Jump to content


Two Mode Game Suggestion....(Again)


  • Please log in to reply
285 replies to this topic

CorvusCorvax #121 Posted 13 June 2018 - 04:26 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1322 battles
  • 1,230
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postsoshootmenow, on 10 June 2018 - 06:12 AM, said:

 

 

Like I said before, I have not seen anyone else offer up a workable solution on this or any other thread that takes into consideration ALL parties involved and approaches it both from an 'either camp' players standpoint and a business standpoint as well.

And not to put too fine a point on it.....but that includes.....YOU.

How about working WITH people who are trying something. Maybe YOU have a way to get the developers and WG management to notice and consider this idea. Or maybe YOU can come up with a way. Or maybe someone else might.

Just a thought and attitude change you might want to consider.

I have considered it.  I have looked at the available evidence.  I have played both 1.x and 2.x.  It's a free game, and it works on my current hardware.  I can buy stuff if I want to, or not, and still play just fine.  I am not being a devil's advocate - I am talking about REALITY.  The evidence does not suggest that there will be a return to 1.x game play, either in whole or in part.  In fact, from reading what the developers have had to say on the matter, they are decidedly against going that way.  I have absolutely no desire to advocate for one mode or the other, because I really don't care.  If either one or both exist, I will play - if both exist, I will play both.  If one exists, I'll play that one.  If you want me to advocate for your position, you'll have to pay me.  Otherwise, I'm merely commenting on the data we have before us, such as it is.  I have less than zero interest in talking to WG about the direction of the game they wrote and allow people to download and play, for free.

 

Without actually knowing what the numbers (player and money) are, and what the long-range planning looks like, it is all merely idle speculation and wishful thinking.  I'm sorry that this attitude isn't to your liking.



mnbv_fockewulfe #122 Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:39 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 247 battles
  • 2,861
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 13 June 2018 - 04:26 PM, said:

I have considered it.  I have looked at the available evidence.  I have played both 1.x and 2.x.  It's a free game, and it works on my current hardware.  I can buy stuff if I want to, or not, and still play just fine.  I am not being a devil's advocate - I am talking about REALITY.

I too am a realist. However you're ignoring the fact that reality can and does change. 

The evidence does not suggest that there will be a return to 1.x game play, either in whole or in part.  In fact, from reading what the developers have had to say on the matter, they are decidedly against going that way.

Here we are agreed.

I have absolutely no desire to advocate for one mode or the other, because I really don't care.

Yeah...right.

If either one or both exist, I will play - if both exist, I will play both.  If one exists, I'll play that one.  If you want me to advocate for your position, you'll have to pay me.  Otherwise, I'm merely commenting on the data we have before us, such as it is. 

Persha seems to have a very similar mindset to the one you have. Look where it's gotten them.  

I have less than zero interest in talking to WG about the direction of the game they wrote and allow people to download and play, for free.

You like talking on the forum about it tho.

Without actually knowing what the numbers (player and money) are, and what the long-range planning looks like, it is all merely idle speculation and wishful thinking.  I'm sorry that this attitude isn't to your liking.

Nice hand waving off my research. Just because I proved your stance wrong that adding back an old gamemode wouldn't increase population for the game is no reason to discount the data I've found that is very reliable considering the means available.

As far as wishful thinking goes: I'm surprised at you given your nature (as a virtual pilot) to get stuck in such a static way of thinking. Things don't look like they will change therefore they won't, Hrumph! Do you want the game to continue on its current trajectory or do you want it to become the game that you can't stop yourself from playing its so good. 

Considering you seem content with the game as it is now, maybe you should look higher than the status quo.  

 


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


CorvusCorvax #123 Posted 14 June 2018 - 01:02 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1322 battles
  • 1,230
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 13 June 2018 - 11:39 PM, said:

 

 

Uh, yeah.  I'm not handwaving, I'm commenting on the data you can't provide, because NOBODY here has it.  You don't actually know what the numbers are, you're guessing.  That's fine, and they might be interesting if you can actually tie it to a solid goal.  What's the goal?  Do you know it?  Me neither.  And the cash flow?  Where are those numbers?  Do you know them?  Me neither.  

 

SPECULATION.

 

Yes, I'm commenting here, but that is not advocacy for a particular position.  Nor is it lobbying WG for a particular thing.  I know better, because I have seen the results (or lack thereof) from others.

