25 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Greyhart, on 01 February 2016 - 07:26 AM, said:

I would submit that development of the game has been slowed considerably by CW phase 3.

I would submit that making the largest and most integral part of the game that was advertised 3 years ago a high priority and 'slowing down" the rest of the game development is a bit of a different issue.

Adding single-player to a multiplayer game that (by the company's own words) is MUCH more costly in every aspect, so that players who came to an online multiplayer game to complain about lack of single-player is a tad different than the CW development and situation

[Imperius]

Sandpit, on 01 February 2016 - 11:11 AM, said:

I would submit that making the largest and most integral part of the game that was advertised 3 years ago a high priority and 'slowing down" the rest of the game development is a bit of a different issue.

Adding single-player to a multiplayer game that (by the company's own words) is MUCH more costly in every aspect, so that players who came to an online multiplayer game to complain about lack of single-player is a tad different than the CW development and situation

You know my stance on CW, it was always a waste of time because the problem is the first word "Community"!

That's ok though, you got phase 3 and its up to you the community to make CW appealing. I'll be working hard on Single Player /Co-Op content and ideas, though it seems coop got dropped off.

I'm just glad after phase 3 the focus finally makes it to a expanded business opportunity of campaign!

[Sandpit]

Imperius, on 01 February 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

You know my stance on CW, it was always a waste of time because the problem is the first word "Community"!

Talk to PGI about that.

Kinda hard to build a community when the owner of the company constantly blames "units" "premades" "groups" etc. (you know, those things that actually build and bind a community?) for everything bad in the game.

Also kinda hard to do when PGI does nothing BUT put up roadblocks and obstacles in being able to do VERY simple thigns like I dunno, maybe communicate with other players?

In the 90s (that's over 2 decades ago mind you), programmers knew how to build simple lobbies.

In 2012 we have a company that decides to build an online team based game and somehow forget to add in ANY social tools.

Lobbies
VOIP
Functional friend list
Unit cohesiveness
Congregating locations
Training areas for new players to drop with friends and learn the game

I could go on, but I think that's a pretty good example as it stands.

So again, we're at "Well then you the players do it"

That's fine, I'll do it, tell PGI to give me the tools to do it. I'll happily say screw PGI's "community" and build my own.

I promise you this though, sooner or later, PGI will run out of scapegoats. At some point, PGI will no longer be able to scapegoat players who did the dastardly deed of forming and trying to build a community.

P.S.
As I've always said, anyone coming to an exclusively online multiplayer game complaining about lack of single-player is the most ridiculous complaint ever made.

How many other online multiplayer games do those players play?
Out of those games, how many of them jump on that game's forum and tell the devs they need to create a single-player game instead?
Out of those, how many are actually given any serious consideration by the community and/or company?

[Imperius]

Sandpit, on 01 February 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:

Talk to PGI about that.

Kinda hard to build a community when the owner of the company constantly blames "units" "premades" "groups" etc. (you know, those things that actually build and bind a community?) for everything bad in the game.

Also kinda hard to do when PGI does nothing BUT put up roadblocks and obstacles in being able to do VERY simple thigns like I dunno, maybe communicate with other players?

In the 90s (that's over 2 decades ago mind you), programmers knew how to build simple lobbies.

In 2012 we have a company that decides to build an online team based game and somehow forget to add in ANY social tools.

Lobbies
VOIP
Functional friend list
Unit cohesiveness
Congregating locations
Training areas for new players to drop with friends and learn the game

I could go on, but I think that's a pretty good example as it stands.

So again, we're at "Well then you the players do it"

That's fine, I'll do it, tell PGI to give me the tools to do it. I'll happily say screw PGI's "community" and build my own.

I promise you this though, sooner or later, PGI will run out of scapegoats. At some point, PGI will no longer be able to scapegoat players who did the dastardly deed of forming and trying to build a community.

P.S.
As I've always said, anyone coming to an exclusively online multiplayer game complaining about lack of single-player is the most ridiculous complaint ever made.

How many other online multiplayer games do those players play?
Out of those games, how many of them jump on that game's forum and tell the devs they need to create a single-player game instead?
Out of those, how many are actually given any serious consideration by the community and/or company?

I fight for growth and for groups (you know that, but I'd doesn't stop the community from being a problem) and in the free to play market you can't sell maps (unless it's for single player, which also benefits multiplayer). From a business standpoint you can sell so much more to campaign. Also, the game isn't new user friendly single player helps that, because the general population sure as hell isn't willing to help. (Some are, most arnt)

Anyway I'm not here to fight about it I'm just saying you want CW to succeed step up, because after phase 3 you will have the tools.

I'll be focused on single player and engine upgrades, and my occasional MK II crusade

Edited by Imperius, 01 February 2016 - 11:45 AM.

[Sandpit]

Imperius, on 01 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

I fight for growth and for groups (you know that, but I'd doesn't stop the community from being a problem) and in the free to play market you can't sell maps (unless it's for single player, which also benefits multiplayer). From a business standpoint you can sell so much more to campaign. Also, the game isn't new user friendly single player helps that, because the general population sure as hell isn't willing to help. (Some are, most arnt)

Anyway I'm not here to fight about it I'm just saying you want CW to succeed step up, because after phase 3 you will have the tools.

I'll be focused on single player and engine upgrades, and my occasional MK II crusade

There's nothing to "step up" to. That's the point. Guess who's not going to be any more interested in 4 hours of ghost drops than they were yesterday?
Everyone that wasn't interested in it yesterday.

There's not a single change I've seen that PGI is making in regards to CW that changes the fundamental issues.

If people aren't playing a certain mode, stop blaming the community and start blaming crappy mode design

[Imperius]

Sandpit, on 01 February 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

There's nothing to "step up" to. That's the point. Guess who's not going to be any more interested in 4 hours of ghost drops than they were yesterday?
Everyone that wasn't interested in it yesterday.

There's not a single change I've seen that PGI is making in regards to CW that changes the fundamental issues.

If people aren't playing a certain mode, stop blaming the community and start blaming crappy mode design

You don't want ghost drops? As units quit letting anyone and everyone you stomp join your unit. Simple math, and AI might help fix ghost drops, again I think long term, like when only the people left are the ones who actually cared at least we have something to fight.

Edited by Imperius, 01 February 2016 - 01:09 PM.