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, 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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
Nightfire, on 06 April 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:
Really? Just take a look back on the key words of your rebuttal here. Emotive language to the last. Not one point of mine addressed and every point raised an attack on my character. Yet you wonder why you struggle to make a valid point here? When you are in danger of losing, change from a reasoned, logical argument to an emotional one! Attack the opponents character instead of their argument!
Oh, ouch! Projection much? Right in the feels! I'll get right on feeling bad about myself, promise!
The fact remains that PGI have consistently taken the path of least effort to provide a feature of minimal viability, despite the community providing many viable alternatives. You white knight on behalf of the "Pro PUG" party line because it suits your desires and you hide behind that false altruism. It is you claiming the victim card here that no one will actually read what you write, no one will reason logically, no one will stop to look past their blind obsession. If I was trying to play the victim not only would I be doing it better, it would mean I have some emotional investment at stake here. I'm only really still around to watch the inevitable train wreck that MWO is to become.
If those that oppose you are so many and you are so few (or alone), perhaps it is not those you cast aspersions upon that are blinded?
Ah yes, Projection and reflection. When you can't meet an opponents points and they call you on the personal attacks, increase the fervor with which you attack their character with and throw their own arguments back at them. Note: I haven't attacked you directly, just your position and I have called you out on your bullshit evasion tactics.
And yet, still not one actual original point of mine addressed.
So heres you three posts, lets dance then.
Firstly you start off by saying "By your (as in mine) own admission you have a preference for solo PUG play" Thats your words, and I never said it.
When I call you out on this unsubstantiated assertion you try and take your feet out of your mouth with the following "You might openly state...... but your (mine) tone and arguments portray..." so yes, you went and re read and found out that your initial claim had no basis. I never admitted that did I?
And yet still you are here trying to justify why I should entertain anything you have to say.
Let me be clear, you showed in your first opening statements thats you had no understanding of the discussion. Ergo, I dismissed the rest of your post as being on the same basis as identified above, unresearched and unsubstantiated.
You go on to berate me for having this opinion you have fostered upon me and when I don't entertain trying to justify myself against your baseless claims, and I point out to you how your claims are baseless, you slip into the old "you're playing the man" quote.
I know it well, I've been the subject of it many times. What you neglect to highlight is how in your first post you spend virtually all of it doing exactly the same thing. Thats called Hypocritical.
So lets be clear, you assert you know what my opinion is better than I do, and when I respond to you thats not my opinion, I am now "covering up" by not addressing your point (although you have no actual point). Ergo, if I don't defend myself against an opinion I don't actually have (except by your assertion) then I have no substance.
Well ****** me.
Now your trotting out more words like "Projection and reflection" which are amaeteur psychology but it does show you at least have understanding, yet again you fail to draw the conclusion that you have already been guilty of exactly the same thing. Surely you can see that you being critical of me being critical of you (as you alledge) is actually,
you being critical of me? Why if it is satisfactory for you, can you not deal with it when turned around. I'm only following the example you have set if your assertion is correct. If you don't like it, don't use it yourself.
I'll tell you why I think thats so though.
It's because you didn't launch into this thread with any desire to meaningfully contribute. Heck you clearly didn't even read the content. Even in your third post you continue to label me a "White Knight" when I have disavowed the same and even presented an argument critical of PGI. You wouldn't know that though, because you didn't read anything before launching in, and of course you know what my opinion is better than I do.
At best your goal is to simply throw your weight around, more likely you're just trolling. Either way you're only trying to derail the thread. Why, well most likely because of exactly what you point in my direction.
You have no counter to the fact that the game is indeed Free To Play, it is not "Pay to Play". It is "Pay to Play" in a certain game mode, but that is an opt in opt out choice of the player, just like camo colours. It is also not a real direct cost to every player who chooses that option. You have no counter to the fact that from what we have today, the proposed amendments are an improvement, we will have more functionality than we do today. You have no counter to the fact that the 5+ team play was indeed removed during Beta, when the player population should expect things to change.
These are all facts, you cannot dispute them. I defy you to find anywhere in my posts that I have said this satifies my personal desires for the game, but no doubt you kow my opinion better than me anyway. You will say that because I present THE FACTS, that I am a White Knight and Pro PUG. You will indeed continue to "play the man" because you cannot argue these facts.
So in summary, if you actually had a meaningful contribution to the subject with some substance I would treat you the same as I have the numerous other contributors that have had good points to raise over the last FEW DAYS (see how I've never walked away from anyone here before, nor have I just shown up), but regrettably, you do not have anything of substance for me to discuss with you.
If you want to represent that as me not desiring to engage with you, thats your choice. But I am telling you up front that the reason I am not addressing you is that your posts have nothing to discuss. You want a response, put up something of substance. Stop trying to tell me that you know what I am thinking and address the content.
Straight bat see.
By the way, look up "Passive Agressive", it's another good one for amaeteur phsychologists.
5