 

If a particular attitude is static for months or years, the safe bet is that it will not change in the near future.  In fact, if the attitude is consistent over the course of months and years, it might be wise to assume a no-change attitude, and be happy if change happens, rather than hold out for some miracle.  Being a voice of reality in the face of pie-in-the-sky thinking is often tiresome, but parents of teenagers learn how to do it anyway.



mnbv_fockewulfe #124 Posted 14 June 2018 - 01:25 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 247 battles
  • 2,861
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 14 June 2018 - 01:02 AM, said:

 

Uh, yeah.  I'm not handwaving, I'm commenting on the data you can't provide, because NOBODY here has it.  You don't actually know what the numbers are, you're guessing.  That's fine, and they might be interesting if you can actually tie it to a solid goal.  What's the goal?  Do you know it?  Me neither.  And the cash flow?  Where are those numbers?  Do you know them?  Me neither.  

 

SPECULATION.

 

Yes, I'm commenting here, but that is not advocacy for a particular position.  Nor is it lobbying WG for a particular thing.  I know better, because I have seen the results (or lack thereof) from others.

 

If a particular attitude is static for months or years, the safe bet is that it will not change in the near future.  In fact, if the attitude is consistent over the course of months and years, it might be wise to assume a no-change attitude, and be happy if change happens, rather than hold out for some miracle.  Being a voice of reality in the face of pie-in-the-sky thinking is often tiresome, but parents of teenagers learn how to do it anyway.

 

The hard data is there. 2500 people logged on during an event on a Friday-Saturday 24 hour period. Then by statistical math I proved why my assumptions were valid when comparing a pre and post 2.0 population given the documented data.

What's my goal by doing the research or what is WG's goal for the minimum population?
As far as cash flow goes, someone out there threw out the statistic once a while ago that for a F2P game 10% of the people playing actually spend any money. Regardless, a lower, higher turnover population (what we have) generates less money than a larger, committed one (what we had). 

 

What's the point of discussing here if you don't have goal of your own? 
The truth is you have a goal, otherwise you wouldn't be posting. 

Unless you just as insane as the rest of us.

Almost no one here on the forum expected the 2.0 relaunch to ever actually happen. And this is because of the very conditions that you mentioned. However, we did consider it a possibility. 

Consider it a lesson about the fault in your ideology if you will. 

 


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


soshootmenow #125 Posted 14 June 2018 - 04:19 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 30 battles
  • 110
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 14 June 2018 - 01:25 AM, said:

 

The hard data is there. 2500 people logged on during an event on a Friday-Saturday 24 hour period. Then by statistical math I proved why my assumptions were valid when comparing a pre and post 2.0 population given the documented data.

What's my goal by doing the research or what is WG's goal for the minimum population?
As far as cash flow goes, someone out there threw out the statistic once a while ago that for a F2P game 10% of the people playing actually spend any money. Regardless, a lower, higher turnover population (what we have) generates less money than a larger, committed one (what we had).

 

What's the point of discussing here if you don't have goal of your own? 
The truth is you have a goal, otherwise you wouldn't be posting.

Unless you just as insane as the rest of us.

Almost no one here on the forum expected the 2.0 relaunch to ever actually happen. And this is because of the very conditions that you mentioned. However, we did consider it a possibility.

Consider it a lesson about the fault in your ideology if you will.

 

 

Agreed focke. My goal out of all of this was to provide a WORKING solution or at least a better invocation than what has been put forth so far.

The current relevant factors are that neither mode on its own regardless of new players that suffer from relentless churn or OP's that were vastly more dedicated were sufficient on their own to provide a viable player base. That was most certainly NOT the fault of the OP's given their tireless and proven dedication to the game regardless of some of the 'less than satisfactory' updates and playing conditions. Some were better...several more were not.

As per 'reality' and 'paying you'.....the reality part is what I am dealing with here. The 'paying you' part sounds to be more your ego and ignores my premise that the combined total of players as well as the good will generated for all those involved with that scenario is simply better than what has transpired and is currently in effect.

Corvus....If you wish to play both or either, that simply fits in with what I have proposed. My suggestion here provides you and all of the relevant parties involved with a possibly viable solution to the concerns and desires of all. This would provide the CHOICES that were promised to the player community but in reality did not happen. My proposal DOES provide those choices. To you and to the rest of the prior/current player base and that also takes into consideration the business aspects (also a reality) of all of the parties involved.

