81 replies to this topic

[Lyoto Machida]

Midax, on 24 June 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

My guess would be the resourses needed to run a test server cost money and they are tight on money.

Because the ignore almost all feedback. Why would they change?

Why would they change?

They won't because you all keep giving them money. Well, I chip in $30 here and there but no more mech packs, I swear!

[Mystere]

Rhazien, on 24 June 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

But what everyone is trying to say is that is EXACTLY what was agreed to by every single player by playing the game. It's in the ToU. It is completely ethical, because they advised us it could or would happen.

TWIAFU, on 24 June 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

We get that.

What your not getting is that you agreed to them doing it. You said it was OK.

Again, it is NOT unethical when you agreed to it.

DarthRevis, on 24 June 2015 - 12:37 PM, said:

Its not unethical when you agreed to it....

How many of you read each and every word of the license agreements from Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, etc. before using their products? How many of you then complain when they make changes to said products?

Edited by Mystere, 24 June 2015 - 03:58 PM.

[girl on fire]

Lord Perversor, on 24 June 2015 - 11:11 AM, said:

I'll just put it in short words.

It's a Multiplayer Online game.
Multiplayer Online games requires some balance along the whole options.
They mutate/change according to the FoTM or meta.

NOTHING will remain forever inmutable on this games, it's the ******* norm you can go check Starcraft 1 and 2 patch notes, Diablo 2 and 3 , LoL and Dota and hundred of similar games, something new is released it can be Op, up or even, and as the time passes and more things are released the Game Devs change them in an attempt to balance.

P.S: the only games it seems to find some kind of balanced are Stagnant gameplay ones Like Counterstrike as example.

I think the obvious counter point to that, if that is the case, then their new releases should come at an even level to their predecessors. I've never bought a mechpack so I can't speak to whether or not those mechs are objectively better, however, they are usually nerfed after some time... So that leads me to conclude that they probably are.

[Revis Volek]

Mystere, on 24 June 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

How many of you read each and every word of the license agreements from Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, etc. before using their products? How many of you then complain when they make changes to said products?

I don't read each and every word because most of it is implied and whats is not is usually written in bold somewhere, like special agreements and such. But i also don't complain, why would i? I may make suggestions or send feedback as to weather or not the change was beneficial or not. But complain? Na, that doesn't get anyone anywhere.

But you can bet you ass if they have a Customer Satisfaction Guarantee I will READ that to the full extent. Got out a cell phone contract because it didn't work at my house which broke their customer satisfaction agreement they made with me. So I got out for free and they had to take the loss on me. Which wasn't huge im sure...had the phone for about 3 months.

[-VooDoo-]

There are many reasons to change things when it comes to balance, no problem. My point is only that asking people to spend money then change that item is just wrong IMHO. Should learn from the mistake and move on. Or change the model but leave the purchased variants the way they are if they have the (I) tag or whatever. May be a pain in the ass, but would make the developer more conscience of delivering a functional product to begin with...and really, were not talking about mechs loaded with atom bombs that take out the whole enemy camps. Leaving them alone isn't going to destroy your game. Changing them globally won't either obviously but since people paid money for these illusionary objects it would be fair to leave them how you sold them.

Also, were not talking about pocket change here either. People have spent hundreds of dollars on the premise of certain functionality for these mechs. So change the C-bill versions if you like but when people spent an amount of money comparable to their monthly food bill on these packs...to me it's "ethical" and appropriate to leave them alone.

[Y E O N N E]

PGI never sold anything as one item and then changed it without also informing the customer that what they are buying is subject to ongoing changes and may be altered at their discretion. People had every opportunity to know what they were buying and there was thus no bait and switch. It's not even morally grey. The text I saw when I purchased the LCT-3V wasn't even obtuse.

You are not buying single products when you purchase 'Mechs, you are buying a stake in a dynamic service. You are purchasing access to an experience, like a movie ticket, and some of you people need to get that through your thick, neutronium skulls. Provide feedback on the balance, lack of communication, and overall satisfaction with the experience you've purchased, but there was no f*cking bait and switch.

Edit: redundant words.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 24 June 2015 - 06:26 PM.

[EgoSlayer]

Jazz Hands, on 24 June 2015 - 05:36 PM, said:

There are many reasons to change things when it comes to balance, no problem. My point is only that asking people to spend money then change that item is just wrong IMHO. Should learn from the mistake and move on. Or change the model but leave the purchased variants the way they are if they have the (I) tag or whatever. May be a pain in the ass, but would make the developer more conscience of delivering a functional product to begin with...and really, were not talking about mechs loaded with atom bombs that take out the whole enemy camps. Leaving them alone isn't going to destroy your game. Changing them globally won't either obviously but since people paid money for these illusionary objects it would be fair to leave them how you sold them.

