183 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

IV Amen, on 20 October 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

Neg. At least we drop casual 12s three times a week. Some are stomps, yes, doesn't keep us from droppin!

A lack of 12 players on at a time can be a reason to drop in less than 12 mans. I haven't seen 12 lawmen on at once is a long time. 6-10 yes 12... not so much.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 21 October 2013 - 04:00 AM.

[w0rm]

Mr 144, on 20 October 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

I'm gonna go ahead and expand on my 'incentive vs. playerbase' comment...because people are dumb

Incentive:
Increase rewards for 12-man drops to 3x XP and 3x C-Bill and watch that queue fill up with willing pugs. CW (unicorn throery) could provide incentive as well.

Playerbase:
Increase the sheer number of players (unlikely given the current state of affairs) and a similar increase in 12-man drops occur.

This of course wrongly assumes PGI cares at all about marketing 12-man drops.

I agree to some degree that the cbill/time ratio clearly favors 4 mans, which is wrong in my opinion in a risk vs. reward enviroment especially if you consider the time it takes to setup, find a match (after 3-4 failed searches), etc.

To put it plainly: The more casual playerbase needs a huge carrot to stick their nose into that queue. Reward them with income they would get in a avarage PuG win if they lose (150k) and the doubled income for a (win 300-400k).
After the queue has a healthy population you can tweak around with the rewards.

IV Amen, on 20 October 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

Wow, those Steel Jag guys gonna be really rich after that incentive!

Who cares for cbills... Some of our guys literally drown in them.


Ed.: It would help to let players of any group size queue in for 12s but how do you fill the gaps in groups of e.g. 7 or 5.

Edited by w0rm, 21 October 2013 - 03:51 AM.

[Kunae]

Iskareot, on 19 October 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

If they allow this without CHOICE this game is doomed. I know I wont spend another 100 bucks with them if they allow this with no control. What ***** would want to pug against a 12 man premade group???? "I WOULD!!" said no one...

I would! Sez me.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kunae, on 21 October 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:

I would! Sez me.

QFT
Me too.

[Kunae]

Bromineberry, on 20 October 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

This is SO true. Of course not everyone who rolls with a unit is like that. But many are. I clearly remember the argument when 8-man roflstomping against pugs was "the avarage game". So many people on the forums said: "If we had 8vs8, then we wouldn't have to roflstomp and would play against other 8mans! roflstomping is the only way we can play together". So, PGI did introduce the 8vs8 queue. Short time later, the first threads pop up with people unable to find games in 8vs8, because noone played it, threads like this:

http://mwomercs.com/...ch-8v8-all-day/

or this

http://mwomercs.com/...nally-get-8vs8/

So, easymode was over, and 8vs8 suddenly was a challange...so most people said "screw it" and "downgraded" to 4 man lances to keep on "rocking" the pugs.

Many people simply want their easymode for rolling in the money, while feeling like the king of cheese over TS how awesome they are and so that they can post afterwards in the forums, how great their k/d or w/l rate is, that they do at least 700dmg each game and everybody else should l2p, because roflstomping is the way the game is meant to be played.

Like I said before, not all people are like this...but too many to remove group size limits in pug games.

And, I like to make a bold call at this point: IF PGI was to introduce "4vs4" and "8vs8" modes in addition to the "12 vs 12" mode, I'm sure the same "I can't find a game, noone is playing" threads will pop up again. Why? Because most people would prefer the gamemode with the higher chance to win, over the gamemode with the lower chance to win.

No.

PGI didn't put in what people requested, and what they said they would do. There was supposed to be two queues. One for groups of 4 or less, and one for groups of 8 or less. Instead we got this abomination which said that you could only drop with 4 or fewer, or only 8. This is the problem.

If PGI would have put in what they were supposed to, back a year ago, this "problem" wouldn't exist. We should have 2 queues:

Queue 1: 4 people or fewer cap, as we have now.
Queue 2: Any number of people from 1 to 12 may drop into this queue.

And we should also have private lobbies where people can drop with whatever and however many they choose. Whether they want to play 4 lights vs 12 assaults, or whatever. That should be an option.

[MechFrog1]

Kunae, on 21 October 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

Queue 1: 4 people or fewer cap, as we have now.
Queue 2: Any number of people from 1 to 12 may drop into this queue.

And we should also have private lobbies where people can drop with whatever and however many they choose. Whether they want to play 4 lights vs 12 assaults, or whatever. That should be an option.

