127 replies to this topic

[Carl Vickers]

As far as Im concerned, FW is basically dead.

No real 'game play' development changes, which is what is needed the most in this mode of play, is happening or is going to happen cause this mode is not the e-sports mode that Russ wants MWO to be.

Yeah they have released a few 'new' maps in the last couple of years, but with the same tired old game style of play, choke point warrior. There is no creativity put into map design for a good fight, just make something purrdy, slap some gates on for access, some stoopid generators for people to shoot to open said gates and in we rush. YAY

It would take PGI a number of years to even flesh out how to make better maps for FW, let alone implement something with the kind of immersion that we are all looking for cause as I said before, it is not the core of what Russ wants MWO to be.

TBH, at this point im out of MWO for good, I cant see this game and game mode going anywhere and it is a big shame, soo much wasted potential due to half assed development.

Edited by Carl Vickers, 28 August 2016 - 10:51 PM.

[Void Angel]

Deathlike, on 28 August 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:

The crux of the problem is whether or not PGI is "man enough" to accept that their designs and implementations are flawed, and they are kidding themselves if they thing merging the buckets is the only solution. [emphasis added]

MischiefSC, on 28 August 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:

To say that development of CW (now FW) has been 'slow' is incredibly, absurdly disingenuous.... That we've now got PGI willing to talk to us about 'buckets', which absolutely is not and never was the real issue (if there was game worth playing in FW people would be playing it and population problems would solve themselves) isn't a sign of their attention or focus. [emphasis added]

You want "disingenuous?" I have two examples right here. Merging buckets was never pitched as a solution - it was pitched as a first step that was easy to implement. It's a bandaid fix to give us enough of a match flow to test the real fixes. I even pointed this out in the fracking post you quoted, but here you both are, making a demonstrably false claim. Again. Facts just... bounce off. Over and over and over again, facts just... bounce. You've got a long, long memory about things which support your position, but you can't remember a correction to one of your assumptions for the time it takes you to respond to a post. You know, I went out of my way to point out that the post covered a broader audience than either of you; I even used inclusive pronouns. Apparently you still saw yourselves - and decided to justify it.

And that's stupid; it's seriously incompetent on your part, if you seriously want to convince even a neutral audience - much less a "possibly" defensive game development staff. Your approach to facts has led you to embarrass yourselves by holding a completely false position - that PGI thinks only buckets are the problem. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts; so you have a choice to make. You can fix your epistemological issues and start giving feedback on issues that actually exist, disciplining yourselves to make those pitches in a manner that might not alienate your audience from the get-go; or else you can make complaints based on known falsehoods and be mad when your audience doesn't take your "advice."

I'd recommend the grown-up thing, but you'll have to make your own choice. Either way, I'm done here.

[Deathlike]

Void Angel, on 29 August 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

You want "disingenuous?" I have two examples right here. Merging buckets was never pitched as a solution - it was pitched as a first step that was easy to implement. It's a bandaid fix to give us enough of a match flow to test the real fixes. I even pointed this out in the fracking post you quoted, but here you both are, making a demonstrably false claim. Again. Facts just... bounce off. Over and over and over again, facts just... bounce. You've got a long, long memory about things which support your position, but you can't remember a correction to one of your assumptions for the time it takes you to respond to a post. You know, I went out of my way to point out that the post covered a broader audience than either of you; I even used inclusive pronouns. Apparently you still saw yourselves - and decided to justify it.

Technically it was pitched as a solution. There was a specific FW event to test out the idea in fact. This combined with some of the opinions of NGNG to have it set as Clan vs IS (you can pour through NGNG/Outreach as you'd like) because it that's what some of them felt.

I specifically mentioned about Phase 1 and the population issue. It didn't exist there for bulk of it. I was totally a part of Phase 1 on both sides (Clan and IS) and that fundamentally wasn't a problem.

