data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3ae9/b3ae9cf8cfed3e06df6984fcf2a08c460eab065d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c8699/c8699cb478b143dee6ca2f6e447e9d81d7bfa4b1" alt=""
Clans Jun 17 - There Goes The Balance
#81
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:15 PM
#82
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:18 PM
Zerstorer Stallin, on 13 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:
They are still resources that could be used to pay people who could work on the promised items from FOUNDERS packs yet to be delievered. I cant believe you don't understand basic economics.
In your own simple way you might be the smartest person here
#83
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:18 PM
Bad news is CW info will drop off again. (Actually, I expect they will hobble together Phase 1 in May to get the sales targets hit).
#84
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:18 PM
KEYGETS, on 13 December 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:
I worry that they don't knwo what to do. They are constantly making decisions like this that just cause perception of their game and company to go down the drain
#85
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:23 PM
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c2be9/c2be9ba84b0aee57ef37db8584e1cab477350ae1" alt=":)"
#86
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:25 PM
#87
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:26 PM
God
#88
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:26 PM
Sandpit, on 13 December 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:
THIS is what's wrong with PGI
Any idea what the warhorns will do? Are they in the fluff do you know? Think they will be a vanity item?
#89
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:27 PM
Sable Dove, on 13 December 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:
Please stop telling PGI to not bother with actually improving the game.
That's actually a bold faced lie. PGI's selling of mechs in packages is smart from a buisness standpoint but it stops nothing from improving on the game as it's a seperate department.
So no it doesn't put game improvement on the back-burner. Im not a fan of PGI's lack of UI 2.0 or CW but put the blame where it goes. Stuff like 3pv delays improvement.
#90
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:30 PM
Ecliptor, on 13 December 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:
Ecliptor, on 13 December 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:
TY, but it is true that it basically boils down to resource allotment.
#91
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:31 PM
Ecliptor, on 13 December 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:
as usual we have no idea since PGI decides in their infinite wisdom to not give us detailed information on anything. They somehow feel vague announcements are better than detailed info
#92
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:31 PM
What's with the signed digital art, does that mean they will mail me signed cgi print, or an email with a siggy on it? I hope it's the former if anything as my second idea is dumb.
#93
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:34 PM
Zerstorer Stallin, on 13 December 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:
1. Are clan meks going to be unlockable via CB's?
2 Are clan weapons going to be introduced?
3. Is there EVER going to be CW?
4. Has PGI given up totally and now the clan packages are Pay to Win?
5. Is there going to be a seperate battles? Maps? CW( given it every gets here).
Can anyone answer any of these question or will it be the old PGI bait and switch?
GIVE ME MY KITFOX AND WARHAMMER MISSILE TEABAG MACHINE!
#94
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:34 PM
Lucian Nostra, on 13 December 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:
That's actually a bold faced lie. PGI's selling of mechs in packages is smart from a buisness standpoint but it stops nothing from improving on the game as it's a seperate department.
So no it doesn't put game improvement on the back-burner. Im not a fan of PGI's lack of UI 2.0 or CW but put the blame where it goes. Stuff like 3pv delays improvement.
right or wrong that perception is becoming more popular among the player base. It doesn't matter if it's accurate or not. PGI has set themselves up for this perception. Vague information releases, 18 months of blown deadlines, no content other than new mechs, mech sales, and a couple of maps, complete silence on features the community feel are more important.
They did this to themselves. You can point fingers at players for being mad or jumping to conclusions but at this point that's the reality of the situation. You don't want situations like this? Disperse some information. This isn't CB anymore, you're a fully released game. Stop sneaking around, snickering to yourself about how "great" this new stuff is but for some reason feeling you can't disperse this "top secret" info to players who spend money on and support your product.
#95
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:35 PM
#96
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:36 PM
Lucian Nostra, on 13 December 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:
That's actually a bold faced lie. PGI's selling of mechs in packages is smart from a buisness standpoint but it stops nothing from improving on the game as it's a seperate department.
So no it doesn't put game improvement on the back-burner. Im not a fan of PGI's lack of UI 2.0 or CW but put the blame where it goes. Stuff like 3pv delays improvement.
So that team that designs those packages and mechs work for free?!? No?!? Then its resources that could be applied to "purchase" other individuals with the ability to "help" get out the yet to be seen promises of YEARS past. Is that clear now?
MoxVoid, on 13 December 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:
I see what you did there.
#98
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:39 PM
Zerstorer Stallin, on 13 December 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:
So that team that designs those packages and mechs work for free?!? No?!? Then its resources that could be applied to "purchase" other individuals with the ability to "help" get out the yet to be seen promises of YEARS past. Is that clear now?
You act like they weren't going to pay those people anyways. Since they were going to be paid anyways, no resources were taken away from other areas.
#99
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:42 PM
Second, not this time, PGI. I won't put another dime in the game until I see some progress done with the actual content AND NEW MECHS AND NEW MAPS ARE NOT CONTENT.
So, I'm gonna be very patient, wait that you do something correctly to make this game back into something fun (hint: balance, convergence, hardpoints, etc). Then, we'll talk.
#100
Posted 13 December 2013 - 06:43 PM
Noth, on 13 December 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:
You act like they weren't going to pay those people anyways. Since they were going to be paid anyways, no resources were taken away from other areas.
They could have cutback the size of that department to beef up another.
Again, perception. Right or wrong more and more players see it like this. It's their opinion and their opinion is what will determine when and where their money is spent. This is just a crappy way (typical PGI fashion) of handling another situation
12 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 12 guests, 0 anonymous users