504 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

The exceptions being

• You will face opponents of more similar skill level (hard Elo boundaries)
  
• You can’t do it in 6+ assaults
  
• You sync dropping will eventually move you to the highest Elo bracket, away from the newer and more casual players.

1. And? But? So? Therefore?
2. Again, So? We don't care what we drop in, as long as we're dropping together. 3 of my friends are in assaults, well, I take a heavy to round out the 4th. 4 Player group is filled and I'm trying to sync with them, so I bring a heavy, medium, light, whatever is needed to assure that we can be in a drop together. Most everyone I play with have at least a dozen mechs of various weight classes, many have several dozen. You seem to think that all the Evil Premades who want to play together want to bring a Steiner Scout Lance, when the reality is, may of us are MUCH better outside the Assault Class.
3. Again, So? The object isn't to ROFLSTOMP PUGS, the object is to play with the largest number of friends possible. If the number of friends online is 7, I should be able to play with 7, if the number is 5, I should be able to play with 5, and I should be able to build my group until it reaches the max allowable of 12.

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I get the feeling you would prefer to have a queue with unlimited groups size

YUP!

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

and no Elo boundaries,

YUP! I don't care if I get beat by my betters occasionally. I was raised during a time when not everyone got trophies, where the winning team wasn't gimped by having to put in 3rd stringers so the loosing team wouldn't feel bad, and the final score wasn't deflated by that fact.

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

and force PUGs to fillout the rest of your team (likely PUGs who are significantly less skill so that the matchmaker can level out the Elo rating of your team).

Nope, make the queue optional for those PUGs with testicular fortitude who wish to fill the ranks of group play able to do so. The rest can reside in the mamby-pamby queue where everything is evenly balanced and they can live with their ~50% W/L ratio.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Roadbeer, on 10 March 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

Nope, make the queue optional for those PUGs with testicular fortitude who wish to fill the ranks of group play able to do so. The rest can reside in the mamby-pamby queue where everything is evenly balanced and they can live with their ~50% W/L ratio.

There you go, problem solved.
Players who want to have an impact their game can stay in the 4-man queue, and those who like to get kicked in the nuts can join the 5-11 man queue.

I can't believe it took us 12 pages to find this simple and eloquent solution that will leave all parties satisfied.

[Roadbeer]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

There you go, problem solved.
Players who want to have an impact their game can stay in the 4-man queue, and those who like to get kicked in the nuts can join the 5-11 man queue.

So, you're saying that only those who are either anti-social or marginally social are the ones who should be able to have an impact on the game? and those of us who are gregarious and make friends should get no reward or benefit from playing the game at all?

[WarHippy]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

There you go, problem solved.
Players who want to have an impact their game can stay in the 4-man queue, and those who like to get kicked in the nuts can join the 5-11 man queue.

I can't believe it took us 12 pages to find this simple and eloquent solution that will leave all parties satisfied.

How does that solve the problem? How do I as a solo player drop with the 5-11 man groups in custom pay to play matches without being invited into one? If I am invited into one I am not dropping solo, but rather as part of the 5-11 man group. Why would I want to drop in those groups when from last I heard you get no xp, no c-bills, and I'm guessing no imparct on CW?

The only simple and eloquent solution is have two queues where one is solo only and the other is teams of any size with pugs filling out the remaining spots, but we are not getting that. What we are getting is junk.

[Sandpit]

WarHippy, on 10 March 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

If I am invited into one I am not dropping solo, but rather as part of the 5-11 man group. Why would I want to drop in those groups when from last I heard you get no xp, no c-bills, and I'm guessing no imparct on CW?

Exactly, there's not much point in continuing to spend money and play the game as much if all I can't even earn cbills and experience to buy more mechs and such with. Why in the world would I buy premium time if I'm not even earning cbills for a match?
Why would I bother with all the unit and faction stuff if I can't even participate in CW?

[Novalov]

I like the idea of not being forced to play either, I enjoy what I refer to as arena play but also a more free play style that CW could become. Alienating any player base is not a good call imo. CW to me sounds akin to the system of play I enjoyed in PS1 and PS2, a reason to fight, a cause if you will beyond the next c-bill, nor should there be no reward for pre made competition, to not recognize the skill and effort to organize and execute beyond statistics is disappointing. I think PGI does get caught up in a paradox of whom do we give our attention to this patch and the issues of disparity of gameplay needs to be addressed, at least give responses and results with some consistency so it puts minds at ease.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Roadbeer, on 10 March 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

So, you're saying that only those who are either anti-social or marginally social are the ones who should be able to have an impact on the game? and those of us who are gregarious and make friends should get no reward or benefit from playing the game at all?

I was saying that a single solo player has a much greater impact against 12 other PUGs than against a 12 man VOIP team.

