344 replies to this topic

[Crazy Billy Joe Bob]

The current state of the "game" is unplayable, and at times repulsive. PGI is in a panic mode, and they have ruined any chance of curing this game.. to say the least.

[IceSerpent]

MischiefSC, on 01 July 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

I find that hard to believe, given that in NPDs last survey only showed about 30% of gamers play social games - which includes social facebook games and the like. 42% of social games people play are in the Puzzle, Board Game, Strategy category.

Are you trolling for a facepalm meme? I was talking about real games, not FB games. When was the last time you joined a guild/clan/unit in any game, asked what they use for voice comms and got a response along the lines of "we don't use any"?

Quote

Average game player age is 30, average game purchaser is age 35. Of that 30% who play multiplayer games about 60% play with families. I suspect that percentage is misleading though; the best polls on this subject (mostly NPD does sales stuff which they release monthly) are from 2012 and refer to stats from 2011 and seem to wrap all gaming together - board games and mobile games not just console/PC.

This is relevant how exactly?

Quote

Anyway. What you're doing is Confirmation Bias. When you do something you associate with other people who do the same. Since most the people you interact with do the same thing you assume that most people do.

No, it would be confirmation bias if I were to say something like "most people who play online games use VOIP, therefore most internet users use VOIP". My statement was more along the lines of "I see most people that belong to a particular group do thing X, so I can assume that most of the members of that group indeed do thing X, because it would be unreasonable to think that all those strangers go out of their way trying to deceive me for no apparent reason".

Quote

The reality is that about 80% of people in North America and Europe game. Most of those people (about 60%) pretty much stick to single player games but do some social games, mostly facebook games and mobile stuff.

You must live in some alternate reality then - on this planet FB and mobile games don't really count, it's just something to do while waiting for your flight in the airport when you are bored senseless.

Quote

The percentage of people who game that actually play stuff like MWO because of the multiplayer aspect is about 15%. It was 13% but it's risen about 2%, probably higher for 2012. Only a tiny percentage of those people use VOIP.

This implies that there are people who play MWO because of something other than multiplayer aspect. What would that something be, given that MWO doesn't have any non-multiplayer aspects to it?

[Doctor Smiley]

soarra, on 01 July 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

you would be surprised. E-thugs and bullies. lol no definitely not.. Trolls yeah most of the time .
We have fun playing togethor and have a lot of serious rational discussions about this game
But we also beat each other up more than anything else.
I have been trying to get rid of countess for over 2 years and he just will not go away.

and I love you too Soarra...

[Crazy Billy Joe Bob]

HansBlix WMD, on 01 July 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

...
There should be a solo queue, and there should be a group queue. If for no other reason than to attract casual solo players for PGI TO MAKE MONEY FROM THEM. Why are you so opposed to that?

This is obvious to all except the PGI management... which is busy killing the game.

[Thimble]

IceSerpent, on 01 July 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

This implies that there are people who play MWO because of something other than multiplayer aspect. What would that something be, given that MWO doesn't have any non-multiplayer aspects to it?

Could be that they like battletech, and there is no MechWarrior 5 to play... there is only MWO. Edited because I sounded a harsh the first time.

Edited by Thimble, 01 July 2013 - 05:15 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Thimble, on 01 July 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Could be that they like battletech, and there is no MechWarrior 5 to play... there is only MWO.

So, if they are not playing because of multiplayer aspect (which pretty much *is* the essence of Battletech), what do they do in game - sit in mechlab all day long?

[No Guts No Glory]

Skadi, on 01 July 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

Yes, yes! Let us split the community MOAR!
Honestly with the 3pv, community warfare, and people just tired of the devs BS and halting their gameplay, the last thing we need to do is divide the community more.

Too bad the alternative is to stifle the growth of the player base. Hell, as it is I'd say the biggest problem is simply that we have no definitive indicators for who is grouped and who isn't. Makes it easy to simply blame ghosts, which stifles community and self growth.

Thimble, on 01 July 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Could be that they like battletech, and there is no MechWarrior 5 to play... there is only MWO. Edited because I sounded a harsh the first time.

This.

This is the biggest draw to this game. People aren't initially drawn to MWO for the team aspect. It's all Stompy Pew Pew Dakka Zap Zap Robits brah.

[Red Beard]

HansBlix WMD, on 01 July 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

All of your ad hominem, content-less, drivel-spewing, hatred-induced, conversation-dampening, rot-filled, disgusting, filthy, indicative of a poor childhood and incorrigible moral upbringing posts have been reported to moderators, who I'm sure will be able to deal with you children in a way that rational conversation cannot.

