523 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

Kristov Kerensky, on 26 June 2015 - 12:05 PM, said:

Cathy is correct however, the solo only players ARE antisocial usually, and when they do decide to drop in the group que, they do NOT want to face other groups, they want to face solo players while THEY are a group. Look around the forums, it's a very common complaint from people playing 2 to 4 man groups, they do NOT want to face groups at all, they want to be put in the solo ques. The large units want to face large units, NOT small groups, and definitely not solo players.

This is a TEAM game, from the ground up it designed for and oriented towards team play, and yet the majority of the playerbase refuses to play as a team and gets all whiney about anything team oriented, and that's a damn shame.

Your calling 90%+ of the player base, who play every match on a team anti social? Thats very anti social of you to say.

I usually agree with your mostly excellent replies though. Also this negative statement about players playing on teams in a team only game at the moment has been made before a few times by others, which says alot about alot of things. For one it says more than a few people have social behavior and anti social behavior completely mixed up which also says alot about alot of things.

Edited by Johnny Z, 26 June 2015 - 01:00 PM.

[TWIAFU]

Triordinant, on 26 June 2015 - 08:04 AM, said:

I'm telling you that you can't understand English because I NEVER said I wanted to limit group size and you STILL keep saying that I did. Either you can't understand English or you can't understand anything.

You said why support groups of that size if the data shows low amount of players playing that group size.

Hence, limiting the size of the group.

[DAYLEET]

Alistair Winter, on 26 June 2015 - 02:10 AM, said:

But knowing this community to a certain extent, I think it's fairly safe to say that there will be a massive s***storm (by Darude) if they limit groups to 4 players. I think a lot of the 12-man players are hardcore players, and those are most likely to throw a hissy fit if their favourite type of gameplay is removed.

The exact same thing happened when they removed group from solo and the game improved 10 fold. There is no reason ever to limit 93% of the people because you don't want to empty the buckets of tears from the 7% afterward. There is great opportunity to make CW relevant here, both directly and indirectly. And in the end the game and community will grow as it did before.

[Mudhutwarrior]

IT'S A TEAM GAME DAMMIT!

lol, apparently not considering the very vast majority play in solo. It may be teams when you drop but it isn't teams like the 1% want it.

Again we can have this both ways if for once those Team guys understand even if they are the smallest of minority's here.

Show some respect for the base and stop with the insults . If you don't no one will support you.

Seems PGI has figured out how TEAMS are going in the game so you need all the support you can get.

I fully support Teams and their goals. I just expect the same in kind. Most everyone does.

[Boris The Spider]

Dayleet, they can't do that to CW though, faction matching means that players command too much influence on the matchmaker. You even try to roughly match group size in CW and the 1st house or clan to start sync dropping is going to ride roughshod over the galaxy. CW will have to stay unrestricted because of just how it is.

[Burktross]

Kristov Kerensky, on 26 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:

PUG underhive my rear torso armor! You may hide out there but you sure as hell ain't no solo player Burktoss, you are an excellent teammate.

You make me blush for naught! All solo players are dirty steering wheel underhivers for life!

[Triordinant]

TWIAFU, on 26 June 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:

You said why support groups of that size if the data shows low amount of players playing that group size.

Hence, limiting the size of the group.

Where does that crackpot logic come from? There is no way the first logically translates to the second! I'm all over the forums saying 10 to 12-man groups should have a place to be and CW looks like the place for them (just not the place for many others). So I'm telling you for the third time I'm not proposing limiting group sizes in CW and I never have. Stop trying to put words in my mouth and maybe you can find your own.

[CDLord HHGD]

With regards to CW, with the exception of Liao and possible Marik, why are we fighting each other anyways?? And super curious to know why there's a Steiner v Davion front....

[Kristov Kerensky]

Johnny Z, on 26 June 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

Your calling 90%+ of the player base, who play every match on a team anti social? Thats very anti social of you to say.

