450 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 07:47 AM, said:

Keep em S.A.F.E.

Sexy And Fresh Everyday?

[MeiSooHaityu]

Although I definently think this game caters to team play, it just isn't what I'm looking for.

I want to drop in, play a couple matches, and then leave to do something else. Being in a team, I feel more obligation to play longer and put in more time. I play games to relax or be an outlet for stress and I often want to play on my terms to accomplish this. I have obligations at work, to friends and family as well. I don't want to be obligated to play X amount of matches a night to apease a clan. Therefore, it's the PUG life for me.

Still, I think if people want to join a clan and play MWO, that is probably the best way to play it.

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 03 April 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

Yeah, I don't believe you

No such SO ever existed

lol

Completely untrue.
Current SO gives me a great window of play time and overflow if things are going good, brings beer with a kiss and a "I love my warrior geek"
First wife was a hardcore raider in EQ and EQ2 and a diehard SWG player. They do exist, but they're like unicorns (in both senses of that term)

[Bobzilla]

Everyone on here realizes that it's just this games social aspects are non-exsistant right?

If they had a quick and easy way to group up in a match, that carries out of match, along with in game voip for groups and teams, you have a lot of what is needed for the average solo player that doesn't have much time, to just drop and play with/as a team with absoulutely no extra time or obligation. Then with Voip and the ability to find groups in game for all players, you could take out the silly group size restrictions.

People playing with each other (not just on the same side, actual teamwork) with voip, along with an easy way for players to group in game, would organically create communites of like players. I know in my case, my friends gave up on MWO because they enjoy team games, not being able to have all your friends be able to play, and not being able to talk to most of your team makes mwo not a team game.

[Capriel]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 05:45 AM, said:

...I am sure you and I could zero the Chat volumes if it were an issue as well.

3rdworld, on 03 April 2014 - 06:34 AM, said:

Wow...People against integrated voip...

The point I was trying to make wasn't that VOIP was universally "bad"

...but rather I'd prefer to have half a dozen keys bound to common comms messages (which already works well in some other games) without creating additional requirements:

- native language (euro player here)
- bandwidth
- system (got mic?)
- environmental (sound low cos missus watching telly)


I understand they were talking of introducing a "command wheel" thingy.

That sounds to me like a popup graphical overlay - great for a console where you only have 6 buttons. Not so efficient when you have (most of) 102 keys already available.

Keep It Simple

[Joseph Mallan]

Capriel, on 03 April 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

The point I was trying to make wasn't that VOIP was universally "bad"

...but rather I'd prefer to have half a dozen keys bound to common comms messages (which already works well in some other games) without creating additional requirements:

- native language (euro player here)
- bandwidth
- system (got mic?)
- environmental (sound low cos missus watching telly)


I understand they were talking of introducing a "command wheel" thingy.

That sounds to me like a popup graphical overlay - great for a console where you only have 6 buttons. Not so efficient when you have (most of) 102 keys already available.

Keep It Simple

Simple would be one key, Talk. Release.

DaZur, on 03 April 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

Sexy And Fresh Everyday?

30 years and I still don't know what S.A.F.E. Stood for!

[Roadbeer]

Bobzilla, on 03 April 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

Everyone on here realizes that it's just this games social aspects are non-exsistant right?

If they had a quick and easy way to group up in a match, that carries out of match, along with in game voip for groups and teams, you have a lot of what is needed for the average solo player that doesn't have much time, to just drop and play with/as a team with absoulutely no extra time or obligation. Then with Voip and the ability to find groups in game for all players, you could take out the silly group size restrictions.

People playing with each other (not just on the same side, actual teamwork) with voip, along with an easy way for players to group in game, would organically create communites of like players. I know in my case, my friends gave up on MWO because they enjoy team games, not being able to have all your friends be able to play, and not being able to talk to most of your team makes mwo not a team game.

After I read this, I did a thorough reread of both The Plan and the State of the Inner Sphere roadmap looking for any mention of some sort of social integration.

