1126 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Deathlike, on 24 April 2014 - 10:02 PM, said:

I should've taken more pics, but since we'll get this on Tuesday, you'll find out soon enough.

You can't lab in the private match lobby at all outside of adding modules (usually consumables, but not limited to them).

Also, there's a bug where it doesn't list all the mechs in your mechbay there.

Additionally, the private match lobby is quirky... if the FIRST PERSON that is invited onto the second team does not have premium time, then you cannot toggle the premium time options. The game/PGI isn't "intelligent" enough to allow you to select a player from Team 2 that has Premium Time activated.

In any case, this will not really get people using the feature in general.

Roland is correct in his assumptions/assertions and so is Roadbeer.

Now I am confused,

Roland and Roadbeer were implying there is no function for 5 - 11 man team to play. They kept asking me to explain how it works as if it didn't.

But you have posted screen shots showing it does?

So does it actually work (with restriction / criteria) or not?

[Deathlike]

Roadbeer, on 24 April 2014 - 10:12 PM, said:

We actually had an easier time building 2 groups (with the leader of the second group having Ptime) then inviting them into the lobby and build from there. It was pretty clunky, and you REALLY have to remember whoever's "Private Match" it is that you turn max group off (if you're dropping less than 24), otherwise you can sit there clicking the ready button and having everyone unready/reready in search of a bug that isn't there.

Also, important to know, there is no "search" feature to find similar groups, you need to utilize MWOLobby or know your OP4 for the drop in advance.

True global lobbies is Lostech.

Craig Steele, on 24 April 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

Now I am confused,

Roland and Roadbeer were implying there is no function for 5 - 11 man team to play. They kept asking me to explain how it works as if it didn't.

But you have posted screen shots showing it does?

So does it actually work (with restriction / criteria) or not?

No.. they are saying you can't have 5 to 11-man GROUPS to be playing in the PUBLIC QUEUE (IDEALLY, a GROUP QUEUE) w/o having to "fork over money" (aka get MC/Premium Time) to commit to a (private) match that provides them zero rewards.

I hope that is made clear to you.

Edited by Deathlike, 24 April 2014 - 10:19 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Deathlike, on 24 April 2014 - 10:16 PM, said:

No.. they are saying you can't have 5 to 11-man GROUPS to be playing in the PUBLIC QUEUE (IDEALLY, a GROUP QUEUE) w/o having to "fork over money" (aka get MC/Premium Time) to commit to a match that provides them zero rewards.

I hope that is made clear to you.

But PGI already said that, in this OP from memory.

That was always the case since they announced the LM?

We couldn't play at all before in 5-11 groups, LM introduces an option (with restrictions / criteria) but it is still an option.

Some people might not like the restrictions / criteria (I have to assume PGI have set those for whatever commercial reasons they deem appropriate, why else would they?) but it works as they said it would? (Bugs and so forth aside).

So nothing has changed from what they said they would do with the LM.

[Deathlike]

Craig Steele, on 24 April 2014 - 10:22 PM, said:

But PGI already said that, in this OP from memory.

That was always the case since they announced the LM?

We couldn't play at all before in 5-11 groups, LM introduces an option (with restrictions / criteria) but it is still an option.

Some people might not like the restrictions / criteria (I have to assume PGI have set those for whatever commercial reasons they deem appropriate, why else would they?) but it works as they said it would? (Bugs and so forth aside).

So nothing has changed from what they said they would do with the LM.

They are delivering for the most part what they said what they are delivering. The only thing that deviated from this was seeing two premades on each side instead of one premade that Paul was promising. This was confirmed through testing when I was on the PTS server (not sure if it had changed towards the later hours).

Unfortunately, this is not going to translate well in usage.

Edited by Deathlike, 24 April 2014 - 10:29 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Deathlike, on 24 April 2014 - 10:28 PM, said:

They are delivering for the most part what they said what they are delivering. The only thing that deviated from this was seeing two premades on each side instead of one premade that Paul was promising. This was confirmed through testing when I was on the PTS server (not sure if it had changed towards the later hours).

Unfortunately, this is not going to translate well in usage.

Probably won't help the "Evil Pre made ate my baby" perception.

