450 replies to this topic

[Jon Gotham]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 05 April 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

Now that the Faction Tournament conclusively demonstrated how Community Warfare will work, I've lost my enthusiasm for that aspect of the game. Now, I am glad PGI is at least focused on making a better game for the majority of players.

I understand it is a tough pill to swallow for arrogant, condescending, self-entitled few; who at a fundamental level believe they are the center of the MWO universe and all things should revolve around them. However the irony of the situation is that had you not intentionally griefed the system and players, PGI would not have had to waste the time sandboxing you. You understand that right? the Launch Module was created because you forced the issue, and PGI had to protect its interests by creating barrier between you and the majority of customers who simply want to have fun.

Re quoted for irony.
I think you misunderstood something when that 84% figure was being discussed.
Re read your first two sentences, they apply directly to you.

[Amsro]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 05 April 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

Now that the Faction Tournament conclusively demonstrated how Community Warfare will work, I've lost my enthusiasm for that aspect of the game. Now, I am glad PGI is at least focused on making a better game for the majority of players.

I understand it is a tough pill to swallow for arrogant, condescending, self-entitled few; who at a fundamental level believe they are the center of the MWO universe and all things should revolve around them. However the irony of the situation is that had you not intentionally griefed the system and players, PGI would not have had to waste the time sandboxing you. You understand that right? the Launch Module was created because you forced the issue, and PGI had to protect its interests by creating barrier between you and the majority of customers who simply want to have fun.

Arrogant
Condescending
Self-Entitled
Center of the MWO universe
All things should revolve around me

Holy crap you are right! I just wanna have fun with my friends, good thing your here to make me see the dark ways of my thoughts!

Phew!

Wait I pug most of the time due to 4 man team limits. So I need a sandbox because I already can't play with my friends!?

[Deathlike]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 05 April 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

Now that the Faction Tournament conclusively demonstrated how Community Warfare will work, I've lost my enthusiasm for that aspect of the game. Now, I am glad PGI is at least focused on making a better game for the majority of players.

I understand it is a tough pill to swallow for arrogant, condescending, self-entitled few; who at a fundamental level believe they are the center of the MWO universe and all things should revolve around them. However the irony of the situation is that had you not intentionally griefed the system and players, PGI would not have had to waste the time sandboxing you. You understand that right? the Launch Module was created because you forced the issue, and PGI had to protect its interests by creating barrier between you and the majority of customers who simply want to have fun.

You do realize that tournament was for solo players only right?

If CW is simply just solo players fighting for their faction, consider this game's future as "over".

[Roadbeer]

Deathlike, on 05 April 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

You do realize that tournament was for solo players only right?

If CW is simply just solo players fighting for their faction, consider this game's future as "over".

[Deathlike]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

I keep seeing you use that... what the heck is that supposed to represent?

[Dock Steward]

Deathlike, on 05 April 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

I keep seeing you use that... what the heck is that supposed to represent?

Word

[Amsro]

Deathlike, on 05 April 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

I keep seeing you use that... what the heck is that supposed to represent?

[Dock Steward]

Amsro, on 05 April 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

You're both getting Big Time sued...


Edit* Shoot. I wonder if I am now too...

Edited by Dock Steward, 05 April 2014 - 12:23 PM.

[Deathlike]

Dock Steward, on 05 April 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

Word

I used to it spelled out for me.

[Roadbeer]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 05 April 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

Now that the Faction Tournament conclusively demonstrated how Community Warfare will work, I've lost my enthusiasm for that aspect of the game. Now, I am glad PGI is at least focused on making a better game for the majority of players.

I understand it is a tough pill to swallow for arrogant, condescending, self-entitled few; who at a fundamental level believe they are the center of the MWO universe and all things should revolve around them. However the irony of the situation is that had you not intentionally griefed the system and players, PGI would not have had to waste the time sandboxing you. You understand that right? the Launch Module was created because you forced the issue, and PGI had to protect its interests by creating barrier between you and the majority of customers who simply want to have fun.

