117 replies to this topic

[Rebas Kradd]

Not much will change.

The game isn't horrible except to bittervets whose expectations were sky-high (and led to be so by PGI). The Steam vets will at least be walking in without that.

Also, we take what we have for granted. Steam players won't. We haven't got a lot, but what we do have will keep new players busy for a while.

As far as the bittervets, their drivel can be drowned out by a reasonable review of MWO's development story that puts things in context. For example, taking 3-4 years to leave beta state and trying to launch multiple games isn't all that befuddling of a concept. It's pretty common in this industry. We'll just need to be sure to point new players to that information; the ones who don't do their research will be soured towards the game, and the ones who do, won't be. Simple as that.

What will really kill the game is a lack of interesting game modes and missions, as well as a crappy new player experience. We'll need a separate queue, improved economy, and new tutorials.

In the end, we'll probably wind up with the same proportion of satisfied/nonsatisfied players, just on a much larger scale. What will really be nice is the plummeting matchmaking times, PGI gaining access to new funds and perhaps being able to do some significant hiring.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 15 June 2015 - 09:01 AM.

[Antares102]

I play MW because of good old BT TT and I enjoyed playing MW2 and MW3.
Other than that and aside from graphics MWO is worse then Tribes 2 which I used to play a lot.

MWO could also learn a few thing from Tribes 2 such as key combinations for predefined voice commands and requests.
This is really easy to implement and most MWO games would benefit from only need a few commands such as:
Regroup E5
Charge F6
Enemy spotted at F7
Focus target A
Retreat
Defend OGEN1
Defend OMEGA

All these things could easily be converted to key combination that play a certain sounds file.
It would also be user friendly and overcome language barriers because everybody could have localized versions of these sounds files.

Edited by Antares102, 15 June 2015 - 09:19 AM.

[El Bandito]

[1453 R]

Assuming for the moment that this is mostly three pages of bitterness, snark, and off-topic Piranha-bashing as the first page replies I read was…going to ignore them just because this looks like a fun way to pass twenty minutes. So, lessee…predictions for a December 15^th Steam release…

1.) We’ll get ‘NPE Beta 1’, which will include some half-baked tutorials in the Training Grounds code to try and combat the fact that as one player said, this game is balls-hard to get into. Because Piranha does have some serious issues committing to anything without a Beta tag, which I find super annoying but nevertheless understand given the…issues…people around here have, they’ll claim this is just the first wave trials and would everyone please give it a chance? Unfortunately, bittervets and salt miners are not the best guys to test your NPE, so this will largely go unrefined until the actual Steam release, where it’ll get mostly the same reviews MWO got on its ‘official release’. Trial by fire and all that.

2.) We’ll get CW Phase 3, or whichever phase is next at this point, preceded by a pre-Steam map reset. Got to have a fresh start for the Steam folks, which is fine. Given that CW is apparently the new main line for Piranha’s development and is expected to carry the game on Steam, I can’t imagine they won’t kick out their next set of refinements for the mode before letting the Steam folks in.

3.) Assault 2.0, of course. The regular queue is awfully same-y, and while that actually works better for Steam players than it does for us – remember, these are the guys who’ve played how many straight years of CoD Team Deathmatch? – having that extra option will be a good bullet point for their game sales. That and it shouldn’t take too much to do, I don’t figure.

Now, at this point we’ve about hit the limit of what I think Piranha can do before Christmas given their general pace. NPE phase 1, CW phase 3, Assault phase 2. The first one is absolutely crucial and I’m pretty sure Piranha knows it. MWO will not stand on Steam with its current level of brick-to-your-face introduction or its extremely punishing and counterintuitive group play. Which, I suppose, is point four.

4.) They’re going to do something about the group queue. Nobody likes it, nobody uses it. People are either in CW or they’re in the solo queue because the current group queue is bad for literally everyone. It is actively detrimental for dragging a beer buddy or two into a quick few games with and if they want to play to the Steam crowd, they’re going to have to bite the bullet and irritate the big-unit folks. It sucks for those guys and I understand their woes, but Commodity Warfare was built from the ground up as a big-team mode. Piranha’s going to have to figure out a little-team playground if they want to work with Steam folks, and I figure they’re going to. Russ has never liked the current group queue set-up anyways.

