450 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

Can I play for free with 5 of my friends on the same team?

My understanding is that only the team leader needs to have premium time activated, so yes you can, as long as you're not the team leader.

[Roland]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

My understanding is that only the team leader needs to have premium time activated, so yes you can, as long as you're not the team leader.

No dude, he can't, because he isn't talking about playing in some prearranged league fight. He is just taking about being able to play a normal match with his friends.

Private matches don't facilitate that at all.

Edited by Roland, 05 April 2014 - 11:00 PM.

[Kilo 40]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

it has to do with the fact that if you're going to suggest to someone the value of something by saying "Hey, it only costs this", then you should be equally prepared to have every indication that you have the same level of commitment that they do.

all I'm saying is, he doesn't need to have the same level of commitment for it to be worth(or not worth) 7 bucks. It's completely irrelevant to the conversation.

the feature is either worth the money to the individual player, or it isn't, no matter how much they have or haven't spent in the past.

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

Can I play for free with 5 of my friends on the same team?

why stop at five? how about 30 of your friends?

[Roadbeer]

Kilo 40, on 05 April 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

why stop at five? how about 30 of your friends?

Now that's just being stupid, I'm being realistic within the parameters of the game where groups are hard capped at 12.

Don't be obtuse.

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 05 April 2014 - 11:00 PM, said:

No dude, he can't, because he isn't talking about playing in some prearranged league fight. He is just taking about being able to play a normal match with his friends.

Private matches don't facilitate that at all.

Sure they do?

If you mean theres still work arounds about getting the team together yes, I understand that is a seperate issue / challenge.

But if the question is cost, atm there is no function at all, under the launch module there will be a function to enable it.

And if you choose to use that function, there is no direct cost for 11 of the 12 players on that team.

I haven't drilled down but I assume the additional functionality allows restrictions on things like consumables (happy to be corrected) so he can play to his hearts content with his friends without it costing him a dime. There is no R&R, no consumables (I believe) and no direct cost.

Is it an ideal utopia, I don't think anyone is going to argue that it is.

Is it a function that is not "Pay to Play" for every player, yes.

[Roadbeer]

Well, it kind of is, because you're still charged consumables, so not only are you paying (even if it's just the group leader) for the privilege to drop, but all costs incurred in the match still apply.

Long in the short of it is, I still have to return to the Derpqueue to replenish Cbills for consumables I expend in the match, so even if it's virtual money, you still have to pay.

[Kilo 40]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

Now that's just being stupid, I'm being realistic within the parameters of the game where groups are hard capped at 12.

Don't be obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse. I'm pointing out that there has to be a limit, just like in all other games, and there will always be people who find that limit restrictive. and sure enough at some point someone will come along and say they have more friends than the limit allows and want it changed. be it 4 or 12 or 30.

there is a reason baseball teams have a dugout. not everyone gets to play at the same time.

[Roadbeer]

Kilo 40, on 05 April 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:

I'm not being obtuse. I'm pointing out that there has to be a limit, just like in all other games, and there will always be people who find that limit restrictive. and sure enough at some point someone will come along and say they have more friends than the limit allows and want it changed. be it 4 or 12 or 30.

there is a reason baseball teams have a dugout. not everyone gets to play at the same time.

Wow, you don't even know what this conversation is about? do you?

[Roland]

No dude, it doesn't facilitate it, because it requires you to already know who you are playing against.

Honestly, I have no idea how you can't grasp this, or what possible goal you have in mind for intentionally defending it.

I mean, what is the point? Obviously the game plan from pgi doesn't work for us. You being obtuse and telling us that it really does, when it so clearly doesn't, isn't accomplishing anything. It benefits literally no one. Not even yourself.

You want to keep playing, go nuts dude. It's obvious that tons of people aren't. And you can deny that all you like, too. Because ultimately, it doesn't matter what people believe, all that matters is what actually happens.

[Kilo 40]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2014 - 11:10 PM, said:

Wow, you don't even know what this conversation is about? do you?

oh I'm sorry. so you DON'T want to play MWO with more than 3 of your fiends for free?

[Roadbeer]

Kilo 40, on 05 April 2014 - 11:14 PM, said:

oh I'm sorry. so you DON'T want to play MWO with more than 3 of your fiends for free?

I'm shocked, you DO get it, your previous post was just a non sequitur then

[Kilo 40]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2014 - 11:15 PM, said:

I'm shocked, you DO get it, your previous post was just a non sequitur then

or you're just being obtuse.

