1443 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

Sybreed, on 13 January 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

I have a bigger faith in their ability to balance the game, since they have people who are doing just that.

That's why I like you Sybreed,
You have faith because in the team and not putting it all on the past glories of Chris Roberts.
I'm guessing that maybe you learned (like I did) that Tabula Rassa proves that past performance doesn't guarantee future results.

[Sybreed]

Heffay, on 13 January 2014 - 05:30 AM, said:

If you think legendary founder angst is bad when someone decides the game is going in a direction they don't like, wait until all those rear admirals on up learn the same thing.

The meltdowns will make the kerfuffles here seem like 8 year old girls in a slap-fight.

being a rear admiral, I took the wise decision of not spending too much time on SC's forums and get burned out there. The less I read about the game (I still check every friday for updates), the less I can be disappointed (so far, it hasn't happened). If the game turns out to be a ****, it'll be the last time I back a project of such size without seeing more work done.

But no, I won't cry over it, I'll just be mad over the bad decisions and not spend another damn whale dollar over it, just like it's hapenning with MWO right now. I always give second chances, but after that it's GG.

[Otto Cannon]

Egomane, on 13 January 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

Are you so sure about that?

It seems to me that there are a lot of emotions invested on some games. So much so, that I have witnessed a year long relationship break apart over one. Just because there is no physical contact, doesn't mean that the connection can't be just as close.

I'm very sure about it personally. I can't speak for other people, there's a full range of strange people with assorted emotional and behavioral problems out there.

Roadbeer, on 13 January 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

Oohhh, looks like I struck a little close to home.

Show me where I've said everything is ok?
That's the problem with the Neckbeards, if you're not outraged, you must be a White Knight.

Nah dude,I just know how to deal with stuff better than an entitled 8 year old throwing an epic tantrum because they didn't get the candy bar they wanted.

I didn't say that was an accurate metaphor for you, only that it's just as bad as your equally inaccurate one. I'm well aware of your views, and they're actually not that far from mine. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head again though, since you seem to assume without evidence that I'm outraged because I'm not a white knight.

I'm not one of the people throwing tantrums either, so I'm afraid you wasted that comment on me. I'm a bit disappointed with how MWO turned out so far, but I'm keeping an open mind in case future changes make it more enjoyable to play again. I'm certainly not raging and gnashing my teeth over it, there are plenty of other things to do and I've never been a rabid Battletech fan.

I think you're projecting your assumptions onto me a bit too much, I'm not a hater- just somebody who has put aside the game for now while we wait to find out how things turn out. I'm fairly pessimistic at the moment but I'd absolutely love to be proved wrong.

I'm happy for the folks who like the game as it is, but all of the people I used to team with have stopped playing. It would be nice if I can one day point to MWO and say 'look, it's worth playing again'. I don't think you're helping the game much by trying to drive people like me from the forums so that if things get better nobody will know about it.

There are plenty of mouth-frothing tantrum throwers out there who deserve a good trolling though, and I've laughed a few times at your 'conversations' with them. You just need to adjust your targeting a bit because I'm only slightly further along the spectrum than you and it's a waste of time sniping at each other.

I'll leave you with that anyway, we're now totally off topic for this thread so I'll leave you to have the last (probably insulting) word.

[Heffay]

Sybreed, on 13 January 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

being a rear admiral, I took the wise decision of not spending too much time on SC's forums and get burned out there. The less I read about the game (I still check every friday for updates), the less I can be disappointed (so far, it hasn't happened). If the game turns out to be a ****, it'll be the last time I back a project of such size without seeing more work done. But no, I won't cry over it, I'll just be mad over the bad decisions and not spend another damn whale dollar over it, just like it's hapenning with MWO right now. I always give second chances, but after that it's GG.

I too am an entitled rear admiral in SC.

I'm sure I won't be disappointed in the game though, because it doesn't bother me when businesses make business decisions. And if the game becomes not fun, I'll just walk away instead of warning the world about my evil ex-girlfriend, all while promising to take her back if she loses weight, gets a boob job and brings a friend.

[Roadbeer]

Fair enough Otto, but just a point of order, I didn't direct the metaphor at you, I just said it was eerily similar behavior, it was a shotgun blast in the dark.

[Sybreed]

Heffay, on 13 January 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

I too am an entitled rear admiral in SC.

I'm sure I won't be disappointed in the game though, because it doesn't bother me when businesses make business decisions. And if the game becomes not fun, I'll just walk away instead of warning the world about my evil ex-girlfriend, all while promising to take her back if she loses weight, gets a boob job and brings a friend.

here's the thing about business decisions in the gaming industry, especially in F2P titles and other similar markets (like SC):

If your game is awesome, people will spend money on it. If it sucks, it's a lot less likely they will. When I see a dev spending more time on finding ways to monetize a game than making it fun, my "scammer" sense is tingling.

