536 replies to this topic

[MahKraah]

to flaming oblivion´s screenshot:
this 12man vs pugs pairings are a known mm bug from last patch and will be fixed next thuesday.
this guys started a 12 man premade to fight other 12 man premades and are mistakingly paired aganst pugs by the matchmaker, it is not the fault of the players.

[Craig Steele]

CCC Dober, on 03 May 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

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.

My point is not the one you paint, but I'll spell it out again.

The game isn't how you want it to be, I get that. But what you seem to be jumping to is that because the game isn't everything you want it to be, PGI are "failing".

Yet PGI are making money, the servers still work and staff are still showing up every day. Stuff is getting done. Just not the stuff you seem to want.

What I am saying (in this thread) is that PGI should be receptive to feedback from it's customers but it's customers are not running the business. We are consumers, not directors or management.

If you don't like the way they are running the franchise, don't spend money on it or open up in competition.

The reality is that PGI have done a lot of things right. The game wouldn't even exist unless Paul / Ross and the crew had been able to negotiate the IP. Could they have done some things better, sure. Could they communicate better on some things, sure.

But honestly if you think you can do better job with the BTU start pitching to Microsoft you want the IP when it comes up. Stop being a consumer and be the management. Then you will realise that if you're running a global business with multi national consumers the product has to have wide appeal, but not universal appeal. Some people are going to be left behind.

[Emn1ty]

I think the easiest thing to say is this.

People who are supposedly 'Sync' dropping just want to play with each other. I think that's a completely legitimate reason to 'sync' drop. I do not however think it's legitimate to 'sync' drop for an advantage against a less organized team. That is intentionally working an existing system to your advantage and is by definition done with malicious intent.

What people are mad about is the latter group. The ones intentionally fixing games by taking advantage of the system. So my question is, if the system obviously doesn't work and on both ends people are unhappy with the system in place. Why does that system exist?

It's not helping, it's harming. It's being abused. So what's the solution?

Remove it.

Matchmaking should be simple, you match player compositions of similar groups together. 2 players queue, the rest of the game should be filled 1/2 player combinations and if that can't be found then start finding larger groups. And if a game queues with a full 12 player team then force it to find another 12 player team to match with. No exceptions. That way, both sides win.

Also, ELO and total game experience should matter. Too often do games like this have a ranking system in place that isn't used effectively or at all.

So perhaps the real issue here is that the solution in place now is just plain old inadequate?

[Flaming oblivion]

Its as simple as this , 1 premade is enough to destroy a PuG team , 2 is a complete joke, games are supposed to promote balance and fair game , Introducing pre mades into the PuG que removes both of these aspects, whether its not as often or not anymore due to the private cue (that's currently borked not going there) is irrelevant it should not be allowed period.

[Nightfire]

CCC Dober, on 03 May 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

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.

... 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.

You are assuming PGI ever intended to be in it for the long haul, that their business plan was for longer than the period of the initial license span. I myself believe they were surprised how much money the MW franchise was bringing in and only extended the license because this well they tapped wasn't yet dry. The current diversification is probably just a change in the demographic revenue stream because the original market was both too slow and also slowing down, a new market to hit and grab before everyone realises the gravy train for what it is and that what they received isn't even a lump of coal.

Then again, I am very bitter and cynical, both with good reason. I honestly believe this train is coming off the rails and I'm still around to watch the wreck. I don't believe PGI will be among those hurt in it though.

[Nightfire]

Flaming oblivion, on 03 May 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Its as simple as this , 1 premade is enough to destroy a PuG team , 2 is a complete joke, games are supposed to promote balance and fair game , Introducing pre mades into the PuG que removes both of these aspects, whether its not as often or not anymore due to the private cue (that's currently borked not going there) is irrelevant it should not be allowed period.

Over estimate the power of most Groups, I think you do! Under estimate the ability of many Pubs, you have!
Speak from emotion, discard reason, you do! Complex situation, you over simplify!
Frustration rules your heart, anger hides in your words! The Dark Side guides this ones actions, it does!

May the 4th be with you!

[Nightfire]

Craig Steele, on 03 May 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

My point is not the one you paint, but I'll spell it out again.

The game isn't how you want it to be, I get that. But what you seem to be jumping to is that because the game isn't everything you want it to be, PGI are "failing".

This wasn't directed at me but I'll throw a few points into the ring now I have a little free time.