Madness! Madness I tell you!

btw, if it doesn't require a powerpoint slideshow to explain the system, it's not complicated enough.

6/10 could be improved with added complexity.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

Of course increasing the income will result in increasing abuse of the rewarding system. Farming C-Bills with 24 guys basically... And trust me there will be people who would do this.

Allowing 4+ on a 12man queue and filling out the gaps would be a good call imho, maybe a bit problematic at times though... I would drop in that queue for sure.

Joseph Mallan, on 21 October 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

A lack of 12 players on at a time can be a reason to drop in less than 12 mans. I haven't seen 12 lawmen on at once is a long time. 6-10 yes 12... not so much.

Yeah. I feel for you, hope you get more people online at some point. My post was actually against the claim that casual 4s go do 12s once or twice and continue stompin pugs... I prefer twelves.

[Kunae]

IV Amen, on 21 October 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

I prefer twelves.

I prefer 6's, 7's, 1's and 11's.

[Scratx]

I like 12's but considering how annoying it is to get one running (and there's the whole aspect of usually having more downtime than with 4-mans due to mechlab or a player dropping out and having to find replacement, etc) I never go out of my way to get in one.

If someone comes to me to invite me into one, sure, I'm in, but creating one... meh.

[Joseph Mallan]

IV Amen, on 21 October 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

Of course increasing the income will result in increasing abuse of the rewarding system. Farming C-Bills with 24 guys basically... And trust me there will be people who would do this.

Allowing 4+ on a 12man queue and filling out the gaps would be a good call imho, maybe a bit problematic at times though... I would drop in that queue for sure.


Yeah. I feel for you, hope you get more people online at some point. My post was actually against the claim that casual 4s go do 12s once or twice and continue stompin pugs... I prefer twelves.

Kunae, on 21 October 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

I prefer 6's, 7's, 1's and 11's.

I like em both!

[Screech]

Once again, remove all group limits and then match first by group size then Elo. Tonnage limits on groups will deal with matching weight. Only issue will be that the pugs used to fill in the gaps will not be subject to any weight restrictions but that just means a few more QQ threads no big deal.

[No Guts No Glory]

Scratx, on 20 October 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Umm, citation? I don't recall this.

Nevermind, I think it's an interpretation of this : http://mwomercs.com/...vs-45-answered/

I am not sure this does mean they will actually change the drop limit on the "Pug" queue, however.

Original question was in regards to the 12 man queue. One would assume the answer is in regards to that queue only.

So you'd have a queue for 2-4 mans.

and then the competitive 1(?)-12 queue.

And groups need someone to blame for their losses just like the pugs do. lul

[JSparrowist]

The limit should stay in place until the match maker is working properly or better balanced.

Easy mode pug stomping, as it seems you want, is no good for either party involved. All it does is drive new players away and doesn't really challenge the premade group to get any better. Then ONLY thing it is good for is farming experience and cbills... Go play 12v12 so all your 'friends' can join in too! Fill in the gaps with randoms if you must.

Solo pug and premade group queues should be separated, as a matter of fact.

[Chronojam]

So have a "I am playing by myself" kiddie pool with third person and no groups -- you just hit "launch" at the top of the screen. If you join a group, third person goes away and you're never going to be paired up with anybody operating solo.

[Lykaon]

JSparrowist, on 21 October 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

The limit should stay in place until the match maker is working properly or better balanced.

Easy mode pug stomping, as it seems you want, is no good for either party involved. All it does is drive new players away and doesn't really challenge the premade group to get any better. Then ONLY thing it is good for is farming experience and cbills... Go play 12v12 so all your 'friends' can join in too! Fill in the gaps with randoms if you must.

Solo pug and premade group queues should be separated, as a matter of fact.

When ever I see anyone who posts "easy mode pugstomping" I immediatley know that the likelyhood that this person has ever grouped is tiny.

Here are some facts for your consumption because I highly doubt you will ever form an educated opinion on the subject when it's simply easyer to assume and dictate terms.

4 man teams in the PUG queue lose games frequently.My own ratio is about one third loses.If I play three games I lost one on an average.I have seen upwards of 8 loses in a row so premades do experience losing trends.

Most games end with a lopsided score.In 4 mans and solo most of the time the team that gets a significant lead in kills keeps the lead and a snowball effect takes place leading to the scores we see as stomps occuring.This is not premades beating down all the poor puggies it's just how it works.

