481 replies to this topic

[bar10jim]

Bottom line is that the game is horribly broken for a casual 2-man. And this is a problem. The best way to get new players is to get a friend to start playing and let them drop with you so that you can mentor them. They are not likely to join a unit they decide if they like the game or not. Now they either have to drop solo (with zero guidance), or get thrown against larger organized groups in the group queue where a simple mistake is often instant death. Add that to the steep learning curve, and its not a matter of "get better", but a matter of "screw this". 2-mans should have the option of the PUG cue. And only ever 1 2-man per team. That kinda makes sync-dropping useless.

Another issue is younger players. My friend used to drop with his 10-year old in the PUG queue. Father & son running around shooting mechs. Other times the kid would drop solo in the queue, grinding to get "better stuff". Now, because the kid doesn't have any fun in the group queue, he doesn't play at all. If he can't drop in a 2-man with his father and have fun, he sees no reason to play.

Casual 2man teams necessary to retain new (and younger) players and right now the casual 2-man is an oxymoron, it doesn't exist.

[Hoax415]

A check box for competitive vs casual doesn't actually work, I really wish people would stop mentioning it.

Unless you are going to penalize people in terms of lower rewards for checking casual. Otherwise the exact type of people you don't want to play against as a "casual" just click it and farm you.

The only thing that resembles a "check box" system is so-called "elo buckets". That system will increase wait times for everyone but is certainly something PGI could think about and give an official "good idea / bad idea" stance on.

My personal best version of the elo bucket idea is that the entire group queue population is divided in half by elo. Every so often the server checks the elo of everyone in group queue and finds the mean elo, putting everyone above that elo the upper bucket and everyone below in the lower bucket.

The top half and the bottom half would not see each other.

Yes that means that people at the top of the lower bucket or bottom of the upper bucket are in for easier and harder games respectively but it does mean that nobody from the lower bucket would ever see top tier competitive players.

I don't know how much that would do really. Only PGI has that level of data.

Edited by Hoax415, 26 September 2014 - 03:58 PM.

[Valore]

Hoax415, on 26 September 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

A check box for competitive vs casual doesn't actually work, I really wish people would stop mentioning it.

Unless you are going to penalize people in terms of lower rewards for checking casual. Otherwise the exact type of people you don't want to play against as a "casual" just click it and farm you.

Yep. Basically make it like an easy mode.

I only thought of it, because of a funny experience some of you might have had.

There are some games, where if you lose repeatedly at a boss fight or stage, will proceed to add salt to your injury by asking 'GAME OVER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO REDUCE YOUR DIFFICULTY? (YOU SCRUB)'

Obviously that would just make me try all the harder to beat that accursed stage.

But I eventually realised that yes, people do for whatever reason want such an option.

So eventually my take was, go nuts, as long as you realise there's stuff that you don't get unless you play the full version, so the completionists and perfectionists have some incentive.

[Kjudoon]

Valore, on 26 September 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

Yep. Basically make it like an easy mode.

I only thought of it, because of a funny experience some of you might have had.

There are some games, where if you lose repeatedly at a boss fight or stage, will proceed to add salt to your injury by asking 'GAME OVER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO REDUCE YOUR DIFFICULTY? (YOU SCRUB)'

Obviously that would just make me try all the harder to beat that accursed stage.

But I eventually realised that yes, people do for whatever reason want such an option.

So eventually my take was, go nuts, as long as you realise there's stuff that you don't get unless you play the full version, so the completionists and perfectionists have some incentive.

So your idea is that the hardest level of play is the 'proper' level of play, and those who cannot play at that level regardless of reason (too old/young/infirm/bad system/bad connection/environment) should not receive full benefit and impact of the product they bought? BTW, I do not own a single game that mocks me for my inability to beat it on the hardest difficulty. In fact I don't play any game on the hardest difficulty. I don't buy games for the 'challenge'. Life is bad enough. I buy them to relax and enjoy a story. Of course that begs the question why I'm even playing MWO... it's the fandom of the franchise really.

I agree someone should get what they merit, and not go all 'participation trophy', but to create a game experience that only punishes everyone but the hardcore players? Yeah, not a community I'd want to be a part of, or a game company I'd want to support.

Wow. You and I live in two completely different worlds.

Edited by Kjudoon, 26 September 2014 - 05:24 PM.

