175 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

Russ Bullock, on 09 September 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

Well this wasn't very uplifting.

I appreciate the OP and his point of view, always nice to have support. Of course it's hard to hear people that don't seem to want to accept anything good but only focus on items of 1-2 years ago.

But...

For me I feel like were starting fresh now. I hope everyone listened to the town hall and we can admit that 2014 was significantly different in many ways and that we are close to delivering that final of the 4 pillars.

That final pillar, its getting close and then I hope that once that happens the tone can change to at the very least "that took too long but we have everything they promised, now lets all get along and try to keep making this game better".

Silly me I know, but I am an optimist when it comes to people. Anyhow I look forward to sharing more about CW with you in the near future.

Russ - only time and delivery will change the tone of your community but i am pretty sure you are aware of that.

The 'keep making the game better' is the part that is more important a promise to me than a lite implementation of CW .... it is the commitment to improving ALL of the critical 4 pillars you have in at a minimal viable level.

This is what i will actually keep paying for ... when i feel the infromation warfare and role warfare pillars are so strong you can FEEL them when you login and play like you can FEEL the mech combat we have now whish is mostly solid apart from balance issues obviously.

Continual improvement and interations and giving us the WHY of decisions is going to be essential.

What we do not want is a sudden slowdown of any new features and systems etc after CW ebcause PGI feels they have delivered and therefore do not need to try harder and have kept a delays promise - because the state of the pillars is more important than just having them IN the game.

[Inti Raymi]

Asmudius Heng, on 09 September 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

1. No, the problem with PGI is the horrific interaction with the community before it became toxic.

2. That combined with poor gameplay decisions a the inability to interact and take good feedback.

The business decisions I understand partly - but the lack of engagement with the community for so long and their inability to admit mistakes I their issue.

If they were better at PR and more transparent overall then people would be questioning the business practice and pace o development much less.

1. Partly agree. The toxicity factor, though, is hard to stomach even as just a casual viewer.

2. This always makes me smile. How glib people are about "poor gameplay decisions" when all they ever have to do is pencil and paper it (best case) or state it with an angry sneer (most cases).

Ever worked on a moderately complex package with thousands of users who all think they are the most important customer you have to deal with? If you have, kudos. I do, daily.

Armchair sight is 20/20.

[Inti Raymi]

Aym, on 10 September 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

2014 has been a better year, I listen and read and have seen just how much better the communication has been, both in terms of depth and frequently. Additionally I like the frequent sales and events we've seen lately, I'd love to see your price scheme re-modelled (as many many beta testers said) but that may be off topic and I only mention it because of your recent 3+ town hall meeting which, again, was refreshing.
That said, you just mentioned 4 pillars. I would ask if there are any plans to revisit ECM to reduce it's over-arching impact on Role Warfare (one of those pillars that many players would say is... lacking). Of course if ECM were tweaked, or re-balanced, systems affecting it would have to be done, obviously nothing can be balanced in a vacuum (again something many many beta testers like myself tried to leave feedback on... still haven't heard which is the "baseline" weapon system against which balance is measured).
Another pillar we would like to hear an update about is Role Warfare. What do you as designers feel it is in the current game so that we can more fully appreciate the distinctions we may be over looking.

I think it's mostly a question of tools (to the ECM ~issue~ you brought up). People simply don't want to burden themselves with TAG and Narc. And those same people are angry that they are killed by LRMs.

This is a no-win for PGI and if I were the designer (and patently I am not) I would leave the sleeping dogs to themselves.

[edit] In my (not so humble) opinion, what needs to happen is "points for team assistance" where TAG and Narc have more tangible benefit.

Edited by Inti Raymi, 10 September 2014 - 05:20 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Inti Raymi, on 10 September 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

1. Partly agree. The toxicity factor, though, is hard to stomach even as just a casual viewer.

2. This always makes me smile. How glib people are about "poor gameplay decisions" when all they ever have to do is pencil and paper it (best case) or state it with an angry sneer (most cases).

