450 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 03 April 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

Hey, I'm with you, when the LM was announced, I made some comment about laziness. Russ and Bryan blocked me, Russ unblocked me, but doesn't reply to my questions anymore, so I'm laying the snark on a bit thick since the lobby announcement.

Even busted this out today.

PGI moved to Australia?

[DaZur]

What's most frustrating is there are a cornucopia of games old and new that have already sussed out the metrics and demonstrated without any reasonable doubt what works and what doesn't...

Yet PGI time and time again seems to fall back on their divisive metrics, almost as if they wish to prove themselves the smartest kids in the room.

We're like a dog that PGI keeps kicking until we snap at them out of frustration... But then they turn around proceed to use that as an example of dogs inherent distrust of man...

[slide]

The solution is self evident. It's been evident since closed beta. It will still be evident when our sun goes nova

SEPERATE QUEUES

If PGI won't implement it, it is because there aren't enough people to support it. It's the same reason they haven't implemented separate faction queues yet.

If there aren't enough players then that problem lies squarely with PGI. They have the makings of a great game yet they have managed to honk of Die hard fans of the franchise, new players and everyone in between for one reason or another. It's rather comical how they can actually manage to please no one (or very few) at all.

These 84% pug metrics they speak of, stink of ineptitude if you ask me! Why? Well here-

100/24 players = 4.166%
4 man group 4*4.166=16.6667%

ergo 16% group, 84% pug

These figures tell me that every game launched has a 4 man team in it or they looked at games that only have 1 team in it.

I cannot believe that of all the games launched that they could look at, matches that could have no teams, 2man, 3man, 4man and multiple teams, that the average through some extreme coincidence is exactly 1, 4 man premade per launch. Rubbish, go back and look again (They probably selected 1 match at random and did the figures, would make more sense).

I pug when I have to and group when I can. My experience is almost exactly that of the OP's description. One addendum that I would like to add is that you can trust team mates, you can not trust pugs most of the time.

Solos complain that teams upset the balance, probably, but I would really like to see some figures for stomps on purely pug matches. I would not be surprised that they are approximately the same as for stomps with a premade present.

There will always be some douche that will abuse the system but not one of the unit members I have ever met (hundreds), just wants to stomp pugs, it's not fun. 12-0 stomps might stroke your ego, but an 11-12 loss will always be more entertaining. I very much doubt the top end competitive players want to stomp on lesser teams either.

The upcoming Launch module will change nothing. It has too may drawbacks (pay to play, no rewards, no way to find another team) to ever see much use. Yet another failed attempt to balance groups by removing them from the queue. Which brings me back to my opening remark, Separate queues.

If by some cosmically inspired coincidence every player who wants to play with friends decided to use private matches (despite the drawbacks) what do you end up with. Separate Queue's.

It's a no brainer being messed up by a company with no brains.

[Craig Steele]

slide, on 03 April 2014 - 10:12 PM, said:

The solution is self evident. It's been evident since closed beta. It will still be evident when our sun goes nova

SEPERATE QUEUES

If PGI won't implement it, it is because there aren't enough people to support it. It's the same reason they haven't implemented separate faction queues yet.

If there aren't enough players then that problem lies squarely with PGI. They have the makings of a great game yet they have managed to honk of Die hard fans of the franchise, new players and everyone in between for one reason or another. It's rather comical how they can actually manage to please no one (or very few) at all.

These 84% pug metrics they speak of, stink of ineptitude if you ask me! Why? Well here-

100/24 players = 4.166%
4 man group 4*4.166=16.6667%

ergo 16% group, 84% pug

These figures tell me that every game launched has a 4 man team in it or they looked at games that only have 1 team in it.

I cannot believe that of all the games launched that they could look at, matches that could have no teams, 2man, 3man, 4man and multiple teams, that the average through some extreme coincidence is exactly 1, 4 man premade per launch. Rubbish, go back and look again (They probably selected 1 match at random and did the figures, would make more sense).

I pug when I have to and group when I can. My experience is almost exactly that of the OP's description. One addendum that I would like to add is that you can trust team mates, you can not trust pugs most of the time.

Solos complain that teams upset the balance, probably, but I would really like to see some figures for stomps on purely pug matches. I would not be surprised that they are approximately the same as for stomps with a premade present.

There will always be some douche that will abuse the system but not one of the unit members I have ever met (hundreds), just wants to stomp pugs, it's not fun. 12-0 stomps might stroke your ego, but an 11-12 loss will always be more entertaining. I very much doubt the top end competitive players want to stomp on lesser teams either.

