504 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Artgathan, on 07 March 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

Notice that they say 84% of launches are solo. People misinterpret this as being 84% of players.

Being launches, the low amount of team launches can easily be explained. Consider that if 4 people launch solo, that counts as 4 individual launches, whereas if 4 people drop in a group, that counts as 1 group launch. Based on this, we can work backwards to figure out what percentage of players (IE: 4 players dropping in a group is adjusted to count for 4 group launches) are dropping as what:

• 2 Man - 8% -> 16%
  
• 3 Man - 4% -> 12%
  
• 4 Man - 4% -> 16%
  
• Solo: 100 - 12 - 16 - 16 = 56%

Assuming, of course that the data PGI presented has not already been adjusted.

Exactly
It's just an example of people looking at data and not understanding how that data really works. When it comes to stats it's VERY hard to get unbiased information and it's very EASY to skew data or misunderstand. I can take a data set and make it "prove" just about anything a person might want it to. It's very easy to do.

I don't think their data is wrong, I think they're not doing a very good job of understanding that data

[Roadbeer]

Regardless of if they're data is correct and their interpreting it right or wrong.
They are working on the assumption that 84% of their players are solo.
In a team based game where grouping is allegedly encouraged, this should keep them awake at night wondering WTH happened?

[Sandpit]

Roadbeer, on 07 March 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

Regardless of if they're data is correct and their interpreting it right or wrong.
They are working on the assumption that 84% of their players are solo.
In a team based game where grouping is allegedly encouraged, this should keep them awake at night wondering WTH happened?

Yup, I have never seen a team based game that tries so hard to discourage grouping and participating in the metagame. It really seems like they simply don't want groups to participate in CW and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay them just to play the exact same game others are enjoying for free simply because they drop as a lone wolf.

I don't even understand why they bother having any kind of faction sections of the forums, etc. What's the point of having units, forums, communication, etc. if you can't use that to help coordinate an entire group of players to participate in something like CW.

"Ok guys, we can't group up and we can't coordinate so when you hit launch do you best to drop on a planet we need strategically and keep your fingers crossed that you get a team comprised of players that aren't farming cbills at the time or that disco because they don't like a map leaving the rest of the solo players a man or two down, or better yet hope you don't have 1-2 griefers that just want to disrupt your game by TKing because you now have no way of controlling your team beyond 3 other players"

That above statement makes about as much sense to me as the decision regarding groups

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 07 March 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

I don't even understand why they bother having any kind of faction sections of the forums, etc. What's the point of having units, forums, communication, etc. if you can't use that to help coordinate an entire group of players to participate in something like CW.

This is what I've been saying.

If we are never able to drop in groups larger than 4 but less than exactly 12, there's really no hope for CW ever materializing.

[Pezzer]

Okay, I'm not sure if people have realized this, but looking back only 4-5 ish years ago tells us that once CW is added (even if it's auper super basic), players are either going to get super competitive/tactical or they're going to continue pugging (the normal minority of 24/7 puggers).

My example from 4-5 years ago is a very simple one, one that should give everyone hope. It's from most likely one of the worst FPS games in the history of gaming itself: Combat Arms. It was a really stupid game that played like a crack ******* addiction: easy to get into, very difficult to get out of.

So this really crappy FPS whose entire business model surrounded randomness and pug matches decided to come up with something out-of-the-box. It was a month-long event known as Spiders Vs. Scorpions. This single event took the entire semi-competitive lolnub I'm l337 community and divided it along battlefield lines with the notion that playing this event would earn you free items. Don't wanna participate? It's completely optional.

This simple event gave everyone a Spider or Scorpion graphic next to their username and promised people more rewards to the team that fared better. No new game modes, no special maps or teams. Spiders and Scorpions were still put on the same teams in the same game modes everyone had been playing at the time, with the winning team being calculated #of kills/points.

And it totally changed the playerbase. Instead of the MVP getting bragging rights and everyone complaining about campers, people were partially working together and uniting under a banner. There was flaming from one team to the other and lots of tactical play. Clans earned bonus points to their Spider/Scorpion team thus making teamplay even more desirable amongst clans. All because they put a graphic next to our names and put a carrot on a stick.

