70 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Mcchuggernaut, on 28 January 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

I agree with part of this, but the tipping point being a bit different wasn't what I was talking about at all, it was how the game feels, as in how much it feels like your individual performance effects the outcome. The larger the group, the less an individual actually matters. It's like the vote system, where people in small groups feel their vote has a large impact, and in huge groups it's individual impact is basically nothing.

Team work is less about ME and more about US. One thing I don't get. I've been playing a bunch of SWTOR and in every instance on a planet there is my Toon running around and in the upper corner of the screen I see The planet name and how many players are there. AND I see those other players on my screen. 147 players, running around in small groups or individually in front of me.

How long did it take that game to get to a point where McChugger and his 3 friends were fighting the AI, and Myself an DaZur with our 2 other buddies could lend a hand helping to defeat the world boss, or a pack of Rakghouls???

The PvP is kinda dumb cause of respawning. Its just a bunch of grind. Without much story/reason.

[Khobai]

Quote

Team work is less about ME and more about US.

Except thats not what the game tells us. The game tells us most damage and most kills and high KDR matter more than teamwork. You dont get rewarded for teamwork. You get rewarded for individual accolade. People actually play counter-intuitive to how teams should play in order to increase their own scores.

1) assists arnt factored into KDR. your KDR doesnt go up for helping teammates kill enemy mechs. that's so wrong for obvious reasons: it makes doing the last 1% of damage more important than the previous 99%. KDR should either include assists or be removed completely as a stat.

2) damage is what primarily decides match score. on the surface that seems like a good idea, because the more work people do in a game, the more they get rewarded. Until of course you realize that getting headshots or destroying XLs yields considerably less damage than shooting mechs in the arms and legs. Again thats so wrong for obvious reasons: killing mechs quickly and efficiently should yield the biggest rewards. damage scoring should be weighted based on the location hit, hitting someone in the torso should be worth way more than hitting someone in the arm.

Edited by Khobai, 29 January 2014 - 04:42 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I kinda felt the same way when 12v12 came around (and never got why people wanted it so much, other perhaps as proof of a technical feat - "We can have 24 players in one instance and the game doesn't break down"), but I haven't played long or much since 12v12 came around.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 29 January 2014 - 04:31 AM, said:

Except thats not what the game tells us. The game tells us most damage and most kills and high KDR matter more than teamwork. You dont get rewarded for teamwork. You get rewarded for individual accolade.

1) assists arnt factored into KDR. your KDR doesnt go up for helping teammates kill enemy mechs. that's so wrong for obvious reasons: it makes getting the last 1% of damage more important than the previous 99%.

2) damage is what primarily decides match score. on the surface that seems like a good idea, because the more work people do in a game, the more they get rewarded. Until of course you realize that getting headshots or destroying XLs yields considerably less damage than shooting atlases in the arms and legs. Again thats so wrong for obvious reasons: killing mechs quickly and efficiently should yield the biggest reward.

I do to get rewarded for team work. My 4 man usually is the top scoring 4-3 players on the team. My Kills may not be top numbers but my Assists are normally over 6 so I make more money. And more importantly, it feels better sharing a win/loss with my team instead of shouldering the responsibility alone. Maybe that's why s many of you are not happy. You think YOU have to win the match. I you give it your best shot and the team comes up short, How does that diminish your accomplishments?

You killed 7 enemy Mechs by yourself! Awesome!
Your team lost anyway. This game sucks cause I can't win!

Perspective is all wrong. You did all you could, but the other team was better. Take your effort and have a beer in celebration of 7 kills baby! You did great!

[NextGame]

id like to see 8v8v8

[Raven Mendes]

i would like to see in certain maps like river city etc, 8 v 8 and other maps like tourmaline 12 v 12, would bring a new dynamic to the game would be cool and balanced, right now in some maps feels wrong

[Khobai]

Quote

I do to get rewarded for team work. My 4 man usually is the top scoring 4-3 players on the team.

I solo pug and almost always get the highest score on my team.

The scores we get are NOT derived from how well you worked as a team. Theyre derived mostly from how much damage you did, which is not a product of teamwork.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 29 January 2014 - 04:59 AM, said:

I solo pug and almost always get the highest score on my team.

The scores we get are NOT derived from how well you worked as a team. Theyre derived mostly from how much damage you did, which is not a product of teamwork.

I both agree and disagree. Good teamwork will provide better over all damage to most of a team. A scout will generally have much less damage if he is scouting worth a dam. But his teammates will reap the benefits.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Joseph Mallan, on 29 January 2014 - 04:49 AM, said:

I do to get rewarded for team work. My 4 man usually is the top scoring 4-3 players on the team.

