111 replies to this topic

[Undercover Brother]

27 matches, 27 losses...

I'm not some hotshot mech jock. I'm not master at this game. I'm a recreational player who has a job, kids, a mortgage, etc...

...But 27 losses is a bit excessive.

The "PUG", or "Lone Wolf", is the death of MWO. Why? Well, there is no "TEAM".
Nobody takes command (and when they do, nobody listens). 90% of the players out there either close head-on to brawl, or sit back and snipe/LRM until they're just weaponless hunks of metal, running around in circles. There isn't any strategy. There isn't any real benefit to even ACT as a team. So why should PGI/IGP even invest in a dynamic that will never be used by 90% of the players?

Reading every week about so many complaining about the lack of "Community Warfare" honestly makes me laugh. PGI/IGP is making money hand-over-fist by promising something they honestly SHOULD NOT implement. Why should they spend profits adding to a system where most people SHUN team play? Maybe if people started ACTING like MWO was a TEAM game, they'd be more likely to deliver.

As for now: Community Warfare is useless. Its a pipe-dream that's dead before it even gets implemented. And we all have OURSELVES to thank for it.

[p8ragon]

You know what the main reason is? A lack of voice comms. Casual players WILL NOT use teamspeak or any of that shit. Until PGI puts together a decent voice comms program, or implements a command rose similar to bf4, I don't think we'll be seeing that much PUG teamwork.

[Alex Warden]

yea the lack of teamplay in a teamtactics game is indeed a problem, and PGI´s plans to nerf teams even more won´t help much in this regard... as you said, there isn´t a real incentive, and simply not the tools, as p8ragon mentions...
1% ppl playing 12vs12 ppc-arty-fests and only 14% generally playing in (small) groups shows exactly, that there are just no systems in the game to make it what it wants to be...

0/27 never happened to me, i think most people i know, including myself are around 50/50 win/loss... but in a not-so-fatalistic way i tend to agree with your concerns

Edited by Alex Warden, 23 February 2014 - 07:54 PM.

[Craig Steele]

p8ragon, on 23 February 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

You know what the main reason is? A lack of voice comms. Casual players WILL NOT use teamspeak or any of that shit. Until PGI puts together a decent voice comms program, or implements a command rose similar to bf4, I don't think we'll be seeing that much PUG teamwork.

Agreed, blew me away to hear them say that Comms were critical to success in the game when they were defending MM / ELO a month or so ago, but they apparently had no idea that 84% of their players were solo PUGS and not using Voice Comms.

I mean seriously, that's a stat that basically screams out "Our Players are not getting the entertainment we think they should be out of the game".

But they know now, maybe it becomes a priority.

[101011]

Funny, I just saw someone give orders on Strait and the entire team followed through, winning 12-1. You and I have different experiences.

EDIT: Grammar

Edited by 101011, 24 February 2014 - 04:38 AM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

i don't see CW being a total waste if they do it right. taking planets and moving territory is effected by pug play only as a frustration to those who by using teamwork earned territory yesterday, pugs overnight lose it and they'll have to fight for it again. really the gameplay for co-ordinated teamwork and the structure of factions and CW don't have a huge relationship with eachother.

if you wanted to complain about lack of team work in pugs etc you should've just wrote that in the title.

[Alex Warden]

Craig Steele, on 23 February 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

Agreed, blew me away to hear them say that Comms were critical to success in the game when they were defending MM / ELO a month or so ago, but they apparently had no idea that 84% of their players were solo PUGS and not using Voice Comms.

you know, the funny thing is...i remember from end of 2013 that PGI stated " most people play in small groups"... now, 14% are "most people"? something is wrong...

[Mechteric]

Voice comms would be nice, but I think you'd still find the following accurate even WITH in game comms:

- people turning off voice comms
- people not listening to orders/advice/suggestions over voice comms
- people yelling or singing random stupid stuff over voice comms

I would hope that isn't the case most of the time, but I know what to expect.

