195 replies to this topic

[Wil McCullough]

Jables McBarty, on 30 March 2017 - 08:31 AM, said:

And yet one of the distinct advantages of running a small, privately and closely held business over a publicly traded one is the right to fire customers and simply close up shop whenever you feel like it.

"Good business practice" means one thing to the MBA class and another to the non-credentialed small business owner.

yup.

however, both large firms and small businesses alike have one thing in common - money. its in the best interest of all business owners to practise good business practices.
__

on a side note after reading through my previous comments, i just realized they could be construed as being directed towards russ. they're not. they're just my thoughts on how some people value politeness and a glib tongue as the key indicator of whether an opinion holds weight or not.

i have to deal with both low level execs and high level directors/CEOs in my line of work. in meetings, it's extremely obvious what their difference in considerations are. politeness and superficial things like being dressed to look the part are always the considerations of the grunts. the high level guys who earned their position value different things, mainly whether my advice makes sense and whether i'm straightforward so they don't waste their time, which is infinitely more valuable to them than appearances.

TLBFestus, on 30 March 2017 - 08:18 AM, said:

As to the side discussion about how it doesn't matter "how" things are said rather than what is said, this is typical BS commentary from people on the internet who talk a tough game from behind a keyboard but would never do it face to face.

Virtually none of us would talk the same in person as we do in a forum, and for the most part, those of us that did would be thought of as socially challenged a-holes. I know this pretty much as well as I know that there will soon follow the inevitable reply from someone who will claim that they would not change their tenor one bit in person.

heh.

i talk the same way i type when i'm communicating for work-related issues. actually, sorry that's not true. i'm a lot more straight forward.

when i'm being paid for my expert opinion, maybe it may come as a surprise for some people here, but how i say it matters a lot less than what i say. because what i say offers a solution to the client's problem and how i say it doesn't.

[Jables McBarty]

Wil McCullough, on 30 March 2017 - 09:00 AM, said:

yup.

however, both large firms and small businesses alike have one thing in common - money. its in the best interest of all business owners to practise good business practices.

I think you missed the thrust of my statement:

Money is necessary to run a small business.

Money is the point of large publicly traded firms. They are legally bound by their articles of incorporation to turn profit for their shareholders; if the officers do not actively pursue profit they can be sued or prosecuted under civil law.

Many small business owners start because they think they can make money. Just as many start for other reasons: to be their own boss, to do something they can't do elsewhere (lots of freelance creative types--writers, photographers, etc--do this), to foster a different workplace culture, to be able to pick their clients, among others.

So to say "good practice is good practice" is fine and dandy but it completely misses the point that a small business owner can do whatever he damn well pleases in many regards. If that means pissing off his customers, fine. If he gets sick of his self-entitled customers, he can just liquidate assets, invest in the S&P500 and retire or go design golf courses.

So yeah, sometimes it pays to be a decent person to the people you pay for things.

[meteorol]

I never played a single game of comp, but i do follow the comp scene and watch pretty much every match that is casted.

If PGI wants to go anywhere regarding comp, they need to massively increase spectator quality. Games are painful to watch by nowadays standards. The red colored parts of the interface are way too hard to read. Interface takes up too much space (Boxes with names are too big).

Most importanly, they need to smoothen 3PV - 1PV transition.

What teams and leagues need to do if they ever want to enthuse larger parts of MWOs playerbase for comp is to MASSIVELY cut down times between drops. Yeah i know, people are switching mechs yada yada yada. But MWOs matches are usually ~5-7 min long. You won't get poeple to view matches when they have to wait for 2 hours to watch 20 minutes of gameplay. I never watch matches live, but always the uploads (if there are uploads, which is something that needs to be adressed aswell, upload that stuff on youtube if possible) and skip through all the waiting.

[Wil McCullough]

Jables McBarty, on 30 March 2017 - 09:12 AM, said:

snip

i don't think i missed the point.

i agree that small business owners can sometimes do whatever they please. after all, they're the boss.

but we're having a discussion on what a good business person focuses on (what is being said), and what a bad business person focuses on (how its being said).

as a business owner, russ can choose to ignore all rude feedback. that's his perogative. but he can also rationally respond to feedback based on whether it makes sense first, before choosing whether to discard or keep that particular piece of feedback.

it's one thing to be a rude **** with nothing to offer other than vitriol (e.g. screw you russ, i hope you get run over by a truck), it's another to be straightforward and saying what needs to be said even if it's unwelcome (e.g. russ, stop being a knob and acknowledge that the skill tree in its previous iteration did nothing to solve the issues it was set out to solve).

the onus is never on the customer to give polite, "decent" feedback. the onus is on the business owner how he wants to accept feedback, just like the onus is on the customer to decide whether he wants to open his wallet or not.