When a full third of your team is fighting as a coordinated (and in your case I'm pretty sure experienced, with finely-tuned and effective mechs) unit with a plan, the teamwork will of course grant you a huge reward, or at the very least make you a formidable force much less likely to fail. That being said, most of the people who play don't have people to drop with, and the difficulty of communicating easily (typing in the heat of battle is a good way to get killed) using the game's built-in methods is a chore and a liability, which discourages easily forming a cooperating group from the random people you encounter while playing. This game needs built-in voice communication within a lance like a starving man needs food.



Actually, I have an idea how that should be set up. I would like to see a lance commander be able to communicate with his lancemates by voice, and they able to talk to him and among themselves, but the lance commander would also be able talk to the other two lance commanders, while the rest of his lance cannot talk outside of it. That would keep com chatter from 12 players from clogging the system up, reinforce the feeling of being in a unit, and encourage those unit commanders to coordinate their groups. I think it would really add to the feel of the game.

Edited by Mcchuggernaut, 29 January 2014 - 07:48 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

I feel same way about the increase of people in game. And the avalance effect is only worse, you lose 1 player too early it all just collapses rapidly.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mcchuggernaut, on 29 January 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

When a full third of your team is fighting as a coordinated (and in your case I'm pretty sure experienced, with finely-tuned and effective mechs) unit with a plan, the teamwork will of course grant you a huge reward, or at the very least make you a formidable force much less likely to fail. That being said, most of the people who play don't have people to drop with, and the difficulty of communicating easily (typing in the heat of battle is a good way to get killed) using the game's built-in methods is a chore and a liability, which discourages easily forming a cooperating group from the random people you encounter while playing. This game needs built-in voice communication within a lance like a starving man needs food.



Actually, I have an idea how that should be set up. I would like to see a lance commander be able to communicate with his lancemates by voice, and they able to talk to him and among themselves, but the lance commander also able talk to the other two lance commanders, while the rest of his lance cannot talk outside of it. That would keep com chatter from 12 players from clogging the system up, reinforce the feeling of being in a unit, and encourage those unit commanders to coordinate their groups. I think it would really add to the feel of the game.

I have heard there is a way for multiple 4 man teams to do this with TS... I don't know how it works. I have no desire to learn.

[Magna Canus]

I think smaller group would help out with the current ELO issue. The MM matches High and Low ELO as filler for teams that need to "meet the average" of the opposing team. Reducing the number of units to be averaged may help balance out matches with regards to ELO, though other issues like weight differences would still persist.

Theoretically it would help narrow the ELO gap within a team and maybe even reduce time to find a match because you have more matches available with the same population.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Joseph Mallan, on 29 January 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

I have heard there is a way for multiple 4 man teams to do this with TS... I don't know how it works. I have no desire to learn.

And even if that's true, you would have to find a team of people who were willing to take the time to learn this and set it up, and then make sure they are all around to play together at set times, which would be a real pain. We just need an in-game voice com system. MWO will never feel "complete" without it.

[Ryoken]

Mcchuggernaut, on 28 January 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

I make this statement because I was here for 8v8, and enjoyed it more, so I feel I have room to talk. I couldn't put it into words WHY before, but I feel I can now. My reason is pretty simple: I like to feel as though what I do is directly controlling the outcome of the game. Like my bad play helps result in our loss, or really good play either helps us achieve victory, or at the very least avoids a roflstomp. Right now in 12v12, you are insignificant. I feel like I could go stand in a corner and power down at the start of a match, and only effect the outcome of games by an un-noticeable statistical margin. I can be having a stellar game and have racked up good damage and a few kills, and then my team gets killed off due to bad positioning or shoddy play, and next thing I know I am swarmed and rolled under by the enemy since my backup has all been killed. Likewise, I can literally not fire a single shot the whole game, and my team will win in a landslide. I have seen both of these situations an awful lot. I have a great K/D (for a mostly pure PUG player), yet feel like I am not truly turning the tide of battle one way or another except in small groups at the end of the game when it's a close match.

I wonder if I am the only one who feels like this. I would love to see an option to select 8V8, or even a mode for 4v4 combat between single lances. Sure, there were still plenty of one-sided matches in 8v8 play, but at least I felt a bit more responsible for it and in control. Currently, I have the feeling that my actions are arbitrary, and depend on the luck of how well my teammates play and where our metal death blob ends up positioned on the map more than how well I aim, torso twist, use cover, kill or disable enemies, ect...

So anyway...I don't think the option for smaller groups will "fix the game" or anything, but I will at least feel more connected to the effects of my actions and like they impact my game experience more.

Thanks for reading and I want to hear people's responses!

