795 replies to this topic

[Magna Canus]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

2) 84% of player activity says thats not the reason though?

3) Well idk what to say. If you think discussing it here in forums with people who already agree will get you what you want to see, so be it. Try it , I'll observe and maybe learn something new. I sincerely doubt it will, and I sincerely doubt that any "middle ground" you compromise on will have relevance to the majority you are trying to convince. But I won't be upset if I'm wrong. As for your analogy, I promise you there were plenty of the majority speaking out, check the reels. There's all sorts of violence and fisticuffs going.

4) I guess thats the other thing. Team do enjoy advantages over random PUG's. They want to 'abuse' (my word) that by manipulating the system as you describe to effect their preferred game. PUG's scream, PUG's leave, less people to play and game eventually fails is certainly one option that might happen. But that's been the call out for every other change as well though. Everything PGI do is going to "wreck the game", it's in virtually every post snce I joined. Autocannons, wrecked the game. LRM's, wrecked the game (both times), jump jets, wrecked the game. Artillery, wrecked the game, Four man cap on teams, wrecked the game, Poor "Launch", wrecked the game. New Spawn points, wrecked the game, the list goes on and on. Whether you like it or not, PGI have identified the solo PUG market as a demographic they wish to accommodate with this Module. All the anecdotal evidence in the world is not going to change their macro view of things. If you want to 'fight' they can fight back just as hard (probably harder). You might say you would embrace the challenge which was just what Germany, Great Britian and France all thought in 1914, in the end one side won but no one envisaged the cost. I would say your analogy of MLK and Mandella has a better chance of success. Put your defenses down and find ways to embrace the other side (ie, truly understand what is driving them), then work towards your goal.

5) You don't know what she promised

2) Not sure what relevance that had to my previous statement. I was solely talking about team player stuff without reference to solo stuff. With all this text I guess you got something mixed up.

3) Well to put things in perspective this so far the only "game wrecker topic" I am standing behind. I can't personally be put in the pot with everyone that has an issue. This issue is my issue. All the other issues you listed for me as a former soldier fall in the category "suck it up and truck on".

4) There is still this misconception floating around about how every team likes to exploit solo players. It's the same as if you were to say all Muslims are terrorists, or all mexican's sell drugs, etc. It's just not true. Roadbeer & co. just want to play in their group vs. another group, same as I do. We are also actually open to having solo's join in if they are brave enough.

Ok, we will give this a try then with understanding the other side. This is your chance to explain the motivations, needs and desires of a solo player to a team player that is interested in listening.

What I gather so far some of it is as follows, please correct me if I have something wrong;

A) RL or other things allows little time to play MWO (maybe 1 hour per sitting). In all fairness, as a casual gaming team, we have many people that only have 30 min or so to game, or that may need to jump out at a moments notice for any number of reasons. This has still not prevented them from being on a team and these players appreciate it when their team has their back when they have to go AFK for 5 min to do whatever.

An aversion vs. "obligation". As described before, some organizations have them, some don't. Being open minded and not assuming that all organizations have oppressive obligations would be a good start. As also stated before, if you lack personal restraint and let gaming get in the way of RL that is a personal fault and not one derived from team play. Similarly any single player game is going to raise the same issues (just one more level honey, then I will come to the divorce hearing...)

C) The desire to NOT need to interact socially while gaming. Well, if people don't want to deal with people then MMO's are not really the games to play, are they? I mean, there are people here by definition, you are put on a team of 12 people and have to work together to achieve the game goals. Ok, so some may just not want to have any long-term social interaction with people and are fine with coordinating with a group of random people (e.g. AI surrogates). In that case you can't complain when things are disorganized.

Just about any reason you have named so far as a "reason" solo players may not want to be on a team, barring the simple "I just don't want to", are things people in my unit cope with and flourish despite of, and mine is not the only such out there. Casual units are VERY accommodating (but not pandering).

This has become a text wall again. LOL

[Magna Canus]

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.

Hey Craig,
some serious concessions have to be made for sync-drops as far as I can tell. At least 1 "known event" counts +/-120 unit players per week dropping solo and grouping up after they hit their drop point. There are (obviously) no record of any "unknown events" in this thread so far, though I do know of at least 1 similar in the German speaking community (obviously not participating in this discussion) and another in the Russian community.

On a smaller scale even I, as a unit player, drop solo at times, but I think I made this point often enough.

If PGI wants to base its actions on stats they need to use fully fleshed out stats. If they did what I fear they did, just count up the number of drops and separate out the # of group drops, then their data based on all of the extenuating factors is purely crap.

It also has to be taken into consideration that the drop frequency in groups is going to be lower than those of solo's. A group of 4 is going to wait until the end of the match for the rest of the group before exiting, you need to have all 4 people ready before you hit the drop button, and so on. A solo is going to be able to "spam" their drop frequency faster than a group and further skew the numbers.

