1126 replies to this topic

[Davers]

When PGI talks about teams they mean 12 mans
When PGI talks about competitive players they mean Esports.

When PGI said they were big fans of this IP they decided the best way to preserve all the flavour and lore was to eliminate it entirely from the game.

I came to MW:O because of my love of BT. I was never interested in Esports, and to see the less than 1% of the game population being catered to is very disheartening.

CW is scheduled for Fall of this year, less than 6 months away and we still have no idea what it will look like. Only throw away lines with no real context.

With in game VOIP and lobbies the very definition of 'premade' is made moot. I really don't see why PGI is so set against small groups playing together when their whole planned system will encourage just that. Especially if it becomes harder to find a lobby with an assault mech. Once you find one you would stay in it, right?

[Bhael Fire]

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.

EXACTLY. There's no legitimate reason to NOT have unrestricted group sizes. The edge case of the 11-man group can easily be fixed by allowing solo players to drop with groups. Many solo players would drop with groups just for having a better chance of finding a match...but for those that need a little more coaxing a "Hazard Pay" bonus would fall in line with many other multiplayer games that offer risk/reward systems.

Just so this stays fresh for those too lazy to go through the thread I'm reposting the gist of the current queue structure proposal:

SOLO ONLY queue

• Solo players only
  
• No groups

GROUPS (2-12) + SOLO Queue

• Allows groups with 2-12 players
  
• Allows solo players with groups enabled in launch preferences (+10,000 C-Bill "Hazard Pay" bonus)
  
• Matches large groups first, then small groups, then solo players (so 12-mans are likely to face other 12-mans)
  
• Matches groups on a 1:1 basis (or as close as possible)
  
• Never more than 1 solo player per team (to minimize PUG stompage in the group queue)
  
• Never more than 3 groups per team (i.e. no teams made up entirely of 2-mans or 3-mans)
  
• Drawback: Wait times longer than solo only queue

[DirePhoenix]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

well then give me a release date (since you know you accuse death of making stuff up)
no release date?
ok, how about estimated release?
hmmm, no estimate?
ok, how about roadmap?
hmmm, no roadmap?
ok, how about an estimate of where it's at in the development phase at least?

oh, you mean there isn't one? Please tell me again how anyone is making stuff up?

Estimate of where we are in the development plan here. (mouseover/click on the boxes for more details)

Roadmap in this post (posted back in December):

Quote

Roadmap

Dec 17th – This patch you’re quite familiar with but it’s a pretty good one and the best in a while. New Skirmish game mode, release of Sabre `Mechs and the release of the Moon map HPG Manifold. I hope this will give players some interest during the holiday break.

Jan 21st – Cockpit Glass.

Feb 4th – UI 2.0 released. It will be a complete rework of the existing UI along with some new screens with the store and some others. A lot of feedback has been implemented to improve MechLab and future releases will include a lot of user feedback integration. Overall UI 2.0 on February 4th is an absolutely MASSIVE feature release, bigger than anything to date. I don’t say that purely based on functionality that UI 2.0 will introduce to MWO. The reason it is considered in my mind the biggest feature release to date is because of the bottlenecks it removes. Everything relied on its release and back end architecture to build off of.

Feb 4th – Tier 1 weapon modules – Further explanation forthcoming in a Command Chair post later this week.

Feb 4th – Assault mode refresh/improvements – Includes new Base model to replace the resource collector for a Forward Operating Base truck with the additions of turrets. Helps differentiate it from other modes like Conquest.

March 4th – DX11 – it has been complete essentially since the last Public test but we have waited to get the Christmas break and UI 2.0 behind us before releasing. Some further exploration into FPS concerns before release. It is possible upon release some will use DX 11 where others will stick with DX9 for frame rate concerns while we continue to optimize it.

March 18th – Achievement System.

April 1-April 15th – Launch Module – in depth description already in a command chair post.

June 17th – Clan Invasion.

Skirmish Mode? Check.
HPG map? Check.
Sabre Mechs? Check.
Cockpit Glass? Check.
UI2.0? Check.
T1 Weapon Modules? Check.
Assault mode bases/turrets? Check.
DX11? Check.
Achievement System? Check.