Spoken like the terminally PUGgy

[wanderer]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 05 April 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

Now that the Faction Tournament conclusively demonstrated how Community Warfare will work, I've lost my enthusiasm for that aspect of the game. Now, I am glad PGI is at least focused on making a better game for the majority of players.

Seriously, you thought that was how factional warfare would work?

No need for loyalty in a one-shot event, which is why people often thought ahead and picked smaller factions for the easy MC. No playing with your faction. Solo PUG life only.
Zero benefit for most of the faction save a freebie you got whether you won or not, or perhaps a freebie if your faction won.

We'll have factional warfare when you can, I dunno, actually PLAY in a faction together and contribute to a collective reward worth mentioning, and those rewards are tied to actual loyalty to the faction in question rather than simply picking whatever's best odds. Course, that'd take effort on PGI's end. And heck, we didn't even get any real deep data from them on participation, stats, etc. other than the top 10 stuff.

It was a tournament where you picked whatever faction had best odds for reward and ran with it, if you were smart- basically, mercs-a-million.

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

Nah brah, in what, 3 threads now, over a dozen different people have been telling you (and in this thread Craig as well),
"This is bad, and here are 15 reasons why, and here is the back story as to why it's even worse than what you're seeing"

Well thats just not true. What I have said is stop with the alarmist unsupported inflamatory statements and discuss the subject matter objectionaly.

I have asked some people to substantiate the things the say, and some of them can't support their statements, and thats not a bad thing.

EDIT: Rereading you were being descriptive, not making a summary. My error, yes people have been offering some thoughts on why the planned move is 'bad'

Amsro, on 05 April 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Dude you haven't dropped a good point into the conversation for a couple pages. You are just arguing with EVERYONE else in the thread. Almost personally.

The same comment applies to the other argument, no new points. Just people bleating with un substantiated concerns over and over. If you go look at my posts, its not me making any personal insinuations and judgements, far from it. See below for an example, one which I will respond to in kind for the first time.

Randalf Yorgen, on 05 April 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

IF the infantry section was doing something outside the military bounds then it would be a merc unit and yes it would have to pay it's way but you fail to see that PGI isn't making this distinction. They are simply wanting anyone who wants to drop in a group pay with no rewards or payback at all. Can you comprehend the written word? so far you haven't and again, it's a life skill, something that you keep proving that you are dreadfully short of.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Conversation


As you are not exchanging Ideas but simply repeating the same thing over and over again it is you who are not here for conversation. I HAVE walked in the pug shoes I DO know your side of the tracks and I found a better way.

But I do get it now, you want me to pay so that you can play for free.

so you served your 20 did you, DID YOU?? I suppose you could have but you would have been an officer and we all know that there are only two types of officers, Killing officers and Murdering ones and it's pretty simple for me to see, based upon how poorly you understand what others are saying to you, which kind you are.

FTR you are the one who first said you wern't a 13 year old living in your moms basement so it is you who opened the door.

lol open my eyes to another view point. lol now who is being funny. tell me do you do more than just skim? It's all I do with your posts now and I don't really care if you do or not.

OK, well skim this.

Can you comprehend the written word? so far you haven't and again, it's a life skill, something that you keep proving that you are dreadfully short of.

The game is Free to Play, was on day one, will be when the patch launch module arrives.

You will have to pay to play the game in your personal mode, whether be in flash colours, or with cockpit items or even playing in groups larger than 4 (when the launch mode arrives). Also, you will have to Pay for extra things not part of the standard game mode like coolant flushes and air strikes.

If wish to play the game mode that is aimed at the games target demographic, they will 'reward' you with in game currency that you can use to buy some of those things, but if you choose to play in a personal "preferred" setting then you will not get those rewards.

Game is still Free to Play, but like all Free to Play game models it levies a cost for people playing outside of the core game mode. (I can argue about whether the cost in this case is actually material but lets not inflame you anymore)

What my point is is that people screaming out ad nauseum that the Game is "Pay to Play" are not only incorrect and inflammatory, they are ignoring the fact that they can indeed now (on Launch) play with more than 3 friends in a single match.

