203 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Sandpit, on 21 March 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

....
You can't make a balancing change based on "our vision is to promote more mech variety" and then talk about "gimping your team by taking a locust".....

I'm not arguing for 3/3/3/3 here, I just wanted to keep people honest. PGI didn't want pure tonnage matching for the reasons above (really oddball matches, etc), and wanted to ensure that people didn't feel they "had" to take the heaviest option within a weight class.

Sure, in a perfect world all the Mechs would be balanced, but they're not and never will be.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 21 March 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

Your vision is irrelevant. It's better to be blind if you wish to ignore what they say at this point.




There's a vision, and there's a reality. Right now, vision is nowhere near reality. So, how about joining the island!




Say what, you're a wrestler?

Apparently. All they had to do was let me drop with as many people as I wanted and play in CW while doing it. That's it. That's all it would take to make me happy.

Well their vision appears to be just that. THEIR vision. No matter how many people customers tell them they want a different vision or at least options to play closer to their personal vision, it just seems to be a case of "because we said so" and "We know best what is best for you" Then they cater to the bottom end of the barrel a lot of times, ot always, but enough to make players who actually WANT a robust and challenging game look elsewhere. I never left my island. Feel free to check out the tagline in my profile. That's been there for close to a year now lol

Actually, yes I am. Professionally licensed and everything lol Not as active on the indy circuit or in the ring anymore but I still work shows from time to time

just in case [citation needed]

[Sandpit]

Wintersdark, on 21 March 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

I'm not arguing for 3/3/3/3 here, I just wanted to keep people honest. PGI didn't want pure tonnage matching for the reasons above (really oddball matches, etc), and wanted to ensure that people didn't feel they "had" to take the heaviest option within a weight class.

Sure, in a perfect world all the Mechs would be balanced, but they're not and never will be.

I'm just pointing out the contradiction. PGI is saying one thing for their vision but then we have situations like this where it makes no sense based on what they state as their vision. My biggest issue right now? I'm tired of being a paying customer to a company that consistently "changes their position" after taking money from customers based on an entirely different "position at the time". That's not a smart way to do business for anyone.

I am completely understanding of delays and sometimes an idea that was on the drawing board just simply winds up not working so it gets scrapped. That's an ENTIRELY different situation from "Well we said we were going to do this and even though we told you that and we COULD do it, we've decided not to do it now but thanks for buying our stuff before we announced our new position"

This isn't the first example and like I said, I'm a pretty laid back type of person. It doesn't take much to entertain me. I don't wail and flail every time something in the game is changed. I don't claim PGI "lied" because they change how a weapon works or add in a new feature that doesn't create an unfair balance or adds something that I don't like. I DO, however, take offense at being told for over a year that group limits were "temporary" and we would be able to group up in 5-11 "soon". This isn't a game feature or a weapon, this is a fundamental change to HOW you can even participate in the game. I don't care what the reason is, they can't expect to tell a customer base one thing for over a year and them think it's "ok" to do the exact opposite and expect customers to not be upset.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 21 March 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

Apparently. All they had to do was let me drop with as many people as I wanted and play in CW while doing it. That's it. That's all it would take to make me happy.

That's asking for the world man. You only get the island!

Quote

Well their vision appears to be just that. THEIR vision. No matter how many people customers tell them they want a different vision or at least options to play closer to their personal vision, it just seems to be a case of "because we said so" and "We know best what is best for you" Then they cater to the bottom end of the barrel a lot of times, ot always, but enough to make players who actually WANT a robust and challenging game look elsewhere. I never left my island. Feel free to check out the tagline in my profile. That's been there for close to a year now lol

It's a marketing thing vs "going with idealism". Like, I get that people have their own ideal vision of stuff... and obviously it is highly unlikely it will come to that. The thing about "selling a product" is actually producing something that the customer wants. I think they are doing a "poor" Steve Jobs response to "we'll make something the customers don't know they want"... like cockpit glass. The things that have little to do with making a game successful is what is being focused on... with the implicit assumption that "everything else is good". Well, everything else is NOT good, thus the vitriol-like responses here. That is what makes it frustrating on so many levels.

