50 replies to this topic

[Wildstreak]

Aaron45, on 25 April 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

Maps

Except for the unrelealsed Desert, others have said they wanted maps but admitted they will live without them if other tings get done. I agree with them.

Aaron45, on 25 April 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

New modes

Oh yeah, new modes would be nice. But work on new modes means less work on other things and seceral of the community want those other things more.

Aaron45, on 25 April 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

Bug fixes (it took you like a year to have a look into hsr while the srms didnt register many shots. Then (few weeks ago and after a year) you said there was a coding error. Did it really take 1 year to find the error in the code? Cmon .............. <.<

Polishing the game (ui 2 for example is sooo unintuitive...)

Don't play many MMOs do you.

Aaron45, on 25 April 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

new weapons

No, we do not need new weapons because they are following a timeline and no other weapons are available in the 3050 period. Even more important, there needs to be some tweaking of existing weapons to get balance where it needs be. Try checking on that first.

Aaron45, on 25 April 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

New Modules

Modules would be nice. Personally, I am not sure what they could make except for some kind of new vision ones or GXP unlocks that enhance what we have.

Aaron45, on 25 April 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

I know you need money to pay your employes and your servers but enuff is enuff. Change your income Model due to this mech spamming is annoying and imo a waste of your ressources.

Mech spamming was partly needed to make money though they have, in the opinion of some, gone too far with the gold Clan Mechs. Right now, the only IS Mechs I know are not out are the Flea (no MASC yet) and any missing Champions/Heroes, there is debate about Phoenix variants not seen.

Aaron45, on 25 April 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

You could change the premium time and add to it new features so more ppl would buy it.


( like: if you want to create a lobby with more than 4 players you do need premium time

Launch Module will be adding a feature come Tuesday. Missed the post?

Aaron45, on 25 April 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

or you can paint your mechs with all colours unless you do have premium time.. Once you run out of premium time the colours are gone and it could get reactivated by buying again premium time)

?????
Not a big deal.

[Aaron45]

Triordinant, on 27 April 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

Unfortunately, if you're a business it's all about the money first. Maps don't make money, 'mechs do. Besides, every time they release a map there's rage on the forums about how bad they are. Maps = no money and little if any appreciation. I personally would prefer they release so many other things other than new 'mechs, but I know why they do what they do so I've come to expect it.

didnt we give them already enuff money with founders packs.. phoeinx packs, clan packs and soo many hero mechs?its already beyond 15 million. I think if you received 15 million$ you cant get called a small studio anymore.. Rather change the income model as i meantioned in the opening post.

Personally i gave them over 150 dollars which is pretty much imo. many of you guys crossed already the 500$ border. So ppl who already gave them alot money wantn to see other things than all the time mechs mechs mechs.

if it comes to the maps. Let the communitty create them and pgi chooses the best and have a rework on it...

[CCC Dober]

You know, one part of the problem, namely maps, can be solved by giving the community the tools to build, test/play them.

Take a look back at MW4 maps. There were hundreds of them (no exaggeration) and all made for free by and for the community. If PGI is not willing to democratize map creation like that, then we (customers and players) are right to blame them for the glacial progress on that front.

A map creator and privately hosted maps would do wonders for this game and PGI. All of a sudden they could focus on Mechs, new features and ironing out the bugs that infest this game, while talented community members could give us new maps to play on. It is obvious that PGI can't do it all and it would not be a problem if they would empower the community to contribute, like so many other game studios have before.

[TimePeriod]

CCC Dober, on 27 April 2014 - 09:34 AM, said:

You know, one part of the problem, namely maps, can be solved by giving the community the tools to build, test/play them.

Take a look back at MW4 maps. There were hundreds of them (no exaggeration) and all made for free by and for the community. If PGI is not willing to democratize map creation like that, then we (customers and players) are right to blame them for the glacial progress on that front.

A map creator and privately hosted maps would do wonders for this game and PGI. All of a sudden they could focus on Mechs, new features and ironing out the bugs that infest this game, while talented community members could give us new maps to play on. It is obvious that PGI can't do it all and it would not be a problem if they would empower the community to contribute, like so many other game studios have before.

This pretty much sums up it all. If PGI gave us the tools, we will finish the job.

[Aaron45]

TimePeriod, on 27 April 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

This pretty much sums up it all. If PGI gave us the tools, we will finish the job.

I dont think it summs all up and solutes the content problem as maps are made by grafic designers not from software engineers who fix bugs, optimize the grafics, add new modes or weapons , and so on..

[Bishop Steiner]

TimePeriod, on 27 April 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

Depending upon which country you live in and which contracts you have signed, you may not be 100% correct. As you are well aware we live in a pressed time currently with busyness being relatively slow and jobs farther between then it used to be 10 years ago. Thus the reputation as a 'meat grinder' may not be entirely valid. People who are pressed will work under different conditions based upon how financially pressed they currently are.

What a small company can't afford to is make a bad decision regarding who they hire and who they fire, resulting in all manner of legal turmoil. The ground rules allow you to write some pretty 'interesting' contracts and if you deem rightful to do so, can lay off people if they don't rise to your expectations or exceed them.

Edit: @Bishop. I do not care about whom they answer to, I want a new map not more 'Mechs. That is a personal opinion which you cannot change.

Opinions are fine. Pushing them around like they are facts of life, as the OP does, is misleading, and counter productive. I want a LOT of things for this game, but I also temper those desires with a realistic understanding of what to expect, between business models, common sense and yes, past PGI screwups. Defending PGI when something is not really being done wrong in no way means I am blind to, or unwilling to speak up when and where PGI does genuinely pooch something. If the OP could learn similar objectivity, he might find more traction for his arguments.