Once CW comes out, if the advertising and rewards are done right, it's going to be a huge hit. I would have a little more hope. I mean, if a shitty FPS game run by a completely for-profit-and-screwing-the-consumer-over company like Nexon could pull it off, then PGI with its' terrible work ethic but absolute caring for the game they're trying to make can hit a home run.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 07 March 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

This is what I've been saying.

If we are never able to drop in groups larger than 4 but less than exactly 12, there's really no hope for CW ever materializing.

I have to agree. The whole notion behind CW is an entire faction of players fighting another faction for planetary and resource control. PGI can NOT claim they didn't know that MANY of the players here expected MPBT:3025ish model for CW and being able to group up (as in when we all did it before they implemented group limits) because it has been stated too many times to count.

Pezzer, on 07 March 2014 - 04:58 PM, said:

Once CW comes out, if the advertising and rewards are done right, it's going to be a huge hit. I would have a little more hope. I mean, if a shitty FPS game run by a completely for-profit-and-screwing-the-consumer-over company like Nexon could pull it off, then PGI with its' terrible work ethic but absolute caring for the game they're trying to make can hit a home run.

I agree 100%
Problem with that? As it stands if I want to group up with 4 other people I can't participate in CW. That's the only thing those that agree with what I'm saying really want. There's no ggclose, stomp mentality, eliteness, etc. it's simply wanting to join up with our buddies and participate in CW for free just like every solo player has the option to do.

Soooooooooooooo
I can participate in CW in a group of 4+
IF
I carry premium time?
Pay for private matches?
Create my own league and rules and map?

Essentially they're making it P2P for anyone who wants to group up and participate in CW with what they've said thus far. Why in the world would I pay them to play the exact same game and campaign that others are playing for free just because I have more than 3 buddies I want to drop with?

I'm willing to bet at this point noone is going to hand them a dime for that "privilege". It's ridiculous to expect those that play in groups to pay for what solo players can get for free. Unless they first understand that's exactly what they're suggesting and then change that mentality, they're going to be sorely disappointed.

I could understand and completely support paying some sort of VERY small and reasonable fee for private matches. I also support giving players who do that full control over their match rules and players. I don't, however, support PGI trying to get players who just want to play in the CW aspect to pay for the "privilege" to participate.

BF3 does something similar for PS3. You can actually rent your own server and set it up any way you want. It's great for clans and such as it can be opened and closed and set to private as needed. Servers cost money to run so that's perfectly acceptable to me.

What's not acceptable to me is telling me that I can't participate in the single biggest feature of the game that I've waited on for nearly 2 years simply because I have 4-11 friends and online buddies in my unit.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

I stopped expecting anything out of PGI a while ago and guess what, PGI still hasn't done much of anything. It's pathetic how they push away the people they duped in the beginning and then pushed away even more who were duped later with pretty bobbles. Lack of flexibility in team sizes (limited to 4 or 12). Bad wash, rinse, repeat game play. Horrible production rate. Repeatedly broken trust. Lack of production on key items promised to the community. Having probably the two worst people in the industry in charge of the project. Those of the old guard who continue to play this aren't doing it because the game is good, but it's the only Mechwarrior game in active development and we've made good friends that we want to drop with. On any given night we have 4-8 players on in our Teamspeak and most of the time it's between 4-8 so we have odd men out (thanks bad management) and we wind up running 2 three mans or a three and two because someone has an utter lack of building a community.

Advice, just stop expecting anything out of PGI so that what ever they do isn't a disappointment. Play the game until it's inevitable slow death and don't reward their lack luster efforts with any real money. Maybe they might get a clue and give us something we should throw money at, but I doubt it as I remember who is steering the Titanic.

Roadbeer, on 07 March 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

Regardless of if they're data is correct and their interpreting it right or wrong.
They are working on the assumption that 84% of their players are solo.
In a team based game where grouping is allegedly encouraged, this should keep them awake at night wondering WTH happened?

OMG I agree with you! Who should shoot themselves here?

[Zolaz]

84% of launches is not the same as 84% of the population. Some people forget that math isnt everyone's strong suit. That being said, you shouldnt let incompetent people play with design schedules, priorities or anything that matters if they dont have a clue of what is happening or how to interpret it. Putting dullards in front of the microphone and letting them speak is a recipe for making your company look stupid.

[GreyGriffin]

Interesting related question - how do people find cohesive, preformed groups, guilds, and raids in other games?

[IceSerpent]

GreyGriffin, on 08 March 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Interesting related question - how do people find cohesive, preformed groups, guilds, and raids in other games?

