173 replies to this topic

[Rebas Kradd]

Sir Wulfrick, on 18 April 2015 - 05:04 PM, said:

This has been one of the most well reasoned & discussed threads I've seen on this forum for a LONG time. A genuine pleasure to read.

Personally the question of further financial support is a difficult decision to make. If I included the purchase of my legendary founders' pack I would imagine that since August of 2012 (has it really been that long?) I've easily spent in excess of £1K on MWO, though admittedly I spent most of 2014 playing Path of Exile instead of MWO.

While I'm prepared to cautiously say that since the demise of IG Publishing MWO has begun to steer in a better direction and has benefited from all the changes introduced, since its inception I've had significant reservations about some of the strategic decisions that have guided the development of MWO and I continue to have them. In no particular order:

• I can't help feeling that the game simply lacks vision. For a game built on very modern engine tech (more on this later) I can't help thinking of opportunities lost. I really don't feel that MWO features any compelling reason to continue playing ad-infinitum. When I signed up back in August 2012 I'd envisaged huge story-style battles with competing armies on a varying number of scales from the large-scale strategic down to the tactical. I want actual lengthy missions with objectives, I want to take part in things like the battle of Tukayyid (forgive my poor spelling) and the eventual long-range counter-invasion of clan space. For MWO "end game content" should be irrelevant: I want to be able to feel that I'm a small part of a huge war machine and that my actions, together with those of my fellow mechwarriors, actually matter. In short, I want the WAR to be put in to mechwarrior. Team deathmatch? That's all we have? After three years that's it? Severe lack of vision and ambition.
  
• 
  
• If we assumed for a moment that the above was in fact a strategic goal of PGI, I'm deeply unconvinced that the Crye engine is capable of it. MWO should have been developed right from the start on the Unreal engine for any number of technical, scaleability and existing art reasons. I can only surmise that IGP / PGI chose the crye engine because they didn't like the licensing terms that come with use of Unreal tech for commercial games. In any event, this ship has long since sailed.
  
• 
  
• While some of the content released for MWO has been really nice (I genuinely feel that the art department do some utterly brilliant working bringing some of our favourite mechs to life) the glacial rate at which new content is released is beginning to make me wonder whether PGI are cynically treating the perhaps older generation Battletech fans, who being older than the typical MMO demographic might have additional disposable income, like a credit card. Maps and modes are released at a geological pace whereas there appears to be a steady flow of shiny new stuff on which we can spend MC, and thus real money. Whether intended by PGI or not, I feel that I'm being price gouged in to buying New Shiny Things as a distraction from the fact that in the last month I've played a few hundred games that all played out in an identical manner using identical mechs on identical maps.
  
• 
  
• I can't help but feel that PGI have severely mis-chosen the pricing structure for MWO. They really, really should have chosen the 'sell cheaply to many' approach rather than the high individual price structure that really only works with goods that have restricted availability. Pricing this high would be stupid even with artificial scarcity but without even that the prices of mechs, modules, paint schemes and colours are INSANE. I could accept the current price of mechs if, for example, at the current price each came with a small physical plastic model of the relevant mech. Would I have paid this amount for mechs? Hell yes, by now I'd have half a battalion set up on my desk in work! Without this sort of value addition the current prices are simply illogically high.
  
• 
  
• I have serious misgivings about the rumoured Steam launch of MWO. If the continued development of the game is to be dependant on the players paying for various things, success of failure of the game is going to be critically dependant on player retention and by extension the new player experience. There have been endless threads on this, some of which included some excellent ideas, but to my mind it's abundantly clear that new players being metaphorically thrown to the wolves following their 25-game cadet period will only result in a majority of them being severely dissuaded by the vast change in perceived difficulty.

