795 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 05:23 AM, said:

Did quote the right post? I don't get the point you are making here Joseph, sorry

Played against a lopsided team (We were grossly out weighed) had fun trying to take 'em with us.

[Craig Steele]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 05:25 AM, said:

Played against a lopsided team (We were grossly out weighed) had fun trying to take 'em with us.

LOL, oh OK.

Well we have agreed to disagree on that one before I suspect

No need to revisit,

[Joseph Mallan]

Yes we have.

[Magna Canus]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 04:34 AM, said:

1) <Stats>, but you can't be critical of them not releasing the data though... So while you may appreciate it and draw some substance, there is 10, 20, 100 (?) others that making mountains out of mole hills.

2) <Team Play> ...but that is exactly what teams are about. It is about creating an environment where people want to support each other. Some teams are more black and white but all of them imply commitment. Otherwise there's no point to them. That implied commitment is why (imo) many players don't join team games as often as they play. It's all well and good when you have the time, but when rl is knocking and you only have an hour, you do your drops and move on.

3) <Short end of Stick> Nope. Just no. We have already discussed that relying on anecdotal evidence leads to distorted conclusions and now you seem to be hinting that you're not even interested in the other side of the fence's position. I get that you're standing up for your 'side' but whether it's 10% or 20%, team players are the minority. You simply can not have it both ways and be fair. If you sit back and say "well they are not saying anything ergo we are right" and they are sitting there saying "we don't have to say anything, we are happy with it" who loses? The onus is on the minority to make a fair argument the majority can empathise with if they want change, not bleat about how unfair it is. There is no point in the minority all getting together and patting each other on the back, you are already in agreeance. Just because someone is challenging your assumptions, that doesn't mean you're wrong, it doesn't mean they are either. It is an opportunity to think outside of your anecdotal evidence.

If you want to make an argument, you need to embrace the majority and understand what the middle ground is. That means asking questions. It means testing your assumptions and deuctions. That may not have to be even with the other side, it just may need some critical thinking. Ie. "I see this and I conclude that, but what else could cause that." This is exactly why I think that alarmist extreme inflammatory statements don't help, they crush critical thinking when everyone jumps on the bandwagon.

4) For example, if Founders money represented 80% of the first years operating cash, I can understand why Founders would expect the product they 'funded" in 12 months. If an Investment group represented 80% of the operating cash for the first 12 months, I can understand why they would want their agenda items met (whatever they might be). I'll never take away from someone that for an investment they make they should get the return they expect, but that's not always a commercial reality. Everything is a balancing act.

5) But then the other side of the coin, what I put into MW:O I don't look on as an investment. I paid for a stable of mechs and some MC and I got it. It came with some fruit (faction thingy's, camo etc) but thats not what I paid for (in my mind). I paid my money knowing that I would be playing those mechs in a certain type of game. That doesn't mean I don't want more, far from it. Put it another way. If I get a guy to lay a new concrete driveway for me, and he does it then comes to me and asks for payment before he's painted it, I don't care what story he spins me. The most he is getting out of me is the quoted cost of the concrete. I'll pay for what I see value in, but I am not paying him on the promise he comes back and finishes the job. None of which invalidates concerns about poor communication, delays or delivery on milestones / commitments, but those weren't your points.

Had to put some numbers on the different discussion points. Starting to get all tangled up. LOL

1) Would they have not published any numbers at all and just stuck to majority/minority we would have less discussions on 84/16, but still tons of discussions on what majority/minority "really mean". They stuck their nose in a fat self made trap there basing changes on a ratio that they failed to outline in sufficient detail.

2) <Team play> I know you are not going to like what I have to say here but; being consequent is a character strength. If RL needs you to do something and you can't pry yourself away from a game, or a chat with friends, or whatever, to go do it, this is a general character issue and not a team relevant issue.

3) Minorities & Short end of Stick; well you had better hope that PGI does not deal with "minorities" the way the US Judicial system does (e.g. job quota's, special pandering, etc.).
Martin Luther Kind & Mandela were representing minorities in their time and they got what they needed not by sitting back and waiting for change, but by fighting for it. History has proven time and again that "the majority is not correct by default based solely on their numbers". But really this is not a discussion about minorities/majorities, even though we have digressed in that direction. It is a discussion about how the current MWO environment is working against team play.

4) <Founders money> Yes, I agree that the relation between what % the founders raised to fund the project is directly related to how entitled they should feel. From the rough numbers I could turn up (not rock solid unfortunately) Founders produced over USD 5 mil vs. the current estimated annual revenue PGI generates of CAD 3 mil. So, a ball-park figure of twice what the currently earn in a year. Even if it goes down to 1x what they earn annually, that still grants a significant level of entitlement for MWO, and MWO only.

5) I think the big difference here is simply the way you view how you spent your money and how founders and the majority of phoenix pack owners I know (admittedly "anecdotal") view how they spent their money. The Founders at the least paid for the vision of a game sold to them at the time, for them it was an investment. Phoenix pack owners I know (myself included) invested to help support the initial vision. That vision has yet to come about so people have stopped buying-in on faith alone (well, besides the poor clan-pack owners). Call them/me fools, but people invested in a vision, a dream, when we decided to support MWO.

MWO was supposed to be something better than Angry birds, but if that has become the intent behind the current MWO, to fleece 10$ F2P solo's for corporate survival with an Angry birds business model clone with mechs, then PGI needs to let the IP go and hand it over to another developer able to make the product sold to founders.

[Craig Steele]

Magnakanus, on 09 April 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

Had to put some numbers on the different discussion points. Starting to get all tangled up. LOL

1) Would they have not published any numbers at all and just stuck to majority/minority we would have less discussions on 84/16, but still tons of discussions on what majority/minority "really mean". They stuck their nose in a fat self made trap there basing changes on a ratio that they failed to outline in sufficient detail.

2) <Team play> I know you are not going to like what I have to say here but; being consequent is a character strength. If RL needs you to do something and you can't pry yourself away from a game, or a chat with friends, or whatever, to go do it, this is a general character issue and not a team relevant issue.

3) Minorities & Short end of Stick; well you had better hope that PGI does not deal with "minorities" the way the US Judicial system does (e.g. job quota's, special pandering, etc.).
Martin Luther Kind & Mandela were representing minorities in their time and they got what they needed not by sitting back and waiting for change, but by fighting for it. History has proven time and again that "the majority is not correct by default based solely on their numbers". But really this is not a discussion about minorities/majorities, even though we have digressed in that direction. It is a discussion about how the current MWO environment is working against team play.

4) <Founders money> Yes, I agree that the relation between what % the founders raised to fund the project is directly related to how entitled they should feel. From the rough numbers I could turn up (not rock solid unfortunately) Founders produced over USD 5 mil vs. the current estimated annual revenue PGI generates of CAD 3 mil. So, a ball-park figure of twice what the currently earn in a year. Even if it goes down to 1x what they earn annually, that still grants a significant level of entitlement for MWO, and MWO only.

5) I think the big difference here is simply the way you view how you spent your money and how founders and the majority of phoenix pack owners I know (admittedly "anecdotal") view how they spent their money. The Founders at the least paid for the vision of a game sold to them at the time, for them it was an investment. Phoenix pack owners I know (myself included) invested to help support the initial vision. That vision has yet to come about so people have stopped buying-in on faith alone (well, besides the poor clan-pack owners). Call them/me fools, but people invested in a vision, a dream, when we decided to support MWO.

MWO was supposed to be something better than Angry birds, but if that has become the intent behind the current MWO, to fleece 10$ F2P solo's for corporate survival with an Angry birds business model clone with mechs, then PGI needs to let the IP go and hand it over to another developer able to make the product sold to founders.

1) Sure, you can argue that, but if they just pressed the button without providing any reasoning we would (and have before) be smashing them for not listening. They can't win it seems.

2) OK, but if thats the case, why are "team players" upset about loosing players from their Guild? If they choose to do something else, it's no biggy by your description. Equally, if the game isn't suiting team players, why fight it, there's bigger fish to fry right? I suspect Team's are important to "team players" because of that bond and implied commitment, and thats why people care enough to represent it.

3) Both Luther and Mandela found ways to include the majorities to their cause to effect change. Check any of their "highlight reels" and you will see plenty of white kids sitting in protest in the crowd and so forth. They appealed to the majorities and they challenged views.

I am not saying don't fight for your cause, I'm saying find ways to bring the 'majority' to your cause. Patting each other on the back and saying "yes you're right" or "no they're wrong" won't get anywhere.

4) It's really hard to do numbers (I did try) but even if I did, a guess is still a guess. We will probably never know but it still comes down to there is more money in the game development than "Founders"

5) Sure I get that, I see it all the time. I understand why some people feel the way they do. I'll try and be funny here and tell you my GF promises me some things which still haven't been delivered but hopefully next birthday right? What else do I do? I either move on, make the best of it or have a discussion about it

[Joseph Mallan]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

2) OK, but if thats the case, why are "team players" upset about loosing players from their Guild? If they choose to do something else, it's no biggy by your description. Equally, if the game isn't suiting team players, why fight it, there's bigger fish to fry right? I suspect Team's are important to "team players" because of that bond and implied commitment, and thats why people care enough to represent it.

My first drop with the Law sealed it for me!

My Slow as Moses LRM40 Atlas was doing its reign of terror, and a fast light came swooping in on me. At 9 FpS... I was Dead. Then I heard it for the first time, "Don't sweat it Joseph, I got 'im. Keep firing."

You will never get that team work and Camaraderie in PUGs.
You will never get things like, "Like a BOSS"

Shenanigan's Friday

2 drink Minimums

Kael Pershaw impressions and giving my black screen, directions that net us One more kill!
Get that in a PUG match!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 April 2014 - 06:33 AM.

[Jacob Side]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 06:33 AM, said:

My first drop with the Law sealed it for me!

My Slow as Moses LRM40 Atlas was doing its reign of terror, and a fast light came swooping in on me. At 9 FpS... I was Dead. Then I heard it for the first time, "Don't sweat it Joseph, I got 'im. Keep firing."

You will never get that team work and Camaraderie in PUGs.
You will never get things like, "Like a BOSS"

Shenanigan's Friday

2 drink Minimums

Kael Pershaw impressions and giving my black screen, directions that net us One more kill!
Get that in a PUG match!

Black screen kills & black screen base caps because of your unit mates being your guide dog, were the funniest thing ever.
You're not going to get that pugging it.

[Magna Canus]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

1) Sure, you can argue that, but if they just pressed the button without providing any reasoning we would (and have before) be smashing them for not listening. They can't win it seems.

2) OK, but if thats the case, why are "team players" upset about loosing players from their Guild? If they choose to do something else, it's no biggy by your description. Equally, if the game isn't suiting team players, why fight it, there's bigger fish to fry right? I suspect Team's are important to "team players" because of that bond and implied commitment, and thats why people care enough to represent it.

3) Both Luther and Mandela found ways to include the majorities to their cause to effect change. Check any of their "highlight reels" and you will see plenty of white kids sitting in protest in the crowd and so forth. They appealed to the majorities and they challenged views. I am not saying don't fight for your cause, I'm saying find ways to bring the 'majority' to your cause. Patting each other on the back and saying "yes you're right" or "no they're wrong" won't get anywhere.

4) It's really hard to do numbers (I did try) but even if I did, a guess is still a guess. We will probably never know but it still comes down to there is more money in the game development than "Founders"

5) Sure I get that, I see it all the time. I understand why some people feel the way they do. I'll try and be funny here and tell you my GF promises me some things which still haven't been delivered but hopefully next birthday right? What else do I do? I either move on, make the best of it or have a discussion about it

I think we can start moving this on to PM soon as we are pretty well off topic by now. Those #'s make it soooo much easier.

1) PGI just makes it too easy/appealing/necessary for people to pound them. Don't want the bulls horns? Don't wear a red shirt.

2) From what I gather is that MWO is sort of the "central focal point" of a number of teams that have been formed, specifically for MWO. While multi-game orgs like mine will survive the times, MWO specific units may not. Add to that the fact that many team players may have just been interested in MWO because of the IP and are "not the usual MMO player". Hell, I know I have been avoiding MMO's like the plague ever since they came out, but the BT IP managed to convince me to give it a go. The only reason why I decided to partake in a different MMO is because of the guys I have met in my unit.

3) Yup, there were plenty of white kids in those reels, no doubt. What those reels don't show is the bunch of people sitting at home that were against the whole thing. That's the funny thing about being the majority, your silence is consent enough to repress the minorities. Like I said, you have to stand up for what you want and represent. I guess we need to get some white kids (aka. solo's) to show off in our thread.

4) It really does not matter what the numbers come down to. A product was presented for sale, even if not finished (like the blueprint for an office building). You ordered a skyscraper and got a warehouse. Who would not be upset? I just hope it does not go so far that groups get desperate enough to purposely mass sync-drop and PUG-stomp just to kick solo's out of "their game" and force PGI to switch their focus. Kinda hard to concentrate on the average F2P player when goons are mobbing them out of the game.

5) Well, it is a lot easier to forgive and forget when it is someone you know and like/love. I think there are no further explanations needed there.

[Joseph Mallan]

Jacob Side, on 09 April 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

Black screen kills & black screen base caps because of your unit mates being your guide dog, were the funniest thing ever.
You're not going to get that pugging it.

guided to the Enemy Base! OMG That is awesome!

[Mystere]

Craig Steele, on 08 April 2014 - 09:07 PM, said:

Well actually, the answer is lots.

It was called the Ares Conventions.

Afaik it have never been fully detailed in all its articles but the broad brush includes things like no WoMD, fighting away from population centres, treatment of mercs and many others.

Well, I was referring to the period after the fall of the Star League, when the Ares Conventions went the way of the dodo bird during the First Succession War.

[Mystere]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:

LOL, oh OK.

Well we have agreed to disagree on that one before I suspect

No need to revisit,

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 05:31 AM, said:

Yes we have.

Well, I will induce such revisiting ( ) because when 3/3/3/3 arrives, the only thing many of us will have left are wonderful memories of battles we will never have again.

Edited by Mystere, 09 April 2014 - 07:06 AM.

[Mikros04]

Khobai, on 06 April 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

The problem with that idea is that it would take forever for matches to start in the group queue. Since youre splitting off 15% of the players and it has to find combinations of groups that add upto 12. Games would take FOREVER to start.

THIS!

and I think there would be the additional problem of teams consistently being only 10 or 11.

The "obvious" solution that people seem to think PGI is just too stupid to see, just won't work. Especially if this 15% figure is correct.

[Craig Steele]

Magnakanus, on 09 April 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

I think we can start moving this on to PM soon as we are pretty well off topic by now. Those #'s make it soooo much easier.

1) PGI just makes it too easy/appealing/necessary for people to pound them. Don't want the bulls horns? Don't wear a red shirt.

2) From what I gather is that MWO is sort of the "central focal point" of a number of teams that have been formed, specifically for MWO. While multi-game orgs like mine will survive the times, MWO specific units may not. Add to that the fact that many team players may have just been interested in MWO because of the IP and are "not the usual MMO player". Hell, I know I have been avoiding MMO's like the plague ever since they came out, but the BT IP managed to convince me to give it a go. The only reason why I decided to partake in a different MMO is because of the guys I have met in my unit.

3) Yup, there were plenty of white kids in those reels, no doubt. What those reels don't show is the bunch of people sitting at home that were against the whole thing. That's the funny thing about being the majority, your silence is consent enough to repress the minorities. Like I said, you have to stand up for what you want and represent. I guess we need to get some white kids (aka. solo's) to show off in our thread.

4) It really does not matter what the numbers come down to. A product was presented for sale, even if not finished (like the blueprint for an office building). You ordered a skyscraper and got a warehouse. Who would not be upset? I just hope it does not go so far that groups get desperate enough to purposely mass sync-drop and PUG-stomp just to kick solo's out of "their game" and force PGI to switch their focus. Kinda hard to concentrate on the average F2P player when goons are mobbing them out of the game.

5) Well, it is a lot easier to forgive and forget when it is someone you know and like/love. I think there are no further explanations needed there.

2) 84% of player activity says thats not the reason though?

3) Well idk what to say. If you think discussing it here in forums with people who already agree will get you what you want to see, so be it. Try it , I'll observe and maybe learn something new.

I sincerely doubt it will, and I sincerely doubt that any "middle ground" you compromise on will have relevance to the majority you are trying to convince. But I won't be upset if I'm wrong. As for your analogy, I promise you there were plenty of the majority speaking out, check the reels. There's all sorts of violence and fisticuffs going.

4) I guess thats the other thing. Team do enjoy advantages over random PUG's. They want to 'abuse' (my word) that by manipulating the system as you describe to effect their preferred game. PUG's scream, PUG's leave, less people to play and game eventually fails is certainly one option that might happen. But that's been the call out for every other change as well though. Everything PGI do is going to "wreck the game", it's in virtually every post snce I joined. Autocannons, wrecked the game. LRM's, wrecked the game (both times), jump jets, wrecked the game. Artillery, wrecked the game, Four man cap on teams, wrecked the game, Poor "Launch", wrecked the game. New Spawn points, wrecked the game, the list goes on and on.

Whether you like it or not, PGI have identified the solo PUG market as a demographic they wish to accommodate with this Module. All the anecdotal evidence in the world is not going to change their macro view of things. If you want to 'fight' they can fight back just as hard (probably harder). You might say you would embrace the challenge which was just what Germany, Great Britian and France all thought in 1914, in the end one side won but no one envisaged the cost.

I would say your analogy of MLK and Mandella has a better chance of success. Put your defenses down and find ways to embrace the other side (ie, truly understand what is driving them), then work towards your goal.

5) You don't know what she promised

[Mystere]

Mikros04, on 09 April 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

THIS!

and I think there would be the additional problem of teams consistently being only 10 or 11.

The "obvious" solution that people seem to think PGI is just too stupid to see, just won't work. Especially if this 15% figure is correct.

As long as solos are allowed to join the team queue, I do not think this will be a problem at all.

[Randalf Yorgen]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

2) 84% of player activity says thats not the reason though?

3) Well idk what to say. If you think discussing it here in forums with people who already agree will get you what you want to see, so be it. Try it , I'll observe and maybe learn something new.

I sincerely doubt it will, and I sincerely doubt that any "middle ground" you compromise on will have relevance to the majority you are trying to convince. But I won't be upset if I'm wrong. As for your analogy, I promise you there were plenty of the majority speaking out, check the reels. There's all sorts of violence and fisticuffs going.

4) I guess thats the other thing. Team do enjoy advantages over random PUG's. They want to 'abuse' (my word) that by manipulating the system as you describe to effect their preferred game. PUG's scream, PUG's leave, less people to play and game eventually fails is certainly one option that might happen. But that's been the call out for every other change as well though. Everything PGI do is going to "wreck the game", it's in virtually every post snce I joined. Autocannons, wrecked the game. LRM's, wrecked the game (both times), jump jets, wrecked the game. Artillery, wrecked the game, Four man cap on teams, wrecked the game, Poor "Launch", wrecked the game. New Spawn points, wrecked the game, the list goes on and on.

Whether you like it or not, PGI have identified the solo PUG market as a demographic they wish to accommodate with this Module. All the anecdotal evidence in the world is not going to change their macro view of things. If you want to 'fight' they can fight back just as hard (probably harder). You might say you would embrace the challenge which was just what Germany, Great Britian and France all thought in 1914, in the end one side won but no one envisaged the cost.

I would say your analogy of MLK and Mandella has a better chance of success. Put your defenses down and find ways to embrace the other side (ie, truly understand what is driving them), then work towards your goal.

5) You don't know what she promised

you're using the same info for your arguments. 84%, what's the exact parameters that this data is based upon? what is the margin of error... you have no idea knowing. the margin of error could be as high as 84% +/- but you are clinging to it pretty hard and telling the rest of us that we are wrong, or that we just don't understand. That armour getting heavy yet Mudhutt?


If she found out you were daring to go there and hint at "suggestive suggestions" on a game thread in a public forum and then left it up to the imagination of those who read it to know what you were talking about, you would be single faster than you could blink. If you really care for her you won't mention her ever again in that fashion on ANY public forum unless she is right there beside you when you do it and says it's ok to do.

[Amsro]

Randalf Yorgen, on 09 April 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

you're using the same info for your arguments. 84%, what's the exact parameters that this data is based upon? what is the margin of error... you have no idea knowing. the margin of error could be as high as 84% +/- but you are clinging to it pretty hard and telling the rest of us that we are wrong, or that we just don't understand. That armour getting heavy yet Mudhutt?


If she found out you were daring to go there and hint at "suggestive suggestions" on a game thread in a public forum and then left it up to the imagination of those who read it to know what you were talking about, you would be single faster than you could blink. If you really care for her you won't mention her ever again in that fashion on ANY public forum unless she is right there beside you when you do it and says it's ok to do.

Not to mention if there was a solo que patched into the game today that ALL of the arguments against any size team goes away.

And solo's have a place to play free of the "out to get me" team.

[Joseph Mallan]

Amsro, on 09 April 2014 - 09:16 AM, said:

Not to mention if there was a solo que patched into the game today that ALL of the arguments against any size team goes away.

And solo's have a place to play free of the "out to get me" team.

Monday Night Marik Mash ups????

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 April 2014 - 09:32 AM.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

2) 84% of player activity says thats not the reason though?

Whether you like it or not, PGI have identified the solo PUG market as a demographic they wish to accommodate with this Module.

So if either of those are 100% accurate and gold, then why aren't the solo pugs getting a solo que where the rainbows and sunshine are out all day!?

How many players play in 12 man? We still haven't received those numbers yet. 84% drop solo 16% drop 2-4 man ??% 12 man. I mean that is over 100% any way you cut it, so what do the numbers truly mean.?

Whether you like it or not PGI can't even identify their own plan.

With a solo que the evil premade goes away. Can't game the system. Problem solved both sides are happy.

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

Monday Night Mash ups????

No idea, yes! ?

[Joseph Mallan]

Sync drop will still be a threat.

[Amsro]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

Sync drop will still be a threat.

If you have a solo que and a separate team que then you wouldn't need to sync drop ever.

All bases covered in a simple idea that escaped PGI.