It is an improvement over what we have now.

You "found a better way", and now you're upset that PGI are going to collect some revenue off you for you to play the game with advantages. Have a look at the tag next to my name, see the Overlord badge? Does that tell you I want to play for free? Be honest, do you keep throwing infantile and erroneous statements completely off the subject to hide your inability to make a comprehensive argument.

So heres the thing, if you want to stand in the corner stamping your feet with tears running down your face cause mummy won't let you play like you want to with your freinds, go for it. No one is going to force you to play the game. Mummy is also not going to change her mind.

If on the other hand you can get past your personal agenda and realise there are other peoples opinions that are as equally valid, you might be able to contribute to a meaningful and objective discussion that sees further improvement and gets the game where you want it to be. I'm not holding my breath though.

But here's the thing

I don't really care if you do or not.

Edited by Craig Steele, 05 April 2014 - 05:06 PM.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 04:54 PM, said:

Well thats just not true. What I have said is stop with the alarmist unsupported inflamatory statements and discuss the subject matter objectionaly.

I have asked some people to substantiate the things the say, and some of them can't support their statements, and thats not a bad thing.

EDIT: Rereading you were being descriptive, not making a summary. My error, yes people have been offering some thoughts on why the planned move is 'bad'



The same comment applies to the other argument, no new points. Just people bleating with un substantiated concerns over and over. If you go look at my posts, its not me making any personal insinuations and judgements, far from it. See below for an example, one which I will respond to in kind for the first time.




OK, well skim this.

Can you comprehend the written word? so far you haven't and again, it's a life skill, something that you keep proving that you are dreadfully short of.

The game is Free to Play, was on day one, will be when the patch launch module arrives.

You will have to pay to play the game in your personal mode, whether be in flash colours, or with cockpit items or even playing in groups larger than 4 (when the launch mode arrives). Also, you will have to Pay for extra things not part of the standard game mode like coolant flushes and air strikes.

If wish to play the game mode that is aimed at the games target demographic, they will 'reward' you with in game currency that you can use to buy some of those things, but if you choose to play in a personal "preferred" setting then you will not get those rewards.

Game is still Free to Play, but like all Free to Play game models it levies a cost for people playing outside of the core game mode. (I can argue about whether the cost in this case is actually material but lets not inflame you anymore)

What my point is is that people screaming out ad nauseum that the Game is "Pay to Play" are not only incorrect and inflammatory, they are ignoring the fact that they can indeed now (on Launch) play with more than 3 friends in a single match.

It is an improvement over what we have now.

You "found a better way", and now you're upset that PGI are going to collect some revenue off you for you to play the game with advantages. Have a look at the tag next to my name, see the Overlord badge? Does that tell you I want to play for free? Be honest, do you keep throwing infantile and erroneous statements completely off the subject to hide your inability to make a comprehensive argument supported by substance.

So heres the thing, if you want to stand in the corner stamping your feet with tears running down your face cause mummy won't let you play like you want to with your freinds, go for it. No one is going to force you to play the game. Mummy is also not going to change her mind.

If on the other hand you can get past your personal agenda and realise there are other peoples opinions that are as equally valid, you might be able to contribute to a meaningful and objective discussion that sees further improvement and gets the game where you want it to be. I'm not holding my breath though.

But here's the thing

I don't really care if you do or not.

We've read all your points, but all your arguments are based of PGI data. PGI is not giving you all their DATA. PGI has self fulfilled their own prophecy. They created the gameplay you see, and they will continue to lose the players until only new solo pugs are left and they then get bored of bad teams and go play something else.

March 2013 MOST players played in groups.

4 Man Team cap with a 12 man que gets patched in summer 2013.

March 2014 MOST players play solo.

Anyone that has analyzed their limited data source can see the simple folly in it. PGI was too blind to see it themselves.