In all honesty, for a decent stat to be generated either an in-game check box (Unit or solo) should be used. I would advise against a stat based on forum participants just because the solo player that has so little time to play is less likely to be on the forums to represent themselves.

Like I said before, if you don't count in all or the majority of the factors influencing your statistics, you numbers are pure crud. The more info I gather on the subject the more I am convinced that 84/16 is in no way representative of the population as a whole, let alone the actual ACTIVE population that has gone beyond logging in, trying out the product, and not returning (who further dramatically skew the numbers).

[Magna Canus]

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

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.

Sounds like you and I were in the same spot at some time, preaching faith and white knighting with the rest of the hopefuls.
Remember how it was back then and give it time. We can welcome him into the fold in a few months, or a year. No matter, eventually we all open our eyes.

[Craig Steele]

Magnakanus, on 09 April 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:

2) Not sure what relevance that had to my previous statement. I was solely talking about team player stuff without reference to solo stuff. With all this text I guess you got something mixed up.

3) Well to put things in perspective this so far the only "game wrecker topic" I am standing behind. I can't personally be put in the pot with everyone that has an issue. This issue is my issue. All the other issues you listed for me as a former soldier fall in the category "suck it up and truck on".

4) There is still this misconception floating around about how every team likes to exploit solo players. It's the same as if you were to say all Muslims are terrorists, or all mexican's sell drugs, etc. It's just not true. Roadbeer & co. just want to play in their group vs. another group, same as I do. We are also actually open to having solo's join in if they are brave enough.

Ok, we will give this a try then with understanding the other side. This is your chance to explain the motivations, needs and desires of a solo player to a team player that is interested in listening.

What I gather so far some of it is as follows, please correct me if I have something wrong;

A) RL or other things allows little time to play MWO (maybe 1 hour per sitting). In all fairness, as a casual gaming team, we have many people that only have 30 min or so to game, or that may need to jump out at a moments notice for any number of reasons. This has still not prevented them from being on a team and these players appreciate it when their team has their back when they have to go AFK for 5 min to do whatever.

An aversion vs. "obligation". As described before, some organizations have them, some don't. Being open minded and not assuming that all organizations have oppressive obligations would be a good start. As also stated before, if you lack personal restraint and let gaming get in the way of RL that is a personal fault and not one derived from team play. Similarly any single player game is going to raise the same issues (just one more level honey, then I will come to the divorce hearing...)

C) The desire to NOT need to interact socially while gaming. Well, if people don't want to deal with people then MMO's are not really the games to play, are they? I mean, there are people here by definition, you are put on a team of 12 people and have to work together to achieve the game goals. Ok, so some may just not want to have any long-term social interaction with people and are fine with coordinating with a group of random people (e.g. AI surrogates). In that case you can't complain when things are disorganized.

Just about any reason you have named so far as a "reason" solo players may not want to be on a team, barring the simple "I just don't want to", are things people in my unit cope with and flourish despite of, and mine is not the only such out there. Casual units are VERY accommodating (but not pandering).

This has become a text wall again. LOL

All good.

2) So you made a statement about how players were coming to MW:O to be part of a team game experience. I was just highlighting the counter argument to that is that 84% are not (according to PGI).

3) OK, sure. I wasn't being personal. My statement was a broad one that everything PGI does I see in forums as "wrecking the game". They cannot win with anything it seems and yet the game is still here. We can all draw our own conclusions about that which is not to say it could not be better, just that notwithstanding all the 'wrecking' going on, the game is still here (atm).

4) I was referring to your example, not making that statement.

I'm not a SP PUG so it's kinda hard for me to be accurate. Most of my games are with freinds. I farm a little (like really, I mean a little) and can make some deductions if you like from that experience? I might do some more solo PUGgin to see what it's like nowadays soon.

a) & b ) We have to disagree. I kinda don't feel like expressing anymore personal stuff cause a certain Troll is lurking around trying to derail any intelligent conversation but trust me, it is a real factor. If you want to call someone's character into question because they feel a sense of responibility to a team they enjoy playing with, OK. Knock yourself out.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, I'm just saying its out there. You can say it doesn't exist if you like, I know it it does. Why is it relevant, well because if you disregard it or minimise it you are going to struggle to get to a middle ground without embracing it. The degree you cater to it is open for discussion, but ignoring it won't help your cause. You want to know why?, Teams are made up of people, always have been, always will be.

c) I see were you're coming from, but I don't really agree. Not every one in the world shares your motivation for playing games. Lots of people find AI dumb, they enjoy PvP for the unexpected factor, people will do funny things. That doesn't mean they want interaction. There are plenty of people who just want to dumb down for an hour after work or before <insert RL thing here> and blow *proverbial* up. If your argument is they should play another game because this is a team based game (which is the argument you hinted at already) then you can say that. But I guarantee you that commercially speaking, while they are driving revenue you can say what you like, it won't matter to the big picture. Thats the scenario we have right now.

If your unit is "flourishing" what are you arguing about? If your guild is prospering in the current environment I get the game could be better, and maybe it will in time, but honestly you must be happy that the current game state is enabling the health of the unit?

