I Have One Question
#21
Posted 09 January 2015 - 03:38 PM
#22
Posted 09 January 2015 - 03:53 PM
Mott, on 09 January 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:
Indeed, the game would be soooo much better if we could just get rid of all the PUG's and "bads" and just have the same 24 best people beating each other up over and over again.
Newsflash - those PUG's and "bads" so many enjoy bashing make up 85% of the game's population. I find it very amusing how so many tryhards are achingly eager to basically kill the game that they so need to master.
To answer the OP's question: because some group of geniuses thought it made sense to apply no matchmaker whatsoever in the CW queue because it was "hard mode." Any sane individual should realize that throwing random players with no coms into such a meatgrinder is not only idiotic, but detrimental to the game's future. It also isn't "hard mode" anymore than trying to win a race against an Indy car in a Yugo is "hard mode" - that's called "stupid mode." And let's not even talk about all the 12-mans who get their jollies from slaughtering uncoordinated PUG "teams" while trumpeting their "skills" and "learn to play" at the same time... not exactly "hard mode" for them, either...
Edited by oldradagast, 09 January 2015 - 03:53 PM.
#23
Posted 09 January 2015 - 03:57 PM
oldradagast, on 09 January 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:
Indeed, the game would be soooo much better if we could just get rid of all the PUG's and "bads" and just have the same 24 best people beating each other up over and over again.
Newsflash - those PUG's and "bads" so many enjoy bashing make up 85% of the game's population. I find it very amusing how so many tryhards are achingly eager to basically kill the game that they so need to master.
To answer the OP's question: because some group of geniuses thought it made sense to apply no matchmaker whatsoever in the CW queue because it was "hard mode." Any sane individual should realize that throwing random players with no coms into such a meatgrinder is not only idiotic, but detrimental to the game's future. It also isn't "hard mode" anymore than trying to win a race against an Indy car in a Yugo is "hard mode" - that's called "stupid mode." And let's not even talk about all the 12-mans who get their jollies from slaughtering uncoordinated PUG "teams" while trumpeting their "skills" and "learn to play" at the same time... not exactly "hard mode" for them, either...
Dear Sir and/or Madam
Your post had me rolling on the floor with its complete lack of understanding of how the mode is actually supposed to play out. Prior to my introduction to the carpet, I found myself thinking "That's ok, I didn't want to swallow that sip of coffee anyway"
Matchmaker in CW. You crack me up.
Regards,
The Internet.
#24
Posted 09 January 2015 - 04:01 PM
#25
Posted 09 January 2015 - 04:06 PM
Roadbeer, on 09 January 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:
Your post had me rolling on the floor with its complete lack of understanding of how the mode is actually supposed to play out. Prior to my introduction to the carpet, I found myself thinking "That's ok, I didn't want to swallow that sip of coffee anyway"
Matchmaker in CW. You crack me up.
Regards,
The Internet.
Right... because pitting opponents randomly against each other with zero method of taking skills in account is exactly how most competitive gaming formats work... oh, except that's actually not the case... Sane games have ranking systems and so forth - every table-top gaming tournament, etc. The ONLY competitive scenes where skills are NOT factored in choosing opponents are ones where the entire schedule is set in advance, such as major sporting leagues, and even then effort is made to keep some level of balance in the games (salary caps in the NFL, etc.) Of course, in pro sports, the players still get paid a ton of money win or lose, so it's not the same since the only pay we get here is the fun, which is basically nonexistent in an environment with idiotic matchmaker and tools that support laughably unbalanced play because it fluffs up their ego.
I assume most of the above went right over your head, but enjoy what's left of CW... I look forward to your rage when they either let it die on the vine or - gasp! - change it to allow some level of balance and fun... even if that means you'll be stuck fighting equal foes vs. targets. Too bad for you.
Regards, every successful competitive game ever made.
Edited by oldradagast, 09 January 2015 - 04:08 PM.
#26
Posted 09 January 2015 - 04:23 PM
I will start with PUGs:
Dear PUGs,
If you play a CW match, there is a very high probability you will be matched up against a group of at least 9 players on comms together. It's going to happen, you need to accept it, and you need to do you best to coordinate as a team to counter. I've seen it done, really tough on the counter attack but if someone takes the lead without being an overbearing jerk, combined with the rest of the team buying in and following orders, even if you don't win you won't get rolled. Also, if someone just immediately starts the match with "Oh great ****** ass PUGs," then tries to blame the team for their pathetic attempt to pilot a mech, don't feel bad not listening to that person out of spite.