What did exist as a problem however is having multiple buckets... attack/defense lanes that were never populated... which comes with having too many options. The simplification of the lanes helped since you can only field as attacks/defenses that opponents were willing to show up for. If any one faction... say Kurita, had every possible attack lane to every faction AND had the greatest active FW population... then that would probably be counterproductive (you don't want significant faction stacking either). It was still unrealistic to win all of the attack/defense lanes unless you were Mercstar, with something like reasonable 2-3 factions to attack+defend against at most.


Anyways, you were ignoring the core question... what is the plan outside of "merging the buckets" for FW? When is the next FW Round Table? Once you have have actual answers to that, then we can actually see progress.

You're only talking too much on the semantics of the argument, not the actual core argument that actually has to be addressed.

Quote

And that's stupid; it's seriously incompetent on your part, if you seriously want to convince even a neutral audience - much less a "possibly" defensive game development staff. Your approach to facts has led you to embarrass yourselves by holding a completely false position - that PGI thinks only buckets are the problem. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts; so you have a choice to make. You can fix your epistemological issues and start giving feedback on issues that actually exist, disciplining yourselves to make those pitches in a manner that might not alienate your audience from the get-go; or else you can make complaints based on known falsehoods and be mad when your audience doesn't take your "advice."

I'd recommend the grown-up thing, but you'll have to make your own choice. Either way, I'm done here.

If I were to have pitched Phase 3 to a neutral audience knowing what I know now... it would be a massive conflict of interest. When you tell people "at the last moment" what your plans are, it is not a good thing if one's track record says otherwise. Even if buckets aren't the only stop, what has PGI told us to date what they plan on doing past the bucket changes? That's what I'm getting at. You're holding that issue so dearly that you're not seeing the forest from the trees. As a business, do you tell your employees what the situation is at the last minute? Usually meetings and discussions are held in advance... with a plan in place (even if its not fully fleshed out, at least you have something to go by).

The grown up thing is to not get hung up on the minute details (unless it's critical to the argument, which is not the case), but rather to see what is the big picture. PGI has not provided that big picture... the plan going forward regardless of the buckets to actually solve the FW issue at hand. That is what remains to be seen.

[Commander A9]

You know what one big problem is? PGI doesn't care.

The veterans aren't the profit-generating target.

The brand-new ignorant player who sees "big stompy shiney pew-pew robots" and goes "shut up and take my money!" is.

So, they profit off the ignorant who don't know how things really are, while they ignore our concerns and push us aside. They got our money. They don't give a crap.

[MischiefSC]

Void Angel, on 29 August 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

You want "disingenuous?" I have two examples right here. Merging buckets was never pitched as a solution - it was pitched as a first step that was easy to implement. It's a bandaid fix to give us enough of a match flow to test the real fixes. I even pointed this out in the fracking post you quoted, but here you both are, making a demonstrably false claim. Again. Facts just... bounce off. Over and over and over again, facts just... bounce. You've got a long, long memory about things which support your position, but you can't remember a correction to one of your assumptions for the time it takes you to respond to a post. You know, I went out of my way to point out that the post covered a broader audience than either of you; I even used inclusive pronouns. Apparently you still saw yourselves - and decided to justify it.

And that's stupid; it's seriously incompetent on your part, if you seriously want to convince even a neutral audience - much less a "possibly" defensive game development staff. Your approach to facts has led you to embarrass yourselves by holding a completely false position - that PGI thinks only buckets are the problem. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts; so you have a choice to make. You can fix your epistemological issues and start giving feedback on issues that actually exist, disciplining yourselves to make those pitches in a manner that might not alienate your audience from the get-go; or else you can make complaints based on known falsehoods and be mad when your audience doesn't take your "advice."

I'd recommend the grown-up thing, but you'll have to make your own choice. Either way, I'm done here.

I get the need to ad hominem when you're trying to defend an indefensible position. I do. However, you're still wrong.

Do you understand what 'reducing buckets' means? It's saying that rather than fix the issues that drive low population you try to compress the low population you have and do so in a way that functionally eliminates one of the whole reasons for FW to exist - independent factions fighting each other over their borders.

