795 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 12 April 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

I get it, reading comprehension is the issue you have.




That has very little to do with CW or Clans... and only the most obtuse would say otherwise.

Oh wait.

That's ok, we'll see who's right soon^TM

LOL, Sorry I read the panel that the thread was linked to, not the whole thread.

But sure, if simple linking mechanics is not your strong point then I should have read the lot. Given your other linkages I assumed it was a skill you had. An error on my part.

Thanks for the expansion though.

[Daekar]

Roadbeer, on 12 April 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

Looks like everyone may get what they want...
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3289728



Oh, and Daekar, if sync dropping was what was implied there, then most of House Marik, a good chunk of the FRR and anyone who participated on COMSTARs Tuesday events, would all have been in violation and have been banned, they have ALL been heavily advertised events, and nothing has been said about it since...well.... ever.
So it's nice that you take that as a violation of the ToS, but in reality, it's a method that, if not supported, than a blind eye has been turned to for over a year now.

My understanding was that it was tolerated because Launch Module had not arrived, and in the interest of fostering the game community they allowed it as a necessary evil. In the context of a post April 29th game, I would expect their stance to change since there will no longer be any excuses.

Ideally they would implement a 2-11 or 2-12 queue separate from the solo queue so people can have their cake and eat it too. I hate to imagine the wait times though. Maybe if they disabled Elo in the 2-11/2-12 queue that would help.

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 12 April 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

But sure, if simple linking mechanics is not your strong point then I should have read the lot. Given your other linkages I assumed it was a skill you had. An error on my part.

Most intelligent people would go back in the thread and see what it was in reference, but once again, i had to spell it out for you.

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 12 April 2014 - 06:24 PM, said:

Most intelligent people would go back in the thread and see what it was in reference, but once again, i had to spell it out for you.

Most intelligent people would link it to make it easier for the audience they want to educate, it's called courtesy often.

But oh wait, neither courtesy nor an ability to empathise with other people are skills you have demonstrated a competency in during this thread.

What was I thinking?

You can make your next snide smart alec remark / GIF link in safety Roadbeer, I'm done with you.

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 12 April 2014 - 06:30 PM, said:

You can make your next snide smart alec remark / GIF link in safety Roadbeer, I'm done with you.

He says that... but I doubt it

[L Y N X]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Taken from later in this thread...

Just wanted to clear up my position on all this

I like this 3/3/3/3 system also for the reason that you state for Pugging but hope we can utilize private matches for "fair" fights.

[Artgathan]

Craig Steele, on 12 April 2014 - 05:16 PM, said:

Having said that, the people who do want it are about to spam how wrong the statistics are so to justify that there is a population, notwithstanding that PGI who have all the data (and professional analysis of it) and a commercial motivation (as opposed to a personal motivation) to guide their decision making process.

Can we at least agree that the statistics might not accurately represent the state of the game? I mean surely if we operate under the assumption that people who drop in groups also drop solo 50% of the time, then players who drop in groups at least some of the time represent 32% of the launches.

My biggest problem with the stats that PGI presented is that it's not clear what the represent. The actual graph says "launches" but Paul refers to it as "players" and then there's a debate over whether this represents the lifetime of MW:O or only some recent sampling of the player base.

[Mystere]

Artgathan, on 12 April 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

Can we at least agree that the statistics might not accurately represent the state of the game? I mean surely if we operate under the assumption that people who drop in groups also drop solo 50% of the time, then players who drop in groups at least some of the time represent 32% of the launches.

My biggest problem with the stats that PGI presented is that it's not clear what the represent. The actual graph says "launches" but Paul refers to it as "players" and then there's a debate over whether this represents the lifetime of MW:O or only some recent sampling of the player base.

Just imagine how the data can be far off base if the sampling was only done during the last so-called "tourney", as some people suspect.

Releasing statistics without the proper context is "not how things should be done" (to put things ever so mildly).

[Craig Steele]

Artgathan, on 12 April 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

Can we at least agree that the statistics might not accurately represent the state of the game? I mean surely if we operate under the assumption that people who drop in groups also drop solo 50% of the time, then players who drop in groups at least some of the time represent 32% of the launches.

