481 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

Valore, on 26 September 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

I'm amazed you need to ask such a question, but I guess its the same feeling I get when I don't understand why some people choose to shirk away from competition rather than try to get better.

This requries time and practice, and grinding for cbills loadouts and more. Time that some people don't have. Some just come online in the evening wiht maybe 1 hour time, and then they just wanna drop for some matches, probbaly with a friend who is also online. Not everoyne is addicted serveral hours in a game. Some don't even play daily, some maybe only 4 hours a week.

And it requires to throw away a bit of fun, because being competitive in an unbalanced game requires you to choose mechs and weapons that are competitive. Not everyone likes palying the same boring stuff over and over like a simple working robot.

Edited by Lily from animove, 26 September 2014 - 06:38 AM.

[L A V A]

Kjudoon, on 26 September 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

I've seen my fellow competitive Seraphim go up against you guys and know quite well what you're capable of and what you need to improve. I personally don't like getting gnawed on by your pack of pitbulls in that fashion anymore

We are seeking competitive teams to practice for upcoming league games in the MRBC.

Going against a group of 4 mans (or less), merely serves as an exercise in Command and Control (comms, movement, focus fire). Rolling another group is not necessarily fun nor does it provide the kind of challenge we seek. The kind that makes us better players as a team and helps us to move upwards out of the mid tier of competition.

We want to fight other competitive teams, but the match maker isn't finding them for us.

While I admit there is lots of folks who enjoy "PUG Stomping", who love inflating their K/D and W/L ratio, I have no interest in such things and want a good fight.

This is why I advocate an 8-man queue. Almost all the competitive leagues are using an 8-man format. If we could have an 8-man queue, we would be able to match against other like minded teams where we would be able to really practice for league play while at the same time staying out of the PUG 12 man queue and slaughtering folks who just want to have some fun.

PGI has got to do something to square this situation away. There is very little challenge in the present system and I think it is fairly obvious that it is harming our community.

Edited by xLAVAx, 26 September 2014 - 06:43 AM.

[Kjudoon]

xLAVAx, on 26 September 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

We are seeking competitive teams to practice for upcoming league games in the MRBC.

Going against a group of 4 mans (or less), merely serves as an exercise in Command and Control (comms, movement, focus fire). Rolling another group is not necessarily fun nor does it provide the kind of challenge we seek. The kind that makes us better players as a team and helps us to move upwards out of the mid tier of competition.

We want to fight other competitive teams, but the match maker isn't finding them for us.

While I admit there is lots of folks who enjoy "PUG Stomping", who love inflating their K/D and W/L ratio, I have no interest in such things and want a good fight.

PGI has got to do something to square this situation away. There is very little challenge in the present system and I think it is fairly obvious that it is harming our community.

See? I respect this. I've seen this from a few other 'pro' teams too and I respect that too. I've met with other commanders from tier one ranked teams who are interested in training up groups to be good so they can grow the competitive scene and have more people to play with and I'm all for that for those that want it.

Me personally, I would probably try to play competitively again if I had a few things change in my life (the time to practice like I did when I was on worker's comp, recovering from surgery, and the equipment up to running this game at full power and then some and if I ever learn to shoot straight). So since I can't, I stick to what I know I'm good at. Also, I did not like running meta builds because I'm a LRM freak and there's no place for me in competitive games where matches are won by inches and DPS is king out of necessity and small mistakes are often fatal. That margin of perfection is far beyond my ken and desire.

That said, the Seraphim have 2-3 companies getting ready for MCW and other competitions out there, but we'll see what happens once CW kicks off. Seriously though, if you want to get in touch with the captains there who're doing these things for Private match practices and the like, get in touch with them. I just oversee our 70 man casual garrison.



(no I'm not exaggerating, and yes you've kicked my tail so high I've worn my tush as ear muffs for a day, xLavax in 12man play so I know what that's like too.)

[Jon Gotham]

I suggested earlier:
The below would be a guideline to be matched wherever POSSIBLE. But could be stretched if insufficient players were available.
12 mans face: (plus groups of the below sizes)
6+6
7+5
8+4
9+3
10+2
12

That way your bigger group is more likely to face other bigger groups, providing you with more co-ordinated opponents who put up more of a fight. You will learn more from fighting opponents more suitable to you and so will they.
This way the smaller chunks are bigger and likely more co-ordinated, as currently say an 8+4 vs a 3,4,3 and a 2 is hardly fair. 4 sets of voip vs 2.
At least if the above was tried, the voip groups would tend to be bigger on both teams hopefully equating a better game for both teams. The smaller groups would then tend to face other collections of smaller groups.
Everyone would then tend to get matched against suitable opponents.