Quote

Actually, yes I am. Professionally licensed and everything lol Not as active on the indy circuit or in the ring anymore but I still work shows from time to time

just in case [citation needed]

I'll be sure to not physically mess with you ever.

For a moment thought, I started to think of the Rock and others (I'm no wrestling fan, but I kinda know some of the names).

[Igorius]

Sandpit, on 21 March 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:

I'm just pointing out the contradiction. PGI is saying one thing for their vision but then we have situations like this where it makes no sense based on what they state as their vision. My biggest issue right now? I'm tired of being a paying customer to a company that consistently "changes their position" after taking money from customers based on an entirely different "position at the time". That's not a smart way to do business for anyone.

I am completely understanding of delays and sometimes an idea that was on the drawing board just simply winds up not working so it gets scrapped. That's an ENTIRELY different situation from "Well we said we were going to do this and even though we told you that and we COULD do it, we've decided not to do it now but thanks for buying our stuff before we announced our new position"

This isn't the first example and like I said, I'm a pretty laid back type of person. It doesn't take much to entertain me. I don't wail and flail every time something in the game is changed. I don't claim PGI "lied" because they change how a weapon works or add in a new feature that doesn't create an unfair balance or adds something that I don't like. I DO, however, take offense at being told for over a year that group limits were "temporary" and we would be able to group up in 5-11 "soon". This isn't a game feature or a weapon, this is a fundamental change to HOW you can even participate in the game. I don't care what the reason is, they can't expect to tell a customer base one thing for over a year and them think it's "ok" to do the exact opposite and expect customers to not be upset.

Very well said. The idea to shunt off a feature that was promised at the end of 2012 to sometime in 2015 (in this case, Community Warfare) for the sake of polishing features is... well, I'll be positive and say that I appreciate them acknowledging that in-game features need work. However, I vociferously disagree with the plan to not even begin working on THE ONE FEATURE 90% OF THE PLAYING & PAYING CUSTOMERS HAVE WANTED FROM THE BEGINNING.

Sorry for shouting, friends. This whole thing's a bit frustrating, and has been for well over a year and a half now. I'd say that those of us who're still left have been more than patient.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 21 March 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

That's asking for the world man. You only get the island!

Unfortunately, and after waiting over a year for the temporary group limits to be lifted

Deathlike, on 21 March 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

It's a marketing thing vs "going with idealism". Like, I get that people have their own ideal vision of stuff... and obviously it is highly unlikely it will come to that. The thing about "selling a product" is actually producing something that the customer wants. I think they are doing a "poor" Steve Jobs response to "we'll make something the customers don't know they want"... like cockpit glass. The things that have little to do with making a game successful is what is being focused on... with the implicit assumption that "everything else is good". Well, everything else is NOT good, thus the vitriol-like responses here. That is what makes it frustrating on so many levels..

I dont' even mind or get annoyed that other stuff has been implemented like cockpit glass. They really have seemed to pick up their development pace since they get the new UI out so I can accept that it really was bottlenecking a lot of stuff and things like taht were able to be worked on while waiting on the new UI. No problems there for me.

I agree 100% with you on this though. The things that make a game like this successful are being completely and totally ignored in favor of roping in the casual player and the truly "hardcore" 12mans. Angry Birds has more story than MWO does and there's no real excuse for that because there are decades of lore that have survived based on this IP. The story has already been written, all they had to do was drop us into it. It was already there for them.

CW, lobbies, voip, group sizes, etc. you take a look at any successful MMO style game WITH a persistent campaign (so no, before anyone says it things like DOTA and LoL do not count here) has all of these things. Games like LoL are stand alone matches that don't link together, which is EXACTLY what we have and HAVE had here since day 1. It's been mindless deathmatches one after another. CW was advertised as the persistent campaign that linked those together, gave groups something to look forward to, and kept MANY long-time fans here.

Deathlike, on 21 March 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

I'll be sure to not physically mess with you ever.

For a moment thought, I started to think of the Rock and others (I'm no wrestling fan, but I kinda know some of the names).

lol nah, I'll let you in on a huge secret of most wrestling locker rooms. They're all a bunch of geeks and nerds
I've worked shows with a few of the "big time" stars. Some of them are pretty cool but a lot are just dbags who think they're "special" and entire cards and shows need to be reworked to cater to them.
Sound like any other situations you can think of?

[Alex Warden]

p4r4g0n, on 20 March 2014 - 08:09 PM, said:

Two things struck me while listening.

<starts at 21:30> Public matches, Private matches and .... Faction matches? Has this been brought up before? This could explain all the missing critical issues / concerns I've noted insofar as CW is concerned . Russ' comments seem to imply that Faction matches will differ from the other two types which could mean no 3/3/3/3, group restrictions, etc although he doesn't outright mention any of these things. Doesn't seem to have attracted much comment or attention though.

that´s how i understand it as well... made me curious

Quote

<starts at 36:40> Russ actually asks for feedback on whether to get CW out on time or defer it for 2-3 months for polishing / tweaks / etc of the existing game elements already released. Community (or at least the forum community) needs to get behind this and gather a collective cohesive response.

<Edited for clarification>

no question for me... CW all the way

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 21 March 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

Good luck with that. At least that explains where community warfare oops faction warfare is heading. At least I can now spend my money elsewhere and not feel I might be missing out on something

Explain to me how the new launch module that PGI is touting and has been explaining will "fix" things applies to the second part of the above quote.
PGI, "we aren't going to be able to match teams by tonnage"
"We can adjust tonnage of clan mechs to "even" them out if they're too op"


I just........... I have no words........... a person cannot be that oblivious....

You new launch module can't match by tonnage so it does it by weight class instead but you're talking about tonnage bumps to "balance" clan mechs???? Wow..........


Exactly, I've given up on that. It's free to play so hey, I'll still drop but Masakari pack is no longer mine, I know a certain space game that got that money though...

I'm glad I didn't go any further with my wallet though

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 March 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

the match maker will try to match the weight class as evenly as possible, if there is a 80 ton assault on one side they MM will try to fill a 80 ton on the other side. Same for clans except the MM will treat each clan mech 10 tons heavier

1. How do you balance a 75 ton Clan mech with a hard limit of 3/3/3/3? It's not like the IS gets another assault, right?

2. So, if I heard right, 'Faction play' ie 'CW' is a separate thing from public matches. Faction limitations will be present in Faction play. So if I buy a Clan package I will NOT be able to use it in CW if I am an IS pilot. I can only use it in 'public matches', which is what we have right now. I think PGI just saved me from wasting money on those Clan packs!

3. Whatever happened to 'all matches count towards CW'?

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 21 March 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

3. Whatever happened to 'all matches count towards CW'?

That was apparently their position at the time

[Ripper X]

Hmm. What about all those people who bought clan packs and thought they could use them in any match besides just PUG drops? It is making me reconsider buying any clan packs.

[Deathlike]

Davers, on 21 March 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

2. So, if I heard right, 'Faction play' ie 'CW' is a separate thing from public matches. Faction limitations will be present in Faction play. So if I buy a Clan package I will NOT be able to use it in CW if I am an IS pilot. I can only use it in 'public matches', which is what we have right now. I think PGI just saved me from wasting money on those Clan packs!

I think they'll allow Clan mechs in any match... unless they create some sort of Clan vs IS mode or something. Doubtful that will occur or "just work".

Quote

3. Whatever happened to 'all matches count towards CW'?

I'm not sure I'd be rooting for the mega-scoreboard with your imaginary faction map.

[Mycrus]

Sandpit, on 21 March 2014 - 05:44 PM, said:

That was apparently their position at the time

damn sandpit i'm starting to give you likes... goes to show how far pgi has fallen...