Trial and error basically. Find a group that is recruiting, talk to them, do a few matches/raids with them, then both sides decide if you're a good fit.

[Damocles]

IceSerpent, on 08 March 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

Trial and error basically. Find a group that is recruiting, talk to them, do a few matches/raids with them, then both sides decide if you're a good fit.

And how do players do it in this game?

The forums? Connected to another forums connected to a VOIP? Gated by blind applications or PMs.

Regardless of imposed group sizes, these things need to be changed so that the new player who knows nothing about the game can find SOMEONE between matches (via chat imo) to communicate with and maybe join.

[IceSerpent]

Damocles, on 08 March 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

And how do players do it in this game?

The forums? Connected to another forums connected to a VOIP? Gated by blind applications or PMs.

Regardless of imposed group sizes, these things need to be changed so that the new player who knows nothing about the game can find SOMEONE between matches (via chat imo) to communicate with and maybe join.

Yeah, working general chat would be very nice. Allowing for all group sizes is very important too though - makes it much, much easier to get a few drops with a new guy.

[Sandpit]

Damocles, on 08 March 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

And how do players do it in this game?

The forums? Connected to another forums connected to a VOIP? Gated by blind applications or PMs.

Regardless of imposed group sizes, these things need to be changed so that the new player who knows nothing about the game can find SOMEONE between matches (via chat imo) to communicate with and maybe join.

+1
Honestly I think PGI's best advertising comes from us. (moreso than the average product) I don't agree with a lot of PGI's ideas or how they've developed the new player experience, communications, etc. but that doesn't change the fact that I enjoy the game and have fun. So I take it upon myself (as I think more in the community could) to "recruit" new players. Posting information in-game, offering tips, advice, etc.

A lobby and chat (with a block/ignore option) would solve a LOT of issues with this game when it comes to new players, forming units, finding groups, etc. It SHOULD have been one of the top priorities. They really seem to have taken too many "bad" cues from WoT in this regard. This isn't WoT though and requires a LOT more information to become efficient at it. The learning curve and such are a huge barrier. The tutorials are poorly implemented, obtaining in-depth information requires leaving the game to visit forums or watch videos on YouTube.

With all of that said, it's not hard for a community to create things to help. We had an IRC channel set up that very few used. We have TS servers that many won't use. There's ways to group within the game without joining any kind of unit or TS server.

[Damocles]

Sidepoint: PGI has stated that the forum-community is a minority of the games' player population.

so, unless things change and accessibility increases (surely it has to), the community can do its best but if PGI is right, we are insular and will only slow the attrition of forum-players.

[Sandpit]

Damocles, on 08 March 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

Sidepoint: PGI has stated that the forum-community is a minority of the games' player population.

so, unless things change and accessibility increases (surely it has to), the community can do its best but if PGI is right, we are insular and will only slow the attrition of forum-players.

Forum users are almost always a minority. There's very few games I actually get involved in the community with outside of a unit I've joined and friends that play. Purely anecdotal (since I know someone will try to call me out if I don't put that disclaimer in every time) but based on past experiences I'd be willing to bet that most players who join and play this game NEVER have a gripe about things like ghost heat, 3pv, and many other bandwagons on the forums simply because they drop in teh game and base their opinion of it based purely on that as opposed to "Well 6 months ago we had".

Forums are usually going to be populated by the extreme edges with a few middle of the road types here and there. That's because the extreme edges tend to be a bit more invested in the game and/or its development.

GreyGriffin, on 08 March 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Interesting related question - how do people find cohesive, preformed groups, guilds, and raids in other games?

Well a few things. Most online games have a lobby system of some kind or a persistent world server where you can chat across the game.

[Supersmacky]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 07 March 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

The problem I have with this "what if" scenarios and conspiracy theories is that they don't address the point you are trying to make. If you want 5-11 matches petition for that, don't try to attack the data, recognize that you are in the minority, but that even as a minority withing the community, your desires and ideas for a better game are just as valid as anyone's.

