Jump to content

Praise And Prejudice


47 replies to this topic

#1 Tezz LaCoil

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 144 posts
  • LocationOhio USA

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:30 AM

I don't get on the forums much. Mostly because it's a few whiners and about a thousand or so other people who just read these things and shake their head. I'm one of the latter.

But I really can't just sit here and take this any more.

Look, I've been a fan of Battletech since I was a kid. I read the novels, I collected the figurines, I drew up my own schematics for my own make-believe-battlemechs in class when I should have been studying. A significant portion of my childhood was spent day-dreaming about and playing "giant robot wars" on the trampoline in my backyard with my little brother.
You can imagine how ecstatic I was when I heard that after nearly 10 years, someone had finally taken up the mantle of making a new Mechwarrior game, and claiming that they were going to do it right. I bought into it head over heels, and even paid 120 bucks into the program in hopes that it would help it become something amazing: The BattleMech Sim that we'd all been waiting for.

Instead, I got this. WE got this. And I can honestly say that many of us who have played the game and have been fans OF the games for years upon years are considerably disappointed thus far. I know it's BETA. I know things need to be worked on. But somewhere along the line, someone really seems to have messed up. The Clans are invading next year, and we barely have a working MechLab. There is serious problems with lag and "teleportation." That's not my side either. I regularly get ping between 50 and 70 when I play, and I still end up teleporting into a WALL at 130KPH, or end up 25 feet to the left of where I was, or end up getting STUCK in the game floor, only for people to shoot me to death. And it's not from shutting down from overheat, either. No red screen, no warnings, just simply STUCK in the mud.

Between that, and developers listening in part to the squeaky wheels of the forums, and in part to those who are willing to accept NO COMPROMISE from the TT ruleset, what we have here is an absolute MESS. Today, I saw a RAVEN take a shot from a gauss cannon at POINT BLANK TO THE FACE and shrug it off like it was a BB gun. I could swear I saw it bounce off the damn thing. Large Lasers are near useless unless massed, heat sinks don't have proper dissipation for how much room they take up, and the modules plain suck. For how much experience they cost and how little they actually DO, it's scarcely worth the time to level up to master rank, except for bragging rights. Again, I realize this is beta, and things are going to change, but some half-baked ideas need to STAY in the oven a little while longer before being given out to the kiddies.

Don't get it twisted: The developers have fixed a lot of problems in the past. They've made things work and I appreciate the effort that's been put in. But some of it is just plain sloppy. "Forest Colony Snow Map" IS NOT NEW. It is a hodge-podge modification that barely makes sense. Remember that pass in the upper part of the map? See how it's filled with snow now? Notice how you can "Skyrim Horse" it up the side of almost ANY OTHER MOUNTAIN nearby with that specific gradient? Notice how you CAN'T do that with that SPECIFIC snowslide?

That's ridiculous, and unnecessary. Simply blocking it up was enough. Making it IMPASSIBLE terrain was too much. If the terrain was deemed PASSABLE, it would still present interesting tactical challenges. Things like: "What's on the other side? Should I risk skylining myself? Ambush tactics go?" come to mind.

And don't act like it took WEEKS to do that shod-job. Anyone who's used Starcraft 2's map editor knows that you use terrain meshes and "impass" boundaries to tell players' Battlemechs where they can and can't go. The whole thing took probably five minutes to cobble together to appease people with pretty snow and ice. For shame. We're not THAT stupid, PGI. At least those of us who REALLY care about the game, that is.

Now onto the positives:

The game is absolutely beautiful. And when the graphics are optimized for multiple types of systems, it will be even better, and more stable.

The netcode is better than it used to be. People aren't warping as MUCH, but it's still a little more troublesome than it should be. This should be priority number one if it is not already.

Mechbay is intuitive and pretty. Except that it's unstable as heck for many of us, requiring a save after every piece is moved or added, lest one risk losing their work over and over and over again.

