151 replies to this topic

[AnTi90d]

FallingAce, on 31 July 2016 - 05:51 PM, said:

Imagine a restaurant owner asks you how to improve his business. You put time and effort into many suggestions about food quality, service, ambiance, prices etc.

Then when you finally sit down with the restaurant owner, all he wants to talk about is the arrangements of the chairs in the dining area.

I've had a boss like that in the past.

*key word* "had" - past tense

They ran their business into the ground.. which was very sad, as it started with a magnificent idea and a seemingly endless supply of passion.. veritably making money hand over fist.. at first..

Poor decisions have a way of causing a domino effect.

When you piss off and alienate one customer, you have not just lost that guy.. you've lost his friends, his family, his neighbors, his coworkers and strangers that he just happens to run in to or that overhear him talking of the subject.

Edited by AnTi90d, 31 July 2016 - 06:37 PM.

[Void Angel]

Nerdboard, on 31 July 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

I never said - and didnt intend to imply - that the community is or should be designing the game. And sure, there are different approaches to how to do such a discussion each with their pros and cons.
But PGI clearly implied this to be an open discussion... which is not exactly what it ended up to be. To my knowledge (not a direct source, so bear with me if its wrong) some of the participants didnt even know what the discussion would be about up until the point that the meeting started. Thats not a healthy concept.

Discussions of any kind are usually more efficient when the ground rules are clearly defined beforehand. That is the core feedback which I wanted to give with my statement... and I hope its not too much to ask for.

Ah, I see. I can understand that, but I don't think you picked up that what we all spectated wasn't the total of that discussion - they had a pretty lengthy "pre-discussion," from what I understood listening to their conversation. So what you're looking at isn't PGI channelizing the discussion onto a surprise subject (it's certainly not, as the goombahs above me suppose, as trivial a subject as "arranging the chairs in the dining room.") So while we didn't necessarily know what was being discussed, I think the panelists did. I could have misunderstood those comments, but that's what I came away with.

It's also not the only conversation we're going to have, and the people acting like it is, or positing "months later" for the next possible round of changes, are just willfully making negative assumptions: they're not concluding that they're unhappy with PGI's choices any more - they're using their dissatisfaction as a standard of evidence in order to reach conclusions. This is obviously not the correct thing to do, but since when has that stopped people from doing something?

In any case, I can definitely see the benefit of allowing the spectators, as well as the panelists, to come prepared for the subject of the discussion. Every little thing helps, after all.

[Bud Crue]

AnTi90d, on 31 July 2016 - 06:35 PM, said:

I've had a boss like that in the past.

*key word* "had" - past tense

They ran their business into the ground.. which was very sad, as it started with a magnificent idea and a seemingly endless supply of passion.. veritably making money hand over fist.. at first..

Poor decisions have a way of causing a domino effect.

When you piss off and alienate one customer, you have not just lost that guy.. you've lost his friends, his family, his neighbors, his coworkers and strangers that he just happens to run in to or that overhear him talking of the subject.

I see your point here, and I think a lot of frustration that the community directs at PGI is because we are in a worse situation than your restaurant's hypothetical customers. PGI has us over a barrel, as MWO is the only restaurant in town serving a meal of Battletech based Mechwarrior style combat. We can't go to a different restaurant to get that meal, and PGI knows it.

To my way of thinking: the more PGI pushes the generic aspects of the game (focus on faster games, with less variety of play, and more emphasis on meta play, aka: e-sports) and ignores what gives them their monopoly power (e.g. Battletech and Mechwarrior flavor and lore via their licenses with Microsoft et al), they are weakening their hold on their customers.

Going back to your restaurant metaphor: folks are already waiting for the new shop across the street to open up so they can get their BT/MW fix from HBS' turn based Battletech game. Some customers have even mentioned going and getting their mech combat style dinner at that nasty Heavy Gear Online franchise opening up the next block over.

Looking at FP, I get why they need to funnel to existing population into fewer buckets to make wait times more bearable, etc. But I really do think they need to get some of the Battletech flavor back into this "BattleTech game" pdq, if they want the fans of that universe to have any investment in this mode, otherwise folks might just chose to go hungry rather than keep eating this generic gruel that PGI is currently serving up. Sure it draws you in because it smells vaguely like Battletech and Mechwarrior, but it tastes an awful lot like generic stompy robot arena shooter game. I expect a better meal than that from such a quality establishment.

[Baulven]

Well three pages, no other suggested features or tuning to the original I suggested so we went far off the rails on purpose but that's ok. At least some sort of discussion is happening.

[Baulven]

Void Angel, on 31 July 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

Really? That's all you have? Yet another non sequitur conflating the "ease" of mechanically inputting a change with actually gathering data to make the change? Again ignoring everything that was said, and phrased as a straw man, to boot!