This is why over a half a dozen people in this thread alone disagree with you.

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 04:54 PM, said:

Well thats just not true. What I have said is stop with the alarmist unsupported inflamatory statements and discuss the subject matter objectionaly.

EDIT: Rereading you were being descriptive, not making a summary. My error, yes people have been offering some thoughts on why the planned move is 'bad'

Didn't strike through far enough.
I'm not being an alarmist, nor am I giving "unsupported, inflamitory statements" I'm stating facts, using PGIs own words and have cited every claim at one point or another.

PROTIP: If you're going to White Knight, you actually have to be the one who is objective, in much of my tenure as a White Knight, it wasn't the facts I disputed, it was the hyperbole and vitriol used to convey them. Which is why, now, I'm able to make an argument and remove as much of that as I can, while still getting my point across that this is the dumbest thing PGI has done since Ghost Heat. It's also why, while I was White Knighting, I was able to gain the same number of likes in a post as I am now while bashing PGI. Being thick headed doesn't move your green bar any.

[Dock Steward]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 04:54 PM, said:

The same comment applies to the other argument, no new points. Just people bleating with un substantiated concerns over and over. If you go look at my posts, its not me making any personal insinuations and judgements, far from it. See below for an example, one which I will respond to in kind for the first time.

I'd really like to know what, specifically, you consider to be an "un [sic] substantiated concern."

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

Didn't strike through far enough.
I'm not being an alarmist, nor am I giving "unsupported, inflamitory statements" I'm stating facts, using PGIs own words and have cited every claim at one point or another.

PROTIP: If you're going to White Knight, you actually have to be the one who is objective, in much of my tenure as a White Knight, it wasn't the facts I disputed, it was the hyperbole and vitriol used to convey them. Which is why, now, I'm able to make an argument and remove as much of that as I can, while still getting my point across that this is the dumbest thing PGI has done since Ghost Heat. It's also why, while I was White Knighting, I was able to gain the same number of likes in a post as I am now while bashing PGI. Being thick headed doesn't move your green bar any.

Well to be fair, you weren't one of the posters I called out? I just responded to your post?

And I still don't think I have said anything to actually defend the scenario, I've said several times I want more. So unless my idea of a White Knight is very different then I don't see how people can read that I am.

If I see a statement or post that interests me but appears unsubstaniated I'll ask people to substantiate it. If I see something that I don't think is correct, I'll put forward why I think it's incorrect.

If people want to post garbage that is a headline and not back up their statements then I can safely disregard their view as I form my own.

Dock Steward, on 05 April 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

I'd really like to know what, specifically, you consider to be an "un [sic] substantiated concern."

See above for an example. I see people yelling out "Pay to Play". Thats a statement that is not only incorrect, but it deflects from the argument. It's a catch phrase that serves no purpose bar to inflame the conversation.

If someone says "but I have to pay and you don't", well thats a F2P model in work. They make money by charging for things that people 'want' to play with. So either the argument is they don't like F2P games or the argument is they want more stuff for free. There may be more arguments, I don't mind hearing them, but the game is not Pay to Play.

I also think sometimes people don't step back and consider the total picture (imo because they are often blinded by the inflammatory headline someone else just posted), and I call those out.

Yes the Launch Module will see a 'fee' (and again this I have some thoughts on) to play with 4 or more freinds. But regardless of the fee issue, it is a function that we do not have right now, and ergo an improvement. Want to debate how big an improvement is, sure. But lets at least call it out and acknowledge it as an improvement.

Amsro, on 05 April 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

We've read all your points, but all your arguments are based of PGI data. PGI is not giving you all their DATA. PGI has self fulfilled their own prophecy. They created the gameplay you see, and they will continue to lose the players until only new solo pugs are left and they then get bored of bad teams and go play something else.

March 2013 MOST players played in groups.

4 Man Team cap with a 12 man que gets patched in summer 2013.

March 2014 MOST players play solo.

Anyone that has analyzed their limited data source can see the simple folly in it. PGI was too blind to see it themselves.

