26 replies to this topic

[Triordinant]

WhiteWolf56, on 04 February 2015 - 06:42 PM, said:

Just wondering because almost everytime i try it it takes for ever to even get anyone and the last and first one i finally got to do was just against turrets.... So it seems like everyone is ignoring the warfare and just doing instant matches only

This is what's going on.

[Livewyr]

Almond Brown, on 05 February 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:

Perhaps when the Community shows it might be able to handle some control, then PGI may provide slack. At this point, this Community can't control their own e-peens on the open Forums. Given the rampant hate for "Casuals and Pugs" noted here, the Community should never get any control until it grows up some.

#hopeitneverhappens

Interesting logic: The community should be singing kumbaya together before being allowed to go to war with each other? (No real point intended here, but the thought was amusing.)


I'm trying to understand how you (or anyone) plans to make pugs equally effective against groups.
It defies logic. The reason one groups up for anything is so that they can enjoy company and be more effective at the task by working together. (You know.. that thing they keep teaching in school: Teamwork)

Right now, I'm a lone random. (Not in a unit) and I still do some CW drops (I like the game mode) but I don't hold it against units for ripping my team of randoms apart...

It kind of... well..
HAPPENS..

(literally working as intended)

-------------
One could argue that PGI's big mistake was telling people that everyone could participate in CW, without being in a unit.
Result? A bunch of eager lone wolves getting their butts stomped, typically without a prayer, by people who grouped up. And the tears of unfairness flow.

They put 8/12mans in the public queue, and then had to remove them because of outcry of unfairness...

Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to build that EXACT SAME SYSTEM into community warfare?

[EDIT] Almost forgot the hashtag!
#definitionofinsanity

Edited by Livewyr, 06 February 2015 - 12:05 PM.

[SuomiWarder]

Pugs are only viable in CW when matched with other pugs - or if somehow organized groups of 6 to 8 are put up against the same with pugs filling the rest of the team.

Right now, with organized meta built teams laying waste to all (after all, they cannot choose not to stomp pugs - they get who they get as an opponent) on poorly designed maps that funnel you into a kill zone and allow spawn camping to easily occur by a stronger team ....CW is rarely fun except for a small part of the community.

So the majority drops public que where they expect to have a chance for a fun run.

[oldradagast]

Almond Brown, on 05 February 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:

Perhaps when the Community shows it might be able to handle some control, then PGI may provide slack. At this point, this Community can't control their own e-peens on the open Forums. Given the rampant hate for "Casuals and Pugs" noted here, the Community should never get any control until it grows up some.

#hopeitneverhappens

Exactly. Take one walk around this forum and you see no shortage of malice, epeen polishing, and rampant shrieks of "back in mah day, the game stunk and life was hard, so it should suck for you, too!" Honor is "weakness," instruction is "coddling," and it's not a "real CW game" unless one team isn't having fun. And then they wonder why most players left and PGI won't hand over the reigns to the drunken clowns. Gee, I wonder... lol...

SuomiWarder, on 06 February 2015 - 06:26 PM, said:

Pugs are only viable in CW when matched with other pugs - or if somehow organized groups of 6 to 8 are put up against the same with pugs filling the rest of the team.

Right now, with organized meta built teams laying waste to all (after all, they cannot choose not to stomp pugs - they get who they get as an opponent) on poorly designed maps that funnel you into a kill zone and allow spawn camping to easily occur by a stronger team ....CW is rarely fun except for a small part of the community.

So the majority drops public que where they expect to have a chance for a fun run.

Yep, and keep in mind - we've offered various suggestions as to how to minimize PUG stomps and give those elite teams a chance to only play against worthy opponents, and they've howled like children at the prospect of their free wins being taken away. So, while perhaps they "can't help but stomp PUG's," they can sure as hell stop pretending like they don't enjoy it.

Edited by oldradagast, 06 February 2015 - 07:06 PM.

