79 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Durant has hit it on the head. PGI will no doubt take their time in getting it right. The state of the game is likely responsible for the high solo figures, a massive upswing in groups when lobbies arrive will help to show them that they need to take them into account.
New game modes and different incentives/objectives will help.

[Novakaine]

Imagine if PGI was in the road construction business.
Local Mayor: "Love the road nice and clean, but there's a small problem."
PGI Construction: Problems?
Local Mayor: Well yes all the turns are right hand turns.
PGI Construction: But looks at it so perfect and clean and our metrics on our previous constructions say that 100% drivers make only right hand turns.
Local Mayor: Say what?
PGI Construction: Yep we we're surprised at that, but the numbers don't lie.
Local Mayor: So let me get this straight you only build roads with right hand turns?
PGI Construction: Yup Mayor you got.
Local Mayor: So what if you want to make a left hand turn?
PGI Construction: The numbers don't bear that out sir, no one in this city makes a left hand turn.
PGI Construction: So you see no need to add any left hand turns Mr. Mayor.
Local Mayor: Hmmm I see, by the way you wouldn't have a couple of extra shovels on hand do you?
PGI Construction: Sure do Mr. Mayor, but why do you need shovels?
Local Mayor: Well the first shovel I'm gonna need for my staff to cover up this BS, and the second one well... you better run.
PGI Construction: Run Sir?
Local Mayor:Oooooh yes run.

[Sable]

I wonder if anyone has stopped to consider that maybe just maybe.... the playerbase is larger than you originally thought? And that although you play in groups, and all you friends play in groups... that still may not account for how most other people play the game? I mostly play in groups myself of at least 2 and most of the time a full lance. From my point of view i'm always in a group. As the game has progressed new pilots try out the game. Russ tweeted that when they had the win a free mech thing going on there was a big influx of players. If you look or listen to PGI's reactions they were as surprised by their metrics as we are. It may be because there are a lot of new players that haven't found groups to play with yet. It may be because people have left the game and former groups have been reduced to individuals. Some may feel like the percentages aren't accurate, i don't doubt what their statistics are showing and as game companies must cater to its playerbase as a whole i don't have a problem with any of the things they've outlined in their innitial launch module. As a F2P game its always going to be evolving. If the playerbase demands more team oriented content i'm sure PGI will adjust its goals. Its not the end of the world, its only the beginning. I think their goals are fair minded considering the data they have in front of them.

Edited by Sable, 03 March 2014 - 08:46 AM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Strig, on 28 February 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

I play solo all the time because every single one of my clan-mates left when we could no longer group. We routinely get 5+ players online at a time... usually more joining throughout an evening while others leave ... but rarely 8 and almost never 12! These were all Founders of various levels and if they could play together they would have stayed and paid ...

PGI doesn't care about Founders spending more money so your point is irrelevant, more or less...

[Strig]

Lyoto Machida, on 03 March 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

PGI doesn't care about Founders spending more money so your point is irrelevant, more or less...

Of course they do. They want everyone to spend money. That is the point of a business. In F2P games you want "whales" as they make up a large percentage of your revenue and they drive players to spend because they are walking advertisements for the cash-only items that all these games have.

PGI also cares about their player base. They WANT to give us a great game, but some things are harder to do than others and don't make the cut.

This particular issue (wanting to have 5+ people on a team) does not seem that difficult to me .. I know it has some issues, but I think they can be overcome with a little thought.

Claiming "PGI doesn't care" is just defeatist. I get that lots of Founders wanted more/different things but maybe if we embraced the game we have and nudged it in the direction we want rather than ... I don't know ... crying like self-importnant entitled little children .. we might be able to help the community drive the direction of development in a way that is better for everyone (PGI, Founders, PUGs and 12man Teams alike)

[Ordellus]

Ryoken, on 28 February 2014 - 01:51 AM, said:

So first off, I am a team player! There is nothing I want more than to play in a group with my buddies! And I absolutely reject the 4 player limit because we have to turn the 5th player down or have to split our group!