Next premades:
Dear premade units,
I know many of you seem to look down on PUGs, and on the forums you constantly try to remind them "This mode is designed for units" or "Just join a unit." Here's the thing though. YOU NEED THE PUGS. You don't want to admit it but you know it, I know it, PGI knows it. If you like actually playing matches instead of 1 actual drop and 4 ghost drops, you need the PUGs to come in and fill out rosters. Quit acting like condescending jerks on the forums.
No CW is not perfect. PGI is working on fixing it. Give it a little time. I'm not trying to defend PGI here, they have failed spectacularly in some aspects *cough UI 2.0 cough* but try to chill on the cry fests.
#27
Posted 09 January 2015 - 04:24 PM
oldradagast, on 09 January 2015 - 04:06 PM, said:
Right... because pitting opponents randomly against each other with zero method of taking skills in account is exactly how most competitive gaming formats work... oh, except that's actually not the case... Sane games have ranking systems and so forth - every table-top gaming tournament, etc. The ONLY competitive scenes where skills are NOT factored in choosing opponents are ones where the entire schedule is set in advance, such as major sporting leagues, and even then effort is made to keep some level of balance in the games (salary caps in the NFL, etc.) Of course, in pro sports, the players still get paid a ton of money win or lose, so it's not the same since the only pay we get here is the fun, which is basically nonexistent in an environment with idiotic matchmaker and tools that support laughably unbalanced play because it fluffs up their ego.
I assume most of the above went right over your head, but enjoy what's left of CW... I look forward to your rage when they either let it die on the vine or - gasp! - change it to allow some level of balance and fun... even if that means you'll be stuck fighting equal foes vs. targets. Too bad for you.
Regards, every successful competitive game ever made.
#28
Posted 09 January 2015 - 04:53 PM
Monkey Lover, on 09 January 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:
Agreed - but the simple fact that we have tryhards spouting off who are basically opposed to the idea of pitting people against comparable foes vs. hiding among their 12-mans and massacring whatever helpless PUG's the game happens to throw at them gives me little hope any improvements. For some, winning is all that matters, no matter how empty or honorless the victory.
On the plus side, at the current rate of people abandoning CW, they'll run out of targets soon enough, which will make it rather hilarious when the only people left are other competitive teams. I honestly bet at that point half of those teams will bail for the Public queues if they are more likely to get easy wins there... lol...
Again, the answers are obvious, but the sane people are being shouted down around here. And then we're supposed to wonder why the PUG's don't want to join a unit after being flamed and insulted by try-hard unit reps... it's a mystery... lol...
Edited by oldradagast, 09 January 2015 - 05:13 PM.
#29
Posted 09 January 2015 - 05:41 PM
oldradagast, on 09 January 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:
Many of us who believe CW should be largely for real groups are not try hards. It's a descriptor that doesn't fit.
We're simply purists who believe a hard mode should exist for those who want it... since the cry baby soloists got their easy mode solo Q.
I have no problem with soloists in CW... i have a problem with whiny, obnoxious soloists in CW. I know quite a few folks who refuse to join a unit for numerous reason who choose to drop in CW... they just don't spend all day crying about it and when they meet an obstacle they work on it until they overcome it.
#30
Posted 09 January 2015 - 05:59 PM
Mott, on 09 January 2015 - 05:41 PM, said:
Many of us who believe CW should be largely for real groups are not try hards. It's a descriptor that doesn't fit.
We're simply purists who believe a hard mode should exist for those who want it... since the cry baby soloists got their easy mode solo Q.
I have no problem with soloists in CW... i have a problem with whiny, obnoxious soloists in CW. I know quite a few folks who refuse to join a unit for numerous reason who choose to drop in CW... they just don't spend all day crying about it and when they meet an obstacle they work on it until they overcome it.
It was never a question of "overcoming" the obstacle. It's a question of if that obstacle is fun to overcome or not. One can "overcome" the flu, but that doesn't make it "fun," for example. Challenge for it's own sake it meaningless.
