Wishmast3r, on 02 August 2019 - 07:57 AM, said:
You just don´t get it. Let´s for example take the last patch and the FP disaster.
Was it a financial problem? No.
Had it anything to do with game engine restrictions? No.
Short time? No.
Did they screw FP cause of their arrogance, thinking they know better what the players want in FP? Yes.
You see, when i blame PGI for mistakes, i don´t blame them for problems over which they have no influence. It´s the problems they cause for the players that are easily avoidable, if you use your brain for more than 5 seconds or if you play your own game for more than 5 minutes a year. They implement things that took weeks or months of development, where a normal player like me, who played this game for 3 years almost every day, would immediately say no, that´s a bad idea. Don´t even bother to think about implementing this in the game.
We are all human beings, everybody makes mistakes and nobody is perfect. But PGI isn´t learning from their mistakes. They are doing the same mistakes over and over and over. Why? Arrogance. That is the only possible answer for doing so many avoidable mistakes in the last years.
And on top of that, after all those avoidable mistakes, Russ is lying in our faces. There is a point where i have to say i´m not supporting PGI anymore. And that point has been reached. If you can ignore all that arrogance and lies, just because you want a new Mechwarrior, fine. But stop telling me and others here we are the bad guys for telling the truths, just because you live in constant fear of losing MW5.
- Well, last FP patch was intended to change position Clan vs Inner Sphere only. That nice. Also provide faster change between sides of conflict for mo dynamic and provide less bottleneck where you can't play in FP because opposing side have no players at all. I play FP really often and clearly remember inability to find match because both sides whines. I'm merc in FP conflict. I not support players who stick with one side and play it till the end. But in same time I understand them and see many variation to change that.
1. - More FP maps in rotation, less quick-play modes at all. I know why PGI put them, because less players who play tactically stay in game. So - new players better play in mode like quick-play and we have what we have.
2. - With adding storyline like conflict we get possibility to play whatever it is. Better change sides, make more ajustments between phases so prevent things like - no enemy to fight with with autowin ends after waiting for 15 min. At least we have countdown and numbers of opponents.
So, yes, they think what they know better. But in same time - how many players was on test servers when that decision come out? Every time I came to test - I see noone from those who later critique decision of PGI. As well as community hawe less players who prefer long play on long maps for FP and much more players who like quick-game-like maps but in FP mode. And I can tell you why - because FP always was unfriendly to new players as community. One mistake and green pilot was doomed to hear really unpleasant things, but not advice or supports.
Come-on, even now most of "true players" prefer use use armor of other mech as bite, but not use firepower of that mech for advantage. Team give enemy mech with 80 damage power just to scratch their shoulders but cannot support mech which can greatly damage enemy with 2-3 direct shots and take most of armor and some weapon and HS as well. Sometime need to change strategy and really play as team. Changes can be good or not, but play depend on players in first place. If everything you want - damage, score, and own glory, gameplay become blank even if everything was good. Just look on other competitive games and changes there.
So I see that changes was not perfect. And also I see why they made. Also, sometime need to check what commutity say 2-3 moth before and you see, that something changes when developing was in the way. Sometimes only goal was change bottleneck thing in a first place. Than - others thing less vital. But players prefer not to test it and say what need to do, but what don't need. To be more specific... if I say you don't do one thing, you have plenty thing to do and pretty sure they also go bad. But if I say specific and correct what and why you need do something - you do it, because of no other options. Agree? Same here.
Players say what they don't want to see in game. But less specific what they want see. And only little amount of players can clearly bring visions to dev-community. Sorry, but that true. Aspecially if some players by that want take advantage over others. So, Developers need to balance between many points. Make as some of players want. Check result of research from statistics based on test on PTS. Compare all that with own possibility to do that by changing parts of Game Engine, and in same time put something what less time and resource consuming in final. It's really hard.
I don't call anyone bad or good. I have position as player and as part of game developing community as well, so that give me ability to see problems from both sides, as gamer who love games and as dev who see all underwater cliffs of game making process and why something can't be done as mentioned. And yes, sometimes really hard to say "sorry we can't do that and we must do it much different" when you care for project and think that in last time you do like everyone wishes.
But so again... we have something already working and have possibilities that become better. That much better than game which looks good on presentation and never published at all. After all PGI do great work to make game which still alive. Admire it.
23
