Jump to content

Ask The Devs 30 - Answers!


456 replies to this topic

#321 GrimlockONE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 599 posts
  • LocationIndianapolis

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:20 AM

View PostApnu, on 23 January 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:


I need to requote this for truth.

I bought the founders pack, but I took the time to read about the road map and see where the game is going. I feel that at no time did PGI deceive me or disappoint me. I knew exactly what I was getting into because I read what PGI has stated about the direction of the game. They have never wavered from that road map, and they always stated that things can and do change in the design phase. I think people who were "disappointed" and felt deceived by PGI never bothered to read PGI's statements about the state of the game and its direction. They just saw Mechwarrior and threw down $30, $60, $120 with out blinking about it.

Personally, I think they have no right to complain. They had every opportunity to back out and get a refund, they got the premium button so they can choose when their account time is running. PGI's been very kind to the greifers and QQ'ing more so than I would have been.



I agree with you to a degree. My biggest issue is with phasing in Community Warfare. The most integral part of this game and something they pushed back numerous times is no just a complete failure to deliver on PGI and IGPs part. A rolled phase out throughout an entire year? I believe that PGI has simply bitten off more than it can chew, over aspired, and under delivered.

#322 Buso Senshi Zelazny

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 179 posts
  • LocationUpstate New York, USA

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:25 AM

Q: Do you have any plans on reworking/modifying jumpjet mechanics? For example speeding up the lift off?
A: No plans currently. All mechanics are review regularly and may be tuned.

This is a bit puzzling since Garth specifically stated in the NGNG podcast that jump jets were most definitely not in their final implementation, and that they were being worked on immediately. Has this changed, or just an honest mistake in passing along wrong information?

Also, I feel that a lobby/private match system should be a fairly high priority. This would allow the player base to create their own 'meta game' by running tournaments, leagues, creating machinima, etc. The possibilities are endless. This can only help the game, and will tide the community over until the real meta game (Community Warfare) is implemented.

Other than that, thank you so much for all of the information. Faith restored.

#323 Woopass

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 209 posts
  • LocationTacoma, WA

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:35 AM

Bravo! Bravo!

Good stuff! Thanks!

As for the name calling, threataning ignorant idiots out there who play and ***** cause this and that. Just remember they were the ones who had to play all the mechwarrior games on easy mode. Now that Mechwarrior is in Real life *online mode* there is no easy/normal/hard mode for them to toggle and they are sucking at this game very hard. Keep up the good work at PGI and dont change what you are doing!

#324 Havyek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 1,349 posts
  • LocationBarrie, ON

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:38 AM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 22 January 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

Q: Is a lobby system being looked at so that players can join selected matches, organize matches based on previously established teams (i.e support for ladder/league format fights), drop matches that are other than 8v8 or 12v12 (like 1v1 if decided, 6v6, 5v5 etc), see which map they are going to drop on so they can plan appropriately etc?
A: Lobby is on the board, but not a high priority yet.


Yay! (other than the "Soon™")

#325 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

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

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:03 AM

View PostBDU Havoc, on 23 January 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:


Yay! (other than the "Soon™")


what really was everyone expecting other than "Soon™"? Every time they set a timeline they miss it so If I were them Id stop giving out dates to meet too.

View PostGrimlockONE, on 23 January 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:



I agree with you to a degree. My biggest issue is with phasing in Community Warfare. The most integral part of this game and something they pushed back numerous times is no just a complete failure to deliver on PGI and IGPs part. A rolled phase out throughout an entire year? I believe that PGI has simply bitten off more than it can chew, over aspired, and under delivered.


especially when they told us it would be out 90 days from OB... lol

View PostApnu, on 23 January 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:


They had every opportunity to back out and get a refund.


unless you had one of the grandparents you live with die and you got stuck in maine without internet for a month and three weeks during which time the game went OB, then they say "whelllp, sorry" for your refund request. I know, thats what happened to me.

#326 Inertiaman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 865 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:08 AM

View PostThorn Hallis, on 23 January 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:


No, this what happens when people really don't use the thing between their shoulders (and thats not directed specificly to you). It's understandable when people that bought a founders pack are disapointed because MWO didn't went the way they wanted it to go. But it lets them look pretty silly when they start to call the developers "idiots" because of it. Noone forced anyone to spend money on the game.


I think the frequently deployed "noone forced you" jibe is really cheap. Of course they didn't but whilst the founders deal was open they did lay out a specific roadmap on the CB forum that touted features and dates that have not transpired.

On a value to gameplay scale - I've no problems really other than the bought mechs that ECM has made obsolete.

On a feature list though - this is not the game that was advertised and nor will it be that game until late into 2013.

It's pointless trying to conduct the conversation along right/wrong lines because value is entirely subjective. I don't feel like I've really got it but continue to play and suggest changes etc regardless. I can perfectly understand why some people are very pissed off though. That money might have represented a greater investment to them. Additionally if someone forms the opinion that PGI have blundered the game to date that's also their own lookout and thankfully something that they're able to express here in the main.


