271 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

Featherwood, on 16 March 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

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.

That would be true if they were publicly traded companies.
They are not.
They do have corporate officers, but they do not have a fiduciary responsibility to anyone but themselves.
I think your confusion on the topic comes from when they use the term "Stakeholders" which refers to department heads and team leaders, not necessarily those who have a vested interest in commercial viability of the product.

[Peiper]

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

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.

Out of absolute frustration with the UI, I've bought multiple copies of modules simply because I can't FIND them when I need them. My best friend, who I enjoy dropping with but plays rarely, logged in and looked around the mechlab, and I heard him complain for 15 minutes about how difficult the UI 2.0 mechlab was to use, and he just gave up and I know him, I won't see him until they make the UI user friendly once again. I even bought him a founders pack out of excitement of playing the game with him. (We'd played hours and hours of MW4, CBT, Mechwarrior Dark Age in the past.) I've heard players rage-quit over and over because the UI is so frustrating, and I have done the same. I don't come on to play module warrior, and yeah, even as I make up a build to try out in smurfy, I dread having to go back into the game alt-tabbing back and forth to convert all the values properly. I love this game. I've built up the best mercenary unit in the community, despite the attrition caused by lack of content. But my word, the mechlab is like learning Latin. It might have the same alphabet, but it's certainly not what we want or expected and we COULD have a conversation in it: but we already know how to speak English. Why reinvent the wheel? /exasperated.

[JDH4mm3r]

Quote

18:45 They remind Russ that we want a clone of the smurfy lab, not a half-functional one. Russ reminds us that the smurfy view takes up the whole screen on high resolution screens, so if you want to use that in MWO, you'll have to set your resolution very high and that could punish low end players. [I believe he thinks that the majority of the players give two scraps about seeing the hundreds of engine pictures when we're picking our engines, and that we'd freak out if MWO's smurfy-build pull down menus don't have little pictures showing the difference between a wireframe LRM 5 and LRM 10. -Peiper] He says that without the forced going into and out of the mechlab to look at the various pictures and stats for each piece of equipment, that we'd miss part of the experience of the mechlab and/or that putting ALL that information into ONE screen for ALL parts of the mech would make resolutions so tiny that it's impossible to do except for people playing on high resolution on 50” monitors. [He says that a true smurfy build won't be any time soon, and, well, his reasoning for being unable to do it just boggles my mind. You'd have to listen to it to see what I mean. It's as if Russ is unable to comprehend that a simple drag-and-drop equipment/flow-chart like interface is too complicated to put into MWO. I'm kind of see what he's saying as this: UI2.0 mechlab is like an flight of stairs, and smurfy is an escalator. Someday, you'll be able to use the escalator in MWO too, but PGI will still make you walk up the escalator as if it were immobile. Why? Because we don't want your visits to mechlab to go TOO easy. We still want you to squint at the tiny font and look and go through all extra clicks, just to be sure you don't forget that in Mechwarrior Online, you don't tweak your mechs, the mechlab tweaks you. There's a difference between bullshizzle and stupid, and I think I just found it. -Peiper] Note: no ETA on the broken escalator/interactive smurfy build.

Russ: Here is all i really care about regarding weapons: Range, tonnage, heat, and crits. I don't need a fancy chart with all that useless information... just basic is more than enough.... just K.I.S.S. if that can't be grasped... i just wanna shake my head.

We never had that stuff in MW2, DID NOT NEED IT. You guys overthink things... if i were you, i'd walk a mile in our shoes just to grasp exactly what we are trying to point out.

[Helbrecht]

its pretty obvious that russ is on a island when he has the feedback from launch module is generally positive.
hey russ 77 pages of hate is not positive dude. i know that IGP handles the forums and the like since the moderator support IGP tags. so the only thing i can guess is they are either flat out lying to this guy. or he's on said island either way its painfully obvious they have no idea what thier player base wants. ignore the majority and write months of code for the 1%

[BLOOD WOLF]

Kilrein, on 16 March 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

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

He doesn't like pulse lasers because the way they function, has nothing to do with table top, and TT isn't the defining factor of everything mech related. for the less intelligent, when i say function i mean how they have a second pause rather than a long duration.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 16 March 2014 - 05:21 PM.

