795 replies to this topic

[-Natural Selection-]

soo the 84%.. Is that player % or drop % numbers?

out of 100 people 84 are solo and 16 in groups

or

out of 100 launches 84 are solo and 16 are groups? (groups consisting 2-4 or 12 players?)

say

1: 12 man (and to be fair equal numbers of the rest)
3: 2 man
3: 3 man
3: 4 man

that would be 86 solo players and 39 in groups (almost half)

Was it said what those % actually represent? just wondering

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

What number do you want to make it?

Man, I don't know. Any number I come up with at this point would be arbitrary and speculative.

All I know is one year ago, groups were the predominant way to play the game, now their not.

So lets take that 84% then make it less than half (because if most players in groups, as Bryan said in AtD 34, you have to assume that most is = to at least 51%)

So, add 35% to groups and distribute how ever you like.

[Craig Steele]

Dozier, on 09 April 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

soo the 84%.. Is that player % or drop % numbers?

out of 100 people 84 are solo and 16 in groups

or

out of 100 launches 84 are solo and 16 are groups? (groups consisting 2-4 or 12 players?)

say

1: 12 man (and to be fair equal numbers of the rest)
3: 2 man
3: 3 man
3: 4 man

that would be 86 solo players and 39 in groups (almost half)

Was it said what those % actually represent? just wondering

They said it was "drops" or activity (my word).

So for every 1 player dropping in a 12 man, there are 4 (roughly) in a 4 man, 4 in a three man, 6 in a 2 man and 84 dropping solo.

The argument about "team play" is how much of that activity would be 5 - 11 man drops if the function was enabled.

It's hard to discern but in my mind, every "team game" has to have a 4 man in it so if every 4 man was a team game than I get to 8% (on the strength of PGI's data anyway).

People can argue some 6's might drop as 3 + 3 or 5's as 3 + 2 which is right, but then there are less 7 mans because those assumed 4 + 3's don't have a corresponding 3. It might move the 8% one way or the other, but not by much.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

So the numbers they cited were 84% Solo, 6% pairs, 4% three and "roughly" 4% fours (I read this as 9% between the two buckets) and 1% 12 man drops (if my memory serves me correctly)

I am guessing the argument about seperate queues is one of volumes if those numbers held up.

Larger than 4 man groups cannot be more than 8% of the total games played (because every 5, 6, 7 man team should have a 4 in it, and larger teams than that we are double counting) Thats just the maths of it.

What does that mean, is 8% enough of a population to sustain a seperate queue? IDK.

Had to type this twice due to the forum logging me out.

12-Man was not included in the data. Paul's own words.

Let's look at the numbers again

84% Drop Solo
16% 2-4 Team

If the game had 2 seperate ques, Solo and Any Size + Solo you would undeniably get some solo's dropping in the team que, I will say %33.3 for arguments sake.

Now the numbers change;

52% Drop in the Solo Only que
48% Drop in the Team + Solo que

You can adjust the ratio with your preferred solo player dropping in the team que %.

Again this doesn't include the people that drop in 12 man games. Another team factor that is being completely disregarded by PGI. 12 man isn't a team drop % for some odd reason.?

In short, Yes I do think that 2 ques are warranted.

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

They said it was "drops" or activity (my word).

So for every 1 player dropping in a 12 man, there are 4 (roughly) in a 4 man, 4 in a three man, 6 in a 2 man and 84 dropping solo.

The argument about "team play" is how much of that activity would be 5 - 11 man drops if the function was enabled.

It's hard to discern but in my mind, every "team game" has to have a 4 man in it so if every 4 man was a team game than I get to 8% (on the strength of PGI's data anyway).

People can argue some 6's might drop as 3 + 3 or 5's as 3 + 2 which is right, but then there are less 7 mans because those assumed 4 + 3's don't have a corresponding 3. It might move the 8% one way or the other, but not by much.

Actually, the term was "Launches" which is very coy and smart of them to use that term. Because if they're counting launches as "The press of the Launch button" then there is only 1 launch for a 12 man, 1 Launch for a 4 man, 1 launch for a 3, a 2 and most specifically 1 launch for a solo.

