65 replies to this topic

[Suzumiya Haruhi no Kerensky]

sounds like the op needs to get good

[Sandersson Jankins]

Romeo Deluxe, on 02 April 2015 - 11:07 PM, said:

There is a lot more to EVE than just spreadsheets. You also do not understand the game, granted you never played. Their operating philosophy, which is working BTW, is they make the tools that the players use to create the content. The players often surprise the devs which leads to them making more tools for players. They sometimes even actively create new features that allow solo or small corps screw with the big established ones.

There are plenty of normal people there. However, there are some crazies that have become world famous. You can hate to love them or love to hate them, but they will be more interesting than any NPC you saw in any game.

In all honesty what is there to MWO? There were just pubs, for 3 years and literally nothing else. Now there is pubs and CW....and literally nothing else. All these calls for no trials in CW just makes a smaller game even smaller!

And I actually did play EVE! I'm sorry, I miscommunicated. Too much time on the forums, heh.

I didn't mean that it's a spreadsheet zzz simulator or anything. It is a wonderful game, with good, intense pvp combat that necessitates use of groups, community, and good corporations. More so than MWO!

I completely understand the concept, and appeal behind "build-it-yourself" games like EVE. And I LOVE those games. You better believe I'm that idiot spending cash on early-access survival/building/diplomacy games. That open-ended experience is what I crave! Nerds that understand EXACTLY what I want from a game generating the content alongside me is far superior to a company doing it.

I still maintain that they are immensely different games in scope and content.

I probably have a myopic overly-positive view of this game because, while I put in hours on hours when I play, I haven't played for long. I got founder's access, played for a month, loved it. PC promptly died and it took a while to resurrect. So now I'm back, and I'm one of the hardest BT fanboys there is. So of COURSE I'm gonna love the hell out of this game..and probably try to defend it too much.

[Romeo Deluxe]

SharpCookie, on 02 April 2015 - 11:02 PM, said:

Exactly the response I expected from someone who wants additional mech bays at any cost except buying them with real money.

I change factions for mechbays too, but....

First stop hating new people for playing the game. After all you need these people to eventually shoot at and help support the game. Also, it's a very good thing that YOU are HELPING these new people advance into the game. They eventually will become better players, maybe great players, and you get the opportunity mold their sorry asses into dangerous mech pilots.

...so lets pare this down to what is at the center of your concern. PGI needs to rebalance the trial mechs for new players among many other things, but that would help a weakness you see in CW.

[Willard Phule]

Lily from animove, on 02 April 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

@Willard, do you think someone who bought 2 cheap is light mech with cadete bonus just to join CW will improve the situation?

Let's examine that at it's face value.

How many games do you think someone has to play to grind up enough cbills to buy two mechs? I'm guessing it's a LOT more than "the first 25 cadet matches." There's a greater possibility that someone who has worked enough to own two mechs has learned far more about the basics than the guy in his first 25 matches.

Is it fair to new players? Nope. But, who cares? Seriously. PGI doesn't. Look at what they've got for a new player experience/tutorial....it's basically "take one of these pieces of crap and get into the solo queue."

[Tesunie]

Elizander, on 02 April 2015 - 11:00 PM, said:

The 0-300 damage over 4 mechs happens on IS too. I saw someone who couldn't break 100 and had all 4 mechs blown up before I dropped on my second mech. Clan Trials need to get the champion treatment (well hopefully better than some champions).

Still, if you remove trials from CW you're killing your own numbers since not everyone has 4 mechs to qualify for the drop. What I recommend is that PGI creates a CW specific deck (which isn't gimped) for both IS/Clam.

Sometimes, players will head hunt another player in a CW match, which can also result in low damage scores. I've had it happen to myself in a CW match, where the enemy team was head hunting just me because they recognized my name from the forums. How could I tell? They exuberantly exclaimed every time they killed me how they killed me. (Usually with some reference to "hail Satan" because I'm a member of the Seraphim, or some comment about killing "the LRM guru" (who by the way wasn't using LRMs in that match anyway).) Was not a fun match for me, and I preformed very poorly and was the first person to be dead on my team. (Then they proceeded to gloat about their "victory" all over the forums and how they were better than me, when they where an 8 man team and I was in a pure PUG team in that CW match.)

So, trials can be one thing that can make someone's match score lower than expected. The other team specifically targeting someone can also result in that. As well as someone just ramboing off without teamwork or tactics (no trial mechs involved).


