1126 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 15 April 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

Can I play devils advocate for a moment on this allow solo in group concept?

Lets say a 7 man team loads up with 5 solo PUG's who are looking to be carried or just farming?

They are the same inept "drool" that some people have described them as, they're not going to improve the game experience for the "Team Player" or perhaps they will rambo off and die so they can reload another mech and churn those C-Bills.

Is this going to be satisfactory to the 5 - 11 calls?

Is this a cost we are happy to bear?

uhm

first and foremost why is this even a point of contention? There are quite a few solo players who in this very thread, have stated they WANT that OPTION. No player is forced to do it. So it shouldn't even be a part of the discussion to say anything detrimental about giving players an option to do that if they want it. Why would anyone think that in this kind of setting it's better to have less options as opposed to more for your players to play how they want?

You know who's asking for that option?
Solo players. So again I ask, why would anyone think it's better to NOT give them that option?

Over and beyond that, ok lets say I agree with you. Fine, take out solo players (tell them they can't play who they want and restrict their options and ability to play the game that's most enjoyable for them because that's always a great business decision right?) and you're still left with the idea and suggestion of giving groups a queue to play in any size group.

So why try to point out that one option for solo players when they're asking for it. They're not being forced to play that way. Groups aren't the ones that come up with that suggestion to "prey" on solo players. THEY want it and it would be a good way to help fill out the queue.

[Sandpit]

and please stop with the way you're presenting this. First off

those rambo style players and joe derps aren't going to want to play in the group queue if I had to guess. It's not their environment because THOSE are the players that enjoy roflstomping players. Joining the group queue wouldn't be conducive to that. They'd actually be playing in matches that use teamwork.

secondly, even if they did, so what? It's MUCH easier to carry 1-3 of those players than it is to carry 5-6 of them when the other team is playing as a team.

thirdly, you're just trying to be argumentative because one of the arguments for unlimited group sizes is not having to play alongside those types of players as often so I can see exactly what you're trying to do with that. Just stop dude, seriously.

Why do you even care if PGI gives those that want to play in groups access to the 12man queue?
How does that affect how YOU play the game?
How does that in any way prevent you from playing how you want to play or create a negative game experience for you?

Why are YOU against this idea Criag? This isn't snark, I'm honestly curious as to why and how that suggestion causes your game experience to deteriorate in any way. How does letting groups have their own queue affect your game experience? What difference does it make? I'd honestly like to know why anyone would be against the suggestion of letting 2-12 mans drop int eh 12 man group. Forget the solo option, why are you fighting so hard against letting other players enjoy the game and play how they want to just like you're allowed to do?

[Roland]

Craig Steele, on 15 April 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

Can I play devils advocate for a moment on this allow solo in group concept?

Lets say a 7 man team loads up with 5 solo PUG's who are looking to be carried or just farming?

They are the same inept "drool" that some people have described them as, they're not going to improve the game experience for the "Team Player" or perhaps they will rambo off and die so they can reload another mech and churn those C-Bills.

Is this going to be satisfactory to the 5 - 11 calls?

Is this a cost we are happy to bear?

While I think your suggestion is totally contrived, this answer is yes, I would gladly take that option.

Because I would rather be able to play with my 6 friends than not.

[Navy Sixes]

Tycho von Gagern, on 15 April 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

They'll just blame me and the other solos every time they lose .

Craig Steele, on 15 April 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

They are the same inept "drool" that some people have described them as, they're not going to improve the game experience for the "Team Player" or perhaps they will rambo off and die so they can reload another mech and churn those C-Bills.
Is this going to be satisfactory to the 5 - 11 calls?
Is this a cost we are happy to bear?

Well, that didn't take long, did it?

[Sandpit]

Tycho von Gagern, on 15 April 2014 - 07:45 PM, said:

Well, that didn't take long, did it?

Nah, you're just seeing an example of someone trying to divert from the main idea and coming up with any and every possible scenario, argument, etc. to argue against something without giving a single valid reason as to why it's a "bad" idea.

Maybe he is just playing devil's advocate but it just seems like he's trying everything possible to get those of us supporting the ideas in this thread to recant or change our views or backtrack on something. That's what it seems like anyhow because as soon as one of the players does just that he and the rest of the detractors will pounce on it, quote it multiple times (just like they've quoted posts made months ago in different threads on completely different topics to "prove" something)

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 15 April 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

uhm

first and foremost why is this even a point of contention? There are quite a few solo players who in this very thread, have stated they WANT that OPTION. No player is forced to do it. So it shouldn't even be a part of the discussion to say anything detrimental about giving players an option to do that if they want it. Why would anyone think that in this kind of setting it's better to have less options as opposed to more for your players to play how they want?

You know who's asking for that option?
Solo players. So again I ask, why would anyone think it's better to NOT give them that option?

Over and beyond that, ok lets say I agree with you. Fine, take out solo players (tell them they can't play who they want and restrict their options and ability to play the game that's most enjoyable for them because that's always a great business decision right?) and you're still left with the idea and suggestion of giving groups a queue to play in any size group.

So why try to point out that one option for solo players when they're asking for it. They're not being forced to play that way. Groups aren't the ones that come up with that suggestion to "prey" on solo players. THEY want it and it would be a good way to help fill out the queue.

Sandpit, on 15 April 2014 - 07:40 PM, said:

and please stop with the way you're presenting this. First off

those rambo style players and joe derps aren't going to want to play in the group queue if I had to guess. It's not their environment because THOSE are the players that enjoy roflstomping players. (1) Joining the group queue wouldn't be conducive to that. They'd actually be playing in matches that use teamwork.

secondly, even if they did, so what? It's MUCH easier to carry 1-3 of those players than it is to carry 5-6 of them when the other team is playing as a team.

thirdly, you're just trying to be argumentative (2) because one of the arguments for unlimited group sizes is not having to play alongside those types of players as often so I can see exactly what you're trying to do with that. Just stop dude, seriously.

Why do you even care if PGI gives those that want to play in groups access to the 12man queue?
How does that affect how YOU play the game?
How does that in any way prevent you from playing how you want to play or create a negative game experience for you?

Why are YOU against this idea Criag? This isn't snark, I'm honestly curious as to why and how that suggestion causes your game experience to deteriorate in any way. How does letting groups have their own queue affect your game experience? What difference does it make? I'd honestly like to know why anyone would be against the suggestion of letting 2-12 mans drop int eh 12 man group. Forget the solo option, why are you fighting so hard against letting other players enjoy the game and play how they want to just like you're allowed to do?

Jeepers Sandpit, ease up a little. I get you have a stake in it but it's not all about you.

I count less than 20 "solo" players wanting to join group queues in this thread (happy to be corrected, will freely admit I skimmed) but thats hardly "quite a few" in the context of the 1.6m accounts that MW:O apparently has. But then again, the thread is reasonably new as well so maybe in time?

The question was if there was that option, is not possible that Solo players of less than stand up integrity (see how I assume that the other side has the same falliability as PUG stomping Team players) could also abuse the system for their purposes.

Ergo, as we discuss this have we considered that possibility and are we comfortable with the trade off. Alternativily, what are the options to prevent or mitigate it.

Because the point is, if the OPTION is in the hands of the solo player than the "Group Player" will just have to damn well live with it.

(1) Go reread, I am talking about the players that want a free ride at the expense of the group experieince for extra C-Bills. The oppositie of the stompers.

(2) Say what? Can you quote a single post where I have said I am against the idea? Or is it just that if anyone asks questions that challenges if peope are falliable or not they are automatically on the other side? Robust discussion doesn't need to be antagonistic, but you clearly seem set on making it so.

If you followed the thread you may have even seen where I pushed for Bhael's theory to be strengthened cause it's the idea that resonated the most with me so far, but appears to have weaknesses.

Tell you what, why don't you stop with the BS and embrace that you are not infalliable, that everyone can gain from being challenged and it's not all about you and your wants.

I'm tired of quoting you "attack the man" post but I can if you want.

[Roadbeer]

Roland, on 15 April 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

The rage, SandpitRoadbeer.. It builds, doesn't it?

it's a warm glowing, warming glow

[Pyrrho]

Roadbeer, on 15 April 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

it's a warm glowing, warming glow

[King Arthur IV]

sometimes its just better to let it all out.

[Roland]

Craig Steele, on 15 April 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

Because the point is, if the OPTION is in the hands of the solo player than the "Group Player" will just have to damn well live with it.

And.... ?
No one thinks that's bad.

I mean, currently, we have to play with those very same people... only MORE of them. So what exactly do you think anyone is gonna see as a downside here?

[Roadbeer]

Roland, on 15 April 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

And.... ?
No one thinks that's bad.

I'd rather have one or two that MIGHT stay with the group than 8 that feed single file into the PUGZAPPER, then complain about how bad their team sucks

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 15 April 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

And.... ?
No one thinks that's bad.

I mean, currently, we have to play with those very same people... only MORE of them. So what exactly do you think anyone is gonna see as a downside here?

No one thinks its bad, but has anyone thought about it either? Cause no one has actually addressed it as far as I can see.

Look this isn't something I just dreamt up, on page 3 and 4 of this thread other people are touching this subject, later there's all sorts of suggestions about Solo PUG's getting an extra "reward" for filling out the group queue.

I'm just taking it to the logical conclusion that where there is the potential for abuse, people might abuse it. Cause you know, it's not like thats never happened in MW:O before.

Ergo, if we are asking PGI to implement something, and lets say (god forbid) they do, have we thought about the possible outcomes of it and are happy with it.

Cause that's the point of discussing it really isn't it. To gather more idea's than our own and derive a more complete view than the anecdotal one we start with.

[NemesisXIII]

I'm not going to suggest answers, because there are too many out there already - its up to you guys to pick one - BUT I am going to say I'd really like to be able to do 6 mans. My kids and my self is 3, then add in my friends and I'm at 6. The most our group has ever been able to gather IS 10... but most of the others only casually play MWO.
I will also request that possibly make it lance based. Queue up 2-8. In theory that should reduce edge cases and would fit the majority of players. (certainly would for me.)

