795 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 11 April 2014 - 08:17 PM, said:

Actually, what you're seeing is what happens when someone gets tired of watching a specific demo get consistently catered to at the sacrifice of others. Some of us are all out of sympathy. We've said for months (years now?) that PUGs have every right to play just as we do.
Look back through this thread, read the responses from the "solo camp", read back through other threads on the same topic. You can clearly see that the ones jumping up and down and saying things like "play my way or go elsewhere" are generally those that drop solo.

The groups and units? not so much.
We want solo players in the game, we want them to be able to play and enjoy it, but we want to do the same thing. We aren't the ones clamoring for them to leave. Or at least we weren't. Some of us have finally gotten to the point where we'd rather just say well f**k you too buddy, I don't care if you enjoy the game or not because we're sick and tired of watching this game get watered down, dumbed down, and easy buttons handed out. We're sick and tired of being a scapegoat because Joe Derp can't figure out how to play on a team. We're completely apathetic at this point because if we don't start raising a voice and being vocal then the game WE want to play will go away.

What you're really seeing is some of us starting to use the same tactics and arguments that the other side has been using for years now. Instead of sitting here and just plugging along now WE are being vocal, raising a fuss, and making sure that people understand that 14% is completely inacuurate, decisions based on it are fallacies, and if WE don't start getting a few concessions then we'll take our money elsewhere.

There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't just simply be able to join a team and play just like solo and casuals. Show me one other game (successful that is) with a persistent campaign/universe, that requires you to play as part of a team, that limits your ability to play the game, forces you to pay to play, and discourages teams.
Before they're tossed out there
WoT
***
War Thunder
Do NOT count as there's no persistent campaign and universe to play in, they're just stand alone matches with no campaign to concern themselves with so they do not count.

So what you seem to be saying here is that rational constructive discussion about issues that affect the population is out, ranting is order of the day and hell or high water you will get your way?

OK then, I'll freely admit I have nothing to add to that sort of conversation.

Good luck with getting your desired changes through.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

Not entirely sure which word you found entertaining
anecdotal or Evidence
Keep banging the rocks together, you'll get there

im guessing your slow? maybe i said that in relation to a post. Of course i didn't quote it but to think they use Anecdotal evidence is kinda.......

lets do a vs and im using a old example so forgive.

• Out of all matches launched, 84% are solo launches.
  
• 16% are group launches. (We omitted our 12-mans because they will be dealt with separately)
  
• Of that 16%, 8% are 2-man groups, 4% are 3-man groups and 4% are 4-man groups.

This is Statical data, gathered from research/monitoring; However this is always possible to change.




VS Anecdotal evidence= which is basing your facts on what you see, and not necessarily the whole picture. It is possible i can drop 100 times and ask 100 questions of who is in groups vs solo and i may get like 50/50 but its highly likely that i will be missing huge chunks of potential data.

AnectidotalVStatistical
Educated guess Vs gathered data. note how i said educated guess; However it is unlucky but there is a small chance a player can gather correct data that shows a trend. That is only if the conditions are right and met.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 11 April 2014 - 08:42 PM.

[Roadbeer]

BLOOD WOLF, on 11 April 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

im guessing your slow? maybe i said that in relation to a post. Of course i didn't quote it but to think they use Anecdotal evidence is kinda.......

I swear, it's like putting paper bags on a kittens feet

[Roadbeer]

BLOOD WOLF, on 11 April 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

im guessing your slow? maybe i said that in relation to a post. Of course i didn't quote it but to think they use Anecdotal evidence is kinda.......

lets do a vs and im using a old example so forgive.

• Out of all matches launched, 84% are solo launches.
  
• 16% are group launches. (We omitted our 12-mans because they will be dealt with separately)
  
• Of that 16%, 8% are 2-man groups, 4% are 3-man groups and 4% are 4-man groups.

This is Statical data, gathered from research/monitoring; However this is always possible to change.

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.

[BLOOD WOLF]

wow, just wow. high praise all around,

He's a genius, so no wonder he makes sense all the time.