• It's less the game "isn't how you want it to be" and more the game is not how it was promised and sold to us (as Founders) to be. If PGI were a public traded company it is entirely possible they would be in the same sort of trouble EA/Dice were/are over BF4 and BF4 was in much better shape at launch than MWO was at launch. Being angry over that isn't wrong, it is an appropriate emotional response.
  
• Some of use believe "PGI are 'failing' " not because they are "because the game isn't everything you want it to be", rather that is a source of hurt and anger. Rather there are signs that indicate as such.
  
  • The refusal for separate drop pools because the player base is too small.
    
  • The widening of the Elo range the MM uses to find matches in quicker time.
    
  • The size and frequency of sales
    
  • The new mech deals getting more and more expensive. (Phoenix vs Clan).
    
  • and so forth

Don't assume that because someone is obviously upset at the direction decisions PGI have made and they say that MWO is "failing" that statement 1 is directly causative of statement 2. They may be correlative since discussing the bad decisions they believe PGI has made does lead to mentioning how poorly MWO appears to be doing but don't assume they arrived there simply because they are butthurt and incapable of reasoning.

Quote

Yet PGI are making money, the servers still work and staff are still showing up every day. Stuff is getting done. Just not the stuff you seem to want.

• I'm pretty sure the servers and staff will keep going until they decide they can't squeeze any more cash out. That isn't an indication of MWO succeeding in a traditional sense though you could be correct in saying that MWO is succeeding in it's intended purpose. That being to get as much cash through the doors with as a minimally viable product as possible.
  
• Stuff is getting done, just at an incredibly glacial pace. Well, the things we can buy are coming out the production door rapidly enough. New maps, balance features, Matchmaking tools, Hit Detection and CW all could be done faster by "Soon^TM Blizzard" or "When it's done, Valve". So you're right, the things we would rather they are not working on (MOAR Mechs!) they are and the things we think matter (as consumers) they are directing far less resources at. We have a lot of cars and very few roads to drive them on, buying a shiny new race car can only entice us to drive around the same race track for so long.

Quote

What I am saying (in this thread) is that PGI should be receptive to feedback from it's customers but it's customers are not running the business. We are consumers, not directors or management.




If you don't like the way they are running the franchise, don't spend money on it or open up in competition.

• Agreed, PGI could use a little more forethought and a little less reactionary/adversarial attitudes in their communication at minimum and their reasoning at best.
  
• Agreed, I stopped spending money due what I thought were PGI's poor decisions. That just seemed to be a signal refocus the target demographic rather than listen to what we thought was wrong.
  
• From the little I have been able to find out through contacts (and without spending any money) the license seems to be exclusive though I could be wrong, I haven't gone up the chain very far. If so, even opening up competition in the MW universe is not an option. You'd have to create "yet another mech like game that isn't MW but you could possibly play instead of MW". So as far as MW goes, at least until the license expires or M$ invokes some revocation clause, MWO is legally it.

Quote

The reality is that PGI have done a lot of things right. The game wouldn't even exist unless Paul / Ross and the crew had been able to negotiate the IP. Could they have done some things better, sure. Could they communicate better on some things, sure.





But honestly if you think you can do better job with the BTU start pitching to Microsoft you want the IP when it comes up. Stop being a consumer and be the management. Then you will realise that if you're running a global business with multi national consumers the product has to have wide appeal, but not universal appeal. Some people are going to be left behind.

Lots to say here but it's probably best to just address the highlights.
If I think I could do better I should start prepping to bid for the license myself when it comes up? Funny you should mention that ...
Yeah, none of us knows how PGI is really doing because they started out as a grey box and have since become a black box.
Some people may be left behind but some of us believe focusing the resources on revenue generating items before they had the fundamental game mechanics ironed out was a huge mistake if they wanted this thing to last. This isn't something about demographics, this is about the core game working. This is about making promises, taking money and then changing direction with a "That was our position at the time" statement.

[Craig Steele]

Nightfire, on 03 May 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:

This wasn't directed at me but I'll throw a few points into the ring now I have a little free time.

• It's less the game "isn't how you want it to be" and more the game is not how it was promised and sold to us (as Founders) to be. If PGI were a public traded company it is entirely possible they would be in the same sort of trouble EA/Dice were/are over BF4 and BF4 was in much better shape at launch than MWO was at launch. Being angry over that isn't wrong, it is an appropriate emotional response. (1)
  
• Some of use believe "PGI are 'failing' " not because they are "because the game isn't everything you want it to be", rather that is a source of hurt and anger. Rather there are signs that indicate as such.
  
