133 replies to this topic

[Squally160]

lets get CW working first, then build up on it.

At least small groups can even take part in CW, there are other games out there where if you dont have the proper team size you are SOL.

[Asmudius Heng]

The 'let's wait' argument is terrible.

People said that about game modes early on, about ECM, about the lack of role warfare, about many things that were flagged as problems - then became problems - then STAYED problems for years.

Discussion is what forums are about, if you cannot debate a point and logically shut it down those with poor communication skills will try to attack a persons character, or dismiss without explanation, or insinuate that the stated issue cannot be discussed til implemented.

I do not agree with the sentiment of the OP but I believe that the topic of how small and large groups, attacking and defending and so forth in CW is a legitimate thing to be discussed and hopefully concerns flagged with he developers through robust discussion.

Maybe the only way to save this I to start a new thread with a less inflammatory title and opening .... I might just do that.

[Squally160]

Asmudius Heng, on 30 September 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

The 'let's wait' argument is terrible.

People said that about game modes early on, about ECM, about the lack of role warfare, about many things that were flagged as problems - then became problems - then STAYED problems for years.

Discussion is what forums are about, if you cannot debate a point and logically shut it down those with poor communication skills will try to attack a persons character, or dismiss without explanation, or insinuate that the stated issue cannot be discussed til implemented.

I do not agree with the sentiment of the OP but I believe that the topic of how small and large groups, attacking and defending and so forth in CW is a legitimate thing to be discussed and hopefully concerns flagged with he developers through robust discussion.

Maybe the only way to save this I to start a new thread with a less inflammatory title and opening .... I might just do that.

12 man teams have been waiting for CW since beta, anything else added to be done before CW, is frankly, a waste of time. Get CW done THEN work on making it easier for small teams to play.

in the meantime, find a 12 man? you will do better that way anyways, because youl play with the same people, rather than trying to herd 3 lances of cats around.

Speeeeeling.

Edited by Squally160, 30 September 2014 - 04:53 PM.

[Mystere]

Asmudius Heng, on 30 September 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

I do not need to be a high level paid programmer to see that the user interface of MWO and the mechlab especially is a horrible mess because I have experience using well designed user interfaces over many years.

I am not a game designer but I have been a gamer since I was 12 year old or something and i have seen good and bad game design.

Does that mean I, or anyone else is going to have the best opinion on interface design or game design? No, but it does make the amateur opinion have some level of understanding of core theory practice and have worth.

Insinuating that people they are not allowed to have an opinion on good design because the are not professionals being paid to do it is extremely short sighted. It also leads to people like say .... developers not LISTENING to their customers because they feel above them and infallible.

Debate the argument not the credentials.

It was just a simple question. There is no need to be defensive about it. No one was implying that developers should not listen to their customers.

But since you commented as you did ...

The post I was responding to was not about GUI design, but about something at the systems level. More specifically, he was implying that there should be separate queues for organized groups and solo/small-groups in what is supposed to be a single persistent universe.

Do you think having separate queues is considered "inclusive" or "exclusive"?

Also, do you think having separate queues is good design for a single persistent universe? If so, explain why?

Or put another way, how would you design a single persistent universe with separate -- possibly even multiple -- queues for organized groups and solo/small-groups.

Edited by Mystere, 30 September 2014 - 05:22 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Squally160, on 30 September 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

12 man teams have been waiting for CW since beta, anything else added to be done before CW, is frankly, a waste of time. Get CW done THEN work on making it easier for small teams to play.

in the meantime, find a 12 man? you will do better that way anyways, because youl play with the same people, rather than trying to herd 3 lances of cats around.

Speeeeeling.

Oh i am not saying that these sorts of things HAVE to be in the first roll out, CW is a staged release that will be built on over time that is all good, what level of priority it is certainly debatable as long as these kinds of ideas are at least considered and part of a roadmap long term i would be happy.

If i have 5 of my unit on one night and we want to participate then we should be able to in some capacity. That might be finding another group also lacking numbers then forming up - thats all good. However i am not disbanding my unit to merge into a larger group - we will form alliances and networks and will also recruit to form our own 12 mans.

The point is that when you do not have 12 on, the game should allow easy ways to communicate, group up and fight together easily without the need for 3rd party sites etc. This would also be a boon for larger groups and overall factional organisation rather than just having CW a realm for larger units fielding lots of 12 mans.

Mystere, on 30 September 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

It was just a simple question. There is no need to be defensive about it. No one was implying that developers should not listen to their customers.

My apologies i did come off as rather defensive, your post felt like an attack on someones character and experience more than a discussion on a topic - i may have misinterpreted.

Quote

But since you commented as you did ...

The post I was responding to was not about GUI design, but about something at the systems level. More specifically, he was implying that there should be separate queues for organized groups and solo/small-groups in what is supposed to be a single persistent universe.

