Craig Steele, on 04 April 2014 - 08:20 PM, said:
(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?
Winning the argument vs PGI and their decisions is not fun, because ultimately everyone loses.
Every single time I have to explain that, it's like losing a piece of your soul. It's not good.
Quote
(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.
TBH, I don't remember much accountability in PGI from the top 3 that work there. I see MORE accountability from the people towards the bottom of the PGI hierarchy.
I mean, we have Bryan that has declared "3 days" is good enough retention numbers for 3PV (I can get the links for this and others if you'd like).
Then we have Russ, using his kid to justify 3PV (the apology is so lacking, that I could probably write something far more reasonable than that junk).
Also, Paul.... has told us he likes "conflict" in trying to get balance done. I'm not sure being the biggest whiner would get me a prize.
The thing is, accountability is generally lacking.
Quote
(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.
Beta didn't have 5 to 11 man groups. 8v8 was the norm then, and only until LATE BETA (nearing "launch") where 12v12 was available.
As far as this "open beta veteran" is concerned, 5-11 man groups has never been an option.
Quote
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).
They "could", but when? If private matches for 5-11 man teams don't really manifest themselves, then it would effectively "justify" not expanding it further... just as much as they could remove it altogether "because it wasn't profitable".
Frankly, I don't believe we'll be able to play 5-11-mans for free during the remaining lifetime of this game!
Quote
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.
This requires PGI to learn and understand the meta. The thing is... many of the Champion mech builds are simply bad and/or lacking... having severe flaws that allow them to be crippled pretty easily. They don't have to be a "meta" mech build by any stretch, but I would NEVER recommend some of the build designs that were applied there... since NEWBIES are driving them... having no clue on what their strengths and weaknesses are.... let alone how to drive and shoot.
Quote
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.
Put it this way... I know that voter fraud exists, but contrary to popular belief, this is a very small percentage. The thing is that PGI tends to do stuff at a minimum... which means "just enough effort" and frankly whenever PGI is asked about to be specific on what they think is the case, whether it is balance, or what they are thinking of or even a simple clarification on things they are selling (like warhorns for instance), they are not very good at it. I mean, it's like what 7-8 months now of people with their Phoenix mechs that have no idea how many loyalty points they have? Go figure.
Quote
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?
If they don't bring back at all, then people will outright leave. There's a point where the dangling carrot becomes dry, old, and inedible. There are no more "broken promises", just people that won't care anymore to give an opinion and leave the game outright. Why bother? Noone has suggested that 10 solo PUGs should EVER match up with a "10-man syncdrop team" (it simply unlikely to happen in the first place).
There's no need for forum bashing... just a ghost town with the white knights not realizing they have reached the "Ides of March".
Edited by Deathlike, 04 April 2014 - 11:46 PM.
5
. I thought you were going to label a date 
