39 replies to this topic

[AdamBaines]

MischiefSC, on 13 November 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:

PGI is not Apple. Russ is not Steve Jobs. However, I agree completely that you don't let customers drive the direction of your development. We've shown quite clearly that we can't be trusted to make smart decisions. People don't like change. They say they want change but you show them change and they respond negatively as a given rule. They especially don't like things that deviate from what they're used to - until they get used to them. I think the PTS is a good general solution, the biggest problem is that people asked for iterative changes but nobody seems to really understand what that means. Every PTS comes out with some general concepts or basic changes or iterative testing opportunity of a couple things and people think that's the end product. There's some bright people in the community but as a given rule I don't think we're up for being involved realistically in the games development or balancing. However throwing stuff at us to take our emotional temperature and make us at least feel like we've got some influence seems to work.

+ 100

[Mawai]

"We’ve seen how the executive at Cirque du Soleil, another highly creative industry, has stated that understanding your customers’ wants is a pivotal part of growing your business—but doesn’t have to restrict your innovation."

The problem with the MWO community is that different parts want different things. Some would like a game that is as close to a simulation as possible. Others would like something more like a first person shooter. Some people want community warfare, others want PVE and another group wants a competitive league with leaderboards like an esport.

PGI wants to make enough money to keep the game going and support development and the people who have invested their time and effort working on the project. They want enough players to make the game viable and enough spending to support it ... probably mostly through the sale of mechs. PGI is also a small company. Their development staff is on the order of six engineers covering game client code, server code, systems and UI (at least it used to be six ... some have left and PGI claims to be hiring so it is hard to say how many it is currently).

However, one thing most can agree on is that they would like to see a somewhat longer time to kill and a better balance for weaponry ... ballistics vs missiles vs energy and clan vs IS. This is probably the single biggest problem facing PGI at the moment with a steam release imminent. They need to get the balance and time to kill reasonably correct or there may well be a negative reaction from both current and future players.

Anyway, PGI shows very little evidence of listening to customers. Except perhaps those who yell the loudest on twitter. Unfortunately, understanding and delivering on at least the minimum expectations of the majority of your customer base is a requirement for success of the game in general. I have no confidence at the moment that PGI even has a good idea of what those minimum expectations might be ..

[AlphaToaster]

In this context, Apple customers had no prior experience as a whole, with say, developing iPads or iPods. In PGI's case, this community has vast experience with other MechWarrior games and we know what we like in each past title.

What I see is PGI backed into a corner. They are definitely not taking balance ideas from the community, because most of the changes I've seen have nothing to do with the many good suggestions I've seen posted here. It's as if they read the suggestion posts and then write stuff down on a list of "DO NOT DO THIS".

Seriously how hard would it be to toss a build on PTR with someone from the community's proposed changes for a week and collect feedback on what people liked and didn't like about it. My guess is politically it's extremely hard, thought it might not be hard to do it technically if we're talking some changes to the .xml and not core changes to systems interacting.

You would have a person on staff in charge of balance, essentially being sidelined to let someone else try, and if this person has any political pull in the office, it just won't happen. The game will be driven into the ground first to save face, particularly if the office views it as that persons game to destroy in the first place.

Edited by AlphaToaster, 13 November 2015 - 03:46 PM.

[Chuanhao]

for almost every issue, there are recommendations on opposing ends of the spectrum.

PGI just has to decide what is the best combination of features and move forward. They have the stats. They know what features work at the macro level, and what does not.

It is ironic, but it was lore that brought them to the game, but it is also lore that is hampering its progress.

So you have to balance core game mechanics, then balance between adherence to lore or not. Not easy.

I always thought that balancing mechanics like multi shot ACs for clans was a somewhat innovative and plausible trade off for the weight and crit advantage. There are probably many other things not yet fully balance. Things take time. And is it actually possible to balance with "lore" Hovering over all major decisions

I will just play and contribute critically rather than in an antagonistic manner. And when finally it doesn't work, just fade into the sunset

[MischiefSC]

The point though isn't about innovation -

it's pointing out that there really isn't any success stories about companies that did what their customers said they wanted in focus groups and forums and such.

Because that doesn't generally directly relate to success. Just stagnation. The problem of course is that innovation is inherently risky and for every success story you'll have dozens of failures. Successful innovation in any business is more about persistence than taking the customers emotional temperature.

You always do want to get a feel for how people felt about their recent experiences. That's always important. It doesn't directly drive development though, not successfully. Mining that data for what was successful and applying that to a whole new concept, that's the secret sauce.

The approach of tying weapon performance to IW is an excellent one. Not something anyone asked for directly but if you did what we asked for directly you'd just give us the game we already have with mild regular stat tweaks. The bigger issue is getting people to accept change without filling their diaper. Vocally.

[Zordicron]

MischiefSC, on 13 November 2015 - 07:46 PM, said:

The point though isn't about innovation -

it's pointing out that there really isn't any success stories about companies that did what their customers said they wanted in focus groups and forums and such.

Because that doesn't generally directly relate to success. Just stagnation. The problem of course is that innovation is inherently risky and for every success story you'll have dozens of failures. Successful innovation in any business is more about persistence than taking the customers emotional temperature.