Things I’d like to see happen for a better Steam reception, but which I think have low or null odds of actually happening.

1a.) Rewards 3.0. The current grind is unacceptable for the Steam crowd’s legendarily short attention span. If you want folks to stick with your game on a platform with thousands of alternatives available at the drop of a hat, you need to make the game feel worth their time. As it stands, the game barely feels worth the time of all the psychotically dedicated BT/MW diehards who are operating on 100% Premium Time uptime and who know the game well enough to milk the maximum rewards from it. Asking steam guys without a clue or a dime to stick with a system where they can’t earn the money the need for an iML in a single match? Yeah, not happening. Unfortunately I don’t see this making it in amongst the other things they need to do in order to make a December 15^th release.

(Side Note @Grind: is anyone else expecting MWO’s real-money pricing schemes to be universally laughed at uproariously when this game hits Steam? It’s making me feel awful about the money I’ve sunk into this game and it hasn’t even happened yet.)

2a.) Website/UI clean-up. The web page is woefully outdated and also difficult to navigate. The fact that there is no one-button navigation to the “Buy This Stuff” ‘Mech packs page truly boggles my mind. You can’t access ‘Mech pack purchases from inside the game itself, you need to buy them after digging to them indirectly from front-page scrolling announcement panels. That’s insane and it will cost them sales. The social integration in the in-game U.I is still incredibly rudimentary and nonconductive to finding people to play with, and we’ve all read the complaint threads over the U.I. 3.0 rollout. I do expect we’ll get a few adjustments to the latest U.I. in accordance with Tina whacking people with broomsticks over listening to community feedback – though we never did get that U.I. discussion thread she promised us, did we? – but a full-on U.I. overhaul and website clean-up?

If they could spare people to do that kind of crap, it would’ve been done a long, long time ago. They’re going to be “All Hands On Deck” just to get an NPE that isn’t actively humiliating for them in alongside CW 3 and Assault 2. Frankly I imagine even the folks they have modeling/making ‘Mechs, who ostensibly aren’t related to systems development, are being asked “How quickly do you think you could learn to write systems code? >_>” at this point. There will be a great deal of coffee drank and all-nighters pulled if Piranha wants this game to hit Steam in any decent shape whatsoever by Christmas.

Anyways. I think that hits on everything I can think of at the moment. Heh…lemme know what you figure, I suppose.

[DaZur]

Prediction?

Every butt-hurt, disenfranchised ex-MW:O player with a personal vendetta will clamor to provide extremely balanced and thoughtfully worded and unbiased review in the name of doing the community a "solid".

[Kristov Kerensky]

I think that no matter what PGI does, the Steam release will see a veritable ocean of horrible reviews, we have enough people who've been doing that to this game since it was CB to make that the ONLY sure bet. Most of them have been giving MWO bad reviews because they want it to fail, pure and simple, they've stated it openly more than a few times, and they have done everything they can to continue their campaign of bashing MWO across every website they can find.

The game has issues, that's a fact, but the poison being spread about it is unjustified, always has been unjustified, but that hasn't slow it down 1 bit. Just look at the SC forums for prime examples, people who clearly state they haven't touched MWO since it was still in CB spewing vitrolic statements left and right about how horrible MWO is currently.

Other than that, no idea what will happen, we'll have to wait and see what PGI gets done between now and the Steam release and judge based on that. Currently, this game isn't ready for Steam, lack of NPE being the prime problem.

[Johnny Z]

In light of the mass of currently half done, half baked, half hearted games on Steam currently and watching the crap being shoveled at E3 so far, Mechwarrior Online would have to be actively trying to under perform to present a bad game for Steam launch, this is of course assuming all the additions and featured hinted as upcoming are indeed in by then.

This game can be thankfull that players expectations have been lowered systematically for a while now, with the exception of a very few games coming up like Fallout 4 which was heavily trolled at the Bethesda expo by garbage games like Doom before anyone had a chance to even see what everyone was there for, which was of course Fallout 4(which does look amazing so far and im really pissed off about the trolling, that Bethesda spent the money they made on Fallout 3 on that garbage pisses me off even more lol).

