450 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 04 April 2014 - 05:28 PM, said:

(1) No, stop being so defensive. We're saying that you WEREN'T HERE when full groups were a thing, you weren't around for the frustrating discussions that turned into making them NOT a thing, you weren't told that the change was only temporary, and when (in December) you were told that they would be returning, only in late February to be told "that was our position at the time" I didn't (and doesn't) mean anything to you. In short, you are lacking the context of this conversation, and the angst that is behind it. And, for the record, up until late February when the hopes of being able to play with more than 3 of your friends were crushed, myself, Sandpit, Bishop Steiner, Amsro, Ghost Badger and others you see in this thread were considered White Knights, and over the last year, we have watched LITERALLY HUNDREDS of people on our friends list leave the game.

Tell me Craig, if you were told that you were able to drop on any map you wanted, in any mode you wanted (like you can now) and then they changed their mind (after assuring you that you could) and said "You can only drop on these 3 maps for free, and only in Skirmish. There are other maps and modes available, but you need to carry Premium Time to use them (for now, but it will be MC later) and in order to access the other game modes, you'll need to go to a 3rd Party site. Would this go beyond a simple "desires" thing, or would this start to sound more like a bill of goods?


It's not like it's something that we're asking them to create, it's something that was ALREADY in the game, that was removed and we were told it would be temporary (500 days ago) and told would be returning with the Launch Module as recently as December.

(2) If I'm paying for it (in Premium Time and MC) like I'm being required to do, you're damn right

(3) It's not just MY team or Amrso's team, or Ghost Badger's team, or any single team. It's TEAM PLAY. and that's something you're not getting so let me explain it again.
1. You are forced to carry Premium time (and later MC) to play with your friends if they number greater than 3 and less than 11. Period, not that "Hey, I want to inhibit 3PV or Clan Tech, or whatever, just to be able to play with them in the same group.
2. You are forced to utilize 3rd party software to find a match if your group is greater than 4 and less than 12, because there is no matchmaker or lobby system being implemented (something else that was advertised as recently as December)
3. You're being forced to play with your friends who number greater than 4 but less than 12, and you receive NO BENEFIT for it other than some mild Epeen stroking because there are no rewards for it (Cbills, XP, Achievements, etc)

Why are you having such a hard time with those facts? If those hurdles were placed on ANY aspect of the solo queue, you'd and the other "84%" would be appoplectic, but because it's just the "16%" well, who gives a shit? amirite?


(4) I do pride myself on being a troll, and there was a time I prided myself on being an occasional PGI defender, which should tell you, if I'm here, calling PGI a minimally viable developer, you should be taking a step back and wondering exactly what PGI did to screw the pooch.

(1) I know who you are Roadbeer, I read a lot more threads than I post on. You don't need to give me your bio . I am not being defensive, I continue to ask the same question and get no response that satisfy's me except for (now) 'your opinion / question is invalid because you weren't here way back when' (my summary). What I would really like is someone such yourself with your tenure and experience stepping away from their (perhaps quite rightly based) jaded view and looking objectivily at what the proposed changes are. I am not asking anyone to defend PGI, thats up to them. But I don't see value in 'trashing' progress and feet stamping while disregarding the total picture.

(2) Now here I absolutely agree with your sentiment, if I was paying for it than I would want to play my game. (I am not going to go back into the Pay to Play discussion here except to say we disagree on what that means).

But can you not step away from your agenda and consider the other 18 players in the game. There are gazillions (exagerate much Craig? ) of threads where people complain about stomps and poor team composition generated randomly and yet here you are saying that if you had the power to create a lopsided match, your opposition would just have to 'suck it up'. I think you would not be alone, and I suspect that PGI are of a similar view, and so they err on the side of the other 18 players and be conservative (my assumption). The community has proven in my game experience to be largely unable to govern itself and has in Forums over and over asked PGI to level the playing field. So PGI are honouring that and now we are trashing them?

(3) Noyou'rewrong. It's MY team too. All of those things (In game Voice, 5+ players etc) are the things I would like to see. But they're not here (yet?) I got over it and decided to make the most out of what we have and am prepared to give the proposed amendments a fair hearing when they arrive. I don't see the value in stamping my feet about what I cannot have today until I have seen if what I have can meet my needs.

(4) Thats a bit arrogant even for you Roadbeer. For all your articulate and constructive posts you're not a god that we should all bow down before your wisdom. I get that you have jumped off the "White Knight" band wagon but that doesn't mean that everyone else should follow you lemming like into the 'hater' pool.

Davers, on 04 April 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

No offence dude, but you seem to be the one doing the scaremongering.

When did anyone say we wanted to force people into unbalanced matches? Where did we claim to want to set match parameters and make other people 'deal with it'? I am not sure where you are getting this.

See above, Roadbeer is at least one other person who has similar thoughts to myself about how the mechanic could be exploited.

This game (and many others) is absolutely about min / maxing and there is no reason for the player population to change their behavious overnight and suddenly become "fair".

Where I am getting it from is PGI's official communication that they advised there would be no rewards for Private matches due to the capacity for manipulation.

