109 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Savage Wolf, on 27 July 2017 - 10:52 AM, said:

I'm saying that PGI's vision for community warfare wasn't part of your purchase of Founders mech(s). It said clearly what you paid for on the receipt and community warfare wasn't part of it. It's a free to play game, you pay for items. You got those items. The game play is free. Or are you also complaining that all the people who didn't pay get to play it?

So no, that video is real. But it has nothing to do with your title of Founders. And you have no more right to whatever you think what was promised than free to play players.

If you want that those things in the video you a free to ask PGI for them. But thinking you have special priviledges because you were among the first to buy a mech pack is pathetic. And more importantly, do not asume all founders are as entitled as you.

I think you are confusing the TOS with advertised intent.
There is no question that some folks signed up because of that video as well as the numerous interviews that Russ and Bryan conducted wherein they made all sort of grandiose statements of intent...even promises of what the game and the CW mode was going to be all about.
You are certainly correct that they were never under any contractual obligation to deliver any of those things, but to pretend that no founder signed up for anything other than the strict contents of the TOS is simply delusional.

[Mystere]

Bud Crue, on 27 July 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

I think you are confusing the TOS with advertised intent.

Of course he is. Otherwise, the alternatives are much worse on his end -- and he might not even realize it, given said alternatives.

Bud Crue, on 27 July 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

There is no question that some folks signed up because of that video as well as the numerous interviews that Russ and Bryan conducted wherein they made all sort of grandiose statements of intent...even promises of what the game and the CW mode was going to be all about.
You are certainly correct that they were never under any contractual obligation to deliver any of those things, but to pretend that no founder signed up for anything other than the strict contents of the TOS is simply delusional.

Well, that's the reason why people regularly vote against their own interests by electing and reelecting the same clowns that promise one thing but do something else -- like take away people's basics rights or pass laws that directly discriminate against them.

So, Caitlyn Jenner, go suck it up! You brought it on yourself.

Edited by Mystere, 27 July 2017 - 11:07 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Aim64C, on 27 July 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

That may not have been what caught your eye when you spent money, but it was what was billed with the sale.

Show me your receipt then. It's not on mine. It wasn't what was promised for the price tag either. So prove it.

Aim64C, on 27 July 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

Simply because you're shallow does not relieve the developer of the responsibility or change the color of that red light you have on your porch.

Because you feel so entitled just from having bought the first mech-pack maybe you should be

Aim64C, on 27 July 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

You're due no respect and have no place to demand it.

You are correct. I am indeed due no respect and neither is any other founder. But I am not the one demanding it.

Aim64C, on 27 July 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

It's just as unreasonable to ignore contract obligations simply due to your own lack of standards as it is to expect the delivery of items outside the bounds of a contract. To deny that the game has devolved from a lore-inspired tactical shooter into an arena shooter hilariously lacking the spectator mode necessary to turn it into the E-Sport PGI is dreaming it will become... is... well... an exercise in naiveté. I have some waterfront property in Osage Beach to sell you, if you're interested.

What contract? It was a simple purchase of a mech-pack.

And it hasn't devolved into an arena shooter, it always was. It was what was presented to us. Even the community warfare part was just that. If you saw more than that then that's on you.

Now can we use some effort on making a good arena shooter instead of chasing some vapor dream of a lore heavy mmo with interesting global warfare. Only Eve Online has ever suceeded in creating anything remotely close to what you expect PGI of all developers to pull of. Many others have made what PGI promised and none of them worked. Any work on faction warfare is just wasted.

[Savage Wolf]

Mystere, on 27 July 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

But isn't that exactly what the OP was doing, asking that PGI do what they said they would do?

OP did do that. And he's allowed to. Anyone can make suggestions to the game. But he was also trying to elevate himself using the status of founder and then also claiming that all other founders share his opinion without asking. He has now changed this and I appreciate that.

