Page 157 of 208 FirstFirst ... 57107147155156157158159167207 ... LastLast
Results 1,561 to 1,570 of 2075

Thread: do away with faction lock

  1. #1561
    Quote Originally Posted by babylon View Post
    Not convinced all players will really know what faction they want to play until they start playing it.
    Tough luck, is what I say. If you start playing on several servers, the game fails and has to merge servers. Not funcom's fault, not your fault. No one wanted it, it's a big "what if" that is likely a long way ahead of us.

    And we get it, babylon, you think faction lock is going to break up cabals. We don't agree. Move on.

  2. #1562
    Quote Originally Posted by babylon View Post
    Not convinced all players will really know what faction they want to play until they start playing it.
    Tough luck, is what I say. If you start playing on several servers, the game fails and has to merge servers. Not funcom's fault, not your fault. No one wanted it, it's a big "what if" that is likely a long way ahead of us.

    And we get it, babylon, you think faction lock is going to break up cabals. We don't agree. Move on.

  3. #1563
    Quote Originally Posted by Lodestar View Post
    You know I think I prefered the discussion on non consenual PvP. Never thought I would say it. But I miss you FD.
    These guys are very not open to discussion it would seem.

    Quote Originally Posted by nikthebeast View Post
    Tough luck, is what I say.
    So be it. And the only answer that will be able to be given, if this (very likely) scenario isn't provided for.

    Quote Originally Posted by nikthebeast View Post
    And we get it, babylon, you think faction lock is going to break up cabals. We don't agree.
    Well disagreeing here is like sticking your hand into the fire and claiming it isn't burning. You can say it isn't as much as you want, but everyone else can see your hand chargrilling into a bloody stump.

  4. #1564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lodestar View Post
    You know I think I prefered the discussion on non consenual PvP. Never thought I would say it. But I miss you FD.
    These guys are very not open to discussion it would seem.

    Quote Originally Posted by nikthebeast View Post
    Tough luck, is what I say.
    So be it. And the only answer that will be able to be given, if this (very likely) scenario isn't provided for.

    Quote Originally Posted by nikthebeast View Post
    And we get it, babylon, you think faction lock is going to break up cabals. We don't agree.
    Well disagreeing here is like sticking your hand into the fire and claiming it isn't burning. You can say it isn't as much as you want, but everyone else can see your hand chargrilling into a bloody stump.

  5. #1565
    Quote Originally Posted by nikthebeast View Post
    it's a big "what if" that is likely a long way ahead of us.
    It would be absolute madness for funcom to base their server model on what might happen if the game starts to fail. By that logic the game should undeniably start free to play also. You see the rocky slope that opens up when you start basing decisions around assumptions of what the future will hold?

  6. #1566
    Quote Originally Posted by nikthebeast View Post
    it's a big "what if" that is likely a long way ahead of us.
    It would be absolute madness for funcom to base their server model on what might happen if the game starts to fail. By that logic the game should undeniably start free to play also. You see the rocky slope that opens up when you start basing decisions around assumptions of what the future will hold?

  7. #1567
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashpool View Post
    It would be absolute madness for funcom to base their server model on what might happen if the game starts to fail. By that logic the game should undeniably start free to play also. You see the rocky slope that opens up when you start basing decisions around assumptions of what the future will hold?
    They've already planned for subscription failures by implementing a cash shop from the very beginning. So looks like they are thinking in this way, which incidentally is the smart move.

  8. #1568
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashpool View Post
    It would be absolute madness for funcom to base their server model on what might happen if the game starts to fail. By that logic the game should undeniably start free to play also. You see the rocky slope that opens up when you start basing decisions around assumptions of what the future will hold?
    They've already planned for subscription failures by implementing a cash shop from the very beginning. So looks like they are thinking in this way, which incidentally is the smart move.

  9. #1569
    Quote Originally Posted by babylon View Post
    They've already planned for subscription failures by implementing a cash shop from the very beginning. So looks like they are thinking in this way, which incidentally is the smart move.
    Business 101, that's not planning for failure that's planning for more gain. The cash shop has nothing to do with the subscriptions. Was Blizzard planning for lower subs when they implemented theirs. Not a big fan of the logic in your statement.

    Though I'll agree it's a smart move. (See common ground)
    "Others believe that names grant great strength."

  10. #1570
    Quote Originally Posted by babylon View Post
    They've already planned for subscription failures by implementing a cash shop from the very beginning. So looks like they are thinking in this way, which incidentally is the smart move.
    Business 101, that's not planning for failure that's planning for more gain. The cash shop has nothing to do with the subscriptions. Was Blizzard planning for lower subs when they implemented theirs. Not a big fan of the logic in your statement.

    Though I'll agree it's a smart move. (See common ground)
    "Others believe that names grant great strength."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •