23 replies to this topic

[K I T T]

Hello there.
There's been a lot of talking about balance problems and stuff like that for years. Every game patch ends up with a hot discussion inside of the community, and recently more and more rage people quit.
(Their main claim is: Fix what is broken first and only then add something new)
Since the team responsible for balance has been reformed, it needs a decent community feedback, which is not available right now. Even crashreport does not function at all. A lot of people know what to improve but don't have an ability to be heard and somehow make a difference. This is a lack of centralization.
So I want to offer you this:
During 1 month people of different parts of community gather ideas and complaints what must be fixed. After that a list of fixes Is made and posted here with a voting table.
Highly voted fixes are taken into account by PGI for the next patch (or even make a special "community patch") like the way community decides which mech should be brought into the game next by voting in a special thread.
Agreed?

PS
I am not an active forum visitor and i cant manage threads properly. I just gave an idea

[Bud Crue]

Alas,

You seek the impossible.
Impossible for several reasons:
1) If you believe the leader boards, we have between 30K-20K regular players of the game. As a frequent forum warrior who is familiar with the folks that bother using the forums, only a tiny portion of that population bothers to even complain let alone provide constructive criticism. I suspect the number of people who would participate in your monthly "community gather" and subsequent voting would be minuscule.

2) Moreover, PGI has repeatedly said they listen not to the community at large, but rather the competitive community pretty much alone. This creates a perception that teriibads, casuals, and new players have no legitimate seat at the table and reduces their interest and belief that they will be listened too, and thus, reduces their propensity to gather and vote in any such effort such as you are proposing (I am not judging or condemning PGI here, but merely pointing out why you would not get much "community" buy-in for your proposal, but rather only a tiny portion of that community if at all).

3) Of that competitive community that PGI claims to listen, most of the members of that community do not use the forums for their interactions with PGI (in fact most show their disdain and contempt for those of us who do use this "brown sea" (color pallet change or not)), but rather Reddit and occasionally twitter when they wish to try and move Russ directly.

4) Even among those that PGI claims to listen to, both Paul and Russ have, on at least two different occasions of late, claimed that they (PGI) do not make "big" changes, nor will they make changes that fail to have what they subjectively determine to have "overwhelming community support". If that is an accurate view of their willingness to consider input from the community, then in this case of your proposal, even if you had huge buy in from the "community" for your monthly fix it votes, PGI has made clear that if the desired fixes are "big" they will not be considered. Nor will they be considered if your participation in said voting fails to represent an "overwhelming" majority of the community and the results of said voting represent an overwhelming majority of that majority's collective opinion.

Between the splits within the community as to what they want out of the game, the mediums they use to talk about the game, and PGI's seemingly ultra focused to arguably contemptuous view of that community your proposal is either dead from the get go, or simply futile.

Then again, don't take my word for it, you can always tweet Russ and see what he has to say on the subject.

Edited by Bud Crue, 17 April 2018 - 01:45 AM.

[Monkey Lover]

If i learned anything from the FP town halls I can say i dont believe in the community. A few people know what should happen but most have no idea.

[Bombast]

Reddit has an issue log, and there was a fairly large push by the community a while back on balance. There was a spread sheet and maths and everything. In a podcast, PGI basically told them all to get bent, because they're gonna do what they want and their spreadsheet was garbage. PGI roughly outlined their thought process, and it was exactly the opposite of what the community balance proposal was aiming for.

So... yah. Unless you want something nerfed, don't expect PGI to comply or care about anything any vocal part of the community asks for or complains about. They don't give a ****.

Bud Crue, on 17 April 2018 - 01:42 AM, said:

2) Moreover, PGI has repeatedly said they listen not to the community at large, but rather the competitive community pretty much alone. This creates a perception that teriibads, casuals, and new players have no legitimate seat at the table and reduces their interest and belief that they will be listened too, and thus, reduces their propensity to gather and vote in any such effort such as you are proposing (I am not judging or condemning PGI here, but merely pointing out why you would not get much "community" buy-in for your proposal, but rather only a tiny portion of that community if at all).

I always find it funny that PGI keeps saying they get advice from the competitive community... and then every time they make a change, the competitive community is just as flabbergasted as everyone else.

Edited by Bombast, 17 April 2018 - 03:37 AM.

[UnofficialOperator]

PGI has all the excels so don't worry guy

[ForceUser]

Some of what BudGrue said is either wrong or misinformation(through ignorance or on purpose I don't know).

PGI has repeatedly said that they look at all feedback regardless where it's posted. PGI has never said they only listen to the competitive community. They look at Reddit where a lot of the 'bittervets' gather. They look at feedback posted in general discussion as well as in the suggestion forum (probably the BEST place to post anything constructive) and they also look at stuff posted to twitter as tweets get emailed directly to them (though spamming their twitter is probably the douchiest thing to do). I think they also even look at the facebook stuff though I've never gone there myself. They also obviously look at the feedback posted through the feedback form you can fill out on the support and feedback page. They also DO look at feedback from comp players as well and have approached them directly in the past.

PGI also has on a number of occasions made big changes. Very big changes. Skill tree, module change, changes to CW, adding things like decals and adding and now changing caches, map rebuilds, the list goes on. They used to make big balance changes too but these days prefer to make small changes when it comes to balancing and this is primarily based off of feedback from the community unhappy with the bigger changes in the past. If there is a problem with a weapon or mechanic or quirk in the game due to feedback or metrics indicating there's a problem they make smaller more measured changes at first and see what the effect is. This means more frequent changes but more control over the effect these changes have.

When it comes to making huge fundamental changes, like say moving form 12v12 to 8v8 that affects almost every single person playing the game then having community consensus is kind of important. It doesn't make sense to lose as many as 1/3 of your player pop by making a big change like that and hoping that the change conjures up an extra 1/3 pop that likes the change and suddenly starts playing. It just doesn't work that way, as many other industries and games have found out. A good example is how the latest Star Wars movie tried to pander to an audience that doesn't exist because of certain changes they made to the movie and ended up making $700 million less (1/3 interestingly enough) than the previous movie and tanking hard in China. Not to mention what looks to be a huge impact on mechandise sales.


To be honest the only contempt there is is from a small part of the community towards PGI. PGI has learned to ignore the contempt over the years, focus on player feedback all while doubling their staff and finally giving us MW5 Mercenaries.

[Bombast]

ForceUser, on 17 April 2018 - 02:23 AM, said:

PGI has repeatedly said that they look at all feedback regardless where it's posted. PGI has never said they only listen to the competitive community. They look at Reddit where a lot of the 'bittervets' gather. They look at feedback posted in general discussion as well as in the suggestion forum (probably the BEST place to post anything constructive) and they also look at stuff posted to twitter as tweets get emailed directly to them (though spamming their twitter is probably the douchiest thing to do). I think they also even look at the facebook stuff though I've never gone there myself. They also obviously look at the feedback posted through the feedback form you can fill out on the support and feedback page. They also DO look at feedback from comp players as well and have approached them directly in the past.

There's what PGI says, and what PGI does. It's hard to believe they really take much from the forums when you have a better chance as winning the lottery than getting a developer response on their own forum, but all you have to do is whisper "it's broken" on Reddit and Chris will swoop in to tell you something objectively wrong in 20 seconds.

[ForceUser]

Bombast, on 17 April 2018 - 02:28 AM, said:

There's what PGI says, and what PGI does. It's hard to believe they really take much from the forums when you have a better chance as winning the lottery than getting a developer response on their own forum, but all you have to do is whisper "it's broken" on Reddit and Chris will swoop in to tell you something objectively wrong in 20 seconds.

So if PGI doesn't reply to something then that's proof that they haven't read it?

