191 replies to this topic

[Heffay]

Roadbeer, on 04 December 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

Nope

He's right, but just doesn't realize that they BECOME the most constructive and useful posts *after* they get moved.

[MischiefSC]

This actually strikes me as an excellent compromise. It's a F2P game and servers are a significant expense. For F2P to work you've got to have a relatively small percentage of people paying enough to make up for everyone else. That's absolutely the nature of it. This promotes that and it targets a market segment that's more likely to have no issue paying for efficiency - which is what this is.

It's a rock solid concept and a great execution. All due props, eager to see it in game.

[Kattspya]

Morang, on 03 December 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

Nothing is said about premade group size limits in Public Matches announcement. Even worse, from current data it looks like Public Matches are going to revert to 8 players per team.

Why is that worse and what data?

8 vs 8 is a good thing.

[Kattspya]

Mister Blastman, on 03 December 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

Premium booster?

For real?

I paid 60 bucks for a game in the past. I played as many damn custom private matches I wanted to for not a cent more. Now you want to nickel and dime us even further?

Keep hitting the pipe, PGI. You're going to greed yourself out of business.

They are restructuring their pay model to take full advantage of competitive players and giant BT nerds. When the well is starting to empty you need to drill deeper.

EDIT: Competitive is less ambigous than clan.

Edited by Kattspya, 05 December 2013 - 09:15 AM.

[Kraven Kor]

MischiefSC, on 04 December 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

This actually strikes me as an excellent compromise. It's a F2P game and servers are a significant expense. For F2P to work you've got to have a relatively small percentage of people paying enough to make up for everyone else. That's absolutely the nature of it. This promotes that and it targets a market segment that's more likely to have no issue paying for efficiency - which is what this is.

It's a rock solid concept and a great execution. All due props, eager to see it in game.

Again, I reserve judgement to see what these "Premium" options allow.

[Vasces Diablo]

DeathofSelf, on 02 December 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

Charging money for private match options? Not cool guys... It had better be C-Bills and not MC (if that, really it shouldn't be anything)

Using infrastructure built for the community at large in a way that excludes the community at large should carry a real money cost. Now I'm as interested as anyone else as to what that cost would be, I would think it should be pretty low or tied in with existing premium time, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Zulu1]

None of this is written in stone, they don't seem to have any timelines currently (unless I am missing something) which means it's all vapor-ware anyways. At any rate if they do implement these features I really hoping the costs are nominal.

Another thought would be to let you do it free if you are running premium time.

-z

[Heffay]

I'm going to do something against my better judgement here and actually post something on topic and (I hope) useful. Please don't hate me.

The premium options should be strictly for features of convenience. Currently ALL the options can be decided by the match organizer prior to the drop by policy (agreement between the two teams participating in the private match) EXCEPT map selection. So I think that one should also be added to the list of options available to non premium private matches.

That is all. I apologize for my on topic post and will get back to trolling.

[PerryRaptor]

I agree with others that servers cost money, so there should be a fee to keep them online.

I would like a Thin Client to manage a private lobby. Managing a private lobby with user-customized scenario scripts and capturing match results for post processing automation for a ladder league competition using the "True Lance" specification with the skirmish mode of play.

I can see my idea as another way of funding MWO servers, and provide IGP/PGI some cash to continue working on the game.

I think a Thin Client could work with its own username and login system completely separate from the Game Client. This method would provide the means to pay a private lobby licensing fee to PGI. Players can pay-to-play using MC or Premium Time when they connect.

I also think Thin Client licensing would provide the metrics PGI needs to determine how many servers they need to provide 24/7. This would be a third tier above a free lobby and a premium lobby.

Last, I think Thin Client licensing would require PGI to have "skin in the game;" thus, code updates would happen for us and IGP/PGI Profit Seekers would champion its priority.

[cmdr_scotty]

i hope this will allow 1v1 private matches. as i could see this being really useful when teaching friends how to play the game rather than dropping in a match and hoping they stay alive long enough.

[ripstop]

PerryRaptor, on 07 December 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

I would like a Thin Client to manage a private lobby. ...

~S~

This would do alot to bring back those gamers who pine for league play but never speak up on the forums. They'll still need to drop on the public servers to supply themselves so profit is gained.

You guys at PGI really should talk to PerryRaptor. I think you'd be interested in what he has to say.

Ripstop

Edited by ripstop, 10 December 2013 - 05:24 PM.

[Insidious Johnson]

Compromise? Why should people pay for a private match? It is the same number of people playing regardless. It is just another instance on a server, albeit one highly customized which only takes longer to implement because of player choice instead of randomization. Don't be suckers ALL your lives guys. The servers are up regardless. At this point there is no need to bring in more servers, just use the empty ones that the hordes of MWO refugees to BF4 used to play on. This if implemented in this way, MWO will be the first iteration of this franchise to charge for competitive play. It will also be the shortest lived and least successful. Called it!

[Heffay]

Insidious Johnson, on 10 December 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

Compromise? Why should people pay for a private match? It is the same number of people playing regardless. It is just another instance on a server, albeit one highly customized which only takes longer to implement because of player choice instead of randomization. Don't be suckers ALL your lives guys. The servers are up regardless. At this point there is no need to bring in more servers, just use the empty ones that the hordes of MWO refugees to BF4 used to play on. This if implemented in this way, MWO will be the first iteration of this franchise to charge for competitive play. It will also be the shortest lived and least successful. Called it!

You don't have to pay for private matches. They are completely free.

[Storyteller]

This ... would ... be ... awesome! And please, can you include another option if the teams want the old spawnpoints or the new ones? Or let us choose between different types of the maps. Like choosing between the old Alpine Peaks or the new one.

And yes, I would pay for it, just to play tournaments, leagues and trainings in a controlled enviroment.

Edited by Storyteller, 11 December 2013 - 02:36 PM.

[Clit Beastwood]

MischiefSC, on 04 December 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

This actually strikes me as an excellent compromise. It's a F2P game and servers are a significant expense. For F2P to work you've got to have a relatively small percentage of people paying enough to make up for everyone else. That's absolutely the nature of it. This promotes that and it targets a market segment that's more likely to have no issue paying for efficiency - which is what this is.

It's a rock solid concept and a great execution. All due props, eager to see it in game.

I would pay 300 bucks cash, right now, for the ability to host my own server and have friends play on it. Maybe even more - I just want *some* level of control, and I don't want to be nickled and dimed for it. I've put a *lot* of money into this game and to be honest, it's getting old. I was once a *staunch* supporter of PGI and was constantly trying to bring in new players, etc. I'm done. I'll still play, but I'm tired of making excuses on PGI's behalf. I'm tired of being charged (or them proposing to charge) for every. little. thing. Let us have MW:LL back. One can almost guarantee that, if the player base was sufficient to support it, they'd sell map packs.

[Rebas Kradd]

It's a shame, really. It makes sense for PGI to charge for certain options, but the fact that they're a year behind has brought them such ill will that some people can't do anything but be outraged. I can't blame them.

[Peiper]

ripstop, on 10 December 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

~S~

This would do alot to bring back those gamers who pine for league play but never speak up on the forums. They'll still need to drop on the public servers to supply themselves so profit is gained.

You guys at PGI really should talk to PerryRaptor. I think you'd be interested in what he has to say.

Ripstop

Yes, and bring your thinking caps and water wings, Russ/Bryan/Jordan. I don't want to get myself in trouble by saying more, but you guys missed the boat. It MIGHT not be too late to catch up! Many, many people would be very, very happy if you did!

[PerryRaptor]

As Fierostetz stated, paying money up front to have the ability to control and manage a private lobby to get friends back into the game is very important.

So why do I think paying PGI a license fee for private lobbies?

- I don't have to find a hosting company and pay their $600+ a year for a virtual private server
- I don't have server maintenance tasks to clog up my gaming time with updates to code, maps, and etc.
- I don't have to run a campaign on MWO Forums to get people to my virtual private server
- The profit seekers behind PGI/IGP will prioritize development time for private lobbies

I am involved in a group of talented people who understand the lore, have skills to make maps, operate a MySQL Database, write code, develop automation scripts, and etc. I can make the gaming environment for like-minded players looking for Ladder League, Solaris, and/or Planet Combat Campaign System private lobbies.

A great thanks goes out to players like Ripstop and Peiper who have contributed:

I also have crowdfunding and crowdsourcing available to resource the backend of the gaming environments I can create through private lobbies. All I need is a thin client to make it happen.

Private lobby users need to demonstrate a revenue stream so that PGI/IGP has "skin in the game" to ensure a lifecycle for the MechWarrior Community.

Edited by PerryRaptor, 13 December 2013 - 06:19 AM.

[Kanis Maximus]

Insidious Johnson, on 10 December 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

Compromise? Why should people pay for a private match? It is the same number of people playing regardless. It is just another instance on a server, albeit one highly customized which only takes longer to implement because of player choice instead of randomization. Don't be suckers ALL your lives guys. The servers are up regardless. At this point there is no need to bring in more servers, just use the empty ones that the hordes of MWO refugees to BF4 used to play on. This if implemented in this way, MWO will be the first iteration of this franchise to charge for competitive play. It will also be the shortest lived and least successful. Called it!

+1

The servers are already there. If done right (maybe this is the key "done right", something PGI is impervious to) a private match is just another instance with the upside of not having to go through the ELO and tonnage algorithm of the matchmaker, so it would be even less demanding. The only thing that would require more work are the customization options but those would be client side and passed as parameters to create the instance bypassing the matchmaker.

So pardon my ignorance but how on Earth would a private match be more costly?

[Heffay]

Kanis Maximus, on 13 December 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

So pardon my ignorance but how on Earth would a private match be more costly?

Not costly in terms of dollars, but in quality of gameplay for the public CW matches. If private matches cannibalize too many teams from the public queue, there will be matchmaking issues there. That will give the public queues a bad reputation, so it is in their interest to encourage public 12 mans.