In short, devs should focus on making the greatest game possible, not the most lucrative one. Or, "Build it and they will come".

Case in point: LoL. DOTA, Team Fortress, War Thunder.

Edited by Sybreed, 13 January 2014 - 10:09 AM.

[Heffay]

Sybreed, on 13 January 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

If your game is awesome, people will spend money on it.

MWO is pretty awesome. All the professional reviews say the same thing: Great gameplay, fantastic graphics, needs community warfare.

And that is what they are working on delivering. There are already components of it in the game files.

[Sybreed]

Heffay, on 13 January 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

MWO is pretty awesome. All the professional reviews say the same thing: Great gameplay, fantastic graphics, needs community warfare.

And that is what they are working on delivering. There are already components of it in the game files.

We disagree on the term "gameplay" here.. How good would XCOM be if you had no base construction, only field missions? How good would WoW be (honestly, I haven't played that game in over 7 years) if you only had PVP scenarios?

Gameplay is alright, not great, even if we take it from your point of view. Pinpoint damage is still king, heat is still borked, hardpoints a big source of imbalance.

Another example: Have you ever played the board game "Arkham Horror" ? Imagine if you only had combat in that game, no investigations, no assets acquiring, nothing except combat. But, they would constantly push "monster expansions" to keep the game afloat. It would get boring FAST. It's the same thing that's happening with MWO.

Edited by Sybreed, 13 January 2014 - 10:38 AM.

[Heffay]

Sybreed, on 13 January 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

We disagree on the term "gameplay" here.. How good would XCOM be if you had no base construction, only field missions? How good would WoW be (honestly, I haven't played that game in over 7 years) if you only had PVP scenarios?

Gameplay is alright, not great, even if we take it from your point of view. Pinpoint damage is still king, heat is still borked, hardpoints a big source of imbalance.

Another example: Have you ever played the board game "Arkham Horror" ? Imagine if you only had combat in that game, no investigations, no assets acquiring, nothing except combat. But, they would constantly push "monster expansions" to keep the game afloat. It would get boring FAST. It's the same thing that's happening with MWO.

The lack of depth doesn't mean the existing gameplay is bad. Just that it lacks depth. There is still plenty of reason to play: It's fun to shoot things in giant stompy robots.

And among my many trips in and out of WoW, I have occasionally gone from the PvP side to the PvE side and back. Some days I couldn't stand another arena match, others I would have stabbed myself in the face if I had to log in for one more raid. But the parts I played were still *fun*, which is why I kept coming back. Just because you need a break every now and then doesn't take away from the core gameplay. Make a game fun, and you'll come back to it. And MWO definitely has that fun factor.

[AaronWolf]

Sandpit, on 13 January 2014 - 06:43 AM, said:

^Describes 90% of the rage "quitters"

[Sybreed]

Heffay, on 13 January 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

The lack of depth doesn't mean the existing gameplay is bad. Just that it lacks depth. There is still plenty of reason to play: It's fun to shoot things in giant stompy robots.

And among my many trips in and out of WoW, I have occasionally gone from the PvP side to the PvE side and back. Some days I couldn't stand another arena match, others I would have stabbed myself in the face if I had to log in for one more raid. But the parts I played were still *fun*, which is why I kept coming back. Just because you need a break every now and then doesn't take away from the core gameplay. Make a game fun, and you'll come back to it. And MWO definitely has that fun factor.

depth is what keeps players playing. You're right though, lack of depth doesn't mean the game can't be fun. It just means someone will get bored faster than playing another game with more depth.

And I'm one of unlucky few who feels modifying every mech in the mechlab is a chore :S

[Heffay]

Sybreed, on 13 January 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

depth is what keeps players playing. You're right though, lack of depth doesn't mean the game can't be fun. It just means someone will get bored faster than playing another game with more depth.

Yup. And even within the game they have now, there is more depth than before. Every time they come out with a new module or tweak one (cockpit shake, seismic), you have to debate what to bring and what to leave in the dropship. Choices have consequences, and while a module may be beneficial on one map, it may be useless on another.

People talk about the new modules as just a means of generating revenue, but without a wide variety to choose from, you just have a shallow game where the decisions are simple and without consequence. If you're going to brawl, you might have to sacrifice that seismic for an advanced gyro module.

[Sybreed]

Heffay, on 13 January 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Yup. And even within the game they have now, there is more depth than before. Every time they come out with a new module or tweak one (cockpit shake, seismic), you have to debate what to bring and what to leave in the dropship. Choices have consequences, and while a module may be beneficial on one map, it may be useless on another.