The upcoming Launch module will change nothing. It has too may drawbacks (pay to play, no rewards, no way to find another team) to ever see much use. Yet another failed attempt to balance groups by removing them from the queue. Which brings me back to my opening remark, Separate queues.

If by some cosmically inspired coincidence every player who wants to play with friends decided to use private matches (despite the drawbacks) what do you end up with. Separate Queue's.

It's a no brainer being messed up by a company with no brains.

I don't think thats how the numbers worked at all.

I thought they described the stats as a measure of every player that dropped, they dropped in these formations as a percentage.

Although their stat's ostensibly cover ALL drops since before Launch day (ie, including Beta timeframes) I use this example to demonstrate my understanding.

For every 1 player dropping in a 12 man game, there were 84 other players dropping in solo drops. I cannot remember the 4 man % but it was 3% I think? If so for every 3 people dropping in a 4 man team, there were 84 other players dropping in solo games.

Why do Pre made Teams even need a queue (although I'l certainly admit it would be nice). Surely the Guilds / teams are going to be able to organise either internal or external games as required as a simple function of their Guild? I see (for example) the Davion Sub Forum has a list of all regiments and contact points.

I didn't read where the team play function is pay to play? Is this a new update?

As for PGI's blame, well maybe. But I think the hate and ranting that is loaded upon them is many times unfounded and extremly biased. There have been hate fueled posts here in forums that have no basis what so ever but they do attract plenty of attention from the 'rank and file' keen to jump onto the band wagon. I guess the community can take a bit of the blame for that itself.

[Nightfire]

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

We are at an important precipit with MW:O, community warfare and the recently announced drop module. PGI has made some, what many consider unqualified decisions regarding the direction to take these pillar aspects based on metrics that seem to indicate the lions share of this community is content with solo drops.

Groups used to be the majority, a long time ago. PUGs complained about the new player experience and, I'm agreeing here, PGI addressed this. The problem is not that it was addressed but rather, as with the majority of PGI decisions, how they went about addressing it. The course they took culled the desire for many of the original team players and they left. (I see a few in Titanfall now).

The result is PGI killed team play and thus came the ascendancy of the PUG player. They are now the majority and PGI has shown they will bow to every whim of the PUG. I weep for the days when people could play with their friends in a team based game such as MWO.

Tw1stedMonkey, on 02 April 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

I will not join a team just to "feel" competitive, I have been on the receiving end of too many stomps across a wide range of gaming thanks to groups of people who have nothing better to do with their lives than ruin online experiences for others. I have a moral obligation to speak for and support the enjoyment of all players regardless of skill/group lines. Solo and lone wolves players should absolutely be able to feel competitive without being forced into spending time and energy finding a group every time they play the game or be at a significant disadvantage.

Sorry to hear that your online gaming history has been so miserable for you.

I note that you are staunchly a solo player. It's curious to note that what you support, "Solo and lone wolves players should absolutely be able to feel competitive", falls directly into what your preferred mode of play is. That is to say it would not be an unusual deduction to say that you are arguing more for your benefit rather than the altruism of others.

By saying "without being forced into spending time and energy finding a group every time they play the game or be at a significant disadvantage." are you inferring that teamwork is something that should only be allowed if the advantage it confers can be completely nullified? If so, not only do I and many game designers disagree with you, it is the complete antithesis of a team based game. In short, this should simply not be the game for you.

I say should because PGI seems to be completely backpedaling and redesigning MWO from a team based game into a loose group of PUGs shooting game that is essentially Counter-strike with Mechs.

Tw1stedMonkey, on 02 April 2014 - 10:12 PM, said:

It could be a lot more but humans suck and any time you give a potential advantage to a group of players (4 mans) they will do everything they can to lord it over other people and thusly ruin their chance at a fair gameplay experience. I am all for depth and teamwork etc. but the main market to target is the plug and play crowd and their gameplay experience should come first. If they can find a workable solution in which teamwork cannot be exploited to dominate and stomp PUGS then I will support it fully.

While there are bad actors in any group, generalizations such as "It could be a lot more but humans suck and any time you give a potential advantage to a group of players (4 mans) they will do everything they can to lord it over other people" are pure projections. In short, it happened to you by bad actors in the past and given the opportunity, you would do it to others. As such, you expect everyone else to act as you would. It's simply not true.

When you say things such as "but the main market to target is the plug and play crowd and their gameplay experience should come first." you demonstrate that you are not interested in this game but rather the game you want. I'll admit that the earlier games were closer to the game I wanted, thus why I don't really play anymore and why I stopped giving PGI any cash at all. This is an attempt to smokescreen what you want under the guise of "the main market" since you happen to be part of that segment. At least be honest about it.