This is a great description of your opening post.

And...reporting posts to moderators is for chick$...

[Felicitatem Parco]

This thread is no longer constructive... it's going to be Jettisoned.

All hail my chick powers.

[MischiefSC]

IceSerpent, on 01 July 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

Are you trolling for a facepalm meme? I was talking about real games, not FB games. When was the last time you joined a guild/clan/unit in any game, asked what they use for voice comms and got a response along the lines of "we don't use any"?

So by 'any game' you mean a guild in a game that pretty much requires voice comms? Like CoD or WoW? That's not what you said. You said all gamers, not just those who play MWO. Also guilds constitute only a portion of gamers in whatever game you're talking about. Higher in RPGs, down to a tiny fraction in shooters. So in that tiny game segment yes, voice comms are pretty common. Probably close to universal though I've had a few that I've spoken with in MWO say that they've got a few members who don't use them.

IceSerpent, on 01 July 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

This is relevant how exactly?

Indirectly - validity of source and leading to how average gamer age of 30 means a very large segment is probably married - families, kids and other obligations that complicate or prevent use of voice comms.

IceSerpent, on 01 July 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

No, it would be confirmation bias if I were to say something like "most people who play online games use VOIP, therefore most internet users use VOIP". My statement was more along the lines of "I see most people that belong to a particular group do thing X, so I can assume that most of the members of that group indeed do thing X, because it would be unreasonable to think that all those strangers go out of their way trying to deceive me for no apparent reason".

Here's the thing though - you don't see 'most people that belong to a particular group'. You don't even see 1% most the time. Your neocortex has room for about 150 people to really keep track of. Friends, enemies, people of significance. Most of those are filled with family, friends from work/school, only a small number are going to be friends from gaming. Also you're going to associate with other people who use voice comms. You're also going to be predisposed to remember and acknowledge people whos choices validate or confirm your own. That's what confirmation bias is - human nature to assume that because most the people we know and interact with think or feel a certain way most people everywhere think or feel a certain way.

IceSerpent, on 01 July 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

You must live in some alternate reality then - on this planet FB and mobile games don't really count, it's just something to do while waiting for your flight in the airport when you are bored senseless.

Really? The entire gaming industry would disagree with you. And the hardware industry and associated software industries. Those games are replacing regular gaming both in total subs (subscribers) and absolute dollars. Casual online games (Facebook games like Farmville and Big Fish as examples) and mobile apps are devouring the regular gaming market both PC and console. 2008, the gaming industry posted 11.7 billion total sales. 2009 shows up and sales slump to 9.9 billion but mobile apps and social network gaming posted 5.4 billion. That grew year over year and in 2011 it was nearly 50/50 for all game sales and mobile apps/social network gaming is growing at an incredible rate.

Far afield perhaps but that's a huge problem in the whole industry right now - the new money is all casual games and mobile apps in terms of profits. Game sales are declining year after year for console and PC. There's less and less venture capital available for PC and console games.

IceSerpent, on 01 July 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

This implies that there are people who play MWO because of something other than multiplayer aspect. What would that something be, given that MWO doesn't have any non-multiplayer aspects to it?

A lot of people actually. It harkens all the way back to the original MMOs like Ultima Online and multiplayer gaming services like MPlayer. They offered products that you could only get in a multiplayer format and so drew people who preferred single player gaming into their arena but they were always a resentful group. There are plenty of people who play MWO because it's the only battletech game available right now and they don't get on the forums.

Even games designed for multiplayer like CoD and Diablo 3 find that most people prefer the single player experience. They just don't post on forums or associate with other players - hence you don't see them, back to the confirmation bias thing. Doesn't mean they don't play.

It also means that PGI doesn't want their money. Given that they're the majority of people out there, why not give them a pug only queue to enjoy? You'd never have to see or deal with them and those of us who like to drop in groups or even pug among groups will still (often) drop in the grouping queue to round out teams.

Trying to force people to play a way they don't want just isn't good business. It works a bit, for a while, but generates resentful consumers.

[Mycrus]

Hanz baby - all your reporting got your thread sent to k-town stOoopid widdle pubbie..

In k-town the gloves come off and mods can't hear you scream!!!!

Never

Not

Post

[IrrelevantFish]

dario03, on 30 June 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

Of course a pure true clan setup 8man will have a advantage over 2x4mans but 2x4 mans should be able to handle themselves at least as good as 8pugs vs a 4man and 4 pugs.