Forgot to mention why some people only group 2's,3's,4's. Some of those players have no desire to go out of their range. I can understand why 2-mans are the 8%. When i went 10 games and asked players most of them reported to be playing with A buddy. just 1 buddy. doesn't matter if overall 44% are grouped. All you did was multiply, I'm glad you can do math. Way to go there, good job.

true that there are a large number of groups but it doesn't support your stance. As a matter of fact the data you provided did just about the opposite. I dont see how your data cries for your vision of a group Que.

love the numbers, just use more statical data to refute, eventually i will see that larger group ques will be best for the game.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 11 April 2014 - 09:03 PM.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 11 April 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

So what you seem to be saying here is that rational constructive discussion about issues that affect the population is out, ranting is order of the day and hell or high water you will get your way?

OK then, I'll freely admit I have nothing to add to that sort of conversation.

Good luck with getting your desired changes through.

Nope

I'm saying some of us are tired of being "PC" when it comes to this. We have, never have, nor will have any problem with solo players playing as solo players. If that's how they want to play? Great

I'm NOT, however, going to keep just shrugging it off when premades and groups are scapegoated. I've dropped as a solo, pug, premade, 12man, etc. I've played this game just about every way possible.
I've stomped
I've been stomped
I've had good close games
Guess what I don't do though? (at least in the past)

I don't jump on the forums and blame PGI, MM, premades, Elo, etc. because I lost. 90% of the time I can pinpoint almost exactly what caused my team to lose. It's VERY rare that is has anything to do with anything except poor play, getting outplayed, poor tactics, mistakes, etc. I accept that I lost, figure out how to improve and move along.

Guess what? I've gotten better since I started playing. I use builds and weapons that most dismiss as "useless" IE laser boats.

[Sandpit]

BLOOD WOLF, on 11 April 2014 - 08:48 PM, said:

wow, just wow. high praise all around,

He's a genius, so no wonder he makes sense all the time.

Forgot to mention why some people only group 2's,3's,4's. Some of those players have no desire to go out of their range. I can understand why 2-mans are the 8%. When i went 10 games and asked players most of them reported to be playing with A buddy. just 1 buddy. doesn't matter if overall 44% are grouped.

true that there are a large number of groups but it doesn't support your stance. As a matter of fact the data you provided did just about the opposite. I dont see how your data cries for your vision of a group que.

love the numbers, just use more statical data to refute, eventually i will see that larger group ques will be best for the game.

uhm it shows that the data shown by PGI was far from accurate which means all of the assumptions and decisions based on that data is flawed.

You're just being dismissive and condescending at this point. You don't want unlimited groups, that's great. We do. Why is it ok for us to be dimissed? Why is it ok that we have to pay just to play in a 5man group and participate in CW?

Because PGI said so is 90% of the responses I see to that. So just remember that's why it's ok.

Again, I don't see anyone telling you that you can't play solo.
I don't see anyone saying you should have to pay to participate in CW (IF you can participate in CW)
I don't see anyone saying you should be relegated to a niche portion of the game

It's ok for YOU to say that to those that want groups though right?

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit, on 11 April 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

uhm it shows that the data shown by PGI was far from accurate which means all of the assumptions and decisions based on that data is flawed.

You're just being dismissive and condescending at this point. You don't want unlimited groups, that's great. We do. Why is it ok for us to be dimissed? Why is it ok that we have to pay just to play in a 5man group and participate in CW?

Because PGI said so is 90% of the responses I see to that. So just remember that's why it's ok.

Again, I don't see anyone telling you that you can't play solo.
I don't see anyone saying you should have to pay to participate in CW (IF you can participate in CW)
I don't see anyone saying you should be relegated to a niche portion of the game

It's ok for YOU to say that to those that want groups though right?

why do you keep saying im being dismissive? i already stated that larger groups ques would be fun. I think you are being dismissive because you have not even in the slightest admitted that their might be problems. Give me 3 concerns you have with your vision. It seems like your being dismissive of anybody who isnt in a group.

