325 replies to this topic

[3rdworld]

Almond Brown, on 27 May 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

And if everyone was held to same accountability as they hold PGI here, in their real lives, like never letting them forget past indiscretions, wouldn't life suck balls.

Living in the past never helps the future, of anything.

I know if I missed my deadline by a year as PGI missed, I wouldn't have a job....but we are totally being unfair to pgi.

What is ridiculous is the amount of free passes the gaming industry gives developers.

See: credit score, judicial system, work history, driving records etc. People are held accountable today for their past deeds. You give PGI a free pass.

[Roland]

TehSBGX, on 27 May 2014 - 12:43 AM, said:

Funny thing is, KoD has a cult following that praises it's strategic depth.

No. It's a single player beat-em-up.

Quote

Anyhow, I used to spend way too much time in WC3 ladder matches. I was akin to the meta players we have now. Five minutes is all it took for me to understand dotalikes are trying to mash warcraft and dynasty warriors together and it doesn't work. So whether you like it or not, dotalikes do have beat 'em up like quality with psuedo rpg elements.

No, your analysis of those games is wrong.
And it obviously does work, as evident that League Of Legends has one of the largest and most active competitive scenes in gaming.

Quote

So yes you can compare the two. Because dotalikes are nothing more than the ******* offspring of dynasty warriors and Warcraft, which sadly dotalikes fails at being as good as either of those things. Mind you Dynasy Warriors is for when you have buddies over and a lot of Whiskey, but still fail and understanding what makes DW fun and end up having no redeeming Value what so ever.

Again, your analysis is wrong, laughably so. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about here. You're basically trying to incorrectly pidgeonhole games into old games that you liked, finding that they aren't the same, and then raging about how they aren't the same.

They aren't intended to be the same kind of game. Thus, they are different. Derp.

Quote

Oh and believe it or not, a lot of people can't stand tf2. Just say you like it on an Unreal Tournament forum and see how angry everyone gets.

What specific criticisms would you offer that would support your claim that TF2 is a poorly designed game?

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 27 May 2014 - 06:03 AM, said:

Or in other words - it's not the players fault that they play the game how it works, not how you imagined it to be.

I disagree. Is it the players fault for taking the path of least resistance? Yes. But more important, is it wrong to do so?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 May 2014 - 06:48 AM.

[Almond Brown]

3rdworld, on 27 May 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

I know if I missed my deadline by a year as PGI missed, I wouldn't have a job....but we are totally being unfair to pgi.

What is ridiculous is the amount of free passes the gaming industry gives developers.

See: credit score, judicial system, work history, driving records etc. People are held accountable today for their past deeds. You give PGI a free pass.

Might that be because it is a GAME FFS! A digital game played on the Internet and if done on an employers time, then shame be upon you. (many do).

How does everyone forget it is just a GAME! Not real life. Play or not, no need to be a douche' (not directed) just because the medium allows it.

Edited by Almond Brown, 27 May 2014 - 06:53 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 May 2014 - 06:47 AM, said:

I disagree. Is it the players fault for taking the path of least resistance? Yes. But more important, is it wrong to do so?

Only if the past of least resistance breaks the rules.

We are talking video games, not major life moral imperatives here, even if Lil Locky seems to think he is some sort of MWO MArtin Luther King on a crusade for the underprivileged being repressed by the man. (Without being bright enough to figure out the man IS PGI, not the players, who play the game PGI set out before the.)

I'm all for playing by a personal "code of conduct" as it were, if a person chooses. I certainly dislike poptarting, and find it boring. I also dislike the epeen swagger of many self proclaimed "L33Tz". I dislike the same attitudes when it's from Underhive Scrubs who can't compete, and so want to try to castigate anyone who doesn't play the game the way they imagine it in their adolescent daydreams.

Are their balance changes needed to make the game better? Absolutely. And it's PGI's responsibility to read these forums, look at the metadata, and make those changes. They should have reigned in Poptarting a year ago, but instead they sit there with their head in the sand, apparently, whilst players like Lil Locky try to tell the community it's our fault the Meta is what it is.

