1126 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Amsro, on 14 April 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

But PGI isn't a "Multi-Million Dollar" Enterprise. Are you being serious?

The substance is in the ability to think for yourself and truly analyze the entire thing. I havn't based my view on " Forum Warrior " word siezing. Is that even a thing?

Substance (The rest of my post, which you forgot to read? )


I mean it comes directly from Paul, how much more substance do you need to start to think critically about the restrictions that are being implimented to due mismanagment.

Oh, well yeah I kinda thought if they were turning over 3+m a year as the company profile paints that more than 1, not a couple and thus worthy of multi. IDK where you draw the line.

I read it, and questioned it, is that a problem? I questioned it because it is all your deductions and is based on nothing material.

Twelve months ago the business looked like this, now we are "surprised" to see this swing.

Not shocked, or devastated, surprised. Maybe this was an outcome they were hoping for but it's come earlier? IDK. Neither do you.

[Gasoline]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

This is just the first page of this thread, I'll continue collecting this. Paul, PGI, please tell me again how "you know better" than the players do on what they want and need...

Seriously....

Do you really not understand that you're doing the exact opposite of what your players are wanting?

Just for the statistics... count me in on that!

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

Oh, well yeah I kinda thought if they were turning over 3+m a year as the company profile paints that more than 1, not a couple and thus worthy of multi. IDK where you draw the line.

I have no real definition either.

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

I read it, and questioned it, is that a problem? I questioned it because it is all your deductions and is based on nothing material.

You didn't even acknoledge the last part of the post I had made in your previous quote. That was what I was pointing out. Moot at this stage.

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

Twelve months ago the business looked like this, now we are "surprised" to see this swing.
Not shocked, or devastated, surprised. Maybe this was an outcome they were hoping for but it's come earlier? IDK. Neither do you.

But it is more then 12 months ago, teams we the Majority since open beta. That is 2012 so for 2 years the game was mostly team players, then as the team players that were struggling to play in the new limit of 4 max started leaving now it is mostly single drops.

Again PGI's data doesn't even factor in how many of those "solo" players were team players leveling/freemechbaying/tournamenting or just playing solo due to the 4 man limit.

You cannot deny that of the 84% a chunk of them would likely be team players under less restrictive play.

Edited by Amsro, 14 April 2014 - 10:12 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Amsro, on 14 April 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

I have no real definition either.



You didn't even acknoledge the last part of the post I had made in your previous quote. That was what I was pointing out. Moot at this stage.



But it is more then 12 months ago, teams we the Majority since open beta. That is 2012 so for 2 years the game was mostly team players, then as the team players that were struggling to play in the new limit of 4 max started leaving now it is mostly single drops.

Again PGI's data doesn't even factor in how many of those "solo" players were team players leveling/freemechbaying/tournamenting or just playing solo due to the 4 man limit.

You cannot deny that of the 84% a chunk of them would likely be team players under less restrictive play.

Sure, but the 84% wasn't a measure of players (as has been portrayed many times), it was a measure of activity.

So of 1,200 drops, 1,008 were solo, 72 were pairs, 48 triples and 48 (roughly) quads, with 12 being a 12 man team (% multiplied by 12).

Subsequently people have latched onto the word "Launches" and questioned it's integrity, or they have discussed the numbers as actual population measures. PGI don't help themselves here I'll agree, but that's a different problem.

Whether you agree with their numbers or not, the point is it is the numbers thay are basing their amendments off. Dismissing them or relabelling them won't address the issue.

[DaisuSaikoro Nagasawa]

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

Yeah, because I've always been so down on PGI and just love raging against the machine.

I just wanted to say thank you for the support. Honestly, I think there would be less of a problem if you just made one queue where people could run TAG and another where people don't have to run them and we're done. Just done. Please PGI get on this and I think we all agree problem is solved.

[Tekadept]

Smoothly, landscapes burn.
A knight strokes twisted black smoke.
The cruel clouds wait

[DaisuSaikoro Nagasawa]

Tekadept, on 14 April 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

Smoothly, landscapes burn.
A knight strokes twisted black smoke.
The cruel clouds wait

^^^^^^^^^^

This... A quadrillion bazillion times THIS!

