Jump to content

Why I Cant Get Anyone To Play Mwo For Long

General Balance Gameplay

536 replies to this topic

#321 kapusta11

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 3,854 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 02:32 AM

Insulting each other will get you nowhere. PGI has the tools for dealing with sync drops, it's not the people that are willing to play with friends fault, it's not even meta builds, I've been in a quad ERLL mech lance mellting enemies in seconds so what?

It is actually pretty easy to balance sync drops, if you have a premade lance on 1 side multiply their group ELO by X value, if you have two - by Y value (Y>X) then fill the rest of the team with noobs, and the other team (that one that have no premade lances at all or less) with "PUG kings". Done.

Edited by kapusta11, 30 April 2014 - 02:37 AM.


#322 Jun Watarase

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,504 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 02:34 AM

View Postkapusta11, on 30 April 2014 - 01:24 AM, said:

You're blaming people for playing with friends and trying to be as competitive as they can in a team based shooter? Really?


If this was a tournament? Nobody would complain at all. But it's not and it's not even a competitive game because of the way the matchmaker is setup. So what this basically boils down to is a small group of players ruining the fun for everyone else because winning is very very important to them. Nobody gets to enjoy a close game when the match is stacked in the favor of one side off the bat because they pulled off a 8 man sync drop full of meta builds and the matchmaker decides to hey, lets put multiple newbies as their opponents because i cant find anyone else thanks to the sync drop.

You want to play with friends? Sure, dont run meta builds, dont sync drop. Im sure there are units out there who do this. Im sure a lot of casual players do this too.

When you take advantage of quirks in an unfinished, broken matchmaker to rig the match, you do not get to push the blame to PGI. When you take advantage of broken weapon balance, you do not get to blame to PGI. You knew exactly what was going on, you deliberately took advantage of it for your own personal gain.

I remember in the closed beta there were players who abused a bug with the dragon that would let them knock over an Atlas. And not just once, but they could do it infinitely to keep you permanently knocked down and unable to fight. Unsurprisingly, they were full of excuses. Oh its not my fault, blame PGI! Its not a bug, PGI never made an announcement saying it was! Hey, you could get into a dragon and abuse it too! But it was very obvious they were abusing it for kicks.

Once again, you generally dont see this behaviour IRL because there are consequences for it. But in an environment where people are literally forced to play with you, people are abusing that fact to be as try hard, no fun as possible and that is driving a LOT of people from the game, especially new players.

It is grossly unfair to the other 20 players in a match when 4 people abuse the system to jump in and cause a 12-2 rofl stomp just so they can get their kicks griefing other people. The enemy team got stomped without being able to put up a fight, the other 8 players on your team was deprived of a challenging match.

#323 Jun Watarase

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,504 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 02:52 AM

View PostCCC Dober, on 30 April 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:

Jun, it's a case of pearls before swine here. If anything, your thread helped to drag out the most stupid among the DBs, so that everybody can see them for what they are. While that may help a bit, I'm more worried about the upper echelons of PGI, because the problems we have today ain't new and I would go so far and say that they have been cultivated, much like the baby trolls that you have attracted here. It wouldn't be the first time that trolls in charge (supporting their minions among the fanbase) ruined a product on purpose (see D3/Jay Wilson as a more recent example).

Long story short: the evidence at hand strongly suggests that we have a problem with our 'overlords' (read: PGI), not so much with their minions (read: baby trolls and DBs). You can rail against the latter, but as long as they are nurtured and protected by the former, it's as I said before: pearls before swine. PGI needs to come clear and cut ties with this rabble or nothing you talked about will ever change for the better.


You are right, and plenty of people have pointed this out before. I dont think its a coincidence that nearly every matchmaking change has made it easier for the pub stomping to occur. Everytime they widen the ELO bracket, they make it easier for high ELO players to "hit" the low ELO players that have no business being in the same match. When they went release, allowing 8 man teams to drop against randoms, despite almost everyone telling them it was a terrible idea, it allowed 8 man teams to just face roll randoms and also contributed to the massive bad press MWO got on release.

