quickfire

That's interesting. If that is the case than I will certainly retract my opinion in that respect.

There were two comments 3 years ago or so that I used to gauge my opinion (I couldn't verify either at the time, so I chalked it up to feasible but not confirmed, until I learned the current population level. That gave more credence that this was inside information.)

The first was a memo tidbit that claimed the desired target was the same as SWG once had...300k subs. The second was a comment that subs had dropped to
137k and were still dropping, and they were disappointed that subs were going in the opposite direction but chalked it up to market competition.

When the last sub report was released it was very close to the proper claimed subs in the released info, so it gave it credence. I haven't seen any other info since (before you posted that they publically commented they were profitable at 100k) that talked about profitability levels.

If that is the case I'm happy to hear that, but I would find the choice to go free to play an odd one. Unless, of course, they are actually trying to INCREASE sub targets at the moment, which is certainly possible.

It is certainly food for thought.

There isn't a single thing I can find right about this post. The problem, however, if I correct you I really will be a hypocrite.

So instead I will simply say fair enough. After all, you either do not understand my very clear comments or you refuse to understand, in either case discussion along this line with you will be fruitless.

Why would I be a hypocrite and question their opinions or sources? Instead I simply tell them I do not agree, I do not have to list the reasons why since that is an attempt to disparage and invalidate their opinions...and there is no need to do that.

I also won't explain why your comment that I don't change my mind is wrong. You can discover that for yourself.

Speaking for the devs is one thing. You won't speak for me. Apparently your not aware that I'm fully capable of doing that myself.

I've been accused of many ridiculous things in this thread based on the hope that I would respond in some silly exchange. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in my corner.

Let's see if I can make yet one more attempt to clarify this. I realize it's possible I haven't been clear, so what the heck, I'll give it another shot...



...There is no need to respond to anything that is baseless, exaggerated, dishonest, attempting to create conflict or hypocritical. Nor is it necessary to justify any and all of my actions or intentions to any member of this board. Those that wish to engage in this type of baiting and confrontational behavior possess opinions that mean next to nothing to me.

My responses to those types of posts stand in direct evidence of that fact.



The funny thing is I am absolutely sure the folks I am speaking about know EXACTLY who they are and will continue to attempt the same to no avail. It is my sincere hope that they instead choose to place me on ignore so the discussion can perhaps continue. They have to catch on eventually.

I really hope that was clear enough.




That said, I do appreciate those folks that have actually had a desire to discuss the issue, explain the problems, reasons and pratfalls of an open system, and I have another tidbit to add to my list against the very thing I was suggesting...

...Champions had an open system and we all can see the evidence of the problems that creates. After some research I have seen some complaints to that end. Certainly something to think about.

Actually I can argue against that...and be completely wrong. You could be wrong as well. We don't really know since we know next to nothing about whether the game is profitable or not, what kind of numbers they would have to have or do have for it to be that way, etc.

I ASSUME it did not meet expectations, and therefore is not healthy atm, though that should change soon. Again, that's just my own guess based on what I have read and the market. That doesn't mean I'm right...only that it's my opinion based on what I have seen.

Success, short of some kind of diverse and revealing financial statement that states it in unequivocal terms is speculative and highly subjective.

So in short, I concede you could be right. I just don't think so, and could be wrong about that.

The same place yours are. In speculative and unconfirmed by official source territory (with the exception of perhaps the numbers you and others have seen, based on what they HAVE officially released. They haven't released any numbers in a while.).

Were both guessing.

You can argue your viewpoint all you like, but we are not going to agree. IMO this game has lost over half it's population, PERIOD. My opinion is based on some opinion pieces using external sources, inside information (unconfirmed) and speculation based on observations of certain things. It has put the game somewhere between 105k to 75k in subs, certainly comfortably in the "half lost" territory.

I am sure, however, that the release coming up will turn that around.

Nothing is stable about losing players, gradual or otherwise. You can hemorrhage them or lose them over time, but while other popular games are gaining subs this one was losing them. General statement, yes. Untrue statement, absolutely NOT.

It is ridiculous, IMO (which means next to nothing naturally) to contend that this game has had a "healthy subscription count" or "healthy population". Has it been dying? I don't think so, but continue this rate of loss over the next few years and maybe it would.

They made the right choice going free to play. It will, IMO, turn things around.

I'd like to add that in order to be fair I would have to say that this game has fared well compared to other games in it's subscriber group, but not in it's class...meaning that this wasn't meant as an obscure title but was actually designed to be a major mainstream online game...at least that is what I contend. And to that purpose it's done OK...not great, not horrible, ok. It is certainly worthy of note that it's still kicking after all this time, which is testament to how addictive the game can be.

One thing I can't argue against...what CoH does right it does better than most if not all games in the industry.

If I didn't care about the game, I wouldn't post...I didn't post last time I left, and unless your contending that it's better just for players to leave instead of sharing what they find wrong with the game...well...I think the dev's would disagree.