Not even close. At all. Have you ever run in an 8-man? If so, you must have far better luck in matchmaking than I have to believe that.

dario03, on 30 June 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

Plus under my suggestion it wouldn't always be 2x4mans vs 8mans anyways. It very well could be 2x4man vs 2x4man which would be equal.

And it can very well be 4man+4 vs 4man+4 right now, so what you're really saying is, "I'm a pug, therefore any discomfort to be experienced should be experienced by premades." I'd agree with you If pugs were the majority of the player-base, but they aren't so I don't.

Besides, the pugstomping issue is way, way overblown, and doesn't happen nearly as often as people think. Elo makes such things far less likely, and I know that when I play 4-man, I almost always recognize another on the other side. It's fair far more frequently than you think.

Additionally, many of the most thorough stomps I've participated in have been the result of simple luck (ie, bumbling into a tactically perfect maneuver in spite of zero organization/communication), pugs who (gasp!) actually pay attention to what their teammates are doing, or someone playing drop commander over a team that (double gasp!) follows his directions.

And even if I'm absolutely wrong and pugstomping is epidemic, then instead of whining about premades, why not try being a more cooperative pug? Take command, focus fire with a teammate, do something besides the usual pug thing (ie, running with the blob until the shooting starts and then haring off on your own in a stupidly relentless quest for a kill) and maybe you'll find premades aren't so big of a deal anymore.

[anfadern]

IceSerpent, on 01 July 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

I am willing to bet money that 75% of gamers (not just MWO players, but all gamers) have multiple VOIP clients installed and use them on a regular basis.

Ice serpent
I tell you that assumption is wrong. Globally there are some143 M users of VOIP.
Less than half of the players have used VOIP client.
http://point-topic.c...ics-Q2-2012.pdf

[Mycrus]

twenty bux twenty bux twenty bux

[Tekadept]

[dario03]

IrrelevantFish, on 02 July 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

Not even close. At all. Have you ever run in an 8-man? If so, you must have far better luck in matchmaking than I have to believe that.

Well unless theres actually been groups that have tried this a fair bit of times we don't really know now do we? Wouldn't hurt to try.

Quote

And it can very well be 4man+4 vs 4man+4 right now, so what you're really saying is, "I'm a pug, therefore any discomfort to be experienced should be experienced by premades." I'd agree with you If pugs were the majority of the player-base, but they aren't so I don't.

Besides, the pugstomping issue is way, way overblown, and doesn't happen nearly as often as people think. Elo makes such things far less likely, and I know that when I play 4-man, I almost always recognize another on the other side. It's fair far more frequently than you think.

Additionally, many of the most thorough stomps I've participated in have been the result of simple luck (ie, bumbling into a tactically perfect maneuver in spite of zero organization/communication), pugs who (gasp!) actually pay attention to what their teammates are doing, or someone playing drop commander over a team that (double gasp!) follows his directions.

And even if I'm absolutely wrong and pugstomping is epidemic, then instead of whining about premades, why not try being a more cooperative pug? Take command, focus fire with a teammate, do something besides the usual pug thing (ie, running with the blob until the shooting starts and then haring off on your own in a stupidly relentless quest for a kill) and maybe you'll find premades aren't so big of a deal anymore.

I think you've gone into defensive mode a little bit here or at least are thinking that I'm attacking premades. Personally I don't really care if premades are against me or not and I don't think the current system is terrible I just think it could be better. While others might be whining in this thread I have not and I'm not trying to push discomfort onto premades out of spite in any way. On the flip side why are you ok with pugs having a disadvantage against 4mans but so against 4mans being at a similar disadvantage against 8mans? Why do they need to be protected?

But really all I'm suggesting is simply something that we could try that could possibly improve the competition for everybody in game. I don't know about you but winning all the time is boring to me. And being in a premade and going against randoms make your battles easier. Sure you will come across other groups and it might be a good fight but sometimes you will only come against randoms and you will have a big advantage and probably win 90% of the time. All I'm suggesting is making it so that you might come up against randoms but now you are more likely to come up against 2x4man with another 4man on your side or possibly a 8man. And if there isn't enough groups on at a time then nothing changes.

[IrrelevantFish]

dario03, on 03 July 2013 - 05:23 AM, said:

Well unless theres actually been groups that have tried this a fair bit of times we don't really know now do we? Wouldn't hurt to try.

Let me put it this way: I've played plenty of 8-man matches where one of my teammates wasn't on comms (RL can be a pain sometimes ) and at least 75% of the time, they weren't much more useful than an AFKer. I shudder to think what it would be like trying to coordinate with four complete strangers via text without any pre-match planning.

dario03, on 03 July 2013 - 05:23 AM, said:

On the flip side why are you ok with pugs having a disadvantage against 4mans but so against 4mans being at a similar disadvantage against 8mans? Why do they need to be protected?