You always do want to get a feel for how people felt about their recent experiences. That's always important. It doesn't directly drive development though, not successfully. Mining that data for what was successful and applying that to a whole new concept, that's the secret sauce.

The approach of tying weapon performance to IW is an excellent one. Not something anyone asked for directly but if you did what we asked for directly you'd just give us the game we already have with mild regular stat tweaks. The bigger issue is getting people to accept change without filling their diaper. Vocally.

I get this...

but you know, the answers for thisgame probably have been in these forums all along.

The REAL trick is, picking the right customer to listen to. PGI, hasn't. Alternatively, PGI could have used the entire playerbase as a think tank, and then, using their own design goals, hand picked some ideas to utilize.

PGI, like many, many, MANY companies, has leadership that feels they know more then anyone else about their situation and product. This situation CAN WORK, but only IF the product is so new and otherwise difficult to understand that people will just accept what is handed to them provided it is handed to them in a reasonable way. Like Steve jobs etc.

Problem is, PGI didn;t invent battletech, and I am 100% certain there are thousands of people out there that know more about it then Russ and crew do. If you are going to make a product to sell to people that know more about it then you do, you kinda can;t just ignore them all and say "no i know better"

For example:
I am going to make a flying car. A ******* flying car. You gonna tell me I am doing it wrong? You going to show me how to do it right then? Course not. Who is? Like one or two other guys that can wrap their head around it?
Now I am going to make a Bean Bag chair. Suddenly, there is a WHOLE SHITLOAD more people that have valid opinions on how to make a BAG FULL OF STUFF TO SIT ON. because, they already exist, thousands of people have already used them, etc.

It's a battletech game. there have actually been a lot of games about battletech before this one. It stands to reason, SOME ONE out here, is going to have some pretty good ideas on how a Battletech game can work. Russ and crew ignoring all these people out here 100%, is how we get wierd mechanics and 60 point, pinpoint point and click alpha strikes that you can fire enough times to kill a DWF before overheating, in a 100% human input controlled team deathmatch game with enough team members to split into 4 groups and alpha 4 targets to death instantly at once.

As I said, the real trick is picking who to listen to, or just taking it all in and letting the info stew and making some logical choices based on feedback.

Players SHOULD NOT be running the game. there are too many stupid ones. Players SHOULD be giving feedback and PGI SHOULD be able to take it and sort it out and create a service for a bunch of people that already love Battletech. The product would sell itself if it was a product that resembled what a pre-existing customer base wanted. Just like a beanbag chair. you take enough feedback in about design stuff about what a huge existing customer base likes, and it's pretty ******* hard to mess up a beanbag chair to sell them if they wanted one.

but here we are, with a beanbag chair. Too bad it's too small for most customers and filled with lava rocks. At least it looks like a beanbag chair. PUSH THAT INNOVATION!! CUSTOMERS ARE STUPID!!

OR

Take some feedback on our lavarock sack and pick out some logical stuff and try to improve the product, try to get it back into something that resembles what the existing customer base was looking for. If you let the customers vote on it, you will have a mess. If you ask one of your 5 closest pals with "beanbag university diplomas"(which are actually fake to boot) you will make changes that just further alienate your customers. If you look at the feedback of the actual large customer base as a whole, and look for patterns and have half a clue, you should be able to do it.

So far, we have had a little of all 3, but the second one there, thats what REALLY messed up what could have been for MWO. PGI picked a couple pals and decided they were the experts. they picked wrong, and now we are getting a mix of a vote and a Steve jobs method, and it's got a lot of people frustrated and wondering where MWO is headed.

[MechWarrior3671771]

Thanks for posting the link. I was trying to wrap my head around "what could they be thinking?"

The article reminds me of Russ's remark last town hall, something close to "you ask for complexity, we work our tails off to provide it, you exploit flaws to find the simplest shortcut around said complexity" <head desk> <head desk> <head desk>

Now that I am being forced by the playerbase to play Cold Skirmish 10 times in a row, I get it. I really do.

Uncle.

[Scar Glamour]

This piece comes to mind...

Spoiler

http://assets.amuniv...e81001dd8b71c47

Edited by Winterburn, 13 November 2015 - 10:17 PM.

[Zordicron]

Fenrisulvyn, on 13 November 2015 - 09:49 PM, said:

Thanks for posting the link. I was trying to wrap my head around "what could they be thinking?"

The article reminds me of Russ's remark last town hall, something close to "you ask for complexity, we work our tails off to provide it, you exploit flaws to find the simplest shortcut around said complexity" <head desk> <head desk> <head desk>

Now that I am being forced by the playerbase to play Cold Skirmish 10 times in a row, I get it. I really do.

Uncle.

yeah but.... people here aren;t asking for complexity. NEVER. In fact, it is one of the biggest criticisms of how they approach balance choices. Ghost heat for example, was largely seen as an overly complicated fancy solution to a problem that required a simple and elegant one. People find loopholes around there complexity, BECAUSE IT IS COMPLEX and in doing so made it hard to catch all the loopholes.

it's a self fulfilling thing really, the more extravegant the solution, the harder it is to modify to catch an oversight. Russ/paul listen to the wrong people, and get the results they do, then react by shutting out the playerbase because of it.