[Aaron45]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 April 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

Opinions are fine. Pushing them around like they are facts of life, as the OP does, is misleading, and counter productive. I want a LOT of things for this game, but I also temper those desires with a realistic understanding of what to expect, between business models, common sense and yes, past PGI screwups. Defending PGI when something is not really being done wrong in no way means I am blind to, or unwilling to speak up when and where PGI does genuinely pooch something. If the OP could learn similar objectivity, he might find more traction for his arguments.

Pretty common and realistic to expect from a developer to hold his promises and deliver promised content + fix bugs.. If you cant even expect that than this game is pretty much your world. This dev team is one of the worse ive seen. ppl who dont mind to be foooled with false promises and incredible buggy game, wont criticise this game and instead annoy ppl who expect at least that devs keep their promises.

Fanboys will stay fanboys. Realistic ppl will tell their opinion and crit when its needed

Edited by Aaron45, 27 April 2014 - 01:54 PM.

[Wildstreak]

Aaron45, on 27 April 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

Pretty common and realistic to expect from a developer to hold his promises and deliver promised content + fix bugs.. If you cant even expect that than this game is pretty much your world. This dev team is one of the worse ive seen. ppl who dont mind to be foooled with false promises and incredible buggy game, wont criticise this game and instead annoy ppl who expect at least that devs keep their promises.

Fanboys will stay fanboys. Realistic ppl will tell their opinion and crit when its needed

Still have not answered the question.
Don't play many MMOs do you?
If you did, you would know why your position is wrong.

[Asmudius Heng]

On PGIs business model I do have a few concerns.

• Mechs will eventually run dry - there are a finite number.
  
• The grind to replace getting mechs becomes modules which could be finite or seen as irritating not a goal
  
• Mech differentiation is very low and the more mechs the less incentive for people to collect them all.

Mech sales therefore are only dependant on an increasing player base because the old guard will stop buying (and possibly playing) but newer players will have a massive range of choice to grind or buy. PGIs income relies on new players the longer this goes on.

Here is the problem ... MWO is horrible for new players.

If PGI wants mechs to be the primary way to gain money they need a MUCH better new player experience. More new players who play for longer increases the chance of purchase greatly - right now I am always surprised that we even HAVE new players ...

So PGI have to improve that to make sure the back catalogue of mechs are being purchased.

How does PGI monotise the more mature player base though? Obviously they have the cosmetic stuff but the willingness to purchase will diminish over time and they cannot lean on these players who have invested so much already. They must either provide new free content to keep them playing and therefore create opponents and a community, or they must monotise the stuff that only the serious long term players care about which we have seen a taste of with the idea they might charge a small fee for using private matches in certain ways.

So from a business standpoint I can see PGI prioritising these things pretty much in order as they start to wind back mech production.

1. New player experience - VITAL for income
2. Community warfare - VITAL for keeping players and filling the matchmaker and providing new ways to get revenue
3. New maps/modes etc - Important for keepign players playing also.

I am actually a little concerned that they are spending so much time talking about CW while i see VERY little in the way of new player experience though which is breaking my argument a little ... but perhaps the UI2.0 thing has unlocked that potential and it is being worked on but not communicated because new players dont know they need the communications and most current players dont care.

In the end though they must replace adding more mechs with other ways to increase profits because this is a very finite business model IMO

[Aaron45]

Asmudius Heng, on 27 April 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

On PGIs business model I do have a few concerns.

• Mechs will eventually run dry - there are a finite number.
  
• The grind to replace getting mechs becomes modules which could be finite or seen as irritating not a goal
  
• Mech differentiation is very low and the more mechs the less incentive for people to collect them all.

Mech sales therefore are only dependant on an increasing player base because the old guard will stop buying (and possibly playing) but newer players will have a massive range of choice to grind or buy. PGIs income relies on new players the longer this goes on.


Here is the problem ... MWO is horrible for new players.

If PGI wants mechs to be the primary way to gain money they need a MUCH better new player experience. More new players who play for longer increases the chance of purchase greatly - right now I am always surprised that we even HAVE new players ...

So PGI have to improve that to make sure the back catalogue of mechs are being purchased.

How does PGI monotise the more mature player base though? Obviously they have the cosmetic stuff but the willingness to purchase will diminish over time and they cannot lean on these players who have invested so much already. They must either provide new free content to keep them playing and therefore create opponents and a community, or they must monotise the stuff that only the serious long term players care about which we have seen a taste of with the idea they might charge a small fee for using private matches in certain ways.

So from a business standpoint I can see PGI prioritising these things pretty much in order as they start to wind back mech production.

1. New player experience - VITAL for income
2. Community warfare - VITAL for keeping players and filling the matchmaker and providing new ways to get revenue
3. New maps/modes etc - Important for keepign players playing also.

I am actually a little concerned that they are spending so much time talking about CW while i see VERY little in the way of new player experience though which is breaking my argument a little ... but perhaps the UI2.0 thing has unlocked that potential and it is being worked on but not communicated because new players dont know they need the communications and most current players dont care.

In the end though they must replace adding more mechs with other ways to increase profits because this is a very finite business model IMO

Thats what i wanted to point out: I play this game since over a year and i do have almost 50 mechs.. This game is soo unpolished and soo buggy and soo unbalanced - even matchmaker sucks hard (every secong match is a stomp) that newbees wont stay for long.

Anyways thx for speaking it out better than i could do asmudius

[Aaron45]

buff