So, you've lost an argument and are beginning to delve into deep sarcasm and veiled insults
As if your little buddy wasn't being condescending and insulting nor anything thereof.
Didn't lose any argument. Don't feel the need to address each and every sentence he/she rambles on. Half the stuff they say I agree with it. Half of those are red herrings side tangents meant to assume I don't have any sense whatsoever I guess.
Yes, the sky is blue. Just because one states it to me doesn't mean I'm not already aware or that it's even relevant.
Yes, several of the nodes will always be taken. Doesn't mean you should spec everyone of your mechs the exact same way with all the same nodes. I'll tweak all mine per mech variant.
If all y'all play are poptarting mechs with PPCs then spec them all the same. Some of my mechs are a lot cooler running than others. Not all of them have jump jets nor sling PPCs. Some need all the extra mobility they can get while others don't need to wade as deeply into the whole tree. Etc.. etc..
For a company that relies on customers they've sure had a lot of hate towards their customers.
I think the player base would be a lot larger and I bet they would have made a great deal more money if they hadn't let Russ do the talking.
1. They've lied a few times about features
2. They've alienated their customers a few times
3PV
Island
Cheapskates
Full refunds
Just off the top of my head I can think of a few times they've seemed to do things out of spite, like the Jumpjet change, instead of just making it harder to shoot while falling they instead killed the ability to jump.
Or you aren't dumbing it down enough. That's about as much of a deviation as choosing to use your Master slot for a weapon module or a 'Mech module.
There are also no 'Mechs ruling the roost that only use Dual Gauss.
If you aren't maxing out your Anchor Turn, Hard Brake, and Kinetic Burst, you are at a major disadvantage. If you aren't going down to at least 60% Radar Deprivation and +100 Seismic, you are also at a major disadvantage. Even an NTG featuring Dual Gauss with just one ERPPC is going to want the Heat Containment and Cool Run to keep the DPS up when pushes happen. Most builds are going to spec into CoolShot, too, for the same reason.
That leaves you with enough points to pick something you need for your guns and some notable durability, and that's the only major choice to be made: more durability or more firepower, and that's an easy choice to make.
Dont forget you will also be using all of the armor structure tree @31 points or you will be out of a match fast
I have a close friend of mine that I sometimes say "man your cheap"
He shoots back "no I am thrifty"
These reactions to Russ's comments are total over reactions
The same with the other comments
I was surprised when people over reacted
Then again I did come from the ANG and we had to stop calling active duty
A bunch of dumb assets lol
Man did they get butt hurt quick lol
Bottom line don't be wound so tight when someone makes a joke
I have a close friend of mine that I sometimes say "man your cheap"
He shoots back "no I am thrifty"
These relations to Russ are total over reactions
The same with the other comments
I was surprised when people over reacted
Then again I did come from the ANG and we had to stop calling active duty
A bunch of dumb assets lol
Man did they get butt hurt quick lol
Didn't know Russ is a "close friend" of the entire community.
For a company that relies on customers they've sure had a lot of hate towards their customers.
I think the player base would be a lot larger and I bet they would have made a great deal more money if they hadn't let Russ do the talking.
1. They've lied a few times about features
2. They've alienated their customers a few times
3PV
Island
Cheapskates
Full refunds
Just off the top of my head I can think of a few times they've seemed to do things out of spite, like the Jumpjet change, instead of just making it harder to shoot while falling they instead killed the ability to jump.
Russ also called Quadrupedal mechs - "not real mechs" and "belonging in a circus"
Which is obviously the worst thing he has ever said.
Keep in mind that PGI is not an MMO dev with years of experience under their belt. They previously worked on a handful of PC/console single player games, none of them at all BattleTech or even MMO-like.
They don't have a large dev team, and afaik the products they have developed aren't the kind that provide an ongoing 'income stream'.
They got the rights for an online BT product, which is no small trick, they bought their full control of MWO back from IGP, the distributor who helped them get the game rolling but also ticked off much of the player base, and they are working, however gradually, to make the game better.
PGI has definitely had some issues adapting to this new development environment and 'instant flame wars' from the playerbase has probably made them a bit gun-shy and defensive. However they have done more to provide an interesting BT combat experience than all the other big-time developers in the past ten years.
The gaming universe is full of people with egos and opinions bigger than they should be, that's nothing new (devs and fans both). Cut PGI some slack, turn down the heated hyperbole a little, and work to provide the kind of feedback they can actually use rather than resorting to bitterness, sarcasm, and constantly throwing every years-old misstep back at them, and maybe we'll end up with something decent here.