Mystere, on 27 July 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

And as for being "entitled", I guess asking for a quality product or delivering on what was promised is now considered nothing but entitlement, right?

If you didn't pay for it, then yes.

Mystere, on 27 July 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

Well, I'd rather be so-called "entitled" than settle for mediocrity. If you prefer the latter, eat your heart out.

I'm asking people not to use me for their own agendas and not think that your purchase of a mech-pack elevates you above any other player of this game. What we then consider mediocrity and or quality is our own opinion.

[Savage Wolf]

Bud Crue, on 27 July 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

I think you are confusing the TOS with advertised intent.
There is no question that some folks signed up because of that video as well as the numerous interviews that Russ and Bryan conducted wherein they made all sort of grandiose statements of intent...even promises of what the game and the CW mode was going to be all about.
You are certainly correct that they were never under any contractual obligation to deliver any of those things, but to pretend that no founder signed up for anything other than the strict contents of the TOS is simply delusional.

I'm not saying that they didn't buy those items in hope of using them with the features presented. They probably did. But have you read what people are claiming here? That they directly paid for it and can then demand as part of the purchase. That those features were garanteed with their purchase. Hell no. Things never worked that way. So demanding that PGI or anyone else should treat it that way is entitlement.

So has PGI broken promises? Yeah, sure. Did you pay for those promises. No, never.

[Mystere]

SuperFunkTron, on 27 July 2017 - 08:04 AM, said:

I want to start collecting the ideas people have to make Faction Play more interesting.

Here you go.

[Bud Crue]

Savage Wolf, on 27 July 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

But have you read what people are claiming here? That they directly paid for it and can then demand as part of the purchase.

Maybe AIM64c is arguing that (he/she can speak for themself), but no one else as far a I can tell. The rest of us seem to be either resigned to FP stagnation or merely wish PGI would make it better.

[SuperFunkTron]

Savage Wolf, on 27 July 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

Now can we use some effort on making a good arena shooter instead of chasing some vapor dream of a lore heavy mmo with interesting global warfare. Only Eve Online has ever suceeded in creating anything remotely close to what you expect PGI of all developers to pull of. Many others have made what PGI promised and none of them worked. Any work on faction warfare is just wasted.

I'm not digging for a "lore heavy" global warfare. I'm just trying to get something that is lore influenced enough to call it Battletech, but free of the constraints of cannon story. Having Factions, Clans and Houses specifically, that encourage some resemblance of what they had a tendency of using in battle is far from a lore heavy dig but rather an attempt at giving these characters some personality. At our current level of FP development, we essentially have Clan vs IS as our two Characters and a sticker to show what other players you want to hang out with. Something as simple as Faction Specific Mechs immediately creates differences among those Faction on both sides of the tech divide. I struggle to see where the intense lore dig is here, unless you consider taking already made lists of mechs typical for specific factions and adding them to the game to be very lore intensive and incredibly demanding.

Savage Wolf, on 27 July 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

OP did do that. And he's allowed to. Anyone can make suggestions to the game. But he was also trying to elevate himself using the status of founder and then also claiming that all other founders share his opinion without asking. He has now changed this and I appreciate that.

Do you think I was trying to provide a basis to my point by using your initial purchase or that I may have been referring to how long the concept of a developed FP has been used as an application of those mechs you bought? I'm happy that you are no longer needlessly offended by my original post, but did we make any progress in trying to address the painfully bare bones nature of FP as it is?

All I want is a cohesive, easy to reference thread so that PGI could look through community suggestions in a single place. In case it wasn't clear, I had no intent of smearing the original founders by connecting the original advertised intent and suggesting that some may have hoped for its delivery when they bought the founders packs.

[Clanner Scum]

Faction play is garbage and less than a quarter of the MWO population actually participate in it.

If PGI was smart, they'd develop the game outside of FW and put it on the side lines.