I’m not sure where the talk of rewards come from, but now that you mention it, isn’t friendship its own reward? And why limit yourself to so few friends, not enough love to go around? Go for the full dozen and play 12-mans.

[EDIT] I didn't realize you were talking about "real" rewards. I think ever match should reward XP and C-Bills. I am not sure why PGI feels people will "game the system" or what consequence it will have since we can't share C-Bills anyway.

Sandpit, on 10 March 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

It didn't, it got said pages ago. There were just examples thrown out as to why that's not going to solve roflstomps and such. Most of us are all for that idea, it's not going to help new players though

Apparently those arguments weren’t very compelling. I still believe we will see fewer PUG stomps with just the minor changes PGI is making with the launch module (the primary change limiting teams 1 premade group, and hard limits on Elo boundaries).

You are going to need to try harder to sell me your idea of allowing 11-man groups against 12 PUGs will result in fewer stomps.

WarHippy, on 10 March 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

The only simple and eloquent solution is have two queues where one is solo only and the other is teams of any size with pugs filling out the remaining spots, but we are not getting that. What we are getting is junk.

That is essentially what we agreed upon. 2 queues one for 4-man, and one with 5-11 man and volunteer PUGs. It isn’t what we are getting now, but at least we have a unified front, and a solution to present to PGI.

(keep in mind I am not anti-group, I play in a group at least half the time. I am just Pro PUG).

Edited by Agent 0 Fortune, 10 March 2014 - 11:42 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

You are going to need to try harder to sell me your idea of allowing 11-man groups against 12 PUGs will result in fewer stomps.

That's the thing, nobody is trying to sell that idea, as it is agreed by almost anyone that THAT would be a bad idea.
I don't know where this myth about all groups wanting to ROFLSTOMP PUGs came from, but the reality is that groups just want to play with their friends, the more you encourage this, the larger the groups get to the point where you have more groups facing off against each other and the PUGs are just filling a couple slots.

Only the extremely paranoid believe that the Premade Boogeyman is out to get them.

We just want to play with our friends, against another group without having to go through all the hoops of having to KNOW the other group to invite them, and receive the same rewards/penalties as those who aren't grouped.

Why is this such a bad thing?

[WarHippy]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

I didn't realize you were talking about "real" rewards. I think ever match should reward XP and C-Bills. I am not sure why PGI feels people will "game the system" or what consequence it will have since we can't share C-Bills anyway.

This is exactly what they are doing and a big part of why people are mad. They are telling people that want to play together that they must forgo income, experience, CW participation, and just to make sure they stay down they kick them in the gut by telling them they also get to pay for the luxury of being a second class citizen.

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

Apparently those arguments weren’t very compelling. I still believe we will see fewer PUG stomps with just the minor changes PGI is making with the launch module (the primary change limiting teams 1 premade group, and hard limits on Elo boundaries).

You are going to need to try harder to sell me your idea of allowing 11-man groups against 12 PUGs will result in fewer stomps.

As long as both sides have a 5-11 man group it shouldn't be a problem. Nobody that wants unrestricted groups sizes has been advocating for groups vs pure pug. Either way stomps are going to happen, and people are still going to make excuses as to why they lost.

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

That is essentially what we agreed upon. 2 queues one for 4-man, and one with 5-11 man and volunteer PUGs. It isn’t what we are getting now, but at least we have a unified front, and a solution to present to PGI.

Fair enough.

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

(keep in mind I am not anti-group, I play in a group at least half the time. I am just Pro PUG).

You know as an almost exclusive pug player I am getting rather tired of people telling me what I should want, and that they are doing these things for me when it isn't at all what I want. You are pro small groups, but you are not pro pug because not all pugs agree with you on what you think is best for them.

[Sandpit]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

You are going to need to try harder to sell me your idea of allowing 11-man groups against 12 PUGs will result in fewer stomps..

That's where you're mistaken. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Your opinion is your opinion. Whether it agrees with mine or not is completely irrelevant. I'm not concerned with "convincing you to agree with me"

Compelling as to what? You're just being argumentative at this point and basically saying "Your points are invalid because I don't agree with you and you've failed to convince me otherwise" Whether YOU agree with those points or not doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that PGI sees what we've pointed out. Which they've started to do if you follow twitter.

WarHippy, on 10 March 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

As long as both sides have a 5-11 man group it shouldn't be a problem. Nobody that wants unrestricted groups sizes has been advocating for groups vs pure pug. Either way stomps are going to happen, and people are still going to make excuses as to why they lost.

yea, and as Road mentioned, I have never understood that stance or mentality. They almost always want to frame it as some evil 12man stomping on 12 pugs. That's never been the case nor is it anything close to what the vast majority if players who group up want or have suggested

[Roland]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

You are going to need to try harder to sell me your idea of allowing 11-man groups against 12 PUGs will result in fewer stomps.