Hmm, the above reads as if I'm incredibly bitter over the way in which MWO has developed. In truth I'm not. I regularly enjoy playing, though for me it's CW-only as I can't stand PUGing for a plethora of reasons. I get perhaps 15-20 hours of generally enjoyable gameplay out of MWO every week. In as much as I do generally enjoy it I'm willing to contribute and have pre-ordered the Clan wave 3 pack. That being said, I do think that the game has and continues to suffer from a lack of ambition and many, many missed opportunities. I don't know, maybe I was imagining a fantasy when I thought of how MWO might turn out when I first signed up. Maybe what I dreamed of at the time may yet come to fruition. My great fear is that in order to maximise customer revenue the only thing we'll ever have will be TDM COD-with-robots rather than the Battlemech war simulator that I wanted this game to be.



Finally, apologies for the weird bullet point layout, I couldn't get the points to separate in a readable manner any other way.

Wonderful post. I don't necessarily agree on the whole "sell cheaply to many" model for a free-to-play game...the 80%-20% rule is well-established out there...but I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be seeing one new mech a month but one gamemode a year. They both go through design...why the disproportionate amount of focus? And while I dismiss the whole "no lore/drama/immersion" thing to having a small staff, it doesn't change the fact that PGI seems to lack the ability to cater to its target audience.

[stjobe]

Three words, straight from Russ' mouth: Minimum Viable Product.

MWO has always been about PGI making the minimum effort.

It's kind of crazy, thinking back to 2012, that they've managed to make so much money on what is a least-effort game.

Edited by stjobe, 18 April 2015 - 09:44 PM.

[STEF_]

Alistair Winter, on 18 April 2015 - 07:37 PM, said:

trying to cater to the lowest denominator, the Steam users who may spend 20 dollars on some MC and a hero mech. If the greater portion of PGI's income is coming from the average low paying player, then for God's sake drop the prices on hero mechs, paint and camo. If the greater portion is coming from the whales, then for God's sake make a game with graphics that attract the high end computer gamers.

stjobe, on 18 April 2015 - 09:43 PM, said:

Three words, straight from Russ' mouth: Minimum Viable Product.

MWO has always been about PGI making the minimum effort.

It's kind of crazy, thinking back to 2012, that they've managed to make so much money on what is a least-effort game.

I can assure you that when mwo will be on Steam, and it will be in the state it is now since the launch will be in a few months,
Russ and PGI will crush their hope against the powerful wall of indifference of average steam players.

Who will say:
1) it's old
2) it has bugs
3) where is the tutorial?
4) there are better fps out there
5) where are the maps? are there more maps? and mods?
6) why once dead, I cannot respawn? I want respawn. (so maybe pgi will give us infinite respawn too, thinking to have more dollars in return..)



Trust me, time 2 weeks, and average steam players will forget mwo exists.

PGI doesn't seems or don't want to understand that the company exists only thanks to BT fans.
And it's going on without listening to them. Good luck with that.

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 18 April 2015 - 10:46 PM.

[Rampancy]

stjobe, on 18 April 2015 - 09:43 PM, said:

Three words, straight from Russ' mouth: Minimum Viable Product.

MWO has always been about PGI making the minimum effort.

It's kind of crazy, thinking back to 2012, that they've managed to make so much money on what is a least-effort game.

You misunderstand the term. A minimally viable product is a product that has reached the stage where it delivers adequate value to the customer to be sold (and yes, hopefully make a profit, because businesses gotta business and whatnot). It's a milestone marker, not a business philosophy.

[Fleeb the Mad]

I've found that personally my position is reversed since CB days.

I held off spending anything on MWO after my Founders money because, to be honest, I was disappointed with the state of the game as it was when CB ended. It wasn't game modes, or graphics, or mech selection.

It was gameplay that wasn't fun.

With the overwhelming meta, I was so frustrated I could not get fun games. I wasn't alone and my MWO gaming circle all drifted away. I also felt a bit cheated at how my Founders mechs performed steadily worse as more and more chassis were released. Particularly the Hero mechs that generally had better bonuses and hardpoint layouts, which was a slap in the face that took a long time to be righted.

I stopped having fun and also felt like I hadn't gotten value for my money.

Stopped playing MWO and a few friends would occasionally feel an itch and we'd try the game again. Play for a couple weeks, get burned out and let it got for another 4-5 months.

