39 replies to this topic

[Zanathan]

Sandpit, on 16 November 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

Once again

CW is the "hardcore" mode. Those that want an "easier" game experience and just mindless deathmatches have that. They've had that for 2 years. Those of us that want a harder and more challenging game are waiting for CW.

This will sound harsh:

Stop trying to make the entire game cater to the "i just wanna shoot stompy robots" crowd. If you want the "easier" mode, stick to the pub matches. CW is not required to advance in any portion of the game. It's not required to earn any mech or equipment in the game. You can't include everyone in everything. Those of us that have grown tired o teh mindless deathmatches WANT a harder mode. If that's not your cup of tea that's fine. Keep playing just as you ahve been but please STOP trying to make every facet of this game cater to that style. Not all of us enjoy that.

To be fair to the OP, there are 2 facets to he's suggestion and one of them is to allow PUGS to actually participate in CW without impacting groups. In other words none of the group + PUGs to fill the gaps as we already know that is a horrible experience for both sides. We already have a segregation of PUGs and groups, which is what we already have now with public vs group queue, so why would you change it for CW?

He's suggestion is actually not bad (not sure if you actually read he's other post) and basically if I am interpreting it correctly there will be the following:

1. Public (PUG) queues (unchanged)

2. Group queues (unchanged)

3. Private matches (unchanged)

4. CW - Group queue

5. CW - Public (PUG) queue

The current design of CW still stands but is only applicable for groups. The addition is using the same assets (maps, game modes, etc) for the public queue for PUGs so they can make a difference (albeit on a smaller scale then merc corps) to CW.

The only concern I have with this is the number of players isn't that high and having more queues might prolong waiting times across the board.

[Sandpit]

Zanathan, on 17 November 2014 - 12:58 AM, said:

To be fair to the OP, there are 2 facets to he's suggestion and one of them is to allow PUGS to actually participate in CW without impacting groups. In other words none of the group + PUGs to fill the gaps as we already know that is a horrible experience for both sides. We already have a segregation of PUGs and groups, which is what we already have now with public vs group queue, so why would you change it for CW?

He's suggestion is actually not bad (not sure if you actually read he's other post) and basically if I am interpreting it correctly there will be the following:

1. Public (PUG) queues (unchanged)

2. Group queues (unchanged)

3. Private matches (unchanged)

4. CW - Group queue

5. CW - Public (PUG) queue

The current design of CW still stands but is only applicable for groups. The addition is using the same assets (maps, game modes, etc) for the public queue for PUGs so they can make a difference (albeit on a smaller scale then merc corps) to CW.

The only concern I have with this is the number of players isn't that high and having more queues might prolong waiting times across the board.

There's simply not enough players to continuously split the queues like that. It would be great if every single section of the player population had their own niche but it's simply not large enough to support that at the moment. It can barely support selections on game modes and Elo.

Wait times are already pretty bad for some. If the population were large enough to support all of that I'd be all for it, but it simply isn't. There has to be some give and take. Up to this point it has been all give for those that have waited for that "thinking man's shooter" and PGI has stated that's what CW is for.

Now you have those "casual" style players wanting CW to be given a more casual play style. It's time for THAT portion of the population to give a little.

[Zanathan]

Sandpit, on 17 November 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

There's simply not enough players to continuously split the queues like that. It would be great if every single section of the player population had their own niche but it's simply not large enough to support that at the moment. It can barely support selections on game modes and Elo.

Wait times are already pretty bad for some. If the population were large enough to support all of that I'd be all for it, but it simply isn't. There has to be some give and take. Up to this point it has been all give for those that have waited for that "thinking man's shooter" and PGI has stated that's what CW is for.

Now you have those "casual" style players wanting CW to be given a more casual play style. It's time for THAT portion of the population to give a little.

I agree, my last statement was my concern regarding the number of players to support such a split.

[Vajrabhairava]

Hello again fellow mechwarriors,

just some more clarifications and corrections here:

@Zanathan
Your assumption seems perfectly right to me and I feel very well understood looking at your summary of my suggestion;).
Although I thought the normal group queue would be dissolved into Group CW queue but may be I am wrong here.

As far as I understood what happens to the different queues with CW launch is the following:
There will be
1) Private matches //no change
2) Public (PUG) matches //no change
and
3) CW (group) matches //new
but could possible be more like
3a) group matches //no change
3b) CW (group) matches //new
anyway matches in 3), or 3b) respectivly, will be filled up with PUG cannonfodder if there are not enough group players for defender-side available.

