795 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Let's also not forget, that just a year ago, Bryan said in ATD 34 that there wouldn't be a solo only queue because the majority of players at that time played in groups... yet flash forward to now (after imposing the 4 player cap and the ever so painful 12 player queue) 84% are now dropping solo. Weird, almost a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Because theres less people playing in groups now. I used to go on the teamspeak and every public dropship was full and there were dozens of active units. Now I go on there and most of the dropships/unit channels are completely empty.

[Lindonius]

Koniving, on 06 April 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

People keep asking about that. Zhizhu even asked me to make one. I just might so I can field them all into one place.

A few things that have really interested me as of late include:
*Quadrupedal 'Mechs
*Convergence; specifically how the game would work without it for torso-based weapons.
*Mech-mounted turrets (Locust, Wolverine). I would have these track the "o" reticule with arms, and able to aim left and right regardless of arm type (arms that cannot aim left or right will not).
*Separate-able arm reticules. Optional ability to control them independently.
*Mechs that do not have twisting torsos; how would they suffer? How would they cope?

*Animation/movement-based accuracy; adjustments to the crosshair based on the mech's movements (example: when moving forward Firestarters lean forward, tilting their guns downward but otherwise are very steady at high speed. Coincidentally at slower speeds they have a vertical bounce to their arms. Commandos on the other hand barely have any bounce or movement at high speed. Ravens and Locusts however have an extreme full body bounce with every high speed step. Third person handles this pretty well, but first person makes every mech an impossibly sniper-ready mech at any speed.)

*Hand-mounted weaponry. Predesigned hand-carried weapon mounts with their own armor are known to exist. The Thunderbolt has a few of them. Wolverine is depicted with such a weapon.
*Vehicles.
*Civilian Grade Mechs.
*Pilot Ejection.
*Mech Quirks: (Using the Quickdraw: Hyper-extending actuators. The Quickdraw not only has rear-mounted weaponry but can flex its arms to shoot behind as well as in front. Its ankles are extra flexible allowing it to climb steeper slopes even without using its jumpjets.)
*Mech Flaws: (The same quirk above is also a flaw; the Quickdraw's ankle actuators are exposed and easily disabled.)
*Attachments: Looking at the Centurion's shield, and certain Sarna entries, I'm thinking that something could be done here.

*Armor concept: Removing the number 1 Battletech "Create A Mech"-Friendly rule that has obsoleted so many mech variants in MWO: Universal armor for weightclass. Instead using something that allows the upgrading of armor with set maximum armor tonnages, established per variant with the intention of keeping stock armor ratios between variants and mechs intact even when everyone is maxed. (Example: Stock armor tonnage + 3 tons = new max armor. A ton of armor is 32 points in MWO; a ton of Ferro is 36 points. A ton is a ton.
Example: 128 point armor Locust. 128/32 = 4 tons armor. Current max: 136. New max standard: 224. New max Ferro (4 tons = 144 + 3 tons = 252 max ferro. Interestingly enough, round Huginn's armor to the nearest half ton, and then figure tonnage based on Ferro and change it to standard; the Huginn has exactly the same armor as a Raven 2X. All heroes except Dragon Slayer fit perfectly with this concept.)
*Lore-based ACs (burst, autofire, damage over time).
*Weapon variants based on available lore and fluffed out with speculation.
*Equipment variants. (example, a Vlar 300-rated XL engine isn't actually the same thing as a Hermes 300-rated XL engine. This brand jumpjet is better for this, but that brand jumpjet is better for that.)
*Proper ECM with a huge emphasis on the Information Warfare design pillar that was abandoned by PGI. Ghost targets. Denies target information but does not block locks.
*True to lore LRMs, SRMs, MRMs, and Streaks.

...This has been only a few things.. and lately.

Stop it now......

Please.

Stop.

Edited by Lindonius, 06 April 2014 - 11:42 PM.