[Amsro]

Found this gem on Google.

Anyway, none of us are here to spit on you trust us. In fact we are trying to explain how PGI has spit on everyone. No one wins with the "launch module".

ggclose

Edit; after reading your above post it is clear that you are NOT PAYING attention to or NOT reading to any coherent degree. These are the very same people trying to explain the folly of the current path of PGI.

Again EVERYone lost this time.



I give up, there is no waking you up.

Edited by Amsro, 04 April 2014 - 06:21 PM.

[Craig Steele]

slide, on 04 April 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

@Craig (sorry quote function isn't working for me today)

People are hating on the "progress" because it is not progress, it is in fact a step backwards.

And this is somewhat of the point I was trying to make earlier about being around longer, we have seen some of this stuff before.

example 3,3,3,3

(1) Back when we had 8v8, for a time we had, mech matching, so for every Catapult on my team their would be one on yours. This is not greatly different from the proposed 3,3,3,3. For every Assault on my team there will be one on yours. It will decrease the variety of mechs used on the field because everybody will feel obliged to bring the heaviest mech they can out of fear of gimping the team, same as happened before. An Atlas and a Locust cannot be matched up against a Shadowhawk and a Jagermech. Chassis Weight matching was universally hated because it took the variety out of the game. Now granted we have more variety of mechs than we did then but it is still revisiting something already proven to fail.

(2) Private matchmaking where I have to pay to play with friends is Not progress either. It is a step toward the "pay to play a Merc" first mooted last Easter (2013) which generated 300 pages of almost universal hate before PGI recanted the statement a week later.

(3) PGI gave us a taste of what this game could be and promised 500 odd days ago it would be back. It's not going to be back anytime soon and that is what most Unit members are annoyed at.

If something is harder to achieve it cannot be considered progress. If it revisits previously failed ideas it is not progress.

(4) I would consider progress to be a solution that at least somewhat appeases everyone, not pisses 16+% of players off even more.

Oh but the majority you say? Well riddle me this, "can this game afford to lose another 16+% of it's playing population, even if we aren't the target demographic?" I think not. This game cannot afford to lose anyone IMO.

(5) Solo's don't want to play with premades any more than premades want to play with Solos, we play together because PGI is forcing us too, not because we want to. Insert your own theory as to why.

(1) But what is your basis for this? ATM players have unlimited choice and they do indeed pick different mechs. Under the proposed changes players will have unlimited choice but you think they will change their ingrained behaviour. Why do you think they will. If someone plays a meta game pop tart now, they will in the future. If someone likes playing a Jenner now, they are not going to switch to Spider when the changes come in, they will keep playing what they like surely because their is no reason for them to change their behaviour.

What you are saying is scaremongering (to me). You are painting a negative picture without a basis. Now if you can show WHY people will suddenly go to the min max every game, I'm prepared to listen, but the 3/3/3/3 will only spread the mech choices people currently make across more games (evening out the peaks and troughs).

(2) But its more than what we have now right? So it is progress of a kind, but not the progress you want. I still think its not "Pay to Play" and thats a catchphrase. 11 people of the team don't have to do anything at all to play. When you say "Pay to Play" you paint a picture that just ain't so. It's "Pay to Play" your preferred game, no different to "pay to Play" in your preferred camo / colour scheme. You can opt in or out.

(3) So my understanding is that Beta is when they test things and make amendments. And in MW:O's case they dropped this function during Beta. I get they communicated it badly, (they had a history of that) but lets not dress this up as anything more than what it is, a function that was dropped in Beta. So was collisions and a few other things.

(4) Which gets the to heart of why I am responding. Several posters are hating on the proposed changes in a biased and unconstructive way before it is even here. That's going to "drive away' more people and simply create perceptions for the sake of it. It's not helpful. I get that pissing people off with changes is bad, but people are not pissed off with the changes per se, they are pissed off its not the changes they want.

If you're genuine in your desire to see the game succeed, step back and relook at the changes proposed. They are an improvement on what we have now, maybe not ideal but certainly a step forward.

(5) Team players are not some elite that shouldn't have to sully their feet with the masses, nor the other way around. We are all playing the same game.

[Roadbeer]

Amsro, on 04 April 2014 - 06:15 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm out.
Everyone is telling you why this is a bad thing, how it's a step backward, how it penalizes group play, how it requires people to pay to be able to play with their friends, how there is going to only be 3rd party support, and how there are no rewards for doing it...

I don't know what to tell you man

[Deathlike]

Let me attempt this... I guess.

Big post to follow.

[Craig Steele]

Amsro, on 04 April 2014 - 06:15 PM, said:

Found this gem on Google.

Anyway, none of us are here to spit on you trust us. In fact we are trying to explain how PGI has spit on everyone. No one wins with the "launch module".

ggclose

Edit; after reading your above post it is clear that you are NOT PAYING attention to or NOT reading to any coherent degree. These are the very same people trying to explain the folly of the current path of PGI.

Again EVERYone lost this time.