Yet I do often drop alone in a short break when I find the time for 2-3 games. But because PGI brutally missinterprets their data I am afraid to do this now. Because if I do PGI will decide to further punish and reduce teamplay!

So by playing a casual game I do kill the team game aspect that I did fund and pay this game for?

PGI I beg you stop this nonsense!

Can we stop pretending you all want some besides stomping solo players in 5-11 sized groups, it just makes you look pathetic and skill less

Strig, on 06 March 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

Of course they do. They want everyone to spend money. That is the point of a business. In F2P games you want "whales" as they make up a large percentage of your revenue and they drive players to spend because they are walking advertisements for the cash-only items that all these games have.

PGI also cares about their player base. They WANT to give us a great game, but some things are harder to do than others and don't make the cut.

This particular issue (wanting to have 5+ people on a team) does not seem that difficult to me .. I know it has some issues, but I think they can be overcome with a little thought.

Claiming "PGI doesn't care" is just defeatist. I get that lots of Founders wanted more/different things but maybe if we embraced the game we have and nudged it in the direction we want rather than ... I don't know ... crying like self-importnant entitled little children .. we might be able to help the community drive the direction of development in a way that is better for everyone (PGI, Founders, PUGs and 12man Teams alike)

1) The guy you're responding to is completely right
2) All they want is your money
3) They don't care what you think of the game, as long as you pay them
4) the only nudging you can do is either to pay them... or not pay them... that's it

Edited by Ordellus, 06 March 2014 - 10:41 AM.

[WarHippy]

Ordellus, on 06 March 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

Can we stop pretending you all want some besides stomping solo players in 5-11 sized groups, it just makes you look pathetic and skill less

I am a solo player and I think you should stop pretending that you speak for anyone but yourself. I want him and others to be able to play in whatever group size they want.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

84% of players who hit the launch button do not want play with you and your 4 friends. However, PGI is creating a game mode just for you where you and you 4 friends can play against other similarly minded people, so I am not sure exactly what your complaint is?

Quote

Paul Inouye
This is the ability to create uneven teams (12v10 for example), of varying sizes. This includes the ability to create 5v5 games, or 1v1 games.

[WarHippy]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 06 March 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

84% of players who hit the launch button do not want play with you and your 4 friends. However, PGI is creating a game mode just for you where you and you 4 friends can play against other similarly minded people, so I am not sure exactly what your complaint is?

It is 84% of drops not 84% of players there is a difference. That being said even if it was 84% of players it doesn't mean that all let alone a majority would not be happy dropping solo intermixed with groups. As for the new game mode they are having people pay if they want to drop with different sizes, and you are not gaining anything either be it c-bill or future rewards from CW.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

WarHippy, on 06 March 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

It is 84% of drops not 84% of players there is a difference. That being said even if it was 84% of players it doesn't mean that all let alone a majority would not be happy dropping solo intermixed with groups. As for the new game mode they are having people pay if they want to drop with different sizes, and you are not gaining anything either be it c-bill or future rewards from CW.

I intentionally used the same language as PGI (launches), to avoid drawing any unfounded conclusions.
I would like to state for the record that I am not opposed to allowing solo players to "opt-in" to 5-12 drop queue, however I very much doubt there would be many takers. what would be the point, you don't have voice comms, you know you are up against other, likely more coordinated teams, I just don't see the attraction for a PUG player, you are essentially asking to be the cannon fodder for a premade group, with the expectation of being verbally abused for your play-style and/or mech selection. I suspect that most players, like myself, will playing in on a premade team when they want, and in the 1-4 man queue when they don't.

As for the pay-to-play private matches. I still think this is the best solution for 5 man teams, the trick is convincing PGI to offer more options for free public matches or lower prices for private matches (their current proposal is 250MC ($1) for 1 player (2 including the other team) and a 24-hour pass).