[Tekadept]

I can't believe the excuses given re: Ui2.0 Functionality and interactive smurfy etc. Mind boggling

[BLOOD WOLF]

Tekadept, on 16 March 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

I can't believe the excuses given re: Ui2.0 Functionality and interactive smurfy etc. Mind boggling

can you be more specific. From what i gathered the smurfy coming out isn't the finished one but they have the interactive on the way. please, we need clarification to form concrete analysis and conclusions.

[Roadbeer]

BLOOD WOLF, on 16 March 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

we need clarification to form concrete analysis and conclusions.

In a game where you have 2 contradictory statements from Devs regarding how(if) CASE works?

Good luck with that.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Roadbeer, on 16 March 2014 - 05:44 PM, said:

In a game where you have 2 contradictory statements from Devs regarding how(if) CASE works?

Good luck with that.

Road beer, that didn't clarify anything for me regarding UI 2.0, like i said, they plan to put the interactive after the first release. when i said clarify i meant what excuse did they give regarding the Smurfy. As for the Case i dont know what they said it was supposed to do. It protects a mech from a component explosion in a certain part of a mech and contains it to that specific area? am i correct.

Clarification needs detail not 1 sentence

[Rebas Kradd]

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.

Resorting to conspiracy theory is not much better than hating or ranting.

It's much more likely and defensible that their ability to shift things around in UI is limited by 1) their lack of manpower and 2) their focus on the Launch Module.

[BLOOD WOLF]

I actually feel as if they are running on deadlines based on what i heard from russ. At the same time, none of this is irreversible as some people are making it out to be.

[PhyroPhyre]

BLOOD WOLF, on 16 March 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

I actually feel as if they are running on deadlines based on what i heard from russ. At the same time, none of this is irreversible as some people are making it out to be.

Ever heard the phrase, "Do it once, do it right"?

I used to be a defender of the game developers like you, BLOOD WOLF.

But I'm getting to the point where I am almost over it and I only started playing in April last year. Founders have been waiting for these promises for YEARS. Comprehend that BLOOD WOLF and think on it.

The developers are now openly posting their intentions to implement the new features such as UI2.0 (UI2.5?) CW, Clantech, launch module etc. The fact of the matter is that this should all have been planned and designed years ago when the game concept was being designed.

The only excuse for not having the design for these features nailed out when the game-play concept was being nailed out is - incompetence.

The leaders, the lead designers, the visionaries - are incompetent. It is simply a matter of bad design and last minute remedies to the original bad design. You have to be a fool to not be able to recognize a weakness in leadership.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the game and I bought the Overlord package for a reason. As did other 'negative' people here. We are not calling for the game to shut down, as that would be even more counter-productive to our investments. The reality is that the game we are asking for is being ignored.

The whole concept of making a game early-access-Beta is so that the community can steer the game in the direction that they want. There is shining examples of this concept working and even where the developers' original plans have to be scrapped in favour of community-driven design. This concept was not applied to MWO. I think the reason that the game was launched in it's unfinished state was: 1. The developers were cementing this product as their final work and are no longer prepared to change the fundamental concepts that have been established thus-far; 2. They were not obligated to respond to community feedback for features and design. However, this is my own personal speculation, take it with salt.

I will not be leaving MWO for any other game since I can't be bothered investing my precious 'me-time' in anything new. I like MWO and know it will be an amazing product one day. I just don't want that day to be more years away.

[Kommisar]

Rebas Kradd, on 16 March 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

Resorting to conspiracy theory is not much better than hating or ranting.

It's much more likely and defensible that their ability to shift things around in UI is limited by 1) their lack of manpower and 2) their focus on the Launch Module.

I'm not so sure I would go so far as to call my thoughts on the matter a full on conspiracy theory. But, I suppose it does meet the technical definition of one.