This whole line of discussion stems from your question to me as to why I think (personally) the Team player ratio is where it is.

I think that smaller teams (4 and less) / solo players are the predominate segment of the the total gaming population so I am not surprised that PGI trot out a stat of 16% teams and 84% solo for MW:O. I have expressed my doubt for the actual ratio, but I am not surprised.

My reasons are;

A lot of the gaming population are not serious hard core gamers, gaming fills in time between RL. This is probably exasperated with an IP like BT cause the die hard fans have more than a few years under their belt. They have partners, kids, jobs etc.

Historically the majority of successful MMO have focussed on smaller teams (RPG's. Dota etc) and I attribute some of their success to getting the demographic right.

Statistically speaking, a massive growth in player numbers effecting different behaviours in the game will by pure volumes, dilute that statistics reviewed prior to their arrival.

Ergo, I come to the conclusion that "team play" is not a majority in MW:O and I and my freinds are in the minority. I thought I was clear that it was a personal opinion, I'm happy to review it but I think I have considered it a lot before I got there. I'm not trying to convince you I am right. You asked for my opinion and I provided it in the hope that my anecdotal experience might help you in assessing yours. That critical thinking process I talked about before.

Magnakanus, on 10 April 2014 - 12:39 AM, said:

If PGI wants to base its actions on stats they need to use fully fleshed out stats. If they did what I fear they did, just count up the number of drops and separate out the # of group drops, then their data based on all of the extenuating factors is purely crap.

It also has to be taken into consideration that the drop frequency in groups is going to be lower than those of solo's. A group of 4 is going to wait until the end of the match for the rest of the group before exiting, you need to have all 4 people ready before you hit the drop button, and so on. A solo is going to be able to "spam" their drop frequency faster than a group and further skew the numbers.

In all honesty, for a decent stat to be generated either an in-game check box (Unit or solo) should be used. I would advise against a stat based on forum participants just because the solo player that has so little time to play is less likely to be on the forums to represent themselves.

Like I said before, if you don't count in all or the majority of the factors influencing your statistics, you numbers are pure crud. The more info I gather on the subject the more I am convinced that 84/16 is in no way representative of the population as a whole, let alone the actual ACTIVE population that has gone beyond logging in, trying out the product, and not returning (who further dramatically skew the numbers).

Well you know what the obvious response to this is right?

It's PGI's decision to rely on whatever stats they feel like relying and and their decision how the run the company. Just because they only release certain stats that doesn't mean they have not looked at others, just that those are the ones that are driving their decision. It's their decision what stats they release because it's their property. It is actually their company, they are the management and the owners.

You might think it's crap, but they clearly don't.

You really have only three options if that is your view.

You can either build a substanital argument supported by a large and varied slice of the player base (petition or whatever) but thats going to take people embracing all parts of the demographic and potentially compromising some loved and cherished ideals.

You can vote with your wallet (I am in this boat atm)

Or you can just deal with it and either move on or play it for what its worth to you.

There might be other options but complaining about it with people who are already in agreeance with you will get you exactly no where, imo anyway.

EDIT: On the stats my understanding is it is a measure of player activity, not player affiliation. So for example, of 1,200 drops 1,008 of them will be done solo PUG, 72 will be pairs, 48 will be triples, 4 8 (roughly?) will be quads and 12 will be a 12 man.

Later in the thread Roadbeer has a different view.

Edited by Craig Steele, 10 April 2014 - 01:35 AM.

[Magna Canus]

Craig Steele, on 10 April 2014 - 01:12 AM, said:

2) So you made a statement about how players were coming to MW:O to be part of a team game experience. I was just highlighting the counter argument to that is that 84% are not (according to PGI). EDIT: On the stats my understanding is it is a measure of player activity, not player affiliation. So for example, of 1,200 drops 1,008 of them will be done solo PUG, 72 will be pairs, 48 will be triples, 4 8 (roughly?) will be quads and 12 will be a 12 man.
Later in the thread Roadbeer has a different view.

4) (new) I'm not a SP PUG so it's kinda hard for me to be accurate. Most of my games are with freinds. I farm a little (like really, I mean a little) and can make some deductions if you like from that experience? I might do some more solo PUGgin to see what it's like nowadays soon.

a) & b ) We have to disagree. I kinda don't feel like expressing anymore personal stuff cause a certain Troll is lurking around trying to derail any intelligent conversation but trust me, it is a real factor. If you want to call someone's character into question because they feel a sense of responibility to a team they enjoy playing with, OK. Knock yourself out.

c) I see were you're coming from, but I don't really agree. Not every one in the world shares your motivation for playing games. Lots of people find AI dumb, they enjoy PvP for the unexpected factor, people will do funny things. That doesn't mean they want interaction. There are plenty of people who just want to dumb down for an hour after work or before <insert RL thing here> and blow *proverbial* up. If your argument is they should play another game because this is a team based game (which is the argument you hinted at already) then you can say that. But I guarantee you that commercially speaking, while they are driving revenue you can say what you like, it won't matter to the big picture. Thats the scenario we have right now.

d) If your unit is "flourishing" what are you arguing about? If your guild is prospering in the current environment I get the game could be better, and maybe it will in time, but honestly you must be happy that the current game state is enabling the health of the unit?

e) I think that smaller teams (4 and less) / solo players are the predominate segment of the the total gaming population so I am not surprised that PGI trot out a stat of 16% teams and 84% solo for MW:O. I have expressed my doubt for the actual ratio, but I am not surprised.