The 'Mechs handle spectacularly. Each one has its own nuances ad characteristics. I feel often like I've LEARNED the Battlemech instead of simply playing it like an arcade game. That needs to STAY that way!

No 1st person yet: Biggest threat to the game right now is just that. "Arcading" this product for the "masses" is going to cause short-term gain and long term loss. Those who WANT a more twitchy, arcade-style game will likely leave once something new catches their eyes, while those who love the franchise will likely leave! This is NOT good for profits in the long run. Giving the TRUE FANS what they want is hard, and harder to distinguish, but it can be done. It requires a lot of effort. But it will keep this game going for years to come as people continue to buy MC for new "Hero Mechs" and other things.

The game itself is promising. With the possibility of massive community warfare, a coming of new BattleMechs each month, and a very war-like feel with a simulation-like background to it all, it just feels like you're right there in the cockpit.

I want it to succeed.

But I swear to you this PGI, and a lot of my unit are with me on this: You mess up our game, and make it arcade for the masses, you continue to break down the very foundations of mechwarrior, you continue to do shod-jobs on "new maps," and it's going to be a long, hard road down into failure as a considerable number of your best and longer-lasting customers leave for greener pastures; whether it has giant, stompy robots or not.

Now, I'm not going to answer any of the responses to this. I may read them, I may not. But let's see what people think here about the things I have to say. Look at those who DO NOT post that often, because THOSE are your players, PGI. Not those loud-mouthed brats that sit around and ***** about it not having a third person, or saying missiles are op, then not stating a real reason besides "I died this much in my last game, and I'm quitting." No, the players that say almost nothing at all, or rarely post are the ones you all need to listen to, because they're too busy playing to complain and have been here through hell and high waters just to make sure that some new kid with eyes set on the sparkly Atlas in the Mechbay doesn't get too far into your skulls.

Much respect and hope,

Prower

PS: Let the ******** and/or bashing commence!

Edited by Prower, 17 November 2012 - 01:30 AM.


#2 Matthew Pryde

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 176 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:33 AM

Your sentiment, in both positive and negative, is very commonly said, by myself included but in a slightly different less off the cuff tone. I'm sure PGI has their concerns about the current state of the game as well. They're a good team, and I have faith that they'll sort this out in the end.

#3 Dorque

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 133 posts
  • LocationGuelph, Ontario

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:35 AM

This is utterly apropos of nothing but I'm far too amused by a guy named Pryde posting in a thread named Praise and Prejudice.

#4 Matthew Pryde

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 176 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:38 AM

+1 internet to you sir.

#5 nitra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,656 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:49 AM

All your points are justified .

And i feel the same way , i do keep in mind that this is a very young game engine if i remember correctly it is only a year maybe a few months + old

so that buys them a lot leeway, with me any way. but in no circumstances am i going to sit back kowtow to them either.

Al lot of these issues needs to be addressed.

Some people feel we need to back off, but i counter with the whole 3PV ordeal as a prime example of how they are going to try and tackle the wrong issues.

The devs feel they are open enough with us and that the flak the receive is unjustified but, again their transparency is more like a milky translucent when it comes to what is actually going on with the game engine.

I feel if they were to sit down a write a article on the difficulties they are having with the engine and how they are going about tackling them it would buy them alot more tolerance with the community at whole.

but the release of, beta after beta, with the same core issues rearing their ugly head over and over is quite frustrating to the players .

and not having any sources to quote saying this will be fixed in x time frame allows for wild speculation to occur.

All i can say is keep the faith . Believe they will achieve .

because at the end of the day they really want a great mechwarrior game also its apparent in their work and in their posts .

they are frustrated and tired, the least we can do is give them our support and let them know we are behind them .

with pitch forks maybe :( but we are behind em nonetheless ;)

#6 DerSpecht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 365 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:51 AM

A product that is not made for the masses wont earn any money.