I give up, there is no waking you up.

I resent the first pic, I have more hair than that

You can 'give up', it's not a competition for me though. I can just as equally say that there's no dragging you away from your den of negativity. Both of us will still sit behind our keyboards and shake our head at the other.

But I don't want to 'win', I want the discussion to be based on some substance. What I hear form people is scaremongering and un based negativity.

I get that people are dissappointed with losing some functions during Beta, but that is the nature of a Beta.

I get that the proposed team play functions are more than what we currently have. We can 'play' with teams of 5 - 11 and even get to set up specific match arrangements. I see that as an improvement over what we have now and something that should be acknowledged as an improvement instead of being trashed. Would you rather NOT have the option?

I get that they could be more, but I also get that's they case with a lot of things in life. What I am asking is why are so many people hating on it before they even try it.

Heres my personal opinion. PGI are probably looking at a sea of stats and saying where did all the teams go, have we done something wrong or is this just they way it always was and we simply misjudged how big the solo player demographic was.

Here's our new plan then. Lets show the proven demographic that we are listening to them, no sense in getting them off side but lets put some tools in place to see whether this "team" game is as big as some of the feedback in Forums says it is, cause the stats just don't back up the claims.

That way, if the stats are right we keep on plugging on with our major demographic, but if the feedback is right then we are going to have some stats to support pushing more resources in that direction.

Now in that context, look at the posts of hate and anger. It's basically self fulfilment. "We are not going to use the proposed amendments / tools cause it not what we asked for" and PGI will get some stats that say no one is using the team play functions and go, hmmm, ok vocal minority. Both 'sides' are right, but who actually wins?

It's just my personal theory, I certainly have no insight into PGI's decision making process. But hating on something because its not what someone wants without trying it is just not constructive.

[Dock Steward]

Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 07:01 PM, said:

Words. (clipped for space, not to disregard points)

You know how pretty much everyone who has cable tv service complains that they have to pay for a whole bunch of channels they don't want just to get one channel they do want? And you know how everyone basically knows the cable companies do this intentionally because they know, at the end of the day, people will pay it because they really want that one channel?

Groups want to be able to play together. Regardless of size. They don't really want to set the parameters of the match. Sure it would be fun for the occasional internal tourney to do a stock build game or whatever, but on a day to day basis, the regular match constraints are more than acceptable. The ability to change all these other things is not really something people asked for, or at least I personally have never seen it asked for. They just want to be able to play in a game with 5 people and not have to pay some premium to do it.

[Davers]

Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 06:29 PM, said:

(1) But what is your basis for this? ATM players have unlimited choice and they do indeed pick different mechs. Under the proposed changes players will have unlimited choice but you think they will change their ingrained behaviour. Why do you think they will. If someone plays a meta game pop tart now, they will in the future. If someone likes playing a Jenner now, they are not going to switch to Spider when the changes come in, they will keep playing what they like surely because their is no reason for them to change their behaviour.

What you are saying is scaremongering (to me). You are painting a negative picture without a basis. Now if you can show WHY people will suddenly go to the min max every game, I'm prepared to listen, but the 3/3/3/3 will only spread the mech choices people currently make across more games (evening out the peaks and troughs).

(2) But its more than what we have now right? So it is progress of a kind, but not the progress you want. I still think its not "Pay to Play" and thats a catchphrase. 11 people of the team don't have to do anything at all to play. When you say "Pay to Play" you paint a picture that just ain't so. It's "Pay to Play" your preferred game, no different to "pay to Play" in your preferred camo / colour scheme. You can opt in or out.

(3) So my understanding is that Beta is when they test things and make amendments. And in MW:O's case they dropped this function during Beta. I get they communicated it badly, (they had a history of that) but lets not dress this up as anything more than what it is, a function that was dropped in Beta. So was collisions and a few other things.

(4) Which gets the to heart of why I am responding. Several posters are hating on the proposed changes in a biased and unconstructive way before it is even here. That's going to "drive away' more people and simply create perceptions for the sake of it. It's not helpful. I get that pissing people off with changes is bad, but people are not pissed off with the changes per se, they are pissed off its not the changes they want.

If you're genuine in your desire to see the game succeed, step back and relook at the changes proposed. They are an improvement on what we have now, maybe not ideal but certainly a step forward.

(5) Team players are not some elite that shouldn't have to sully their feet with the masses, nor the other way around. We are all playing the same game.

1. Honestly I don't care about 3/3/3/3/ anymore. If the problem is 'too many assaults' or 'not enough mediums' this will not fix it- only create longer wait times and much QQ.

2.So it's not 'Pay to Play' that 1-2 people from each team will have to spend real cash to play in private matches? Didn't PGI say private matches are the backbone of CW?

3. If it was not going to be put back, as promised, then they should have said so from the beginning. They shouldn't have said it was 'temporary'. Having a 5-11 private group que is just stupid. There is no way to invite people who you don't already know and have the means of contacting to play with you. At least 12 mans can still just jump into the public que.