As to my suggestion the list would look like
1) Private matches //no change
2) Public (PUG) matches //no change
3) CW public (PUG) matches //new
4) CW (group) matches //new

if demanded you could include
5) group matches //no change

but imho the last (5)) isnt really necceassary because groups are suppossed to fight in CW anyway aren´t they;).

I doubt that there wont be enough players to keep 2) to 4) running 24/7.
*Option 2) will only be used to grind with the option to choose preferred match modes.
*I think lots of if not most of the PUG will play 3) (CW public), because it´s different and makes a difference;).
*All groups will (have to) play 4) (CW group).
If option 5) is included it would be more a "for fun" matching with other groups with no strings attached.
To me there is no urgent need for that having option 1).

Thank you for reading and again my apology for bad grammar and all.
V.

Edited by Vajrabhairava, 17 November 2014 - 03:34 AM.

[Triordinant]

Based on PGI's statements on it, I've always assumed that CW was a third "hardcore" queue because there's no Elo matchmaking at all there. The biggest, most organized, most competitive and best-trained groups (aka the guys almost no one else wants to play with) will be playing there with no Elo filtering so it's definitely not the most recommended place for a solo player. In fact, I predict the top teams will try to field only 12-mans if they can because when two top-tier comp teams clash the winner is more likely to be the team with the fewer soloists or no soloists at all.

I've been scratching my head trying to figure out why soloists get to fight alongside Units there (to fill in for 11-mans?) but I figure most soloists who "try it out" will eventually leave as a result of either being instakilled repeatedly by the enemy team or derided by their own team. If the plan is to have a third queue played by a few hundred highly competitive players then that will happen naturally in CW as it's been defined so far.

However, if the plan is to have the majority of MWO players actually participate in CW, the design as revealed so far isn't going to work -there will have to be a CW solo queue. I've already suggested earlier in this thread (and in others over the past couple of months) that Invasion Conflicts could be fought by groups and Border Conflicts could be fought by soloists. PGI could even create a third kind of conflict and have soloists fight those, but it would have to be just as meaningful or no soloist will bother since it won't be much different from the current solo queue.

[Xeven]

I honestly have not had time to keep up with CW and where its going but I'd keep Pugs with Pugs and treat those matches like Bandits far out on a moon or asteroids having some but not a lot of impact on the big picture of CW. Give Pugs options to be thrown to the wolves...or easy play settings. IN Throw me to the wolves Id get added to a match with what ever factions I play with maybe inserted in established groups missing a player or two? In Casual play as a Pug I would be out on a moon fighting other Pugs and having limited impact on the overall war.

Just cause I suck at playing does not mean I want to always be paired with other sucky players. You can learn more by fighting tougher opponents than fighting those with you same skill.

Give me the choice on weather I am paired with killers or not.

Edited by Xeven, 17 November 2014 - 07:28 AM.

[Gyrok]

Vajrabhairava, on 14 November 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

As far as I understand how PGI approaches CW I am convinced they do themself, the game and their business modell no favour but are straight forward complicating the matter (in respect to additional workload/game structure) and right away allienating the score of single players not members of any group but passionate and dedicated players none the less.

Why is that so you may ask?

With CW depending on different type of maps (invasion maps) the need of extra work, new designs etc. has occured.
With the choice of a new map style approach for CW, PGI in fact seperates CW Game from "ordinary" game so far, and with additional new workload from the very beginning etc. this path lengthens development, complicates the matter and plants disperate development roads into the same game.
Instead they should have, as a first step, have kept to the map style and modes allready introduced and producing more of those (which at the same time would greatly benefit the public match map rotation by more maps variants), combining them in easy to deploy planetary settings and keeping the introduction of more modes and different map styles an exploitable future option but first focus on a working, dynamic and reliable CW backbone mechanism.

This approach also make planetary conquest itself a seperated part of the game. Invasion maps are not to be used in public rotation (!) and "old" maps are not used in CW. Both not really clever choices in my opinion.

The public solo drop matches, which I bet are the vast majority of matches played, have no link to CW (as an option) at all, keeping them meaningless pitch battles only for training skills, fun and leveling of mechs. While I would vote for keeping this type of public matches, there should have been an option to connect public solo matches meaningful to CW.

Right now as planned solo players get assigned to random formed groups where cannonfodder is lacking, forcing PUG to play against organized and presumably "hardcore" groups.
Keeping public solo match players (means the PUG majority) out of CW or place them as cannonfodder in the "new" (groups only) CW feature will allienate many players and drive off new ones.
Beside through this "workaround" PGI damages it´s own rule by whitch there should be no PUG in group matches. This is a rather inconsitent application of rules.