[TLBFestus]

Wil McCullough, on 30 March 2017 - 09:00 AM, said:

yup.

however, both large firms and small businesses alike have one thing in common - money. its in the best interest of all business owners to practise good business practices.
__

on a side note after reading through my previous comments, i just realized they could be construed as being directed towards russ. they're not. they're just my thoughts on how some people value politeness and a glib tongue as the key indicator of whether an opinion holds weight or not.

i have to deal with both low level execs and high level directors/CEOs in my line of work. in meetings, it's extremely obvious what their difference in considerations are. politeness and superficial things like being dressed to look the part are always the considerations of the grunts. the high level guys who earned their position value different things, mainly whether my advice makes sense and whether i'm straightforward so they don't waste their time, which is infinitely more valuable to them than appearances.



heh.

i talk the same way i type when i'm communicating for work-related issues. actually, sorry that's not true. i'm a lot more straight forward.

when i'm being paid for my expert opinion, maybe it may come as a surprise for some people here, but how i say it matters a lot less than what i say. because what i say offers a solution to the client's problem and how i say it doesn't.

When I'm being paid for my expert opinion I agree with you. I'm giving the client value for their money regardless of whether they want to hear something or not, and sometimes being blunt is the only way to do that.

In interpersonal relationships, it's a different kettle of fish.

[Jables McBarty]

Wil McCullough, on 30 March 2017 - 09:32 AM, said:

it's one thing to be a rude **** with nothing to offer other than vitriol (e.g. screw you russ, i hope you get run over by a truck), it's another to be straightforward and saying what needs to be said even if it's unwelcome (e.g. russ, stop being a knob and acknowledge that the skill tree in its previous iteration did nothing to solve the issues it was set out to solve).

As long as this is what you’re saying, I think we can agree.

Quote

i don't think i missed the point.

i agree that small business owners can sometimes do whatever they please. after all, they're the boss.

but we're having a discussion on what a good business person focuses on (what is being said), and what a bad business person focuses on (how its being said).

as a business owner, russ can choose to ignore all rude feedback. that's his perogative. but he can also rationally respond to feedback based on whether it makes sense first, before choosing whether to discard or keep that particular piece of feedback.

(snip)

the onus is never on the customer to give polite, "decent" feedback. the onus is on the business owner how he wants to accept feedback, just like the onus is on the customer to decide whether he wants to open his wallet or not.

But I’ll point out that this logic—while broadly accurate—is akin in spirit to the Clinton’s campaign philosophy that “they should vote for us because it’s what they should do.” When dealing with average people, phrasing and marketing still matters, and in both directions.

Russ doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy destined for (or even interested in, really) the C-suite of a Fortune 500 company. With that in mind I’d say it might not be a bad idea to be straightforward but still polite.

He's not paying us or you for professional business advice. He's opening his ears to his customers--which regardless of "good practice" he isn't actually required to do.

Plus—he’s Canadian.

Gotta speak the language

[Nemesis Duck]

MechaBattler, on 29 March 2017 - 08:54 PM, said:

Before all the 'safezone' stuff came about in this generation. We were taught to be polite. Maybe that's just too old fashion in this day and age...

Or maybe it's social engineering designed to weaken the middle class, in a society where the middle class has a greater role to play than other types in protecting their rights, OUR DUTY, while other classes who benefit from this weakening exponentially increase in power every year.

[Weeny Machine]

Who wants to make a bet?

I bet the result will be...


... a nerf to light mechs. Especially the Huginn



On a less sarcastic note: it would be good to have someone who has patience and can wait till he presents his arguments clearly and logically.

Edited by Bush Hopper, 30 March 2017 - 11:50 AM.

[MischiefSC]

You want your opinion to get taken seriously you need to present it in a way worth listening to. The idea that people are require to take someone being a jackass seriously is a line of BS put forward to justify being an *** to people.

Whoever goes needs to be able to put their ideas forward in an intelligent, useful format.

Explain what, why and how. Otherwise it's just wasted time.

[Roughneck45]

Curious what the topics will be.

I hope too much time isn't spent on balance, that could go on forever.

Id rather hear about improved casting tools, a better social interface, and potential rule sets for future tournaments.

[Mudhutwarrior]

LOL Roundtable.

People here never learn. never.

Russ is in love with the idea he can create celebrity to draw people to the game so he serves them before anyone else. The hole e-spurts thing was a big indication. These developers live in a bubble like most people do these days.

[Wil McCullough]

Jables McBarty, on 30 March 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

Plus—he’s Canadian.

Gotta speak the language

i loled =D

[Revis Volek]

Mudhutwarrior, on 30 March 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

LOL Roundtable.

People here never learn. never.

Russ is in love with the idea he can create celebrity to draw people to the game so he serves them before anyone else. The hole e-spurts thing was a big indication. These developers live in a bubble like most people do these days.

If most are in the bubble by your statement, wouldn't that make you the minority on the outside?


Comp leagues for Mechwarrior existed before Russ decided to try his hand at it.

[Tarogato]

My only question...

why did somebody make this thread, and why are people talking in it? This happens with so many topics and official posts. Why not talk on the original official post? What do we get out of transplanting half of the discussion over into a second thread in a different subforum?

Just puzzles me, is all.