It isn't a "what if" scenario or a conspiracy theory. It is what is really, actually, daily happening. I do it, guys in my unit do it, guys not in my unit that I know do it, and people I don't know at all but post on this forum say they do it. From your other comments you seem to not be able to see it, but it is what is going on. It appears you are really the one in denial. You insist that people that prefer group dropping are the minority AND HAVE NO DATA TO SUPPORT THAT ASSUMPTION. Yet, you accuse everyone else of postulating conspiracy theories?!? Really? As has been stated in other posts (including mine) the metrics DO NOT show that solo only players are a majority. It shows that solos are the majority types of drops and all manner of substantiation has been give for why that might be the case OTHER than that it is what people want. Unless PGI shows something else from the data, those speculations are as valid as PGIs (and I would say more so based on the broad base of response given on the forums).

Metrics, unless you have survey data, do not show what people want. The metrics PGI gave DO NOT show whether solo only players are the majority or not. So, please, come up with something different because you are just wrong and are guilty of what you accuse those that want more group options of being.

[Novakaine]

Oh I can't wait for a leader board and Inner Sphere map comes out.
And PGI says here ya go guys Community Warfare.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Supersmacky, on 08 March 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

It isn't a "what if" scenario or a conspiracy theory. It is what is really, actually, daily happening. I do it, guys in my unit do it, guys not in my unit that I know do it, and people I don't know at all but post on this forum say they do it. From your other comments you seem to not be able to see it, but it is what is going on. It appears you are really the one in denial. You insist that people that prefer group dropping are the minority AND HAVE NO DATA TO SUPPORT THAT ASSUMPTION. Yet, you accuse everyone else of postulating conspiracy theories?!? Really? As has been stated in other posts (including mine) the metrics DO NOT show that solo only players are a majority. It shows that solos are the majority types of drops and all manner of substantiation has been give for why that might be the case OTHER than that it is what people want. Unless PGI shows something else from the data, those speculations are as valid as PGIs (and I would say more so based on the broad base of response given on the forums).

Metrics, unless you have survey data, do not show what people want. The metrics PGI gave DO NOT show whether solo only players are the majority or not. So, please, come up with something different because you are just wrong and are guilty of what you accuse those that want more group options of being.

The "evidence" I have is PGI's metrics. And the firm belief that PGI is not "out to get those darn pre-made players". I agree that the metrics are open to interpretation, my interpretation is that the decisions PGI made with regards to the data are for the health of the game and community as a whole, and not to beguile the unwashed masses.

I am going to back that statement up by saying that the 5-11 man groups LOST NOTHING, and GAINED the ability to play in 5-11 man matches, albiet via Premium Private matches. But that is more than the 5-11 man groups had before.

That being said, I really have no dog in this fight. I got what I wanted, and that is essentially a Solo players Bill of Rights. The ability to drop in a casual match with casual players an not have to contend with sync drops or wild Elo boundaries. Furthermore, I am not enough of a PGI apologist to (further) refute or defend the metrics they provided (although I do believe attacking the data is a bad strategy), and I wish you the best of luck in getting a 5-11 man queue, be it free private matches or volunteer PUGs.

Edited by Agent 0 Fortune, 08 March 2014 - 03:42 PM.

[Harcourt Mudd]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 08 March 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

The "evidence" I have is PGI's metrics. And the firm belief that PGI is not "out to get those darn pre-made players". I agree that the metrics are open to interpretation, my interpretation is that the decisions PGI made with regards to the data are for the health of the game and community as a whole, and not to beguile the unwashed masses.

I am going to back that statement up by saying that the 5-11 man groups LOST NOTHING, and GAINED the ability to play in 5-11 man matches, albiet via Premium Private matches. But that is more than the 5-11 man groups had before.

That being said, I really have no dog in this fight. I got what I wanted, and that is essentially a Solo players Bill of Rights. The ability to drop in a casual match with casual players an not have to contend with sync drops or wild Elo boundaries. Furthermore, I am not enough of a PGI apologist to (further) refute or defend the metrics they provided (although I do believe attacking the data is a bad strategy), and I wish you the best of luck in getting a 5-11 man queue, be it free private matches or volunteer PUGs.

This might be my first post but may I ask you this, what if you got your free pug drops but that they didn't count towards CW. How about if you had to pay to join a Solo Que for drops that counted towards CW. Would you still be so flippant?

What I have learned (by reading these forums) is that there used to be full drop groups to maximum size so in fact groups larger than 4 have lost a lot. I can see where groups have an advantage but I can also see how having group size limited like this is a detractor to the enjoyment of the game.

