227 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

I've been away for a bit but most know my stance on this.


The launch module announced does nothing to change what some are experiencing like stomps. The only thing it does is continue the exact same system we have had since they first nerfed groups.

[Randalf Yorgen]

Kaldor, on 07 March 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

Randalf,

Ive been a FWLM member nearly as long as you. If you think everything is OK, your wrong at every level. You forget, I was part of the "leadership" for MGA at one point in time, not as direct as Stingr4y, Chili, Aym, etc, but I was still heavily involved was invited to the Council meetings, etc. And just FYI there is no real leadership in the FWLM right now, because there is nothing to really lead right now unless you call leading a handful of 4 mans something worth leading? Right now its about trying to hold the unit together in a game that is not setup for unit/group play.

Closed beta TS was it not uncommon to see 10+ 8 man groups running at once? What do you see now? A few 4 mans. A bunch of people sitting around BSing about playing another game. Thats about it.

Yeah, 500+ signed up members, maybe 10% play on a consistant basis. 90% of the old guard closed beta testers and founders are gone, and those accounts arent even signed up at the FWLM website for the most part.. We have new players, yes, I still get the email spam whenever someone signs up. Player turnover is huge. If i had access to the back end of the TS sever I can probably pull data as to who has used TS since we setup the new server, how long they were on, and how frequent. That data is there.

Do not be a "White Knight" for PGI. They are doing everything in their power to push this game to solo PUG player where they can make a buck selling something shiney to the new kids with a 15 minute attention span and daddies credit card. They are NOT helping units in any way right now. And alot of the response I hear is "ERMAHGRED COMMUNITY WARFARE" is a line of crap. Everything they have done in the last year has done nothing but HURT units in all reality. What happens with Community Warfare is an unknown, but I can tell you right now if its as good as this craptastic UI we currently have, then CW will flop and with it units and grouped players will get the shaft once again.

Corey

You don't need to preach to me about the state of the game, Roadbeer and I talk all the time, read the last line I wrote, it's the tell that PGI is being watched closely and so far most of us are not being impressed by their choices. To say that the game is on it's last legs wouldn't be an understatement. If things keep going the way they are by the time the Clans arrive they will own the IS because everyone else will have left. There is already talk of other games and how to move groups of players over to them.

I have no illusions but I do play at odd hours so maybe I see things from a slightly different point. for example at 10am my time that's 9am eastern, there were about 25 people on the TS server. were they all active in game, I don't know but most were in their unit channels and not in the AFK rooms, if that counts for anything.

PGI is borking the game huge, group limits is the biggest fail by far and it seems that they are scared to make any changes. You know the list of issues as well as I do and like me I imagine you are simply tired of it and are ready for something new. PGI has had a lot of chances to get it right and they keep failing. It's my friends in the FWLM that keep me coming back, not this boring rinse and repeat game that isn't going anywhere fast.

You asked what I see on the TS server, true I don't see 10 x 8 man (12 man) groups but I do see 2 x 12 man quite often and at least 8-10 channels with 4 people in them so I assume those are 4 man drops. VOTF is one of the most active now but two months ago it was the Widows and before that MGA was busy. If PGI had removed the group size cap then there would be fewer groups but the groups would be bigger

I know, I'm all over the place with this post. I see the server is still busy, not huge crazy busy like it was but still busy but I do admit I do see a decline in activity. I also admit I can see a not so nice end for MW:O in the not so distant future. It might become one of those games that has 10k part time players and doesn't die off completely but it's already gone past the point of being able to recover and become a great awesome game. The best they can do now is stop it from fading away forever but Microsoft might not offer the licence for renewal next time.

I've said a few times I will stand up for PGI if they are getting hit with something that's not their doing but I will also stand aside and let them get blasted when they deserve it. Does that make me a White Knight? I don't, I think it just makes me someone who calls a spade a spade and who isn't afraid to act like a parent onthe forms when some children are throwing hissy fits about things that they did but are blaming PGI

[Mycrus]

fear your premade overlords...

http://mwomercs.com/...67#entry2872867

[Kaldor]

Randalf Yorgen, on 07 March 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

You don't need to preach to me about the state of the game, Roadbeer and I talk all the time, read the last line I wrote, it's the tell that PGI is being watched closely and so far most of us are not being impressed by their choices. To say that the game is on it's last legs wouldn't be an understatement. If things keep going the way they are by the time the Clans arrive they will own the IS because everyone else will have left. There is already talk of other games and how to move groups of players over to them.

