30 replies to this topic

[Vellron2005]

I've been asking myself this recently, so I thought I'd put the question out there..

In the entire development process of MWO, from the beginning, up to now, what, if anything, have the players and the community ACTUALLY CHANGED or influenced?

I think I had a slight shining moment back when I posted a suggestion in the feature suggestions forum section about wanting the ability to spin the mechs in the home screen.

A week or two later, that particular feature was added. I don't know if it was cose' of my suggestion or not, but I like to think that it was.

Can you guys name anything that was directly added or removed from the game due to player input?

PTS does not count!

And please.. no bitterveting.. this is not about the stuff that was not added..

[Davegt27]

scouting mode lol

[dario03]

The mini map.

Nerfing poptarting into the ground.

Making lights weaker and weaker.

[627]

Well, we got the UrbanMech, which is nice.

[C E Dwyer]

Quite a bit, most of it negative.

Crying for features that P.G.I then tried to compromise, and making none happy.

Map voting was one that's making the game very dull.

Notice how the stock mode people, are not going wah wah it's not fair we can't play it and make XP at the same time, they just go do it and have fun.

Well that's what the cry babies did, that wanted to pick their own maps, and the end result was Map and mode voting..

Carry on..

Edited by Cathy, 15 November 2016 - 02:00 AM.

[El Bandito]

Information Warfare? Players axed it.

Energy Draw? Players axed it.

For better or for worse, MWO players do not like sweeping changes. Sad for me, cause that means even if the devs get their heads out of their bums and are willing to implement Sized Hardpoints, players will axe it too.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 November 2016 - 02:49 AM.

[jss78]

Listening to the community is ... tricky. And especially, it hard to gauge the overall feeling by coming to forums. Whatever it is there's always someone who doesn't like. The guy who's happy isn't on the forums -- he's out there playing the game. The guy who's unhappy is on the forums being melodramatic.

Take a good look at the forums. Every map sucks, every mech sucks (except KDK-3 which doesn't suck until this evening's patch), too much short range, too much long range. If you listen to this too much, you'll never get nothing done (see info war).

Sometimes you simply need to have a strong vision for the game, and see that vision through. There will always be that guy who'll disagree, and he will complain. Doesn't mean much.

[Hunka Junk]

The faction players got the long tom removed.

In doing so, they got factions removed from faction play as well.

[Bud Crue]

There is a lot of BS already.

In re Infotech: go back and read the threads. Infotech aspect of that PTS pass was viewed positively by an over overwhelming majority of the commenting players. What was NOT viewed positively was ghost targeting (laser target lock) which was inserted with the same PTS. It was PGI who took the position of "well if you don't like the ghost targeting aspect of the changes then you will get none of the proposed changes, including infotech".

Which brings us to Energy Draw... ED was probably okay, but then PGI via PTS sessions 2.0-5.0 started adding all of the random weapons changes and suddenly ED was unrecognizable. This made A LOT of players go from support or indifference to ED to outright hostility. Hereto the players didn't kill ED, rather PGI's inability to make iterative change or test one thing at a time killed ED.

The Minimap? Find me one post where people asked for a totally zoomed out map with no terrain features, and no reorientation of the map to the mechs direction. Just one post that asked for that. But that is exactly what we got in the original minimap change. Yes PGI eventually fessed up to that being an error (right), but even the subsequent changes were said to be made to reflect the command wheel changes. Find me those threads where players called out for that? No the reduction in resolution and functionality of the minimap was 100% PGI. What players wanted and were expecting were changes that they assumed would have something to do with the new -at the time- Cyclops and its whizbang computer. There are lots of posts wherein the community suggested minimap change to give this new gizmo, cc, targeting computers and light mechs a bit more of a role (see infotech), but NONE of those requested/presumed changes were reflected in the minimap PGI gave us.

So for at least these three issues the players may have had input, but that input was largely ignored or utterly corrupted by PGI.

[Davers]

Bud Crue, on 15 November 2016 - 05:01 AM, said:

There is a lot of BS already.