I have expressed my desires and proposed workable solutions. Any lack of refinement is quite frankly neither your or my fault. WG was asked previously on other threads after the 2.0 cutover to provide the necessary data for a proper analysis. Someone (who was obviously VERY experienced) had contacted the developers directly and requested the needed information so he could crunch the numbers. This was to provide a viable solution and basically 'put the cards on the table' cost-wise so we could get see what could be done.

WoWP simply ignored him. NOT engaging the players (ie: CUSTOMERS...PAYING OR OTHERWISE) does not coincide with any proven successful legal business model that I am aware of.

One or two without the other(s) will most likely not survive.

I (and several others) here have shown a proven better way than what has been done. Larger player base,....or not. Ignore us.....or not. More money.....or not. Engage the desires of your customers....or not. Try a viable proposal that works better than what you have....or not.      But don't try to tell me I am wrong either with numbers based on insufficient data, ignoring the current state of affairs, or guessing.

Because nothing I have seen shows that I am wrong. Or even on a wrong track.

WG or anyone else who wants to work WITH us and/or who has the information is....FREE.....to chime in here.

Any-freaking-time.


 


Edited by soshootmenow, 14 June 2018 - 04:26 AM.


jack_wdw #126 Posted 14 June 2018 - 07:24 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 670 battles
  • 314
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012
After almost a year, i really can't see any improvements 2.x has brought.
1.9 had better controls, better flight models, better ui, more human players, more dedicated players, way easier game mode.

I read here somewhere that it would be impossible to implement Bombers (and reloading) into a gamestyle like 1.9.
I think it would be easy to do, if you work with waves of bombers (and thus entry and exit window on the map for bombers).
Bomber crews will get a warning that the exit window is closing (more or less like the squal line warning now), if they fail to reach the exit window on time they remain on the map without a refill of bombs (until they get shot down or until the next exit window and they can reload again)

CorvusCorvax #127 Posted 14 June 2018 - 05:47 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1322 battles
  • 1,230
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postsoshootmenow, on 14 June 2018 - 04:19 AM, said:

 

 

As per 'reality' and 'paying you'.....the reality part is what I am dealing with here. The 'paying you' part sounds to be more your ego and ignores my premise that the combined total of players as well as the good will generated for all those involved with that scenario is simply better than what has transpired and is currently in effect.

 

Corvus....If you wish to play both or either, that simply fits in with what I have proposed. 


 

No, the reality part is not what you're dealing with.  You are engaged in wishful thinking,  It is wishful thinking to entertain the idea that after all the direct evidence that WG has given that they will not be going back to 1.x, that somehow they will be going back to 1.x, or even offering it as a choice.  My whole goal here has been to offer a reason not to get your hopes up.  In fact, with this current update, I can't see how anyone could possibly argue that WG isn't 100% committed to the 2.x model.  As in, 1.x gameplay is not going to come back as anything but a novelty or an event type of thing, and even then as a single-sortie deathmatch kind of game.  They are completely changing how the game runs, and even the stuff that used to be 1.x is now slowly disappearing - like mounted equipment.  Pilot skills are next.  Count on it.

 

In fact, rather than slow down the 2.x movement, they are charging ahead with a complete change from the 1.x play style.  If I were to make a prediction, I would predict that even the maps will get a makeover such that the 1.x maps will also no longer exist, and they will all be new 2.x maps.  



CorvusCorvax #128 Posted 14 June 2018 - 05:51 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1322 battles
  • 1,230
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjack_wdw, on 14 June 2018 - 07:24 AM, said:

After almost a year, i really can't see any improvements 2.x has brought.
1.9 had better controls, better flight models, better ui, more human players, more dedicated players, way easier game mode.