Hey, kids! It's time or Amateur Sophistry Hour with Baulven!

• step one; ignore what was actually said and throw up an unrelated factoid or objection.
  
• step two, be sure to do exactly what you were just scolded for, and put words in someone else's mouth (this is called "lying.")
  
• step three: wait for a response - any response, you're not going to really read it anyway.
  
• step four: profit! Or more likely just go back to step one after skimming for buzzwords.

At this point, we're not even having a conversation, here. You just skim whatever post you're "responding" to, and post some groundless claims, dishonest rhetoric, or uninspired sophistry. That was only impressive the first time it was done, and you do it poorly, anyway. Go back to Salt Island and soak your head - you can come back when you're not too delirious to hold conversations with people other than yourself.

Alright I will go ahead and dissect every point you have, since apparently I live on the island too. Let's begin.

First: Buckets. Reducing queues could help the game mode but it carries a huge footnote. That footnote is that it helps established players get matches quicker, it does nothing to entice new and former players back to the mode. A tutorial for new players would teach them how to drop gens, ovens and omega would make more people interested in the mode. All the bucket reduction will do is speed up queues, itself a good idea if we have people in the mode but quite simply it's not unusual to see next to no one in the game mode.

Further this will speed up skittles being fed to the unit grinder since there is no plan to also create a group and solo queue like quick play. So getting people to play the mode and KEEP playing (you know the important thing to the game mode, retention) won't occur because no one likes being stomped by a single wave of enemies.

Second: in your analogy of giving advice one premise is flawed. That business you would just go hand advice to didn't solicits it in the dirt place, which I exactly how the round table was billed. PGI said they wanted the round table to figure out the top issues in Faction Play, but what really happened is they walked in said "We already know what's best so we will talk about this, and don't want to hear anything else." This managed to help reinforce the April town help comment of "we know what's best and don't want to go hear anything from the community." If that's the case what was the point of the round table? A town hall would have wasted less people's time without blatantly ignoring the player base again.

Third: My example is based off what limited game production I myself have done. I am not a guru, or a SME when it comes to scripting and coding. I do know, however, that you can modify game information in five minutes in an xml file. It took months for PGI to accept that the player base had an issue with a mechanic and then token fix it. It still one shots mechs, it still turns planets into ghost drop central, and it still ruins the gameplay. So if they can't do a simple, give minute did to a terrible feature that a large portion of people now want removed the to horrible implementation, that doesn't bode well for either future iterations of features or improvements that will take more work hours.

Fourth: You may as well stop with all the personal attacks. This is the only time I will address them, and that is to simply say I will just flag then for deletion to an admin from here on out.

Fifth: So here we are. In a position much like before the round table, focusing on things that might help the current playerbase and not get new people interested in the mode. Reducing queues and ignoring player responses to long tom (which is pretty much entirely negative and either it needs fixed immediately or removed.) There is nothing that addresses the fun factor many people talk about when it comes to faction play, there is nothing to address the fact that long tom kills attack and defense queues, and there is no plan going forward to address they can't get people to start and continue in FP. SSDD.

[Lily from animove]

the real question is, WHAT SYSTEM can exist that makes groupplay interesting yet nor absolutely abused by LARGE organsied groups. because that will define if everyone cna have fun or just a few people.

make claimable planets limited so that also maller units can own some. A single lage unit taggin through the universe is just ruining the intention for many players.They already cause enouhg faction related imbalance.

[Baulven]

Lily from animove, on 01 August 2016 - 06:03 AM, said:

the real question is, WHAT SYSTEM can exist that makes groupplay interesting yet nor absolutely abused by LARGE organsied groups. because that will define if everyone cna have fun or just a few people.

make claimable planets limited so that also maller units can own some. A single lage unit taggin through the universe is just ruining the intention for many players.They already cause enouhg faction related imbalance.

Simple answer: solo and group queue, just like quickplay. Until pugs are no longer fed to the FP grinder it will continue.

Alternatively if it was made a persistent battle arena groups would be anchors with individual players being able to contribute. While it probably will never happen, it is fun to contemplate as you could have large, small and individual units working together and all contributing which would increase fun and increase replay value.

[Drunk Canuck]

Quote

Lily from animove, on 01 August 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

the real question is, WHAT SYSTEM can exist that makes groupplay interesting yet nor absolutely abused by LARGE organsied groups. because that will define if everyone cna have fun or just a few people.

make claimable planets limited so that also maller units can own some. A single lage unit taggin through the universe is just ruining the intention for many players.They already cause enouhg faction related imbalance.