I have no illusions but I do play at odd hours so maybe I see things from a slightly different point. for example at 10am my time that's 9am eastern, there were about 25 people on the TS server. were they all active in game, I don't know but most were in their unit channels and not in the AFK rooms, if that counts for anything.

PGI is borking the game huge, group limits is the biggest fail by far and it seems that they are scared to make any changes. You know the list of issues as well as I do and like me I imagine you are simply tired of it and are ready for something new. PGI has had a lot of chances to get it right and they keep failing. It's my friends in the FWLM that keep me coming back, not this boring rinse and repeat game that isn't going anywhere fast.

You asked what I see on the TS server, true I don't see 10 x 8 man (12 man) groups but I do see 2 x 12 man quite often and at least 8-10 channels with 4 people in them so I assume those are 4 man drops. VOTF is one of the most active now but two months ago it was the Widows and before that MGA was busy. If PGI had removed the group size cap then there would be fewer groups but the groups would be bigger

I know, I'm all over the place with this post. I see the server is still busy, not huge crazy busy like it was but still busy but I do admit I do see a decline in activity. I also admit I can see a not so nice end for MW:O in the not so distant future. It might become one of those games that has 10k part time players and doesn't die off completely but it's already gone past the point of being able to recover and become a great awesome game. The best they can do now is stop it from fading away forever but Microsoft might not offer the licence for renewal next time.

I've said a few times I will stand up for PGI if they are getting hit with something that's not their doing but I will also stand aside and let them get blasted when they deserve it. Does that make me a White Knight? I don't, I think it just makes me someone who calls a spade a spade and who isn't afraid to act like a parent onthe forms when some children are throwing hissy fits about things that they did but are blaming PGI

We agree and disagree at some points, especially at the points where you are critical of PGI.

My point is that yes, the TS server may seem busy, and we are getting new blood all the time, but the player turn over is huge right now. You have a few die hards that have played forever, and will play forever. Then you have new players that play a couple months and then quit, gone, goodbye, most likely never to return. I cant do it anymore. I took 4-5 months off, and now I play a few times a month to see if the game is progressing. Its not, its stale and old. Even if you play 12 mans, its still the same old s__t.

If they would do one simple thing, and that is remove the 4 man group limit, you would see a bunch of old players come back and play. 4 man is boring. 12 man is not possible most of the time. You have to run heavy enough to kill the entire other team with your 4 man to win most of the time because you cant depend on the other 8 guys not having a derp session and causing you to lose.

They need to build the community and as an extension of that, the units, back up again and make them the priority. That is the final goal with CW is it not? Factions and units fighting each other?

And Roadbeer, that guy is a troll I heard...

[Sandpit]

Kaldor, on 07 March 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

If they would do one simple thing, and that is remove the 4 man group limit, you would see a bunch of old players come back and play. 4 man is boring. 12 man is not possible most of the time. You have to run heavy enough to kill the entire other team with your 4 man to win most of the time because you cant depend on the other 8 guys not having a derp session and causing you to lose.

^ This

When forming a 4 man a lot of times we will be running a mish mash of mechs and weight classes. Then after getting stomped 2-3 times in a row because the 8 others on our team do less damage than our lance overall, we wind up switching to heavier hitters and our "go to" builds. It's a cycle for the most part. They REALLY need to get someone who understands data and trends better to interpret the information...

[Kaldor]

Sandpit, on 07 March 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

^ This

When forming a 4 man a lot of times we will be running a mish mash of mechs and weight classes. Then after getting stomped 2-3 times in a row because the 8 others on our team do less damage than our lance overall, we wind up switching to heavier hitters and our "go to" builds. It's a cycle for the most part. They REALLY need to get someone who understands data and trends better to interpret the information...