Edited by Clanner Scum, 27 July 2017 - 11:26 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Anyway, despite my cynicism and defeatist view of what SuperFunkTron is trying to accomplish here are my "realistic" to pie in the sky proposals.

Jack up the rewards for everyone. I don't care how or the specific values, but if you can't make the game intriguing and a draw to a diverse population of players, then at least make it worth their time -win or lose.

Create a handicap system by changes in the tug of war conditions based on population. What I mean by this is PGI asserts that they have real data analysis capabilities to show where the better players are. If a majority of these "better" players are all mercs working for a specific clan or faction (for example),and these mercs and their affiliated clan are running roughshod over the map, then change the planetary win conditions such that that clan and their mercs need more than a single win to advance the tug of war. Or perhaps do the opposite: if a particular faction is getting its a$$ handed to it, and the data shows it is because it is populated by terribads, then change the TOW conditions such that a loss (they won't win) doesn't negate the win achieved by say the better mercs who are occasionally winning on their behalf. As convoluted as I am making this sound, PGI has suggested that this is in their capabilities. Combine it with the call to arms and merc rewards and it seems to me that they ought to create an environment were good teams and bad teams can make a difference on the map just to different extents.

Generous and faction specific LP rewards trees. By now PGI ought to have a grasp of different but equal balancing (ok maybe not a grasp...a glimmer of understanding then), and ought to be able to create rewards trees that are unique to each faction. Do it. Make em as challenging as needed but make them feel unique to each.

Remove merc rewards other than C-bills. Give em a ton when they win and a lot less when they lose, but being a merc ought to be about the all mighty cbill and nothing else.

Planets need to mean more than a few god damn MC. I don't care what, but there has to be a sense of accomplishment when taking a planet. As it is there is nothing.

Drop deck weight changes based on distance from a home planet. Mercs get no such penalty or advantage but a straight limit.

I got more and god knows I have a history in FP forums where I have outlined at least some of them but the argument above is distracting me (Also work...god damn clients! Don't they know I am trying to fix faction play here!!?).

Edited by Bud Crue, 27 July 2017 - 11:30 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

Clanner Scum, on 27 July 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

Faction play is garbage and less than a quarter of the MWO population actually participate in it.

If PGI was smart, they'd develop the game outside of FW and put it on the side lines.

Maybe I should have clarified myself in the OP and asked for clear ideas. Would you like to expand on what specifically they should develop outside of FW?

[Clanner Scum]

SuperFunkTron, on 27 July 2017 - 11:28 AM, said:

Maybe I should have clarified myself in the OP and asked for clear ideas. Would you like to expand on what specifically they should develop outside of FW?

Maps. This game needs maps. It needs better game modes. Currently the game modes that are not skirmish or assault are not fun, they're imbalanced and no one picks them. Or if they do, it's the lesser of two evils when presented with a choice. Incursion and escort need to be taken out of quick play immediately. Que times are getting longer now because people aren't playing and it's because of these horrible game modes and lack of maps.

For the competitive scene PGI needs to develop a better team based game mode that only matches an organize team v another organized team. And at the end of every three months have a tournament of the top scoring teams to determine the winner. Winners get prizes like mechs, c-bills, skins etc.

Also an arena game mode with its own unique maps would be nice. I'd like a Solaris button at the top of my screen to jump into a solaris arena match. Maybe you could put some sort of unique prizes on that as well.

There's plenty of better alternatives out there. And honestly, the only way FW could have worked is if it functioned in a sandbox environment.

Edited by Clanner Scum, 27 July 2017 - 11:39 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

Clanner Scum, on 27 July 2017 - 11:35 AM, said:

Maps. This game needs maps. It needs better game modes. Currently the game modes that are not skirmish or assault are not fun, they're imbalanced and no one picks them. Or if they do, it's the lesser of two evils when presented with a choice.