I can't say that I was surprised to find nothing. The closest thing was this...

Russ Bullock, on 16 December 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

Next we should discuss a refresher on what Community Warfare really means, it has evolved to mean a lot of things, but for most it boils down into being able to compete directly with other units for possession of territory. This roadmap just shared with you does incorporate a significant amount of Community Warfare functionality in systems like UI 2.0, achievements, and the launch module. This will allow players to have any size groups 2-12 which are completely balanced via weight tonnage limits; including clan mechs balanced via both weapon design and tonnage restrictions. Players will also have the lobby like system and of course private matches allowing the first major layer of Community Warfare and competitive play. For many merc units out there in MWO land this is significant news that by the month of April they will be able to have competitive play with other merc units. We have prepared a new web tracker for Community Warfare here – www.mwomercs.com/theplan. You can see the approximate completion level of each of the major features within. More features may be added over time as we discover additional content needs.

Well, we now know that the lobby like system is nothing like a lobby, and at least until after the development of CW, there is nothing on the horizon for social tools what so ever.

This has to be the first "team" game ever invented that makes it next to impossible to build a team.

Edited by Roadbeer, 03 April 2014 - 08:57 AM.

[Jody Von Jedi]

I have a few people I have "friended" in game and on the forums, have done a handful of 2 man drops and only 1 or 2 drops of 3 or more. It would be nice if PGI would fix the "Social" button in UI.2.0. For starters it's really small and easily missed by new players. I suspect more people would team drop if they just were aware of the option. I've even been playing and not even noticed the flashing "Social" icon until several matches in only to discover the invite was sent earlier in the evening and now the sender is off line.

[DaZur]

Roadbeer, on 03 April 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

This has to be the first "team" game ever invented that makes it next to impossible to build a team.

In fairness... while I know it's semantics, I'm pretty sure PGI qualifies "team" with the loosest interpretation possible to mean essentially "The composite make up of an assembled drop"... I.e. What ever happens to be cobbled together via the match-maker constitutes a "team".

I'll affectionately call it the loose six-pack syndrome...

Liquor store clerk hands me six individual bottles of beer and says "Here's you six-pack"... I'm like, "No, this is not a six-pack this is six loose bottles of beer... Where's my handy-dandy bottle carrier?"

Bottle carrier = Team.

Edited by DaZur, 03 April 2014 - 09:10 AM.

[Jody Von Jedi]

Oh, yeah. Those significant others that indulge their mates hobbies, do exist. I married her.

[Bhael Fire]

I strongly feel that a game must be able to accommodate both solo and grouped players in order to be successful.

The reason is because many players (such as myself) simply do not have the time or the ability to play in a group environment all the time. It just isn't practical for many players...especially casual players.

For example, I play in groups occasionally on the weekend because it's not feasible for me to do so during the week due to my living situation — my wife goes to bed early during the week and out of consideration for her sanity, I don't like to use VOIP during the week. Therefore, if I want to play during the week I have to play solo.

Also, most of the time it's just easier to load-up the game, hit launch and start playing rather than waiting on TS for my friends or other players to come along before I can play. Oddly enough, I actually enjoy playing solo with the ease of use and simplicity it provides.

In other words, many players simply are not into playing in organized groups because it doesn't fit their lifestyles. For them, solo play is much more practical.

[Joseph Mallan]

DaZur, on 03 April 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

In fairness... while I know it's semantics, I'm pretty sure PGI qualifies "team" with the loosest interpretation possible to mean essentially "The composite make up of an assembled drop"... I.e. What ever happens to be cobbled together via the match-maker constitutes a "team".

I'll affectionately call it the loose six-pack syndrome...

Liquor store clerk hands me six individual bottles of beer and says "Here's you six-pack"... I'm like, "No, this is not a six-pack this is six loose bottles of beer... Where's my handy-dandy bottle carrier?"

Bottle carrier = Team.

That is more the definition of a group rather than a team! The bottle carrier is the Union class Dropship!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 April 2014 - 09:13 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Bhael Fire, on 03 April 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

I strongly feel that a game must be able to accommodate both solo and grouped players in order to be successful.