Wow finally a pug gets it! To repeat:

Ryoken, on 18 January 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

Most players massively overestimate their impact on the outcome of the battle! This game is not counterstrike where you can headshot 5 other players with one clip if your reflexes are good. Your reaction gets toned down by the mechs moving speed and you have to hit an enemy several times to kill him. Also you do not have respawn, so after your hitpoints are gone you can not restart with fresh ones and keep on your 5 kills per clip killing spree. Your impact is just 1/12th of the team! Even if you are a very good player, and always drop with the best meta fitting heaviest mech (like HGN-733C nowadays) of the moment - you will hardly overcome a winratio of lets say 55 to 60%!

These numbers will not change by the number and size of premades that are randomly distrebuted by random or equaly among the two teams, if you drop solo! So there is no reason why solo playing players should have the right to tell the team oriented population of the server how big their teams should be. It is even absurd to demand prohibition of teamplay in a MMO.

The win loss ratios of team players however will be affected by bigger premade sizes! If you always play together with 7 friends, and you all are very bad players, your winratio will go down below to even 40-30%ish values. Because unlike the solo dropping player who always has a fresh chance of getting a better or worse team than the enemy team, you and your 7 bad playing friends always stick together and always drag down your chance of winning by your own bad play. Same goes the other way around if you form a team with 7 good playing friends who even might compensate your own bad playing.

So to sum it up:
Does premade size matter for winratio of solo dropping players? Answer is NO!
Does premade size matter for winratio of team dropping players? Answer is YES!

No offense meant, but can you please go and tell this to all those pugs that are blaming the "evil premades" for ruining their games?!

Edited by Ryoken, 29 January 2014 - 10:57 AM.

[wanderer]

The sad thing is, that math fails to realize one thing.

One player cannot carry a 12-man team, though he could an 8-man. Mechs tend to just fall apart from attrition after 3-4 direct kills.

Four players can carry a 12-man team, and frequently do. A premade can and will carry a team, and I've been part of those more than once. When your lance simply rolls an enemy lance 4-0 and starts gnawing down the rest...well, it's already a snowball and you were good enough to gank 4 as it was. Now it's 12 (depending on the PUG, perhaps less) vs 8 and you've already got momentum.

Those are the games where four people have two-thirds or more of the kills in a stomp. Premades can and do carry PUG matches, and do alter the W/L ratio of solo players dropping with them in the process, and do pervert the ELO rankings in the process. PUGs do act as a drag on those, but even then, a decent premade will usually elevate things from a stomp to a respectable loss in the 12-5/12-6 range.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mcchuggernaut, on 29 January 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

And even if that's true, you would have to find a team of people who were willing to take the time to learn this and set it up, and then make sure they are all around to play together at set times, which would be a real pain. We just need an in-game voice com system. MWO will never feel "complete" without it.

True, but till then we have Mumble, TS and Vent right?

[wanderer]

Quote

True, but till then we have Mumble, TS and Vent right?

Which only work for teams, since random PUG is random and only together for the duration of match.

That's why an in-game VOIP is critical. It has to be something that forms a channel for each team during the game, or else real voice comms are only the demense of the premade lance or 12-man.

[TygerLily]

I can someone relate to the OP. I have lots of great games, etc...but my favorite handful of epic endings all come from 8-mans. And 12 does seem crowded on smaller maps (like River City)...you really don't scout in a Light since you can see your enemy in the first couple seconds (like River, where you can literally shoot someone at their starting location).

But I think I'd rather stick with 12...I agree with some above posters, specifically DaZur:

DaZur, on 28 January 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

There is no discounting your personal subjective feel of this mechanic... For you, you immediately felt the ebb & flow your actions or inactions and how they influenced the 8-man match.

It's still there but the "wiggle room" four more players per side induce is effectively like an insulator... Even though your actions / inactions affect the attrition balance the same way, the repercussions just don't hit you as quickly and decisively which obviously leaves you feeling a little detached.

Edited by TygerLily, 29 January 2014 - 12:46 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 29 January 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

Which only work for teams, since random PUG is random and only together for the duration of match.

That's why an in-game VOIP is critical. It has to be something that forms a channel for each team during the game, or else real voice comms are only the demense of the premade lance or 12-man.

Why would we want to always play with a bunch of random people? As a team, we play alongside each other over and over again to where we can be discussing the finer points of German v Canadian Beers, **** and sometimes call targets if they need focused on.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Joseph Mallan, on 29 January 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

Why would we want to always play with a bunch of random people? As a team, we play alongside each other over and over again to where we can be discussing the finer points of German v Canadian Beers, **** and sometimes call targets if they need focused on.

German beers are best, imho, by the way...

Yeah, you wouldn't always want to play with randoms. Doesn't mean this game couldn't do with an easy-to-use integrated com system.