I was a bittervet, though not bitter enough to swear off the game forever. But definitely bitter enough not to spend any more.

About the time PGI split with IGP, something changed. Development started happening faster, but more importantly, the game evolved in a way that made it more fun to play. Heat vision sniping was nerfed. Weapon ranges were cut down and brawlers found a place again. So far actual mech combat has been going in the right direction, so I spent more money.

I've put more into MWO in the last six months than the previous two years. Though I got burned again. I bought the Wave II pack and unfortunately was hit with immediate regret after testing out the various mechs. I had no reason to expect the Gargoyle would be good, but the Hellbringer is the only vehicle there that I don't find a chore.

I bought the Urbanmech because it had to be done, no matter what the end product was. I'm actually rather surprised at what came out of it. But I have swore off spending money on mech package pre-orders because I'm not being guaranteed satisfaction there. I don't get my money back if I don't like it.

I will probaby continue to spend money on MWO, though personally I am currently the consumer that will hold off on spending money until I can see and touch the end product.

But if PGI came out with a package that included a bunch of graphical updates, I'd be all over that. I would give them money to fix spit and polish things that annoy me but don't generate income directly. It's not supposed to work that way, but I'd still do it for this:

• Higher res texture of the pilot in the startup animation and various cockpit fiddly bits like stickers. I use 2.5k resolution and the clash is super irksome.
  
• Damage textures. Why can't they just make some different damage textures for higher graphics settings? I don't see this as needing to be an either-or thing that shafts people with framerate problems.
  
• Terrain clipping. I hate getting hung up on tiny objects my mech should be able to step over. I also really hate losing so many of my shots into invisible walls that I should be able to shoot over or around..
  
• An FOV slider that let me move further back in the cockpit without having to mess with some text file.
  
• Improved graphics in general. Call it the old CB graphics for people who can run them. I remember my first time walking through the cave in Forest Colony and saying 'Wow, this is gorgeous.'. Now I can't even see in there due to the haze.
  
• Dynamic weather. Let a thunderstorm roll in on River City or Forest Colony. A meteor shower on the vacuum maps like HPG would also be super fun.
  
• Destructible terrain/objects.

I see a lot of parallels with EVE here. Keep in mind at one point they had to stop development and dedicate one 'expansion' to bug fixes, graphical updates and long neglected balance issues to try and smooth out the huge row they made with the player base over squandering development time over features that didn't offer much to the game.

[Anjian]

Shredhead, on 18 April 2015 - 07:09 AM, said:

When I look at all those whiners bitchin about the pricing in MWO I wonder how and why games like Warthunder, World of Tanks and its derivatives are such huge successes.
Especially Warthunder has a crappy matchmaker, you can't choose game modes, the pricing is exactly the same if not more expensive for higher tiers and the grind is insane compared to MWO. The pricing for WoT is the same as well.
Warthunder has way less maps than MWO, technical issues en masse, bugs and the balancing is simply awful. WoT is even worse when it comes to matchmaking and balancing, and it has less maps as well.
So yes, I consider 20 respectively 30 $ for three mechs, mechbays and some little extras appropriate. Wait times and matchmaking and balancing in MWO is, compared to those games, pretty damn good. Map variety is simply amazing. Progress is slow, but steady. Even the old bugs we had to deal with since CB finally get resolved one after the other. So yeah, I dished out money for wave 3, and if I like the mechs in the next IS pack, I'll dish out some money for that as well.

I think sometimes people should take a look at those games to see how good we have it here.

(I like Warthunder anyway, don't judge it on my rant.)

One big reason is that they don't have muddy looking maps.

If I remember the aircraft side of War Thunder certainly has more maps than MWO, the tank side is just a bit too new, and is still adding maps (at least two new maps are expected in the upcoming patch). These maps are also blessed with dynamic weather, although it can be at your disadvantage if the sunshine is towards your team. War Thunder's maps are specifically designed for combat and kills to happen all over the map, not focused in some bottleneck areas. WoT certainly has a ton of maps, though not all of them are good.

