536 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

CCC Dober, on 02 May 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

@Craig
My perspective is that of a fan of the franchise. Even so, I'm also a Founder and have an interest to see MWO succeed and deliver on the promises. Now, if my experience and education allows me to point out the obvious (for me at least) and make a suggestion or two ... why not? At worst I get ignored, which is not surprising given PGI's history. At best I can give them an idea how to work the kinks out.

It's a mutually beneficial relationship as far as I'm concerned. I've got money to spend, they have a product to deliver. If they want more of that, it's up to them to deliver as promised. It's really that easy. Admittedly, group balancing was not specifically mentioned in the deal, but these days you take that for granted and it shouldn't even be a problem in the first place.

If you are able to accept this truth, then give all the advice you want.

[CCC Dober]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 May 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

If you are able to accept this truth, then give all the advice you want.

Let's not forget that I'm also a customer. My wallet will not suffer wilful Ignorance and lack of competence. Thank you for your attention

[Joseph Mallan]

CCC Dober, on 02 May 2014 - 07:02 AM, said:

Let's not forget that I'm also a customer. My wallet will not suffer wilful Ignorance and lack of competence. Thank you for your attention

I don't know many stores that will implement a customer suggested change. Do you?

[CCC Dober]

Honestly, the only thing that comes to mind here is the overhaul of Star Citizen's perma death. Not sure if that counts.

[Joseph Mallan]

CCC Dober, on 02 May 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

Honestly, the only thing that comes to mind here is the overhaul of Star Citizen's perma death. Not sure if that counts.

As expensive as some of those ships are... Having a $1,000+ game piece perma die IS a bad business plan!

[CCC Dober]

In case of backer ships that would have been problematic indeed. It was more or less taken for granted that bought ships wouldn't go anywhere, thanks to LTI (lifetime insurance). So thankfully that was not the problem.

The actual influence on game design came from another direction though. People were expressing concerns to lose their pilot permanently, especially when they are offline and can't do anything about it. So much in fact, that Chris decided to see what could be done and delay the inevitable. There was a dedicated news article a long time ago (can't be arsed to dig it out). The compromise was that characters would have 'lives' (think super mario if it helps) or strikes against them if you will. The chance to die a final death would depend on the severity of an 'accident' (think headshots) and how many lives your pilot already lost in his career. His in-universe explanation was that the human body would just give out eventually. Expensive treatment could restore lost lives, which grants some sort of semi-immortality. In case of death, there would be an heir of your own choosing, so nothing would be lost. By comparison, the system Chris proposed before was less elegant, less sci-fi and decidedly more hardcore.

Well, this is on of the examples how Star Citizen works together with the community to solve design problems before they influence the game in a bad way. MWO's design is old school and rather ponderous by comparison. I realize it's not really fair to compare both games, but we live in exciting times. Lots of things have changed last year.

[NeonKnight]

There is a saying most folks, i.e. The Customer, always love to trot out when they see something they don't like:

The Customer is always right!

Having done a lot of courses in marketing and what not, I can honestly tell you, this is NOT true.

Don't think so? Try it. Go to a clothing store and demand they make provide you with an article clothing made in a color or with a fabric the manufacture did not do. After all, you're the customer and you are always right correct?

Or go to a Top end restaurant and demand they make you something not on the menu, like a Sloppy Joe or Sushi or Wonton Soup. Again, you're the customer right? Does not even have to be a Top End restaurant, go to McDonalds and ask for a Steak & Lobster diner.

The fact is, in the above cases, the customer is not right, nor will they ever be.

And that leads to the next aspect of the saying wrinkle, in some cases a business may just not want you, as it will cost tooo much money to make you happy with little return. So, better the business drop you as a customer than try and make you happy.

For all we know, PGI may have looked into the cost returns on making the changes some scream about. Maybe they are taking people like the OP and other screaming we hate premades, and saying: "Hmmm, on average, the folks spend $30 per year on the game and only play for about 6 months, meanwhile most folks who drop in some sort of a team spend on average $60 or more per year, and have been with us up to two years."

If that was the case, I could easily see them keeping with the current status quo, as it's better (and easier) to please the silent majority than to try and please the vocal minority, and an even smaller portion of the vocal minority who seem to never be satisfied no matter what they do.

