105 replies to this topic

[FallingAce]

Kin3ticX, on 30 November 2016 - 12:53 AM, said:

they did add improvements to unit management like sorting somewhere in there, but......the unit died so who cares

Bugs features that are broken don't count


https://mwomercs.com...nit-management/
Posted 23 September 2016 - 03:56 PM

The 'Status' system in Member Management uses the same system as the Friends list, and unfortunately inherited some of its bugs.
We have an array of fixes coming in the next patch that should address a number of issues in the frontend/main menu, this issue included.



still broken...
still broken........
still broken........................

Edited by FallingAce, 30 November 2016 - 09:50 AM.

[justcallme A S H]

^ yeah that one is a beauty.

Alexander from PGI posted that would all be fixed in that next patch.


It's still, utterly, broken.

[RedDragon]

Tina Benoit, on 30 November 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

Please don't take that schedule too literally

At least PGI is honoring traditions when it comes to timetables

[Kin3ticX]

So, what are the chances that CW gets a miracle December patch? Usually PGI announces plans and doesnt actually launch stuff at events. They did launch phase 2 a couple weeks early but that seems to be one of the exceptions to their past patterns. I probably wont stick around if its all late Q1 2017 like usual. Things are winding down bigtime at Mercstar as far as this game goes. Mercstar hasnt been a CW centric unit for months and now we are basically an international unit inbetween games.

[Carl Vickers]

Kin3ticX, on 01 December 2016 - 01:29 AM, said:

So, what are the chances that CW gets a miracle December patch? Usually PGI announces plans and doesnt actually launch stuff at events. They did launch phase 2 a couple weeks early but that seems to be one of the exceptions to their past patterns. I probably wont stick around if its all late Q1 2017 like usual. Things are winding down bigtime at Mercstar as far as this game goes. Mercstar hasnt been a CW centric unit for months and now we are basically an international unit inbetween games.

Commander A9 would disagree ;p

[Kin3ticX]

Carl Vickers, on 01 December 2016 - 01:31 AM, said:

Commander A9 would disagree ;p

Well then hes not paying attention to the rumors going around on the Mercstar TS the last few days.

[Carl Vickers]

I think a lot of groups are either doing mrbc or other games, pig's inaction is costing them.

[Jarl Dane]

Yeah, I'd say about 80% of ISENGRIM wouldn't be playing MWO anymore if it weren't for MRBC/Comp play.

It's basically community created end-game content, to a game that has none.

[Carl Vickers]

Mech The Dane, on 01 December 2016 - 02:15 AM, said:

Yeah, I'd say about 80% of ISENGRIM wouldn't be playing MWO anymore if it weren't for MRBC/Comp play.

It's basically community created end-game content, to a game that has none.

Its what FW should have been.

Edited by Carl Vickers, 01 December 2016 - 02:49 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Kin3ticX, on 01 December 2016 - 01:29 AM, said:

So, what are the chances that CW gets a miracle December patch?

By the very nature of the way you (and you are not alone here) felt obligated to phrase it, namely the chances of "a miracle", suggests not only the answer to the question (as unlikely as a miracle) but also the nature of just how bad a state PGI has allowed their "end game" content to remain in.

It would indeed take a miracle to get PGI to make a mode worthy of their long ago, but not forgotten by its customers, vision of CW; and it would take a miracle to get players (old and new) to even give such an improved mode a try, considering how little concern or effort PGI has shown for the current CW state of affairs for the last year (yet another nerf to the long tom will not fix this PGI, okay? Reducing buckets simply consolidates the few remaining players but won't solve the underlying problems. You understand that PGI right?). Ah for the good old days just before the round table, when we thought Russ was actually going to make an effort. Oh how naive we all were.

And now the best we can hope for is "a miracle" patch/fix.

This isn't a game. Its epic indifference and/or incompetence of a company toward the needs and desires of its customer to such an extent that that the best those customers can hope for to address the problem is...divine intervention? Yeah, that's likely. And yet some still think that an announcement at mechcon is going to do the trick. Let me know how that works out.

