88 replies to this topic

[Remarius]

Have no problem at all with the amount of information given us or even with ECM. It actually feels like we have to use strategy now to win. The amount of information passed in games is appallingly low - nowadays I find as a medium pilot I actually feel like I have a job to do beyond just protecting the atlas/cataphract blob! Find those reds and report them!

[Black Ivan]

Looks like PGI does not really care about game balance or a smart game release.

I hate arrogant Devs and what I read that makes me very angry. The took a great tabletop setting and by now made it into a 3rd rate Mech game if even that good.

[MrPenguin]

Black Ivan, on 16 December 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

Looks like PGI does not really care about game balance or a smart game release.

Nope, they just don't see the point in wasting there time trying to talk to you people. Lefty Lucy put it best:

Lefty Lucy, on 15 December 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Also: why should they come on the forums to explain their stance to a bunch of blow-hards who think their individual experiences are more valid data than actual numbers pulled from the servers?

Edited by MrPenguin, 16 December 2012 - 12:21 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

MrPenguin, on 16 December 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

Nope, they just don't see the point in wasting there time trying to talk to you people. Lefty Lucy put it best:

yeah our money doesnt spend as well as you fanboi and white knights' money does I guess

[GalaxyBluestar]

i'm surprised a moderator hasn't deleted this topic already or would that just look too bad...

[Wolfways]

stjobe, on 15 December 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

That's the boldest acknowledgement of having absolutely zero situational awareness I've ever read on a forum. Kudos for that, not many people are so ready to confess they're not very good at the game.

Incidentally, it also explains a lot of the troubles people seem to have with ECM. Thanks, it makes me see things in a different light.

Maybe you'd like to explain how you tell friend from enemy then?
And actually, compared to most players i seem to be very good at this game, which is quite sad as i do think i'm bad at it even if i do continually do better than my teammates.


As for communication from PGI, i don't blame them from not wanting to come to a forum full of whiners just to get slagged off.
On the other hand if they knew anything about online games they should know what to expect.
Of course if they actually released new features in an intelligent way (i.e. instead of releasing game-changing content and saying "counters will be there in the future", just wait until all systems are ready and release them together.) there'd be a lot less complaining.

[Thorn Hallis]

If I read between the lines I'd say the devs see the complaints about ECM as not valid.

Wolfways, on 16 December 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

Maybe you'd like to explain how you tell friend from enemy then?

Q

Edited by Thorn Hallis, 16 December 2012 - 02:45 AM.

[Wolfways]

Thorn Hallis, on 16 December 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

If I read between the lines I'd say the devs see the complaints about ECM as not valid.



Q

Yet you don't explain it...

[chumppi]

Yes, they aren't responding to stuff on the forums, and things like the 3rd person view(150k+ views, 2k+ posts). Nothing suprises me anymore.

[cyberFluke]

If they fix net code, there will be zero problems with ECM, because you'll actually be able to hit lights without lock-on weapons.

This, and did you read the terms of service? While you may *desire* them to inform you of the reasons for their decisions, What you want and what you get are different things...

[Elizander]

They mentioned Modules so we might actually get a Module that allows you to lower the effects of ECM.

[Asmosis]

Prosperity Park, on 15 December 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

I believe the Developers have been doing a fine job at explaining their stances on issues like this considering the circumstances - it's a new feature, it's been in the game for less than 2 weeks, they (the developers) are the only ones who know the actual drop-frequency/ratio of ECM and non-ECM Mechs and their respective win/loss rates as a function of team make-up, there are changes incoming to the game (as they have mentioned) such as increasing TAG to full Sensor-Range and implementing weapons/modules that affect ECM, and there will undoubtably be more information coming every week.

For a game under development, they're doing a good-enough job of informing us of their intentions, in my opinion. Just my opinion, though. I don't feel like I'm lacking any ECM-related information right now. In fact, I have been expecting ECM and electronic sensor warfare to be a MAJOR part in the general, everyday gameplay of MWO ever since I read the Dev Blogs ages ago, especially Dev Blogs 2 and 3.

got to agree with this one. ECM is the first of several electronic warfare modules, and can well be that ECM is doing exactly what its supposed to, compared to whats coming from the other new modules.

Ping is still more OP than ECM in any match i've played.

Edited by Asmosis, 16 December 2012 - 03:42 AM.

[Buck Cake]

Let people do their job.

[stjobe]

Wolfways, on 16 December 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

Maybe you'd like to explain how you tell friend from enemy then?

Sure, no problem.