Just to be sure I went back and listened to the round table again. Here's the link -

http://mwomercs.com/...on-in-progress/

No, Russ specifically says that the #1 most important issue for Faction Play is to reduce the number of buckets. He calls it 'the primary goal' and 'top subject' and calls it 'the solution for faction play'. He refers to it as 'one of the last changes to FW'. And by 'it' I mean 'reducing the number of buckets'. He drills down on how few people play FW and the importance of 'getting all the way there' in 'reducing buckets'.

Do you want to get into the discussion on LT? The degree of obliviousness about what caliber of an issue it is and its impact on population?

The facts are what Russ actually said and what PGI actually does. Those are exactly why people are critical and cynical on the topic. What Russ has said and promised and what PGI have actually done, the experience that is FW, that's why people are cynical. They have absolute reason to be.

[BearFlag]

MischiefSC, on 29 August 2016 - 07:17 PM, said:

...
No, Russ specifically says that the #1 most important issue for Faction Play is to reduce the number of buckets. He calls it 'the primary goal' and 'top subject' and calls it 'the solution for faction play'. He refers to it as 'one of the last changes to FW'. And by 'it' I mean 'reducing the number of buckets'. He drills down on how few people play FW and the importance of 'getting all the way there' in 'reducing buckets'.

Do you want to get into the discussion on LT? The degree of obliviousness about what caliber of an issue it is and its impact on population?

Glad someone went back and listened. Russ commandeered the Round Table and announced in no uncertain terms the retirement, not the Renaissance, of FW. It's unwelcome news for a lot of us. But when PGI says they're going to put LESS effort into something, we can probably take their word.

Long Tom. Lol. I think everyone's jaw hit the floor when he actually tried to defend it! How can they be so detached?

[Wing 0]

This is rich. So much walls of texts which will never come in to the works and those poor weaklings who are scared to fight will just keep going on and not pull a trigger. Nothing but bark and no bite from most of these posters LOL. Then again, those ghost bear loyalists are just as worse. Most cowarding types of players ive seen since they are most of them are scared of a "real fight". Those loyalists know which ones I'm referring to since they cant lift a finger without the mercs doing most of the work. Too bad loyalists. We mercs will always know no limits.

Face it. Russ don't play it anymore. He don't have proof that the buckets need to be reduced. Nothing but excuses he was pulling and most of PGI don't even get it that the only way to get FW going booming again is having events and planetary objective events every single day. Last FW we had, there were games going on for all 3 cycles. Russ don't know that because he don't have balls to try something like that. He's too scared. I sure like to see him prove it wrong but I know he wont be able to. That round table had nothing but garbage points that he pointed out there. When it was all said and done, that round table was a clear indication that he wont do jack **** to get events on the mode.

[KingCobra]

I have to agree with many posts in this thread I believe it was a mistake by Russ and PGI to not give the split FP queues a real try most pugs and casuals really only played CW?FP for the mech bays and rewards in my opinion so in reality PGI did the one thing they are good at (Over Complicating everything).

Russ and PGI could have done a stat rewind back to when CW was easy for pugs and casuals grouped up any tier player for any IS or Clan faction and let them drop into a match.

For the 12 man IS or Clan crowd there could have been a separate MM CW/FP queue NO SOLO?CASUALS with sync drop for friends in combinations of 2v2-12v12 for scouting or conquest missions on planets with rewards for individual battles and for capturing and holding planets during a monthly cycle with events and tournaments for both solo and premade groups.

When CW/FP became too complicated for most pugs or casuals and too hard for them to attain the rewards because of wait times they basically quit playing plus the constant seal clubbing by some premades made the matches unbalanced and unrewarding for both party's involved so it was doomed to fail right from the start of its inception.

But I have said many times over 5 years Russ and PGI only learn the hard way why should they listen to there fans and players? they already have wrung the cash cow dry.

Edited by KingCobra, 30 August 2016 - 10:47 PM.