In an unrestricted queue, this would essentially NEVER HAPPEN.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 10 March 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

In an unrestricted queue, this would essentially NEVER HAPPEN.

Pretty much but it seems easier to use extreme and rare examples to throw out ideas.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Roland, on 10 March 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

In an unrestricted queue, this would essentially NEVER HAPPEN.

Sandpit, on 10 March 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

Pretty much but it seems easier to use extreme and rare examples to throw out ideas.

I am a little surprised you have not seen, or do not believe such things occur in our current 'restrictive queue', although I admit those situations would a very rare occurance. However in a queue were 11 players would be in one premade group, and the pool of players for the other team is comprised of a majority of solo players, I suspect it will be more common (unless there are rules in place to prevent it). But as long as those players signed up for that experience, more power to them.

Edited by Agent 0 Fortune, 10 March 2014 - 12:43 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

I am a little surprised you have not seen, or do not believe such things occur in our current 'restrictive queue',

Um, because it doesn't, the 12 player queue and the solo queue to intermix.

Now, if you're talking about sync dropping, it doesn't occur as often as you think when you have a premade in it. It's actually quite difficult, and in my experiences you have around a ~20% chance of success when trying to sync groups.

Now, SOLO syncing in another matter, during the Marik Monday Madness drops, where everyone is solo, we have a very high rate of occurrence of loading up players in a match, but none of them are grouped and you don't know who you're going to end up with.

Going back to my previous point of being able to game the MatchMaker in the way it was proposed, you actually will have a BETTER chance of being able to sync a group with solo players, because knowing what each is bringing to the party and the 3/3/3/3 system... it'll be VERY easy to play the odds in your favor

ggclose ensues

Edited by Roadbeer, 10 March 2014 - 12:52 PM.

[Sandpit]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

I am a little surprised you have not seen, or do not believe such things occur in our current 'restrictive queue', although I admit those situations would a very rare occurance. However in a queue were 11 players would be in one premade group, and the pool of players for the other team is comprised of a majority of solo players, I suspect it will be more common (unless there are rules in place to prevent it). But as long as those players signed up for that experience, more power to them.

I just disagree. You, yourself, admit it's a very rare occurence. I don't think opening the queue would make it more common, it would help make it LESS common because you have MORE people in groups in the queue. If you only have 3 teams dropping in the queue it's harder to find even matches than if you have 50 teams dropping in that same queue.

There doesn't always have to be an exact number on each side. 7v9 is not what I consider an "unfair" match with solo players filling in 5 and 3 spots respectively. They could set it up as the MM works with Elo now.

If I drop in a premade of 7 then MM searches for another 7 man, if none are found it then searches for a 6-8man, if none are found it searches for a 5-9man and so on and so forth.

It also seems like you're trying to say myself and several others in this thread have disagreed with an optional "group" queue that solo players can opt into. That's never been the case that I've seen. I HAVE, however, pointed out that doing that won't mitigate or stop roflstomps on new players and such. It would actually cause them to become more prevalent and eventually the solo queue would become the home to nothing more than new players and ggclose types that enjoy stomping them because most of your "middle of the road" type players are going to gravitate to the group queue because that's where you would find more balanced matches overall

[Novakaine]

YA gotta love PGI's lack of style.
The teams that play together and practice together will essentially dominate CW.
PGI is not having any of that which is just plain bull.
So they're gonna take away the incentive for teams to play.
Which Warhippy stated why even play CW at all?
So whose gonna waste their time?
Nobody.
Which goes back to my theory posted earlier.
If no one is playing CW or not enough players why bother developing it?
And why spend money on servers for it?
They can spend more time monetizing every little bit they can think of.
Talking about setting up straw mechs.
Oh don't get me wrong we'll get a leader board and map of the IS.
But very little else.
Truly truly pathetic.

[Artgathan]

Novakaine, on 10 March 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

Nobody.

It is sad though that the team shooter discourages teams.

[Sandpit]

Novakaine, on 10 March 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

YA gotta love PGI's lack of style.
The teams that play together and practice together will essentially dominate CW.
PGI is not having any of that which is just plain bull.
So they're gonna take away the incentive for teams to play.
Which Warhippy stated why even play CW at all?
So whose gonna waste their time?
Nobody.
Which goes back to my theory posted earlier.
If no one is playing CW or not enough players why bother developing it?
And why spend money on servers for it?
They can spend more time monetizing every little bit they can think of.
Talking about setting up straw mechs.
Oh don't get me wrong we'll get a leader board and map of the IS.
But very little else.
Truly truly pathetic.

A little more cynical than I am at the moment but yea some of what you say seems to be the case.

MPBT:3025
We had tons of organized groups running in the campaign. There wasn't this issue. We also had a completely different system for MM.

Here we essentially have your typical and common launch and go style. That's ok for shooters that don't have a persistent campaign. You drop and shoot. That's the extent of the game outside of stat tracking for leaderboards and such.

This doesn't translate well to a persistent and dynamic campaign though.
MPBT:3025
we would form a group and drop on an enemy planet in the lobby. We would obtain very small % of the planet while waiting for defenders to rally and drop against us. Then the match would ensue. (Some of this is purely from memory and I might get a few details wrong so if I make a mistake feel free to correct)
You were able to see what forces the attackers were bringing and if you could not match that weight you were under no obligation to drop against them. You could leave that lobby and find another match. If you felt your skills were up to snuff and you were able to overcome tonnage differences through skill you could drop though.

They could set up a similar system here. Obviously in CW you aren't going to be randomly matching up with players from other factions to fight another random team from other factions. So lets say Myself and 5 other Marikians form a group and drop on a planet controlled by Kurita. Other Marikians who are launching could join our particular assault force to fill out the rest of the team. Kuritans would be alerted that we are attacking planet x and put together a force to defend. Once they have a full team, we launch into the game.

They are under no obligation to commit to the game if they feel the attacking force is a bit out of their league. Before any % start dropping Kuritans would be given a time to respond. So we drop on planet A and Kurita has 5 minutes before we start leeching % from Kurita for ownership of the planet. That gives them plenty of time to muster and respond. MINOR %, keep that in min, we're talking well under 1% for minute or so. If they set the leech at .01% per minute then it makes it counter-intuitive to leech an entire planet because it would be too time consuming. It still gives defenders a sense of urgency to defend though.

Before anyone jumps up and says something about it being "unfair", etc. this system worked REALLY well for MPBT.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Roadbeer, on 10 March 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

Going back to my previous point of being able to game the MatchMaker in the way it was proposed, you actually will have a BETTER chance of being able to sync a group with solo players, because knowing what each is bringing to the party and the 3/3/3/3 system... it'll be VERY easy to play the odds in your favor

Oddly enough, I’m not too worried about it. Maybe when the Launch Module drops I’ll be in for a rude awakening when the Syncopalpse hits. Plus the glenclose club will be isolated to the upper Elo tier against good pilots used to working outside of voice coms.

Sandpit, on 10 March 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

It also seems like you're trying to say myself and several others in this thread have disagreed with an optional "group" queue that solo players can opt into. That's never been the case that I've seen.

I have only wanted to make my position clear. I suspect that solo players in a 5-11 man queue would be minimal, although I hope that I am wrong.

Sandpit, on 10 March 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

I HAVE, however, pointed out that doing that won't mitigate or stop roflstomps on new players and such. It would actually cause them to become more prevalent and eventually the solo queue would become the home to nothing more than new players and ggclose types that enjoy stomping them because most of your "middle of the road" type players are going to gravitate to the group queue because that's where you would find more balanced matches overall

I think the Elo boundaries in the 4-man queue will take care of the expert players stomping newbies. Although I do believe that PGI placing the new player/trial mechs in the center of the mid-tier is a mistake and should be adjusted.

I can’t imagine what leads you to believe:
1) a 5-11 man queue would be more balanced
2) It would appeal to solo players more than a 4-man queue (how many solo players would be able to drop with an Assault mech?)

[Sandpit]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 March 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

I think the Elo boundaries in the 4-man queue will take care of the expert players stomping newbies. Although I do believe that PGI placing the new player/trial mechs in the center of the mid-tier is a mistake and should be adjusted.

This is where you, PGI, and many others are making a mistake I believe. It's not the expert players that are stomping new players and creating roflstomps in this regard. It's new players trying to learn a complicated system of game mechanics, heat, mech building, weapon systems, chassis selection, play style, etc. with minimal information on how to do so against average level players in customized and optimized mechs who have already gone through the learning curve and understand how the game works.

Until people start understanding that, the new player experience will never improve. If you take an "average" skill level pilot and place him in his favorite and best decked mech against a new player who is still trying to figure out how to turn off cockpit lights and how to group weapons and why chain firing is important, the result the majority of the time is a new player getting stomped and discouraged. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with premades, high tier elo players, 12mans, etc. That has to do with new players being tossed into a game with a steep learning curve against players who have had 2 years to learn it and outfit customized mechs that work well with their particular playstyle.

Quote

I can’t imagine what leads you to believe:
1) a 5-11 man queue would be more balanced
2) It would appeal to solo players more than a 4-man queue (how many solo players would be able to drop with an Assault mech?)

I explained it, several times with a myriad of reasons why. If you choose to ignore, dismiss, disagree, or otherwise not acknowledge the lengthy reasons I've stated as to why that's my opinion, no offense, but I'm not retyping them all again.

Edited by Sandpit, 10 March 2014 - 02:33 PM.