There are people who can't take criticism (of any sort) and people who can't frame criticism (of any sort).
When the people who can't take criticism (and even those who can, as most people have a tolerance level) repeatedly take criticism framed (by human detritus) poorly (aka '****'), then you have a fundamental breakdown in communications developing. One side doesn't say things properly or meaningfully (or undertake the most cursory attempt at being reasonably or seeing things from another perspective), and the other side is unwilling or unable to parse what it said (because really, no one wants to shovel through **** even when they are paid for it... and how many people are you going to spend money on for shoveling through the same bit of garbage?).
So in a sense, it is understandable. And I can even see that resulting in wholesale abandonment when it occurs at a high enough level for a long enough period. Look if you don't like spiders and there is a room full of spiders, maybe you are just going to lock that room and never go back in until you have a flamethrower, nevermind that they may have changed into some really nice, helpful, articulate spiders (but jesus, spiders).
Still, i can't fully endorse any kind of refusal to see from other perspectives and to search for and engage with constructive elements. Especially when you want money from it. That sort of coddled, close mindedness never results in anything good.
I guess the real question is what makes the devs so hostile towards the players? Why do they ignore the forums?
Like I said at the top, I'm new here, does anyone have any insight into this?
IF they are in fact hostile towards the players I'd say it's because threads like these.
I'm not defending PGI, but stating as fact that the designers of the game are hostile towards the players, that they ignore the forums and so on, based on, at best, opinion isn't going to be received well.
They may be here reading the forums each day, you don't know.
But I would guess that it would be very difficult to get anything good from the forum as usually nobody can agree on anything.
I remember Russ saying that, and always thought it was an amusing thing to say. It's no wonder the forums are a circus, because the player base loves quad mechs! So...shouldn't quad mechs be put into the game? Thanks Russ!
If I may be serious for a moment, I don't think PGI is toxic or even hostile to its player/customers; I do think they are a tad too dismissive of them certainly but that isn't really the problem.
No, the problem is that PGI is ignorant. They are ignorant of their own game, what they want out of it, what the various segments of their population want out of it and why they play it in the first place and stick around after.
Because of that ignorance they cannot communicate to their players/customers any sort of explanations for their current conduct nor provide any consistent vision statement for what they want to achieve over the long term besides by expressing euphemisms like "we see potential for MWO as an e-sports platform".
Add on top of that ignorance their various ham-fisted efforts to legitimately engage their community (drunk at town halls) and it sometimes comes off as dishonest (3PV), contemptuous ("I know best" from last April) but it in end it really is all just an expression of their own ignorance of not what we want...but what they want.
Note how PGI has been caving again and again over the past few months because of complaints. But, let's scrutinize the CEO for something he said as a part of the joke.
Honestly, there are SO SO many things that one can criticize and hope PGI will improve on. Hostile customer relation is not one of them. Grow some balls.
If I may be serious for a moment, I don't think PGI is toxic or even hostile to its player/customers; I do think they are a tad too dismissive of them certainly but that isn't really the problem.
No, the problem is that PGI is ignorant. They are ignorant of their own game, what they want out of it, what the various segments of their population want out of it and why they play it in the first place and stick around after.
Because of that ignorance they cannot communicate to their players/customers any sort of explanations for their current conduct nor provide any consistent vision statement for what they want to achieve over the long term besides by expressing euphemisms like "we see potential for MWO as an e-sports platform".
Add on top of that ignorance their various ham-fisted efforts to legitimately engage their community (drunk at town halls) and it sometimes comes off as dishonest (3PV), contemptuous ("I know best" from last April) but it in end it really is all just an expression of their own ignorance of not what we want...but what they want.
This.
(Examples are highly detailed. Pressed for time? Shorthand under "TL;DR" at the end. Then go up above the -- line to find the Conclusive Statement.)
A key example was during the Ask the Devs sessions that used to happen.
Spoiler
Players wanted to know what PGI had against heat neutrality in tabletop.
David, one of the developers, recited a specific example... The Awesome 8Q stock. He said that the Awesome could fire 3 PPCs, all day long, and never heat up and this is bad.
....This is not true in many, MANY ways.
First off the Awesome 8Q has 28 standard heatsinks, and even remaining completely stationary, would eventually overheat firing each of its three PPCs just once, every 10 seconds. In fact I recently calculated that if it fired its PPCs and maintained a cruising speed of 48.6 kph it would eventually overheat within 70 seconds give or take several seconds, assuming one PPC is fired at a time approximately 3-4 seconds apart per PPC, non-stop.