4. You say it is an improvement. But others disagree.

If you are a F2P pug player, then private ques won't improve your play at all. In fact, it creates a section of the game you have just lost access to.

3/3/3/3 does not make underperforming chassis better. There will still be 4 man premades on your teams. The only change there might be is longer wait times to play your assault mechs.

5. No one is 'better' than another and all should be able to play and have fun. I have fun dropping with friends and I should be allowed to do so. If you enjoy dropping solo you should be allowed to do that. But I don't want to be told I can't play with friends because you want to drop solo.

[Deathlike]

Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 06:15 PM, said:

(1) I know who you are Roadbeer, I read a lot more threads than I post on. You don't need to give me your bio . I am not being defensive, I continue to ask the same question and get no response that satisfy's me except for (now) 'your opinion / question is invalid because you weren't here way back when' (my summary). What I would really like is someone such yourself with your tenure and experience stepping away from their (perhaps quite rightly based) jaded view and looking objectivily at what the proposed changes are. I am not asking anyone to defend PGI, thats up to them. But I don't see value in 'trashing' progress and feet stamping while disregarding the total picture.

The whole "original" point of the Launch module that "interested parties that wanted bigger teams" was lost when Paul posted "the logic behind it". Like many promises, it could be the one that break the camel's back. Of course, that's not up to me to determine, but PGI's longterm "success" or survival. Most of the time, the "solutions" are very short sighted, if not "easier to implement". But hey... that is my opinion.

Quote

(2) Now here I absolutely agree with your sentiment, if I was paying for it than I would want to play my game. (I am not going to go back into the Pay to Play discussion here except to say we disagree on what that means).

But can you not step away from your agenda and consider the other 18 players in the game. There are gazillions (exagerate much Craig? ) of threads where people complain about stomps and poor team composition generated randomly and yet here you are saying that if you had the power to create a lopsided match, your opposition would just have to 'suck it up'. I think you would not be alone, and I suspect that PGI are of a similar view, and so they err on the side of the other 18 players and be conservative (my assumption). The community has proven in my game experience to be largely unable to govern itself and has in Forums over and over asked PGI to level the playing field. So PGI are honouring that and now we are trashing them?

I think people have tried to suggest the idea to "minimize" the effect of the MM... as wide variances in Elo despite the "averages" that are used in the current MM allows for significant skill levels... meaning, more "underhive" in games where there the differences in skill and execution increase the likelihood of a complete stomp. The new system as I understand it will mitigate some of that, but it depends what exactly is going to give. I believe if it is implemented as stated, there will be "weight class discrepancies" as the assumption in PGI's case is that "every class is equally viable". Personally, I don't believe that is the case in general... but you can make any assumption you'd like. This isn't about which mechs are to be taken (as that's another discussion within itself). At higher Elo levels, there is likely to be an issue there... whereas at the lower Elo buckets where this would more likely not be an issue...

If the weight classes were the focus, then it is like the "Elo buckets" get wider (kinda like what they do now) where we're getting the same raw deal as it were before, except the "weight class distribution" is equal.

Those are two possible results... take it for what it is worth.

Quote

(3) Noyou'rewrong. It's MY team too. All of those things (In game Voice, 5+ players etc) are the things I would like to see. But they're not here (yet?) I got over it and decided to make the most out of what we have and am prepared to give the proposed amendments a fair hearing when they arrive. I don't see the value in stamping my feet about what I cannot have today until I have seen if what I have can meet my needs.

I've pretty much gotten to the point of expecting very little of PGI. So... if we get them, it'll very likely be half arsed IMO and need in refinement (UI 2.0 anyone?)

Quote

(4) Thats a bit arrogant even for you Roadbeer. For all your articulate and constructive posts you're not a god that we should all bow down before your wisdom. I get that you have jumped off the "White Knight" band wagon but that doesn't mean that everyone else should follow you lemming like into the 'hater' pool.

It's hard to be objective when you're passionate about your position. With that said, I don't try to convince people to join "my side"... let PGI show it themselves (no effort needed!)

Quote

See above, Roadbeer is at least one other person who has similar thoughts to myself about how the mechanic could be exploited.

This game (and many others) is absolutely about min / maxing and there is no reason for the player population to change their behavious overnight and suddenly become "fair".

Where I am getting it from is PGI's official communication that they advised there would be no rewards for Private matches due to the capacity for manipulation.

Just give fixed rewards and/or "free consumables". Why complicate things if you are so concerned about abuse of Private Matches themselves? You can increase the rewards if you have Premium, but that's about it.

Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 06:29 PM, said:

(1) But what is your basis for this? ATM players have unlimited choice and they do indeed pick different mechs. Under the proposed changes players will have unlimited choice but you think they will change their ingrained behaviour. Why do you think they will. If someone plays a meta game pop tart now, they will in the future. If someone likes playing a Jenner now, they are not going to switch to Spider when the changes come in, they will keep playing what they like surely because their is no reason for them to change their behaviour.

What you are saying is scaremongering (to me). You are painting a negative picture without a basis. Now if you can show WHY people will suddenly go to the min max every game, I'm prepared to listen, but the 3/3/3/3 will only spread the mech choices people currently make across more games (evening out the peaks and troughs).