[Alex Warden]

CapperDeluxe, on 23 February 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

- people yelling or singing random stupid stuff over voice comms

which again leads to

Quote

- people turning off voice comm

yep, guess you´re right

[Mycrus]

I don't believe voice comms will fix it..
Let's start with an intuitive command system with higher level players having having the preference to command..

Command should be rewarded btw and of course following commands should be rewarded as well...

Pipe dream to get from now to there though....

[Craig Steele]

CapperDeluxe, on 23 February 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

Voice comms would be nice, but I think you'd still find the following accurate even WITH in game comms:

- people turning off voice comms
- people not listening to orders/advice/suggestions over voice comms
- people yelling or singing random stupid stuff over voice comms

I would hope that isn't the case most of the time, but I know what to expect.

In my experience most people play to play.

Sure there are some idiots but mostly I find people just want to have fun and get some entertainment.

A mute button is a must, but even if it's only a handful of sentances in game a contact report or a warning of an artillery strike, comms is still going to be a big force multiplier as PGI have said.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Alex Warden, on 23 February 2014 - 08:00 PM, said:

which again leads to



yep, guess you´re right

Add individual mute toggles for every player. If you start mouthing off at the team in voice chat, let me mute you and keep going. Everybody wins (even the mouthy players can still hear unless they also mute people).

They should add mute for text chat, anyway; having it for voice chat is a no-brainer.

[Noesis]

[Darwins Dog]

My experience from TF2 is that most players still don't bother with voice comms, even when it's built in. You will occasionally get one person taking charge and it can work well if people listen (and the leader knows what they are doing). If you join an organized server run by a team or community it's different, but the same is true of MWO.

Typing orders is often very successful, but you can't always do that in game. My only suggestion is to try to lead yourself.

I don't think that CW is DOA though, but I have nothing to back that up. I just know a lot of people that are taking breaks until it arrives.

[Reitrix]

I think Sandpit is going to have to add Community Warfare to the list of things to be 'Removed', lol.

On topic, as a solo player 99% of the time, I have a 50/50 win loss rate. I also have a positive overall KDR. The only thing voice comms improves is speed of communication.

Also, as far as built in voice comms go, jump into Battlefield, CoD or Halo's voice comms, tell me how much strategy and tactics is talked about.
In my experience, it was easier to mute it to shut out the whiny ragers. Space Marine had built in voice comms too, majority of that was heavy breathing, eating sounds, frantic mouse clicking/Keyboard smashing and cursing.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If your teammates are willing to listen, they will read the chat and follow along.
If they think they're MechaRambo and can carry the team solo, they will ignore you and then rage because it was your fault they died.
Like that one guy on Conquest yesterday, first to die, spent the next 7 minutes raging at us and claiming we were going to lose horribly because "we killed him", and went on to deliver a 12 - 2 victory.

[fluffypinkbunny]

I am pro, commander benefits, like if they get extra commander points, or maybe commander exp that'll let them be able to choose better drops for their lances and what not. Something that a commander with higher points, gets priority over drop command, where lower commanders can still take lance commands, and gain points for those commands, not only being issued, but followed, and helpful (cant just tell people walk 2 ft, and they do so, have to have them walk somewhere, then engage, or put a defend point, (over an objective, or close to one) and your people defend/ engage enemy there.)

[FactorlanP]

CapperDeluxe, on 23 February 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

Voice comms would be nice, but I think you'd still find the following accurate even WITH in game comms:

- people turning off voice comms
- people not listening to orders/advice/suggestions over voice comms
- people yelling or singing random stupid stuff over voice comms

I would hope that isn't the case most of the time, but I know what to expect.

You know what, you're right on all of your points.

What you are missing though is that the players who don't do those things will more easily gravitate toward each other and START forming up into small teams to continue playing.

If I ran into a player who I liked, was helpful or good at directing a team, I would be very inclined to want to "friend" him so we could play together again sometime.

Heck, I might ask him before the match is over if he might like to group up for a few matches.