Second, the Awesome 8Q would instantly shutdown if it fired all 3 PPCs at the same time, regardless of the amount of heatsinks it has. 30 heat + instant = 100% shutdown temp = shutdown, period. This is the harshness of a non-rising threshold, which is what every MW game has ever had since the very first game. Rising thresholds create intensely complex balancing issues and encourages the potential for massive alpha strikes -- something that even Paul understands is NOT supposed to be common and instead an instance of desperation. Not the Norm.
Any cool running mech is stated to be such if all of its weapons are used a single time within 10 seconds. We can use our weapons anywhere from a minimum of 3 times in 10 seconds, to a current maximum of 19 times within 10 seconds. At the time of that AtD, the maximum was 28 times within 10 seconds.
Heat Neutrality was explained as such.
The question was posed, due to a hidden mechanic known as Heat Retention, where constantly firing the same weapons over and over actually produces additional heat prior to the ghost heat magnum opus. The weapon that shows the existence of this mechanic more prominently than any other is the original Flamer, where a single flamer would overheat you within a matter of minutes, even with 30+ DHS and a single flamer. The new flamers are just that mechanic taken to the extreme. However this mechanic also exists on lasers of all NON-Large classes, presumably as a counter to the 9 laser hunchback prior to ghost heat. This mechanic still exists on those weapons and acts if you do not let go of the trigger,. It is easiest to recognize now on small pulse lasers due to the rate of their firing.
The question, among many others asked since, were a plight and campaign to remove rising heat thresholds -- one of the largest causes of mech, weight class, heatsink, "Faction", and weapon balance disparities that exist in the game as it currently is (Some mechs can equip more heatsinks than others. Lights can never equip a large enough engine to get the full 10 True Double Heatsinks or for up to 17 DHS to equal out to 17 true doubles after Cool Run and Heat Containment, IS and Clan heatsinks are different sizes thus Clans can fit more. As such Clans can always have higher thresholds. Weapons on both sides with equal heat and damage values will not have equal performance because Clan versions can always run longer; the very fact that Clan weapons are DPS oriented also entitle them to run longer due to their heat being spread rather than instant regardless of how 'equal' they are made on paper.)
In another thing, David said he has played countless hours of tabletop games. But did not specifically recite Battletech or reference Battletech alongside his answer. His expressed fondness was of Warhammer. Paul has admitted that they made him play a few hours of Battletech, and in a separate interview he has stated (and I do agree based on the interpretation he took, but this is also another example of ignorance) "Minimum range on autocannons makes no sense. Bullets don't magically just not do damage within a certain range."
Spoiler
Correct, minimum range in PGI's interpretation makes no sense on ANY weapon. But there in rests the ignorance:
The ignorance on minimum range is a short-hand commonly used in BT rulebooks, and that the full original phrase is Minimum Accuracy Penalty Range, aka the minimum range in which a target can be where the pilot can hit the target without undue difficulty. Undue difficulty being that of trying to hit a light speeding by at say 30 meters in which they are only on screen for maybe a second even at just 97 kph. Where even an Atlas, at a certain (closer) range, can quickly pass your vision in less than a second giving you very little time to focus your weapons on the target and fire your complete payload of that weapon.
If one needs an example, hold your Cell phone like a gun in one hand. Now find something heavy, like a laundry detergent bottle (preferably full) in the other. Now swing your cellphone to track an imaginary target and shoot. Do the same with the heavier "weapon" while using exactly the same amount of strength. Could you match the cellphone's speed or did you fall short? That is the minimum accuracy penalty range. Granted this in turn has its own issues, but most mechs didn't have 5 or 6 weapons on the same arm when the rule was made.
Gauss charge up was a good way to make an example of this -- try to hit a light as it circles you with a Gauss Rifle. Not easy, is it?
Now have them run in the same size circle some 300 meters away and try to hit them with Gauss. Damn easy, isn't it?
Conclusive statement.
Anyway, more than toxicity I believe it is ignorance.
PGI has time and time again told us that we don't know anything about game development, and while this is generally true it has been in response to players that have predicted balancing hurdles they would face going on the path they did, whom have presented extremely viable solutions, some of whom have even created examples in moddable games specifically to showcase their idea... meaning that they would have to have some obvious experience to create the example in games that are nothing like MWO. For example Kerble space program, Unreal Engine, CryEngine, or even just the artistic examples of better ways to create weapon racks that are big and yet do not enlarge the hitboxes like the cancerous tumors PGI is sometimes churning out.