I actually seem to do well in the trial Clan mechs (well, some of them at least and haven't used them in CW). Then again, IS got Champion treatments, so I could see the clans getting it as well over time.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Tesunie, on 02 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

...

"End game" as in activities not well suited (in this case) for new players. CW was designed for units and more intense team play action/coordination. A PUG and/or new player should be harder pressed within CW. Just because it's available to a player when they join shouldn't necessarily make it any less "end game" content. You have to prepare yourself and your mechs for CW typically. It's harder than the standard matches, so it's a step up from those matches.

I'm not sure I've found any of the matches in CW 'harder' than the standard ones. Different entirely because of the approach taken in the design and respawn mechanics for sure. Personally the differences in everything else are fairly marginal. Beyond the lack of information as to the objective the combat is relatively the same.

Tesunie, on 02 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

I wish to see CW remain as an "end game" style of content, something more challenging and needing more work and better created mechs to play than typical public matches. Let people grow from one game style/type to the other at their own pace. Some people will be able to do well in CW with trials and stock mechs, because they are good team players, or just able to use what they have well. Thus, if someone wishes to step into CW earlier than suggested (suggested is after you've mastered at least a few mech, got some modules for said mechs, and possibly even joined a unit), let them try. They may be good with it and enjoy it.

I don't disagree with this, people should play it when they feel ready. But I go into CW without mastered mechs, without modules, and without consumables. Mostly because I frown on the modules and consumables and the mechs I use are customized but not mastered because I'd rather be improving the mechs I have that aren't mastered. Some call this a drag on the team, but my equivalency to doing well is based purely on damage to mech ratio. If I do over 300 damage with a Raven I think that's pretty good - I exceeded the armor value in damage for the entire mech. I correlate those things together if I'm looking at damage done.

Personally I think there is to much emphasis on K/D ratio when it really should be K+A/D as the ratio in a "team" game. This goes for overall raw damage values too, the high skill/accuracy shooters would actually have lower damage and a good assist/kill rate as they're hitting their targets in the vital areas to simply eliminate the target.

The only real requirement I see that needs to be emphasized in CW is to really focus on team work. I spend most of my time playing solo, and when I do get into a match I just follow my lance around and shoot at what they're shooting at. That's really the core of team work there, that and trying to stay out of their firing lines as to not block shots.

Tesunie, on 02 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

I don't know if I'm explaining this as clearly as I'd like... I know how I view CW and how I'd like CW to be viewed. I just haven't considered how to explain it well I think.

I think everyone has different views of what they want CW to be. I want it to be the core of the game, as readily accessible as the public queue matchmaker and have some sort of impact when I do play on how my faction does or proceeds.

Out of curiosity, have you played Hell Divers? They have an awesome method of large scale faction based cooperation but don't force people to always work as a team. It's not a system that'd work in MWO but it is an example of people working toward a common goal while doing it separately.

My personal view of what I want CW to be: Impactful, by this I mean having contributions mean something even if minor. There is no means to quantify that are see how well you've helped your faction along. I'd like to see lore integrated into the title, Hell Divers does this with an update news feed everytime you sign in telling you what's shifted and how (that'd be a cool feature for MWO). There is not reason to fight for one faction or another. No ideaology being presented for how they work/think or why you'd like one more than the other besides the flag you're looking at.

Mechanically I'd like it to function more on the basis of an automated NBT style starmap. Mystere has presented the right idea of having planetary campaign maps, these are then progressed along for nodes rather than a progression bar in slots. Having an orchestrated map with macro avenues of approach and having other battles besides your own in various nodes impact progression would be an interesting mechanic. Could limit the number of players fighting on an individual world down to 96 making for 4 attacking and defending groups to battle over the nodes. Then you'd also have a visible "planet population" rather than when it exceeds 99 you don't know how many are there.

Tesunie, on 02 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

I don't disagree with some of the problems you have described with CW. The waits can be a bit much sometimes, as well as waiting so long only to get a turret run... Things continue to improve though, and new systems are put into place to help inform people of places they can go for activity. More work is still needed though with CW. PGI is working on it still. (It is still in Beta, I might wish to remind.)

This is more like an Alpha in actual development terms, and when it was kicked out the door before it was closer to a vertical slice. I personally didn't think it was ready for public consumption back then, still don't think its ready right now for public consumption but I understand the reasoning for kicking it out the door. It still has a lot of work to go and I see that.

I'm just not going to not be critical of it in the process, I'd like to see it evolve into something fantastic, and where it's at right now is just a gross disappointment from the expectations built up over several years of waiting, which apparently it was in development limbo, and then being one of the early adopters through the Founders program and the presentations done then compared to what we see now.

The "beta" tag I also find to be a crutch for a lot of people defining it as still in development, but the whole title is still really in a beta state as we have core systems changing all the time still.

[Tesunie]

Mirkk Defwode, on 03 April 2015 - 10:44 AM, said:

I'm not sure I've found any of the matches in CW 'harder' than the standard ones. Different entirely because of the approach taken in the design and respawn mechanics for sure. Personally the differences in everything else are fairly marginal. Beyond the lack of information as to the objective the combat is relatively the same.

There are "harder" elements within CW, depending upon the side of the engagement you are on. Attack mode: Defenders have the advantage due to Turrets, but as we've seen the attackers can overcome with with timely rushes. Counter attack mode: Attackers (the team with the Omega) has the advantage, as they just have to either protect the Omega or get the most kills. Meanwhile, the defender has to get most kills and destroy the omega (no known counters to this as of yet that I've heard of, before going for kills).

I wish to see more of these harder elements (without making it nearly impossible mind) placed within CW to create it as more of a challenge place, treating it in a manner like it's End Game content. End game can also be core to some extent as well, as it doesn't necessarily take someone very long to get skilled enough to play decently in the game mode. (I guess I want more of a blend of CW being treated as end game and core mechanics. Not something new players will want to just jump into, but something mid players can play in even if it's geared for end game material type content.)

End Game, for my reference here, just refers to a section of the game not intended for newer players to actively participate in and a game mode that isn't designed to cater to being easy. (That's what I see the Public match game modes to be.)

Mirkk Defwode, on 03 April 2015 - 10:44 AM, said:

I don't disagree with this, people should play it when they feel ready. But I go into CW without mastered mechs, without modules, and without consumables. Mostly because I frown on the modules and consumables and the mechs I use are customized but not mastered because I'd rather be improving the mechs I have that aren't mastered. Some call this a drag on the team, but my equivalency to doing well is based purely on damage to mech ratio. If I do over 300 damage with a Raven I think that's pretty good - I exceeded the armor value in damage for the entire mech. I correlate those things together if I'm looking at damage done.

Personally I think there is to much emphasis on K/D ratio when it really should be K+A/D as the ratio in a "team" game. This goes for overall raw damage values too, the high skill/accuracy shooters would actually have lower damage and a good assist/kill rate as they're hitting their targets in the vital areas to simply eliminate the target.

The only real requirement I see that needs to be emphasized in CW is to really focus on team work. I spend most of my time playing solo, and when I do get into a match I just follow my lance around and shoot at what they're shooting at. That's really the core of team work there, that and trying to stay out of their firing lines as to not block shots.

I also tend to go into CW with non-mastered mechs. If they are played right, I find skills are only marginally helpful, but not necessary to use said mechs. Same with most modules, though I do try to have at least a UAV on my CW mechs.

I find the standard average for "good" damage for a mech is 5x the mech's tonnage in average damage per match. (Example: If you played 20 matches and did 6312 damage total in it, that would be an average damage per match of 315.6. Your average damage per ton per match would be 315 divide by 35 tons, which would be 9 damage per ton per match. If this was the case, I would consider you as preforming well above in that mech. I would expect the average person to be dealing around 200 damage per match with a 35 ton mech, which would be around 5 damage per ton per match.)

K/D is a pointless stat. Do you know how many times I've almost soloed a kill on my own, trading the damage, only to have someone fly by, splash a single laser on them and take the kill? (I got most damage dealt and the assist, and no, I'm not upset when this happens. We are a team, and it doesn't matter who took down who in the end.) Kills are irrelevant as long as your team are doing the kills together.

Mirkk Defwode, on 03 April 2015 - 10:44 AM, said:

I think everyone has different views of what they want CW to be. I want it to be the core of the game, as readily accessible as the public queue matchmaker and have some sort of impact when I do play on how my faction does or proceeds.

Out of curiosity, have you played Hell Divers? They have an awesome method of large scale faction based cooperation but don't force people to always work as a team. It's not a system that'd work in MWO but it is an example of people working toward a common goal while doing it separately.

My personal view of what I want CW to be: Impactful, by this I mean having contributions mean something even if minor. There is no means to quantify that are see how well you've helped your faction along. I'd like to see lore integrated into the title, Hell Divers does this with an update news feed everytime you sign in telling you what's shifted and how (that'd be a cool feature for MWO). There is not reason to fight for one faction or another. No ideaology being presented for how they work/think or why you'd like one more than the other besides the flag you're looking at.

Mechanically I'd like it to function more on the basis of an automated NBT style starmap. Mystere has presented the right idea of having planetary campaign maps, these are then progressed along for nodes rather than a progression bar in slots. Having an orchestrated map with macro avenues of approach and having other battles besides your own in various nodes impact progression would be an interesting mechanic. Could limit the number of players fighting on an individual world down to 96 making for 4 attacking and defending groups to battle over the nodes. Then you'd also have a visible "planet population" rather than when it exceeds 99 you don't know how many are there.

I think we agree there. My use of "end game" just means I wish it to be harder than the public matches overall. Not that only players with X experience/equipment/in-a-unit can join.

I have never even heard of Hell Divers. Sorry. But I do play Robocraft, and their tier system has a good way of providing challenge. But Robocraft only has matches similar to MW:O's Public matches.

Not over sure what you mean by your last point here, but it sounds interesting. I think I'd have to see it before I could say much about it. But I don't think the current system for CW is bad. It needs work and refinement, but I feel it's a good step. Then again, I'm not opposed to changes and I'd give anything a try and see if it works better.

Mirkk Defwode, on 03 April 2015 - 10:44 AM, said:

This is more like an Alpha in actual development terms, and when it was kicked out the door before it was closer to a vertical slice. I personally didn't think it was ready for public consumption back then, still don't think its ready right now for public consumption but I understand the reasoning for kicking it out the door. It still has a lot of work to go and I see that.

I'm just not going to not be critical of it in the process, I'd like to see it evolve into something fantastic, and where it's at right now is just a gross disappointment from the expectations built up over several years of waiting, which apparently it was in development limbo, and then being one of the early adopters through the Founders program and the presentations done then compared to what we see now.

The "beta" tag I also find to be a crutch for a lot of people defining it as still in development, but the whole title is still really in a beta state as we have core systems changing all the time still.

Wont hear too much argument from me here. I just like to point out to people who complain that it is still being worked on. A system like this I feel needed the large amount of players testing it, and the more we play it the better it's been becoming. (They need the data from us playing it in large numbers to be able to fix it and improve on it.)

I'd also like to point out that, like most online PvP styled games, mechanics within the game will change. Guildwars and WoW changed skills and stats (and armor/equipment) drastically at times and still sometimes do. Sometimes it's a game changer, other times it's just a tiny tweak. I currently see MW:O's progression as no different. Sure, things change still, but I find any online run game continues to change, even when they have been fully released and polished for some time. (I can say the Water Skills for the Elementalist on Guildwars have drastically changed, and that game is not really being worked on much due to Giuldwars 2 being released...)

[Suzumiya Haruhi no Kerensky]

my unit drop trial mech and win all the time

[Hydrocarbon]

As much as I don't want to block n00bs from trying CW and seeing that it can be fun, it simply WON'T be that fun with ****** mechs. In the 12v12 queue they'll at least be matched with terribads of a similar caliber. In CW they'll be up against some of the toughest players in the game, although in many cases some of the worst as well.

However, if PGI really wants more people in CW (and more money), they'll put out more propaganda in which the n00bs will be working double-time to get their own mechs for CW. That means spending $$$ on MC. F2P works best when players don't HAVE to spend the money, but instead WANT to spend it. Warhorns, camos/colors, and cockpit items are part of that group.

I'd suggest showing how well an elited mech does vs a trial mech. Possibly even allowing the first 2-3 mechs they sell to return the full purchase price. That'd eliminate most n00b's initial bad decisions on crappy mechs.

[Verkhne]

At a tangent.... Why when your drop deck is borked and you get the Trial mech drop deck, your elited skills are not applied to those mechs that you have skills in? That would help the trials situation somewhat?

[sdsnowbum]

Some people need to use trial mechs if there are calls for jump jet lights.

[Willard Phule]

Right....but there's a HUGE difference between a guy that's been playing since closed Beta using a trial and a new player using one.

