34 replies to this topic

[SpiralRazor]

Particle Man, on 06 December 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

Not on crybabies in the forums that have no clue about game development

Yes, we have no clue, even though some of us worked or are working in the game development business, and in some cases for years.

[Gremlich Johns]

Not on 3rd person view......

[Alphascrub]

Taryys, on 06 December 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

First let us take a look at a few important facts:

FACT 1 - Specialized Development Roles: The people that work on net code or bug fixing are not the same people that are working on modeling. Bug fixing/programming is a different skill/specialization than net code troubleshooting which is a different skill than working mech modeling and maps. I am a programmer and I could not put a model together to save my life and I would be hard pressed to do any sort of net code fixing. With this being known they are going to be able to pump out models and maps, etc while still working on net code and bug fixing. Stopping everything else to concentrate on bug fixing and netcode issues would mean that everyone else of the office would sit around doing absolutely nothing but twiddling their thumbs which wastes valuable money and time, when they could actually be doing something to move the game forward.

FACT 2 - Bug Fixing is Hard: Bug fixing is 1000 times more difficult and time consuming than writing new code, especially when you have thousands and thousands of lines of code to sort through and it becomes even more difficult if the code is not written by you (ie multiple programmers). You may think that you have found the problem in one place and you place some code there to fix it, but it turns out that the real problem is hidden deep down within layers and layers of dependent code. You put two integer values into a function and expect to get an integer value out, but on occasion you get "SRM" instead. That is a WTH moment, and honestly all it takes is for one = or == to be out of place and things will break intermittently and unexpectedly.

FACT 3 - Small Shop: They are a small shop so getting things done takes a lot longer than super-mega funded projects who are hemorrhaging cash. PGI's work on MWO is underwritten by a small independent producer, IGP, and is not support by a massive corporation like Sony or Bioware. If they were we would have MW5 like they were originally looking to do, and not MWO as it is now.

FACT 4 - Monetization: Playing on Fact 3 here - since they are small shop and PGI and other investors require a return on investment and need a steady income stream they need to be continuously be putting on the money making items (bobble heads, Christmas lights, hero mechs, etc) in order to support the game and continue its development.

I don't even need to say anything with a post this well laid out. I just am because yea Taryys deserves some respect for actually taking the time to make it hats off ya Taryys.

Edited by Alphascrub, 06 December 2012 - 05:08 PM.

[Taryys]

You are too kind.
Thanks!

Alphascrub, on 06 December 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

I don't even need to say anything with a post this well laid out. I just am because yea Taryys deserves some respect for actually taking the time to make it hats off ya Taryys.

[INAPPROPRIATE NAME 0001]

Stability of the product/program > Adding content to said product > Balancing of aforementioned content

So, how about fixing all those black screen launches, goldvision, overheat powerup hud, no hud, memory leak and other bugs. Then we move to netcode and such and anything else before moving on to new maps and mechs.

Edited by INAPPROPRIATE NAME 0001, 06 December 2012 - 08:49 PM.

[Secundus]

The way I see it is they are paying people to make pointless crap that contributes nothing to the gameplay and fixes, using money that should go to paying people (or more people) to make and fix the damn game. Progress has been glacial, except in the flair and fluff money gouging department.

If the devs really had the gamers in mind they would work to completing the game before trying every which way to suck money out of people.

Edited by Secundus, 06 December 2012 - 09:27 PM.

[Karyudo ds]

INAPPROPRIATE NAME 0001, on 06 December 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

So, how about fixing all those black screen launches, goldvision, overheat powerup hud, no hud, memory leak and other bugs. Then we move to netcode and such and anything else before moving on to new maps and mechs.

So... you want the artists to stop making art and help program? Insane...

[pjnt]

Taryys, on 06 December 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

First let us take a look at a few important facts:

FACT 1 - Specialized Development Roles: The people that work on net code or bug fixing are not the same people that are working on modeling. Bug fixing/programming is a different skill/specialization than net code troubleshooting which is a different skill than working mech modeling and maps. I am a programmer and I could not put a model together to save my life and I would be hard pressed to do any sort of net code fixing. With this being known they are going to be able to pump out models and maps, etc while still working on net code and bug fixing. Stopping everything else to concentrate on bug fixing and netcode issues would mean that everyone else of the office would sit around doing absolutely nothing but twiddling their thumbs which wastes valuable money and time, when they could actually be doing something to move the game forward.

FACT 2 - Bug Fixing is Hard: Bug fixing is 1000 times more difficult and time consuming than writing new code, especially when you have thousands and thousands of lines of code to sort through and it becomes even more difficult if the code is not written by you (ie multiple programmers). You may think that you have found the problem in one place and you place some code there to fix it, but it turns out that the real problem is hidden deep down within layers and layers of dependent code. You put two integer values into a function and expect to get an integer value out, but on occasion you get "SRM" instead. That is a WTH moment, and honestly all it takes is for one = or == to be out of place and things will break intermittently and unexpectedly.

FACT 3 - Small Shop: They are a small shop so getting things done takes a lot longer than super-mega funded projects who are hemorrhaging cash. PGI's work on MWO is underwritten by a small independent producer, IGP, and is not support by a massive corporation like Sony or Bioware. If they were we would have MW5 like they were originally looking to do, and not MWO as it is now.

FACT 4 - Monetization: Playing on Fact 3 here - since they are small shop and PGI and other investors require a return on investment and need a steady income stream they need to be continuously be putting on the money making items (bobble heads, Christmas lights, hero mechs, etc) in order to support the game and continue its development.

