Jump to content

Please Stop With All The Negativity! You Are Killing This Game!



240 replies to this topic

#201 Thirdstar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,728 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:22 PM

View PostTichorius Davion, on 16 January 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

The beta forums were never this bad. We had flaming and angry posts but we never resorted to outright slandering PGI.


So a tiny pool of people and Founders who paid money to get into Beta were more forgiving of the Beta part? You don't say.

#202 DEN_Ninja

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationCrossing, Draconis March

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:25 PM

View PostThirdstar, on 16 January 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:


So a tiny pool of people and Founders who paid money to get into Beta were more forgiving of the Beta part? You don't say.


So the game is not to your liking, I don't see how Your Opinion on how PGI is terrible is helping to make the game better. Wouldn't the reasonable response to something you dislike would be to post what is agitating you? No, instead people feel the need to insult the developers and not lay down a solid argument.

Founder's paid to support the game. Maybe having some faith is not bad.

Edit: for more to say.

Edited by Tichorius Davion, 16 January 2013 - 10:28 PM.


#203 GalaxyBluestar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,748 posts
  • Location...

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:27 PM

View PostPtom, on 16 January 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

It's simple really.

People usually come to the forums to vent about some negative experience. They want their voice to be heard.

Thats how it has always been for all games, and its in human nature. When you are happy with the game, you don't feel the need to visit the forums at all.


truer words never been written before, when forum dies down and general discussion becomes... well more general you know there's good gameing to be had. infact the games getting old thread should be changed to forum's getting old. i've worn forumwarriors out as well :ph34r:

#204 Mikhalio

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:28 PM

I really think people need to figure out what is the definition of professionalism.

Professional means a curt and to the point statement.

Saying the PGI press release for XP weekend was a shameless media trending pump for new subscribers" is a clear statement of insight based upon what the perception of their actions.

"Guys, be more professional because I dislike it when people are insulting my game developers" lacks anything but emotional blathering, and lacks not only a coherent point. But also comes out as shameful and juvenile.

If #1 bothers you, I really hate to see your response to performance reviews or other serious bsns in the big bad world.

#205 Thirdstar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,728 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:28 PM

View PostTichorius Davion, on 16 January 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:


So the game is not to your liking, I don't see how Your Opinion on how PGI is terrible is helping to make the game better.
Founder's paid to support the game. Maybe having some faith is not bad.


I don't see how you inferred my opinion on anything from that one sentence. Why don't you try to be knee jerk defensive less.

#206 Gargel

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:47 PM

The sections in the forum are VERY different. Go to general discussion or patch feedback and the negativity is showering you. That is the current implementation of MWO that causes these angry posts. And as was said, it's because players want to be heard, or read something that connects with them, and respond to it. I don't know if you can call the player base immature or unprofessonal for wanting to relate to someone else with the same opinion, that is just how it is.

Go to the Guides section or Player support if you can't take the negativity :ph34r:

Most forums are like this anyway, and the best way to make it better is actually to not respond to the threads YOU think are idiotic. This way, you are not adding to the (supposed) fire by adding posts or attention to those threads.

And don't be so affected by it, or you will become like that yourself!

#207 Blue Shadow

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 322 posts
  • LocationSydney

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:50 PM

Yeah the negativity is getting a bit much... unfortunately unbalanced weapons/items will make people negative and hostile very fast, I have faith in PGI but even I felt like giving up on the game after getting frustrated at being out numbered by ECM+Streak mechs. But despite what some think PGI are listening and when Open Beta is finally over we will have a great game!

#208 smokefield

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Locationalways on

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:55 PM

personally i think that a big chunk of the chaos we see on the forums its on the forum moderators...they should not allow so much. There are complaints ? ofcourse there are..fine then...we make a topic for each complain, amass the posts related there - so we eliminate those countless topics opened on the same issue. There are ppl going totally offtopic ? delete the posts without asecond thought and warn them. There are constructive topics ? pin them out and make an example... its a lot of work and they should teach the community how to act on the forums, doing something constructive..cause bm and bashing ..we see these everywhere all the time.

#209 IceSerpent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:01 PM

View PostTichorius Davion, on 16 January 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

I want you to go back to the beginning when HBK's ran around boating lasers with half armour. Battles could end in seconds.


