Jump to content

Well, That Round Table Went As Expected...


151 replies to this topic

#81 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,957 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 02 August 2016 - 12:38 PM

View PostDavegt27, on 02 August 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:


did you ever get an answer to this?

we can probably tell you from memory

I don't think any of the participants are one the forums

Pando box FRR
Mech the dane FRR
xavier MS
antonious rex MS (and another unit I forget)

Hrm... lemme see if I can find the log...

Here we go:
Full list is:
Russ Bullock
Neema Teymori
Derek James
Daeron "Bombadil"

... on the PGI side.

Then,
Shimmering Sword
Jman5
JagerXII
Queenblade
Pat Kell
Starwulfe
Bando Box
Aylward
Mech the Dane
Blue Duck
Antonius Rex
Xavier
Fission,
and Soaq.

No need for memory when NGNG posted the video to Youtube. Pat Kell was on this very thread early on, correcting people's nonsense - but he seems to have found better things to do faster than I did. Posted Image

Edited by Void Angel, 02 August 2016 - 12:44 PM.


#82 jd7710

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 79 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Locationmid atlantic

Posted 02 August 2016 - 12:52 PM

You want to inflict change on the game quickly? It is easy, just simply stop spending your real hard earned money on the game for a week. If that doesn't work then 2 weeks then 3 and so on. If PGI doesn't want to listen to the words of the ones writing their pay check then let them fail. On the other side if you as a player think you can come up with a better game then by all means go thru all the licensing and development and do it. Hell if it's good enough I'll throw money at it. Other wise this is what we have like it or not it's the only game in town. Literally

#83 Davegt27

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,010 posts
  • LocationCO

Posted 02 August 2016 - 01:00 PM

was any on the list solo "pug" or all in big units?

#84 Jables McBarty

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • LocationIn the backfield.

Posted 02 August 2016 - 01:19 PM

To be fair, Bombadil did say at one point on the Announcements thread that the conversation was going to be primarily about *eck* buckets.

And he did interrupt every 20 minutes or so to say "we know there are other issues that need to be addressed but for now the topic is buckets." So at least someone connected to PGI is aware of these things.

View PostKyrie, on 01 August 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

I can't help but beat this dead horse some more. I think I see it twitching. ;-)

What disturbed me about the event is that I did not get a clear sense that PGI understands what the problems are. Its like at some point the week prior the announcement of the round-table was made a PGI assistant walked up to Russ and said, "Hey Boss, no one is playing FP! We are wasting $1000s on idle servers! Something Must Be Done!" And lo, a round-table was called.

I believe PGI has a full-time community manager. It would only have taken a few hours of research to identify the key complaints about:
1) Existing mechanics
2) Absent mechanics
3) Lack of content.

Russ, upon calling for this round-table, should have been in a position to offer us a general address on FP in light of:
1) What PGI can do immediately
2) What PGI will do mid-term
3) What PGI hopes to do long-term.

And then get a discussion going in a series of round-tables down the road. I have no problem with PGI trying deal with Buckets, what concerns me is this lingering concern that there is no intention of really doing much beyond that.


And yeah, this is basic business practice 101--research, identify key points, lay out long- and short-term possibilities, then bring them before your stakeholders.

My first meeting for my first corporate job, as an entry-level tech writer, I didn't do this.

And I never made that mistake again.

But. But. Tina's largely overlooked Map Feedback Post might be a corrective to this previous failure. Perhaps the 50+ page Announcements thread plus the startling plebian outpouring at the Roundtable got the message across that there is research to be done.

View PostFallingAce, 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 waiting area.


FTFY.

#85 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,697 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 01:25 PM

So again, moving to a "Tukkayyid" environment is just closing FW completely and making it QP with new maps/modes.

If we go that route we should put the matchmaker in and have a group/solo queue split. No reason not to.

Maybe we do need to just give up on FW and accept that there will only be a slow, inevitable population decline and that MWO is never going to be anything but disposable QP matches.

Perhaps wanting a deeper gameplay, the whole FW concept, was unreasonable.

#86 Kyrie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,271 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 01:29 PM

If I had planned CW, I would have put 75% of the development time into what happens outside of the action-client, and 25% of the effort on the action-side changes.

I would have gone all out on creating structures with reusable content (social interaction tools, unit management tools, alliance tools, chain of command tools, house military units, supplies, supply lines, repair-rearm logic,... meaningful map, and a progression system based on military rank and house standing as two separate mechanics) and mass-adopted a lot of QP maps into the map-system.