Ever worked on a moderately complex package with thousands of users who all think they are the most important customer you have to deal with? If you have, kudos. I do, daily.

Armchair sight is 20/20.

I have worked in product development and i well know that you cannot please everyone and the end user is not always the best person to understand the importance of certain things.

However thinking you as a developer, publisher etc are the be all and end all of knowledge is just as bad.

You need to take feedback - i remember seeing feedback that made me fight for extra funding to do something because i did not think of it initially and no one else did but my customers very clearly stated why it was essential and i could see the merits.

That product had a 40% growth i believe in part because of those decisions based on customer feedback which we also tested in the market before we just blithely added in mind you.

There are many people with excellent ideas in the community who stated very clearly the problems that comes from decisions PGI took before they did them and were proven right. To continue to ignore a wealth of information and advice from your paying customers who will also bring more people into the game via word of mouth if done right is madness.

EDIT:
Yes i agree though that i hate the toxic aspects, i like good critical debate but the nastiness is annoying though i have a pretty thick skin so i tend to ignore it

Edited by Asmudius Heng, 10 September 2014 - 05:47 PM.

[EgoSlayer]

1453 R, on 10 September 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

It’s simple, really. Commodity Warfare is built for large, rigidly organized player organizations, as a method by which those organizations can stake a claim in the Inner Sphere and fight a persistent battle for control over their choice of planets, or act as a mobile raiding force attacking other people’s planets in an attempt to score offensive wins for their chosen faction.

It offers absolutely nothing to solo-dropping Puglandia players like myself, as the C-bill investment to get involved in Commodity Warfare is expected to be astronomical enough to make entire units think twice about chipping in for it. Despite this, CW will take a good-sized bite out of the regular queue’s player base as people transition 100% of their time and investment over to The Fourth Pillar, making matchmaking an even more tedious and time-consuming a task for us filthy lowlife Puglandia players too stupid/antisocial/foul-smelling/whatever-it-is-we-are-this-time to hitch up with some other player’s personal private army and follow orders like a good little cog in the machine.

<snip>

And this is where you are completely wrong. CW isn't some pointless addition that is only for 'large, rigidly organized player organizations'. CW, unless horribly and mindlessly implemented, is another set of goals and objectives over and above Mech XP that gives *ALL* players goals to play towards besides just team deathmatch. It's the story part of an MMO, and something that turns MWO into something different than CoD with Mechs.

So if you don't want to be part of a Faction/Mech corp fine, you still get to choose to fight/defend particular planets and gain some rewards - CW becomes the new "Challenges" for solo and group players - but they are *always on*. If you can't see the benefits to that then you must just really only want team deathmatch. And you know what? You'll still get that with CW, just ignore the rewards.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 11 September 2014 - 02:24 AM.

[ApolloKaras]

www.reddit.com/r/OutreachHPG/comments/2g2pds/so_what_now/ckf3wev

Just read the first 5 replies. Hopefully for some people it sinks in.

[Ensaine]

Russ Bullock, on 09 September 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

Well this wasn't very uplifting.

I appreciate the OP and his point of view, always nice to have support. Of course it's hard to hear people that don't seem to want to accept anything good but only focus on items of 1-2 years ago.

But...

For me I feel like were starting fresh now. I hope everyone listened to the town hall and we can admit that 2014 was significantly different in many ways and that we are close to delivering that final of the 4 pillars.

That final pillar, its getting close and then I hope that once that happens the tone can change to at the very least "that took too long but we have everything they promised, now lets all get along and try to keep making this game better".

Silly me I know, but I am an optimist when it comes to people. Anyhow I look forward to sharing more about CW with you in the near future.

WHO is on an island ...???

Of course you like his post .. he's too new to know better... yet.

[Napoleon_Blownapart]

if you think pug play will die, youre an idiot.....
it is the only place IS pilots will be able to run their clan mechs so your whole argument is false....

[Redshift2k5]

PGI and the community are both at fault.

