795 replies to this topic

[Almond Brown]

Mystere, on 09 April 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

Huh?

The major problem I am aware of is that players are complaining about the bogeyman 2/3/4-mans and the all assault/heavy opponents that are slaughtering them, hence the suggestion to having a solo-only queue and an "anything goes" one instead of the plain-as-vanilla 3/3/3/3 system that is coming.

That should also take care of the 4-mans complaining about bad PUG players. They and their ragtag team could potentially face a bona fide 12-man wrecking crew.

You misunderstood. A Solo queue, no matter what Lance assignments are allowed, will still have Losers and Winners. The Losers, as they do now, will complain that the other Team had "used coordination" against them and they don't like that. If there are not 23 other headless chickens running around, they see it as simply not fair.

A Solo queue solves nothing for those type of players and as such is a waste of time and effort, no matter how little effort some would say it would take.

Put in a 1v1 queue. Now that would be interesting to play in.

Edited by Almond Brown, 10 April 2014 - 05:52 AM.

[Almond Brown]

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.

The ultimate Catch 22. Slow pace creates whines. New stuff added to speed up the pace creates even more whines. LOL! Gotta love Gamers...

Bagheera, on 09 April 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

Why there is always eleventy pages of discussion after thread enders like this are posted is beyond me.

Perhaps because the term "discussion" is a misnomer.

[Almond Brown]

Amsro, on 09 April 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

Sorry I can't really agree to this, the whole point of this discussion is referring to how the team game is too difficult to co-ordinate, if we have a dedicated any size team que teams would use it. The % of people attempting to troll and sync drop would be miniscule.

They would be reported many times and likely recive warnings based on PGI's following of said sync drops. AKA this would be a code of conduct issue.

If everyone has a game mode that works for them and it is as easy as make group hit launch then sync dropping will fall into obscurity.

It is merely a symptom of group limits. Focus on the problems not the symptoms!

Curious. You want to have the game allow my Team of 3 to be able to play against only another Team of 3, selected from the Universal queue and then drop us as a 6? (or any additive value <=12)?

Is that it?

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 10 April 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

You misunderstood. A Solo queue, no matter what Lance assignments are allowed, will still have Losers and Winners. The Losers, as they do now, will complain that the other Team had "used coordination" against them and they don't like that. If there are not 23 other headless chickens running around, they see it as simply not fair.

A Solo queue solves nothing for those type of players and as such is a waste of time and effort, no matter how little effort some would say it would take.

Put in a 1v1 queue. Now that would be interesting to play in.

And yet the points you made just above the highlighted would still occur. I can see it now.
He's using to big of a weapons payload.
He's using to fast a Mech
He's got to much armor
He's using ACs/Missiles/PPC/MGs again!

You know it would happen. whining is unstoppable.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 April 2014 - 06:20 AM.

[Enigmos]

Advantage accrues to premades in more vectors than only communication (not that natural advantages should be seen as a problem), plus there are many kinds of advantage packaged under the label "communications". I'd call it C3, personally: command, control, and communications. Every unit should enjoy the advantage of C3, and you could have C3 without VOIP if you rally put your mind to it.

Is it cheating to put a sergeant I every squad? An officer in every platoon? I don't think so.

Communication is the least of the advantages if by 'premade' you mean a working team. If I drop with a teammate often enough I will acquire a sense of what that teammate will do in almost any situation. My team and I will really only need to use TS to call our targets, enabling us to gang up on the opposition one mech at a time. We can decide our attack vector even before we see where everyone else is headed and adapt to a changed situation in real-time. We can warn one another about threats even if we are out of position to do more than warn. We can advise one another when we see we are becoming vulnerable or running low on ammo.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

And yet the points you made just above the highlighted would still occur. I can see it now.
He's using to big of a weapons payload.
He's using to fast a Mech
He's got to much armor
He's using ACs/Missiles/PPC/MGs again!

You know it would happen. whining is unstoppable.

A simple Truth untainted by Bias or Fallacy is truly a beast to over come Joe.

P.S. I LOL'd! Thanks.

