227 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

If Premade Boogeymen are the reason for PUGSTOMPS, why isn't my W/L at 90%?

[Sandpit]

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

If Premade Boogeymen are the reason for PUGSTOMPS, why isn't my W/L at 90%?

because you suck and the rest of us "elite evil premade pustompers" can only carry you so much


I think we've listed plenty of reasons for stomps that have nothing to do with premades. Reasonable adults with common sense can see that. I can understand not agreeing with it because everyone has their opinions and perceptions but to dismiss, ignore, or say those reasons are invalid is just disingenuous

[VanillaG]

Prezimonto, on 11 March 2014 - 04:16 AM, said:

Either way their data is taken from a system that's forced more and more players to play solo by discouraging groups (size, communication, lack of a lobby killing casual and non-casual groups of larger than 4) for well over a year. So attempting to draw information from it is using a heavily biased sample based on artificial restrictions, not an actual representation of how players would like to be playing.

It is not a biased sample, it is the actual data based on the current state of the game. Until they fix the problems that you list (lobbies and in game comms) it make no sense to try to figure out how to integrate large or multiple groups into the match maker. It actually follows a good design pattern so they don't code themselves into a hole and have to start over again down the road.

[Prezimonto]

VanillaG, on 11 March 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

It is not a biased sample, it is the actual data based on the current state of the game. Until they fix the problems that you list (lobbies and in game comms) it make no sense to try to figure out how to integrate large or multiple groups into the match maker. It actually follows a good design pattern so they don't code themselves into a hole and have to start over again down the road.

It is biased data if you care about what/how players would like to be playing, or about what we were sold on as the direction of the game over a year ago... which is team based play.

Their design decisions have forced a biased sample but limiting group play since the end closed beta.

A lack of in game communication, a lack of ability to drop with groups larger than 5 (unless you get all the way up to 12), both bias the sample.

I (and many others) bought into this game on promise of great team play, and support for communities, groups, and setting. Yes, we all love stompy robots, but the game has less long term appeal than most fps games in terms of content at the moment. So, yes, this data is biased from what was sold to Founders as the direction and main ideas for the game.


If you assume that what is being played currently is great, and just what players want to being playing (ie.. you don't and shouldn't be looking for great improvement) then yes, the current data is fine.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 10 March 2014 - 10:13 PM, said:

I said HI THERE in a match and you ignored me.

I didn't know you aimed it at me.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 11 March 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

I didn't know you aimed it at me.

NO U R NOT!!!111!

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

If Premade Boogeymen are the reason for PUGSTOMPS, why isn't my W/L at 90%?

The king of the underhive wields an MG. That is where the 10% has gone to...

[Nicholas Carlyle]

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

If Premade Boogeymen are the reason for PUGSTOMPS, why isn't my W/L at 90%?

Because I can't be in every game carrying you in my Shadow Hawk. That's why.

[VanillaG]

Prezimonto, on 11 March 2014 - 08:10 AM, said:

It is biased data if you care about what/how players would like to be playing, or about what we were sold on as the direction of the game over a year ago... which is team based play.

Their design decisions have forced a biased sample but limiting group play since the end closed beta.

A lack of in game communication, a lack of ability to drop with groups larger than 5 (unless you get all the way up to 12), both bias the sample.

I (and many others) bought into this game on promise of great team play, and support for communities, groups, and setting. Yes, we all love stompy robots, but the game has less long term appeal than most fps games in terms of content at the moment. So, yes, this data is biased from what was sold to Founders as the direction and main ideas for the game.


If you assume that what is being played currently is great, and just what players want to being playing (ie.. you don't and shouldn't be looking for great improvement) then yes, the current data is fine.

All that I am saying is that until it is dramatically easier to form and drop in a group through the UI,via some sort of lobby system, it makes no sense to try and tackle larger or multiple groups on a team. Once they start seeing the data about the number groups increasing as a percentage of what the match maker has to deal with then they can try and figure out what they want to do. Doing it now is premature and will most likely hurt future efforts to implement those features.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

VanillaG, on 11 March 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

All that I am saying is that until it is dramatically easier to form and drop in a group through the UI,via some sort of lobby system, it makes no sense to try and tackle larger or multiple groups on a team

I'm still very surprised they haven't touched more on whatever social system they are planning to put in place with UI2.0.

Guess they scrapped that idea.

[Prezimonto]

VanillaG, on 11 March 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

All that I am saying is that until it is dramatically easier to form and drop in a group through the UI,via some sort of lobby system, it makes no sense to try and tackle larger or multiple groups on a team. Once they start seeing the data about the number groups increasing as a percentage of what the match maker has to deal with then they can try and figure out what they want to do. Doing it now is premature and will most likely hurt future efforts to implement those features.