[FallingAce]

Kin3ticX, on 01 December 2016 - 01:29 AM, said:

So, what are the chances that CW gets a miracle December patch?

Chances of a miracle patch 0%.
Chance of implementation of ideas from the podcast. Given PGI's track record 20%
Chances of an announcement at mechcon of ~90 days (soon™) 80%

PGI can't deliver a miracle. They need to deliver a foundation to build upon. Then the actually have to build on it.

Edited by FallingAce, 02 December 2016 - 02:42 AM.

[Alteran]

Carl Vickers, on 01 December 2016 - 02:36 AM, said:

Its what FW should have been.

You know, I think the biggest issue that PGI had with getting CW/FW/FP to even a base line of what they said it was going to be, was the entire UI, unit layout and faction system that they introduced.

The units with faction, basically became their own individual 'House or Clan'. Add in the economic part and contract's (the depth that CW was going to have) and you'd have 20 Clan Wolf or 30 House Steiner and so on. There was no real unity between any of these things and that's why the entire system fell apart.

The player made systems, like NBT, used a single unit or groups of players to represent entire Houses or Clans. As well, the entire system was manually managed, not automated.

On the other hand, PGI has had over 1400 developer days to get something worked out. The fact that they haven't means they won't. I will not say 'can't', because this is software, you can code just about anything to work the way you want it to with enough time, just look at Command & Conquer: Tiberium Alliances.

Edited by Alteran, 02 December 2016 - 02:40 PM.

[nehebkau]

Alteran, on 02 December 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

On the other hand, PGI has had over 1400 developer days to get something worked out. The fact that they haven't means they won't. I will not say 'can't', because this is software, you can code just about anything to work the way you want it to with enough time, just look at Command & Conquer: Tiberium Alliances.

That's not entirely true. CANT is a real issue in software development if you are stuck using tools, languages, environments and equipment that simply don't have the capability of doing what you want.

I believe that is one of the real problems that FW encountered -- namely limitations forced on the game because of legacy technology and grandfathering game-mode requirements and design. Likewise, it is because those same limitations are still in play that nothing more can be done with FW aside from putting some lipstick on the pig.

[Alteran]

nehebkau, on 02 December 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

That's not entirely true. CANT is a real issue in software development if you are stuck using tools, languages, environments and equipment that simply don't have the capability of doing what you want.

I believe that is one of the real problems that FW encountered -- namely limitations forced on the game because of legacy technology and grandfathering game-mode requirements and design. Likewise, it is because those same limitations are still in play that nothing more can be done with FW aside from putting some lipstick on the pig.

If their native game code was the problem, then have a button for CW and launch into a secondary program that supports coding that could have made CW a reality. When it came to launch an attack or defense, there's a button that launches MWO proper for the game play.

If HTML 5 and phone apps can have the type of game play with units, bases, offensive/defensive units and a large scale map then they can do it for MWO/CW. They could have used NBT as a baseline as to how to get it setup at the very least.

Edited by Alteran, 02 December 2016 - 03:22 PM.

[VitriolicViolet]

yeah i expecting Mch-Con to be loaded with Soon, 90 Days, etc. they have demonstrated no desire to fix near anything. To those who say 'but they said X or they are going to fix Y', words are meaningless.

Entirely meaningless, the only thing that really matters is actions and as others have posted above, there have been amost no actions for months all they say is 'later'. Unless Mech-con basically comes with a patch ill expect history to repeat itself, so no updates for 3 months and what they provide then will be minimally viable.

If someone keeps saying 'i will stop' but keeps stealing your **** are you going to keep believeing them? Poor analogy but all analogies are.

[justcallme A S H]

We all know whatever is announced will be basically a steaming pile.

GG FP, GG.

[naterist]

Kael Posavatz, on 29 November 2016 - 11:58 PM, said:

Speaking as a Clanner, um...no? I mean specifically that part about being happy the way things are. I suppose that 'pay to win' thing was true two years ago but there was a lot of ridiculousness thrown the other way (ERPPC Thunderbolts and the old autocannon quirks on the Dragon comes to mind).

