Thread Tools

nikthebeast

nikthebeast's Avatar
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.

nikthebeast

nikthebeast's Avatar
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.

babylon

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.

babylon

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.

Ashpool

Ashpool's Avatar
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?

Ashpool

Ashpool's Avatar
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?

babylon

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.

babylon

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.

Samedi

Samedi's Avatar
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."

Samedi

Samedi's Avatar
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."
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.