[Craig Steele]

OriginalTibs, on 10 April 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

Advantage accrues to premades in more vectors than only communication (not that natural advantages should be seen as a problem), plus there are many kinds of advantage packaged under the label "communications". I'd call it C3, personally: command, control, and communications. Every unit should enjoy the advantage of C3, and you could have C3 without VOIP if you rally put your mind to it.

Is it cheating to put a sergeant I every squad? An officer in every platoon? I don't think so.

Communication is the least of the advantages if by 'premade' you mean a working team. If I drop with a teammate often enough I will acquire a sense of what that teammate will do in almost any situation. My team and I will really only need to use TS to call our targets, enabling us to gang up on the opposition one mech at a time. We can decide our attack vector even before we see where everyone else is headed and adapt to a changed situation in real-time. We can warn one another about threats even if we are out of position to do more than warn. We can advise one another when we see we are becoming vulnerable or running low on ammo.

I think everyone agrees that teams (pre mades) whatever the number enjoy an in game advantage over PUG's with no co ordination or comms.

PGI have said they are trying to manage that in game advantage by capping the size of teams that interact with solo PUG's at 4 man teams. They believe this is a measure of balance for the average players game experience. It is one measure to help reduce STOMPS. Also that there will only be one team on each side.

This thread is about how teams of 5 - 11 can "work the system" to interact with that population anyway and play the game with their advantages.

They all have different motivations, some it is so they can play with more of their freinds, some are to ROFLSTOMP for laughs, most are between the two extremes but all of the reasons are for the team players benefit, they want to play in a game environment where they have advantages over their opposition and they get rewarded for it (C-Bills, etc). Thats they point of the thread.

Some are arguing for a seperate queue which has it's positives, but on face value it looks like the population numbers for 5 - 11 team games would be horrendously small. Much of the debate here is about people arguing the numbers up to justify a seperate queue (and there's some arguments that are worth listening to) but ultimately PGI have more information than all of us and have decided not to implement the seperate queue (yet)

Thats the summary.

The rest of it is hate and vitorol at one side or the other but mostly at PGI. It's a touchy subject.

[Mystere]

Craig Steele, on 10 April 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

I think everyone agrees that teams (pre mades) whatever the number enjoy an in game advantage over PUG's with no co ordination or comms.

PGI have said they are trying to manage that in game advantage by capping the size of teams that interact with solo PUG's at 4 man teams. They believe this is a measure of balance for the average players game experience. It is one measure to help reduce STOMPS. Also that there will only be one team on each side.

This thread is about how teams of 5 - 11 can "work the system" to interact with that population anyway and play the game with their advantages.

They all have different motivations, some it is so they can play with more of their freinds, some are to ROFLSTOMP for laughs, most are between the two extremes but all of the reasons are for the team players benefit, they want to play in a game environment where they have advantages over their opposition and they get rewarded for it (C-Bills, etc). Thats they point of the thread.

Some are arguing for a seperate queue which has it's positives, but on face value it looks like the population numbers for 5 - 11 team games would be horrendously small. Much of the debate here is about people arguing the numbers up to justify a seperate queue (and there's some arguments that are worth listening to) but ultimately PGI have more information than all of us and have decided not to implement the seperate queue (yet)

Thats the summary.

The rest of it is hate and vitorol at one side or the other but mostly at PGI. It's a touchy subject.

Hold a second! I thought the problem being addressed by 3/3/3/3 is the endless stomping PUGs are being subjected to by predominantly assault/heavy teams. I thought the main problem was the weight imbalance between teams.

But if the highlighted portion is the problem, then 3/3/3/3 is not the solution. It's not even close.

Also, people seem to underestimate how many solo players are able and willing to join the "anything goes" queue instead of the "solo" queue.

Edited by Mystere, 10 April 2014 - 08:18 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

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

But for Community Warfare, don't take away my dropships and logistics.

THIS!

[Craig Steele]

Mystere, on 10 April 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Hold a second! I thought the problem being addressed by 3/3/3/3 is the endless stomping PUGs are being subjected to by predominantly assault/heavy teams. I thought the main problem was the weight imbalance between teams.

But if the highlighted portion is the problem, then 3/3/3/3 is not the solution. It's not even close.