 

I liked the 1.x UI better, for sure.  I don't know that the game mode was easier - it was more predictable, for sure.  Hey, everybody, lets meet in the middle and scrap until all but one are dead.  I like the current model where you have to think strategically as well as tactically.  I also liked the equipment and upgrade tradeoffs from 1.x.  Yeah, you can mount bigger cannon, but you are going to pay in speed and turning.  I also enjoyed plane anniversaries.



soshootmenow #129 Posted 16 June 2018 - 02:30 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 30 battles
  • 110
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 14 June 2018 - 05:47 PM, said:

No, the reality part is not what you're dealing with.  You are engaged in wishful thinking,  It is wishful thinking to entertain the idea that after all the direct evidence that WG has given that they will not be going back to 1.x, that somehow they will be going back to 1.x, or even offering it as a choice.  My whole goal here has been to offer a reason not to get your hopes up.  In fact, with this current update, I can't see how anyone could possibly argue that WG isn't 100% committed to the 2.x model.  As in, 1.x gameplay is not going to come back as anything but a novelty or an event type of thing, and even then as a single-sortie deathmatch kind of game.  They are completely changing how the game runs, and even the stuff that used to be 1.x is now slowly disappearing - like mounted equipment.  Pilot skills are next.  Count on it.

 

In fact, rather than slow down the 2.x movement, they are charging ahead with a complete change from the 1.x play style.  If I were to make a prediction, I would predict that even the maps will get a makeover such that the 1.x maps will also no longer exist, and they will all be new 2.x maps. 

 

I most certainly beg to differ regarding your view of reality here.

I mean Geezus!!  Get freaking real, son.

Businesses can and do make changes and modifications to plans all the time in response to new ideas, market forces, analysis, successes/failures, elapsed time, new technology, sales numbers, profits (or lack thereof), market penetration, on and on and on. How could you possibly overlook all of that???

Given your way with the 'logic' you are trying to present above as an unalterable fact, they never would have changed from 1.x after a couple of updates.

     'In fact, with this current update, I can't see how anyone could possibly argue that WG isn't 100% committed to the 1.x model'.

(See how easy that was to do just by substituting 1.x for 2.x in your statement?)

I have not once proposed here a complete reversal and for them to go back to 1.x. In fact, if you re-read (carefully this time) my initial proposal post I most clearly advocated KEEPING 2.x as a way to attract new players.

My issue with their plan in effect at this time is that it does little to RETAIN anything approaching a significant portion of them while simultaneously leaving an additional substantial player base of OP's as an untapped resource that could be readily brought back to the game.

This could be done with minimal effort in a way which may very well resolve the new player retention issues as well by adding an additional 1.9 mode/level to the game. It would also rapidly increase the player base by a substantial amount which also brings in more potential revenue sources.

Basically they are leaving money on the table for no real reason going the way they are now.

     'New Idea!!!.....if neither version is survivable on their own....well gee-whiz fella's....what if put both versions up guys?? The software for both is already written up and developed!'

If 1.9 was just a so-so success....and 2.0 is just a so-so success, then the availability of both might be good enough with a chance to be great!

In practical terms, that is really just not that much of a stretch to try it according to the overall idea I have proposed.


 



CorvusCorvax #130 Posted 16 June 2018 - 02:47 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1322 battles
  • 1,230
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postsoshootmenow, on 16 June 2018 - 02:30 AM, said:

 

I most certainly beg to differ regarding your view of reality here.

 

 

 

Go ahead and argue all you want that WG is not moving even faster away from 1.x.  You can shout it into the ether forever, and you'd still be just as wrong.

 

I guess you can dream all you want.  Good luck.



mnbv_fockewulfe #131 Posted 16 June 2018 - 03:16 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 247 battles
  • 2,861
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 16 June 2018 - 02:47 AM, said:

 

Go ahead and argue all you want that WG is not moving even faster away from 1.x.  You can shout it into the ether forever, and you'd still be just as wrong.

 

I guess you can dream all you want.  Good luck.

 

:popcorn:

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


soshootmenow #132 Posted 17 June 2018 - 01:21 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 30 battles
  • 110
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 16 June 2018 - 02:47 AM, said:

 

Go ahead and argue all you want that WG is not moving even faster away from 1.x.  You can shout it into the ether forever, and you'd still be just as wrong.

 

I guess you can dream all you want.  Good luck.

 

You again miss the premise and reality here.

They can 'move' this way and that all they want to.....but SUCCESSFULLY move in a direction that gives proven RESULTS....that......well that they have not done.

This proposal quite possibly offers a viable solution. Since it would increase the player base substantially it certainly is better than what is being done now.

Less players their way now.....more players my way. The math really just isn't that tough.