We used to do the same, **** around with whatever, lose a few matches because the scrubs are derping around, then switch to meta mechs, or run very heavy with a pair of DDCs, and a pair of high damage heavies like 40 Jager, 4 AC5 Phract4X, etc, and just club people to death.

This is boring. Id rather run 8 in a 12 man, with 4 PUGs, have 8 people I can depend on, and enjoy the game.

[Sandpit]

Kaldor, on 07 March 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

We used to do the same, **** around with whatever, lose a few matches because the scrubs are derping around, then switch to meta mechs, or run very heavy with a pair of DDCs, and a pair of high damage heavies like 40 Jager, 4 AC5 Phract4X, etc, and just club people to death.

This is boring. Id rather run 8 in a 12 man, with 4 PUGs, have 8 people I can depend on, and enjoy the game.

i'd rather just be able to drop with other friends I've made regardless of win/loss. If you look at data objectively and have an understanding of statistics and you've played this game for a while, then it's not hard to understand that the premade boogeyman is NOT what's at the core of stomps and such. The launch module that they've announced is not going to change anything except cause a few more players to become dissatisfied with the game.

I guarantee that after the "new" ( i use "" because there's nothing new about it, it's the exact same system we've had with a few tweaks) launch module, we will have the exact same situation that we have now with some experiencing stomps. The only difference will be that now you'll have closer weight matching.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sandpit, on 07 March 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

If you look at data objectively and have an understanding of statistics

Could you show us all the data you are looking at and how you are using statistics to analyze it?

Not that I disagree with you per'sae. But where is this data?

[Sandpit]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 07 March 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

Could you show us all the data you are looking at and how you are using statistics to analyze it?

Not that I disagree with you per'sae. But where is this data?

it's the data in the command chair post regarding the launch module.

http://mwomercs.com/...28#entry3185728

[Deathlike]

Would it just be "convenient" to "stop development" (or at least, lower your expectations further) of CW if the group numbers are as dire as PGI makes them out to be?

Basically, how would you justify CW if there's "not enough groups" to populate their individual factions?

I know this sounds more like a conspiracy theory, but that is starting to be where this is trending to.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sandpit, on 07 March 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

it's the data in the command chair post regarding the launch module.

http://mwomercs.com/...28#entry3185728

And your stastical analysis of that data?

By the way you don't really have data. You have PGI's conclusions and percentages based on THEIR data, which you have never actually seen.

Deathlike, on 07 March 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

Would it just be "convenient" to "stop development" (or at least, lower your expectations further) of CW if the group numbers are as dire as PGI makes them out to be?

Basically, how would you justify CW if there's "not enough groups" to populate their individual factions?

I know this sounds more like a conspiracy theory, but that is starting to be where this is trending to.

CW has always been a folly.

The idea of "Community Warfare" where in the end, nothing of major consequence can happen, was always going to be a disapointment here.

Every time I've seen details on CW, it's become clearer and clearer that all CW is, is a way for us to "Earn rewards". It's just another Alternatve advancement system, not unlike Pilot EXP and Mech EXP.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 07 March 2014 - 10:34 AM.

[Deathlike]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 07 March 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

CW has always been a folly.

There was a thread created by someone a while ago essentially asking "Would you have played this game had CW not been advertised?" IIRC, the overwhelming answer was yes. At this point, it is carrot that continues to be dangled over people, and I think there's a pretty big portion of the playerbase that thinks this carrot is dried, old, and devoid of anything good. So, I'll leave it at that.

Quote

The idea of "Community Warfare" where in the end, nothing of major consequence can happen, was always going to be a disapointment here.

The only "Community Warfare" that we're really having here, is the one that's happening right under our noses. Checkbox filled.

Quote

Every time I've seen details on CW, it's become clearer and clearer that all CW is, is a way for us to "Earn rewards". It's just another Alternatve advancement system, not unlike Pilot EXP and Mech EXP.

That one has actually been a consistent theme AFAIK. The idea that you need to collect faction points like Pokemon to being "infamous" does not really seem like an interesting cause... like the side benefits would include "mech cost reduction" (at this point, many people have collected the mechs they need) or some unknown benefit.