When they made the largely pointless 12 man queue that most premades refuse to use instead of seperating it into solo and group players, we had premades resorting to sync dropping with incompatible weight classes so that they could continue to get easy wins. Then they announced that it was perfectly fine to sync drop vs randoms, which just encouraged it more.

But its PGI, they ignore pretty much all feedback, im pretty sure they dont even read the forums anymore, they dont even answer any questions other than the carefully chosen NGNG ones that make very sure not to ask anything that might result in PGI executives becoming uncomfortable. So theres nothing we can do unless someone wants to buy out IGP or PGI.

Case in point : A couple of months ago i posted an open thread asking why the matchmaker kept resulting in ridiculous roflstomps. A PGI engineer responded with a very confusing technical explanation, but carefully avoided addressing the thread question. I PMed him and asked him if he could please respond to the thread question, he read it, but declined to reply. Thats basically the PGI modus operandi everytime someone askes an uncomfortable question. They just will not respond. I dont believe they have explained why they wont fix the PPC/AC boating meta either.

I dont think you are allowed to make threads asking for a PGI response anymore as well.

Edited by Jun Watarase, 30 April 2014 - 03:00 AM.


#324 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 30 April 2014 - 03:15 AM

So... This Guy:

Quote

So, I had a few great games earlier today while grinding XP on my Jenners. I ended up wolfpacking with several other light mechs and completely demolishing several teams that were heavier than we were. There is nothing quite the same as dancing madly around and past several assault mechs, jumping over and back across canyon walls, and swarming away in retreat when encountering heavy forces only to displace to a flank and pick them apart. I don't think I've had such fun in quite a while, even if I did die a number of times.

What in MWO gives you the biggest thrill?


Who also said this:

Quote

Somebody in a SHD-2K shot me clean out of the air with a double PPC shot yesterday - it was pretty great. I had been harassing a flank on Canyon Network, and was just bugging out and *blamo!* I was dead. Had to complement the guy in chat!
Is being made into the Poster child of Baby eating Jackholes? He has a great game, AFTER dying a few times! He gets shot out of the air and congratulates the shooter but he is the SCUM that is ruining the game??? Is that what I am seeing said?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 30 April 2014 - 03:15 AM.


#325 Dago Red

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 672 posts
  • LocationOklahoma

Posted 30 April 2014 - 03:22 AM

So where do the 4 man groups who drop in just like whatever man usually while hammering out the kinks in their current builds and trying to grind out the elites on their newest purchase fit into all this?

You know the guys whose teamspeak chat is 90% about sandwiches and 10% oh yeah there's an AC40 Jaeger on theta.

#326 NeonKnight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Patron Saint
  • The Patron Saint
  • 567 posts
  • LocationSurrey, BC, Canada

Posted 30 April 2014 - 03:25 AM

View PostDago Red, on 30 April 2014 - 03:22 AM, said:

So where do the 4 man groups who drop in just like whatever man usually while hammering out the kinks in their current builds and trying to grind out the elites on their newest purchase fit into all this?

You know the guys whose teamspeak chat is 90% about sandwiches and 10% oh yeah there's an AC40 Jaeger on theta.


I resemble that remark.....as does my group!


But remember....keep hush-hush about the sandwiches made from babies :P

Edited by NeonKnight, 30 April 2014 - 03:33 AM.


#327 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 30 April 2014 - 03:30 AM

View PostJun Watarase, on 30 April 2014 - 01:05 AM, said:

No matter how many people confirm that this is a problem, the same griefers who keep dropping in 4 man meta builds to ruin the game for everyone else will simply use "learn2play noob!" as their excuse...and try to re-direct all blame to the "noobs". Its totally not their fault, its just that theiir opposition has no skillz and we should just blame PGI instead...

You can see it happening in this thread...on this very page even.

Its really quite sad that these people arent banned yet.

...
...
...
Do date, 4man is legal in open que. Free customization is also Allowed on the open Que.
So How is a 4man using Meta Grieving? Unless the players are bragging it up.