Yeah, it was a problem, but that particular problem already had a solution (and a fairly obvious one, I must say) - if you want mechs to fire more often than once per 10s, you increase RoF and decrease damge by the same exact percentage, and decrease heat generation by the same exact percentage, thus keeping the same old TT balance in place. If you want mechs to survive longer, you increase armor and increase ammo count per ton by the same exact percentage, thus keeping the balance.
Despite being told about this by numerous people, what did PGI do? Right, increased RoF by itself, screwing the heat scale in the process, and doubled the armor while only increasing ammo count by a little bit, screwing the balance for ammo-based weapons.

Same goes for weapon convergence system - cool idea in theory, but tell me, who in their right mind designs a convergence system that doesn't provide any feedback whatsoever? Again, numerous people posted all sorts of good ideas on convergence implementation, yet we ended up getting one that plain doesn't work.

Quote

The economy system flopped from vast amounts of money to nil.
The grind is not that bad. I can earn 100k without using a founder's mech, I have not even turned on premium time.


Economy was just fine, except for new player grind. The only thing that we needed was "cadet bonus"...and we got it, except we lost R&R in the process, so economy is pretty much non-functional at the moment. There's no reason to use founder's mech and there's no reason to use premium time - after you "levelled" a few mechs that you actually like to play, there's absolutely nothing to spend c-bills on. We get roughly 100k per match, but it could have been 10k or 10mil - there are no c-bill sinks and the amount of money you have makes no practical difference.

Quote

PGI has messed on the account of things like Netcode but they do take our feedback. Collision was broken, they took it out so they could fix it. Would you rather run into a spider and have it get up 90m behind you?


I am not talking about bug fixes - bugs happen and often take a while to fix, that's just the way it is. I am talking about design decisions - weapon balance, match maker, CW (lack of such), etc. Even after people posted very detailed explanations of how things should work, despite the fact that a lot of this stuff has been done before in other games, we still get implementations that either simply don't work or make no sense.

#210 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:46 PM

View PostTichorius Davion, on 16 January 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:


So the game is not to your liking, I don't see how Your Opinion on how PGI is terrible is helping to make the game better. Wouldn't the reasonable response to something you dislike would be to post what is agitating you? No, instead people feel the need to insult the developers and not lay down a solid argument.

So you're at least not talking about me.

But you are wrong if you believe that negative feedback doesn't do anything. The devs at least get an impression that something is off, even if it will take more work to figure out what it is.

Tons of the negative posters I saw also posted details on what they dislike and how they'd fix it. But if things don't improve, they feel no compulsion to repeat all the details again.

#211 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:50 PM

View PostMikhalio, on 16 January 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

"Guys, be more professional because I dislike it when people are insulting my game developers"


dev alt detected rofl

View PostThirdstar, on 16 January 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

Why don't you try to be knee jerk defensive less.


WHOA WHOA WHOA

Even the devs are saying they cant do this WE cant either!!

View PostBlue Shadow, on 16 January 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

Yeah the negativity is getting a bit much... unfortunately unbalanced weapons/items will make people negative and hostile very fast, I have faith in PGI but even I felt like giving up on the game after getting frustrated at being out numbered by ECM+Streak mechs. But despite what some think PGI are listening and when Open Beta is finally over we will have a great game!


and lagshield lol

#212 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:54 PM

View PostMustrumRidcully, on 16 January 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

But you are wrong if you believe that negative feedback doesn't do anything.


an example (albeit not from this game) is the "greed is good" fiasco and the Summer of Rage" from EVE.
If you dont know Google it. The in game riot and people leaving the game effectively halted the devs in their tracks, cost the game company 20% of its staff, and made them realize they were ******* off the golden goose.

#213 DEN_Ninja

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationCrossing, Draconis March

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:43 AM

Hey IceSerpent, First off thanks for replying in a profession manner. This is the type of post I'd rather see, Arguments on something, a suggestion, and wrapped in a mostly neutral tone. So thanks for that.

View PostIceSerpent, on 16 January 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:


Yeah, it was a problem, but that particular problem already had a solution (and a fairly obvious one, I must say) - if you want mechs to fire more often than once per 10s, you increase RoF and decrease damge by the same exact percentage, and decrease heat generation by the same exact percentage, thus keeping the same old TT balance in place. If you want mechs to survive longer, you increase armor and increase ammo count per ton by the same exact percentage, thus keeping the balance.
Despite being told about this by numerous people, what did PGI do? Right, increased RoF by itself, screwing the heat scale in the process, and doubled the armor while only increasing ammo count by a little bit, screwing the balance for ammo-based weapons.

