Posted 11 September 2014 - 01:18 PM

EDIT: Headings to make it easier to read

Hello,

This is going to be rather long, so first let me introduce myself so you know where I'm coming from. I'm a life-long fan of Battletech. I'm 27 years old, and I've been a fan ever since my father brought home a pirated copy of The Battletech Compendium for me to play, 22 years ago. I was introduced to Battletech before I was introduced to Star Trek and Star Wars. It is THE deep-universe scifi experience which has interested me throughout my life.

As far as MWO is concerned, I started playing when I found out about it in December of 2012, near the beginning of Open Beta. The newest 'mech at the time was the Trebuchet, and it was several weeks before the second LRMageddon (the splash damage induced one, not the Artemis tracking one), if that puts some context on exactly when I joined. Since that time, I've purchased the Overlord phoenix package, the Sabre package and the Masakari package. I own approximately 140 'mechs and I play each and every one of them. Okay, that's a lie. I haven't touched my SDR-5V in quite a while because that thing is horrible, but that's beside the point. I am what you might call a "whale" in this game.

I've gotten to that point through my professional life, where I am in a customer-facing role, fulfilling service obligations and other customer support needs for 6-figure service contracts on 7-and-8-figure machines. I understand a thing or two about the challenges inherent to maintaining and improving a product that the customer is actively using, and explaining the processes involved to customers with varying degrees of technical proficiency with the product's backend.

As such, I understand that the players and the devs should - and I believe do - share a common goal in MWO. This goal is simple, for MWO to deliver the most richly rewarding gameplay experience to lovers of battletech and newcomers alike. The primary benefit to the players in achieving this goal is that we have more fun. The primary benefit to PGI in achieving this goal is that the players become an asset in the form of crowdsourced creative and technical expertise, and - as a fringe benefit - are more willing to spend a few more dollars, and bring a few friends into the game that they love. It is mutually beneficial to everyone involved that both sides get this right.

I'll be offering a few suggestions for process improvements on both sides of the aisle, as well as highlighting some past behavior from both sides that was beyond the pale, to serve as cautionary tales going forward.

Communication:

First, I turn to the devs. If you take absolutely nothing else from this, remember this one thing: You MUST communicate more effectively. I understand that a sizable portion of the community is combative. I understand that development work is nebulous and often difficult to explain. The vast majority of us are adults here, however, and you shouldn't be afraid of talking over our heads. Even if only a handful of people understand what you say, that has a ripple effect on the community.

Decentralize your spokesmanship. Having a community manager is great and all, and most people I've spoken to agree that Niko is an improvement upon his predecessor, but do not let the communication end there. We don't need massive posts to be the main form of communication. They're nice, but they should be reserved for high-level changes. Communications from Karl Berg and Matthew Craig, discussing matters in which they are the subject matter experts, go a long way toward making the community understand what you're going through. Make it granular, make it frequent, and make it technical. In fact, it would even be nice if each department within PGI got its own communication channel within the forums, so that those of us interested in art can see what the art team is working on. Those of us interested in design can see what the design team is working on. Those of us interested in engineering can see what technical tasks are being handled.

Whenever there is a problem, make sure that you communicate 3 main points:

1) The nature of the problem.

2) The cause of the problem as you understand it.

3) What steps you're taking to fix the problem. Again, don't be afraid of specificity or technical speech.

Also, focus your communications avenues. Russ's twitter feed is nice, but it should not be a main source of information. Reddit is nice for discussion, but again should not be the go-to for people who want dev posts. The forums are the place where new players look for information regarding your game, and filling them with meaningful content is the best way to attract old players back into contributing rolls in the discussions here.

Make your communication visible. Not only should the forums be your primary source of outgoing communications, significant announcements (such as the CW Module 2 announcement) should be featured prominently on the front page. They should be equally visible to those things you can monetize. Currently, the front page just looks like a billboard for a hero 'mech dealer. It can and should be better used as a consolidated source of information dissemination on major events.

Development

As for the pace of development, we all understand that it's difficult. We also understand that it's what we're paying you for. You should understand this too, and never lose sight of it. This is especially important and especially true now that you are self-published. You answer only to us now. We pull the purse strings directly.

2014 has been a much better year in this regard than 2013 was. With new features being announced every 3-4 months, and those features actually being delivered on time, the pace of development can no longer be called glacial. Unfortunately, 2013 dug you a significant hole in this regard, and not only does the community see you as being behind schedule, they also will need significant convincing that the new pace will be kept.

Major new features aren't the only development tasks that are important to us, however. The gameplay balance constantly changes as time goes on. We, as a community, are adept at finding small differences in weapons and equipment and modifying out play to magnify their effect until the game is no longer balanced. This is our job. Your job is to occasionally review the gameplay balance, and make subtle changes when you feel they are necessary.

