Preface: I know for some simply getting a match is still a problem, though personally, since the latest patch, I find it quite fast. So I'm going forward with that not being an active issue.
TLDR: Could we consider putting something in place as motivation/incentive for solo players?
Main Conversation:
So I'm finally getting into matches in CW. I have an okay deck, moduled out, and generally perform fairly strong (not that I'm a terrific player). I tend to dish out decent punishment and finish the match feeling like I had an impact.
That said, it's still basically always pug vs premade for me; I understand that this is likely to continue be the case. I can handle the fact that this will often mean a loss for us, it can still be a fun match.
The problem for me is that, knowing it's a loss, I really don't find myself interested in clicking that flashing Defend/Attack button often. Why? I know I can have a terrific match, break, 2000 damage, eliminate most of the enemy team, and still make no loyalty points, barely any cash, and a tiny bit of experience... for a 30 min investment.
The end result is I just walk away for a good long time before coming back.
I'll make clear I don't think I should get more than the winning team. I don't think I should get more just for being solo. But it would be nice to get something.
The developers know I'm probably going to get beat down... maybe throw me a bone? Anything that makes CW a little more attractive?
In a standard match I'll probably haul in a lot more coin and know that I'm 90% not against a premade...
Just something to consider. Even if the cash/XP was the same but I could at least get a loyalty point or two...
0
Incentives For Solo?
Started by Voq, Jan 22 2015 10:20 AM
8 replies to this topic
#2
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 2,987 posts
Member
- LocationNYC
Posted 22 January 2015 - 10:37 AM
What do you mean no loyalty points? In a loss you don't get the contract value but I know in losses I still earn a load of LP.
#3
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 767 posts
Member
Posted 22 January 2015 - 10:40 AM
Ultimately what's going to happen is a decision between which part of the playerbase to better support, the big teams, or the pugs that supposedly make up 84% of the playerbase.
There's been talk about 4v4 and other modes in CW to "aid the pugs" but really what supporters of those ideas are saying is "please keep the filthy casuals away from CW until they're good enough to join a big team."
In terms of incentive to play CW, a few things need to happen:
1. Rewards need to be at least double what we have now. Especially for the attacking side, who must dive-bomb the objectives without giving a darn about the defending force, lest they lose. Unless of course, you're a 12 man against defending pugs, in which case, farm away!
2. A 12 man should only face a 12 man. I've got bad news, most competitive gaming teams are not that big. They're six players or fewer. Twelve organized people with good drop decks is way too much preplanning influence to make the actual competition of the game worth anything, negating elements of skill and positioning in favor of information sharing and simply planning ahead.
3. Small groups of lance sizes or less should still be allowed to drop with pugs. Let's not eliminate the competitive element of CW altogether. Instead, let's make it more like other games where a small team coordinates for victory. I can see a mix of 4,3,2, and solo players making for more balanced and interesting play.
There's been talk about 4v4 and other modes in CW to "aid the pugs" but really what supporters of those ideas are saying is "please keep the filthy casuals away from CW until they're good enough to join a big team."
In terms of incentive to play CW, a few things need to happen:
1. Rewards need to be at least double what we have now. Especially for the attacking side, who must dive-bomb the objectives without giving a darn about the defending force, lest they lose. Unless of course, you're a 12 man against defending pugs, in which case, farm away!
2. A 12 man should only face a 12 man. I've got bad news, most competitive gaming teams are not that big. They're six players or fewer. Twelve organized people with good drop decks is way too much preplanning influence to make the actual competition of the game worth anything, negating elements of skill and positioning in favor of information sharing and simply planning ahead.
3. Small groups of lance sizes or less should still be allowed to drop with pugs. Let's not eliminate the competitive element of CW altogether. Instead, let's make it more like other games where a small team coordinates for victory. I can see a mix of 4,3,2, and solo players making for more balanced and interesting play.
#4
-
-
- Bad Company
- 249 posts
Member
Posted 22 January 2015 - 10:45 AM
RG Notch, on 22 January 2015 - 10:37 AM, said:
What do you mean no loyalty points? In a loss you don't get the contract value but I know in losses I still earn a load of LP.
Am I missing where I would see this on the final screen?
All I get is the big message that I failed Davion and get no loyalty points, back in the mechlab.