Here is another thing. They both have the creative courage to admit if their maps suck and take them out of rotation. WoT especially has cancelled quite a few maps. War Thunder would actively revise the maps, and do it often. MWO keeps runing the same toxic maps over and over again till their player base got sick of it (Terra Therma made me quit MWO for months). Maps got even worst with random drops. Newer maps are better, but they sometimes come with some fatal attribute, like feet traps in the Bog or easy spawn camp in Sulferous.

Once again, I repeat, bad maps can kill your player base. That is why bad maps need to be removed or revised.

Lately Russ talked about revising the old public maps like River City. I just wonder how long will this take. Not to mention the other maps as well.

Edited by Anjian, 19 April 2015 - 01:53 AM.

[Sarlic]

Normally i am not that negative but i can think a few things:

• Why pay for a game where the developers are not active on the forums?
  (Why are is PGI using 3rd parties?)
  
• Why pay for a game where the quality of mechs are decreasing?
  
• Why pay for game with poor new player experience?
  
• Why pay for a game with poor camo low res camo qualities?
  
• Why pay for a game with assets (mechs) constantly changing?
  
• Why pay for a game with extreme balance options?
  
• Why pay for a game with a horrible grind and no rolewarfare?
  
• Why pay for a game with questionable map design?
  
• Why pay for a game with poor patcher?
  
• Why pay for a game with a low price / value?
  
• Why pay for a game with poor overall peformance?
  
• Why pay for a game where's overall matches are dull and in some sort arena?
  
• Why pay for a game with laser vomit and constantly shifting gravity to other balance problems?
  
• Why pay for a game with low priority of bug fixes?
  
• Why pay for a game with a F2P concept 'minimum viable product'?
  
• Why pay for a game with questionable ELO and Matchmaking?
  
• Why pay for a game with a decrease of overall graphics over the last 3 years?
  
• Why pay for a game when they can't code different swappable ammo? Highly questionable.
  
• Why pay for a game when my friendlist is almost a graveyard because people quit the game for obvious reasons?
  
• Why pay for a game when PGI think they need to re-invent the wheel in terms of directing and game design choices for the second time?

Edited by Sarlic, 19 April 2015 - 05:35 AM.

[Deathlike]

Appogee, on 18 April 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

I already decided not to buy any more Mech packs until we get Oceanic and European servers.

I have achieved all I can do with a 240 ping. Now I just want a fair chance of playing at the same ping enjoyed by US players.

Well, your wallet is secured from PGI then.

The thing is, there is no actual sign of PGI growth (in terms of development, # of employees)... there will still be turnover mind you, but there doesn't appear to be much growth to allow for this.

The Steam release will accelerate this, as this was the route a rival game went, and then went developerless in the end (although, supposedly that's changing, but that's not really the point). It feels like Steam is going to end up being "the last ditch effort for cash", and even Age of Empires Online fell in a similar manner after going through Steam (although, obviously not initially, but the sustainability was not there as they themselves have admitted to).

[Appogee]

Deathlike, on 19 April 2015 - 05:58 AM, said:

The thing is, there is no actual sign of PGI growth (in terms of development, # of employees)... there will still be turnover mind you, but there doesn't appear to be much growth to allow for this.

I am playing Early Alpha games on Steam with player counts lower than this, who appear able to afford Euro servers.

I don't know where PGI spends all its money, but I think the problem is more that they can't be bothered.

[Deathlike]

Appogee, on 19 April 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

I am playing Early Alpha games on Steam with player counts lower than this, who appear able to afford Euro servers.

I don't know where PGI spends all its money, but I think the problem is more that they can't be bothered.

Well, regional servers became Lostech here. While it could be argued it is an IGP promise, I don't see it happening soon given that even the current servers seem to struggle on random occasions and it's not like we're at overcapacity.

[Rebas Kradd]

stjobe, on 18 April 2015 - 09:43 PM, said:

Three words, straight from Russ' mouth: Minimum Viable Product.

MWO has always been about PGI making the minimum effort.

It's kind of crazy, thinking back to 2012, that they've managed to make so much money on what is a least-effort game.

I'm not sure they would agree.

