1126 replies to this topic

[PhoenixFire55]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 04:39 PM, said:

Honestly, it should be the other way around. Premades should get hazard pay for having to try and carry Joe Derp while he rambos off and gets killed in the first minute and two other dbags disco leaving you shorthanded.

You know where I don't have to worry about my team being comprised of players like that? When I can team up with who I want.

^This.

[PhoenixFire55]

Imperius, on 14 April 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

Ihope no one supports private matches just to prove a point

Not a dime.

[DeathlyEyes]

PhoenixFire55, on 15 April 2014 - 01:48 AM, said:

^This.

We already do pay for it, my team is filled with really incompetent players that shouldn't be playing against teams that get thrown against me. I pretty much have to do 800+ damage and get multiple kills in order to win.

[Mycrus]

Amsro, on 14 April 2014 - 09:31 PM, said:

But there Data is undeniably innacurate, they havn't release any other data to cross reference it.

When Paul himself say's he is surprised, and merely 1 year ago he was CERTAIN that more people dropped in groups. Meaning at minimum 51%-49% split. The only trend I see is that the team game has dwindled (due to 4+ being nerfed to death).

And trends are far more meaningful then self-prophesized data. This whole debacle would be the equivalent of me cutting off your foot and then being amazed that you cannot run as fast as before and on top of that don't like to walk much now either.

Science experiment

Normal frog + scientist

Scientist tells frog to jump... frog jumps

Cut 1 leg off and tell frog to jump... frog jumps.. sort of

Cut 1 more leg off and tell frog to jump... frog flops around

cut 1 arm off and tell frog to jump... frog flops around sort of

Cut the last appendage off and tell frog to jump... frog blinks back at the scientist and does nothing...

scientist completes the experiment by saying that if you cut everything off a frog... it becomes deaf...

that my friends is how I view pgi and their statistics...

[PhoenixFire55]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 15 April 2014 - 02:20 AM, said:

We already do pay for it, my team is filled with really incompetent players that shouldn't be playing against teams that get thrown against me. I pretty much have to do 800+ damage and get multiple kills in order to win.

And the better you are the worse they get, because Elo.

[No7]

The lack of Karl in this thread is disturbing.


We don't need more queues, we need a lobby where we can set up the game we want to play.

[Trystan Thorne]

I agree that the Group Queue should allow solo players, but I think there is one thing that needs to be considered.

The last thing we all want to see if a huge amount solo players start dropping into the Group queue and suddenly we end up having 12 man groups vs solo players. Or we end up with something similar like the solo queue (small groups and loads of solo players).

Some proper mechanics need to be put in place to make sure solo gamers join in only as fillers. The trouble I see with that, is that the queuing could take really long then for solo gamers. So some thought is definitely needed.

In this case, I actually agree with PGI that it’s better to not allow solo players in the group queue. I’m agreeing for different reasons though. Not that solo players would less of a chance to win, but Group queue should be protected by a too huge influx of solo gamers.
Once proper mechanics are in place, then solo gamers should be considered be allowed into groups.

As others said, there could be so many benefits for solo gamers (meeting with groups and also learning from them).

I’m a solo player by the way.

[Magna Canus]

PhoenixFire55, on 15 April 2014 - 02:27 AM, said:

And the better you are the worse they get, because Elo.

Which is what I gather is the reason behind the posts of many solo players wanting to drop with groups instead of "pure PUG", e.g. just to get away from having really terrible newbies in their teams.

[Chemie]

Paul makes it sounds like you have a choice. Play pug (and 2-4 man but limited number allowed so long wait times) OR use the "community" response feature of private matches.

The problem is that this is not an OR. The team players can't just go off and enjoy private matches, even with 3rd party lobbies. The reason is that the private games pay nothing. You need CB to get mechs etc.

So eliminate that part and Paul is saying "you must play as a pug, singles only, limited number of limited teams (but with long queue time)". Wow.

[Chemie]

Trystan Thorne, on 15 April 2014 - 03:14 AM, said:

I agree that the Group Queue should allow solo players, but I think there is one thing that needs to be considered.

The last thing we all want to see if a huge amount solo players start dropping into the Group queue and suddenly we end up having 12 man groups vs solo players. Or we end up with something similar like the solo queue (small groups and loads of solo players).

A 10 year old could program around that issue. All you need to do is roughly balance the pre-made on each team. If there is a 12-man, make it 10 on the other side ((or 3 4-mans or something). It is PGI programming incompetence that gave us 8-mans vs 8 pugs which was easily avoidable and stupid.

Also, if "huge" numbers drop into the queue that PGI says we don't need, what does that say to Paul's thesis that only single play is what we all want?

Edited by Chemie, 15 April 2014 - 03:33 AM.