---
Edit:
To tack on... or rather to follow up with the original example, despite PGI's exuberant protests against "heat neutrality" as explained as the ability to have X heatsinks and be able to use all weapons once and return to zero heat at the end of 10 seconds, despite how we expect if we fire them all at the same time we might shut down... We have these following issues which present a much larger heat neutrality problem AND as far worse problems . Such problems that our requests -- had they been been fulfilled or even truly considered -- would never have allowed and thus would never have existed in the first place:
Spoiler
Problem 1) The Awesome 8Q example again introduced to a new impossible extreme -- the 5 minute Awesome.
PGI's quirk design which after the Clans, targeted the Awesome as one of the first highly quirked platforms..
Gave numerous benefits, including 50% heat reduction on all energy weapons and a HUGE amount of CT armor.
The result? We put 214 or less armor on the Awesome, most of it on the CT. We loaded it with as many single heatsinks as we could fit, and threee PPCs on the Awesome 8Q.
We then had the "5 minute Awesome", an Awesome that could fire all 3 PPCS, at the maximum of rate of fire that PGI allows (3-4 times faster than tabletop)... non-stop (on Alpine)... for 5 minutes before hitting 99% heat.
We could stop firing for 2 seconds... and be down to 70% heat.
Thus, the 5 minute Awesome.
(This has the 5 minute Awesome assisting me. Remember this has only 214 armor, that's just 4 points more than the max that a 30 ton mech (unquirked) can equip).
(A note on the video's situation for context. Assault mode. We're down to 3 players just prior to this moment. Not only did we get stomped but we got base rushed too, the base is in bad shape, few turrets are left, lots of light snipers and heavies and assaults are coming down the central channel being held off and annihilated by the Awesome. I'm on suppression duty, it doesn't matter if my missiles hit they need to hold the snipers back to keep them from hitting the weak spots of the Awesome [STs, arms, legs, backside]. I also need to keep them from sneaking into the base. The music in the background is from the youtube video I was watching, as I was lrming any targets given to me and then alt tabbing to watch more videos -- that's how in the bag this match seemed until I was pulled away. I had to alt tab and pull out Fraps because the situation actually became interesting after we made it back to the base and chased off the pests. It concludes as a tie, one versus one, but started 3 and within seconds 2 versus 7.)
Meanwhile if PGI had listened to the campaign going on at the time to lock threshold at 30, you'd fire 3 PPCs and shutdown, period.
Laser vomit could not exist in its current form. AC/20s would have a maximum of 4 shots without delay and shutting down , just one extra shot compared to the 600% punishment heat that happens from Ghost Heat where a twin AC/20 build can manage 3 shots without delay and shutting down.
Even if we doubled that number, the 6 PPC Stalker which caused so many problems back in the day would just have been a joke build.
Instead, we have this.
Also, we have heat neutrality far worse than what we were actually talking about, since we were actually talking about hidden mechanics that punished us for using our weapons and extra heat on small and medium lasers.
TL;DR.
Example 1: Due to hidden mechanics making it impossible to have heat neutrality for X heat against X Cooling power (the same variable mind you, so 15 heat vs 15 cooling), such is the case on even 10 SHS mechs (produce less than 10 heat in 10 seconds with 10 cooling per 10 seconds, still can magically shut down across over 40-50 seconds of use, even with just a single ML on a heat neutral map, or within about 3 minutes on a cold map [without Heat Containment and Cool Run EVEN TODAY!!!!!), we asked what PGI has against heat neutrality. Quoted an example of why heat neutrality is bad that is erroneous in many ways bullet-listed in the spoiler.
Example 2: Statement shows an incorrect assumption to the Battletech definition of "Minimum Range," statement follows the logical belief that minimum range makes no sense when applied to autocannons because a bullet doesn't magically do no damage due to being too close. While true, "Minimum Range" is shorthand in BT for "Minimum Accuracy Penalty Range." In other words, you're more likely to miss your target within X minimum range due to convergence, tracking speed, or some other issue. (Also as such, IS PPCs should do full damage at point blank but have a mechanic that makes it harder to actually hit something so close, like the original charge up.)
