287 replies to this topic

[Dr Herbert West]

KovarD, on 11 November 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

This is not what PGI/IGP and 3PV crowd say. According to them the game is going amazing well and the players numbers are increasing more and more with the time. They can easily provide server space or a thiny island for 1PV-only crowd if that is true.

Just wanted to add to this.

In MW4, the game's community was split even more ways. For public servers, you had the 1PV/No-respawn servers (which is where I spent my time), but you also had servers that were any combination of respawn/no-respawn and NHUA/no-NHUA. There were even some deathmatch and CTF servers out there, but it was mainly 1PV/NR, 1PV/R, 3PV/R, and 3PV/R/NHUA.

Even among the serious leagues, there were lots of divisions. There were several 1PV/NR planetary leagues, not just one. There were also many different ladder/tournament leagues with varying rulesets for 1PV/3PV and respawn.

The point is that MW4 had enough players for diverse public gameplay at league play. I.e. the "queues" were split in many more ways than the three some have suggested for MWO (1PV public, 3PV public, 12v12 groups).

Edited by Dr Herbert West, 12 November 2013 - 08:54 AM.

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 11 November 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

Brilliant counterargument?

Are you claiming that you're part of teams that regularly have 11+ guys on comms every night you want to play?

If so, do you really think your situation is representative of the player base at large?

Maybe you should figure out who Multitallented is before you continue down this thread.

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 12 November 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

Maybe you should figure out who Multitallented is before you continue down this thread.

And who was talking about appeal to authority a few pages ago?

Who he is is immaterial to the argument at hand. My point is that for organized teams who want 1PV only or members of organized teams who want 1PV only, the 12v12 queue is insufficient for them.

My experience with league play in MW4 (from the multiplayer stress test to circa 2005-06) was that getting 8 players online at a specific time was hard and required planning. Even at MW4's peak, I never saw more than 6-8 members of any given unit online for random public matches (as opposed to organized league play).

In order for the 12v12 queue to satisfy the needs of players who want 1PV only, they would need to be members of units that always had at least 11 other players online at any given time. This would have been unreasonable in MW4, and I suspect its even more unreasonable in MWO due to lower player population (see my posts on splitting the queues on the previous page). The reason I said this to Multitalented:

Quote

I'm betting you don't have much experience in playing with a team or you would know that 12v12 only 1PV queues doesn't help anyone at all

Is that anyone with any experience trying to organize league matches should know how hard it is to coordinate people's schedules and get them all online at once, and therefore how unrealistic (read: impossible) it is to expect to play 1PV pick up games (which would require 11 other players randomly being online) with your unit.

Thats why when Multitalented says this:

Multitallented, on 11 November 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

Leave the 12v12 queue as 1PV only and stop complaining about stuff that doesn't even concern you.

He's wrong about it not concerning me, or other people like me who want 1PV only gamplay.

Incidentally, I'm not hearing a counterargument from you or him, so I guess that once again, you've got nothing.

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 12 November 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

And who was talking about appeal to authority a few pages ago?

If I said something like "Multitallented has a lot of 12v12 experience so you should listen to him", then you could make the argument that I used an appeal to authority. However, I was replying to your comment about how he doesn't have any 12v12 experience, which is what prompted my fit of giggling.

So of course, since you are arguing a point that I didn't even make, the rest of your comment doesn't really apply to ...well, anything.

[dal10]

well considering that he was saying splitting the ques is bad, i would say it at least partially applies to this thread.

[Thomas Covenant]

*alert: 29 responses*

Well this topic exploded. :)

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 12 November 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

[/size]

If I said something like "Multitallented has a lot of 12v12 experience so you should listen to him", then you could make the argument that I used an appeal to authority. However, I was replying to your comment about how he doesn't have any 12v12 experience, which is what prompted my fit of giggling.

You're missing or ignoring the point again.

Anyone with 12v12 experience, or experience playing in any league knows that its difficult to coordinate 12 people (or even just 8 people) to get them online at the same time to play for any extended period of time. Having 12 players from your team randomly appearing online at the same time isn't something that happens randomly with any appreciable frequency. If multitalented has 12v12 experience, then he should know this.

