199 replies to this topic

[Nik Reaper]

HARDKOR, on 22 February 2015 - 06:44 AM, said:

Or limit it to no more than 6 solo droppers per planet.
Or make it so you must have 1000+ ELO to join a faction at all.

This might be doable now that there is faction chat , and more so when the LFG ingame function is on, people from the same faction will be able to coordinate before they launch what they will bring and only any remaining spots will be filled by solos and other smaller groups. So no 12 man launch with out having 1 6+ man group in it, wich should be ok with a LFG function.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 23 February 2015 - 11:38 PM.

[Knightcrawler]

Yup, Vassago. Yup.

[Yokaiko]

Kilo 40, on 23 February 2015 - 11:21 PM, said:

PGI gave those numbers way back in a command chair post. IIRC it was 85% of players are pugs and about half of the remaining 15% are groups of 2 players,

Yeah he gave them as number of launches, NOT number. That was also back when there were no team options between 4 and 12. Like I said look at how many unit tags are in a drop, better yet start a cadet account, and see if there aren't 6 per game.

Stop repeating that crap it was a year and a half ago and obviously flawed.

[Kilo 40]

Yokaiko, on 23 February 2015 - 11:53 PM, said:

Yeah he gave them as number of launches, NOT number. That was also back when there were no team options between 4 and 12. Like I said look at how many unit tags are in a drop, better yet start a cadet account, and see if there aren't 6 per game.

Stop repeating that crap it was a year and a half ago and obviously flawed.

if you have some actual numbers, other than ones that just "feel right", please post them.

[Yokaiko]

Kilo 40, on 23 February 2015 - 11:56 PM, said:

if you have some actual numbers, other than ones that just "feel right", please post them.

Get in the pub queue and look around, tell me 85% of players aren't tagged.

.....like I said start a cadet account and try it that way, bet you get 50% or better. I did.

[Kjudoon]

Kilo 40, on 23 February 2015 - 11:21 PM, said:

not as bad as your retort.




PGI gave those numbers way back in a command chair post. IIRC it was 85% of players are pugs and about half of the remaining 15% are groups of 2 players,

also...if they're in a PUG match, they're not group dropping now are they? having a tag doesn't mean all your drops are in a 12 man group.

On the first, sure.

On the data, sorry. That is like quoting a presidential poll 18 months before the election and claiming it is still good.

Too many significant changes have happened and those numbers are from different questions being asked that are no longer relevant.

PGI needs to show new data that gives percentage pop in unit, use of the solo queue. And other bits of relevant data.

So let's give up on trying to claim those very old bits of data are relevant post solo queue and post CW.

We need fresh data on who's playing what now.

[Kilo 40]

Yokaiko, on 24 February 2015 - 12:00 AM, said:

Get in the pub queue and look around, tell me 85% of players aren't tagged.

.....like I said start a cadet account and try it that way, bet you get 50% or better. I did.

so just numbers that "feel right". got it.

Kjudoon, on 24 February 2015 - 12:02 AM, said:

On the first, sure.

On the data, sorry. That is like quoting a presidential poll 18 months before the election and claiming it is still good.

Too many significant changes have happened and those numbers are from different questions being asked that are no longer relevant.

PGI needs to show new data that gives percentage pop in unit, use of the solo queue. And other bits of relevant data.

So let's give up on trying to claim those very old bits of data are relevant post solo queue and post CW.

We need fresh data on who's playing what now.

I agree that new numbers would be better. but right now those are the only numbers we have, and we don't have any reasons to believe those old numbers are completely off.

[Yokaiko]

Kilo 40, on 24 February 2015 - 12:04 AM, said:

so just numbers that "feel right". got it.

Wrong.

GO. LOOK. IN. GAME

I even told you how to bend that to the opposite side of my argument.

[Kilo 40]

Yokaiko, on 24 February 2015 - 12:12 AM, said:

Wrong.

GO. LOOK. IN. GAME

I even told you how to bend that to the opposite side of my argument.

I have "LOOK.IN.GAME".

read this. It might help you understand why I don't care about what you remember seeing when you "LOOK.IN.GAME." vs. the published numbers.

[Yokaiko]

Kilo 40, on 24 February 2015 - 12:15 AM, said:

I have "LOOK.IN.GAME".

read this. It might help you understand why I don't care about what you remember seeing when you "LOOK.IN.GAME." vs. the published numbers.

I told YOU to look.

and the "published numbers" are shite, always were, always will be It was number of LAUNCHES not number of players. So yeah, that scews toward solo by a factor of 4 to one.

....and as I recall (I was playing then) like a month before 80 percent were dropping in groups which was the justification for limiting groups to 4 or 8.

there was no 12 yet.


Check your history, THEN come at me.

[Kjudoon]

Kilo 40, on 24 February 2015 - 12:04 AM, said:

so just numbers that "feel right". got it.



I agree that new numbers would be better. but right now those are the only numbers we have, and we don't have any reasons to believe those old numbers are completely off.

To insist that old numbers past major changes are still valid is a prime example of gigo. Garbage in, garbage out. It is akin to saying that the weather on any particular day will be valid for the. Next 5 weeks(or in this case about an entire year).

Static and straight line predictions are always quickly shown wrong.

[Yokaiko]

Kjudoon, on 24 February 2015 - 12:24 AM, said:

To insist that old numbers past major changes are still valid is a prime example of gigo. Garbage in, garbage out. It is akin to saying that the weather on any particular day will be valid for the. Next 5 weeks(or in this case about an entire year).