If anything, an extension of GrindWarrior to nothing isn't farfetched, if not a very likely scenario. I mean, the weapon modules speak for themselves.

Edited by Deathlike, 07 March 2014 - 10:41 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Deathlike, on 07 March 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

There was a thread created by someone a while ago essentially asking "Would you have played this game had CW not been advertised?" IIRC, the overwhelming answer was yes. At this point, it is carrot that continues to be dangled over people, and I think there's a pretty big portion of the playerbase that thinks this carrot is dried, old, and devoid of anything good. So, I'll leave it at that.



The only "Community Warfare" that we're really having here, is the one that's happening right under our noses. Checkbox filled.



That one has actually been a consistent theme AFAIK. The idea that you need to collect faction points like Pokemon to being "infamous" does not really seem like an interesting cause... like the side benefits would include "mech cost reduction" (at this point, many people have collected the mechs they need) or some unknown benefit.

If anything, an extension of GrindWarrior to nothing isn't farfetched, if not a very likely scenario. I mean, the weapon modules speak for themselves.

Not much debate from me.

I still think CW should've been a set of tools, that were sold to us/cost monthly, so we could do our own CW's.

And would have been robust. Not only the things to do the CW itself (planet maps and such), but also systems where you could advertise your CW and people who were looking for one could search with parameters to try and find one that matched their interests. And a system where someone who was interested in your CW could go through the history of it, maybe even have battle videos available or something.

PGI's CW is just going to be so mundane.

[Roadbeer]

Deathlike, on 07 March 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

There was a thread created by someone a while ago essentially asking "Would you have played this game had CW not been advertised?" IIRC, the overwhelming answer was yes. At this point, it is carrot that continues to be dangled over people, and I think there's a pretty big portion of the playerbase that thinks this carrot is dried, old, and devoid of anything good. So, I'll leave it at that.



The only "Community Warfare" that we're really having here, is the one that's happening right under our noses. Checkbox filled.



That one has actually been a consistent theme AFAIK. The idea that you need to collect faction points like Pokemon to being "infamous" does not really seem like an interesting cause... like the side benefits would include "mech cost reduction" (at this point, many people have collected the mechs they need) or some unknown benefit.

If anything, an extension of GrindWarrior to nothing isn't farfetched, if not a very likely scenario. I mean, the weapon modules speak for themselves.

MPBT: 3025. Accept no substitutes.

[Sandpit]

Roadbeer, on 07 March 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

MPBT: 3025. Accept no substitutes.

Essentially this. It's not hard to follow a roadmap that was very entertaining and universally (as in anyone I've ever talked to, played it with, etc.) accepted as an excellent interpretation of how to implement CW.

Nicholas, the data set is there. That's not an interpretation, that's an actual data set of the drops with total numbers. Now you have to accept that the numbers are accurate as we don't have access to the actual numeric and individual data. Essentially what you have is someone has already collected the hard numbers
Example:
I'm collecting data for company A. I hire people to input the actual numbers and data collected and trust they do it accurately. Once the data set is completed they then pass on the overall numbers to me to interpret and return to the company.

The numbers and data that they've released are not being interpreted correctly. This isn't based entirely upon that data but other information I know to be true as well and responses and communications from people. This isn't a conspiracy or a joke, I have been privy to a little info here and there from within PGI that really reaffirms my opinion on this.

it's all for naught really though. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here, I'm pointing out that they're misunderstanding and interpreting their data. They don't have a strong enough understanding of that data or statistics and it shows.

When you look at long-term it's quite apparent there was a shift and change here in this game. A year ago PGI stated that more people dropped in groups than solo.
Then they limit group sizes.
Then they release current data that shows more people drop solo.

We could go into causality and correlations to explain this and this is where PGI is failing to understand. Solo drops increased AFTER group sizes were limited. So do you think it MIGHT be caused by an x factor such as limiting group sizes? This is where having a better understanding of stats and how they work comes into play. Anyone can look at a graph and say "Yup, more people are doing x instead of y now".
There's a reason big companies pay EXCELLENT money to statisticians. They know that there's a huge difference between looking at a graph and pretty powerpoint that says "x=y" and understanding WHY "x=y".