Can't argue against something like that

[Bombast]

ForceUser, on 17 April 2018 - 03:07 AM, said:

So if PGI doesn't reply to something then that's proof that they haven't read it?

Can't argue against something like that

They don't reply to pretty much anything, let alone something. The last time I saw non-art asset developers take an interest in this forum was when someone brought up IGP, and they dropped into the thread en masse to tell the individual who brought it up to go **** himself (They used a bit nicer language, but not by much).

On the other hand, Reddit gets pretty frequent visits. Paul, Chris, more than one of the customer service guys, they respond.

Edited by Bombast, 17 April 2018 - 03:13 AM.

[ForceUser]

Bombast, on 17 April 2018 - 03:12 AM, said:

They don't reply to pretty much anything, let alone something. The last time I saw non-art asset developers take an interest in this forum was when someone brought up IGP, and they dropped into the thread en masse to tell the individual who brought it up to go **** himself (They used a bit nicer language, but not by much).

On the other hand, Reddit gets pretty frequent visits. Paul, Chris, more than one of the customer service guys, they respond.

That's still in no way proof of them reading or not reading feedback. That's the point, the absence of proof is not proof.

[Bombast]

ForceUser, on 17 April 2018 - 03:20 AM, said:

That's still in no way proof of them reading or not reading feedback. That's the point, the absence of proof is not proof.

...What?

I said I didn't believe they read the forums, and have seen no evidence that they do so. And your response is that I have no evidence... that they don't?

If you want to take PGI at their word, sure. Go for it. I'm saying that I don't.

[Alexandra Hekmatyar]

Annihilator LI, on 17 April 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

Their main claim is: Fix what is broken first and only then add something new

I have seen what the end destination of that, it's not pretty that game practically is in an eternal coma now.

[Bud Crue]

ForceUser, on 17 April 2018 - 02:23 AM, said:

Some of what BudGrue said is either wrong or misinformation(through ignorance or on purpose I don't know).
...

You assert that they “look” at all feed back. That may be. I merely repeat what is historically obvious and what PGI has stated repeatedly, and that they only truly “listen” to that which is competitively driven or derived from competitive play. They are on record here both in terms of balance and even specific instances of change that it is indeed the competive part of the community to whom they listen.

Contrast for example the Heavy Gauss buff (see relevant patch notes) where they specifically mentioned that the change was made at the behest of the comp players that they recieved input from, to any of the various threads both here and on reddit where folks complain about the OP nature of both dual Heavy Gauss and the Annihlator specifically (none of whom are competitive players as far as I can tell). It is obvious from this who exactly they listen too. It is obviously not “everybody’s” feedback which is guiding them here but a very select part of the community that they even said they listened too.

Moreover, they can’t listen to everyone and they have said point blank on numerous occasions (if I have to I’ll get you citations but you know very well that this is true) that they do in fact “balance from the top” and Chris as said specifically that when they try to make balance changes they do so based on observing competitive play. That is by definition looking at or even listening to only a select group of the community and being responsive thereto. That’s fine. But don’t pretend that PGI listens to every bitter vet and mindless complaint with equal veracity; they don’t and they shouldn’t.

To pretend that they consider “all feedback regardless of where it is posted” and from whom is not supported by the history of this game or PGI’s interaction with its community. From their failures to consider the “feedback” of the selected members of the past faction play round tables to their waffling denial of community input from sources such as that which derived from folk’s like Mech The Dane’s and Tarogato’s recent community efforts (which by the way is where both Paul and Russ responded by in fact stating that “they do not make big changes” nor changes that “fail to have overwhelming support”). Russ may drunkenly say things like all he does is listen to the community (see my signature) but we know that is a falsehood given the history of CW and the scores of threads, tweets and reddit posts from the community asking for, if not outright begging, for various changes that have been ignored since the modes inception. That historical reality is there for anyone to see.

The fact that they do have a history of making big changes and changes that lack even a tiny bit of community support are in fact what makes statements like those cited above exemplars of the contempt one can argue they have for their community. As you even point out they DO make big changes, but they have the affrontry to assert that they do not.