I know I've said this forever, but balancing and making all mechs and their variants useful is important. I know some are more optimal than others in particular builds/metas, but there are plenty of clear cut bad ones (Spider-5V, Raven-2X, Stalker-4N to name a few) that clearly have little to no value compared to other variants of their own chassis (and compared to other mechs that can be compared to a limited degree).

On the other hand, 3/3/3/3 only "solves" the fear of multiple Steiner-scout lances or "Light swarms". It doesn't really solve "balance" in the grander scheme of things... or role warefare.

Quote

(2) But its more than what we have now right? So it is progress of a kind, but not the progress you want. I still think its not "Pay to Play" and thats a catchphrase. 11 people of the team don't have to do anything at all to play. When you say "Pay to Play" you paint a picture that just ain't so. It's "Pay to Play" your preferred game, no different to "pay to Play" in your preferred camo / colour scheme. You can opt in or out.

Paying to play together when 4 to 11 players in a team involved doesn't inspire "team play" or "unity". I'm not saying that they should be part of the "general queue", but I've laid out one idea in some post in the "Ask the Devs #3" post that would deal with it.... but whatever. I can't convince everyone.

Quote

(3) So my understanding is that Beta is when they test things and make amendments. And in MW:O's case they dropped this function during Beta. I get they communicated it badly, (they had a history of that) but lets not dress this up as anything more than what it is, a function that was dropped in Beta. So was collisions and a few other things.

I don't think "beta" in the traditional sense was ever really applied for those purposes of this game. So many things could have been accomplished and/or attempted in beta, but since the tag is "not available" anymore,... whatever changes can easily cause poop to hit the fan. You simply don't get "leniency" when you're "out of beta". That's not a decision that should've been made "for certain parties" that don't understand the various fundamental things this game drastically needs.

Quote

(4) Which gets the to heart of why I am responding. Several posters are hating on the proposed changes in a biased and unconstructive way before it is even here. That's going to "drive away' more people and simply create perceptions for the sake of it. It's not helpful. I get that pissing people off with changes is bad, but people are not pissed off with the changes per se, they are pissed off its not the changes they want.

If you're genuine in your desire to see the game succeed, step back and relook at the changes proposed. They are an improvement on what we have now, maybe not ideal but certainly a step forward.

I don't think it's much of a step forward personally, but I'm willing to let PGI hang their own rope. The thing about "theory" is that expects a certain behavior, but if the situation is actually different, then reality sets and it "busts" said theory due to circumstances. I do believe there are holes in PGI's stated idea, and feel free to question it if you wish. I wouldn't be surprised if the Launch module causes even more issues... because it's not hard to predict some of the possible problems.

Quote

(5) Team players are not some elite that shouldn't have to sully their feet with the masses, nor the other way around. We are all playing the same game.

Is it too much to ask for PGI to put in more tutorials so that they become better players? Although, since I don't know every person I drop with.. I pray, hope, and expect them to do what they can do... even if they are newbies. Too bad the tools, however many times they are requested for... are close to non-existent as they can get...

[Deathlike]

Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 07:01 PM, said:

I get that the proposed team play functions are more than what we currently have. We can 'play' with teams of 5 - 11 and even get to set up specific match arrangements. I see that as an improvement over what we have now and something that should be acknowledged as an improvement instead of being trashed. Would you rather NOT have the option?

It's an "improvement" in the sense that option is there. I see people using it "initially" until the novelty of "no rewards" wears off... particularly WHEN they get to the "pay per use model". Some people have plenty of premium time, but if it's for "no gain" (as in, their money is not well spent) then it won't be used. I see private matches ending up going the way of 12-mans. A few groups use it... generally everyone else won't.

Quote

I get that they could be more, but I also get that's they case with a lot of things in life. What I am asking is why are so many people hating on it before they even try it.

TBH, what is there to try? The game is still the same in the end. People get the option and it doesn't get used.. so it would just be an "excuse" to say in the future "you didn't use it, so we'll take it away from you". That's my natural reaction to the matter.

Quote

Heres my personal opinion. PGI are probably looking at a sea of stats and saying where did all the teams go, have we done something wrong or is this just they way it always was and we simply misjudged how big the solo player demographic was.

Here's our new plan then. Lets show the proven demographic that we are listening to them, no sense in getting them off side but lets put some tools in place to see whether this "team" game is as big as some of the feedback in Forums says it is, cause the stats just don't back up the claims.

That way, if the stats are right we keep on plugging on with our major demographic, but if the feedback is right then we are going to have some stats to support pushing more resources in that direction.

My opinion is opposite of that. It's basically "we need to skew the information in order to allow for 'our implementation' to be done and over with". Have you actually looked @ the old UI 2.0 mockups? See how eerily similar those mockups are actually what we see in game? For reference, there is a "feedback thread" dedicated to it. Did they pick any of those ideas up? The question unfortunately answers itself (Hint: No, they didn't read the feedback).