What you're seeing now is small staff, not lack of give-a-****.

Sarlic, on 19 April 2015 - 05:34 AM, said:

Normally i am not that negative but i can think a few things:

• Why pay for a game where the developers are not active on the forums?
  
  (Why are is PGI using 3rd parties?)
  
• Why pay for a game where the quality of mechs are decreasing?
  
• Why pay for game with poor new player experience?
  
• Why pay for a game with poor camo low res camo qualities?
  
• Why pay for a game with assets (mechs) constantly changing?
  
• Why pay for a game with extreme balance options?
  
• Why pay for a game with a horrible grind and no rolewarfare?
  
• Why pay for a game with questionable map design?
  
• Why pay for a game with poor patcher?
  
• Why pay for a game with a low price / value?
  
• Why pay for a game with poor overall peformance?
  
• Why pay for a game where's overall matches are dull and in some sort arena?
  
• Why pay for a game with laser vomit and constantly shifting gravity to other balance problems?
  
• Why pay for a game with low priority of bug fixes?
  
• Why pay for a game with a F2P concept 'minimum viable product'?
  
• Why pay for a game with questionable ELO and Matchmaking?
  
• Why pay for a game with a decrease of overall graphics over the last 3 years?
  
• Why pay for a game when they can't code different swappable ammo? Highly questionable.
  
• Why pay for a game when my friendlist is almost a graveyard because people quit the game for obvious reasons?
  
• Why pay for a game when PGI think they need to re-invent the wheel in terms of directing and game design choices for the second time?

I have my beefs with PGI, but the majority of those criticisms aren't even valid.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 19 April 2015 - 09:35 AM.

[sycocys]

As long as the price isn't outlandish like the clan mechs, I will probably pre-order this pack in the hopes that they use my/our money to hire a programmer or 2 competent enough to make improvements to the core of the game. I'm right on the edge of where I enjoy the game enough to support it, and am disappointed enough in parts of the game that I probably shouldn't support it any further.

[Sarlic]

Rebas Kradd, on 19 April 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

I'm not sure they would agree.

What you're seeing now is small staff, not lack of give-a-****.




I have my beefs with PGI, but the majority of those criticisms aren't even valid.

Perhaps to you. But they do to me.

That's my list there. I uncheck every thing if they have reached it.

Edited by Sarlic, 19 April 2015 - 10:26 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Sarlic, on 19 April 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

Perhaps to you. But they do to me.

That's my list there. I uncheck every thing if they have reached it.

No, I mean they're invalid. Several of those aspects have taken big steps forward lately. Others are simply design decisions that we disagree with. Others are just flat-out untrue (the MVP thing, for example).

[Sarlic]

Rebas Kradd, on 19 April 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:

No, I mean they're invalid. Several of those aspects have taken big steps forward lately. Others are simply design decisions that we disagree with. Others are just flat-out untrue (the MVP thing, for example).

Again: perhaps to you are invalid. But not to me.

I can make one sentence if you want: Why pay for this when the game designer makes terrible design choices?

That one is personal. What i named some are personal others aren't.

[MoonfireSpam]

Appogee, on 19 April 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

I am playing Early Alpha games on Steam with player counts lower than this, who appear able to afford Euro servers.

I don't know where PGI spends all its money, but I think the problem is more that they can't be bothered.

Probably porting all your stuff across would be a pain in the arse (see: all Blizzard games). Holy hell though a lot of the stuff people find wrong with this game, I wonder if you ever buy anything in real life and are satisified with it.

Question: Why pay for a game you don't like? Answer: You don't and get on with your life.

Edited by MoonfireSpam, 19 April 2015 - 10:51 AM.

[Ragtag soldier]

Sarlic, on 19 April 2015 - 05:34 AM, said:

Normally i am not that negative but i can think a few things:

• Why pay for a game where the developers are not active on the forums?
  
  (Why are is PGI using 3rd parties?)
  
• Why pay for a game where the quality of mechs are decreasing?
  
• Why pay for game with poor new player experience?
  
• Why pay for a game with poor camo low res camo qualities?
  