As I proposed in this thread:
http://mwomercs.com/...ugsolo-players/
for an easy inclusion of PUG in CW and a practical and easy to integrate method for CW there are much more efficient, community uniting ways / mechanisms to implement a robust and fun CW into the game.

Thank you for reading/commenting:).

I like the way they are doing it...solo players can opt in, but should not be the focus. They are only 46% of the population...54% is in group queue...

[Logan Hawke]

So.... how is being a solo player automatically easy mode casual scrub town?

Having solo players against groups isn't going to be fun for anyone unless you and your chucklebuddies like playing a game with no challenge.

[Sprouticus]

Viktor Drake, on 14 November 2014 - 06:13 AM, said:

Yeah this is my major problem. We already know without a doubt that combining slapped together PUGs in to a group and dropping them against organized 12 mans doesn't work which is why we have separate ques in the first place. However, now that is how CW is going to run? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense and is going to completely alienate alot of players like me which have been looking forward to CW and spending alot of time and money preparing for it but aren't in a position to join an organized group and meet the commitments required to be part of such an organization.

CW needs to be solo player friendly, simple as that. There is just not enough going on in the current game mode to keep people like me engaged and playing. I mean I doubt I will totally quit without being able to participate fully and competitively in CW but there is no reason to spend additional money on the game if what we currently have is all that I will be able to take part in for at least the next year or longer. Also dropping solo and losing 90% of the time doesn't constitute participation.

I think you under estimate the MM. With CW, we will have a much more concentrated population. They can easily adjust the number of queues (planets) so that you end up with a good MM system that puts solo's and very small groups against each other. Remember, you have 1 game mode, and there is no 3/3/3/3 so the MM really boils down to

1) groups size
2) Elo (which is already impacted by group size)

There may be some problems during the early morning (after Asia-Pac primetime but before Euro primetime) but that is to be expected. and even in solo that time of day seems to have bad variance.

I suppose you may have issues if you have 2 facitons with small populations, but for the clan/IS and for large faciton play I am not worried about the grouping thing very much.


As for the maps...I see what you are saying, and I pretty much agree. I think CW should include some assault game where you only use the first mech of your drop deck. But I get why PGI is starting things out simple. They can always add other game modes later.

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

Gyrok, on 17 November 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

I like the way they are doing it...solo players can opt in, but should not be the focus. They are only 46% of the population...54% is in group queue...

Interesting numbers. Where did you get them from? At a guess I'd have thought there would be more solo than group players, but I don't know because the devs seem very careful about releasing much data on their player base.

[Noesis]

Content is good. Attention to detail is good. Applying relevance to the game mode and objectives is good.

Yes this incurs more overheads to do than say a procedurally generated map, but then it doesn't also incur the random problems associated with them or complications with map use, where the idea of invisible obstacles and clipping issues could simply ruin the gameplay.

There is also the idea of placing and upgrading infrastructure. This might be interesting to see whether individual decisions about where some of this is placed or if it will be at predictable positions in a modular fashion.

I think PGI have made a "planned" decision to do it this way, but at least it allows for the upmost QA and confidence with the gameplay format imho, so I don't see it as a critical mistake, just a concerted effort to supply a good quality game that then requires attention to detail.

[Johnny Z]

AUSwarrior24, on 16 November 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Here's the thing, though; CW isn't necessarily meant to welcome PUGs. Indeed, earlier I thought that it was exclusive to group play, which would have made more sense. Now it's great that they've decided to allow solo players into the mode, but people seem to be forgetting something here:

It's not supposed to be public/solo/PUG friendly.

PGI have said it's supposed to be hardcore- I'm aware people scoff at the term but they have a point. Solos and casuals are supposed to stick with the normal queues. Now I'm not saying it couldn't be worked on in the future to gradually include better support for the non-unit players, but to want to drag it down so early on to what is more or less just the normal queue with a world map.

My biggest fear for CW isn't that PGI won't get it right, it's that too many casual players will want to drag it down to something that really doesn't differ from what we already have. The point is the provide a competitive environment where 'fairness' in MM doesn't mean a thing. I for one will relish such a challenge. This all sort of reminds me of how a lot of the WT community is hell bent on decaying the sim/realistic modes down to anything but sim/realistic.

Why would this game spend so much time making faction wars for 10 to 20% of the players? When80 to 90% of players are in the regular queue not the group queue so they wouldnt, they have to properly include those from the regular queue. There is a reason premade groups are not allowed in the regular queue, maybe a few reasons.

