1126 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 23 April 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

sooooooooooooooooooooo

still not going to answer my question?


Because there isn't one. It's easier to avoid this particular question. That's why they won't answer it.

Why quote my response to Roadbeer? Has his mess on the keyboard got anything to do with it?

But in any case, what question???

Is it not right there in black and white for the third time that I want the same queue you do? Did you read it?

Or are you seriously asking me to fabricate an argument with you just for the sake of arguing?

What other question do you want me to answer?

[Creovex]

Is it just me or does anyone else find "disconnects and rejoining" almost as important as the new "launch module"? I have to ask as I think without allowing DC'd individuals the ability to rejoin a "in-progress" match it really is going to suck if your team has 2 of 3 Assault mechs sitting there idle in this new format.

Thoughts???

[Craig Steele]

Creovex, on 23 April 2014 - 08:09 PM, said:

Is it just me or does anyone else find "disconnects and rejoining" almost as important as the new "launch module"? I have to ask as I think without allowing DC'd individuals the ability to rejoin a "in-progress" match it really is going to suck if your team has 2 of 3 Assault mechs sitting there idle in this new format.

Thoughts???

I would love this to be fixed.

Another option (though less desireable) would be that MM kicks someone who doesn't load and puts in another player (say in the first 2 minutes) of a game.

[Davers]

Craig Steele, on 23 April 2014 - 08:12 PM, said:

I would love this to be fixed.

Another option (though less desireable) would be that MM kicks someone who doesn't load and puts in another player (say in the first 2 minutes) of a game.

That would be terrible. That would definitely lead to some kind of 'spawn camping' every time there was a DC.

[King Arthur IV]

so 45 pages later.... is anything going to get changed? this is the point of arguing right?

[Craig Steele]

Davers, on 23 April 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

That would be terrible. That would definitely lead to some kind of 'spawn camping' every time there was a DC.

Not in the first 2 minutes? It would have to be time capped, maybe 60 seconds, idk what the max speed to spawn point timeframe is.

Even if they did, the other 3 members of the lance would be in the vicinty to pick off the cherry hunter?

[Deathlike]

Craig, do you not realize your proposal fixes nothing?

Quote

PUG QUEUE
Solo players
Small groups (2 & 3 man) capped at one per side

The biggest complaint by solo Pugs that hate groups is that they PREFER to be by themselves aka no premades. Your suggestion breaks that from the start.

PGI's upcoming launch module does essentially what your "solo queue does" (well, it guarantees a 2-4 man premade on each side).

As such, it does not satisfy the primary goal of the "solo PUG queue".

Edited by Deathlike, 23 April 2014 - 11:02 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Deathlike, on 23 April 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

Craig, do you not realize your proposal fixes nothing?



The biggest complaint by solo Pugs that hate groups is that they PREFER to be by themselves aka no premades. Your suggestion breaks that from the start.

PGI's upcoming launch module does essentially what your "solo queue does" (well, it guarantees a 2-4 man premade on each side).

As such, it does not satisfy the primary goal of the "solo PUG queue".

Of course I realise there are SOME Solo players that are saying that, just like I realise there are SOME solo players saying they would like the challenge of playing solo amongst groups.

I am also highlighting there are SOME players who don't want to play against 7 man teams or 9 man teams when they play in pairs or triples. They don't want to wait longer times and they don't want to be restricted to mechs that "fill in" a TO&E. These are the people that are going to be expressing the same thing we see now that they get stomped and destroyed in 30 seconds and don't enjoy the game.

I am suggesting that those people that are Father / Son, Siginificant Others, Siblings etc in small groups DO NOT have the same capacity to Stomp Solo players if they are a maximum of one group per side.

I am saying that including them and giving them the same option as Solo players is a better way to go, instead of shifting the problem around.

So it would be a "Pick Up Group" queue (Solo's, 2 & 3 man groups) looking for quick games and move on with life and a "Team Play" queue where orgainsed team can wail away on each other to their hearts content and any player demographic (Solo, 2 man, 3 man etc) can opt in.

Both Queues access the CW so everyone can influence their own little part of the BT Universe.

More inclusive, more options.

I honestly don't see why any "Pro group" player would be against this. They have argued long and hard about the myth of Groups contributing to stomps (using PGI's stats of actual group activity) so that's not a reasoning. Why shouldn't small group players have the same options as Solo's?

[Deathlike]

Craig Steele, on 23 April 2014 - 11:18 PM, said:

Of course I realise there are SOME Solo players that are saying that, just like I realise there are SOME solo players saying they would like the challenge of playing solo amongst groups.

But that's what the GROUP QUEUE IS FOR!!!

Quote

I am also highlighting there are SOME players who don't want to play against 7 man teams or 9 man teams when they play in pairs or triples. They don't want to wait longer times and they don't want to be restricted to mechs that "fill in" a TO&E. These are the people that are going to be expressing the same thing we see now that they get stomped and destroyed in 30 seconds and don't enjoy the game.

Your solution fixes NEITHER. The ultimate reason why group queues are "virtually unrestricted" is because people decide they KNOW they want to play with other groups BIG AND SMALL. Having small groups DOES NOT RESOLVE the fact that the most ardent of solo players DO NOT WANT TO BE INFLUENCED BY GROUPS EVER. I don't agree with that logic, HOWEVER, I understand why they want it as such. Your solution does not address their issue EVER.

For a game that needs more players to play in it, you sure don't understand simple logistics.

Quote

I am suggesting that those people that are Father / Son, Siginificant Others, Siblings etc in small groups DO NOT have the same capacity to Stomp Solo players if they are a maximum of one group per side.

You're not understanding a simple concept. EVEN THE PERCEPTION of that being the case DOES NOT ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM. Let's be honest, ROFLSTOMPS HAPPEN BECAUSE THE MM SKEWS THE TEAMS AND/OR ONE TEAM IS SIMPLY DOING A BETTER JOB THAN THE OTHER.

There is no other case to be had.

Quote

I am saying that including them and giving them the same option as Solo players is a better way to go, instead of shifting the problem around.

So it would be a "Pick Up Group" queue (Solo's, 2 & 3 man groups) looking for quick games and move on with life and a "Team Play" queue where orgainsed team can wail away on each other to their hearts content and any player demographic (Solo, 2 man, 3 man etc) can opt in.

Both Queues access the CW so everyone can influence their own little part of the BT Universe.

More inclusive, more options.

I honestly don't see why any "Pro group" player would be against this. They have argued long and hard about the myth of Groups contributing to stomps (using PGI's stats of actual group activity) so that's not a reasoning. Why shouldn't small group players have the same options as Solo's?

You don't even understand the problem. If one wishes to opt into the "ideal group queue", they click whatever box and BOOM, they will literally guaranteed access to the group queue. BOOM DONE. Why complicate it further? There is nothing to convince people that DOES NOT WANT GROUPS AT ALL TO PLAY WITH GROUPS. You are FORCING IT ON THEM WITH YOUR PROPOSAL.

How hard is that to understand?

[Craig Steele]

Deathlike, on 23 April 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:

But that's what the GROUP QUEUE IS FOR!!!



Your solution fixes NEITHER. The ultimate reason why group queues are "virtually unrestricted" is because people decide they KNOW they want to play with other groups BIG AND SMALL. Having small groups DOES NOT RESOLVE the fact that the most ardent of solo players DO NOT WANT TO BE INFLUENCED BY GROUPS EVER. I don't agree with that logic, HOWEVER, I understand why they want it as such. Your solution does not address their issue EVER.

For a game that needs more players to play in it, you sure don't understand simple logistics.



You're not understanding a simple concept. EVEN THE PERCEPTION of that being the case DOES NOT ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM. Let's be honest, ROFLSTOMPS HAPPEN BECAUSE THE MM SKEWS THE TEAMS AND/OR ONE TEAM IS SIMPLY DOING A BETTER JOB THAN THE OTHER.

There is no other case to be had.



You don't even understand the problem. If one wishes to opt into the "ideal group queue", they click whatever box and BOOM, they will literally guaranteed access to the group queue. BOOM DONE. Why complicate it further? There is nothing to convince people that DOES NOT WANT GROUPS AT ALL TO PLAY WITH GROUPS. You are FORCING IT ON THEM WITH YOUR PROPOSAL.

How hard is that to understand?

No different to you forcing "Father and Son" to play in an environment that they have disadvantages.

The group queue that Bhael presented focussed on the large teams first (say 6+) before using smaller groups as fillers and then finally 1 - 2 Solo's if required. It also required a maximum of 3 groups per team. Mathematically, EVERY 2/3 man group is fighting at least a 6+man or better organised team with comms, optimal synchronised loadouts and the advantages of familiarity. Thats going to be an environment that they will suffer and we will see the same complaints we see now from Solo players about Pre made teams.

There has to be a line of course. PGI have to make a call about what is good for the game overall.

What I am saying is that if we are going to give Solo players the option of playing in groups, then we should give small group players the option of NOT playing in an environment that disadvantages them. There is no point in moving the current problem from one demographic to another.

I don't want a Solo ONLY and Team ONLY queue, I want more options for every one. I don't think 2/3 man groups will be a factor in stomping (on the proviso that there is one group each team).

Stomps are attributed now to the multiple pre made groups in a team (whether its theory / perception or fact is not the point here) vs "I'm a solo player" and given that is the core argument, capping one group per side and at a small volume should alleviate that.

What Bhaels system effectivily does is that a players choice will be to either play Solo OR, join a large group / Guild and get on Comms so they can play the mech they like. It is FORCING players to the other extreme if they play with little Johnny or Significant Other.

Why do we have to force anyone?

[Sam Slade]

Craig Steele, on 23 April 2014 - 11:18 PM, said:

Why shouldn't small group players have the same options as Solo's?

Because they have two massive force multipliers: teamwork and communications. I could refer you to the 'Carry More' thread for a few examples but common sense should kick in here. What is more likely in a multi-player grind based computer game Dad and Junior grinding for 4 hours a night or Leetzor and Prozilla forming a gaggle of two/three man pugstomp for C-Bills conga lines?

[Craig Steele]

Sam Slade, on 24 April 2014 - 01:43 AM, said:

Because they have two massive force multipliers: teamwork and communications. I could refer you to the 'Carry More' thread for a few examples but common sense should kick in here. What is more likely in a multi-player grind based computer game Dad and Junior grinding for 4 hours a night or Leetzor and Prozilla forming a gaggle of two/three man pugstomp for C-Bills conga lines?

The Comms advantage is a nominal impact in groups of 2/3 capped at one each side vs groups of 2/3 vs groups of 6+. The force multiplier is more effective with the larger groups, creating the disadvantageous scenario.

There are always going to be people that try and rort the system, we are better off building a system that enagages more people and policing bad behaviour than a system that disadvantages a demographic for the sake of a minority poor behaviour.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Randalf Yorgen, on 20 April 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

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.

IF i a post was just made yesterday and it gets 7k views than that tells me something.

-maybe it is just some people checking in
-could be the same people clicking the thread a couple hundred times.
-could be a good estimate on the number of players that check the announcements.

source of my data? is he serious. just look at the number of views in relation to the date. Other than that i can cite the website?

The larger the number in relation to the amount of time the thread has been up eliminates the chance that it is the same people. Even if it was the same people it would take alot of post in a conversation to generate 7k from just a handful of people.

I doubt they have over 2k of players just checking back. If they are away from the game for some reason it is probably to wait for the bigger features. That is my guess.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 24 April 2014 - 02:59 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

• 239 replies
  
• 10417 views

that is fromt he adder screenshots.

what do those numbers tell you? it can be a number of things and that was just yesterday.

[Atreides76]

Roland, on 23 April 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

The fact that pgi absolutely refuses to give any information regarding player numbers is telling.

At any given time, I can see how many folks are playing war thunder. We used to be able to see how many people were playing mechwarrior.

But now we can't.

I wonder why.

We can hazard a guess, though not without rebuke from certain members and PGI along the lines of being called the vocal minority that wear tin foil hats

Edited by Atreides76, 24 April 2014 - 04:48 AM.

[Roadbeer]

BLOOD WOLF, on 24 April 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

• 239 replies
  
• 10417 views

that is fromt he adder screenshots.



what do those numbers tell you? it can be a number of things and that was just yesterday.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, but if you're equating views as "unique views" then you're completely wrong.

Based off the number of replies, I may visit a thread I'm following 10-20 times in a day, that's 20 views. When you make a post, that's a view, edit a post, that's a view, plus you have the web-crawlers for Yahoo, Google, Facebook, etc that crawl the forum a several times a day looking for new links to add...

Now, when you have something like the Adder thread, yeah, that's a widely spread topic that has been Tweeted, FBed, linked in VoIP chat and posted on every other forum relating to the game, so yeah, a lot of people just followed the link to see the new photos.

But don't assume for a second that 10,000 unique people have viewed that thread.

Edited by Roadbeer, 24 April 2014 - 07:12 AM.

[Heffay]

Sandpit, on 23 April 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

I'd be interested to see you add up those that are opposed to that idea in this thread in the first 10 pages and we'll see factually which "side" has more support.

Rule 10. You should read these. They are very appropriate right about now.

http://mwomercs.com/...about%E2%80%A6/

By the way, why should PGI believe you when you say you're not going to support the game any more when you've bought a (rather expensive) Hero mech in just the past week?

[Roadbeer]

Heffay, on 24 April 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

Rule 10. You should read these. They are very appropriate right about now.

http://mwomercs.com/...about%E2%80%A6/

By the way, why should PGI believe you when you say you're not going to support the game any more when you've bought a (rather expensive) Hero mech in just the past week?

Get that data for me son?

Roadbeer, on 23 April 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

[citation needed] I don't recall ever asking you for the numbers of the combined population of active players in the RHoD, Marik Civil War, and MRCB. So if you could link that, I'd appreciate it.

Nope, just the raw numbers if you please. Just the combined active population of the "Big 3" tournaments. Indulge my curiosity. You always say you're a facts and data guy, so how about you provide some facts and data?

[Heffay]

Roadbeer, on 24 April 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

Get that data for me?

How many times do I have to send it to you? Sheesh. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Repost it if you want, but I'm not going to jump through hoops for you over and over again just for your entertainment.

[Roadbeer]

Heffay, on 24 April 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

How many times do I have to send it to you?

Once would be nice