[o0Marduk0o]

Deathlike, on 06 April 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:

Enforced tonnage limits in teams? WHAT MADNESS!

Never had problems with that... except PGI.

You have only 3/3/3/3 in public queues.

[Johnny Reb]

Roadbeer, on 06 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

Ok, I've said this in a couple other threads, but I figured I might as well put it up front, and also create a new topic so it's easy for me to find when the inevitable "I told you so" links need to come around.

Lets take what we know, and explain how easy it's going to be to game the system.

1.Each team with have 3 of each weight class, I don't think I really need to explain what that means.
2. Each player will reside in an Elo "bucket" for each weight class, and there are 3 buckets.


So, because my friends and I all play together, it's safe to assume that for the most part, we'll reside in the same bucket, and with the stats page, it'll be pretty safe to assume which 'bucket' we reside in for each weight class. It's not an exact science, but with a little guesstimating, it should be fairly easy to accomplish.

So, with that information, lets say I have 6 other friends on, making a 'group' of 7.

Knowing that each team will only have one group per side on it, we'll form a 4 player group leaving the other 3 as "solos".

The 4 player group will take maximum weight, because well, why would we want to give that firepower to PUGs. So the group will be 3A and 1H.

The "solos" will now take whatever mech they want, though it'll be safe to assume that they'll take the maximum weight still open, so "Solo" 1 & 2 bring heavy and "Solo" 3 will bring a medium or light.

Because Matchmaker is now pulling from weight classes, and with everyone launching at once, The group will be assigned to a match, and with MM looking to fill the remaining weight slots, and with our "solo" players meeting that criteria, I'd say the odds are pretty good that our "solos" will be filling those slots. At least, I give this a higher degree of probability than we have right now.

So, what does all of this mean?
The example I used was just with 7 people, the more people you have, the odds of a successful sync actually go up, ultimately, in the interest of making 'fairer' matches, they've actually created a system that is infinitely easier to game.

Like I said, it'll take a little guesstimating and trial and error at first, but I bet by the end of the second week, seeing 10 player "premades" in the public queue is going to be quite common.

Just leaving this here for posterity, do with it as you will.

Except if they have a system that same teams launched in/close time frame get on the other team. My group of 2 ,4 mans synced tonight and every time we were against each other (6 times in 2 hrs).

[PhoenixFire55]

Dozier, on 06 April 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

So you are saying because I want to join with a new player day one in the game to show him how to play, we should have to drop in a match exclusive designed to be matched with players who do nothing but group?

You and him are 2-man, you'll have a 10-man premade in your team in groups-only queue. You'll be busy running a newb through basics and your 10-man will be busy killing enemy. The other team is most likely to have the same 10+2 combo. I see no problem.

[PhoenixFire55]

Abuse abuse abuse. Everything can be abused. Question is ... do we have to put all sorts of restrictions into the game and screw 99% of players who want to play fair just so that 1% who abuse can't abuse? PGI cares too much about mythical abuses and their income losses and in process forgets what makes people buy games and play games ... fun.

Haveing two teams with 11 assaults in each was never a problem. Problem was haveing one team with 11 assaults and other team with 11 heavies/mediums. And even in this situation ... you got scouts on your team, do your job and scout, if enemy has all assaults I'd say its really a bad idea to actually fight them all at the same time. Back when we didn't have the stupid turrets on Assault mode light teams could easily win vs heavier teams by just capping the slow gunners. Now they can't ... thanks to PGI. Conquest mode - same. 12 vs 12 is just too much for most maps, and even big maps have *redacted* cap points placement (look no further than Alpine with 4 bases within 3 squares of each other on a 12x12 square map). Add to that the *redacted* artillery strikes when people just drop a strike on a resource point being capped by a single light mech from 1000m+ just looking at the cap meter. Who made all this possible? PGI.

