325 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Almond Brown, on 27 May 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

It is a Game [Redacted]. Nothing more. Perhaps you should look up the definition.

so if it's just a game, maybe you need a time out? Because it appears you are have a temper tantrum. And when you start having those, it's nap time.

[ExplodedZombie]

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.

Gaining XP for spotting isn't going to win a match. Lights with light weaponry are nearly useless because Meta. Damage wins matches. LRMs are neat and all but don't forget about ECM. In a real match, LRMs seem rarely used. So what would a spotter be spotting for? Snipers? Idiot pugs who have NO battlefield awareness other than what's in front of their faces?

Light roles will never be all that effective as long as the game is poorly balanced.

[Almond Brown]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 May 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

so if it's just a game, maybe you need a time out? Because it appears you are have a temper tantrum. And when you start having those, it's nap time.

Only when your way is the only way. Then it is indeed time to take a break.

[Agent of Change]

Almond Brown, on 27 May 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

Only when your way is the only way. Then it is indeed time to take a break.

When your point of view is clearly and objectively wrong. Then it is indeed time to change your mind.

[WarHippy]

Almond Brown, on 27 May 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

Wouldn't that be "all the time" though? Brutally hard not setting off a "always lit" fuse...

I wouldn't say all the time. There are always some that are unhappy at any given moment, but what I was referring too was times in the past where something really set things off to a low boil only to explode when stupid comments are made by the devs who thought that was a good time to crack some jokes that make everything that much worse for both sides. These devs more often than not seem to be that kid that just has to hit the hornets nest with a stick and then doesn't understand why they got stung.

[Bishop Steiner]

Agent of Change, on 27 May 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

When your point of view is clearly, DEMONSTRABLY and objectively wrong. Then it is indeed time to change your mind.

FTFY

[Kjudoon]

Reality #1: "Players play to the flaws of the game, every time, regardless of game." This is what creates "The Meta"... oooOOOOOOOoooooo! This is true of everything in the world really. Laws create the same thing by creating exploits for cheaters and the unethical because of artificial advantage that normally does not exist.

Reality #2: "You cannot force players to roleplay." This is known as the "You can't teach an old dog new tricks, but you can beat it repeatedly with a newspaper." clause. This is due to the fact that people are not able to be controlled and bring outside gaming experiences independent from what designers THINK things should be and what gamers THINK things should be versus what they really DO.

Reality #3: "Catering to elitist minorities is always a failing business model." If the game is only to be a high "skill" L337 status game that mocks 'casuals' and abuses them through the 'occult' flaws of the game, you're going to become just a niche self congratulatory 'secret' society nobody but a small group will join or desire to play.

So this "Lie back and think of <insert favorite political entity your **** is supposedly benefitting from>" philosophy is crap. It is the designer's responsibility to work with player's habits. Ignorance of these habits and refusal to adapt to them only results in destruction of the game and community that forms from it.

Edited by Kjudoon, 27 May 2014 - 10:57 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Kjudoon, on 27 May 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Reality #1: "Players play to the flaws of the game, every time, regardless of game." This is what creates "The Meta"... oooOOOOOOOoooooo! This is true of everything in the world really. Laws create the same thing by creating exploits for cheaters and the unethical because of artificial advantage that normally does not exist.

Reality #2: "You cannot force players to roleplay." This is known as the "You can't teach an old dog new tricks, but you can beat it repeatedly with a newspaper." clause. This is due to the fact that people are not able to be controlled and bring outside gaming experiences independent from what designers THINK things should be and what gamers THINK things should be versus what they really DO.

Reality #3: "Catering to elitist minorities is always a failing business model." If the game is only to be a high "skill" L337 status game that mocks 'casuals' and abuses them through the 'occult' flaws of the game, you're going to become just a niche self congratulatory 'secret' society nobody but a small group will join or desire to play.