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 05 April 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:

Well, it kind of is, because you're still charged consumables, so not only are you paying (even if it's just the group leader) for the privilege to drop, but all costs incurred in the match still apply.

Long in the short of it is, I still have to return to the Derpqueue to replenish Cbills for consumables I expend in the match, so even if it's virtual money, you still have to pay.

Sure, I get that. But if the leader has the option for no consumables then thats not a factor but I do agree, if you want to use them you have to replace them.

But it is still an option that we don't have now, and F2P models make revenue by giving options outside of the core game.

Rightly or wrongly PGI see the core game as currently solo PUG's (and as I have shown I have my own thoughts on the veracity of that call) and so they had said that to accommodate the Solo PUG game experience, they are capping the size and number of teams that interact with that population.

PGI (and most of us) recognise that organised teams with Comms, optimal load outs and familiarity enjoy significant in game advantages and that is (presumably) contributing to the ROFLSTOMP on PUG's. It's hard to argue against that line of thought.

@Roland, yes man it does facilitate it. You're bringing another factor (team composition / opposition) into the discussion and clouding the point. His question was can I play for free, the answer is yes he can. The function IS NOT "Pay to Play" for every player. For up to 11 players on the team there is no direct cost.

IDNK why you think I am defending this,do I say anywhere its the salvation of MW:O and all the problems are solved?

I am saying it is what it is.

[Nightfire]

Ok, I just had to jump into this at this point.

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

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

It's easy for you to say these things simply because you see yourself on the "right" side of the argument. Your points are less about logic and reasoned debate and more about defending the game you want this to be. You, by your own admission, have a preference for solo pug play. This places all of what you say less on the side of altruism and reason and more about self indulgence.

I will expound.

Quote

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.

So, point:

• "If wish to play the game mode that is aimed at the games target demographic". Up until a little over one year ago (March), groups were what you would consider the target demographic. They were the most preferred mode of playing the game and they were the targeted demographic as per the core design pillars. This is how the game was sold to us Founders! Solo PUG drops are now the preferred mode of play by the majority of players because PGI altered the environment, either deliberately or by incompetence (I am honestly not sure which. It's hard to attribute something like this to malice simply because you don't want to think the people who hold your beloved IP are that cruel), to alter this preference. Their design choices to "improve the solo experience" only really achieved the result (or goal) of chasing off those that play in groups. In short, solo PUGs are only the target market because PGI changed the playing experience and the market changed to match. It could easily change again.
  
• " It is an improvement over what we have now ".
  
  • So they first remove the ability to play with 5+ friends in normal game-play to establish the "normality" of that experience.
    
  • PGI then alter the environment so that those who prefer group play become the minority through attrition so as to make the 4 group limit the norm to the majority.
    
  • Now they reintroduce 5+ group play so people such are yourself who do not remember those days think "It is an improvement over what we have now". Even though in return for adding the ability to play with more friends, they remove the standard rewards for play (it could be exploited you know) and then also make people pay in either Premium Time (now) or MC (later). So it isn't an improvement, it's a step forward (5+ groups) and two steps back (removal of rewards + paying for the privilege).
    
    • As a side point, many Solo PUG White Knights won't even discuss and explore the exploitation issue. The fact that in principle exploitation is possible means there should in no way, ever be rewards. Even though we have no real idea how much it could be and what that look like in comparison to that lost time spent in public queues, the emotional argument wins.
  • "If wish to play the game mode that is aimed at the games target demographic, they will 'reward' you with in game currency" This is the real kick in the guts to group play. The "target demographic" is only now such because of recent (little over the last year or so, since the removal of 5+ groups) PGI design choices to "improve the PUG experience". So those that prefer larger group play are to fall in line when in the past, the minority PUG experience was deemed to be the all important cause even though groups were the larger, target demographic. So it's easy for you to make this claim because PUGs are not the minority anymore (so you can add that claim to your arsenal, NOW) and as a preferred Solo PUG player, this defends your play style well without having to be accountable for advocating your personal preference.
    
  • Finally, a cause posters such as RichAC love to champion, groups can't even keep playing in their preferred mode of play. They, by design, are forced to return to the public queue, with all its limitations, to earn revenue or to progress through the game. In other words, to actually PLAY the game they must participate in YOUR preferred style of play. I have my thoughts on why this is. Partly to keep the PUG queue having any relevance to the Group players and keeping people in that queue and partly to prevent group players returning en mass to once more dwarf the PUG presence. It is ultimately to keep the PUGs happy and somewhat placated.

So you hide your own personal desires behind the altruism of speaking out for the masses and defending PGI for targeting the largest player demographic. All without any irony in that said demographic was raised into ascendancy by PGI in their choices. Honestly, can you not own your own preferences and opinions?

Quote

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 how about this? What if PGI altered the environment again to favour larger groups and enticed the old player base back, in turn making groups the predominant style of play once more? If they then changed the public queue to include said large groups and introduced a "Solo PUG only" queue that cost 5 MC a drop? Would you then keep this stance? Would it be fair that you would be forced to pay for your own preferred mode of play because the other guys were given how they wanted to play for free?

Quote

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.

Oh I get this. I did go and find other games to play. BF4 has no qualms about me playing with 14 other friends at once and I have a blast! With Star Citizen and Elite: Dangerous around the corner, MWO is looking to have a very bleak future in my gaming line-up as it currently stands. Mummy may not change her mind but I stopped contributing to Mommy's pocket money a while back too. If Mommy wants any more pocket money from me, then she has to start giving me some attention rather than pampering the golden PUG child.

Quote

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.

Personal Agenda ... it's easy to be hypocritical and condescending when you can hide behind the shield of feigned altruism for the greater "target demographic" that you belong to.

And how about this not be a 0 sum game? You seem to gloss over this but larger group play was a sustainable model just as you seem to understand Solo PUG play is now ... as far as sustainable is with PGI's adversarial nature. So why can't PGI just look at better ways to balance things, allow players to have the experience they want instead of always taking the path of least effort?

Quote

But here's the thing
I don't really care if you do or not.

Back at you buddy! Ultimately this post isn't here for you. It's here for the audience who may actually be swayed by rational points rather than, "we're the majority so we should have what we want! You're the minority so suck it up and be thankful for whatever little consideration you get!". I know you didn't actually say that and while it also may over-simplify your arguments a little, it is to me a salient summation of your position.

[Roland]

No Craig, you are just failing to grasp or intentionally ignoring (for some totally irrational reason) the real issue that all these people have.

Two years ago they limited team size to 4, and said it was temporary. They lied to us until now, and now revealed that we will never be able to just play normally in groups larger that 4.

And none of the changes proposed are going to change that, and more folks will quit as a result.

Edited by Roland, 05 April 2014 - 11:28 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Nightfire, on 05 April 2014 - 11:24 PM, said:

Ok, I just had to jump into this at this point.



It's easy for you to say these things simply because you see yourself on the "right" side of the argument. Your points are less about logic and reasoned debate and more about defending the game you want this to be. You, by your own admission, have a preference for solo pug play. This places all of what you say less on the side of altruism and reason and more about self indulgence.

I will expound.

So from here down you wasted your time because you clearly did not read the thread or my posts.

I am down on this thread as saying several times I play more team games, I enjoy team games more and I like playing with my freinds. Honestly, why wade in if you are not going to at least read the content? All you do is invalidate anything positive you might have had to contribute.

Nightfire, on 05 April 2014 - 11:24 PM, said:

Back at you buddy! Ultimately this post isn't here for you. It's here for the audience who may actually be swayed by rational points rather than, "we're the majority so we should have what we want! You're the minority so suck it up and be thankful for whatever little consideration you get!". I know you didn't actually say that and while it also may over-simplify your arguments a little, it is to me a salient summation of your position.

So if you had read the post I quoted, I copied and pasted the comment that was directed at me.

It wasn't my words but if you infer a different meaning when I say them compared to when someone else says, then I suspect you're more than a little biased to the argument you want to support.

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 05 April 2014 - 11:27 PM, said:

No Craig, you are just failing to grasp or intentionally ignoring (for some totally irrational reason) the real issue that all these people have.

Two years ago they limited team size to 4, and said it was temporary. They lied to us until now, and now revealed that we will never be able to just play normally in groups larger that 4.

And none of the changes proposed are going to change that, and more folks will quit as a result.

And I get that, I actually do.

But that wasn't the original issue raised was it?

Some people were trashing the proposed amendments without a basis or an ability to substantiate their scaremongering.

They were saying "It's Pay to Play" and "PGI never listen" and "damn PUGGer's get all the love, team players get nothing"

I called it out for what it was, garbage.

I have already said we can debate whether its a big or small step, but it's still a step.

[Roland]

No it is not a step at all. It is trash. Organized teams aren't going to stick around for that.

Whatever, star citizen in two weeks. Have fun with whatever this game becomes.

