61 replies to this topic

[Appogee]

.

Edited by Appogee, 11 May 2016 - 10:35 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Appogee, on 11 May 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

And that's exactly what I said, and which I further said is stupid in the context of a game that was always supposed to be more simulator, rather than "every other stupid random crate mechanic that currently exists in other games".

And you call me dense.

You are moving the goal posts, so yes, I'm calling you dense, here is what you ACTUALLY said:

Appogee, on 11 May 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

So, in your latest version of reality, you corrected me because I correctly stated what Russ said...?

I'm not sure why you're even attempting to rewrite history when what actually happened is fully evident in this very thread.

I see nothing there about what should or should not be in a simulation game, just you continuing to argue about semantics. Who's rewriting history now?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 May 2016 - 10:39 AM.

[Appogee]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 May 2016 - 10:38 AM, said:

You are moving the goal posts, so yes, I'm calling you dense, here is what you ACTUALLY said:

Ok, so now you acknowledge the existence of the goal posts that have always been there... But now you're claiming they've been moved...?

Please, obfuscate harder, it makes for fascinating reading.

Edited by Appogee, 11 May 2016 - 10:49 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Appogee, on 11 May 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Ok, so you have finally acknowledged the existence of the goal posts that have always been there... But now you're claiming they've been moved...?

Yes, the original argument was about how exactly the caches worked, because you were offended that they were destroyed like PGI was offering you things and then taking some of them away when the actual concept behind them is slightly different, Russ just sucks at words and chose poor words to explain getting a few items from a pool of them. This is all that myself Volthorne have been saying, we are not arguing anything about whether they are good for a "sim" game.

Then you tried to get around that argument by saying you weren't arguing about the mechanics of it, just that it was bad in a sim-game. THAT is the definition of moving the goal posts, its a fallacy, meaning it does not actually make your argument.

[Appogee]

Appogee, on 10 May 2016 - 06:00 AM, said:

It gets randomly dropped on the map.
It gets randomly allocated to someone on the team who finds it.
If the finder's team also wins the match, another supply cache is magically created and allocated.
You need to buy a key to it for MC....?!
You open it and some items get randomly destroyed...???!!!

This is where development resources are being allocated? Really, PGI...?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 May 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Yes, the original argument was about how exactly the caches worked, because you were offended that they were destroyed like PGI was offering you things and then taking some of them away when the actual concept behind them is slightly different, Russ just sucks at words and chose poor words to explain getting a few items from a pool of them. This is all that myself Volthorne have been saying, we are not arguing anything about whether they are good for a "sim" game.

Perhaps you should pause for a moment and note which statement in my original post was bolded. That statement was bolded because it was the key point. I bolded it as a service to the "dense" and "those with low reading comprehension" - to use your words - and help them easily get the point.

I am delighted that 90% of respondents clearly did get the key point... "Developer resources are being devoted to the creation of a crate mechanic, instead of all the more important things this game needs."

This key point is also conveyed in the headline. You will note that the headline is about what the game needs vs what developers are working on.

This other issue that you want to create and continue to argue about - whether Russ correctly conveyed standard crate mechanics or not, and whether my quoting of him was therefore correct or not - is in your mind. I can't see any reason why you continue to go about it, want to claim shifted goalposts, or any of the other nonsense you are derailing this thread with.

In my next post I will be sure to also underline and italicize the key point. Because clearly, bold is not enough.

Edited by Appogee, 11 May 2016 - 11:09 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Appogee, on 11 May 2016 - 10:57 AM, said:

Perhaps you should pause for a moment and note which statement in my original post was bolded.

Except that is not what was taken issue with by Volthorne, so again, you are moving the goal post, people can in fact only disagree with portions of your argument you know, especially ones that you made out to seem like it was so offensive that they were "destroying" potential items (and one that again, Volthorne tried to clarify for you).

[FaithBombCRNA]

Wait, are we REALLY arguing over if the stuff from the crate that you don't get "blows up" or not? You do realize that it doesn't make one bit of difference one way or the other if it "blows up", disappears in a cloud of smoke, or is stolen by the tooth fairy, right? All Russ is saying is that the box contains x number of items. You are awarded some portion of those items, and those that you are not awarded cease to exist (i.e they cannot be rolled on again, cannot be sold, etc). The only important point is that they cannot be awarded or sold after the RNG roll, it is absolutely 100% immaterial what happens to them beyond that.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FaithBombCRNA, on 11 May 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

Wait, are we REALLY arguing over if the stuff from the crate that you don't get "blows up" or not? You do realize that it doesn't make one bit of difference one way or the other if it "blows up", disappears in a cloud of smoke, or is stolen by the tooth fairy, right? All Russ is saying is that the box contains x number of items.

Well to be fair, Russ' wording did seem dubious if you aren't familiar with the concept of the crates.

[FaithBombCRNA]

I don't think it was "dubious". I think it was a phrase he chose without a second thought, never imagining that people would turn something insignificant into a pitchfork battlecry.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FaithBombCRNA, on 11 May 2016 - 11:34 AM, said:

I don't think it was "dubious". I think it was a phrase he chose without a second thought, never imagining that people would turn something insignificant into a pitchfork battlecry.

You'd think he would've learned by now, it certainly not the first time this has happened.

[FaithBombCRNA]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 May 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

You'd think he would've learned by now, it certainly not the first time this has happened.

It can be VERY hard to posit all the ways someone will take a given statement.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FaithBombCRNA, on 11 May 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

It can be VERY hard to posit all the ways someone will take a given statement.

Depends on the circumstances, this one wouldn't have been hard, just make it seem like you aren't losing something by chance. As a public facing company they have no other choice (hard or not) than be conscious of their words like this to avoid this exact situation.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 May 2016 - 11:58 AM.

[Morggo]

...I'm just happy to have something exciting to munch popcorn too... such passion!

[C E Dwyer]

Clearly I.G.P must be back in the frame.

You remember surely

Those people that P.G.I claimed reduced game development to a crawl, because all they were interested in were money grabs !

[Volthorne]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 May 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

Except that is not what was taken issue with by Volthorne, so again, you are moving the goal post, people can in fact only disagree with portions of your argument you know, especially ones that you made out to seem like it was so offensive that they were "destroying" potential items (and one that again, Volthorne tried to clarify for you).

Exactly. I don't particularly care for crate systems, nor do I dislike it, but clearly Russ believes that including a crate system will bring a higher and steadier income than the once-a-month surges from 'Mech packs and other MC purchases. There are obviously things I would like PGI to spend more effort on, but they have exactly zero revenue potential, and they're mostly fluff anyway, and this is more than likely true for every single person who plays(/played) MW:O. The reality is that PGI can't make the zero-revenue things without first having the resources to spend on them, which means setting up enough avenues of procurement to bring in the required funds, and since crates are one of those avenues, it's an acceptable evil. We don't even know how many staff are or will be working on it.

My posts in this thread so far have been trying to correct the misconception of how the crates work; they're already controversial enough on their own without people deliberately spreading false information. At no point have I white-knighted the crates themselves (we have Bishop to do that, though he might be taking a vacation on this one). Hell, I don't care one way or another, it's just one more Thing that I can ignore, much like tiers.

Appogee, on 11 May 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

People like you are turning this game into MechAssault 3 because you don't get upset enough about the progressive dumbing-down and lowest common denominator thinking being inflicted on this game.

You can believe whatever you want if it helps you to sleep at night, sweetie.

Edited by Volthorne, 11 May 2016 - 04:14 PM.

[Davers]

Gyrok, on 10 May 2016 - 10:59 AM, said:

Somehow I doubt they would give you a camo for a chassis you do not own...it *is* PGI...but even they surely have to see the idiocy in that.

I don't think the crates will be specifically catered to whoever gets them. Camo for a chassis you do not own may get you to buy it, and that means mechbays and many hours of grinding out 3 mechs. That's pretty much exactly what PGI wants, isn't it?

I foresee my pile of MC consumables becoming much larger.

[Koniving]

Appogee, on 10 May 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

Read what Russ wrote:

Each Supply Cache can be inspected before opening to see what is contained within. Players then have the ability to purchase a Supply Cache Key using MC to unlock the Supply Cache. Once a Supply Cache has been unlocked, a random selection of the Supply Cache contents will be awarded to the player; the rest of the items are destroyed.

Now stop making stuff up that he didn't write.

Piss poor wording on Russ's part, but in terms of mechanics...

Volthorne, on 10 May 2016 - 10:32 AM, said:

The crate has a loot table. You open it, it rolls on that table, and from the way it was worded it sounds like it has the potential for multiple rolls. Whatever is rolled gets given to you, and the rest gets thrown away.

Standard F2P crate system (outside of potential multiple rolls).

that is exactly how it would work. Basically you get what is rolled and the rest "gets thrown away" or "Destroyed."

Should see Combat Arms.
Gives you a list of nearly 100 things in its crate.
You'll get one of them, for a random interval of 'days' to 'permanent'.

In a way... it's sort of like "We believe this stuff is in there."
After. You pop the crate open by paying a locksmith to drill it out.
Turns out some of them are damaged beyond repair, but this, this, and that are salvageable.

Or maybe if Russ's version is to be believed, you paid someone else to play "Hulk Rip!" with their mech on the cache's top and what didn't break is what you keep.

Don't get me wrong. I'm never gonna buy keys. But hey if I can sell the damn things for Cbills... then I couldn't care less what they do with it.

Also maybe I'll get good enough at English I won't have to edit 30 times.

Edited by Koniving, 11 May 2016 - 04:30 PM.

[Elendil]

Basically you get teased with nice stuff, blow some MC to open it, and the nice stuff disappears 90% of the time leaving you with crap.

I really don't see why anyone is optimistic about the system or looking forward to it...

[Alan Davion]

Thorn Hallis, on 10 May 2016 - 11:00 PM, said:

Well yes, if those developers who worked on the supply caches could also have been working on game improvements like hitreg and such, I'd shake my head. But as I don't know if those involved are capable of improving hitreg and such, I reserve my judgement on this matter.

This is my thought exactly on this whole lockbox mechanic.

Would the person that was assigned this task have been better assigned on a task that actually affects game balance in someway?

LRMs? LBX ammo? Other ACs? There are literally a million issues that could have been tackled before anyone should have even mentioned lockboxes.

This kind of mechanic caused me to stop playing Star Trek Online. A game which I bought a $300 "LIFETIME" subscription for, before the game was even actually available in stores.

[Elendil]

Yeah, what he said.
STO was the game that turned me off to lockboxes. There have been a bunch since, but that was the big one.

They dangle cool stuff in front of you, tempt you into giving them money, and then $50 later all you have to show for it is an inventory full of useless crap and shattered dreams.

Edited by Elendil, 11 May 2016 - 04:57 PM.