[Sam Slade]

removed because it was nasty and pointless

Edited by Sam Slade, 24 April 2014 - 10:36 PM.

[Deathlike]

Craig Steele, on 24 April 2014 - 10:31 PM, said:

Probably won't help the "Evil Pre made ate my baby" perception.

That's why asking for a true solo queue (no premades) would actually solve that problem. Your solution doesn't/won't ever/will never solve that.

After all, the "casual player" has "no need" for groups... just a solo queue to rule in... except they can't even do that!

Oh retention... I guess that's better than 3-day 3PV numbers.

[Craig Steele]

Deathlike, on 24 April 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:

That's why asking for a true solo queue (no premades) would actually solve that problem. Your solution doesn't/won't ever/will never solve that.

After all, the "casual player" has "no need" for groups... just a solo queue to rule in... except they can't even do that!

Oh retention... I guess that's better than 3-day 3PV numbers.

Yeah, I don't agree with you though.

PUG's is not just Solo players, its the demographic that just wants quick casual entertainment and that inlcudes a lot of the 2 and 3 man (and probably even some 4 man) group players.

Solo players are blaming Pre made Groups for the stomps (and hence some scream out solo vs solo), but there are any number of people who have pointed out statistically that just ain't so that's not the real issue that needs to be addressed. Also, its only some Solo's saying that, some are saying they are fine with fighting against pre made groups (even saying they will queue in the group queue)

If we address the issue with a Solo vs Solo queue, all we are doing is shifting the problem to another demographic, the small group players. They are the ones who are facing a 7+ man team and getting destroyed by focus fire in 30 seconds.

I think the better solution is that instead of forcing small group players to compete in a disadvantageous environment, we give them the same choices we give Solo players for the same reasons.

If they want to play the mech of their choice and just load up a game and rip into it, let them play in a PUG queue. To limit exploitation of "stomps" I would recommend capping groups as one per team at a maximum of 3 players (I'd listen to argument for 4 mans, but I think thats a stretch).

A second queue would be for those players wishing to have a more involved game play. That would be unrestricted, Solo's, Groups of 2 - 12. As Bhael identified, this queue would focus on the larger groups first, then back fill smaller groups and solo's to get to 12, max of 3 groups per team.

Both queues access CW.

Everyone has options, no one is disadvantaged.

We address the "Pre made ate my baby" perception by capping and limiting groups in the PUG queue, and we empower all players to play in a more "intense" environment and most importantly, the player population is not divided into too many buckets creating hopefully alleviating failed to find instances.

[Roadbeer]

Deathlike, on 24 April 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:

That's why asking for a true solo queue (no premades) would actually solve that problem. Your solution doesn't/won't ever/will never solve that.

After all, the "casual player" has "no need" for groups... just a solo queue to rule in... except they can't even do that!

Oh retention... I guess that's better than 3-day 3PV numbers.

I actually think that was a resolvable bug, Daemur seemed genuinely surprised that we were 2 premades on our side in that match (and not even attempting to sync).

IMO, the bigger issue will be the fact that the results of the matches I played in, the 3/3/3/3 didn't really make a difference, there were equal numbers of 12/2 as there were 12/9, and without the "Evil Premade Boogeyman syncdrop" to blame, as both teams will more than likely have a group on them, it'll come down to "The other side always has a 4 player premade, when mine only has a 2 player premade"

So there will be slightly bloated search times, with relatively the same results.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Roadbeer, on 24 April 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

IMO, the bigger issue will be the fact that the results of the matches I played in, the 3/3/3/3 didn't really make a difference, there were equal numbers of 12/2 as there were 12/9, and without the "Evil Premade Boogeyman syncdrop" to blame, as both teams will more than likely have a group on them, it'll come down to "The other side always has a 4 player premade, when mine only has a 2 player premade"

So there will be slightly bloated search times, with relatively the same results.

i am sooooooooo surprised to see this result. 3/3/3/3 will do jack except limt stuff further and everyone knows it. well those who saw it in beta as 2/2/2/2 before elo knows it.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 24 April 2014 - 11:01 PM.

[Deathlike]

Craig Steele, on 24 April 2014 - 10:50 PM, said:

Yeah, I don't agree with you though.