PGI appears to have reversed the development priority, spending vast amounts of efforts on the maps that are mostly hated.

#87 RottenFoot

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Messenger
  • The Messenger
  • 32 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 01:53 PM

They did seem to spend allot of time and money on maps they cant/dont want to use for the actual Battletech side of MWO, which is CW/FW, and which was supposed to be the one massive thing for MWO.

#88 AssaultPig

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 907 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 03:56 PM

single world might be too limited a direction to go, but they definitely need to compress the playerbase in some way.

OTOH using tukayyid as a stand-in for the immediate future would address the queue issue.

#89 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,697 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 04:20 PM

Except there's generally only 1 or 2 worlds active now, people still leaving daily. Making that the standard expectation isn't going to being anyone back- just confirm it won't get better.

#90 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 02 August 2016 - 04:28 PM

View PostThe Real Rick Hunter, on 02 August 2016 - 07:57 AM, said:

great idea, yet if there is a longtom on that 1 que its over


FW would be over period.

I'm pondering whether to encourage this to happen. Russ/PGI would not understand otherwise (to the playerbase's detriment though).

#91 Baulven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 984 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 04:37 PM

View PostAssaultPig, on 02 August 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

single world might be too limited a direction to go, but they definitely need to compress the playerbase in some way.

OTOH using tukayyid as a stand-in for the immediate future would address the queue issue.


Well the idea is you start with one location. If you don't have a template to expand on the template needs to be created. Keeping one planet forever would be an unwise move, but if they need to restrict the action to get it right I would be ok with that in the short term. Hell everyone being on one centralized planet also fixes their "buckets" fetish.

#92 Pat Kell

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,187 posts
  • LocationSol, NA, Iowa

Posted 02 August 2016 - 09:39 PM

View PostKyrie, on 02 August 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

If I had planned CW, I would have put 75% of the development time into what happens outside of the action-client, and 25% of the effort on the action-side changes.

I would have gone all out on creating structures with reusable content (social interaction tools, unit management tools, alliance tools, chain of command tools, house military units, supplies, supply lines, repair-rearm logic,... meaningful map, and a progression system based on military rank and house standing as two separate mechanics) and mass-adopted a lot of QP maps into the map-system.

PGI appears to have reversed the development priority, spending vast amounts of efforts on the maps that are mostly hated.


How do you know that PGI didn't do this? How do you know that this is even possible with a company the size of PGI? I know I have no idea if it is or isn't and saying what should have been done is generally a whole hell of a lot easier than saying what is going to be done. I know there are programmers on these forums who may come on here and talk about how easy this or that would be but as I don't have any experience in that field, I have no real way to argue their points. I just know that people make this sound like it is such a simple thing to fix and I just don't believe it, and that's coming from years of experience of trying to fix things within my own job and few of them are easy fixes.

And Void, yea, I have been reading this thread but sometimes I find it's just best to let people vent

#93 Kyrie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,271 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 10:20 PM

View PostPat Kell, on 02 August 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

How do you know that PGI didn't do this? How do you know that this is even possible with a company the size of PGI? I know I have no idea if it is or isn't and saying what should have been done is generally a whole hell of a lot easier than saying what is going to be done. I know there are programmers on these forums who may come on here and talk about how easy this or that would be but as I don't have any experience in that field, I have no real way to argue their points. I just know that people make this sound like it is such a simple thing to fix and I just don't believe it, and that's coming from years of experience of trying to fix things within my own job and few of them are easy fixes.

And Void, yea, I have been reading this thread but sometimes I find it's just best to let people vent


I am fairly certain they didn't implement the features I listed. ;-)

I am also fairly certain they really did not put in the effort envisioned in my post based on what I have seen much smaller companies accomplish. While this reference is dated, one person basically wrote most of what was called then the "role-playing shell" back in 1991 or so for a game called "MPBT". I am fairly certain PGI has more than one programmer.

#94 Pat Kell

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,187 posts
  • LocationSol, NA, Iowa

Posted 02 August 2016 - 11:53 PM

View PostKyrie, on 02 August 2016 - 10:20 PM, said:


I am fairly certain they didn't implement the features I listed. ;-)

I am also fairly certain they really did not put in the effort envisioned in my post based on what I have seen much smaller companies accomplish. While this reference is dated, one person basically wrote most of what was called then the "role-playing shell" back in 1991 or so for a game called "MPBT". I am fairly certain PGI has more than one programmer.


