34 replies to this topic

[Angel of Annihilation]

You know I love playing MWO and spend a ton of money on the game but ironically can't recommend the game to my friends. I always end up saying things like, "I really love the game but the Devs are out of touch" or "The game is great but I am so tired of every patch being some sort of nerf that screws up all my builds or ruins my favorite mech" or "Game is fantastic but they don't really seem to work on the things the community wants and instead fix things that weren't broken to begin with".

In the end it is the "buts" that end up convincing my friends to not play. They are like, "Why should I play a game with these sorts of frequent frustrations" and the only thing I am come up with is that, overall I generally have alot of fun despite the frustrations. That isn't enough to convenience them and to be honest, I completely understand why, I mean who wants to deal with constant frustration especially when there are so many other games to play?

This is why I keep begging PGI and Chris to stop with the drastic changes and constant cycle of nerfs that seem to take place every patch. it is these drastic changes mostly conducted by drastic nerfs that keep to frustration levels high and induce all the "Buts" in my description of them game. Gameplay overall is very fun, having your favorite mech or build nerfed month end and month out isn't. The game is 5 years old, it isn't in Beta any more so most of the game play mechanics should be pretty affixed in stone by now but for some reason it isn't and it that is a huge issue.

[Trissila]

Viktor Drake, on 24 October 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

You know I love playing MWO and spend a ton of money on the game but ironically can't recommend the game to my friends. I always end up saying things like, "I really love the game but the Devs are out of touch" or "The game is great but I am so tired of every patch being some sort of nerf that screws up all my builds or ruins my favorite mech" or "Game is fantastic but they don't really seem to work on the things the community wants and instead fix things that weren't broken to begin with".

In the end it is the "buts" that end up convincing my friends to not play. They are like, "Why should I play a game with these sorts of frequent frustrations" and the only thing I am come up with is that, overall I generally have alot of fun despite the frustrations. That isn't enough to convenience them and to be honest, I completely understand why, I mean who wants to deal with constant frustration especially when there are so many other games to play?

This is why I keep begging PGI and Chris to stop with the drastic changes and constant cycle of nerfs that seem to take place every patch. it is these drastic changes mostly conducted by drastic nerfs that keep to frustration levels high and induce all the "Buts" in my description of them game. Gameplay overall is very fun, having your favorite mech or build nerfed month end and month out isn't. The game is 5 years old, it isn't in Beta any more so most of the game play mechanics should be pretty affixed in stone by now but for some reason it isn't and it that is a huge issue.

Gameplay isn't fixed in stone because many of the players operate under some strange delusion that there's not going to be a meta, and PGI keeps trying to please them. Not by working to achieve some mythical Total Balance, but to kill whatever the current meta is so people stop complaining about it -- until the next meta takes its place.

Every competitive game has a meta of some sort. That's just how things are. Nothing is perfectly balanced, and there is always going to be a dominant set of characters/weapons/tactics. In a good game, this meta won't really matter drastically until you're in the top 1% or better best-of-the-best competition bracket, but there are limits. Any game with sufficient depth will have room for you to make a series of very, very bad decisions that together prevent you from performing well, but it's a fool's errand to try to make it so that a player cannot fail to perform no matter how silly and misguided their decisions are.

[MechaBattler]

We've got the comp alphawarrior segment at odds with the lore fans and anyone interested in simulation elements. Cater to one, pisses off the other. Then there is just people that want to watch the game burn because it didn't meet their vision. I've seen plenty of people who would rather the game die. Even back when it was the only thing battletech/MechWarrior related in sight. NO ONE wanted to make a MechWarrior game before PGI. We're only getting Battletech because it's Jorden Weisman using a limited turn based combat system from the Shadowrun games.

Edited by MechaBattler, 24 October 2017 - 10:12 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Trissila, on 24 October 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

Gameplay isn't fixed in stone because many of the players operate under some strange delusion that there's not going to be a meta, and PGI keeps trying to please them. Not by working to achieve some mythical Total Balance, but to kill whatever the current meta is so people stop complaining about it -- until the next meta takes its place.

Every competitive game has a meta of some sort. That's just how things are. Nothing is perfectly balanced, and there is always going to be a dominant set of characters/weapons/tactics. In a good game, this meta won't really matter drastically until you're in the top 1% or better best-of-the-best competition bracket, but there are limits. Any game with sufficient depth will have room for you to make a series of very, very bad decisions that together prevent you from performing well, but it's a fool's errand to try to make it so that a player cannot fail to perform no matter how silly and misguided their decisions are.

I for one have no problem with there existing a meta. I have no qualms about the game lacking “perfect balance”. Hell, I don’t even really have a problem with PGI doing things to try and shift the meta or “balance” from time to time in an effort to get us to try and even buy new things.

What I do have a problem with however is PGI’s seeming obsession with nerfing things that are not even relevant to the meta and/or doing it with such a broad brush that they in fact make whatever is meta atm even more supreme or optimal than it was, and by doing so they enlarge the imbalance that may exist at a given time (as an aside I think this happens because they don’t play the game with enough consistency to recognize the meta or it actual effect in game). Over and over rather than nerf the meta or the top performing mechs/builds, instead they try and nerf what they think is the meta, and end up hurting that which is widely considered mediocre or even bad relative to what is currently at the top. They have been doing THAT pretty consistently since I started playing, and this last months nerfs are more of the same. And I for one am really sick of it.

How about this PGI: Pick the meta playstyle, build, weapon(combo) or whatever that you think is just spiffy and you want it to be “meta” for whatever reason, get the nerfs and other adjustments out of your system and let it ride for a couple of months without gutting objectively inferior play styles, builds, weapon(combs) in any way. Please? Just a couple months without hurting something that is already less than optimum is a pretty low bar. Can ya handle that? Go just a couple of months without breaking something and I’ll buy a f***ing mech pack or ten. To much to ask? Can you at least try?

[SmokeGuar]

After Annihilator and Nightstar, there is no reason to not let KDK3 back to game. Unroll some nerfs to make it a fun mech again. Sure, some well above average players would score high, like they did before, but most of us it would just make it playable again.
Missile nerf killed active lrm players, any skill to use them is now gone.

[Mystere]

Viktor Drake, on 24 October 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

You know I love playing MWO and spend a ton of money on the game but ironically can't recommend the game to my friends. I always end up saying things like, "I really love the game but the Devs are out of touch" or "The game is great but I am so tired of every patch being some sort of nerf that screws up all my builds or ruins my favorite mech" or "Game is fantastic but they don't really seem to work on the things the community wants and instead fix things that weren't broken to begin with".

In the end it is the "buts" that end up convincing my friends to not play. They are like, "Why should I play a game with these sorts of frequent frustrations" and the only thing I am come up with is that, overall I generally have alot of fun despite the frustrations. That isn't enough to convenience them and to be honest, I completely understand why, I mean who wants to deal with constant frustration especially when there are so many other games to play?

This is why I keep begging PGI and Chris to stop with the drastic changes and constant cycle of nerfs that seem to take place every patch. it is these drastic changes mostly conducted by drastic nerfs that keep to frustration levels high and induce all the "Buts" in my description of them game. Gameplay overall is very fun, having your favorite mech or build nerfed month end and month out isn't. The game is 5 years old, it isn't in Beta any more so most of the game play mechanics should be pretty affixed in stone by now but for some reason it isn't and it that is a huge issue.

I can't blame your friends.

Just because of PGI, I myself am not looking at MW5 until after the reviews are in and they are more than just favorable.

[InvictusLee]

El Bandito, on 24 October 2017 - 03:29 AM, said:

Drop into any lower tier match and you will hear people bitching about LRMs being OP, and un-fun. No doubt they will extend that negativity into any feedback PGI asks of them.

I dropped into a twelve man LRM premade last night.
IT WAS HILARIOUS.
Everything within a 999m radius pretty much died instantly.

[InvictusLee]

Viktor Drake, on 24 October 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

You know I love playing MWO and spend a ton of money on the game but ironically can't recommend the game to my friends. I always end up saying things like, "I really love the game but the Devs are out of touch" or "The game is great but I am so tired of every patch being some sort of nerf that screws up all my builds or ruins my favorite mech" or "Game is fantastic but they don't really seem to work on the things the community wants and instead fix things that weren't broken to begin with".

In the end it is the "buts" that end up convincing my friends to not play. They are like, "Why should I play a game with these sorts of frequent frustrations" and the only thing I am come up with is that, overall I generally have alot of fun despite the frustrations. That isn't enough to convenience them and to be honest, I completely understand why, I mean who wants to deal with constant frustration especially when there are so many other games to play?

This is why I keep begging PGI and Chris to stop with the drastic changes and constant cycle of nerfs that seem to take place every patch. it is these drastic changes mostly conducted by drastic nerfs that keep to frustration levels high and induce all the "Buts" in my description of them game. Gameplay overall is very fun, having your favorite mech or build nerfed month end and month out isn't. The game is 5 years old, it isn't in Beta any more so most of the game play mechanics should be pretty affixed in stone by now but for some reason it isn't and it that is a huge issue.

*high fives* I feel the same way!

[slide]

There is only one metric that PGI will listen too. Money.

As long as there are enough loyal whales and naive new players who keep buying mech packs, enough at least to justify continued mech development and make the game profitable, then there is no need for RB to change his position or development path.

The fact that PGI could make more money by retaining more players by making the game more immersive, balanced or whatever it is that would make more players happy, is a concept that is completely lost in RB's own arrogance and hubris.

I can accept that PGI is making the game they want to make. The problem is though that they don't seem to know what that game is, who their target audience is nor have any plan on how to achieve it. All this does is effectively piss everyone off, thus dooming the game to continued mediocrity.

[Andi Nagasia]

arcana75, on 24 October 2017 - 03:00 AM, said:

I was in another forum asking if others there played MWO and someone replied that he and his friends were interested but read that the game had gone down the drain over the years, which to me was a surprising reply considering that they haven't played the game yet and were discouraged from playing it by other avenues, possibly word of mouth, possibly from this forum.

The biggest "beef" of angry players players in MWO forums from near as I can tell, is the perception that the players know MWO well, and PGI doesn't and some allege PGI doesn't even play MWO, citing issues like FW and tech imbalance and their handling of FW Events like the Battle of Luthien.

I'm thinking, PGI, why not collect opinions from your entire active player base than the vocal minority? One way is, each time a player logs in, ask them a few questions in-game about the game in general eg favourite map/mode, opinions about current events, etc; each time a match ends, ask them about the match itself, eg was MM fair, any lag, overall experience, which mech they used etc; each time they log out, ask them about their experience playing MWO since logging in and if their view changed or not, their most memorable event, and other closing thoughts. All the feedback would be tied to player ID so there's no uncontrollable poll spamming.

Do this for 3 months then analyse the data, then combine it with your server data to make changes accordingly. Then keep doing it, as more data = better decisions.

FYI, each time someone ends a beta match in HareBrainedScheme's BattleTech beta, a survey comes up asking questions about their overall experience, and the questions vary.

PGI does look at the Data and Metrics, and they do make decisions based on this data,
the thing some have trouble with, is not that PGI is changing things, its that PGI isnt changing what they feel they should,

TLBFestus, on 24 October 2017 - 07:21 AM, said:

The White knights?
The Black knights?
The Comp/eSport crowd?
The Casuals?
The little voice in RBs head?
The Whales?
pick any 2?
pick any 3?

ask each of these Groups the top 5 things PGI should change, each will give a different answer,


which is why collecting opinions wouldnt be a good way to get accurate feedback on Data and Metrics,
Facts and Data dont often mix with Opinions, as both can exist in the absence of the other,

everyone could say LRMs are OP, but if the Data is showing they are underpowered,
which is why i wouldnt say using Opinions to make balance decisions wouldnt be a good idea,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 24 October 2017 - 06:02 PM.

[Jun Watarase]

Andi, PGI is making changes that not a singe player has ever asked for.

Examples : Artemis missile nerf and the DRG-1C nerf.

Not a single player ever asked for any of these nerfs. Any data that PGI has clearly shows that :

-Artemis missiles are actually underpowered since the vast majority of builds in competitive play/FP are laser vomit or UACs spam.

-The DRG-1C is one of the rarest mechs in the field. If it was so OP, wouldn't it be one of the most popular?

While plenty of people disagree on what to nerf, literally everyone agrees that Artemis and the DRG-1C did not need nerfing.

To use an example, lets say I am a game developer of a game like Chess, except that you can pick what pieces you want to start with. Obviously, most people would choose to use 100% Queens as the Queen is the most powerful piece in chess. And I obviously have data showing this. Then I decide to nerf Bishops. What do you conclude from this?

[Johnny Z]

MechaBattler, on 24 October 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

We've got the comp alphawarrior segment at odds with the lore fans and anyone interested in simulation elements. Cater to one, pisses off the other. Then there is just people that want to watch the game burn because it didn't meet their vision. I've seen plenty of people who would rather the game die. Even back when it was the only thing battletech/MechWarrior related in sight. NO ONE wanted to make a MechWarrior game before PGI. We're only getting Battletech because it's Jorden Weisman using a limited turn based combat system from the Shadowrun games.

Yep. The competition would have been trolling this game no matter who it was made by and for the same drama filled reasons.

I see the same thing on the forum for the most popular money making video game ever as well. No mystery.

As for sim and story and lore vrs esports. There is no comparison. Make a great game first. Which I think MechWarrior Online is. Needs more work though.

[MechaBattler]

Johnny Z, on 24 October 2017 - 11:00 PM, said:

Yep. The competition would have been trolling this game no matter who it was made by and for the same drama filled reasons.

I see the same thing on the forum for the most popular money making video game ever as well. No mystery.

As for sim and story and lore vrs esports. There is no comparison. Make a great game first. Which I think MechWarrior Online is. Needs more work though.

Yeah, see it all the time with the big games. The difference is they're so big that they can literally brush aside the kind of rage trolling that goes on like it's nothing. Because at the end of the day the majority of people don't come on to the forums. Forums are always a fraction of the playerbase and usually the most motivated to be heard. Everyone else is like GG and move on with their lives. But not us. We're all too crazy to leave.

[Kin3ticX]

Id like to see things be more spiritual successors rather than TRO/Sarna copypasta into MWO. I love the OPs sig