[Valore]

Kjudoon, on 26 September 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

So your idea is that the hardest level of play is the 'proper' level of play, and those who cannot play at that level regardless of reason (too old/young/infirm/bad system/bad connection/environment) should not receive full benefit and impact of the product they bought? BTW, I do not own a single game that mocks me for my inability to beat it on the hardest difficulty. In fact I don't play any game on the hardest difficulty. I don't buy games for the 'challenge'. Life is bad enough. I buy them to relax and enjoy a story. Of course that begs the question why I'm even playing MWO... it's the fandom of the franchise really.

I agree someone should get what they merit, and not go all 'participation trophy', but to create a game experience that only punishes everyone but the hardcore players? Yeah, not a community I'd want to be a part of, or a game company I'd want to support.

Wow. You and I live in two completely different worlds.

Okay, I misspoke, and since you seem so keen to nitpick, I'll clarify.

When I say 'stuff you don't get', I was more referring to how in other games, unless you played the higher difficulty levels, there would be prestige gear you didn't get. Why? Because obviously foes at easier difficulty levels did not require such prestige gear to beat them.

Obviously that's not what I expect MWO to implement.


You also have to realise this part of what you say is inaccurate:

Kjudoon, on 26 September 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

So your idea is that the hardest level of play is the 'proper' level of play, and those who cannot play at that level regardless of reason (too old/young/infirm/bad system/bad connection/environment) should not receive full benefit and impact of the product they bought?

You've read my suggestion. Reduced rewards. Not locked out rewards. So there's nothing 'locked out'.

Kjudoon, on 26 September 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

BTW, I do not own a single game that mocks me for my inability to beat it on the hardest difficulty. In fact I don't play any game on the hardest difficulty. I don't buy games for the 'challenge'. Life is bad enough. I buy them to relax and enjoy a story. Of course that begs the question why I'm even playing MWO... it's the fandom of the franchise really.

Then you might as well solo until PvE comes out. Why in the world are you harping on about this issue then? PvP by its very nature, is NOT about story, and NOT for relaxing.

Edited by Valore, 26 September 2014 - 05:46 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Valore, on 26 September 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:

Okay, I misspoke, and since you seem so keen to nitpick, I'll clarify.

When I say 'stuff you don't get', I was more referring to how in other games, unless you played the higher difficulty levels, there would be prestige gear you didn't get. Why? Because obviously foes at easier difficulty levels did not require such prestige gear to beat them.

Obviously that's not what I expect MWO to implement.


You also have to realise this part of what you say is inaccurate:



You've read my suggestion. Reduced rewards. Not locked out rewards. So there's nothing 'locked out'.



Then you might as well solo until PvE comes out. Why in the world are you harping on about this issue then? PvP by its very nature, is NOT about story, and NOT for relaxing.

Well we both agree on the 'nothing locked out' part. I also see you're referring to mostly online games from the context of your statement.

[Valore]

Kjudoon, on 26 September 2014 - 05:56 PM, said:

Well we both agree on the 'nothing locked out' part. I also see you're referring to mostly online games from the context of your statement.

Not solely online games. Things like Diablo, you don't get high end gear unless you play harder difficulties.

As I said, now I understand why you feel the way you do a bit better.

I hope PvE satisfies the niche you're craving, I'm as disapppointed that awesome trailer they originally had for what was supposed to be Mechwarrior 5 never materialised.

But if you're looking for something relaxing with story... well. Still seems a bit wierd. In an RPG maybe you'd have something relaxing. A game set in a dystopian lost technology era where people just try to kill each other over and over for millenia?

Not so much.

[Spades Kincaid]

The problem is the lack of CW for so long. Yes, there are player leagues out there. Kudos to those who made and run them, because it would be even worse without. But the game suffered a steady decline in unit membership and units themselves. Those just weren't enough to keep many of them going. It needs the broader appeal of an integral competitive scene. CW.

The change of group size limits that came along with the solo-only queue was an attempt to give those groups something more to do. To keep their interest/activity and perhaps even revive some of them. Because a regular 12v12 queue doesn't provide that.

You have to get 12 people together. Which means waiting to have 12 on, then getting them all pulled together from the smaller groups they're playing in. Then keeping it going, replacing those who leave. Meanwhile you're waiting longer for matches that don't offer anything special in reward for it.

Even if you're one of the better groups out there, winning often, it's rarely worth it to bother. Especially when (at the time) you could just stay in 4-mans, get faster matches and win even more. More C-bills, more xp. Even more so if you were on the losing end of 12-mans often enough.