I think, ultimately, this needs to be the goal. Smaller units (like 30-50) should be able to have as much of an impact as a unit that has 200 people. That was a failure on PGI's part. Speaking as a member of 228th, we have for a long time, had fairly high numbers. Doesn't mean we win every drop or take every planet. I think though that PGI needs to understand that smaller units need to have a chance as much as the larger units do. The whole system needs to not be about how many players you can drop on a planet to be honest. Total player wins, losses and the differential at which they won or lost drops should be factored into it and created into a total average for each unit, when ceasefire hits, the unit with the highest average would win the planet. Make it about player and team performance rather than about mass numbers, and you'd get a lot more units playing.

Edited by Drunk Canuck, 01 August 2016 - 08:04 AM.

[Void Angel]

Oh, it's "personal attacks," now? Go smurf yourself - objecting to your bad faith arguments and repeated fallacies is not "attacking you."

You're just going to insist on your own private version of events, aren't you? Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion - but not to their own facts. PGI's determining that buckets are the first thing of many that they want to discuss and fix is hardly arrogant (as your pet phrase "we know best" insinutates,) and a reasonable approach to fixing the problems we have. It doesn't matter how the situation came about; it doesn't matter if you think that they should have done it another way - it's still a reasonable decision to remove confounding variables before testing solutions to the core issues. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, to no effect.

Ditto for the difference between the mechanics of making a change and the process of deciding what change to make. You're not saying "this took too long to fix," you're saying "they can't even make this simple change in all these months, so how can they do something that requires more work hours." That's nonsensical: it's like saying "all you had to do was write three sentences of cleartext - why is it taking you so long to break this encryption?!" The two things aren't related in the way you're using them - but it lets you paint PGI as stupid and lazy in the same breath.

Repeating your errors with more verbosity doesn't add any credibility to your bad thought. I'm not objecting to your wrong opinions because you haven't used enough words to explain them; I'm not discounting those opinions because you haven't presented me with your putative credentials - I'm discounting them because they are wrong, being too contradictory to be true. You conflate unrelated processes, insinuate moral shortcomings on the part of PGI, and claim that the solutions are just so simple, if only PGI wasn't too incompetent, lazy, and venal to implement the obvious choices - you know, the ones you want.

Frankly, I get enough of this watching the Trump campaign.

[Zolaz]

You can say whatever you want here. Type till you are numb in the fingers. Russ is going to do what Russ is going to do. All of you act like he has done anything different. I dont know why you would get upset about anything going on over at MWO.

It is like playing in puggie queue and getting upset that you team is that bad. Surat going to surat and there is nothing you can do about it.

[JaxRiot]

Zolaz, on 01 August 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

You can say whatever you want here. Type till you are numb in the fingers. Russ is going to do what Russ is going to do. All of you act like he has done anything different. I dont know why you would get upset about anything going on over at MWO.

It is like playing in puggie queue and getting upset that you team is that bad. Surat going to surat and there is nothing you can do about it.

And on that note..

I wonder when they are going to announce what the actual changes are going to be.

Judging by the way the Round Table went, it was pretty clear that Russ had already made up his mind about reducing the buckets before it even started. Probably well before the Round Table was even announced

And Im pretty sure hes had his mind made up about a lot more than that for a while now.

Honestly I was kind of expecting something to be announced today (monday the 1st), because Im willing to bet that they already know/knew what they are/were going to do.

Thoughts?

[Hotthedd]

You can consolidate all of the buckets you want to, but if the bucket has huge holes in it, the end result will be the same.

[RottenFoot]

Longtom should be changed to EMP-bomb (electromagnetic pulse) which would shutdown mechs for a set time in said radius. This feature wont take away cbills from friends or foe, it will help fix the broken fw ques/buckets problems and it will also render the time spent on longtom till now, usefull

[AnTi90d]

Hotthedd, on 01 August 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

You can consolidate all of the buckets you want to, but if the bucket has huge holes in it, the end result will be the same.

Yep.. even if they stole everyone's buckets except one.. and covered that last bucket in bandaids..

..it would still be a leaky bucket. It doesn't solve any of the flaws inherent with the current systems. It's basically just a waste of time and effort.

[Baulven]

AnTi90d, on 01 August 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

Yep.. even if they stole everyone's buckets except one.. and covered that last bucket in bandaids..

..it would still be a leaky bucket. It doesn't solve any of the flaws inherent with the current systems. It's basically just a waste of time and effort.

Indeed. I can see why they want to do it (it's not going to be resource intensive on their end) but that doesn't magically make the mode run or enticing for people. It might bring back the tiny faction that complain on wait times, but since all the other major issues aren't going to be corrected for some time it will be a drop in the proverbial bucket.

[DaFrog]

Void Angel, on 31 July 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

What a load of horse crap. You're telling me you go into your local store and tell them what to do because "you're the customer?" Go try that, and see how it goes. The upshot of it all is that you seem to want to choose the direction of the game, even to the point of micromanaging discourse between the developers and players, because you're "the customer." This is asinine; it's game design by opinion poll, and it will not work. Listen to yourself! You're mad because they didn't clear the docket with you - because "we" didn't get to dictate which concerns were heard first? Because you didn't get to control the topic of this one meeting, during which we could not possibly have addressed all of the problematic issues with the game, suddenly now you're being misled?