PUG's is not just Solo players, its the demographic that just wants quick casual entertainment and that inlcudes a lot of the 2 and 3 man (and probably even some 4 man) group players.

Solo players are blaming Pre made Groups for the stomps (and hence some scream out solo vs solo), but there are any number of people who have pointed out statistically that just ain't so that's not the real issue that needs to be addressed. Also, its only some Solo's saying that, some are saying they are fine with fighting against pre made groups (even saying they will queue in the group queue)

If we address the issue with a Solo vs Solo queue, all we are doing is shifting the problem to another demographic, the small group players. They are the ones who are facing a 7+ man team and getting destroyed by focus fire in 30 seconds.

I think the better solution is that instead of forcing small group players to compete in a disadvantageous environment, we give them the same choices we give Solo players for the same reasons.

If they want to play the mech of their choice and just load up a game and rip into it, let them play in a PUG queue. To limit exploitation of "stomps" I would recommend capping groups as one per team at a maximum of 3 players (I'd listen to argument for 4 mans, but I think thats a stretch).

A second queue would be for those players wishing to have a more involved game play. That would be unrestricted, Solo's, Groups of 2 - 12. As Bhael identified, this queue would focus on the larger groups first, then back fill smaller groups and solo's to get to 12, max of 3 groups per team.

Both queues access CW.

Everyone has options, no one is disadvantaged.

We address the "Pre made ate my baby" perception by capping and limiting groups in the PUG queue, and we empower all players to play in a more "intense" environment and most importantly, the player population is not divided into too many buckets creating hopefully alleviating failed to find instances.

I don't think you understand "basic business sense". When popular games like CoD and the like have SOLO ONLY QUEUES for a reason.. would it not be smart to copy that idea? Mind you, not every idea in a different game is worth copying, but if we are to believe PGI's own "telemetry" as fact, it would actually benefit them to create a SOLO ONLY QUEUE in addition to a GROUP QUEUE. It would benefit them greatly because it caters to BOTH GROUPS w/o offending people. It's a win-win.

Roadbeer, on 24 April 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

I actually think that was a resolvable bug, Daemur seemed genuinely surprised that we were 2 premades on our side in that match (and not even attempting to sync).

IMO, the bigger issue will be the fact that the results of the matches I played in, the 3/3/3/3 didn't really make a difference, there were equal numbers of 12/2 as there were 12/9, and without the "Evil Premade Boogeyman syncdrop" to blame, as both teams will more than likely have a group on them, it'll come down to "The other side always has a 4 player premade, when mine only has a 2 player premade"

So there will be slightly bloated search times, with relatively the same results.

It's not hard to "address code-wise" (I mean, really,it's not). Removing the extra premade is resolvable.

However, matching premade sizes is actually more important to "perceived balance". Forget for a moment that there are people that hate premades... imagine trying to balance a 2-man premade vs a 4-man. I can imagine cries of "it's not fair" to a degree.

What is actually more bothersome IS the queue lengths as I did have trouble at some point, where I had to flip my mech (a heavy, where there was another heavy+assault) into a medium AND THEN a light (I have no issue going with a Light) before I was able to drop. I fear this will actually translate to the main server as "AssaultWarrior Online" will simply become "TheRingofWaitWarrior" or something like that. It's not going to go well IMO.

[Craig Steele]

Deathlike, on 24 April 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

I don't think you understand "basic business sense". When popular games like CoD and the like have SOLO ONLY QUEUES for a reason.. would it not be smart to copy that idea? Mind you, not every idea in a different game is worth copying, but if we are to believe PGI's own "telemetry" as fact, it would actually benefit them to create a SOLO ONLY QUEUE in addition to a GROUP QUEUE. It would benefit them greatly because it caters to BOTH GROUPS w/o offending people. It's a win-win.

My underline.

Except for the small group player who has to pick a light or medium mech to get a game and then gets focus fired down in 30 seconds.

Thats the player that doesn't win.

Its either Solo play or big organised teams which people have to make some sort of commitment to (at whatever level that may be)

If you and your brother just want to quickly log on for a few games together and be "entertained" before dinner, this game is not for you. You'll get wiped and watch MM tick over and over before you get a Failed to find message.