As for your theories; well, it is hard to say they could not get UI2.0 correct because they were focusing manpower on the launch module. Largely because prior to UI2.0 they repeatedly told us that UI2.0 was THE priority above all else. Those are their words, mind you, not mine. The work and focus on UI2.0 was why they couldn't get other things done or right according to them.

As for the lack of manpower, I can't buy into that as explaining the abysmal state of the UI2.0. I'm an engineer my training and profession. Multiple degrees, professional licensure, and I've done the department manager and project lead gig. I know my way around big projects involving several departments working on their part of the whole. And just how rough it can get when you are not given the resources you really need. So, in that regard, I can sympathize. This does not, however, explain just how awful UI2.0 fails at being a functional UI. Nor, might I add, are they inventing something new or revolutionary in regards to a UI. You can sign up for intro UI design courses through several online universities or community colleges; any of which would take you through the basic flaws this UI makes in the first few weeks. I got to hear about that rant from my friend who does UI design professionally.

So, okay, mistakes were made. Happens, I don't dwell on them once they are recognized. And, UI was suppose to be more about the back end coding for implementing a wider scope to the game. Lobbies I suppose. Something for which they did not consider needing in the first year and half of development. Got it. That takes time and effort. They also came out and said the UI2.0 format needed work.

Manpower does not change, however, bad font size choices, and the use of buried, nested menus in UI2.0. If anything, it would have been easier and less manpower intensive to not design that many layers between the mech garage view and the final view allowing you to see what engine you have equipped on that mech. The easy, less-work solution would be less layers.

The thing that caught me, however, is now they (Russ) are saying the exact opposite. They are quietly and slowly backing off of the Smurfy-like UI adjustments/overhaul, talking about not wanting to lose the current "experience" or some such. Russ got all sorts of weirdly vague in this regard. Again, it goes back to my years doing big public infrastructure projects. It reminds me an awful lot like the big-wig political appointee telling everyone in the organization why something has to be the way it is going to be when everyone in the room, including the politico knows full well that the real reason involves money going into the pocket of the Right People.

Again, I could be wayyyyyy offfff. If I am, though; it means that they really need someone with some UI design experience. As a manager, it is hard to sit down with someone that you know, probably like and go to lunch with everyday and tell them that they dropped the ball. That their work was not adequate to the cause. It sucks; can be the worst part of the job. But, it has to be done too.

You also need to just come right out and be blunt and straight about what it is you did wrong and what your plan is to fix it. That is what we haven't been getting since closed beta. Where we do see serious talk and action, however, is with the games economy. They know they have a big glut of CBills in player accounts. Guys that can keep buying mechs with CBills and tricking them out with CBills each month without the need for MC purchases in chassis or premium time. They know direct means of addressing this cause a stink. They know they don't need more stinks for the next 2 months or so.

So, my conspiracy theory kinda seems like a good fit for what is actually happening. For me, at least, if I believe it I can still believe that this isn't their actual best shot.

[BLOOD WOLF]

X3kutor, on 16 March 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

Ever heard the phrase, "Do it once, do it right"? I used to be a defender of the game developers like you, BLOOD WOLF. But I'm getting to the point where I am almost over it and I only started playing in April last year. Founders have been waiting for these promises for YEARS. Comprehend that BLOOD WOLF and think on it. The developers are now openly posting their intentions to implement the new features such as UI2.0 (UI2.5?) CW, Clantech, launch module etc. The fact of the matter is that this should all have been planned and designed years ago when the game concept was being designed. The only excuse for not having the design for these features nailed out when the game-play concept was being nailed out is - incompetence. The leaders, the lead designers, the visionaries - are incompetent. It is simply a matter of bad design and last minute remedies to the original bad design. You have to be a fool to not be able to recognize a weakness in leadership. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the game and I bought the Overlord package for a reason. As did other 'negative' people here. We are not calling for the game to shut down, as that would be even more counter-productive to our investments. The reality is that the game we are asking for is being ignored. The whole concept of making a game early-access-Beta is so that the community can steer the game in the direction that they want. There is shining examples of this concept working and even where the developers' original plans have to be scrapped in favour of community-driven design. This concept was not applied to MWO. I think the reason that the game was launched in it's unfinished state was: 1. The developers were cementing this product as their final work and are no longer prepared to change the fundamental concepts that have been established thus-far; 2. They were not obligated to respond to community feedback for features and design. However, this is my own personal speculation, take it with salt. I will not be leaving MWO for any other game since I can't be bothered investing my precious 'me-time' in anything new. I like MWO and know it will be an amazing product one day. I just don't want that day to be more years away.