#7 Dorque

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 133 posts
  • LocationGuelph, Ontario

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:52 AM

I will fight to the death for a shooter where brains beat twitch. This game HAS to succeed or I am doomed to forever suck at FPS =P

#8 nitra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,656 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:58 AM

View PostDerSpecht, on 17 November 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

A product that is not made for the masses wont earn any money.

Eve online . Not made for the masses .

has outlasted near about every mmo created in the same time frame.

#9 Dreadp1r4te

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bold
  • The Bold
  • 130 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:59 AM

Posted Image

All jokes aside, good post... Slightly better worded than other critiques, but too many randomly all-caps-rage words make you seem like you're one of the very people you discredit as "loud-mouth brats" and "whiners" but the problems you highlight do ring true.

The "third person camera" issue could simply be solved by a separate game type; a "casual" mode if you will, while serious matches can be set to "competitive mode" where fancy eye-candy toys like that are disabled, so I'm not sure why I keep seeing that crop up.

The Gauss Rifle issue to the head of a Raven is perfectly reasonable. PGI doubled all armor values (including head) to increase fight length and complexity. A Gauss round does 15 damage, and a Raven has 18 points of armor in his head. Ergo, no kill.

Also, this game does not use anything like Starcraft 2's map editor. You're welcome to go try the CryEngine 3 SDK if you like, but I assure you that the map editor is much more akin to something like 3ds Max than a simple map editor like Starcraft 2. There are a great many things that must be taken into account when modifying maps. Adding a mesh for an avalance is relatively easy. Cleaning out any excess faces that aren't rendered anyhow (i.e., beneath the surface of the map) takes time, and is important as even though they're not directly visible, your GPU will still try to render them. This affects frame rates and general performance, hence the performance hit when facing the "HMS Framerate" as my team has taken to calling the new boat on Forest Colony. That particular boat has WAY too many polygons, but I have faith that it will be optimized later. In addition to this, new textures had to be mapped and drawn for the snow edition, and UVW Mapping and texture fabrication is just as time consuming, if not more so, than mesh modelling. So please, let the graphic artists do their thing, and don't critique. Also keep in mind those same graphic artists were also hard at work on the Cataphract, a new 'Mech, and let's not even get into a detailed explanation of how complicated it is to model and animate an entity with at least 9 different character riggings (torso twist x/y, arms x/y, legs, ragdoll, etc) PLUS several animation sets (falling, shut down, start up, knockdown, stand up) PLUS entity states (destroyed components, damaged) and to top it off, texture sets for the entire mesh.

Oh, and that terrain you where whining about is passable. Try a Catapult, or Rvn-4x, or any Jenner. Y'know, anything with jump jets. :(

But yeah. Aside from those items... I guess that's like 90% of your post... so aside from 90% of your post, really the only issue you really have any ground to complain about is the latency/hit-detection and various minor bugs like shutdown and getting stuck. Now that we've whittled down your post size a bit, try this: encourage people to not run Jenners that go 140kph, (a.k.a., the Loljenner) and you'll have much fewer issues in that regard for the time being. Technically, anyone who does take advantage of the poor hit detection is exploiting.

#10 nitra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,656 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:14 AM

View PostDreadp1r4te, on 17 November 2012 - 01:59 AM, said:

Posted Image

All jokes aside, good post... Slightly better worded than other critiques, but too many randomly all-caps-rage words make you seem like you're one of the very people you discredit as "loud-mouth brats" and "whiners" but the problems you highlight do ring true.

The "third person camera" issue could simply be solved by a separate game type; a "casual" mode if you will, while serious matches can be set to "competitive mode" where fancy eye-candy toys like that are disabled, so I'm not sure why I keep seeing that crop up.

The Gauss Rifle issue to the head of a Raven is perfectly reasonable. PGI doubled all armor values (including head) to increase fight length and complexity. A Gauss round does 15 damage, and a Raven has 18 points of armor in his head. Ergo, no kill.