If you're having fun, fine... but many people are not. If you have no problems with PUG's, fine... but, again, the vitriol on this forum makes it clear where too many of the "community" stands on this issue. Wins are all that matter for them, even if a good number of them are against random PUG's vs. their teams and the rest are repetitive snooze-fests.
Sure, the PUG's can join teams... well, the ones that haven't made it clear that they hate them... and "get better" - the bigger question is why they are not?
It's far more likely that the answer is closer to "CW is no fun" than "they want to stay bad."
Edited by oldradagast, 09 January 2015 - 06:00 PM.
#31
Posted 09 January 2015 - 06:07 PM
The players within CW (pugs or units) are the least of CW's problems.
The most competitive players i know absolutely loathe CW and some have even stopped playing MWO altogether most nights just to avoid having to even think about it.
I want CW to be about 400x the game mode it is now... and even when it's got great variety, mechanics, modes, maps and bells and whistles... i still want cry-baby, ezmode soloists out of it.
They bring nothing but strife, and provide nothing but idiotic targets.
Edited by Mott, 09 January 2015 - 06:07 PM.
#32
Posted 09 January 2015 - 06:08 PM
Yoseful Mallad, on 09 January 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:
I take it you count yourself as a big boy/girl? Why? Because you are part of a large team?
#33
Posted 09 January 2015 - 06:11 PM
Zibmo, on 09 January 2015 - 06:08 PM, said:
I take it you count yourself as a big boy/girl? Why? Because you are part of a large team?
No doubt.
That's why I get the biggest laugh about CW: A format that requires the LEAST ability to adapt on the fly because of the single objective at a fixed location and which offers the MOST opportunities to ROFL-stomp uncoordinated PUG's because it doesn't have that "evil" matchmaker that at least tries to pit you against balanced foes... but we're to belief only the "big boys and girls" play in this format... right...
If somebody is enjoying CW in its current form, fine for them - but I have nothing but contempt for the loud-mouths who shout down all valid complaints and who proclaim that only "the big boys" can hang out in CW. It doesn't take "skillz" to camp on defense in a 12-man and shoot bumbling PUG's, sometimes even in trial mechs, as they blunder through the same gate... game after game...
Edited by oldradagast, 09 January 2015 - 06:14 PM.
#34
Posted 09 January 2015 - 07:57 PM
The last thing this game needs is more separate queues!
Edited by Ace Selin, 09 January 2015 - 07:58 PM.
#35
Posted 09 January 2015 - 08:39 PM
Especially since the majority of players aren't IN units or large groups, frequently even if they're in a unit that simply is too small to regularly throw up more than a lance or so with the same tag at the same time?
A CW option oriented towards the 1-4 man is needed. (Hint: My signature.)
#36
Posted 09 January 2015 - 08:55 PM
#37
Posted 10 January 2015 - 03:47 AM
Edit: If large units dont care about PUGs leaving, why are they against separate MM?
Edited by MikeBend, 10 January 2015 - 03:49 AM.
#38
Posted 10 January 2015 - 04:58 AM
Weztside, on 09 January 2015 - 12:14 PM, said:
Cause The PUGs knew that was going to be possible and accepted the challenge going into CW. Well the losing side may not have fun, but for the guys on Comms... They are joking and likely drinking and playfully insulting one another which make playing a social game fun!
#39
Posted 10 January 2015 - 05:01 AM
MikeBend, on 10 January 2015 - 03:47 AM, said:
Edit: If large units dont care about PUGs leaving, why are they against separate MM?
No we do not need a separate Que. PUGs need to accept that they MIGHT get lumped together to get a match made if there are not enough groups to load an attack. Congratulations you are the Green militia force going up against an Elite House command. If it happens a few times in a row, change Planets. But CW was sold as a Teamcentric portion of the game where PUGs and Lone Wolves fill the gaps. Sometimes, those gaps are going to be pretty big!
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 January 2015 - 05:01 AM.
#40
Posted 10 January 2015 - 05:28 AM
For the people complaining about bad pugs in CW, unless you are pulling over 2000 damage every match you don't really have much right yo complain. Want to fight easy opponents? Stay out of CW please.
Edited by pwnface, 10 January 2015 - 05:28 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users