A 12-man standard match queue is a random "hey let's" outlet. As a unit, it's something you might get together and do once in a while just for the heck of it. It's not something you do on a nightly basis because it's simply not worth doing that.


But if you can do any size, while working up to 12. Get quicker matches and start reaping the advantages to more win results once you start getting 8+, well now there's incentive for it. It's easy to do, it's just as fast and it offers an advantageous position. Problem is, it's toxic to a portion of the smaller group playerbase. It's little different than 4-mans mixed in with solo's was. It's also little wonder those who gain from it have no desire to give it up either.

When CW does arrive however, and is up and running? 12-mans (and the larger groups that were allowed to accompany their inclusion in the group queue) need to be removed from it. They will have a competitive outlet. There's no reason for 12-mans to ever be playing against mixed groups in the standard queue at that point. Or for larger groups to be riding the same advantages that got groups pulled out from solo. Drop the max group down to 6. That's plenty for a group of friends or unit-mates just having fun. I'd go back to 4 personally, but 6 might be a more palatable compromise for PGI to revert to.

It'll be time to 'step up'. Want to do 12-man outside of CW? Use those private matches. Set up practices, scrims against other units. That's what competitive teams do. Don't have 12? Then you aren't playing competitively. Time to get recruiting if you want to take part in large group (12-man) play. Got 12 but don't want to do CW? Same thing, minus the recruiting.


TL;DR - The only excuse for the allowance of 12-mans (and the larger groups they necessitated including with them) in a standard group queue was the lack of any other worthwhile outlet provided by the game itself. They needed it. To help retain unit activity, to keep more active units going. It was a necessary evil so to speak. But once CW is there, it's time for the training wheels to come off. You're either playing competitively, or you're not.

Edited by Spades Kincaid, 26 September 2014 - 06:32 PM.

[Kjudoon]

I'm really waiting for Cyberpunk Online if it's as good as the original RPG and not messed up like Shadowrun.

Diablo gimps you gear wise unless you go to the impossible to enjoy difficulty cause you're too busy raging on how the computer cheated? (yes, Sid Meier admitted years ago that he programs his games to cheat for tougher difficulty, and that hs stuck with me ever since. It's why I'll never play a difficulty higher than average on his games.)

Juuuuuust wonderful.

[Squally160]

Spades Kincaid, on 26 September 2014 - 06:23 PM, said:

The problem is the lack of CW for so long. Yes, there are player leagues out there. Kudos to those who made and run them, because it would be even worse without. But the game suffered a steady decline in unit membership and units themselves. Those just weren't enough to keep many of them going. It needs the broader appeal of an integral competitive scene. CW.

The change of group size limits that came along with the solo-only queue was an attempt to give those groups something more to do. To keep their interest/activity and perhaps even revive some of them. Because a regular 12v12 queue doesn't provide that.

You have to get 12 people together. Which means waiting to have 12 on, then getting them all pulled together from the smaller groups they're playing in. Then keeping it going, replacing those who leave. Meanwhile you're waiting longer for matches that don't offer anything special in reward for it.

Even if you're one of the better groups out there, winning often, it's rarely worth it to bother. Especially when (at the time) you could just stay in 4-mans, get faster matches and win even more. More C-bills, more xp. Even more so if you were on the losing end of 12-mans often enough.

A 12-man standard match queue is a random "hey let's" outlet. As a unit, it's something you might get together and do once in a while just for the heck of it. It's not something you do on a nightly basis because it's simply not worth doing that.


But if you can do any size, while working up to 12. Get quicker matches and start reaping the advantages to more win results once you start getting 8+, well now there's incentive for it. It's easy to do, it's just as fast and it offers an advantageous position. Problem is, it's toxic to a portion of the smaller group playerbase. It's little different than 4-mans mixed in with solo's was. It's also little wonder those who gain from it have no desire to give it up either.

When CW does arrive however, and is up and running? 12-mans (and the larger groups that were allowed to accompany their inclusion in the group queue) need to be removed from it. They will have a competitive outlet. There's no reason for 12-mans to ever be playing against mixed groups in the standard queue at that point. Or for larger groups to be riding the same advantages that got groups pulled out from solo. Drop the max group down to 6. That's plenty for a group of friends or unit-mates just having fun. I'd go back to 4 personally, but 6 might be a more palatable compromise for PGI to revert to.