This is why over a half a dozen people in this thread alone disagree with you.

What have I actually posted that you disagree with?

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

Well to be fair, you weren't one of the posters I called out? I just responded to your post?

And I still don't think I have said anything to actually defend the scenario, I've said several times I want more. So unless my idea of a White Knight is very different then I don't see how people can read that I am.

If I see a statement or post that interests me but appears unsubstaniated I'll ask people to substantiate it. If I see something that I don't think is correct, I'll put forward why I think it's incorrect.

If people want to post garbage that is a headline and not back up their statements then I can safely disregard their view as I form my own.



See above for an example. I see people yelling out "Pay to Play". Thats a statement that is not only incorrect, but it deflects from the argument. It's a catch phrase that serves no purpose bar to inflame the conversation.

If someone says "but I have to pay and you don't", well thats a F2P model in work. They make money by charging for things that people 'want' to play with. So either the argument is they don't like F2P games or the argument is they want more stuff for free. There may be more arguments, I don't mind hearing them, but the game is not Pay to Play.

I also think sometimes people don't step back and consider the total picture (imo because they are often blinded by the inflammatory headline someone else just posted), and I call those out.

Yes the Launch Module will see a 'fee' (and again this I have some thoughts on) to play with 4 or more freinds. But regardless of the fee issue, it is a function that we do not have right now, and ergo an improvement. Want to debate how big an improvement is, sure. But lets at least call it out and acknowledge it as an improvement.

What have I actually posted that you disagree with?

Do you remember if you have Alzheimer's?

[Craig Steele]

Amsro, on 05 April 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

Do you remember if you have Alzheimer's?

No, but I don't think I've made a single post arguing against your sentiment. I have probably called out some things and asked for them to be substantiated or I have pointed out that a catch phrase simply does not apply to the scenario.

So I am interested in which comment you have attributed to me that you disagree with.

[Dock Steward]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

See above for an example. I see people yelling out "Pay to Play". Thats a statement that is not only incorrect, but it deflects from the argument. It's a catch phrase that serves no purpose bar to inflame the conversation.

If someone says "but I have to pay and you don't", well thats a F2P model in work. They make money by charging for things that people 'want' to play with. So either the argument is they don't like F2P games or the argument is they want more stuff for free. There may be more arguments, I don't mind hearing them, but the game is not Pay to Play.

I think the argument is that one group doesn't want to pay for what another group is getting for free. The issue (and I'm not advocating charging the 12 man teams a fee!) is that I, as a player on a 12 man team, will not pay to play on a team, but someone on a team that has fewer players will have to pay. We're getting the same game, but not for the same fee (Premium time costs money, Private matches cost Premium Time, ergo Private matches cost money).

That is completely different than paying for camo, or some other superfluous item. Yeah, they're going to add other parameter changing abilities into paying for private matches, but that doesn't change the fact that the only way to play on a team of 5-11 will cost money.

Edited by Dock Steward, 05 April 2014 - 05:41 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Dock Steward, on 05 April 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

I think the argument is that one group doesn't want to pay for what another group is getting for free. The issue (and I'm not advocating charging the 12 man teams a fee!) is that I, as a player on a 12 man team, will not pay to play on a team, but someone on a team that has fewer players will have to pay. We're getting the same game, but not for the same fee (Premium time costs money, Private matches cost Premium Time, ergo Private matches cost money).

That is completely different than paying for camo, or some other superfluous item. Yeah, they're going to add other parameter changing abilities into paying for private matches, but that doesn't change the fact that the only way to play on a team of 5-11 will cost money.

Sure, it also doesn't change the fact that it's a function that we don't have at the moment.

As to whether its different than paying for camo. I guess that depends on your value equation. I don't pay for camo myself, green is just fine for me, but I will pay a small cost to play with more of my freinds in theory. Once it's here I'll try it and assess it and then decide if there is enough value for me to keep doing it.

The additonal functions though are (supposedly) driven by requests from the community for more empowerment