Edited by kamiko kross, 26 September 2014 - 07:07 AM.

[Haipyng]

Kjudoon, on 26 September 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

See? I respect this. I've seen this from a few other 'pro' teams too and I respect that too. I've met with other commanders from tier one ranked teams who are interested in training up groups to be good so they can grow the competitive scene and have more people to play with and I'm all for that for those that want it.

Totally agree and these are often the views of the truly Pro teams. They don't enjoy stomps. There is no challenge in for them. The best games are the close ones, not the stomps where the other team is giving you the "GG Close" to be smart.

We need a middle ground to keep people interested and grow them for the large competitive games. This big disconnect between the solo and group queue drives players off.

[-Natural Selection-]

xLAVAx, on 26 September 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

We are seeking competitive teams to practice for upcoming league games in the MRBC.

Sent you a friend inv in game in ref to this. (DERP)

Edited by Mickey Knoxx, 26 September 2014 - 07:51 AM.

[Corduroy Rab]

Valore, on 26 September 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

I'm amazed you need to ask such a question, but I guess its the same feeling I get when I don't understand why some people choose to shirk away from competition rather than try to get better. I'll take your question at face value, and answer accordingly.

Hello!

I've been trying to avoid this topic but got sucked in anyhow. I am not sure if the characterization of some players as not wanting competition to be wholly accurate. Despite some of the rhetoric I think even casuals want competition, they just want more parity in it.

For example, lets say I play in an intramural baseball league after work. I likely both want my opponents to be competitive and likely want to have the opportunity to improve my skills. However, I likely don't want to be continually matched up against minor league teams because being dumpstered won't give me much opportunity to improve my skills nor provide a competitive game.

I think that is the place that most "casual" players are coming from.

That aside. I am one of those referenced new players that gets dumpstered in group queue when I am playing with a friend or two. Personally, I don't mind too much as I am used to games with a painful learning curves [insert mandatory eve online reference for credibility or something] and even if i lose so long as my play improved I tend to be fine with that. This being said I would much prefer if when I was just running a duo i could be in the solo queue (or at least would be dropped into both queues) - and yes I do get that the devs have mentioned that this isn't an option they are fond of.

I am guessing the main problem with any solution is size of the player base and wait times before matches. In other games, thinking league of legends here, there is a ranked queue for players that want a more competitive experience and then normal matches for those that are not as concerned. The upcoming CW might indirectly tap into this and make the group queue a bit more casual friendly, guess we'll have to see.

Anyhow, enjoying the game so far, don't flame me too hard.

[Valore]

Haipyng, on 26 September 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

We need a middle ground to keep people interested and grow them for the large competitive games. This big disconnect between the solo and group queue drives players off.

While this sounds nice on paper, reality is quite different.

The fact of the matter is, people who WANT to get better will lose, get angry, then do all in their power to figure out what it takes. Whether that entails reading up on meta, practicing good weapons, or joining a clan to gain experience, they'll do it.

People who get discouraged, give up, and blame the game/the queue, are unlikely to get better. All watering down the queue will do, is let them fight against people who are even worse, OR, if they're really the bottom of the barrel, make the quit anyway. How low do you go?

Why? Because getting better is effort and time. Some people can't/won't put that in. I don't think blaming the queue for discouraging people and making them quit the game is entirely fair or accurate.

That's why my suggestion was simple. Give a 'casual' option that provides reduced rewards, and the bigger your group is, the more severe the penalty. Let people realise that they can play among more relaxed environs if they want, but there are bigger fish out there if they ever want to be the best.

Edited by Valore, 26 September 2014 - 08:20 AM.

[Valore]

Corduroy Rab, on 26 September 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

Hello!

I've been trying to avoid this topic but got sucked in anyhow. I am not sure if the characterization of some players as not wanting competition to be wholly accurate. Despite some of the rhetoric I think even casuals want competition, they just want more parity in it.