"If they can find a workable solution in which teamwork cannot be exploited to dominate and stomp PUGS then I will support it fully." The point of teamwork IS to exploit it. That is why team based games exist. The point is to get a team to co-ordinate and by doing so be greater than the some of their parts and be better than the opposition. Your point is essentially, "Teamwork is too powerful! Nerf Teamwork!" Many have cried this as a hyperbolic joke but congratulations, you just proven Poe's law!

Craig Steele, on 03 April 2014 - 04:57 AM, said:

So if we assume MW:O has 1m players (at one stage they talked about 1.6m from memory) and that 70% are pure solo PUG's, your solution to those 700k people is "Make an effort guys"?

Have I read that right?

Not that he wasn't saying that but, why not? When groups where the majority of players they told PUGs that getting on voice would improve their chances! Groups were told that PUGs shouldn't have to "do anything extra to play the game or download 3rd party products!" In short the majority informed the minority and were effectively told to "get bent!". So now groups are the minority and preaching the same message, the majority should listen, right? I'm not holding my breath either.

It doesn't change the fact that comms and teamwork will make you better than without them. It is a simple truth but some don't want to hear it. Some don't want it to be true but it still is. Shutting your eyes doesn't stop the sun shining.

[Craig Steele]

Nightfire, on 03 April 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

Not that he wasn't saying that but, why not? When groups where the majority of players they told PUGs that getting on voice would improve their chances! Groups were told that PUGs shouldn't have to "do anything extra to play the game or download 3rd party products!" In short the majority informed the minority and were effectively told to "get bent!". So now groups are the minority and preaching the same message, the majority should listen, right? I'm not holding my breath either.

It doesn't change the fact that comms and teamwork will make you better than without them. It is a simple truth but some don't want to hear it. Some don't want it to be true but it still is. Shutting your eyes doesn't stop the sun shining.

My point was that this is basically a L2P statement for intensive purposes.

And I find that a really weak argument at the best of times.

It's not about shutting eyes and it's about stamping feet from either side, its about understanding what both sides want to get from the equation and finding solutions that are workable.

"L2P" is not helpful, neither is "make an effort".

As long as this is the prevailing attitude, progress is not an option. Both sides can be just as equally dogmatic stamping their feet and shutting their eyes and no one goes anywhere.

My five cents as I have said before, I am not wrapped with the proposed introductions but I am not going to condemn them without at least giving it a fair hearing. I am also aware that far from the "doom and gloom, oh no team play is shafted" comments that I keep seeing, I think pre made teams will have more empowerment to play the types of games they want to play. It just won't be against PUG's who don't have the advantages a Pre Made team with optimal loadouts and comms has so yeah, Pre Mades might have to get used to the idea of playing people at their level equally equipped. I'm not upset about that.

Heck, I remember seeing a game where a Catapult in a pre made lance on my team (I was dead) had no armour and all LRM's and ammo. His bodyguard kept him safe and his other 2 teams mates found him targets. That is unlikely to be effective as a tactic without PUG food.

But I still cannot help but to keep asking, what exactly is the disadvantage to team players with the Launch Module?

[Shakagra]

i would love to get thos 4 man teams seperated from my queues, because fighting against them is utterly stupid. 4 perfectly coordinated, teamspeak using guys with a good strategy, carefully chosen mech setup etc is unbeatable with a bunch of not communicating players.

and just to say: i don't have any plans on ever joining a team or whatever, i come home from work and want to play a few, nice games. when I want, how I want, as long as I want, with breaks when I want. i am not here for searching for other players, syncing up in ts and bla. if i wanted to do stuff like this i could continue playing massive multiplayer games like eve online etc.

i am here for the quicky, just as in world of tanks. they have premades in their solo-queue, too, but 3 persons max in a game of 15. even that ratio can be game-deciding if that group is really good... but 4 in a 12 man game is just hilarious. at least you could show us who is teamed up, so we solo players could focus fire on them since they are the biggest thread on the battlefield even regardles their mech class.

i would like to see max 2 person teams in the random queue and a special queue for 4 man teams. right now i have the feeling that it is a complete waste of time even trying to fight those teams, and i would love to just disconnect immediately to chose another mech and ENJOY my time in a good fight instead of in a 100% for sure roflstomp match


to clarify things: i don't even care about how fair or unfair it is, or how much rigged those matches against 4-premades are. it's all about the feeling you get, this utterly demotivating "well, they have a premade, thats it, just run around and do some damage until you get slaughtered and can finally move on to a real game with a chance to win. here you can do nothing."

Edited by Shakagra, 04 April 2014 - 12:31 AM.

[Tw1stedMonkey]

Roadbeer, on 03 April 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

Can't believe I need to keep reposting this...

http://www.slideshar...ion-europe-2013
Slide 43

I am curious as to what types of games they studied, comparing a 3D competitive multiplayer shooter with a 2D mobile phone game gives basically no relevant data at all. Mobile in general I would feel correlates very little to desktop developed F2P games as well.

Also define a "guild". If in a typical game one would most likely join a guild if they had spent significant time in the game then most people still playing mwo would could be within the 10-20x vs the people that play for a week or two and quit or multiple accounts. In a game like WoW pretty much everyone is always in a guild even if they don't do anything with the guild. I was in a guild of 4 members until i hit max level and for a while afterward even though I almost never grouped with any of them, just because I said yes to the first guy to ask and then never cared enough to quit or join another. I can't really remember seeing anyone max level that wasn't in a guild. You were spammed with invites any time you visited a major city if you were unguilded. In this case guild statistics don't really have much significance since pretty much anyone who took the game seriously was in a guild, even bank alts, as it only rules out the people trying out the game, quitting quickly, etc.
However in this game a majority of players in PUGs are the default faction because factions have no effect or point in gameplay whatsoever at the moment, so comparing factions to guilds is misleading since a significant number of people haven't bothered changing because it isn't implemented. Trying to make any relevant point out of comparing increased profits on guild members with the group drop statistics with the assumption PUG/solo drop players would not be in guilds or something is completely unfounded and not logical. Atm there isn't really anything to correlate to guilds in this game, so is that your point?

I can say even with in-game voip I would refuse to use it despite owning a mic. Pretty much the only game i use a mic on are console small group co-op games like CoD zombies or mass effect 3 multiplayer and only because there is no text-based chat or easy way to implement it and communication is almost required. I just don't like talking to people via voice chat. I hate phone calls too and won't answer them unless it's an emergency or business-related, and you find that out if they leave a voice-mail or call back again immediately, otherwise I ignore it.

Some of the things talked in that link are entirely anti-consumer and are frankly just plain attempts to manipulate people... This is why I hate the business world. I mean I get that people need to maximize profits and what-not but i abhor greed and liars/manipulators...

[Tw1stedMonkey]

Shakagra, on 04 April 2014 - 12:26 AM, said:

i would love to get thos 4 man teams seperated from my queues, because fighting against them is utterly stupid. 4 perfectly coordinated, teamspeak using guys with a good strategy, carefully chosen mech setup etc is unbeatable with a bunch of not communicating players.

and just to say: i don't have any plans on ever joining a team or whatever, i come home from work and want to play a few, nice games. when I want, how I want, as long as I want, with breaks when I want. i am not here for searching for other players, syncing up in ts and bla. if i wanted to do stuff like this i could continue playing massive multiplayer games like eve online etc.

i am here for the quicky, just as in world of tanks. they have premades in their solo-queue, too, but 3 persons max in a game of 15. even that ratio can be game-deciding if that group is really good... but 4 in a 12 man game is just hilarious. at least you could show us who is teamed up, so we solo players could focus fire on them since they are the biggest thread on the battlefield even regardles their mech class.

i would like to see max 2 person teams in the random queue and a special queue for 4 man teams. right now i have the feeling that it is a complete waste of time even trying to fight those teams, and i would love to just disconnect immediately to chose another mech and ENJOY my time in a good fight instead of in a 100% for sure roflstomp match


to clarify things: i don't even care about how fair or unfair it is, or how much rigged those matches against 4-premades are. it's all about the feeling you get, this utterly demotivating "well, they have a premade, thats it, just run around and do some damage until you get slaughtered and can finally move on to a real game with a chance to win. here you can do nothing."

Thank you for expressing what I have strong feeling many other PUG players feel as well. It sucks for the people that just want to have fun with their friends but min/max'ers and tryhards, that treat a game meant for fun as a job where victory at all costs is required, tend to ruin everything that can get their hands on...

[slide]

@ Craig

Whilst I agree that numbers can be made to say anything you want I still find it hard to believe that with all the myriad combinations of team make up, including games that only had 16 players that for it to average out to exactly the same figure as that which I described, is stretching it a bit.

By groups I mean larger than 4 which we can currently do. The launch module update clearly states that to play in groups 5-11 you will need to use private matches. Private matches will require one person to have current premium time and for less than 24 players both drop leads will require premium. Later this will be changed to an MC contribution. This = pay to play in my book.