PGI has constantly slipped deadlines and go from information overload to dead silence and back again. Inconsistent.

The community is also inconsistent and has a large amount of whiners, people who freak out at PGI over the smallest of mistakes, and even people deliberately trying to derail the company for their own amusement.

[1453 R]

EgoSlayer, on 11 September 2014 - 02:23 AM, said:

And this is where you are completely wrong. CW isn't some pointless addition that is only for 'large, rigidly organized player organizations'. CW, unless horribly and mindlessly implemented, is another set of goals and objectives over and above Mech XP that gives *ALL* players goals to play towards besides just team deathmatch. It's the story part of an MMO, and something that turns MWO into something different than CoD with Mechs.

So if you don't want to be part of a Faction/Mech corp fine, you still get to choose to fight/defend particular planets and gain some rewards - CW becomes the new "Challenges" for solo and group players - but they are *always on*. If you can't see the benefits to that then you must just really only want team deathmatch. And you know what? You'll still get that with CW, just ignore the rewards.

Heh...the recent Phase 2 design document, and Paul's uncharacteristic-but-extremely-welcome all-nighter in the feedback thread, bears me out pretty nicely*, actually. Only an organized 12-man can launch an attack on a world, and the defenders have to respond within two minutes. The only way for an organized response to an attack to happen within two minutes is if a defending team has the resources in manpower to have a hot-scramble 12-man doing absolutely nothing except sitting on their thumbs waiting to click in as a response to any attacks that turn up.

The notion of filling up against an unanswered attack with whatever randoms spot the thirty second window is pretty laughable. You're going to take twelve random puglies and throw them against an organized 12-man death squad, specifically kitted out for the precise map and game mode they'll be attacking? Those puglies will be pounded into metal shavings in short order.

Don't get me wrong, the proposed Invasion mode sounds like it could be a great deal of fun if you ever see two decently balanced teams against each other in it. I just don't see how singletons, Puglandians, or most anything that isn't a 50+ man heavily organized unit able to dictate those hot-scramble 12-man Wait Squads are going to be anything but disposable cannon fodder grinding to dust between the gears.

Edited by 1453 R, 11 September 2014 - 06:49 AM.

[Roland]

Russ Bullock, on 09 September 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

Well this wasn't very uplifting.

I appreciate the OP and his point of view, always nice to have support. Of course it's hard to hear people that don't seem to want to accept anything good but only focus on items of 1-2 years ago.

But...

For me I feel like were starting fresh now. I hope everyone listened to the town hall and we can admit that 2014 was significantly different in many ways and that we are close to delivering that final of the 4 pillars.

That final pillar, its getting close and then I hope that once that happens the tone can change to at the very least "that took too long but we have everything they promised, now lets all get along and try to keep making this game better".

Silly me I know, but I am an optimist when it comes to people. Anyhow I look forward to sharing more about CW with you in the near future.

Russ, this is a good example of how you are out of touch with the community and your own game, and how that leads to troubles for you.

You say this:

Quote

I hope everyone listened to the town hall and we can admit that 2014 was significantly different in many ways and that we are close to delivering that final of the 4 pillars.

That final pillar, its getting close and then I hope that once that happens the tone can change to at the very least "that took too long but we have everything they promised, now lets all get along and try to keep making this game better".

You keep trying to act like you have delivered on the other 3 pillars. You have not.

I know you WANT to have done that, because then it'd be done and you wouldn't need to worry about it any more. But you haven't. Information warfare is essentially non-existent. Luckily, there are various ideas (including a very well written up one recently detailing active and passive radar) that you can take to heart, if you can swallow your pride and accept that Paul's vision for some of this stuff isn't necessarily the best option available.

Likewise, role warfare is not in place to the degree that people expected. Have you paid any attention to the split of mech usage now that it's so easily seen? Light mechs are consistently underutilized. The only reason you see them in the game is because the matchmaker essentially REQUIRES that they be in matches.

Recall prior to the game's release, when you said this stuff about role warfare:
http://mwomercs.com/...-3-role-warfare


These were good ideas! We liked them! That's why we gave you money for them!
THAT is role warfare... and generally, you have not done it.

One thing that I recall seeing way back then (it's described in part 2 of your role warfare links) is the idea of multi-targeting... Would be awesome for light scouts... especially if you could ONLY mount it on light mechs. Such things would make them extremely useful as scouts compared to other mechs, and thus would make them more likely to be taken.

The thing is, you can't just say you've done this stuff, and have us say, "Oh, ok. I guess you did do all that stuff. Our mistake."

Because we aren't ********. You can't just tell us that we should be happy and then we become happy. The way it works is that we tell you we aren't happy, and you need to adjust what you're doing.

Because let's just be clear here.... your player base seems to NOT be happy. At this point, it no longer seems like the the disgruntled are "on an island". It seems like you're on the island, and you need to accept that and deal with it. Denial doesn't fix the problem.


There are tons of things which are laregly undone in your game. UI 2.0 is absolutely terrible. And there is no way you can not know this, simply by using the interface. Go use it right now. Take off your PGI hat, and put on your "guy playing a video game" hat. Is that interface good? Is it easy to use? Does it help you understand what is happening, and facilitate you playing the game? No. It does none of those things.

So FIX that stuff Russ. Don't just mark a checkbox and say, "Ok, that's done!"

At this point, your name is forever tied to MWO. There isn't gonna be some other game down the pike. This one was way too high profile. You need to make this game the best you can POSSIBLY make it.

The huge game developers make multiple titles, sure... but they generally became large developers because they made ONE title that was really really really awesome once. After they made a game that people absolutely loved, THEN they became industry leaders.

Don't get the cart ahead of the horse, dude. Don't worry about becoming some giant company. Worry about making ONE GOOD GAME. MWO can be that game. God knows the core of the game is solid. But now you need to make the rest of the house as good as the foundation, and that means focusing on it.

Worry less about monetization and more about maximizing the fun of the game. Don't say things like, "Hey, we'll keep making this game as long as you guys support it." You should want to keep making this game as long as you are still drawing breath, because you should have a passion for THIS GAME. It shouldn't just be some thing you do. You should care about the game as something more than a job. It's a piece of art that represents you as a professional artist.

[PANZERKAT]

ECM isn't information warfare? Who knew.....

[girl on fire]

IGP no longer in control of PGI? When'd that happen and why?

[PANZERKAT]

Because...reasons.

Perhaps IGP got what they wanted out of it or thought that was about all they were going to get and it was too much of a headache, so they offered it up? Seems likely.

Edited by KOMMISSAR KITTY, 11 September 2014 - 09:20 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Roland, on 11 September 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

You keep trying to act like you have delivered on the other 3 pillars. You have not.

I know you WANT to have done that, because then it'd be done and you wouldn't need to worry about it any more. But you haven't. Information warfare is essentially non-existent. Luckily, there are various ideas (including a very well written up one recently detailing active and passive radar) that you can take to heart, if you can swallow your pride and accept that Paul's vision for some of this stuff isn't necessarily the best option available.

Likewise, role warfare is not in place to the degree that people expected. Have you paid any attention to the split of mech usage now that it's so easily seen? Light mechs are consistently underutilized. The only reason you see them in the game is because the matchmaker essentially REQUIRES that they be in matches.

There are lots of solutions to make these much more deep on the forums, many that are excellently thought out and not wildly complicated.

Recall prior to the game's release, when you said this stuff about role warfare:
http://mwomercs.com/...-3-role-warfare


These were good ideas! We liked them! That's why we gave you money for them!
THAT is role warfare... and generally, you have not done it.

One thing that I recall seeing way back then (it's described in part 2 of your role warfare links) is the idea of multi-targeting... Would be awesome for light scouts... especially if you could ONLY mount it on light mechs. Such things would make them extremely useful as scouts compared to other mechs, and thus would make them more likely to be taken.

