536 replies to this topic

[Nightfire]

dimstog, on 26 April 2014 - 12:20 AM, said:

I gather that with the advent of the new MM, you and your mature friends that have kids in high school, will drop with your elite unit in private matches only so that you can hone your elite skills against other mature people with elite skills that have kids in high school, right ?

Or are you gonna drop in pugs as well, from time to time, just to roflstomp some other, immature, anti social guys that don't have kids in high school and just want to have a fair chance at shooting robots among THEMSELVES ? How can those guys protect themselves from you and your friends ?

Because that's what the original post was about.

Let me give you some home truth here. Private matches will see precious little use beyond tournaments. The rest of us and our "mature friends that have kids in high school" will continue to drop in the public queue because we are too untrustworthy to have rewards in private matches. Private matches are a money extortion that give nothing in return other than playing with our friends.

• We (pre-mades) can do that now in public matches and get C-Bills and XP.
  
• We will continue to do it in public matches once private matches come out because we will get C-Bills and XP.
  
• The Sync-droppers will continue do it in public matches once 3/3/3/3 comes out because they will get C-Bills and XP.

PGI completely fail to grasp that instead of fighting against people playing in larger groups so bitterly they should embrace it and control it.
Complaining about it won't stop these things from happening. The more PGI attempts to stop people dropping in groups, the more groups will find ways to circumvent those restrictions.

Jun Watarase, on 25 April 2014 - 03:29 AM, said:

Sigh as i write this at the moment there is a 4 man dropping with meta builds and they keep getting on the same team with at least one more 4 man. Full of PPC/AC builds and LRM boats. Pretty sure they are sync dropping.

Every game they are in is a 12-2 curb stomp.

Worse part is they spam advertising links for some twitch tv stream and trash talk. Oh you know the usual excuses premades use to justify their behaviour, "get some friends" etc. So they stream them curb stomping some randoms just to fuel their ego...unbelivable.

I really wish we werent forced to play with people like these....

Sigh as i write this at the moment there is a bunch of scrubs on my team and they keep reappearing. Full of PPC/AC builds and LRM boats and not a clue how to use them.

Every game they are in with us is a 12-2 curb stomp.

Worse part is they think they know what the hell they are doing and try to tell my group what to do! Oh you know the usual excuses PUGs use to justify their behavior, "damn premades! It's all their fault!" etc. So they continue to stop in choke points, block avenues of retreat, single file into choke points/Kill boxes and them blame everyone else for their poor performance just to fuel their ego...unbelievable.

I really wish we weren't forced to play with scrubs like these....

Every story has another side to it.

[Jun Watarase]

Tabu 73, on 26 April 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

Yeah, except that never happens.



You're right maybe I don't. When I read the OP and many of the responses that followed I read it as a bunch of people complaining about premades using meta builds and how they're ruining the game. Oh and in case you failed to realize, all premades that I've ever dropped with or against have used one form of comms or another e.g. TS, RC, or Skype which is you know... how they coordinate their fire... sound familiar..? Otherwise why form a premade at all if you can't communicate with each other?
I realize now that this thread, and others like it are just ways for people like you to troll the internet and create general unrest amongst the players of this community. You seem to thrive on this kind of divisiveness and so - I wash my hands of this conversation.

Live long, and prosper

So...in other words theres nothing wrong with premades dropping in meta builds and runing the game for 16 other players who are forced to play with them, when if given the choice, they would tell them to GTFO like what happens in tabletop BT. Interesting logic.

You dont see this kind of behaviour in real life because well, there are actual consequences for it (see first few panels in the OP pic).

If you were to act like that in real life...pretty soon nobody would want to play with you except for a small group of people like you. Imagine walking into a game store and the dozen other people there just give you dirty looks and avoid you because you do nothing but use meta builds. Its actual consequences for your actions....which dont exist on the internet or in MWO.

What this game needs....what any online game needs really....are actual consequences for your actions. You are free to use whatever builds you want, do whatever you want....if you can deal with the results of it. People would start acting like actual human beings in MWO once they realised that the only people willing to play with them were others running the same meta builds and the same trash talking about how "pro" they are. Some of you who played EA MPBT 3025 may remember the lobby system it had...you werent forced in any way to play against people you didnt like. And some groups quickly gained notoriety and people would just leave when they showed up, which left them standing around dumbfounded. I remember a certain davion unit who would never drop unless they had a numbers/tonnage advantage over their opponents...guess what happened to them?

Imagine a 4 man with meta builds dropping into a random match only to be vote kicked because "sorry guys we want an actual game here, not a 12-0 pub stomp". I would literally pay to see that. Or some kind of blacklist function so you had 0% chance of being dropped into a match with any of the people on your blacklist. If someone was running a meta build, you could just put them on your blacklist and never ever have to see them again.

Instead we are forced to spend our valuable time in a match with people who barely qualify as human beings.

Edited by Jun Watarase, 27 April 2014 - 03:19 AM.

[NeonKnight]

Jun Watarase, on 27 April 2014 - 02:47 AM, said:

Imagine a 4 man with meta builds dropping into a random match only to be vote kicked because "sorry guys we want an actual game here, not a 12-0 pub stomp". I would literally pay to see that. Or some kind of blacklist function so you had 0% chance of being dropped into a match with any of the people on your blacklist.

Instead we are forced to spend our valuable time in a match with people who barely qualify as human beings.

But you'd never find a match then

[Davers]

Landron1979, on 27 April 2014 - 12:41 AM, said:

And lastly to touch on the R&R system that was removed because people were abusing the mechanic of free repairs to 75% this could have been easily fixed by making them have to fully repair a mech before putting it back into another match, much like they do in World Of Tanks or War Thunder. They also had many people complaining about running out of c-bills when the R&R system was on, which could've been fixed by simply slightly increasing the rewards or salvage component from matches.

No, it was removed because players in premades with premium time and Hero mechs could run whatever they pleased and the free to play solo players were forced to use weaker builds. I had no problem using XL engines and expensive ammo based weapons and everything else that R&R was supposed to curtail, and I bought and equipped dozens of mechs with those loadouts when R&R was in place. It was totally Pay2Win and Premade2Win.

[Nightfire]

Davers, on 27 April 2014 - 06:34 AM, said:

No, it was removed because players in premades with premium time and Hero mechs could run whatever they pleased and the free to play solo players were forced to use weaker builds. I had no problem using XL engines and expensive ammo based weapons and everything else that R&R was supposed to curtail, and I bought and equipped dozens of mechs with those loadouts when R&R was in place. It was totally Pay2Win and Premade2Win.

Bollocks! Pure Bollocks!
The effect R&R had was there was a price tag attached to running certain weapons. LRMs and, to a lesser extent, ballistics had ammunition that cost. Armour cost, especially Ferro.

The net effect was if you wanted to make money then you ran money making builds.

• Light mechs were cheaper to repair. It cost to run and repair Assaults!
  
• Light mechs and had less armour and were cheaper to repair. It cost to run Assaults and Ferro-Fibrous!
  
• Standard engines were cheaper and cost less to repair. It cost to run XL Engines!
  
  • Running standard engines also reduced speeds and decreased weapon load-outs!
• Energy Weapons were cheap to run because they had no ammo. It cost to run LRM or AC/20 boats!
  
• Cheaper weapons like Medium Lasers were cheap to repair. It cost to run the big, heavy weapons like ER-PPCs or Gauss!

My money maker was a 6xMedium Laser Jenner and it was awesome fun!

What is it you see today? LRM-pocolypse so that LRMs were nerfed. PPC+Gauss meta so PPC's had a heat nerf and Guass were given a charge mechanism? Assaults everywhere so that 3/3/3/3 is being brought in?

R&R didn't omit these meta problems BUT they did curtail continuous abuse of them. At some point everyone looked to their money maker mech instead of their Atlas just because running that missile boat cost more than it was bringing in. If you wanted to play to win at all costs, it cost you C-Bills to do it!

Edited by Nightfire, 27 April 2014 - 06:58 AM.

[Davers]

Nightfire, on 27 April 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

Bollocks! Pure Bollocks!
The effect R&R had was there was a price tag attached to running certain weapons. LRMs and, to a lesser extent, ballistics had ammunition that cost. Armour cost, especially Ferro.

The net effect was if you wanted to make money then you ran money making builds.

• Light mechs were cheaper to repair. It cost to run and repair Assaults!
  
• Light mechs and had less armour and were cheaper to repair. It cost to run Assaults and Ferro-Fibrous!
  
• Standard engines were cheaper and cost less to repair. It cost to run XL Engines!
  
  • Running standard engines also reduced speeds and decreased weapon load-outs!
• Energy Weapons were cheap to run because they had no ammo. It cost to run LRM or AC/20 boats!
  
• Cheaper weapons like Medium Lasers were cheap to repair. It cost to run the big, heavy weapons like ER-PPCs or Gauss!

My money maker was a 6xMedium Laser Jenner and it was awesome fun!



What is it you see today? LRM-pocolypse so that LRMs were nerfed. PPC+Gauss meta so PPC's had a heat nerf and Guass were given a charge mechanism? Assaults everywhere so that 3/3/3/3 is being brought in?

R&R didn't omit these meta problems BUT they did curtail continuous abuse of them. At some point everyone looked to their money maker mech instead of their Atlas just because running that missile boat cost more than it was bringing in. If you wanted to play to win at all costs, it cost you C-Bills to do it!

My experience was definitely different from yours. I ran whatever I wanted and never had to worry about Cbills. And I ALWAYS did full R&R.

I also notice you are a Founder, so when R&R was in you had premium time, a mountain of MC, and 4 Cbill boosting mechs to start with while new and F2P players were stuck using stock mechs. Not the Champion mechs they have now, but 'SHS and 2 tons of ammo for their primary weapon stored in their side torso' stock mechs. R&R only hurt new players and F2P players. It's removal showed PGI's commitment to not letting MW:O become P2W.

Edited by Davers, 27 April 2014 - 09:23 AM.

[Jun Watarase]

In beta i did some simple maths that showed it was impossible for a LRM user to get back enough to replace just the cost of ammo, even if all LRMs hit and did full damage.

[Roland]

Jun Watarase, on 27 April 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

In beta i did some simple maths that showed it was impossible for a LRM user to get back enough to replace just the cost of ammo, even if all LRMs hit and did full damage.

Your math was wrong then, because I periodically ran pure LRM mechs and still made money.

[Landron1979]

By the way, there were no "Hero" or "Champion" mechs back when R&R was in. Only the four founders mechs, and that was a reward for those people who, you know, gave money to the developers so that they could make the core game that we know today.

And just because I had the Founders mechs didn't mean that I ran only them either. I played the other chassis because I wanted to see what was good or bad and what I could do with them.

Also, Not everybody had activated their premium time either because they wanted to save it for launch.

Edited by Landron1979, 27 April 2014 - 10:22 PM.

[Demuder]

Nightfire, on 27 April 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

Let me give you some home truth here. Private matches will see precious little use beyond tournaments. The rest of us and our "mature friends that have kids in high school" will continue to drop in the public queue because we are too untrustworthy to have rewards in private matches. Private matches are a money extortion that give nothing in return other than playing with our friends.

• We (pre-mades) can do that now in public matches and get C-Bills and XP.
  
• We will continue to do it in public matches once private matches come out because we will get C-Bills and XP.
  
• The Sync-droppers will continue do it in public matches once 3/3/3/3 comes out because they will get C-Bills and XP.

PGI completely fail to grasp that instead of fighting against people playing in larger groups so bitterly they should embrace it and control it.

Complaining about it won't stop these things from happening. The more PGI attempts to stop people dropping in groups, the more groups will find ways to circumvent those restrictions.

Hm, I don't see where you disagree with me then. What you are saying is that the current and future 3/3/3/3 system will continue to promote uneven matches and that is in now way the solo or team players' fault.

Thus, anyone wanting to play matches on an even ground, is hardly a "whiner", are they ?

[Flaming oblivion]

If somebody doesn't like the truth or wants the current system to continue because they believe the 12-0 stomp was purely down to there skill and not a completely broken system Giving some 1 a gun against 6 kids with knifes , wonder who will win ? They're going to use the word whiner.

[Solahma]

Solahma, on 26 April 2014 - 01:12 AM, said:

why haven't you guys started a "Play 4 fun" league that caters to players who aren't willing to adapt to current gameplay mechanics, teamwork, or social interaction.... oh wait, that last part defeats the purpose of a league doesn't it....

back to the drawing board!

Jun Watarase, on 26 April 2014 - 02:19 AM, said:

The majority should cater to the whim of the minority. Thats a very interesting logic.

The irony of this response... Forum QQers always represent the majority

I can't speak for the majority of MWO players, but I play about equal solo-drops and group drops with friends in TS3. My gaming experience in both is about the same. We win some and we lose some. We roll one team and get stomped by another. I don't dispute that playing in a group usually has advantages. You seem to demonize every 4-man premade. According to your OP, all premade groups are the same, try-hard, punk-ass kids. Quite an assumption, let me make one of my own. You obviously don't play with groups of people in teamspeak and thus you have no right to characterize groups of people in a community you know nothing about. When I drop with friends, we are usually testing new builds every day. Some are fun, some are effective, some are hilarious. We try to utilize teamwork, but it's certainly not to the level of a competitive team. We are simply a group of people getting together to play a game and have fun.

EDIT: In addition, I NEVER see these "12-0 multiple times in a row". I rarely see something worse than a 12-4 game during a multi-hour session of playing MWO. I'd say the average that I see is 12-6 nowadays. The lowest on any particular day might be a single 12-0, 12-1, or 12-2 game and the highest might be as good as a 12-11 or 12-10 game. Like I said, most games that I see are around 12-6 either loss or win. Hell, I just browsed over most of my 1000+ games and most of my documented games were between 12-6 or closer. Sure there are some 12-2 games in there as well, but it's definitely NOT the majority of my games.

So how often do these "ROFLstomps" REALLY happen for you? Maybe you should upload some consecutive game W/L numbers or make a new thread in the Barracks area to get peoples data collected for reference.

Edited by Solahma, 28 April 2014 - 07:41 AM.

[Bagheera]

RAM, on 25 April 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

I always thought it was because you constantly disconnected.


Yet that is exactly what you do.

Junning: alive and well in table top too!


RAM
ELH

From the guy who spent most of closed beta pretending to be a disconnected Atlas sitting on base, letting his team die, and hoping he can take out the damaged opponents. Lol.

[Jun Watarase]

Quote

Forum QQers always represent the majority

Do you have any non-anecdotal proof that the forum users are not a good representative of the population?

Why don't we start a poll and see how many people vote for "fair and balanced matches" instead of "12-0 pub stomping with 4 man premades using metabuilds against random newbies in trial mechs".

I think its quite ridiculous to claim that the "majority" of the population prefer the latter.

Griefers ruining the game are in the minority, that is a fact and i hope i dont have to explain why (because that would imply you dont have basic common sense).

If they were in the majority, most players would be dropping in 4 mans with meta builds, instead its usually a handful of players every match (and the same handful).

Edited by Jun Watarase, 28 April 2014 - 10:56 PM.

[Nightfire]

Jun Watarase, on 28 April 2014 - 10:55 PM, said:

Do you have any non-anecdotal proof that the forum users are not a good representative of the population?

Actually you are the one making the claim, by inference, that "the forum users are a good representative of the population" and as such the burden of proof falls on you to prove that they are.

What was implied (well one of the several implied points) by the statement "Forum QQers always represent the majority" is that all we really know, as far as we can know anything, is that according to PGI's stats, most players do NOT frequent the forums. As a self selecting sample bound by a common trait, that being our proclivity to frequent the forums, we are all likely to share common traits that brought us here. The deduction being no, we cannot in any way assume that this minority that is self selected by a correlating (possibly causal) trait is in any way representative of the whole population of MWO players (aside from us all being MWO players).

The burden of proof for the contrary is upon you!

Quote

Why don't we start a poll and see how many people vote for "fair and balanced matches" instead of "12-0 pub stomping with 4 man premades using metabuilds against random newbies in trial mechs".

I think its quite ridiculous to claim that the "majority" of the population prefer the latter.

No one made such a claim. To disprove a theory/claim is not to support the opposite. To think so is projection and straw-manning at its finest.

If you want to actually support that claim then petition PGI for a copy of all MWO players contact information, get a sound methodology together, select a suitably sized random sample from said list and get some data you truly can say is representative. Good luck with that however. Those privacy act laws can make things like this difficult to run.

All you can really claim at this point is YOU and a few (in the context of the entire player base) people you know and talk to are unhappy with whatever QQ you happen to be championing atm. That's OK but don't claim your feelings are representative of some sort of statement of fact or statistical truth. They simply aren't and will never be evidence of such.

Quote

Griefers ruining the game are in the minority, that is a fact and i hope i dont have to explain why (because that would imply you dont have basic common sense).

If they were in the majority, most players would be dropping in 4 mans with meta builds, instead its usually a handful of players every match (and the same handful).

Ah, the appeal to the authority of common sense, which appears to not be very common.
Translation: "What I believe and feel here is fact and if you dispute this in any way, I will shame you!"
You feel, you believe, it your estimation that "Griefers ruining the game are in the minority". You have no standard definition of a "Griefer" and if you did, no objective way of proving this statement. Your Null theory that you present in support of your theory doesn't follow. What if "Griefers" simply aren't successful every run? What if you're just lucky(?) with how many you run into? What if a "Griefer" is just someone who out plays you in a given match and you feel frustrated and angry?

I get that you're passionate and frustrated but your arguments are not the objective, rational observations you seem to think they are. In fact they are the most emotive and subjective arguments served on several logical fallacies, most notably the appeal to emotions and appeal to authority.

[Craig Steele]

Nightfire, on 28 April 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:

Actually you are the one making the claim, by inference, that "the forum users are a good representative of the population" and as such the burden of proof falls on you to prove that they are.

What was implied (well one of the several implied points) by the statement "Forum QQers always represent the majority" is that all we really know, as far as we can know anything, is that according to PGI's stats, most players do NOT frequent the forums. As a self selecting sample bound by a common trait, that being our proclivity to frequent the forums, we are all likely to share common traits that brought us here. The deduction being no, we cannot in any way assume that this minority that is self selected by a correlating (possibly causal) trait is in any way representative of the whole population of MWO players (aside from us all being MWO players).

The burden of proof for the contrary is upon you!



No one made such a claim. To disprove a theory/claim is not to support the opposite. To think so is projection and straw-manning at its finest.

If you want to actually support that claim then petition PGI for a copy of all MWO players contact information, get a sound methodology together, select a suitably sized random sample from said list and get some data you truly can say is representative. Good luck with that however. Those privacy act laws can make things like this difficult to run.

All you can really claim at this point is YOU and a few (in the context of the entire player base) people you know and talk to are unhappy with whatever QQ you happen to be championing atm. That's OK but don't claim your feelings are representative of some sort of statement of fact or statistical truth. They simply aren't and will never be evidence of such.



Ah, the appeal to the authority of common sense, which appears to not be very common.
Translation: "What I believe and feel here is fact and if you dispute this in any way, I will shame you!"
You feel, you believe, it your estimation that "Griefers ruining the game are in the minority". You have no standard definition of a "Griefer" and if you did, no objective way of proving this statement. Your Null theory that you present in support of your theory doesn't follow. What if "Griefers" simply aren't successful every run? What if you're just lucky(?) with how many you run into? What if a "Griefer" is just someone who out plays you in a given match and you feel frustrated and angry?

I get that you're passionate and frustrated but your arguments are not the objective, rational observations you seem to think they are. In fact they are the most emotive and subjective arguments served on several logical fallacies, most notably the appeal to emotions and appeal to authority.

This seems pretty well argued if somewhat personal and dismissive of the person / post it is in response to. It basically reads as your personal experience is only a small sliver of the total picture so don't portray it as any more than a minor thing.

My question is then, is it equally valid of these similar personal experiences?

Nightfire, on 27 April 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

Let me give you some home truth here. Private matches will see precious little use beyond tournaments. The rest of us and our "mature friends that have kids in high school" will continue to drop in the public queue because we are too untrustworthy to have rewards in private matches. Private matches are a money extortion that give nothing in return other than playing with our friends.

• We (pre-mades) can do that now in public matches and get C-Bills and XP.
  
• We will continue to do it in public matches once private matches come out because we will get C-Bills and XP.
  
• The Sync-droppers will continue do it in public matches once 3/3/3/3 comes out because they will get C-Bills and XP.

PGI completely fail to grasp that instead of fighting against people playing in larger groups so bitterly they should embrace it and control it.

Complaining about it won't stop these things from happening. The more PGI attempts to stop people dropping in groups, the more groups will find ways to circumvent those restrictions.

Nightfire, on 27 April 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

Bollocks! Pure Bollocks!
The effect R&R had was there was a price tag attached to running certain weapons. LRMs and, to a lesser extent, ballistics had ammunition that cost. Armour cost, especially Ferro.

The net effect was if you wanted to make money then you ran money making builds.

• Light mechs were cheaper to repair. It cost to run and repair Assaults!
  
• Light mechs and had less armour and were cheaper to repair. It cost to run Assaults and Ferro-Fibrous!
  
• Standard engines were cheaper and cost less to repair. It cost to run XL Engines!
  
  • Running standard engines also reduced speeds and decreased weapon load-outs!
• Energy Weapons were cheap to run because they had no ammo. It cost to run LRM or AC/20 boats!
  
• Cheaper weapons like Medium Lasers were cheap to repair. It cost to run the big, heavy weapons like ER-PPCs or Gauss!

My money maker was a 6xMedium Laser Jenner and it was awesome fun!


What is it you see today? LRM-pocolypse so that LRMs were nerfed. PPC+Gauss meta so PPC's had a heat nerf and Guass were given a charge mechanism? Assaults everywhere so that 3/3/3/3 is being brought in?

R&R didn't omit these meta problems BUT they did curtail continuous abuse of them. At some point everyone looked to their money maker mech instead of their Atlas just because running that missile boat cost more than it was bringing in. If you wanted to play to win at all costs, it cost you C-Bills to do it!

[Nightfire]

Craig Steele, on 29 April 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

This seems pretty well argued if somewhat personal and dismissive of the person / post it is in response to. It basically reads as your personal experience is only a small sliver of the total picture so don't portray it as any more than a minor thing.

My question is then, is it equally valid of these similar personal experiences?

I freely admit that I hold those as the opinions and anecdotal experiences of myself and those I come in contact with.
If you note:

• The first quote is stated as:
  
  • Fact that is easily provable. Premades do drop in public queues.
    
  • Fact that is easily provable: Private lobbies will not have rewards and Paul has publicly stated this is because they would otherwise be exploited.
    
  • Fact that is easily provable: Pre-made groups can indeed drop in public queues for C-Bills and rewards
    
  • Prediction: Private Lobbies as currently presented will fail. Never stated as fact but rather as a predictor. I will admit I am taking a risk of being wrong but that is my belief.
    
  • Prediction: 3/3/3/3 will allow Pre-Mades to better sync, even if it is against each other. Never stated as fact but rather as a predictor. I will admit I am taking a risk of being wrong but that is my belief.
    
  • Statement of belief: I don't talk for everyone but I do talk for my perception of PGI based on the evidence of their actions and statements. This is more than anecdotal evidence.
    
  • Statement of Fact that is slightly over-reached: Got me here. I have no evidence that complaining about things on the forums will not change them. In fact there is actual evidence that complaining about things rationally will not get you anywhere but complaining emotionally will. I'll admit this failure in full reasoning on this point.

• The second quote, in regards to when R&R was implemented:
  
  • Fact that is easily provable.Certain weapons did have price tags to running them when R&R was implemented. Particularly heavy ammo dependent weapons.
    
  • Fact that is easily provable: Light mechs were cheaper to repair. It cost to run and repair Assaults!
    
  • Fact that is easily provable: Light mechs and had less armour and were cheaper to repair. It cost to run Assaults and Ferro-Fibrous!
    
  • Fact that is easily provable: Standard engines were cheaper and cost less to repair. It cost to run XL Engines!
    
  • Fact that is easily provable: Running standard engines also reduced speeds and decreased weapon load-outs!
    
  • Fact that is easily provable: Energy Weapons were cheap to run because they had no ammo. It cost to run LRM or AC/20 boats!
    
  • Fact that is easily provable: Cheaper weapons like Medium Lasers were cheap to repair. It cost to run the big, heavy weapons like ER-PPCs or Gauss!
    
  • Fact that is easily provable and personal experience: My money maker was a 6xMedium Laser Jenner and it was awesome fun! This however wasn't stated as the reality for everyone.
    
  • Fact that is easily provable: we did have (several) a LRM-pocolypse and LRMs were nerfed.
    
  • Fact that is easily provable: PPC+Gauss meta existed and PPC's did get a heat nerf and Guass were given a charge mechanism.
    
  • Fact that is easily provable: Heavier Weight classes are over-represented and 3/3/3/3 is being brought in to fix exactly this.
    
  • Opinion but based on previous observation: R&R didn't omit these meta problems BUT they did curtail continuous abuse of them.

So you got me! You are correct! Complaining on the forums has indeed been shown to have things changed in the game. In my opinion always for the negative but hey! The evidence does show that complaining on the forums has in some cases been shown to work so point taken, I will cease over generalizing.

Though you still haven't shown where I was placing my opinions as speaking for the majority ... or are you still upset that I called you out on your anti-group bias in that other thread so you came back to berate me some?

[Craig Steele]

Nightfire, on 29 April 2014 - 12:48 AM, said:

I freely admit that I hold those as the opinions and anecdotal experiences of myself and those I come in contact with.


So you got me! You are correct! Complaining on the forums has indeed been shown to have things changed in the game. In my opinion always for the negative but hey! The evidence does show that complaining on the forums has in some cases been shown to work so point taken, I will cease over generalizing.


Though you still haven't shown where I was placing my opinions as speaking for the majority ... or are you still upset that I called you out on your anti-group bias in that other thread so you came back to berate me some?

Ummm, I am actually a different person, not the guy you were addressing. I wasn't defending or attacking either side of the conversation. Think I actually complimented you though didn't I?

I just wanted to know if I should hold your previously stated opinions / views to the same standard as your last post.

I don't remember you from any other thread but you may have me confused with someone anyway as I have never professed an "Anit-Group" affiliation. I do know a few people have tried to tell me that's my view because they (presumably) needed to have someone to argue with for them to be 'right', but it's never been something I have put out there.

Thanks anyway for the clarity.

EDIT: If all those things are easily provable, why don't you prove them instead of making assertions?

Edited by Craig Steele, 29 April 2014 - 12:58 AM.

[Nightfire]

Craig Steele, on 29 April 2014 - 12:56 AM, said:

Ummm, I am actually a different person, not the guy you were addressing. I wasn't defending or attacking either side of the conversation. Think I actually complimented you though didn't I?

It is quite possible I am mistaken. I don't spend a lot of time on these forums and some names do blur.
If I am mistaken then I sincerely apologise for my snark. I may have a bitter tone to what I write but I like to believe that I am a man of not only my convictions but standards.

Quote

I just wanted to know if I should hold your previously stated opinions / views to the same standard as your last post.

Always! I am not immune from making outlandish statements but I also don't view said statements as problems in and of themselves. Feel free to call me out whenever I start claiming to speak for the majority or making statements as if they were facts without any real grounds or foundation.

Quote

I don't remember you from any other thread but you may have me confused with someone anyway as I have never professed an "Anit-Group" affiliation. I do know a few people have tried to tell me that's my view because they (presumably) needed to have someone to argue with for them to be 'right', but it's never been something I have put out there.

Again, if I have you confused with someone else then I apologise. I know people don't see those words on these forums often but I feel it important enough that when a man is on the wrong, he should have the conviction to admit it and learn from it.
Even if you were, you are acting civilly enough here that you don't deserve the snark.

Quote

Thanks anyway for the clarity.

EDIT: If all those things are easily provable, why don't you prove them instead of making assertions?

Simple, brevity. Those example statements are commonly accepted as fact (though I know truisms are dangerous) and to link back every one of those claims is significantly arduous. I have done so in the past though and spending 45 minutes writing a post is not a constructive use of my time.
If anyone cares to legitimately challenge those facts (as opposed to trolling) then I am happy to support the facts in dispute with links.

Truth be told though, there are many problems with MWO game play that make it difficult for new players to remain. The biggest issue though is what I see as the community's (and I believe PGI's) fixation on the symptoms of those problems rather than the underlying causes.

[Craig Steele]

Nightfire, on 29 April 2014 - 01:14 AM, said:

*saving space*

OK, maybe it was me anyway. You may have "called me out" but if you did I would have said you're wrong, cause it's never been true

I'm not going to jump in and pull you to pieces, but there are several of your statements that read to me as just as anectdotal / personal as the guy you were conversing with.

Ergo to my read at least, I can treat both sides of the conversation according to my own values or adopt your post that I quoted and apply equally to both sides.

You are both right though, the new player experience is ordinary in the extreme.