450 replies to this topic

[Dock Steward]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

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

It would be better to not have a function than to have it in a way that is obviously exploitative and unfair.

Edited by Dock Steward, 05 April 2014 - 05:48 PM.

[Roland]

It's not like teams are going to pay money to use that feature anyway, so whatever.

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

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

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

Which would all be fine and good, but if I'm paying for it, then I should be given tools to find others playing that way, and receive the same rewards that the other players get.

So, because I'm 5-11, not only do I have to pay for the privilege, but I'm also penalized for not receiving rewards. Solo/4 queue gets rewards, 12 queue gets rewards, but because I just want to drop 7, I'm an ******* and deserve nothing.

[Amsro]

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

Do you remember if you have Alzheimer's?

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 05:38 PM, said:

No

Didn't think so. What is the topic of this thread again? DaZur wants his thread back. Can you stop arguing as a hobby now.

Edited by Amsro, 05 April 2014 - 05:54 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Dock Steward, on 05 April 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

It would be better to not have a function than to have it in a way that is obviously exploitative and unfair.

Well maybe some people would see it that way. I'm clearly not as I have just said I will give it a fair hearing before I condemn it.

I am also of the view that if it is popular, the 'fee' will be removed as it transitions to be the core part of their business that many people in this thread are asserting is the case.

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2014 - 05:52 PM, said:

Which would all be fine and good, but if I'm paying for it, then I should be given tools to find others playing that way, and receive the same rewards that the other players get.

So, because I'm 5-11, not only do I have to pay for the privilege, but I'm also penalized for not receiving rewards. Solo/4 queue gets rewards, 12 queue gets rewards, but because I just want to drop 7, I'm an ******* and deserve nothing.

As to the third party stuff, I can agree with that. I don't think PGI have done a very good job on similar things such as in game Voice either. It's the way they run the business and I am far from impressed with it personally.

As for your second paragraph, that's not my call out. A few posts ago I pointed out I am in exactly the same boat. What I am calling out that it is my option to play that game mode. It does not change that the game is still F2P and it does not change that it is an option I do not currently have.

These 2 points alone people have in the past glossed over to smash the overall proposal which I think is unfair. It feeds the "PGI do nothing good, they never listen" mentality which many people seem to jump on and then the conversation becomes about PGI instead of the actual subject..

Let me be clear on this point. I am not saying that what they propose is good enough for me, I do want more. I am saying its unfair of me to disregard progress (however small it may or may not be for me).

[Craig Steele]

Amsro, on 05 April 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

Didn't think so. What is the topic of this thread again? DaZur wants his thread back. Can you stop arguing as a hobby now.

Still don't have an answer do you?

Is there actually something I have said that you disagree with or was it just your assumption that because I challenged someones view I must disagree with it?

Can you stop arguing as a hobby now.

[Davers]

I am giving up on this topic. The two loudest 'voices of opposition' both claim to be in the same boat as the rest of us, but seem to prefer dropping with 8+ pugs than with their own units.

If we cannot convince them, there is no chance of convincing PGI.

My suggestion is for all of us to form a new merc unit called 'The Disenfranchised' and do 12 mans.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

Still don't have an answer do you?

Is there actually something I have said that you disagree with or was it just your assumption that because I challenged someones view I must disagree with it?

Can you stop arguing as a hobby now.

Your word wizardry is commendable but if you can't be bothered to pay attention over the last 4+ pages then why should we keep writing it out to you.

If you are on the "same" side then why do you keep trying to say it is a step in the right direction. When CLEARLY we've shown how this is false. Another ill thought out idea by PGI.

[Craig Steele]

Amsro, on 05 April 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

Your word wizardry is commendable but if you can't be bothered to pay attention over the last 4+ pages then why should we keep writing it out to you.

If you are on the "same" side then why do you keep trying to say it is a step in the right direction. When CLEARLY we've shown how this is false. Another ill thought out idea by PGI.

Well mostly because you haven't CLEARLY shown anything.

I saw your post a few pages back about stats, you were critical that my view was based on the stats that PGI had released.

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.

You quite rightly point out neither of us have any additional insights, but you argue your view which is based on speculation and personal deduction is the 'correct' one and then offer nothing more to substantiate why I should fall into line.

But if have a view based on the (limited) facts provided, I am wrong?

Wheres your analysis of the new players coming into the game since the cap, wheres your stats confiming that all the old team players are now playing solo drops or have they gone inactive? Wheres your basis for "all players leaving" comments. Have you got access to the average game time per player statistics? Maybe PGI have self fulfilled the goal they wanted to achieve? Maybe its a success story? Do you know the financial outcomes of the changes they have put in place. Have you seen the investors report and returns?