Static and straight line predictions are always quickly shown wrong.

Just like the clan vs IS matches with the 90% win rates.

.....at noon, pacific, when most euro's are asleep and the US is still at work.

[Trystan Thorne]

To go back on topic.

I agree with the OP that something needs to be done to ease the entry into CW for new players and solo players.
As long as IS is the first choice for new players and therefore all new players end up playing often against veterans it will end in many frustrating experiences and this game won't grow.
How about maybe some Trial Mech only Planets? Followed by some Stock Mech only planets perhaps?
Surely there must be some internal values that tell PGI how well equiped Mechs of the players are. Only after somone reaches that value he or she is allowed to enter unrestricted CW battles.
This way no one gets excluded from CW but it adds a tiered approach to it that should help new players.

Oh, and have Clan Trial and Stock Mech Battles too, as I'm sure a lot new players would like to start out with Clans.

[Divine Retribution]

I see a lot of clanner stock mechs in CW. Not all newbies are in the IS. I'll just throw out my theory as to how this happens.

Many players start CW as IS with the few mechs they have grinded to earn. They went IS mechs out of either personal preference (faction loyalty, favorite mechs, etc.) or because IS mechs are cheaper (until they figure out the hidden costs of IS mechs). They don't join units for possible reasons I won't post here. They get rolled time after time except for the few times they end up in a drop with a decently skilled and sized IS unit.

They get frustrated and thinking that clan mechs are so OP that it's 100% of the reason they keep getting rolled they switch over to the clans. Then they take those clan trial mechs and fight against the *horribly bad* IS pilots in their *clearly inferior* IS mechs. Still they don't join a unit. Then they get rolled just as bad against the IS as they did against the clans. They might even try to only fight IS vs IS or Clan vs Clan, but don't find any more success.

It's at this point they get very frustrated and do one of the following:

1) quit CW

2) quit MWO

3) realize CW doesn't shelter them under Elo so they improve their skills as they earn the C-Bills to improve their mechs

4) just want to fight back the clans as IS or conquer the IS as a clanner, so they keep playing and just enjoy blowing stuff up whether they win or lose. (possibly part of option #3, hard to tell what drives a player you've never seen before during a match)

or

5) realize that not every unit is full of hardcore players that require a commitment, with scheduled practices and politics and everything else that makes the player want to vomit. <--- Very skewed there because of my super casual philosophy. Insert your own reason why people are wary of joining a unit here if you want... full of derps that don't want to win, foul-mouthed teenage drunks, other?

Anyway, then they join a unit (comp or casual depending on the person), start having fun, get helpful advice when they want it (improving intentionally or coincidentally), make some friends, and begin to genuinely enjoy MWO as something more than a novelty.

I think my list goes from most likely to least likely. Not a lot of people choose option 5. Most every CW unit is happy when someone comes to them after going with option #5.

Even a lot of units don't want to fight in CW for various reasons. I know there are a lot of reasons why, some of which I wouldn't argue against. I'm still under the impression that a number of units chose option #1 after a few matches in CW where they were simply out of their league. But that's for another thread...

Wait, what were we talking about again? Oh right... I'll take one box of Thin Mints. Here's a nickel if you don't tell the nurses, I don't trust the nurses in this OLD folks home...

Edited by Divine Retribution, 24 February 2015 - 05:45 AM.

[YCSLiesmith]

Kilo 40, on 24 February 2015 - 12:15 AM, said:

I have "LOOK.IN.GAME".

read this. It might help you understand why I don't care about what you remember seeing when you "LOOK.IN.GAME." vs. the published numbers.

anecdotal evidence is not the same as experimental evidence. if I say 'one time I saw a match where iw as the only one with a tag, ergo NKVA is the only unit in the game' that would be anecdotal evidence. if you arrange a simple experiment and perform it repeatedly, noting game composition each time, that's not anecdotal evidence. it's just evidence.

[SWANN]

Kjudoon, on 24 February 2015 - 12:24 AM, said:

To insist that old numbers past major changes are still valid is a prime example of gigo. Garbage in, garbage out. It is akin to saying that the weather on any particular day will be valid for the. Next 5 weeks(or in this case about an entire year).

Static and straight line predictions are always quickly shown wrong.

You cant be serious. Weather is subject to daily changes, populations are not.

Your second paragraph makes even less sense.

[Yokaiko]

SWANN, on 25 February 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

You cant be serious. Weather is subject to daily changes, populations are not.

Your second paragraph makes even less sense.

just lol/

[AlphaToaster]

Why so many new player posts?

Among other things, people are passionate enough about it to make alt accounts to spam the forums.

[Tumbling Dice]

YCSLiesmith, on 22 February 2015 - 08:31 AM, said:

This is total nonsense. The clans are superior at range and their laser game is dominant, the IS is superior brawling and their lights utterly outclass anything in the clan arsenal.

Nonsense? How does an experienced IS Company stop an experienced Clan Company if the Clan Company is in attack mode and rushing Sulphurous with TW's and SC's, 6 from each side? How? Their speed and ability to absorb punishment makes it absolutely impossible without luck, or a server meltdown.

[Kjudoon]

SWANN, on 25 February 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

You cant be serious. Weather is subject to daily changes, populations are not.

Your second paragraph makes even less sense.

Well, thanks for playing. It was entertaining. Then again, all views of a static universe are.