1. Once ECM comes into play you should already have at least a rough approximation of your team's composition, position, and vectors (i.e. "four of ours in the tunnel, a Hunch on my left, a Phract on my right, and a Jenner way out on the right flank".
2. The ones firing on you or your team-mates, or your team-mates are firing on, are the enemy.
3, If you're on voice comms, the chatter usually is enough to determine who is where.
4. Normally the battle-lines are clear enough that it's easy enough to know that the 'mech coming around the corner isn't one of yours.

I fully acknowledge that in some situations it's impossible to determine at a glance which 'mech is friendly and which one is not, but generally speaking I haven't seen it as an issue at all. But I had a bit of an argument with some other fine folk in another thread, and I have now realized that this is a genuine problem for many.

So I apologize for calling you bad, that was uncalled for.

[Wolfways]

stjobe, on 16 December 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

Sure, no problem.

1. Once ECM comes into play you should already have at least a rough approximation of your team's composition, position, and vectors (i.e. "four of ours in the tunnel, a Hunch on my left, a Phract on my right, and a Jenner way out on the right flank".
2. The ones firing on you or your team-mates, or your team-mates are firing on, are the enemy.
3, If you're on voice comms, the chatter usually is enough to determine who is where.
4. Normally the battle-lines are clear enough that it's easy enough to know that the 'mech coming around the corner isn't one of yours.

I fully acknowledge that in some situations it's impossible to determine at a glance which 'mech is friendly and which one is not, but generally speaking I haven't seen it as an issue at all. But I had a bit of an argument with some other fine folk in another thread, and I have now realized that this is a genuine problem for many.

So I apologize for calling you bad, that was uncalled for.

Thanks for the reply.

I do understand what you're saying but there are things that complicate the matter.
In nearly every battle there's one teammate who only shows up on the map if i can directly see them, so i usually have no idea where they are as they don't show on the minimap, or battlemap, for nearly the whole match.

Also, it's hard for me to keep tabs on where my team are as i play a sniper (K3, ERPPC's) and move around the battlefield a lot. So i'm usually not near my team.
It's usually a problem when half the team start brawling and i can just see various mechs in the distance with no identifying triangles, and i hate getting close as i'm not a brawler type and having only two ML's (and occasionally two MG's...yeah i know ) my mech sucks at close range.

I don't use voice coms, and pug all the time (except when my wife is also playing). With pugs the lack of coordination means battle-lines are more like...battle-doodles. It's just a mess.

But tbh it doesn't make the game unplayable. I just move a bit closer and figure out who is who. But it takes time and removes my option (and playstyle) of direct-fire support.
To me though it's just an example of "team play (premade) needed". Not a bad thing obviously, but makes me worry for the future of the game if puggers start leaving.

[Thorn Hallis]

Wolfways, on 16 December 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

Yet you don't explain it...

Ok, long version: Press and hold "Q".

[MrPenguin]

Wolfways, on 16 December 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

Yet you don't explain it...

He means press the "Q" key.

[Enigmos]

Lupus Aurelius, on 15 December 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

This was after 10 days of forum posts, both pro and con, on ECMs, the variance between MWO's implementation of them and Battletech rules / previous Mechwarrior games, it's effect on game play, etc. These posts total out at hundreds of pages.

And yet, in these forum, the Command Chair, anywhere on the MWO site, there was absolutely no response, pro or con, refuting or agreeing with POVs, not even so much as "we heard you". Nothing, zilch, zero, nada. Instead, the only comments were those in an outside source, and that 1 comment marginalized ALL input on the issue.

To the contrary: The devs post frequently and have laid out what they have been willing to share.

Lupus Aurelius, on 15 December 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

What this discussion is what is, and what is not, professional behavior, between the Devs and the beta players/testers. We, in closed beta, had been asked to give input to help in the development of this game, and as open beta testers, this has not changed, it has merely increased the amount of input available. As such, it is suppose to be a "good faith" relationship. In any "good faith" relationship, direct and honest responses are necessary.

True. And nowhere in that 'professional relationship' is there a word about forming judgements based on sketchy information, pontificating from a position of ignorance, or inciting others to believe that what we have seen of the basic game mechanics constitutes the entirety of the intended finished product.

Lupus Aurelius, on 15 December 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

...
"In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract."

Therefore by offering judgements based on incomplete and therefore misleading game mechanics you are in violation of your own covenant.

Lupus Aurelius, on 15 December 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

We, the "beta testers" should be able to expect that the Devs will act "in good faith" when providing input on game changes and new items, and that they communicate directly with us on highly controversial issues.

They have clearly stated this is not yet 'the game', this is the game in development, that there will be changes and 'new' items.

Lupus Aurelius, on 15 December 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Just on this one issue alone, in 10 days, there has been more input, both pro and con, than any other issue other than the originally proposed open beta date.