You can vote with your wallet (I am in this boat atm)
Or you can just deal with it and either move on or play it for what its worth to you.

There might be other options but complaining about it with people who are already in agreeance with you will get you exactly no where, imo anyway.

Resorted some stuff by discussion theme.

2) Ok, I think the stat context is the real issue. Using "activity" (solo or group) to define your affiliation demographic (solo or group) is "wrong" (speaking from a purely professional analyst point of view) for a large number of previously noted reasons. Yes, it is their company and technically they are allowed to be as "wrong" as they want to be. I think we can skip further discussions on this topic.

4) Urg, you know you are going to catch hell for saying that you are not a SP PUG, right? I like discussion for discussions sake, and even defending the little guy, but this is going to discredit your position a lot in many an eye.

a/ A slight misinterpretation, but that can be corrected. Knowing where your priorities lie, presenting them concisely, and taking the necessary steps to uphold those, is a quality. Anything else is a fault, not an unforgivable fault, but still a fault none the less. my view here may be somewhat one sided because I have always been a strong willed person, but this is how I see it.

c) Yes actually I am saying that they should choose another game if BT is not their main interest. MWO is a BT IP based game and is still at lest supposed to be a team game. Funny thing is, the assumption is there that these players are driving the game financially with micro-transactions, but until now that has not been proven, just assumed. It can just as well be that PGI is "hoping" that they "could be" that resource if they just "try hard enough" (e.g. 3PV, etc.). At least being a founder, Phoenix pack owner, clan pack owner, display your factual financial support. Some MC here and there is currently only a speculative "ghost number".

d) my unit flourishes because we focus on more than just MWO. This thread focus' on single game units like Roadbeer's and as I concur with him on the MWO aspect, that we have "lost MOW player", I am "in that boat".

e) Um, I am going to remind you that the current limit is smaller teams and thus by definition of the given parameters (2-4 or 12) we actually only have teams dropping in those constellations "officially". Unofficially we have groups dropping with their "odd men out" because the parameters don't allow more. "In the early days" when people were still excited and hopeful and none had left in frustration, you had enough people online to easily fill an entire team (e.g. 8+) in multiple channels.

On a side note; it is going to be very difficult to "get to know the other side" if I have none to interview and none have time to talk about their point of view. To be very honest with you, you are not a good resource/specimen as you are admittedly not a SP PUG yourself.

"Bring me an SP PUG" he said "and we shall talk further".

[Craig Steele]

Magnakanus, on 10 April 2014 - 02:33 AM, said:

Resorted some stuff by discussion theme.

2) Ok, I think the stat context is the real issue. Using "activity" (solo or group) to define your affiliation demographic (solo or group) is "wrong" (speaking from a purely professional analyst point of view) for a large number of previously noted reasons. Yes, it is their company and technically they are allowed to be as "wrong" as they want to be. I think we can skip further discussions on this topic.

4) Urg, you know you are going to catch hell for saying that you are not a SP PUG, right? I like discussion for discussions sake, and even defending the little guy, but this is going to discredit your position a lot in many an eye.

a/ A slight misinterpretation, but that can be corrected. Knowing where your priorities lie, presenting them concisely, and taking the necessary steps to uphold those, is a quality. Anything else is a fault, not an unforgivable fault, but still a fault none the less. my view here may be somewhat one sided because I have always been a strong willed person, but this is how I see it.

c) Yes actually I am saying that they should choose another game if BT is not their main interest. MWO is a BT IP based game and is still at lest supposed to be a team game. Funny thing is, the assumption is there that these players are driving the game financially with micro-transactions, but until now that has not been proven, just assumed. It can just as well be that PGI is "hoping" that they "could be" that resource if they just "try hard enough" (e.g. 3PV, etc.). At least being a founder, Phoenix pack owner, clan pack owner, display your factual financial support. Some MC here and there is currently only a speculative "ghost number".

d) my unit flourishes because we focus on more than just MWO. This thread focus' on single game units like Roadbeer's and as I concur with him on the MWO aspect, that we have "lost MOW player", I am "in that boat".

e) Um, I am going to remind you that the current limit is smaller teams and thus by definition of the given parameters (2-4 or 12) we actually only have teams dropping in those constellations "officially". Unofficially we have groups dropping with their "odd men out" because the parameters don't allow more. "In the early days" when people were still excited and hopeful and none had left in frustration, you had enough people online to easily fill an entire team (e.g. 8+) in multiple channels.

On a side note; it is going to be very difficult to "get to know the other side" if I have none to interview and none have time to talk about their point of view. To be very honest with you, you are not a good resource/specimen as you are admittedly not a SP PUG yourself.

"Bring me an SP PUG" he said "and we shall talk further".

I was always down as saying I play more team games than solo, and that I enjoy teams games with my friends more than I do solo, and that I would like to see improvements to the team functionality.

I also said that alarmist and inflammatory catchphrases do nothing to help anyones argument or a discussion. Especially incorrect catchphrases that are just attention grabbing headlines. For that I am labelled as a White Knight defender of PGI and a few people have even had the balls to tell me what my opinion is and then berate for not defending the opinion they so graciously bestowed upon me.

If you feel there's no value in expanding anecdotal experience by discussion, that's fine by me. I don't need convincing. I'll just keep reading and soak up what I can because I believe my opinion is more balanced when based on more than my personal experience.

My recommendation is the same as before if you don't have the other side to discuss with, use critical thinking. That's something you can do with like minded people if you're prepared to step away from pre held ideas and challenge each other.

It means saying, "we know that, but what else could it be." instead of saying, "we know that"

Sadly if this thread (and the other) is any guide that is an ability that is lacking, so yes it might be hard to progress. Everyone here seems completely incapable of error and totally bulletproof. To even suggest there might be another side they haven't considered outside their own experience is an act of lunacy, notwithstanding that there actually is another side.

The fact is that as long as "team players" do nothing but bleat about it, we are all in the hands of what the market dictates. So whether it's 70% or 84%, thats the market that is predominant in the eyes of PGI and they will (for solid commercial reasons) strive to accommodate them. Heck to be frank, it doesn't really matter if it's 10% Solo PUG's, PGI have still said that is the market they want to accommodate with this Launch Module.

If we cannot change that perception, we get what we deserve right? We have no one to blame but ourselves, cause you can hardly fault PGI for being commercial and accommodating a predominant market.

That's just good business and after all, they are a business.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mystere, on 09 April 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

Whining does not affect gameplay? Can you say:

• Ghost Heat
  
• Gause Charge
  
• Elo

Had enough, or are you thirsting for more?

Yup, whining on the forum has caused two of the stupidest (I really ran Elo through the ringer as Anton and Xando I am not upset) things in this game. And Gauss can be accepted IF Gauss is a LONG RANGE weapon and not a Sniper's weapon.

Also, I want to say one thing. I just read 5 pages (not word for word) and I did not see any your Momma posts, You're an idiot posts or poor sport posts. I did see passionate discussion and serious attempts to sway opinions... It was a nice read.

Craig, Magna, Amsro... Of course Raodbeer, Keep it up, we may give this Forum the bad reputation of being a good place to hold discussions!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 April 2014 - 03:31 AM.

[Magna Canus]

Craig Steele, on 10 April 2014 - 03:14 AM, said:

My recommendation is the same as before if you don't have the other side to discuss with, use critical thinking. That's something you can do with like minded people if you're prepared to step away from pre held ideas and challenge each other.

It means saying, "we know that, but what else could it be." instead of saying, "we know that"

Sadly if this thread (and the other) is any guide that is an ability that is lacking, so yes it might be hard to progress. Everyone here seems completely incapable of error and totally bulletproof. To even suggest there might be another side they haven't considered outside their own experience is an act of lunacy, notwithstanding that there actually is another side.

The fact is that as long as "team players" do nothing but bleat about it, we are all in the hands of what the market dictates. So whether it's 70% or 84%, thats the market that is predominant in the eyes of PGI and they will (for solid commercial reasons) strive to accommodate them. Heck to be frank, it doesn't really matter if it's 10% Solo PUG's, PGI have still said that is the market they want to accommodate with this Launch Module.

If we cannot change that perception, we get what we deserve right? We have no one to blame but ourselves, cause you can hardly fault PGI for being commercial and accommodating a predominant market.

That's just good business and after all, they are a business.

Critical thinking gets the ball rolling, but only goes so far. It's like 2 guys discussing how women think; they can read about it, they can discuss it all they want, but actually having a women there in the conversation makes things a lot less complicated and a bit more representative. But even if you have ONE figured out does not mean you have them all figured out, far from it. Right now, without some real SP PUG representation to put some facts on the table we are talking about theories and ghosts. You can have a lot of fun trolling with ghost stories.

Bleating... interesting. Expressing concern/complaining = bleating. So, defacto, doing this about any issue one may have is bleating. That makes it simple, very simple, especially when applied equally. So the next time a solo complains about "evil premade's" we can dismiss it as bleating. Thanks for that insight.

Bleating + not being listened to (not enough $$) = deserved. Interesting. Got it.

So, since bleating for a separate place to drop in groups of any size is of no use then group players have to talk to PGI's wallet. Since most group players have already opened theirs wide enough it seems positive reinforcement (the carrot) is not working. Maybe it's time for the stick? Non-stop, sync-dropping, Eppic-PUG-Stomping action on a grand, multi-factional scale. A bit like Faction Warfare but between PUG & Group, not with the galaxy as the prize, but Darwinistic survival of the fittest?

[Joseph Mallan]

Magnakanus, on 10 April 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

So, since bleating for a separate place to drop in groups of any size is of no use then group players have to talk to PGI's wallet. Since most group players have already opened theirs wide enough it seems positive reinforcement (the carrot) is not working. Maybe it's time for the stick? Non-stop, sync-dropping, Eppic-PUG-Stomping action on a grand, multi-factional scale. A bit like Faction Warfare but between PUG & Group, not with the galaxy as the prize, but Darwinistic survival of the fittest?

Not to continue Bleating a dead horse, But isn't this what PGI basically told us what CW was supposed to be? Factions dropping together and filling gaps with Lone Wolves and PUGs? Isn't that what the game was about? The Invasion of the Inner Sphere. Clanners v the the forces of the Inner Sphere? All while war as usual continues between the IS factions.

[Magna Canus]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 04:08 AM, said:

Not to continue Bleating a dead horse, But isn't this what PGI basically told us what CW was supposed to be? Factions dropping together and filling gaps with Lone Wolves and PUGs? Isn't that what the game was about? The Invasion of the Inner Sphere. Clanners v the the forces of the Inner Sphere? All while war as usual continues between the IS factions.

Jo, I think they just forgot to send the memmo around.

CW atm = Pre-made vs. PUG. Game on!!!

[Joseph Mallan]

Magnakanus, on 10 April 2014 - 04:16 AM, said:

Jo, I think they just forgot to send the memmo around.

CW atm = Pre-made vs. PUG. Game on!!!

I guess the other Memo didn't get to everyone either. We have not even been playing "THE" game yet. How the Combat Mechanics function is not what the game is going to be... At least I hope the Game has more substance than drop, fight, collect paycheck!

[Craig Steele]

Magnakanus, on 10 April 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

Critical thinking gets the ball rolling, but only goes so far. It's like 2 guys discussing how women think; they can read about it, they can discuss it all they want, but actually having a women there in the conversation makes things a lot less complicated and a bit more representative. But even if you have ONE figured out does not mean you have them all figured out, far from it. Right now, without some real SP PUG representation to put some facts on the table we are talking about theories and ghosts. You can have a lot of fun trolling with ghost stories.

Bleating... interesting. Expressing concern/complaining = bleating. So, defacto, doing this about any issue one may have is bleating. That makes it simple, very simple, especially when applied equally. So the next time a solo complains about "evil premade's" we can dismiss it as bleating. Thanks for that insight.

Bleating + not being listened to (not enough $$) = deserved. Interesting. Got it.

So, since bleating for a separate place to drop in groups of any size is of no use then group players have to talk to PGI's wallet. Since most group players have already opened theirs wide enough it seems positive reinforcement (the carrot) is not working. Maybe it's time for the stick? Non-stop, sync-dropping, Eppic-PUG-Stomping action on a grand, multi-factional scale. A bit like Faction Warfare but between PUG & Group, not with the galaxy as the prize, but Darwinistic survival of the fittest?

As for SP PUG's, sure. I've already said thats the best option. But you said you don't have one to talk to (you called out for some) so I gave you another alternative. If you don't like the alternative and you don't have some SP PUGgers to talk to, IDNK what other options you have. I'll leave it up to you then.

bleat
/blit/ Show IPA

verb (used without object)
1.
to utter the cry of a sheep, goat, or calf or a sound resembling such a cry.
verb (used with object)
2.
to give forth with or as if with a bleat: He bleated his objections in a helpless rage.
3.
to babble; prate.
noun
4.
the cry of a sheep, goat, or calf.
5.
any similar sound: the bleat of distant horns.
6.
foolish, complaining talk; babble: I listened to their inane bleat all evening.

I definitly think some of the posts in this thread can be defined under 6 as "complaining talk", yes I do. Maybe also as definition 2?

But aside from that, if you got the irony of it you got the point. Fact is that I used infammatory language (on a very minor scale) and look what happened, you got defensive about it.

Yet many of the posters here seem to be above this simple aspect.

As for your strategy , well sure, do what you like. I think you're doing nothing new. I think what your describing is exactly what is happening now and why PGI are trying to tighten some things up. So in some ways I think you're not helping yourself. But who knows, you might be right.

Because whats the likely outcome. You (and company) keep stomping PUG's, PUG's keep screaming that the game experience is rubbish. PGI tighten it further to protect the market they are trying to accommodate. And so the circle keeps spinning.

But it's a bit like speeding in your car to get an appointment on time. If you don't get pulled over you'll tell yourself it was all good. If you do, well it not only cost you, but you get there even later.