Also, this game does not use anything like Starcraft 2's map editor. You're welcome to go try the CryEngine 3 SDK if you like, but I assure you that the map editor is much more akin to something like 3ds Max than a simple map editor like Starcraft 2. There are a great many things that must be taken into account when modifying maps. Adding a mesh for an avalance is relatively easy. Cleaning out any excess faces that aren't rendered anyhow (i.e., beneath the surface of the map) takes time, and is important as even though they're not directly visible, your GPU will still try to render them. This affects frame rates and general performance, hence the performance hit when facing the "HMS Framerate" as my team has taken to calling the new boat on Forest Colony. That particular boat has WAY too many polygons, but I have faith that it will be optimized later. In addition to this, new textures had to be mapped and drawn for the snow edition, and UVW Mapping and texture fabrication is just as time consuming, if not more so, than mesh modelling. So please, let the graphic artists do their thing, and don't critique. Also keep in mind those same graphic artists were also hard at work on the Cataphract, a new 'Mech, and let's not even get into a detailed explanation of how complicated it is to model and animate an entity with at least 9 different character riggings (torso twist x/y, arms x/y, legs, ragdoll, etc) PLUS several animation sets (falling, shut down, start up, knockdown, stand up) PLUS entity states (destroyed components, damaged) and to top it off, texture sets for the entire mesh.

Oh, and that terrain you where whining about is passable. Try a Catapult, or Rvn-4x, or any Jenner. Y'know, anything with jump jets. :(

But yeah. Aside from those items... I guess that's like 90% of your post... so aside from 90% of your post, really the only issue you really have any ground to complain about is the latency/hit-detection and various minor bugs like shutdown and getting stuck. Now that we've whittled down your post size a bit, try this: encourage people to not run Jenners that go 140kph, (a.k.a., the Loljenner) and you'll have much fewer issues in that regard for the time being. Technically, anyone who does take advantage of the poor hit detection is exploiting.

creating game assets has become ludicrous in the in amount of man hours necessary to achieve acceptable results.

following indie games and even large corporate games art assets always seem at the top of any issue causing a delay or sometimes even out right cancellation of the project.

im thinking its about nigh for a 3d artist appreciation day as well as programmer appreciation day.

#11 F lan Ker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 827 posts
  • LocationArctic Circle

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:15 AM

S!

EVE Online is not for the masses unless you accept the fact that you can get shafted pretty easily there. I wish MWO would offer simulation and grittyness as BT universe. A dream coming true. For the twitchers and 3rd person = Hawken ;-) For devs it is for sure a challenge to make a game that appeals to both hardcore fans and more casual players without watering the BattleTech experience. Back to playing, sending tickets and babbling on TS :-) Thumbs up for MWO.

#12 Vassago Rain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 14,396 posts
  • LocationExodus fleet, HMS Kong Circumflex accent

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:16 AM

View PostDerSpecht, on 17 November 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

A product that is not made for the masses wont earn any money.


The popular games out there would all disagree with you, and your flawed EA line of thinking. You appeal to a certain audience with your product. Eve has its own style of play, and it's survived many, many years. The only times it's looked set to drop is when their management tries to go full ******.

#13 Alexa Steel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 505 posts
  • LocationSirius VI-A, Free Worlds League

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:44 AM

View PostVassago Rain, on 17 November 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:


The popular games out there would all disagree with you, and your flawed EA line of thinking. You appeal to a certain audience with your product. Eve has its own style of play, and it's survived many, many years. The only times it's looked set to drop is when their management tries to go full ******.

Its not an EA line, thats how our business works. Yes there are games that CAN suceed, but not every studio is ready to risk their income and therefore their ability to pay bills, just so some niche can have their game. Sorry thats not how game development works. Besides you wont find investors if you cant promise them money. Simple as that.

Edited by Alexa Steel, 17 November 2012 - 02:47 AM.


#14 Vassago Rain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 14,396 posts
  • LocationExodus fleet, HMS Kong Circumflex accent

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:53 AM

View PostAlexa Steel, on 17 November 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

Its not an EA line, thats how our business works. Yes there are games that CAN suceed, but not every studio is ready to risk their income and therefore their ability to pay bills, just so some niche can have their game. Sorry thats not how game development works. Besides you wont find investors if you cant promise them money. Simple as that.