"saying what should have been done is generally a whole hell of a lot easier than saying what is going to be done."

But if all of this is so easy to do and one person can accomplish so much, why hasn't it been done then? Will save you the time, as I am not really interested in that answer unless you have extensive knowledge into the inner workings of PGI as all other answers will be educated guesses at best.

#95 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,274 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 03 August 2016 - 12:11 AM

View PostKingCobra, on 31 July 2016 - 05:51 PM, said:

Posted Image

WTF is that ?

#96 p0rtal00

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 20 posts

Posted 03 August 2016 - 12:13 AM

just my 2 cents on this.

lowering the amount of buckets is not going to solve the problem.
stopping pugs getting stomped by premades is not going to solve the problem.
removing longtom is not going to solve the problem.

the biggest problem is that people do not want to play a gamemode that is inherently boring.
it is thoroughly boring. there are no additional objectives to destroy or hold for additional bonuses, there are no maps that encourage alternate attack lanes, they are all the same with different skins.

i am sorry to those that defend this gamemode but it's just rinse repeat, rinse repeat, rinse repeat and i myself find this is what is killing cw, fw, fp or whatever it's going to be called next. it just bores me to tears. i've just looked at the faction screen and it is empty even on weekends it is often empty, even 1 bucket will not solve the complete wasteland that i see.
better gamemodes, better maps, objective warfare on the battlefield not off will increase player participation not decreasing wait times to do the same thing over and over and over and bloody over again.

that is my view, you may disagree but if so at least try to be civil with those disagreements.


ps sorry for swearing.

Edited by p0rtal00, 03 August 2016 - 12:15 AM.


#97 Pat Kell

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,187 posts
  • LocationSol, NA, Iowa

Posted 03 August 2016 - 02:30 AM

View Postp0rtal00, on 03 August 2016 - 12:13 AM, said:

just my 2 cents on this.

lowering the amount of buckets is not going to solve the problem.
stopping pugs getting stomped by premades is not going to solve the problem.
removing longtom is not going to solve the problem.

the biggest problem is that people do not want to play a gamemode that is inherently boring.
it is thoroughly boring. there are no additional objectives to destroy or hold for additional bonuses, there are no maps that encourage alternate attack lanes, they are all the same with different skins.

i am sorry to those that defend this gamemode but it's just rinse repeat, rinse repeat, rinse repeat and i myself find this is what is killing cw, fw, fp or whatever it's going to be called next. it just bores me to tears. i've just looked at the faction screen and it is empty even on weekends it is often empty, even 1 bucket will not solve the complete wasteland that i see.
better gamemodes, better maps, objective warfare on the battlefield not off will increase player participation not decreasing wait times to do the same thing over and over and over and bloody over again.

that is my view, you may disagree but if so at least try to be civil with those disagreements.


ps sorry for swearing.


Ghost dropping is boring
Stomping pugs is boring
Playing with or against long tom is...well, it's funny at first and then it just gets boring.

Maybe reducing the buckets will help some. Some people enjoy playing this mode but if they can't get a match, they just give up. Not saying that there aren't other improvements that can be made but you have to start somewhere and if you are a small company like PGI, you have to be very careful about where you spend your hours. Not sure what else to say about this...

#98 Alienized

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 3,781 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 03 August 2016 - 03:02 AM

View PostPat Kell, on 03 August 2016 - 02:30 AM, said:

Ghost dropping is boring
Stomping pugs is boring
Playing with or against long tom is...well, it's funny at first and then it just gets boring.

Maybe reducing the buckets will help some. Some people enjoy playing this mode but if they can't get a match, they just give up. Not saying that there aren't other improvements that can be made but you have to start somewhere and if you are a small company like PGI, you have to be very careful about where you spend your hours. Not sure what else to say about this...


you cant say more than this.
alot of people are ignoring such things simply because they never been in such a position yet they claim to know everything about how it should work.

i wanna know how many people actually ran a company, beein responsible for people, getting bashed all time for good reasons sometimes but also alot of unnecessary things that made PGI going full fortress again.

everytime i step into battle im not sure if the players itself arent the biggest problems with their bloated ego's, narrow mindset thinking that they can just sit somewhere and never move, then cry about getting killed by a single locust for example.
you can try to teach them in battle what went wrong after you died but all that will happen is that you get a trollboot because you died first. logical reasons mentioned in chat for that death? thats just like trying to argue with a small kid that just doesnt know better >_>

because hey, only stats matter. kills matters. damage matters.

