39 replies to this topic

[TwoUps]

I had been with MWO for a long long time.. and the most annoying thing about it was not how PGI stuffed up on MWO, but with the amount of PGI bashing on FORUM.. I would like to put in a motion for a designated FORUM section for "complaints" or aka. PGI bashing.. and another section of the FORUM for ideas and discussion...

It was hard for me to follow many of the constructive discussions while going thru all the PGI bashing... and a lot of times it feels like good ideas were buried under 6 feet of bashing manure.. Sometimes I wondered how many of those unhappy players actually quit the game, as compared to the number of players who read their unhappy comments..

Fellow MechWorriors, we are living in a time where "free speech" can be a bit too much...
Imagine a section of FORUM where only a few highly regarded MWO players are authorize to start a discussion topic and remove/bar certain comments... these discussion topics can be propose by everyone, but have to be vetted by the few designated respected people (not just by PGI..).. hopefully these discussion will be more idea rich where it can be useful for PGI...

I can imagine someone will voiced that this is a bulls**t fantasy and how it can't be done... but I believe it is a better direction to move towards for the FORUM and so the question to everyone is what is needed for this to be achievable?

[RestosIII]

[Deathlike]

TwoUps, on 09 February 2017 - 03:33 PM, said:

I can imagine someone will voiced that this is a bulls**t fantasy and how it can't be done... but I believe it is a better direction to move towards for the FORUM and so the question to everyone is what is needed for this to be achievable?

Most of the time, PGI demonstrates that they can't really do the basic things correctly... asking for more complicated things... is asking for "the world".

[Acehilator]

Don't know if you are new, or a long time lurker. Why is PGI getting bashed?

If you are new, you will see soon enough.

If you are a long time lurker, you should know better by now.

[Bishop Steiner]

Deathlike, on 09 February 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

Most of the time, PGI demonstrates that they can't really do the basic things correctly... asking for more complicated things... is asking for "the world".

sure, but he has a point that any potentially constructive posts just get buried in such a glut of the same recycled "PGI BAD" QQ that even the OPs tend to give up on them, let alone any chance at all of PGI bothering to sift thru all the BS.

You can say they do nothing right all you want... etc, but seriously... you ever think that in many ways, you actually are helping to make things worse by doing so?

[BLOOD WOLF]

I don't know the context the guy is talking about.

I know the PGI has in fact messed up and deserve criticism

I know that some people use unfair standards of criticisms

I know that

Deathlike, on 09 February 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

Most of the time, PGI demonstrates that they can't really do the basic things correctly...

People criticism PGI for demonstrating that they can't do basic things at the same time on another thread, demonstrate that they can't do basic math( calculating total number of outcomes)

So I suggest OP you look at the evidence for yourself and regardless of what some people say, their merits rest on the work they do.

Probably Not, on 09 February 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

You know, I could deal with a devteam that makes mistakes, learns something from them, and walks them back or otherwise fixes the issues. But the "you're on an island" fiasco, the broken promises about coolant flush and so many other things...

yea, but if your are being objective and fair. you would recognize the criticism and the praises. And realize that Dev teams are gonna goof, and at times they are gonna hit the mark.

That's not the same as ignoring the past years or every year after this and keep going back to 2-3 years, especially since things have been corrected. To make an example that would be as if a scientist got something wrong in an observation and regardless of what he did afterwards was ignored because of the messup. Or in the same case, every time the misses were counted and the hits were ignored. If you think rude of my comment, you can reverse the argument and ignore the misses and only accept the hits.

Actually let me make this clear. Watch out for the people on this forum who either are one the two extreme spectrum. Where PGI has always done every right, and the people who believe pgi has done nothing right. Who also only choose to accept what they want to believe rather than what the evidence suggest.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 09 February 2017 - 04:01 PM.

[Baba_Yaga]

Probably Not, on 09 February 2017 - 03:39 PM, said:

Trust me, PGI earned their lumps.

Agreed 100%

[Deathlike]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 February 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

sure, but he has a point that any potentially constructive posts just get buried in such a glut of the same recycled "PGI BAD" QQ that even the OPs tend to give up on them, let alone any chance at all of PGI bothering to sift thru all the BS.

Sure, though isn't the onus on PGI to figure this out?