Input based upon ignorance is less that input: it is uninformed opinion that expresses confirmation that the mechanics we have been shown so far is incomplete, something they already know, and that their testing public is overly emotional.

Lupus Aurelius, on 15 December 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Regardless of that input being what they might want to hear or not, in good faith, they should be communicating directly with us and addressing those concerns, and if their POV is at odds with the community, they extend the effort to explain that POV to us.

It isn't a matter of PoV (opinion) with them. Their insights are authoritive. They can determine what is actually relevant to the whole design while we flail about without a grasp of how things are supposed to work. We do not know what the effects of PPC will be on ECM at this time. We do not know more than they have revealed to us. That revelation is in their power, not ours. The timing is their timing, not ours. Our 'input', no matter how passionate it might be, is probably off point.

Lupus Aurelius, on 15 December 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

We take the time to explain our POV to them, what we need to have is for them, in good faith, do the same for us.

No. What we need is for them to finish the development of the game and implement it, so that our input can be fully informed by the complete experience of the game, rather than a partial game in development.

[Bounty Dogg]

Im just gunna leave this right here.......

Quote

Guys.....Im gonna post a quote that i answered in another thread about 2.0 sinks, that kinda (IMO) highlights the real reason we'll never test 2.0 sinks. My apologies if anyone takes offense to the quote, but This is the real problem, as i see it.

Quote

Mister Blastman, on 03 December 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:




> : (

Garth and team: Learn how to make battlemechs. Then get back to us. Obviously you guys have no idea how to do it. If you did, you'd see DHS aren't always mandatory. Sometimes, singles make more sense to use.

2.0 or bust!

Quote

See....this....this right here.....THIS is the real reason that we'll never even get to test 2.0 Heatsinks: This Beta community wouldnt be able to take having to give it up again.

Will all the of screaming and gnashing of teeth over the issue as it stands right now, what do you think this community would do if the Devs DID give it to us to TEST for a few weeks, then supply that the data supports what they first thought and that 2.0 sinks have trivialized the heat system, and so must be removed?

Would this community quietly accept the judgement and give 2.0 sinks back?

......................................No.

If you thought the level of screaming and crying was bad BEFORE, let the above scenario happen. It will feel as if the Apocalypse has descended upon these forums. The flamewars, the Trolling, the Troll baiting......it would tear this community apart......and hat highlights the real problem with this community..........we're (and I include my self as part of this community) just too immature to truly BE Beta testers. Over and over again one can find glowing examples of how rational thought is thrown out the window in favor of overreaction, dramatization, bitter arguements, and belittling behavior. So much so that a lot of positive imput/info/helpful information is buried under miles of negativity. Now if the Negativity was presented in a constructive way, that would be ok: sometimes a game needs to be poked in the right direction through negative yet productive feedback. However, 8 times out of 10 the negativity is of so toxic a nature, that any actual feedback in the post/thread would be (and SHOULD be) overlooked by any sane mind to avoid the filth that comes in a lot of posts nowadays.

Guys, we are our own worst enemies here. We complain that the Devs dont listen? Its because we've made them standoffish by what we say/how we say it. We complain content comes out too fast with bugs? Thats cus WE'RE the Beta Testers! part of the reason we're HERE is to help quickly find and report those bugs to help hte process along, NOT to scream about how said bug has ruined the game/destroyed the game. Content is not coming out quickly enough? It has to be readied. If they thought we could HANDLE 3/4ths complete content with bugs that needed stamping out, they'd pass it to us so we could shorten the process by pointing out the where the bugs are, how they occur, steps to make them REcur, and all possible info on it. Beta shouldnt be charging real money? While I partly agree, They do have to sink in funds to keep this thing running. The fact that they made it a choice for us to support to game, instead of asking for a monthly fee, is better than (IMO) the alternative: you know, this game we're all passionate about (positively or negatively) CLOSING DOWN. Cus yes.....that can still very well happen. And I get the distinct feeling that those arguing negatively still see value in this game, or at least potential, or they wouldnt be arguing.....they'd have left by now.

Forgive me for rambling, but my point is really this.......If we want them to TREAT us as Beta Testers....then we have to start ACTING like Beta testers. The more maturely and accurately we can report bugs in a timely manner with accurate information to recreate, and the more we can fight down our passions that need to hurt something because the game is not we envision it to be, the more the Devs will TRUST us with bigger issues, like the testing of 2.0 heat sinks.

you don't give Fire to a child to play with.......either they or you WILL get burned. Time to start showing PGI/IGP we're not children.....anymore.

Edited by Bounty Dogg, 16 December 2012 - 06:34 AM.

[Wolfways]

Thorn Hallis, on 16 December 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

Ok, long version: Press and hold "Q".

lol okay sorry
Didn't know that worked when teammates were ECM'd