[Sandpit]

Mycrus, on 21 March 2014 - 07:00 PM, said:

damn sandpit i'm starting to give you likes... goes to show how far pgi has fallen...

I've ALWAYS been critical of PGI when I think they're doing something "wrong" or "bad". It's just easier to call people a white knight if they don't go along with the usual wail and flail and don't cuss PGI like dogs and demand things than it is to accept that some people actually enjoy the game.

MWO is a fun game. I like the gameplay and balance. None of that matters nearly as much to me as just being able to group up and play in CW. So I'm calling them on their decisions and pointing out just how the "new" launch module isn't going to "fix" anything. it's just going to lead to fewer player playing the game.

[Novakaine]

All of this reminds me of a required training video I saw a few years back.
A DEA agent in front of class of high school kids talking about gun safety and drug use.
The agent then claims to be the only person in the room to be professional enough to handle a weapon.
The while re-holstering his sidearm he promptly shoots himself in the foot.
That's not the sad part though.
The agent continues to try to teach the class while bleeding out and scaring the poor kids half to death.
Then impossibly of all things he then picks up a carbine and begins to try it again.
With the poor children screaming for him to put it down.
The sad thing is PGI does'nt even realize they're bleeding out.
Or maybe that's the plan all along.

[Lindonius]

Sandpit, on 21 March 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:

they can't expect to tell a customer base one thing for over a year and them think it's "ok" to do the exact opposite and expect customers to not be upset.

They can expect to do what the hell they like if morons keep giving them money.

They said they'd been working on CW for over TWO years right up to the point when they admitted "err actually no we haven't even started it yet because we were worried about getting our license renewed."

And even after this debacle, there are some people who trust them enough to give them money for their blatant half-baked "we don't actually know how we're gonna do this but please buy it anyway" Clan packs.

Unbelievable.

[TKSax]

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 March 2014 - 03:06 AM, said:

Im curious? what do you mean by hard questions? and i don't think NGNG is funded my MWO either and also it can be a fun game to spectate. They have been around haven't they? even before MWO was in beta, well going back to when i started watching phil

Tekadept, on 21 March 2014 - 03:09 AM, said:

No they are indeed paid
Sean and Bombadil are compensated by IGP for MWO.
hey never used to be though.

http://www.reddit.co...ciftl?context=3

The relevant part for BloodWolf
xBombadilxX No Guts No Galaxy Podcast6 months ago

Adiuvo, we've never tried to hide that we get paid by IGP to do the official streams and tutorial videos.

Edited by TKSax, 22 March 2014 - 05:34 AM.

[Pacifist]

Novakaine, on 21 March 2014 - 08:09 PM, said:

All of this reminds me of a required training video I saw a few years back.
A DEA agent in front of class of high school kids talking about gun safety and drug use.
The agent then claims to be the only person in the room to be professional enough to handle a weapon.
The while re-holstering his sidearm he promptly shoots himself in the foot.
That's not the sad part though.
The agent continues to try to teach the class while bleeding out and scaring the poor kids half to death.
Then impossibly of all things he then picks up a carbine and begins to try it again.
With the poor children screaming for him to put it down.
The sad thing is PGI does'nt even realize they're bleeding out.
Or maybe that's the plan all along.

Are you trying to say PGI reminds you of Fire Marshall Bill?

[Sandpit]

[Darklord]

No matter what ideas the community comes up to fix things, their egos will never let them listen to us.``

[Sandpit]

Darklord, on 23 March 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

No matter what ideas the community comes up to fix things, their egos will never let them listen to us.``

I think it's less that than they refuse to accept their "vision" for the game doesn't jive with what the game was marketed as, the vision of many players, and promoting teamwork

Teamwork is nothing more than lip service when you claim to build a game whose mechanics require it but then don't allow players to form a full team, give them tools to communicate, and openly state teamwork is "op"