21 replies to this topic

[DogmeatX]

According to answers from http://mwomercs.com/...e__pid__2107971

Quote

Currently most MWO players actually play in groups

and

Quote

Almost every match has at least one team of 2-4 players.

Is there any chance we could get a stats breakdown of the groups involved, sizes, frequency they are on a side and all that jazz? Compared to lone wolves? I'm genuinely interested (and this is not a premade whine post, since I play in a small premade most of the time anyway)

[zverofaust]

I would love something like this. All they need to do is add the code to show who is grouped with whom in the player lists in-game, like World of Tanks does. Bam. No more speculation and frustrating guesswork; we'd immediately be able to see how common groups are.

This should've been done MONTHS AGO.

[MN03]

Strange, I rarely see premades larger than 3 players.

[DogmeatX]

Just to clarify in OP I'm not asking for ingame highlighting/details, I believe the devs already answered that (not happening)

I'm asking for some general out of game stats, like the ones for number of participants/shots fired/win losses/etc. for the competitions that have been run But obviously with premade stats..

Edited by DogmeatX, 22 March 2013 - 07:40 AM.

[Dovvol]

Would be nice to show where your team is on the minimap by a different colored triangle, but as far as letting everybody know who is teamed up I don't agree with. To many ppl would quit out of the match before it started if they thought they where gonna get rolled because of a premade. I run solo and with a team.

[Billygoat]

Well that explains why they feel the need for 3rd person and other guff. If "most" players are in premade groups, the population must actually be very unhealthy.

[Exoth3rmic]

Its not that shocking that most of the players who've stuck around for any length of time play in groups.

It should, however, be quite concerning.

[Malora Sidewinder]

zverofaust, on 22 March 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

I would love something like this. All they need to do is add the code to show who is grouped with whom in the player lists in-game, like World of Tanks does. Bam. No more speculation and frustrating guesswork; we'd immediately be able to see how common groups are.

This should've been done MONTHS AGO.

Just want to point out that MOST of the time you can spot a 4 man as their house symbols line up.

4 random pugs in Free Rasalhague Republic? Not likely.

[MrPenguin]

Exoth3rmic, on 22 March 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

It should, however, be quite concerning.

Not really.

[Bguk]

zverofaust, on 22 March 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

I would love something like this. All they need to do is add the code to show who is grouped with whom in the player lists in-game, like World of Tanks does. Bam. No more speculation and frustrating guesswork; we'd immediately be able to see how common groups are.

So much so this. All that crap about pugs/pres would have been avoided with a simple icon. It still occurs. One day....

[Tickdoff Tank]

MN03, on 22 March 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

Strange, I rarely see premades larger than 3 players.

How can you tell? Especially with small teams it seems to be very difficult to determine who is actually teamed up.

[Serapth]

Bguk, on 22 March 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

So much so this. All that crap about pugs/pres would have been avoided with a simple icon. It still occurs. One day....

... and balance them across sides and this all becomes a non-issue.


These are two incredibly freaking low hanging fruit solutions that PGI continue to ignore, much to the detriment of the game.

[zverofaust]

Billygoat, on 22 March 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

Well that explains why they feel the need for 3rd person and other guff. If "most" players are in premade groups, the population must actually be very unhealthy.

Exoth3rmic, on 22 March 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Its not that shocking that most of the players who've stuck around for any length of time play in groups.

It should, however, be quite concerning.

Not empty quoting.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Malora Sidewinder, on 22 March 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

Just want to point out that MOST of the time you can spot a 4 man as their house symbols line up.

4 random pugs in Free Rasalhague Republic? Not likely.

That seems to be an incorrect assumption. We have a finite number of houses to choose from, and you are put together randomly. While you may be correct, I would not think that it should be considered incontrovertible evidence.

I have been on plenty of teams with multiple members of a specific house that were not grouped up. And many of the teams I play on have people showing the colors of several different houses.