Quote

Now in that context, look at the posts of hate and anger. It's basically self fulfilment. "We are not going to use the proposed amendments / tools cause it not what we asked for" and PGI will get some stats that say no one is using the team play functions and go, hmmm, ok vocal minority. Both 'sides' are right, but who actually wins?

It's just my personal theory, I certainly have no insight into PGI's decision making process. But hating on something because its not what someone wants without trying it is just not constructive.

TBH, back in the day where you'd see more Kong members posting, they made plenty of jokes about what PGI would do in the future. Sadly, many of those jokes have become reality. Any joke made about progress in this game unfortunately becomes a reality... and not that we wanted it to happen, but the actions that PGI has taken on various matters stem more of the "how can we get this done ASAP so we can make money?" That's the book that we're reading from, and all the "insight" to said implementation is what we're expecting at this given time.

Had the "Launch module" solved anything of consequence, there would be great praise, in detail. The "naysayers" would be using "faulty arguments" and blah blah blah, but that's not the case. If anything, it's the reverse. Many a white knight have essentially "denounced" PGI due to what they have said and actually done. So, if you take PGI at its word, then I hope you understand that if what I even remotely said comes to fruition... I don't need to say "I told you so"... it's "PGI has done it before".

[Sephlock]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 04:30 AM, said:

Not once did I run into a Jerk, uncooperative player teaming up that way.

Wait until 3-3-3-3 hits. It'll be LoL style acrimony all the way. If we're especially unlucky, terms like "jungler" will start migrating over .

[Roadbeer]

Deathlike, on 04 April 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

... it's "PGI has done it before".

[Craig Steele]

Dock Steward, on 04 April 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:

You know how pretty much everyone who has cable tv service complains that they have to pay for a whole bunch of channels they don't want just to get one channel they do want? And you know how everyone basically knows the cable companies do this intentionally because they know, at the end of the day, people will pay it because they really want that one channel?

Groups want to be able to play together. Regardless of size. They don't really want to set the parameters of the match. Sure it would be fun for the occasional internal tourney to do a stock build game or whatever, but on a day to day basis, the regular match constraints are more than acceptable. The ability to change all these other things is not really something people asked for, or at least I personally have never seen it asked for. They just want to be able to play in a game with 5 people and not have to pay some premium to do it.

Sure, and buying 8 Phoenix mechs of which I only plot 3 and never used the premium time is another example of packaging. It's very common in marketing.

But surely it's clear that not being able to play 5 -11 man team games now to proposed being able to play 5 - 11 man team games (regardless of the cost issue) is an improvement over what is currently in place.

Regardless of what functions you might or might not use, PGI have introduced those functions because of feedback they received (so they said). I have to assume that the feedback was substantial or else why would they do it?

Davers, on 04 April 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

1. Honestly I don't care about 3/3/3/3/ anymore. If the problem is 'too many assaults' or 'not enough mediums' this will not fix it- only create longer wait times and much QQ.

2.So it's not 'Pay to Play' that 1-2 people from each team will have to spend real cash to play in private matches? Didn't PGI say private matches are the backbone of CW?

3. If it was not going to be put back, as promised, then they should have said so from the beginning. They shouldn't have said it was 'temporary'. Having a 5-11 private group que is just stupid. There is no way to invite people who you don't already know and have the means of contacting to play with you. At least 12 mans can still just jump into the public que.

4. You say it is an improvement. But others disagree.

If you are a F2P pug player, then private ques won't improve your play at all. In fact, it creates a section of the game you have just lost access to.

3/3/3/3 does not make underperforming chassis better. There will still be 4 man premades on your teams. The only change there might be is longer wait times to play your assault mechs.

5. No one is 'better' than another and all should be able to play and have fun. I have fun dropping with friends and I should be allowed to do so. If you enjoy dropping solo you should be allowed to do that. But I don't want to be told I can't play with friends because you want to drop solo.

3. I can freely concede the communication was poor. Maybe the process poorer too. But it is still what it is. A function dropped in Beta and not (yet?) put back in the game. I don't get the argument of "its taken away' if it was removed in Beta, many other functions were as well and that should be expected by the population. It's why Beta's are run.

5. Who said you cannot drop with your friends? I used to play a bit of Dota 2, the maximum number of players in a team is 5. I have about 15 core player freinds and near 80 regular players on my list. I'd love for them to make Dota a 10 on 10, or 12 on 12 and play with more friends. But I worked with the system and I still could play.

So what you are saying is that you cannot play the game you want (yet?), which I get. But that doesn't mean the game you have is poorer.

Deathlike, on 04 April 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

<snip> for space

So broadly you are taking many points into new areas and mostly I agree with you. I would like better tutorials, role warefare etc. I would also like faction mechs restricted to factions and a less customization of IS mechs. I would like better immersion and more of the canon flavouring the game.

But all of those things are what they are too.

[Dock Steward]

Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 07:54 PM, said:

Sure, and buying 8 Phoenix mechs of which I only plot 3 and never used the premium time is another example of packaging. It's very common in marketing.