Quote

You can say they do nothing right all you want... etc, but seriously... you ever think that in many ways, you actually are helping to make things worse by doing so?

Sometimes, but that's only if you properly translate the message.

I wrote a scathing review regarding the previous PTS about cooldowns and ranges and while apparently some of that message seemed "loud and clear", the actual translation from the current PTS is... a lot different and totally lost on our balance overlord.

Like, LRMs beyond a certain range is kinda pointless, and while people continue to launch LRMs and run range modules (for that 1000+m range) and even the best LRM users know that this is waste of time. It's not even about hating LRMs as it is understanding how ineffective "max range" is valued beyond a certain distance. Yet, if you read the "reasoning" for the current PTS, it is still hilariously bad not to understand the actual problems with LRMs... yet they are getting "max range nerfs, that are compensated on the tree".

You know exactly what I'm talking about, and this is where what is said, isn't getting through to anyone at PGI. I've never been messaged or anything from PGI regarding this... but clearly despite having said the obvious... they obviously didn't get it.

So, if I leave it to PGI's own devices... it's like a game of telephone. You know the last person getting the message has a totally different message from the originating message. That is PGI in some nutshell.

BLOOD WOLF, on 09 February 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

I don't know the context the guy is talking about.

I know the PGI has in fact messed up and deserve criticism

I know that some people use unfair standards of criticisms

I know that
People criticism PGI for demonstrating that they can't do basic things at the same time on another thread, demonstrate that they can't do basic math( calculating total number of outcomes)

So I suggest OP you look at the evidence for yourself and regardless of what some people say, their merits rest on the work they do.


yea, but if your are being objective and fair. you would recognize the criticism and the praises. And realize that Dev teams are gonna goof, and at times they are gonna hit the mark.

lol

If the criticism was met by the appropriate actions and responses (as in, a non-minimally viable effort - aka, being thorough across the board with minimum issues), then you wouldn't be hearing the same kind of complaints would you not?

The skill tree just as currently constituted is way beyond understanding the design of their own game. "Arm quirks" for mechs that don't rely on their arms is kind of a pointless tree... yet it exists.

Unless the flaws are addressed quickly and promptly, there is going to be more complaints and problems in the upcoming deployment of the system... and there's likely not going to be enough time between now and then to fix them.

Also, you and math... doesn't compute.

Edited by Deathlike, 09 February 2017 - 04:01 PM.

[4rcs1ne]

PGI gets bashed alot because of some of the crazy, asinine decisions they've made in the past. In other words, they've reaped what they've sown.

[Acehilator]

Let's get real here guys... apart from the people who are doing mechs and maps like 3D artists, Texture artists etc. PGI has shown time and time that they just cannot do it, whatever "it" is.

The incredible poor state and ridiculous design decisions for the Skilltree PTS are just the newest addition to the evergrowing list. That stuff as presented yesterday should have never made it out of the second design meeting they had on the subject. And yet, here we are... again.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Matt2496, on 09 February 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

PGI gets bashed alot because of some of the crazy, asinine decisions they've made in the past. In other words, they've reaped what they've sown.

sure, same of what most of us bash the crazy ideas people put on the forums. The idea though is that you critisize the bad ideas, and accept the good ideas

your post would be better served if you gave context of stupid ideas, such as 500 dollar gold mechs, at least things that the majority of us can agree are bad ideas, but in the same post if you wan't to be seen more impartial you would add context and possibly contrast.

[Outlaw]

I will say 2 steps forward and 3 steps back still adds up to one step back.

This is PGI in a nutshell.

[BLOOD WOLF]

[redacted]

Outlaw, on 09 February 2017 - 04:09 PM, said:

I will say 2 steps forward and 3 steps back still adds up to one step back.

This is PGI in a nutshell.

not really. Like I said above, most likely simple things like this are on one of the ends of the extremes. What examples would you give to support this?

Given the names in the thread right now I can see the Bias that is going to be in the post, but these things can all be objectively evaluated with criteria that we can agree on.

[Carl Vickers]

BLOOD WOLF, on 09 February 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

its clear that you are trying to pick a fight, or saying I "spout rubbish" because I decided to post in a thread. Is clearly a violation of The COC


not really. Like I said above, most likely simple things like this are on one of the ends of the extremes. What examples would you give to support this?