In re Infotech: go back and read the threads. Infotech aspect of that PTS pass was viewed positively by an over overwhelming majority of the commenting players. What was NOT viewed positively was ghost targeting (laser target lock) which was inserted with the same PTS. It was PGI who took the position of "well if you don't like the ghost targeting aspect of the changes then you will get none of the proposed changes, including infotech".

Which brings us to Energy Draw... ED was probably okay, but then PGI via PTS sessions 2.0-5.0 started adding all of the random weapons changes and suddenly ED was unrecognizable. This made A LOT of players go from support or indifference to ED to outright hostility. Hereto the players didn't kill ED, rather PGI's inability to make iterative change or test one thing at a time killed ED.

The Minimap? Find me one post where people asked for a totally zoomed out map with no terrain features, and no reorientation of the map to the mechs direction. Just one post that asked for that. But that is exactly what we got in the original minimap change. Yes PGI eventually fessed up to that being an error (right), but even the subsequent changes were said to be made to reflect the command wheel changes. Find me those threads where players called out for that? No the reduction in resolution and functionality of the minimap was 100% PGI. What players wanted and were expecting were changes that they assumed would have something to do with the new -at the time- Cyclops and its whizbang computer. There are lots of posts wherein the community suggested minimap change to give this new gizmo, cc, targeting computers and light mechs a bit more of a role (see infotech), but NONE of those requested/presumed changes were reflected in the minimap PGI gave us.

So for at least these three issues the players may have had input, but that input was largely ignored or utterly corrupted by PGI.

I would like to point out that the only meaningful part of Infowar was Ghost Damage. If that wasn't going to be used there wasn't much of a point to add in the rest.

[PyckenZot]

If these forums were a roadmap to change the game, we'll all be battling each other in superarmored mechs armed with paperprop shooters,...

Additionally, any solution PGI comes up with to address the valid complaints get thrown in the saltmines just as quickly as the next stronger mech. Most recent example being ED. A system that actually looked promising.

[Tristan Winter]

I started a thread exactly like this a few months back. Can't remember if it was my Tristan Winter account or Alistair Winter account. If your google-fu is strong, you may find it.

There were a few things, IIRC. Nothing major.

Btw, this thread is going to contain a lot of people blaming the community for bad mistakes PGI made. In a game with 50,000 players, you're going to get 50,000 different opinions about what to do. Which means, whatever the devs do, it's going to please one group of players and displease another group of players. This doesn't necessarily mean that any given negative action can be blamed on the community or that a positive is thanks to the community. This is not a democracy. There are very few cases where the community should chastise itself or pat itself on its back, IMO. Not enough evidence.

[Snowbluff]

dario03, on 15 November 2016 - 01:19 AM, said:

Making lights weaker and weaker.

Golly, it's almost like the community doesn't know what it's talking about.

PyckenZot, on 15 November 2016 - 05:41 AM, said:

=
Additionally, any solution PGI comes up with to address the valid complaints get thrown in the saltmines just as quickly as the next stronger mech. Most recent example being ED. A system that actually looked promising.

I agree entirely. UACs probably would have not needed a nerf (well, they didn't in the first place) if we had ED > :l

Edited by Snowbluff, 15 November 2016 - 05:50 AM.

[Johnny Z]

Vellron2005, on 15 November 2016 - 12:45 AM, said:

I've been asking myself this recently, so I thought I'd put the question out there..

In the entire development process of MWO, from the beginning, up to now, what, if anything, have the players and the community ACTUALLY CHANGED or influenced?

I think I had a slight shining moment back when I posted a suggestion in the feature suggestions forum section about wanting the ability to spin the mechs in the home screen.

A week or two later, that particular feature was added. I don't know if it was cose' of my suggestion or not, but I like to think that it was.

Can you guys name anything that was directly added or removed from the game due to player input?

PTS does not count!

And please.. no bitterveting.. this is not about the stuff that was not added..

- Faction play

- Lobbies in faction play. (bad idea unless queues are added as well maybe)

- Group queue

- Clan mechs (would have been added anyway but maybe not as soon)

- Guilds

- Name change

- VOIP

- Lots more but I'm done

I disagree or am indifferent to all of these except faction play, which could be amazing, and Clans after the fact, didn't like it at first, but adds excellent rivalry.

