Bioware: Most of your players are pvp'ers.... figure it out!

[JediMasterSLC]

translation: " I cannot think of a better argument to defend the OP's ludicrous claims so ironically I have to resort to calling anyone who disagrees with me a "defender" "

 

1) I never used the word "defender"??

 

2) I never said I agreed with the OP? It's undeniable that the population of people who care more about PvP than PvE in this game is NOW fairly low. It has not always been that way. Bringing a sizable portion of that population back would require big things like x-server Qs, 8v8 ranked, and open world PvP. But they're not gonna do that, because they cannot be sure that such an investment would bring enough people back for it to be worth their while. It's a vicious cycle: BW doesn't care enough about PvP, so PvPers don't care enough about SWTOR. PvPers don't care enough about SWTOR, so BW doesn't care about PvP. If they had cared from the start, when they had the benefit of the doubt of the gaming community, we wouldn't have this below-critical-mass problem. But they admitted that they didn't expect so much interest in PvP (idk how they didn't- it's a dual faction SW game FFS), and thus didn't develop it much. Post-launch developments have been a constant story of too little, too late. Plus, they have actually removed content (Ilum and ranked 8v8).

 

This is why you don't release an unfinished game; a lesson that EA continues to refuse to learn, blinded by their impatience and desire to see immediate returns on investment.

Edited May 17, 2014 by JediMasterSLC

[Andryah]

This is why you don't release an unfinished game; a lesson that EA continues to refuse to learn, blinded by their impatience and desire to see immediate returns on investment.

 

I found this statement, by you, in this thread.... to be hilarious.

 

Why? Because you used your favorite strawman again.... yet here you are.. subscribing to a game that was "unfinished". Proving.... that yes..... even people who hate a game and declare it launched in an unfinished state WILL pay to play it (even more then two years after said game launched). Which is precisely why companies will continue to release MMOs that are not finished. Not to mention......all MMOs are unfinished (by definition) when they launch. They are a product that constantly evolves and changes over time. MMOs are the poster child example of "content may change".

[wjrasmussen]

I said no such thing. I'm simply making the comparison of the PvP mission daily payouts to the PvE mission daily payouts.

 

I'm not trying to lump anything NOT PvP as PvE...I'm comparing only the daily missions available, the time it takes to run them, and the credits possible from them in that time. I'm not suggesting that PvPers should get 500k per daily mission, but when CZ-198 takes 10-15 min to complete for a quick 70+k, and ONE warzone takes that long for no payout at all, things are out of whack. 50K for the PvP daily would be a good amount imo. Not enough to make PvPers rich, but enough to help close the huge gap that exists.

 

You do know that the world doesn't revolve around you?

[JediMasterSLC]

I found this statement, by you, in this thread.... to be hilarious.

 

Why? Because you used your favorite strawman again.... yet here you are.. subscribing to a game that was "unfinished". Proving.... that yes..... even people who hate a game and declare it launched in an unfinished state WILL pay to play it (even more then two years after said game launched). Which is precisely why companies will continue to release MMOs that are not finished. Not to mention......all MMOs are unfinished (by definition) when they launch. They are a product that constantly evolves and changes over time. MMOs are the poster child example of "content may change".

 

Again, the queen mother of the apologists makes her favorite and completely nonsensical argument. You say that my subscription to the game invalidates my ability to criticize it, when it actually does the exact opposite. My continued activity gives me greater insight into the state of the game and its community than I would otherwise have. If I had unsubbed after 8v8 ranked implementation was delayed in 1.2, I wouldn't be able to speak about how foolish its removal over a year later was.

 

This is especially true considering that if I wasn't playing, apologists would say "you can't criticize a game that you don't even play! Things have changed!". Regardless of whether someone is subbed or not, you biodrones attempt to use their subscription status as a method to silence any criticism. It's pathetic, and does nothing to address the substance of my posts. Borderline ad hom.

 

I also said that it WAS unfinished, not that it is still unfinished. It would make no sense for me to now decide to unsub from a game, just because it was previously unfinished. The only reason that its unfinished state at release matters, is that the majority of people that will ever give a game a chance do so when it is first released. The release is the game's first impression with the gaming community (other than beta). If you screw up your first impression, you're in trouble.

 

I played SWTOR when it came out became I'm a hardcore SW fan. I continue to play it because I am still a big SW fan, because I have 8 geared 55s that I would be sad to give up, and because I still have a few friends that continue to play. These things do not blind me to the past and present shortcomings of the game. You don't seem to realize that a game can be good enough to play, without being so good as to be immune to legitimate criticism.