People talk about the new modules as just a means of generating revenue, but without a wide variety to choose from, you just have a shallow game where the decisions are simple and without consequence. If you're going to brawl, you might have to sacrifice that seismic for an advanced gyro module.

Hmm, the only modules I've bought are the advanced zoom (on 2 different mechs) and the advanced sensors (on 1 mech). They're too expensive and do too little to be worth the C-Bills and don't bring much to the game. In fact, I played most of my MWO matches while they were no modules in-game (Closed beta) and I haven't found that they really affected gameplay except for seismic sensor.

Although, airstrike, artillery and UAV are good additions to the game.

Still, they feel more like a distraction vs the real feature that could have given all the depth MWO needs to last 5 other years: Role Warfare. If PGI focused on doing Role Warfare a bit like Hawken or WoT did instead of creating more overlapping mechs... I don't know, things would make more sense? I cringe everytime I see a Blackjack firing an AC/20. So much for being a long range direct fire harasser.

[Heffay]

Sybreed, on 13 January 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Hmm, the only modules I've bought are the advanced zoom (on 2 different mechs) and the advanced sensors (on 1 mech). They're too expensive and do too little to be worth the C-Bills and don't bring much to the game. In fact, I played most of my MWO matches while they were no modules in-game (Closed beta) and I haven't found that they really affected gameplay except for seismic sensor.

Although, airstrike, artillery and UAV are good additions to the game.

Still, they feel more like a distraction vs the real feature that could have given all the depth MWO needs to last 5 other years: Role Warfare. If PGI focused on doing Role Warfare a bit like Hawken or WoT did instead of creating more overlapping mechs... I don't know, things would make more sense? I cringe everytime I see a Blackjack firing an AC/20. So much for being a long range direct fire harasser.

Modules are expensive, but they are end game content which is why they are so expensive. You won't equip all your mechs, but if you're running competitive 12 mans in a non mastered mech, you're not doing end-game play.

Role warfare needs more focus, and I think getting SRMs working properly would help. Give fast flankers a reason to exist; if they get inside a sniper's range, they should have a definitive upper hand (unless the assault is not only running sniper weapons, but also trip SRM6s; in which case assault mech is assault mech!).

[Alaskan Nobody]

Otto Cannon, on 12 January 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

If you think about it, it would actually be very odd behaviour to follow the game for so long and then walk away without a backward glance to see how things are progressing. Losing faith in the devs doesn't mean that I have no interest in what happens to the only current mechwarrior game- I just don't play any more.

And yet here you are - complaining about a game you do not actually play!
Small changes make big differences, how would you know how good a game is without actually being the one playing it?

The answer: you cannot.
You may have played at one point - but unless you are playing the game now - you cannot really comment on the state of it.

[Arahantius]

Why is there an assumption that this has anything to do with MWO?
The video didn't stream for me so I'm askin genuinely.

[Roadbeer]

Arahantius, on 13 January 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

Why is there an assumption that this has anything to do with MWO?
The video didn't stream for me so I'm askin genuinely.

It doesn't have anything to do with it, that's why it's in Off Topic

[Arahantius]

Heffay, on 13 January 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

I too am an entitled rear admiral in SC.

I'm sure I won't be disappointed in the game though, because it doesn't bother me when businesses make business decisions. And if the game becomes not fun, I'll just walk away instead of warning the world about my evil ex-girlfriend, all while promising to take her back if she loses weight, gets a boob job and brings a friend.

Very well said.

[Arahantius]

Tedarin, on 06 July 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

http://youtu.be/ZZWaBnpSvUk?t=8m39s

This was a really interesting video. Here Chris explains publisher model vs crowd funding, and pc game development for niche games...
[hint] ...like Mechwarrior [/hint]

It looks amazing and I'll probablt get into it.

It is actually also a great video to watch to understand how PGI came up against difficulties that ended up with them being treated so horrendously. They just need to get a good grip on the new business model and anyone who has done a business degree will understand how they could have been tripped up so badly.

[Otto Cannon]

Shar Wolf, on 13 January 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

And yet here you are - complaining about a game you do not actually play!
Small changes make big differences, how would you know how good a game is without actually being the one playing it?

The answer: you cannot.
You may have played at one point - but unless you are playing the game now - you cannot really comment on the state of it.

Not being argumentative, just clarifying for you. I don't play the game at the moment, but I do drop every few weeks to see what's changed and I keep informed of updates via the forum. I'm not one of the MWO haters spamming bile on the forums constantly about how terrible things are either, so please allow me my opinion even if you disagree entirely.