  • The refusal for separate drop pools because the player base is too small.
    
  • The widening of the Elo range the MM uses to find matches in quicker time.
    
  • The size and frequency of sales
    
  • The new mech deals getting more and more expensive. (Phoenix vs Clan).
    
  • and so forth

Don't assume (2) that because someone is obviously upset at the direction decisions PGI have made and they say that MWO is "failing" that statement 1 is directly causative of statement 2. They may be correlative since discussing the bad decisions they believe PGI has made does lead to mentioning how poorly MWO appears to be doing but don't assume they arrived there simply because they are butthurt and incapable of reasoning.

• I'm pretty sure the servers and staff will keep going until they decide they can't squeeze any more cash out. That isn't an indication of MWO succeeding in a traditional sense though you could be correct in saying that MWO is succeeding in it's intended purpose. That being to get as much cash through the doors with as a minimally viable product as possible.
  
• Stuff is getting done, just at an incredibly glacial pace. Well, the things we can buy are coming out the production door rapidly enough. New maps, balance features, Matchmaking tools, Hit Detection and CW all could be done faster by "Soon^TM Blizzard" or "When it's done, Valve". So you're right, the things we would rather they are not working on (MOAR Mechs!) they are and the things we think matter (as consumers) they are directing far less resources at. We have a lot of cars and very few roads to drive them on, buying a shiny new race car can only entice us to drive around the same race track for so long.

• Agreed, PGI could use a little more forethought and a little less reactionary/adversarial attitudes in their communication at minimum and their reasoning at best.
  
• Agreed, I stopped spending money due what I thought were PGI's poor decisions. That just seemed to be a signal refocus the target demographic rather than listen to what we thought was wrong.
  
• From the little I have been able to find out through contacts (and without spending any money) the license seems to be exclusive though I could be wrong, I haven't gone up the chain very far. If so, even opening up competition in the MW universe is not an option. You'd have to create "yet another mech like game that isn't MW but you could possibly play instead of MW". So as far as MW goes, at least until the license expires or M$ invokes some revocation clause, MWO is legally it. (3)

Lots to say here but it's probably best to just address the highlights.
If I think I could do better I should start prepping to bid for the license myself when it comes up? Funny you should mention that ...
Yeah, none of us knows how PGI is really doing because they started out as a grey box and have since become a black box.
Some people may be left behind but some of us believe focusing the resources on revenue generating items before they had the fundamental game mechanics ironed out was a huge mistake if they wanted this thing to last. This isn't something about demographics, this is about the core game working. This is about making promises, taking money and then changing direction with a "That was our position at the time" statement. (4)

(1) If Forums are any guide, an awful lot of people read what they want to read and not what is actually there. "Promise" and "Vision" are two very different things but some people think one is the other. If you think you have a case for fraud then get your paperwork together but I read the stuff and I think the "fraud" acqusations are not going to hold up to any examination.

(2) And yet directly above you make assumptions about the cause of effects you see. The so called "signs" of failure could actually be for very sound commercial reasons and are not some prediction of doom. You are guilty of exactly what you write here.

(3) Sure, but my point is that people are seem quick to criticise and dwell on the overly negative side of things. This MW franchise was dead, has been for some time but along comes MW:O and they put their time and money into getting the IP and a starting base. Only after all that does the opportunity come for investors and finally Founders. Criticise for them for what they do wrong sure, but at least acknowledge the good things they have done as you do.

The simple fact is that no product, not a single one, has 100% market penetration. Some people are always going to be left behind in their wants vs the commercial reality. If people think the people left behind are an opportunity that is big enough, they can certainly try fill it themselves. But if they are consumers, their decision is to buy or not. That's it. Feedback is great, but just because 100 customers say they want X, doesn't mean it is feasible or even commercial no matter how good an idea it might be.

(4) Personally I would rather the company was flexible in the dynamic environment we all live in and held to the core premise rather than the letter of the word of every single thing. If the game went from F2P to Subscription I'd be out, that's a core premise for me. If they said "Proverbial happened and this has moved the timeline on these" I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'm not going to slit their throats over it. Why do I hold this view, well cause I think smart business people need the flexibility to take advantage of opportunities without being bound to last years "Vision".