In the Launch Module thread, someone broke those numbers down, and I think it came out to where actually something in the low to mid 40% of the "Players" were grouped, but using the term "Launches" makes that number look much lower in the interest of not having to create something that they don't feel like figuring out.

"Why can't we have a solo queue" was the cry a year ago. "Well, because most people group"
"Why can't we have a group queue" is the cry now, "Well, because most people are solo"

See what happens there, they don't have to do any work, they just had to change the term Players to Launches and that massages the stats nicely.

EDIT: The Maths

4% 4 Man = 16%
4% 3 Man = 12%
8% 2 Man = 16%

That means that 44% of players are in groups, not counting the 12 players, which, lets say they're a full 1% that means another 12% in the 12p queue, bringing us to... wait for it 56% of the players are grouped, which tracks with the data a year ago.

So, you can take it that their decisions have destroyed the group queue and that's why 84% of the players are solo, or you can take it that they've massaged the numbers and in truth over 50% are in groups, and they don't want to put the effort in to making a group queue.

Personally, I believe it's both. and that they've destroyed the playerbase with many horrendous decisions and that there just isn't the population to support splitting the queues again. Which is going to make Community Warfare suck even harder. But their decisions regarding groups have damaged the group population as much if not more than anything else.

Edited by Roadbeer, 09 April 2014 - 04:57 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 09 April 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

Actually, the term was "Launches" which is very coy and smart of them to use that term. Because if they're counting launches as "The press of the Launch button" then there is only 1 launch for a 12 man, 1 Launch for a 4 man, 1 launch for a 3, a 2 and most specifically 1 launch for a solo.

In the Launch Module thread, someone broke those numbers down, and I think it came out to where actually something in the low to mid 40% of the "Players" were grouped, but using the term "Launches" makes that number look much lower in the interest of not having to create something that they don't feel like figuring out.

"Why can't we have a solo queue" was the cry a year ago. "Well, because most people group"
"Why can't we have a group queue" is the cry now, "Well, because most people are solo"

See what happens there, they don't have to do any work, they just had to change the term Players to Launches and that massages the stats nicely.

EDIT: The Maths

4% 4 Man = 16%
4% 3 Man = 12%
8% 2 Man = 16%

That means that 44% of players are in groups, not counting the 12 players, which, lets say they're a full 1% that means another 12% in the 12p queue, bringing us to... wait for it 56% of the players are grouped, which tracks with the data a year ago.

So, you can take it that their decisions have destroyed the group queue and that's why 84% of the players are solo, or you can take it that they've massaged the numbers and in truth over 50% are in groups, and they don't want to put the effort in to making a group queue.

Personally, I believe it's both. and that they've destroyed the playerbase with many horrendous decisions and that there just isn't the population to support splitting the queues again. Which is going to make Community Warfare suck even harder. But their decisions regarding groups have damaged the group population as much if not more than anything else.

OK, well sounds like you have an argument, so argue your case.

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

OK, well sounds like you have an argument, so argue your case.

LOL, what do you think I've been doing in every thread that is even remotely relevant and on Twitter?

I've done everything I can think of short of flying to Vancouver and standing outside PGI headquarters with a megaphone... though that would be a bit Alex Jonesish.

This isn't new information, all of this was hashed out in the 80 pages of the Launch Module feedback thread. With no response from PGI

EDIT:

Is it the pipe that finally sold you?
I started smoking a pipe recently because I realized that I'm of the age now that I can do so without looking like a hipster douchebag

Edited by Roadbeer, 09 April 2014 - 05:13 PM.

[Randalf Yorgen]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

Well well well. Lt General "I can't read and want to derail things because I have nothing to add but I will be heard because I did my 20" is here. (ooo, was I just as dismissive as Roadbeer?)

84% is the stat that PGI rolled out and is the stat they cite as a driver for their thoughts. Do you see me saying its correct? No, if you read the thread you would see I actually argue it is probably over stated. I even outline my deductions and conclusions. But it is still there stat, that is still the number they cite, I get you don't like it and it doesn't suit your little world but you might just have to get over that, because it is the stat they cite.

So please, tell me again how "hard" I am "clinging" to the number.

You will also see that my personal reference I even highlighted as an attempt to be funny when I made it, it was a joke. By all means go to town on it. You seem to think through the internet you can divine everything else about my life so why shouldn't you be able to divine my relationship.

As Gandalf said one time, "Go back to the shadows"



So the numbers they cited were 84% Solo, 6% pairs, 4% three and "roughly" 4% fours (I read this as 9% between the two buckets) and 1% 12 man drops (if my memory serves me correctly)

I am guessing the argument about seperate queues is one of volumes if those numbers held up.

Larger than 4 man groups cannot be more than 8% of the total games played (because every 5, 6, 7 man team should have a 4 in it, and larger teams than that we are double counting) Thats just the maths of it.

What does that mean, is 8% enough of a population to sustain a seperate queue? IDK.

Again, show me the parameters that this 84% is based upon, come on, do it, make me eat my words..... don't have the parts information to do it, do you.

As has been said so many time before Mudhutt, you have many many life lessons to learn. It's to bad you will be learning them alone but hey, a little salt in your wounds never hurt me. It's just to bad that she has to put up with someone who is chosing to use her as a punch line in a joke rather than someone who would really respect her and support her and help her grow into everything she could be. However as you prove every time you open your mouth it's all about you and no one else matters, just you.

Enjoy your solitude little man, one day you might wake up but I doubt it.

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 09 April 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

LOL, what do you think I've been doing in every thread that is even remotely relevant and on Twitter?

I've done everything I can think of short of flying to Vancouver and standing outside PGI headquarters with a megaphone... though that would be a bit Alex Jonesish.

This isn't new information, all of this was hashed out in the 80 pages of the Launch Module feedback thread. With no response from PGI

Didn't you just deduce this now? I didn't see it in any other post? My bad if I missed it.

If it is new then all I'm saying is rephrase your deductions thats more accommodating to PGI and seek clarity.

[Lindonius]

Roadbeer, on 09 April 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

they don't have to do any work

Since when have they ever done anything that seems as if someone has actually put time and effort into it? Shit maps, shit UI, not a trace of any AI coding whatsoever, complicated elements of the game that needed working on (R&R, collisions) were just REMOVED, cack handed game mechanics (ghost heat, ECM) and in what is now 2 and half years of waiting, NOT EVEN ONE SODDING SCREENSHOT of their work to date on Community Warfare.

All they are going to do is keep churning out mechs. They will hold on long enough to meet their legal requirements on delivering the Clan packs. Whereupon (and I have no doubts about this) they will dump the new chassis into the regular pool, without segregation and probably without any new tech at all. I don't think they have any intention of delivering anything close to CW in the way that Koniving described it. They have spectactularly demonstrated, at every concievable point, a lack of ability or desire to deliver even 10% of the things they said they were going to do when they wanted people to buy the founders packs.

And on top of all this, even after they admitted they had been doing sweet FA for the first 2 years because of license renewal worries, people still give them money. Unbelievable.

What's next for MWO? Once the Clan cash grab is done we'll get another one. Probably something to do with ComStar lostech mechs or something like that. If there's enough people playing at the end of that they'll probably move on to the post FedCom civil war mechs. They are going to see exactly how far they can milk this cash cow. They are going to just keep selling mechs, mechs and more mechs because it requires the minimum amount of effort for the most money. Finally, when they discover the point at which they can no longer make money from just selling mechs, they'll run of into the night with their swag bag, shouting "don't worry Community Warfare is coming soon!" over their shoulder.

[Papaspud]

I see many people proposing 2 queues - 1 pug 1 pre..... since only 15% of the players play premade it wouldn't be long before there would be only the solo queue, unless of course you really enjoy waiting for that group team to fill out. What happens when your team is looking for the last 1 or 2 guys to fill the team .... and there aren't any- willing to drop all the time 1 or 2 people short? or would you rather wait 5-10 minutes hoping some one shows up? There simply aren't enough players for 2 queues.

edit:personally I think 3/3/3/3 is a step in the right direction, tired of dropping against 8 assaults and 4 lights, or 5 assaults and 7 lights etc.

Edited by Papaspud, 09 April 2014 - 05:39 PM.

[Mystere]

Coolant, on 09 April 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

I agree, the whining on the forums is annoying, but it doesn't affect gameplay. PGI's slow development directly impacts gameplay, hence, much more annoying.

Whining does not affect gameplay? Can you say:

• Ghost Heat
  
• Gause Charge
  
• Elo

Had enough, or are you thirsting for more?

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

Didn't you just deduce this now? I didn't see it in any other post? My bad if I missed it.

If it is new then all I'm saying is rephrase your deductions thats more accommodating to PGI and seek clarity.

No, this has been pretty much common knowledge for over a month for those who have been paying attention to the topic.

Papaspud, on 09 April 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

I see many people proposing 2 queues - 1 pug 1 pre..... since only 15% of the players play premade it wouldn't be long before there would be only the solo queue, unless of course you really enjoy waiting for that group team to fill out.

Apparently it isn't common knowledge

[Craig Steele]

Randalf Yorgen, on 09 April 2014 - 05:13 PM, said:

Again, show me the parameters that this 84% is based upon, come on, do it, make me eat my words..... don't have the parts information to do it, do you.

As has been said so many time before Mudhutt, you have many many life lessons to learn. It's to bad you will be learning them alone but hey, a little salt in your wounds never hurt me. It's just to bad that she has to put up with someone who is chosing to use her as a punch line in a joke rather than someone who would really respect her and support her and help her grow into everything she could be. However as you prove every time you open your mouth it's all about you and no one else matters, just you.

Enjoy your solitude little man, one day you might wake up but I doubt it.

You just don't get it do you. You truly have no idea. You cannot comprehend the simplest of concepts.

84% is their stat which they are basing there strategy on. If you want to argue about the stat, argue with them. I'm saying what the stat is and that they have offered it as the reason why they are doing what they are doing.

How is this hard? I suspect its because you don't read anything expcept what your opinion is. You don't want to know anything else beside your opinion. (as we have seen over and over again)

I'm going to skip over all your personal unsubstantianted attacks and insinuations as the juvenile immature drivel that it is.

I truly hope you find a way out of the den of bitterness that you apparently fester in cause honestly man, the world is not out to get you. You don't need to be afraid.

Learn to Love

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 09 April 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

EDIT:

Is it the pipe that finally sold you?
I started smoking a pipe recently because I realized that I'm of the age now that I can do so without looking like a hipster douchebag

Ha ha ha ha ha,

IDK, I still got the view that the stats they are quoting is a measure of player activity, not the way you describe it. Would seem a bit ridiculous for all the NGNG guys to be "stunned" by such an even distribution as you paint. The context and environment is also important to my interpretation. But yes, I listened to Podcast 103 and formed my view from that.

I have my own view on where the numbers sit (as I have shared) but I have no substanitation for my view so I'm not going to try and represent it as accurate.

But sure, the definition could be questioned if you want to, so I see your point of concern.

On the pipe, no, I heard smoking is bad for you?

[Novakaine]

East Indy, on 06 April 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

It won't easier to create illicitly larger premades, since there are currently no weight restrictions.

Nor does the premade limit have anything to do with weight classes; the limit could be implemented under the hood tomorrow.

I see what you're saying but your thread title is incorrect and misleading.



People will notice and players will get banned, and there may be a helpful, neighborhood watch-style list of units/clans so groups larger than four can be easily identified.

Remember, we're dudes playing a game run by other dudes actively monitoring us. It's not like there aren't social controls to prevent cheating.

WUT???! We have people monitoring....no way.

[Randalf Yorgen]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

You just don't get it do you. You truly have no idea. You cannot comprehend the simplest of concepts.

84% is their stat which they are basing there strategy on. If you want to argue about the stat, argue with them. I'm saying what the stat is and that they have offered it as the reason why they are doing what they are doing.