[Mystere]

oldradagast, on 06 February 2015 - 07:06 PM, said:

Yep, and keep in mind - we've offered various suggestions as to how to minimize PUG stomps and give those elite teams a chance to only play against worthy opponents, and they've howled like children at the prospect of their free wins being taken away. So, while perhaps they "can't help but stomp PUG's," they can sure as hell stop pretending like they don't enjoy it.

Your main solution is implementing a matchmaker in a game mode that involves fighting for control of a universe. As such, it is one of the least imaginative, if not the least imaginative, of solutions.

A better solution is to implement better maps and game modes that allow the better solo players to thrive. You already know an example of what I am talking about.

Perpetually bad players, those unwilling to improve their lot, I care not about.

As for those "terrible PUG stomping teams howling like children at the prospect of their free wins being taken away" you endlessly keep harping about, I think you are overexaggerating. I don't recall seeing any for quite a while, not in CW anyway. As such, are you sure you are not mistaking those from the stomping you received in the group queue?

[Livewyr]

Back after internet-less weekend:

oldradagast, on 06 February 2015 - 07:06 PM, said:

Exactly. Take one walk around this forum and you see no shortage of malice, epeen polishing, and rampant shrieks of "back in mah day, the game stunk and life was hard, so it should suck for you, too!" Honor is "weakness," instruction is "coddling," and it's not a "real CW game" unless one team isn't having fun. And then they wonder why most players left and PGI won't hand over the reigns to the drunken clowns. Gee, I wonder... lol...

That's the only "community warfare" and it is cheap. You seem to think that only [these] people would have any power in the game as they continue to do exactly what they are doing now; running their mouths. In a community warfare where units held territory, they could be "shut up" by having their territory taken by a mob of.. angry community. (While one couldn't outright silence them, one could make their words genuinely hollow in the face of total and complete loss.

If PGI's method is resulting in unchecked unsportsmanlike conduct, why continue that? Why not let the community check the jerks and jackoffs with their own power of conquest.

(A loudmouth bully is not silenced by the teacher telling him he's naughty, he is silenced when the playground denizens dog-pile him.)

oldradagast, on 06 February 2015 - 07:06 PM, said:

Yep, and keep in mind - we've offered various suggestions as to how to minimize PUG stomps and give those elite teams a chance to only play against worthy opponents, and they've howled like children at the prospect of their free wins being taken away. So, while perhaps they "can't help but stomp PUG's," they can sure as hell stop pretending like they don't enjoy it.

I'm sorry, can someone explain to me why community warfare needs to be a 1:1 even fight at all times?

That's not how warfare actually works. Warfare is the strongest dominating the weaker... UNLESS the weaker finds alliances to outweigh the strongest. (Diplomacy) And that is where the fun actually is in "community warfare," involving the community.

Can you point to a time in history where a country said: I want to go to war! Let the matchmaker dictate a worthy opponent!
(If anyone needs, I can elaborate further on the silliness of the concept, and explain diplomatic entropy.)

-------------------------------
(We currently have the pub queue, with pure tech and a hollow skin/shell labeled "community warfare" like it is somehow supposed to be different and attractive.)

Edited by Livewyr, 09 February 2015 - 05:34 AM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

SuomiWarder, on 06 February 2015 - 06:26 PM, said:

Pugs are only viable in CW when matched with other pugs - or if somehow organized groups of 6 to 8 are put up against the same with pugs filling the rest of the team.

Right now, with organized meta built teams laying waste to all (after all, they cannot choose not to stomp pugs - they get who they get as an opponent) on poorly designed maps that funnel you into a kill zone and allow spawn camping to easily occur by a stronger team ....CW is rarely fun except for a small part of the community.

So the majority drops public que where they expect to have a chance for a fun run.

I'm not sure I completely agree. The pug will almost always lose against a big group like that, but how they lose can be very important. If you're tying up some of the best players on the opposing faction that can lead to your best guys getting more drops compared to theirs. Also, it probably pays better to lose after 25 mins of attrition than to lose after 10 mins of failed rushing. There are teams out there that you just can't stop as a pug anyways, but they seem uncommon to me.