Every solo player that believes that Private matches will solve the issue of groups that want more than 4 is deluding themselves. People are not going to use it unless they are trying to organise something specific that adds value to their gaming experience, such as player made campaigns or trials of position. The lack of a lobby makes it even harder as you will have to have all players participating available at that time. Not to mention having 2 people available with current premium time. Also considering there will be no rewards for your in game efforts it makes it even less worth while.

Many have prattled on here about having no time to organise or group even a 4 man, how hard do you think it is organising 12v12 or some random number in between with just the promise of "some fun but no reward"

Private matches pushes the whole scenario in to the realm of the ultra competitive meta min/max teams who will **** any team not at the same level or mind set, just as any 12 man would do to pugs. And what do you think those high level players are going to do when the run out of cbills (for arty, cool shots etc) to pay for the privilege of playing in competition matches. Come back and murder pugs for profit to fund their play. You can not tell me that's going to be a good thing.

This game needs 3 queues
1. solo pug play (training and CW)
2. unlimited groups with pug fillers who opt in (this would be me and most unit members IMO) this would comprise most CW
3. competitive solo and group players (Solaris if you will)

It's really needed these since closed beta, MWO has never had the numbers to support it and with the current thinking IMO never will.

[slide]

@ Monkey

And many group players feel the exact same way about pugs who have no interest in team work or just run in 10 different directions like cockroaches when the light comes on.

The problem, which is not going to change with the launch module, is that anybody who isn't a meta abusing ultra competitor or a pug has no where to go and play.

I get no joy from stomping pugs. Unfortunately if I want to grind out some Cbills/XP AND play with friends I have no choice but to 4 man it in the pug queue. Bad for you and for me. Blame PGI not premades.



I get joy from the battle of wits between 2 opposing teams that are at about the same level

Edited by slide, 04 April 2014 - 01:22 AM.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

i read a bunch of the posts, and ive been on both sides 4 manning, even been on a few 12 mans (most boring matches ever.....wait... keep waiting.... wait some more yay the poptarts died CHARGE!) with TS and pugging alone game after game after game.

honestly i have the most fun playing with my RL friends, we work well together and we don't need comms to coord. TS and all that just seems like a hassle, we don't have to tell each other what to do we just know. rarely do i have a 4 man with people i know in RL usually its only me and 1-2 others.

playing solo really feels like a roll of the dice, either my team wins without my help or loses even if im doin really well. that doesn't sit well with me. to not feel like im making an impact on our victory/loss, sometimes you feel like you pulled a game but not often.

when i play with 4 mans we usually romp them, but again it feels soul-less and skill-less. it honestly does feel like clubbing baby seals that cant fight back. you can chalk it up to better tactics but really its because we do focus fire, fall behind each other knowing my RL buddy knows that i might be cooling off or needing to stop taking damage without me even telling them. my RL friends tend to notice more often then TS groups when someone is flanking us and take action to cover my flank while im suppressing a hill, while my team is going in for the push.

i guess TS with groups really feels like guiding the ducks across the road, everyone focus A, then focus B then focus C, alright they are 4 down go in and finish the rest.....

honestly i wish PGI would give us 8v8 back because i relish being the lone wolf that takes down 2-3+ enemies in 1v1, it really feels like your making an impact if you can consistently, single out and take down 1/4 of the enemy team whereas in 12v12 its just blob A wrecks blob B...... next game rinse repeat.

which is part of why im against grouping in general because 12v12 really is about which team got 1 or 2 lances of 4 on TS. not that i haven't seen the pugs rise to the challenge and stomp those clanners out, but again it really feels like a roll of the dice, no skill no real challenge just pure firepower and coord being the single deciding factor over tactics and skill in most matches.

neither do i think taking greenbacks right into the fold with groups will actually help them become good players, it just means that they learn to depend on TS, to me it really is a crutch to lean on vs training each individual pilot to move and work as one without being need to be told.

idk but i don't really like the MM or many of the peeps i have grouped with from "clans" or w/e. often they depend far to much on their TS and lack real skill and experience, depending on the one person that does know how to read the battlefield, that knows when and where to tell his teammates to go and who to focus down first.

i guess i just don't like leading the ducks, neither do i like being led like a butcher into the slaughter of the sheep.

[Eldan]

guys i'd like to say something about pugs. Call me crazy but i love puging.
I have the option to go with premades and i do but i just like pugs. 90% of my games are pugs. It might be that after some point if your rating is high enough you get to pug with good players.

In the begining i hated pugs. everyone was doing whatever came in his mind. But a LOT has changed. The thing is that now in at least half of my pug games i can influence the game without saying a word. just from my mech movements. we have no voip and most guys are pugs so they watch the map and they do not want to be left out alone in a battle. so if i charge in a direction i want, another guy follows, a third follows him and next thing i know i lead a full assault. almost always, more than one person knows what i wanted to do, or they catch up real quick. If i don't lead an attack i follow, as the other guys do. or both teams fall into a war of attrition.
Most of my pugs usually know what their doing, and if not a small chat suggestion or "what's our plan" ,"don't go there" ,"fall back", "don't go too far" etc fixes it. and everyone's generally getting better over time. i have at least 1.50 win/loss ratio in lets say last 250 pugs and it's climbing so i know what i'm talking about. funny thing is that my win ratio climbs when i pug, drops when i group. probably because i was mostly puging so i developed a playstyle for pugs. or maybe when i group, the usual pugs i play with change. i prefer having my usual pugs than a 4man team with noob pugs. that's if it's about winning. if it's about fun i don't care.

but really the level of gameplay in those pugs is good. There is almost always a standard tactic that is being followed in some maps.In the same way, one can take advantage of those usual tactics. We win a lot and when we lose it's because of being totally outmaneuvered. And i love seeing those games aswell. Even if we lose 1-12. it can be 2-7 and we win in the end. And in 7/10 games there are premades in teams.
about elo, i don't believe mine is high. but i'm in that point of game where most of the people i play with, even as pugs have enough experience in mwo.

from my experience and for my kind of play i have to say that matchmaker and puging works very good. I have lots of good games and lots of close games.I really enjoy puging.

*i use win ratio as a way to show that pugs overall work good for me. if i climb more and get pitted against better opponents it iwll mean i'll have better ones in my team aswell. and if it's so hard that we end up losing more, it's games i'll probably enjoy playing. yes a full 12man team will be much better but those are rare.

as for the 3-3-3-3. i look forward to seeing that. the least i can say is that it may be interesting and i want to see how it turns out. we'll see either good and balanced games or the player population will not be high enough for matchmaker to make balanced elo teams and we will be seing weird games.we could have long searching times too. but either way it will be more interesting in terms of mechs. no more 9 assault fests. although i will miss those. overtonnage, no tactic just stomping.
example for bad elo team up: we have a team with high elo rating for assaults opposed with a team of lower rating for assaults but higher elo for lights or medium. both teams have same tonnage, same elo overall. but not mech per mech elo cause that needs players. a good assault player will overcome a good medium/light player usually.a new guy takes the assault and goes suicide. there will be only 3 per weight class. but still it will be more balanced than before. in theory. we'll see

to close my wall of text Nothing can be perfect. we make changes and try things. I like how things are going and i like this game. I never had problems with lrms, never used them(as an lrm focused build just a few games for testing), I see changes and adapt through playstyle. Lrms even at 175, are fine, i might add good for high tier games, but ofc bad for low tier pugs when ecm is lottery. but even so,harder settings make better players. if 175speed was for granted, sooner or later people would learn to hug walls,to choose location. to kill/harass spotters 1st, to be carefull on where and when to peek. to use ecm. Lrms speed is getting lowered, we'll find some middle ground.

Edited by Eldan, 04 April 2014 - 01:57 AM.

[Craig Steele]

slide, on 04 April 2014 - 01:13 AM, said:

@ Craig

Whilst I agree that numbers can be made to say anything you want I still find it hard to believe that with all the myriad combinations of team make up, including games that only had 16 players that for it to average out to exactly the same figure as that which I described, is stretching it a bit.

By groups I mean larger than 4 which we can currently do. The launch module update clearly states that to play in groups 5-11 you will need to use private matches. Private matches will require one person to have current premium time and for less than 24 players both drop leads will require premium. Later this will be changed to an MC contribution. This = pay to play in my book.

Every solo player that believes that Private matches will solve the issue of groups that want more than 4 is deluding themselves. People are not going to use it unless they are trying to organise something specific that adds value to their gaming experience, such as player made campaigns or trials of position. The lack of a lobby makes it even harder as you will have to have all players participating available at that time. Not to mention having 2 people available with current premium time. Also considering there will be no rewards for your in game efforts it makes it even less worth while.

Many have prattled on here about having no time to organise or group even a 4 man, how hard do you think it is organising 12v12 or some random number in between with just the promise of "some fun but no reward"

Private matches pushes the whole scenario in to the realm of the ultra competitive meta min/max teams who will **** any team not at the same level or mind set, just as any 12 man would do to pugs. And what do you think those high level players are going to do when the run out of cbills (for arty, cool shots etc) to pay for the privilege of playing in competition matches. Come back and murder pugs for profit to fund their play. You can not tell me that's going to be a good thing.