Do you think having separate queues is considered "inclusive" or "exclusive"?

Also, do you think having separate queues is good design for a single persistent universe? If so, explain why?

Or put another way, how would you design a single persistent universe with separate -- possibly even multiple -- queues for organized groups and solo/small-groups.

See my post i just put up, might explain my point of view

http://mwomercs.com/...ningful-losses/

I am not defending someone elses PoV btw - i do not believe in separate queues for CW personally, i just want to make sure that different types of players at least have equity of systems and preparation. Skill level, teamwork etc will then be what decides the outcome rather than who has access to systems at a point in time.

[EgoSlayer]

Zeece, on 30 September 2014 - 06:14 AM, said:

Totally missed my point.. games should be INCLUSIVE not EXCLUSIVE... They should be fun for ALL players... not some club that is only fun for the elite.

Its called good game design.

Just how many 12 man teams do you think there are going to be fighting? The vast majority of the battles for planets are going to be PUGs comprised of solo's and smaller groups, just like the queues today only with out as strict a match maker.

If for some reason the 12-man queue explodes in population it should be an easy fix, if it's not there in the planned MM already, to match full 12s vs full 12s as the first criteria to meet with a longish time out on the relief valve.

While I agree that integrated voice coms would help PUGs, a lot of players have stated they are still going to do their own 2-4 man TS groups even if there was integrated VOIP in a lot of the VOIP topics, so I don't think its as much of a solution as many believe. But then again, if they start getting beat down because their opponents are using it, they might change their mind.

[Asmudius Heng]

EgoSlayer, on 30 September 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

While I agree that integrated voice coms would help PUGs, a lot of players have stated they are still going to do their own 2-4 man TS groups even if there was integrated VOIP in a lot of the VOIP topics, so I don't think its as much of a solution as many believe. But then again, if they start getting beat down because their opponents are using it, they might change their mind.

The point of VOIP for smaller units on different TS servers to me would be that you can at least have a push to talk button to speak with the rest of the team for co-ordination but you do most of your micromanagement of your own group in TS.

At least you would be able to quickly open up a team VOIP at a keystroke to call targets to all, or to give a quick scouting report etc.

Or before battle creating a plan quickly. If i was in a small group and formed with a larger group i would probably defer to the larger group and follow their lead also and ask them to communicate with our group and follow the lead etc.

Also if you have a good game you might send an invite to the other group, form up a larger group and get one one or the other TS to be more effective.

Better tools to help people form up and get organised on the fly is where all these things can really help and creates a better community overall where people create alliances and friends more quickly and easily.

I know i make it sound probably better than it will be but i truly feel like MWO as it stands is a very damp and not very social place due to communications systems - horrible for a new player experience too.

[EgoSlayer]

Asmudius Heng, on 30 September 2014 - 05:51 PM, said:

The point of VOIP for smaller units on different TS servers to me would be that you can at least have a push to talk button to speak with the rest of the team for co-ordination but you do most of your micromanagement of your own group in TS.

At least you would be able to quickly open up a team VOIP at a keystroke to call targets to all, or to give a quick scouting report etc.

Or before battle creating a plan quickly. If i was in a small group and formed with a larger group i would probably defer to the larger group and follow their lead also and ask them to communicate with our group and follow the lead etc.

Also if you have a good game you might send an invite to the other group, form up a larger group and get one one or the other TS to be more effective.

Better tools to help people form up and get organised on the fly is where all these things can really help and creates a better community overall where people create alliances and friends more quickly and easily.

I know i make it sound probably better than it will be but i truly feel like MWO as it stands is a very damp and not very social place due to communications systems - horrible for a new player experience too.

My .02 C-bills on the integrated VOIP is this:

Use TeamSpeak integration. TS has a full SDK and API that allows for complete dynamic creation and deletion of groups and moving people into them. So the last step of the match maker would be to create the TS groups for the teams and put the players in the right groups.
Better than what PGI attempted with the C3 solution, but it would require that PGI host their own private TS servers to host all the players. Short term it would be cheaper than writing their own solution, but it would be a recurring yearly cost to host the TS servers.

[Asmudius Heng]

Sounds interesting. Though VOIP is also something that the solo queue needs so new players have a way to voice chat (or mute if they don't want to engage)

Whatever the solution it needs to be simple and seamless IMO.

[Kyle Wright]

12-man teams will always excel over PUGs. Not just organization or comes cause even with VI PUGS will suffer. Bigger units will excel based solely on how long they have played together, their better understanding of which mechs work with what in a comp, and typically better understanding of maps.

