1126 replies to this topic

[Dauphni]

With the people I usually drop with you'll hear (young) children in the background more often than not. MWO's playerbase seems to be relatively old, so lots of people have kids of their own, and none of them will think any less of you if you have to have to take some time out to care for them. It's just not a problem at all

[Eddrick]

How about we make Sync Dropping, moot. By allowing groups of any size and give PUGs Voise Coms. If the PUGs don't want to band together as a team, they need to lobby for a Free for All Mode. So, they don't have to be a Team Player, if they don't want to.

[Wintersdark]

Roadbeer, on 19 April 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

This I totally get, but if you'll allow me a moment.

Not all "teams" are that way. Most are just a casual collection of people who enjoy playing together after they've found and settled in with a "like crowd". I can't tell you how many times I've heard "Crap, kid is inventing the 'cat'apult, brb" or "my dog has decided the couch is evil and needs to be destroyed, afk" on teamspeak over the years. The rest of us just laugh it off, drop you out of group until you return or just wait.

Not all teams have schedules, training and commitment requirements. To them it's just about fellowship and fun.

Thanks, just wanted to dispel the myth that all teams are competitive slave drivers, where if you miss a practice, you're out of the unit.

Hell, I play with guys who frequently have to turn their mic off because of a sleeping baby, and just play with their headsets so the know what's going on.

Oh, I do understand that - and didn't mean to give the impression I thought all teams where hyper-competitive groups all about practice and such.

For me, though, I do probably 70% of my gaming with very low sound and no headset, because I need to hear the children all the time (they're 2 and 7 months). It makes VOIP very awkward when you basically can't hear or speak. I type, of course, but PGI's chat system is horrendous.

Now, I do group - when I can - but this is where the 4-man group limit really bites me in the butt. Got more than 4 friends who want to group? Who gets left out, the guys who can sit and play, or the guy who's going to have to randomly come and go constantly? I'm not blaming anyone, and definitely not faulting any group/team - there's lots who are really great with that stuff. Just that *I* feel bad about it, so in most cases when I'm playing and I suspect I'll need to be more unreliable(re: most of the time), I just hang solo.

[Craig Steele]

Wintersdark, on 19 April 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

Oh, I do understand that - and didn't mean to give the impression I thought all teams where hyper-competitive groups all about practice and such.

For me, though, I do probably 70% of my gaming with very low sound and no headset, because I need to hear the children all the time (they're 2 and 7 months). It makes VOIP very awkward when you basically can't hear or speak. I type, of course, but PGI's chat system is horrendous.

Now, I do group - when I can - but this is where the 4-man group limit really bites me in the butt. Got more than 4 friends who want to group? Who gets left out, the guys who can sit and play, or the guy who's going to have to randomly come and go constantly? I'm not blaming anyone, and definitely not faulting any group/team - there's lots who are really great with that stuff. Just that *I* feel bad about it, so in most cases when I'm playing and I suspect I'll need to be more unreliable(re: most of the time), I just hang solo.

So Winter,

Are you saying that for you at least, being a member of a team has some sort of implied commitment?

That you don't want to be an inconvenience and / or impact on the drop rate / gameplay of your friends, and even though they may assure you otherwise or even that the team is not hype competitive that you still have a sense of obligation?

That accordingly you manage rl stuff around your game time?

[Sandpit]

Wintersdark, on 19 April 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

Now, I do group - when I can - but this is where the 4-man group limit really bites me in the butt. Got more than 4 friends who want to group? Who gets left out, the guys who can sit and play, or the guy who's going to have to randomly come and go constantly? I'm not blaming anyone, and definitely not faulting any group/team - there's lots who are really great with that stuff. Just that *I* feel bad about it, so in most cases when I'm playing and I suspect I'll need to be more unreliable(re: most of the time), I just hang solo.

Do we really need more? I mean seriously. It's a fact that PGI has a group queue. It's the 12man. They already have a group queue ready to go. Several have suggested and asked for allowing 2-11 to drop in there, allow solos to opt in. It's not rocket science. It's not like they have to actually build anything. It's not like this would be a detriment to pugs and solos that don't want to drop with groups. It doesn't do anything except open up the ability for any size groups to just drop and play.

There have been several suggestions on how to handle things like Elo, team composition, etc.

