79 replies to this topic

[Geeks On Hugs]

From my experience PUGs are actually better company-wide team players than 4 man pre-mades. If the whole company decides on a strategy PUGs are more likely to go along with it but often a premade will insist on doing it's own thing (not always of course but often enough and a few will even be {Richard Cameron}* about it). Those games are almost invariably lost because teamwork rules the day and one lance totally working against the goals of the company is a disaster. PUGs are capable of teamwork, it just requires someone to take leadership. Really it's just a bit of organization. When I take command via the battlegrid my team wins at least over 75% of the time. Not that I am a great commander in the slightest - absolutely anyone can do it - it's simply that we work together...usually not more complex than initially grouping up.

When I hear people railing against the PUGs I silently note that invariably we made no effort to coordinate with them so who can blame them for just rolling through? We need to beef up tools to make coordination and teamwork more natural - the battlegrid, command console, build in VOIP, etc.

*OMG the editor changed my reference to the male appendage in plural to "{Richard Cameron} LOL what is that a reference to? I don't get the reference?

Edited by Geeks On Hugs, 16 May 2014 - 07:50 PM.

[Bront]

It all depends on the PUGs and the group.

A good 4 man in a PUG will work with the pugs, discuss stratergy with them, and/or try to flow with them or complement their strategy.

A bad pug group won't listen or will splinter off in random directions and loose 2-3 mechs quickly and it's downhill from there. I've been on both sides of these, and I'll say it's fun when a PUG group you're facing feeds you 1-2 mechs at a time for a while.

When it works, it can be awesome. It's just more likely to work in a coordinated group than with PUGs, and it's that simple. Doesn't mean a PUG can't be enjoyable at times.

[Belorion]

Your premise doesn't make sense. If anyone should be directing the strat for the drop it should be the 4 man, so at that point shouldn't the pugs be going along with what the 4 man is doing?

[Admon Twobows]

I think you should follow the most sound strategy or suggestion, whether it's from a group or a PUG. I play pertty regularly with my friends (still sucks I can't play with ALL of my friends without getting 12 of em in..) and I have to admit they're very rough around the edges. Would I suggest that you follow the direction of my group then? Absolutely not, especially as I am far more reactionary player myself, more keen on seeing what the shape the battlefield takes rather than shaping it. I do far better as a PUG actually than with my group. That said, I think in order to do well players need to learn to read 'mech' language, read the battlefield, try and figure out what each chasis is mostly like to do and excel at and go from there. After all, a fight is never static, the tables can turn quickly or tip even faster.

[Win Ott]

From the tones of their in-game rants, I have concluded that most pug-haters are still adapting to the hormone imbalances caused by the onset of puberty. Therefore, in light of their mental handicaps, I choose to take no offense at their impotent raging.

Also, as a general rule of thumb, when someone on my team employs personal insults as a goad to action, I ignore the suggestion and act in some other fashion. I take no real offense, but I don't think I should reward their behavior, eh?

Remember, kids, a good mechwarrior kills the enemy, not just with efficient focus of fire, but also with kindness!

[Bront]

Belorion, on 18 May 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

Your premise doesn't make sense. If anyone should be directing the strat for the drop it should be the 4 man, so at that point shouldn't the pugs be going along with what the 4 man is doing?

Sometimes it's easier to follow the cats than it is to herd them.

[mailin]

I've played with bad pugs and bad 4-mans. I've also played with really good pugs and really good 4-mans. It is fairly easy to see what you're playing with by using team chat to either suggest a strategy (as a pug), or let them know what you're doing (as a four-man). If I get no responses, then I know we're probably in for a waffle-stomp.

[Grimmrog]

I'm Puggign all day, and I can tell you most games run like 10:5 or more unbalanced.
The real amount of real close and exciting matches are quite rare.

And its often a sudden event turning it into crap, mostly by lack of coordination in a vital moment. Voip may help, or some radio commando shortcuts like Counter Strike has.

[Xoxim SC]

Last few games I've been have been 1-12, or 0-12. It's been a really great experience overall. Love getting rolled by the meta trash builds that have taken over this great game.

[WonderSparks]

Yeah, it is possible for PUGs to do well, but sometimes it's not. I guess that's why some call it the PUG lottery?

PS: Maybe I'm just old-fashioned and don't know a darn thing about Cameron, but there is a short form of the name Richard that happens to start with a D (I know this because my father has the same name and is the exact thing this word indicates )

[Morang]

I suggest renaming PUGs to "Pressed-In Group", "Pressed-In Gamers" - PIGs. "Impressed" is more correct term, but "pressed-in" makes for a better acronym.

Edited by Morang, 18 May 2014 - 11:57 AM.

[LiGhtningFF13]

PUGs=>Lucky bag

[Zordicron]

Belorion, on 18 May 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

Your premise doesn't make sense. If anyone should be directing the strat for the drop it should be the 4 man, so at that point shouldn't the pugs be going along with what the 4 man is doing?

Theoretically the 4 man is on VOIP. The pugs are obviously not, unless synch drop shinaningans are afoot. Anyway, the 4 man should follow the pug. It is easier for the VOIP 4 man to make quick cllas to each other. Therefore, they should be supporting the pug.