[Eglar]

Nightfire, on 03 May 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:

Yeah, none of us knows how PGI is really doing because they started out as a grey box and have since become a black box.
Some people may be left behind but some of us believe focusing the resources on revenue generating items before they had the fundamental game mechanics ironed out was a huge mistake if they wanted this thing to last. This isn't something about demographics, this is about the core game working. This is about making promises, taking money and then changing direction with a "That was our position at the time" statement.

I'll start with that PGI is responsible for the game programming and IGP is responsible for all sales-related stuff.
That was an interesting video. So what you feel that IGP belongs to, as out of the 3 categories mentioned?

[Mark I3]

Pygar, on 23 April 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

Teamwork is OP bro- you can take any combinations of mechs you want in this game, give the other side the exact same mechs...if one side is using voice comms and teamwork, the other side w/out teamwork is pretty much always going to lose, and worse, probably going to get facerolled. If you want to make excuses for why you only play PUGs, fine... but don't expect me to buy them- because it totally is not hard to download and use Teamspeak, and it is equally not hard to join a house/guild/clan either...not even for a newbie- shoot, my house has weekly classes they run for newbies to help them learn different aspects of the game.

Remind me again, what are the benefits to being a "Lone Wolf"? I get to listen to music instead of communicating effectively on voice comms, and get to rant with righteous indignation about losing to "pre-mades" on the forums?

i agree..

if you look in any standard military text book one of the first things it will say is communication and logistics will win a battle.

i dont feel i should have to mention teamwork, thats a given, but how many times do you see players going Rambo mode only to disappear in a cloud of plasma 10 secs later?

logistics... well, knowing how to balance a load out, regardless of cash and chassis AND THEN TESTING IT BEFORE A BATTLE, will obviously help you get a feel for it. Regardless of the size and accuracy of any weapon, if you dont know how to use the bloody thing you are a liability to the team.

(on a related note, how many times have you been shot in the back by a teammate because hes ' testing and configuring' his firecontrol, simply because hes too damn stupid/lazyimpatient to do some ground work?)

Communication... the organised team with TS vox obviously have the advantage here.... the game tells us time and time again to work as a team. This is very difficult in random matchs as theres no vox and typing in the team chat effectivily stops your mech. Its also compounded by the age and attitude of players. I am willing to bet that the organised teams are older players with common sense and a basic understanding of tactics... eg commnication, teamwork etc.


Having only played here a short time, i love the game and the game mechanics, i love the sim and the building and loadout balancing.

However the random matchs can be difficult and frustrating.

Why not introduce a tier system based on k/d ratios or similiar?
or
Why not have a newbie league? (let the newbs practise amonst themselves. this would benefit everyone... newbies stay in the game and pro's dont get fed up with newbies)

I started wit 3 other ppl, they have all quit because there was no way we could practise together or against each other at the time. And its basic pr lore that once a player quits a game due to a bad experience they rarely come back.

[CCC Dober]

Craig Steele, on 04 May 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

...
(4) Personally I would rather the company was flexible in the dynamic environment we all live in and held to the core premise rather than the letter of the word of every single thing. If the game went from F2P to Subscription I'd be out, that's a core premise for me. If they said "Proverbial happened and this has moved the timeline on these" I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'm not going to slit their throats over it. Why do I hold this view, well cause I think smart business people need the flexibility to take advantage of opportunities without being bound to last years "Vision".

I guess this could qualify as answer to my last question directed at you.

Who is to say that PGI didn't do the 'smart' thing as you suggest? Pitch and sell a product to Founders, then change direction and cut ties once there is enough money to sustain a skeleton crew for years to come.

Fact: MWO would not exist without Founders. I can remember reading that Founders actually validated the business plan and took the brunt of the risk so that investors would have some collateral. And since PGI was about to close doors unless the Founders validated their business plan, why would the latter be excluded from decisions that alter the course of the game?

I think you would prefer that the Founding never happened, so the Founders wouldn't have a say. But it did happen and MWO was given green lights. The best you or PGI can hope for is that Founders stick to a refund and don't drag PGI to court over it. We are talking millions in damages here, not some chump change. That is ample motivation for lawyers around the world to bring this whole operation to a screeching halt.

For what? Just because PGI can't honor a deal and prefers to take the fast route? It's only 'smart' as long as you don't get caught, is it?

[Craig Steele]

CCC Dober, on 04 May 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

I guess this could qualify as answer to my last question directed at you.