Right now, the problem isn't necessarily the trials, it's the people that are using them.....if follow.

[crustydog]

I myself have been playing with the Clan trial mechs every time I drop Clan CW. In fact, the most recent Stormcrow prize was the last mech I needed to complete an operational non-Trial Clan deck.

Modules, and Meta for the Clan mechs I do own is still a work in progress. That stuff costs C-bills - and grind takes time.

So you want to ban these new guys from CW?

Have fun getting a drop.

CW actually worked for the first time this last weekend because the pugs came and dropped in Trial mechs - and without them, you don't actually have a working game. What you have is a lot of experienced players sitting around with their thumbs stuck - wasting valuable network time while not playing the game.

I'll be happy to drop with helpless pug players in crap equipment, rather than not drop at all.

[Willard Phule]

crustydog, on 03 April 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

I myself have been playing with the Clan trial mechs every time I drop Clan CW. In fact, the most recent Stormcrow prize was the last mech I needed to complete an operational non-Trial Clan deck.

Modules, and Meta for the Clan mechs I do own is still a work in progress. That stuff costs C-bills - and grind takes time.

So you want to ban these new guys from CW?

Have fun getting a drop.

CW actually worked for the first time this last weekend because the pugs came and dropped in Trial mechs - and without them, you don't actually have a working game. What you have is a lot of experienced players sitting around with their thumbs stuck - wasting valuable network time while not playing the game.

I'll be happy to drop with helpless pug players in crap equipment, rather than not drop at all.

One thing to keep in mind here that everyone seems to forget....there's a HUGE difference between a "PUG" and a new player. Or, rather, all new players are PUGs but not all PUGs are new players.

There are a lot of us that don't get into the whole organized group nonsense, so we play in the solo queue. Play style is completely different there not only because the mission objectives are different, but because there really isn't any organization other than ad-lib stuff from experienced players. Add to that the fact that in the solo queue, the higher your Elo is..the more low Elos get used to even you out.

So...with the wave of "PUGs" that are coming to CW, some of them are "cadets" still in their first 25 matches (perhaps PGI should put some sort of cap for eligibility...like 50 matches or something) and some of them simply don't realize there's a difference than CW and 4 solo matches in a row.

What really needs to happen is to either limit the number of trial mechs in a drop deck, thus ensuring that anyone entering has played at least long enough to grind up enough to buy the cheapest light out there.....or putting some sort of minimum matches required in there...or perhaps allow units to donate mechs to a pool and make those available to new recruits or something.

Either way, CW is NOT the "New Player Experience" that PGI seems to think it is.

[Chagatay]

Verkhne, on 03 April 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

At a tangent.... Why when your drop deck is borked and you get the Trial mech drop deck, your elited skills are not applied to those mechs that you have skills in? That would help the trials situation somewhat?

As of my last experience, indeed this is the case.......(and it sucks).

A majority of the clan trials do need reworked...Perhaps not full meta builds but at least a default configuration that is:
A. Easy to use (2-3 weapon groups max, leaning towards 2 buttons)
B. Upped armor to near max levels
C. Upped heatsinks to match heat load

[Sorbic]

SharpCookie, on 01 April 2015 - 08:53 PM, said:

There is no reason to bring trials in CW except to handicap your team. An organized group may forgive and carry you, but that's not going to happen in a PUG match.

If you can't afford a drop deck of mechs, then grind SOLO until you can. You simply do not belong in CW yet. PUGs don't belong in CW, but someone has to fill in the groups smaller than 12. That someone should not be a newbie in trials.

PS: My experience is 100% PUG clan side. IS may have the same problem.. A lot of clan trials are just garbage being piloted by newer pilots. Over 95% of every PUG CW match I have been in, that's over 110k LP worth, has at least 2 players with between 0 and 300 damage across 4 mechs. This is a result of the combination of new/bad player and trial mechs. Just say NO to TRIALS IN CW.

Blanket statements are almost always to broad. After seeing FRR was in really bad shape a few weeks ago I jumped on the other account (which only had clan tech) created an all trial IS DD and usually scored better than half the players on the team. Often enough I reached the 3rd or 4th dmg/kill spot. Banshee power! lol

That said it wasn't easy and the trial mechs do need another pass as some builds are just silly/way light on armor/ammo. And some of those clan builds... lmao But in the end pilot effort/skill is, as always, the biggest factor. I'll melt plenty of mechs that folks own. Then get mauled by the truly good players.