[Deathlike]

Craig Steele, on 24 April 2014 - 11:08 PM, said:

My underline.

Except for the small group player who has to pick a light or medium mech to get a game and then gets focus fired down in 30 seconds.

Well, that's kinda PGI's fault isn't it? Lack of role warfare?

Technically, their system allows for building "whatever group construction" you want unless you're a 4 or 12 man where the latter being enforced upon everyone (and a non-issue) and the former means someone has to pick another weight class. However, your definition of small is < 4-man, which would not affect them at all! (Technically, this is Heffay logic, so I hope you enjoy that!).

Quote

Thats the player that doesn't win.

Its either Solo play or big organised teams which people have to make some sort of commitment to (at whatever level that may be)

If you and your brother just want to quickly log on for a few games together and be "entertained" before dinner, this game is not for you. You'll get wiped and watch MM tick over and over before you get a Failed to find message.

Um, I play in 2-mans with a friend more frequently than anything else. The game's MM is what it is (a terrible design) so I'm actually unsure what you are arguing here? 2-mans get roflstomped often??

?????????????////??//??/????

What is Craig Steele's logic? I'm not even sure what that is. Where's your empirical evidence for 2-mans being a problem (whether it is losing often or just being OP/not OP/can't tell)?

Edited by Deathlike, 24 April 2014 - 11:19 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Deathlike, on 24 April 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

Well, that's kinda PGI's fault isn't it? Lack of role warfare?

Technically, their system allows for building "whatever group construction" you want unless you're a 4 or 12 man where the latter being enforced upon everyone (and a non-issue) and the former means someone has to pick another weight class. However, your definition of small is < 4-man, which would not affect them at all! (Technically, this is Heffay logic, so I hope you enjoy that!).




Um, I play in 2-mans with a friend more frequently than anything else. The game's MM is what it is (a terrible design) so I'm actually unsure what you are arguing here? 2-mans get roflstomped often??

?????????????////??//??/????

What is Craig Steele's logic? I'm not even sure what that is.

But in practice, the larger groups are going to dominate the larger chassis so if a small group players wants a match, they need to select the lighter models or accept more frequent "Failed to Find".

I guess what your logic seems to be is that as long as PGI create a group Queue (they current have articulated 2 - 10 man groups ONLY in that as their vision) then its all fine? They also describe a PUG queue with Solo's + 2-4 man groups.

I mean why does it matter where the "ONLY" sits, if PGI only allow Solo's to play against themselves and groups of up to 4, thats PGI's call.

We can disagree with PGI in our heads, but if we get our 2-10 man queue life is good right? Cause really it doesn't matter if our 7 man team is back filled by a 3 and a 2 or a 3 and 2 singles, it's still 5 players that are outside the core group. And lets be honest, if we can get 11 friends we can get 12 easily enough, one of those 10 players has someone on line so thats not really a problem.

So that all seems good. Lets bring on a 2-10 man queue and leave the Solo / 2-4 man groups playing their game.

I don't actually endorse that myself, but its the easy answer to the problem.

[Deathlike]

Craig Steele, on 24 April 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

But in practice, the larger groups are going to dominate the larger chassis so if a small group players wants a match, they need to select the lighter models or accept more frequent "Failed to Find".

Do you realize from the feedback that people with certain weight classes (not just the ones who believe in "AssaultWarrior") were affected just as well? I mean, some people were trying to launch with MEDIUMS and unable to drop. You know.. if PGI get some sort of indicator (a heavily requested feature) of what the queues are like, it wouldn't be a problem... but here we are.

Quote

I guess what your logic seems to be is that as long as PGI create a group Queue (they current have articulated 2 - 10 man groups ONLY in that as their vision) then its all fine? They also describe a PUG queue with Solo's + 2-4 man groups.

I'm not saying it will "magically work" as is. Just simply enforcing tonnage limits for premades would actually suffice (with some Elo whenever possible).

A PUG queue with premades+solos is not what the solo players that want nothing to do with premades were asking for.

Quote

I mean why does it matter where the "ONLY" sits, if PGI only allow Solo's to play against themselves and groups of up to 4, thats PGI's call.