[Supersmacky]

I just don't understand how this topic can come up so much and the players (ie, customers) complain so passionately about it, yet PGI goes in the exact opposite directions. My only thinking on it is their business model is based on turn-over (constant stream of new players with older players leaving) as opposed to a sustained player base (which does not preclude new players adding into the existing player base). If this is the case then it will inevitably be the end of the game at some point. Any basic business course will teach you it is much better to sustain your existing customer base than to count on a constant stream of new players. In addition, as people leave because they are frustrated with the lack of the game that is one more person sharing a negative experience. A company I used to work for had an understanding that 1 negative review could cost you 10 potential customers and 1 positive might, at best, gain you 2. The principle being it is easier to lose business than gain it. If PGI continues to look at their player base as a temporary thing (cow to be milked dry), then they will become irrelevant and the game will die. It is business myopia at its worst.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Supersmacky, on 06 March 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

I just don't understand how this topic can come up so much and the players (ie, customers) complain so passionately about it, yet PGI goes in the exact opposite directions. My only thinking on it is their business model is based on turn-over (constant stream of new players with older players leaving) as opposed to a sustained player base (which does not preclude new players adding into the existing player base). If this is the case then it will inevitably be the end of the game at some point. Any basic business course will teach you it is much better to sustain your existing customer base than to count on a constant stream of new players. In addition, as people leave because they are frustrated with the lack of the game that is one more person sharing a negative experience. A company I used to work for had an understanding that 1 negative review could cost you 10 potential customers and 1 positive might, at best, gain you 2. The principle being it is easier to lose business than gain it. If PGI continues to look at their player base as a temporary thing (cow to be milked dry), then they will become irrelevant and the game will die. It is business myopia at its worst.

You may be on to something there. If PGI can force 1 player away from a "I must play with my friends in a 5 man group" group, then said group could play in the 4 man queue and everything work work out perfectly.

I would also like to point out that if you as a business person had to prioritize between satisfying 66-84% of your customers or the remaining customers, what would you focus on?
Of course it also comes down to money. I am sure if the minority (5-11 groups) constituted a larger portion of the revenue stream PGI would be more apt to listen, but realistically PGI has a limited pool of resources, and they have 3 goals.
1. attracting new players
2. retaining existing players
3. generating revenue
I guarantee you that the decisions they made in prioritizing the features of the launch module were based on those items.

[Dan Nashe]

Sinthrow, on 01 March 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

I too would like to see groups of 5-10 find a way into the queues, but you all do remember the steamroll stomps when you didn't have a group gaming against one, right?
So the question is, how do we set up matches with odd sized groups and not wait forever?
Is it ok to know that if you drop with a 5 man group you could face a 6 or 7 man group? if you dropped in a 8 man group you might face a 9 or 10man group? would this be OK? Could solo players get a cb or xp bonus for filling in the gaps
These are my questions.
PGI please don't give up on this.

Peace out,,, forget that, war your hearts out

I think the changes they are making are all good and a good first step. I think larger groups can easily be added as future functionality to what their building. I just want to emphasize I like the announcement. But it can be better in the future. But like UI 2.0, it's a critical milestone.

Still think the solution is to use exactly what they're doing now:
It grabs a group, puts it on Side A.
Then it looks for a similar sized group for the other side.
Never more than one group per team.
So you can have a 4 man vs a 2 man.

Just change that to: "Any sized group, must comply with 3/3/3/3."
Then it creates the lobby, and tries to find another group within 2 people. (If you drop 6, it looks for a group of 4-8).

Two issues:
(1) There is no similar elo group on the other side of the right size. Solution: AFter searching for 3-4 minutes it simply says: "Failed to find match BECAUSE COULD NOT FIND APPROPRIATE GROUP OF SUFFICIENT SIZE". Then the group can decide to keep trying to split into 2 smaller groups. Maybe this happens in 90% of 6+ man drops, but so be it!

(2) The problem is weight balancing will be rough. If 8 mechs on each side are set, you won't be able to consider relative tonnage (Shadowhawks v. Cicadas; DDCs vs Stalkers). But it can use the PuGs to compensate.
It would help if it would say "hey, premade A has 3 Highlanders, Premade B has 3 Victors, maybe we'll take jaegers and catapaults for Team A, and give Team B Cataphracts & Orions.

