Ok,
I've just listened to the whole thing and here are my thoughts. (I'll preface this post by saying I appreciate there is a part two, so there's a slim chance my concerns below will be alleviated).
I totally appreciate you guys interviewing these two. It's great that you guys are in a position that these interviews become available to you and the opportunity to question these two (Jon and Sage) about the community's concerns is an option. However, I feel like, overall both Jon and Sage were given an easy ride here. Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate that you've had beers with these people before, you have the inherent concern of not wanting to push things as you don't want to piss them off and jeopardise future opportunities for interviews and damage your reputation as individuals and a podcast, BUT, this was such a gentle 'Oh OK, cool' sort of interview that nothing really of use was discovered. To cite some examples:
The Numbers
First off, the numbers debacle in the patch update. Sage again said 'oh yeah a decimal point was in the wrong place, big deal,' but that's simply not the case. Yes, in a couple of instances decimal places were out, but in other areas entirely new numbers were given to us. Why did THIS happen? We could all totally understand a decimal point being out, but then to say it's a decimal point, then in your apology about it being a decimal point that was wrong, to update the patch notes with entirely new numbers is totally mystifying. Why were neither of them pushed on this? It's such a basic line of questioning?
Play testing
Sage referenced changing numbers in an Excel spreadsheet, saving it and then closing it. To me, this is EXACTLY how the latest weapon balance feels like it was adapted. It doesn't feel like it was play tested, it feels like it was just tinkered via data. Sage goes on to say that they can replicate latency in their play test area but they turn it off. The way that was communicated made it sound like the latency simulation was off more than it was on. He then says there's a delay with melee hits but we can't get that down. WHAT? Really???? You KNOW there's a delay with melee hits, they don't connect or take a couple of seconds to register and you CAN'T get that delay down? How on earth did no one push further on this? Why can't you get it down? Does that not make melee kills a total lottery? It was such a huge revelation and no one picked up on it?
Matchmaking
I mean this just felt like a total cover up and avoidance of the question. First up, he slowly and carefully picks his words when talking about it. I can't confirm or deny, it's not my area. Fair enough, I personally know there's been a change as I've been told by a Bungie staffer, but even if I hadn't been given that information, that feels as good as an admission that it has changed. Sage talks about Derek referencing SRL as the reason there's a smaller pool of players to choose form, but this is a total nonsense, which he almost confirms later by saying they have 'N-million' people playing PVP. I mean, if there was even 1 million people playing PVP, and 80% of those were playing SRL, that would still give you 200,000 people playing Crucible, and you are trying to tell me that it's just pure circumstance that out of those 200,000 people I'm being matched EVERY SINGLE GAME with people of a similar or higher KD to me? Come on.
Later, when one of you said 'I finish in the top 8 out of 10 most Control matches', Sage almost way too revealingly, said 'Well if we matched you with similarly KD'd players, you should win 50/50'. This was a total defensive comment, out of the blue, which was almost justifying the matchmaking change he couldn't confirm they had made. Why say something like that if you aren't personally aware a change has been made and people aren't being receptive to it?
Another clue came from later on when he was talking about player analysis. Jon said they tend to look at the top 10% of players and the bottom 90%. That, again is EXACTLY how matchmaking currently feels. It feels like the KD levels have been split into a top 10% and a bottom 90%. ie If your KD is 1.4, you'll play anyone from a KD of 1.2 to 3.5. The percentage gap for a 'skilled player' is huge, so we're all just lumped in together.
There were a lot of questions that could have been asked here on such a hot topic. A lot of things said that could have been pushed and a lot of 'accidental' tells from the pair of them. It just feels like another wishy washy answer was allowed to be given.
The Last Word
Ignoring the fact that one of you, despite the fact that again EVERYONE wants this discussed, simply glossed over it and it had to be brought back up as a topic of conversation (!), there excuse for TLW being strong again is ridiculous. The reason it's being used so much again is because everyone is talking about it? COME ON! That's nonsensical and that was OK with everyone? You were fine with that answer? The reason it's strong again is because hand cannons were given a buff and TLW wasn't brought down accordingly. Hawkmoon was, way too much, when it started performing well, but they made NO adjustments whatsoever to TLW to compensate for the global handcannon buff. So to say it's simply because 'people are talking about it' is a total nonsense. It's obviously more powerful. The range is starting to dip into crazy territory again and the TTK is almost as good as an LMG. Jon said 'In 1 vs 1 it'll win, but in 2 vs 1 you might have to reload'. Sorry? Most weapons when you are in a 2 vs 1 will require a reload, and probably have you come out dead in this game. To say a weapon will mean you are likely to win a gunfight 1 vs 1 is basically saying that weapon is too powerful. Again, nothing further was pushed here??
Sage then said 'if you look at it on paper, TLW is fine.' That's a total contradiction to everything they are saying and trying to achieve. No one plays the game on paper.
Like I said, I know this seems quite a negative post, but it just feels like a totally wasted opportunity. What did we learn from this podcast? I'd argue, nothing at all, aside from the fact that Plan C seems viable and should be used. Too many excuses or dodges from Jon and Sage were allowed to play out and it feels like a totally missed opportunity to get further clarity and air grievances that the whole community is currently feeling.
I know interviewing is difficult, I had to do it for 4 years in my previous career, and it's especially when you have to ask difficult questions that you think might put your subject in an awkward spot, but that's the whole point of these Q&As. I just feel we're none the wiser than we were before you all sat down with Jon and Sage. And yes, I accept, part two could address all these concerns so if it does, I will stand corrected, but the way that first hour and 10/20 minutes went, it doesn't look good.