All this complaining in group queue about 12mans rolling people's 8 man's and below. I'm sorry but you can't win them all and it's childish of people to cry at people that put more time in organizing an elite fighting force compared to you 6 man PUG all star pick on the mouth breathers group. I'll even tell you to go look in the novels and see times where units are out matched or out numbered. Learn to overcome and adapt. IT'S A TEAM GAME UP TO 12 PEOPLE JUST DEAL WITH IT! Not our fault you don't have 12 friends or know concepts of drop comp building.

[FatYak]

Kyle Wright, on 30 September 2014 - 10:53 PM, said:

Not our fault you don't have 12 friends or know concepts of drop comp building.

And that's why i think CW will be a fail for most of us, because we are not from "comp teams"

Unless groups are ranked and can then only battack groups of a similar rank, this will quickly decend into a few of the top groups forming alliances and then preying on every other weaker group below them

Who's going to volunteer their time for that?

Edited by FatYak, 30 September 2014 - 11:05 PM.

[Kyle Wright]

FatYak, on 30 September 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

And that's why i think CW will be a fail for most of us, because we are not from "comp teams"

Unless groups are ranked and can then only battack groups of a similar rank, this will quickly decend into a few of the top groups forming alliances and then preying on every other weaker group below them

Who's going to volunteer their time for that?

It doesn't have to be like this though. Plenty of experienced teams out there that will gladly share knowledge and even scrim to help others out. 5 guys from HHoD former team 007 comp team took HHOD 5th Btl of maybe 25 guys in the first season of MRBC from totally horrible green pilots with no concept of strategic maneuvers or ideas on which mechs work better to a group that went 21-3W/L in bracket 2 and almost beat SJR out for overall cbill earned. It took practice and the ability to admit some things simply are bad whether they are mechs, mech builds, or strategies. Which would you rather be a Navy Seal or a Somalia Pirate or Russian Conscript or Redneck with a shotgun?

[Novakaine]

Soldier up and Enlist.

[FatYak]

Kyle Wright, on 30 September 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

It doesn't have to be like this though. Plenty of experienced teams out there that will gladly share knowledge and even scrim to help others out. 5 guys from HHoD former team 007 comp team took HHOD 5th Btl of maybe 25 guys in the first season of MRBC from totally horrible green pilots with no concept of strategic maneuvers or ideas on which mechs work better to a group that went 21-3W/L in bracket 2 and almost beat SJR out for overall cbill earned. It took practice and the ability to admit some things simply are bad whether they are mechs, mech builds, or strategies. Which would you rather be a Navy Seal or a Somalia Pirate or Russian Conscript or Redneck with a shotgun?

how about none of those.. how about a casual gamer that would like to log in and have a good time without getting steamrolled day in and day out?

[Novakaine]

FatYak, on 30 September 2014 - 11:46 PM, said:

how about none of those.. how about a casual gamer that would like to log in and have a good time without getting steamrolled day in and day out?

Ah that's the fun of the game you know team spirit and cooperation.
Don't be so antisocial, it's always better with a friend.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

All competitive teams taking clans because they are straight out better. Have a good CW gentlemen.

IS quirks need to do some miracles for this to change.

[N0MAD]

Livewyr, on 30 September 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

Is there a reason that an organized full team of people who are skilled, on comms, and play regularly with each other should not dominate?

Yes there is, its called competition.
So how many competitions like say football match a street team vs an international team.
If you are going to run a competition then fairness and a chance for all to win is just well common sense.

[Livewyr]

N0MAD, on 01 October 2014 - 03:14 AM, said:

Yes there is, its called competition.
So how many competitions like say football match a street team vs an international team.
If you are going to run a competition then fairness and a chance for all to win is just well common sense.

How many "street" teams are trying to go for the world cup?


(I almost said Superbowl, then I guessed you were talking about soccer based on "International" team.)

[Triordinant]

The Devs have already said that Community Warfare is catering mostly to organized units even though anyone can join in. If this remains the case, it's only natural that most soloists and small casual groups will eventually stay out of it (though a few might join the big units). Many small casual groups have been complaining about getting steamrolled by the big competitive units in the group queue and CW will give them a respite during peak hours because most of the big units will leave the group queue to participate in CW. In a sense, instead of creating a separate queue for small casual groups, CW will resurrect the old 12-man queue for a few hours every day. During these hours, small groups will be free of the big unit "scourge" and big units will go up against the "real competition" which they claim they want -so both groups will be happy, albeit temporarily.

[Hoax415]

Zeece, on 30 September 2014 - 05:22 AM, said:

I had really hoped we would have a Solo and Small Group Que and a 12man que for Assault/Defend so that we didn't have to worry about PUGs running into the 12man wall.. Can they win? Yah... but the odds are totally against them.

Perhaps - Limit the 12mans to a couple drops a time period per Unit Tag... sure it can be gamed but its alot of work to do so the gaming should be pretty tiny.

These are what bad ideas look like.