Edited by DanNashe, 06 March 2014 - 03:05 PM.

[WarHippy]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 06 March 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

I intentionally used the same language as PGI (launches), to avoid drawing any unfounded conclusions.
I would like to state for the record that I am not opposed to allowing solo players to "opt-in" to 5-12 drop queue, however I very much doubt there would be many takers. what would be the point, you don't have voice comms, you know you are up against other, likely more coordinated teams, I just don't see the attraction for a PUG player, you are essentially asking to be the cannon fodder for a premade group, with the expectation of being verbally abused for your play-style and/or mech selection. I suspect that most players, like myself, will playing in on a premade team when they want, and in the 1-4 man queue when they don't.

Actually, the language you used was not the same. Sure, you used the word launches but what you said was "84% of players who hit the launch button" which is no different than just saying 84% of players, but I digress that isn't all that important. We won't know how many takers there would be unless we try it out, but I assure you as a solo player I would be happy to drop in those games. As for being connon fodder that may happen, but as long as you stick with the team it really shouldn't be too hard to figure out what the game plan is. If communication becomes a problem they can add quick and easy pinging to the map with preset instructions like LoL uses, or they could just add voip. I also don't really care about the verbal abuse because you are just as likely to get that in a solo only queue as you are in a group queue since some people are just jerks no matter what you do, and there is no point in letting it get to you. If you are really concerned about making it worthwhile for the pugs to play with groups then increase the rewards for dropping in the group queue.

Agent 0 Fortune, on 06 March 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

As for the pay-to-play private matches. I still think this is the best solution for 5 man teams, the trick is convincing PGI to offer more options for free public matches or lower prices for private matches (their current proposal is 250MC ($1) for 1 player (2 including the other team) and a 24-hour pass).

People want to be able to play with their friends and hamstringing them unless they pay money is not exactly a winning scenario for a F2P game. The best use of the F2P model is for cosmetics and decreasing time sinks while still giving even the free players a fun environment to play in where they can feel enticed to buy things without feeling like they are being forced to buy things. Being told that you can only ever play with some of your friends unless you open your wallet does not meet the criteria in my book.

[WarHippy]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 06 March 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

You may be on to something there. If PGI can force 1 player away from a "I must play with my friends in a 5 man group" group, then said group could play in the 4 man queue and everything work work out perfectly.

I don't say things like this very often because people are entitled to their opinion, but this is probably one of the most ridiculous ignorant statements I have seen on this forum. I really hope you were just being sarcastic and that it went over my head, but if not wow.

Agent 0 Fortune, on 06 March 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

I would also like to point out that if you as a business person had to prioritize between satisfying 66-84% of your customers or the remaining customers, what would you focus on?

They should be focusing on getting content out that they have been talking about for the last two years that will appeal to all of the people interested MWO that have been playing, or have been thinking about starting not just one group that isn't even in agreement on what they want.

Agent 0 Fortune, on 06 March 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

Of course it also comes down to money. I am sure if the minority (5-11 groups) constituted a larger portion of the revenue stream PGI would be more apt to listen, but realistically PGI has a limited pool of resources, and they have 3 goals.

5-11 groups are a minority because they don't exist, and it isn't because of a lack of desire it is because the devs have failed to implement it. Being able to drop with your entire group of 7 in a team game what nonsense!

Agent 0 Fortune, on 06 March 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

1. attracting new players

You would be hard pressed to attract new players if you piss off all of your current and old players. Word of mouth is a pretty strong influence on new potential players.

Agent 0 Fortune, on 06 March 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

2. retaining existing players

Yeah, they have been doing a bang up job of that. I mean 3 whole days after 3rd person was introduced they saw improved player retention, and the fact that awhile back they admitted that less than half of founders even login anymore at all really shows that they know what they are doing to retain players.

Agent 0 Fortune, on 06 March 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

3. generating revenue
I guarantee you that the decisions they made in prioritizing the features of the launch module were based on those items.

I'm sure you are right, but not because limited groups are the way to go. Rather, they are doing this because it requires the least amount of effort on their part.