This game needs 3 queues
1. solo pug play (training and CW)
2. unlimited groups with pug fillers who opt in (this would be me and most unit members IMO) this would comprise most CW
3. competitive solo and group players (Solaris if you will)

It's really needed these since closed beta, MWO has never had the numbers to support it and with the current thinking IMO never will.

See this is the sort of thing that I speak out against.

Now your end point may well be valid, but the justification and deductions you make to get there I just don't see how you can.

The numbers are the numbers, it's not being made to 'say' anything. I take PGI at their word that for every 1 person pressing launch for a 12 man drop and every 3 (confirm %?) people pressing launch for a 4 man drop there are 84 other players pressing launch for a a solo drop. I am willing to concede that some of those solo's are people trying to synch drop, but I suspect its a minority in the extreme. It's far more likely a group of 5 , 6 , 7 or 8 splits into as even groups as they can cause they all WANT to play with their friends, so going 4 & 1 makes no sense. Ergo, they'd more likely go 3 and 2. Whichever way you cut it though, the solo drop PUG is being presented as the vast majority demogrpahic.

So now to Private matches. You make the assertion that Premium time = Pay to Win and scream that out like it's a bad thing. But why is it? If my review of the forums is anything to go by, there's a significant slice of players who maintain Premium time as a housekeeping item, some people I read have bought 12 months in advance. Surely within these organised guilds someone is already running premium time, I understand there are 100's of players in some guilds. It is far more likely (imo) that most Guilds will have multiple players already running premium time and hence to call this out as "Pay to Play" is to create a false perception. You do not have to "Pay to Play", thats a negative catch phrase thats only inflames the discussion.

What it is in some ways is those people already paying for Premium Time are getting more value than they originally thought, because it now enables then to play outside of the enforced structure with friends and opponents of their choice. I get that dwelling on the negatives creates a headline, but surely disregarding the obvious advantages creates a certain lop sideness to the argument.

I can't speak for every solo player, nor can I speak for every team player, I think it's delusion and arrogant of me to assume I can. What I can speak to though is what PGI have said. What they have said is they want to make the game more accommodating to a major demographic. They also said they wanted to empower team play with more functionality than they ever had before. They didn't say they want to kill of team play. They didn't say they want to segregate the player population. They didn't say the game is only going to be for solo players. They didn't say the game is going to be "Pay to Play". They are saying here are the tools and now you use them as you see fit. Where is the problem here?

The only problem I can see is that team players want it all their way. They want the advantages of teamwork, comms and optimal synchronised loadouts and they want to pit themselves against an opponent who in the majority, don't enjoy the same advantages. Why else is this debate happening because that is the only REAL amendment PGI are proposing, that 4 man teams aren't smashing PUG's up anymore.

Like I say, you may be right with your end deductions but call them out for what they are, an opinion based on a lopsided (and negative) view of the situation. It's scaremongering to a degree because there is no basis.

The risk is you end up self fulfilling.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roadbeer, on 03 April 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

Russ addressed this in the NGNG 105a interview. Something about how internal testing showed...blah,blah,blah, just doesn't work something or other, blah,blah,blah... they know fun better than we do... over 100 years of development experience, blah, blah, blah... programming is hard or something like that.

Over 100 years of Game develoement experience among was it 47 employees? 2.12 years average per employee??? Are we reaaly supposed to be impressed with that amount of INexperience?

I was an Apprentice for my job for 4 years! Now if they had said 1,000 years of Exp... That may be impressive.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 04 April 2014 - 03:24 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Mellifluer, on 04 April 2014 - 01:34 AM, said:

honestly i wish PGI would give us 8v8 back because i relish being the lone wolf that takes down 2-3+ enemies in 1v1, it really feels like your making an impact if you can consistently, single out and take down 1/4 of the enemy team whereas in 12v12 its just blob A wrecks blob B...... next game rinse repeat.

Oh - i think this idea is worth talking about:

Also have the feeling that 8vs8 had the better "solo" experience. Althoug a single 4men premade team could have been match winning.

What about - different queues.

pure solo - > lance vs lance engagement on small maps
solo + 2men teams -> 8 vs 8

4men teams 12 vs 12 (without the need to have 12 guys on the same TS) - but you have 3 lances that can communicate on a VOIP server - and the communication with the 2 other lances could easy made with the "Command function" allready implemented.

[Magna Canus]

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.