[no one]

Craig Steele, on 15 April 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

Because the point is, if the OPTION is in the hands of the solo player than the "Group Player" will just have to damn well live with it.

How is that different than Paul's suggested system of having 1-4 man groups launch into the PUG queue? You're letting 4 mans into PUG play and the PUGs just have to live with it? Those 4 man groups have to live with 8 PUGs? it's just a silly argument.

See, a group knows it's a group, however big or small it is. Assuming you let solo players have the option of being selected to fill empty slots in the group queue, and assuming the match maker keeps the number of soloists equal on each side, there's no disadvantage to the groups, and no inherent way for the soloists to tell if they've been launched into a group match or a solo match. You don't want them to know you're in a group? Don't tell 'em.

Besides, I doubt you'd get more than one or two soloists per side per game as long as the matchmaker favors pairing up groups before scraping the volunteer soloist queue. Once they add ELO buckets proper anyone getting carried that hard is going to tank to scrub tier anyway.

Roland, on 15 April 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

No one thinks that's bad.

What? No I don't!

Edited by no one, 15 April 2014 - 09:32 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Roland, on 15 April 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

FTFY

[Craig Steele]

no one, on 15 April 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

(1) How is that different than Paul's suggested system of having 1-4 man groups launch into the PUG queue? You're letting 4 mans into PUG play and the PUGs just have to live with it?

See, a group knows it's a group, however big or small it is. Assuming you let solo players have the option of being selected to fill empty slots in the group queue, and assuming the match maker keeps the number of soloists equal on each side, there's no disadvantage to the groups, and no inherent way for the soloists to tell if they've been launched into a group match or a solo match.

(1) It's not a huge difference (except for a minority of instances when the numbers are larger) but it is the other side of the coin which I have not seen anyone call out, notwithstanding a couple of people brushed the subject early on.

There is more than one person on here saying "this is simple", "PGI fix now" etc etc so lets say they do, and suddenly in the Solo PUG population there is a demographic that decides that regardless of their ability or not, they have a better chance of "winning" a match and "doing" less in the group queue.

If they're farming, they are going to be launching into 4 or 5 matches for every team match (dead in 2 minutes in a 10 minute match) so their impact on the game experience will be many times more their number.

Cause ultimately, thats what some of the "Team players" want, a better game experience without the mindless zombie "Derpherd heading to the PUGZAPPER" and more importantly, they EXPECT this 5 - 11 accommodation to deliver.

If we haven't anticipated the consequences of our request and PGI do what we want, we'll have to take responsibility for the outcomes we get.

And no one wants that (see that?? LOL, jk)

Edited by Craig Steele, 15 April 2014 - 09:33 PM.

[no one]

Craig Steele, on 15 April 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:

suddenly in the Solo PUG population there is a demographic that decides that regardless of their ability or not, they have a better chance of "winning" a match and "doing" less in the group queue.

No smart person is going to think that, because being in a group queue cuts both ways. Ramboing it up in a group queue will teach people like this a brief, painful lesson before kicking them out the bottom of the ELO bucket.

Craig Steele, on 15 April 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:

If they're farming, they are going to be launching into 4 or 5 matches for every team match (dead in 2 minutes in a 10 minute match) so their impact on the game experience will be many times more their number.

1 - If there's a significant number of people doing this it'll increase the number of PUG queue matches running at a given time. They'd end up in the solo queue more often than not.
2 - They're re entering a game after quitting out, then they're not re-entering your game.
3 - As long as teams each have the same number of soloists, the other team is as statistically likely to have a bad as you are.
4 - A bad soloist is going to get bucketed with bad teams. A good soloist is going to be bucketed with good teams. Elo ftw.
5 - If you see someone farming, report 'em. Adjusting rewards could fix this quick.
6 - Worst case scenario the group queue weights available soloists by their "time from last launch" so as to limit repeat selection of soloists.

Craig Steele, on 15 April 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:

If we haven't anticipated the consequences of our request and PGI do what we want, we'll have to take responsibility for the outcomes we get.

Sure, I get that the point of playing Devils Advocate is to examine our assumptions, and that's good. Keep in mind though that you also have to concede ground to points well made or you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Edited by no one, 15 April 2014 - 10:02 PM.

[Dark DeLaurel]

Sandpit, on 15 April 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

Maybe he is just playing devil's advocate but it just seems like he's trying everything possible to get those of us supporting the ideas in this thread to recant or change our views or backtrack on something. That's what it seems like anyhow because as soon as one of the players does just that he and the rest of the detractors will pounce on it, quote it multiple times (just like they've quoted posts made months ago in different threads on completely different topics to "prove" something)

That is how he normally is check out the Clan forums sometime (we are all not like him trust me). I've come to the conclusion he just argues for the sake of it or loves trolling and seems to do a damn fine job of it.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Roland, on 15 April 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:

As you say, it's the frustration of knowing what might have been.

Or what may be yet to come ... soon^TM

[Craig Steele]

Dark DeLaurel, on 15 April 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

That is how he normally is check out the Clan forums sometime (we are all not like him trust me). I've come to the conclusion he just argues for the sake of it or loves trolling and seems to do a damn fine job of it.

I'll just leave this here for you

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

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