I'm not normally this negative about this stuff, but man did your nonsense give me a headache. Kudos to you I guess.

Edited by WarHippy, 06 March 2014 - 04:36 PM.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

WarHippy, on 06 March 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

I don't say things like this very often because people are entitled to their opinion, but this is probably one of the most ridiculous ignorant statements I have seen on this forum. I really hope you were just being sarcastic and that it went over my head, but if not wow.

Your comments almost make me want to say I was dead serious, just to see your reaction. Of course it was a jest, as I also noted, I think player retention and loyalty is hugely important, I don’t want to encourage anyone to leave. (this is also the reason I never disparage free-to-play players, they provide an essential service to the game, and help to keep revenue customers engaged).

WarHippy, on 06 March 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

They should be focusing on getting content out that they have been talking about for the last two years that will appeal to all of the people interested MWO that have been playing, or have been thinking about starting not just one group that isn't even in agreement on what they want.

5-11 groups are a minority because they don't exist, and it isn't because of a lack of desire it is because the devs have failed to implement it. Being able to drop with your entire group of 7 in a team game what nonsense!

The issue I was raising is what happens between now and when those features are released. PGI didn’t stop working on community warfare and clan invasion to work on the launch module; the launch modules is part of that framework.

In fact the only issue I’ve heard complaints about is lack of free public 5-11 man groups, which has never been in the game. So essentially people are complaining that solo players (the largest community) got something, while pre-made players (the minority) didn’t.

My point was there is only so much bandwidth, and when a company is forced to prioritize they will seed the largest audience with the most impact.

WarHippy, on 06 March 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

You would be hard pressed to attract new players if you piss off all of your current and old players. Word of mouth is a pretty strong influence on new potential players.

Yeah, they have been doing a bang up job of that. I mean 3 whole days after 3rd person was introduced they saw improved player retention, and the fact that awhile back they admitted that less than half of founders even login anymore at all really shows that they know what they are doing to retain players.

That cuts both ways. New players who try this game and have a bad experience will not return. Not implementing 5-11 man groups will have almost zero affecting new player recruitment. But significantly improving solo player, most new players first experience, will.

I am not going to defend 3^rd person, or say PGI doesn’t make mistakes, they make a lot of them. But this launch module and the private games are not a mistake.

WarHippy, on 06 March 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

I'm sure you are right, but not because limited groups are the way to go. Rather, they are doing this because it requires the least amount of effort on their part.

I wouldn’t complain if they added a voluntary 5-11 queue, although I wouldn’t play in it either. And I will even concede the point that PGI does not, and cannot have metrics for 5-11 man teams.
The next question of course is what happens if no PUG players opt-in for the 5-11 queue? Do those matches just continually time out? Does the match maker set up 5 v 11 man matches? Or do they allow free Private Premium matches and rely on the players to do their own match making?

[zolop]

Novakaine, on 02 March 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

Imagine if PGI was in the road construction business.
Local Mayor: "Love the road nice and clean, but there's a small problem."
PGI Construction: Problems?
Local Mayor: Well yes all the turns are right hand turns.
PGI Construction: But looks at it so perfect and clean and our metrics on our previous constructions say that 100% drivers make only right hand turns.
Local Mayor: Say what?
PGI Construction: Yep we we're surprised at that, but the numbers don't lie.
Local Mayor: So let me get this straight you only build roads with right hand turns?
PGI Construction: Yup Mayor you got.
Local Mayor: So what if you want to make a left hand turn?
PGI Construction: The numbers don't bear that out sir, no one in this city makes a left hand turn.
PGI Construction: So you see no need to add any left hand turns Mr. Mayor.
Local Mayor: Hmmm I see, by the way you wouldn't have a couple of extra shovels on hand do you?
PGI Construction: Sure do Mr. Mayor, but why do you need shovels?
Local Mayor: Well the first shovel I'm gonna need for my staff to cover up this BS, and the second one well... you better run.
PGI Construction: Run Sir?
Local Mayor:Oooooh yes run.

Then they lead you to a island.

But in all seriousness the way they are interpretting data, when we are forced to split groups of players by more than 4 is the problem. Getting rid of the competitive que was another problem, the could've easily made that que for people with any amount of group numbers. I would rather see the larger communities in this game be represented by using a que the could be on a competative level, not just casual. I used to be play with a clan, but because of the constant delays of Community warfare since open beta and restrictions on group sizes, beiong in a clan is long gone. I drop solo most of the time because this game has no end game, except grinding for mechs.

But PGI seems to have their heads in the clouds because the community is forced to split groups up more than 4 and I wonder how that really brings larger groups to the table. Now they plan to make 12 man groups private battrles, not effecting CW?? Does that mean an entire clan has to battle against itself in every CW battle? Does PGI not know how this is going to really screw up large clans, if they keep battles affecting CW to be groups of sizes no more than 4? I really do not think a clan of +20 would want to go into public battles facing each other all the time to affect CW, as it REALLY defeats the purpose of having a clan.

PGI did state that we could still do large group sizes facing each other in private matches and with premium time change the match settting. That is not a bad thing, but if a large clan wants to effect CW then the problem mentioned above happens.

Edited by zolop, 06 March 2014 - 06:15 PM.

[Supersmacky]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 06 March 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

In fact the only issue I’ve heard complaints about is lack of free public 5-11 man groups, which has never been in the game. So essentially people are complaining that solo players (the largest community) got something, while pre-made players (the minority) didn’t.

Your statement is inaccurate and misleading. People are complaining that there is no option to have groups of 5 to 11. Not that solos have something they do not. If people want to solo, good for them. They are not doing something I can't do if I choose to. But as it stands no one can do a 5 to 11 man group whether they want to or not.

Also, there is a lack of free public 5 man groups because PGI won't put it in the game. It is not a matter of the option being there and people not using it. Again, there stated reason for not giving the option is the impact on the battle, not the lack of interest. So, people want it and PGI knows they want it, they just won't add it.

By the way, what evidence do you have that solo/pug-only players are the largest part of the community? You can't use PGIs metrics primarily because we have not seen the source data. We don't know if it takes into account that a person that is part of a unit might be playing solo until others from their unit are on. Or that they might have to launch solo BECAUSE, MWO does not allow groups larger than 4 (with the exception of 12 man groups) and their unit has 5 people on (thus leaving an odd man out). Or how much of that 84% are individual unique launches or are they just launches in general. From what I read it didn't sound like they drilled down the data much at all. Unless you have knowledge others do not I don't believe you can state the majority are solo-only players and the minority are group-droppers. I dare say everyone, preference for solo or grouping aside, drops solo from time to time. So I challenge your statement on its face without substantiating data to back it up.

[Amsro]

HeavyRain, on 01 March 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

Listen to the podcast, they gave specific percentages about 12-mans, 4-mans, 3-mans, 2-mans.
Most of the grouped players drop in 2-mans. Not 4-mans with the 5th player going solo.
So yeah, no.

the 2 mans are just teams splitting up to make sure none are playing solo. that 4 man split into a 3 man + 2man for the extra. Happens all the time. 2+3 all the way up to 3+4+4. Very rarely have I been in a 12 man match.

[Amsro]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 06 March 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

In fact the only issue I’ve heard complaints about is lack of free public 5-11 man groups, which has never been in the game. So essentially people are complaining that solo players (the largest community) got something, while pre-made players (the minority) didn’t.

But you are wrong on that point, you could make any size group 2-8. Then it was cut down to 2-4 + a seperate 8-man. (without any data provided to give a reason to the change)

All the teams struggled to maintain 8 players only at all times. This led to long wait times and the painful search for that 8th player when someone had to leave.

Now the tumble weeds own the 12-Man only que and the team game is 80+% gone, instead of fixing their mistake they want to add MORE restrictions to further deter team play and then charge you MC to run a lobby.


But,



I enjoy lancing up with 3 other pilots, sometimes, if they don't already have a full lance. We'll just pretend to sync drop while being on the opposite teams all night.