But surely it's clear that not being able to play 5 -11 man team games now to proposed being able to play 5 - 11 man team games (regardless of the cost issue) is an improvement over what is currently in place.

Regardless of what functions you might or might not use, PGI have introduced those functions because of feedback they received (so they said). I have to assume that the feedback was substantial or else why would they do it?

And what if the 84% and the 16% figures were reversed and you had to shell out Premium Time or MC in order to play solo? Or in a solo only queue, let's say, Cool?

What if they threw in a free Russ bobblehead?

Edited by Dock Steward, 04 April 2014 - 08:03 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Dock Steward, on 04 April 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

And what if the 84% and the 16% figures were reversed and you had to shell out Premium Time or MC in order to play solo? Or in a solo only queue, let's say, Cool?

What if they threw in a free Russ bobblehead?

Oh, and not receive CBills, XP or achievements, and you were forced to drop in the Group Queue occasionally in order earn currency and XP in order to buy/unlock things.

Let's not forget, you had to utilize a 3rd party solution in order find the other solos you were going to drop with.

But it's all cool because you have access to adjust parameters of the match that you really don't care about one way or the other.

Right?

But that's all ok, because there is potential that if any rewards were put in the solo queue, there is a chance that it might be exploited, so it's all for the greater good of the games *cough* economy.

You're cool with all that, right?

Edited by Roadbeer, 04 April 2014 - 08:08 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Deathlike, on 04 April 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

(1) It's an "improvement" in the sense that option is there. I see people using it "initially" until the novelty of "no rewards" wears off... particularly WHEN they get to the "pay per use model". Some people have plenty of premium time, but if it's for "no gain" (as in, their money is not well spent) then it won't be used. I see private matches ending up going the way of 12-mans. A few groups use it... generally everyone else won't.


(2) My opinion is opposite of that. It's basically "we need to skew the information in order to allow for 'our implementation' to be done and over with". Have you actually looked @ the old UI 2.0 mockups? See how eerily similar those mockups are actually what we see in game? For reference, there is a "feedback thread" dedicated to it. Did they pick any of those ideas up? The question unfortunately answers itself (Hint: No, they didn't read the feedback).



(3) TBH, back in the day where you'd see more Kong members posting, they made plenty of jokes about what PGI would do in the future. Sadly, many of those jokes have become reality. Any joke made about progress in this game unfortunately becomes a reality... and not that we wanted it to happen, but the actions that PGI has taken on various matters stem more of the "how can we get this done ASAP so we can make money?" That's the book that we're reading from, and all the "insight" to said implementation is what we're expecting at this given time.

Had the "Launch module" solved anything of consequence, there would be great praise, in detail. The "naysayers" would be using "faulty arguments" and blah blah blah, but that's not the case. If anything, it's the reverse. Many a white knight have essentially "denounced" PGI due to what they have said and actually done. So, if you take PGI at its word, then I hope you understand that if what I even remotely said comes to fruition... I don't need to say "I told you so"... it's "PGI has done it before".

(1) Maybe? Maybe after a month the solo queue is dead and all their stats are showing 100% team play and they pull the 'cost' thing immediately as a concession while they sort of team queues and rewards?

Hypertheticals aside, if everyone doesn't use it when it gets here because it's hated, then the community has self fulfilled. We can all pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves about how right we were, but who wins?

(2) I doubt very much this is a commercially viable attitude for PGI to have (or anyone else for that matter). The Investors sinking millions into the company would be horrified to find out their due diligence did not uncover such a poor management ethic. Someone is getting the sack if this is accurate.

(3) Absolutely, negative self fulfilment is a very easy thing to achieve. It's in this very thread as well. Let me say I don't want to 'defend' PGI. I have my own view on their track record and its not exactly glowing. But that doesn't mean I hate the company either. I think since about December they have improved in many ways and it's a shame that people cannot see that effort and call it out. I get that there is history, but dressing stuff up to suit a negative agenda and 'trashing' (my word) improvements is not helpful. Case in point for example.

PGI have taken away team play, they are destroying team play and don't care about team players. All they do is knee jerk reaction to the lame crys of solo Pug's. Thats the type of rhetoric which has been raised here in this thread (and others).

But lets review part of it objectivily.

PGI removed 5 - 11 man groups from the GAME during Beta, when changes should be expected by the population. They left in 2, 3 ,4 and 12 man teams though.

PGI said they would bring it back (yes we can discuss ad naesum the time factor) and they are proposing to do exactly for 5 - 11 man teams in a format that also allows those team players more functions than solo drop PUG's. They can tailor the game to whatever the want (canon, non canon, balanced, non balanced).

PGI acknowledge that the game is a min / max game where they expect players to 'exploit' (my word, probably a better one out there) and so to protect the game balance for the majority demographic of players, they will keep those team games seperate from the queue.

I know this only a small slice of the total picture but it is true, PGI have (well, propose to) brought 5 - 11 man teams 'back' and have listened to the feedback about stomps / exploiting and put in place measures to protect a major demographic of the player base from abuse.