So this "Lie back and think of <insert favorite political entity your **** is supposedly benefitting from>" philosophy is crap. It is the designer's responsibility to work with player's habits. Ignorance of these habits and refusal to adapt to them only results in destruction of the game and community that forms from it.

true, although #3 has a caveat.

When testing for flaws and shortcomings, you ALWAYS look to elite minority, precisely because if there are flaws and exploits, their very actions will reveal them. Learning from what the Elite are doing is actually the way to make the game better for the masses.

GoPro and Intova don't give their cameras to soccer moms to test. They give them to the most extreme nutjobs they can find, because if it can be broken, these guys will find the way. And then they can use that data to improve future products.

Sadly, too many of our casual masses (and I actually consider myself among the casuals, at least in skill) and PGI itself seems to overlook this in favor of looking to the soccer moms for fixes. You look to the masses for what content is desired, but not to test and break your product. (Aka, you want the soccer moms input on what features she wants in her minivan. But you don't look for her to test and flog the thing to show if the product works). Sadly, PGI looks at what the elite are doing, and at least tacitly, have said "Working as intended^tm".

The casual masses are indeed who should be catered to for pretty baubles, and such. But because they don't really understand metadata, and how to break and exploit it, their input on the core mechanics are not terribly useful, usually.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 27 May 2014 - 11:11 AM.

[FupDup]

Kjudoon, on 27 May 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Reality #3: "Catering to elitist minorities is always a failing business model." If the game is only to be a high "skill" L337 status game that mocks 'casuals' and abuses them through the 'occult' flaws of the game, you're going to become just a niche self congratulatory 'secret' society nobody but a small group will join or desire to play.

I'm going to have to comment on this "reality" here.

When people talk about "top-down balancing" they don't mean that they want the game to be miserable for everyone other than the top. Almost the opposite, really, because their decisions would reflect the "true" state of the game. If something is overpowered at the top, it's technically overpowered everywhere. If something is underpowered at the top, it's technically underpowered everywhere. The balance of the game doesn't change as you go up the ladder, the only thing that changes is how people understand the game as you go up or down.

They simply mean that they want to make balancing decisions based on the interactions of people who have gotten pretty good at what they do. The reason for not asking lesser experienced peeps is because they wouldn't yet have the kind of insight into the most intricate game mechanics as the "top" people would. Sometimes they might say that LRMs are overpowered or that builds using only ballistics (no other weaponry) are the best, when neither of those are actually true in the long run. They haven't yet had the chance to form a full understanding of how certain parts of the game "truly" work.

As an example, the dreaded PPC + AC poptart builds eclipse just about everything else in "competitive" games, to the almost exclusion of any other build (maybe a few lights running around for cleanup or other utility purposes). There are actually a very large number of folks involved in those "higher level" games who are equally pissed off at the dominance of those builds as everyone else of any skill level, and they want that problem solved yesterday.


Disclaimer: I'm saying this as somebody who considers himself to be nowhere near the "peaks of Mount Tryhard" in terms of Elo/skill/whatever. I have not once played 12 mans and I probably never will (I almost always pug, sometimes have a few buddies with me). If I posted some of my stats here, a lot of people would probably laugh (unless I posted the ones from my best mechs).

Edited by FupDup, 27 May 2014 - 11:19 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 27 May 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

Disclaimer: I'm saying this as somebody who considers himself to be nowhere near the "peaks of Mount Tryhard" in terms of Elo/skill/whatever. I have not once played 12 mans and I probably never will (I almost always pug, sometimes have a few buddies with me). If I posted some of my stats here, a lot of people would probably laugh (unless I posted the ones from my best mechs).

They'd probably still laugh, and the Underhive would simply cry that you lied, PUGfarmed or photoshopped, whilst many Denizens of Mount Tryhard would look down their 12manComp Noses and say "carry harder, scrub" (because having less than 1000 average match damage and a KDr sub 7 to 1 is scrub work, in many minds), lol.

Mostly, because as a society, we mostly don't know how to think in anyway but extremes.


