Jump to content

Pgi: Reasons Why My Friends List Is Empty


100 replies to this topic

#61 ThisMachineKillsFascists

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 05:25 AM

View Postlsp, on 05 March 2015 - 05:12 PM, said:



Thats actually a new video. Awesome. i didnt know that MwLL is still up.

I would prefer that game anytime over this junk game where you only get the minimal viable product. Sick of the uggly small and cheap maps and the grind fest.


F you and your mechpacks pgi


Gonna try MwLL

Edited by ThisMachineKillsFascists, 06 March 2015 - 05:26 AM.


#62 SilentWolff

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 2,174 posts
  • LocationNew Las Vegas

Posted 06 March 2015 - 06:23 AM

View Postmeteorol, on 06 March 2015 - 01:46 AM, said:

The only reason your friedlist is empty is that you added guys who then stopped playing.
This is a f2p game, joining and leaving costs nothing. It's -easier to leave behind a game if you didn't invest money in it.
My frindlist didn't lose a single guy thus far. Now what?


Actually, my friends list consists of people I've played MW3 and MW4 with. That means I've gamed with some of these guys almost 16 years. I'm not talking random nubs added to my friends list. So when I post the comments they make about why they left, it holds a lot of water with me and I find it quite concerning. Granted some of the issues may be debatable, but to the people that left for whatever reason, perception is reality.

#63 Heffay

    Rum Runner

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 6,458 posts
  • LocationPHX

Posted 06 March 2015 - 06:33 AM

View PostThisMachineKillsFascists, on 06 March 2015 - 05:25 AM, said:

Thats actually a new video. Awesome. i didnt know that MwLL is still up.

I would prefer that game anytime over this junk game where you only get the minimal viable product. Sick of the uggly small and cheap maps and the grind fest.


F you and your mechpacks pgi


Gonna try MwLL


Posted Image

#64 BellatorMonk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 617 posts
  • LocationWallet Closed PGI Knows Why

Posted 06 March 2015 - 06:52 AM

All good reasons I am sure. However surely by now you know PGI doesn't read these forums. They only monitor Twitter and Reddit for feeback.
They consider the official forums a cesspool of trolls and have for a couple years now.

#65 PappySmurf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 842 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 07:14 AM

They consider the official forums a cesspool of trolls and have for a couple years now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So true I have seen some wonderful idea's on these forums over 3 years and not 1 that I know of has been implemented into MWO for actual game play.The white knights will say I am wrong but every decision on MWO has been made by the Devs and PGI staff not the players or MWO would be quite a different game.

After posting in this topic yesterday and seeing the state MWO is in its time to take a break most my friends are gone or banned by the terrible staff and mods for totally stupid reasons and I don't see the Devs pulling there heads out of there asssesss anytime soon.

Edited by PappySmurf, 06 March 2015 - 07:17 AM.


#66 Apnu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,083 posts
  • LocationMidWest

Posted 06 March 2015 - 07:46 AM

View PostSilentWolff, on 05 March 2015 - 10:19 AM, said:

I have been playing since closed beta, as has most of my unit. This post is not meant as a bash PGI thread, but rather an insight on why most people I know no longer play this game. This is an condensed list of the complaints that were expressed when I asked people why they no longer played.

So without further ado......


#1 Piss poor map design
The maps are too small. Information warfare/ scouting is not needed and plays no real part in the game. CW maps are bigger, but all the room is wasted, as almost all fighting takes place in one corner of the map.
This causes other issues as well. It makes most range weapons obsolete (not including dual gauss). Your higher ELO's become nothing more than a Nascar deathball under ECM causing boring/stale game play.


Players in this game gravitate towards where there is cover or good terrain to make a stand. The small maps are from the CB 8v8 days and older. Since CW is a thing now, PGI, at least for the 1st half of 2015 is ignoring the Pub. Queue maps and game modes so they can focus solely on CW.

Quote

#2 Matchmaker punishes higher ELO players. There is no incentive to take creative, fun, silly builds because you will end up getting beat like a drum. This means 90% of the mechs in your mechbay go unused. Go meta or go home.