For my part I dont mind being in matches with pre made groups, I just want to know who is in the pre made group so if they decide to stay at the back using regular players as cannon fodder I can see that on radar for example.

This is my first reply on the subject since I have confidence that regular queue players will be included in this new expansion so I havent even bothered util now.

Oh, and I have seen more than a few times that players in the premade group queue spend more money on the game. Well they better because this game maker is doing hand stands and back flips to make the special group queue for them. I am sure they will be included in the soon to be released expansion though. Not to mention alot of the systems they made for guilds and group queue can be used in the expansion.

Edited by Johnny Z, 17 November 2014 - 08:34 AM.

[Triordinant]

Gyrok, on 17 November 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

I like the way they are doing it...solo players can opt in, but should not be the focus. They are only 46% of the population...54% is in group queue...

The only number I've ever heard from PGI is 84% solo players 16% group in this post. Do you have a link to where these numbers you're quoting are from?

Edited by Triordinant, 17 November 2014 - 09:10 AM.

[Triordinant]

Sprouticus, on 17 November 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

I think you under estimate the MM. With CW, we will have a much more concentrated population. They can easily adjust the number of queues (planets) so that you end up with a good MM system that puts solo's and very small groups against each other. Remember, you have 1 game mode, and there is no 3/3/3/3 so the MM really boils down to

1) groups size
2) Elo (which is already impacted by group size)

The Devs have already stated there's not going to be any Elo or matchmaking of any kind in CW.

RocketDog, on 17 November 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

Interesting numbers. Where did you get them from? At a guess I'd have thought there would be more solo than group players, but I don't know because the devs seem very careful about releasing much data on their player base.

See my post just before this one.

Edited by Triordinant, 17 November 2014 - 09:14 AM.

[Sprouticus]

Triordinant, on 17 November 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

The Devs have already stated there's not going to be any Elo or matchmaking of any kind in CW.


See my post just before this one.

You are correct, it slipped my mind in my hurried post yesterday.

Even more argument that the MM should be able to keep things reasonable for group sized in CW.

[Remarius]

Triordinant, on 17 November 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

Based on PGI's statements on it, I've always assumed that CW was a third "hardcore" queue because there's no Elo matchmaking at all there. The biggest, most organized, most competitive and best-trained groups (aka the guys almost no one else wants to play with) will be playing there with no Elo filtering so it's definitely not the most recommended place for a solo player. In fact, I predict the top teams will try to field only 12-mans if they can because when two top-tier comp teams clash the winner is more likely to be the team with the fewer soloists or no soloists at all.

I've been scratching my head trying to figure out why soloists get to fight alongside Units there (to fill in for 11-mans?) but I figure most soloists who "try it out" will eventually leave as a result of either being instakilled repeatedly by the enemy team or derided by their own team. If the plan is to have a third queue played by a few hundred highly competitive players then that will happen naturally in CW as it's been defined so far.

However, if the plan is to have the majority of MWO players actually participate in CW, the design as revealed so far isn't going to work -there will have to be a CW solo queue. I've already suggested earlier in this thread (and in others over the past couple of months) that Invasion Conflicts could be fought by groups and Border Conflicts could be fought by soloists. PGI could even create a third kind of conflict and have soloists fight those, but it would have to be just as meaningful or no soloist will bother since it won't be much different from the current solo queue.

Why on earth do you think a solo player would be derided? That would be dumb for the 11 man team as they'd lose firepower, eyes and the ability to spread damage over the whole company. Now if you mean derided if they run off solo and suicide forciing the 11 man to have to attack then maybe.

Edited by Remarius, 18 November 2014 - 06:32 AM.

[Thorn Hallis]

I, as a solo player, know exactly what to expect if I join CW. If I don't like that, I can join or create a group or play normal public matches. So no problem here.

[Sandpit]

Logan Hawke, on 17 November 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

So.... how is being a solo player automatically easy mode casual scrub town?

Having solo players against groups isn't going to be fun for anyone unless you and your chucklebuddies like playing a game with no challenge.

then don't play CW, it's really that easy. Problem solved

[Jacob Side]

1st off CW isn't and shouldn't be designed to cater to solo players.

2nd I'm with other people here that different units of the same faction should be allowed to group up and drop, player alliances people

3rd I believe in the last townhall Russ had said matches were being looked at lasting 30 minutes. I personally believe that is way to short of a match time for having 48 mechs per team.

[Jacob Side]

Dragging up the 10 month old stat of 84% solo vs 16% group.

I'd love to see the updated stats now that we can do larger group sizes.