Same goes for weapon convergence system - cool idea in theory, but tell me, who in their right mind designs a convergence system that doesn't provide any feedback whatsoever? Again, numerous people posted all sorts of good ideas on convergence implementation, yet we ended up getting one that plain doesn't work.

I particularly agree with you on this. But I didn't like dying so quick back then. If I had a choice I would choose this balance instead of the old one but its not the solution.

Quote

Economy was just fine, except for new player grind. The only thing that we needed was "cadet bonus"...and we got it, except we lost R&R in the process, so economy is pretty much non-functional at the moment. There's no reason to use founder's mech and there's no reason to use premium time - after you "levelled" a few mechs that you actually like to play, there's absolutely nothing to spend c-bills on. We get roughly 100k per match, but it could have been 10k or 10mil - there are no c-bill sinks and the amount of money you have makes no practical difference.

I don't like the removal of R&R either. There is no risk for playing. If there is no risk then people have a tendency to waste their life. So I do agree with you on this one. But once again I trust PGI to do something about it. It is also a step in the right direction and you can not deny that this is working better than everyone barely scrapping by with a 50K gain per match not accounting for R&R.

Quote

I am not talking about bug fixes - bugs happen and often take a while to fix, that's just the way it is. I am talking about design decisions - weapon balance, match maker, CW (lack of such), etc. Even after people posted very detailed explanations of how things should work, despite the fact that a lot of this stuff has been done before in other games, we still get implementations that either simply don't work or make no sense.


I don't fully agree without because most of the suggestions that have been made are horrible. Weapon balance has been and probably will always be an issue, especially if clan tech does become available. Things like matchmaking I will always contest. I dislike using ELO. It punishes people who play solo and often get bad teammates. It can lock people who want to improve on the lower scale. But this and many other variations have been suggested and this won out. For this one they listened. ELO is not a system of ranking designed for teams. Besides an ELO ranking doesn't fix things like team compositions. And battlevalue or tonnage lmit is not going to help by adding more values for the matchmaker to account for.

CW is something that devs have talked about and is a major selling point. I can't talk for them. Maybe it is being developed but not released. We don't know yet. I reserve judgement on this. Also what implementations have gone so awry? If you say equipment stop there. We all know TT equipment did some times that MWO doesn't but thats because TT is played from a different perspective of god aerial. PGI has to make up what they should do and how they act and then adjust accordingly. And Netcode is just an issue of insufficient programmers in that respect but they now have a dedicated team for it. Things like collision are tied to that so it might not have worked but by god PGI knows it and will fix it.

View PostMustrumRidcully, on 16 January 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

So you're at least not talking about me.

But you are wrong if you believe that negative feedback doesn't do anything. The devs at least get an impression that something is off, even if it will take more work to figure out what it is.

Tons of the negative posters I saw also posted details on what they dislike and how they'd fix it. But if things don't improve, they feel no compulsion to repeat all the details again.


I don't mind negative feedback. If i am angry about something I will say it. But I don't like people slandering PGI and the HARD WORKING developers that made this game for them to test and enjoy. I don't like how some threads start out with PGI sucks or some other iterations.

Constructive criticism is good, Senseless insulting of the dev team is bad. There is a distinction between negative feedback and downright being idiotic [Redacted].

View PostMechwarrior Buddah, on 16 January 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:


an example (albeit not from this game) is the "greed is good" fiasco and the Summer of Rage" from EVE.
If you dont know Google it. The in game riot and people leaving the game effectively halted the devs in their tracks, cost the game company 20% of its staff, and made them realize they were ******* off the golden goose.


I would rather not have it that PGI loses developers... Then it would slow down development of the game. Then the game quality drops because in the end what we wanted of them caused them to crash. You can't abuse the Player - Dev relationship. Imagine if players did the same to Minecraft or some other popular game that was freely given during development. And then what... Notch drops development of minecraft during early beta, and the halloween patch would never have comes out?

Edited by Tichorius Davion, 17 January 2013 - 12:49 AM.


#214 Lynette Steffeld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 240 posts
  • LocationSomewhere with irregular bus times

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:54 AM

When I played in CBT, I asked for more communication and feedback.

We didn't really see any changes over a short period of time.

I left and did something else.

I come back, new things were added, and there's more comms and feedback.

But I'd still like some more.

However, past experience states that this stuff moves slowly, and in some cases does not move at all.

So I either do something else, or I play the game as-is until it fixes itself.


TLDR: Paid $60, annoyed about some parts, but not annoyed enough to stop completely.