As for being Condescending, well, i guess the name calling has to stop sometime. im not gonna apologize if i seem so, i tried being nice, but you and roadbeer were rude regardless, even after i apologized for offenses. more inclined towards me for some odd reason.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 11 April 2014 - 09:24 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 11 April 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

Nope

I'm saying some of us are tired of being "PC" when it comes to this. We have, never have, nor will have any problem with solo players playing as solo players. If that's how they want to play? Great

You might want to have a chat with your ally off line?

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

Exactly, don't like it, go back to Call of Battlehalo

This is the "Thinking" mans shooter, not Derpherd to the PUGZAPPER

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

Oh joy, so in order to purchase anything, we have to go drop 100 times with the lowest common denominator, and watch the tragically derpy zerg into the PUGZAPPER in order to have the same level of enjoyment that the drool on the joystick underhive get to enjoy just because they figured out how to download the game.

And that's for EVERY time we use an consumable.

But y'all can drop arty on your own team all day long, say oops, and get rewarded just for showing up.

Yeah, that seems fair.

Meanwhile we're struggling to keep our communities together, paying for websites and TeamSpeak server AND get to pay for that privilege too.

AWESOMESAUCE!

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

Hey Cupcake
I'm not talking to convince you, I'm trying to convince PGI, since Niko has shown he's monitoring this thread.
I don't know why you and Craig are having such a hard time for this. I don't care about your opinion, I'm working to convince them that they're looking at their data wrong.
Which, wait for it...

So are those that are agreeing with me.

This isn't a political forum where you are trying to sway someone to your way of thinking or have a spirited debate, this is to provide the developers with feedback.

As much as I want it to be otherwise, I'm out of empathy for this argument.

The "Guilds" ask for sympathy but then spit (my word) all over the "PUG's" by telling them we are going to screw with your game experience out of spite.

The Founders are tired of watching this game go in a direction they don't want it to go but it's not their game, and their argument has devolved to (for some people it seems) "I'm entitled, hear me roar".

People say they're the consumer ergo they should have the game they want, without appreciating they are only one consumer and that other people have the same view but a different want.

Ultimately, the only people that truly suffer from getting the consumer need assessment wrong is PGI. And they are saying they are happy with it.

I get that I'm perhaps not as bitter and twisted about the journey, I've been told several times my view is irrelevant because I don't have a Founders badge. I've been told I'll get converted when I become just as jaded in time.

But honestly, even though I want better team functionality in the game and I would like to see more, I am struglling to be associated with the selfishness and blind arrogance of some of the supporters of this argument. And the hypocracy, Roadbeer is on one thread telling new players come join us cause we're good blokes and in this thread, describing them as mindless drool that he will not willing be associated with.

I just cannot rationalise to myself that screwing over someone else for my own reasons is right.

But the argument being presented appears to be two wrongs do make a right, and screw you if you don't like it. And then we rationalise it?

And some people wonder why their team memberships are dropping?

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 11 April 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

<snip>

Awww, I got him right in the feels

[Sandpit]

BLOOD WOLF, on 11 April 2014 - 09:17 PM, said:

why do you keep saying im being dismissive? i already stated that larger groups ques would be fun. I think you are being dismissive because you have not even in the slightest admitted that their might be problems. Give me 3 concerns you have with your vision. It seems like your being dismissive of anybody who isnt in a group.

As for being Condescending, well, i guess the name calling has to stop sometime. im not gonna apologize if i seem so, i tried being nice, but you and roadbeer were rude regardless, even after i apologized for offenses. more inclined towards me for some odd reason.

Where have I been rude to anyone in this thread?

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 09:30 PM, said:

Awww, I got him right in the feels

I love how you keep over estimating your influence on people. The links are quite humourous and must feed your self esteem to no end.

I'm sure all your sychophants are rushing to push the like button as I type..

But then, I think you said that to me once right, you get just as many likes on this side of the fence as you did as a "White Knight'.

Chalk another one up to kid crying in the corner stamping his feet yelling now, now, now.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 11 April 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

As much as I want it to be otherwise, I'm out of empathy for this argument.

The "Guilds" ask for sympathy but then spit (my word) all over the "PUG's" by telling them we are going to screw with your game experience out of spite.