Who is to say that PGI didn't do the 'smart' thing as you suggest? Pitch and sell a product to Founders, then change direction and cut ties once there is enough money to sustain a skeleton crew for years to come. (1)

Fact: MWO would not exist without Founders. I can remember reading that Founders actually validated the business plan (2) and took the brunt of the risk so that investors would have some collateral. And since PGI was about to close doors unless the Founders validated their business plan (3), why would the latter be excluded from decisions that alter the course of the game?

I think you would prefer that the Founding never happened, so the Founders wouldn't have a say (4). But it did happen and MWO was given green lights. The best you or PGI can hope for is that Founders stick to a refund and don't drag PGI to court over it. We are talking millions in damages here, not some chump change. That is ample motivation for lawyers around the world to bring this whole operation to a screeching halt. (5)

For what? Just because PGI can't honor a deal and prefers to take the fast route? It's only 'smart' as long as you don't get caught, is it?

(1) Pretty cynical view of things. Generally that's called fraud so again, get your paperwork together and hire a lawyer if you really think that's the case. I think you'll find you're wasting your time and money though.

(2) Pretty common in business that "pre Sales" confirm a market. Try getting a bank to fund a apartment building construction, they we will want some people to sign up to offers before a single cent gets handed over. Doesn't mean those signing up get the same paint job and tap fittings as the brochure.

(3) Sounds like alarmist unsubstantiated propaganda to support your view. Cite your source please or acknowledge this commentary has exactly zero basis.

(4) Just because I call out bad deductions as bad deductions or alarmist garbage as alarmist garbage, that doesn't mean I am not on your "side". I'd prefer a conversation was balanced and not hate and venom that serves no purpose.

(5) See (1) above, if you really think that's the right answer then you should pursue it, no one is going to deny you your legal rights. Personally my read of the stuff is that this is a waste of time and money, but it is your time and money and I'm not a practioner in Canadian Corporate Law, so who knows?

[Nightfire]

Craig Steele, on 04 May 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

(1) If Forums are any guide, an awful lot of people read what they want to read and not what is actually there. "Promise" and "Vision" are two very different things but some people think one is the other. If you think you have a case for fraud then get your paperwork together but I read the stuff and I think the "fraud" acqusations are not going to hold up to any examination.

There is no case for fraud as what we were actually promised for our money was actually delivered. We got the mechs, we got the premium time, we got the beta access. What differed was the sales pitch vs what was given. Why do you jump from "what we were promised" (which can be easily confirmed via a search for the Four Design Pillars) to Fraud? Were we mislead? Damn straight! Were we not given what we were promised for our money? No, we were given exactly what was promised. The Fraud Ah La EA/Dice is somewhat different and has basis on being publicly traded.

Quote

(2) And yet directly above you make assumptions about the cause of effects you see. The so called "signs" of failure could actually be for very sound commercial reasons and are not some prediction of doom. You are guilty of exactly what you write here.

Actually, no. Not in the slightest. Allow me to illuminate:
Craig Steele: "The game isn't how you want it to be, I get that. But what you seem to be jumping to is that because the game isn't everything you want it to be, PGI are "failing"."
Nightfire: "Some of use (sic) believe"
You draw the connection of telling someone what they believe, why they believe it (using the word "seem" is intellectually dishonest in the context of your statement since you extend his argument) to why he draws the connection.
I offer MY belief, as nothing more than a belief, and do not discount that others have come to the same conclusion as I know they have. The conclusion is also a little more grounded than "I don't like what they're doing so it's gonna fail!" I ascribe nothing to this other than my belief and your actual statements.
You miss the point of drawing conclusions for oneself as opposed to ascribing those conclusions to someone else to further your own argument (Strawman) and jump to the argument being about the drawing of conclusions itself.

I tend to choose words carefully when discussing positions with people like yourself.

Quote

(3) Sure, but my point is that people are seem quick to criticise and dwell on the overly negative side of things. This MW franchise was dead, has been for some time but along comes MW:O and they put their time and money into getting the IP and a starting base. Only after all that does the opportunity come for investors and finally Founders. Criticise for them for what they do wrong sure, but at least acknowledge the good things they have done as you do.

• I wasn't quick to criticise. In fact I'd probably have been called a PGI White Knight in the past. This journey has been a slow transition, not an overnight change. Granted, you point to "people" but I am included in that set.
  
• MW was indeed dead. I have expressed my gratitude that someone revived it in the past. Thankyou PGI and Tinker and Smith.
  
