Nightfire, 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
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d7327/d7327050b9d7eaff92a293f6318de9fdcce6a4fc" alt="^_^"
)
(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
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d7327/d7327050b9d7eaff92a293f6318de9fdcce6a4fc" alt=":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.
Joseph 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