I think it's likely they want to know. If they only hear it from me it will likely get ignored as it should be. However, if they hear it from others as well, perhaps they will pay attention. They certainly do not need to respond or give my opinion importance...and that is not why I offer it.

But my opinion is just that, and as such will not be questioned or altered as I present it. People CAN disagree, but they CANT change it unless I allow it.



My final question is this...why is my opinion important to so many people? Do you really believe one little solitary opinion has that much weight? Do you believe the designers of this game are incapable of rejecting any opinion they find irrelevant?

I don't think you guys give them enough credit. And they MOST CERTAINLY do not need your help to determine what they should and should not listen to. They are probably more than capable of doing that themselves.

A good argument and counterpoint. I have to concede that.

As is yours of course. I get your point. I just don't agree with it. I think we can see plenty of players left (even though some folks here even dispute that), we can say it's at least likely there were some common reasons (it's almost impossible they all left for individual reasons, like some contend) and I pose why I might leave or why I left earlier, and leave it up to the devs.

Arguing as to whether the game has lost over half it's population is just like any other argument against a game posed to a fan. It's going to get picked apart and shut down.

It's the NGE syndrome. I learned long ago to ignore it. Some players here at least seem to be in denial like many other games.

And again, I wasn't indicating it's not a fact. Only that I wouldn't be one of those that feel that feel that way.

In other words it wouldn't be one of my major complaints. I don't mind instancing.

I believe Baublie Diggs just might have been the devil.

I had a few great conversations already about my posts. Even edited them a bit to make them more presentable, less opinionated, a bit more neutral, etc.

I don't think I have to explain to you the difference between those that actually want to talk...and those that want to argue.

As for the responses to diatribe...well, even I like to have fun. So I return a serve or two. Eventually they go away or put me on ignore and I can actually talk to folks that are genuinely interested in doing so.

So there you are.

Because SHE THINKS....important point to make. Does not make it so, as I don't agree that I need to prove my point or have player support to be heard.

I really didnt think I would have to explain a response to one person to another person...but ok.

At any rate, we can continue to discuss why I should give player opinions more credit than I do, and continue to go nowhere if you guys wish.

I think your going to find ANY slant put in my direction is not going to have the effect you expect.

But I do enjoy the snark so....

There are quite a few helpful folks in the game. More than I have seen in other games, including a few times I've heard veterans gifting large influence amounts to new players without them even asking for it.

That was impressive.

Fair enough.

Well well well. Lie, eh? It coudn't POSSIBLY be that you simply do not understand. Nope, that's not possible. It has to be that I am...lying.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Ok, for once I will respond, only to demonstrate...well...let's just say (to remain within the rules) to show how...incorrect...your statement is.


I played for one or two months (cant remember) back 3 years ago. I just resubbed and are in my first month back.

If you still can't grasp what I mean...3 months tops. That means new player. I have no toons ABOVE 30.

I really hope I don't have to explain that further. Although I do wish I could have more fun with my response, I really need to remain within the forum rules....and when this post so strongly begs for it....oh well.

To the next incredibly witty comment you made, obviously well thought out...all I can say is this...read. If you do that you might find the folly in your comment.

Perhaps.

Ah...yes, that's a dummy comment on my part. It didn't click that reallocating points means you can choose a new power pool.

Sorry, brain fart.

Ah. My mistake. I apologize. I would contend, however, that I expect most folks that are new to the game will enter it using the free method.

I can't deny that the crafting in this game is good, IMO past 30, certainly one of the best (though IMO SWG had the best crafting hands down). I also like the lack of concentration on gear and the improvement of base abilities with enhancements, which further sweetens the crafting.

I still feel, however, there is no need for it prior to 30, or even perhaps 20. I just think it would be best to introduce it later in the game.

1) Your first comment does not impress me. It also doesn't change my point. They could be the folks that cured cancer, your not going to flip a switch and turn me into a sheep.

2) Perhaps they will. Again, this does not change the fact that I do not care about their opinions concerning my post, it's validity or whether or not it is valid or "will be heard". You can bet that isn't going to change any time soon. No amount of fantasy or slant is going to change that.

I do however support and encourage folks to disagree and post why they don't think it's an issue right in this thread...that way the dev's see all corners of the room and can make up their own minds.

3) The same thing that makes you think they will not. Imagine that.

Sure, but shortly it will only offer two. This is not to try and diminish your point, naturally, simply to point out the choices for free players (essentially an unlimited trial which hopefully leads to purchases or a subscription) will be more limited.

Well...I can't deny the wisdom of your point. I would have to agree that is likely. But would a new player look at it that way, or would they simply power through the lousy combo like they do in most games?

Speculation, sure, but my guess would be most players do not like to delete and reroll and are resistant to the idea...which could weight against the game, fair or not.

Consider the first ten levels to be the "transition" period between other games and this one. There is no doubt that this game presents a very unique system.

I could have certainly been too harsh in my OP. Perhaps just a bit of fine tuning would make it more palatable, but I do think I'm not imagining things here, and it seems there are at least a few that agree. The early system is a bit counter intuitive.