I usually agree with your mostly excellent replies though. Also this negative statement about players playing on teams in a team only game at the moment has been made before a few times by others, which says alot about alot of things. For one it says more than a few people have social behavior and anti social behavior completely mixed up which also says alot about alot of things.

I'm calling what I see day in and day out in the solo and group que, most of the players aren't actually playing as members of a team, they are playing as a single player who's facing 12 enemies with 11 AI's that keep getting their way.

This isn't news to anyone who's been here for more than a month is it? How many threads do we have right now about the people blaming everyone else for their death and their inability to play as a member of a team? How many posters in these forums have been all too clear that they are NOT team players and they don't give a rat's ass about the team, it's all about them? That's been going on since closed beta, before we could drop in groups at all. There's been a constant anti-team atmosphere in MWO from a large chunk of the playerbase.

And it's always bewildered me, team game designed around team play, adverts and the website are all clear on that, and yet the playerbase keeps demanding that it be solo friendly, even when they drop in a group, they don't want to drop against other groups of any size, WTF?

Yes, I'm fully aware of the data and what it shows, that doesn't make my bewilderment any less, just worse, because it shows the solo players really have no interest in actually doing the team thing at all, and that's just sad.

[DAYLEET]

Boris The Spider, on 26 June 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

Dayleet, they can't do that to CW though, faction matching means that players command too much influence on the matchmaker. You even try to roughly match group size in CW and the 1st house or clan to start sync dropping is going to ride roughshod over the galaxy. CW will have to stay unrestricted because of just how it is.

No i didnt mean limit CW, i meant that if you change the group queue, that indirectly CW will be more popular and better.

[Soy]

Kristov Kerensky, on 26 June 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

Actually I think it's because of that AND that most of us are older adults and we were simply brought up with a different set of expectations when it comes to competition, we were taught it isn't whether you win or lose, it's whether or not you won and that 2nd place is just the first loser.

We didn't get prizes for playing, we got prizes for winning and got chewed out and made to work even harder when we lost in sports. Or games or anything where there was any competitive drive at all, be it grades in school or playing kick the can, losing sucks.

Millennials were given prizes for just showing up for christ's sake, so they expect to win even when they lose, and that really shows in video games, as they are always the ones screaming about unfair and cheating and all that crap when reality is, they simply suck and refuse to do anything to get better.

This is all fine and dandy but reality is that millennials are way better at video games in general.

Hate to say it, but, that's the truth.

And the moment you used "work" I cringed. Cuz that's the approach some people take to gaming. What can you do in a game where the glass ceiling raised and playerbase stratification is widened as a result of that "work" approach actually being successful. If nolifing or acting superhardcore joblike mentality about a game leads to dominance or success, that game usually isn't worth keeping up with the joneses. Most of us have better things to do than try and keep pace with people playing a game more than 40 hours a week, it's pretty ridiculous. And that's where the "athlete" comes in, cuz, well, athletes don't just show up to a match and reck newbs. If they do, **** "sport" (poker). Is MWO one of those games, no, I don't think so. But some work really hard to play and take it to that level, hehe.

I think "practice" or "train" is the word you were looking for, if I can be semantical.

Edited by Soy, 26 June 2015 - 01:23 PM.

[Boris The Spider]

DAYLEET, on 26 June 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

No i didnt mean limit CW, i meant that if you change the group queue, that indirectly CW will be more popular and better.

Sorry then, was not sure that was what you meant, I agree 100%, that has been my take on this subject every time it came up. Having multiple steams/levels is good for all levels of the game and resistance to it is illogical... provided they dont make me play drop-ship mutator* anyway

*in case anybody remembers that proposed, but abandoned game mode that somehow became CW.

Edited by Boris The Spider, 26 June 2015 - 01:24 PM.

[R Razor]

kesmai, on 25 June 2015 - 11:29 PM, said:

You can not balance the accumulated skill of a group. Experienced and skilled players have other experienced and skilled players on their friends list with whom they team up or form a unit. reStRicting them might make them leave or play less. I am still thinking that the 12 mans and 6+ groups are a part of the game that is necessary. Who do you improve whEn the odds are completely evened out. Even if you restrict the queue to just 4 man groups there will be obvious skill differences and this discussion will start once again.