Edited by NeonKnight, 02 May 2014 - 09:10 AM.

[CCC Dober]

Feasibility might be a bigger concern in case of physical products. Things are more relaxed when it comes to digital products.

In case of MWO we are talking basics here. Proper integration/balance of groups in random teams. Is that an expensive proposition? Unlikely. The code needs to be written anyway and this does not even qualify as requested feature. It's a must to enable fair games. The fact that groups are not even transparent in the game does not help matters at all.

Besides, it's really not a question of whether the customer is right, but more a question of when PGI is going to deliver an acceptable solution. Acceptable as in fair for both teams. A transparent solution would be preferable, so we do not just have their word, but can actually see ingame what is going on.

Edited by CCC Dober, 02 May 2014 - 09:33 AM.

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 May 2014 - 07:03 AM, said:

I don't know many stores that will implement a customer suggested change. Do you?

What stores are we talking about?

Are we talking about auto shops that sell oil, and tires, and spare parts?

Or are we talking about an ultra niche boutique that sells a very specific item to a very specific clientele?


Online gaming is a very competitive arena, a game like MWO is extremely niche.

It appeals to a specific fan base, and it will require that fan base plus any new fans they can nurture.

It's in their best interests to listen to "the customer" (or rather good data they can mine from their customers) because they are not selling general items - they are selling something very, very specific.

NeonKnight, on 02 May 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

There is a saying most folks, i.e. The Customer, always love to trot out when they see something they don't like:

The Customer is always right!

Having done a lot of courses in marketing and what not, I can honestly tell you, this is NOT true.

Don't think so? Try it. Go to a clothing store and demand they make provide you with an article clothing made in a color or with a fabric the manufacture did not do. After all, you're the customer and you are always right correct?

Or go to a Top end restaurant and demand they make you something not on the menu, like a Sloppy Joe or Sushi or Wonton Soup. Again, you're the customer right? Does not even have to be a Top End restaurant, go to McDonalds and ask for a Steak & Lobster diner.

The fact is, in the above cases, the customer is not right, nor will they ever be.

You are misunderstanding the meaning behind the phrase.

It's not about responding to one single customer's single incidental comment.



When McDonalds first attempted to push into Asia, they went with their typical menu.

To their dismay, it wasn't the meal replacement they want it to be in the customer's mind.

Most people would only go so far as to consider it a snack, it had low appeal with the male demographic.

Why? Because in Asia, in a country like Japan for example, the word for "Rice" is often used interchangeably to mean "Meal".

Japanese business men can go out, eat and drink all night long but if they didn't have a bowl of rice it's not really dinner - it was snacking and drinking.


So the customer presented the need, Mc Donald's did their research and now you can find rice on menus in Japan and throughout Asia.


Right now in the US Mc Donald's is working hard to present "healthier" options, low calorie options and trying to update their image by changing Ronald's clothing.


This is all due to the customer's demand (and Mc Donald's desire to be the one to best meet it). It doesn't require the customer to walk in and tell you they want a salad or a selection of low calorie items.

It's based off of market research, data.


What CCC Dober is saying, is that if PGI's interpretation or data collection is flawed, their attempts to meat the needs of "the customer" will also be flawed.




P.S. Don't think upscale restaurants are willing to break with tradition and serve "cheeseburgers"? Why do you think we see all of those $16 to $30+ "kobe beef" burgers?

Edited by Ultimatum X, 02 May 2014 - 11:26 AM.

[NeonKnight]

Ultimatum X, on 02 May 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

What stores are we talking about?

Are we talking about auto shops that sell oil, and tires, and spare parts?

Or are we talking about an ultra niche boutique that sells a very specific item to a very specific clientele?


Online gaming is a very competitive arena, a game like MWO is extremely niche.

It appeals to a specific fan base, and it will require that fan base plus any new fans they can nurture.

It's in their best interests to listen to "the customer" (or rather good data they can mine from their customers) because they are not selling general items - they are selling something very, very specific.







You are misunderstanding the meaning behind the phrase.

It's not about responding to one single customer's single incidental comment.



When McDonalds first attempted to push into Asia, they went with their typical menu.

To their dismay, it wasn't the meal replacement they want it to be in the customer's mind.

Most people would only go so far as to consider it a snack, it had low appeal with the male demographic.