MWO is so totally lacking in tools to get to know other players, it is no wonder that metrics are showing that very few people are grouping up.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I've played a good bit of TF2 and, even with as little as some players use the in-built voice comms, a sufficient number seemed to for it to be impactful in most games. Even if it's just a player or two warning about spies disguised as certain people or warning about a turret placed somewhere, it still proved well worth it.

In MWO, even if only one person is talking, that could be enough to make all the difference for target focus and group maneuvers.

[Spheroid]

They don't even need VOIP, Battlefield has had the commrose for years. It works too.

[Sandpit]

T Decker, on 23 February 2014 - 07:39 PM, said:

27 matches, 27 losses...

I'm not some hotshot mech jock. I'm not master at this game. I'm a recreational player who has a job, kids, a mortgage, etc...

...But 27 losses is a bit excessive.

The "PUG", or "Lone Wolf", is the death of MWO. Why? Well, there is no "TEAM".
Nobody takes command (and when they do, nobody listens). 90% of the players out there either close head-on to brawl, or sit back and snipe/LRM until they're just weaponless hunks of metal, running around in circles. There isn't any strategy. There isn't any real benefit to even ACT as a team. So why should PGI/IGP even invest in a dynamic that will never be used by 90% of the players?

Reading every week about so many complaining about the lack of "Community Warfare" honestly makes me laugh. PGI/IGP is making money hand-over-fist by promising something they honestly SHOULD NOT implement. Why should they spend profits adding to a system where most people SHUN team play? Maybe if people started ACTING like MWO was a TEAM game, they'd be more likely to deliver.

As for now: Community Warfare is useless. Its a pipe-dream that's dead before it even gets implemented. And we all have OURSELVES to thank for it.

Here's the thing though. You're basically complaining about an entire section of players who "don't play well together" in a team game.
You're going to have a few demographics in this group

Who Cares Group: This is the portion of players that just enjoy stomping around in stompy robots and would much rather have a single player type experience. In lieu of that they play to get their stompy robot fix and could care less about teamwork, CW, metas, w/l. etc.

Anti-Social: They REALLY wanted a single player game and have no desire to play as part of a team. They just want to run around and pew pew but they DO care about stats, w/l, etc. They could care less about how the team does and are only worried about their individual stats

Hardcores: Want teamwork but for various reasons cannot or will not use TS, join a unit, etc. They are just as "passionate" and invested in the meta, CW, etc. They want teamwork, cohesion, etc.

Future Unit Members: New players that join the game and eventually find a unit. They're just as invested in the game and CW, metas, etc. They desire more coordinated teamwork, cohesion, etc.

Now I have no idea what % each of those would make up and it's definitely an over simplification of player and personality types but I think it gives a general idea at least. Now they have to come up with a way to balance everything for the majority (whichever type that might be) then they have to adjust and tweak other areas for the rest without upsetting balances for the majority.
CW should be a blast and I can't wait for it to get here personally. Keep in mind though that statements like what the OP has made, were made in CB about dozens of other things that were either D.O.A. or going to ruin and/or kill the game. Thankfully they were wrong, all of them (otherwise we wouldn't be here ahving this conversation would we?)

I'd also ask, how is this gameplay balance? What exactly is unbalanced? You lost 27 games. Ok, so what caused those losses? What created that situation? Was it you? (of course not right?) Was it your team? Was it your mechs? Was it MM? Was it weapons? Was it tactics? Was it consumables? Was it.... Well you get the point.

So I would ask the OP just what exactly are you hoping to accomplish with your post? What exactly are you suggesting PGI do to make your game experience better? What is it that would help prevent that?

All you did was essentially post "CW is dead, I laugh at and mock those that want it and I lost 27 matches in a row" So what exactly is that supposed to accomplish and how exactly is that suppose to help improve the game for you?

101011, on 23 February 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

Funny, I just saw someone give a orders on Strait and the entire team followed through, winning 12-1. You and I have different experiences.

exactly

Alex Warden, on 23 February 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

you know, the funny thing is...i remember from end of 2013 that PGI stated " most people play in small groups"... now, 14% are "most people"? something is wrong...

So a year ago things were different. Why is that so hard to accept as opposed to alluding to some ulterior motive?