But honestly, even though I want better team functionality in the game and I would like to see more, I am struglling to be associated with the selfishness and blind arrogance of some of the supporters of this argument. And the hypocracy, Roadbeer is on one thread telling new players come join us cause we're good blokes and in this thread, describing them as mindless drool that he will not willing be associated with.

And some people wonder why their team memberships are dropping?

Exactly, as some of us are with the whole evil premade thing. 6 months ago we weren't

Not screwing anyone over. Again, if you think teamwork is "op" then you're really in the wrong game. I don't jump into a flight simulator and then complain that I lose because I try to pilot it like a jeep. I'm going to work within the system that PGI lays down. If that means sync dropping solos and taking my chances in dropping into a game with 11 PUGs so be it, I have just as much chance to do that as I do with dropping in the same game with a few teammates.

Again, all of that? Simply to point out that the launch module will not and cannot mitigate the whole roflstomp thing because it isn't the cause of roflstomps.
Group limits were introduced for exactly that reason, show me how roflstomps have slowed or stopped since group limits were introduced. They haven't because they aren't the cause.

You're getting things confused or misrepresenting. He's not referring to new players here at all. He's referring to the Joe Derp that thinks the entire game should cater to a single player experience and they should be able to run around rambo style and screw the other 11 guys that are forced to team up with him.

Since we're talking game experience, why is it ok that I HAVE to team up with guys like that and ruin MY game experience by being forced to team up with players like that and watch my stats drop, my faction lose territory (once CW is implemented), and earn less cbills?
Why is it ok that I can't just drop with my buddies and play a team game in a team instead of having to team up with players like that?
Why is it ok that I should have to lose game after game after game because a couple of dbags refuse to accept it takes teamwork and a little coordination to win?

This is what we're getting at. For two years now we've sat here and listened to people like that ***** and moan about how THEIR game experience is ruined because of premades (which, as I stated earlier, is NOT the root cause of roflstomps) while we sat idly by, watched group limits be placed in the game, other drop limits implemented, etc. but when WE talk about wanting a better game experience by dropping with buddies it becomes "You just want to roflstomp" even though we've said NUMEROUS times over the past few weeks that we'd be perfectly fine with things like separate queues, even holding premium time for matches as long as we get rewards, etc.?

You can take this singular thread and the frustration that's being vented as your poster boy if you like but if you check mine or road's post history it's not hard to see that we've both jumped up and done MANY things to try and help the community, new players, pugs, etc. We've made NUMEROUS suggestions about how the whole group thing could work.

After years of being attacked, PGI saying group limits were temporary, investing time and money into this game and the community, and basically trying to be constructive we're finally fed up with some of it and the attitudes and attacks we've endured simply because we found some guys and a unit that we enjoy playing the game with, we are frsutrated enough to say screw it and start using the same types of threads and tactics to voice our opinions that those on the other side have been using for two years.

In other words we're done "taking the high road" and "being nice" about it. Through all of the changes, tweaks, "position at the time", etc. even when we didn't agree with it, we supported the game and PGI. Now we've hit our personal breaking points when it comes to PGI's vision for the game.

More importantly we're frustrated enough to not care is we piss some players off and we're going to be just as vocal as they are.

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 11 April 2014 - 09:55 PM, said:

Exactly, as some of us are with the whole evil premade thing. 6 months ago we weren't

<screwing over>

<misrepresenting>

<game experience>

<personal views and frustration>

<Screwing over> This whole thread is about discussing how easier it will be for Pre Made teams of 5 - 11 to play against opposition that largely does not have comms, synchronised loadouts and familarity. Tell you what. Lets ask PGI for a queue where 12 man "elite" players are put against 5 - 11 man teams (adding up to 12) and lets see how long it takes for the forum to fill up with "I'm getting stomped, PGI fix" or "There's no competition, stomps are boring, fix MM".

<misrepresenting> I didn't type the words? Roadbeer is definiltely saying if your a solo player and you don't like playing against pre made teams, go play something else.

