Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:
So what I read from this is my opinion / thoughts are irrelevant because you have a longer tenure with the game than I do. Is that the message you intended to communicate because thats what I heard. If you intended to communicate otherwise, maybe you need to re phrase.
No, what he is saying is that you haven't been around to see the changes and how they've impacted play, and player retention as a whole, and also, that once you've been around longer, you'll see things that you've been told to expect (and look forward to), only when they arrive, they are a horribly bad representation of what was advertised (if not outright nixed after-all)
Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:
My point is that team players have no basis for complaining about the proposed changes. They are being given much more empowerment than they ever had before. The only thing they are loosing is the ability to wail of PUG's who do not have the same advantages as them.
Why is that a problem?
Ok, you CLEARLY haven't been paying attention.
The proposed changes are only benifical to competitive players (which most groups aren't). If you are greater than 4 and less than 12 then:
1. They are required to have premium time (and MC down the road) just for the privlidge to be able to group with more than 3 people.
2. There are NO rewards in private matches. No CBills, No XP, No Acheivements. So even being GRACED with this option, we are STILL forced back into the PUG queue to replenish CBills to purchase consumables, weapons, mechs, etc.
3. There is no lobby system proposed to accomidate those groups between 5 and 11, so we are forced to utilize 3rd party software just to find a match.
4. I'm sure there is more, I've just become so sick of having to explain this to people over and over again...
Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:
I have yet to see a adequate response from anyone as to what the actual issue is for team players with the proposed amendments. It sounds like complaining for the sake of complaining or complaining because they haven't bothered to digest what the actual communication from PGI is and just grabbed onto the headline in forums that some scaremonger has posted.
Again, you haven't been paying attention, there are quite a few threads on the topic, but in my limited time interacting with you, I've found that you don't enjoy doing your own research, but in this case, i'm going to leave it to you to educate yourself on the topic, because almost everyone else in this thread knows EXACTLY what we're talking about
Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:
1. PGI disagrees, and they have more data than all of us. Or do you have some insight that PGI are not aware of?
2. OFC not, we are talking about the proposed changes. Why be argumentative about it and cite the current state of arrangements? PGI are however proposing to empower 5 - 11 man teams to create their own game environment. Go read the official communication. Then come back and discuss.
3. Really, you are the elected spokesmperson for all "team players"? I didn't get my voting slip. I suspect what you mean to say is that YOU think that PUG stomping will continue. However PGI have said they think this is a point of progress towards enhancing the PUG game experience. Can you quote your source that gives you more information / judgement than PGI has?
4. How about you stop with this recurring un based opinion that PUG's do not have an opinion on their game experience. The fact is they have expressed their opinion on their game experience and whether you agree with it or not, it is their game experience. Try embracing the feedback and working with it instead of sticking your head in the sand and saying "it ain't so".
5.
con·jec·ture
[kuh
n-jek-cher] expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2.
an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
1. PGI's data often conflicts itself, or is presented in such a way that it leave the reader with more questions than answers.
In the span of one year, PGI has gone from stating that most of it's players were in groups to most of its players are solo. What's changed in that time? The implementation of group caps. That's kind of a self-fullilling prophesy and a no brainer, don't you think?
2. Nope, it punishes 5-11 with the inability to earn rewards in the matches AND taxes them with premium time, because you cannot be 5-11 in the free private match system (it's not one of the custom parameters)
3. Nope, PUGSTOMPING will continue because I've already laid out in a few threads how the 3/3/3/3 system is easy to game and actually ENHANCE the sync dropping ability, not inhibit it. Again, do your research.
4. LOL, Pot have you met kettle?
5. see 4.
Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:
WHY ARE PRE MADE TEAM PLAYERS UPSET WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO TRASH PUG's? Because as PGI have said, that is the only material change they propose. So why the angst?
Nope, that's just your interpretation of the changes, but as was pointed out before, you lack the actual experience with the game to fully understand the ramifications of the changes.
Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:
AFAIK (from PGI's official advices), the only material change PGI proposed is that 4 man teams will not queue with PUG's. Why is this such a point of contention for 'so many' team players?
Completely wrong, 4 player teams will still queue with solo pugs, the only change is that there will only be ONE group per team, whether it be 2,3 or 4 players
Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:
AFAIK (from PGI's official advices), organised teams will be empowered with the flexibility to manage their game experience to a much larger degree than PUG's have, why is this a problem?
Except for the reasons I listed above, so aside from appealing to the <1% of competitive players, this solution lacks any substance that a good portion of players who play in groups want or need.
Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:
AFAIK (from PGI's official advices) They want to enhance the gaming experience of team based play and are keen to retain that player demogrpahic, even though it is a minority. Why do people say PGI don't care about team based play?
Again, it doesn't enhance it, it inhibits it, it puts unnecessary hurdles in the path of group play, and for over 500 days, PGI has made it increasingly difficult to just play with your friends (between 4 player/8 player cap, then raising the threshhold to the 4 player/12 player caps)
5