Edited by Daisu Saikoro, 14 April 2014 - 10:28 PM.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:

Sure, but the 84% wasn't a measure of players (as has been portrayed many times), it was a measure of activity.

So of 1,200 drops, 1,008 were solo, 72 were pairs, 48 triples and 48 (roughly) quads, with 12 being a 12 man team (% multiplied by 12).

Subsequently people have latched onto the word "Launches" and questioned it's integrity, or they have discussed the numbers as actual population measures. PGI don't help themselves here I'll agree, but that's a different problem.

Whether you agree with their numbers or not, the point is it is the numbers thay are basing their amendments off. Dismissing them or relabelling them won't address the issue.

1200 drops at what time of day? Was it a weekend or a weekday? North America Prime time? Euro Prime?

Why 1200? as well 12 mans were NOT included in his chart or stats, that instantly omits a large % of the "team players". Convenient!

Quote

Let’s start with some surprising facts pulled from the game server’s metrics:

• 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.

So the biggest missing variable is the timeframe. Was this over a day? Over a Year? Since 2012?

Very important but left out. Why?

Again one simple factor as to why more solo launches happen in the same amount of time as team launches is, spectating. You are more inclined to remain in the match when your teammates are still involved or want to see how it ends.

This will ensure that solo's drop more often.

I could go on but I truly wish this thread had WAAAAAAAY less of this incessant back and forth and more critical feedback to their Launch Module.

Since that is of course the point of this thread.

Quote

Public Player Queue

• Solo players
  
• 1-12 man groups. 1 group per team as it is now. Extra spots filled by solo players. Both the teams would be of similar size +/- 2 fill the rest with solo. Tonnage Maximum for teams, as the team gets bigger the limits get tougher.

This has gotten some backing from people, it would also leave PGI with FAR less work to do. Do you see anything in there that would limit any of the players in the game?

[Lindonius]

Tekadept, on 14 April 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

Smoothly, landscapes burn.
A knight strokes twisted black smoke.
The cruel clouds wait

[Craig Steele]

Amsro, on 14 April 2014 - 10:37 PM, said:

1200 drops at what time of day? Was it a weekend or a weekday? North America Prime time? Euro Prime?

Why 1200? as well 12 mans were NOT included in his chart or stats, that instantly omits a large % of the "team players". Convenient!


So the biggest missing variable is the timeframe. Was this over a day? Over a Year? Since 2012?

Very important but left out. Why?

Again one simple factor as to why more solo launches happen in the same amount of time as team launches is, spectating. You are more inclined to remain in the match when your teammates are still involved or want to see how it ends.

This will ensure that solo's drop more often.

I could go on but I truly wish this thread had WAAAAAAAY less of this incessant back and forth and more critical feedback to their Launch Module.

Since that is of course the point of this thread.



This has gotten some backing from people, it would also leave PGI with FAR less work to do. Do you see anything in there that would limit any of the players in the game?

They didn't miss the time issue out, they said in Podcast 103 "Since the beginning of the game"

The problem I see with the modes other than the one they want to try is the potential for PUG stomping / abuse of the system.

Not everyone posting on this thread is the upright model of integrity they want to be seen as when it comes to interacting with PUG's that do not enjoy the advantages of comms, synchronised loadout and familiarity of team mates.

If PGI do it, it looks like basically putting the game back where it was when everyone was screaming about PUG's and Stomps and evil Pre mades and so on and I don't think they want to go back there.

This OP only came out a few hours ago and I'm still digesting and theory crafting it myself so I'm a little behind all those folks who have so quickly divined its weaknesses and predicted it's abject failure.

[JeepStuff]

I PUG exclusively and I would join the mixed-group queue in a second if the option were available. Paul said that a solo player rounding out an 11 player group would have a tough time winning, but I strongly disagree. A solo player who watches where the group is shooting, watches where the group is moving, and makes an effort to do the same can and would be an effective teammate. I personally would prefer to play in the mixed-group queue (as a solo player) rather than in the public queue because I think the games would be better in the group queue.