The purpose of the game is for two TEAMS to come together and the better team will win. Now if you are Not on the better team maybe you need to look at what the winners are doing and emulate that. If you don't like what they are doing then get BETTER than they are and win. From your last Pict. You have no reason to be bashing Pre mades as you defeated a Premade. :P

The man wins and complains... I just don't get it! :ph34r:

#328 CCC Dober

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 03:35 AM

Jun, there's a sliver of hope: mwolobby.com + private matches

See you there. Cheers =)

#329 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 30 April 2014 - 03:36 AM

View PostDago Red, on 30 April 2014 - 03:22 AM, said:

So where do the 4 man groups who drop in just like whatever man usually while hammering out the kinks in their current builds and trying to grind out the elites on their newest purchase fit into all this?

You know the guys whose teamspeak chat is 90% about sandwiches and 10% oh yeah there's an AC40 Jaeger on theta.


Well according to some people, small group social gamers don't have a place in MW:O.

They would say either play with the larger guilds in a group queue backfilling their team and piloting whatever mechs that large group choose not to play (probably lights cause they seem to have an adverse reaction to anyone outside their group having all that firepower in their hands). Then they more than likely get to be food for the larger group on the opposition side, or

Split up and play whatever mech you choose to in the "Solo only" queue.

Lets hope PGI don't cave in to this sort of stuff and they instead give people options.

What sort of sandwiches?

#330 Grimmrog

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 493 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 03:51 AM

View PostSlepnir, on 30 April 2014 - 12:04 AM, said:

Here let me shorten your post-Here is your little problem. the game would not even have gotten off the ground had it not been for the original IP. there is a reason why things exist in the battletech universe. it has a nearly 30 year history behind it including but not limited to factions, political and economic constraints and so forth. the reasons why mechs exist in the manner they exist with the hardpoints they have is because of the IP. If house kurita's military wants a mech for fire support duty they float a contract bid to luthien armor works and a host of other companies within the combine, then test out the competing prototypes. putting into service the mech that best suits the needs they are intended for. mechs are built from the factory to do a specific job and were never meant to be true franken mechs . thus giving every mech a strength and weakness. which would be completely different than one designed for the davion or marik militaries. if you loose that type of immersion you loose the IP the fanbase and the reason for the game. it just becomes a big stompy robot game AKA armored core. Hell in the battletech universe putting in a weapon that a mech wasn't designed to carry took weeks of labor, in some cases rebuilding the internal frame and depending on how good(or bad) your ground crew was you risk weapon failure in combat.......imagine if PGI did it correctly and every weapon in the game that wasn't supposed to go in the slot you put it in had a failure mechanic like the ultra AC jam.

The IP? well depends on what the game MWO wants to be, and who it wants to adress to.

You have basically 3 bases:

the TT base
The BT universe fans
and you still have the former MW gamers.

And yes it was great that in MW 2 and MW3 I could run around in Frankenmechs.
I know that these titels are not canon conform as other BT products, but still they got the rights using names and stuff from the BT Universe. So they can't be too far off from that. Especially when some mechs like the catapult do come with a variant having Energy on the right. So rebuilding a mix between Varian A and B wouldn't be too hard and complicated at all.

And since a pilot owns one mech, why should he not be able to put the effort, time and money into his mech to change it the way he needs it? His Life depends on that, and once you are dead, money is meaningless.

Also put a Supernova into MWO and I am happy until the end of my MW gaming days. But there isn't. And I guess PGI wouldmake it similar to the Mad Cat, quite bulky, isntead of giving it the typical Supernova design features. Because of Hitboxing stuff.

Edited by Grimmrog, 30 April 2014 - 04:00 AM.


#331 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 30 April 2014 - 04:00 AM

Do you know we TT players have absorbed some of the MW Mechs into the TT Universe?