[Magna Canus]

Craig Steele, on 10 April 2014 - 04:32 AM, said:

But aside from that, if you got the irony of it you got the point. Fact is that I used infammatory language (on a very minor scale) and look what happened, you got defensive about it.

Yet many of the posters here seem to be above this simple aspect.

As for your strategy , well sure, do what you like. I think you're doing nothing new. I think what your describing is exactly what is happening now and why PGI are trying to tighten some things up. So in some ways I think you're not helping yourself. But who knows, you might be right.

Because whats the likely outcome. You (and company) keep stomping PUG's, PUG's keep screaming that the game experience is rubbish. PGI tighten it further to protect the market they are trying to accommodate. And so the circle keeps spinning.

LOL, I need no definition of what Bleating is, but thanks for the caustic irony anyways.

I am not being defensive per se, but "bleating" is a very dismissive word. What you are doing is exactly what some others have been doing to you earlier, provocation. I allowed you to "provoke me" and gave you a nice view of what a frustrated and provoked person can cook up. I don't have enough ambition for any grand PUG stomping schemes and never have, so that tactic is not my tactic (too lazy for it). But it does go to show how quickly you jump to conclusion. Gotta work on that.

On a different note, we have here a new solo player that has a nice perspective that I applaud. It also goes to show that not all people currently dropping solo are hard set to continue to do so.

Zaggeron, on 07 April 2014 - 07:54 PM, said:

I'm a player who's only got a couple of weeks in the game. As mentioned here and in other posts, I believe one of the biggest issues is the lack of in-game social features. Even something as simple as a recent player's list would make a big difference. As it stands there is no realistic way to make friends inside the game. Say that, against all odds, you and a couple of other randoms on your team spontaneously started employing team tactics. Next game,of course, they are nowhere to be found.

But what if you had a recent player's list and simply send out friend invites to some folks in the last game that you had a blast playing. Soon you might have a large list of friends. With friends you are more likely to form groups when you notice they are logged on. With in-game VOIP this would give every group the chance to perform better instead of having to arrange voice and friends outside the game.

For in-game VOIP, it should be simple to allow you to toggle between: hear only your group, hear any group, and hear all. With the ability to easily mute any player from the "tab" screen, I don't see in game voice as being problematic.

Of course, this would change many assumptions about groups. With people easily being able to form ad hoc groups of 2 -4 complete with in-game support for VOIP, there would suddenly be a lot more groups dropping -- groups of all skill levels. This, it seems would be very good for the game.

[Craig Steele]

Magnakanus, on 10 April 2014 - 04:42 AM, said:

LOL, I need no definition of what Bleating is, but thanks for the caustic irony anyways.

I am not being defensive per se, but "bleating" is a very dismissive word. What you are doing is exactly what some others have been doing to you earlier, provocation. I allowed you to "provoke me" and gave you a nice view of what a frustrated and provoked person can cook up. I don't have enough ambition for any grand PUG stomping schemes and never have, so that tactic is not my tactic (too lazy for it). But it does go to show how quickly you jump to conclusion. Gotta work on that.

On a different note, we have here a new solo player that has a nice perspective that I applaud. It also goes to show that not all people currently dropping solo are hard set to continue to do so.

Umm, so you did what I was hoping you would do to demonstrate my point? OK, thanks?

As for your strategy, well I just accept everything people say on the Internet at face value. If you say you're going to do something, I assume you are.

Just my trusting nature, but its hard to call that jumping to conclusion, You said you would consider it and I accepted that.

I'll try and be less trusting of people in the future?

As for your new guy, well notwithstanding that you yourself called me out on a single example as "anecdotal", thats great.

Whats interesting is that he is quite clearly articulating a desire around 2 - 4 man groups. The very demographic I submitted as a high proportion of gamers. If you can convert him to 5 -11 all power to you, but I am glad that you found an example of the very argument I was putting forward. Thanks for that.

[Magna Canus]

Craig Steele, on 10 April 2014 - 04:51 AM, said:

I just accept everything people say on the Internet at face value. If you say you're going to do something, I assume you are.
Just my trusting nature, but its hard to call that jumping to conclusion, You said you would consider it and I accepted that.
I'll try and be less trusting of people in the future?

As for your new guy, well notwithstanding that you yourself called me out on a single example as "anecdotal", thats great.

Whats interesting is that he is quite clearly articulating a desire around 2 - 4 man groups. The very demographic I submitted as a high proportion of gamers. If you can convert him to 5 -11 all power to you, but I am glad that you found an example of the very argument I was putting forward. Thanks for that.

I'm not sure if that statement is true or not about you trusting everything people say in the internet at face value. I seriously hope not since it very much goes against social wisdom. Sounds a bit like a form of defense to me.

Actually I was simply sharing info I had found to point out that "not all solo's want to stay that way". I said nothing about majority, minority, or whatever. Just a single example as shown, nothing more.

As for 2-4, I doubt that he was taking our conversation into consideration. Being new and the current group limit being 2-4 this is of course his reference. Come the time he has 5+ friends... guess what? He is most likely going to want to be able to play with all 5.

