1126 replies to this topic

[BLOOD WOLF]

GoatHILL, on 14 April 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:

How do you know who is grouped?

Really?...............................Really...........................WOW. Im not being disrespectful, i am just surprised. You go into the game and ask. You make sure you get everybody or as many as can posibly answer. Then you make a chart. 2 man/3man/4man/12man and take note of which players are grouping and which are solo. It does not matter if you do this 10/25/100/1000 times. The results will always bee the same. The key is getting the responses, And trust me; It takes a good amount of time to get players to cooperate. You can actually tell which ones are in groups and which aren't by certain aspects. People in group are generally well mannered and those not in group are sometimes rowdy. Note that this is most of the time not the case, as players who play this game are generally respectful. Also there are those who didn't respond not only do i have to assume they dont really care but that messes up the research and i have to start again.

In order to get accurate data more than 70-80% of players need to respond. If you dont have that it throws of your data; then you need to start all over again.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 April 2014 - 11:36 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Ngamok, on 14 April 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

While I agree with you, what's going to happen is that lots of solo players will be dropping in the queue and they will fill up the teams. There is no way they can say hey we got a 5+3+1+1+1+1 in the queue right now but the other side has 6+4+1+1. At that point, it looks like the solo queue because it'll be so much easier to grab all those solo players and start the group while trying to fill in the group slots. Or could you imagine if it's 6+4+2 and the other people in the queue at the time will be 4+4+2+1+1. Because then, all that will happen is that the MM will be lumping too many people queued solo in the group queue with larger teams and the entire community will start the match maker complaining all over again.

No. The current complaints come from those who feel wronged by premades, or that they somehow "unbalance" battles. Those people are not going to be opting into an unrestricted queue.

I don't feel wronged by premades, nor do I feel they ruin battles. I'd be grouped all the time myself if it was an option for me. But instead, I'm perfectly happy in 5+3+1+1+1+1 vs. 6+4+2. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. If that ends up happening (and I imagine it probably will) it's not a problem. They absolutely do not need to work really hard to balance the groups.

If people don't like it, there's always the solo (or solo+single small group only, as it is now) queue for them. The mixed/unrestricted queue is for those who want it. And believe me, there are MANY of us who dearly do want it.

Edited by Wintersdark, 14 April 2014 - 11:37 PM.

[BladeXXL]

please let 11 man groups drop against other 11 to 12. mission completed...

[BLOOD WOLF]

Wintersdark, on 14 April 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

No. The current complaints come from those who feel wronged by premades, or that they somehow "unbalance" battles. Those people are not going to be opting into an unrestricted queue.

I don't feel wronged by premades, nor do I feel they ruin battles. I'd be grouped all the time myself if it was an option for me. But instead, I'm perfectly happy in 5+3+1+1+1+1 vs. 6+4+2. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. If that ends up happening (and I imagine it probably will) it's not a problem. They absolutely do not need to work really hard to balance the groups.

If people don't like it, there's always the solo (or solo+single small group only, as it is now) queue for them. The mixed/unrestricted queue is for those who want it. And believe me, there are MANY of us who dearly do want it.

If people dont like it? other way around buddy.

Of course you dont feel they ruin battles. For you to say anything else would hurt your point.

No, if you guys dont like it there's always the door. or wait for them to finish CW and then work to see if your options are plausible. They might be but whats being done is what you guys are gonna have to stick with.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 April 2014 - 11:45 PM.

[Craig Steele]

DirePhoenix, on 14 April 2014 - 11:35 PM, said:

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.

But if I read correctly, the proposal's here are that you can only faction play from the group queue?.

ie, 12 solo's vs 12 solo's will not be fighting to determine their faction outcomes?

Scratch match's basically?

Wintersdark, on 14 April 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

there are MANY of us who dearly do want it.

Maybe, but what PGI are saying is that there are MANY MANY MANY more who they are trying to accommodate as well.

And thats the hard part.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 11:44 PM, said:

But if I read correctly, the proposal's here are that you can only faction play from the group queue?.

ie, 12 solo's vs 12 solo's will not be fighting to determine their faction outcomes?

Scratch match's basically?



Maybe, but what PGI are saying is that there are MANY MANY MANY more who they are trying to accommodate as well.

And thats the hard part.

Hard part? but People keep throwing all these solutions. I thought this was easy. All they need to do is choose one of the many solutions presented on this thread and bam.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 April 2014 - 11:49 PM.

[Sam Slade]

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.

Wait wait... so your reply to the absurd lack of reliability(they did not define the metrics, you're making wild assumptions about when and how the info was collected) in their numbers is 'I guess we just have to accept a good ****ing in the ***'?

That may fly for you but, as the vanishing of many organised units attests, it doesn't fly for discerning consumers. Maybe you were not here for the hey day of group play, I don't know, but it used to be damned hard to drop in a game an no hit a premade of some kind... and those days were full of great battles and bitter rivalry... now it's just meh.

[Craig Steele]

Sam Slade, on 14 April 2014 - 11:58 PM, said:

Wait wait... so your reply to the absurd lack of reliability(they did not define the metrics, you're making wild assumptions about when and how the info was collected) in their numbers is 'I guess we just have to accept a good ****ing in the ***'?

That may fly for you but, as the vanishing of many organised units attests, it doesn't fly for discerning consumers. Maybe you were not here for the hey day of group play, I don't know, but it used to be damned hard to drop in a game an no hit a premade of some kind... and those days were full of great battles and bitter rivalry... now it's just meh.

So sorry, which groups have disappeared? And of those, how many are due to leader failure, rl priorities, lack of CW functions or lack of immersion. And of those that remain, what is the percentage of the total number of groups registered?

Have the players actually left, or are they playing solo or with other groups?

Do you know? Or do you deduce because "someone said". Did PGI roll out numbers advising that a certain demographic of players (groups) are largely inactive?

People often choose to question the stats where it doesn't suit them, it's incredibly common.

Just because I point out what PGI have said, that represents what PGI have said. They did say the stats covered "Since the beginning of the game" exactly as I have described, there are no "wild assertions" except for you making the wild assertion you know what my thoughts are.

You did however hit the nail on the head. We are consumers, not directors nor management. The numbers were offered to us as the reason WHY PGI are doing some things. We are not entitled to all the in's and out of every commercial process for everything we buy, not only is it unreasonable it's also uncommercial.

That's the life of being a consumer.

Whether you like it or not, PGI have said this Launch module is in part, to accommodate a major demographic they have identified. They also introduced some tools to empower team players (advised as a minority) which we don't currently have. In this OP, they are also saying that we have a vision for expanding team players functionality and here are the obstacles.

That's what they said. (my summary)

Edited by Craig Steele, 15 April 2014 - 12:27 AM.

[OneEyed Jack]

It's really not that complicated.

Simply create 2 flags. Not queues, flags. One flag is named "Open", or "Unrestricted", or something. With this flag on, the player is matched against any group sizes. This flag is automatically set for groups of 5+, and optional for smaller groups and solos.

The second flag is "Restricted", or "Limited", or even just "Standard". This flag is the default for anyone not currently in a group of 5+. With this flag on, the player/group can only be matched against other small groups and solos.

This protects those that don't want to play against larger groups, but allows the braver small groups and solos to play as filler in groups. I think there's plenty of people like me that would launch solo under the "Open" flag. Either competitive players who just don't care to have regular groups or group players on without their normal group. Don't worry about our/their chances in such an environment. It would be each player's decision to accept such a handicap or not.

There would still be increased failure to find for odd-sized groups, but it would give them an out. And if they're going to insist that they absolutely must play that way, then they'll just need to accept some realities about the MM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

OneEyed Jack, on 15 April 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

It's really not that complicated.

Simply create 2 flags. Not queues, flags. One flag is named "Open", or "Unrestricted", or something. With this flag on, the player is matched against any group sizes. This flag is automatically set for groups of 5+, and optional for smaller groups and solos.

The second flag is "Restricted", or "Limited", or even just "Standard". This flag is the default for anyone not currently in a group of 5+. With this flag on, the player/group can only be matched against other small groups and solos.

This protects those that don't want to play against larger groups, but allows the braver small groups and solos to play as filler in groups. I think there's plenty of people like me that would launch solo under the "Open" flag. Either competitive players who just don't care to have regular groups or group players on without their normal group. Don't worry about our/their chances in such an environment. It would be each player's decision to accept such a handicap or not.

There would still be increased failure to find for odd-sized groups, but it would give them an out. And if they're going to insist that they absolutely must play that way, then they'll just need to accept some realities about the MM.

no, it is that complicated.

[PhoenixFire55]

Ngamok, on 14 April 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

Because they mean that for the private matches. If they can't sell Premium Time to cover some of the costs what do you want them to do? Start a monthly sub?

Fix their broken game instead of pushing new sales and useless content.

[DirePhoenix]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

Also there are those who didn't respond not only do i have to assume they dont really care but that messes up the research and i have to start again.