This isn't advertised as an MMO or a Sandbox. It's advertised as a TEAM Game but there are none of the tools for a team unles you go looking for them from a third party site. The only social experience you get from PGI is that of stepping on the pointy end of a rake and having the handle swing up and smash you in the face. I have explored a few of the player sites and I have found that being in those, once you break the ice with the people there, are a much more enjoyable place to play this game from and it lends itself perfectly to team play. PGI seems to be doing everything it can to kill it's own game.

That is all

[Sandpit]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 08 March 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

The "evidence" I have is PGI's metrics. And the firm belief that PGI is not "out to get those darn pre-made players". I agree that the metrics are open to interpretation, my interpretation is that the decisions PGI made with regards to the data are for the health of the game and community as a whole, and not to beguile the unwashed masses.

I am going to back that statement up by saying that the 5-11 man groups LOST NOTHING, and GAINED the ability to play in 5-11 man matches, albiet via Premium Private matches. But that is more than the 5-11 man groups had before.

That being said, I really have no dog in this fight. I got what I wanted, and that is essentially a Solo players Bill of Rights. The ability to drop in a casual match with casual players an not have to contend with sync drops or wild Elo boundaries. Furthermore, I am not enough of a PGI apologist to (further) refute or defend the metrics they provided (although I do believe attacking the data is a bad strategy), and I wish you the best of luck in getting a 5-11 man queue, be it free private matches or volunteer PUGs.

You are just arguing against someone because you don't agree with them, not because data backs it up. Super touched on it but I'll expand on it a bit more.

The data (even if you accept 84% which, to just about anyone who understands stats and data collection, etc. which also happens to be the type of people explaining why that number is wrong) does not show that solo is a majority. It would show 84% drop in a solo match at some point and time.
What some of us are trying to explain is how that is not a good data point. Those of us that DO have an understanding of stats beyond % and maybe a very entry level have given a LOT of reasons, explanations, etc. That you don't agree with the statements made do not invalidate them though.

These aren't statements based on opinion, these are statements based on factual data that has been collected and interpreted in a poor manner and anyone who HAS had an education and background in stats understands that. I'm sure most could care less whether any of the other players believe us. I'm more concerned with PGI understanding why their statement was inaccurate.

84% drop solo?
Why?
Do they solo exclusively?
When do they solo?
Do they drop 12 mans?
Do they drop in premades?
How many of that 84% are dropping solo while trying to sync drop with others in a premade?

That's just a few simple questions regarding that number without even thinking very deep about it.
Then you look at the twitter posts over the past few days from various Devs where they admit they have misinterpreted the data a bit (don't ask, I won't cite, as always I'm not anyone's personal librarian and everyone is welcome to join twitter to keep up witht hat kind of stuff ) and it lends even more credibility to those that are speaking out against this number.

I don't see anyone attacking the data. The data is what it is. The collection and interpretation of that data though is what's being called into question. There have been several examples in this thread of how and why 84% is inaccurate. It's not a matter of "getting what we want", it's a matter of making a poor decision in the fundamental design of this game based on someone looking at some numbers and not understanding how to read that data.

it's not a slight on anyone, it's a statement to help correct it because on its current path many of us believe it will ultimately hurt a game we enjoy. It's easy for someone who doesn't have a background in stats and such to misunderstand that kind of data just as it's easy for a lot of mouth breathers to come on here and tell PGI they could "do it better" or it would be "easy" to implement their idea.

They have acknowledged the possibility of having made a mistake regarding this. The thing is, you've got players running around on the forums that are making the same mistake when reading that data but will wail and flail if it's changed because they'll have their premade boogeyman back.

One other point on the whole premade thing. You know one thing I've noticed? I never
ever
ever
EVER
see this question and/or statement posed by anyone except forum members while in game.

"You guys in a premade?"
"Premades suck!"

Want to know why? Well because players who don't join units, don't visit the forums, etc. have no idea what a premade is. They don't complain. They don't wail and flail. Wonder what that is.........?

Harcourt Mudd, on 08 March 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

This might be my first post but may I ask you this, what if you got your free pug drops but that they didn't count towards CW. How about if you had to pay to join a Solo Que for drops that counted towards CW. Would you still be so flippant?

That's actually an excellent question and idea...

Since casual players just want to shoot and stomp why not reverse the roles? Solos can have the queue that doesn't participate in CW. They can drop for no rewards, etc. They can opt in to participate in CW but they'll have to do it alongside premades. That really is a pretty good idea....