 

Now, let's address this ridiculous excuse of "all MMO's are unfinished". Yes, there is obviously a spectrum of completion. This fact does not detract from the ability to call a game relatively unfinished, and unfit for launch. This does not take away from the fact that there is an optimum time in the development process to release your game. Release a game too early: it will get bad reviews, gamers will give its one chance, then leave and never comeback- barring a massive overhaul. Release a game too late: its graphics and features will be outdated and relatively noncompetitive, and you will have spent too much time and resources without receiving any return on investment. Because they are too scared of the latter, EA decided to release before the optimum completion status. Lots of people tried the game, discovered there was very little to do at max level (among other problems), and left, never to come back after giving it its fair chance.

 

In addition, a number of people will pay for a STAR WARS MMO, no matter how objectively good the game is, just because it's star wars. I am guilty of this. Using a powerful IP like SW can make a company complacent: "we don't need to put as much effort in, because if it's Star Wars, they will come". Do not use proof of the game's success as evidence that it could not have been much, much better.

Edited May 18, 2014 by JediMasterSLC

[robertthebard]

Again, the queen mother of the apologists makes her favorite and completely nonsensical argument. You say that my subscription to the game invalidates my ability to criticize it, when it actually does the exact opposite. My continued activity gives me greater insight into the state of the game and its community than I would otherwise have. If I had unsubbed after 8v8 ranked implementation was delayed in 1.2, I wouldn't be able to speak about how foolish its removal over a year later was.

 

Nothing to see here, moving on.

 

This is especially true considering that if I wasn't playing, apologists would say "you can't criticize a game that you don't even play! Things have changed!". Regardless of whether someone is subbed or not, you biodrones attempt to use their subscription status as a method to silence any criticism. It's pathetic, and does nothing to address the substance of my posts. Borderline ad hom.

 

Nothing to see here either. Did you have something to add, or are you just trying to start a flame war? Moving on.

 

I also said that it WAS unfinished, not that it is still unfinished. It would make no sense for me to now decide to unsub from a game, just because it was previously unfinished. The only reason that its unfinished state at release matters, is that the majority of people that will ever give a game a chance do so when it is first released. The release is the game's first impression with the gaming community (other than beta). If you screw up your first impression, you're in trouble.

 

Well, here you're about 1/2 right. You only get one chance to make a first impression. However, since I wasn't here at launch, and decided to try the game out, you're also half wrong. However, since my first impression of you was "Oh look, another troll in a PvPcentric thread, how boring", you really lost your shot at saying anything that I may take seriously. I know, I know, "but Rob, what you think about me matters a damn, I'm still going to spend 2 hours typing out a wall of text that doesn't bring anything relevant to the conversation because I can". It's your time to waste.

 

I played SWTOR when it came out became I'm a hardcore SW fan. I continue to play it because I am still a big SW fan, because I have 8 geared 55s that I would be sad to give up, and because I still have a few friends that continue to play. These things do not blind me to the past and present shortcomings of the game. You don't seem to realize that a game can be good enough to play, without being so good as to be immune to legitimate criticism.

 

You've been here since launch, and only have 8 geared 55s? What were you doing? I have 7, and that's about one a month for the time I've been here. I guess it's hard to level toons if you're too busy making sure those apologists and BioDrones are shut down at every opportunity?

 

Now, let's address this ridiculous excuse of "all MMO's are unfinished". Yes, there is obviously a spectrum of completion, and a game will obviously never stop growing. This fact does not detract from the ability to call a game relatively unfinished, and unfit for launch. This does not take away from the fact that there is an optimum time in the development process to release your game. Release a game too early: it will get bad reviews, gamers will give its one chance, then leave and never comeback- barring a massive overhaul. Release a game too late: its graphics and features will be outdated and relatively noncompetitive, and you will have spent too much time and resources without receiving any return on investment. Because they are too scared of the latter, EA decided to release before the optimum completion status. Lots of people tried the game, discovered there was very little to do at max level (among other problems), and left, never to come back after giving it its fair chance.

 

The only time an MMO is finished is when they are no longer releasing content for it, or it's shut down. You can go on and on about it if you like, but the fact is, if they are releasing content for a game, it's not finished. You see, finished doesn't mean what you think it means, finished means done. The problem you bring to light here is a problem in a lot of new MMOs, people blaze through the initial release content faster than the company thought they would, and find they have nothing to do. This is far from the first MMO to run into that problem. Just off the top of my head, Neverwinter ran into it too. I know, I was there. That doesn't mean I'm a BioDrone, since NW was a PW production. It just means that people shot through the content faster than they could release new stuff.

 

In addition, a number of people will pay for a STAR WARS MMO, no matter how objectively good the game is, just because it's star wars. I am guilty of this. Using a powerful IP like SW can make a company complacent: "we don't need to put as much effort in, because if it's Star Wars, they will come". Do not use proof of the game's success as evidence that it could not have been much, much better.