That's a player problem, not a game problem. Players in this game gravitate to the meta builds and then punish anybody who isn't meta. I honestly can't blame PGI for this. They implemented ghost heat as a "player control mechanic" (Paul on the latest Mechs, Devs and Beer podcast) and its not working right. Even if I bring a non-meta build (I like the challenge of being against the grain, yet still successful) I get guff in chat for having "sub optimal" builds, yet 2/3 of the time I'm in the top ten of the match screen and top 5 of my team.

Quote

#3 No real lobby system. Having to have premium to do private lobbies is insulting and a naked cash grab.


While I'd like to see lobbies that collect players and send them off to the MM to find a game, PGI doesn't agree with this notion. Still I there is a lobby system and its free. Anybody can make a group of 2-12 players and then drop in a match. They can even group up and battle another team, also for free, but have to deal with random maps. If a group wants to set specific things about the match between another private group, then at least one on each side has to be running Premium Time.
That's not much of a cash grab IMO.

Quote

#4 Poor geometry, getting stuck on a pebble, invisible walls blocking shots.


Geometry is because of the mech designs, and many of the mechs come from other sources. The AWS is just wide. Its wide in the TRO, its wide as a mini, and its wide in game. However there are some things PGI can do to fix that. A consistent scale depending on class would be nice (ever compare the height of a Wolverine to a Shadow Hawk?) and the arms on the Catapults are disgusting. I won't use them until PGI fixes that.

Maps need passes yeah, there's weird bugs that need to be fixed. Hopefully once PGI gets CW done to some passable level of satisfaction, we can get devs to make a few passes at the maps.

Quote

#5 Jump jets are horrible. Useless on assault mechs ( see Highlander) Knee jerk reaction to poptarting


Yes. Poptarting was a thing, and except for a few poptart addicts, everybody hates it. I think they nerfed the JJ's too much in reaction. I think more screen shake is needed while in the air. Not just when JJ's are engaged. They also wanted to fix people running with just one JJ and leaping about like rocketmen, so they changed it so you need near max JJs for them to have any thrust worth a damn. That, of course, comes at the cost of guns, but since this game has morphed into a direct-fire, pin-point alpha meta, nobody wants to make that sacrifice.

Quote

#6 Progress in the game moves at a snails pace. Lack of content (this has got better since IGP was booted, but its still too slow)


PGI has a small staff. They want the game to compete at the AAA level, but just don't have the resources for it. There aren't enough players (compared to say the numbers Destiny has), and the F2P model means they're dependent on whales (I'm sort of a whale) to keep the lights on, servers running and devs fed enough to come to work every day. There's a very vocal anti-whale community here that likes to kick us for supporting the game. They have it in their head somehow that by financially starving PGI they'll get a better game.

Quote

#7 Economy is too punishing. takes way too long to earn C-Bills


Yes, I have a fleet of 30% c-bill mechs and banked PT I dole out to overcome this. But again, devs gotta eat, so they have to incentivize players to buy MC an PT to beat the stingy c-bills. Having said that, the new player experience is brutal. Starting with trial mechs and being thrown into the deep end of the pool with veteran players is counter-productive. PGI should have a place for newbies and lowbies to hang out away from the high-elo players so they can build up a decent personal economy and have fun doing it.

Quote

#8 No destructible terrain, which both MW3 and MW4 had. Inexcusable that we have actually went backwards since MW4 and that was over 10 years ago.


PGI has talked at length about this. MW3 and MW4 had player side destructables, that bore no impact on the game. Knocking over trees and lamposts does not destructable terrain make. While it would be cool to be able to blow holes in a building and then shoot through them, the netcode to replicate that to 23 other players with random (and sometimes crappy pings) would choke the game. PGI consciously avoids destructable terrain for the time being because of that replication.

Quote

#9 Too many game breaking bugs. (Hit Reg, getting stuck in terrain, frame rate issues and game crashing to desktop)


Like I said, they have a small staff. Limited bandwidth and a huge CW list to work through means these bugs will linger.

I honestly wish PGI has more $ to higher more devs and knock this stuff out faster. But, again, the F2P market is fickle and not the glut of cash that a AAA design house has. PGI simply cannot raise the cash to hire the amount of staff that Bungie has, or any house under EA for that matter.