My biggest problem with the stats that PGI presented is that it's not clear what the represent. The actual graph says "launches" but Paul refers to it as "players" and then there's a debate over whether this represents the lifetime of MW:O or only some recent sampling of the player base.

PGI: The sky is Blue
Forum User 1: I just looked outside and all I see are grey clouds, how would you know?
Forum User 2: WTF man, it's Azure
Forum User 3: You guys are clearly trolling, its black and full of stars
FU2: Whaaaaaaaaaatttttttt, you on meds man? It's damn Azure.
FU3: Troll, Troll, Troll
FU1: You da Troll man, get out of your mum's basement and grow up
FU2: PGI, please clarify what type of Blue and the time of day you looked outside to check it. Weather conditions, atmospheric pressure and longtitude / lattitude can also be an impact, please advise
FU3: Troll, Troll, Troll
FU1: Grow up man
FU3: Hey pal, I been here since closed Beta, you got no opinion
FU1: Do you even lift Bro?
FU2: PGI Y U NO LISTEN
FU3: They don't listen cause YOU'RE WRONG
FU2: PGI, I'm a founder and I backed you up time and again, tell these clowns it's Azure
FU1: Grey clouds, cannot see the sky, how would they know. PGI, minimally viable.
FU3: PGI is wroooong, PGI is wrooooong, PGI is wroooong
FU1: PGI got no idea, they wouldn't know what colour the sky is
FU2: Screw you PGI, you no back me up when I say the sky is Azure, I hate you
FU3: Yeah, PGI got no idea
FU2: Yeah, seems like it.

Seems like a lot of threads now a days

[Artgathan]

Craig Steele, on 12 April 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

*snip*

Are you implying that any given player exclusively PUGs or groups and never participates in the other activity?

[Craig Steele]

Artgathan, on 12 April 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

Are you implying that any given player exclusively PUGs or groups and never participates in the other activity?

No?

[Artgathan]

Craig Steele, on 12 April 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

No?

So then we can agree that the data might not accurately portray impression that some people have that "84% of players drop solo"?

[Craig Steele]

Artgathan, on 12 April 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

So then we can agree that the data might not accurately portray impression that some people have that "84% of players drop solo"?

They talk about it as a measure of player activity.

Of 1,200 drops, 1,008 are Solo drops, 72 are pairs, 48 are triples, 48 (roughly) are quads and 12 are 12 man drops. Thats from Podcast 103, when the numbers are (afaik) first discussed. (percentages multiplied by 12)

Ergo, they introduced some accommodation to the solo drop experience as it represents a majority of actual activity.

But, there's either clouds, or it's not Blue, it's Azure, or they're just plain wrong, the sky is Black.

[Artgathan]

Craig Steele, on 12 April 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

They talk about it as a measure of player activity.

Of 1,200 drops, 1,008 are Solo drops, 72 are pairs, 48 are triples, 48 (roughly) are quads and 12 are 12 man drops. Thats from Podcast 103, when the numbers are (afaik) first discussed. (percentages multiplied by 12)

Ergo, they introduced some accommodation to the solo drop experience as it represents a majority of actual activity.

But, there's either clouds, or it's not Blue, it's Azure, or they're just plain wrong, the sky is Black.

Right, but they also quantify it as being "launches" (which is vague in its own way) as well as being "players" (which is vague in another way). I don't mean to sound alarmist, but without some kind of quantification / deeper explanation of the data, it's not that useful. As has already been argued ad infinitum, the data can represent many different things depending on it's exact interpretation.

If it's players, does it count players that dropped once and then un-installed? If they're counting launches, does it account for players that drop in groups and drop solo (as I mentioned above)? If it represents activity, did they account for the fact that "solo" events will increase solo dropping (disproportionately)?

There needs to be more explanation of the data for it to be useful.

[Craig Steele]

Artgathan, on 12 April 2014 - 08:48 PM, said:

Right, but they also quantify it as being "launches" (which is vague in its own way) as well as being "players" (which is vague in another way). I don't mean to sound alarmist, but without some kind of quantification / deeper explanation of the data, it's not that useful. As has already been argued ad infinitum, the data can represent many different things depending on it's exact interpretation.