Well, I guess PGI knows best!

Quote

We can disagree with PGI in our heads, but if we get our 2-10 man queue life is good right? Cause really it doesn't matter if our 7 man team is back filled by a 3 and a 2 or a 3 and 2 singles, it's still 5 players that are outside the core group. And lets be honest, if we can get 11 friends we can get 12 easily enough, one of those 10 players has someone on line so thats not really a problem.

Have you been in 12-mans? If you think they are "easy to construct", you are sadly mistaken.

Quote

So that all seems good. Lets bring on a 2-10 man queue and leave the Solo / 2-4 man groups playing their game.

I don't actually endorse that myself, but its the easy answer to the problem.

Yes, make believe will solve everything.

Edited by Deathlike, 24 April 2014 - 11:42 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Deathlike, on 24 April 2014 - 11:41 PM, said:

Do you realize from the feedback that people with certain weight classes (not just the ones who believe in "AssaultWarrior") were affected just as well? I mean, some people were trying to launch with MEDIUMS and unable to drop. You know.. if PGI get some sort of indicator (a heavily requested feature) of what the queues are like, it wouldn't be a problem... but here we are.




I'm not saying it will "magically work" as is. Just simply enforcing tonnage limits for premades would actually suffice (with some Elo whenever possible).

A PUG queue with premades+solos is not what the solo players that want nothing to do with premades were asking for.




Well, I guess PGI knows best!



Have you been in 12-mans? If you think they are "easy to construct", you are sadly mistaken.



Yes, make believe will solve everything.

In the test, yes I saw the feedback on failed to find weight issues. Nikko did say they expected that to be solved as it was more of a population issue, but maybe? idk.

Solo vs Solo is not the call out from every Solo player either. There are differing views, even in this thread. Some Solo's want to play with pre made groups.

I am not saying making a 12 man is easy, I'm saying if you have 11 than getting a 12th should be easy. Out of 10 other players someone has someone on line. We are also talking about Guilds with 1,000's of players registered in team speak, if they can get 11, 12 is not going to be a problem.

It's not make believe by the way, it's exactly what PGI articulate. It's what prompted the cries in this very thread of "Hey PGI, I'm a Solo player and I'd like to decide where I play". It's in Post #1 under the Spoiler icon.

They have described a scenario of 2 queues, one for Solo's and 2-4 man groups, one for 2-10 man groups ONLY. 12 man Groups presumably play in Private Matches (the free one as it currently stands I believe).

So if the argument against what I have presented is the 2-3 man demographic will just have to suck it up and play in a disadvantageous environment, I guess what PGI put in front of us that tells the Solo player to suck it up should be just as acceptable. We'll still have the 2-10 man queue under the vision PGI have described.

Ergo, bring it on PGI? Yup?

[Deathlike]

Craig Steele, on 24 April 2014 - 11:54 PM, said:

In the test, yes I saw the feedback on failed to find weight issues. Nikko did say they expected that to be solved as it was more of a population issue, but maybe? idk.

I will grant that some of the issues is population related, but some of those problems still lurk.

Quote

Solo vs Solo is not the call out from every Solo player either. There are differing views, even in this thread. Some Solo's want to play with pre made groups.

That is not what I'm referring to. Solo PUGs that want to play with groups ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A PROBLEM. It's Solo PUGs that DO NOT WANT A PREMADE ON EITHER SIDE are going to be most vocal. They have their reasons (logical or not), so if you're trying to deflect the argument where there isn't one.. you're not bothering to listen to the other side of the coin.

Quote

I am not saying making a 12 man is easy, I'm saying if you have 11 than getting a 12th should be easy. Out of 10 other players someone has someone on line. We are also talking about Guilds with 1,000's of players registered in team speak, if they can get 11, 12 is not going to be a problem.

Let me ask you again. Have you played 12-mans? Answer that question FIRST AND FOREMOST before responding.

Getting the 12th player is not the easiest thing to come by. People go to extreme lengths to find it, and at a certain point of the day/night, it will not be well rewarded as USUALLY, this is followed by AN EMPTY 12-MAN QUEUE (aka "Failed to find match").