And before you say "why not join a group then?" -- I have sleeping kids in the adjacent room when I play, and talking out loud is not an option.

Just my two cents.

[GalaxyBluestar]

and yeah i'd love to join a faction queue where my mech fights for a faction whilst friends group up and drop together.i'd love to see the names in the lobby and see whom i've seen here and see if i can help fill out the odd numbers, i'd be going from place to place evening out the odd numbers and a community would grow. don't you want that pgi? you've got your uber balance public queue how about a higher groups and selective solos for the faction play queue?

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 14 April 2014 - 10:56 PM.

[Craig Steele]

GalaxyBluestar, on 14 April 2014 - 10:51 PM, said:

Sandpit in Blue???

Marik Purple for him

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

The problem I see with the modes other than the one they want to try is the potential for PUG stomping / abuse of the system.

Come now, you think you can't stomp pugs as we speak. Or that you won't be able to game PGI's wonky system.

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

Not everyone posting on this thread is the upright model of integrity they want to be seen as when it comes to interacting with PUG's that do not enjoy the advantages of comms, synchronised loadout and familiarity of team mates.

I see more solo players saying they want to play in a group match then anything else in this thread.

I think the people who "pug stomp for fun" aren't even group players. I've even stomped the odd 4 man. Good times.

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

If PGI do it, it looks like basically putting the game back where it was when everyone was screaming about PUG's and Stomps and evil Pre mades and so on and I don't think they want to go back there.

But back then there was NO solo que. So that gives EVERYONE a place to play.

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

This OP only came out a few hours ago and I'm still digesting and theory crafting it myself so I'm a little behind all those folks who have so quickly divined its weaknesses and predicted it's abject failure.

Mostly because they haven't made any progress, and currently only Solos and 2-10 team sizes are accounted for meaning they will need to come up with something else later to deal with 11-12 and then somehow make all that work with community warfare and 3+3+3+3.

Sounds like lots of extra work for no benefit. On top of that they have Clan Mechs and Weapons to balance and a UI2.0 to finish with many features still waiting to be implemented.

This is becoming another waste of man hours. Poor management on display.

Edited by Amsro, 14 April 2014 - 11:14 PM.

[Gasoline]

Koniving, on 14 April 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

Me, Roadbeer, and several others were talking about something similar to the "Group queue."
I approve of it. It would be better to permit "11" player matches, however, as opposed to locking it. Or perhaps a "is it okay to launch undermanned" with a yes or no button to click and majority vote. Many of us don't care and like the challenge.

Still don't like the 3/3/3/3 idea, but it's my hope that when community warfare comes out it will no longer be a necessary element. It'd make dropships and logistics blatantly pointless in CW.

(Signature, link on the left, for example.)

Agreed. Still I think it's wasted effort on the wrong thing. 3/3/3/3 could totally be avoided by rough tonnage matching, which would even be another few of those whatever-percentages of 'the plan'.

And I still wait for their vision of Community Warfare (at the moment... )

Edited by Gasoline, 15 April 2014 - 02:30 AM.

[Craig Steele]

So can I just clarify a general feel I seem to be reading into some of these proposals.

Is it that Groups queues will be the core of the game and the foundation of CW and faction warfare etc and solo players can "opt in" to fill out a group TO&E up to 12 (in various designs)

Cause one thing that just occurred to me is that if group activity is the minority as PGI have told us, then any proposal along those lines is basically cutting off the majority demographic of a core component of the game promise.

Essentially group players will enjoy the full immersion of the game, and those who solo PUG (which as far as we know is 84% of actual activity since the beginning of the game) will not unless they "get on board" and join a team.

Is that what the general concensus is, CW for groups, Solo's man up or move on?

[DirePhoenix]

Finster, on 14 April 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

I don't see why 5-11 man groups are an issue. This is a solved problem. Call of Duty has had this figured out since, I want to say, Modern Warfare 2. They allowed arbitrary groups and solos in the main playlists and then had a solo-only playlist.