And so the world spins for another day...

#215 Thirdstar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,728 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:59 AM

View PostLynette Steffeld, on 17 January 2013 - 12:54 AM, said:

When I played in CBT, I asked for more communication and feedback.

We didn't really see any changes over a short period of time.

I left and did something else.

I come back, new things were added, and there's more comms and feedback.

But I'd still like some more.

However, past experience states that this stuff moves slowly, and in some cases does not move at all.

So I either do something else, or I play the game as-is until it fixes itself.


TLDR: Paid $60, annoyed about some parts, but not annoyed enough to stop completely.

And so the world spins for another day...


Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

#216 Antony Weiner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • LocationEast Coast U.S.

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:03 AM

View PostTichorius Davion, on 17 January 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

I would rather not have it that PGI loses developers... Then it would slow down development of the game. Then the game quality drops because in the end what we wanted of them caused them to crash. You can't abuse the Player - Dev relationship. Imagine if players did the same to Minecraft or some other popular game that was freely given during development. And then what... Notch drops development of minecraft during early beta, and the halloween patch would never have comes out?


This man has the right idea, I think. Well, somewhat. I was simply trying to say that, in my opinion, tons of sh*tty (in quality, not in nature) negative feedback are not helping to make this a better product that we all can enjoy using.

I am not here to prove to the devs that "oh, look, you were wrong about ecm and paint schemes, now you pay the price: na-na na-na boo-boo." I am here to RAISE CHANCES of having a playable Mechwarrior title for years.

That is why my posts are well-thought-out (at least most of them). Going through tons of immature emotionally-attached posts (and whole threads sometimes) is a bit annoying, gentlemen. I know most of you are grown-a** men, so please be coherent in your postings if you want people who make a living from making this game to pay any kind of attention to your opinion.

"OH, so much outrage about ECM, and devs do nothing about it." I am not surprised. Considering how rubbish nearly every ECM thread is, I wouldn't do jack about it either if current ECM implementation was how I saw ECM should work.

Edited by Antony Weiner, 17 January 2013 - 01:13 AM.


#217 DEN_Ninja

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationCrossing, Draconis March

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:08 AM

View PostAntony Weiner, on 17 January 2013 - 01:03 AM, said:


This man has the right idea, I think. Well, somewhat. I was simply trying to say that, in my opinion, tons of sh*tty (in quality, not in nature) negative feedback are not helping to make this a better product that we all can enjoy using.

I am not here to prove to the devs that "oh, look, you were wrong about ecm and paint schemes, now you pay the price: na-na na-na boo-boo." I am here to RAISE CHANCES of having a playable Mechwarrior title for years.

That is why my posts are well-thought-out (at least most of them). Going through tons of immature emotionally-attached posts (and whole threads sometimes) is a bit annoying, gentlemen. I know most of you are grown-a** men, so please be coherent in your postings.


That's why I often laugh a bit. The general majority as it seems is above the age of 21. Act your age people. Then again I guess they might not be as vocal as the younger crowd.

#218 Tor Matthews

    Member

  • Pip
  • 17 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:13 AM

View PostSpajN, on 16 January 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

PGI is NOT killing the game, the community is.. i love the game but i dont know if i ever want to be involved in CW when its release seeing what kind of people play this game...

The CORE is there!! and whats wrong with the core is being worked on, after that the game will only get better and better. I a gamer since early 90's and i know a great game when i see one and this is a great game or atleast it will become great.


The community will kill any game that deserves to be killed, by doing what a community should. If the game does not deserve players it won't get any. The fact is, the community is entirely controlled by the game itself, and its silly to place blame at the symptom rather than the cause.

#219 Antony Weiner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • LocationEast Coast U.S.

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:13 AM

View PostTichorius Davion, on 17 January 2013 - 01:08 AM, said:


That's why I often laugh a bit. The general majority as it seems is above the age of 21. Act your age people. Then again I guess they might not be as vocal as the younger crowd.


You are probably right about the younger crowd. This thread is probably going to have very little impact on the community. :D

#220 DEN_Ninja

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationCrossing, Draconis March

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:18 AM

View PostAntony Weiner, on 17 January 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:


You are probably right about the younger crowd. This thread is probably going to have very little impact on the community. :D


I've had one a many threads about treating negativity and all that. I know I can't stop it but I will damn well try.
Also I don't fully blame my fellow youngin's. Some adapted to the terrible online game environments of halo and CoD, gotta break that attitude.





6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users