11 replies to this topic

[Rebel Ace Fryslan]

We all see stuff that could improve the rating of this game.
And would get more and keep more players going.
But i think allot of long term players don't bother doing (useless) feedbakc on the forum or just get upset.

For this Game it would be very good if PGI would setup a rolling 4-man test/review teams on each server Area.
This would give PGI allot more practical feedback then the salt on all the media's and everything that is people don't bother to mention (any more).

There you could address:

community/technical issues/in game improvements / user interface /bugs/ etc...

[Bud Crue]

Sounds like a lovely idea. Alas, the history around here suggests that it would not be of particular use if the goal is for PGI to actually do anything with the “feedback” provided. Consider the PTSes. Some of us are regular and even dedicated users of the test servers when they are utilized. But it has become crystal clear that the feed back we provide is consistently ignored (at least during the PTS), to the extent that a lot of long term folks just became inured to the fact that PGI isn’t really interested in our “feed back”. For example, consider all the feedback that the community provided in the skills tree PTS. Almost all of it was completely ignored or dismissed out of hand. Out of all that feedback, only module refunds was of sufficient importance to discuss with the community. Litereally thousands of posts on other, very relevant topics totally and completly ignored.

Another example: Go look at the various map threads down in the development section for a more fluid version of this. The bog map thread pretty much broke me of even trying. Folks had all sorts of ideas, big and small and the devs seemed really engaged and open to many of them, and what did they do? Stairs on the back side of the central hill. Stairs. In a bog. Yeah.

Anyway, good luck with the idea. Even though I know better, if something like this ever came to pass I would do my best to participate and give my feedback -regardless of the futility. Sigh.

[Asym]

Actually, in the innovation markets, whose goals are to reduce the times from concept to prototype to delivered product, many large corporations are using "gaming innovation" as a means of expediting rapid, market developed and appoved products at a greatly reduced cost.

Google http://tradocnews.or...tion-overmatch/ if you want an example.....

Edited by Asym, 25 October 2017 - 08:26 AM.

[Jun Watarase]

Rebel Ace Fryslan, on 25 October 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

We all see stuff that could improve the rating of this game.
And would get more and keep more players going.
But i think allot of long term players don't bother doing (useless) feedbakc on the forum or just get upset.

For this Game it would be very good if PGI would setup a rolling 4-man test/review teams on each server Area.
This would give PGI allot more practical feedback then the salt on all the media's and everything that is people don't bother to mention (any more).

There you could address:

community/technical issues/in game improvements / user interface /bugs/ etc...

PGI does what they want, not what their customers want.

Ever seen the roundtable videos? Its just someone (usually Russ) talking on and on while the community reps get shut out. When they started doing it i think some competitive players/units tried to participate but realised it was pointless and stopped.

[Asym]

Jun Watarase, on 25 October 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

PGI does what they want, not what their customers want.

Ever seen the roundtable videos? Its just someone (usually Russ) talking on and on while the community reps get shut out. When they started doing it i think some competitive players/units tried to participate but realised it was pointless and stopped.

An approached used in other games is to show that volunteer R&D teams can produce upward trending value if implemented. A volunteer group that fields say "suggested re-balancing" schemes and what those schemes could do to increase player retention or new player acceptance... It costs PGI nothing. Can boost existing player confidence and allows all players to have a say: not just the comp or elite players.....

[Stinger554]

Asym, on 25 October 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

An approached used in other games is to show that volunteer R&D teams can produce upward trending value if implemented. A volunteer group that fields say "suggested re-balancing" schemes and what those schemes could do to increase player retention or new player acceptance... It costs PGI nothing. Can boost existing player confidence and allows all players to have a say: not just the comp or elite players.....

The comp or "elite" players as you say are pretty much the players that understand the current state of balance better than most of the other players because they have to in order to be competitive. Which is why they are primarily used in such discussions.

Some LRM slinging tier 5 has no place in a balance discussion period.

Edited by Stinger554, 25 October 2017 - 11:52 AM.

[Johnny Z]

Add more Skyrim and Fallout 4 to this game and it would be more popular. Most don't even get why those two games are so popular anyway.

My point is, its no mystery how to make a popular game. Some are just more worried about ruining others fun than anything.

Look at ME: Andromeda, had all the ingredients for a massive money making game, but instead its a dead title, that will never be trusted the same way. They hired people that hate video games and just about everything else to make it.

I think MechWarrior Online is great and shows it being made by people that like the title and game, but its so limited and narrow focused its a real surprise it has done so well.

The next few great games wont be made in NA because the scene is so messed up at the moment. Aside from maybe this game growing into a truly great game or the makers of Fallout 4 and Skyrim who have to be in a bunker somewhere to protect them from the hate machine killing the video game industry.

When Fallout 4 came out their forum was flipping 5 full pages of topics a minute for the first few days almost all hate. It goes on to this day to a degree two years later. A game that made over 750 mill the first day.

A review bombing campaign was going on for Fallout 4 just last couple months... Again a game that is so far out ahead of every other game in popularity there isn't even a contest.

