32 replies to this topic

[DAYLEET]

R Razor, on 26 June 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

Pretty sure he's against it as he's encouraging folks to "soldier up and enlist" in a unit.........and he is right in that you aren't going to overcome a well organized team on a dedicated TS server with a random selection of 2 - 4 man groups using only VOIP on anything approaching a regular basis.........

What he isn't considering in his effort to get folks to "enlist" is that getting new people involved and keeping them involved in a game that, if they are playing in any smallish group, lends itself to them getting ***** repeatedly (great learning experience) is difficult at best.

Yes, the enlist thing is something i related to CW, and change to 4 max in group queue would actually help CW in such a way, people joining others rank or keeping their own. In that view, he is for the limiting to 4 players.

[R Razor]

DAYLEET, on 26 June 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

Yes, the enlist thing is something i related to CW, and change to 4 max in group queue would actually help CW in such a way, people joining others rank or keeping their own. In that view, he is for the limiting to 4 players.

Good point........at any rate, I wouldn't mind seeing the group size limited in the non-CW que if for no other reason than to give new players a chance at joining a unit and getting some matches in without running in to the ubiquitous comp 8 - 10 (or 12) man that, instead of playing CW is farming puglandia for c-bills.

[Rebas Kradd]

Cutting 12-mans out of the group queue means throwing them into an environment (CW) featuring...

Very long waits (do you really think it's beneficial to the game to force every 5+ team out there into 20-30 minute waits?)

Repetitive gameplay heavily slanted in favor of the defender

Need to build a dropdeck (some units just want to drop

Much lesser map variety

Worse performance

Getting resented by hardcore CW units who don't want faction-ambivalent units dropped into their campaign

Taking forever to grind mechs thanks to the reward system

Confining large groups to that world runs a very real risk of killing most of them off. I acknowledge the new players and small groups are an important player base, and I'm just as irritated at the 12-mans for their smug stomping attitudes. But frankly those 1% making up MWO's competitive scene are just as important. We cannot afford to lose either one.




When CW becomes a better designed and balanced sandbox, then it might be better (still not ideal) to kick 12-mans out there. As it is, it's not a good enough product to justify that move.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 26 June 2015 - 02:54 PM.

[Novakaine]

I also blame PGI for the utter lack of a in-game hiring hall.
The random looking for group is just silly.
A hiring hall would add some flavor to the game.
A new player can take a permanent or a temporary contract unit large or small to get the practice and training in.
A unit would have a unit coffer to actually pay for these contracts for a limited amount of time.
Once that new players contract is up he can elect to stay with this unit or simply move on.
And maybe even pay for a decent mech or two to help the new guys out.
I was thinking a unit could set aside a certain amount of mechs for new players to be given as gifts if they stay with the unit.
My friends have told me the hard grind for c-bills has virtually made this game unbearable.
A unit which is training a certain amount new players could receive a cbill bonus for the training period.
The learning curve in this game is steep enough PGI should really implement something to this effect.
If anything to help, encourage and train new players.
Trained players equals good players and less roll stomps.
And would save me a small fortune in gaming mouses.
Yes I have game anger management issues.

[R Razor]

Rebas Kradd, on 26 June 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

Cutting 12-mans out of the group queue means throwing them into an environment (CW) featuring...

Very long waits (do you really think it's beneficial to the game to force every 5+ team out there into 20-30 minute waits?)

Repetitive gameplay heavily slanted in favor of the defender

Need to build a dropdeck (some units just want to drop

Much lesser map variety

Worse performance

Getting resented by hardcore CW units who don't want faction-ambivalent units dropped into their campaign

Taking forever to grind mechs thanks to the reward system

Confining large groups to that world runs a very real risk of killing most of them off. I acknowledge the new players and small groups are an important player base, and I'm just as irritated at the 12-mans for their smug stomping attitudes. But frankly those 1% making up MWO's competitive scene are just as important. We cannot afford to lose either one.




When CW becomes a better designed and balanced sandbox, then it might be better (still not ideal) to kick 12-mans out there. As it is, it's not a good enough product to justify that move.

Or it means that instead of dropping in large groups and farming the c-bills they split into smaller groups and play the game like the other 93%.

[SkyHammyr]

Gonna be honest here.

I have a weekly gaming group is four guys. We did the group queue for a while and after having a bad time of it, we stopped playing for a while. In fact, when it was just 2 or 3 of us, we would totally stay away from MWO simply because of the disadvantage smaller groups have against the larger ones.

However, I Soldiered up, got into the LFG screen and found another group of fellas that play. Soon our four man team turned into 6 and, sometimes 7 or more. Heck, during the Tukyyid event, we were 10 strong picking up guys along the way.

So, actually, I'm gonna have to say, "No," to that. There are tools in place for people to get into Units that drop larger teams, there are tools for PUGs to organize. I really don't feel forcing a 4-man grouping limit to the group queue is going to be healthy for the game. Sorry.

Edited by SkyHammr, 26 June 2015 - 03:41 PM.

[DAYLEET]

SkyHammr, on 26 June 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

So, actually, I'm gonna have to say, "No," to that. There are tools in place for people to get into Units that drop larger teams, there are tools for PUGs to organize. I really don't feel forcing a 4-man grouping limit to the group queue is going to be healthy for the game. Sorry.

That's exactly what the groups said when they were separated from the solo queue and it was a very good move for the game.

[Rebas Kradd]

R Razor, on 26 June 2015 - 03:32 PM, said:

Or it means that instead of dropping in large groups and farming the c-bills they split into smaller groups and play the game like the other 93%.

You don't limit game freedom. If gamers want to play a certain way, a dev should accomodate them.

[R Razor]

Rebas Kradd, on 28 June 2015 - 01:13 PM, said:

You don't limit game freedom. If gamers want to play a certain way, a dev should accomodate them.

Not if 93% of the customer base wants to play it another way you don't, that's a fast way to lost money..................you NEVER cater to the minority, EVER, if you're in business.

[DAYLEET]

Rebas Kradd, on 28 June 2015 - 01:13 PM, said:

You don't limit game freedom.

lol? game freedom? That's not even a thing.

[Alistair Winter]

I personally wouldn't mind if the group queue was max 4 players per group, and there were no limits in CW. But I don't know if it's the right move for PGI to make. They risk alienating a lot of players by doing something like that.

All I know is that it won't be a big deal for me personally if they make public match group queue for 2-4 man groups. In fact, I'll probably play group queue more rather than less.

[DAYLEET]

Alistair Winter, on 28 June 2015 - 02:38 PM, said:

I personally wouldn't mind if the group queue was max 4 players per group, and there were no limits in CW. But I don't know if it's the right move for PGI to make. They risk alienating a lot of players by doing something like that.

All I know is that it won't be a big deal for me personally if they make public match group queue for 2-4 man groups. In fact, I'll probably play group queue more rather than less.

I was against it until i learned about the low %. It's cheap, it is, but if theres few of them we might try. why wouldnt they want to play with group of their own size?

[Mystere]

R Razor, on 28 June 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

Not if 93% of the customer base wants to play it another way you don't, that's a fast way to lost money..................you NEVER cater to the minority, EVER, if you're in business.

Those politicians in Washington DC seem to be doing just fine pleasing the 1%.

And just allow solo players into the group queue already. At least we know what we are getting ourselves into.

Edited by Mystere, 28 June 2015 - 04:06 PM.