How is this hard? I suspect its because you don't read anything expcept what your opinion is. You don't want to know anything else beside your opinion. (as we have seen over and over again)

I'm going to skip over all your personal unsubstantianted attacks and insinuations as the juvenile immature drivel that it is.

I truly hope you find a way out of the den of bitterness that you apparently fester in cause honestly man, the world is not out to get you. You don't need to be afraid.

Learn to Love

No bitterness here, I just enjoy watching your blood boil as I call you out on your own hypocrisy. Everything you throw into your own arguments cut both ways but you stand there and claim that your plan is great and that PGI knows best when you haven't even been a member of this community for a year yet. And yes I do point that out as it shows that you have no actual experience with what PGI has done and are operating only on what you have read and have chosen to believe. You CHOOSE to believe their numbers without ever knowing how PGI arrived at those numbers and that in itself is error. Do you know if those numbers were gathered over a 20 week period or were they gathered from one wekend solo drop event If you want to blindly follow PGI, Like so many of us did over the last two years while they made mistake after mistake, while they flipflopped countless times, while they piled lie after lie, have at it. You have yet to try and see things from our side with all your refusing even though the arguments have been so clearly made that anyone who has a clue could see both sides with ease.

Have you listened to NGNG 105 part 1 from 23:30 through 25:00 (+) He goes on about how it's all up to PGI to decide (yes I agree) but then in the next breat he's talking about how what he thinks is the most fun is when he gets massive positive feedback and how they want to build the game off of that. Of course he names the time for this as the Free Centurian Weekend give away which was... are you ready for it.... a SOLO CHALLENGE and as he just said (if you listen to it) that is what he is building the game off of. Then the numbers they give later in that same recording of the interview (yes recording, so this is all coming from what he said, not what someone wrote down as being his words) perfectly support his position. Something else to take note on in that interview is around 40:25 where the NGNG guys are trying to get them to say something, ANYTHING about a lobby or games list but the PGI guys very successfully just ignore it and move on to Private and premium matches. They do say that the leader forms the group and then has to invite the leader from the other group to battle.

But all of this has been said to you before yet you haven't bothered to put any concideration into it. You just sit on your position and toot the PGI horn. THIS would be the exact reason I linked the definition of CONVERSATION to you in the other thread, you have to exchange ideas to have a conversation, if you just sit there and wrap yourself in your position like a blancet and don't even try to see it from the other side then the conversation goes nowhere. When you make arguments based on unsubstantiated data gleened from unknown parameters you have simply refuted your own argument but you fail to see this. To top it off when someone uses a varriable of those numbers and you decry how wrong they are you are proving yourself to be a hypocrit but again, you don't see it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I already know your side of the argument because I used to toot that same horn.

As for the personal stuff, you are the one who brought her to the forums, not once but twice before I said anything. I was actually trying to do you a favour but once again, Mr. Closedminded can't see that. It must be because nothing ever put on the internet has ever come back to bite anyone in the ass in the history of forever and it all goes away after 48 hours.

Learn to love, like you? I know love, and the huge responsibility that goes with it, where you are supposed to protect those you love and give them a safe place to grow into who they are going to be. How well did you protect your girlfriend in your previous posts, or maybe the question should be how well didn't you protect her?

Life lessons buddy, life lessons.

[Craig Steele]

Randalf Yorgen, on 09 April 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

No bitterness here, I just enjoy watching your blood boil as I call you out on your own hypocrisy. Everything you throw into your own arguments cut both ways but you stand there and claim that your plan is great and that PGI knows best when you haven't even been a member of this community for a year yet. And yes I do point that out as it shows that you have no actual experience with what PGI has done and are operating only on what you have read and have chosen to believe. You CHOOSE to believe their numbers without ever knowing how PGI arrived at those numbers and that in itself is error. Do you know if those numbers were gathered over a 20 week period or were they gathered from one wekend solo drop event If you want to blindly follow PGI, Like so many of us did over the last two years while they made mistake after mistake, while they flipflopped countless times, while they piled lie after lie, have at it. You have yet to try and see things from our side with all your refusing even though the arguments have been so clearly made that anyone who has a clue could see both sides with ease.