[Nightfire]

Craig Steele, on 05 April 2014 - 11:35 PM, said:

So from here down you wasted your time because you clearly did not read the thread or my posts.

I am down on this thread as saying several times I play more team games, I enjoy team games more and I like playing with my freinds. Honestly, why wade in if you are not going to at least read the content? All you do is invalidate anything positive you might have had to contribute.

Actually, I've read every post in this thread from OP to here, including all of your posts. You might openly state "I play more team games, I enjoy team games more and I like playing with my freinds [sic]" but your tone and arguments portray a different position. I can say I'm against murder all I want but if I say it while stabbing a knife into someone over and over, it kind of loses its impact.

As for "All you do is invalidate anything positive you might have had to contribute", this is a position an ideologue usually takes (runs to?) when the argument is too hard to address. Can't defend your position or address the points raised? No problem! Dismiss the entire response out of hand by invalidating the person instead of the position! Problem solved!

Quote

So if you had read the post I quoted, I copied and pasted the comment that was directed at me.

Oh I did and every other post you have made. My response may have quoted that one post of yours but it was a lazy, short hand way of addressing the many many bad points you have made without running back over 20 pages of posts to pick out each bad quote. I've done that before to refute an argument in complete detail with the opponents own words only to be met with, "No, because reasons". Not going to put that sort of effort in again.

Quote

It wasn't my words but if you infer a different meaning when I say them compared to when someone else says, then I suspect you're more than a little biased to the argument you want to support.

They weren't your words at the end of my last post, they were mine. I said that! They were my summation of all your arguments, again, as I said! You know, taking accountability for one's words and putting them in context? I was anticipating the "I never said that and you can't find a place I ever did" argument. If you read that whole paragraph it really is quite clear. It had no inference as to anyone interpreting them based on the speaker.

But I know, you dismissed everything I said from the start so you can put any spin you like on it, right?

[Craig Steele]

Nightfire, on 06 April 2014 - 02:26 AM, said:

Actually, I've read every post in this thread from OP to here, including all of your posts. You might openly state "I play more team games, I enjoy team games more and I like playing with my freinds [sic]" but your tone and arguments portray a different position. I can say I'm against murder all I want but if I say it while stabbing a knife into someone over and over, it kind of loses its impact.

As for "All you do is invalidate anything positive you might have had to contribute", this is a position an ideologue usually takes (runs to?) when the argument is too hard to address. Can't defend your position or address the points raised? No problem! Dismiss the entire response out of hand by invalidating the person instead of the position! Problem solved!



Oh I did and every other post you have made. My response may have quoted that one post of yours but it was a lazy, short hand way of addressing the many many bad points you have made without running back over 20 pages of posts to pick out each bad quote. I've done that before to refute an argument in complete detail with the opponents own words only to be met with, "No, because reasons". Not going to put that sort of effort in again.



They weren't your words at the end of my last post, they were mine. I said that! They were my summation of all your arguments, again, as I said! You know, taking accountability for one's words and putting them in context? I was anticipating the "I never said that and you can't find a place I ever did" argument. If you read that whole paragraph it really is quite clear. It had no inference as to anyone interpreting them based on the speaker.

But I know, you dismissed everything I said from the start so you can put any spin you like on it, right?

I dismissed everything you said because you started it with a false acqusation. You 'rambled' (borrowed that word I did) arguing how I am Pro PUG with absolutly no foundation.

If you honestly expect that you can come out with the diatribe you did on the basis I am "Pro PUG" when I quite clearly have articulated that I am not then I have no intention of taking you seriously.

Neither should anyone else.

Your unreasoned and unsubstantiated deductions are not the basis for a mature intelligent discussion.

You have nothing to add clearly, which is pretty much the sum of many of the posters here. Scream to high heaven about the headlines because it suits your personal victimisation theory on how hard done by you are.

Well I'll leave you here with your freinds and you can all cry in the corner and consol each other about how big bad PGI has got all wrong even though you clearly haven't read a word of this thread nor a word that PGI has said.

But hey, why let the facts spoil your conspiracy party right? I mean if PGI out wasn't out to get you, you couldn't be a victim could you?

EDIT : This describes your post precisily, couldn't have written it better myself.

As for "All you do is invalidate anything positive you might have had to contribute", this is a position an ideologue usually takes (runs to?) when the argument is too hard to address. Can't defend your position or address the points raised? No problem! Dismiss the entire response out of hand by invalidating the person instead of the position! Problem solved!

Edited by Craig Steele, 06 April 2014 - 02:54 AM.