If we integrate a 3rd party VOIP, which 3rd Party VOIP solution should it be?

4. Will we be allowed to operate/own our own VOIP server or will we be forced to 'rent' a collocated server in their facilities?

5. Once we've made these decisions then we have to decide on a feature set:

a. Command/Lance/Public channels?

b. Mute?

c. Volume control?

d. Should death of a pilot automatically result in that pilot's inability to speak?

e. Some unknown list of features, yet thought of.

6. The ''unknown unknowns.'

etc."

I've rarely seen communication of this sort from PGI.

Quote

The large majority of answers I've seen thus far from Karl and others have generally been on the technical but concise side, no interpretation needed.

I can't recall much communication from them in the forums, but I'll search it out for comparison.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 14 April 2014 - 01:32 PM.

[DragonsFire]

Topic to start with:
http://mwomercs.com/...courtesy-phone/

Details about Karl's talk at GDC (was an excellent topic if you have any background/interest fyi) and goes further into other areas of MWO and it's development. There are also a number of posts from him on Reddit in addition. There has been quite a few posts from Matthew Craig over the last month or so as well with various fixes and optimizations either implemented or being brought up. I would recommend checking out the Developer Tracker (top of the GD forum now) if you want to look in on dev posts.

[Almond Brown]

Even if given a direct "Yes" or "No" answer to their questions, the response will always be the same.

If "Yes", PGI will be doing it wrong and pissing them off regardless, and if "No", then PGI obviously lied to them "they" were certain (in their minds anyways) that PGI meant "Yes"...

And the Community speaks of getting "mixed messages"? LOL!

[Dimento Graven]

Almond Brown, on 16 April 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Even if given a direct "Yes" or "No" answer to their questions, the response will always be the same.

If "Yes", PGI will be doing it wrong and pissing them off regardless, and if "No", then PGI obviously lied to them "they" were certain (in their minds anyways) that PGI meant "Yes"...

And the Community speaks of getting "mixed messages"? LOL!

Actually I blame PGI's Community Spokespeople for that.

They've done a piss poor job of communicating and managing expectations.

If they would just come out and say, "We have no definitive plans to add VOIP yet. We are researching it, and investigating what it would take to do so. We will let you know later whether or not we will be adding an integrated VOIP solution."

That's MUCH more clear than, "We are seriously considering" and then going on to discuss possible features of something they don't even have a technical requirements list for as if it was "nearly done" or "already in place"...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 16 April 2014 - 08:35 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dimento Graven, on 16 April 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

Actually I blame PGI's Community Spokespeople for that.

They've done a piss poor job of communicating and managing expectations.

If they would just come out and say, "We have no definitive plans to add VOIP yet. We are researching it, and investigating what it would take to do so. We will let you know later whether or not we will be adding an integrated VOIP solution."

That's MUCH more clear than, "We are seriously considering" and then going on to discuss possible features of something they don't even have a technical requirements list for as if it was "nearly done" or "already in place"...

They did this with 3pV and Coolant flush... I figure they will have it ready to launch by the end of June.

[Dimento Graven]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 April 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

They did this with 3pV and Coolant flush... I figure they will have it ready to launch by the end of June.

I hear you bro, but if I recall those circumstances correctly, at the time they were outright denying those features, saying "No" to them, and then "Poof!" they're there.

If they had said "No, we'll never do a VOIP solution in MWO," it'd probably make it more certain they were actually going to add them.

No, this is along the lines of CW, "Oh yeah, we're considering our options, and working on it right now..." Only to find two years later, "Ok, we now figured out how we want to do it, so NOW we're ACTUALLY starting to work on it..."

[Joseph Mallan]

Dimento Graven, on 16 April 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

I hear you bro, but if I recall those circumstances correctly, at the time they were outright denying those features, saying "No" to them, and then "Poof!" they're there.

If they had said "No, we'll never do a VOIP solution in MWO," it'd probably make it more certain they were actually going to add them.

No, this is along the lines of CW, "Oh yeah, we're considering our options, and working on it right now..." Only to find two years later, "Ok, we now figured out how we want to do it, so NOW we're ACTUALLY starting to work on it..."

The Old reverse psychology routine eh!

[Dimento Graven]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 April 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

The Old reverse psychology routine eh!

Shhh... It won't work if you tell them...