#67 mike29tw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,053 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 08:03 AM

View PostEl Bandito, on 06 March 2015 - 02:16 AM, said:


How can it be knee jerk reaction, if PGI waited over half year to actually do something about rampant poptarts? It took over a year for the poptart meta to go away.


Slow neural transmission?

#68 SilentWolff

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 2,174 posts
  • LocationNew Las Vegas

Posted 06 March 2015 - 08:06 AM

View PostBellatorMonk, on 06 March 2015 - 06:52 AM, said:

All good reasons I am sure. However surely by now you know PGI doesn't read these forums. They only monitor Twitter and Reddit for feeback.
They consider the official forums a cesspool of trolls and have for a couple years now.


I linked this thread to Russ on Twitter. I also posted this on the forums because I am curious what the opinions are of other people that play or don't play as well.

#69 lsp

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 1,618 posts
  • LocationCA

Posted 06 March 2015 - 12:18 PM

View Postbadaa, on 05 March 2015 - 06:05 PM, said:


OMFG! every thing about was awesome but the mechs looked like ****.

I just installed and played it, and I have to say, it's everything MWO should have been. I can see why they forced them to stop development on MWLL, it's strides better than MWO is. It feels like a real mechwarrior game.

#70 Weeny Machine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,014 posts
  • LocationAiming for the flat top (B. Murray)

Posted 06 March 2015 - 12:42 PM

I would add "instant convergance" to the list. It is the culprit of many issues gameplaywise

#71 Mawai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,495 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 02:21 PM

View Postlsp, on 06 March 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

I just installed and played it, and I have to say, it's everything MWO should have been. I can see why they forced them to stop development on MWLL, it's strides better than MWO is. It feels like a real mechwarrior game.


I haven't tried MWLL ... it might be fun.

However, it is important to keep in mind that MWLL can overcome many of the difficulties that MWO has because (as far as I know) it is not server authoritative. If you hit on the client ... you hit. If you run an auto hit hack, wall hack, radar hack or any number of cheats ... they all work flawlessly on the client. If you want to automatically headshot the opponent just run the appropriate hack. The entire stream of information being sent to the server from the client telling the server what happened is completely vulnerable to compromise. At least that is my understandting, please correct me if I am wrong.

MWLL doesn't need HSR. Hit reg isn't a problem. The server just acts as a way station updating all the clients and as long as no one decides they want an unfair advantage then it is probably pretty good. Destructible terrain is easy since it is all client side ... though keeping the other clients in sync might still be an issue. Anti-cheating code probably tries to identify if and when folks are doing something they shouldn't but this is usually only good until someone bypasses it.

MWO is far from perfect and MWLL may have better maps or better weapon balance. I don't know .. but some of the apparent advantages in MWLL derive from design choices that leave it open to different flaws.

#72 Heffay

    Rum Runner

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 6,458 posts
  • LocationPHX

Posted 06 March 2015 - 02:36 PM

Yup, client side hit detection. Also no mech lab, no progression, lots of rubber banding, TINY player base and unlimited re spawns,

It was a cool user mod, but no substitute for MWO.

#73 SilentWolff

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 2,174 posts
  • LocationNew Las Vegas

Posted 07 March 2015 - 07:49 AM

Yes , but I'd kill to have maps like that in MWO. They are just so much better on all levels.

#74 Heffay

    Rum Runner

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 6,458 posts
  • LocationPHX

Posted 07 March 2015 - 08:39 AM

View PostSilentWolff, on 07 March 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

Yes , but I'd kill to have maps like that in MWO. They are just so much better on all levels.


To get to the level of fidelity of MWO maps, they'd have to redo all the assets and texture maps to a much higher level. And collision meshes, yadda yadda yadda. By the time you get it anywhere near the quality of MWO assets, the performance will suffer to the point where the minimum requirements for computers will be thrown out the window.

It's a trade off. Do you want simple maps with low poly count items, or do you want a high fidelity game?

#75 SilentWolff

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 2,174 posts
  • LocationNew Las Vegas

Posted 07 March 2015 - 09:41 AM

View PostHeffay, on 07 March 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:


To get to the level of fidelity of MWO maps, they'd have to redo all the assets and texture maps to a much higher level. And collision meshes, yadda yadda yadda. By the time you get it anywhere near the quality of MWO assets, the performance will suffer to the point where the minimum requirements for computers will be thrown out the window.