Therefore, he (and you, and anyone else reading this thread) should know that the 1PV in the 12v12 queue is insufficient for players who want to play in a 1PV only environment. That's why this statement of his...

Quote

Leave the 12v12 queue as 1PV only and stop complaining about stuff that doesn't even concern you.

... is wrong and why I questioned his experience playing on a team, because it should be obviously wrong to anyone who has any experience playing on a team. Assuming you're not just BSing me (an assumption I don't take lightly), then he's just being obtuse.

Quote

So of course, since you are arguing a point that I didn't even make, the rest of your comment doesn't really apply to ...well, anything.

I wasn't replying to you when I replied to multitalented or to any of the other people in the post I made where I replied to him. You jumped into the middle of the conversation and so far all you've contributed is "multialtented plays 12v12, lol." The rest of my post explains why this doesn't matter and doesn't negate my point.

As before, you are incapable of arguing against it, and so you ignore it.

dal10, on 12 November 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

well considering that he was saying splitting the ques is bad, i would say it at least partially applies to this thread.

Of course it does.

Heffay is just smokescreening an argument that he can't win by making the (irrelevant) point that I don't know who some E-celebrity is or something.

[Heffay]

Maybe you should find a different group of friends to play with. Get on the NGNG servers and get in some 12 mans there.

You not having 11 other reliable friends isn't a problem with the game....

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 13 November 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

Maybe you should find a different group of friends to play with. Get on the NGNG servers and get in some 12 mans there.

You not having 11 other reliable friends isn't a problem with the game....

While I could join the NGNG servers, there are several reasons why this is not an acceptible solution to the problem 1PV players have.

One, you don't just discard a group of friends and find another one. Thats not how friends work. By virtue of being your friends you want to hang out with them. I have more than 10 years of history with the guys I play with. I'm sure I'm not the only guy out there with long term MW buddies (there are plenty of MW4 vets out there). If the game's design forces me to ditch my friends then the game design is flawed. Incidentally, this is also the same argument against the (arbitrary?) limitation of group sizes so that groups sizes of 5-11 are impossible.

Two, this restricts 1PV players in ways that others aren't. They are forced to find 11 other people, and are forced into a queue with a smaller population. This is a restriction on when they can play (i.e. only when 11 others are there) and how long they can play (i.e. waiting in the queues, waiting for others to ready up). Everyone else has no such restrictions. Other players can just jump into a game at will and get some quick action at random times (e.g. 30 minutes before they have to go to work in the morning), play with a single other friend or two (e.g. trying to get a new friend intersted in the game), or play in groups of four.

Three, players should not be forced to find groups and/or use third party software (i.e. voice comms ... why isn't voice/lobbies integrated yet?) to play the game. Each and every other sucessful online multiplayer game has some kind of solo play options. FPSs have open servers. MMORPGs can be soloable or NPCs you can use to fill out a group. Sure, top level play may require groups, and thats fine. In fact, thats probably the way it should be in every game. However, you must have lone wolf gameplay available for the sake of new players (for obvious reasons) and so an experienced player can pick up the game and play it whenever and for however long he wants. In fact, PGI themselves stated that lone-wolf gameplay was an intended part of MWO. Currently, players who want 1PV don't have these options.

Fourth, 1PV only gameplay, with no strings attached, was promised/advertised from the very begining. I could understand people being irritated with 1PV-only complaints if the game had 3PV from the start. I could even understand it if 3PV was added later and 1PV-only was never promised/advertised. However, this game was advertised as a 1PV only game from the very start, and the devs repeatedly promised this via the forums. The pictures are out there to prove this despite the censoring that occured on this forum, and you know it. The advertisment of the game as 1PV only was not a minor issue. Third vs First person is a big issue in other tactical games. Why should I accept so many limitations to play the way I want, when the game I promoted and spent my time and money on (yes, I've bought MC) was advertised as 1PV only.


There are only three possible acceptible solutions to this problem, and 1PV only in 12v12 queues isn't one of them. They are:
-Eliminate 3PV completely
-Implement separate 1PV and 3PV public queues (i.e. total parity between 1PV and 3PV queues)
-Change 3PV so that mechs/weapon-fire that can't bee seen from the cockpit isn't rendered while in 3PV (i.e. a WoT solution)

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 13 November 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

One, you don't just discard a group of friends and find another one.