The thing is, you can't just say you've done this stuff, and have us say, "Oh, ok. I guess you did do all that stuff. Our mistake."

Because we aren't ********. You can't just tell us that we should be happy and then we become happy. The way it works is that we tell you we aren't happy, and you need to adjust what you're doing.

Among all the stuff going on over the last few weeks, this is my largest gripe. To claim we have functioning information and role warfare is like saying the ability to create units fulfills the CW pillar. We essentially have 2 roles... damage and support, and full support is a role that earns very little to no cbills if you're doing it well consumables. Our information warfare boils down to ECM present YES/NO. Both are essentially binary choices, they're present, but just barely. In the same way CW is present with formation of Units. We can now officially be part of community units, and combined with group queue we have a sort of very very soft CW.

Please own up to the fact that the only pillar that has any depth is Mech Warfare, and start implementing a plan to flesh out Role Warfare and Information Warfare in the same fashion that Community Warfare is being fleshed out this fall.

Finally Roland isn't close to kidding about UI 2.0. I would seriously like the OLD UI back if I didn't know it would break the back end.

Edited by Prezimonto, 11 September 2014 - 02:59 PM.

[ImplicitAssembler]

Russ Bullock, on 09 September 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

For me I feel like were starting fresh now. I hope everyone listened to the town hall and we can admit that 2014 was significantly different in many ways and that we are close to delivering that final of the 4 pillars.

You have barely delivered the 1st pillar and you have been lying constantly since closed beta. This is the problem.

[PANZERKAT]

Well they lie and people give them more money. Why should anything change?

[That Dawg]

Thizcrusher, on 09 September 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

The real problem with PGI isn't being slow to deliver content, their management of funds, or their business decisions... the REAL problem here is all of US the community.

You mean we, the paying community, who has patiently waited and now reading the posts on reddit about PGI using personal information for banning etc, WE are the problem?
You think the US had it coming for the 9-11 attacks? Pretty girls are asking to be ***** and WE are creating the problems here?
oh brother

[That Dawg]

Mcgral18, on 09 September 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

SRM hit detection, broken for months

coolant shots for MC only, which they rightfully revised

3rd person view, which is fairly useless, wasted much development time

Islands, vocal minorities...on their forums, about their long standing FOUNDER customers...do we still have 50% retention?

Increasingly expensive mech packs

Maps....well, maybe one of these weeks.



Some of these can be attributed to IGP, which is no longer in control, and while PGIs communication has been half decent over the past week, that can be linked to Transverse (?/P2/AUTE) and the release of yet another Clan mech pack over the next few weeks.

I'll give them a chance, since they combat itself isn't half bad, but I enjoyed it more two years ago than in it's current state. The game has declined in my opinion, why that happened doesn't have a full explanation.

my feelings, and seeing as how I have been married THREE times......I am always willing to try again.
I have been supportive in the past, and if they earn my trust, I'll spend again.
I am waiting to read what all that crap I've seen on Reddit is about- not the banning, the more damning things like cross forum banning, personal info, allowing mods access to our personal information.
Thats going to seal it. As a precaution I have blocked facebooks mechwarrior page until down the road

[Kraven Kor]

ThatDawg, on 11 September 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

You mean we, the paying community, who has patiently waited and now reading the posts on reddit about PGI using personal information for banning etc, WE are the problem?
You think the US had it coming for the 9-11 attacks? Pretty girls are asking to be ***** and WE are creating the problems here?
oh brother

While true, on some level, I do say we see what happens with the divorce of PGI from IGP. We can only hope this allows them to somehow correct the situation and truly learn from what happened and why.

I am angry; I feel cheated, but I love Mechwarrior and I even like a lot about MWO just... still waiting for the game I was sold in 2012. I don't hate anyone, I don't threaten or whatever, I'm not on some campaign to destroy PGI (though I would offer advice to a friend of "Yeah, maybe don't buy that, this is what happened to me.")

It's the age of the internet. Reputation means a lot; trust lost is very difficult to regain.

But it can be done.