It'll be time to 'step up'. Want to do 12-man outside of CW? Use those private matches. Set up practices, scrims against other units. That's what competitive teams do. Don't have 12? Then you aren't playing competitively. Time to get recruiting if you want to take part in large group (12-man) play. Got 12 but don't want to do CW? Same thing, minus the recruiting.


TL;DR - The only excuse for the allowance of 12-mans (and the larger groups they necessitated including with them) in a standard group queue was the lack of any other worthwhile outlet provided by the game itself. They needed it. To help retain unit activity, to keep more active units going. It was a necessary evil so to speak. But once CW is there, it's time for the training wheels to come off. You're either playing competitively, or you're not.

"Hey guys, the attack/defend window isnt open, we cant play right now because theres no q for 6+ groups outside cw anymore"

[VixNix]

Iskareot, on 26 September 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

I support this... and agree this would be good - No clue how the ELO would work this out sadly I dont think it can be with this team of devs

I want to clarify that when I said 2 mans I meant 1 per team.

[VixNix]

Hoax415, on 26 September 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

A check box for competitive vs casual doesn't actually work, I really wish people would stop mentioning it.

Unless you are going to penalize people in terms of lower rewards for checking casual. Otherwise the exact type of people you don't want to play against as a "casual" just click it and farm you.

The only thing that resembles a "check box" system is so-called "elo buckets". That system will increase wait times for everyone but is certainly something PGI could think about and give an official "good idea / bad idea" stance on.

My personal best version of the elo bucket idea is that the entire group queue population is divided in half by elo. Every so often the server checks the elo of everyone in group queue and finds the mean elo, putting everyone above that elo the upper bucket and everyone below in the lower bucket.

The top half and the bottom half would not see each other.

Yes that means that people at the top of the lower bucket or bottom of the upper bucket are in for easier and harder games respectively but it does mean that nobody from the lower bucket would ever see top tier competitive players.

I don't know how much that would do really. Only PGI has that level of data.

This would also mean that I probably wont be able to play with my friends, unless grouping up discards the bucket and then you are back to the button wont work, because people will always game the system.

[Sjorpha]

I believe removing the paygate from private customized games would do wonders for adressing this problem. In other games I've played the usual method of coaching new players have been to announce newbie or training games on the forum that people can sign up for. I also think it would relieve the competitive pressure on the group Que a little since the competitive groups could also more spontaneously organize games against each other.

I have two kids I'd love to play with, what's keeping me from introducing them is the fact that I cannot freely match up privately against for example another parent with kids. Since the game at its base level is quite simple to play and without gore there is great potential for family entertainment, so currently that's a whole market share left untapped for pgi. Money left on the table if you ask me.

[Kjudoon]

Sjorpha, on 27 September 2014 - 05:07 AM, said:

I believe removing the paygate from private customized games would do wonders for adressing this problem. In other games I've played the usual method of coaching new players have been to announce newbie or training games on the forum that people can sign up for. I also think it would relieve the competitive pressure on the group Que a little since the competitive groups could also more spontaneously organize games against each other.

I have two kids I'd love to play with, what's keeping me from introducing them is the fact that I cannot freely match up privately against for example another parent with kids. Since the game at its base level is quite simple to play and without gore there is great potential for family entertainment, so currently that's a whole market share left untapped for pgi. Money left on the table if you ask me.

Consider looking in on the Seraphim. They might be a group that will fit your needs in more way than one.

[jackal404]

Kjudoon, on 25 September 2014 - 09:41 PM, said:

Okay, Valore

Obviously you want to be right rather than know truth or be constructive.



Let's do more math and see how this happens.

Let's assume ou have ten 12mans on any given peak evening.
THey get 4 matches an hour, but using current PGI telemetry the average match in the group queue lasts about 6 minutes.
So let's double that to 8 matches an hour.
That's 80 matches competitive 12man teams can be in an hour. Lot of matches.

Now, for the sake of the example, let's assume for some bizarre reason, they do not face each other and run into teams that consist of various sizes but average 4 per group.

The pro teams are having a bad night, so let's give them a reasonable win percentage of 75%, but 90% of them are stomps. Margin of victory being 12 to 4 or better

That means in an hour, they are winning 60 matches and of those they wins 56 of them are stomps.

Since the average number of groups stomped is 4, that means 224 teams got the tar beat out of them an hour 448 total in 2 hours of prime time play.

Continue this for a week during 2 hours of prime time play that is 3136 small groups which on average would consist of 3 people making 9408 people (assuming also no repeats) who have experienced getting the tar whaled out of them in that period of time by only 120 players.