Also for now A Stalker makes a good enough Make-Do Supernova. WYSIWYG has never really been a hard rule in the TT Game... maybe thats why I don't have an issue with it here. When your Battlemaster is a Mountain Dew cap and your Marauder is a Cardboard marker with Marauder on one side and reduaraM on the other, You can accept any art. ^_^

#332 CCC Dober

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 04:12 AM

View PostGrimmrog, on 30 April 2014 - 03:51 AM, said:

The IP? well depends on what the game MWO wants to be, and who it wants to adress to.
...


Isn't it a bit too late to ask that question? The original pitch to the Founders detailed what the game is all about and what can be expected. 2 years later, PGI is still in the process of building the product as specified. That also answers your question regarding the target audience: Founders, the same people that liked BT/MW enough to kickstart MWO. That means PGI has to deliver the product they promised/sold to Founders first and foremost.

Here you can find a condensed version of the original pitch -> http://piranhagames.com/

Quote

We are currently developing MechWarrior Online, the 5th title in the popular Battletech franchise. MechWarrior Online is a Premium Free-2-Play title that utilizes the BattleTech Universe to deliver a BattleMech combat simulator with a heavy emphasis on tactical strategies. By placing the player in a first person view of a BattleMech pilot, MechWarrior Online provides a whole new level of immersion into the game space.

Adhering to the key design pillars of Mech Warfare, Information Warfare, Role Warfare and Community Warfare, MechWarrior Online adds several new layers of gameplay and tactical team planning to the franchise. This, along with the massive amount of customization available to the player base, allows Piranha Games Inc. to not only return the MechWarrior IP to the forefront of gaming, but to do so with a level of depth and ever expanding content that was previously never possible.


#333 Nightfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 226 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 30 April 2014 - 04:41 AM

View PostCraig Steele, on 30 April 2014 - 02:17 AM, said:


Well I was empathising with you while trying to demonstrate that your argument cuts both ways.

But oh well, your deductions and conclusions suggest you have an aggresive tone now.


That's your deduction, text has no tone and is notorious for being misinterpreted.

Quote

In any case, Yes I do think that in a game that is articulated as "based on Team Play" and with a mechanic that caps Groups members at 4, that larger groups of 5+ working the system are inhibiting the game experience that PGI are trying to implement. Thats their system by the way, not mine. I'm not defending them, just saying what it is and pointing out that anyone trying to work the system for their own reasons is NOT playing the game as intended by the Dev's. What was dropped in Beta was dropped in Beta, it is what it is today.


I think it has less to do with directly creating said experience but rather an easy scapegoat so as to avoid fixing the other glaring problems that PGI has directly come out and said they don't want to tackle. It's like having a broken gearbox so we'll just not let people drive the vehicle over 40/Mph and market that as the "balanced experience" that will fix everything.

I'll not argue that the groups are not limited to 4 or that sync-dropping is bypassing a deliberate mechanic. It obviously is. I think we disagree as to why the mechanic exists and I firmly hope that CW is BYO with all rules of engagement gone. Well, I would like to see tonnage limits but my preference would be based on the dropship your house company/merc corp can afford. Kind of a tangent though.

As for the player experience though, sync-droppers can ruin some players experience but they are hardly the embodiment of evil some people portray them as and they are not omnipresent.

Quote

It really doesn't matter what the argument is, Synch Dropping is a deliberate attempt to circumnavigate the game structure and ergo, everyone who does it knows that they are attempting to do something outside of the spirit (but not the law) of the game mode.


Doesn't that say something though? Here's a thought. There are many people in this thread so focused on the Solo Drop PUG experience that the Group Player experience is always (from my experience) seen as exploitative of the PUG and thus should be in turn be sacrificed if the PUG experience suffers in any way. That these people continue to find new ways to preserve a style of play is indicative of a section of the player-base that is not only not getting their play experience catered to but being actively dismantled.

I'll agree that the current mechanism is to limit group sizes but don't you get the message that PGI is all but activly telling group players that their experience comes second to the PUG experience at all times and Groups, really don't matter?

Quote

It's all kinda redundant as the new LM is supposed to limit any Group to just one per team.


Watch for Group players dropping PUG along with a Group in mechs conforming to 3/3/3/3 weight classes.