Am I okay with pugs being disadvantaged? Of course not. Ideally, they'd be on equal footing with premades. However, that's just not going to be possible without making some very significant additions/changes to the game.

So why protect premades over pugs? Because premades represent most of the player-base, even more of the paying player-base, and are already putting up with the infuriations attendant to the unfortunately necessary (IMO) group-size limit. Putting even more of the burden on 4-mans just doesn't make sense.

And that's what your plan does. Even if your plan did make things fairer overall (it wouldn't), it still amounts to giving pugs their own playground and forcing premades to put up with all the inequality.

dario03, on 03 July 2013 - 05:23 AM, said:

I don't know about you but winning all the time is boring to me. And being in a premade and going against randoms make your battles easier. Sure you will come across other groups and it might be a good fight but sometimes you will only come against randoms and you will have a big advantage and probably win 90% of the time.

First of all, I don't like winning all the time, either. For the most part, I'd rather lose by the skin of my teeth than win with a rofl-stomp.

And second, if anything, I win more when I pug. Half the time, playing in a 4-man feels like playing 4v8, because the "friendly" pugs are so incompetent and intransigent as to grossly outweigh the advantage of comms. Most of the guys I know (myself included, alas) have succumbed to cynicism and view friendly pugs as the tactical equivalent of NPCs. Maybe my perception is just skewed (damn human foibles ), but I've heard that the matchmaker adds a size-determined handicap to premades' Elos and I'd be surprised if it weren't true, because all too often, it feels like the idiots all ended up on my team.

[dario03]

Agree to disagree I guess, I think it would be fairer. I don't see why a group of a certain size should be protected even if they do make up the majority of the player base, nobody should be protected that doesn't make sense. Besides if they do make up the majority then they would just end up in 2x4 vs 2x4 most of the time and not be at a disadvantage but in a balanced match. And I didn't say to give pugs their own playground, they would still come up against premades if there wasn't enough premades online to have them all in pure premade battles. It would just be more likely for premades to end up in all premade battles. And I've heard of the ELO modifier but I've only heard it as a suggestion I didn't think they actually had it in (unless that changed and I didn't see). But whatever, if others think 2x4mans fighting 8mans would be worst than the current system (I still don't think it is) then don't put the smaller groups vs the 8mans but make the MM try harder to make 2x4 vs 2x4.

[Lykaon]

HeavyRain, on 29 June 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

So let me describe to you the way I like to play this game. I come home from work, tired and overloaded from each day's rat race and I want to waste some time shooting at big, implausible robots instead of watching TV. So I play a couple of matches, then I check my email, then another match, then maybe call someone and chat, then go downstairs to make coffee, then another 2-3 matches etc.
CAN I JOIN YOUR VERY SOCIAL TEAM? I promise I won't breathe through my mouth and I can assure you that I am a decent player when a premade is not focus-firing me. You will just have to wait for me to read that latest article on the internets between matches or to prepare an afternoon snack.
Different people have different definitions of "playing a game" and if PGI wants to say "F*** U, solo scum, you and your money, this game is for TEAMS", then they should come out and say so.

I am almost certain PGI will not separate solo players from groups, because then people would have to face some real opposition instead of uncoordinated solo players and that would be bad for business. Not much fun being a proud member of the 43rd Tiberian Regulars of the Order of the Golden Unicorn if you keep having your *** handed to you by other groups.
Solo players are here to provide entertainment for groups, who are bound to spend the most money on this game.

So essentially because you choose to not pay attention then somehow PGI needs to design a game based around your flighty behavior?

You just described a person who's activities are clearly not focused on the game and who by all rights shouldn't even care if they win because the next cat vid has finished loading.

A player with this pattern of activity will be playing some other game in a few weeks anyhow because they seem to lack a desire or ability to focus.

It's real easy for exclusivley solo players to draw conclusions about how the game works in all of it's aspects because you drop in from time to time between cat videos and coffee breaks you are obviously an expert.


Are you all complaining about premades or losing? because you will still lose (and do) when only facing other solos.

One of the huge issues currently is the current meta favors pilots who know the maps and can shoot straight with gobs of PPCs. Solo or grouped these players will win more often than not.

[Mycrus]

seriouz discussionzzz iz not allowed in k-town...

hans blix wmd has left da house... but i had an interesting drop with him... i got the screenie and will reveal at the right time