543 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 September 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

CONSTRUCTIVE Criticism. When and where there are legit issues, that can realistically expect to be balanced, fixed, etc? We need to, in concise and civil manners, bring it to PGI's attention. I have actually found considerable success just tagging Russ on Twitter, and instead of being confrontational, saying "hey, discovered this issue", or "hey, had this idea". Doesn't mean everything is handled the way I want, and doesn't mean I like having to go to twitter to get it done. Perhaps now though, Russ can actually get a word in edgewise on PGI's own forums, he might use it more regularly.

There are certainly things to complain about. Some of the Clan Balance ideas were just poorly handled. Invisible walls on 2 year old mps, etc. Yet I get the feeling that half the people doing the complaining, have never bothered to submit detailed support tickets about these things, either. And other things, we just have to accept are NOT going to change, like the Heat System. Sized Hardpoints, etc. Would they make it better? Almost certainly. And nearly 3 yrs down the rabbit hole, such a core tear down is almost certainly NOT going to happen. So stop cluttering every post opining about these things, and then decrying PGI as idiots. It just makes getting the things we can realistically expect to see fixed, harder to dig out and find.

Bishop, with respect to the maps. I'm probably guilty not reporting them, but seeing as the most obvious/blatant bugs that exist (like HPG's topside antenna pillars)... those have yet to be corrected. Last known map adjustments changes were made at around the debut of UI 2.0 (Feb 2014). This is Sept 2014... we're not even talking about the new map they're working on... just the commitment of said resources diverted from the map department (which they have admitted to doing) to develop the mechs. No amount of feedback is going to "correct" this injustice.

I simply cannot defend PGI in this matter, even if I wanted to.

[Rebas Kradd]

There's no evidence to think that this game is "going the way of MWT", given that MWT saw maybe double-digit populations most of its last months and MWO probably has regular populations in tens of thousands.

Check this out if you want to know how MWO is doing. (Then notice all the Timberwolves and Dire Wolves you see in game and ask if you really think the game is bankrupt.

Additionally, PGI has been hinting at or backlogging upcoming features beyond CW for the past few weeks, to include...

* A "plan" for MASC implementation

* Balance changes

* Two new maps, with new map methodologies approaching

* The enormous backlog still visible in "ThePlan"

* Everything in the "Feature Request Poll"

* More challenges

* Desync bug fix

These worries about PGI shutting down live production are just as unfounded as they were in December, when it was trendy to predict that the lights would be out by Easter.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 08 September 2014 - 03:03 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Kirkland Langue, on 08 September 2014 - 02:48 PM, said:

"like a normal person" - bit of a passive aggressive remark meant to put down anyone who remembers back when Community Warfare was going to be added before the game ever "launched".

So let me ask you and this is only pertaining to the promise of CW. When they release it, are you going to let that go? or are you going to belittle the actually release because some cant forget? Just an honest question, and it deserves honest answers.

[Tombstoner]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 September 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

It's actually standard practice. You think Blizzard doesn't use money from WoW to fund other projects? Rly?

Or the Limited, doesn't use funds from Abercrombie and Fitch at Victorias Secret, or vice versa?

Would you feel difrently if the funds where generated as part of a Founders program. Then and only then would I expect the money to be allocated to that game and only that game. Not sure if that happened with MWO and MWT.

Over all a good post. We dont have any substantal information about the inner workings between PGI and IGP or how much IGP influenced decitions.

This is a significant change. one that gives me hope for a MWO 2.0 and a single player campaign. your right when you say we are too far down the rabit whole. but we have been saying, no take the blue pill since befor friends and family night.

It will be interesting to see what they do with the remainder of the licence..... could there be a second renew in the works?

[Lootee]

Put it this way:

I would occasionally play a somewhat half-ass BattleTech game if it was the only game currently available in the BT universe. I would not bother at all with a half-ass Elite or Star Citizen clone. I already play Elite far more frequently than MWO.

I hope shifting personnel and other resources away from MWO doesn't move it out of the merely half-ass zone and into BAD.

Edited by Lootee, 08 September 2014 - 03:16 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tombstoner, on 08 September 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

Would you feel difrently if the funds where generated as part of a Founders program. Then and only then would I expect the money to be allocated to that game and only that game. Not sure if that happened with MWO and MWT.

Over all a good post. We dont have any substantal information about the inner workings between PGI and IGP or how much IGP influenced decitions.

This is a significant change. one that gives me hope for a MWO 2.0 and a single player campaign. your right when you say we are too far down the rabit whole. but we have been saying, no take the blue pill since befor friends and family night.

It will be interesting to see what they do with the remainder of the licence..... could there be a second renew in the works?

