Jump to content

- - - - -

Community Warfare Clarity (P2P/f2P) - Feedback


342 replies to this topic

#41 Vassago Rain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 14,396 posts
  • LocationExodus fleet, HMS Kong Circumflex accent

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:22 AM

RIP run hot or die.
As was foretold months ago.

#42 Cassiano

    Member

  • Pip
  • Knight Errant
  • 12 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:22 AM

Great! Thanks Bryan, you are doing a Great Game! keep with the good work \o/

#43 GrayFox777

    Rookie

  • 2 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:22 AM

Premium time for private matches, this is absolutely unacceptable. Mark my words no ftp game will survive with such a feature. It's very said because I love the battletech universe.

#44 von Pilsner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,043 posts
  • LocationColorado

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:24 AM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 08 April 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:


Due to the article coming out on a Friday and myself being on vacation, I was not in a position to write this response on the forums. Instead I used my Twitter account to try and alleviate some of the concerns. Please consider any communication via my Twitter account as an official response.

The Polygon article was correctly reported with one omission by the interviewer and one omission from myself:
  • I made mention near the end of the conversation that no final decisions have been made. I also used soft language, like may, possibly, could, probably - these are far from definite. At no time did I make any statements of finality.
  • I did not clarify that the requirement of premium time would be for the MC reward system and private matches. Both are part of the CW.



Good to see you take some responsibility rather than just blame the interviewer.

#45 WardenWolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,684 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:26 AM

View PostOxyclean, on 08 April 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

Do you know if there's any talks (or would it be possible to bring the idea up) about a better value/incetivised premium account? I think Planetside 2 offers a subscription model comparable to most MMOs, which grants both premium time-esque bonus AND some level of monthly game cash.

If it was a straight "cash-for-Premium" thing then I could see including some MCs in there, but as it is the way to buy Premium time is with MCs... so having it give you MCs back is sort of counter-intuitive (my not just reduce prices by that amount of MCs?). They are already giving a 50% boost to C-bill earnings, so there isn't much point in a C-bill stipend either.

#46 zmeul

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • LocationBuzau, Romania

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:27 AM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 08 April 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

  • Some aspects of CW will reward players with MC, we are considering a Premium Account requirement to participate in these rewards. This will not prevent non-paying customers to participate in all aspects of CW with their friends and teammates.

this doesn't sound right at all
you need MC to "buy" premium account, so you are putting MC in to get MC out - sounds a lot like a "ponzi scheme"

#47 Frozenrose

    Member

  • Pip
  • 15 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:28 AM

@Testosticore: Hosting a stable private match with decent ping times and latency requires on a game of this scale both power from the server and from the connection. But if this option is given, I'm quite sure some server hosting services will come availeble from 3rd party if dedicated server software is released. That is, however, up to PGI and the IP owner Microsoft.

I would love to see an option for the private matches in a catagory of 'Free play, Free Mech' such that you can play, lets say 5 matches per week when you have a non-premium account or be limited to only Trial mechs. This could be balanced so that if you take part in a match like this, even if you have a premium account, to use a trial mech. That way you can show your friends what the game is about, how good it is, (I still have dreams of MW4 done with MWO graphics...) and get your friends get premium =)

#48 Funbags

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • LocationNY

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:29 AM

Will EVERYONE in the group need to have premium time to do private matches or just the leader. Clarify.

#49 Canadian Bacon

    Member

  • Pip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 13 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:30 AM

i think the clan wars system in world of tanks could be held as a good example to base mechwarriors clan war system on, just a thought. no matter what happens I am comfident it will be enjoyable and fun!

#50 Lord Psycho

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • 177 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:30 AM

Sounds exciting.

#51 Funbags

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • LocationNY

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:30 AM

View PostFrozenrose, on 08 April 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

@Testosticore: Hosting a stable private match with decent ping times and latency requires on a game of this scale both power from the server and from the connection. But if this option is given, I'm quite sure some server hosting services will come availeble from 3rd party if dedicated server software is released. That is, however, up to PGI and the IP owner Microsoft.



No more power then standard dropping as a group, its just a way to jack more $. I'm fine with it providing its just the group leader that needs to have premium and not the whole group.

#52 modred189

    Member

  • Pip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 16 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:33 AM

Premium time for a feature that pays in MC (analogous to real money) I think is fine. I mean, you could pay for your premium time by playing. That sounds like a GREAT way to incentivize player participation. That said, WHAT you tie to this is VERY important. If it's some kind of basic play, BAD move. If it's an optional thing where for-MC participants and for-CBs only participants play together, then no problem!

#53 Xelrah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:35 AM

View PostThontor, on 08 April 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

Threats of violence? Seriously people? Chill out!


Those are quite common in game industry, and especially if someone have Community Manager position.
Good to see that they at least made post finally, even if it is a bit overdue to what was initially mentioned.

#54 Slater01

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 430 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:37 AM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 08 April 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

* We are looking at ways to prevent/mitigate name reserving and parking. We may simply require players to have a minimum of 1 company or 12 active players to maintain a valid status.


This sounds about right. The Frontier Rangers and many other small groups can regularly field a single Lance. But only a few can field a Company (3Lances) on a regular basis. In addition I know that our crew will not be wanting to pay out of pocket for Group extras.

The real issue many wonder (which I hope will be explained) is the reward sytem and match making system for the 3 tiers of different players?
If a lone wolf pilot vs a registered merc corp pilot face off in Solaris, is all their equipment and gameplay percs equal?

Edited by Slater01, 08 April 2013 - 10:44 AM.


#55 Emery Radick

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 202 posts
  • LocationOutreach. Looking for new hires

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:37 AM

Thanks! I think everything here is reasonable ;)

#56 Jetfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,745 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:38 AM

Thank you for the clarifications, I think your approach seems 100% valid.

#57 pbiggz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,505 posts
  • LocationOutreach

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:38 AM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 08 April 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

It’s a whole other issue when the community sends violent threats to PGI/IGP staff...


This brings me great sadness, some members of the battletech community have forsaken their honour it seems...
There is no excuse for threatening anyone here.

#58 Zynithra Akutenshi

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 32 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:38 AM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 08 April 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

It’s one thing to disagree politely and intelligently, even passionately, with the content as it had been initially presented.It’s a whole other issue when the community sends violent threats to PGI/IGP staff for any reason: whether it’s a misunderstanding or for not being available to respond in as timely a manner as expected.


Thank you for the update, and I really feel for you on this one and hope everyone else will take a moment to consider the fact that PGI is a group of people creating a product solely for our enjoyment.

I am sure the next time people consider sending violent threats they will also consider whether it would be more sensible to wreck their rig every time they lose a match instead of threatening people.


View PostBryan Ekman, on 08 April 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Holidays do exist for developers.


What?! ='( Next you're going to tell us (other developers) you also get paid? Come on..

#59 Thorn Hallis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,901 posts
  • LocationUnited States of Paranoia

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:39 AM

View PostTennex, on 08 April 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

just consider how long MW3 and MW4 has been sustained due to private matches. alone. players themselves are content.


...which were hosted by companies who could afford the losses. I doubt that PGI/IGP are in the same league.

#60 Jetfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,745 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:40 AM

View Postzmeul, on 08 April 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

this doesn't sound right at all you need MC to "buy" premium account, so you are putting MC in to get MC out - sounds a lot like a "ponzi scheme"


I think the goal would be to make subs available for $$$ not MC anymore so they can grant as much MC reward as they want without people just earning their sub fees back + extra and playing for free. I support this kind of thing.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users