Zeece, on 30 September 2014 - 06:14 AM, said:

Totally missed my point.. games should be INCLUSIVE not EXCLUSIVE... They should be fun for ALL players... not some club that is only fun for the elite.

You can't have it both ways. If only winning is fun AND you refuse to do basic stuff that would increase your chance of winning a reasonable mind wouldn't think its time to climb onto the cross and cry about how persecuted you are.

CW is going to need more than no system whatsoever but its not going to be a mirror of solo queue hand holding and hurt feeling protections. Its opt in so nobody's fun is being thwarted unless you are:
-only having fun when winning
-but refuse to do any "work" to increase your winning chances, the game needs to do it all for you
-and refuse to just ignore the opt-in mode where your chances of winning will go down, because that's also the game's fault

zzz

FatYak, on 30 September 2014 - 11:46 PM, said:

how about none of those.. how about a casual gamer that would like to log in and have a good time without getting steamrolled day in and day out?

Well good thing solo queue exists and is the perfect place for playing casual and still getting plenty of wins and close random matches and having a good time. Also the casual player can rejoice in the fact that they should all just use the group queue during CW windows because it will be clear of most/all of the tryhards.

Asmudius Heng, on 30 September 2014 - 04:04 AM, said:

The only way this will change.

1. VOIP to help multiple groups on seperate comms communicate in game
2. Better in game communication (commo-rose etc)
3. Better in game Looking For Group functions within factions
4. A better system on how to respond to attacks
5. Defender bonuses

The inherent advantages of a 12 mans is better communication and pre-batle planning - these two things needs to be addressed for the fill in groups who defend.

1) in-game VOIP is less of a no brainer than you think. First of all a lot of people who avoid the 3rd party VOIP options are doing so for their own reasons: can't speak loudly while gaming, hate hearing other people talk, don't want to talk themselves, don't have mic, play with speakers not headphones and don't want random strangers being able to curse through their speakers. etc. etc. etc.

additionally if we're talking about CW groups made up of several smaller groups many of those groups will be using their own VOIP or skype call while playing casually with friends if you have ever played Dota2 which has amazing in-game VOIP knows that players on their own call do not communicate effectively using the in-game tools most of the time.

Point being in-game voice is something that the majority of people currently refusing to consider voice don't want or wouldn't use or would turn off. So you would still get lots of teammates who can't hear you or won't talk.

Additionally 12-person voice is a lot of people with opportunity to play music through their mic or do other annoying as hell stuff. So now we need a strong and fast system to mute players and other people will clamor for a report function and so on. Its a huge hassle for PGI when if you care about voice you can get on voice and the people who care mainly do get on voice.

2. Is a much much much better idea. I'm all for it and I can't think of anyone who is against it. Its also probably a lot of work and won't make PGI a dime. I'm not willing to hold up CW for it but I'd lend my voice to supporting it as a priority feature after CW's release. You are right a much better system in-game to at least provide basically tactical structure to your team would be nice.

But lets be real. Cammo Rose while a Great Thing™ isn't going to tip the scales of who will win the majority of matches. So its a lot of work that is work worth doing because it would be good for the game, not only in CW but in solo and group queue as well. That said its a lot of work for low payout. Its not going to massively change the outcome of playing "casual" no voice, small team, play in CW. Those guys aren't going to start winning closer to 50% because of a Cammo Rose system.

3. Sure that would be nice? I mean I get that its a tough ask for some players to find and make friends with strangers. The thing is I don't know how much I believe that people for whom that is too much to ask will change their stripes even if the game is doing some of the work for them by providing chat channels or whatever.

But I will say this. The current in-game communication system is absolute ****. Worst I've ever seen. Its shameful how bad the in-game private message system is and so of course someone ought to fix it. I just really don't believe at all that any social system will change the behavior of people who are anti-social players by nature. While you have to do the work yourself it just isn't that hard to go onto Faction X's recruitment forum and find the big long sticky post that tells you where to find newb/pub/pug friendly VOIP for that faction. If that is too high of a barrier for a player I bet joining a Marik_LFG chat channel in game and participating would be "too hard" as well. Because reality is none of that is about difficulty its about psychological factors that make playing too "closely" with other people seem unappealing.

Oh and one more hilarious thing about in-game LFG chat channels. You know what the first thing anyone will tell you when they recruit you from the chat to their team? What VOIP server to get on. Because if you want to win enough to take the time to form a team you bet your ass you want to get your teammates onto voice so you can coordinate.

Which puts us right back where we started. People who refuse to get involved that closely with other players aren't going to join the LFG chat channel because everyone in there expects some level of social interaction with the goal of maximizing the chances of winning.

4-5. I think you are dealing with outdated info. Attack queues and Defense queues work in identical ways as of the 9/24 CW Update by Paul.

Edited by Hoax415, 01 October 2014 - 05:28 AM.