Who made no incentive to NOT drive an assault mech and/or ubercheese mech by removing repair & rearm? PGI. Who made game payouts based strictly on killing and damage? PGI. Who failed to make any sort of incentive to cap resources in Conquest and removed any and all reasons to cap base in Assault by adding turrets? PGI.

Tell me ... why you blame PLAYERS for 'abusing' anything while its your game DEVS who willingly make this sort of abuse possible??

3/3/3/3 solves nothing. Poor players will always find excuses for their losses even with perfectly matched tonnages and mech types (that'll never happen to begin with). Same time this doesn't solve the problem that makes people leave the game. Game isn't fun and it does not allow you to play with friends.

Trying to fix what you broke yourself with even further broken thing. Typical. I expect 30mins+ wait times and even further decrease of already thin playerbase. Elo has to go. Group limits has to go too. PUGwarrior online is a bad game nobody wants to play.

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 07 April 2014 - 12:51 AM.

[Maggiman]

People are crafty => All Systems can be abused. Its just a matter of how easy it is.
But i still think this 3333 System gives the most for the effort Pgi is willing to put in it (not that much sadly)...

Edited by Maggiman, 07 April 2014 - 12:42 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Maggiman, on 07 April 2014 - 12:42 AM, said:

But i still think this 3333 System gives the most for the effort Pgi is willing to put in it (not that much sadly)...

A lot of people said that. It does look like a cheap lazy bandaid.

[PhoenixFire55]

Dozier, on 06 April 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

...and trying to dumb down the game to cater to the lesser skilled is plain stupid.

And yet they said its what they want to do.

You can't make much money off skilled dedicated players, they'll just play, get high c-bills rewards on average and get all the mechs they want for free. I've seen topics on these forums like "I've bought premium time why am I losing most my games?" or "I've bought a hero mech why am I killed each game?".

[Craig Steele]

PhoenixFire55, on 07 April 2014 - 01:07 AM, said:

And yet they said its what they want to do.

You can't make much money off skilled dedicated players, they'll just play, get high c-bills rewards on average and get all the mechs they want for free. I've seen topics on these forums like "I've bought premium time why am I losing most my games?" or "I've bought a hero mech why am I killed each game?".

This is a bit cynical isn't it?

It's a F2P game, and if a large slice of the player demogrpahic is not logging on because they're getting 'flogged' by a handful of elite players with the 'skillz', and those same "skilled dedicated" players are generating no revenue for the company as you describe, what do you expect them to do?

Wait until the breadcrumbs run out and tell their wife and kids to start packing?

L2P probably not being something the 'masses' are going to appreciate if they have put their hand in their pocket right?

Whats their other choices?

[PhoenixFire55]

Roland, on 06 April 2014 - 06:30 PM, said:

On one hand, we have fools saying that there aren't any people playing in groups, and so we shouldn't care about them, but then we have those same fools complaining about how groups make them lose every single match ever.

Oi oi! Hear what this man says. I've been saying this since before phase.1 but nobody listens.

Edit: Aaaaand because this is also very interesting ...

Roadbeer, on 06 April 2014 - 08:37 PM, said:

Let's also not forget, that just a year ago, Bryan said in ATD 34 that there wouldn't be a solo only queue because the majority of players at that time played in groups... yet flash forward to now (after imposing the 4 player cap and the ever so painful 12 player queue) 84% are now dropping solo. Weird, almost a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 07 April 2014 - 02:01 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 01:26 AM, said:

This is a bit cynical isn't it?

It's a F2P game, and if a large slice of the player demogrpahic is not logging on because they're getting 'flogged' by a handful of elite players with the 'skillz', and those same "skilled dedicated" players are generating no revenue for the company as you describe, what do you expect them to do?

Wait until the breadcrumbs run out and tell their wife and kids to start packing?

L2P probably not being something the 'masses' are going to appreciate if they have put their hand in their pocket right?

Whats their other choices?

Oh, I'm suuuure they are already eating the last crumbs left off millions they made on founders, millions more they made on phoenix and millions? they make every day on regular sales.