If it's players, does it count players that dropped once and then un-installed? If they're counting launches, does it account for players that drop in groups and drop solo (as I mentioned above)? If it represents activity, did they account for the fact that "solo" events will increase solo dropping (disproportionately)?

There needs to be more explanation of the data for it to be useful.

But the point is, they are comfortable with the data. They offer it as reasoning for their actions, but it's still their data, their company, their product.

We can individually put whatever slant we like on it (Clouds, Azure or Black) but no matter how much they release, someone will just put their slant on that too. And if they put out nothing, we scream they are not listening to the customer and just doing whatever they like. If they put out something its not enough.

No ones ever happy unless they get their way, and this thread is actually about screwing over a demographic until a (alledged) minority get their way. That's what we have devolved to apparently, screwing each other over to force PGI to listen to us.

Lord of the Flies?

It's not PGI screwing up the game, it's the players themselves it seems.

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 12 April 2014 - 08:59 PM, said:

It's not PGI screwing up the game, it's the players themselves it seems.

Yeah, it's the players.

Holy **** are you dense.

I don't care how new you are, even when I was the whitest knight I could acknowledge PGIs screw ups.

[Koniving]

Blood, Craig, Roadbeer, anyone else in that one...

I'm a bit of a neutral party here.

But let me say this.
PGI expects that the public 12 man queue will go the way of the dinosaur.
So how about this? Premades of all sizes now use that queue with match maker trying to mix and match them however the heck it wants. Even throw a tonnage limit to the group that they need to work with. Let it allow groups of any size and jumble them however it needs to make 12 man teams.

Solo drops, we'll throw them over here and they can play by themselves against other pugs, because Pug Life yo!

There.
I just solved PGI's problem for them, and your argument.

As for this 3/3/3/3 crap, I guess keep it to random solo drops because I sure as heck don't want it.

[Roadbeer]

Koniving, on 12 April 2014 - 09:11 PM, said:

Blood, Craig, Roadbeer, anyone else in that one...

I'm a bit of a neutral party here.

But let me say this.
PGI expects that the public 12 man queue will go the way of the dinosaur.
So how about this? Premades of all sizes now use that queue with match maker trying to mix and match them however the heck it wants. Even throw a tonnage limit to the group that they need to work with. Let it allow groups of any size and jumble them however it needs to make 12 man teams.

Solo drops, we'll throw them over here and they can play by themselves against other pugs, because Pug Life yo!

There.
I just solved PGI's problem for them, and your argument.

As for this 3/3/3/3 crap, I guess keep it to random solo drops because I sure as heck don't want it.

Sounds like that's exactly what's going to happen, pointed that out a page or so ago, based off a reply Karl made in his EPIC thread.

Craig just wants to remain obtuse.

Seems he's not happy that we get to get out of the PUG queue because others get to have fun wrong and it'll impact his precious solo queue.

Edited by Roadbeer, 12 April 2014 - 09:14 PM.

[Koniving]

Also, PGI frequently lies about data for obvious PR reasons. The "Squawkers" alone made up about 200 players that quit.

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 12 April 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:

Sounds like that's exactly what's going to happen, pointed that out a page or so ago, based off a reply Karl made in his EPIC thread.

Craig just wants to remain obtuse.

Seems he's not happy that we get to get out of the PUG queue because others get to have fun wrong and it'll impact his precious solo queue.

LOL, you keep addressing me directly so now I have to respond. Self fulfilment by you, why do you want me to keep posting?

You can mis represent whatever you like Roadbeer but I'm not obtuse just because I hold you accountable for your words here.

You did create this thread to present how people could game the system to screw over the solo PUG queue with pre made teams larger than the queue is designed for.

You did say in this thread that if Solo PUG's don't like it they can leave the game and won't be missed.

You did portray Solo PUG players as mindless drool that you never want to sully your feet playing with, but you're quite happy for them to be cannon fodder for your pre made team on the other side.

You can paint yourself in nice self righteous light as much as you want, but I suspect most people won't miss you at all in whichever queue you eventually play. Except your sycophants of course, but then that's all you seem to care about anyway so that's no impact on you right.

If you are the leader of House Marik, I have few doubts as to why your Guild is shrinking.