You may find this hard to believe, but you can actually be friends with 2 completely different groups of people *at the exact same time*!! I know, I know, citation needed, right? You're just going to have to trust me on this.

Quote

There are only three possible acceptible solutions to this problem, and 1PV only in 12v12 queues isn't one of them. They are:
-Eliminate 3PV completely
-Implement separate 1PV and 3PV public queues (i.e. total parity between 1PV and 3PV queues)
-Change 3PV so that mechs/weapon-fire that can't bee seen from the cockpit isn't rendered while in 3PV (i.e. a WoT solution)

And if they don't use one of your "acceptable" solutions? Then what?

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 13 November 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

You may find this hard to believe, but you can actually be friends with 2 completely different groups of people *at the exact same time*!! I know, I know, citation needed, right? You're just going to have to trust me on this.

You're being deliberatly obtuse. I still can't play with the first group and this is a problem.

Also, even if you ignore my first point, I still have three other points that you apparently can't answer.

Quote

And if they don't use one of your "acceptable" solutions? Then what?

Isn't the answer to that question obvious?

I'll continue to not provide content (i.e. as a player) or money (i.e. as a payer) to the game. As this and prior polls indicate (and no, yo haven't ever refuted this point), there plenty of others like me. Unless I'm deeply mistaken about PGIGP's motivations, they would like to have more people both playing and spending money on their game. In fact, their refusal to split the queues is tacit admission that even before they introduced 3PV, their player count was low.

I'll continue to post about MWO even though I'm not playing because I love the franchise, because I was having a real blast playing MWO earlier this year, because I'd rather see MWO become a better game rather than die and because these issues (and there are others. 3PV isn't the one thing plaguing MWO right now) need to be discussed now for the sake of future developers in case MWO does die.

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 13 November 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

You're being deliberatly obtuse. I still can't play with the first group and this is a problem.

Not PGIs problem. They can't make you popular.

[Farix]

Dr Herbert West, on 13 November 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

You're being deliberatly obtuse. I still can't play with the first group and this is a problem.

Nothing preventing the first group from joining in with the second group.

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 13 November 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Not PGIs problem. They can't make you popular.

So once again, we're reached the point in the thread where you just stop responding to posts because you can't argue against them. Just a reminder of what you can't/won't respond to:

Dr Herbert West, on 13 November 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

While I could join the NGNG servers, there are several reasons why this is not an acceptible solution to the problem 1PV players have.

One, you don't just discard a group of friends and find another one. Thats not how friends work. By virtue of being your friends you want to hang out with them. I have more than 10 years of history with the guys I play with. I'm sure I'm not the only guy out there with long term MW buddies (there are plenty of MW4 vets out there). If the game's design forces me to ditch my friends then the game design is flawed. Incidentally, this is also the same argument against the (arbitrary?) limitation of group sizes so that groups sizes of 5-11 are impossible.

Two, this restricts 1PV players in ways that others aren't. They are forced to find 11 other people, and are forced into a queue with a smaller population. This is a restriction on when they can play (i.e. only when 11 others are there) and how long they can play (i.e. waiting in the queues, waiting for others to ready up). Everyone else has no such restrictions. Other players can just jump into a game at will and get some quick action at random times (e.g. 30 minutes before they have to go to work in the morning), play with a single other friend or two (e.g. trying to get a new friend intersted in the game), or play in groups of four.

Three, players should not be forced to find groups and/or use third party software (i.e. voice comms ... why isn't voice/lobbies integrated yet?) to play the game. Each and every other sucessful online multiplayer game has some kind of solo play options. FPSs have open servers. MMORPGs can be soloable or NPCs you can use to fill out a group. Sure, top level play may require groups, and thats fine. In fact, thats probably the way it should be in every game. However, you must have lone wolf gameplay available for the sake of new players (for obvious reasons) and so an experienced player can pick up the game and play it whenever and for however long he wants. In fact, PGI themselves stated that lone-wolf gameplay was an intended part of MWO. Currently, players who want 1PV don't have these options.