I don't generally post under my IS alt because I start debating myself...but I could.

i just gotta throw this in, when pgi was trying to replace ghost heat with energy draw, there was a significant amount of clan loyalists (and more falcon then anyone else) and clan mercs who were posting about energy draw failing because of the effect it had on their meta builds.... which is exactly what it was hoping to nerf. and the same group of people were complaining about the uac nerfs as well, even though they make perfect sense to me, as a IS fighter whos been on the recieving end of a kdk-3 way to many times.

not saying is and freelancers didnt complain as well, it was just overwhelmingly clanners who hated the past changes. and if you looked in game at the w/l ratios cor each faction, youll have seen that every clan outpaced the IS at that time with a 1. something w/l ratio, while every IS faction besides frr had a w/l ratio of less than .98.

it seems to me that people will complain when their fave tech gets nerfed, or there is an idea of nerfing it, and they dont consider the merit of the changes on their own. not saying energy draw was the perfect fit, or the new uac values are the best thing ever,, but theres been a pattern in what people complain about, so its safe to say i think.

[nehebkau]

Alteran, on 02 December 2016 - 03:18 PM, said:

If their native game code was the problem, then have a button for CW and launch into a secondary program that supports coding that could have made CW a reality. When it came to launch an attack or defense, there's a button that launches MWO proper for the game play.

If HTML 5 and phone apps can have the type of game play with units, bases, offensive/defensive units and a large scale map then they can do it for MWO/CW. They could have used NBT as a baseline as to how to get it setup at the very least.

Now you have reached the "CANT AFFORD" portion of project management. First you have the costs associated with buying the new tech, then you have the greater cost of either having to hire all new people to handle the new tech or having to retrain all your people expending cost and many, many hours of time to get them to the expertise needed to do it. That takes a lot of money. It is too easy for us armchair critics to say "You should have" or "You could have" but there is so much which goes on that we are not privy to that we are not qualified to make those claims.

It would have been nice had PGI started fresh with FW and it would have been nice had they found the talent required to make FW what they originally intended but we should have all seen that it was doomed to failure. (hindsight I guess). The only thing we can hope for is that the mistakes of the past 1400 days have been a positive training exercise for the company and that they have learned and can move forward.

Again, I reiterate, the best thing that could come out of mechcon would be an announcement of MWO-2. That would allow them to ditch their current engine and architecture and start fresh with a design which takes into consideration "where we want to be" when developing "what we get now".

naterist, on 02 December 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

it seems to me that people will complain when their fave tech gets nerfed, or there is an idea of nerfing it, and they dont consider the merit of the changes on their own. not saying energy draw was the perfect fit, or the new uac values are the best thing ever,, but theres been a pattern in what people complain about, so its safe to say i think.

I did a lot of testing with power draw -- and i was constantly disappointed by how few people were actually on the test server -- i had to spend lots of time in the testing grounds. I liked power draw! Yes, it ended the mixing of weapons to avoid ghost heat (2-CLPLS + 6CERMLS) and it meant that firing gauss could cause you to produce extra heat on high-alpha builds. But I was fine with that because it is a FAIR penalty on high alpha builds without affecting those exact same builds if you fired your alpha in 2 bursts 1/2 a second apart. But yes, you are right many of the "everyone gets a trophy" generation thing fair is when they get an I-win button and others don't.

The fact that people were saying it didn't make sense just left me gobsmacked. Seriously, how hard is it to understand that drawing more power/current from a source than it is intended to provide will cause the source to generate excess heat? Try pulling 10 amps though a 22 gauge single core wire and watch it turn red and melt.

Power-draw could have been the start of a decent alpha management system with your engine size determining how high your alpha could be. 160 engine? 16 alpha without extra heat, 400 engine? 40 alpha without extra heat. But no! Babies will cry.

Edited by nehebkau, 03 December 2016 - 08:34 AM.