Or they don't speak your language. For some reason when playing group content in STO, I always get grouped with German players (who I know are German because they're the only ones that use the built-in voice chat)... which is also very odd because the times I play it should be 2 or 3am in Germany... which adds to my observation that German players are a different breed of gamer.

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 11:44 PM, said:

But if I read correctly, the proposal's here are that you can only faction play from the group queue?.

ie, 12 solo's vs 12 solo's will not be fighting to determine their faction outcomes?

Scratch match's basically?

There are 3 basic match types:

• Public - this is essentially what we have now. solo or group play, teams are not faction based, you get XP and Cbills, but no Loyalty Points, and battle outcome does not affect the territory control map. Will be balanced 3/3/3/3, Clan 'mechs count as being 5 tons heavier.
  
• Factions - teams sorted by factions. Solo or group play for House or Clan faction players (although the groups here is where things are really messy). Mercenary units are pretty much 12v12 group only in faction play, and IIRC, they need at least a full company of 12 people online to play. Not sure how that's going to work out for mercs. As described early in beta and again at the launch event, it doesn't sound like mercs and house armies fight together in the same matches. Instead it's Mercs vs. Mercs and House vs. House. Mercs are used as sort of the advance raiding parties and home defense while House armies fight on fronts that the mercs open up with their advance raids.
  
• Private - this is group only. There are 2 types - free and premium. Players set the rules. Premium private matches have more customizable rule options. I don't think you need a full 12 players on each side for private matches. This is probably best suited for hardcore competitions like tournaments and leagues, or setting up practice sessions. No XP or Cbills (or loyalty points) here as privately set up matches could make it easy to game the system (anyone remember the 'fight clubs' in SWG?).

Edited by DirePhoenix, 15 April 2014 - 12:36 AM.

[Craig Steele]

DirePhoenix, on 15 April 2014 - 12:32 AM, said:

Or they don't speak your language. For some reason when playing group content in STO, I always get grouped with German players (who I know are German because they're the only ones that use the built-in voice chat)... which is also very odd because the times I play it should be 2 or 3am in Germany... which adds to my observation that German players are a different breed of gamer.

[/size]

There are 3 basic match types:

• Public - this is essentially what we have now. solo or group play, teams are not faction based, you get XP and Cbills, but no Loyalty Points, and battle outcome does not affect the territory control map. Will be balanced 3/3/3/3, Clan 'mechs count as being 5 tons heavier.
  
• Factions - teams sorted by factions. Solo or group play for House or Clan faction players (although the groups here is where things are really messy). Mercenary units are pretty much 12v12 group only in faction play, and IIRC, they need at least a full company of 12 people online to play. Not sure how that's going to work out for mercs, as described early in beta and again at the launch event, it doesn't sound like mercs and house armies fight together in the same matches. Instead it's Mercs vs. Mercs and House vs. House. Mercs are used as sort of the advance raiding parties and home defense while House armies fight on fronts that the mercs open up with their advance raids.
  
• Private - this is group only. There are 2 types - free and premium. Players set the rules. Premium private matches have more customizable rule options. I don't think you need a full 12 players on each side for private matches. This is probably best suited for hardcore competitions like tournaments and leagues, or setting up practice sessions. No XP or Cbills (or loyalty points) here as privately set up matches could make it easy to game the system (anyone remember the 'fight clubs' in SWG?).

OK, but this is the official modes under the Launch Module / CW vision afaik.

The proposals here seem to be steering in a different direction.

I'll keep reading

[Tekadept]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

. Also there are those who didn't respond not only do i have to assume they dont really care but that messes up the research and i have to start again.

In order to get accurate data more than 70-80% of players need to respond. If you dont have that it throws of your data; then you need to start all over again.

[Magna Canus]

I am a bit late to the discussion, but I have to agree with a number of others here that are petitioning to let Solo players participate on the Group Que. I would rather be able to drop into the Group Que as a solo when not able to drop with my Unit, e.g. I would rather drop with/against experienced players that know what they are doing than with people who have come to MWO to "just try it out" without any understanding of how the game works.

I applaud PGI's initiative "Get Recognized" and hope that it will provide a portal for new players to get the guidance they need to get "up to speed" and am always willing to drop with/train new players within that initiative, BUT I would rather not have to deal with players without a basic understanding of the game on my team otherwise.

When I drop in a game I want to be able to at least trust in the fact that the guy next to me knows how to move from a to b, knows how his weapons/systems work, and all the other basics or at least is currently in an active learning process.

[Wintersdark]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

If people dont like it? other way around buddy.

What do you mean, the other way around? How does allowing solo players to opt in to the group queue hurt anyone? If they don't enjoy bit, they don't opt in and are exactly where they where in a world where they couldn't opt in - in their solo queue safe and sound.

In what way does this not make both groups of players happy?

Quote

Of course you dont feel they ruin battles. For you to say anything else would hurt your point.

Give it a rest. Can't you see I'm pushing for something that everyone wins with? I recognize some people - many, even - feel that groups unbalance battles. I don't share that feeling, and that's OK. Those who DO feel they unbalance battles stay in the solo queue and everything is peachy keen for them.

Quote

No, if you guys dont like it there's always the door. or wait for them to finish CW and then work to see if your options are plausible. They might be but whats being done is what you guys are gonna have to stick with.

why are you so bent out of shape about this? How does it hurt you? Its not like allowing solo players to join a group queue is going to impact the dev time requirements. It wouldn't impact CW release time at all.

[GalaxyBluestar]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 11:22 PM, said:

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.

well if we're gonna talk about foolish arguments then don't you consider it foolish to run an online team game amongest competing games whom provide for group players and thrive off the customers they bring in and tell the ones at your shop door "sorry we don't serve your kind" and turn all that potential away? further more go to the trouble explaining "why" there's many many reasons they can't be served while a strong and proven growth demographic in this field says otherwise?

essentially what i'm reading is we want top dollar in grabdeals but a cheap low customer base, we don't want the groups and guilds buisness for our buisness field which normally serves groups and guilds. not providing is silly if you want to be in buisness it's that simple.

[PhoenixFire55]

I really don't know why we all still bother with the game that is only catering for noobz shooting MLs at 1000m. But please PGI, tell us more about how teamwork is "overpowered" in a team-based game and how idiots should have a 50% W/L in a "thinking person shooter".

I've heard there is a debugged version of MechWarrior 3 for Win7. Think I'll go play that instead ...

[PhoenixFire55]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

I agree that CW will be flawed but they are going for a release then fix method. That is why they asked the community what we wanted in regards to how they would release it.

LMFAO.

101011, on 14 April 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

Here is your roadmap/estimation of development phase

First line:
"UI 2.0 Component - 100%"
I need read no further ...

Ransack, on 14 April 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

Ok, so has anyone touched on the fact that there are no rewards in private matches. So if I get 8 guys on and want to group up, I (someone) need premium activated, and have to do the match making myself, for nothing? Really?

I'm sure Heff will find some "logical" justification, but to me, it's just....

wow

Its a perfect business model really. We give you a horrendous matchmaker and force you to use it for a year. Then, we give you an option to get away from it but you need to pay to do so. Income.

mp00, on 14 April 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

Well there is a test server.. how about setting up (giving some advance notice to) whatever ideas can be done on it and try them out?

Use test server for test purposes? Get outta here man, we don't need no stinking LOGIC over here.

[PhoenixFire55]

Apostal Sinclair, on 14 April 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

Well this has sealed the deal... I'm getting refunds on the money I've put into clans...

The failure of Paul and Russ to address community concerns or even glance at them is laughable... from the generic Timberwolf (yes generic because it seems to be a low polycount of the concept art with homogenous components they'll probably reuse in every other clan mech), the horrid balancing method of Paul taking a sledge hammer as the only tool to fix anything, to the inability for PGI to notice that people WANT to drop in groups larger then 4, that the entire concept fundamentally threw alot of people off the game and many unit's to shrink in size.

This game is slowly sinking, and quite frankly it's looking like it's only becoming about bringing in solo players trying to abuse them of their cash before they become disenfranchised with how bad the new player experience is, how bad the economy works & how god awful the gameplay balance is (particularly PGI's shady nature of sales prior to major gameplay mechanic changes with that sledge hammer).

I enjoyed this game up until Open Beta... then it started to flounder, a year for important game updated or slated within 90days... never came. Nor did any actual work on any feature they talked about from UI2.0 (you ONLY saw stuff late October last year... that's 3 months work on it?!) and their still talking ONLY about the napkin design of CW... give us a break, it should've been done already and in the works!

I can play better games that provide consistent new content every 2 weeks, new feature and system overhauls every few months, and they don't squeeze the player hard for anything that would harm their business... hell if MWO did CB to MC conversion or vica-versa at least then free-to-play would be tree for this game (the requirement to expand your mechbay past 4 with cash is a joke, particularly when it takes 3 mechs to master just 1 of the good variants...).

QFT. I feel same way.