And what's the difference between "buckets" and "concentration of the players waiting in queues for matches?" There isn't one - which leads me to doubt your internal honesty here, taken together with the utter nonsense you just babbled about being a "paying customer." You give lip service to the idea that "ultimately no side knows best," but that's all it is - lip service, and not very convincing at that. Your attitude and statements show very well that you think you know best, and that PGI and everyone else should agree with you. Which is why using "knowing best" as a pejorative is mush-headed and silly, but hey - par for the course.

Well yes,, I do tell business owners that I am not satisfied with their products. If they are serious they will listen and offer alternatives or solutions that are ACCEPTABLE for the consumer.

I bought a Gibson from a store in the USA. It arrived in Montreal and upon opening the parcel, realized that the guitar is messed up and will cost a few hundred dollars to fix. Seller agreed with me that he would either refund in total plus shipping, or cover the repairs.

The seller is happy because he left a good impression on a paying consumer. The consumer is happy because he is getting a good deal and being listend to.

So there you go, businesses who don't listen to their clientele go the way of the dodo...

[DaFrog]

@ Void angel

Hey, if you are so happy with this situation and the direction MWO is going, keep giving them money, don't let me stop you.

i am still sticking to my signature ...

[Void Angel]

Disagreeing with your wildly illogical criticisms and objecting to your hypocritical double standard hardly constitutes being "so happy" with the game, with the implication that I believe there are no problems and that everything is hunky dory. Real, reasonable opinions aren't so binary. No amount of faulty comparisons will justify your viewpoint. You're not asking for the repair of a pre-designed instrument - you're demanding that you be put in charge of the design of a game. More, that you are in charge of even the conversations about how that design should be changed.

It's the same tired conflation games that have been used for this argument since the founding of Salt Island back in the day: "doing what I wanted" becomes "listening;" "clients" becomes "customers;" "making decisions without permission" becomes paternalistically thinking "I know best;" the list goes on.

[DaFrog]

Void Angel, on 01 August 2016 - 05:20 PM, said:

Disagreeing with your wildly illogical criticisms and objecting to your hypocritical double standard hardly constitutes being "so happy" with the game, with the implication that I believe there are no problems and that everything is hunky dory. Real, reasonable opinions aren't so binary. No amount of faulty comparisons will justify your viewpoint. You're not asking for the repair of a pre-designed instrument - you're demanding that you be put in charge of the design of a game. More, that you are in charge of even the conversations about how that design should be changed.

It's the same tired conflation games that have been used for this argument since the founding of Salt Island back in the day: "doing what I wanted" becomes "listening;" "clients" becomes "customers;" "making decisions without permission" becomes paternalistically thinking "I know best;" the list goes on.

Void Angel, again you resort to the american way of debating: can't argue, so therefore I will discredit.
Don't know if you are american or not, but it is their way of trying to win debates when out of arguments.

I will not respond to your personal insults because I do not care a single iota about you.

Know this: PGI seem to think they are Apple Computers post 1996, trying to raise the Phoenix from near death. how will they do that now that Steam is running out of ... steam ? App store for Ipads ? MWO for cell phone ?

Their only solution is retaining whatever there is left of the clientele. I might be salty, but the main issue is there are a lot more salty customers then there are happy ones.

The clientele didn't think of nuke Long tom, PGI did.
The clientele didn't think of removing all physical aspects of mech to mech contacts ( Dragon bowling ). PGI did.
The clientele didn't think of making a $100k MWO tourney where a dropship load of teams bailed out due to unrealistic schedule. PGI did.
I could go on but I will finish with this: PGI shot itself in the foot the minute they decided to make cash only mechs available for c-bills 2 months after their release. If a customer knows something will always come at a discount at a later time, he/she will simply wait for that discount to take place. Companies and businesses who have a model based on limited edition, limited stock and hi demand vs offer know they should never ever ever sell the same thing later on at a much reduced price. That is not savvy. Some things should have been only available for US dollars purchase, never put to c-bills. The years have proven that the mechs that sold for the highest price are not that much better than the lowest grunt any way so the pay to win argument is void.

Edited by DaFrog, 01 August 2016 - 06:21 PM.

[Carl Vickers]

If PGI left those pay real cash for mech as only pay real cash for mech they would be facing cries of pay 2 win.

They have done that correctly, people still buy them pre-order or when they first come out so they still win.

Some of their other decisions like LT are bad but not every company makes every choice a correct one.

You are the last person who should be talking about correct choices, seeing as you eject when you come up against a 12 man, no credibility there at all.