[Valdarion Silarius]

I'll play devils advocate and say this. More people need to raise their voice as a community if PGI starts hitting more mechs that do not need nerfs. This also goes with overall gameplay and game changes that were done with the infamous "balance dartboard". Changing that with overall balancing to accommodate the meta elitist warlords is not a good business practice. Look at all the salty players that left over the new skill tree as an example. PGI panicked and went into full defense mode over it. Now who only knows how long it will take (if at all now) until we see that new skill tree to take effect.

I'm going to leave this here as an idea for this community. This is what the For Honor community did to make Ubisoft snap out of their "silent mode". It might help with bettering the communication with PGI and beneficial for everyone who still cares.

https://www.reddit.c...ty_event_april/

[Tarogato]

Arnold The Governator, on 30 March 2017 - 09:31 PM, said:

I'll play devils advocate and say this. More people need to raise their voice as a community if PGI starts hitting more mechs that do not need nerfs. This also goes with overall gameplay and game changes that were done with the infamous "balance dartboard".

I agree, wholeheartedly.

Quote

Changing that with overall balancing to accommodate the meta elitist warlords is not a good business practice.

Wait, what?

Adjusting the balance according to "meta elistist warlords" is a fantastic thing to do. Competitive players know how to exploit imbalances, they will seek out the optimal weapons, the optimal mechs, and the optimal builds. You grossly misunderstand what competitive players actually want. They don't want their pet meta builds to be buffed so they can continue to dominate over scrubs by abusing their pr0 meta ubercomp mechs. They want more diversity. Which means nerfs for the mechs that are too strong and overused, and buffs for the mechs that aren't getting played. That is what is healthy for this game.

[Valdarion Silarius]

Tarogato, on 30 March 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

I agree, wholeheartedly.





Wait, what?

Adjusting the balance according to "meta elistist warlords" is a fantastic thing to do. Competitive players know how to exploit imbalances, they will seek out the optimal weapons, the optimal mechs, and the optimal builds. You grossly misunderstand what competitive players actually want. They don't want their pet meta builds to be buffed so they can continue to dominate over scrubs by abusing their pr0 meta ubercomp mechs. They want more diversity. Which means nerfs for the mechs that are too strong and overused, and buffs for the mechs that aren't getting played. That is what is healthy for this game.

I apologize if I sounded like I contradicted myself there. Been doing that alot lately. What I was aiming for was I want PGI to focus not just on the meta crowd for overall balance changes. Yes they have the experience, but I don't want them to narrow it down to such a small group of players. Everyone's voice needs to be heard as a community. It's up to the community if they want a small group of players to represent their voice for them.

How about reverting Gauss rifle charge up times again? As in, getting rid of charge up time completely and adding longer reload times? PGI said they were going to do it but it never happened. It was swept under the rug. So should the competitive crowd have the final say and deciding factor that charge up times are necessary, despite the fact that there are NO other mechwarrior titles that have such a ridiculous feature?

[Elizander]

MischiefSC, on 29 March 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

Well, I'm curious to watch it. Many comp players are incredible antisocial aholes.

I can't really say if this is true based on personal experience, but if this is the case or the perception of others then one important part of the e-sports formula is already wrong.

E-sports works because the participants have fans. Being incredibly good at the game might be enough of a draw for a few, but a lot of esports personalities rely on being helpful to the community or have charisma to draw a lot of potatoes to watch them and cheer for them. Esports teams can't exist in a bubble without support from the crowds. An esports scene can't exist without fans that like the one or more of the teams playing.

[Johnny Z]

meteorol, on 30 March 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

I never played a single game of comp, but i do follow the comp scene and watch pretty much every match that is casted.

If PGI wants to go anywhere regarding comp, they need to massively increase spectator quality. Games are painful to watch by nowadays standards. The red colored parts of the interface are way too hard to read. Interface takes up too much space (Boxes with names are too big).

Most importanly, they need to smoothen 3PV - 1PV transition.

What teams and leagues need to do if they ever want to enthuse larger parts of MWOs playerbase for comp is to MASSIVELY cut down times between drops. Yeah i know, people are switching mechs yada yada yada. But MWOs matches are usually ~5-7 min long. You won't get poeple to view matches when they have to wait for 2 hours to watch 20 minutes of gameplay. I never watch matches live, but always the uploads (if there are uploads, which is something that needs to be adressed aswell, upload that stuff on youtube if possible) and skip through all the waiting.

Only read the last page but this reply makes a lot of sense. This game can start matches fast, to bad the matches with the most meaning supposedly cant manage it. I think its a bit of not seeing the forest through the trees. But what ever I don't expect any different.

I don't really care about competitive at this point, not even a little bit.

Edited by Johnny Z, 30 March 2017 - 10:28 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Tarogato, on 30 March 2017 - 09:20 PM, said:

My only question...

why did somebody make this thread, and why are people talking in it? This happens with so many topics and official posts. Why not talk on the original official post? What do we get out of transplanting half of the discussion over into a second thread in a different subforum?

Just puzzles me, is all.

Well the official one would actually be half decent if THIS one was the one that a certain train wreck, derailed with potato arguments.

Currently the official one has about 3 pages from one person it just doesn't need as it adds nothing.