Also, were not talking about pocket change here either. People have spent hundreds of dollars on the premise of certain functionality for these mechs. So change the C-bill versions if you like but when people spent an amount of money comparable to their monthly food bill on these packs...to me it's "ethical" and appropriate to leave them alone.

LOL. So by paying for a mech you should be entitled for it to be unchanged forever? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? That would create so many P2W train wrecks it isn't even funny.

Look, either you get that mechs need balance passes (good or bad) or you don't. You say you do. But then you say that PGI selling mechs that undergo balance passes are unethical. So they can't sell mechs without being unethical in your mind. So their number one income is cut off. Genius.

Then you propose something completely unethical (P2W) in that the people who pay have exclusive rights to locked content. Supra-Genius.

You sir are... confused on ethics at a minimum.

[Bobzilla]

Yeah I'm with everyone else, balance needs to be had, and the dragon slayer is now in a really good place from it being super OP with ppcs and ac5.

My point is, if they take 6+ months to years to tweak some thing, it isn't for balance.

[Lord Perversor]

girl on fire, on 24 June 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

I think the obvious counter point to that, if that is the case, then their new releases should come at an even level to their predecessors. I've never bought a mechpack so I can't speak to whether or not those mechs are objectively better, however, they are usually nerfed after some time... So that leads me to conclude that they probably are.

As i said not all releases become instant I-win options and sometimes ppl forget that Timber and Stormcrow came with Clan wave 1 and reigned uncontested even above the 4x Mechs from Clan Wave 2, now Clan Wave 3 has come and the Ebon Jaguar do not seems to be a new blatantly Op chassis in fact despite the Nerfs to the previous kings.


Also it's worth to notice that 100% of New Mech releases are Handycaped/bounded to a TT basis. Mostly related to shape and capabilities. While other balancing factors from TT are gone here (repair and rearm, weapon accesibility and Mech operational costs).

As always on online games the new releases are despite the previous experience of the developer a quite Hit and Miss, even if they believe something will be a strong addition to the game it may result not be a favoured option for most of the playerbase.

[InspectorG]

Jazz Hands, on 24 June 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

Think you guys are missing the heart of what I'm saying. I am not disputing your points, because they are valid. In any case, I'm not going to argue back and forth. Just expressing my thoughts from the point of view of every other business on the planet.


Cheers

Not all businesses are similar.

You really want to compare a Hedge Fund that uses HFT to MWO?
You wanna compare the Pharmaceutical industry with MWO?
Pro Sports?
Pop Music?
Fine Dining?
/ETC.

Also just how many variables are there in MWO to balance out?
Think you could balance them?

Only when a game like MWO balances out the meta is when its a finished product...which in today's market is likely when it goes under. At that point hope for a persistent server.

You pay to play rented properties. Technically they can manipulate it anyhow without any warning/reasoning.
View it like you are paying to watch a movie.

Was the entertainment worth your $ and time? If you keep coming back the answer is yes regardless of any 'bait and switch'.

MWO is FAR cheaper than my forays into M:tG and Yugioh 10 years ago. I still owe a mortgage on my soul for my Warhammer Army(if you EVER get into that abomination i recommend 'Paperhammer') and the paints ive used.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

I like how people keep comparing a video game to a goddamn car when it comes to the offense taken to certain balance changes.

[Great Pumpkin]

This is why I prefer buffing weak mechs rather than nerfing strong mechs, because no one will complain over a free upgrade.

Having said that, I can accept that nerfs may be neccesary for overall balance and playing experience. I only hope they nerf stuff based on metrics they have been collecting, rather than random whinning on the forums.

IMO, it is only unethical if Imba-Mech MkI got nerfed so more people will buy the soon to be released Imba-Mech MkII

[dezgra]

"I like turtles"

[Wildstreak]

Jazz Hands, on 24 June 2015 - 05:36 PM, said:

There are many reasons to change things when it comes to balance, no problem. My point is only that asking people to spend money then change that item is just wrong IMHO. Should learn from the mistake and move on. Or change the model but leave the purchased variants the way they are if they have the (I) tag or whatever. May be a pain in the ass, but would make the developer more conscience of delivering a functional product to begin with...and really, were not talking about mechs loaded with atom bombs that take out the whole enemy camps. Leaving them alone isn't going to destroy your game. Changing them globally won't either obviously but since people paid money for these illusionary objects it would be fair to leave them how you sold them.

