183 replies to this topic

[Almond Brown]

SJ SCP Wolf, on 03 March 2015 - 05:55 PM, said:

Negative. Trials are for rank or training, or the settling of grievance or just for plain fun within the clan unit. A tradition based in lore that units going back as far as table top have used in the clans. In every previous incarnation of Mechwarrior this has been possible. Without having to pay for it on top of your already invested cost. This should be a privilege wrapped into a revenue per account not a pay to play week by week or annually.

Is a simple solution that hard to envision really. Attack a CW planet, spawn camp the IS Newbs that show up to death and then have the map to yourselves for 25 minutes to do as you please. Only requires 12 and you can evaluate 3-4 at the same time. Think MechWarrior. Don't whine needlessly. Ffs.

No Charge too.

Edited by Almond Brown, 04 March 2015 - 09:59 AM.

[Mercules]

Sylonce, on 04 March 2015 - 09:48 AM, said:

I may indulge in reading some more, sure. But if I may point out, there are many businesses similar to the PGI model that doesn't require nickel and diming little things like this in order to make money. The fact that it's good for the bottom line doesn't necessarily make it a good thing for the customer. I'm not challenging PGI's policy on this, as like I said, I don't really care, but it raises an eyebrow seeing people defend it.

So, would it raise your eyebrows if I showed up to a paintball court and had to pay for myself and 1 other friend to rent the court when on league nights your 5 man team can just show up and only buy paint and air and not have to pay for time on the court? Because it makes total sense for that business to charge private individuals rental fees on their space that could be going to 8-12 people who they would make money off of from selling paint, air, food, drink or even other accessories.

[Wingbreaker]

Sylonce, on 04 March 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

Can you explain the additional server requirement in more detail? I don't get how a player deciding to play privately as opposed to publicly would require additional servers.

I am by no means an expert on this sort of thing, so if someone can explain this better, have at.

MWO is server authoritative, rather than peer-to-peer. IE, the clients are connecting to a centralized server system which collates the information and reports to the clients as necessary as we play the game. These server systems are the property of PGI and we have no access to copies of them or any way to 'rent' private servers such as in fps games.

[Egomane]

Sylonce, on 04 March 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

Can you explain the additional server requirement in more detail? I don't get how a player deciding to play privately as opposed to publicly would require additional servers.

Every match is a single server instance. Independent of the number of players involved in the match. The more matches that are created, the more instances need to be generated. The more instances that need to be generated, the higher the server load.

Usually a provider has enough servers to handle his product at usual loads, with some spare room for spikes. If you now increase the load of the servers by creating more instances for single player duels in MWO, you increase the need for more servers, thereby increasing the cost of the hardware, the workload to set them up and to maintain them and the costs to keep them running.

Edited by Egomane, 04 March 2015 - 10:01 AM.

[Mystere]

Sylonce, on 04 March 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

Can you explain the additional server requirement in more detail? I don't get how a player deciding to play privately as opposed to publicly would require additional servers.

Each match is a separate game instance that consumes server resources. Each match also has a base cost associated with it. A private match that has less than 24 players is a less efficient use of the game instance when compared to having a full complement of 24 players (which does not require premium time). A 1 vs. 1 match is the least efficient of them all.

Edited by Mystere, 04 March 2015 - 10:05 AM.

[Mercules]

Sylonce, on 04 March 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

Can you explain the additional server requirement in more detail? I don't get how a player deciding to play privately as opposed to publicly would require additional servers.

24 people decide to play MWO. They end up matched together in a public match. That is 1 game instance running on a server.

Now compare that to:

24 people decide to play MWO. They all decide they want private duels. That is 12 game instances running on a server. It is still 24 people playing, but the server has to create and run 12 instances with all the overhead involved instead of 1. 12 times as much work without any additional money to pay for the increased demand on the server.


That doesn't seem that bad until you stop and realize that if EVERYONE did private matches some 6 on 6 some 8 on 8 some 2 on 2 or even some 1 on 1 that if it was ANYTHING less than 12 you are increasing the load on the servers and so they need to have MORE servers to handle the same amount of players and not making a dime to do it. More cost + no additional money = losing money. So they attach a VERY small fee to it that only 2 people realistically have to pay for the extra space they are using.

[Sylonce]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Really, that's all that was needed to break the puzzle.

[Ovion]

SJ SCP Wolf, on 03 March 2015 - 05:24 PM, said:

Wah

Free to Play games work on a different premise with regular development, rather than one development cycle.

Also, only the team leads need the premium time, if you're crazy enough to require every person to be alone in these trials in 1vs1's, rather than arranging spectators or a series of trials in sets of 1vs1 in a group, then it's your own problem.

[Empyrrean]

They could always make private matches not give any cbill or XP rewards unless premium time is used or a full 12v12 is playing, that way those who need it for training purposes can at least use it for that free of charge, and it discourages people from using it on a regular basis if server resources is a concern.

Or do those who can't get enough [redacted] think this is unreasonable?

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 04 March 2015 - 05:08 PM.
Language

[Mystere]

Empyrrean, on 04 March 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

They could always make private matches not give any cbill or XP rewards unless premium time is used or a full 12v12 is playing, that way those who need it for training purposes can at least use it for that free of charge, and it discourages people from using it on a regular basis if server resources is a concern.

Or do those who can't get enough [redacted]think this is unreasonable?

Tsk! Tsk! You're running out, aren't you?

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 04 March 2015 - 05:08 PM.
Language in quote

[Empyrrean]

Are you going to provide a counter argument, or are you going to keep dodging the question? Because you're no better than me if so.

[Mystere]

Empyrrean, on 04 March 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

Are you going to provide a counter argument, or are you going to keep dodging the question? Because you're no better than me if so.

All the arguments we require are on this page in response to Sylonce.

[Empyrrean]

Mystere, on 04 March 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

All the arguments we require are on this page in response to Sylonce.

My question is different. His was about server resources, and mine is about an alternative to reduce strain on server resources that doesn't block you with a paywall. So I ask again, would it be reasonable to simply discourage intensive use by eliminating cbill and XP rewards unless premium time is used? Another idea is to limit it unless you either use premium time, or spend a certain amount on the game (say, 50 bucks) which permanently unlocks it.

[Taffer]

Egomane, on 04 March 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

Every match is a single server instance. Independent of the number of players involved in the match. The more matches that are created, the more instances need to be generated. The more instances that need to be generated, the higher the server load.

Usually a provider has enough servers to handle his product at usual loads, with some spare room for spikes. If you now increase the load of the servers by creating more instances for single player duels in MWO, you increase the need for more servers, thereby increasing the cost of the hardware, the workload to set them up and to maintain them and the costs to keep them running.

Now why couldn't this be on the first page? Thank you. Just wanted an actual REASON and not just "bleh that's the way it is, too bad."

I always thought it was simply a matter of how many people a server could handle. I never knew or thought of it in terms of how many matches there are.

My friends and I will just not play private matches then. Heck they don't even play the game anymore.

[IG 88]

training with the pro have a cost.

[Mystere]

Taffer, on 04 March 2015 - 02:37 PM, said:

Now why couldn't this be on the first page? Thank you. Just wanted an actual REASON and not just "bleh that's the way it is, too bad."

I always thought it was simply a matter of how many people a server could handle. I never knew or thought of it in terms of how many matches there are.

The OP did not ask nicely, but presented himself as a self-entitled douche, especially because he started insulting people who disagreed with his opinion.

I already hinted on page 2 a valid reason. But, the response was "PGI is just greedy!". So I decided to just "join the fun" while waiting for someone (Thanks, Sylonce) to ask the right questions using the right tone and attitude.

[Empyrrean]

Can't really blame him. PGI has a negative reputation, and for good reason. Yes they've improved a bit since the IGP split, but that scar is always going to be there.

[Wingbreaker]

Empyrrean, on 04 March 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

They could always make private matches not give any cbill or XP rewards unless premium time is used or a full 12v12 is playing, that way those who need it for training purposes can at least use it for that free of charge, and it discourages people from using it on a regular basis if server resources is a concern.

What part of real world resources being taken up do you not understand? Those servers don't magically pop into existence, they have to be rented at a data-center where people have to maintain and monitor them.

Edited by Wingbreaker, 04 March 2015 - 03:31 PM.

[Empyrrean]

Wingbreaker, on 04 March 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:

What part of real world resources being taken up do you not understand? Those servers don't magically pop into existence, they have to be rented at a data-center where people have to maintain and monitor them.

Reading comprehension.

Besides, don't give me that. If they have the resources to run a F2P game with public servers available for free, they have enough to run a few private matchs, especially if they used my suggestion. If they didn't, this game would be subscription-based. If you advertise as a F2P game, every mode should be free to play.

Edited by Empyrrean, 04 March 2015 - 03:53 PM.

[Sylonce]

Just as a (hopefully) constructive thought: what if private games were made peer-to-peer? Would that hypothetically get rid of server overhead costs and benefit everyone else with less server load?