You speak of masses and yet masses voted 98% AGAINST the 3rd person. 95% AGAINST the consumables etc.

I wouldn't really care if they didn't say exactly this before closed beta... "this game will never have items not availiable for in-game currency" and "this game will be a strictly 1st person mech simulator" and smth about not haveing consumables in game as well (I don't recall the exact words). I bought my founders on the promises of one thing, and now they do exactly the opposite.

Why? Because "we want to build a game for a wider variety of players". Really? Do we honestly need people in this game who fail to grasp the simple concept of legs and torso? The concept of different locations on a mech to hit? Because its these people who are "waaaa waaaa I'm killed every game even with my alpha-strike all my SSRMs at 500m target wicked skillz" and "evil sync dropping premades kill me every single game". Its because of them we are going through all the phases of Elo HellMaker.

Question is ... this game is bad. Like, really bad now. With no indications of becoming better. Who will play this game in a year from now? 2 years? 4 years? Will it be the "wide variety of players" who make one time purchase thinking it'll give them superpowers? Or will it be hardcore "skilled" BattleTech fans who play this game for the love of stompy robots action and despite all the efforts PGI puts into making this game less and less MW/BT each day?

L2P? Yes. Let me quote our dear devs again ... "this is a thinking person shooter". What about "thinking" you don't get dear horribads? Don't let the door hit ya ...

PGI has to decide what they do. Its either "thinking person shooter" OR "wider playerbase". But I believe they made their choice long ago.

Cynical? Maybe. But I wouldn't be so cynical if they didn't lie to me all the time. But as is ... my and many other wallets are shut tight.

[PhoenixFire55]

Koniving, on 06 April 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

For shits and giggles, who rememebrs the Community Warfare plan? No, not the first one that got totally thrown out the window. Or the second one. The third one in the Launch party. Anyone?

...

We do remember. We play a couple matches every evening and shed a tear over what this game could have been and what it is. I'd QFT the entire post but its just a tad long.

[Craig Steele]

PhoenixFire55, on 07 April 2014 - 01:46 AM, said:

Oh, I'm suuuure they are already eating the last crumbs left off millions they made on founders, millions more they made on phoenix and millions? they make every day on regular sales.

You speak of masses and yet masses voted 98% AGAINST the 3rd person. 95% AGAINST the consumables etc.

I wouldn't really care if they didn't say exactly this before closed beta... "this game will never have items not availiable for in-game currency" and "this game will be a strictly 1st person mech simulator" and smth about not haveing consumables in game as well (I don't recall the exact words). I bought my founders on the promises of one thing, and now they do exactly the opposite.

Why? Because "we want to build a game for a wider variety of players". Really? Do we honestly need people in this game who fail to grasp the simple concept of legs and torso? The concept of different locations on a mech to hit? Because its these people who are "waaaa waaaa I'm killed every game even with my alpha-strike all my SSRMs at 500m target wicked skillz" and "evil sync dropping premades kill me every single game". Its because of them we are going through all the phases of Elo HellMaker.

Question is ... this game is bad. Like, really bad now. With no indications of becoming better. Who will play this game in a year from now? 2 years? 4 years? Will it be the "wide variety of players" who make one time purchase thinking it'll give them superpowers? Or will it be hardcore "skilled" BattleTech fans who play this game for the love of stompy robots action and despite all the efforts PGI puts into making this game less and less MW/BT each day?

L2P? Yes. Let me quote our dear devs again ... "this is a thinking person shooter". What about "thinking" you don't get dear horribads? Don't let the door hit ya ...

PGI has to decide what they do. Its either "thinking person shooter" OR "wider playerbase". But I believe they made their choice long ago.

Cynical? Maybe. But I wouldn't be so cynical if they didn't lie to me all the time. But as is ... my and many other wallets are shut tight.

Well OK, but I was just using your example in the first post.

If you say a commercial enterprise is not making money off the market, and then be critical of them for trying to generate revenue from other markets, I don't see how they can win.