So tell me again how the community can voice something like this. Come up with ways to fix the "problems" Paul (who is one of the lead developers for a multi-million dollar company mind you) couldn't seem to overcome and yet, here we are, unable to do something that every single other MMO with a persistent campaign (at least to my knowledge) has.

Why is this even a thread? Why do we even have players and (apparently) devs arguing against giving players more options on how to play the game that won't impact the solo players? Why are we really having an argument of any kind that involves teamwork, teams, and such in a game that emphasizes teamwork so much that you simply cannot win without it unless the other team just happens to use even less teamwork than yours does.

I would like someone to simply tell me (devs included) why opening the 12man queue to any size group, allowing solo players to opt int, and giving players that option is a bad thing. It's really that simple

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 19 April 2014 - 05:13 PM, said:

So Winter,

Are you saying that for you at least, being a member of a team has some sort of implied commitment?

That you don't want to be an inconvenience and / or impact on the drop rate / gameplay of your friends, and even though they may assure you otherwise or even that the team is not hype competitive that you still have a sense of obligation?

That accordingly you manage rl stuff around your game time?

[p4r4g0n]

Craig Steele, on 19 April 2014 - 05:13 PM, said:

So Winter,

Are you saying that for you at least, being a member of a team has some sort of implied commitment?

That you don't want to be an inconvenience and / or impact on the drop rate / gameplay of your friends, and even though they may assure you otherwise or even that the team is not hype competitive that you still have a sense of obligation?

That accordingly you manage rl stuff around your game time?

Think Wintersdark pretty much summed it up with his "I" feel obligated / bad comment for a lot of us who drop primarily solo.

I know it does for me as well as the fact that I really really really want to see CW before making any kind of commitments about joining any merc corps / gaming clans, guilds, etc.

When I group I try to avoid being the first to leave unless something really urgent comes up (leads to a lot of 3 -4 am bedtimes. Not a good thing when you need to be up at 5.30 am) and when I can't be sure that won't happen, I don't group.

Edited by p4r4g0n, 19 April 2014 - 06:24 PM.

[Wintersdark]

This sounds incredibly leading, but I'll bite.

Craig Steele, on 19 April 2014 - 05:13 PM, said:

So Winter,

Are you saying that for you at least, being a member of a team has some sort of implied commitment?

Not as such. If its just a group of friends, I don't feel there is a commitment beyond the following -

Quote

That you don't want to be an inconvenience and / or impact on the drop rate / gameplay of your friends, and even though they may assure you otherwise or even that the team is not hype competitive that you still have a sense of obligation?

The first part, the general rules of group play (be it online or IRL) - I don't want to be the one constantly slowing things down, the one preventing another player who COULD be playing with our friends. This often happens to me as it stands. I'm not a member of a group, though I've dabbled with a couple, but I do have a fairly full friends list. However, even when I can do some drops, if those friends have others who can make a full group, I'll always drop out so the ones who can actually play can play.

Let's just call it the "Don't be a ****" principle. I'm somewhat annoyed that that is how it has to be, but whatever.

Quote

That accordingly you manage rl stuff around your game time?

The opposite. I manage my game time around my life, because as a parent there's no other option really. There's a really important difference.

[Craig Steele]

p4r4g0n, on 19 April 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

Think Wintersdark pretty much summed it up with his "I" feel obligated / bad comment for a lot of us who drop primarily solo.

I know it does for me as well as the fact that I really really really want to see CW before making any kind of commitments about joining any merc corps / gaming clans, guilds, etc.

When I group I try to avoid being the first to leave unless something really urgent comes up (leads to a lot of 3 -4 am bedtimes. Not a good thing when you need to be up at 5.30 am) and when I can't be sure that won't happen, I don't group.

Thanks for being frank, I appreciate your thoughts here.

Wintersdark, on 19 April 2014 - 06:23 PM, said:

This sounds incredibly leading, but I'll bite.

Not as such. If its just a group of friends, I don't feel there is a commitment beyond the following -

The first part, the general rules of group play (be it online or IRL) - I don't want to be the one constantly slowing things down, the one preventing another player who COULD be playing with our friends. This often happens to me as it stands. I'm not a member of a group, though I've dabbled with a couple, but I do have a fairly full friends list. However, even when I can do some drops, if those friends have others who can make a full group, I'll always drop out so the ones who can actually play can play.

Let's just call it the "Don't be a ****" principle. I'm somewhat annoyed that that is how it has to be, but whatever.

The opposite. I manage my game time around my life, because as a parent there's no other option really. There's a really important difference.

I didn't mean it to sound leading, I apologise if it read as more than a question.

I did point out earlier in one of the "team" threads (maybe this one?) that many people do not drop often with groups due to rl commitments, or the sense of obligation that (imo) is implicite to being a member of a group. At the time posters suggested otherwise, and presented that being a member of a group made no obligation on others and they felt no obligation to others so my question was really just to clarify your view.

I raised the point originally as it goes to my view as to why actual player activity might be a higher proportion of solo drops than groups as I suspect that your "demographic" is a larger than many assume. By my read of these two statements, I can add another couple of "views" that suggest that.

I guess what it comes down to in my mind is that "team play" for all it's benefits is not a utopia for everyone, and any successful game should be able to accommodate as many people as possible.

Accordingly some people need to put aside their personal agenda's and wants and embrace other peoples needs to ensure the sustainability of the bigger picture.

As for your last sentence, yes I worded that poorly and it should have been the other way around. Thanks for correcting that.

[InRev]

Roadbeer, on 19 April 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

I signed on to fight for the glory of House Marik against the lederhosen wearing Steiners. Not measure my Epeen on the ladders of Solaris 7.

I hear you there. The many references to "e-sport" made by the devs send shivers up my spine. The last thing I would want would be to attract the LoL crowd, although there already exist in this game several groups of that fine human calibre . . .

[Wintersdark]

Craig Steele, on 19 April 2014 - 07:01 PM, said:

I did point out earlier in one of the "team" threads (maybe this one?) that many people do not drop often with groups due to rl commitments, or the sense of obligation that (imo) is implicite to being a member of a group. At the time posters suggested otherwise, and presented that being a member of a group made no obligation on others and they felt no obligation to others so my question was really just to clarify your view.

Obligation isn't the right word. I feel no obligation to a group where that's how things are - that is, a casual group who have no expectations as to attendance or such things. That does not, however, lessen the awkwardness of "run time" issues which make actual play difficult. If they understand my situation - that is, play happens when it happens, sometimes lots, sometimes weeks with none, then that's fine. I don't feel obligated to do anything.

My issue is entirely "in the moment", in that while it's easy and fun for me to bang off a drop or two, anything beyond that and I'm going to be causing problems. As that quickly becomes a hassle, it's easier just not to bother.

Quote

I raised the point originally as it goes to my view as to why actual player activity might be a higher proportion of solo drops than groups as I suspect that your "demographic" is a larger than many assume. By my read of these two statements, I can add another couple of "views" that suggest that.

I know for a fact that my demographic is enormous. I meet others like me all the time, as we all generally commiserate together.

We're generally all in our mid 30's to early 40's and parents. We did lots of group play in our youth, where staying up all night playing with The Guys was awesome and fun, and we miss it. A lot. We'd love to do it again, we *want* to, but it's extremely difficult and awkward at best. And while some do understand, generally speaking teens/younger folk in their 20's just have a very hard time grasping how life is as a parent of young children (* without live-in support such as parents and whatnot). Now, that's a broad generalization and doesn't apply to everyone, but it does come up frequently.

Particularly in this game - we're kind of the core of the fanbase really, having grown up with Battletech.

Quote

I guess what it comes down to in my mind is that "team play" for all it's benefits is not a utopia for everyone, and any successful game should be able to accommodate as many people as possible.

This is true. Many people just want to be solo. But there are very many people who don't want to play solo, but PGI's lack of social tools ensure it's very difficult for players like us to get into and around groups. As I said earlier, for example, the 4-man cap basically locks me out of groups most of the time. When there's a 5th wheel, it'll always be me, because of my other limitations.

Quote

Accordingly some people need to put aside their personal agenda's and wants and embrace other peoples needs to ensure the sustainability of the bigger picture.

Indeed. Hence why the push - for me at least - to see the 12man queue adjusted to being a group/solo opt in queue, and the normal queue being either solo or solo+one small group queue. That way, everyone wins. A locked 12-man queue as we have now is largely pointless with private matches (* Note that this doesn't excuse PGI's total lack of social tools and a lobby for organizing said private matches, or the ludicrousness of the lack of rewards therein)

[Craig Steele]

Wintersdark, on 19 April 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

Obligation isn't the right word. I feel no obligation to a group where that's how things are - that is, a casual group who have no expectations as to attendance or such things. That does not, however, lessen the awkwardness of "run time" issues which make actual play difficult. If they understand my situation - that is, play happens when it happens, sometimes lots, sometimes weeks with none, then that's fine. I don't feel obligated to do anything.

My issue is entirely "in the moment", in that while it's easy and fun for me to bang off a drop or two, anything beyond that and I'm going to be causing problems. As that quickly becomes a hassle, it's easier just not to bother.

I know for a fact that my demographic is enormous. I meet others like me all the time, as we all generally commiserate together.

We're generally all in our mid 30's to early 40's and parents. We did lots of group play in our youth, where staying up all night playing with The Guys was awesome and fun, and we miss it. A lot. We'd love to do it again, we *want* to, but it's extremely difficult and awkward at best. And while some do understand, generally speaking teens/younger folk in their 20's just have a very hard time grasping how life is as a parent of young children (* without live-in support such as parents and whatnot). Now, that's a broad generalization and doesn't apply to everyone, but it does come up frequently.

Particularly in this game - we're kind of the core of the fanbase really, having grown up with Battletech.


This is true. Many people just want to be solo. But there are very many people who don't want to play solo, but PGI's lack of social tools ensure it's very difficult for players like us to get into and around groups. As I said earlier, for example, the 4-man cap basically locks me out of groups most of the time. When there's a 5th wheel, it'll always be me, because of my other limitations.

Indeed. Hence why the push - for me at least - to see the 12man queue adjusted to being a group/solo opt in queue, and the normal queue being either solo or solo+one small group queue. That way, everyone wins. A locked 12-man queue as we have now is largely pointless with private matches (* Note that this doesn't excuse PGI's total lack of social tools and a lobby for organizing said private matches, or the ludicrousness of the lack of rewards therein)

Obligation : Awkardness, I guess it might be terminology as your context resonates with what I am thinking.

What I find interesting on this thread though is that some people who are arguing to include this demographic into "Team Play" with solo drops for very good reasons including beefing up numbers in MM so as to enable games, are sometimes dismissive of other demographics which have equally valid desires but theirs do not suit the overall agenda being pursued.

[Sandpit]

InRev, on 19 April 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

I hear you there. The many references to "e-sport" made by the devs send shivers up my spine. The last thing I would want would be to attract the LoL crowd, although there already exist in this game several groups of that fine human calibre . . .

Esport is fine but it shouldn't be the only option

[Bhael Fire]

Craig Steele, on 19 April 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

What I find interesting on this thread though is that some people who are arguing to include this demographic into "Team Play" with solo drops for very good reasons including beefing up numbers in MM so as to enable games, are sometimes dismissive of other demographics which have equally valid desires but theirs do not suit the overall agenda being pursued.

What I find interesting is that some people insist on calling groups "teams" when there are only TWO teams per match.

[Craig Steele]

Bhael Fire, on 19 April 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

What I find interesting is that some people insist on calling groups "teams" when there are only TWO teams per match.

Teams, Groups, Sides, Companies. Potato, potato.

Are you really going to get hung up on an arbitary definition set down by the Internet? If so you're in for some sleepless nights.

What I find interesting is that when you talk generally (oooo, see the irony?) you quote an individual, in this instance at least.

Tch tch

[Bhael Fire]

Craig Steele, on 19 April 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

Teams, Groups, Sides, Companies. Potato, potato.

"Teams" and "Groups" are pretty solid terms in this game. Sorry if you felt singled out...I'm just pointing it out for posterity. Take that as you will.

[Craig Steele]

Bhael Fire, on 19 April 2014 - 10:52 PM, said:

"Teams" and "Groups" are pretty solid terms in this game. Sorry if you felt singled out...I'm just pointing it out for posterity. Take that as you will.

[Name140704]

Craig Steele, on 19 April 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

Obligation : Awkardness, I guess it might be terminology as your context resonates with what I am thinking.

What I find interesting on this thread though is that some people who are arguing to include this demographic into "Team Play" with solo drops for very good reasons including beefing up numbers in MM so as to enable games, are sometimes dismissive of other demographics which have equally valid desires but theirs do not suit the overall agenda being pursued.