View PostApnu, on 23 January 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:


I need to requote this for truth.

I bought the founders pack, but I took the time to read about the road map and see where the game is going. I feel that at no time did PGI deceive me or disappoint me. I knew exactly what I was getting into because I read what PGI has stated about the direction of the game. They have never wavered from that road map, and they always stated that things can and do change in the design phase.


Whilst much of the above is subjective, this really isn't. If you had read the Jul/Aug roadmap then you'd currently be playing the first iteration of house-based, lobby-tastic, lance-forming Community Warfare in glorious DX11. This thread indicates that such key features are now likely to complete "during 2013". Make of that what you will.

I'm very glad you see value though. So do I of a different shape. But you cannot and should not tell another person that their conclusions are wrong simply because you bought founders for different reasons.

I'll add again - in the hope of a conversation that transcends "f off and play something else then you ****" - that I'm not defending anyone who threatens staff members. That's clearly balls. I was responding in the main to the apparent lack of understanding from Bryan about why so many people are so negative. Complaints follow similar themes each time they come up and make the underlying reasons for mistrust starkly obvious.

#327 Inertiaman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 865 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:10 AM

View PostMechwarrior Buddah, on 23 January 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

what really was everyone expecting other than "Soon™"? Every time they set a timeline they miss it so If I were them Id stop giving out dates to meet too.


Or just cite realistic dates...

#328 Havyek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 1,349 posts
  • LocationBarrie, ON

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:22 AM

I don't blame them for giving dates. More people get mad when they just say "Soon™" then when they state what their goal is, then end up missing it.

The ONLY thing that I'd like to see really is clearer patch notes. So maybe if a feature that was intended to be released this patch gets pushed back, state that feature X has been pushed back due to ________________.
Heck, state that the feature X was pushed back because feature Y took priority and took longer than expected to get to a state suitable for release.

#329 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

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

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:29 AM

View PostRejarial Galatan, on 22 January 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

I am going to be absolutely blunt here: some of the choices PGI/IGP are making are very very questionable. Some things you guys do are just pure slaps to our faces and it is upsetting to say the least to see some of these things said and or done. My prime example is this fire storm over 3rd person perspective. Paul Inouye your own lead designer made a post stating that this game was to be 100% first person as 3rd person view breaks a KEY DESIGN PILLAR on many levels, then, well, Russ said what he said, and all hell has broken lose. I think, honestly some if not ALL of the whining for such a view stemmed/stems from the fact you guys have no playable tutorial to teach new players how this game works, and if the above statement about just such a thing being added in soon IS true, that may end this whining for a game breaking view altogether. I am not being mean or trying to be nasty, but, being honest with you guys. Again, some of what you guys are doing and saying, shakes us to our cores and we are just as passionate about this stuff as you guys and want it to live a long time, and being passionate and loud and blunt is sometimes the best way to get our points across. We all want this to work, all of us.


Yeah youd think the poll that has four thousand "no" answers MORE than "yes" would be telling in that regard
I think that one poll has more answers in it than Ive seen before in one here

View PostThontor, on 23 January 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

Its only been 86 days, they still have time!

No, these dates are target dates, goals, that's all... They aren't deadlines. With software development like this, sometimes "stuff" happens that you couldn't have predicted way back when you first set your goals:


Thats why Im saying that their "soon" and "later this year" is better then setting a date and not meeting it and ppl freaking the hell out. Over and over. Id rather they put "soon" than see firestorm after firestorm because they missed dates

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 23 January 2013 - 09:35 AM.


#330 focuspark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ardent
  • The Ardent
  • 3,180 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:30 AM

View PostMadPanda, on 22 January 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

What is CR team and why do I need to thank them?

Community Relations, if I had to hazard a guess.

#331 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

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

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:37 AM

View Postfocuspark, on 23 January 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Community Relations, if I had to hazard a guess.


so wait... without them we wouldnt be getting said responses?
Thought the devs follow the forums O.o I see them posting all over the place. Its not like they dont know whats hot topics here themselves

#332 Inertiaman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 865 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:42 AM

Wow they have a community relations team? That's some good relations work there Lou.

#333 Apnu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,083 posts
  • LocationMidWest

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:45 AM

View PostGrimlockONE, on 23 January 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:



I agree with you to a degree. My biggest issue is with phasing in Community Warfare. The most integral part of this game and something they pushed back numerous times is no just a complete failure to deliver on PGI and IGPs part. A rolled phase out throughout an entire year? I believe that PGI has simply bitten off more than it can chew, over aspired, and under delivered.


Its a big task PGI has set for themselves yes. PGI wants to get it right and believes that baby steps is the way to get there. As a scripter and occasional programmer, I agree with that 100%. Its easier to tackle large problems if you break them down into smaller problems. This has an effect on the speed of development, of course. They'll get it done, be patient they're more invested than we are in this project. Their jobs are on the line!