Maybe the previously suggestion of being required to have at least 1 or 2 owned mechs in your deck isn't a bad idea. Or make the trials suck less and also add a requirement of having to achieve all of the cadet bonuses to unlock CW. Then maybe add a final CB after 40 games or so...

[MechWarrior3671771]

No new players in CW!

In fact, no more players at all!

[Jakob Knight]

I think the basis for this post is slightly off.

Trial mechs were designed for Public games so that a new player could jump into the game without having to buy a mech that they didn't understand right away. The also gave veteran players a chance to try out a chassis they might not have for free. At the same time, Trial mechs can't be so good that players rely on them instead of their own owned mechs (which I actually have seen happen when the Trial mechs were any good).

All well and good.

The problem is that CW came along, and people demanded the ability to switch factions, not just between Inner Sphere powers or between Clans, but -from- Inner Sphere to Clan and back, so they could use all of their mechs they purchased for the Public game. This left a problem, as everyone in a Unit is restricted to either using only Inner Sphere -or- Clan mechs and tech, and a player in a Unit that decides to go from Inner Sphere to Clan or the other way may not have any or enough of the other technology-based mechs to make a full drop deck, and may not want to drop significant resources on the that tech side merely because some players in their Unit want to play the other for a week or two. Thus it is that Trial mechs have to fill the tech voids in those Units, and -that- is why Trial mechs are included in CW.

Now, maybe Pugging with Trial mechs does end up being a bad thing, but CW is not built for the Pug. It is built towards Units. Units need the Trial mechs so they don't end up with a good percentage of their players out in the cold because of the tech restrictions. The fact that new players or Pugs may have problems with having Trial mechs on their team is really on them, as the composition of the team they will find themselves on is voluntarily given up by their choice to Pug. CW cannot be built around the concept that Pugs matter more than Units, and this proposal is really just that.

So, I don't support this idea. There are good reasons to have Trial mechs in CW, and not for removing them. If what is on your team matters so much to you, make sure you form a team -before- you drop so you know what you are taking into the fight. Don't complain about getting mechs you don't want while at the same time choosing to Pug.

[Sandersson Jankins]

Give good, solid, maybe even "META OH GOD NO" trials mechs specifically for CW, as others have suggested. This will help, I think.

[Willard Phule]

Jakob Knight, on 06 April 2015 - 02:35 AM, said:

I think the basis for this post is slightly off.
Now, maybe Pugging with Trial mechs does end up being a bad thing, but CW is not built for the Pug. It is built towards Units. Units need the Trial mechs so they don't end up with a good percentage of their players out in the cold because of the tech restrictions. The fact that new players or Pugs may have problems with having Trial mechs on their team is really on them, as the composition of the team they will find themselves on is voluntarily given up by their choice to Pug. CW cannot be built around the concept that Pugs matter more than Units, and this proposal is really just that.

Keep in mind there's a HUGE difference between a LORD in a trial mech and "Mechwarrior McDerp" who just started playing 10 minutes ago.

That's where a lot of this is coming from. I'm not saying that trials shouldn't be used in CW...what I'm saying is that there needs to be a prerequisite for joining CW...either limit the drop deck so you have to have at least one mech that you own OR make the new players have to accomplish something (like 50 matches instead of 25) before they're allowed to join.

I can't speak for the IS side, but on the Clan side....the thing that kills us isn't necessarily the trials, it's who's in them.

Jakob Knight, on 06 April 2015 - 02:35 AM, said:

So, I don't support this idea. There are good reasons to have Trial mechs in CW, and not for removing them. If what is on your team matters so much to you, make sure you form a team -before- you drop so you know what you are taking into the fight. Don't complain about getting mechs you don't want while at the same time choosing to Pug.

Also, keep in mind that the VAST majority of the "PUGs" you refer to are just that. People that play in the solo queue a drop at a time. They don't understand the concept of taking your time and doing it right...they see a red triangle and run to it like a lemming.

Now, granted, that was all covered in the all-encompassing, well put together Tutorial and "New Player Experience" PGI has been so diligent in keeping updated. Right?

I mean...PGI wouldn't treat the Solo Queue like it was the Training Grounds if they actually intended to retain the new players the get into the game....if they didn't, it would almost make you feel that they don't give a damn about retention...