• Yeah, we've been into the financials of PGI before. They also put a good deal of Founders and Canadian Government funds into starting MWO.
  
• I've acknowledged the good PGI have done in the past. The problem was that praise was also in the past. If they do something good now, I'll praise them for that too.

Quote

The simple fact is that no product, not a single one, has 100% market penetration. Some people are always going to be left behind in their wants vs the commercial reality. If people think the people left behind are an opportunity that is big enough, they can certainly try fill it themselves. But if they are consumers, their decision is to buy or not. That's it. Feedback is great, but just because 100 customers say they want X, doesn't mean it is feasible or even commercial no matter how good an idea it might be.

Nice general terms. What I see is not a long term viability but an attempt to do as little as possible and get as much cash in as possible. We gave lengthy feedback in the past and not only was it ignored, we have really poorly conceived and thought out ideas such as Ghost Heat forced upon us as a result. I see PGI shifting the target demographic to get some more cash before thing thing dies since the old target demographic seems to have caught on for the most part and stopped spending so much.

Quote

(4) Personally I would rather the company was flexible in the dynamic environment we all live in and held to the core premise rather than the letter of the word of every single thing. If the game went from F2P to Subscription I'd be out, that's a core premise for me. If they said "Proverbial happened and this has moved the timeline on these" I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'm not going to slit their throats over it. Why do I hold this view, well cause I think smart business people need the flexibility to take advantage of opportunities without being bound to last years "Vision".

They made promises of what the game was supposed to be, Founders gave them money. They changed that "Vision", I and others have stopped giving them money. There is no throat slitting but when you get a niche IP and actively court those that love the IP to help get it off the ground, you are courting those that love the IP. You then pervert that IP to appeal to other people, you are going to generate ire. It's just going to happen.

Eglar, on 04 May 2014 - 12:24 AM, said:

I'll start with that PGI is responsible for the game programming and IGP is responsible for all sales-related stuff.
That was an interesting video. So what you feel that IGP belongs to, as out of the 3 categories mentioned?

The part that sees the players as pure revenue and develops the game from an accountants perspective rather than from a game developers perspective.

[CCC Dober]

Craig, most of this was talked about here on the page during and after the Founding. It's not some alarmist garbage as you would have people believe. PGI was on hard times and took to MWO like a lifeline. They were extremely thankful that people liked and funded the promised product, so much that PGI could keep the lights on and continue to work on the project. In the beginning at least. All of this has been written down here in these forums and I couldn't make that up even if I wanted to. I just don't have time for BS, you know? Ask around, I'm sure other people have taken notice of this as well. Given that you seemingly do not know about any of the above, it certainly puts your feedback into a whole different light. You just don't know better, that's all. You could probably change that with some google-fu, but that's up to you. The case closed as far as I'm concerned.

[Craig Steele]

Nightfire, on 04 May 2014 - 02:11 AM, said:

There is no case for fraud as what we were actually promised for our money was actually delivered. We got the mechs, we got the premium time, we got the beta access. What differed was the sales pitch vs what was given. Why do you jump from "what we were promised" (which can be easily confirmed via a search for the Four Design Pillars) to Fraud? Were we mislead? Damn straight! Were we not given what we were promised for our money? No, we were given exactly what was promised. The Fraud Ah La EA/Dice is somewhat different and has basis on being publicly traded.



Actually, no. Not in the slightest. Allow me to illuminate:
Craig Steele: "The game isn't how you want it to be, I get that. But what you seem to be jumping to is that because the game isn't everything you want it to be, PGI are "failing"."
Nightfire: "Some of use (sic) believe"
You draw the connection of telling someone what they believe, why they believe it (using the word "seem" is intellectually dishonest in the context of your statement since you extend his argument) to why he draws the connection.
I offer MY belief, as nothing more than a belief, and do not discount that others have come to the same conclusion as I know they have. The conclusion is also a little more grounded than "I don't like what they're doing so it's gonna fail!" I ascribe nothing to this other than my belief and your actual statements.
You miss the point of drawing conclusions for oneself as opposed to ascribing those conclusions to someone else to further your own argument (Strawman) and jump to the argument being about the drawing of conclusions itself.

I tend to choose words carefully when discussing positions with people like yourself.

• I wasn't quick to criticise. In fact I'd probably have been called a PGI White Knight in the past. This journey has been a slow transition, not an overnight change. Granted, you point to "people" but I am included in that set.
  