Example 1 continued: Despite PGI's adamant stance against heat neutrality, through the use of the skill tree and abuse of the very systems we fought against, mechs can fire 11 to 15 ER PPCs without instantly dying (in fact the higher the number the safer it is to do) where what we wanted was a system where 3 PPCs or 2 Clan ER PPCs would shut us down if fired at the same time (aka standard 30 threshold)... Worse yet, the original example of the Awesome 8Q was able to be turned into the 5 minute Awesome, where 3 PPCs could be fired simultaineously, at maximum firing rate, non-stop for 5 minutes on a cold map before a risk to shutdown was even presented and simply releasing for 2 seconds allowed you to squeeze another 2 minutes out of non-firing.
Dont forget you will also be using all of the armor structure tree @31 points or you will be out of a match fast
Honestly on a lot of mechs extra structure isn't particularly useful, especially with the component health reduction. I found in PTS two there were far better options than sinking 31 points into a skill tree that gave at best 13 points, particularly since that is one third of an alpha and you can increase sustain significantly for the same investment.
Unless a mech has heavy quirks rolled into their baseline (like the Atlas) the amount of benefit you receive is marginal.
I'm a new player to the game. I started playing regularly in December. Since that time I've enjoyed the game and the community as a whole. Much healthier than similar games I've played.
However, the saga of the skill tree has made me think there is some toxicity in this game, but it's from the devs towards the players instead of the other way around.
I don't watch podcasts but I was interested to read about the "cheapskates" comments. From what I understand of this incident Russ said that players who buy only a few modules and then moves those modules to different mechs are cheapskates. Which is an odd way to address your player base for using a system the devs designed. How hard would it have been to reduce module cost and then bind them to whichever mech they were first used on?
Regardless, the point stands that the lead designer? of the game is actively hostile towards his player base for using a system in a way the system was designed.
Then I looked up the "on an island" comment and thought this was also odd way to react. Telling a player their opinion doesn't represent the communities opinion when the devs seem to have no interest in actually listening to the community. In fact it took a personal email from one of the "in" players to actually get some feedback. Massive favoritism towards a few individuals the devs accept as representing the community while actively ignoring the official forums where the community provides feedback.
The forums are another indication of dev toxicity because they are rarely used for any kind of feedback. Twitter and podcasts seem to be more popular while the games official forums are ignored. Odd.
Which leads back to the skill tree testing. The first test had a lot of feedback on the forums that was completely ignored. One of the comments was the overall framework was positively received, a blatant lie if you actually read the threads instead of only the response of the few "in" players.
It took a massive outcry of people willing to leave the game to get a second test. The feedback from this second test was partially listened to about refunds, but again ignored the responses about the skill tree design.
The third test also showed a distinct lack of heed given to the feedback about the skill tree design.
From the very start of the skill tree testing the bulk of forum users who responded about the skill tree have indicated it is too complex, doesn't prevent min/maxing, doesn't solve boating, and overall detracts from the game as a whole. Multiple solutions were provided that would accomplish all of the stated goals better than what was tested.
And yet the devs keep glossing over this feedback as if it never happened.
Which leads me to the conclusion that the most toxic part of this game is actually the way the devs treat their players. Something unique to me because all of the other games I play it's the players toward each other or the players towards the devs.
So now I'm sitting here wondering how much more I should invest into this game. Do I keep giving money to people who see the player base as annoyances except for a select few? Do I write off MW5 since it's being built by the same company?
I guess the real question is what makes the devs so hostile towards the players? Why do they ignore the forums?
Like I said at the top, I'm new here, does anyone have any insight into this?
Keep your wallet closed, you are rignt in what you are seeing,,PGI could give 2 s@#t's about the player base. The Devs, are about as arrogant as it gets, with they're ego's hurt!
I've got practically everything I've asked for from PGI. They listen and they do care. Just remember we're all people, we all make mistakes and sometimes mis-speak. No one seems to mention Russ apologized and explained what he meant when he said cheapskates. I definitely wasn't offended in the slightest, but some were and and Russ still addressed that.
Skill tree is full of useless nodes, it's refund system isn't perfect. I honestly don't care if it comes or goes. I've always thought there were more important issues to tackle than CW phase 9000 and the skill tree. I've given up on fighting for those more important things. Not because PGI, but because the community is the one to blame.
I wanted MWO to be updated and grow. Most of this community did not care or did not want MWO to be updated with Unreal Engine. So Russ did the next best thing MW5. It was comical to watch the same people against my update the game posts flip and go but why not MWO?
So MWO will stay in the past where the majority of the community likes to live and dwell. MW5 will progress to the future. Only thing left for me to do is one more Mad Cat MK II crusade for MW5.
6
This topic is locked
Mcgral18, on 30 April 2017 - 12:39 AM, said:
