Cementi, on 15 February 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:
The outrage every time they try to implement something is what is getting ridiculous.
I used to blame PGI for us getting no content other than mechpacks. 1. These days I blame the community because instead of constructive feedback and actually testing they rage and throw a tantrum threatening to uninstall or to close their wallets if a feature is released.
I am not saying PGI is perfect. Frankly they have done more than a few things to annoy me 2. but the real issue is the players who want the status quo because the status quo is not working no matter what you think. If it was they player base would not be shrinking.
3. The bottom line is the MWO community, at least those on the forums are like a spoiled toddler. All they want is kraft dinner and hot dogs. Any time the parents try and give them some veggies they throw a tantrum and hold their breath till they get their way.
Some of us want a real meal so please PGI follow through on something so long as your willing to tweak it as you go. The skill tree is not where near as bad as people are raging about. Alot of it is actually really good.
Cementi, on 15 February 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:
PS once upon a time I closed my wallet though for me it was more till they actually added something. However I feel that was petty and is not the answer as the less money they get the less content we get. So while I am not spending near what I once did I throw a few bucks out there now and then when I see something I like.
4. I like the skill tree and I am happy that Russ seems commited to releasing it. Pushing it back a month for further testing was a good idea.
So if you really want something good for the game then go test and put up some actual suggestions instead of a list of gripes without any suggestions that you feel would be improvements.
Cementi, on 15 February 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:
5. I actually have made suggestions. I was simply replying to yet another thread that was nothing more than a list of gripes. I have made comments pointing out my opinions how your gripes are not as severe as you think they are. 6. Yes there is room for improvement but hey thats what PTS is for. Since your post had no ideas constructive or otherwise I really had nothing to counter suggest other than make some suggestions instead of listing your gripes.
Sorry if asking for your actual feedback was to much to ask.
Cementi, on 15 February 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:
I somewhat agree and disagree with you saying it does not deliver on points 1 and 2. It does not deliver enough on those points however I do think that the framework is a step towards meeting those goals. It is a PTS session and I choose to treat any and all features in it as subject to change. Even after release I expect anything they put in to go through extensive tweaks.
Alot of people feel that they only way 1 and 2 could be delivered would be to have every chassis have it's own unique skill tree. I feel that is alot of work but not out of the realms of possibility.......eventually. Right now though getting a workable system in place that they can add to as they go is what I think we can really expect.
7. Alot of people have chosen to focus on the cost. I feel this is a mistake because other than the reassigning cost I do not see a problem with it. That is my personal opinion though. I think what we really should be looking at is a system that is more incremental and focused.
For example radar derp is usually the one people focus on as they feel it is a much needed upgrade. People are complaining that they have to take things like hill climb to get it as they feel hill climb is a waste of a point. What they should have done is had less cross branches and straight paths with more nodes and more incremental increases to those nodes. Maybe make it cost 6 points if you focus on radar derp and nothing else but if you take another path you can still get to max radar derp but it takes you 8 or 10 points......but you get more than just the radar derp. That way people who might value a little hill climb or something can invest a couple extra points and get it and people who feel everything but radar derp is worthless can save a few points.
However I also feel radar derp should not be able to reach 100%. Preferably 80, absolute max 90% but that would cause it's own set of rage.
Cementi, on 15 February 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:
Constructive criticism is a form of evaluation that offers both positive and negative feedback. 8. It needs to be valid, useful, and not designed to hurt intentionally or put down anyone or anything. Constructive criticism is often used to help improve the final outcome of a project.
Hopefully that clears things up for you.
What you offered was nothing more than a list of gripes. FireStoat made actual points, which is why I responded to them with counter arguments.
To some of us though that is actually a perk. I like the fact that I can own two of the same variant, customize the quirks on it and its done. No more playing module hunter. Both are opinions I guess and PGI will have to decide who's is worth more to them financially. *shrug*
I put into bold some of your comments that need to be addressed.
Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 5 can be summed up easily. The entire MWO community is not to blame as you try to claim here. The only part of the community that is to blame is the subset of super-hard-core players that currently dominate CW/FW. These are the people obsessed with the status quo, so long as the status quo is the Clan mechs remaining superior to IS mechs.
Remember a year or two back when they tried to stealth nerf the Timber Wolf and Storm Crow at the time of that Phoenix Mech event?
So many people lost their freaking minds because the top two Clan mechs in the Medium and Heavy categories were no longer in the #1 spot and the IS actually had a decent chance at defeating the Clans.
You want to be angry? Fine, but be angry at the right people. So long as these people are the only people PGI listens to, which seems to be the case in many instances, then MWO will continue to flounder because of how f***ed up the balance is. If anything, this is why any of your suggestions have fallen on deaf ears, the same with many peoples suggestions here on the forums.
PGI might read the forums once in a while, but they don't pay any attention to the suggestions here because these are often well thought out and reasonable suggestions meant to properly balance the game, and the people obsessed with the status quo somehow manage to bend Russ' ear more and ensure the superiority of the Clan mechs.
Now the introduction of the remaining IS weapons such as ER lasers, Streak SRMs, UACs and LBXs, it will be easier to balance those weapons across both sides, while all the new weapons for both sides become the stuff that will f*** with game balance.
Numbers 4, 6, 7 and 8. I agree with you here. The pushing back of the skill system to allow for whatever changes they are making is probably one of the few good things PGI has done in recent memory.
If they'd done the same as they're doing now with the previous PTS sessions, the game might have gotten better, but, at least as far as Info War was concerned, the reason that failed was, 1. PGI tried testing way too much all at the same time, and 2. They were way too late getting instructions out on exactly how to test everything they were trying to test. These two factors contributed greatly to the community backlash on the Info War PTS and the eventual shelving of the entire concept.
There was constructive feedback on said PTS, but because of how extraordinarily badly the entire affair was handled there was nothing PGI could do but shelve it and forget it.
Obviously PGI has learned since then and are trying to test less every time they run a PTS, although they haven't quite learned that they need to test one thing and one thing only when they run a PTS, but that's another matter.
The fact they pushed the Skill Tree back, and are running a second PTS for it is encouraging at the very least.
1