Think of it this way: a pug has no voip, so it needs to observe their own team. The voip 4 man has verbal comms, but can also observe the team the same as a pug. It is ok for the 4 man to suggest a tactic, however they need to suport the rest of the team as the pug does not have voip and so response to focus fire situations and flanks can be delayed. Good pugs responde to those situations faster then voip premades do, but that is a rare thing.

Best scenario: pug is doing its thing, 4 man is using voip to coordinate their own group to make snap changes to support the team. Pugs shooting atlas? VOIP premade guys say "target that atlas the pug guy is shooting" and 4 man reacts for support fire.

worst scenario: 4 man says "do this" then ignores pug and expects them to be able to support premade even though there is no voip, or even chat comms from premade to do so. Pugs will attempt to do it anyway most times, but expectations of this type of premade thinking are beyond possibility usually. $ man shoots atlas? no comm, expects pug to just see them shooting atlas and add focus fire.

Do you see the difference in efficiency and reaction ability?

[HimseIf]

Pugs can be ok, even if they type in 3 different languages. VOIP is a bit over rated. Besides, nobody wants to hear ppl whining.

[Joseph Mallan]

Geeks On Hugs, on 16 May 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

*OMG the editor changed my reference to the male appendage in plural to "{Richard Cameron} LOL what is that a reference to? I don't get the reference?

Richard Cameron

[Uncleclint]

It´s all more or less about communication on one side, it still is not a guarantee to win the match but it´ll definitely improve your chances. I´d like to encourage everyone who reads this to try a more communicative approach to PUGging and see if it´ll do anything.
I agree with OP that PUGs are most often not as bad as ppl think they are, just sometimes. Problem is that the bad games are kinda stickier in your brain than the good ones.

[_Comrade_]

Most PUG's will go along with what you and your lance is doing, people who have played awhile know that being alone is certain death because the enemy is always looking for stranglers. It depends on communcation, if you have a bunch of guys on your four man who are talking gibberish and not contributing to the four man then your just as weak as PUGs maybe even more so with the distraction it can cause

[n r g]

Geeks On Hugs, on 16 May 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

From my experience PUGs are actually better company-wide team players than 4 man pre-mades. If the whole company decides on a strategy PUGs are more likely to go along with it but often a premade will insist on doing it's own thing (not always of course but often enough and a few will even be {Richard Cameron}* about it). Those games are almost invariably lost because teamwork rules the day and one lance totally working against the goals of the company is a disaster. PUGs are capable of teamwork, it just requires someone to take leadership. Really it's just a bit of organization. When I take command via the battlegrid my team wins at least over 75% of the time. Not that I am a great commander in the slightest - absolutely anyone can do it - it's simply that we work together...usually not more complex than initially grouping up.

When I hear people railing against the PUGs I silently note that invariably we made no effort to coordinate with them so who can blame them for just rolling through? We need to beef up tools to make coordination and teamwork more natural - the battlegrid, command console, build in VOIP, etc.

*OMG the editor changed my reference to the male appendage in plural to "{Richard Cameron} LOL what is that a reference to? I don't get the reference?

I respectfully disagree.

9/10 pugging is an absolute disaster/hell whole.

especially for a competitive gamer like myself who has played MW since MW4 (i.e. 2000) and many other FPS competitively; I only do it when my CSJ team is NOT online.

the 9/10 matches are filled with clueless players, sometimes with mechs within 200-300m and them not even returning fire, or players who round around the map for 10min, only to position themselves in the worst spot and die.

and the 1/10 matches you win are complete roll-overs - it's just always one-sided, very rarely do you get good battles/even fights

Edited by 3N3RGY, 20 May 2014 - 01:14 AM.

[Modo44]

3N3RGY, you are having "too good to play solo" syndrome. MWO's matchmaker really does not know what to do with very high or very low Elo at the moment. It is better closer to the average skill level. As someone who only learned many skills in MWO, I was in the middle for a long time, having a better time in general.

[CJDodo]

Modo44, on 20 May 2014 - 01:26 AM, said:

3N3RGY, you are having "too good to play solo" syndrome. MWO's matchmaker really does not know what to do with very high or very low Elo at the moment. It is better closer to the average skill level. As someone who only learned many skills in MWO, I was in the middle for a long time, having a better time in general.

Was about the reply in a similar vein, go ninja'd when I went to log in. I've personally only solo dropped since CB, and I would say it's more 50/50 for me (now and for say the last year or so). Stats sort of support that, archived is just below 1:1 W:L, and current is just above. My averageness seems to keep me in a matchmaker sweet spot (well not that sweet sometimes). Matchmaker seems to assume any solo drop with a high Elo can carry any team against any odds.

I think Vercinix made a point somewhere that if you drop and recognise any name on either side from a competitive team or any good player, you're probably about to lose terribly. If you are one of those players...well, doesn't seem to be quite fair that MM works so hard to make you lose to 'normalise' you.

Edited by CJDodo, 20 May 2014 - 01:40 AM.