That there will be a small army giving bad reviews consisting of competitor games players and staff and who knows from where else is a given. But in the void of good gaming that is currently the atmosphere maybe Mechwarrior Online reviews wont be to bad over all.

As a guess I think the Steam launch will be an interesting time for this game and I am looking forward to it. Again much of what is needed for a full AAA game is not in yet, but seeing how much is in by then will be interesting as a player.

Edited by Johnny Z, 15 June 2015 - 10:27 AM.

[Squirg]

Over the past week I tried to get some Steam friends of mine to try MWO. They quit after 1 day. Steam release is going to be a **** show if PGI doesn't make some real big changes to the NPE and F2P economy.

Also fix the goddamn custom lobbies so it's not a premium only thing, such ********.

[R Razor]

Kristov Kerensky, on 15 June 2015 - 10:00 AM, said:

<snip> I think that no matter what PGI does, the Steam release will see a veritable ocean of horrible reviews <snip>

To be fair, if a business advertises a product in advance as providing "X, Y and Z" and that will never have "R, S or T" in order to obtain funding (founders packages) that will allow them to continue the minimal development that they had completed to that point, then it is not at all unreasonable to express dissatisfaction through the publishing of bad reviews (as long as they are accurate and factual) about said business or product when they fail to deliver as advertised.

I'm fairly certain many people here remember the "That was our position at the time" comment, or the "You're on an island" comment.......and where is this "Thinking Mans Shooter" that we were promised?

Yes, MW:O is the best Battletech (loosely) based game on the market today, but again, being number 1 in a field of 1 isn't saying much. The game has MASSIVE potential, the developer just has to find the resources and willpower to realize that potential.

Personally, I'm not convinced that PGI has the resources and I often wonder if they have the willpower. I hope so, and so I stick around, but I don't fault people that didn't or won't stick around and I certainly won't make any statements indicating that they have no right to give this game a bad review, it's earned its share of them without a doubt.

Edited by R Razor, 15 June 2015 - 10:26 AM.

[Black Ivan]

Steam release will see many bad reviews about the state of the game and a massiv drive through of player which will carry a bad point of view of MW:O out into the net.

[FupDup]

I'm expecting what amounts to a glorified patch day.

[Sir Wulfrick]

Something I forgot to add to my first post: most, probably 90%, of the "reviews" on Steam are worthless nonsense such as (to paraphrase) "Killed 10 mechs, got killed, 10/10, would kill again."

What in the name of SANITY does that convey about the game? All reviews like the above convey is that the idiot who wrote it has an IQ less than their shoe size and thinks, very erroneously, that such drivel is in some way amusing to read. Steam "reviews" are, to a first approximation, utterly and completely meaningless and futile.

I'm hoping that people who eventually review MWO will do so in a thoughtful manner, but with the current state of most Steam "reviews" this is nothing more than wishful thinking.

[michaelius]

It'll be disaster if they don't do something about negative player experience you get when using trial machines against seasoned veterans in pug matches.

[Alan Davion]

There is also the whole "Steam Trading Card" community thing to worry about.

I don't know who exactly handles that, if it would be PGI, Steam, or both working to get that all to sync up.

There would have to be stuff for the achievements, the faction loyalty stuff, and good god all the mechs. Basic, Elite, Master, Heros, specials, such as (F), (P), (I) and ( R ), and whatever other letters they use from this point onward. Along with who knows what other stuff it could be used for.

I don't know much about how the trading cards work, as I'm always more concerned with playing the game, but I've heard that some people have managed to turn it into a business and make some fair coin off it. There's also collectors to consider. How will the (F) and (P) mechs be handled in that situation?

If the "Too bad, so sad" and "I was there, you should have been" attitudes from the Phoenix event were anything to go by, that will have an affect on new Steam players too.

[Rebas Kradd]

R Razor, on 15 June 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

To be fair, if a business advertises a product in advance as providing "X, Y and Z" and that will never have "R, S or T" in order to obtain funding (founders packages) that will allow them to continue the minimal development that they had completed to that point, then it is not at all unreasonable to express dissatisfaction...

Yes, it is. It is entirely unreasonable. For three reasons.