If they do nothing the game fails, if they do something you're not happy it keeps the game going.

I too have closed my wallet (and I know I am far from alone) but I hope they do something to entice me to open it again.

[PhoenixFire55]

YueFei, on 06 April 2014 - 11:18 PM, said:

I wish you worked for PGI....

To only be kicked out like Garth? Nope...
I wish EVERYONE who worked at PGI was like Koniving ...

[PhoenixFire55]

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 01:57 AM, said:

If you say a commercial enterprise is not making money off the market, and then be critical of them for trying to generate revenue from other markets, I don't see how they can win.

Hmmm. So founders didn't make them any money? Oooook ...
Note that founders bought this game on the certain promises PGI made. I'd say if they kept their promises founders would have continued to support the game with their money. But no, somebody got too greedy didn't they?

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 01:57 AM, said:

If they do nothing the game fails, if they do something you're not happy it keeps the game going.

Its like being really sick and with no ability to stand up and leave bed. Is it worth living like that? I honestly can't answer that.

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 01:57 AM, said:

I too have closed my wallet (and I know I am far from alone) but I hope they do something to entice me to open it again.

Nope. Nope. Nope.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ...
They lost all trust long ago. Even if they offer me all gold clan mechs for 1$ I won't buy.

[Eglar]

from 3/3/3/3 to "hate blame pgi". No wonder why devs, ngng, smurfy rather post and read on reddit than this forums.

Edited by Eglar, 07 April 2014 - 02:26 AM.

[Gasoline]

Koniving, on 06 April 2014 - 11:27 PM, said:

Been a long time.
You should totally see the huge post on page 6.
It's about weight-based matches with dropships, not knowing what's around the corner, and a little scenario in community warfare.

I would back your game so hard... If only one could get the license...

Regarding your scenario. I have soooo many ideas for planetary conquest campaigns...

Invader:
1) secure dropship site, establish forward base
2) raid supply depot and convoys
3) assault HPG/comm links/important structures/airfields
4) secure capitol city
5) assault planetary garrison

Defender:
1) destroy forward base/mobile command vehicle/dropship
2) defend supply lines
3) defend comm links/HPG/important structures
4) defend capitol
5) defend garrison

Invaders have limited supply (only the dropship) until they successfully raided enemy supply lines, no air support and no artillery (other than the dropship support while defending). As soon as a critical structure is captured they have support (HPG - call for reinforcements, airbase - air strikes, weapons facilities - cheaper rearm, mech facilities - cheaper repair/purchase, etc...). Meh... I just couldn't resist.

This might be such a wonderful game... If only there would exist something like CW...

[PhoenixFire55]

Eglar, on 07 April 2014 - 02:20 AM, said:

from 3/3/3/3 to "hate blame pgi". No wonder why devs, ngng, smurfy rather post and read on reddit than this forums.

Would you rather read about how good and smart you are and that you do everything right or the opposite? Constructive feedback is always ~10% at best on any forums, reddit is no exception.

And the "hate blame PGI" part isn't just hate blame PGI. Reason was given. Many times.

[Eglar]

http://www.reddit.com/r/OutreachHPG/

notice how it's more about game, content and how to deal with things instead of utopic "i want role-warfare, nao." or "I closed my wallet, pgi sucks".

if you put in something not-that-constructive you get down-voted or deleted by mod. that simple.

You don't see stuff like:
Official apology from PGI
Competetive Gamestreams
PGI posts
Pre-release Mech Announcements
Smurfy updates (from dev)
Buildcrafting Next Hero Mech (which will probably be the next one released)
Or many top-elo players (they all don't want to come here) posting here. And no not saying that top elo players should define the game.

on these forums you open the "Game Balance" subforum and see haters everywhere, yea very insightful. If I was a pgi dev I wouldn't bother reading all this either.

Edited by Eglar, 07 April 2014 - 03:35 AM.