1126 replies to this topic

[pbiggz]

I can pretty much end this discussion here and now.

The launch module brings some much needed materials to the game, BUT, it does not fix one of the major problems. The 4 man limit hurts this game, it has been hurting this game for much too long and the failure to remove it will continue to hurt the game.

It SHOULD be a team game, and the priority of our esteemed lead designer should be to make it a game that favours team play, not some nebulous counterstrike knock-off with mechs.

Anyone who says that leaving the 4 man limit in place is a good decision is wilfully ignorant.

Edited by pbiggz, 24 April 2014 - 09:15 AM.

[Davers]

I would also mention that the player run leagues can take advantage of the FREE Private Matches simply by making some 'Gentlemen's Agreements' to bypass having to pay while smaller groups cannot.

Edited for spelling. Geesh, not typing well today.

Edited by Davers, 24 April 2014 - 09:14 AM.

[Agent of Change]

Heffay, on 24 April 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

Because that is the way it is set up? 1 team per side, limit up to 4. If you want larger groups, set up private matches to support your needs.

All coming next Tuesday. Everyone gets exactly what they want, except a small group of malcontents who are going all Tea Party on us and refuse to accept anything but 100% of exactly what they demand.

Except it doesn't, once I read the thing i learned that on tuesday:

Solo players will still have an excuse to whine about the "pre-made" boogie man because the public queue is going to be the same as it is now.

5-11 man groups will still not be an option for some time as the group queue is "on the back burner".

But hey Private matches... that fixes everything. or not.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I must say this thread has been enjoyable.

[Heffay]

Agent of Change, on 24 April 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Except it doesn't, once I read the thing i learned that on tuesday:

Solo players will still have an excuse to whine about the "pre-made" boogie man because the public queue is going to be the same as it is now.

5-11 man groups will still not be an option for some time as the group queue is "on the back burner".

But hey Private matches... that fixes everything. or not.

People will complain about anything. And even if you create the queues exactly as you suggest, people will still complain about. So you do what PGI does: You focus on what's best for the game and ignore it when people become irrationally upset. Catering to the edge cases at the expense of the majority of paying subscribers is *never* a good idea.

[Roadbeer]

Heffay, on 24 April 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

People will complain about anything. And even if you create the queues exactly as you suggest, people will still complain about. So you do what PGI does: You focus on what's best for the game and ignore it when people become irrationally upset. Catering to the edge cases at the expense of the majority of paying subscribers is *never* a good idea.

Wouldn't the "Private Matches" be catering to the edge case, as I've yet to see proof that those who will use it number any more than <1% of the population.
And exactly how are the "Private Matches" best for the game? As I see no benefit for them in the bigger picture of Community Warfare.

Us, the "vocal Tea Party fringe element", as you called us, who actually want to take part in CW, as a unit, and not a lance or a pug represent a much greater majority than the epeen stroking esport crowd that you claim is so important to the overall game.

[Agent of Change]

Heffay, on 24 April 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

People will complain about anything. And even if you create the queues exactly as you suggest, people will still complain about. So you do what PGI does: You focus on what's best for the game and ignore it when people become irrationally upset. Catering to the edge cases at the expense of the majority of paying subscribers is *never* a good idea.

people who want to play with more than 3 but less than 11 friends are almost certainly closer to a majority than the people who just want private matches.

And yet... Catering to an edge case with a specific mode while telling people who want more flexibility in group size to continue to sit and spin until they fix it soon^TM That makes perfect sense, no wait it doesn't it just happens to be your pet position.

PGI would have a lot more paying subscribers if they stopped alienating large chunks of their original core player base, backhandedly discouraging team play, and actually delivered on promised game elements in a reasonable time frame.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Yeah...the closer we get to the release of private matches, the more I'm questioning the practicality of it.

I really don't play enough, nor for long enough periods of time that I feel like it will be worthwhile for me to use them.

Whereas, I feel comfortable that if I had the option, I could go into TS, find 6 or 7 guys and drop into an Unrestricted Group Queue every time I log in.

[zhajin]

another case of PGI over engineering? why not just force group size matching (within a range) in the public queue? a group of 6 is not OP when there is another group of 5-7 on the other team.

if your in a group, espeically a large one you just will have to deal with wait times. however with proper matching algorithms it should not effect solo wait times, than the current 1,2-4 man queues. also it should reduce wait times overall when compared to the new two queue plan.

your current solution just complicates things more, and adds another queue, thus reducing the player pools in all queues...

[Davers]

Heffay, on 24 April 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

People will complain about anything. And even if you create the queues exactly as you suggest, people will still complain about. So you do what PGI does: You focus on what's best for the game and ignore it when people become irrationally upset. Catering to the edge cases at the expense of the majority of paying subscribers is *never* a good idea.

16% of players who drop in groups are 'edge cases' and the 1% who drop in 12 man groups are not? The 1,599,000 players who do not participate in league play are not the majority of paying customers? Hold it, are you agreeing with Roadbeer that players in groups pay far more than pugs? That's very unlike you.

[Wintersdark]

...and an unrestricted group queue is still a public queue, whereas players going for private matches are for all intents and purposes out of the game.

F2P works by monetizing players when possible, and using them for content otherwise.

By all means, keep the solo queue as it is, but the existing 12man queue is largely redundant with PM... A Unrestricted Queue in its place only adds to the game.

[Heffay]

Roadbeer, on 24 April 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

Wouldn't the "Private Matches" be catering to the edge case, as I've yet to see proof that those who will use it number any more than <1% of the population.
And exactly how are the "Private Matches" best for the game? As I see no benefit for them in the bigger picture of Community Warfare.

Us, the "vocal Tea Party fringe element", as you called us, who actually want to take part in CW, as a unit, and not a lance or a pug represent a much greater majority than the epeen stroking esport crowd that you claim is so important to the overall game.

Community warfare applies to everyone, and that is the reason for the Launch Module. A group queue that applies to only a tiny fraction of a percent of the population isn't nearly as important as that. So PGI has your ideas on the back burner, as Paul posted in this thread for investigation for your group only queue in the future.

Davers, on 24 April 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

16% of players who drop in groups are 'edge cases'

You don't represent 16%. You represent the the tiny fraction of that group who can't deal with the 4 man group limits.

I drop in groups. I've had to split up 5 or 6 mans when needed. I didn't lose any sleep over it, and I still consider it "playing with my friends."

I am what is known as "reasonable".

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Heffay, on 24 April 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

I am what is known as "reasonable".

lol what?

[badkilik]

It would be nice if i could actually download the patcher and install this test but no i keep getting this FUC K1ing error that the files arent the right ones. 3 times is not a charm. You obviously dont want anyone to test for you so why is this even here?

[BLOOD WOLF]

Heffay, on 24 April 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Community warfare applies to everyone, and that is the reason for the Launch Module. A group queue that applies to only a tiny fraction of a percent of the population isn't nearly as important as that. So PGI has your ideas on the back burner, as Paul posted in this thread for investigation for your group only queue in the future.



You don't represent 16%. You represent the the tiny fraction of that group who can't deal with the 4 man group limits.

I drop in groups. I've had to split up 5 or 6 mans when needed. I didn't lose any sleep over it, and I still consider it "playing with my friends."

I am what is known as "reasonable".

+1

[Davers]

Heffay, on 24 April 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Community warfare applies to everyone, and that is the reason for the Launch Module. A group queue that applies to only a tiny fraction of a percent of the population isn't nearly as important as that. So PGI has your ideas on the back burner, as Paul posted in this thread for investigation for your group only queue in the future.



You don't represent 16%. You represent the the tiny fraction of that group who can't deal with the 4 man group limits.

I drop in groups. I've had to split up 5 or 6 mans when needed. I didn't lose any sleep over it, and I still consider it "playing with my friends."

I am what is known as "reasonable".

Well someone should tell PGI that adding in game VOIP and lobbies will allow players 2-12 to play multiple matches together while communicating and that is 'unreasonable'.

[Roland]

Here's an interesting test that Heffay can perform.
Post a screenshot of your friends list in game. I'd be interested to see how many people are actually online at any given time.

I don't really recall the last time my friends list (which has a ton of people ) has had more than maybe two people on it actually online.

But since Heffay and his friends presumably still love the game and play, he'd have a big list of active players at any one time, and taking a screenshot would be trivial. So I'm willing to accept that just because my friends list no longer has folks playing it, that may just be due to the folks I had on that list being the type of players who no longer play.

So let's see Heffay's list, and how active it is.

Heffay, on 24 April 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Community warfare applies to everyone, and that is the reason for the Launch Module. A group queue that applies to only a tiny fraction of a percent of the population isn't nearly as important as that.

Given that earlier in the game's development, the vast majority of players played in groups.. and now only a small fraction does, that may suggest that it actually applies to a much larger group of players who are no longer part of the population because they quit due to not being able to play together.

[BLOOD WOLF]

A lot of people left but i wouldn't say that is why the groups are a smaller percentage. When you say most people left it was probably the group players or the founders and overlords. note, that doesn't mean solo players and new players didn't leave after a while.

[Rebas Kradd]

Roland, on 24 April 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

Here's an interesting test that Heffay can perform.
Post a screenshot of your friends list in game. I'd be interested to see how many people are actually online at any given time.

I don't really recall the last time my friends list (which has a ton of people ) has had more than maybe two people on it actually online.

But since Heffay and his friends presumably still love the game and play, he'd have a big list of active players at any one time, and taking a screenshot would be trivial. So I'm willing to accept that just because my friends list no longer has folks playing it, that may just be due to the folks I had on that list being the type of players who no longer play.

So let's see Heffay's list, and how active it is.


Given that earlier in the game's development, the vast majority of players played in groups.. and now only a small fraction does, that may suggest that it actually applies to a much larger group of players who are no longer part of the population because they quit due to not being able to play together.

Mine has at least ten online at any given time.

OH SNAP

[Roland]

Rebas Kradd, on 24 April 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

Mine has at least ten online at any given time.

OH SNAP

Well, that in itself is a fairly small number, but hey, post a screenshot. It's certainly way more than I've seen online in months.