Also, people seem to underestimate how many solo players are able and willing to join the "anything goes" queue instead of the "solo" quere.

As I mentioned, its one measure to address the issue.

Launch module is a package of several things, but its the same blurb / reasoning.

[Mystere]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

And yet the points you made just above the highlighted would still occur. I can see it now.
He's using to big of a weapons payload.
He's using to fast a Mech
He's got to much armor
He's using ACs/Missiles/PPC/MGs again!

You know it would happen. whining is unstoppable.

And that is the real crux of the problem. 3/3/3/3 will be unable to solve such human "frailties".

But, do you know what can? It's actually very simple: a single-player game with a "Very Easy" (aka. "GOD") mode.

[Randalf Yorgen]

Craig Steele, on 09 April 2014 - 09:24 PM, said:

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.

interesting, quoting the rules

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.

Interesting admitting to breaking those same rules

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

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.

I'll just draw the dotted line back to the comments you made about your girlfriend.

don't you hate it when your own words come back and slap you in the face?

[Magna Canus]

Randalf Yorgen, on 10 April 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

I'll just draw the dotted line back to the comments you made about your girlfriend.

don't you hate it when your own words come back and slap you in the face?

[Joseph Mallan]

Randalf Yorgen, on 10 April 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

don't you hate it when your own words come back and slap you in the face?

I'll be honest... nope. It happens to everyone, it's embarrassing sure but hate it...

Yes, I know this was addressed to someone else... but you get old enough you and have an opinion strong enough... its going to happen to everyone sooner or later.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 April 2014 - 08:10 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Randalf Yorgen, on 10 April 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

don't you hate it when your own words come back and slap you in the face?

Or equally as bad, when Algebra does?

[AlmightyAeng]

Craig Steele, on 10 April 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

As I mentioned, its one measure to address the issue.

Launch module is a package of several things, but its the same blurb / reasoning.

Honestly, I think 3/3/3/3 is going to exacerbate the perceived issue of 'grouping pugstomping.' How many 4-man lances are going to want to jump into mediums and lights and trust to hoping that the people filling out the Assault and Heavy mechs, the FIREPOWER, aren't going to be a bunch of Derpherding neckbeards?

4-man Lances are going to want the best chances of impacting a decision...so I think you'll see a lot more coordinated lances jumping into 3 assaults and a heavy, and having a greater impact on the outcome of games.

Just my 2 cents. 3/3/3/3 doesn't address the issue of premades at all...it's strictly a weight balancing measure.

[Demuder]

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?

For every whine post concerning the problems those "fixes" were implented to solve, there were at least ten times more posts with innovative, insightful, lore friendly, simple and elegant solutions. Especially as far as the boating problem (-> ghost heat) and poptarting-sniping-pinpoint dmg (-> Gauss charge) go, there was, for all the whining, noone stupid enough on the community side to propose such idiotic solutions to them. Elo, I cannot talk about since when I started playing it was already there. You cannot blame whining for PGI's stupidity, laziness and detachment from their own game when it comes to addressing an issue.

[Mystere]

dimstog, on 10 April 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

For every whine post concerning the problems those "fixes" were implented to solve, there were at least ten times more posts with innovative, insightful, lore friendly, simple and elegant solutions. Especially as far as the boating problem (-> ghost heat) and poptarting-sniping-pinpoint dmg (-> Gauss charge) go, there was, for all the whining, noone stupid enough on the community side to propose such idiotic solutions to them. Elo, I cannot talk about since when I started playing it was already there. You cannot blame whining for PGI's stupidity, laziness and detachment from their own game when it comes to addressing an issue.

Of course I can blame whining. It seems to be an effective way in compelling developers to make changes to existing game features. Just look at how Mass Effect 3 was butchered because people did not like the original ending.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roadbeer, on 10 April 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

Or equally as bad, when Algebra does?

I didn't see x=? in that... You sure you were talking algebra?

[Roland]

Mystere, on 10 April 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Of course I can blame whining. It seems to be an effective way in compelling developers to make changes to existing game features. Just look at how Mass Effect 3 was butchered because people did not like the original ending.

The original ending for Mass Effect 3 was terribad. Easilly the single worst aspect of the entire, otherwise brilliant, series.