Again, this is averages and generous numbers of course, but very plausable.

Now consider at even half that, you are looking at 4704 people on average that got beat up all for the amusement of 120. I'm not saying that all of those people didn't have a good time, but hands up of anyone who enjoys being stomped. That's the math based on what I think are very fair assumptions.

And yet, you are telling on average, between 47-90 players they gotta take it in the shorts all so you can kick the crap out of them and they can't play something else because you need players to face off against your 12man.

Again. The problem is not with me, or any other player. It's with math and the fact that we are not here to be your punching bag. Find someone else who either can punch back of equal ability and time and let the 25-100 of us for each one of you go find another way to play that we enjoy.

Thanks for proving mathematically what my casual friends and I have experience. Just to throw some more math on the fire - let me add our stats during last nights Lance challenge.

The four of us are casual players. We dropped as a four man 1/1/1/1 group. We dropped 13 times. We won 2 (15%), tied 1 (7%), and lost 10 (76%). No match had one team of all one faction, but many had at least two lances of the same faction. While some of the defeats were still enjoyable matches, that number does not exceed 50%.

Obviously, we are not great players. Two of us were using trial mechs through this and one was using a newly purchased mech.

Bottom line is, the fun is not here.

[H I A S]

Now you know, how feel PUG's, when they was roflstomped from Premades. Deal with it.

[Hoax415]

VixNix, on 27 September 2014 - 03:33 AM, said:

This would also mean that I probably wont be able to play with my friends, unless grouping up discards the bucket and then you are back to the button wont work, because people will always game the system.

The buckets only exist in group queue. Basically the system would be to create a median point for group elo. Ideally it would calculate dynamically, refreshing every 30min or whatever based on every group who is in a match or every group that searched for a match's elo or something whatever the system can do.

So if you plus your friends create a group with an elo value that is upper bucket you are upper bucket. If your group elo is below the median point you are lower bucket.

Like I said. That could be a complete waste of time. Its possible PGI looks at the data and could say "80% of games nobody from the lower half of elo faces people from upper half of elo in group queue". I have no clue.

But of all the ways you could try to implement such a "elo bucket" system that's the least restrictive and least queue splitting I can come up with.

Edited by Hoax415, 27 September 2014 - 07:37 AM.

[Jon Gotham]

HiasRGB, on 27 September 2014 - 07:11 AM, said:

Now you know, how feel PUG's, when they was roflstomped from Premades. Deal with it.

At least this disgusting post was straight and honest, no matter how classless it was.
I'll give you+0.2 for effort.

Triordinant, on 26 September 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

Glad to hear it!

Aye, sadly though it won't last. It'll be back to stomptown soon enough:(
Then I'll be back to square one again.

[VixNix]

Hoax415, on 27 September 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

The buckets only exist in group queue. Basically the system would be to create a median point for group elo. Ideally it would calculate dynamically, refreshing every 30min or whatever based on every group who is in a match or every group that searched for a match's elo or something whatever the system can do.

So if you plus your friends create a group with an elo value that is upper bucket you are upper bucket. If your group elo is below the median point you are lower bucket.

Like I said. That could be a complete waste of time. Its possible PGI looks at the data and could say "80% of games nobody from the lower half of elo faces people from upper half of elo in group queue". I have no clue.

But of all the ways you could try to implement such a "elo bucket" system that's the least restrictive and least queue splitting I can come up with.

At least you offer suggestions, better than most...

Thank you.

[Lorgarn]

HiasRGB, on 27 September 2014 - 07:11 AM, said:

Now you know, how feel PUG's, when they was roflstomped from Premades. Deal with it.

Just muzzle it! Honestly, everyons carrying their fun out of the back of the causals!! Perhaps we should all stop complaining and JUST LEAVE. We dont put our money in here any more, and we simply dont play. any more. And THEN we will se how long the die hard will be around without all the soft targest or simply how long the game will be around.

Honestly, I cant take it anymore. Cant play in PUG because you have to play with Beavis and Butt-Head then, cant do groups ether because you cant just bring a friend because you get trampled.

You tell us we just have to get bette we have to be more compatative. So basically you are telling us that we cancle all soccer leauges now, and everyone from the world championship teams to little children playing in the backyard of there school have to compete against each other now, and if the week cant beat the strong its just the fault of the weeker ones, they could simply skip school or there jobs and carry harder.