271 replies to this topic

[Kommisar]

For those that haven't thought it through, without malice I shall point to the reason we will not see the UI we all want:

Player incentive to spend money.

Which is why Russ' answer to this was so... evasively vague. He simply cannot come out and state the actual reasons. What are the two most expensive parts to a mech? The engine and the modules. What are the two must frustrating aspect of the current UI2.0? Finding and moving your engines and modules. By making it so frustratingly cumbersome to move these parts between mechs (especially if you are like everyone I know and you like to change up between matches) it puts an incentive for players to buy extra copies of those engines and modules with their CBills.

Yes, you do not spend MC for these parts, but you do for mechs. You can also buy mechs with CBills; but if you are dropping more CBills on more engines and modules, it then puts more of an incentive to just break down and buy a mech with MC. Or buy premium time to boost your CBill earnings. Either way, they make real money. To a lesser extent, this also holds true to the weapons and the like.

It's not some overly complicated reason; but it is why we got what we did with UI2.0 and why Russ is calling it an "experience". And why you will be certain that consumables will quickly and consistently be tweaked upwards to see greater use by the player base. Those suck out a huge % of CBills per match.

Again, not hating or ranting. But that is just the truth of it as I see it. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I have found I rarely need a more complex reason that money to explain just about anything in life.

[Deathlike]

Kommisar, on 16 March 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

For those that haven't thought it through, without malice I shall point to the reason we will not see the UI we all want:

Player incentive to spend money.

Which is why Russ' answer to this was so... evasively vague. He simply cannot come out and state the actual reasons. What are the two most expensive parts to a mech? The engine and the modules. What are the two must frustrating aspect of the current UI2.0? Finding and moving your engines and modules. By making it so frustratingly cumbersome to move these parts between mechs (especially if you are like everyone I know and you like to change up between matches) it puts an incentive for players to buy extra copies of those engines and modules with their CBills.

Yes, you do not spend MC for these parts, but you do for mechs. You can also buy mechs with CBills; but if you are dropping more CBills on more engines and modules, it then puts more of an incentive to just break down and buy a mech with MC. Or buy premium time to boost your CBill earnings. Either way, they make real money. To a lesser extent, this also holds true to the weapons and the like.

It's not some overly complicated reason; but it is why we got what we did with UI2.0 and why Russ is calling it an "experience". And why you will be certain that consumables will quickly and consistently be tweaked upwards to see greater use by the player base. Those suck out a huge % of CBills per match.

Again, not hating or ranting. But that is just the truth of it as I see it. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I have found I rarely need a more complex reason that money to explain just about anything in life.

I didn't even bother coming to this conclusion, yet having read it... I guess the answer to everything is buy more premium time eh?

[Appogee]

Kommisar, on 16 March 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

For those that haven't thought it through, without malice I shall point to the reason we will not see the UI we all want: Player incentive to spend money. Which is why Russ' answer to this was so... evasively vague. He simply cannot come out and state the actual reasons. What are the two most expensive parts to a mech? The engine and the modules. What are the two must frustrating aspect of the current UI2.0? Finding and moving your engines and modules. By making it so frustratingly cumbersome to move these parts between mechs (especially if you are like everyone I know and you like to change up between matches) it puts an incentive for players to buy extra copies of those engines and modules with their CBills.

That occurred to me, too.

The other potential reason for them coding a UI so deliberately and obtusively clunky is that they're dual-coding it for gamepads.

We should brace ourselves for the announcement of...

Edited by Appogee, 16 March 2014 - 12:16 PM.

[Kommisar]

If you go back and read carefully (especially back towards the end of Closed Beta) a lot of the actual, real talk and actions coming from the Devs revolved around the economy. The community was the one going on about weapon balance, CW, maps, chassis balance and all of that. The devs talked a lot more about the economy of mechwarrior. And they were (and still are if my tracking is right) tweeking the economy heavily. Especially after Repair & Rearm completely crashed and burned. They needed a means to suck CBills out of the economy. Otherwise, players have little incentive to spend real world money and help PGI meet their revenue goals for each month. Hero Mechs only get you so far, players buy the colors they want and that's that, camo is hit or miss. Premium time and mech MC sales, though... steady revenue flow.

So, they have to have a good incentive to push those without being seen as all P2W or greedy. And, so we have UI2.0.

[Deathlike]

Kommisar, on 16 March 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

If you go back and read carefully (especially back towards the end of Closed Beta) a lot of the actual, real talk and actions coming from the Devs revolved around the economy. The community was the one going on about weapon balance, CW, maps, chassis balance and all of that. The devs talked a lot more about the economy of mechwarrior. And they were (and still are if my tracking is right) tweeking the economy heavily. Especially after Repair & Rearm completely crashed and burned. They needed a means to suck CBills out of the economy. Otherwise, players have little incentive to spend real world money and help PGI meet their revenue goals for each month. Hero Mechs only get you so far, players buy the colors they want and that's that, camo is hit or miss. Premium time and mech MC sales, though... steady revenue flow.