1) First of all, what they've expressed is not dissatisfaction, it's open libel. The complaints have gone beyond the quality of the game to misrepresentations of the company's history, unfounded accusations about their character, and undisguised attempts to sink it through negative word-of-mouth. Let's at least state the problem clearly before we discuss whether "dissatisfaction" is justified.

2) Many of the "R, S, and T"'s you mentioned refer to minor features that matter to diehard BT fans but won't mean two hoots to the average Steam gamer (and may actually be beneficial to them). People have literally tried to sink this developer over something as piddling as third-person view. And don't give me your "Butbutbut it's the principle of the thing!!" whining, people. It's a f***ing tertiary feature.

3) Game development is still ongoing. It was hindered by large-scale rewrites and backlogs, but we're coming out of that now, and it's still possible to see elements of the original vision restored. The critics operate under the unspoken assumption that development is over and that "minimum viable" means no more new features, and they've clung to that assumption through the release of the Clan mechs, every CW phase, VOIP, social tools, the new mechlab...

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 15 June 2015 - 11:58 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Thanks Rebas, I was trying to think of a polite way to respond to Razor and couldn't, mainly because I know the people who are doing this aren't actually being logical, sensible or open about their unending criticism, so it's hard to be polite with them.

As I said, hit the SC forums, people who state they haven't touched MWO since it was still in CB, before we had group drops no less, are constantly harping on how horrible MWO is RIGHT NOW IN IT'S CURRENT STATE! Nevermind that they actually have no clue about the current state, they feel the need to vilify it, to vilify PGI and IGP and anyone and everyone who doesn't share their outright hatred and loathing of all things MWO and PGI. THAT is who'll be writing the horrible reviews for MWO when it hits Steam, the same as they have been doing since CB, some even before we had that. They hit EVERY review of MWO out there and bash it, repeatedly, they have some weird twisted desire to see this game fail and don't make any bones about it.

That is the ONLY thing we can be certain will happen when this game hits Steam, the vitrol will flow like waves hitting a beach.

[R Razor]

Rebas Kradd, on 15 June 2015 - 11:57 AM, said:

Yes, it is. It is entirely unreasonable. For three reasons.

1) First of all, what they've expressed is not dissatisfaction, it's open libel. The complaints have gone beyond the quality of the game to misrepresentations of the company's history, unfounded accusations about their character, and undisguised attempts to sink it through negative word-of-mouth. Let's at least state the problem clearly before we discuss whether "dissatisfaction" is justified.

2) Many of the "R, S, and T"'s you mentioned refer to minor features that matter to diehard BT fans but won't mean two hoots to the average Steam gamer (and may actually be beneficial to them). People have literally tried to sink this developer over something as piddling as third-person view. And don't give me your "Butbutbut it's the principle of the thing!!" whining, people. It's a f***ing tertiary feature.

3) Game development is still ongoing. It was hindered by large-scale rewrites and backlogs, but we're coming out of that now, and it's still possible to see elements of the original vision restored. The critics operate under the unspoken assumption that development is over and that "minimum viable" means no more new features, and they've clung to that assumption through the release of the Clan mechs, every CW phase, VOIP, social tools, the new mechlab...

If the people reading the reviews aren't intelligent enough to differentiate between libelous claims and factual criticism then that's on them as far as I'm concerned.

As to the assertion that R, S and T only matter to diehard BT fans and not the average Steam Gamer, that is not at all relevant......a company stated that R, S, and T would NOT be included and people bought into the game under that assumption........the company then back pedaled and included some (or all depending on your point of view) of R, S, and T and it upset the very same folks that bought into the game because those weren't to be included. That in and of itself is deserving of negative reviews, and having the face of the company compound that reversal by insulting the customers just reinforces that fact.

I agree that development is ongoing, that is the primary reason I still play the game, that doesn't excuse past behavior however, nor is it an indicator that the game will EVER be what was advertised when it was first presented to the public. As I said, I question whether PGI has the resources or willpower to get it to that point. In any case, people are more than entitled to post their reviews of the product they bought in to (or even played for free although to a lesser extent I'd think) if they are dissatisfied. It is incumbent upon the individual reading those reviews to determine the veracity of them and give them the weight they do or do not deserve.