#334 Utnapishtim

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • LocationThe Internets

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:56 AM

thanks for the update! can't wait for community warfare.

also, good idea with the achievement awards system.

#335 Apnu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,083 posts
  • LocationMidWest

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:06 AM

View PostInertiaman, on 23 January 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:


Whilst much of the above is subjective, this really isn't. If you had read the Jul/Aug roadmap then you'd currently be playing the first iteration of house-based, lobby-tastic, lance-forming Community Warfare in glorious DX11. This thread indicates that such key features are now likely to complete "during 2013". Make of that what you will.

I'm very glad you see value though. So do I of a different shape. But you cannot and should not tell another person that their conclusions are wrong simply because you bought founders for different reasons.

I'll add again - in the hope of a conversation that transcends "f off and play something else then you ****" - that I'm not defending anyone who threatens staff members. That's clearly balls. I was responding in the main to the apparent lack of understanding from Bryan about why so many people are so negative. Complaints follow similar themes each time they come up and make the underlying reasons for mistrust starkly obvious.


I never said anybody is wrong. I did state my view and explained why I'm satisfied with the current monetary investment I've made. What I am saying is people should have been more aware of what they're getting into. That's the responsibility of the purchaser. Too much blame is put on PGI and not enough responsibility is taken on the other side of things. That's my point.

As for the delays, everything goes pear shaped. No plan, ever, is executed 100% as projected. PGI was clearly ambitious in its stated timeline, yes. The game clearly needed more time in the closed beta oven. PGI felt pressured to get something out to the public and made a tactical decision to do so even though they were aware of the greif they would have to endure. PGI has admitted all of this. It is true they haven't shouted from the mountain top, but they have owned up to their mistakes.

Things never turn out as any of us think. Giving up greif about it is simply a waste of time an energy when we can all be more productive. I think, even the trolls here, want a good game they can enjoy -- we all can agree to that. But it is a waste of time to tear down the company making the game. And that happens frequently here. It demotivates the devs and eventually will kill this game. Plus, like I said, its an awful waste of time and energy on the greifer's part. Isn't there something better to do, something more enjoyable than getting riled up and spewing vitriol online?

#336 Moridan

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 70 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:16 AM

Keep up the good work guys. We have faith that the game will continuously improve throughout the next year.

#337 Havyek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 1,349 posts
  • LocationBarrie, ON

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:24 AM

I for 1 wants the Devs to be doing developing and not perusing the forums looking for the latest "QQ" or "This is OP fix it or I quit!" threads.

The Community Relations team are the poor ******** who get to (read: have to) deal with the BS, point out certain threads to the devs that would benefit from their input or response.

Without them, there would be (and shouldn't be) any interaction between the community and the developers. Because the developers would be DEVELOPING! (or spending too much f-ing time on the forums and we'd be half as far ahead as we are now).

#338 Shivaxi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 175 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:27 AM

View PostTice Daurus, on 22 January 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Bryan, thank you for going the extra mile to answer ALL of these questions. I got mine answered...

Q: I'd like to know what your plans are for different types of ammo that's possible, like Inferno SRM rounds, Thunder LRM rounds, Armor-Piercing Autocannon rounds, and other items that could be possibly incorporated into the game, in any.
A: No plans yet. Some rounds are not available in the current timeline.

And while I'm not too pleased, as I would like to see this come into play down the road, I understand that there are more important things that are needed right now that needs to be taken care of first. All I ask is that down the road, they could get incorporated into the game. The only one I would like to see be introduced first is Inferno SRM rounds, because those were out in the novels around the 3025 era and they should be available around this time frame now. But again...no rush on these because important stuff first.

As for your last question, it really got me sad and I'm sorry you actually had to answer it. You would think we'd all be more understanding of who you guys are trying to do for us. But in a way, I'm GLAD you answered that one and I think it's probably the most important question answered so far, so kudos to you and your team for taking the time to answer these questions.



So...does this mean we have to wait 20 years for stuff so that its "in the time-line"? ill be dead in 20 years...

#339 Drexorn

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 90 posts
  • LocationNYC area

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:32 AM

Great Q&A, thanks guys.

#340 Joseph Calvert

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 153 posts
  • LocationQC, Arizona

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:34 AM

"Q: [insert question about Community Wafare]
A: Community Warfare is coming in stages over the course of 2013. The first phases will include the concepts of Factions – Player run Merc Corps, and non-player run Houses. The second phase will include the territory conquest aspects, including the ability to fight for and control border worlds within the InnerSphere. Details will be forthcoming through a variety announcements (press and forum) later in the year."

Awesome news! I've been waiting for this since the start. Thanks Garth!

PS are you sure we can't fire AC10 rounds through a LBx 10?





7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users