It's a trade off. Do you want simple maps with low poly count items, or do you want a high fidelity game?


I'm more referring to the size and layout of the maps than the other stuff you mentioned.

#76 Heffay

    Rum Runner

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 6,458 posts
  • LocationPHX

Posted 07 March 2015 - 09:46 AM

View PostSilentWolff, on 07 March 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

I'm more referring to the size and layout of the maps than the other stuff you mentioned.


They are related issues. Increase the size, decrease the fidelity.

You also run into problems like you have in Alpine, where half the battle is getting to the battle. 15 minute time limits, no respawns... you can't use LL maps for a game like MWO.

#77 Rebas Kradd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,969 posts

Posted 07 March 2015 - 10:04 AM

View PostSilentWolff, on 07 March 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

Yes , but I'd kill to have maps like that in MWO. They are just so much better on all levels.


For every one of us who says that here, there are 99 new players who would get frustrated and quit because of the enormous, wide-open, relatively featureless nature of the maps. Yes, they create emergent, tactical gameplay, with a requirement for scouting and coordination and all the things the sim-nerds long for, but such things come at a cost.

Ever notice how small MWLL's playerbase always was? The game is even more complicated and less friendly to newbies than MWO. Making new players spend five minutes just searching for the enemy would be death for this game, and that is what most MWLL matches end up becoming. The competitive matches you can Youtube are twenty minutes of tedium and two minutes of shooting. Not a good idea for an already niche game, and it showed.

Say what you want about PGI, but they weren't idiotic to start their game with a bunch of "instant action" modes that funneled new players to the action quickly.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 07 March 2015 - 10:04 AM.


#78 Sarlic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hearing Impaired
  • Hearing Impaired
  • 4,519 posts
  • LocationEurope

Posted 07 March 2015 - 10:17 AM

View PostRebas Kradd, on 07 March 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

Say what you want about PGI, but they weren't idiotic to start their game with a bunch of "instant action" modes that funneled new players to the action quickly.


Well, first we had 4vs4 on excisting maps. But these were much much smaller.
8vs8 and a little bit bigger. And now finally 12vs12 with bigger adjusted maps. Apart from the new launched maps on that scale.

PGI did actually start small, but if you mean by instant action like other games. Then no, but it was still a small arena with action.

Edited by Sarlic, 07 March 2015 - 10:46 AM.


#79 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 07 March 2015 - 10:47 AM

View PostHeffay, on 06 March 2015 - 06:33 AM, said:


Posted Image

God I loved that show!

#80 SilentWolff

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 2,174 posts
  • LocationNew Las Vegas

Posted 07 March 2015 - 10:52 AM

View PostHeffay, on 07 March 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:


They are related issues. Increase the size, decrease the fidelity.

You also run into problems like you have in Alpine, where half the battle is getting to the battle. 15 minute time limits, no respawns... you can't use LL maps for a game like MWO.


View PostRebas Kradd, on 07 March 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:


For every one of us who says that here, there are 99 new players who would get frustrated and quit because of the enormous, wide-open, relatively featureless nature of the maps. Yes, they create emergent, tactical gameplay, with a requirement for scouting and coordination and all the things the sim-nerds long for, but such things come at a cost.

Ever notice how small MWLL's playerbase always was? The game is even more complicated and less friendly to newbies than MWO. Making new players spend five minutes just searching for the enemy would be death for this game, and that is what most MWLL matches end up becoming. The competitive matches you can Youtube are twenty minutes of tedium and two minutes of shooting. Not a good idea for an already niche game, and it showed.

Say what you want about PGI, but they weren't idiotic to start their game with a bunch of "instant action" modes that funneled new players to the action quickly.


Its due to their piss poor understanding of game mechanics. Alpine is one of the best maps size wise, but the layout is horrible imo and thats a big part on why it takes so long to get to the battle. MW4 easily had the best maps and thats what frustrates me and everyone else I know. Over 10 years later and we have taken numerous steps backwards.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users