• Why pay for a game with assets (mechs) constantly changing?
  
• Why pay for a game with extreme balance options?
  
• Why pay for a game with a horrible grind and no rolewarfare?
  
• Why pay for a game with questionable map design?
  
• Why pay for a game with poor patcher?
  
• Why pay for a game with a low price / value?
  
• Why pay for a game with poor overall peformance?
  
• Why pay for a game where's overall matches are dull and in some sort arena?
  
• Why pay for a game with laser vomit and constantly shifting gravity to other balance problems?
  
• Why pay for a game with low priority of bug fixes?
  
• Why pay for a game with a F2P concept 'minimum viable product'?
  
• Why pay for a game with questionable ELO and Matchmaking?
  
• Why pay for a game with a decrease of overall graphics over the last 3 years?
  
• Why pay for a game when they can't code different swappable ammo? Highly questionable.
  
• Why pay for a game when my friendlist is almost a graveyard because people quit the game for obvious reasons?
  
• Why pay for a game when PGI think they need to re-invent the wheel in terms of directing and game design choices for the second time?

1: because russ is a friggin' noob. (Seriously, he could at least remember to memo the community manegement guys he pays with his stuff so it's on point)
2: quality of 'mechs is a relitive term, and plenty of the older designs are lemons. the real question there is "why aren't they learning from their previous design failures?"
3: because they have to make a new player experience that won't confuse russ. russ is confused that new players don't already know how to play.
4: camo doesn't do anything in a game where the lighting is so washed out that target locks determine if you can find something to hit. buy it if it looks good in your garage, because nobody else will see it
5: why pay money in any free to play game then? game balance is important too, and letting a 'mech stay overpowered *cough*madcat*cough* because someone paid money for it when it hadn't been balanced yet is equally bad.
6: question 6 didn't make any sense.
7: you pay to skip the grind! as for role warfare, i don't think russ understands what battlefield roles are and sees them as "close shooty", "rear shooty", and "got shooty".
8: you don't pay for maps. it would be stupid to pay for maps, and you shouldn't give russ the idea.
9: why not have a premium patcher for people who paid for bundles?
10: the game is only as expensive as you choose to pay into it, so if it's low value, it's your fault for buying too much.
11: why pay for a game when you're playing on a dorito chip?
12: "where's overall matches" is such awful grammer i don't understand what you're trying to say here.
13: question 13 made less sense than question 6. next time try paying attention in english class, shortpants.
14: what if i told you the bugfix guys are just too understaffed to work on everything?
15: that any F2P game. why pay for a free game at all?
16: what elo? there's no elo. if nobody can see an elo, and nothing suggests there's balancing from elo, why would you belive there's elo? russ probably thinks having an automatic matchmaker is the same thing.
17: the question is why did they decrease the graphics anyways.
18: they can, they just fired the guy that did the ammo code and need to reverse engineer it. currently, parts of the game engine are lostech and they're working to get the current team able to repair it.
19: why would you have a friendlist when none of them are ever on at the same time as you or are already in a game?
20: what do we pay russ for anyways? he's screwed both of those up.

[Sarlic]

You are obviously missing the point sunshine.

Because if you buy a pack, you are not paying for the pack itself. But rather the development of the game. The pack is a bonus.

Edited by Sarlic, 19 April 2015 - 11:11 AM.

[Spleenslitta]

The rareness of an ammo explosion bothers me. But what truly ticks me off are the CW maps.
We fight at the around the chokepoints for 80% of the time. Is this the players fault for not using the rest of the maps?
No it ain't it's the map designers fault. Yeah. It's that simple.

[krash27]

What gets me is the community has started a thread here with a lot of reasonable concerns and feedback and there is not a Dev in sight to at least acknowledge peoples concerns on their own official forums.

I don't know about anyone else but this speaks to a poorly run business or they just don't care.
Either way at the very least Russ and Tina should be on these forums responding to concerns before they do escalate out of control as people get more and more anxious the less it seems PGI listens to their concerns.

krash27

Edited by krash27, 19 April 2015 - 11:43 AM.