Saying all you do is listen when history shows emphatically that you do not -you can not- possibly be listening is also arguably contemptuous of at least some members of the community, particularly those who feel like they are ignored (you know damn well there are many long time players who fit this mold). These folks are not listened to and regardless of whether you or I feel their grievances are valid, they obviously do.

As to my other specific points as to why both this community as well as PGI would be deaf to the OP’s proposal I believe they are totally obvious and historically verifiable with even a cursory amount of effort.

Edited by Bud Crue, 17 April 2018 - 03:58 AM.

[Kotzi]

Hasnt there been something like that? A roundtable or whatever? Where PGI and some Communitymembers met and had a wet t-shirt conest or something?

Edited by Kotzi, 17 April 2018 - 04:04 AM.

[Athom83]

Bud Crue, on 17 April 2018 - 01:42 AM, said:

~snip~

Hence why we need my suggestion from a year ago. https://mwomercs.com...40-poll-system/

[ForceUser]

Bud Crue, on 17 April 2018 - 03:48 AM, said:

~snip~

Here's an exerpt from the most recent patch notes, launching tomorrow. Take note of the parts I bolded:

Quote

Design Notes: After reviewing the net effects of a series of other changes that affected lockon weapons, we feel confident in providing LRM's with some much needed QoL velocity increases to their profile to make them more effective at longer ranges. With this said, we are still razor focused on the impact of such a change, and while over the long run we want to see an increase the usability of this weapon at higher levels of play, we cannot ignore the possible ramifications of a change such as this at lower levels of play. We are moving ahead with a raw buff for now, provided we feel that the previous changes to lock on weapons have given us some clearance to push forward some much needed velocity changes. But should this change swing the dial in a negative direction for lower tier players, we have a number of options under consideration that will allow us to dial the weapon back in a future patch should we feel that this buff pass swings it too far into a problematic area for lower tiered players.

So no, I do not agree with you

Edited by ForceUser, 17 April 2018 - 04:09 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Athom83, on 17 April 2018 - 04:05 AM, said:

Hence why we need my suggestion from a year ago. https://mwomercs.com...40-poll-system/

An in game poll might work. But then, ya know, PGI would have to be on board with 1) putting it in and 2) actually being responsive to said poll results. That might get embarrassing real quick when even the most mild of community requested changes are deemed beyond their ability/willingness/technical capability to institute.

[Ronan]

"The community" is often contradiction, trolls, ignorance, and pretty messy. Even where there is sanity and smarts, it doesn't always agree. So even if PGI listens to "the community", someone is going to be unhappy.

[Bud Crue]

ForceUser, on 17 April 2018 - 04:07 AM, said:

So no, I do not agree with you

That’s cool.

I don’t deny that they may do something wherein they “ cannot ignore the possible ramifications of a change such as this at lower levels of play” or what have you, but that does not provide proof that they are listening to actual input from members of that “lower level of play” community. Yet, their own record and words show they they do in fact listen to members of the competitive community on at least select issues.

I only cite to things PGI has said and done here in the context of what the OP is proposing. Nothing more. PGI is in a bind regarding how they can best serve this very diverse community of players, and they don’t do themselves any favors when they say things in direct contflict with their known propensities and historical conduct. It arguably if not definitively comes off as contemptuous. What the reality is, we can of course not know. I merely point to the record of their conduct in what they have done (big changes or not) and why I don’t think based on that record that the OP’s proposal will get much traction with either the community or PGI.

[TLBFestus]

Russ already explained quite clearly to the community that he, and only he, is the one true authority on how the game should be developed. The last person who was outside of PGI (technically anyhow) that I recall him getting an opinion from, and listening to, was his (then) 8 year old daughter.

Even if he did want to include the community in a big warm hugging session, it would be like herding cats, cats with distemper.

Edited by TLBFestus, 17 April 2018 - 08:55 AM.