Also, were not talking about pocket change here either. People have spent hundreds of dollars on the premise of certain functionality for these mechs. So change the C-bill versions if you like but when people spent an amount of money comparable to their monthly food bill on these packs...to me it's "ethical" and appropriate to leave them alone.

OK French princess, I hear the masses gathering at your gate for the revolt due to your proclimation about eating cake.

Lord Perversor, on 24 June 2015 - 08:39 PM, said:

As i said not all releases become instant I-win options and sometimes ppl forget that Timber and Stormcrow came with Clan wave 1 and reigned uncontested even above the 4x Mechs from Clan Wave 2, now Clan Wave 3 has come and the Ebon Jaguar do not seems to be a new blatantly Op chassis in fact despite the Nerfs to the previous kings.


Also it's worth to notice that 100% of New Mech releases are Handycaped/bounded to a TT basis. Mostly related to shape and capabilities. While other balancing factors from TT are gone here (repair and rearm, weapon accesibility and Mech operational costs).

As always on online games the new releases are despite the previous experience of the developer a quite Hit and Miss, even if they believe something will be a strong addition to the game it may result not be a favoured option for most of the playerbase.

How are Mechs handicapped by shape and capabilities to TT?
Shape had nothing to do with TT. The Awesome was no harder or easier to hit in TT, in previous MW titles it had different shaped models. Shape is due to modeling, they could be fixed yet nothing happens.
Capabilities?

[TWIAFU]

Catra Lanis, on 24 June 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

Just because something is legal does not mean that it can't be unethical, even deals you agree to can be unethical. Ethical or Unethical isn't dependant on those two things.

I buy the hammer of Victor Davion for X MC. Four months later it is nerfed into oblivion. Do they have the right to do it, yes absolutely. Did I know it could happen? Yes I did. Is it ethical? That depends.

Quite true.

However, who's sets the "ethics". You? Me? Someone else? Who's ethics do we have to follow? Who's ethics are more important then mine? Who settles conflict of ethics?

Like beauty, ethics are in the eye of the beholder.

We all here have agreed to play this game under PGI rules and "ethics". If we do not like them, we can choose to not follow them by not playing the game anymore. Stand up for "your" ethics. Put your money where your mouth is.

However, as we see, playing this game is more important then ethics. If ethics were an issue, honestly, they would not be here if they were ethically challenged by standard online business practices.

[TWIAFU]

EgoSlayer, on 24 June 2015 - 06:34 PM, said:

You sir are... confused on ethics at a minimum.

Shhh!

You might distract him from killing people online with discussion on ethics.

Balance changes to bought product with forewarning changes can/will happen - unethical.
Online mass killing - totally ethical.

[Mudhutwarrior]

The OPs argument may stand if you actually bought something. You didn't .

You bought use of an item at PGI's discretion. Read the fine print.

[Wronka]

I can only assume the OP is referring to the TBR and SCR nerfs. My issue is the mechs were clear cut overpowered before said nerfs. They dominated any scene and no other mech could really match them (even post nerf these mechs are still good IMO). You are only supporting P2W if you do not think new content should be altered if it turns out to be overpowered. And on the flip side, what about mechs that people buy that turn out to be crappy? Should we not alter those with a buff because its altering the original paid for product?

[Sjorpha]

If things needs balancing they should be balanced whether people "owns" them or not.

For my part I consider any improvements to balance an improvement of the product I bought, whether that change is a nerf or buff isn't relevant as long as it is making the game balance better.

[Lord Perversor]

Wildstreak, on 25 June 2015 - 04:27 AM, said:

OK French princess, I hear the masses gathering at your gate for the revolt due to your proclimation about eating cake.


How are Mechs handicapped by shape and capabilities to TT?
Shape had nothing to do with TT. The Awesome was no harder or easier to hit in TT, in previous MW titles it had different shaped models. Shape is due to modeling, they could be fixed yet nothing happens.
Capabilities?

That's what i mean Shape, hitbox, weapon placement, and even some movement archetypes (JJ usage) had literal 0 effect on TT since the rules was made for a whole game system.

Now in a live situation, where aiming and 3d physics are the system, all those aspects irrelevant on TT can become gamechanging on MWO.