i loved the battles i had with proton few days ago in solo quick play. teaming up, thinking the same things, doing the same things.
not ignoring whats happening on the map, when to turn around, when to push. without saying a word. supporting each other.
not afraid to take damage as it is with too many others. not running away from the slower guys.

important things constantly beeing ignored by the majority of the players, no matter the tier they are in.
how should PGI fix such important things? they cant. and thats the biggest problem we have in this game.
PGI can change many things but they cant change the bad gameplay of too many players that also dont want to know more about how they can improve themselves first.

#99 metallio

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 196 posts

Posted 03 August 2016 - 07:29 AM

View PostAlienized, on 03 August 2016 - 03:02 AM, said:

i wanna know how many people actually ran a company, beein responsible for people, getting bashed all time for good reasons sometimes but also alot of unnecessary things that made PGI going full fortress again.


I've started and operated two small companies, maybe a dozen employees. Not astoundingly successful but they paid the bills and are still operating. I've been in the military in charge of troops and allocated a few million dollars worth of funding while handling forty jackasses who thought my brains were ****. I've written code and my current day job involves doing so...window's open right now while I screw off writing this.

PGI is making changes...I'm just not sure why they're making the changes they're making. If they have the capacity to create this game (and I'm starting to think they no longer have that capacity) then they've got the capacity to make significant changes and shouldn't be wasting resources on things like a new minimap unless it's vital to implementation of a larger change. I don't think it is and at best they're hyper focused on something they "think" they need to move on to larger structural changes. If they outsourced immense amounts of the work (I seem to recall some of that was done) and have a tiny core of programmers incapable of making major changes then there's really no point in making any plans for this game.

That said, the vast majority of the big structural changes in constructing a global economy aren't super intensive from a programming standpoint. The framework of this sort of thing is entirely invisible and is purely text and mathematics, no animation required and is mostly database work. Deciding what to do takes time, designing the overall concept takes time, but all of this is something done by tiny companies regularly making tiny games on Steam or other places. Even individuals (teenagers/college students/etc) fascinated with programming produce games with more depth than community warfare has right now. It's not the graphics that make the game, and (even if it was) MWO already has perfectly good "looks".

Play testing? They essentially don't do any.

I'm nonplussed trying to determine where they allocate their resources, which is why I'm thinking they're financially on the ropes and incapable of further significant development. I also think the few remaining employees aren't interested in further development and are either depressed/not functioning at a significant level or have turned their attention to outside work where they hope for a better return.

In any other company the level of work being performed on this game wouldn't acceptable. Years go by and your primary income driver is wasting away without even minimal work being performed? Some of the fixes here are the sort of thing you grab one employee, set them on it, and tell them to have it finished in a week or a month. The recent database change is one of those.

Hotfixes? That's ...honestly it's pretty simple most of the time. PGI manages that fine. It's not something you spend all day on.

Content? The mech production that drives their sales is something that's straight out of the literature. The development of the mechs from a graphics/animation standpoint is half done and copied from previous mechs already and if they can't whip one out pretty quickly at this point they really don't have any business being in the game at all. It's a flippin' skin.

Maps? If they don't have a map creation tool I'd be...well I'd assume they're lying. If they're overproducing the maps so they can't put any out in a reasonable time (how many maps over how many years? seriously?) or don't want to expand on what they've got that's a different issue...Pretty maps are nice, maps that don't play well are a bigger problem than ugly and CW maps are frikkin' ugly anyway.

They don't want to spend their time expanding this IP. They're spending their time micromanaging instead of developing. That bodes poorly for absolutely any enterprise anywhere. You grow or you die. MWO hasn't grown a damn bit in years...mech packs and the CW nonsense aside (neither of which show any significant signs of sinking resources into the IP). There has been some refinement, yes, but not enough to justify the time spent on it.

If this is their day job they'd be fired if they had an employer. If it's not their day job they need to step up and admit it so there's an excuse for how slowly anything gets done. If they just don't give a damn...eh.

#100 martian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,270 posts

Posted 03 August 2016 - 07:58 AM

View PostCathy, on 03 August 2016 - 12:11 AM, said:

WTF is that ?

SCB-9A Scarabus killing HUR-WO-R4L Huron Warrior.





6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users