Over all I think the game is being built very well but slowly and player feedback does play a role. But they cant change everything as they go.

Edited by Johnny Z, 15 November 2016 - 06:08 AM.

[Mcgral18]

I think I helped with the leg quirk = extra fall damage bug



Might have been coincidence, but it was changed shortly after my vid.
Cute Fox had 25% extra leg HP, but took twice the fall damage because of doubled structure
Fall damage being calculated on structure(probably changed to pre-quirk structure...I asked for armor quirks, but a fix is a fix. Not even a bandaid!)

[Cy Mitchell]

Just like every other Mechwarrior game that proceeded it, the best thing the community has added to MWO is end game content in the form of leagues, ladders and one off tournaments. You have several leagues like MRBC with ladder like standing and competition. You have 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments like the one that Trainsy is currently running on a weekly basis.

Things like that are the real things that the community can add that will increase the longevity of the game.

[Tordin]

For all the food PGI might have in their offices. I think they have gotten enough salt

[Bud Crue]

Davers, on 15 November 2016 - 05:32 AM, said:

I would like to point out that the only meaningful part of Infowar was Ghost Damage. If that wasn't going to be used there wasn't much of a point to add in the rest.

I disagree. A lot of folks were really jacked about different detection and sensor capabilities that were being proposed. That alone would have given us at least a pretense of "role warfare". But nope, no ghost damage, no roles for you.

Paul even suggested that those roles were the overarching goal of that PTS...that was the first time (I can find) where the stated goal of the changes was to provide balance in the sense that all mechs down to the variant level were to have equivalent value regardless of their roles. I can's fathom how/why including or not including ghost damage should impact that goal. But whatever, my point was just to give some context (and to an extent, refute) to the assertion that players killed infotech.

[Hunka Junk]

Tristan Winter, on 15 November 2016 - 05:43 AM, said:

I started a thread exactly like this a few months back. Can't remember if it was my Tristan Winter account or Alistair Winter account. If your google-fu is strong, you may find it.

There were a few things, IIRC. Nothing major.

Btw, this thread is going to contain a lot of people blaming the community for bad mistakes PGI made. In a game with 50,000 players, you're going to get 50,000 different opinions about what to do. Which means, whatever the devs do, it's going to please one group of players and displease another group of players. This doesn't necessarily mean that any given negative action can be blamed on the community or that a positive is thanks to the community. This is not a democracy. There are very few cases where the community should chastise itself or pat itself on its back, IMO. Not enough evidence.

You can't please everyone all the time, but you can release things on time, tested, and in a playable state. I really don't have a pet project of my own (I guess endgame content), but I reckon more people would be happy with X, Y, or Z if the released content was as finished as the mechs that get released.

[TLBFestus]

Johnny Z, on 15 November 2016 - 05:58 AM, said:

- Faction play

- Lobbies in faction play. (bad idea unless queues are added as well maybe)

- Group queue

- Clan mechs (would have been added anyway but maybe not as soon)

- Guilds

- Name change

- VOIP

- Lots more but I'm done

I disagree or am indifferent to all of these except faction play, which could be amazing, and Clans after the fact, didn't like it at first, but adds excellent rivalry.

Over all I think the game is being built very well but slowly and player feedback does play a role. But they cant change everything as they go.

A lot of what you posted here was either a corrupted/flawed vision of what the community asked for, or it was something that was literally requested for years before it came to be.

With that in mind I'd support your assertion about "but slowly" and argue with your assertion about "very well".

About the only thing that PGI added to this game well, that the community asked for, was VOIP. Even then they initially had that abortion of a voice comm idea that was C3. Probably a lot of you weren't around for that though and will have to use your googlyness to find out what I'm talking about.

Honestly, that's about all I can come up with that I felt was suggested by the community and was actually well implemented (eventually) by PGI.

OH.....hold it.....possibly their greatest moment was "Sarahs Mech". Yup...that was the best.