[John Archer]

Lack of having a life?

[Sarlic]

One thing will change for sure: That's the Community.

No more old farts BT/MW lovers. But the COD derps and younger generation. They have no clue what happened in the past and present.

New Community will be born.

Edited by Sarlic, 14 November 2015 - 02:25 AM.

[Yosharian]

Scout Derek, on 13 November 2015 - 11:41 AM, said:

Obviously there's a reason PGI is not listening. No, it's not because of P2W or because they want to "Kill the game" or that they want to make as much money as they can.

Rather, they're following this example here.

Read it a bit, it's quite interesting and helpful to what PGI is doing exactly, or what's going on.

Now, I gave the food, now I need some of your thoughts

Big difference between doing everything your customers ask for and taking in constructive feedback that's actually really well-constructed and argued.

[Viges]

[Viges]

SkyHammr, on 13 November 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

A lot of people like to think they know what they're doing.
They feel that since they've been here since closed beta, see that "1" under their name, got a 8,986,653,564 post count or spent $20 on a mech pack they actually know how to design a game.

They don't.
Because if they did, we'd all be on their game forums b*tching about their game.

Do you think that sportsmen for example create their own equipment? Or professional racers build their cars, or shooters their guns, or medics their stuff or anyone else and they don't know what they need?

Gamers DO know better how to PLAY games and what games they need, not how to CREATE such games.

[Viges]

Sarlic, on 14 November 2015 - 02:22 AM, said:

One thing will change for sure: That's the Community.

No more old farts BT/MW lovers. But the COD derps and younger generation. They have no clue what happened in the past and present.

New Community will be born.

I don't think so. More like the old community will be over (at last! ) and there will be no new one, because CS (why cod lol, it's online gaming) derps will not stay here for long. Look at hawken.

[Zibmo]

Scout Derek, on 13 November 2015 - 11:53 AM, said:

But have they taken it to a larger extent?

Have you information on how they're going to balance Origins IIC?

Or how about the Steam release?


In fact it is, we are talking about products here, are we not? We are not talking about tech here. You didn't read the article then, as the article clearly states this:

"Why Steve Jobs Didn't Listen to His Customers"

Please read it again, this time thoroughly.

I read it. Jobs was a misanthropic narcissistic genius who, despite the glowing eulogies, did NOT do everything right, nor did everything he touched turn to gold (sorry, hagiographies bug me). Are you saying Russ and or Paul are the same?

A molly bolt is a product designed by a genius. The Mac was a product designed by a genius. Is MWO a product designed by one or more?

The comparison simply doesn't fit.

[Hotthedd]

The thing is, PGI WAS listening to feedback and advice.

Unfortunately it is mostly advice from the Twitterverse, which may or may not be from people who have actually played the game. 3PV ring a bell?

I mean, for over 5000 active players to be "on an island", they HAD to be listening to SOMEBODY, right?

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 13 November 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

Here's a key passage towards the end to consider:

The key part is actually looking @ Russ's previous accomplishments in his previous games... prior to MWO, before we can even remotely do these insane comparisons to someone like Steve Jobs. The thing is, Steve Jobs made tons of blunders in the early days of Apple just as well. The difference is that he went through his own set of iterative changes to get better. For Russ and MWO... I wouldn't say anything has changed relative to game design.

TL;DR

Did anyone actually look @ PGI's previous games? There's more than the ones listed on their wiki page after all.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 November 2015 - 01:08 PM.

[Sarlic]

Deathlike, on 14 November 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

The key part is actually looking @ Russ's previous accomplishments in his previous games... prior to MWO, before we can even remotely do these insane comparisons to someone like Steve Jobs. The thing is, Steve Jobs made tons of blunders in the early days of Apple just as well. The difference is that he went through his own set of iterative changes to get better. For Russ and MWO... I wouldn't say anything has changed relative to game design.

TL;DR

Did anyone actually look @ PGI's previous games? There's more than the ones listed on their wiki page after all.

As long these guys are behind the wheel i ain't coming back.

PTS changes 'look good' and some edits does make sense. But we all know these are just relative 'simple' XML edits.
The hitbox reworks of some mechs are finally happening but i see no mention of the rescale program.

So many mechs need a rescale. A hitbox rework aint going to cut it. It's like on reverse.

But when it comes by releasing real content and mechs where balance is involved they always manage to screw something up. In my opinion they are too in-inexperienced to hold the franchise. Why would you work with guys who came up with ghost heat and laser range locks? They're learning but awfully slow while the Community is trying to throw bones at them all along.

They pick something and throw their own sauce on it and present it as awesome, new and promising. While we, us, them - delusional mechwarrior addicts throwing the money at them they need to continue producing the same derpsauce and battle with the cheese for the next years.

What if i threw a wild squirrel and say it's progressing 'trying' to make eat nuts out of my hands.

Edited by Sarlic, 14 November 2015 - 01:29 PM.

[Xetelian]

Viges, on 14 November 2015 - 02:40 AM, said:

This thread...