CoD does not have to take into account things like Elo rating or tonnage/class restrictions. CoD doesn't demand that there's only 3 snipers, 3 assaults, 3 engineers, 3 medics per team, and you have to stay in that class for the duration of the match. CoD doesn't try to balance the teams with anything other than number of bodies on controllers. If you hop on as a newbie recruit and are instakilled because everyone on the enemy team is a 2-star general, too bad. If you choose to run out as an engineer because you like shotguns and get shot to death with no enemies in sight because every other player is using a sniper FotM build, that's your bad.

If every player had access to a mech of every tonnage* (and if this was an arcade shooter with infinite respawns), you could do something like CoD or most FPS do; where everyone just hops into a lobby and then figures out what class they're going to play until the next respawn, but we can't guarantee that every player will have a Locust if the team only has 20t left available in their drop weight because all the other people grabbed heavier mechs first and can't or won't switch out of their mechs so that the last guy can play something other than a Locust.

*technically, they could offer a trial 'mech of each class and players would have access to a mech of each class, but that's not exactly weight-matching. And then, would they be willing to play a trial mech if they didn't have the class needed to fill the team, or would they just wait it out for the next team filler?

[BLOOD WOLF]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

So can I just clarify a general feel I seem to be reading into some of these proposals.

Is it that Groups queues will be the core of the game and the foundation of CW and faction warfare etc and solo players can "opt in" to fill out a group TO&E up to 12 (in various designs)

Cause one thing that just occurred to me is that if group activity is the minority as PGI have told us, then any proposal along those lines is basically cutting off the majority demographic of a core component of the game promise.

Essentially group players will enjoy the full immersion of the game, and those who solo PUG (which as far as we know is 84% of actual activity since the beginning of the game) will not unless they "get on board" and join a team.

Is that what the general concensus is, CW for groups, Solo's man up or move on?

im sure roadbeer already expressed he doesn't care for solo players. Not once has anybody who advocated for group ques ever considered anybody else, Except for those who agreed with them.

I should say Roadbeer and company but not everybody was as dismissive to others as him. We all cant be the center of the universe. must be so nice, to always be right.

The so called solutions are just hypothesis without any evidence or research. Its sloppy and menial arguments, considering most of us are grown and i assume can think critically.

Same person who said that, since i dont have a tag i dont have a right to speak on the topic. Same person who disregards solo players and who's only comforting words are to join a team.

And i might as well call them Roadpit because i swear sometimes i can not tell them apart. Except for Roarbeer is more rude.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 April 2014 - 11:30 PM.

[GoatHILL]

Quote

And keep in mind i could have done this 100 times. In 10 games the number of players grouping in 4=none, 3=none. yet the majority were solo/2 mans.

How do you know who is grouped?

[DirePhoenix]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

So can I just clarify a general feel I seem to be reading into some of these proposals.

Is it that Groups queues will be the core of the game and the foundation of CW and faction warfare etc and solo players can "opt in" to fill out a group TO&E up to 12 (in various designs)

Cause one thing that just occurred to me is that if group activity is the minority as PGI have told us, then any proposal along those lines is basically cutting off the majority demographic of a core component of the game promise.

Essentially group players will enjoy the full immersion of the game, and those who solo PUG (which as far as we know is 84% of actual activity since the beginning of the game) will not unless they "get on board" and join a team.

Is that what the general concensus is, CW for groups, Solo's man up or move on?

You don't need to be in a pre-made group for faction play. You just need to jump in the faction queue, which you can join as a solo or group player. In faction play, you'll be grouped with other people in your same faction (which means you can't join up on the same team with members of other factions while fighting for your own - that should sound obvious, but I know there are people that will kvetch about that). Lone Wolves (no faction selected) could jump into the faction queue as filler, but I don't know why they would, since Lone Wolves being Lone Wolves wouldn't care about the Inner Sphere territory control stuff and AFAIK don't get anything extra out of it anyway since being a "Lone Wolf" implies they are loyal to no one, and would just jump into the Public queues instead and smash robitts to their heart's content.