Bhael Fire, on 19 April 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

What I find interesting is that some people insist on calling groups "teams" when there are only TWO teams per match.

[Craig Steele]

Psycho Farmer, on 20 April 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:

Collecting likes?

[Randalf Yorgen]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

7086 views, and thats from the 11th of april, when the post was made, this game still has thousands if not more that dont even visit the forums. Point is numbers in relation to the amount of players that play aren't an issue. might double in a month

and just how many "Thousands if not more" are there? source for your data please and not just speculation. Also many have said that they are playing something else for now but are just checking back in to see if the game has gotten any better.

I also found something from the 11th that you might want to think on, and it was even posted in these forums.


https://twitter.com/...746825929818112
@PiranhaGames[color=#00FFFF] said:[/color]
[color=#00FFFF]I'm hiring for an UI Engineer. Know someone great? in Vancouver, BC Canada [/color]http://bull.hn/l/1Z6XP/53[color=#00FFFF] #job [/color]

[color=#00FFFF]and [/color]

https://twitter.com/...744198714261504
@PiranhaGames[color=#00FFFF] said:[/color]
[color=#00FFFF]I'm hiring: Lead Software Engineer in Vancouver, BC Canada [/color]http://bull.hn/l/1Z6XH/27[color=#00FFFF] #job[/color]

It would seem that a few positions have come open in the PGI offices, I wonder why. All I can do is speculate with out hard facts. It could be that they quit or were fired or PGI has expanded, or maybe they had babies and are on maternity leave (Canada provides 1 whole year of time off for having a baby that can be split between parents if wanted) My point is, without the rest of the story, we have no way of knowing anything for certain except what we have figured out for our selves. Many of us have figured out that PGI isn't going in the direction that we find even slightly acceptable but we love the IP and the Battletech Universe.

What do you think is going to happen now that they are charging ahead with their very poorly thought out plan? Someone said "So what is 5K players quit, there are 1.6 million players so who cares" With no option to delete your account and with these free mech weekends generating thousands of second accounts (for sale no doubt once this becomes an E-Sport) that 1.6 million is actually much smaller. Remember how someone was trying to say that shrinking faction websites and lower TS severs usage was proof that the Solo que was the preffered style of game play, it could also be evidence of a shrinking, DRASTICALLY SHRINKING player base (notice I didn't say PROOF) Using that same evidence here it would be very fair to say that the 1.6 million number very inflated when compared against the present day, or even the past 90 day active player list. Some European sites have speculated that there are less that 75K players (I don't know how they came up with that number so it too is just speculation)

So if there are thousands who don't show up here who feel the same as the people who post here and seeing as how there is strong evidence that the player base is just a small fraction the size it was at it's peak. It would be fair speculation that both sides make up a larger percentage of the global community than we can see based on these forums. With different communities in agreement that the player base tiny it is a fair conclusion to say that if PGI drives the Casual Group Player away that they will be loosing much much more than 5K, I suspect much closer to 35-40K which will cause ripples for those who remain, such as longer que times and more matches being imbalanced at launch and that's just on the player side.

35-40k players leaving (along with their wallets), even if the player base is double what it is speculated to be, lets say 150K would still be a death blow to the game but it would be like a gut shot, long, slow and very very painful right up until the end.



So how's that for pulling numbers out of my ass of thin air that can't be supported with hard raw data and facts and then using them to base projections on? Although what I said sounds very plausible and is likely close to what will actually happen it is still speculation based upon unconfirmed numbers. I can make claims based upon those numbers all day long, it won't do a thing to make my argument any stronger. What it will do is draw out the Trolls who live on the other side of the argument.

So what is fact? PGI is going in a direction that many of us don't like, PGI is telling many of us that we are a very low priority and that our concerns don't warrant even the smallest effort from PGI to address. Many players are playing other games but are checking back in to see if the game has gotten any better, and then they go back to the other games that they have been playing. PGI is pumping out sales like crazy right now, care to speculate as to why? (maybe their budget has shrunk to a size where they had to cut some high priced positions and want to fill them with fresh out of school yes men who will work for penuts) but the truth is that PGI is hiring.

if this was the stock market investors would be dumping their stocks and heading for the hills, only the little guy would stay because he still has "Faith" that the company will do the right thing.