105 replies to this topic

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Heffay, on 28 May 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

From the November post by Russ (?), they have the IP locked up until 2018, with an option to 2020 if certain milestones are met.

Thanks for that. November is exactly when I came back to the game and found things fun again after taking the summer off waiting for them to fix some issues, which explains if I had the knowledge of them locked into an ip back then, why I've been working on reforming the uglier aspects of this community with awareness. If we're going to be stuck with PGI for a while we might as well work with them not against them.

[DaisuSaikoro Nagasawa]

Livewyr, on 27 May 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

Livewyr's MWO life story synopsis:
Sees MWO, and manages to get into the CBT, after many years playing MW4 PR1 and MP3. Gets giddy because the game is beautiful (by comparison) even inthe CBT. Has forum and in-game conversations with Paul (lostech now) and begins imagining all the things MWO could do with Community Warfare (base defense upgrades, hot drops, 12v12 company battles with individual lances [back then it was 8v8 with no Guarantee you'd be in the same match, let alone team.] individual weapons manufacturers, etc...) And a White Knight was born. Valiant defending still generally unknowns against people who predicted the game wouldn't last a year. (This being in 2012)
Then MWO [sic] Guardian ECM happened.. and it was an abomination for game balance so I tried the constructive criticism of PGI's implementation (Threads, PMs to then Comm Manager, Tickets, etc..) with what was wrong, and ways to change it to be closer to information warfare, along with changes to other systems to get the Info Warfare aspect.
5-6 months of many polls, threads, and PMs, along with lateral changes to the ECM/Counter interaction, PGI expressly said that ECM was where they wanted it. (Citing community outrage on both sides as balance.) A relentless Doomsday Critic emerged from the rubble of instant rusted white armor.
This phoenix of doomed burned brightly for a few months, decrying everything short of libel against PGI (particularly Russ and Paul) and eventually uninstalled for a few months, telling hsi friends not to bother.

(Once in a while I would picture an Autocannon or a Gauss Rifle firing and get a hankering to play- eventually that led me to where I am now.) I give credit, where credit is due.
U.I. 2.0- Needs work on smoothness and detail, *not* garbage.
Comm Warfare, thoroughly disappointed in lack of progress.
ECM, a four-letter-word (acronym) with 3 letters.
Private matches/lobbies- EXCELLENT. Can always be improved, but had no initial real complaints.
Mechs, pretty.
Maps, pretty but few. (Bases need changed on Alpine)

And I could go on.. but the point is: After being so far to both sides, one at a time, I've come to a balanced look at PGI.

They've done wonderful things (particularly Alex) and they've done mind boggling things (ECM/Information Warfare) but they're still going. Doomsday avenue 1: These guys obviously do care about the game, whether it's a love of B-Tech, or just putting food on the table at home, they want it to succeed. (If it was just a cash grab, they'd have to answer to their investors and probably several civil/class, corporate, and/or government lawsuits. Not healthy for the livelihood of a programmer/businessman.)

With that said, I move onto Doomsday avenue 2: The Intellectual Property. Many people (including myself briefly) thought the game should just die so another developer could pick it up and do it right. The problem we run into is 'fact.' Before MWO, the last studio produced new Mech Title for PC was MW4, a decade earlier. (I don't count MWLL because that was a mod to an existing game, and was bound to hit the legal wall...as it did.)
Depending on how much you think you can trust it, you should check out the story from Russ on how Mechwarrior (5/reboot) became MWO. Hint: That Campaign trailer we saw was their pitch to publishers to pick up the title for a new installment. Given the overall decline in BTech interest/market when compared to FPS's like CoD/BF4, it's not difficult to understand why a publisher would not want to pick up a huge project like Mechwarrior. Thus PGI/IGP took it up as a free to play model with a crowd-source kickstart. (Minimal financial risks to investors/publisher compared to a full pre-release budget.) Ergo that minimum viable product, Russ kept repeating. (So hoping PGI fails in order to get a different developer/publisher is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot with the IP.)

What do I think we should do now? I think we should continue to send in tickets, ask direct (productive) questions, and offer suggestions.. in a way we'd want to be advised. Stay tuned to the game, try each new thing, give constructive criticisms (Hint: "You failed, Copy Smurfy," is not a constructive criticism or a suggestion.

Most importantly, look objectively (not subjectively or comparatively) at the game, and offer criticisms and suggestions accordingly.

Be patient, nobody is telling you to spend money on the game, you do that at your own leisure/comfort level. Don't like what you see? Don't spend money.

That does not include telling everyone else to stop spending money.. they may like what they see enough to do so.

Enjoyed reading this. I hope people take at least a few days to tease out new patches before they go nuts. Changes are always difficult.

[Green Mamba]

Joseph Mallan, on 28 May 2014 - 06:14 AM, said:

Isn't that the video with the iron queen off camera telling our DEVs NOT to answer a fan's question?!?

Yes..... I believe so Joe now that you have brought it up..I had forgotten

[Monsoon]

Livewyr, on 27 May 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

Welcome to the world of the sane. Being on the edge of extremes is rarely health.