Not seeing the problem with the low percentage "large group" players rage quitting if the high percentage "small group" players stick around and the population expands thanks to the lower tendency to get roflstomped by that large group that just QQ'd themselves out of MW:O.

[Koniks]

The anti-generational psychobabble is BS that needs to stop being used as evidence for a position.

[C E Dwyer]

Bush Hopper, on 26 June 2015 - 11:59 AM, said:

You know, there are many factors why someone doesn't want to play CW. Hardly any of my friends play it - simply because it is no fun to them. There are other reasons as well: like we have fathers and mothers which often have to make breaks or even quit while playing now and then. They do not want to be a burden. And there are many more good reasons.
And in case of my friends: all of them are on more or less via Skype and we talk etc while we game.

Then I read your post and think: why would any of these good folk even want to join a unit when they read pathetic rants like yours. This attitude is disgusting on so many levels for aforementioned reasons yet on the other hand life is really sarcastic. Why? Look it up that usually the "Casuals" are the majority of gamers. Seeing how dead CW is and how active (well, compared to CW) the single queue is means that ACTUALLY you want the majority to play like you want.

I was expecting this kind of reply when I wrote it, and I'm afraid your mistaken.

I drop solo 98% of the time.
I have never dropped in anything bigger than a 4 man.
I am not part of a Regiment or Clan

I could in fact by many be seen as the Unsociable MAJORITY.

But I have never cried whined and moaned about being rolled by organised groups and then cried to PGI to make the game easier for me, or lobbied for the game to be changed, to make it more suitable to the way I chose to play, unlike many of the majority here.

[Mudhutwarrior]

Cathy, on 26 June 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

I was expecting this kind of reply when I wrote it, and I'm afraid your mistaken.

I drop solo 98% of the time.
I have never dropped in anything bigger than a 4 man.
I am not part of a Regiment or Clan

I could in fact by many be seen as the Unsociable MAJORITY.

But I have never cried whined and moaned about being rolled by organised groups and then cried to PGI to make the game easier for me, or lobbied for the game to be changed, to make it more suitable to the way I chose to play, unlike many of the majority here.

Nice to see dancing on this thread.

[Aresye]

Alistair Winter, on 26 June 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

But if 10-12 man groups only participate in 1 of 50 matches, then how come I see them so often when I'm playing in the group queue?

It's definitely something wrong with the matchmaker, and it's been this way for awhile. You're far more likely to run into large premades when you're part of a small group, rather than the other way around. In fact, when running in a 2man group, sometimes we'll get back to back 10-12man comp teams on the other side, yet they seem to never get matched against each other, despite the fact they're both launching/searching around the same time, and have similarly sized groups.

I'd hazard a guess and say the matchmaker completely discounts group size in favor of Elo balancing. You may have 2 12mans that are both highly competitive, yet they rarely see each other because their average team Elo difference is too high. The MM would rather put together a haphazard team of 2-3man groups with an average team Elo that's closer to the large group, instead of matching another 12man team in the queue who's Elo is not within the narrow Elo window the MM is looking at, leading to 12mans that never see each other, and a bunch of small groups that see nothing but 12mans.

All it seems to be required to fix this would be to simply have the MM prioritize group size matching over Elo matching.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Soy, on 26 June 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

This is all fine and dandy but reality is that millennials are way better at video games in general.

Hate to say it, but, that's the truth.

And the moment you used "work" I cringed. Cuz that's the approach some people take to gaming. What can you do in a game where the glass ceiling raised and playerbase stratification is widened as a result of that "work" approach actually being successful. If nolifing or acting superhardcore joblike mentality about a game leads to dominance or success, that game usually isn't worth keeping up with the joneses. Most of us have better things to do than try and keep pace with people playing a game more than 40 hours a week, it's pretty ridiculous. And that's where the "athlete" comes in, cuz, well, athletes don't just show up to a match and reck newbs. If they do, **** "sport" (poker). Is MWO one of those games, no, I don't think so. But some work really hard to play and take it to that level, hehe.