The entire thing is quite interesting because I think the haters cant believe how irrelevant they have been in stopping the success of Fallout 4 and at the same time the total failure of their pet project ME: Andromeda.

No its not about companies fighting each other as much as it seems. Not even close. Its that one company folded under the pressure and will most likely go bankrupt and the other one only folded a little bit, because it did fold a bit.

The sad thing about all of this is that great companies are getting crushed, just look into how many were bought up and destroyed, and that the industry will just move away instead. All in very misguided efforts to support total fails closer to home.

Edited by Johnny Z, 25 October 2017 - 03:11 PM.

[Asym]

Stinger554, on 25 October 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

The comp or "elite" players as you say are pretty much the players that understand the current state of balance better than most of the other players because they have to in order to be competitive. Which is why they are primarily used in such discussions.

Some LRM slinging tier 5 has no place in a balance discussion period.

Actually, if you were going to "deep dive" any topic you'd absolutely want them because they represent a market segment we want to keep and grow. The comp/elite "know the game" but, what they want may not be what is sufficient for game stability....
The needs of the many theory.
Look, as you said, they've done this before and it hasn't worked.... Do we have more players now or then? Was FP working then and how about now?
That fact, those figures are telling us we either have a quality product or we don't; and, if the entire game populations wasn't included and you see the results..... They were the first test and are we better off??

[Stinger554]

Asym, on 25 October 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

Actually, if you were going to "deep dive" any topic you'd absolutely want them because they represent a market segment we want to keep and grow. The comp/elite "know the game" but, what they want may not be what is sufficient for game stability....
The needs of the many theory.
Look, as you said, they've done this before and it hasn't worked.... Do we have more players now or then? Was FP working then and how about now?
That fact, those figures are telling us we either have a quality product or we don't; and, if the entire game populations wasn't included and you see the results..... They were the first test and are we better off??

Umm are you saying that PGI utilizes the Comp players input for balancing? Boy do I have news for you if you believe that. Here's a hint for you they don't and haven't really been since I've been playing.

Let me ask you something. Do you want someone who does not understand all of the game's mechanics, weapons systems, and their nuances to give input on game balance? I sure as hell don't. Hence why using Comp players is the better way(IMO one of the best ways) to effective game balance from players. Hint it's why the Warhawk C had it's heat gen quirk reduced because comp players were using it to PPC boat and it was more effective than the Warhawk Prime which is supposed to be the PPC boat.

In general with overall game balance you want to balance Top-Down not Down-Top.

The needs of the many theory is why LRMs are steaming hot piles of garbage, because Newbies don't understand taking cover in this game. So yeah I'd rather them completely disregard lower tier players for better balance; of course in order for them to do that they're have to be a better new player experience/tutorial but that's a different topic.

Edited by Stinger554, 25 October 2017 - 03:30 PM.

[Asym]

Stinger554, on 25 October 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

Umm are you saying that PGI utilizes the Comp players input for balancing? Boy do I have news for you if you believe that. Here's a hint for you they don't and haven't really been since I've been playing.

Let me ask you something. Do you want someone who does not understand all of the game's mechanics, weapons systems, and their nuances to give input on game balance? I sure as hell don't. Hence why using Comp players is the better way(IMO one of the best ways) to effective game balance from players. Hint it's why the Warhawk C had it's heat gen quirk reduced because comp players were using it to PPC boat and it was more effective than the Warhawk Prime which is supposed to be the PPC boat.

In general with overall game balance you want to balance Top-Down not Down-Top.

The needs of the many theory is why LRMs are steaming hot piles of garbage, because Newbies don't understand taking cover in this game. So yeah I'd rather them completely disregard lower tier players for better balance; of course in order for them to do that they're have to be a better new player experience/tutorial but that's a different topic.

Oh gosh yes !
Geeze, what better way to see where the game is or is not functioning ! If everybody in the room is an expert there is no variation of opinion; no beginner view input; and, all you get is what is a reflection of only "those" players....

All game corporations review game forums, strategy sessions, staff interaction while playing with customers (and, much of that is recorded and analyzed) and a whole host of other ways to receive input.

The OP asked for "Good Feedback Development" which is only accomplished if the entire community has a stake and a reason, personal to them and the niche they represent, to provide feedback....

[MechaBattler]

Community is pulling in different directions on how balance should be achieved or if we even should have balance. Some people are very much of the "Don't nerf me bro!" variety. But even if they were to listen to everyone. Implementation is ultimately up to PGI.

[Stinger554]

Asym, on 26 October 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

The OP asked for "Good Feedback Development" which is only accomplished if the entire community has a stake and a reason, personal to them and the niche they represent, to provide feedback....

If that someone doesn't understand the game then they cannot provide relevant and accurate feedback. Therefore there is little reason to even include that person.

Personally I don't want the player who runs an Atlas with 2 LRM15+A,1LRM5+A 2 SL, 2 MGs, in any kind of feedback for this game because that player does not understand the game and has no worthwhile feedback to give.