I have zero sympathy for anyone that lacks the ability to comprehend the written word and determine hyperbole from actual relevant data.

As to Mr. Kerensky's passive aggressive nonsense.........learn to read and comprehend the written word please. I am neither pro PGI nor con PGI, I am neutral on the entire matter...........I just believe folks have a right to report on the bad in the form of a review just as folks that love the game and think it's great have a right to report on the good in the form of a review.

Edited by R Razor, 15 June 2015 - 12:10 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

R Razor, on 15 June 2015 - 12:08 PM, said:

If the people reading the reviews aren't intelligent enough to differentiate between libelous claims and factual criticism then that's on them as far as I'm concerned.

As to the assertion that R, S and T only matter to diehard BT fans and not the average Steam Gamer, that is not at all relevant......a company stated that R, S, and T would NOT be included and people bought into the game under that assumption........the company then back pedaled and included some (or all depending on your point of view) of R, S, and T and it upset the very same folks that bought into the game because those weren't to be included. That in and of itself is deserving of negative reviews, and having the face of the company compound that reversal by insulting the customers just reinforces that fact.

I agree that development is ongoing, that is the primary reason I still play the game, that doesn't excuse past behavior however, nor is it an indicator that the game will EVER be what was advertised when it was first presented to the public. As I said, I question whether PGI has the resources or willpower to get it to that point. In any case, people are more than entitled to post their reviews of the product they bought in to (or even played for free although to a lesser extent I'd think) if they are dissatisfied. It is incumbent upon the individual reading those reviews to determine the veracity of them and give them the weight they do or do not deserve.

I have zero sympathy for anyone that lacks the ability to comprehend the written word and determine hyperbole from actual relevant data.

As to Mr. Kerensky's passive aggressive nonsense.........learn to read and comprehend the written word please. I am neither pro PGI nor con PGI, I am neutral on the entire matter...........I just believe folks have a right to report on the bad in the form of a review just as folks that love the game and think it's great have a right to report on the good in the form of a review.

That is just such an irresponsible attitude. "Truth is in the eye of the beholder, so let's just turn a blind eye to libel and not insist on a proper telling of the story."

If you meant something besides that, communicate better. Because that's sure what I got from reading your response.

[TWIAFU]

Antares102, on 15 June 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

I play MW because of good old BT TT and I enjoyed playing MW2 and MW3.
Other than that and aside from graphics MWO is worse then Tribes 2 which I used to play a lot.

MWO could also learn a few thing from Tribes 2 such as key combinations for predefined voice commands and requests.
This is really easy to implement and most MWO games would benefit from only need a few commands such as:
Regroup E5
Charge F6
Enemy spotted at F7
Focus target A
Retreat
Defend OGEN1
Defend OMEGA

All these things could easily be converted to key combination that play a certain sounds file.
It would also be user friendly and overcome language barriers because everybody could have localized versions of these sounds files.

So, add another tool that won't get used?

Why not just take Command and use the map to do most of that and VOIP, one of the tools not used, for the rest?

Hell, skip the map and just use VOIP.

[R Razor]

Rebas Kradd, on 15 June 2015 - 12:13 PM, said:

That is just such an irresponsible attitude. "Truth is in the eye of the beholder, so let's just turn a blind eye to libel and not insist on a proper telling of the story."

If you meant something besides that, communicate better. Because that's sure what I got from reading your response.

I mean that I see absolutely zero reason to complain about anyone posting a negative review, whether that review is factual in your opinion is irrelevant, it may be factual in the opinion of the person posting it. It is incumbent upon you, me and anyone else reading that negative review to form our own opinion of it, and if the review contains a bunch of libelous nonsense then it is up to us to be in possession of enough common sense and intelligence to see it for what it is. If either of us are too ignorant (or stupid) to see that then that is our fault and not the fault of the reviewer for posting what, to him, is an honest opinion of the game.

You have the same opportunity as I or anyone else does to post your own review......so if you do not believe the game is as "Bad Reviewer 9988" says it is, post your own as a counter point. You have every right to do that just as he has every right to post his (in your opinion) libelous bad review.

I hope that explains it better.

Edited by R Razor, 15 June 2015 - 12:19 PM.