Given the names in the thread right now I can see the Bias that is going to be in the post, but these things can all be objectively evaluated with criteria that we can agree on.

Would you like some tissues to go with your tears?

[Outlaw]

Ok let me rephrase, if PGI does anything consistently, it is their extremely inconsistent actions.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Outlaw, on 09 February 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

Ok let me rephrase, if PGI does anything consistently, it is their extremely inconsistent actions.

All I am saying is that things can be objectively evaluating.

So if I said PGI does nothing right. That is most likely Inaccurate.

If I said PGI always does things right. That is also most likely inaccurate.

If I said PGI does things that I can evaluate where bad decisions, and they did things that were good decisions. Then we can begin to have a dialogue, a conversation about what those things actually are.

It may also be the case that the things I thought worked well , might not be the case. From what I have seen is that It's the hardest thing for some people to accept that they probably didn't get it right or say something accurate.

The Point is, It does nobody any good to post statements that are just on the extremes. There is context that needs to be discussed.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 09 February 2017 - 04:25 PM.

[Outlaw]

BLOOD WOLF, on 09 February 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

All I am saying is that things can be objectively evaluating.

So if I said PGI does nothing right. That is most likely Inaccurate.

If I said PGI always does things right. That is also most likely inaccurate.

If I said PGI does things that I can evaluate where bad decisions, and they did things that were good decisions. Then we can begin to have a dialogue, a conversation about what those things actually are.

It may also be the case that the things I thought worked well , might not be the case. From what I have seen is that It's the hardest thing for some people to accept that they probably didn't get it right or say something accurate.

The Point is, It does nobody any good to post statements that are just on the extremes. There is context that needs to be discussed.

There-in lies the problem. Most of the vocal people tend to gravitate to extremes. In the eyes of the positive extremes its a matter of wanting to pat PGI on the back for what they felt was a job well done and wants everyone else to know it. In the eyes of those falling in the negative spectrum its a matter wanting to make sure everyone knows that they feel slighted by something PGI has done and in their mind to beware of PGI.

In the end the majority of moderates feel that column A and column B are bats*it insane, and want to avoid getting involved if at all possible. While the minority of us moderates who do brave the forums are probably just as bats*it insane as column A and B and most likely have a masochism fetish... I swear i dont though!

Edited by Outlaw, 09 February 2017 - 04:34 PM.

[4rcs1ne]

BLOOD WOLF, on 09 February 2017 - 04:07 PM, said:

sure, same of what most of us bash the crazy ideas people put on the forums. The idea though is that you critisize the bad ideas, and accept the good ideas

your post would be better served if you gave context of stupid ideas, such as 500 dollar gold mechs, at least things that the majority of us can agree are bad ideas, but in the same post if you wan't to be seen more impartial you would add context and possibly contrast.

Sure, I can give you several examples of amazing design decisions PGI has made recently.

- Shadowcat gets all structure quirks removed, despite the fact that it was not a very durable mech to begin with. What made this mech any good were Clan ER PPC's, not its durability.

- Warhammer, one of the only IS heavies comparable to Clans, gets nerfed.

- Kitfox gets a machine gun ROF nerf.

- Blanket Summoner nerfs based on the performance of one set of omnipods.

- And now this skill tree which is going to give weapon boaters a pretty massive advantage and kill diversity. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this...

Literally the only good decisions PGI has made have been either bug fixes or quality of life fixes that should have been taken care of long ago. Name me one big design decision from PGI that people actually liked. Energy draw??? Laser lock???

[Valdarion Silarius]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 February 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

sure, but he has a point that any potentially constructive posts just get buried in such a glut of the same recycled "PGI BAD" QQ that even the OPs tend to give up on them, let alone any chance at all of PGI bothering to sift thru all the BS.

You can say they do nothing right all you want... etc, but seriously... you ever think that in many ways, you actually are helping to make things worse by doing so?

No, because any constructive criticism geared towards the game is listened through only Twitter apparently. PGI is making things worse by their own arrogance. We just want the game to be better as a whole, and we also want a good reason to spend money on them.

[naterist]

OP, theres about 6-7 guys responsible for what your talking about, and their easy to recognize. As bb stated, carl is an example of them. Just block them and you instantly shorten about 50% of the threads by half, and all the splurge gets hidden.