FACT 1. Correct. That said, they have been looking for a lead net code programmer for a while. This means that they are not offering enough to pay a person or a person has looked at the mess and declined. Both leave me feeling a bit off. I have no issues with the output of models and their quality for the most part. That said, most of it should only be released once the game is released.

FACT 2. Bug fixing sucks. De-bugging was the worst thing I ever had to do at uni. Took forever, so I agree again with you.

FACT 3. Small shop is fine. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. Until that happens, whatever.

FACT 4. No return on investment until finished. It's like paying a painter for each brush stroke instead of a finished painting. Or a house as each brick falls instead of the whole house. What happens in a world where the painter stops 1/2 way or the builder walks off with no roof on your home? You get your money back. The economic model of this game, if it indeed included giving their publishers 5 million for the founders packages, is flawed and this game will fail.


I can cut/paste too. It would be GREAT if everyone googled the word 'beta' in the software context. You will be surprised how much the does not qualify.

[Bushwick Bill]

In my opinion they should first fix and clean up match making. Currently the mm system is sloppy at best. Fixes I suggest for the two current 'phases':

1) Phase 1(pug)- only one 4 man group per team and fill the rest with smaller groups and singles. Once two 4 mans are added, fill the rest. If no 4 mans are available then alternate filling with random smalls and singles. 4 man 'synch drops' will be eliminated. Until an ELO system is in place this seems much better than what we have currently.

2) Phase 2(premade)- Implement 2 weight classes of matches; 400-600 and 601-800. That would separate balanced groups from heavy groups. Numbers tweaked as necessary, but something similar and keeping it to 2 divisions may not be too hard to implement.

I believe that this would alleviate many of the current gripes, though there will always be more...

Since PGI is now taking money I believe they have an obligation to keep the current game as fun and fair as possible for all players premade and pug.

Edited by Bushwick Bill, 06 December 2012 - 10:24 PM.

[Noth]

pjnt, on 06 December 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

FACT 4. No return on investment until finished. It's like paying a painter for each brush stroke instead of a finished painting. Or a house as each brick falls instead of the whole house. What happens in a world where the painter stops 1/2 way or the builder walks off with no roof on your home? You get your money back. The economic model of this game, if it indeed included giving their publishers 5 million for the founders packages, is flawed and this game will fail.

This game will never be finished. It will be in a state of perpetual beta, even after official release because content will constantly be being added and with that content balance problems and bugs will always creep up. This is not a typical game where the publisher can waits for release to get a return on their investment. This is a typical ftp style economic model. Getting some of the return on investment out of the way on a project such as this can lead to larger profits later on. Further 5 million actually is not all that much money for a studio these days.

[Secundus]

Noth, on 06 December 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

This game will never be finished. It will be in a state of perpetual beta, even after official release because content will constantly be being added and with that content balance problems and bugs will always creep up. This is not a typical game where the publisher can waits for release to get a return on their investment. This is a typical ftp style economic model. Getting some of the return on investment out of the way on a project such as this can lead to larger profits later on. Further 5 million actually is not all that much money for a studio these days.

Every game has updates, most add DLC, etc. The point is this game feels like it's 30% complete from a game content perspective, yet they're charging prices as if this was a feature rich game with many huge and diverse environments and various game modes to keep it fresh. This conquest mode better be fricken awesome because it's going to take another 6 months to see the next one.

[Vexgrave Lars]

No one will care but.. simply to read my own writing

Hitboxes and Netcode.

Amen

[Noth]

Secundus, on 06 December 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

Every game has updates, most add DLC, etc. The point is this game feels like it's 30% complete from a game content perspective, yet they're charging prices as if this was a feature rich game with many huge and diverse environments and various game modes to keep it fresh. This conquest mode better be fricken awesome because it's going to take another 6 months to see the next one.

very few games bring content every week. Also many of those games with DLC have the DLC done before the game releases. The game was always going to be released as a minimal viable product, which means that they would be charging for things in a game you probably wouldn't feel is complete.

[DogmeatX]

I do very much enjoy MWO and it's nice to see the devs seem to be working on things with a roadmap but my god, some of the bugs really should be dealt with sooner rather than later - it's stuff which I'd consider alpha quality problems not something which should be in beta and let alone "open beta" aka soft launch..

- Crashes to Desktop. It's not just my computer. I know several others who get random crashes/drops to desktop and they all play a lot more other games than me without problems

- Stuff like yellow screen hud. Stuck overheat hud bug. These are basically crippling since your hud can not be used, no target reticle etc. Only option is to turn off hud completely (yellow screen) or try to power down and up (good luck with that with enemies bearing down on you)

- That blasted launcher/mech lab bugging out and freezing up too often when changing loadouts, requiring restart

- "Ready" button also bugging out, requiring restart

- Lag/rubber banding etc. Don't need to explain that one/

Honestly these are bugs and problems which have been going on for a while now for several patches with no improvement in sight. Some of them are literally crippling ingame bugs which make the difference between staying alive and dying.

Lastly one thing I simply can NOT understand why it isn't in yet at this late stage - why are there absolutely NO ingame stats/details about items/weapons etc? Every dev must surely know by now 90%+ of players do not read forums. How are those 90% of players expected to know/understand what the stats are of various weapons and items? They won't know. It's just guesswork. Ingame stats needed to be in a long time ago.

[Quazil]

Taryys, on 06 December 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

First let us take a look at a few important facts:

FACT 1 - Specialized Development Roles:
<snipped>

Not relevant. This is precisely how & why "F2P" makes them spend limited salary budget on an artist drawing ******* coal & monkey-butts instead of a 6 month MMO network contractor.