Quote

It's not make believe by the way, it's exactly what PGI articulate. It's what prompted the cries in this very thread of "Hey PGI, I'm a Solo player and I'd like to decide where I play". It's in Post #1 under the Spoiler icon.

They have described a scenario of 2 queues, one for Solo's and 2-4 man groups, one for 2-10 man groups ONLY. 12 man Groups presumably play in Private Matches (the free one as it currently stands I believe).

The current iteration of the Launch Module DOES NOT COVER 2-10 man groups ONLY. Even then, THERE IS NO RELIABLE ETA ON THAT. Like the removal of "knockdowns", THERE IS NO ETA ON THAT. So, it's IRRELEVANT until it is on the table (AKA a finite/set date).

Quote

So if the argument against what I have presented is the 2-3 man demographic will just have to suck it up and play in a disadvantageous environment, I guess what PGI put in front of us that tells the Solo player to suck it up should be just as acceptable. We'll still have the 2-10 man queue under the vision PGI have described.

Ergo, bring it on PGI? Yup?

Right, just "suck it up"... settling for mediocrity will get you more mediocrity. I guess that's "enough for some".

Edited by Deathlike, 25 April 2014 - 12:08 AM.

[Tekadept]

12 mans are a myth these days in the GMT+8 Primetime, and GMT+10 usually only happen with a LOT of organizing between units.

[Craig Steele]

Deathlike, on 25 April 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

I will grant that some of the issues is population related, but some of those problems still lurk.



That is not what I'm referring to. Solo PUGs that want to play with groups ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A PROBLEM. It's Solo PUGs that DO NOT WANT A PREMADE ON EITHER SIDE are going to be most vocal. They have their reasons (logical or not), so if you're trying to deflect the argument where there isn't one.. you're not bothering to listen to the other side of the coin. (1)




Let me ask you again. Have you played 12-mans? Answer that question FIRST AND FOREMOST before responding. (2)

Getting the 12th player is not the easiest thing to come by. People go to extreme lengths to find it, and at a certain point of the day/night, it will not be well rewarded as USUALLY, this is followed by AN EMPTY 12-MAN QUEUE (aka "Failed to find match").



The current iteration of the Launch Module DOES NOT COVER 2-10 man groups ONLY. Even then, THERE IS NO RELIABLE ETA ON THAT. Like the removal of "knockdowns", THERE IS NO ETA ON THAT. So, it's IRRELEVANT until it is on the table (AKA a finite/set date). (3)




Right, just "suck it up"... settling for mediocrity will get you more mediocrity. I guess that's "enough for some". (4)

(1) Far from not listening to the other side of the argument, I am trying to show you the one that hasn't raised its head yet but will with a Solo Only queue that leaves small groups at the bottom of the food chain in a Group Queue.

(2) Nope, but its a tangent point anyway. What difference does it make? If your point is that getting 11 is infinitly easier than getting 12 I just don't believe thats the case. Big difference from getting 5 - 7 to getting 12 sure, but 11 to 12?

(3) The current LM does not, they have said that. This thread though was giving feedback to PGI on what we as players would like as they progress their vision.

Some Solo players said they would like to have the choice to play in a group queue. I am submitting that there are going to be some small group players who do not want to be the bottom of the food chain and do not want to join large leagues / Guilds.

Ergo, as PGI moves forward with this vision can we embrace them and not transfer the current "Evil Premade ate my Baby" perception to a "Evil 7 man killed me and my <insert here>" or the "I can never play my Hero Atlas when I play with my son" calls.

If has no ETA and is hence irrelevant, why are we even discussing Solo only queues. They're not on the table at all so why bother?

(4) It's not my argument, I've been pretty clear I want more. But some people seem to be suggesting that 2-3 man groups might just have to suck it up and their only option is to backfill larger guilds / teams. If thats the argument they present, then those people should be comfortable with that argument being presented to them too.

[King Arthur IV]

Tekadept, on 25 April 2014 - 12:13 AM, said:

12 mans are a myth these days in the GMT+8 Primetime, and GMT+10 usually only happen with a LOT of organizing between units.

stealing me post ideas i see!

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3306835