Sadly, even if 99% of players made a "gentlemans" agreement not to use certain things or tactics, that 1% still would. Be it the get any edge Comp guys, or the dudes that just can't handle sucking, so look for any crutch. And they would be the one's in the right. Because it is in the game, PGI allows it, has not done a bloody thing to reign it in, and if a person was to report them for it, PGI would like "LOLWut?".

And so because some tryhards will do it no matter what, the Comp Guys (hey you and I may find them an.....odd breed, but if that is what they call fun, who are we to judge?) eventually are "forced" back into doing it to be able to stay competitive. (Lets face it, even in the top Comp Clans, less than the top 10% of player there are so good that they would be able to overcome the competition, no matter what. Probably closer to 1-3%.)

So hey, I don't poptart (I am not above taking a jumpsnipe shot while repositioning ,but would guestimate those shots to be less that 5% of the shots I take in any given game) and find the hill humping snipe game boring too. I like agile brawling and flanking, it's my idea of fun. I LOVE me stock matches, using Closed Beta levels of Tech. I don't feel the need to try to force everyone to play "my way", and in fact, feel that if I want to tie a hand behind my back (and often I do) that is what Private Matches are for. But whatever choices I make, is it the players on the other team fault if their "deck" is stronger than the one I brought? I could build the same deck if I chose to. Instead I like ideas that force me to play at the cutting edge of my ability to win.

There are a lot of things I don't like.... but the only thing I even feel is remotely worth getting upset about, is "Comp Teams" synch dropping the Pug Queue (which the current MM...is supposed to not allow...or did the 1 premade per side not get into game yet?) Which the Devs have pretty categorically stated was not desirable. And yet, as long as the Devs did not fix the problem, or enforce penalties when people did it, it means they tacitly approved of it. So, crying about it was pointless. Making suggestions to the Devs about the need to change it, or how to fix it, great. Raging at the players who did it?

Pointless.


This is a Video Game, not the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. in a Video Game there are really only 2 specific guiding forces.


1) FUN. The problem being FUN is totally subjective.
2) Rules and Mechanics. Which are what they are.

If #2 is being followed, no cheats, hacks or exploits being used, and #1 is not happening, then either the Company producing the game has failed, or this is not the game for said individuals subjective definition of "fun".

[Bishop Steiner]

Almond Brown, on 27 May 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

Might that be because it is a GAME FFS! A digital game played on the Internet and if done on an employers time, then shame be upon you. (many do).

How does everyone forget it is just a GAME! Not real life. Play or not, no need to be a douche' (not directed) just because the medium allows it.

Games have rules. You might have house rules when you play them, but you go to Vegas and expect them to play by your house rules, how far does that get you?

If you dislike how a game is played, petition the game developers to change it. But don't blame the players for following the rules. I hate the "two letter word list" in scrabble, as most on the list break their own stated rules..... and yet Scrabble allows it. So while I might not allow them at home (which would be akin to Private Matches" here) I cannot insist the game be played without them in other people's home or in Official Tournament play (Which is what the Public Matchmaker represents)

There is a lot I dislike. But blaming the players for the loopholes and poor planning of the Developers is simply ludicrous. That would be like blaming the taxpayers in a city for using a certain road to do their daily business, just because the construction of said road was an unpopular and contentious decision within the town.

[Davers]

Barantor, on 27 May 2014 - 04:12 AM, said:

Don't agree with OP, there are too many instances of the Devs doing some silly stuff since the beginning and not going back to actually change it but rather just add some new measure on top. Eventually the rotten pancake at the bottom affects the whole stack.

@Bishop - Correct in most of the stuff here.

@Roland - I don't like TF2 or LoL and I have played and tried to love both for hours and hours because my friends play those two. TF2 is too spammy whereas I like my shooting games to have more depth and realism, it is pretty repetitive too me as well. LoL has about the worst community for any game I have seen and I do not like the top down view, I have been playing smite and actually like it a lot better, both are better with friends and that is the only way I play them, never played Dota. I haven't played CoD because it doesn't interest me from what I have seen of the gunfighting, I'm more into the simulations like the Arma series.

Lets make a real analogy.

There is an intersection in town that folks use as a U turn to get to a driveway to a restaurant since there is a median in the way to make a left into the drive. Lots of folks hate that it gets used as a U-turn and it has caused accidents to the point it has been brought up as a safety concern by the local media.