Quote

But here is the bottom line.

The game has a mode where groups of 5+ can play now (and yes I am well aware of the shortfalls of that mode but it is still there which is the point) so they don't need to be jumping in the PUG queue if all they want is to "play with our friends".

So it is moot unless the motivation driving Synch Droppers is anything more than 'I want to play with my friends"


Then you know this translation is coming:
"This is the MWO public queue, solo drops only allowed here! If all you really want to do is "play with your friends" you can go play that other game over there that looks like MWO but really isn't but you'll have to pay to play that one!"

You know damn well it's more than "I want to play with my friends", it is "I want to play MWO with my friends"! It just seems that the "I want to play MWO" could be dropped from that statement, since we are all here to play MWO but it seems it is necessary. MWO without C-Bills, XP and the new mechs/weapons/items/etc that these things enable is cutting out all progression from MWO, thus not really MWO anymore. Do you really think the "I want to play with my friends" and pointing out the Private Match Lobbies argument stands?

Quote

I guess we will see how many Guilds still organise Synch dropping exercises in the PUG queue for something more than playing with their friends?


I will go on record right now stating that outside of tournament use, Private Lobbies are going to fail. They will fail because you will be paying to play with no rewards. More the latter than the former. If they change their minds on the rewards, I'll predict people will actually pay to play.

#334 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 30 April 2014 - 04:48 AM

Quote

But here is the bottom line.

The game has a mode where groups of 5+ can play now (and yes I am well aware of the shortfalls of that mode but it is still there which is the point) so they don't need to be jumping in the PUG queue if all they want is to "play with our friends".

So it is moot unless the motivation driving Synch Droppers is anything more than 'I want to play with my friends"
Yes but what if 5-7 Lyrans are trying to drop for a battle on Coventry v the Jade Falcons? A Invasion battle that is approaching, It is a community Warfare match. Do the participants have to drop Solo? Will CW battle be ruined be not being able to bring full forces on Comms to the fight?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 30 April 2014 - 04:48 AM.


#335 Rippthrough

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 1,201 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 04:54 AM

View PostNeonKnight, on 30 April 2014 - 03:25 AM, said:


I resemble that remark.....as does my group!


But remember....keep hush-hush about the sandwiches made from babies ^_^


Everyone's group resembles that, but lets not spoil this toy/pram thing everyones got going against those evil meta players who have the cheek to play better than them and even talk to their friends on TS while doing it.

P.S - It's only 5% combat chat, the other 5% is about socks.

Edited by Rippthrough, 30 April 2014 - 04:58 AM.


#336 Grimmrog

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 493 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 05:13 AM

View PostCCC Dober, on 30 April 2014 - 04:12 AM, said:


Isn't it a bit too late to ask that question? The original pitch to the Founders detailed what the game is all about and what can be expected. 2 years later, PGI is still in the process of building the product as specified. That also answers your question regarding the target audience: Founders, the same people that liked BT/MW enough to kickstart MWO. That means PGI has to deliver the product they promised/sold to Founders first and foremost.

Here you can find a condensed version of the original pitch -> http://piranhagames.com/


Yeha but there you have it:

Quote

This, along with the massive amount of customization available to the player base,


So tbh, atm I feel extremely limited in the real customisation options compared to what previous games had. Escept cockpit trinket, and camouflages, which ar epurely cosmetical. hell even the ECM's are extremely limited which mechs can have them. far more limited than the BT universe has. That whole hardpoint system completely breaks down a lot of customisation possibilities. When additionally to that you even want to have a proper battlefield suited loadout the real possibilities are extremely limited to only a few setups.

Sry maybe I have a different understanding on what "massive customisation" may be. Maybe it just meant I can customize massive tonnage mechs.

All I see in the "promised" features are more or less empty worded manager phrases that leave the "true features" up to the mind of these peoples.

So we could go through this in some sort of detail

"utilizes the Battletech Universe"
This doesn't even closely describe in how far. the former MW games utilised this Universe too. Not superstrictly but Mechs, their standard loadout and the backgriund story were based on the BTU.

"emphasis on tactical strategies."
Uhhm, yeah I can customize a mech, tactigal strategies? with randomised drops in random chosen maps and cenarios, I could be sarcastic and ask where this is tactical and strategic. Half of a battles strategy is won before a battle starts. But with all the randomness the game has atm, even the starting position, I have rarely much of a tactical choice. At leats compared what tactic means in terms of other games.

"By placing the player in a first person view of a BattleMech pilot, MechWarrior Online provides a whole new level of immersion into the game space"
Empty cool sounding phrase with exactly 0 meaning behind. It does not feels like a "new level" it rather much feels a lot like the old MW games. Hell even the classic old "ready up" phrases at the beginning of a battle are the exactly same as in the old games. Don't take me wrong, using somethign old that is good is not bad or wrong. It is just far away from what that sentence above tries to talk of.

"Adhering to the key design pillars of Mech Warfare, Information Warfare, Role Warfare and Community Warfare, MechWarrior Online adds several new layers of gameplay and tactical team planning to the franchise."

Information Warfare, Role Warfare. Am I to new to the game? where is this in the current Game?
Serveral new layers? All that I see "new" is mudules and some "Skills" but skills hardly add somethign new, they just change some existing numbers to the mech like sped, twist heat management and so on.
Same for the moduls. They add not really something new, they just alter some existing variables.

So when this is the condensed Game description and I would be a founder - Well then I would be disappointed a lot. Reading this now, feels like the game did truly missed its goal by a mile.

All the game has so far is 3 game modes, some mechs to design and a hand full of maps. This is the lowest base of what this game needs just to work. There is not even an ingame Voip so people can do soemthign in terms of teamplay and tactic. Hell not even a real Lobby or other place where people can meet and chat.

Not sure how many founders think about the game and what they got now compared to the promises and expectations they had.
Why are there only that few maps? makign a map isn't actually THAT hard. Nor is it to make a few new game modes.


So not sure if it to late to ask that question. It feels like a highly unfinshed game. That seems to be not close to what it promised. But when this stuff is chiseled to stone already, then I wonder who of the said customerbase the game actually delivered a real statisfying product.

As A former MW gamer I am not.
As a BT fan, depends on the fan, but factiosn are meanignless and everyone can get everything anyways. And then we fight faction vs faction? Well thats because the game doesn't even have a a feature Warfare, its just a battle of mixed players vs other mixed players.
The TT fans? Not sure what they are up to and want. I am not playing the BT TT, but coming from other TT's I would say the only real thing to expect is the Lore behind and possibily similar values. Anything else is hardly transformable form a Turn based dicerolling Strategy game into a real time skill dependend mech simulator.

#337 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,274 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 30 April 2014 - 05:27 AM

It happens because of the way elo generates, ratings.

Until you have played X number of games you can get thrown in anywhere even finding yourself with your lappy against the very top players with powerful rigs, then it settles down which is because the poor way that its works at least PGi's versions of it does.

Secondly the pools are far to big, and if I read Paul's thread on ELO and match making only 3 of them, and the skill levels in the pools are extreme, as an example, to show how varied these pools are,at the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own warhorn ^_^


The faction challenge I came 55th in the Lyran Comonwealth group and scored 2010 (with the disclaimer of those that took part). using the weekend to level my banshee E with lb-10's and ml's.


Now you'd think that would mean at least with assaults I'd be in the high pool (sadly, as I don't think I'm consistent enough a player) where even if the people are not in teams, they have a clue, but this doesn't seem to be the case. I'm frequently in teams which seriously haven't a clue and in matches I can score a feeble 300 before I get shot to bits and I'm out damaging the combined total of any other lance ,or the three in my lance, combined.

This suggests that either the team we were against was clearly far and away better, or that the other members of my team either didn't try or were well outside their depth.