For the competitive scene PGI needs to develop a better team based game mode that only matches an organize team v another organized team. And at the end of every three months have a tournament of the top scoring teams to determine the winner. Winners get prizes like mechs, c-bills, skins etc.

Russ made a recent twitter post confirming his statements from the last town hall that there are maps in the works and that more info will be presented in the August town hall.

Is the organized team vs organized team not a part of competitive play? I understood it was specifically dedicated to that.

Maps are a legitimate concern, and fixing competitive mode to be organized teams fighting organized teams are legitimate things to address, but hardly the type of development I'm interested in. I'm aiming for ideas that increase interest in FP (or any other potential mode) that by adding depth and some variety beyond Clan vs IS mode with a drop deck.

[Clanner Scum]

SuperFunkTron, on 27 July 2017 - 11:40 AM, said:

Is the organized team vs organized team not a part of competitive play? I understood it was specifically dedicated to that.

It is already in the game. But what I'm saying is it needs to be expanded upon. Or atleast that's what I meant to say.

SuperFunkTron, on 27 July 2017 - 11:40 AM, said:

Maps are a legitimate concern, and fixing competitive mode to be organized teams fighting organized teams are legitimate things to address, but hardly the type of development I'm interested in. I'm aiming for ideas that increase interest in FP (or any other potential mode) that by adding depth and some variety beyond Clan vs IS mode with a drop deck.

Hmmm. I'd consider playing FW if it was simplified. I'm not interested in organized play. That's probably the biggest reason I shy away from FW.

I want to plop down in my chair at night, hit the play button and go shoot people. I don't care about managing a drop deck with other people and using voice comms to execute a planned strategy. I just want to jump in a shoot sh*t.

[Mystere]

Clanner Scum, on 27 July 2017 - 11:35 AM, said:

Currently the game modes that are not skirmish or assault are not fun, they're imbalanced and no one picks them.

What is so imbalanced about Domination?

[Thorn Hallis]

I'd scrap Faction Warware and go back to Community Warfare.

No really, scrap that thing. Replace it with historical events (planetary invasions, lets say 2 to 3 months apiece) that follow a timeline. Create different short- and longterm objectives that are connected to the respective event, maybe with certain bonus objectives for certain 'Mechs that played a role during said event. The objectives should be achievable in solo OR group queue, so that noone would feel himself forced into either mode.

[Clanner Scum]

Mystere, on 27 July 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

What is so imbalanced about Domination?

You're kidding right?

There are several maps where domination is imbalanced toward one team or the other because of where the circle is positioned and where the teams spawn from.

Domination can only be balanced if it's being played on a perfectly symmetrical map.

[Methanoid]

Clanner Scum, on 27 July 2017 - 11:35 AM, said:

Maps. This game needs maps. It needs better game modes. Currently the game modes that are not skirmish or assault are not fun, they're imbalanced and no one picks them.

^ All this. also update/change the gfx engine, it slooked dated for a while now, looks almost as bland/dead as some old halflife1 engine games, change it to Unreal engine if only so people can submit user created maps to help us through the dry season of maps hoping some get officially adopted if PGI cbfa doing it themselves, releasing mech after mech is not good enough, get more damned maps in asap.

[Methanoid]

Mystere, on 27 July 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

What is so imbalanced about Domination?

some maps like Alpine favor 1 side over the other for mechs safely getting into cover while scoring.

[Mystere]

Clanner Scum, on 27 July 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

You're kidding right?

There are several maps where domination is imbalanced toward one team or the other because of where the circle is positioned and where the teams spawn from.

Domination can only be balanced if it's being played on a perfectly symmetrical map.

You want perfectly symmetrical maps? ROFL!

Methanoid, on 27 July 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

some maps like Alpine favor 1 side over the other for mechs safely getting into cover while scoring.

The whole point of "Domination" is precisely to dominate the enemy. So kick them out, or die trying!

I've won or lost Alpine-Domination drops on either side of the map and never have I thought of the "map favors one side" argument.