In this play we will call the Restaurant IPG, the corrupt City Council PGI, the folks using the meta as the U turn drivers and the folks that just play the game are the concerned citizens.

Now it isn't the u turn drivers fault that there is no sign telling them not to uturn, they want to do it to get to their end goal which is getting to the restaurant.

The restaurant doesn't really care, because it just wants the money earned by the u turn people too.

The corrupt city council doesn't care because it is getting some money from the restaurant to do nothing.

The concerned citizens are upset because they see the problem yet nobody seems to do the right thing.

Add in a media that makes money from the restaurant's advertising and you have what we have here... (I'll let you guess what is the media).


Hopefully this got read before this all took the K-Town train.

Silentium, on 27 May 2014 - 04:37 AM, said:

I read it, and that seems like a good analogy to me.

Probably the best analogy in this thread, and there have been quite a few.

lockwoodx, on 27 May 2014 - 05:47 AM, said:

U-Turns are illegal where I live, so that makes for a perfect example of how "tryhards" pulling U-Turns would be knowingly breaking the law for the sake of being lazy and taking the path of least resistance, endangering everyone else in the process and being just as at fault as the city who needs to design more avenues to travel.

Bishop Steiner, on 27 May 2014 - 05:49 AM, said:

So because your little part of the world is stupid, basically, you expect everyone else who doesn't live with your backward worldview to have to conform?


Brilliant.

These 2 posts pretty much sum up the entire thread.

[Fut]

Bront, on 25 May 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

You'd be surprised how many of the top tier competitive groups dislike what's required to play at the high levels, but they'll do it to win.

Doesn't the definition of Douchebag include a comment similar to this?

[Joseph Mallan]

Fut, on 27 May 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

Doesn't the definition of Douchebag include a comment similar to this?

No, it didn't!

Scroll down to slang.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 May 2014 - 07:19 AM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Almond Brown, on 27 May 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

Might that be because it is a GAME FFS! A digital game played on the Internet and if done on an employers time, then shame be upon you. (many do).

How does everyone forget it is just a GAME! Not real life. Play or not, no need to be a douche' (not directed) just because the medium allows it.

Thank you for some much needed sanity amongst all the tears being jerked from those jerks. PGI only wishes they could address their own community in this way, which is where those who can understand the bigger picture come in. If it wasn't for PGI's reluctance to take action by addressing bad game design, and if it wasn't for the community resorting to exploiting bad game design in order to get PGI's attention, maybe MWO could begin to grow and thrive again. One of these parties will have to take the first step and give in. PGI has constraints such as project scope, deadlines, manpower issues, legal material, etc..... The community are the ones who can act much swifter, but have become the most bitter. That kind of sour attitude is destructive, and they want to watch this small world mechwarriors call home burn before admitting reform is needed. That makes them just as at fault for poor game design, when to win at all costs they shamelessly use it to abuse those that would lend their support for the sake of their egos.

Bishop Steiner, on 27 May 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

This is a Video Game, not the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. in a Video Game there are really only 2 specific guiding forces.


1) FUN. The problem being FUN is totally subjective.
2) Rules and Mechanics. Which are what they are.

If #2 is being followed, no cheats, hacks or exploits being used, and #1 is not happening, then either the Company producing the game has failed, or this is not the game for said individuals subjective definition of "fun".

That's if your video game doesn't depend on a studio running it, and a community to support keeping the lights on.

There's an old saying... "you can only pick two of these three things: Cheap, Fast, Quality".

When it comes to F2P MMOs you can only pick two of these three things: Community, Content, Quality.

The content has made steady progress at the cost of quality and community. PGI has no quick fix for anything sadly, so lets focus on community (focus away from the meta and telling d-bags to tone it down a notch) while they're busy with quality (bug squashing, net code, engine tweaks etc) and more content (community warfare, tournaments, mechs etc).

Edited by lockwoodx, 27 May 2014 - 07:26 AM.

[topgun505]

It doesn't help that pretty much ALL of the maps are either somewhat or drastically too small and there is hardly any need for scouting in the first place.