[Alteran]

nehebkau, on 03 December 2016 - 08:17 AM, said:

Now you have reached the "CANT AFFORD" portion of project management. First you have the costs associated with buying the new tech, then you have the greater cost of either having to hire all new people to handle the new tech or having to retrain all your people expending cost and many, many hours of time to get them to the expertise needed to do it. That takes a lot of money. It is too easy for us armchair critics to say "You should have" or "You could have" but there is so much which goes on that we are not privy to that we are not qualified to make those claims.

It would have been nice had PGI started fresh with FW and it would have been nice had they found the talent required to make FW what they originally intended but we should have all seen that it was doomed to failure. (hindsight I guess). The only thing we can hope for is that the mistakes of the past 1400 days have been a positive training exercise for the company and that they have learned and can move forward.

Again, I reiterate, the best thing that could come out of mechcon would be an announcement of MWO-2. That would allow them to ditch their current engine and architecture and start fresh with a design which takes into consideration "where we want to be" when developing "what we get now".

After the last 1400 days... I wouldn't support PGI with another title. Well, I guess I'll back up and say, I won't bankroll another product that PGI is proposing until they create the software and it is released. Then I can decide for myself.

No more pre-purchase of anything. No more Mechpacks, no more MC, no more anything.

I want results and nothing in any announcement is going to get me to budge otherwise.

[Alteran]

nehebkau, on 03 December 2016 - 08:17 AM, said:

I did a lot of testing with power draw -- and i was constantly disappointed by how few people were actually on the test server -- i had to spend lots of time in the testing grounds. I liked power draw! Yes, it ended the mixing of weapons to avoid ghost heat (2-CLPLS + 6CERMLS) and it meant that firing gauss could cause you to produce extra heat on high-alpha builds. But I was fine with that because it is a FAIR penalty on high alpha builds without affecting those exact same builds if you fired your alpha in 2 bursts 1/2 a second apart. But yes, you are right many of the "everyone gets a trophy" generation thing fair is when they get an I-win button and others don't.

The fact that people were saying it didn't make sense just left me gobsmacked. Seriously, how hard is it to understand that drawing more power/current from a source than it is intended to provide will cause the source to generate excess heat? Try pulling 10 amps though a 22 gauge single core wire and watch it turn red and melt.

Power-draw could have been the start of a decent alpha management system with your engine size determining how high your alpha could be. 160 engine? 16 alpha without extra heat, 400 engine? 40 alpha without extra heat. But no! Babies will cry.

A response to Nat and you on the Power Draw topic:

IF PGI had gone out and listed their goals for Power Draw, I don't think it would have turned into the crap show it turned into.

They needed to be extremely clear on what they wanted to achieve. Too many people turned Power Draw into:

Eliminate the Alpha Strike - in which it did not do in any way shape or form.

Limit the Alpha Strike - limit in what way? The amount of times you can fire an Alpha Strike? Limit the amount of damage that an Alpha Strike can do?

Force people into mixed builds - really? It's called stock mode.

Gets rid of Ghost Heat - Please, it was GH 2.0 with a 1.5 second refresh bar.... oh by the way, in Live try a 4 CERPPC Warhawk and fire 2 x 2 in quick succession and then 2 x 2 slightly slower. I didn't notice it before the last patch, but now you will for sure overheat with slight engine damage if you fire in quick succession. Perhaps it was already there, but it's there now for sure.

Creating a forced limited DPS strike - well GH 2.0 with bigger heat multipliers is all this really became. Limiting a DPS strike before GH hits at 30pts was fine by me. I don't run the Alpha Strike builds...

And so on.

In perfect PGI style, they left everything open ended, then screwed with weapons values and created a forum filled with flame ridden posts. Yes I was in there arguing against ED, because PGI didn't have clear goals and turned it into a complete disaster.

FOCUS!!

List out goals and objectives. Focus on the issue you put forth. Get a system that a good portion of the playing population can get behind and then release it. THEN address other issues that you see coming up. But no, they set out to bake a vanilla cake and end up with an ice cream mash of 15 flavors, black licorice, butter scotch pudding and a little bit of cake mix.

ED/GH2.0 could have been a good system, but it was allowed to crash and burn. To be quite honest, I think PGI let it all happen on purpose.