[Craig Steele]

Magnakanus, on 10 April 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

I'm not sure if that statement is true or not about you trusting everything people say in the internet at face value. I seriously hope not since it very much goes against social wisdom. Sounds a bit like a form of defense to me.

Actually I was simply sharing info I had found to point out that "not all solo's want to stay that way". I said nothing about majority, minority, or whatever. Just a single example as shown, nothing more.

As for 2-4, I doubt that he was taking our conversation into consideration. Being new and the current group limit being 2-4 this is of course his reference. Come the time he has 5+ friends... guess what? He is most likely going to want to be able to play with all 5.

I guess it no different to someone handing cash over to a games developer on the promise of them delivering the content. It's all taking stuff at face value right?

And sure, but the point is I submitted that many gamers like smaller teams, and here is a guy that is expressing exactly that. You can assume whatever you like that suits your agenda, and you may even convert him in time. But he is clearly calling out smaller teams of 2 - 4 in his post.

[Joseph Mallan]

Magna, Craig you are both right. Some folks love to group up, others like a few good friends and still others like the thrill of Solo play(suddenly I am hearing Alice Cooper 'Some Folks" in my head!).

The game should be a blend of the best of these views... But how? Segregation... I learned in school (back in the 80s) That is a bad road to follow. Blended? Maybe, diversity training tells us that everyone has a right to be what they want to be... so long as you don't offend the next guy ( I never understood this. How do you respect everyone if you actively persecute/repress Bigotry?)

[Magna Canus]

Craig Steele, on 10 April 2014 - 05:29 AM, said:

1) I guess it no different to someone handing cash over to a games developer on the promise of them delivering the content. It's all taking stuff at face value right?

2) And sure, but the point is I submitted that many gamers like smaller teams, and here is a guy that is expressing exactly that. You can assume whatever you like that suits your agenda, and you may even convert him in time. But he is clearly calling out smaller teams of 2 - 4 in his post.

1) Nice try, but no. 2 different pair of shoes and you do know that.

2) He does mention groups of 2-4 most likely because this is the current limit. I conclude that at some point he will have more than 3 friends from his statement "Soon you might have a large list of friends." I read nowhere in his post that he mentions preferring a small group of 2-4. So, prerequisite "large group of friends" coupled with "online" and eventuality "more than 3" creates the possible issue of "we are 5 friends, do we create a group of 2 & 3 so everybody has a group or do we create a group of 4 and leave 1 guy behind. But I want to play with all of my friends, why can't I create a group of 5..."

Current group system = sucks having more than 3 friends you want to drop with. This is even more compounded when you rely on in-game comms.

[Craig Steele]

Magnakanus, on 10 April 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

1) Nice try, but no. 2 different pair of shoes and you do know that.

2) He does mention groups of 2-4 most likely because this is the current limit. I conclude that at some point he will have more than 3 friends from his statement "Soon you might have a large list of friends." I read nowhere in his post that he mentions preferring a small group of 2-4. So, prerequisite "large group of friends" coupled with "online" and eventuality "more than 3" creates the possible issue of "we are 5 friends, do we create a group of 2 & 3 so everybody has a group or do we create a group of 4 and leave 1 guy behind. But I want to play with all of my friends, why can't I create a group of 5..."

Current group system = sucks having more than 3 friends you want to drop with. This is even more compounded when you rely on in-game comms.

No its not, its just some people chose to believe in promises with their wallet and I chose to believe in realistic discussion points. The theory is the same even if you don't want to admit it.

And as I said, you can assume whatever you like, and read into it whatever you like. This is exactly why I think critical thinking is required. You might be right, you might not be, but you sit back and say "I'm right" and dismiss all other possibilities.

Anyway, I'm done. there's nothing more for me to say. As you said yourself, I'm not any good to you so why keep dragging it on.

Good luck with your challenges.

[Magna Canus]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

Magna, Craig you are both right. Some folks love to group up, others like a few good friends and still others like the thrill of Solo play(suddenly I am hearing Alice Cooper 'Some Folks" in my head!). The game should be a blend of the best of these views... But how? Segregation... I learned in school (back in the 80s) That is a bad road to follow. Blended? Maybe, diversity training tells us that everyone has a right to be what they want to be... so long as you don't offend the next guy ( I never understood this. How do you respect everyone if you actively persecute/repress Bigotry?)

Hey Joe,
yeah that is the big thing really. How does everybody get what they want to be happy? Thing is, some want solo's only, some just want to play with/vs. groups only which in some way dictates segregation when they get what they want. Others want to be able to play with all or most of their friends which is actively capped. Who do you please and how? With the above options, as usual in life, you can't please everyone.

But this topic has totally sidetracked the OP which was really about putting out info on how it might be easier to sync-drop with the new 3/3/3/3 system.

Craig, you and I really have to move to a different post or over to PM. We are hijacking this thread too much.