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sandpit, on 07 March 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Still didn't answer my question

Dude, I don't really care. I just wanted you to type out a bunch of gibberish. You still didn't answer my question. But I wasn't really expecting you too.

Thanks though.

I'll agree with Roadbeer, we need something akin to MPBT 3025, but that is NOT what we are getting from PGI unless they've changed course dramatically from the latest CW information we've seen.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 07 March 2014 - 11:54 AM.

[Sandpit]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 07 March 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:

Dude, I don't really care. I just wanted you to type out a bunch of gibberish. You still didn't answer my question. But I wasn't really expecting you too.

Thanks though.

I'll agree with Roadbeer, we need something akin to MPBT 3025, but that is NOT what we are getting from PGI unless they've changed course dramatically from the latest CW information we've seen.

I haven't had time to crunch a bunch of numbers (this is a video game and if I get curious enough I might but I typically don't do "work" for a video game)

I missed your question but thanks for saying I'm speaking "gibberish" I now understand why you're having trouble understanding what I'm saying concerning the data and I'll assume PGI is just a dumbfounded by it because everything I wrote is how actual statisticians, data collection, stats, etc. work.

I believe the 84% is wrong. Flat out. I KNOW it's wrong. It has to be for a few reasons. One, players can be counted multiple times in multiple ways.
Player A solos
Player A then drops in 4 man as friends come online
Player A THEN drops in a 12man

That's just one quick example of how the data is being misunderstood. Then there's the fact that some drop solo because they HAVE to, not because they want to. It also doesn't factor in players that drop solo sometimes for various reasons (like only having time to play 2-3 quick matches) but would drop in a group otherwise.

[Mawai]

Screech, on 03 March 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

And Bryan Eckman actually said, "Approximately 84% of every player that plays our game drops solo." Seems less vague and no interpretation is needed. I can see why folks need to dismiss it.

... and as we all know ... both Bryan and Russ are consistently reliable sources of information. Come on ... how many statements have either of them made over the course of the game which turned out to be either totally or partially incorrect?

"Community warfare will be released within 90 days after open beta."

Until someone makes a clear and concise statement about whether "launches" in Paul's update actually refers to PLAYERS and not LAUNCHES (either group or solo) then we will all need to wait.

All I can hope is that someone at PGI has been made aware of the confusion so that they can sort it out internally so they at least know what they are talking about to each other ... the actual ratio plays a critical role in whether their launch module plans will actually work or not.

[Kaldor]

Sandpit, on 07 March 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

i'd rather just be able to drop with other friends I've made regardless of win/loss. If you look at data objectively and have an understanding of statistics and you've played this game for a while, then it's not hard to understand that the premade boogeyman is NOT what's at the core of stomps and such. The launch module that they've announced is not going to change anything except cause a few more players to become dissatisfied with the game.

I guarantee that after the "new" ( i use "" because there's nothing new about it, it's the exact same system we've had with a few tweaks) launch module, we will have the exact same situation that we have now with some experiencing stomps. The only difference will be that now you'll have closer weight matching.

Same here but when I play with friends and we get crushed, then we can fix it because we can take 30 seconds in TS to get our collective s__t together after losing.

"You cant fix stupid"

[VanillaG]

Sandpit, on 07 March 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

I believe the 84% is wrong. Flat out. I KNOW it's wrong. It has to be for a few reasons. One, players can be counted multiple times in multiple ways.
Player A solos
Player A then drops in 4 man as friends come online
Player A THEN drops in a 12man

The percents are given as number of launches, not how many players only PUG or play in groups. While it might be an interesting statistic, it really doesn't matter how many times you dropped in a group over the last day/week/month. The match maker only cares about what it currently has to match and their stats show on average that 84% of the pending launches in the queue are solo players.

It would be interesting to see how granular their data is to see if certain times or days of the week the match maker sees more groups trying to launch. They really only need to design around peek number of groups because as it has been stated in other threads, some people just like to PUG because of grinding or time constraints. Once the percentage of pending group launches hit a certain threshold, then they can start looking at relaxing the more than 1 group on side rule.