6 replies to this topic

[Nightcrept]

This post is separate from the one by PP about large groups.


From the endless debating on the direction of the game and the upcoming changes pgi plans to make some of the players have made a few recommendations. Here they are for public scrutiny.


First is that the current game queue is opened up to unrestricted group sizes.

Second is the possibility of a separate game queue that is unrestricted in term of pre-made group sizes. To make it attractive to pugs they get an incentive bonus to exp and creds per game.

Lastly is that pgi's upcoming idea's are the right direction.

[Mechteric]

Splitting up game queues would be a bad idea unless they got a major increase in population. I think their upcoming plan is ok, though I'm hoping its just a starting point and that it eventually can handle things like 2/3/4/3 or other non-3/3/3/3 dropsets across the two teams for some variety.

[Roland]

CapperDeluxe, on 05 March 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

Splitting up game queues would be a bad idea unless they got a major increase in population.

If they were to replace the current queue with an unrestricted queue, then got rid of the 12 man queue, and implemented a solo queue.. then you WOULD get a major increase in population, because a bunch of the folks who were driven off by the 4 man cap could return.

Now, it may be that they have already given up on this game, but you'll never know unless you at least make it possible for them to get what they want out of this game.

[Supersmacky]

This is an MMO. It should have unrestricted team sizes, period. Even teams get rolled by PUGs, though less likely. PGIs position of not allowing team sized of 5 to 11 is ludicrous and begs the question: why isn't there built in voice comes? If voice comes make for more effective teams and this is a team based game, why do they refuse to include this functionality and want to penalize teams that do (by not allowing 5 to 11 man teams)?

If someone wants to pug, that's fine. When the rest of my unit is not on I PUG. If an 11 man team were on the other side I would still play the match.

Dumbing down the game just makes the game dumb. I belief is the upcoming side restrictions are doing just that.

[Allen B Caldwell]

This post sums up my view almost exactly, I Could not have said it better. I agree.

[color=#1B1D1E]
The latest info I have is that you are not going to fix the group problem. I have premium time at the moment. I will be purchasing no more, I am pretty disappointed that the four man limit is still in place and does not look like it will go away soon[/color]

[Bront]

I wouldn't mind unrestricted, but I think my 6 Man proposal is not only more likely, but would be more balanced (IE, not end up with PUGs facing 12 mans)

[Roland]

Bront, on 06 March 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

I wouldn't mind unrestricted, but I think my 6 Man proposal is not only more likely, but would be more balanced (IE, not end up with PUGs facing 12 mans)

In an unrestricted queue, it's extremely unlikely that you'd have pugs facing 12 mans anyway.

You'd have 12 mans going up against other 12 mans, or 11 mans with a single pug, or a 10 man with 2 pugs, etc.

The big mistake that tons of folks seem to make when thinking about unrestricted queues is that they seem to imagine the result is going to be ONE 12 man team running around beating everyone else who are all poor lone wolves.

If you remove the player cap, you'll end up getting a ton more teams... and as a direct result, those teams will end up playing AGAINST EACH OTHER.