Have you listened to NGNG 105 part 1 from 23:30 through 25:00 (+) He goes on about how it's all up to PGI to decide (yes I agree) but then in the next breat he's talking about how what he thinks is the most fun is when he gets massive positive feedback and how they want to build the game off of that. Of course he names the time for this as the Free Centurian Weekend give away which was... are you ready for it.... a SOLO CHALLENGE and as he just said (if you listen to it) that is what he is building the game off of. Then the numbers they give later in that same recording of the interview (yes recording, so this is all coming from what he said, not what someone wrote down as being his words) perfectly support his position. Something else to take note on in that interview is around 40:25 where the NGNG guys are trying to get them to say something, ANYTHING about a lobby or games list but the PGI guys very successfully just ignore it and move on to Private and premium matches. They do say that the leader forms the group and then has to invite the leader from the other group to battle.

But all of this has been said to you before yet you haven't bothered to put any concideration into it. You just sit on your position and toot the PGI horn. THIS would be the exact reason I linked the definition of CONVERSATION to you in the other thread, you have to exchange ideas to have a conversation, if you just sit there and wrap yourself in your position like a blancet and don't even try to see it from the other side then the conversation goes nowhere. When you make arguments based on unsubstantiated data gleened from unknown parameters you have simply refuted your own argument but you fail to see this. To top it off when someone uses a varriable of those numbers and you decry how wrong they are you are proving yourself to be a hypocrit but again, you don't see it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I already know your side of the argument because I used to toot that same horn.

As for the personal stuff, you are the one who brought her to the forums, not once but twice before I said anything. I was actually trying to do you a favour but once again, Mr. Closedminded can't see that. It must be because nothing ever put on the internet has ever come back to bite anyone in the ass in the history of forever and it all goes away after 48 hours.

Learn to love, like you? I know love, and the huge responsibility that goes with it, where you are supposed to protect those you love and give them a safe place to grow into who they are going to be. How well did you protect your girlfriend in your previous posts, or maybe the question should be how well didn't you protect her?

Life lessons buddy, life lessons.

LOL, you sound like such a hypocritical pretentious opinionated tool it's inconceviable. I'll willing to bet you don't have a mirror in your house because if you saw your own reflection it would devestate your overly inflated opinion of yourself.

You can't be really be like this, you must be trolling.

Either Learn to Read or Learn to Love.

Let go of your hate, come away from the dark side.

Live long and prosper man.

EDIT: Wait, it just occurred to me? Are you actually trying to make my "blood boil" with your posts? Pretty sure thats a no no in the ToU but even if its not, I'm sorry to advise you of your abject failure.

Your opinion on anything has proven to be singular, selfish, uneducated and emotional ranting at best and honestly hasn't caused me a moment of lost sleep. I reply out of courtesy (a value which has been absent in your posts since the very first one when you labelled me as "Mudhut") so I am sorry if that dissappoints you.

I've had enough "lessons in life" to know that mean nasty people saying mean nasty things on the internet are just mean nasty people. I play a straight bat to them and give them back exactly what they give out and it's not unusual for them to get their panties in a twist when they are challenged. You can go cry in the corner if you like or you can clean up your act and be constructive, something I have asked you do a couple of times now.

Otherwise Corporal Courageous with your 20 years 'time' and your confessed hatred of officers and authority, Gandalf said it best, "Go back to the Shadows".

Edited by Craig Steele, 09 April 2014 - 09:40 PM.

[Amsro]

[Wintersdark]

I should note, I've been suggesting all along that we keep the current queue - a solo and small group queue, and the second being an unrestricted queue.

The difference, of course, is that a pure pug and pure premade queue selection would result in ridiculously long wait times to build matches on the premade side given random group sizes.

However, simply being unrestricted would mean solos could fill space. As to x%playing grouped, that number would be a lot bigger with unrestricted group sizes.