And sooner or later (after several quarterly reports....like....now) the people on the business end start looking at other ideas if what they are doing is not working as well as they predicted.

I am trying to get them to notice MY idea before they go off on some other tangent that will be yet another dry hole.

And we all have seen how that has happened in the past updates where they did not do anything like what the player community was asking them for.

That is partially how they ended up in this boat in the first place.

And thankyou Corvus for yet another of your enthusiastic suggestions with good ideas.


 

Pass the popcorn focke.



CorvusCorvax #133 Posted 17 June 2018 - 06:47 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1322 battles
  • 1,230
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postsoshootmenow, on 17 June 2018 - 01:21 AM, said:

 

You again miss the premise and reality here.

 

Well, I'm not going to question your intelligence here, because that would make me as rude as you seem to be.

 

Premise:  Move back to some form of 1.x gameplay.  (Since I've read everything you've written, I doubt you can argue that I've somehow missed the premise.)

 

Reality:  WG has shown zero desire to go that way.  At every turn they do not choose to re-implement 1.x anything.  They argue against it when directly questioned.  The updates continue to go toward not-1.x.

 

So tell me again how I've missed either.  All of your arguments as to "why" and "how" don't matter, because you're speculating on incomplete information.   They don't care about your (or my) opinions on how the game should run.  They don't need your (or my) business advice.  There actually is a remedy for this, for you folks who think your business acumen is better than WG:  You build your own game.  Competition in the market is good, and if your idea is as good as you think, you could easily be driving your own sports car within a year or two, having cornered the market on free-to-download micro-transaction-based aircraft combat simulation.  Venture capital would be flooding your bank account in seconds, yes?

 

ROTFL, dude.


Edited by CorvusCorvax, 17 June 2018 - 06:49 PM.


soshootmenow #134 Posted 18 June 2018 - 01:46 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 30 battles
  • 110
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 17 June 2018 - 06:47 PM, said:

 

Well, I'm not going to question your intelligence here, because that would make me as rude as you seem to be.

 

Premise:  Move back to some form of 1.x gameplay.  (Since I've read everything you've written, I doubt you can argue that I've somehow missed the premise.)

 

Reality:  WG has shown zero desire to go that way.  At every turn they do not choose to re-implement 1.x anything.  They argue against it when directly questioned.  The updates continue to go toward not-1.x.

 

So tell me again how I've missed either.  All of your arguments as to "why" and "how" don't matter, because you're speculating on incomplete information.   They don't care about your (or my) opinions on how the game should run.  They don't need your (or my) business advice.  There actually is a remedy for this, for you folks who think your business acumen is better than WG:  You build your own game.  Competition in the market is good, and if your idea is as good as you think, you could easily be driving your own sports car within a year or two, having cornered the market on free-to-download micro-transaction-based aircraft combat simulation.  Venture capital would be flooding your bank account in seconds, yes?

 

ROTFL, dude.

 

Well....re-read it again my friend. I am suggesting ADDING 1.9 mode to the game. Not going back to it. So yeah, you did miss the premise.

And if I am speculating on incomplete information.....then might I point out that all of YOUR arguments against my idea are ALSO based on incomplete information. Making them absolutely no better than mine. The only difference being I am proposing a viable business alternative that at the very least would increase the player base substantially. That alone makes it better than what is being done now. And I have at least proposed something that is based on the expressed desires of many customers. You, quite frankly, have not proposed or put forth anything. At all.

As far as business acumen goes.....

1) I don't need to develop a new game when one is already built and can basically be activated with little more than flipping a few switches.

2) No one (that I know of) has seen the new 2018 Corvus Super People Bucket driving down the road so I submit that you are no better than me.

3) If choices, upgrades, changes, improvements, versions, and the like are so foolish then why hasn't every car manufacturer simply reduced all of their lines to a singular model with only company specified options and bench seats available in just one pale blue color because they think that is the best and how it should be.

4) Every other enterprise or manufacturer of anything and everything, everywhere......see #3 above. Modify as needed.

5) WG's management reportedly is not All-Knowing, does not posses Divine Wisdom and, in fact, on occasion has been known to make the odd mistake or two.......or three hundred......and counting.