(Hey, just because I see the wisdom of looking to the Elite for metadata, doesn't mean I actually like most of them, lol)

[Shae Starfyre]

Protest META; Mechs with No Weapons Drop Day!

Edited by Aphoticus, 27 May 2014 - 11:44 AM.

[DeadlyNerd]

lockwoodx, on 27 May 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

-snip-

Naw man, it's fun watching you make an idiot of yourself, all while trying too hard to pretend you're trolling.
I think I've just the meme for what you're doing right now.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 27 May 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

Disclaimer: I'm saying this as somebody who considers himself to be nowhere near the "peaks of Mount Tryhard" in terms of Elo/skill/whatever. I have not once played 12 mans and I probably never will (I almost always pug, sometimes have a few buddies with me). If I posted some of my stats here, a lot of people would probably laugh (unless I posted the ones from my best mechs).

Feel free to bother me if you want in on a group. On the other hand... SEND OUT THE LOLCUST!

[Mcgral18]

I am very surprised this isn't in K-town yet.

Edited by Mcgral18, 27 May 2014 - 12:49 PM.

[Mawai]

Almond Brown, on 27 May 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

That statement is as erroneous as the OP's. The players have had a lot of input and gotten many things changed based on that input.

What a Dev Team can't do is please everyone. Sadly everyone wants what they want and when they don't get it, they say the Dev ****** them over on purpose.

What we need around here is more maturity and less of the other.

"That statement is as erroneous as the OP's. The players have had a lot of input and gotten many things changed based on that input."

Well, much as I would like to agree with this statement, I find I can't. There may be some items that were changed in response to player feedback but most changes were made by PGI with little or no reference to input from the players.
- ghost heat
- gauss rifle firing delay
- third person view
- 1.4x heat sinks
- ECM
- weapon damage/heat/firing characteristics - overall weapon balance
- matchmaker changes
- mech xp skill trees
- modules and gxp
- consumables and MC modules - with the possible exception of the upgraded cbill modules that match the MC ones ... in order to avoid pay to win complaints
- game modes
- maps
- UI2.0 feedback - they received a lot of comments in response to public tests in November and January - none of which were addressed before UI2.0 was released
...

Yes, there were probably a few situations where player feedback made a difference ... but I honestly can't think of any good examples at the moment. On the other hand, I can think of quite a few where a lot of feedback was completely ignored - third person view being an example - though it would be worthwhile to have some long term numbers on new player retention and whether the 3pv option made any significant difference.

In any case, if PGI does pay attention to player opinions and input ... they usually do a very poor job on these forums of giving any indication that they are either listening or incorporating player feedback. If they do listen ... they need to work on their communications and messaging skills to make this more clear to the community ...

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Mcgral18, on 27 May 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

I am very surprised this isn't in K-town yet.

Because I've got a leg to stand on, no matter how bad those trashborn want the other one. Hehehe

I don't mind the smack talk and memes honestly... it's fun. My message got across loud and clear, that players who exploit bad game design are just as guilty as the studios who refuse/are slow to fix it. The fact tryhards are out in force against this thread is a victory not only for PGI and casuals but the community as a whole. If a little mud must be slung so they see the bigger picture, I'll be happy as a pig in **** when the game starts showing growth and progress again as narrow attitudes die off like the dinosaurs they are.

Edited by lockwoodx, 27 May 2014 - 01:06 PM.

[Mcgral18]

lockwoodx, on 27 May 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

Because I've got a leg to stand on, no matter how bad those trashborn want the other one. Hehehe

I don't mind the smack talk and memes honestly... it's fun. My message got across loud and clear, that players who exploit bad game design are just as guilty as the studios who refuse/are slow to fix it. The fact tryhards are out in force against this thread is a victory not only for PGI and casuals but the community as a whole. If a little mud must be slung so they see the bigger picture, I'll be happy as a pig in **** when the game starts showing growth and progress again as narrow attitudes die off like the dinosaurs they are.

Well, PGI hasn't fixed the game in over 2 years. Good luck getting them to start now.