• MW was indeed dead. I have expressed my gratitude that someone revived it in the past. Thankyou PGI and Tinker and Smith.
  
• Yeah, we've been into the financials of PGI before. They also put a good deal of Founders and Canadian Government funds into starting MWO.
  
• I've acknowledged the good PGI have done in the past. The problem was that praise was also in the past. If they do something good now, I'll praise them for that too.

Nice general terms. What I see is not a long term viability but an attempt to do as little as possible and get as much cash in as possible. We gave lengthy feedback in the past and not only was it ignored, we have really poorly conceived and thought out ideas such as Ghost Heat forced upon us as a result. I see PGI shifting the target demographic to get some more cash before thing thing dies since the old target demographic seems to have caught on for the most part and stopped spending so much.



They made promises of what the game was supposed to be, Founders gave them money. They changed that "Vision", I and others have stopped giving them money. There is no throat slitting but when you get a niche IP and actively court those that love the IP to help get it off the ground, you are courting those that love the IP. You then pervert that IP to appeal to other people, you are going to generate ire. It's just going to happen.



The part that sees the players as pure revenue and develops the game from an accountants perspective rather than from a game developers perspective.

Your double standards are perplexing to say the least.

When I say "If you think..." you ram down my throat a diatribe about jumping to conclusions and then go on to elevate your own "my own.." statements as the pinnacle of forum ettiquette.

You make the statement my arguments are strawman arguments but you then go on to make the same assumptions.

W/e.

CCC Dober, on 04 May 2014 - 02:15 AM, said:

Craig, most of this was talked about here on the page during and after the Founding. It's not some alarmist garbage as you would have people believe. PGI was on hard times and took to MWO like a lifeline. They were extremely thankful that people liked and funded the promised product, so much that PGI could keep the lights on and continue to work on the project. In the beginning at least. All of this has been written down here in these forums and I couldn't make that up even if I wanted to. I just don't have time for BS, you know? Ask around, I'm sure other people have taken notice of this as well. Given that you seemingly do not know about any of the above, it certainly puts your feedback into a whole different light. You just don't know better, that's all. You could probably change that with some google-fu, but that's up to you. The case closed as far as I'm concerned.

Ah, the old "I'm a Founder so you don't know what your talking about" reaosning, because onyl those people who were smart enough to back PGI are capable of having an opinion.

Yes indeed, I only read the blurb and didn't sign up. It was my decision at the time and for that my opinion is now worthless. I've heard it so many times. It is of course a cop out and small wonder you sign of as "case closed", what I read is a variation of this....

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

no it's just another example of
"I really have no rational reason or argument against anything they've said so I'll resort to attacking them to try and distract from their ideas and maybe even get them baited into attacking me so I can either derail the thread or get them moderated"

It's a pretty common tactic used around here

But it just seems like all some people want to do is rant and dwell in a den of hate and bile and cry about the things they are not prepared to do anything about themselves. If either of you guys associate yourself with that statement, then I guess that says something.

[CCC Dober]

Believe what you want. I'm merely stating the obvious. If you have been around and paid attention in the very beginning, then you wouldn't cop out and turn this into an elitist argument, which it was not even meant to be in the first place. That argument solely exists only in your mind and the only thing it serves to do right now is to make you immune to knowledge that could alter your perception. Period.

[Zerwikaptur]

I'm not a huge BT fan but did enjoy this game for the first 6 months when I (non rage)quit WOT.

I have been waiting to get into War Thunder Beta for quite a long time and MWO served as a replacement until I get in (not initially but when I started to see where MWO is going to). Considering the PC gaming market crisis (I mean high quality titles for adults that make you want to immerse into) there were not many alternatives so I kept playing from time to time but with decreasing satisfaction.

I think the most beneficial thing about this project (other then the few happy moments it provided) would be to do a post mortem 'what when wrong' analysis. Since I work in IT I'm curious to see what the real reasons were (definitely not lack of financial support or feedback). Was it the constant under staffing, poor management (braking down user stories into tiny bits), technical tool set (choosing cry engine) or something else I don't have a clue about.

The point is: I really feel bad for the people who spent all this money and shown such support and I really hope one day when the license is in the right hands you get what you deserve.

Other than that just taking a peek on the forums from time to time to see when the inevitable happens.

Edited by Zerwikaptur, 04 May 2014 - 02:44 AM.