Next up is the Launch Module, which has been pushed back 1 week from the April 15 estimate that was announced 5 months ago (and was probably made even further back than that).

[Sandpit]

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.

exactly, there are hundreds of examples in the gaming industry for PGI to take cues from. That's one of the reasons it's so frustrating. This isn't uncharted waters. The is basic and rudimentary functions that games have been including in their designs for a decade.

Black Ops had a really good way to handle the "competitive" crowd. You can select a hardcore mode where bullets do more damage, health doesn't regenerate, there's no minimap, etc. For those that are wanting more of a challenge, there's the option to do so. The players that wanted an "easier" mode had the option as well.

It's the same principle here. All that really needs to be done is just give players options instead of restricting those options to the point where an entire segment of the population feels alienated and starts looking elsewhere.

As Davers stated, it's very disheartening that 12mans get their section even though they make up only 1% of the population (which completely negates every single argument against other groups involving "being a minority") yet, by most accounts since 14% simply was not accurate, 20-30% of the population isn't big enough to warrant a way to play how they want to?

This is just another example of PGI being very contradictory in what they say and do.

DirePhoenix, on 14 April 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

Estimate of where we are in the development plan here. (mouseover/click on the boxes for more details)

Roadmap in this post (posted back in December):



Skirmish Mode? Check.
HPG map? Check.
Sabre Mechs? Check.
Cockpit Glass? Check.
UI2.0? Check.
T1 Weapon Modules? Check.
Assault mode bases/turrets? Check.
DX11? Check.
Achievement System? Check.

Next up is the Launch Module, which has been pushed back 1 week from the April 15 estimate that was announced 5 months ago (and was probably made even further back than that).

ok, now show me where in any of that is shows any information regarding groups of 4+

[BLOOD WOLF]

DirePhoenix, on 14 April 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

Estimate of where we are in the development plan here. (mouseover/click on the boxes for more details)

Roadmap in this post (posted back in December):



Skirmish Mode? Check.
HPG map? Check.
Sabre Mechs? Check.
Cockpit Glass? Check.
UI2.0? Check.
T1 Weapon Modules? Check.
Assault mode bases/turrets? Check.
DX11? Check.
Achievement System? Check.

Next up is the Launch Module, which has been pushed back 1 week from the April 15 estimate that was announced 5 months ago (and was probably made even further back than that).

what are you talking about? anything and everything they do is dismissed becuase; CW in 90 days!. We have been over this.

[Novakaine]

I only have 4 words for this whole situation.
Age of Empires Online.
The F2P model simply need to die a horrible death.
This game is just littered with the casual crowd and don't take things seriously and rarely if ever spend a dime.
People with a vested interest rave about the games they play, invite their friends to play and most important - spend money.
The casual crowd I'm willing to bet not so much.
There's a certain game I've been playing for the past nine years, that's every adventure pack and real cash for almost every trinket I desire.
That's nine whole years out of my wallet.
That's what you get when you love something and have a vested interest.
Yes it's a f2p game and it has a subscription service also.
My point is when people really enjoy something they tend to go gaga and fork over the cash.
When you make it just plain difficult to enjoy with your clan, group or team that moneys gonna dry up.
And those people who should be raving dedicated fans start to vanish.
Is everyone gonna be happy all the time because of changes in the game?
Nope.
But dedicated fan's will suck it up and keep going - and spending.
PGI you are running that dedicated fan base away and their wallets with them

[Mr Andersson]

So the only group size not allowed would be 11 players? I could live with that. As long as there is an option for 5-8 player groups, I'm fine.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Mr Andersson, on 14 April 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

So the only group size not allowed would be 11 players? I could live with that. As long as there is an option for 5-8 player groups, I'm fine.

switch that around.

[Sandpit]

Point being, Paul's post was just lip service and never at any time said anything about actually having 4+man groups in the game. We're not talking private custom matches. We're talking about playing in CW in standard matches. Paul specifically stated they might at some point in the future look into it again. That in no way, shape, or form implies that 2-12man groups will be even implemented.

Edited by Sandpit, 14 April 2014 - 06:25 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Excellent News, great update PGI.

There are several threads around with Group Players (5 - 11) bemoaning how little love they get and this post has highlighted not only the vision but some of the hurdles on the way to that outcome.

Notwithstanding the "I want it my way and I want noooooooowwwwwwwww" screams from the little kids with tears spilling down their cheeks, they would scream even louder if it was rolled out and had flaws (such as excrutiating wait times) which impacted on their own individual personal utopia.

Many times the same people have bemoaned PGI rolling out half thought out amendments, so thanks for listening to them the last time round and conducting a more thorough process to get it right with this proposal.

Keep progress going.

[Ransack]

Mr Andersson, on 14 April 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

So the only group size not allowed would be 11 players? I could live with that. As long as there is an option for 5-8 player groups, I'm fine.

You gotta pay for it and find your own opponents. You will get no XP or Cbills. Sound like fun?

edit: I misunderstood your point.

Edited by Ransack, 14 April 2014 - 06:27 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 06:24 PM, said:

Point being, Paul's post was just lip service and never at any time said anything about actually having 4+man groups in the game. We're not talking private custom matches. We're talking about playing in CW in standard matches. Paul specifically stated they might at some point in the future look into it again. That in no way, shape, or form implies that 2-12man groups will be even implemented.

your right, it just means they are gonna looki into it.

[Roadbeer]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 06:23 PM, said:

switch that around.

I'm actually being serious and not mocking or looking to set up a troll here, but

Is English your primary language?

[BLOOD WOLF]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

Excellent News, great update PGI.

There are several threads around with Group Players (5 - 11) bemoaning how little love they get and this post has highlighted not only the vision but some of the hurdles on the way to that outcome.

Notwithstanding the "I want it my way and I want noooooooowwwwwwwww" screams from the little kids with tears spilling down their cheeks, they would scream even louder if it was rolled out and had flaws (such as excrutiating wait times) which impacted on their own individual personal utopia.

Many times the same people have bemoaned PGI rolling out half thought out amendments, so thanks for listening to them the last time round and conducting a more thorough process to get it right with this proposal.

Keep progress going.

LOL

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

I'm actually being serious and not mocking or looking to set up a troll here, but

Is English your primary language?

some of which he stated was incorrect. Switch it around wasn't a good phrase to use, but i was too lazy to go back and fix. Roradbeer, you erred so many times you shouldn't be the one to point out others flaws.

[Sandpit]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

your right, it just means they are gonna looki into it.

maybe, in the future
they might look into it

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

Notwithstanding the "I want it my way and I want noooooooowwwwwwwww a year ago"

Fixed that for you.

"Temporary", such a hard concept for people to wrap their minds around

[BLOOD WOLF]

actually, just get rid of a "year ago" and the sentence would be fine.

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 06:29 PM, said:

Fixed that for you.

"Temporary", such a hard concept for people to wrap their minds around

No, you fixed that for you.

Empathy, such a hard concept for people to wrap their minds around.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

Notwithstanding the "I want it my way and I want noooooooowwwwwwwww" screams from the little kids with tears spilling down their cheeks,

and then you get jewels like this that just can't resist personal attacks. lol

It's funny how in a matter of weeks Road and I went from constantly being called a whiteknight to whiny trolls because we didn't get what we wanted. I wish you guys would make up your minds. It makes it hard to decide whether I should wear my armor or my troll pants.
Because I've spent countless hours with tears streaming down my face and I've never EVER said "I understand and accept delays in development"
gpclose sparky

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 06:29 PM, said:

Fixed that for you.

"Temporary", such a hard concept for people to wrap their minds around

no it's just another example of
"I really have no rational reason or argument against anything they've said so I'll resort to attacking them to try and distract from their ideas and maybe even get them baited into attacking me so I can either derail the thread or get them moderated"

It's a pretty common tactic used around here

[Roadbeer]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

some of which he stated was incorrect. Switch it around wasn't a good phrase to use, but i was too lazy to go back and fix. Roradbeer, you erred so many times you shouldn't be the one to point out others flaws.

I was actually being serious and trying to find where you and I have a disconnect, and if it was not your primary language, I would cut you a bit of slack when idioms or colloquialisms that you might not be familiar with come into play.

But whatever I'll just keep assuming that you perpetually live with a bit of spittle hanging off your chin