For example, lets say I play in an intramural baseball league after work. I likely both want my opponents to be competitive and likely want to have the opportunity to improve my skills. However, I likely don't want to be continually matched up against minor league teams because being dumpstered won't give me much opportunity to improve my skills nor provide a competitive game.

I think that is the place that most "casual" players are coming from.

That aside. I am one of those referenced new players that gets dumpstered in group queue when I am playing with a friend or two. Personally, I don't mind too much as I am used to games with a painful learning curves [insert mandatory eve online reference for credibility or something] and even if i lose so long as my play improved I tend to be fine with that. This being said I would much prefer if when I was just running a duo i could be in the solo queue (or at least would be dropped into both queues) - and yes I do get that the devs have mentioned that this isn't an option they are fond of.

I am guessing the main problem with any solution is size of the player base and wait times before matches. In other games, thinking league of legends here, there is a ranked queue for players that want a more competitive experience and then normal matches for those that are not as concerned. The upcoming CW might indirectly tap into this and make the group queue a bit more casual friendly, guess we'll have to see.

Anyhow, enjoying the game so far, don't flame me too hard.

I can entirely see where you're coming from, but one of the issues raised is how then do you define the characteristic of 'casualness'. Its difficult, because the moment you start getting together with friends, you're doing the same thing the more organised clans/corps do. The only difference is that they might go at it more gung ho and put more time/effort in. But how do we start having some 'measure' to determine how 'into it' people are?

Answer is we really can't. Which again, goes back to why my suggestion was a 'casual' option. Further improving Elo was also an alternative talked about, but difficult to implement, since Elo itself doesn't exactly do well when thrown into team/group games.

Edited by Valore, 26 September 2014 - 08:22 AM.

[Corduroy Rab]

Valore, on 26 September 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

I can entirely see where you're coming from, but one of the issues raised is how then do you define the characteristic of 'casualness'. Its difficult, because the moment you start getting together with friends, you're doing the same thing the more organised clans/corps do. The only difference is that they might go at it more gung ho and put more time/effort in. But how do we start having some 'measure' to determine how 'into it' people are?

Answer is we really can't. Which again, goes back to why my suggestion was a 'casual' option. Further improving Elo was also an alternative talked about, but difficult to implement, since Elo itself doesn't exactly do well when thrown into team/group games.

Had to look back a bit, but yeah a causal option would be nice. That is round about what I was getting at with my normal/ranked comparison from LoL. What you suggested seemed interesting and I absolutely agree that rewards for competitive play should be higher.

It seems to me that having both a competitive and causal player base is very important for any online game so any changes that are made should take care not to exclude one group or the other (not commenting on your specific suggestion but more generally to other ones that were thrown around).

As for me I'll likely be looking to join a unit at some point in the near future as that seems a logical progressing for me, just likely after the LoL ranked season is over since I want those end of season rewards . Anyways thanks for your kind response.

Edit. I also agree Elo does get wonky when it comes to group games, i can see it working for full 12 v 12 matches, like world of tanks clan matches but for what we currently have it might not be a viable solution, though I could be wrong

Edited by Corduroy Rab, 26 September 2014 - 08:43 AM.

[Mott]

Valore i think you're making it more complicated than it has to be.

IMO, simply tightening the valves on the MM and changing it's priority away from building matches around the largest available team is the easiest and most effective way to achieve the results most folks are asking for.

No real need to build a 3rd Q, no need to dilute the talent pool, no need to punish any group.

Simply focus on MM building more balanced teams so the steamrolls become the anomaly, instead of the norm.

Yes, my solution would end up extending match search times by a good 30-45 seconds, but honestly, I doubt many people would have a problem with that if it meant more competitive and genuinely enjoyable matches 90% of the time.

Edited by Mott, 26 September 2014 - 08:42 AM.

[Valore]

Mott, on 26 September 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

Valore i think you're making it more complicated than it has to be.

IMO, simply tightening the valves on the MM and changing it's priority away from building matches around the largest available team is the easiest and most effective way to achieve the results most folks are asking for.

No real need to build a 3rd Q, no need to dilute the talent pool, no need to punish any group.

Simply focus on MM building more balanced teams so the steamrolls become the anomaly, instead of the norm.

Yes, my solution would end up extending match search times by a good 30-45 seconds, but honestly, I doubt many people would have a problem with that if it meant more competitive and genuinely enjoyable matches 90% of the time.