It is a rare match were I do not see an obvious premade opposing our own premade.To me this tells me that matches are generaly fair as it places premades on each side.

As a premade in a 12 person drop we compose only 1/3 of the forces.Trust me the most influential factor in winning is not the premade's abilities it's the pugs in the team that create the win or the loss.If 8 puggies die and do nothing while doing it 4 premade players will still lose to 12 v 4 odds.If those puggies play well as a team they win.It's always your team that wins and it's your team that loses.

Now for some opinions.

12 v 12 was already forced upon the players and it's not efficent in any way to play.

Let's say each player accounts for 10 seconds of delay between drops (mech lab tweaks/bio breaks/phone/door/etc) the more players you have the more likely it is you will experience delays between drops.This means less time playing.

12 v 12 searching for a match...this takes easily 4 times longer than solo drops and I have almost never seen a solo drop fail to find a match.In 12 v 12 it's a common occurence to not find a match after several minutes of searching.This means less time playing.

12 v 12 matches are frequently against the same opponents time and time again.It lacks varriety when the three drops you do get in are all against the same team.

getting 12 players to allocate the same amount of time at the same time is rare so frequently your 12 man becomes an 11 man after only a drop or two.

Those puggies who exclaim that just get 12 players and do 12 mans are failing to think it through. what if you have 12+ we have a 12 man a 4 man and a 2 man online at once.If it's puggies only and 12 man only what do the 4 and 2 man teams do go play it your way because you demanded it be so?We should all conform to the primitive inefficent puggie playstyle because bad players demand it to be so?

So when some poster comes in and makes demands about seperate queues (that they already got) what I see is this.

"I want to remove the chances of being challenged in a match because I refuse to adapt and play more intelligently.I demand that the queue I play in only contains other petulent demanding bads with no sense of team work just like me and anyone who does not see it my way must be banished to less efficent more frustrating version of the game so I will never have face players who understand the value of tools and team work."

Seriously what is a valid excuse for not using efficent team work I would love to hear these excuses.

Edited by Lykaon, 21 October 2013 - 03:16 PM.

[No Guts No Glory]

So much hypocrisy in your post I don't know where to begin.

Anyway why you guys against groups being balanced on each team and labeled? As long as each team has a similar number of grouped players, then there's no need for group size limits. Everyone gets what they supposedly want. Less roflstomps, more competition, one queue.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

No Guts No Glory, on 21 October 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

So much hypocrisy

But the post has valid points and I have similiar experiences. I would think that if group size is more than 50% of the team, the group can have true advantage over the enemy team who, for example, has 3 x 3 man + solos. To make this actually work is to tighten the Elo and group size matchmaking in the drops. This would result in similiar failed to find a match the very high or very low elo players were (and still are?) experiencing.

One thing I don't understand is that why do they have to have such a long range in elo if the players are experiencing these things. Just cap the high end and low end closer to the middle and expand when necessary (monthly check). But I'm no game designer...

Lykaon, on 21 October 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

getting 12 players to allocate the same amount of time at the same time is rare so frequently your 12 man becomes an 11 man after only a drop or two.

Those puggies who exclaim that just get 12 players and do 12 mans are failing to think it through. what if you have 12+ we have a 12 man a 4 man and a 2 man online at once.If it's puggies only and 12 man only what do the 4 and 2 man teams do go play it your way because you demanded it be so?We should all conform to the primitive inefficent puggie playstyle because bad players demand it to be so?

Amen. So frustrating sometimes when you got 12+10 guys online, you want to practice as a team and your 10 guys are forced to 4+4+2.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

The wait for 12 mans is very frustrating. And it would be nice to drop less than 12 but more than 4. And agree when you drop 4 you can see there is a four on the other side.

I have seen matches where there are two fours plus on each side. I had one like that last night. We were a three man in charlie and the other two were four mans and the other side was loaded up too. It was a good match.

As long as the match maker can keep up with balancing odd groups like that I can not see any reason why more than 4 should not be allowed.

[Lefty Lucy]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 October 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

A lack of 12 players on at a time can be a reason to drop in less than 12 mans. I haven't seen 12 lawmen on at once is a long time. 6-10 yes 12... not so much.

Sounds like you guys need to get on comstar NA and recruit some players to fill up your team.

[Roland]

Two queues, a solo one and one for everyone else.

If you want random {Scrap} with no communication, play in the solo queue. If you want to group, then you play with the big boys in the real queue.