And yes, I would feel somewhat different. And I bought the maximum Founders pack. And the money from that, was used long ago, to repay their startup loan from IGP, and add content. 5 Million is a drop in the bucket though, in game development (kind of insane, actually).

What I find laughable, is the number of people who act as if the Phoenix and Invasion packs were some kind of Founders pack, with all funds designated some sort of holy corban, only to be used at the Altar of MWO. And by that logic, every paint, cockpit bauble, etc, would be, too.

None of that was ever the case, or implied in the purchases of those packages. Yet here we are, people complaining, because a company uses assets from one product to help another product.

[PANZERKAT]

People aren't impressed if the cash they pay into a game is diverted to other means, outside of keeping it floating due to payments they have to make or more progress to the game. Sure, technically they can do what they want with it, but people won't stick around if huge amounts of cash aren't injected into what they are paying into. The company comes off poorly in those regards and their customers feel tricked.

Tactics is a fail and instead of more attention being thrown at MWO they announce a new game with an equally rocky future. They aren't Blizzard where they can pull this off. Not even CCP could hope to develop two upper tier games and bring them both out. World of Darkness is dead in the water as they had resources pulled off to work on EVE material on a few instances. They never returned, staff were cut and the game announced dead after years in development. CCP has more experience and more money than PGI and they couldn't do it. If they think they'll get a kickstarter type money infusion for this new concept they are insane. Right now the wide spread observation is that they can't finish what they started and that's truth, not opinion.

Edited by KOMMISSAR KITTY, 08 September 2014 - 03:23 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 September 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

None of that was ever the case, or implied in the purchases of those packages. Yet here we are, people complaining, because a company uses assets from one product to help another product.

I do think that the rules need to be a bit different when you're talking about crowdfunding. Government already uses our money to fund all kinds of ******** things we never approved of. We don't need that here as well, however "normal" it may be.

[Mawai]

Good post BIshop ... I agree with most of it.

However, I don't think anyone can argue that MWO development has already been an extremely slow process. There is still alot to do ...
- more maps
- more game modes (dropship etc)
- improved UI2.0 workflows
- completion of phase 1 of CW and implementation of all the other phases
- revised and improved experience system rather than the closed beta placeholder that has been with us for 3 years
- bug fixes
- netcode improvements (look at the recent desync issues)
- HSR improvements

The list of development tasks remaining is still large and it is disingenuous to say that resource requirements for MWO will drop after the release of phase 1 of CW. It simply isn't true unless the plan is to simultaneously scale back MWO development ... ignore or cancel items from the list above as well as other items I haven't included.

PGI only has a handful of software engineers ... as of about May 8, 2014 it was about "3 systems engineers, 3 gameplay engineers and 2 UI engineers" ... if the same folks will be responsible for the development of a new game by the studio then I really can't see how that can avoid having a negative impact on MWO development timelines.

Anyway, all most of us can do at the moment is hope ... while waiting to see how it all turns out.

In the end, I think that PGI will benefit greatly over the next few months from a much much higher level of communication, openness and honesty with the community ... hopefully, Russ won't hop on twitch or twitter and make statements that are so patently optimistic and unrealistic that folks in retrospect have significant reason to doubt their veracity in the first place (as has happened in the past).

[Nathan Foxbane]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 08 September 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

Tactics is a fail and instead of more attention being thrown at MWO they announce a new game with an equally rocky future.

PGI had absolutely nothing to do with MW Tactics. AUTE is a sound business move to diversify their market offerings on PGI's part.

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 08 September 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

CCP has more experience and more money than PGI and they couldn't do it. If they think they'll get a kickstarter type money infusion for this new concept they are insane. Right now the wide spread observation is that they can't finish what they started and that's truth, not opinion.

Russ has already stated that AUTE has outside funding, meaning they found a new publisher to provide funding for AUTE and do not have to earmark any MWO revenue for anything other than shared resources.

This is not a rag on PGI thread. This is an offer constructive criticism thread. On that note, I would love to see PGI make more use of their quirk system. It could do wonders for 'Mechs like the Awesome. It would still be a bigger target than the broadside of a barn, but it would be a big target with teeth.

[Paul Inouye]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 September 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

I hope the Devs and Mods weigh in on this also, and speak their peace, correct misassumptions of mine, etc. THAT is part of healthy dialogue.

Well written, well expressed and worth reading every single sentence in the whole post. We are on track in improving things around here and the items of concern you bring up are valid and we are working on meeting those expectations. That's me weighing in on this. Thanks for the write-up.

And for what it's worth... I read the forums daily.. I know your post history .. kidding! It's posts like this that show people willing to dust off a layer of vitriol to try some actual discourse that I hope will be the future direction of more open communications between development and the community.

[Eboli]

Well said Bishop in the first post of this thread.
Generally these forums had become a vile pool of negative responses and even when someone tries to be constructive, raises interesting questions there was always someone/people who was quick to destroy the good intent of the thread or make personal attacks.

People have used the excuse that the backers of this game are passionate Mechwarrior diehards who were expressing their opinions on what is wrong. Maybe so but there are good ways and bad ways of doing this.

There IS a difference in constructive criticism vs the unconstructive and negative vitriol these forums regularly saw. People complained about why Russ, Brian and others posted elsewhere than the forums themselves. I can to a point understand why.

Cut out the cancer and hopefully this forum becomes a more peaceful, positive and constructive place where PGI staff will be more willing to come to and be active in listening to the community.

PGI still has a lot of work to do to bring back the confidence in the players base. I too have had some doubts in the past but I am still willing to give them the time to set things right.

Let's just find out today what is happening and take it from there. I will be going in to this event with an open mind willing to listen and I hope a lot of other players take the same stance...

Eboli.

Edited by Eboli, 08 September 2014 - 03:42 PM.

[PANZERKAT]

Nathan Foxbane, on 08 September 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

PGI had absolutely nothing to do with MW Tactics. AUTE is a sound business move to diversify their market offerings on PGI's part.


Russ has already stated that AUTE has outside funding, meaning they found a new publisher to provide funding for AUTE and do not have to earmark any MWO revenue for anything other than shared resources.

This is not a rag on PGI thread. This is an offer constructive criticism thread. On that note, I would love to see PGI make more use of their quirk system. It could do wonders for 'Mechs like the Awesome. It would still be a bigger target than the broadside of a barn, but it would be a big target with teeth.

"Shared resources" = Existing resources and team or an expanded team with their own members working on the new title?

[Nathan Foxbane]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 08 September 2014 - 03:43 PM, said:

"Shared resources" = Existing resources and team or an expanded team with their own members working on the new title?

Staff, software, or equipment used for both titles. Hypothetical examples: Shared art staff, new software used by both games, or dev sandbox servers.
Those get funds (revenue from MWO, publisher funding from AUTE) from each title proportionate to their use by each title. Accounting for them is determined by a share metrics like wage hours, percentage of use, hours operated.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 08 September 2014 - 03:55 PM.

[PANZERKAT]

Anyone know of examples where multiple games were developed at the same time sharing staff where the existing game or games didn't suffer?

[Nathan Foxbane]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 08 September 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

Anyone know of examples where multiple games were developed at the same time sharing staff where the existing game or games didn't suffer?

CEO's are shared staff for one so I would have to say every major developer out there. Many use a shared or partially shared Customer Service staff.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 08 September 2014 - 03:58 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 September 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

None of that was ever the case, or implied in the purchases of those packages. Yet here we are, people complaining, because a company uses assets from one product to help another product.

While there would be complaining regardless, PGI definitely made it harder on themselves by doing it before the game could be considered above minimally viable.

Consider this, how mad would people be if Team Fortress 2 was funneling money to another project vs how mad people would be to find out that money from a crowdfunded campaign for a game not even out of Beta was used elsewhere?

Valve funneling profit from TF2 would hardly be surprising nor would it even make a blip when it comes to fan's anger and yet that game appeals to a "less" mature crowd.


What Im trying to drive at, PGI has used deceptive marketing practices in several instances from the beginning not to mention their bait and switch tactics with balance changes (Clan ERLL being the most recent. Now the crowd that has supposedly been "poisoning the well" is taken care, we will see if PGI finally decides to turn a new leaf, but my hopes are not up. When they finally fix the UI, map issues, and their pricing scheme then I'll be impressed.

[PANZERKAT]

Nathan Foxbane, on 08 September 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

CEO's are shared staff for one so I would have to say every major developer out there.

People that actually do work?

[Nathan Foxbane]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 08 September 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

People that actually do work?

See my edit.

[mongo2006]

Paul Inouye, on 08 September 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

Well written, well expressed and worth reading every single sentence in the whole post. We are on track in improving things around here and the items of concern you bring up are valid and we are working on meeting those expectations. That's me weighing in on this. Thanks for the write-up.

And for what it's worth... I read the forums daily.. I know your post history .. kidding! It's posts like this that show people willing to dust off a layer of vitriol to try some actual discourse that I hope will be the future direction of more open communications between development and the community.

LOL how can you say that when there are so many people who disagree with your actions are ignored, posts are deleted, or sent so far into sub directories of the forums they can never see the day of light to make it seem the vast majority of the community supports your actions when we know it's not true.

You don't want dialog, you want PGI cheerleaders. When will there be dialog with people who don't agree with the direction Mechwarrior is going. When will you be open negotiations to make all players feel they got something out of being part of this community rather then being shut out of any steps forward.

PS: ask the Lords if they've ever lost 90% of their games vs clan mechs, dude this is all a joke.