Set a schedule for periodic review and make sure that the community is aware of it and that it is strictly adhered to. Publish the findings of the review immediately upon its completion. Tell us which weapons are overperforming and underperforming according to your metrics, and in which elo ranges they are a problem. Then take some time to formulate a plan and test it internally. Release the changes on the test server and pay attention to the results. Then release a balance pass. Having a set balance pass process will stop the nerfs and buffs from feeling arbitrary, as they have in the past. Major sources of contention have been both changes that don't go far enough - ie the year of the PPC - and changes that go too far or aren't adequately explained - ie AC/2 "normalization" when it was already underperforming in high level play.

Feedback

Lastly, listen to feedback and make sure that we know when our suggestions are being implemented. If the technical communication is more granular, this provides great opportunity for direct, rapid acknowledgement that you hear us. If a problem is brought to your attention by the community, give us a "shout out" in the post of whichever staff member is responsible for fixing it. Something along the lines of "We've seen that the AC/2 is underperforming. We noticed this after it was pointed out by user x, user y and several others. We're adding it to our next balance pass, where we will test the changes proposed by user a, user b, and user c. We will decide from there which path to take." This will guarantee that we never feel like our speeches fall upon deaf ears.

Players

As for the players, we are not completely innocent here either. We often grumble amongst ourselves that something is wrong, and don't try to suggest ways that PGI can improve. When these suggestions are made, they are often made in a hostile manner. This makes the devs feel as though they're on the defensive from the start, and makes them less receptive to hearing what we have to say.

This is not only true in MWO's case, this applies to the entire industry... and even the greater entertainment industry. A major reason that gaming is not taken seriously by many as a creative art is that the fan base is seen as childish. Speak dispassionately when offering feedback. I understand that emotions run high, particularly when dealing with an IP that you love, but try to lay out the specific problem, your specific suggestion, and the goal that can be achieved if they listen to you. In short, we need to do our part to foster a healthy relationship between developers and players, and between gamers and the rest of the entertainment industry.

Devs

There has certainly been no shortage of unacceptable behavior on both sides of the MWO spectrum. PGI has, on multiple occasions, given specific dates for content releases and then failed to meet them without sufficient explanation as to why. This cannot be done anymore. If you're going to miss a deadline, tell us as soon as you know that you won't make it. Then tell us what specific problem is standing in your way, and what specific steps are being taken to get you back on track. Once again, don't be afraid of technical jargon. If there is an engineering hurdle blocking a creative release, tell us that and then turn it over to Karl, Matthew, et al to explain in detail what the problem is. We, as a community, enjoy details. You will never alienate us by giving more details.

On the public relations front, there have been unacceptable actions on both the small and large scale. We know that the islanders make an easy target for mockery if you're on the other side of the aisle, but PGI representatives should never engage in this sort of behavior. Ever. It doesn't matter who they are or what they've done, you are representatives of the company, and mocking a player - even one who has been as public in their opposition as Victor Morson - is not an activity that you should ever partake in.

Also, the timing of major announcements has often been quite tone-deaf. The latest and most spectacular of these is the rollout of Transverse. It's a project that I'm excited about, and I really want to have the chance to play that game, but announcing it when you did played no favors either for MWO or for Transverse. Seriously, guys... please consider hiring a PR consultant to look over the optics of any major announcement in the future. Hell, even having a cadre of players who sign non-disclosure agreements to act as a focus group for major impending announcements will be immensely beneficial to your bottom line. In the end, you need players to support your company. You cannot afford to have Public Relations be an afterthought any longer.

Players

As for the players, there has been unacceptable behavior on our end too. Spamming the forums of PGI's other title with criticism of this one is not OK. Taking to Twitter to harass that game's backers for spending their money some place you disagree with is beyond unacceptable, it's disgusting (link). It's precisely the sort of behavior that discourages people from making games, and keeps gaming as a whole from being a respected medium. If you see anyone engaging in this sort of behavior, call them out on it. Don't be afraid of being called a white knight. This behavior only continues because good people say nothing.

In conclusion, there are massive improvements to be made by both PGI and the players. If we can make those improvements, however, I think it's possible that we can build a relationship that is mutually beneficial. The players will receive a better game, and the developers will receive more players. It will only work, though, if we stop this stalemate. PGI, don't wait for the community to clean up its act before you make process improvements. Implement them now. The players, likewise, can't wait for PGI to make the improvements. We need to start policing out own. Once we start seeing success on both sides, those independent successes will feed upon one another and make everyone feel much better about the state of this game.Sincerely,StillRadioactiveP.S.: I'm considering making a regular thread where I compile the best suggestions for changes to the game, give credit to the originators of those ideas, and state them in a manner which clearly explains the benefit of each prospective change to both the players and PGI. Everything from price restructuring to gameplay balance to upcoming 'mechs. I'll only do this if I know that it's something the community is OK with (I'll never try to pass the ideas of others off as my own) and that PGI will listen. I need the green light from both sides.

Edited by StillRadioactive, 11 September 2014 - 01:31 PM.