[Agent of Change]

Livewyr, on 28 May 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

1: Agent... how could you? How DARE you disagree with me? You would risk this thread becoming a discussion of ideas and opinions? Have you no shame? No consideration?
(I'm not so petty as to auto-flame those who simply disagree with me.)

Lol, it never hurts to be clear around here. Sometimes your accused of not knowing the sky is blue unless you explicitly state it. J

Livewyr, on 28 May 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

2a: U2.0, compared with most customization UI's I've seen isn't that far off. The home screen has your tabs up top to navigate to major components (Mechlab/Store), and access to things like inventory achievements, etc.. T
he U.I. has most things you need from what I can tell. (With the considerably important exception of a in-game public lobby- I don't understand why that isn't in there yet.) The placement could be cleaned up (inventory in mechlab, etc..) and they could use mouse-over in a lot of places in the mechlab to reduce clicking, and they could put the mech Cbill purchase in the mechlab along with the MC purchase. (My suspicious side suspects that it is that way specifically to sucker newbies into buying mechs with MC- but that's not a fault with the UI function capability, that's straight developer underhandedness.)

They have a decent menu layout (List on left and top, Mech in center, or on right) Only a few buttons need location changes that I can think of.

UI2.0 has a lot of work to go, rearranging/streamlining, and adding functions- I suspect the final UI will be somewhere in the 3 or 4.somethings, but the functions are there, especially compared to UI1/1.5.

From here, it needs suggestions, better ideas to work with what is here., not a failure label and call to scrap.

I do not disagree with your overall assessment, I do disagree with your conclusions. Whether or not suggests and simple solutions can fix it, releasing it in the state it was released was amateur hour. A professional UI should be easy to use, guide you to where you want to be, and generally be intuitive. When I first saw it I couldn’t even figure out how to modify a mech and know that I know how I don’t because the experience is akin to pounding nails into my eyes with a hammer whose handle is covered in glass shards.

If it can be fixed simply then it should have been done before deployment. That it can be made better I don’t dispute that in it’s release state and in fact it’s current state it is akin to an amateur production is inexcusable.

Livewyr, on 28 May 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

2d: Pay option for custom private matches doesn't bother me. IMO, they're not a part of the "core" game. (IMO, Core game is public battles for Cbills/Exp and CWars battles.) For it to be a Freemium game, I think some extra features need to be Premium. Though I certainly wouldn't cry if they made it completely free to do so, I'm ok with it not being free, especially since only 2 people out of the 24 need to have premium for it to work. (Or completely free if you get all 24 people together.)

This just bothers me. I can understand why they did it but I need either private matches with options I don’t have to pay for (specifically the ability to play without 24 people) or larger group sizes. Either or and I’m a happier camper.

Livewyr, on 28 May 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

PGI folds = we lose. (At least I personally consider that a loss.. I love BT, I love it even more in real time.)
PGI goes wrong direction = we still lose, just less. (An Atlas is still an Atlas)
PGI figures it out (like they did with Private Lobbies) = we win.

I don’t know how I feel about this. This is way to rose colored glasses for me. I do believe it could get worse and I don’t like the trajectory it’s been on. Sometimes nothing is better than the alternative. I don’t know that we are there yet but I’m not comfortable with where we are.

Livewyr, on 28 May 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

I think my strongest disagreement with you, is that our "money" will change what they do drastically (aside from completely shutting them down). The blazing forums managed to alter consumables...and that's about it.
Seem's PGI cares more about IGP and their investors, than they do about micro-transactions from players.

Thus, I tell people: If you like what you see, and feel comfortable spending money on it.. do so. If not, don't do so, but don't try to tell people that they should, or should not spend spend their money on the game. (Just as I would balk at someone telling me I need to by premium to support the game, I balk at someone telling me I need to *not* spend money in order to achieve goals they want or think I want.)

I can dig the argument here. But if the investors and stockholders are calling the shots a drop in revenue is a sure thing to prompt action of some kind. We have made it clear (even way back in founders) if they make the game we want all the grognards will crawl out of the wood work and launch disposable income at them with catapaults. We need to send the opposite message as well, that if the don’t deliver the cash machine closes. I’m not telling you what to do, I’m telling you what I think is best as I see it. I’m not going to take it any further, I will trumpet N.O.P.E. to anyone who will listen but there is no need to fight. We disagree on this and time will tell who was right.

Livewyr, on 28 May 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

[soapbox]
Be informed, try to change MWO where you see fit, (futile as it seems, I still do it) or if you find it hopeless, just leave.. there are plenty of other games out there to take your money.
[/soapbox]
]

I agree with you 100%. I don’t think that that precludes vocal and vigorous dissent though or recruiting to your own viewpoint. I have lost almost all faith in PGI but I come back from time to time because I want MWO to be good. I have no faith but I hold on to hope, and that’s where my frustration comes from.

[DaZur]

Thick-cut peppered bacon.

That's all I have to say about that...