The thing is, you might be right, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying if you want to make a point back it up. That should only be difficult for people who don't have a point. But if all you have is speculations then we can all safely disregard your points, we can form those ourselves.

On the other hand, if you have some reasoning and thought out deductions that I can get behind, I'll concede you may well have something I should consider.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

Well mostly because you haven't CLEARLY shown anything.

I'm not the only one posting , I don't need to post what Roadbeer posts just because you don't like his posts and ignore them too.

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

I saw your post a few pages back about stats, you were critical that my view was based on the stats that PGI had released.
You quite rightly point out neither of us have any additional insights, but you argue your view which is based on speculation and personal deduction is the 'correct' one and then offer nothing more to substantiate why I should fall into line.

I read that quote and point out no such thing. You're reading into posts too deeply.

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

But if have a view based on the (limited) facts provided, I am wrong?

You've pointed out a couple times that you have no view. You in fact think you should have the ability to drop in any size group. Am I wrong?

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

Wheres your analysis of the new players coming into the game since the cap, wheres your stats confiming that all the old team players are now playing solo drops or have they gone inactive? Wheres your basis for "all players leaving" comments. Have you got access to the average game time per player statistics? Maybe PGI have self fulfilled the goal they wanted to achieve? Maybe its a success story? Do you know the financial outcomes of the changes they have put in place. Have you seen the investors report and returns?

Are you interested in investing in the company or playing the game? Obviously we are all limited to the same data (lack thereof) from PGI.

Simple fact is, PGI won't give the community this data. Reason being, you can speculate to your hearts content.

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

The thing is, you might be right, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying if you want to make a point back it up. That should only be difficult for people who don't have a point. But if all you have is speculations then we can all safely disregard your points, we can form those ourselves.

The points have been cited and backed up many times by Roadbeer and others, the same posts you seem to have skimmed over the last 18 or so pages.

Not to mention this idea isn't new nor is the "release schedule" from PGI. In 2012 CommunityWarfare was just 6 months away!.

Sorry if PGI is lacking in the word of honor department.

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

On the other hand, if you have some reasoning and thought out deductions that I can get behind, I'll concede you may well have something I should consider.

Now why didn't you just start with this mind set pages ago. Reread absorb concepts, I truly don't feel like reassembling what Roadbeer and others have already spent time citing/writing/posting/explaining.

Perhaps you should consider doing more research into how the 4 man limit came into being, typically when you want to understand something you need to go to the beginning.

Edited by Amsro, 05 April 2014 - 07:14 PM.

[Craig Steele]

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

I'm not the only one posting , I don't need to post what Roadbeer posts just because you don't like his posts and ignore them too.

But you are the one making the post, so I call you out. Or is your point that you can post anything you like and if someone else makes a better argument you don't have to substantiate your point. So when I call your post out as a headline grabbing post of no substance, I am correct but thats OK because other people have expressed the point better? Is that your point?

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

I read that quote and point out no such thing. You're reading into posts too deeply.

So when you say "anyone" who has analysed the same data I have is "simple folly" means what exactly?

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

You've pointed out a couple times that you have no view. You in fact think you should have the ability to drop in any size group. Am I wrong?

Yes you are, I have expressed my view several times. Take your own advice and actually read the posts.

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

Are you interested in investing in the company or playing the game? Obviously we are all limited to the same data (lack thereof) from PGI.

Simple fact is, PGI won't give the community this data. Reason being, you can speculate to your hearts content.

Which is my point. You are speculating, I'm calling it out as speculation and unsubstantiated. It's alarmist. You do not know and have no basis for the statements.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about from your side of the fence so you can maybe put your defenses down and focus on the subject.

PGI have said that they are making changes to the game to accommodate a large demographic of the player population they were "surprised" (their word) to discover existed. The ratio advised is 84% of players solo drop, 16% drop in teams.

PGI have also freely said and encourage that when you die in a game, you can start a new game in a new mech.

Now if I'm in a team and I die, I don't leave the game, where am I going to go? I stay there for the full 10 minutes win or lose and play again with my friends.

If I am solo dropping, I reload the next mech. Many people (so I am told) use this function to farm C-Bills. They are doing 3, 4 maybe 5 times the number of matches as a team player when in this mode.

What then is the ratio of meaningful team games vs meaningful solo games? We will never know, I doubt very much PGI could even track it, but my deduction is that the ratio of actual team games versus solo games is distorted. Ergo, PGI are probably making an error in their strategic game play demographic pitch.

Why haven't the self appointed champions realised this glaring obvious flaw before? Maybe they have but I've never seen it in forums. I suspect its probably because many are all captivated by irrational and inflamatory headlines and they jump on the band wagons to argue the same point ad nausem without any substance.

Hence why I sit here with my own view that I feel is thought out and reasonable, and when I see a statement that interests me and might support or challenge my view I seek the substance of it. When it cannot be backed up, I call it out for what it is, un substantiated.