#5
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 2,987 posts
Member
- LocationNYC
Posted 22 January 2015 - 10:47 AM
Voq, on 22 January 2015 - 10:45 AM, said:
Am I missing where I would see this on the final screen?
All I get is the big message that I failed Davion and get no loyalty points, back in the mechlab.
End of match screen has a faction tab where you can see it all.
Edited by RG Notch, 22 January 2015 - 10:48 AM.
#6
-
-
- Bad Company
- 249 posts
Member
Posted 22 January 2015 - 11:00 AM
Techorse, on 22 January 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:
Ultimately what's going to happen is a decision between which part of the playerbase to better support, the big teams, or the pugs that supposedly make up 84% of the playerbase.
There's been talk about 4v4 and other modes in CW to "aid the pugs" but really what supporters of those ideas are saying is "please keep the filthy casuals away from CW until they're good enough to join a big team."
In terms of incentive to play CW, a few things need to happen:
1. Rewards need to be at least double what we have now. Especially for the attacking side, who must dive-bomb the objectives without giving a darn about the defending force, lest they lose. Unless of course, you're a 12 man against defending pugs, in which case, farm away!
2. A 12 man should only face a 12 man. I've got bad news, most competitive gaming teams are not that big. They're six players or fewer. Twelve organized people with good drop decks is way too much preplanning influence to make the actual competition of the game worth anything, negating elements of skill and positioning in favor of information sharing and simply planning ahead.
3. Small groups of lance sizes or less should still be allowed to drop with pugs. Let's not eliminate the competitive element of CW altogether. Instead, let's make it more like other games where a small team coordinates for victory. I can see a mix of 4,3,2, and solo players making for more balanced and interesting play.
There's been talk about 4v4 and other modes in CW to "aid the pugs" but really what supporters of those ideas are saying is "please keep the filthy casuals away from CW until they're good enough to join a big team."
In terms of incentive to play CW, a few things need to happen:
1. Rewards need to be at least double what we have now. Especially for the attacking side, who must dive-bomb the objectives without giving a darn about the defending force, lest they lose. Unless of course, you're a 12 man against defending pugs, in which case, farm away!
2. A 12 man should only face a 12 man. I've got bad news, most competitive gaming teams are not that big. They're six players or fewer. Twelve organized people with good drop decks is way too much preplanning influence to make the actual competition of the game worth anything, negating elements of skill and positioning in favor of information sharing and simply planning ahead.
3. Small groups of lance sizes or less should still be allowed to drop with pugs. Let's not eliminate the competitive element of CW altogether. Instead, let's make it more like other games where a small team coordinates for victory. I can see a mix of 4,3,2, and solo players making for more balanced and interesting play.
I really do like your suggestions overall. And I do agree that in general rewards for CW should simply be higher. I don't see how this would be a problem for them, even if it's not 2x the rewards.
It would seem to me it would encourage people to participate in the "raid". Big time investment, bigger rewards.
#7
-
-
- The Resolute
- 2,019 posts
Member
- Google+: Link
- LocationVancouver, BC
Posted 22 January 2015 - 09:34 PM
Techorse, on 22 January 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:
Ultimately what's going to happen is a decision between which part of the playerbase to better support, the big teams, or the pugs that supposedly make up 84% of the playerbase.
That is a false number. They admitted it was wrong at the time and it is still wrong now.
RAM
ELH
#8
-
-
- Civil Servant
- 11,152 posts
Member
- LocationStomping around in a giant robot, of course.
Posted 22 January 2015 - 09:39 PM
We already know what happens with PUG vs large group.
It's why there's a solo and group public queue. Organized 8+ group vs PUG is massively in favor of the group. In CW, it's even more likely to see units than even the old unified public queue. And there's no reasonable way to split the two, as planetary fights are mini-queues that demand those fights or we'd all be turret-shooting for no good reason (even fewer good reasons, actually).
The solution is something different that's set up for smaller groups. (Hint: The link's right there in my sig.)
It's why there's a solo and group public queue. Organized 8+ group vs PUG is massively in favor of the group. In CW, it's even more likely to see units than even the old unified public queue. And there's no reasonable way to split the two, as planetary fights are mini-queues that demand those fights or we'd all be turret-shooting for no good reason (even fewer good reasons, actually).
The solution is something different that's set up for smaller groups. (Hint: The link's right there in my sig.)
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