[Craig Steele]

Chemie, on 15 April 2014 - 03:33 AM, said:

A 10 year old could program around that issue. All you need to do is roughly balance the pre-made on each team. If there is a 12-man, make it 10 on the other side ((or 3 4-mans or something). It is PGI programming incompetence that gave us 8-mans vs 8 pugs which was easily avoidable and stupid.

Also, if "huge" numbers drop into the queue that PGI says we don't need, what does that say to Paul's thesis that only single play is what we all want?

If this is so easy to do, how come they are in business making the big bucks and you're not running the show?

Just asking?

[Jacob Side]

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

Yeah, because I've always been so down on PGI and just love raging against the machine.

One of these days some change or feature PGI does or doesn't do to the game will put a hole in Heffay & the rest of the new guard of white knights gleaming armor. We'll accept them to the darkside with a "sup bro".

I was a huge defender of PGI in my unit but the kick in the face they gave us over larger group sizes, after telling us that the 4 man limit would be temporary, put the hole in my armor.

All white knights have their breaking point, PGI will eventually push you past your's.

Edited by Jacob Side, 15 April 2014 - 04:00 AM.

[Magna Canus]

Craig Steele, on 15 April 2014 - 03:46 AM, said:

If this is so easy to do, how come they are in business making the big bucks and you're not running the show?

Just asking?

Craig,
no need to make things personal on this forum. On a side note, my brother in law is a programmer, a friend of mine from work, and another friend of mine as well. As a point of interest I asked these professionals about the issue of match making and all of them came up with very quick and simple responses/solutions. The question "why don't you get them to work for PGI", does not need to be posed because they are very happy working where they are now.

I am not a baker, and suck at baking, but I know what a good cake tastes like and know that there are millions of other people out there that can bake them with ease. Just because I live in a small town with 1 baker whose cake leaves much to desired and I myself can't bake to save my life, does not mean that I don't know that making a cake is not that hard (for many others), especially if I use critical thinking and make comparisons to other bakeries.

The reason why PGI is our baker is because they bought the rights to be that 1 baker in town. It does not mean that their cake is as good as others, nor does it mean I have to eat their cake, but it also does not mean that criticism and comparisons are not allowed nor does it prevent me from using my 3rd amendment right to freely express my desire for a better cake.

So when asked "if you don't like the cake why don't you do it yourself" I respond "I can't bake and besides, I have a job of my own".

[Craig Steele]

Magnakanus, on 15 April 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

Craig,
no need to make things personal on this forum. On a side note, my brother in law is a programmer, a friend of mine from work, and another friend of mine as well. As a point of interest I asked these professionals about the issue of match making and all of them came up with very quick and simple responses/solutions. The question "why don't you get them to work for PGI", does not need to be posed because they are very happy working where they are now.

I am not a baker, and suck at baking, but I know what a good cake tastes like and know that there are millions of other people out there that can bake them with ease. Just because I live in a small town with 1 baker whose cake leaves much to desired and I myself can't bake to save my life, does not mean that I don't know that making a cake is not that hard (for many others), especially if I use critical thinking and make comparisons to other bakeries.

The reason why PGI is our baker is because they bought the rights to be that 1 baker in town. It does not mean that their cake is as good as others, nor does it mean I have to eat their cake, but it also does not mean that criticism and comparisons are not allowed nor does it prevent me from using my 3rd amendment right to freely express my desire for a better cake.

So when asked "if you don't like the cake why don't you do it yourself" I respond "I can't bake and besides, I have a job of my own".

Well, I kinda think that the implications made in that post were personal, so he should be able to take it if he can dish it out right. Not that I think I was being personal in any case.

But sure, I'll play above the belt so to speak in respect of your constructive approach.

Your cake analysis though, well the thing is that different people like different cakes. You might not like your local baker but he is still in business right, so he must be doing something right?

Now maybe he doesn't have 100% of the town love him, maybe its only 40%, but if that's enough for him and his business than he's happy right. As ad as it might be for the other 60% to buy their cakes out of town, that's they game right? We are all consumers of discretion.

Cause that's kinda the bigger picture. Regardless of whether this aspect is easy to program or not, there's a lot more to it than just programming it.

I mean it's just as easy to change the FLD on PPC's isn't it, but what happens then. Some will love it, some will hate it, some will get used to, some will complain about it, and you get the point.

Just because it is easy to do, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Not for the game, not the business.

PGI need to balance up all the factors of the business, and people seem to be absolute experts on what they simply do not (and cannot) know.

Notice I'm not saying PGI are right, this could well be another monumental screw up. But it is their call to make. And they have all the information and motivation to make the right call, which a consumer does not have.

Edited by Craig Steele, 15 April 2014 - 04:14 AM.

[Jacob Side]

Heffay, on 14 April 2014 - 07:17 PM, said:

What's wrong with the proposed split from PGI? Same thing. Public queue, group queue. Accomplishes the same thing: 5-10 man groups now can play together, no problems.

I'll agree that it's a thousand times better then what we have now, if we get it that's awesome. I don't see anywhere in Paul's post that says that we are getting it, just says backburner idea. Right now we're getting told to go play private matches for a 5-11 man group.

I just find the reasoning behind excluding 11 man group sizes lame, you can make it work. We've given them workable solutions and get told that won't work, when it clearly works for other games out there.

[vondano]

at last! we are 6 players, we will now be playing much more i think!

[Trystan Thorne]

Chemie, on 15 April 2014 - 03:33 AM, said:

A 10 year old could program around that issue. All you need to do is roughly balance the pre-made on each team. If there is a 12-man, make it 10 on the other side ((or 3 4-mans or something). It is PGI programming incompetence that gave us 8-mans vs 8 pugs which was easily avoidable and stupid.

Also, if "huge" numbers drop into the queue that PGI says we don't need, what does that say to Paul's thesis that only single play is what we all want?

Not as easy as as you think it is. The Theory of it sounds easy. Making it work is not.
You have to program a lot algorithms to calculate all the possibilities if you throw in solo players in group play.

Sure, there are developers out there who'd be ablo to handle this better. PGI is not that good. But they aren't incompetent either. I have done a fair share of programming and often enough things that look easy are not.

I'll stand by my oppionon that I think it's better this way. PGI will be able to collect data from this first release and will then be able to see how to program solo players into the group queue.
If they ever plan to do that (I think they should eventually).

And the 8 man vs PUG wasn't really only PGI's fault. Sure they did allow it to happen, but in my eyes, the bigger fault for that one was with the 8 man groups that got sick of being beaten by better 8 man groups and went back to PUGstomping.

[Magna Canus]

Craig Steele, on 15 April 2014 - 04:09 AM, said:

1) Well, I kinda think that the implications made in that post were personal, so he should be able to take it if he can dish it out right. Not that I think I was being personal in any case. But sure, I'll play above the belt so to speak in respect of your constructive approach.

2) Your cake analysis though, well the thing is that different people like different cakes. You might not like your local baker but he is still in business right, so he must be doing something right? Now maybe he doesn't have 100% of the town love him, maybe its only 40%, but if that's enough for him and his business than he's happy right. As ad as it might be for the other 60% to buy their cakes out of town, that's they game right?

3) Just because it is easy to do, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Not for the game, not the business. PGI need to balance up all the factors of the business, and people seem to be absolute experts on what they simply do not (and cannot) know. Notice I'm not saying PGI are right, this could well be another monumental screw up. But it is their call to make. And they have all the information and motivation to make the right call, which a consumer does not have.

1) Thanks. Being "the better man" helps prevents conversations from becoming arguments.

2) I get your point here, that minority may be enough to keep him happy with his revenues and keep his business afloat. Tastes can change with time, the cake I like today may not be the cake I like tomorrow. Were I the baker I might talk to and listen to the paying customers close to home and get a good impression of what they like and don't like. unless you are McBaker you can't live on "drive through" clients forever.

3) I agree here as well. They have the tools and data to actually get good info & stats. Whether they choose to or not, whether they have the expertise for correct interpretation or not, is not a given. One would also assume that the motivation exists to make the "right call" as well, but that is also not a given. Motivation to do something is many faceted, even if the thing done is the same.

In the world of capitalism the consumer is really the only important factor when you get down to it. No customers = no money = no business. Big businesses understand the concept perfectly and focus their efforts on retaining large, long term, market shares. Even typical "walk in" big businesses understand the need to appeal to their customer base over the long term, especially in a limited market. I guess that is the difference between big business and small business.

[Mycrus]

Jacob Side, on 15 April 2014 - 04:15 AM, said:

I'll agree that it's a thousand times better then what we have now, if we get it that's awesome. I don't see anywhere in Paul's post that says that we are getting it, just says backburner idea. Right now we're getting told to go play private matches for a 5-11 man group.

I just find the reasoning behind excluding 11 man group sizes lame, you can make it work. We've given them workable solutions and get told that won't work, when it clearly works for other games out there.

Limit to 4man while we work on matchmaker = 2 years

5-11 in back burner = half life of uranium

[Napoleon_Blownapart]

11 man drops happen every other drop already.
you will never fix this game untill there is voip and lobbies, this is the only multiplayer game i have seen in 15 years where you cant talk to anybody.why dont you understand this?if 12 people ended up on the same team AND COULD TALK TO EACH OTHER the game would be maybe worth investing in.