The reason is because many players (such as myself) simply do not have the time or the ability to play in a group environment all the time. It just isn't practical for many players...especially casual players.

For example, I play in groups occasionally on the weekend because it's not feasible for me to do so during the week due to my living situation — my wife goes to bed early during the week and out of consideration for her sanity, I don't like to use VOIP during the week. Therefore, if I want to play during the week I have to play solo.

Also, most of the time it's just easier to load-up the game, hit launch and start playing rather than waiting on TS for my friends or other players to come along before I can play. Oddly enough, I actually enjoy playing solo with the ease of use and simplicity it provides.

In other words, many players simply are not into playing in organized groups because it doesn't fit their lifestyles. For them, solo play is much more practical.

This is a perpetuation of the myth that being part of a group requires any sort of commitment. And is pretty much a stigma created by 'competitive' environments.

I can only speak for House Marik, but I'm sure many of the other houses and merc units are the same in that participation requires nothing more than showing up occasionally.

In my unit, and many others in House Marik, there are no training schedules, required attendance or anything else like that. We just sit in our drop bays, and if you're part of the RMA or not, just hop on in, say Hi, play for a drop or 3 or the whole night and be on your merry, and if we're full, we'll make room somehow (the fact that we have to is annoying beyond belief, but we'll do it)

No fuss, no muss.

Sure there are units that require a higher level of commitment, but that's for you to find one that fits you. Just dismissing the whole concept because you don't know any different...well... /shrug

[Joseph Mallan]

Murphy's Law participation requirement:
2 Drink Minimum!

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It doesn't matter how we define a team - It's how PGI do, and they have shown the ability to stretch matters somewhat.

[Joseph Mallan]

Jody Von Jedi, on 03 April 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

Oh, yeah. Those significant others that indulge their mates hobbies, do exist. I married her.

Mine said she would. She even promised to learn... Then I put a ring on it!

But... I love her dearly.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 03 April 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

It doesn't matter how we define a team - It's how PGI do, and they have shown the ability to stretch matters somewhat.

Thin

[Davers]

DaZur, on 02 April 2014 - 08:37 PM, said:

I wish to preface this post to give a little context and frame of reference...

My PC gaming history harkens back to a time when single-player games were the norm and "online gaming" was still in it's infancy and truly was not mainstream. Hell, I was still a Prodigy noob and perish the thought of playing anything online with that damn 14.4 baud modem.

My first online gaming was back in 1990. I played Tsunami, a text based LP MUD. It had 'wars' where the various guilds would battle it out over 56K modems. Good times.


Funny enough, it is still around http://tsunami.thebigwave.net/

[Khobai]

Quote

It's about being part of a bigger picture and fostering the aspect of the game that encourages play deeper than some random pew-pew-pew...

And youre missing the point. The point is the game should not require you to join a premade to experience "deeper play"

Solo player should get the same advantages as premades. That means in game voice and being able to see their allies loadouts.

[Bhael Fire]

Roadbeer, on 03 April 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

Sure there are units that require a higher level of commitment, but that's for you to find one that fits you. Just dismissing the whole concept because you don't know any different...well... /shrug

I know what you mean. I have a group of guys I play with occasionally and I usually have a good time when I do...but I also just really enjoy playing solo too because it's just easier and more practical for my lifestyle the majority of the time.

As I mentioned, talking on VOIP is often disruptive in my living environment so I try to keep it to a minimum.

[Roadbeer]

Khobai, on 03 April 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

And youre missing the point. The point is the game should not require you to join a premade to experience "deeper play"

Solo player should get the same advantages as premades. That means in game voice and being able to see their allies loadouts.

At what point does catering to the solo player start becoming a detriment to the group player though?
I'm starting to see a whole lot of "If we can't give the solo players X, then we should prohibit the group players from having Y" but if Y is required for group play, you begin alienating the group players, which has been proven time and again, are the cash cow for a games longevity.