Do it once do it right? never actually heard of that one and one should not follow that quote. So your saying if i dont do it right the first the first time i will forever fail?

Im not gonna address beta, you founders are obsessed with beta like you want the game to go back 2 years. I played beta MWO, wasn't impressed and the game is leagues better than it was during that time.

"The developers are now openly posting their intentions to implement the new features such as UI2.0 (UI2.5?) CW, Clantech, launch module etc." The fact of the matter is that this should all have been planned and designed years ago when the game concept was being designed."- what does it matter that they just started now, actually its probably been in the works and their have been roadblocks. Your telling me i have to sit in my chair and be angry because clan tech should have been here years ago? well i have one thing to say about that, whatever the reason it wasn't here, we cant help that, the past is the past and we now know its being worked on and will be here this year. They laid out a schedule and(state of the inner sphere) and they have hit every deadline and made patches in between. your argument falls flat when you are bring bias and clearly stating the negative(we all know about the past decisions and we all wish this was in the works).

I dont like how you use the word we as if every founder is raging mad, and yet it seems time and time again that every founder brings this lame argument of "it should have been here years ago". It wasn't get over it, there is a little thing called progression and we are all moving forward expect you founders who enjoyed beta so much.

I will take your personal opionion with a grain of salt. Its obvious as to why they released a beta game and decided to work on the game while people are allowed to play it. 1. it gives people a hands on experiance, and allows for direct feedback as to what the game is like and what is wrong with it. 2. Funding, people will pay and support a game more if they know exactly what is in it, rather than videos and dev interviews we can play the game as they are working on it and that is a better way for players to invest in what they want and what they like. Keep in mind that, even founders,who bought the packages, you guys just got the game off the ground, that is it. I dunno why your acting as if your keeping the game alive and it was your money that allows us to play free. It is the players right now, who play and buy the MC and products that are readiliy available, who knows how many people spent 29.95 on MC today or 14.99. its a collectve of the community who keep this game afloat, not even 100 disgruntled players will affect PGI that bad(even if they are founders, spenders) yea there important but there are still thousands who play alot of them were not here for beta and thank godness for that(no founders rage)

Guys, 1 year, this is gonna go done this year. Who cares about last year? didn't take 10% of the players the types to hold grudges, i dont think i would ever have friends like that. Seems like you can do 1 or 2 things wrong and they will stay pissed of for life. My point is those who make arguments against PGI cannot do so only being negative because most of that is Bias opinions and if you cant at least make an argument for why the game is good well your being 1 sided and you will never convince anyone but the individuals in the same boat as you.

There are no defenders of PGI or attackers, their only the spiteful and illusioned. those that live in the past will never know progression. I will say there was plenty i didn't like, but i'm not stuck up or arrogant enough not to give due credit. "Do it once do it right" doesnt really apply here, that only applies to situations were you only have 1 chance to do it right, an example is the math test im gonna take tomarrow. I only have 1 chance to take the test and i better do it right. For MWO, mistakes can be corrected

AS i have said, I think the reason for what they have presented is deadline pressure. You guys really gave some negativity about being late on things and now that they are trying to do things in a timely manner there is obviously things that are gonna have to be improved. you guys leave them no choice in the matter, they want to make it better but would that mean pushing something back? I dont think people are being fair when it comes to criticism.

one last thing http://mwomercs.com/...e-inner-sphere/ they have hit everthing they said they were going to do thus fair and we know there is the 18th which is another deadline. Everything else is second to these. They are focusing mainly on pushing the launch module and CW to be released this year. I think that is their critical focus and yet people are still bringing up word promise. A promise can only be broken if the person that issues the promise fails to commit to it. the only way for PGI to break a promise is to say they are completely not going to do what they set out to do, which so far they have not broken any promise as they are still working towards it. So please learn what a promise is.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 16 March 2014 - 08:45 PM.