So, they have to have a good incentive to push those without being seen as all P2W or greedy. And, so we have UI2.0.

The irony of this is that Conquest got a ninja nerf or bug (depending on what PGI's official stance on the issue), where a Cap win on Conquest (aka gaining max resources) gives you the only 1/4 of the resource rewards. If you win the match by beating the crap out of the enemy (aka Skirmish based victory), you get full resource rewards.

Try it. You'll see what I mean...

[Hawk819]

here are some known facts:

1. I'm an idiot

2. this game will be D.O.A. by the end of 2014

3. there are way too many Lemmings and Window Lickers in the forums.

4. Let the faceplams begin!

[Kommisar]

Appogee, on 16 March 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

That occurred to me, too.

The other potential reason for them coding a UI so deliberately and obtusively clunky is that they're dual-coding it for gamepads.

We should brace ourselves for the announcement of...

Actually, I've had that thought myself. They said they finally sealed the big, long term rights from Microsoft for the license way back in October/November of 2013. I found it very odd that they didn't come out and trumpet that and waited till the Clan Package Christmas Crisis to release that nugget as a distraction. Now, I don't know everything that was involved. But, my gut tells me that the big deal with MS had to have included an XBox release inclusion for their new XBox1. Right now the console wars have gotten rather fierce again and one of the big deciding factors is access to titles. Cross platform games (PS and XBox) games don't shift anything. Single platform rights (Titanfall) do. I could easily see MS wanting a mechwarrior title to add to their sole release stable.

Which could go a long, long way to explaining a great deal of things that have happened here in the last year and half.

But, it is all speculation on my part. For all I know, Russ actually believes that the current UI adds to the MWO "experience" in a good and positive way. I certainly hope not, though. I might disagree with the economy incentive reason, but I can respect the call behind it as being intelligent and with a purpose. The alternative...

[anonymous161]

Well everyone could boycott the game for a month to see what happens.

[Deathlike]

Kommisar, on 16 March 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

But, it is all speculation on my part. For all I know, Russ actually believes that the current UI adds to the MWO "experience" in a good and positive way. I certainly hope not, though. I might disagree with the economy incentive reason, but I can respect the call behind it as being intelligent and with a purpose. The alternative...

The alternative, is a more likely scenario, despite not having said it.

[Damocles]

Peiper, on 15 March 2014 - 10:34 PM, said:

39:00 ***
Phil points out that with private lobbies, if a team wants to fight another, they have to FIND another team. There is no way in game to find another team. All of the matchmaking would have to take place in the 'community' via visiting with each other in 3rd party chat systems, via forums to schedule matches and stuff.

First, thanks Peiper for writing this up.

And the above quote is honestly the most important point NGNG could make that shows a massive flaw in PGIs design.
Leaving the game to organize the game.

[Kommisar]

Damocles, on 16 March 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

First, thanks Peiper for writing this up.

And the above quote is honestly the most important point NGNG could make that shows a massive flaw in PGIs design.
Leaving the game to organize the game.

Actually, I'm rather happy they went this route. Do you seriously think they could figure out a way to do it without screwing it up?

[Deathlike]

Damocles, on 16 March 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

First, thanks Peiper for writing this up.

And the above quote is honestly the most important point NGNG could make that shows a massive flaw in PGIs design.
Leaving the game to organize the game.

Asking for a global lobby with search tools?

Good luck with that.

[Koniving]

Peiper, on 15 March 2014 - 10:34 PM, said:

6:10 Examples of achievements? Based on his twitter stalkers, Russ says he's surprised his core followers support achievements as much as they do. He predicted they wouldn't care. He hopes that the achievements will help train and guide new players into becoming better players. Starting with 50-ish achievements, with infinite possibilities to come. (He didn't answer the question.)

Note: NGNG is a subsection of IGP. Hence their early access.

[Damocles]

asking for a global lobby that shows games in progress, and games forming so people can join a room and chat and organize and then launch.

Also with a global chat in the lobby.

I don't need match.com to find a date
I don't need a matchmaker to find me mechs to kill.

Edited by Damocles, 16 March 2014 - 12:53 PM.

[mack sabbath]

Looking forward to 2015 when I can exit my Mech in Canyon Network for Pet Battles!