 


 



CorvusCorvax #135 Posted 18 June 2018 - 03:13 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1322 battles
  • 1,230
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postsoshootmenow, on 18 June 2018 - 01:46 AM, said:

 

Well....re-read it again my friend. I am suggesting ADDING 1.9 mode to the game. Not going back to it. So yeah, you did miss the premise.

 

 


 

No, I didn't.  Any move to add gameplay style that GOES BACK to 1.x is GOING BACK to 1.x.  This is not a hard concept to grasp.  The "retain the 2.x" part doesn't matter, because that part is a given.  It's assumed.  The "return to 1.x" part is the part we are discussing.

 

I'm sorry you can't grasp it all.

 

Have fun storming the castle.


Edited by CorvusCorvax, 18 June 2018 - 03:14 PM.


soshootmenow #136 Posted 19 June 2018 - 05:09 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 30 battles
  • 110
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 18 June 2018 - 03:13 PM, said:

No, I didn't.  Any move to add gameplay style that GOES BACK to 1.x is GOING BACK to 1.x.  This is not a hard concept to grasp.  The "retain the 2.x" part doesn't matter, because that part is a given.  It's assumed.  The "return to 1.x" part is the part we are discussing.

 

I'm sorry you can't grasp it all.

 

Have fun storming the castle.

 

Interpret it anyway that suits you.

My points in my prior post as well as all of the rest still stand.....without valid refute for a single item or a proposal for anything better from you. Which very much would have been welcomed here had you put one forth.

That was the purpose of this (and previous) threads. The point you seem to miss is that I at least AM TRYING to 'storm the castle'. With a viable idea that has at least a reasonable chance of working for all involved.

My desire for a better game with an increased player base that responds to the well expressed desires of so very many players while taking into consideration various elements of the business aspects might have an actual chance at success.

Instead of contributions from you Coruvs, that would propose or contribute to well-intentioned ideas and ideals in this regard....you have individually and systematically beaten down every single one of the contributors here, including me, without proposing any single solitary thing better. Or any single solitary thing at all for that matter.

This was done to the point of exasperation to all of the parties involved here.

Any valid point made you simply clobbered, tangented, altered, morphed the circumstances for, or made childish statements cloaked in 'sophistication' elevated to ridiculous levels and irrelevant topics with closed data sets and made up 'factoids'....without fail. So much so that no one here wants to even debate with you anymore or contribute due to your dismissive and progressively derogatory commentary.

One by one I watched all of the contributors here that had an interest in my proposal get bored with your jokingly absurd and incessant abstract 'valid arguments' that you attempted to present as absolute and unalterable 'facts'.

You argue like a snowflake libtard  democrap who must oppose anything and everything without the capacity to offer something (or anything for that matter) verifiably, or even jokingly, better until everyone see's 'your sheer brilliant light that endows and enables all others to glow in your magnificence'.

In other words......childishly comical to the point of being Little Lord Fauntleroy.

Without you it can't be done. There is simply no way to do so without your brilliance that all must acknowledge and praise automatically while refuting all others and their ideas before you will speak the 'true words of wisdom' for all to revel in.

Or simply that there is 'no other way unless you deem it so'.  Whenever that might be.

As the individual who began this thread and given your responses to all parties involved I do truly believe that you are sincere and adamantly fixed on your position in this debate.

For me....I....also believe that this is not the thread for you and that perhaps (using a slight variation to one of your own 'polite suggestions' to me) you should consider starting a thread of your own with an opposing view or any other topic of choice that you desire or suits your personal taste.

But your posts here have generally killed all of my very well intentioned efforts. As well as the very well intentioned efforts of others that followed, viewed, responded, contributed and refined my proposal in a sincere effort to help and bring my idea to a rewarding fruition for all interested and involved. An idea that you seem to have taken an exclusively particular dislike to.....and disdain for.

This you did not do with anything that could not easily be, and was, debated. But instead from a position that appeared to be 'dispute for no other reason than to dispute'.

I therefore do politely and respectfully require that you refrain from posting to this thread from this point forth without fail even though, through my own stupid fault, I have put off this decision until it was too late.

Please do not reply.

Thankyou for your time and (I am quite sure) your heart-felt sincerity. Do enjoy your.....(victory????)......here. I truly do wish you the best of luck in your own future thread topics and WoWP gaming experience.


 


 


 


 


 


Edited by soshootmenow, 19 June 2018 - 05:13 AM.


Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #137 Posted 21 June 2018 - 03:57 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 559 battles
  • 3,060
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View Postsoshootmenow, on 19 June 2018 - 12:09 AM, said:

You argue like a snowflake libtard  democrap

whoa... I represent that remark, sans snowflake... heavy on the libtard


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


soshootmenow #138 Posted 21 June 2018 - 04:25 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 30 battles
  • 110
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 21 June 2018 - 03:57 AM, said:

whoa... I represent that remark, sans snowflake... heavy on the libtard

 

Hi Ace

Regardless of your political views.....you do NOT argue like a democrap and in fact make comments and suggestions, either for or against, along the topic lines that are well considered.

I was sorry to have to do that to Corvus but he was getting out of line. And I believe I accurately portrayed and conveyed to him exactly why in my full post above. He was more and more trying to just 'win the argument' via any avenue related or not. If he was not winning he changed the subject, digressed, needlessly insulted while projecting on others what he in fact was doing, and put down everyone's suggestions and numbers.....except his own.

That was not the purpose here. It is to achieve a feasible resolution for all of the parties involved in a viable attempt to move the game forward in a manner that would appeal to the greatest possible player base.

And I thank you, Ace for your efforts and support along these lines.

I am trying to dig around to see if I can find any information on the breakdown of costs for this online game so we have something more concrete to work with. So far I am just finding vague suggestions. Not any hard (or even malleable) info.

Information for the financials on other games is laughably widely varied and from what I can tell makes a joke out of trying to use any of it as a comparative or base guide. Might as well just make stuff up if we try to go that route.

I have a feeling there might be some more solid info (or at least higher quality rumors) buried in the Russian forums but I don't speak the language (let alone read it) and it is too difficult to search it like that if I don't know even remotely what keywords to look for.

Still poking around here and there to see if there is some info out in the wild somewhere.



Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #139 Posted 21 June 2018 - 12:59 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 559 battles
  • 3,060
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View Postsoshootmenow, on 20 June 2018 - 11:25 PM, said:

 

Hi Ace

Regardless of your political views.....you do NOT argue like a democrap and in fact make comments and suggestions, either for or against, along the topic lines that are well considered.

I was sorry to have to do that to Corvus but he was getting out of line. And I believe I accurately portrayed and conveyed to him exactly why in my full post above. He was more and more trying to just 'win the argument' via any avenue related or not. If he was not winning he changed the subject, digressed, needlessly insulted while projecting on others what he in fact was doing, and put down everyone's suggestions and numbers.....except his own.

That was not the purpose here. It is to achieve a feasible resolution for all of the parties involved in a viable attempt to move the game forward in a manner that would appeal to the greatest possible player base.

And I thank you, Ace for your efforts and support along these lines.

I am trying to dig around to see if I can find any information on the breakdown of costs for this online game so we have something more concrete to work with. So far I am just finding vague suggestions. Not any hard (or even malleable) info.

Information for the financials on other games is laughably widely varied and from what I can tell makes a joke out of trying to use any of it as a comparative or base guide. Might as well just make stuff up if we try to go that route.

I have a feeling there might be some more solid info (or at least higher quality rumors) buried in the Russian forums but I don't speak the language (let alone read it) and it is too difficult to search it like that if I don't know even remotely what keywords to look for.

Still poking around here and there to see if there is some info out in the wild somewhere.

 

I had an uncle who's friend ran a little fruit and vegetable warehouse in Detroit...

when I say little I mean little,

small building, two trucks and three or four guys...

lots of write offs, insurance claims and business expenses...

made a couple million a year and paid their taxes

depending on what you're doing... some businesses have funny numbers

russian software companies might be one of those kind of business' 

 


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


jack_wdw #140 Posted 21 June 2018 - 01:10 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 670 battles
  • 314
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012
I don't think the lost 1.9 players would return in great numbers.

Remember that they also had lost a big population after the 1.5 update.
In the end, v1.9 had almost all the issues fixed (that made people leave with 1.5), but eventually 1.9 didn't succeed in getting that lost population back. (not really something to wonder about, with 0.0 advertising)

I do believe 1.9 can re-emerge, but they have to sell the source first and then it can make a comeback as a community game, free of al ties with persha and WG. (more or less what the chinese have).

Edited by jack_wdw, 21 June 2018 - 01:12 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users