I think "practice" or "train" is the word you were looking for, if I can be semantical.

First off, no, they aren't any better at video games than any other group, they just think they're special because mommy told them so, bit of a difference there.

And I said work because I meant work, our coaches made us work our asses off, it wasn't training, it was punishment, we failed, therefore we paid for that failure, so we'd avoid failing in the future.

You've been part of a top comp team, did you get paid for that? I did, and it was work, fun work I enjoyed quite thoroughly for years, but it was still work. I finally got burned out on it and no longer play at that level because it's work, it's tough, and it wears on you after a while, there's a reason top gamers only hold their titles for a few years typically, it's very stressful. Now I just play to have fun, that's it. I'm still competitive, I will strive to win every time I drop, but now if I don't win, I don't get upset at myself or anyone else, I just look at what I did wrong, try to learn from that, and get ready for the next game. IF MWO gets the e-sports thing going and it actually pays well, I would consider it for a few minutes and then remember what it was like and forget about it, that quick. I have a great job, great benefits including awesome insurance and a company car, and I'm almost 50, I don't want to give up what I've worked for to get some cash and that's it, because gaming doesn't offer benefits or any long term security. My job offers those things and I've found I rather like them.

I'm personally sick and tired of dealing with Millennials, I deal with them in real life too damn often, now I have to deal with them in video games that cater to them. I had an assist, brilliant young woman, lots of talent, and she had that mindset, expected to be treated like she was something special while doing mediocre work halfassedly. I got tired of redoing everything she did and fired her finally, because no matter how I tried to motivate her, she refused to actually use her talent and brains, she just expected to be treated like she was something special because she actually SHOWED UP! Seriously, she even said that to me, 'I showed up, you should be thankful I bothered to come in at all', and she was shocked, hurt and amazed when my response was, 'you should have stayed home, you're fired'. She also thought she was better at video games, this old man kicked her ass in multiple games of HER choice on the XBox, just because mommy said you are special doesn't make it so.

[Koniks]

There are more gamers over 36 than under 35. BattleTech as a franchise has an older audience than most games. MW as a franchise has been around since the 90s. MWO probably has an older audience, especially given their pricing model.

Stop using a generational argument.

ETA: don't blame someone's generation on a hiring process making a bad decision. that's painting with a really broad brush.

Edited by Mizeur, 26 June 2015 - 02:19 PM.

[Soy]

Kristov Kerensky, on 26 June 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

I'm personally sick and tired of dealing with Millennials, I deal with them in real life too damn often, now I have to deal with them in video games that cater to them.

They are better man.

This comment speaks volumes.

Btw, don't you think those millenials are tired of old nerds who wear a suit and work in a cubicle staring at spreadsheets all day telling them how they have it so easy, don't you think they also have an axe to grind with all these authoritative nerds in an escapist fantasy world tryin to still act patronizing? Hehe.

Also,

It's like saying Wilt was the best player ever in basketball... ************ was seven feet tall playin around a bunch of ****** midgets, wtf.

Younger kids have been gaming since they wore diapers, literally. In the 80s I was playing with GI Joes in the back yard, taking a swim, or riding my bike wtf. Yeah I played Mario Bros. Mario Bros. There's a kid who pooped his pants 5 mins ago, playing MWO right now. He prolly got 4 kills just then while ******** his drawers.

Kids these days are better at video games as a whole compared to 80s console/arcade kids, this is a fact. It's just reality. It's like saying Henry Ford could design a car as well as Saleen or something, no ******* way. I'm sure Ford could teach em a thing or two, but his brain would instantly melt if he tried to suddenly absorb all of modern automobile industry.

Edited by Soy, 26 June 2015 - 02:25 PM.