 

Yes, they will. I have only to realize that I took the time to respond to this post to realize that. However, since this game is still being developed, I don't think complacent means what you think it does. I know, that makes me a BioDrone, or an apologist to you? Let me get over the sleep I'm going to lose over that, ok, I'm over it. So the game's successful, but it could have been much better? I'll take that to mean that it could have been much worse too. I played my free month, and hit a sub before it ran out. Why? Because I was having fun, and at the end of the day, that's what a game is all about.

[Andryah]

Again, the queen mother of the apologists makes her favorite and completely nonsensical argument. You say that my subscription to the game invalidates my ability to criticize it, when it actually does the exact opposite. My continued activity gives me greater insight into the state of the game and its community than I would otherwise have. If I had unsubbed after 8v8 ranked implementation was delayed in 1.2, I wouldn't be able to speak about how foolish its removal over a year later was.

 

This is especially true considering that if I wasn't playing, apologists would say "you can't criticize a game that you don't even play! Things have changed!". Regardless of whether someone is subbed or not, you biodrones attempt to use their subscription status as a method to silence any criticism. It's pathetic, and does nothing to address the substance of my posts. Borderline ad hom.

 

I also said that it WAS unfinished, not that it is still unfinished. It would make no sense for me to now decide to unsub from a game, just because it was previously unfinished. The only reason that its unfinished state at release matters, is that the majority of people that will ever give a game a chance do so when it is first released. The release is the game's first impression with the gaming community (other than beta). If you screw up your first impression, you're in trouble.

 

I played SWTOR when it came out became I'm a hardcore SW fan. I continue to play it because I am still a big SW fan, because I have 8 geared 55s that I would be sad to give up, and because I still have a few friends that continue to play. These things do not blind me to the past and present shortcomings of the game. You don't seem to realize that a game can be good enough to play, without being so good as to be immune to legitimate criticism.

 

Now, let's address this ridiculous excuse of "all MMO's are unfinished". Yes, there is obviously a spectrum of completion. This fact does not detract from the ability to call a game relatively unfinished, and unfit for launch. This does not take away from the fact that there is an optimum time in the development process to release your game. Release a game too early: it will get bad reviews, gamers will give its one chance, then leave and never comeback- barring a massive overhaul. Release a game too late: its graphics and features will be outdated and relatively noncompetitive, and you will have spent too much time and resources without receiving any return on investment. Because they are too scared of the latter, EA decided to release before the optimum completion status. Lots of people tried the game, discovered there was very little to do at max level (among other problems), and left, never to come back after giving it its fair chance.

 

In addition, a number of people will pay for a STAR WARS MMO, no matter how objectively good the game is, just because it's star wars. I am guilty of this. Using a powerful IP like SW can make a company complacent: "we don't need to put as much effort in, because if it's Star Wars, they will come". Do not use proof of the game's success as evidence that it could not have been much, much better.

 

None of this is relevant, it's just defensiveness on your part IMO.

 

Doubling down on the nonsense does not help your cause. You are channeling a classic stereotype in play here.. where somehow you believe an MMO designed for the masses should be designed and maintained to your exacting personal standards. Sever boundary issues at play here IMO.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Andryah

[Sangrar]

Pro tip: not responding to points doesn't mean they go away- it just means you concede them..

 

actually no, the term either is "pocket veto" or "pigeonholing" it means ignoring something until it dies instead of facing it and giving it power that will be used to prolong that troublesome issue.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Sangrar

[JediMasterSLC]

actually no, the term either is "pocket veto" or "pigeonholing" it means ignoring something until it dies instead of facing it and giving it power that will be used to prolong that troublesome issue.

 

*** this is a debate, not congress.

[robertthebard]

actually no, the term either is "pocket veto" or "pigeonholing" it means ignoring something until it dies instead of facing it and giving it power that will be used to prolong that troublesome issue.

 

Yeah, I'd already lost all the sleep I was gonna lose on the rhetoric points. The rest may as well have been copy/pasted from his earlier post. As I said, Nothing to see here, just more "if you disagree, you're a biodrone/apologist and should just move on and let the trolls, er, I mean grownups talk". You know, we're not allowed to have a good time, or to actually see how the business model works, especially if it doesn't fit into the neat little "not a biodrone box" they put it in. It's truly sad though; I love DnD, with a passion, but I walked away from NW because I was unhappy with it's overall direction. They may not even know I'm gone yet, even though it's been quite a while now, since I didn't go raving mad on the forums about it, I just uninstalled and left. I guess I did it wrong. What I should have done was paid a sub for 2 years so I could sit around and call people apologists...

[Reno_Tarshil]

Well I will now but you see how you guys are acting? It's not mature and it doesn't prove your point at all. Throwing around ad hominem attacks will only further discredit your arguments.

 

Yeah, but getting insulted for liking and defending a game is okay tho right?

[Sangrar]

Well I will now but you see how you guys are acting? It's not mature and it doesn't prove your point at all. Throwing around ad hominem attacks will only further discredit your arguments.