[Appogee]

BLOOD WOLF, on 16 March 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

AS i have said, I think the reason for what they have presented is deadline pressure.

Deadline for what? The players have been very clear on what they want. Then suddenly we get this fluff..



What could have been achieved on the things that players want, with the man-hours that went into coding this fluff? Or Ghost Heat? Or 3PV?

Edited by Appogee, 16 March 2014 - 10:49 PM.

[Malleus011]

The more I hear Russ' plans for the future of this property, the more I wish I hadn't bought Overlord.
This is just sad.

[PhyroPhyre]

BLOOD WOLF, on 16 March 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

blah blah blah...

You are seriously misinformed BLOOD WOLF. From the information you just provided regarding the Beta phase you just single handedly dismissed all of your previous and future arguments.

You can, and never will, understand the discontent that players express in these forums because it is now obvious that you are new to this game, or have very little involvement in its progress since conception through to the launch at the end of open-beta.

You should save yourself face and dignity, man up and apologize to the people (namely RoadBeer and Deathlike) who had to read your poor arguments and to Appogee, John MatriX82, Nicholas Carlyle and Nick Makiaveli, to whom you made personal attacks. The only people bringing disgrace to these discussions are people like you, who call people 'stupid' and 'idiots' for expressing opinions on content that you (now obviously) know very little about.

For the record, 'Do it once, do it well' does not at all mean to never get up trying. Instead, it means to prepare for something with the necessary tools and experience so that something is done efficiently, the first time. In this sense, it means that proper planning should have been done prior to the core coding and design commencing. Read above for Kommisar's excellent argument (supported by RL experience, no less)

Kommisar, on 16 March 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

Again, I could be wayyyyyy offfff. If I am, though; it means that they really need someone with some UI design experience

So please, BLOOD WOLF, you are not outnumbered here because we do not like you, but you must see that your cause is a lost one. Your arguments have been heard - and defeated - before because this has gone on for a long time. This game has been around longer than you know, quite obviously. Many, many promises of deadlines have been broken and confidence in PGI has long been shattered. We all agree they are capable of better; as paying consumers handling an old and loved license, it is expected.

There is no bashing, there is no insulting, there is no demands of the undeliverable. All that is sought is deliverance.

On a side note - another common quote you should become familiar with:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

EDIT: Removed HTML tags from the Abe quote I copy/pasted
EDIT: Added in the Users who BLOOD WOLF insinuated were idiots or stupid.

Edited by X3kutor, 16 March 2014 - 11:13 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Tekadept, on 16 March 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

I can't believe the excuses given re: Ui2.0 Functionality and interactive smurfy etc. Mind boggling

I'm trying to imagine the meeting.

"Look, we can't give you a smurphy type mechlab, despite the fact nearly every player uses this interface to build mechs and it's been in every single mech game before this one"

"huh? why not"

"1% of the worlds population still uses 800x600 resolution, and of this 1%, some 25% are keenly active in MWO while surfing the web on 3rd world machines and pumping cryengine3 code full-bore on their single cores."

"no...really?"

"yes, absolutely"

"Alright then. A simple overview will do. Because you know,smurphies is not good because you can build mechs with it, it's good because you can see mechs complete loadouts in it."

[Appogee]

X3kutor, on 16 March 2014 - 09:49 PM, said:

EDIT: Added in the Users who BLOOD WOLF insinuated were idiots or stupid.

You neglected to add me. I want my apology, too .

Edited by Appogee, 16 March 2014 - 10:51 PM.

[Appogee]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 16 March 2014 - 09:57 PM, said:

I'm trying to imagine the meeting... "Look, we can't give you a smurphy type mechlab, despite the fact nearly every player uses this interface to build mechs and it's been in every single mech game before this one"

Yes, it is just so ridiculous as to be implausible. That's why I think there is another reason which we're not being told. I predict and suspect the reason for the awful interface is that they are secretly dual-coding for: