183 replies to this topic

[Aethon]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 March 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

I don't know... Many of the Jags I knew were good folk. They were also quite honorable.

These are the Jags from MWLL; the community had more...affectionate names for them and their server, and they are the reason I cringed when I realized the Hell's Horses here had temporarily contracted with CSJ. Fortunately, the Smoke Jaguars here are nothing like the ones from MWLL*.

I used to love it when they would either declare victory and leave while we still had assets on the field and were making up ground, or glitch their last couple guys inside of buildings, so they could force a draw, lol. I think I still have Youtube videos of them showing their true colours somewhere; I will have to see if I can dig them up.

*With one or two exceptions...see OP.

Edited by Aethon, 04 March 2015 - 04:04 PM.

[Stingray Productions]

Mirumoto Izanami, on 03 March 2015 - 05:34 PM, said:

Also, fight club! get 23 of your mates on a private match, make a 2 km circle, 2 mechs enter, one mech leaves!

Hey, that's actually a good idea! Then you get to watch trials too.!

[Mystere]

Sylonce, on 04 March 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:

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?

That depends on the size of the server-side software, and whether or not it's distributed to players along with the client as part of the install and patch, or on an on-demand basis. The former runs the potential risk of reverse engineering. The latter (and to some extent, the former) could be a bandwidth hog. And if the server-side software was not designed with peer-to-peer in mind, the cost of re-engineering can be substantial.

[Joseph Mallan]

Empyrrean, on 04 March 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

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.

Funny thing about scars. I have several noticeable ones... But they really don't bother me. They do remind me of some mistakes on occasions but those WERE in the past.

@Aethon, Thanks for the clarification.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 05 March 2015 - 02:45 AM.

[KharnZor]

Joseph Mallan, on 05 March 2015 - 02:44 AM, said:

Funny thing about scars. I have several noticeable ones... But they really don't bother me. They do remind me of some mistakes on occasions but those WERE in the past.

[Raggedyman]

Empyrrean, on 04 March 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

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.

The game isn't "Free-To-Play", it's a freemium. You get the basic game for free and then extras (like, oooooh.... I dunno.... maybe server-intensive private matches?. random example I know, but work with me on this) cost you money.

If you want the basic version you pay nothing.
If you want any extras, you pay up.

[MeiSooHaityu]

If you want to use server resources for your 1 vs 1 trials, you need to rent the time. It seems pretty fair to me.

[stratagos]

Empyrrean, on 04 March 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

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.

Let us know when your F2P game launches. You have such strong views on what people "should" do, obviously you have empirical data to back that up.

Otherwise you're just some guy whining he doesn't get what he wants, and that would be kinda pathetic

[Mercules]

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.

Counter Argument as to why not giving rewards in private matches would not discourage people from playing in them.

Ehem.... I have 12 mechs that have 12k+ XP sitting on them plus 8K General XP. Sure I wouldn't earn C-bills but there are people sitting on millions of C-bills that have enough modules and mechs that they don't really need them. Why would people like that care if there were no rewards for private matches?

At least if they are in the public queue they take up less resources and provide "content" for other players.

[meteorol]

They are charging for private servers like... countless other games do aswell? Outrageous.

[Almond Brown]

Empyrrean, on 04 March 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

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.

Thus the word "Private". Can you get into the "Private" clubs in your area without a membership? Consider the PT cost, the cost of membership. And if a friend takes you in, they still had to pay whatever fee was required.

[Vandul]

Empyrrean, on 04 March 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

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.

Business model comprehension. Until you understand, and completely understand what kind of resources it takes to run, lease servers, and deliver a game with customer support, dont accuse others of not reading or comprehending.

It kind of makes you look foolish.

[Mystere]

Empyrrean, on 04 March 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

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.

It's still not a valid reason to act like the OP did.

[Damocles]

business models vs. opening options that allow for enjoyable experiences for your customers (or would-be customers) so that they might return and spend money (Mechs/mechbays/prem time for bonuses) to partake in a growing community.

but no really the current business model of throwaway matches with random ppl to grind mech xp or planet %ownership is really grasping individuals' attentions and holding them.

[Empyrrean]

You're saying that they don't have the resources to make private matches free, yet they're making 4v4 community warfare matches available for free.

Logical fallacy anyone?

[Mirumoto Izanami]

Empyrrean, on 06 March 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

You're saying that they don't have the resources to make private matches free, yet they're making 4v4 community warfare matches available for free.

Logical fallacy anyone?

One ties to the over arcing game PGI is making, and contributes the game as a whole. The other does not. There is no fallacy.

[Empyrrean]

Mirumoto Izanami, on 06 March 2015 - 05:48 PM, said:

One ties to the over arcing game PGI is making, and contributes the game as a whole. The other does not. There is no fallacy.

What kind of argument is that? How does one game mode matter or contribute any less than another? Some people prefer quick deathmatches over the lengthy CW mode, and private matches contribute to the game because you can use it to train people for CW.

[Kilo 40]

Empyrrean, on 06 March 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

You're saying that they don't have the resources to make private matches free, yet they're making 4v4 community warfare matches available for free.

Logical fallacy anyone?

apparently you don't know what a Logical fallacy is.

[Empyrrean]

Kilo 40, on 06 March 2015 - 07:25 PM, said:

apparently you don't know what a Logical fallacy is.

Good argument. You sure showed me!

Let's see, a logical fallacy is basically a flaw in reasoning, and in this case I'm pointing out that defending the current private match system because it uses more server resources is nonsense because they are providing a similar feature for free in CW. If they can provide that, they can provide free private matches, ESPECIALLY considering, as I was just told by someone, that they do not give cbill and XP rewards to begin with (seriously, I'm now even further baffled why people defend this). The number of players who have no need for cbills and xp is so miniscule considering the grindy nature of this game it is a non-factor in your argument.

Try again?

[Kilo 40]

Empyrrean, on 06 March 2015 - 07:45 PM, said:

Good argument. You sure showed me!

I didn't make an argument. I just noted that you apparently don't know what a logical fallacy is. And you haven't disproved my assertion.

as for the topic, I did make an argument earlier in the thread, where I said something to the effect of "PGI charges for things like private matches in order to make the free to play parts free to play". I'm sorry you don't like that, but that's just the way it is. they have to pay the bills somehow.