[Featherwood]

Thanks to TS for organized summary and thanks rest of you, lads (including few bloody clowns out there), for comments, I laughed through out the thread. I've actually tried to listen this marasmic delirium on NGNG site, but my limit of hate is easily overloaded when it comes to PGI's approach to... anything, so it's good to know that I saved my nerves for good this time.
Alright, now let me ask if we have someone in the thread, capable to explain me how IGP is linked to PGI, how they are related on staff level and interact on corporate, I mean what kind of control IGP has over PGI and what key persons have the hold over both PGI and IGP ( I wasn't able to find much useful info about IGP, honestly, so you are welcome to PM me).
I have a secret hope that collective petition to IGP could push them to push PGI forward to necessary staff changes, directly speaking to get rid of two dudes with cast iron head prostheses: Russ Bullock and Paul Inouye. I think I don't need to explain why they must hold the responsibility for drowning our beloved franchise to the very bottom of f2p cr@p .

[Roadbeer]

Featherwood, on 16 March 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

Thanks to TS for organized summary and thanks rest of you, lads (including few bloody clowns out there), for comments, I laughed through out the thread. I've actually tried to listen this marasmic delirium on NGNG site, but my limit of hate is easily overloaded when it comes to PGI's approach to... anything, so it's good to know that I saved my nerves for good this time.
Alright, now let me ask if we have someone in the thread, capable to explain me how IGP is linked to PGI, how they are related on staff level and interact on corporate, I mean what kind of control IGP has over PGI and what key persons have the hold over both PGI and IGP ( I wasn't able to find much useful info about IGP, honestly, so you are welcome to PM me).
I have a secret hope that collective petition to IGP could push them to push PGI forward to necessary staff changes, directly speaking to get rid of two dudes with cast iron head prostheses: Russ Bullock and Paul Inouye. I think I don't need to explain why they must hold the responsibility for drowning our beloved franchise to the very bottom of f2p cr@p .

Long story short, IGP handles Marketing, QA, billing and support.
Not sure who is over whom and I doubt any pressure on one = results on the other.

[Featherwood]

Roadbeer, on 16 March 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

Long story short, IGP handles Marketing, QA, billing and support.
Not sure who is over whom and I doubt any pressure on one = results on the other.

You are killing my hope slowly, but it still holds. Shouldn't IGP has a boards of shareholders? Who is keeping the control package? Can we reach that company or person somehow? I presume all PGI leading stuff should have some shares, no doubts, but it would be absolutely stupid to have them all in the board, though it could explain Russ' behavior.

[Appogee]

Kommisar, on 16 March 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Actually, I've had that thought myself. They said they finally sealed the big, long term rights from Microsoft for the license way back in October/November of 2013. I found it very odd that they didn't come out and trumpet that and waited till the Clan Package Christmas Crisis to release that nugget as a distraction. Now, I don't know everything that was involved. But, my gut tells me that the big deal with MS had to have included an XBox release inclusion for their new XBox1. Right now the console wars have gotten rather fierce again and one of the big deciding factors is access to titles. Cross platform games (PS and XBox) games don't shift anything. Single platform rights (Titanfall) do. I could easily see MS wanting a mechwarrior title to add to their sole release stable.

Which could go a long, long way to explaining a great deal of things that have happened here in the last year and half.

FWIW that is also my theory. It explains the protracted delay in CW, the perverse design of UI2.0, key-binding limitations, and more.

[Kilrein]

BLOOD WOLF, on 16 March 2014 - 01:54 AM, said:

you would take a PPC over a large pulse? just because you dont like how they fire? isnt that kinda ridiculous? I run 6 med pulse in my hunchback and i prefer them over med lasers, the same goes for my Awesome, i would rather run med pulse than med lasers. You cannot use personal preference for a logical argument.

Oh, you mean like you just did?

Pulse lasers are flawed in MWO because they are not balanced within the system.. Yes I KNOW this isn't table top but you can't take only a part of a weapon's stats (weight, crits, range) and then twiddle with heat and call it balanced with other weapons.

In TT, pulse lasers have shorter range than their non-pulse brethren, one point increase in damage, increase in heat and weigh more. How is this balanced in TT? They are far more accurate than non-pulse lasers as they get a -2 to hit. This equates to about a 16% increase in chances to hit across all situations in TT.

MWO - Same weight, same crits, same range, same heat ratio to lasers 9with some variance as they tweak it) and a lower beam duration.

IMO - not balanced against the other weapons. They need to make some sort of adjustment to the physical properties of the weapon instead of during all these tweaks to heat,range,etc. Large pulse is 'getting' there but it's still a far cry from balanced. Medium Pulse isn't close and SPL is bringing up the distant rear here.

My thoughts (worth what you paid for them)

LPL - 6 tons, keep everything else the same
MPL - 1.5 tons, ditto
SPL - .75 tons, ditto

Every tweak of the ROF screws up the heat, changing the heat screws up the heat dissipation required. Bumping the range isn't a solution as double base range for energy is already SUCH a bad idea.

So either they need to lower the weight (preferred) or make the beam duration half of what it is now.


Kilrein