Turn it around, what if they didn't bring it back at all? Would we be pointing to this as 'another' broken promise? What if they threw those 10 man maxed synchronised teams into the mix with 10 solo PUG's, would that help game outcomes and the Forum bashing?

[Craig Steele]

Dock Steward, on 04 April 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

And what if the 84% and the 16% figures were reversed and you had to shell out Premium Time or MC in order to play solo? Or in a solo only queue, let's say, Cool?

What if they threw in a free Russ bobblehead?

Roadbeer, on 04 April 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

Oh, and not receive CBills, XP or achievements, and you were forced to drop in the Group Queue occasionally in order earn currency and XP in order to buy/unlock things.

Let's not forget, you had to utilize a 3rd party solution in order find the other solos you were going to drop with.

But it's all cool because you have access to adjust parameters of the match that you really don't care about one way or the other.

Right?

But that's all ok, because there is potential that if any rewards were put in the solo queue, there is a chance that it might be exploited, so it's all for the greater good of the games *cough* economy.

You're cool with all that, right?

So if we are being argumentative, the answer is pretty straight forward. Black and White the game is not for that person you are describing right? Move on play another game?

Oh wait, life's not Black and White, I remember now.

If the game had NO F2P function and it was a subscription base, then I have to make commercial decisions.

If the game was F2P for teams and pay for solo I'd have to make a decision about whether I am prepared to do what I need to do to be part of a team to enjoy the game I want to enjoy.

In short, the process for me would be how can I make this work for the entertainment that I want.

In another F2P game I joined a Guild that required all 'officers' to attend monthly meetings and conduct initiation tests / missions. Many times that imposed on me personally (in some cases even a small rl$ cost) but I did it regardless because the benefits of being in that guild outweighed the costs. So much for my personal experience, I am one a million (gazillion?).

But I am not above the game, it's not my personal domain. Right now the game is not everything I want it to be. I want more and am expressing my view with my wallet. But that doesn't mean the game is trash. It has a place and there are tools (and more coming) that will potentially unlock more value for everyone.

[Roland]

They haven't brought them back at all. Private matches which requires you to specifically invite people into a game doesn't facilitate groups to play together easily.

So you all what will happen. This is what will happen.

The game will continue to hemorrhage players, and what few organized teams remain will quit. And then the game will die. And people will move on to star citizen and other such games.

And that is how it ends.

[Dock Steward]

Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

So if we are being argumentative...

So it's argumentative to ask that you put yourself in the shoes of someone who wants to play in a group of 5-11?

People are just asking to be able to play how they want without paying a fee no one else is paying (in this planned future). Pugs won't pay to play. 12 man teams won't pay to play, so you can't argue it's the price of playing with a team. No, it's just the price of playing with a team that the devs apparently feel are outliers. The "added perks," are meaningless given the obvious discrimination of making this middle section (5-11 man teams) pay.

[Randalf Yorgen]

Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 06:29 PM, said:

(5) Team players are not some elite that shouldn't have to sully their feet with the masses, nor the other way around. We are all playing the same game.

Yes we are, thing is, PGI wants to make those of us with friends pay to play it with those friends.

Your tag say you are awaiting deployment, I retired after 20 so check this. PGI is willing to let half an infantry section go out on partol for free but if the other half, say with the LMG's in it want to come along then you guys will have to pay out of pocket for them to go on partol with you. Now on top of that, if you use any ammuntion or grenades, or if you pop smoke or use a para flare, or if you run down the battery on your radio or GPS the cost of restocking it will now come out of your pocket as the QM will be standing at the head of the chow line with his ledger and his hand out and you don't get to eat until he's paid.

We don't want to take a thing from the soloists, we just want two things;

1. we want to be treated fairly and the same as the soloists. the code is already in the game, they just need to change the value in a couple of lines and it's a done deal and they already know where those lines are. (granted a lobby would be great, or even just a general chat on the home page or something)

2. We simply want what we were promised from the very begining, a team oriented, multi player, thinking mans mech sim/shooter with 4 main pillars that it's built on the most important being Roll Warfare.

Hell, I was around pre founders and what PGI has done has killed the game for me, the only thing keeping me coming back are my friends over in House Marik on the TS server. I would like to be able to drop with more them three of them and have a great time but why should I have to pay in order to do that when you get to play your style for free. Can you not see how that is unfair to the team** players? We need Premium time to be able to do it, we need to buy the Module, if we use consumables we aren't making any rewards or c-bills to replace those with so it's all out of our pocket. If they do that other thing they talked about and put repair and reload back in the game we would be out that as well and to top it all off we have to go to yet another third party site to find a group to drop against.

And we are getting this from the project leads over at PGI in their podcasts, tweets, NGNG interviews, Command chair updates and their published version of "The Plan" and any other place they choose to talk about the state of the game.

If that confuses you then I don't know what to say to you except hi there Mudhutt.


** Team in this context includes to any group of friends who want to just group together and drop and have a good time in "CRAP MECHS", Team doesn't mean just those who play nothing but the meta game but those players are not excluded in this context.