It's not how business works, and it's not how business has ever worked. You design a product, you make it for a specific purpose, and thus a certain audience. You can make CERTAIN PRODUCTS for 'everybody,' like cars, but you can't design a survival knife for 'everybody.'

Videogames appeal to different tastes and audiences. If you take the old republic approach, which was an attempt to appeal to everybody, you end up appealing to nobody, and then your 500 million dollar game just dies.

#15 Alexa Steel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 505 posts
  • LocationSirius VI-A, Free Worlds League

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:57 AM

View PostVassago Rain, on 17 November 2012 - 02:53 AM, said:


It's not how business works, and it's not how business has ever worked. You design a product, you make it for a specific purpose, and thus a certain audience. You can make CERTAIN PRODUCTS for 'everybody,' like cars, but you can't design a survival knife for 'everybody.'

Videogames appeal to different tastes and audiences. If you take the old republic approach, which was an attempt to appeal to everybody, you end up appealing to nobody, and then your 500 million dollar game just dies.

And you worked on how many triple A titles? Because its not that simple, lets take MW as an example, it only came to pass because the investor was made to believe that the BT crowd + interested new players will bring in money. If you narrow down the playerbase even further, for example to cater to the "elite" you will lose potential money.

That is why Der Specht is correct, you will allways design a game for the masses in order to make money. Though the masses in the case of MWO are casual players interested in this game.

Edited by Alexa Steel, 17 November 2012 - 03:00 AM.


#16 Vassago Rain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 14,396 posts
  • LocationExodus fleet, HMS Kong Circumflex accent

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:00 AM

View PostAlexa Steel, on 17 November 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

And you worked on how many triple A titles? Because its not that simple, lets take MW as an example, it only came to pass because the investor was made to believe that the BT crowd + interested new players will bring in money. If you narrow down the playerbase even further, for example to cater to the "elite" you will lose potential money.


I didn¨t work on Duke nukem forever, if that's what you mean.

Posted Image

#17 Wolf Ender

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationSacramento, California

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:12 AM

agree 100% with everything you said. but ( and maybe it's because I only started playing the beta like a week before it went open-beta ) i still have faith that sometime in the somewhat-near-ish future, they will fix a lot, if not all, the problems and ****** netcode and balance issues and crashing mechlabs and other stuff... crossing my fingers. until then... persevere if you can!

#18 Alexa Steel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 505 posts
  • LocationSirius VI-A, Free Worlds League

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:12 AM

View PostVassago Rain, on 17 November 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:


I didn¨t work on Duke nukem forever, if that's what you mean.

Posted Image

And that is supposed to tell me what?

#19 DerSpecht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 365 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:20 AM

View PostVassago Rain, on 17 November 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:


The popular games out there would all disagree with you, and your flawed EA line of thinking. You appeal to a certain audience with your product. Eve has its own style of play, and it's survived many, many years. The only times it's looked set to drop is when their management tries to go full ******.


EVE is the only game that did it. What about other sandbox titles that tried to be a niche game like darkfall or mortal ? They all failed. Dont get me wrong I'm an EVE veteran and play since 2006. But i still think that the financial backbone of competitive skill based games like MWO, WoT and such is the casual gamer.

#20 Alexa Steel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 505 posts
  • LocationSirius VI-A, Free Worlds League

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:27 AM

View PostDerSpecht, on 17 November 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:


EVE is the only game that did it. What about other sandbox titles that tried to be a niche game like darkfall or mortal ? They all failed. Dont get me wrong I'm an EVE veteran and play since 2006. But i still think that the financial backbone of competitive skill based games like MWO, WoT and such is the casual gamer.

And you are right about that, I said it before, but if you want confirmation, look up "sheeps, wolfs and whales" its the primary F2P business model.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users