Fourth, 1PV only gameplay, with no strings attached, was promised/advertised from the very begining. I could understand people being irritated with 1PV-only complaints if the game had 3PV from the start. I could even understand it if 3PV was added later and 1PV-only was never promised/advertised. However, this game was advertised as a 1PV only game from the very start, and the devs repeatedly promised this via the forums. The pictures are out there to prove this despite the censoring that occured on this forum, and you know it. The advertisment of the game as 1PV only was not a minor issue. Third vs First person is a big issue in other tactical games. Why should I accept so many limitations to play the way I want, when the game I promoted and spent my time and money on (yes, I've bought MC) was advertised as 1PV only.

=======

Farix, on 13 November 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Nothing preventing the first group from joining in with the second group.

Maybe they don't want to join up with the NGNG crowd? They're not my puppets to command.

Maybe we just want to hang out together instead of hanging out with random strangers because we have a history together?

Do you know how friends work?

[Farix]

Dr Herbert West, on 13 November 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

Maybe they don't want to join up with the NGNG crowd?

Well, that is their loss then. But you have no grounds to complain that you can't organize a group for 12v12 when there is a solution available to you.

Dr Herbert West, on 13 November 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

Do you know how friends work?

Apparently, you don't know that friends are not suppose to be xor relationships (I am friends with X, therefore I cannot be friends with Y).

Edited by Farix, 13 November 2013 - 02:04 PM.

[Dr Herbert West]

Farix, on 13 November 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Well, that is their loss then. But you have no grounds to complain that you can't organize a group for 12v12 when there is a solution available to you.

The grounds for my complaints would be that 3PV players face no such restrictions, and this is ridiculous considering that it was advertised as a 1PV game.

Seriously, read over my points in reply to Heffay that I just reposted again. Its all covered in there.

Quote

Apparently, you don't know that friends are not suppose to be xor relationships (I am friends with X, therefore I cannot be friends with Y).

And again, as I replied to Heffay, even if I made friends with Y, that doesn't change the fact that I can't play with X anymore.

The fact that I now have Y doesn't make up for the loss of X.

This isn't that complicated.

[Farix]

Dr Herbert West, on 13 November 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

The grounds for my complaints would be that 3PV players face no such restrictions, and this is ridiculous considering that it was advertised as a 1PV game.

Seriously, read over my points in reply to Heffay that I just reposted again. Its all covered in there.

There are very few 3PV players in the PUG queues. Those few that do use 3PV are mostly new players or masochists. Go ahead and play in the PUG queues, you will find it hasn't changed that much since before the implementation of 3PV and that 3PV is a non-issue.

Dr Herbert West, on 13 November 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

And again, as I replied to Heffay, even if I made friends with Y, that doesn't change the fact that I can't play with X anymore.

The fact that I now have Y doesn't make up for the loss of X.

This isn't that complicated.

Again, its not an either/or situation unless YOU make it into an either/or situation. You can be friends with X and Y, and through your connection, encourage X to be friends with Y as well. A larger circle of friends means a larger group to draw on to play with. The only one here saying that you cannot play with both X and Y is YOU.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Farix, on 13 November 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

Again, its not an either/or situation unless YOU make it into an either/or situation. You can be friends with X and Y, and through your connection, encourage X to be friends with Y as well. A larger circle of friends means a larger group to draw on to play with. The only one here saying that you cannot play with both X and Y is YOU.

Unless he is saying that his friend "X" is the one who will not let him be friends with "Y"

[Gremlich Johns]

Heffay, on 28 October 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

It also has a number of huge disadvantages. How many snipers have been killed because they were in 3PV when a light snuck up behind them?

Not enough

[zolop]

I still can't believe this thread is still going on...

PGI officially asked the community to make 12 (group) vs12 (Group) 1PV only. The community Agreed to this... some of us came back because of this.

If you want to use 3PV in 12 (grouped) vs 12( grouped) make a poll to split the Ques. Otherwise now you are making PGI lie on its second official promise it made to the community... (the first was split ques.. oh wait and a bunch of other stuff like never including 3pv in the first place).

3PV is a issue for competitive play, not pub play, this is why the community earlier (months back) voted and PGI agreed to make 12 group of players vs 12 group of player 1pv only.

PGI this back and forth would have been solved if ques were logically split between 1pv and 3pv... I guess Cest la vi ....