You must not be meeting the right groups then. The Foxes have a "competitive" section and a "casual" section, but in essence we are all mostly casual. We have guys that are on TS but can't speak themselves because their wife/room mate/etc. are sleeping or whatever. We are cool with that, those of us that can talk do and our silent brother tags along and does his part.

Nobody ever said that when you are in a Unit you MUST drop with your unit EVERY time. Case in point, we have guys that like to drop solo when trying out new builds, fine with me. We have guys that will join in the group for a handful of games and then back out, fine with that too. We even have 2 people that never really know if they have to drop the hat and feed the baby from one moment or the other, fine with that too.

From experience, real first hand experience, I know that the reasons listed can all be worked around and accepted when you have a good group and I know a few out there that roll just like that.

[Magna Canus]

Khobai, on 03 April 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

At no point. Because its not about catering to solo players. Its about leveling the playing field so solo players get all the same advantages as group players.

You are right, it is not about catering to solo players, it is about catering to the headless chickens that scatter at the start of the match and feed themselves to the enemy one by one "lemming style". It's about the new guy that loaded up the game and dropped in a "whatever" and is spending his time firing LRMs at a target 100m away. It's about people who have no inclination of making an effort to get to know how a game works beforehand because the nintendo games are all so intuitive and you don't need to think before hand. It's about people who refuse to use Comms and join a group, be it a formal unit or a loose group on a public TS server, because they can't be bothered to deal with other people in the first place.

What DaZur is saying with his post as I see it is that being on a TEAM, with people there to help you learn the game, give you tips, and stand at your side when the chickens start running is NOT A CRIME. It is much better than sitting around getting you back-side beat because you choose to not partake in social interaction. Even if you have VoIP in the PUG games, you won't be a team. You won't have the social/team benefits and you will be right back here complaining that "pre-mades" are OP. OP is not about being able to talk to each other, general chat is evidence enough when I see solo players ranting about the inability of other players. Just because people can say something and everybody else hears it does not mean your group will follow. The bickering I have seen in chat would get worse because those who could not be bothered to type all of a sudden can chime in and insult each other to their hearts content with almost limitless impunity. How many people actually report cases of verbal abuse? How many decide to just leave then deal with the iffy report system which may just end up in a slap on the wrist? When I am on a team and a team mate turns out to be a Richard Cranium I have the immediate option of removing them from both the team and the unit.

I think what is really not understood here is that people like DaZur are trying to extend their hand in friendship to people that have been afraid to step up and ask to join a group. This whole thread is about "we are normal people too and not the meta-monster bogey man." It takes a big heart and a lot of courage to do that.

This pipe dream of VioP comms being the equalizer for a bag of loose change vs. a real team is just that, a pipe dream. VoiP does not obligate people to work together, being a team does.

[slide]

@ Craig,

I will not debate semantics on numbers that PGI quote. If you choose to believe them feel free to do so. I choose to believe there is more to that story.

It might be a typo in your last post but I said "pay to play" not "pay to win".

From Pauls thread

http://mwomercs.com/...93-feb-27-2014/

all the way at the bottom.

Special Note: The use of Premium Time to get access to the more advanced options is currently a temporary implementation. The plan is to eventually move to a pay-per-use model which will fit much better into both the player experience and business model requirements.

Premium Time is a stop gap measure until they can implement a pay per use model most likely with MC. From the horses mouth. If I want to play with 5 of my friends 2 of us have to pay (2 drop leads) simple as that. No interpretation required it is in turquoise and black in the thread link above.

Having been here since the day this website went live I have learnt to neither believe nor have any faith on what PGI say. Call me negative if you like, but the sad reality is they change their minds more often than the wind and will jump at what ever band wagon gets them the most income. This sadly is what we have now. I will have to pay to play with my friends or I have to pug, There is or soon will be no other choice.

When you have been around longer and your biggest wish for this game gets canned for "reasons" you might understand.
I have been shafted on at least 4 occasions that I can think of were they have done an about face on promises and design pillars PGI themselves have made, usually after the end of a big promotion. The only reason the current 12v12 queue exists is because we had to sign a pact with the devil himself, to get it in, otherwise that queue would have gone the way of the Dodo as well.

I still maintain that the single best solution for both sides of this argument is separate queues. PGI either won't do it or can't do because of the playing population being too low. They are already prevaricating on the launch date for CW, I think it is directly linked to the number of people playing. If they can't separate out 16% from the other 84% how the hell are they going to split out 8-15 different factions?

Edited by slide, 04 April 2014 - 05:34 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Just a point that may have escaped your perspective. in a single player Que... Sync dropping will be blamed when a team loses because not many players want to look in a mirror.