[Craig Steele]

CCC Dober, on 04 May 2014 - 02:36 AM, said:

Believe what you want. I'm merely stating the obvious. If you have been around and paid attention in the very beginning, then you wouldn't cop out and turn this into an elitist argument, which it was not even meant to be in the first place. That argument solely exists only in your mind and the only thing it serves to do right now is to make you immune to knowledge that could alter your perception. Period.

Yeah, sure. Cause when I call out unsubstantiated alarmist garbage as that I'm clearly the one that needs to broaden my knowledge.

And lets be frank, thats all I did. Call you out. This whole elitest thing is on you man.

[Jon Gotham]

Alexandrix, on 23 April 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

So everyone should have to join a clan and get on teamspeak to have a few fun games in mwo then?

What harm would doing that cause, really? Sorry but I can never understand the anti group railing that goes on. It takes very little time to get set up and can be a very casual affair. It only improves your experience basically, as in any other online multiplayer game. You can steadfastly play solo but that's like buying a Ferrari Enzo and never putting any petrol in it!

Anyway, OP you do make some valid points but the tone is very slanted with a strong whiff of hidden agenda sadly....
Not all premades run meta builds and will do anything at all costs y'know.....my unit does not run meta full stop. I personally refuse to use arty/airstrikes because I consider them cheap. In fact it's only certain lordly groups and try hards that do it.....
Very few basically.
I'm not sure a pug only que would be a good idea, it won't teach people how to act as a team very well-already we have most pugs acting as a solo player and utterly disregarding the rest of the team, playing only for themselves. a que where you only drop solo would only reinforce this. Call of Duty Warrior online anyone?
Most stomps I see are not due to sync drops or evil premades. they are due to one team acting like a herd of sheep and cowering in one spot, getting flanked and murdered. This sheep herd generally displays poor awareness of surroundings, poor decision making skills and lack of spinal coloumn in the main. the amount of chat I see on these teams? NOTHING until they are dead. Not even one attempt at saying anything.
Draw your own concluisions from that.

I started as a solo pugger, I lost a fair bit sure-but I expected to as I learned how to play. I was new and unskilled and I knew that better players would be against me. I didn't expect gratification to be handed out to me, something which I feel gamers now have a sense of entitlement to. I saw a unit recruiting one time in a game, I popped onto their site afterwards had a quick read and within 30 minutes I was on their TS having fun. My game has only improved since then.
Another reason why people get stomped? Ignorance. The amount of people I see instantly disconnect after dying amazes me. they'l die and spam into the next game without taking anything away from what they just did. when I started, I often spectated (I often still do) just to see what more experienced players did and how they approached a combat. you can learn valuable lessons like that.
Approach MWO like a CoD instant gratification title and you will see people quit after being stomped. Premades are not the evil elephant in the room-the playerbase as a whole is. If the general player behaviour was less cowering, more decisive and aggressive you might see less stomps. I watched 8 players throw away a win 2 days ago vs 4 players ( who were not very skilled btw) simply because they would not push. Instead they cowered and hid, peeking round rocks to take snapshots. All it took was a few of us who had died to provide guidance to marshall the last 4 to focus fire. the 8 died. It was the saddest thing I have seen in game to date.
The MM needs an overhaul basically. It's not fair at what it does now, to the beginner or the veteran alike. A beginner? you get penalised to a degree by playing against vets but you can take advantage of that by spectating,watching and learning-exercising a little patience and having a bit of humility. PGI being more upfront as you say might improve things, as well as removing the meta configs and discouraging cheap {scrap} like arty/airstrikes.
They could also have a better tutorial that gives away say, 5k MC? Incentivise people to do it. You could have lessons about torso twisting, proper placement on ridges, how to move with fellow team mates, how to lead, how to use consumables correctly etc. PGI could even run a competition for the playerbase to design a training program...
Imagine a scenario where a new player gets taken into a map with some bots, the map then players out with one side performing a flanking manouver all the while with text commentary on the screen explaining what is happening. That way the player could learn about weapons, tactics and movement without the pressure of getting "stomped."

Rather than railing against premades, perhaps constructive ideas about how to fix things that don't center around penalising people who have used a small effort to group up with friends, might be in order? After all us evil premades WANT our teams to be better and our opponents to be better. I don't think we have enough players to mess about with cater-to-soloers type ques so lets try to come up with something more practical?

[Lyoto Machida]

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

This sums up why new players quit....

Oh, right...because that happened so frequently before the last patch messed up the matchmaker.

Google is watching this thread, btw. Kinda creepy...