I haven't reported the thread for trolling, and have no intention to do so. Watching you make a fool of yourself without any assistance is fairly amusing.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Mcgral18, on 27 May 2014 - 01:09 PM, said:

Well, PGI hasn't fixed the game in over 2 years. Good luck getting them to start now.

I haven't reported the thread for trolling, and have no intention to do so. Watching you make a fool of yourself without any assistance is fairly amusing.

That's part of the big picture son. Those that call for the court jester's head, have been the ones turned into fools themselves.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I figure this question is appropriate given the back and forth. And I haven't read the whole thread at this point either, but meh I'll share anyway.

[KingCobra]

lockwoodx, on 25 May 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

I'd like to share my thoughts on how casual players are adapting to the meta without embracing it, along with how tryhards that continue to abuse it are as much to blame when it comes to "bad game design".



It's a shared blame, but given where it is due. The "bad game design" this poster is referring to is common knowledge among the players who exploit it, so I'll call them out on it when I see them. On the bright side, even after vowing not to give 12s another chance until there's some major reform, I was pretty "open to suggestion" last night and the lure of fun with friends was enough to give it a shot. We had some awesome balanced matches at first with lots of variety and fun. They got us and we got them in healthy exchanges of skill and sportsmanship. Then the brick wall that are tryhards came up and fun time was over. The way these guys take the game so seriously and play as if their lives depended on it was hilariously tragic.

Most hardcore players will say the same old "L2P" ect... and we pick up fresh clan members weekly who have tried running with those guys claiming it wasn't any fun dropping with a pack of d-bags. They have tons of fun goofing around with us and we love them for it. We've also got some serious players of our own but they're tactful and mature enough to understand if we all ran the way they did every drop, we would be part of the problem and not the solution. It's a great group of guys. Nobody is judgmental, you can drop in what you want, and fun is a focus over winning. Winning is nice too, but if you don't have fun then you'll never drop enough to learn from mistakes. One mistake players are learning form is not indulging those bullies and the way they exploit "bad game design" because they're consciously doing it. When some tryhards rolled over us last night more than half the 12 man said "sorry we're done for now", and it sucks for those who were wanting to continue or a rematch. Imagine how many more nights end prematurely across the game, even during prime-time, because a niche part of the community thinks it's ok to exploit "bad game design?"

Casuals get told by them to go "adapt" and more and more of us are daily. We're not adapting to the meta because that's "bad game design" according to those unwilling to look in the mirror and see where the real problem lies. The majority of players are adapting directly to the D-bags themselves and the attitudes they carry around that "bad game design" is perfectly ok to exploit. It's that kind of win at any cost mentality that drives players out of the game, a game that relies on community and morale for its own survival. Bad game design is something the management will need to step in and correct, but if the players work together to reduce its impact on the game, that allows designers to be more creative than heavy handed when the time comes.

Unless overly competitive players learn to change their attitudes soon they'll be stuck playing "unable to find matchwarrior" while the rest of us have fun in private ones, because as leaders realize they'll lose a majority of active players due to one or two ugly matches of meta exploiters, they'll avoid taking their men into them for the sake of making sure everyone has a good time. As predicted in the past, bullies who exploit the meta take every opportunity to wag the dog and pile onto PGI when PGI is actually taking strides to make decent progress. Bad game design is always compounded by bad decisions. It's those conscious decisions to exploit bad game design that leaves players just as at fault for the poor health of this game as the designers who allow it.

Cheers

This is a load of crapola pal.
All i wanted MWO to be was a updated version of MechWarrior4 Mercinaries with all the MW2-MW4 campaingns to play and a real MSN GAMMING ZONE built into the UI so me and my friends could play train and do leagues like it used to be.I never asked for what MWO became and have not liked MWO since the begining of closed beta.

So i dont know how you can blame the players PGI/IGP just screwed the pooch on core game design of what i believe most old players wanted in a MWO game itself.

Edited by KingCobra, 27 May 2014 - 01:28 PM.