<game experience> Really? Come on Sandpit. The game experience is designed (under LM) as small teams (one per side) etc etc etc (you know the details) and you want a different game experience ( being 5 - 11). So you game the system to accommodate it. You don't like the game that PGI are providing (F2P), you're going to implement your own game style and now you want to take a moral high ground? Play the game within the spirit of its intent, you're not "entitled" to play outside of the spirit of the game and be justified.

PS, you're in a minority if you're happy to use premium time for matches, most people hereabouts are screaming out thats P2P.

<personal views and frustration> And fair enough, I had alot of empathy for exactly that in the beginning. I know both you and Roadbeer and have in many threads nodded my head in the past but don't claim a moral high ground in your argument now. Notwithstanding all the justification in the world what is proposed here is a selfish action and for some people, they openly embrace the opportunity to screw over other people in doing so.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 11 April 2014 - 10:22 PM, said:

<Screwing over> This whole thread is about discussing how easier it will be for Pre Made teams of 5 - 11 to play against opposition that largely does not have comms, synchronised loadouts and familarity.

exactly

Pointing out that PGI's "fix" isn't going to fix anything. So I guess we should just remain quiet and go about our business and not point things like this out. Nor should we voice our concerns about a decision PGI is making. As long as we aren't the ones clamoring for something right?

uhm ok, I can guarantee you wouldn't see many of them complaining. I can hold my own against a 12man just as well as I can against a pug. Make it a 2-12 queue and throw in 12 mans. Just give us CW, cbills, exp, and such as well and we're all golden.

See how easy that was?

as opposed to...
Pay to do it (maybe)
play but don't get ANYthing out of it let alone participate in CW
the rule of 3

So we're agreed then? That solves the issue for everyone. So why won't PGI just do that?

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 11 April 2014 - 10:55 PM, said:

exactly

Pointing out that PGI's "fix" isn't going to fix anything. So I guess we should just remain quiet and go about our business and not point things like this out. Nor should we voice our concerns about a decision PGI is making. As long as we aren't the ones clamoring for something right?

uhm ok, I can guarantee you wouldn't see many of them complaining. I can hold my own against a 12man just as well as I can against a pug. Make it a 2-12 queue and throw in 12 mans. Just give us CW, cbills, exp, and such as well and we're all golden.

See how easy that was?

as opposed to...
Pay to do it (maybe)
play but don't get ANYthing out of it let alone participate in CW
the rule of 3

So we're agreed then? That solves the issue for everyone. So why won't PGI just do that?

You argued that , the other 35 pages have been about how entitled to screw over someone else people are and justifying their position.

[Demuder]

Mystere, on 11 April 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

You did not get my point which is ...

Many people will quit even before the match starts

(snipped for aesthetics)

And just to let you know. I play only solo, and I have been doing so since closed beta.

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, to be honest I have no other solution at hand. Maybe the new 3/3/3/3 matchmaker that supposedly will put a premade in each team will alleviate that (and according to this thread will create a whole slew of other problems at the the same time).

However, I am convinced that the playerbase is the last to put the blame on. You design your game and features to be solid first, and only then can one blame the actual players.

Sandpit, on 11 April 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:

Point being "pilot makes a mistake" is NOT in any way representative of an imbalance in weapon systems. It's representative of a pilot making a mistake and getting blown to bits for it.

Sure, I am all in favor for the game being unforgiving to mistakes and leading to inevitable death. However, the time it takes to die can be tweaked through numbers.

Sandpit, on 11 April 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

No, he's saying there's dbags who disconnect because they don't like a map, they'll do the same thing for any reason they see as something that might make it more challenging to win.

That can be very easily fixed and has been fixed in many other games through mechanics. You go disco from a group-play experience ? Excellent, you can't join another one for 30 minutes. I've seen in it WoW and it does work pretty well. PGI's solution almost encourages the player to disconnect and join another match in one of their other mechs. Who is to blame ?

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

Or, from another perspective, if the game developers would stop pandering to the perpetually anti-social, we wouldn't need to exploit a system just so we're able to play with our friends.

A feature, I might add, existed and was working just fine, before the perpetually anti-social QQed that "teamwork was OP and MUST be nerfed"

Dude, I like coming home from work and playing for a couple of hours while listening to Dire Straits, leaving 5-10 minutes between matches to stream the news or occasionally, talk to my girlfriend. For those reasons alone, I can't play (nor do I feel the need to) in a premade team. Does that make me anti-social ?

