39 replies to this topic

[Scout Derek]

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

[Felio]

Not listening? Most recently they reversed completely on their plan with the target lock laser thing. Changes to the voting screen are also coming, based on player feedback. The group queue weight restrictions were shaped by player suggestions. That's just the last few weeks.

[Duke ramulots]

Not even remotely applicable to this. PGI is not innovating new tech or anything on that level. They are making a game that is just plain bad and won't listen to any ideas of how to make it better.

[Malleus011]

If PGI had invited the IP and game system, this might have some merit. All they've done is a mediocre job of delivering on somebody else's IP. I don't think they're *ever* going to be able to tell us what we want.

[Bud Crue]

Not agreeing or disagreeing with the article but two things instantly pop into mind:

PGI aint Apple.
These forums are no more a focus group than the echo chamber of twitter.

Nonetheless, I see what you are trying to say with your post and I applaud the effort.

[SkyHammyr]

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.

Edited by SkyHammr, 13 November 2015 - 11:51 AM.

[MischiefSC]

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.

[Scout Derek]

Felio, on 13 November 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

Not listening? Most recently they reversed completely on their plan with the target lock laser thing. Changes to the voting screen are also coming, based on player feedback. The group queue weight restrictions were shaped by player suggestions. That's just the last few weeks.

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?

Duke ramulots, on 13 November 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

Not even remotely applicable to this. PGI is not innovating new tech or anything on that level. They are making a game that is just plain bad and won't listen to any ideas of how to make it better.

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.

[Scout Derek]

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

PGI is not Apple. Russ is not Steve Jobs.

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.

Oh, I know that PGI is not apple, and Russ Steve Jobs, I'm saying that they are trying to follow some of the things said within that article.

your talk on PTS is spot-on, couldn't agree more than that like I gave you on your opinion.

[Dolph Hoskins]

Nevermind, Not worth the words, delete at will.

Edited by The Ripper13, 13 November 2015 - 12:43 PM.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Felio, on 13 November 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

Not listening? Most recently they reversed completely on their plan with the target lock laser thing. Changes to the voting screen are also coming, based on player feedback. The group queue weight restrictions were shaped by player suggestions. That's just the last few weeks.

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

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.

I would like to remind that not long ago they actually went the road of "iterative changes" for a few patches and people were like "woot m8, dat buff too low, not change anything", and when they got to nerf some top tier mechs a bit, (mainly) timberwolf and stormcrow lovers went bat*** crazy how terrible PGI is and/or how they precious toys will be utterly destroyed and/or how they won't pay anymore and/or how they quit this terrible, doomed game. And that was the end of iterative changes.

Can't say I blame PGI for wanting to make one big rebalance swoop with one patch - since all balance changes bring whinefests, it is better to make it ONE giant whinefest and be done with it.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 13 November 2015 - 12:12 PM.

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

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

PGI is not Apple. Russ is not Steve Jobs.

Yeah I'd go more with Napoleon Dynamite.

Q. What are you going to do with MW:O today, Russ?

A. *sigh* Whatever I feel like I wanna do... GOSH!

[Felbombling]

I have come to the conclusion that the only good ideas are ones that PGI can put their own stamp on.

I really like Russ, and thank him for taking the gamble to make this game after the community had been without a MechWarrior title for a decade. He seems to be quite a nice guy, with passion to design a good game. I just wish he could recognize the shortcomings of the game and use some bold forethought when it comes to fixing the causes of the meta eras, rather than trying to snuff them out one by one with yet another layer of complexity.

[STEF_]

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

I'm sure you were joking while writing this

Right?

Please, tell us you were joking.



Please.

[Weeny Machine]

I think they are listening. This is great and I commend them for it. However, they move very slowly. The boring laser meta is still here and it seems it is going to last.

[FupDup]

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

That article from the OP said:

So, was Jobs right or not?

Many respected entrepreneurs would say that yes, he was right ... but only for the extremely unconventional and circumstantial situation that his company was in.

When the products that your company produces are so pivotal as to be creating or redefining their product categories, and your insights are backed up with an enormously expensive creative process populated by world-class designers, then yes, you’re making the right choice by following Jobs’ lead and ignoring the customer feedback pipeline.

If customers were asked to improve the music listening experience back in a day where CD players ruled, they likely couldn’t have envisioned the iPod. But then again, you probably aren’t producing the next iPod.

But the Jobs method cannot apply across the board to all companies, which becomes pretty apparent when analyzing the results of Apple practices being employed at less similar companies.

[Scout Derek]

Stefka Kerensky, on 13 November 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

I'm sure you were joking while writing this

Right?

Please, tell us you were joking.



Please.

I'm not.

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

I've only got 30,000 on my post count TYVM.

[TexAce]

Duke ramulots, on 13 November 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

Not even remotely applicable to this. PGI is not innovating new tech or anything on that level. They are making a game that is just plain bad and won't listen to any ideas of how to make it better.

Felio, on 13 November 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

Not listening? Most recently they reversed completely on their plan with the target lock laser thing. Changes to the voting screen are also coming, based on player feedback. The group queue weight restrictions were shaped by player suggestions. That's just the last few weeks.

lol

[Scout Derek]

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

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

I'm glad you found that part (and for reading), as the Jobs method was in use for sometime in MWO, whether we knew it or not.

Another Snippet I'd like to show as a point of interest is this one:

Quote

Do Customers Really Know What They Want?

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
–Henry Ford
A few weeks ago, when I wrote about how to implement smarter customer feedback systems, we touched on some of the data that shows customers face certain problems when they are asked to predict what they will want or use.

• Problem #1: As revealed in this research by management consultant Mark Healy, customers can be terrible at predicting their future intentions when asked via a survey or a similar form of feedback. This means that even though they may be responding truthfully, their future actions won’t always match their responses.
  
• Problem #2: No matter what businesses do to strengthen their survey methodology, sometimes customers are just going to lie in their responses.

In light of the case for innovation at the individual level, the problems with predicting customers’ intentions, and the potential lack of honesty in customer feedback … is there any point to listening to customers?