If such a system can be made, I'm all for it. The only caveat is that if any such system is implemented, there must be a cap on how much ANYONE, be it a 12 man or a 2 man, is forced to wait.

The most likely way that's done is to have matching waves by say 30 seconds. First wave tries to match according to tighter rules. Second wave matches anyone left unmatched after the second wave. Third wave will match anyone waiting since wave 1, no matter if the match is somewhat lopsided.

[Triordinant]

ATTENTION SMALL GROUPS! There is a Lance Challenge going on this weekend and most large groups are going to split up into lances to participate. Even they sync-drop, they're unlikely to have 3 lances on the same team in the same match. If you really don't want to fight against established, well-trained 10 to 12-man units using maximized 'mechs, the best time to drop (for the foreseeable future) is now.

[L A V A]

Mickey Knoxx, on 26 September 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Sent you a friend inv in game in ref to this. (DERP)

Cool!

The competitive folks are always on the look out for scrims, especially Monday and Wednesday in the evening, EU time.

We also have a new NA team forming who could also be interested.

[Squally160]

xLAVAx, on 26 September 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

Cool!

The competitive folks are always on the look out for scrims, especially Monday and Wednesday in the evening, EU time.

We also have a new NA team forming who could also be interested.

Ahh, DERP is like, 90% US timezone players. but perhaps on a weekend we can get some games going!

[-Natural Selection-]

Corduroy Rab, on 26 September 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

The upcoming CW might indirectly tap into this and make the group queue a bit more casual friendly, guess we'll have to see.

Been trying to get that point across for a while now. But seems to get lost in the mix of things. I think a short term fix to the current situation may be wasted time and resources (not to mention diluting he population more) when the end result is in play. Thus having to go back and change things again. The question is how long are we actually talking about phase 2 coming into effect to justify an immediate correction of the current issue? (But that is a whole different place we don't really want to go, but kinda applies lol)

[Squally160]

Mickey Knoxx, on 26 September 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

Been trying to get that point across for a while now. But seems to get lost in the mix of things. I think a short term fix to the current situation may be wasted time and resources (not to mention diluting he population more) when the end result is in play. Thus having to go back and change things again. The question is how long are we actually talking about phase 2 coming into effect to justify an immediate correction of the current issue? (But that is a whole different place we don't really want to go, but kinda applies lol)

gief me CW naow!

[Jon Gotham]

On a side note have any of you been doing the lance challenge this evening?
We did and I can say the experience was fantastic! Such a marked change to the normal group queue! The vast majority of the teams we faced were like ours, mostly 3x4.
This I feel made a huge difference they were in the same boat we were mostly, 3 sets of voip. We had several GREAT games (past three weeks in normal grpqueue=0 great games) which were very close-one epic brawl on hpg manifold springs to mind-a game we lost mind...but I didn't care. Why? Because it was a great and most of all, fairly matched game.

I saw no meta hugging in extremis nor any cbill spamming. Lances were moving and flanking and fighting using their mechs!
Quite simply, the best evening's mwo I have had in a long time.

How have you all found it?

Edited by kamiko kross, 26 September 2014 - 02:42 PM.

[Triordinant]

kamiko kross, on 26 September 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

On a side note have any of you been doing the lance challenge this evening?
We did and I can say the experience was fantastic! Such a marked change to the normal group queue! The vast majority of the teams we faced were like ours, mostly 3x4.

This I feel made a huge difference they were in the same boat we were mostly, 3 sets of voip. We had several GREAT games (past three weeks in normal grpqueue=0 great games) which were very close-one epic brawl on hpg manifold springs to mind-a game we lost mind...but I didn't care. Why? Because it was a great and most of all, fairly matched game.

I saw no meta hugging in extremis nor any cbill spamming. Lances were moving and flanking and fighting using their mechs!
Quite simply, the best evening's mwo I have had in a long time.

Glad to hear it!

[Iskareot]

VixNix, on 24 September 2014 - 03:26 AM, said:

I do NOT want 4 mans in solo queue.
I would not mind 2 mans in it but that's just my opinion.
I DO want a place where my small group of friends who play once in a great while can come in and have fun.

Can we have a queue for lance v lance?
How would that work average ELO?

Would it be that difficult to put in a check box for competitive vs casual?

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