Ted Wayz, on 25 May 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

How do you make it fun in a shooter to scout? You set up rewards around the activity. That is not the players responsibility, it is the developers. Currently you have the spotting bonus. That is it. There aren't even any achievements for spotting. So one of the major gameplay elements from the TT is not rewarded so you see bunch of lights carrying heavy weapons because damage, kills and assists are rewarded.

If PGI rewards and make scouting an integral part of victory, if the other classes are rewarded for doing their roles, then the meta falls apart. My guess is this is what CW is supposed to do, but I am unsure if we will ever see it.

[Bront]

Fut, on 27 May 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

Doesn't the definition of Douchebag include a comment similar to this?

Douchebag involves treating other people poorly, not how you play an online game. Otherwise, anyone who uses the game rules to win is a Douchebag.

[Fut]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 May 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

No, it didn't!

Scroll down to slang.

Bront, on 27 May 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

Douchebag involves treating other people poorly, not how you play an online game. Otherwise, anyone who uses the game rules to win is a Douchebag.

Hmm... The term/name probably has different meanings in different regions.
Around here, a guy wearing his sunglasses indoors, with the collar popped up on his shirt, would be considered a douchebag regardless of how nicely he was treating people. Basically, it's not entirely dependent on how they treat others.

Edited by Fut, 27 May 2014 - 07:30 AM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Bront, on 27 May 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

Douchebag involves treating other people poorly, not how you play an online game. Otherwise, anyone who uses the game rules to win is a Douchebag.

Correct. It's not that they are playing within the game's rules simply to win. It's that certain groups of players are knowingly exploiting bad game design to win at any cost, and its costing MWO warm bodies to fill mechs. That's the point of this thread, to highlight that knowingly exploiting bad game design is just as bad as studios who refuse/are slow to take action.

[Bishop Steiner]

Almond Brown, on 27 May 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

And if everyone was held to same accountability as they hold PGI here, in their real lives, like never letting them forget past indiscretions, wouldn't life suck balls.

Living in the past never helps the future, of anything.

And if everyone always conveniently forgot every broken promise and lie told to them, the world would indeed be a paradise for conmen, charlatans and hucksters, wouldn't it.

There Is a really ancient principle, one version found in an old book called the Bible. "Be cautious as serpents, yet innocent as doves", another version of the same principle being "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

Most of us are rather willing to give PGI a chance. Most of us hope the game succeeds. But based on their past record we cannot blindly assume they will follow through, and many of us no longer trust us with our money until they demonstrate they are indeed worthy of trust again.

Go look up Alcoholics Anonymous, and look up the definition of an "Enabler". Sadly, the kumbaya approach you merit, while sounding wonderful, actually hurts both parties more in the long run.

[Joseph Mallan]

Fut, on 27 May 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Hmm... The term/name probably has different meanings in different regions.
Around here, a guy wearing his sunglasses indoors, with the collar popped up on his shirt, would be considered a douchebag regardless of how nicely he was treating people. Basically, it's not entirely dependent on how they treat others.

LOL Did you grow up in the 80s? That was standard wear of the "Popular" back then.

[Davers]

[Bishop Steiner]

Bront, on 27 May 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

Douchebag involves treating other people poorly, not how you play an online game. Otherwise, anyone who uses the game rules to win is a Douchebag.

The DBag would actually be the guy belittling the other players, be it a poptart (certain Lords for instance, or certain players once well known with the defunct DV8 group) or the Underhive Scrubs who want to blame everyone else for their failures. Playing a game by it's rules has nothing to do with the equation.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 27 May 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

And if everyone was held to same accountability as they hold PGI here, in their real lives, like never letting them forget past indiscretions, wouldn't life suck balls.

Living in the past never helps the future, of anything.

Nope. I get reminded all the time of stupid things I've done in the past. Normally I laugh about it, other times I thank those who remind me. It keeps me honest and vigilant.

[Bishop Steiner]

Fut, on 27 May 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Hmm... The term/name probably has different meanings in different regions.
Around here, a guy wearing his sunglasses indoors, with the collar popped up on his shirt, would be considered a douchebag regardless of how nicely he was treating people. Basically, it's not entirely dependent on how they treat others.

so basically, you say, it's considered OK to judge a person based on perception of superficial things, rather than their actions? You realize that the person living by that kind of perception is actually the one being the D-bag, right?