Why is this happening

The high end players were complaining about having to wait to long for drops, so PGI widend the elo search, for places to fill up the teams, The result is that those of us that are human and are not linked emotionally and cybernetically and one with their machine suffer from this.

pgi should have made elo recognise new players, and automatically put them in the low pool, and the number of pools should be increased.

shrinking group width won't happen because except at peak times the high end and low end of elo failed to find matches above what pgi thought was good for the game so thought it was better to let the newbs and the team they were in suffer, while they struggled to work out what the hell do I do.

But also if you are a pretty good player and you bring your friends in they are going to suffer, if they group with a guy that's way above their experience because elo doesn't factor groups.


So while MWO does get new people an awful lot leave, because rather than the mech is to hard to understand, the reality is the experienced players wipe my face in it before I know what to do.

PGI tell us the games great and good and that over 50% of founders still log on once a month, but if you notice they don't tell us the percentage that log in everyday, nor do they allow us to know how many are logged on as we play, so any attempt at numbers is total speculation, but everything does indicated its not that high, and wide elo pools and the way people are introduced into them, seems to garantee numbers won't grow to a size either we or pgi want.

#338 CCC Dober

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 05:31 AM

Grimm, It's not just you that is mildly irritated about the status quo. What has been sold and what actually is available are two very different products. One glaring example: the Founders largely disagreed with 3rd person view and it was never part of the deal, yet here we are.

You just got a glimpse why so many people jumped ship over time because PGI does not seem to honor the deal that was struck. At first it was "we", now it's "us" and "them" to the point that PGI shies away from interacting with their community or fulfilling the obligations to Founders. They have only themselves to blame for that, given how they blatantly lied to the Founders, fanbase and paying customers (see 3rd person, I'm not making this up). That's how bad it really is. Still, there is hope that somebody up there realizes where they went wrong and makes amends. The latest promotions and giveaways show promise. Let's hope it doesn't end there.

#339 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 30 April 2014 - 05:55 AM

View PostNightfire, on 30 April 2014 - 04:41 AM, said:


That's your deduction, text has no tone and is notorious for being misinterpreted. (1)



I think it has less to do with directly creating said experience but rather an easy scapegoat so as to avoid fixing the other glaring problems that PGI has directly come out and said they don't want to tackle (2). It's like having a broken gearbox so we'll just not let people drive the vehicle over 40/Mph and market that as the "balanced experience" that will fix everything.

I'll not argue that the groups are not limited to 4 or that sync-dropping is bypassing a deliberate mechanic. It obviously is. I think we disagree as to why the mechanic exists and I firmly hope that CW is BYO with all rules of engagement gone. Well, I would like to see tonnage limits (3) but my preference would be based on the dropship your house company/merc corp can afford. Kind of a tangent though.

As for the player experience though, sync-droppers can ruin some players experience but they are hardly the embodiment of evil some people portray them as (4) and they are not omnipresent.



Doesn't that say something though? Here's a thought. There are many people in this thread so focused on the Solo Drop PUG experience that the Group Player experience is always (from my experience) seen as exploitative of the PUG and thus should be in turn be sacrificed if the PUG experience suffers in any way. That these people continue to find new ways to preserve a style of play is indicative of a section of the player-base that is not only not getting their play experience catered to but being actively dismantled. (5)

I'll agree that the current mechanism is to limit group sizes but don't you get the message that PGI is all but activly telling group players that their experience comes second to the PUG experience at all times and Groups, really don't matter? (6)



Watch for Group players dropping PUG along with a Group in mechs conforming to 3/3/3/3 weight classes.



Then you know this translation is coming: (7)
"This is the MWO public queue, solo drops only allowed here! If all you really want to do is "play with your friends" you can go play that other game over there that looks like MWO but really isn't but you'll have to pay to play that one!"

You know damn well it's more than "I want to play with my friends", it is "I want to play MWO with my friends"! It just seems that the "I want to play MWO" could be dropped from that statement, since we are all here to play MWO but it seems it is necessary. MWO without C-Bills, XP and the new mechs/weapons/items/etc that these things enable is cutting out all progression from MWO, thus not really MWO anymore. Do you really think the "I want to play with my friends" and pointing out the Private Match Lobbies argument stands?