I will accept you believing I should be playing Farmville instead of MWO, but calling me anti-social ? That's taking it a bit too far.

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 05:28 PM, said:

No, because most of the organized units would remain on their TS servers and disable universal VoIP anyway because
1. Nobody wants to hear "Angry German Kid"
2. Nobody wants to hear (whatever the current culturally relevant reference would be to hearing GWAR come out of their speakers)
4. See 1.
3. "Hey guise, my cats breath smells like cat food.

There is a lot of in-game communication tools that could be implemented just like in other games, in-game emote shortcuts being the most effective. "Defend here", "Attack here", "Contact here", "Artillery here" work wonders in other games and would promote team behavior in teams that consist of premades and solo players. PGI has completely neglected using such tools. Should we blame the whining antisocial puggers for that as well ?

In fact, I am as frustrated as you are but I don't think venting against the players -any players, good, bad or ugly- when there's so blatant failings in the system itself, is the way to go. In fact, it only hurts the legitimacy of your arguments.

[RG Notch]

Daekar, on 11 April 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

This is not your game, it is PGI's game. They make the rules, and unless you're just a worthless cheater you follow the rules - and the rules are, group sizes of four.

Wow, PGI is sure going to be busy providing content (i.e. players) and funding for their game. I always find the attitude that the game "belongs" to either the players or developers silly. It belongs to both. Without the developers there is nothing to play and with out the players there is nothing. So PGI can make their rules and do whatever they want and the players can play or not play. Seems to be in PGI's interest to make the game the most players would play rather than make "their" game and have no one play.
Not to say they have to do exactly what the players want, but if they don't do what enough players want there will be no game, or no game that matters.

[Roadbeer]

dimstog, on 12 April 2014 - 12:49 AM, said:

In fact, I am as frustrated as you are but I don't think venting against the players -any players, good, bad or ugly- when there's so blatant failings in the system itself, is the way to go. In fact, it only hurts the legitimacy of your arguments.

Fair enough, I had had a couple cocktails and had grown tired of having to defend my point against the same two people who are in an argumentative circle-jerk. Especially when, in this thread, they're not the target demo.

So I lashed out at the antics of the "general population" as it's been the never-ending quest for the "easy button" that has drug this game down to a very poor Call of Battlehalo clone in mech skins.

Edited by Roadbeer, 12 April 2014 - 09:26 AM.

[Sandpit]

dimstog, on 12 April 2014 - 12:49 AM, said:

Dude, I like coming home from work and playing for a couple of hours while listening to Dire Straits, leaving 5-10 minutes between matches to stream the news or occasionally, talk to my girlfriend. For those reasons alone, I can't play (nor do I feel the need to) in a premade team. Does that make me anti-social ?

Most of us in Marik do the same things.....

I don't see where this stereotype comes from. We might play a game or three and then take a break for a few. We might grind through 10 games. We might play 1-2 games and then grab coffee or a bite to eat. It's not like we're some regimented unit that requires xx amount of hours dedicated to play per day. We are just a group of guys (and a few women) that found others we enjoy playing with. We have more fun aggravating one another and talking smack and just hanging out and discussing games than we do actually playing the game a lot of times to be honest.

If this is why you're avoiding a group or this is your past experience with a group I'd highly suggest looking into a different group. Also, when I would drop in random pugs on the ngng ts server, we might drop a game or two and someone would have to go for a bit like you described and then we'd continue on with the remaining players (which would be MUCH easier btw if we weren't limited to just 4 people) and they would rejoin later or find a new pug to drop with when they got back.

Seriously, that's how are groups drop go most times. Of course Marik DOES have more regimented groups in our faction. Some players enjoy that so it's also available. We also have diplomatic, reserve, part-time, etc. statuses for players like you described that only jump on once in a while or only play a few games here and there. They have areas on our TS server specifically setup for pugs just wanting to find a quick game or two.

Roadbeer, on 12 April 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

Especially when, in this thread, they're not the target demo.