Why? Because in Asia, in a country like Japan for example, the word for "Rice" is often used interchangeably to mean "Meal".

Japanese business men can go out, eat and drink all night long but if they didn't have a bowl of rice it's not really dinner - it was snacking and drinking.


So the customer presented the need, Mc Donald's did their research and now you can find rice on menus in Japan and throughout Asia.


Right now in the US Mc Donald's is working hard to present "healthier" options, low calorie options and trying to update their image by changing Ronald's clothing.


This is all due to the customer's demand (and Mc Donald's desire to be the one to best meet it). It doesn't require the customer to walk in and tell you they want a salad or a selection of low calorie items.

It's based off of market research, data.


What CCC Dober is saying, is that if PGI's interpretation or data collection is flawed, their attempts to meat the needs of "the customer" will also be flawed.




P.S. Don't think upscale restaurants are willing to break with tradition and serve "cheeseburgers"? Why do you think we see all of those $16 to $30+ "kobe beef" burgers?

Never said High scale restaurants won;t serve a burger, but I don't care how scale your restaurant, I won;t go into a Vegan Restaurant and demand a Rib-Eye cooked Medium rare either.

As to McDonalds in Asia you are using the term Customer as a plural where I am using it as a singular. If one customer, or evn a small local few were demanding rice on the menu then McDonalds would tell them to pound sand, and rightfully so.

What I am talking about here is changing the entire market dynamic to an extent to please a select few when it does not exist within the business model and/or the cost of return is not there. If it cost $20 to implement, but they only got back $2, well, they won;t do it then will they?

But here is the fun part, we (you, me and others) can all go back and forth, but without seeing the Business plan for MWO, we are all just stating our views, wants and preconcieved notions. And Because PGI is a private, non-publicly traded company, I don;t expect them to be furnishing us with Portfolios and Annual reports anytime soon.

[Davers]

NeonKnight, on 02 May 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

the Business plan for MWO

1. Promise Community Warfare
2. Sell Hero Mechs
3. Profit!!!!

[Craig Steele]

CCC Dober, on 02 May 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

Besides, it's really not a question of whether the customer is right, but more a question of when PGI is going to deliver an acceptable solution. Acceptable as in fair for both teams. A transparent solution would be preferable, so we do not just have their word, but can actually see ingame what is going on.

Nope,

What you mean is whether PGI are going to deliver a solution that suits their commercial goals.

This is not a charity handing out feel good lollies for everyone to have a nice day.

This is a business and no business has 100% market penetration. They will lose some customers (maybe me?) but their goal is to generate more revenue from other customers.

It doesn't have to be "transparent", it just has to have value in the eyes of their preferred market.

[Jun Watarase]

PGI has already convinced themselves that selling hero mechs and the occasional exclusive package is the best path to profitability, rather than delivering on promises made more than two years ago. So yea...

[El Bandito]

No hats. Player retention will improve drastically if there were hats.

Edited by El Bandito, 02 May 2014 - 06:47 PM.

[Lightfoot]

It's been proven to be the fabricated Gauss Rifle de-sync. Normal people just go bonkers and go play something fun.

[CCC Dober]

Craig Steele, on 02 May 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

Nope,

What you mean is whether PGI are going to deliver a solution that suits their commercial goals.

This is not a charity handing out feel good lollies for everyone to have a nice day.

This is a business and no business has 100% market penetration. They will lose some customers (maybe me?) but their goal is to generate more revenue from other customers.

It doesn't have to be "transparent", it just has to have value in the eyes of their preferred market.

Look, this is not the Ford T-model among Mechwarrior games. It is neither the first, nor the best there has ever been. Having the license to produce a MW game means squat if the product does not deliver as promised. Or worse, if it delivers less than its predecessors and fails to honor the deal struck with Founders. We have such a situation here and no shiny graphics in the world will make a difference. Even if you are not a Founder, you definitely know about the value of sticking to a deal. That is the make of break of business credibility.

Now, PGI blew the chance for a good first impression by going open beta against better judgement and thousands of people being very vocal about it. Founders no less. The game quite literally bombed as a result of PGI's decision, if you care to read receptions and reviews. Did PGI learn something from that experience? Like starting to take their fanbase more seriously? Or maybe appologize for their lousy decision to sell an alpha version at release? No.