 

please stop insulting people, you are a paying customer so you got a right to voice your opinions, but at the same time we are paying customers too who get to voice our opinions so stop attacking people who disagree with you.

[Andryah]

Andryah, your argument is weak and lacking and I'm surprised the quality of your arguments as fallen so low. Getting jaded now are we?

 

Not at all. You are mistaking my lack of interest in conducting point by point rebuttal of inaccurate commentary from a person who insists on calling me names in the forum.

 

Nice attempt to bait though.

[Reno_Tarshil]

Why would a billion dollar corporation need overzealous defending to the point where you have to get other posters in trouble by moderation just for criticizing and/or questioning them?

 

Why is it such a bad thing to defend a game you like from attacks? Please tell me this.

[Sangrar]

Why would a billion dollar corporation need overzealous defending to the point where you have to get other posters in trouble by moderation just for criticizing and/or questioning them?

 

if I am a paying customer doesn't that give me the right to say what I want? if I like features of a game genuinely that makes me a defender? basically you are acting like we as human beings cannot make decisions for ourselves when it comes to what we like and don't like.

[Reno_Tarshil]

if I am a paying customer doesn't that give me the right to say what I want? if I like features of a game genuinely that makes me a defender? basically you are acting like we as human beings cannot make decisions for ourselves when it comes to what we like and don't like.

 

You can make a decision apparently but only if you bash a game and not like it.

[Sangrar]

Pot meet kettle.

 

Trying to bait the OP into a flame war just to get him into trouble because he's critical of the game. Just because we're questioning or being critical of EAware does not automatically mean we're trolling or trying to instigate arguments. It's the overzealous posters that are at fault of causing a vast majority of these call outs, flame wars, trolls, so on and so forth. As paying customers we are entitled to be critical as long as it doesn't cross forum rules. Overzealous posters usually cross that line but avoid any sort of harsh sanctions due baiting against or not responding to critical/questionable posts.

 

I have seen you name and shame people today, no matter what I have said or done at least I have never stooped that low. Also, its quite clear you are the one baiting.

[Sangrar]

Inaccurate commentary? Nice evasive response. Typical maneuvers brought to you by forum defenders.

 

It wasn't bait either. It was a complete accurate assessment of the situation.

 

this is what I am talking about you just labeled someone instead of actually arguing anything.

[Reno_Tarshil]

Inaccurate commentary? Nice evasive response. Typical maneuvers brought to you by forum defenders.

 

It wasn't bait either. It was a complete accurate assessment of the situation.

 

Why does it bother you that people who enjoy the game willingly defend it? Please explain.

[Sangrar]

Your post history on this forum says otherwise.

 

nice attempt to deflect bud, real nice.

[Sangrar]

The same thing then applies with posters who aren't always praising SWTOR like the majority of the posters in the General Discussion. Except that when we do post here, we are automatically labeled as trolls and haters and the overzealous posters attempt to bait us and almost always start a flame war just to get them banned so activity here remains all sunshine and rainbows.

 

The realistic gamers however realize the state of the game and how troubled it's been since the lack of endgame content at launch.

 

your first post since 2012 was attacking posters and insulting people, you cannot tell me that that was all warranted so quickly.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Sangrar

[Andryah]

Inaccurate commentary? Nice evasive response. Typical maneuvers brought to you by forum defenders.

 

It wasn't bait either. It was a complete accurate assessment of the situation.

 

Truth hurts doesn't it?

 

You earned the fast track to /ignore castracho. All you are doing here is flame baiting with the rhetoric and name calling. It won't work.

 

Bye bye.

[Andryah]

You don't get called apologists for liking the game. You get called apologists because you attempt to silence criticism of the game.

 

Providing rebuttal to criticism is not defending anything. It makes great counter points to your attempt at tyranny though.. and that's a good thing in a gaming forum.

 

If you post in the forum, expect people to disagree with you.. and to tell you why. If that's too emotionally upsetting, you might want to rethink your approach a bit. Once you reach the point where you are being largely dismissed through said disagreements, maybe move on to something fresh instead of doubling down on the rhetoric.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Andryah

[Reno_Tarshil]

Because USUALLY you are the posters who are the reason why the forums are as toxic as they are.

 

Nope. Not true.

[Sangrar]

You don't get called apologists for liking the game. You get called apologists because you attempt to silence criticism of the game.

 

how? how would we silence criticism?

 

if we disagree with some criticism we will respond and will counter it as is the whole point of a forum but we are not trying to silence you unless you are one of those guys who labels people and insults anyone who disagrees with them ( just to be clear, not aiming this last one at you but to some others in general )

[Reno_Tarshil]

You don't get called apologists for liking the game. You get called apologists because you attempt to silence criticism of the game.

 

Nope. I have no issues with criticism. Instead I get criticized for liking and defending the game.