[TimTheEnchantor]

Billygoat, on 22 March 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

Well that explains why they feel the need for 3rd person and other guff. If "most" players are in premade groups, the population must actually be very unhealthy.

How is it unhealthy? The entire universe revolves around Houses and Clans. Sure there are mercenaries, but we still have mercenaries grouping as units. I mean, I understanding wanting to put PuGs on a different level than groups in a matchmaker - and they are.

Read the rest of the Dev Answers...

[Exoth3rmic]

MrPenguin, on 22 March 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

Not really.

Well i'd love to believe that all the people that d/l MWO to "give it a go" as its F2P find a group of people to play with in a short period of time - or attract friends to play, I do not believe it.

I, myself, started with 5 others. They don't play any more and they never posted on the forums about it when they left. Sad thing is, 3 of them actually put in significant $ in to it first. So they did their part but simply weren't kept engaged enough to continue. Perfect customers perhaps.

Edited by Exoth3rmic, 22 March 2013 - 08:11 AM.

[Billygoat]

TimTheEnchantor, on 22 March 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

How is it unhealthy? The entire universe revolves around Houses and Clans. Sure there are mercenaries, but we still have mercenaries grouping as units. I mean, I understanding wanting to put PuGs on a different level than groups in a matchmaker - and they are.

Read the rest of the Dev Answers...

Because, quite simply, if Bryan is not blowing more smoke up our collective sphincters, it means only the hardest of hard core players are left to form that majority.

The pool of available players for any online title like this will always be casual, solo players by a significant majority. Always. People who group up and chat on voice comms and make super cool tactical decisions and form pretend military hierarchies and stuff for "competitive gaming" are not "Average gamers" they are a small subset of enthusiasts. If the majority of the players for this game are from that group, then the audience it has reached is very small and all those average gamers are not here in significant enough numbers to make things work. And PGI's business model apparently isn't set up to function in starvation mode like that, which would go some way to explaining the seemingly desperate attempts to bring in fresh meat even if it means breaking promises they have made and making themselves look like complete d-bags to their existing players.

[Greyfyl]

Exoth3rmic, on 22 March 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Its not that shocking that most of the players who've stuck around for any length of time play in groups.

It should, however, be quite concerning.

I agree with your sentiments. I finally convinced a friend at work who has played other mech games to give MWO a try and he lasted all of 2 days. I don't however buy into the original statement that premade players outnumber pug players at this point. I really find that hard to believe.

TimTheEnchantor, on 22 March 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

How is it unhealthy? The entire universe revolves around Houses and Clans. Sure there are mercenaries, but we still have mercenaries grouping as units. I mean, I understanding wanting to put PuGs on a different level than groups in a matchmaker - and they are.

Read the rest of the Dev Answers...

Are you really this naïve?

[MaddMaxx]

zverofaust, on 22 March 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

I would love something like this. All they need to do is add the code to show who is grouped with whom in the player lists in-game, like World of Tanks does. Bam. No more speculation and frustrating guesswork; we'd immediately be able to see how common groups are.

This should've been done MONTHS AGO.

Simply brilliant. FFS. In less that a week, players would read the in-game player list and all you would see is:

DISCONNECT
DISCONNECT
DISCONNECT
DISCONNECT
DISCONNECT
DISCONNECT
DISCONNECT
DISCONNECT

Knowing who on the other side is playing together serve little to no purpose, other than likely grieving of those players who do play together. Well I suppose one could always stroke their E-Peen after a Win. But what about after a loss? then what...

Wah! Wah! Wah! We can't allow those 4 players to play together cause they kilt me!" Wah! Wah! Wah!

No thanks.

[NinetyProof]

There are a lot of "groups" going into matches .. but that doesn't mean they actually play as a group.

I have been in dozens of groups, and most of them play like they are in pugs ... not calling targets, not staying together, etc, etc.

I have been in only a couple of groups, and 1 in particular, where it was highly coordinated ... and yes, I have been in clan groups where they did not work as a team.

So, metrics on group drop vs pug drops doesn't mean a whole lot.