Or not incorporating that support now with only further cripple the core long term players of the game. They should have a strategic plan and be developing for the long term now, rather than in 6 months when/if they get more grouped players.

The difference is being proactive in design rather than reactive. The whole post series strikes me as being reactive to justify a lack of proactive thought and planning.... ie using tactics to drive strategy rather than the reverse.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Prezimonto, on 11 March 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

Or not incorporating that support now with only further cripple the core long term players of the game. They should have a strategic plan and be developing for the long term now, rather than in 6 months when/if they get more grouped players.

The difference is being proactive in design rather than reactive. The whole post series strikes me as being reactive to justify a lack of proactive thought and planning.... ie using tactics to drive strategy rather than the reverse.

This whole post just made me laugh. Strategic plan? Developing for the long term? HAH!

[Prezimonto]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 11 March 2014 - 08:52 AM, said:

This whole post just made me laugh. Strategic plan? Developing for the long term? HAH!

Just because they've largely failed so far doesn't mean we should accept it as good, right, or proper. If we don't call out when this kind of thing happens we can never expect bad behavior to be corrected.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Prezimonto, on 11 March 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

Just because they've largely failed so far doesn't mean we should accept it as good, right, or proper. If we don't call out when this kind of thing happens we can never expect bad behavior to be corrected.

Where in my post did you get the idea that I think it's good, right or proper?

I bolded the part of your post where the disconnect is.

It won't be corrected. All you can do is fight small battles and hope to win.

Right now if people were smart, the main battle would be getting SRM's fixed in some way shape or form.

It's a small, winnable battle.

Most of this other crap we go on about? Convergence? FLD? Etc. Not happening.

[Bhael Fire]

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

If Premade Boogeymen are the reason for PUGSTOMPS, why isn't my W/L at 90%?

I don't think anyone with even modicum of rationality would say all 12-0 wipes are the result of premades, but to deny the fact that they account for a good portion of them is just silly.

I think there's wildly differing opinions on this topic because each person's personal experience with the game varies based on their Elo, whether or not they play in groups, and the time of day they are playing. For the most part, many of my matches end in 12-6 with the occasional 12-3 or 12-9 or so. However, many times when it does end in 12-0, it's a ridiculous, humiliating defeat/victory with a premade that proudly leaves their calling card (i.e. "gg visit us at blahblah.com" or some such).

Now, the only time this bothers me is when I have nights that end like this every match. It's really annoying and makes the game less fun. For those times, when sync-dropping premades are out in full force, it would be nice to have a solo-only queue to avoid the meat grinder.

Now, I want to reiterate I have nothing against premades at all (I support 2-12 player groups); I just want a level playing field for both solo and grouped players. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

That's why I'd like to see a SOLO ONLY and GROUP+SOLO queue.

[Joseph Mallan]

I won't agree with you Nick but I don't disagree that fixing SRMs needs more attention.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 March 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

I won't agree with you Nick but I don't disagree that fixing SRMs needs more attention.

You are more optimistic than I am. It's cool.

[Sandpit]

Bhael Fire, on 11 March 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

I don't think anyone with even modicum of rationality would say all 12-0 wipes are the result of premades,

have you not read through the majority of "premade" and "mm" threads.....?

[Kaldor]

Sandpit, on 11 March 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

because you suck and the rest of us "elite evil premade pustompers" can only carry you so much

Deathlike, on 11 March 2014 - 08:14 AM, said:

The king of the underhive wields an MG. That is where the 10% has gone to...

Actually knowing Roadbeer, I about damn near fell out of my seating laughing when I read these...

[Triordinant]

Bhael Fire, on 11 March 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

It's really annoying and makes the game less fun. For those times, when sync-dropping premades are out in full force, it would be nice to have a solo-only queue to avoid the meat grinder.

Now, I want to reiterate I have nothing against premades at all (I support 2-12 player groups); I just want a level playing field for both solo and grouped players. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

That's why I'd like to see a SOLO ONLY and GROUP+SOLO queue.

Say it again, brotha! (church organ music in background)

Edited by Triordinant, 11 March 2014 - 12:02 PM.

[Sandpit]

Bhael Fire, on 11 March 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

It's really annoying and makes the game less fun. For those times, when sync-dropping premades are out in full force, it would be nice to have a solo-only queue to avoid the meat grinder.

With no restrictions on group sizes I just think you'd see less of this type of situation though. Instead of 2 4mans trying to sync drop and the MM getting "tricked" into adding them to the same game against solo pugs, you'd see an 8man with an MM that now knows it has to find another 8man (or close to it or a 6man and 2man, etc.) to fill the other side. There's a LOT of things that contribute to what you're talking about and the cause is simply because we can't drop in a 5-11man.

I'm all for the separate queues but, as I've stated numerous times over the last week, it simply isn't going to stop roflstomps and new players facing off against players they shouldn't be.