I will go on record right now stating that outside of tournament use, Private Lobbies are going to fail. They will fail because you will be paying to play with no rewards. More the latter than the former. If they change their minds on the rewards, I'll predict people will actually pay to play.



(1) Your argument is sound, I concur vs Your argument is great, I empathetically agree. ? Text absolutely can have tone.

(2) Maybe, but those other problems where not part of the OP nor part of your response. Happy to discuss but they are a tangent to the points raised to date.

(3) My personal preferencing is tonnage balancing, not limits and not class restrictions. If the group takes 12 Atlas, let them face 12 Direwolves (maybe, subject to balancing etc, you get the theory though). No restrictions, teams put together on the basis of overall tonnage balanced within ELO.

(4) And you are probably right. But people who are the subject of perceived injustice (rightly or wrongly) will call it out as an injustice. It doesn't matter that you want to calm things down and put things in perspective (which I believe is the guts of your original post), they have still been wronged.

(5) So couple of things here, Firstly what does it say about the calibre of people who work around any system to get what they want without concern for other people involved. Put the ethics completely to one side, is that even a sustainable situation in most things? It's far more likely that the people who are getting short changed will move on to get it elsewhere (whatever it may be) and then what do the first group do?

More broadly though what you seem to be painting is an "us and them" picture here, and it's not (well, it shouldn't be ^_^)

(6) So firstly let me tell you I play in a group of rl friends, we don't synch drop we just manage our roster but I would love for a better structure to group play 5 - 11. I call us Beer and Pretzel players (although its usually scotch and chips, but w/e :rolleyes:) But it's not here today. My choice is to not be cynical about it, but rather to assume that PGI are working towards more of what I want. In the meantime I use what PGI have provided within the context and spirit it is intended. Thats my personal choice.

But there are plenty of things in my world that I wish was more aligned to my exact needs, it just ain't gunna happen over night though. I get frustrated sure, I express my frustration sometimes too, but ultimately it's my choice what I do.

(7) Ofc I know, LOL, I drafted it exactly as that (and I did say I know it has restrictions). I did so to make the point that there are people in this thread (and others) arguing that they synch drop just so as they can "play with all my friends". I don't believe it for a minute. I think there's a lot more reasons and just as one side might simplfy their argument, this is also a simplification (hence the quotation marks).

By that doesn't change that the PUG queue is not designed for that. PGI have freely said they are concerned about the impact 5-11 groups will have on balance. Anyone wanting to play in that queue outside of the struture is doing so knowing they are creating a favourable scenario for themselves.

It doesn't matter how entitled or justified they think they are, they are manipulating the system to play with an advantage.

Ergo, some people have a bad experience, more than the system is envisaged to, and they express that. I suspect far more just leave.

There's no point in targetting the victim, deal with the issue. That's something we should be pushing PGI on, not each other.

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 30 April 2014 - 04:48 AM, said:


Yes but what if 5-7 Lyrans are trying to drop for a battle on Coventry v the Jade Falcons? A Invasion battle that is approaching, It is a community Warfare match. Do the participants have to drop Solo? Will CW battle be ruined be not being able to bring full forces on Comms to the fight?


In the current format modes? nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

I hope they get it sorted out long before CW but right now, I don't see how the game modes can accommodate the battle you are talking about.

They have work to do on several fronts Joseph, thats not news to most :wacko:

#340 Rippthrough

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 1,201 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 05:58 AM

Of those 50% founders they claim to have 'retained' - I bet they don't tell you how many logged in just to update the game for the sake of not having 96,000 patches the day they decide to try it again, or how many just logged onto their forum account and didn't play the game...
Regardless, that statement also tells you only 50% of people who funded the startup and were obviously so enthusiastic about the game they put a good chunk of their own money on an unknown bet - based on the promises made - don't even do something as paltry as simply log in even once in a month any more, that's how dispirited they've become.
I don't think that's something they should be proudly trumpeting.

Edited by Rippthrough, 30 April 2014 - 06:01 AM.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users