Then I get told I'm a word smith or got a silver spoon in my mouth or I am Pro Soloist which is all just deflection from the key point, some people cannot substaniate they claims they make, or support their deductions with anything other than "Someone else agrees / likes my post".

Edited by Craig Steele, 05 April 2014 - 07:47 PM.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

Please... Stop.

Enjoy your well thought out reasoning and rambling.

Russ is selling tickets to the island, your invited.

http://www.reddit.co...omments/1z3yeh/
http://mwomercs.com/...93-feb-27-2014/

http://www.gamefront.com/mechwarrior-online-forum-ragesplosion/
http://themittani.com/news/mwo-ui-20-arrives
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/12/15/free-to-play-mechwarrior-online-offends-players-with-500-golden-mechs/
http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/145200-2013-state-of-the-inner-sphere/

Craig Steele, on 02 April 2014 - 09:59 PM, said:

EDIT: But I should reiterate here that playing in a team is "generally" more enjoyable, in any game.

Be prepared to spend MC on it, because PGI thinks you should pay to "generally" have more fun.

Edited by Amsro, 05 April 2014 - 08:14 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Amsro, on 05 April 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

Enjoy your well thought out reasoning and rambling.

Russ is selling tickets to the island, your invited.

http://www.reddit.co...omments/1z3yeh/
http://mwomercs.com/...93-feb-27-2014/

http://www.gamefront.com/mechwarrior-online-forum-ragesplosion/
http://themittani.com/news/mwo-ui-20-arrives
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/12/15/free-to-play-mechwarrior-online-offends-players-with-500-golden-mechs/

http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/145200-2013-state-of-the-inner-sphere/


Be prepared to spend MC on it, because PGI thinks you should pay to "generally" have more fun.

See that, a "well thoughtout reason..."ed case is "rambling" even when it supports your own point of view.

And yet you adore unsubstantiated headline grabbing inflammatory comments to no end.

Good thing the internet has zero accountability right?

Heavens forbid if people could use the forums to form a view, whether critical or not, based on actual substance greater than their own experience.

Keep up the scaremongering and headlines man, it is certainly helpful for everyone.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

Keep up the scaremongering and headlines man, it is certainly helpful for everyone.

You keep talking about your "view" I haven't seen you post it once. You just defer and ignore and demand stamped gold data. I'm not here for a in-depth debate. As you stated research and come up with your own ideas.

I don't make headlines and have no stake in scaremongering. This isn't even my thread. You've missed the target completely.

This has been dragged on for pages truthfully you haven't even earned a response at this point. I'm not here to sway you, I'm not sure why you think I should.

Everyone else has given up on this thread, I'm out. Hope you have fun now.

[Roland]

Why are you even arguing with him any more?

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 05 April 2014 - 08:48 PM, said:

Why are you even arguing with him any more?

What argument?

He made a statement, I asked him to substantiate it, he can't.

There is no argument.

I don't need anyone to 'convince' me, I just ask people to be able to have some substance so that I (and others) can consider / reconsider my own view objectivily. I also ask that we take away the hate and give credit for anything that is a positive (or at least acknowledge them as positives).

Is that to much to ask?

[Roadbeer]

[BLOOD WOLF]

Steele, stop, these guys, really are selfish be

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.

How often will people use PM's? your acting as if this is a daily thing. you can get MC for as low as 7 dollars and that's for a little over a thousand MC. And the responsibility of hosting should be rotated.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 05 April 2014 - 09:46 PM.

[Craig Steele]

BLOOD WOLF, on 05 April 2014 - 09:39 PM, said:

Steele, stop, these guys, really are selfish be

LOL Yeah, I'm done already (see I liked Roadbeers clip ).

Too much hate and blindness from some which I can understand to a degree, PGI have not exactly been stellar on every front.

Some people can make an argument for their side / view which is great, but a lot of passengers on the hate train it seems.

[Roadbeer]

BLOOD WOLF, on 05 April 2014 - 09:39 PM, said:

Steele, stop, these guys, really are selfish be

Yeah, because, you know, we just want to be on equal footing and get the same features that people get for free but we.. you know.. have to pay for.

BLOOD WOLF, on 05 April 2014 - 09:39 PM, said:

How often will people use PM's? your acting as if this is a daily thing. you can get MC for as low as 7 dollars and that's for a little over a thousand MC. And the responsibility of hosting should be rotated.

Yeah, don't talk about spending money unless you have some of these
<-------------------
Because, otherwise, you have no proof.

Oh, BTW, read that little Twitter interaction between you and Russ.

So, according to Russ, now they CAN put rewards in the FREE private matches, but not in the PREMIUM ones.

LOL, do these guys even think?