795 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

BLOOD WOLF, on 11 April 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

Nobody agrees with you except those that share the same opinion ...

Did I read that correctly?

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

Oh joy, so in order to purchase anything, we have to go drop 100 times with the lowest common denominator, and watch the tragically derpy zerg into the PUGZAPPER in order to have the same level of enjoyment that the drool on the joystick underhive get to enjoy just because they figured out how to download the game.

And that's for EVERY time we use an consumable.

But y'all can drop arty on your own team all day long, say oops, and get rewarded just for showing up.

Yeah, that seems fair.

Meanwhile we're struggling to keep our communities together, paying for websites and TeamSpeak server AND get to pay for that privilege too.

AWESOMESAUCE!

Posts like this don't serve your cause very well Roadbeer. You paint the PUG player as an undesireable element that someone of your lofty position should not have to interact with. That you might be tainted somehow. You're like the Agent in the Matrix, they masses are repugnant to you.

You do realise that those PUG's are your recruits of the future?

That every one starts there and then finds their way.

You might want to rethink how important the gameplay experience of those PUG's is because it's not all about you.

Whats hilarious is comparing this view to your post on the thread you linked

Roadbeer, on 10 April 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

Sure, I'll throw in http://www.house-marik.net
We are very accommodating and helpful to new players and players new to the team environment.
And we have the best space-bacon in the Inner Sphere.

So I guess very accommodating to new players as long as they know how to play the game like a Pro and are never make a mistake?

Also, I don't think its fair that you bring in external factors like 3rd party costs. They are not PGI's nor the PUG's responsibility, if you choose to use them that's your call. No one else should have to accommodate your expenses external to the game.

Edited by Craig Steele, 11 April 2014 - 08:03 PM.

[Roadbeer]

BLOOD WOLF, on 11 April 2014 - 07:58 PM, said:

i think you misunderstand, its common. The power of argument is to get someone who generally disagrees with your view to at least if not take the same stance or at least acknowledge it. Please, i would never say anything so idiotic. The only people who agree are those who want the same thing. For example, If Roadbeer/sandpit can get Craig to hope over to their side of the fence about the issue then they have made ground. Unless you use the i dont care and it's just an opinion/everyone is entitled to their opinion route. So fair they have not convinced anyone that their solutions and or ideas of improvement are they way to go/ EXCEPT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WANT THE SAME THING. Do you see where im getting at? so i think you face-palmed yourself.

Hey Cupcake
I'm not talking to convince you, I'm trying to convince PGI, since Niko has shown he's monitoring this thread.
I don't know why you and Craig are having such a hard time for this. I don't care about your opinion, I'm working to convince them that they're looking at their data wrong.
Which, wait for it...

So are those that are agreeing with me.

This isn't a political forum where you are trying to sway someone to your way of thinking or have a spirited debate, this is to provide the developers with feedback.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Mystere, on 11 April 2014 - 07:59 PM, said:

Did I read that correctly?

i explained above. Don't be simple minded.

[Artgathan]

BLOOD WOLF, on 11 April 2014 - 07:58 PM, said:

i think you misunderstand, its common. The power of argument is to get someone who generally disagrees with your view to at least if not take the same stance or at least acknowledge it. Please, i would never say anything so idiotic. The only people who agree are those who want the same thing. For example, If Roadbeer/sandpit can get Craig to hope over to their side of the fence about the issue then they have made ground. Unless you use the i dont care and it's just an opinion/everyone is entitled to their opinion route. So far they have not convinced anyone that their solutions and or ideas of improvement are they way to go/ EXCEPT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WANT THE SAME THING. Do you see where im getting at? so i think you face-palmed yourself.

It was a good effort at a comeback, but I don't think you pulled it off.

I understood what you were saying. What you said was (paraphrased): "No one agrees with you except the people that agree with you." Well duh.

[Daekar]

Artgathan, on 11 April 2014 - 07:38 PM, said:

Also, my stance on 4 as an abitrary number comes from the launch module update, which contains this:



So it's arbitrary.

Actually, you might want to check the dictionary - they had a reason for picking it, so it's not arbitrary. The important point is that they were debating whether or not to limit your team play to 3 or 4, not 7 or 11.

It still doesn't change the fact that evading the rules by sync dropping is cheating.
It still doesn't change the fact that you're not even sorry for ruining someone else's game experience just so you can have fun.
Sort of like ****, really... who cares about the rules and the other person if you're enjoying it? The ends justify the means, after all. Might makes right.

Honestly, how you all can sit there and spout this stuff just amazes me. Where were your parents when they were supposed to be teaching you about right and wrong? Do you have no conscience? Are you so selfish that you don't care how your actions impact others?

[BLOOD WOLF]

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

Hey Cupcake
I'm not talking to convince you, I'm trying to convince PGI, since Niko has shown he's monitoring this thread.
I don't know why you and Craig are having such a hard time for this. I don't care about your opinion, I'm working to convince them that they're looking at their data wrong.
Which, wait for it...

So are those that are agreeing with me.

This isn't a political forum where you are trying to sway someone to your way of thinking or have a spirited debate, this is to provide the developers with feedback.

key word is convince, and you have done poor in that regard. You should be looking to convince your peers, if you cant move me or craig; How can you move PGI?. Unfortunately for you arguments are made for the very purpose of swaying others. not to say other forms of literature dont.

[EXO-Scorpion]

Beat the Dead Horse More! . . . . . .

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 11 April 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

Posts like this don't serve your cause very well Roadbeer. You paint the PUG player as an undesireable element that someone of your lofty position should not have to interact with. That you might be tainted somehow. You're like the Agent in the Matrix, they masses are repugnant to you.

You do realise that those PUG's are your recruits of the future?

That every one starts there and then finds their way.

You might want to rethink how important the gameplay experience of those PUG's is because it's not all about you.

Whats hilarious is comparing this view to your post on the thread you linked



So I guess very accommodating to new players as long as they know how to play the game like a Pro and are never make a mistake?

Also, I don't think its fair that you bring in external factors like 3rd party costs. They are not PGI's nor the PUG's responsibility, if you choose to use them that's your call. No one else should have to accommodate your expenses external to the game.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Artgathan, on 11 April 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

It was a good effort at a comeback, but I don't think you pulled it off.

I understood what you were saying. What you said was (paraphrased): "No one agrees with you except the people that agree with you." Well duh.

The point is to make those who are on the opposite side agree. It's unlikely but say they were to convince 90% of the forums that their way was the right way. How do you think that would affect things, it's all food for thought.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 11 April 2014 - 08:07 PM.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 11 April 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

In what respect? I'm not sure what the question is?

what if they lifted group limitations?

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

Hey Cupcake
I'm not talking to convince you, I'm trying to convince PGI, since Niko has shown he's monitoring this thread.
I don't know why you and Craig are having such a hard time for this. I don't care about your opinion, I'm working to convince them that they're looking at their data wrong.
Which, wait for it...

So are those that are agreeing with me.

This isn't a political forum where you are trying to sway someone to your way of thinking or have a spirited debate, this is to provide the developers with feedback.

And herein lies the problem.

You don't have any data except anecdotal evidence and the cheers of people who already agree with you and you absolutely point blank refuse to accept the view of any one who challenges your view. They are just plain wrong.

PGI are sitting their with all their numbers and you're telling them that they are wrong and that to prove it, you're going to break the system.

That's about the sum of it.

Sandpit, on 11 April 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:

what if they lifted group limitations?

I'm still not sure what you mean, do you mean if PGI allowed groups of 5 - 11 in the queue?

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 11 April 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

And herein lies the problem.

You don't have any data except anecdotal evidence and the cheers of people who already agree with you and you absolutely point blank refuse to accept the view of any one who challenges your view. They are just plain wrong.

I've already given you my empirical evidence in this thread, another thread, to PGI on Twitter and in the thread down in OT "Paging Karl Berg...."

That's not anecdotal, it's empirical and its even raw data.

in short

shaddup

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

I've already given you my empirical evidence in this thread, another thread, to PGI on Twitter and in the thread down in OT "Paging Karl Berg...."

That's not anecdotal, it's empirical and its even raw data.

in short

shaddup

Your evidence was that House Marik Team Speak has seen a number of inactive accounts grow.

Thats evidence that people aren't using the House Marik Team Speak function, nothing more.

What else you got?

Oh thats right, some people told you they don't like the lack of team play in the game (presumably they mean 5 - 11 because the game does indeed support 2 / 3 / 4 man teams)

In short

stump up or shappup

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 11 April 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

Your evidence was that House Marik Team Speak has seen a number of inactive accounts grow.

Thats evidence that people aren't using the House Marik Team Speak function, nothing more.

What else you got?

Oh thats right, some people told you they don't like the lack of team play in the game (presumably they mean 5 - 11 because the game does indeed support 2 / 3 / 4 man teams)

In short

stump up or shappup

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 11 April 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

Posts like this don't serve your cause very well Roadbeer. You paint the PUG player as an undesireable element that someone of your lofty position should not have to interact with. That you might be tainted somehow. You're like the Agent in the Matrix, they masses are repugnant to you.

You do realise that those PUG's are your recruits of the future?

That every one starts there and then finds their way.

You might want to rethink how important the gameplay experience of those PUG's is because it's not all about you.

Whats hilarious is comparing this view to your post on the thread you linked



So I guess very accommodating to new players as long as they know how to play the game like a Pro and are never make a mistake?

Also, I don't think its fair that you bring in external factors like 3rd party costs. They are not PGI's nor the PUG's responsibility, if you choose to use them that's your call. No one else should have to accommodate your expenses external to the game.

Actually, what you're seeing is what happens when someone gets tired of watching a specific demo get consistently catered to at the sacrifice of others. Some of us are all out of sympathy. We've said for months (years now?) that PUGs have every right to play just as we do.
Look back through this thread, read the responses from the "solo camp", read back through other threads on the same topic. You can clearly see that the ones jumping up and down and saying things like "play my way or go elsewhere" are generally those that drop solo.

The groups and units? not so much.
We want solo players in the game, we want them to be able to play and enjoy it, but we want to do the same thing. We aren't the ones clamoring for them to leave. Or at least we weren't. Some of us have finally gotten to the point where we'd rather just say well f**k you too buddy, I don't care if you enjoy the game or not because we're sick and tired of watching this game get watered down, dumbed down, and easy buttons handed out. We're sick and tired of being a scapegoat because Joe Derp can't figure out how to play on a team. We're completely apathetic at this point because if we don't start raising a voice and being vocal then the game WE want to play will go away.

What you're really seeing is some of us starting to use the same tactics and arguments that the other side has been using for years now. Instead of sitting here and just plugging along now WE are being vocal, raising a fuss, and making sure that people understand that 14% is completely inacuurate, decisions based on it are fallacies, and if WE don't start getting a few concessions then we'll take our money elsewhere.

There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't just simply be able to join a team and play just like solo and casuals. Show me one other game (successful that is) with a persistent campaign/universe, that requires you to play as part of a team, that limits your ability to play the game, forces you to pay to play, and discourages teams.
Before they're tossed out there
WoT
***
War Thunder
Do NOT count as there's no persistent campaign and universe to play in, they're just stand alone matches with no campaign to concern themselves with so they do not count.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 11 April 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

I'm still not sure what you mean, do you mean if PGI allowed groups of 5 - 11 in the queue?

Yes

and just FYI
Neither side has anything aside from anecdotal evidence

and if you REALLY want to lean on the "14%" statistics? You should go back and read the responses to that thread. I'm not going to rehash them or type them out again but needless to say those of us that understand stats and data collection ripped that 14% to shreds because it was poorly collected, the data was skewed, and there were a LOT of outliers that affected that data. Not to mention the simple fact that you don't know how players were counted.

If I drop 2 games solo and then 10 group which of that % did I fall into?
What about the solo droppers trying to sync drop because they CAN'T join a group that's already at the 4 man limit

That's just 2 quick examples of why and how that 14% simply wasn't accurate

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

I agree, what you submitted as "empirical evidence" is an obtuse angle.

Nothing else to say I guess.

[BLOOD WOLF]

anecdotal Evidence, LOL.

[Roadbeer]

BLOOD WOLF, on 11 April 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

anecdotal Evidence, LOL.

Not entirely sure which word you found entertaining
anecdotal or Evidence
Keep banging the rocks together, you'll get there

Edited by Roadbeer, 11 April 2014 - 08:27 PM.