But it didn't stop there. How many times do we have to suffer another LRMageddon, just because Paul sez? How much more deception and lies does it take to lose the rest of the Founders? Take 3rd person view or the double heatsinks working at less than double efficiciency. And PGI had the nerve to lie in our faces over the failed implementaion. Then played it off like their scrap code was working as intended. People called their BS after looking under the hood of the game. How about ghost heat and Gauss charge mechanics, probably the most clueless and inconsequential fixes I have ever seen to date in a Mechwarrior game. All due to a lack of understanding how these things are supposed to work. Crippling group sizes on purpose just because, but allowing sync drops to unbalance games left and right? Yep, PGI went there and beyond. When they do this kind of crazy sh1t on a regular basis, it does not really inspire confidence or trust, does it?

PGI ignored the input of their experienced fanbase time and again with foreseeable consequences for the game. Everytime something in this game was proven to be broken, PGI either backpedalled or went 'lalalala, we can't hear you over the sound of how awesome we are", figuratively speaking.

Long story short: PGI's failure is down to lack of respect for their fanbase. If they had any, they would listen and act before disaster strikes. We wouldn't fight with problems today that we had in beta. There would be no 3rd person view. The UI wouldn't be a total disaster. Grind and prices would be acceptable. The heat and weapon systems would actually work correctly and groups would not be rife for abuse, but a positive influence on the game. Just to name some of the things that people have analyzed and discussed indepth. Sometimes even before the game was funded and systems were implemented.

So if you still insist that PGI does alright by ignoring their customers, despite ample proof to the contrary, then what purpose does that serve? Do you want PGI to feel good about making stupid decisions? Forgive me for guessing at your motivation, but your feedback in this thread makes literally no sense to me. Not even from a business perspective, with the possible exception of something like a hostile takeover. Would you really prefer PGI going down over stupid decisions and letting the franchise rot again for another decade? Serious question here.

Edited by CCC Dober, 03 May 2014 - 01:04 PM.

[mogs01gt]

This sums up why new players quit....

[-Natural Selection-]

NeonKnight, on 02 May 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

There is a saying most folks, i.e. The Customer, always love to trot out when they see something they don't like:

The Customer is always right!

Having done a lot of courses in marketing and what not, I can honestly tell you, this is NOT true.

Don't think so? Try it. Go to a clothing store and demand they make provide you with an article clothing made in a color or with a fabric the manufacture did not do. After all, you're the customer and you are always right correct?

Or go to a Top end restaurant and demand they make you something not on the menu, like a Sloppy Joe or Sushi or Wonton Soup. Again, you're the customer right? Does not even have to be a Top End restaurant, go to McDonalds and ask for a Steak & Lobster diner.

The fact is, in the above cases, the customer is not right, nor will they ever be.

And that leads to the next aspect of the saying wrinkle, in some cases a business may just not want you, as it will cost tooo much money to make you happy with little return. So, better the business drop you as a customer than try and make you happy.

No offence, none of those examples are part of the "customer is always right" philosophy. Those are more in the line of supply and demand, or target group scenarios. I which case if the majority of your customers are asking for items in which you do not provide, then they would be correct. If they are not part of the majority of the demand you point them to vendors in which can service them. In which case they may return at a later time to partake in what you offer.

There is a difference between marketing to a specific group and isolating yourself from everyone but them. I am sorry, but marketing and customer relations are two different animals.

[Flaming oblivion]

mogs01gt, on 03 May 2014 - 01:37 PM, said:

This sums up why new players quit....

^ this

[MahKraah]

a large factor is that elo is totaly usless, especialy after a new player start in the medium elo range!!!
someone who has 2500 wins and 2500 losses is in the same elo as a player who plays his first match!!!!
its simply the wrong metric. i bet if the matchmaker would use number of played games you would get a much better result, particulary for new players. have to admit that thismetric will totaly fail to send good veterans and bad veterans into different matches. i think we can not expect the matchmaker to ever create balanced matches so lets reduce him to protect new players with the numbers of matches played metric and balancing weight for everyone else combined with 100% solo-group separation. guess the group queue will have longer waitingtimes as it can no longer be filled up with soloplayers, thats the price for playing with your friends. privat matches on top for league and tournaments