497 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

Lets move this topic back on track which is missing features, features not yet added, rewards, features and gameplay elements that should be added but no one has mentioned yet, features that are half made, unaddressed balance issues, features that are hinted at but not announced, missing rewards, game play elements and features that should be added but havnt, unfinished gameplay, feature polish issues, looming feature backlog, half implemented rewards, and features and rewards and gameplay that have been announced but not yet added.

Edited by Johnny Z, 11 July 2015 - 04:29 AM.

[jss78]

CW is at its heart a venue for (A) organized teams and (B ) competitive play.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I'm sure a game between two well-honed twelve-mans is a beautiful thing. But I expect that a majority (although possibly a silent one) if players will never have any interest in either organized teams or competitive play. Most players will always go for the easiest and hassle-free gameplay experience, which is to start the game and click "play now".

This being the case, I think there's absolutely nothing that PGI can do to bring more than a small minority of players to CW. As such I think bringing better immersion and variety of gameplay (new game modes, etc.) to the public queue is far more important for the longevity of MWO, while I certainly wouldn't neglect the facilities required by the competitive crowd either.

Edited by jss78, 11 July 2015 - 04:49 AM.

[Jon Gotham]

jss78 I like your level headed thinking but:
How are you going to add more game modes to the public queue? The players themselves don't want to talk, or work with others. As you said they want hassle free gameplay without having to learn, think or try.The whole experience for them is centered on THEM.
People who play with their mates are being called tryhards for god's sake!
People who learn the game and learn to work together are farmers.
People who ask others to group up and not treat group play a a solo experience are being called elitist!

With a community like that....what can PGI actually do? People don't want any more in depth gameplay mate...because anything more than what we have REQUIRES teamwork. Something the "majority" seem absolutely dead set against. I mean, people whine about base capping in assault mode.....struggle with conquest games...these two modes are very basic and already the public queue almost falls over at those....
Best they could do is a co op vs pve mode like mass effect 3 and more maps. Give up trying to do something clever as the pugs don't want it.
I only say that because I see zero evidence on any of these threads that they do. Make what we have work better.

[Joseph Mallan]

seye, on 11 July 2015 - 03:57 AM, said:

ITT, pedantic forum warrior argues over phrasing rather then addressing the guy's clear overall point

Yes his clear over all point is players, that are not as good as they think they are, want the Nightmare mode made easier to play. I have addressed this a few times already. The mode is to hard for me So I won't play unless its made easier for me to win. Not a fan of that line of logic.

[oldradagast]

Bush Hopper, on 11 July 2015 - 03:52 AM, said:

Their behaviour is even more paradox:
They tell everyone CW is for the elite. That people and solos should go the **** out of THEIR mode.
...then they whine about long queues.

Fantastic. I love humanity. So much irony.

Exactly. The "rotten, dirty PUG's and casuals" already told PGI and the community what would be required for them to have any interest in CW. The "community" - at least the loud, try-hard part of it - told us to shut up and "get gud or get rekt." These self-important geniuses forget the 3rd option - play something else entirely other than CW.

Now - surprise, surprise - most of the players have been driven away from CW thanks to a mix of stale game modes, heavy-handed attempts at "balance," a total lack of match-making and the idiotic stomps it produces, and the horrible attitude of some of the competitive players. And why is anyone shocked by this? The people who left don't care a bit if CW dies on the vine because it was already made painfully clear that we are NOT welcome in that game mode. So, once there are 24 people left playing it, I hope they enjoy an eternity of battling each other over and over again because that's what they demanded.

[Joseph Mallan]

oldradagast, on 11 July 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

Exactly. The "rotten, dirty PUG's and casuals" already told PGI and the community what would be required for them to have any interest in CW. The "community" - at least the loud, try-hard part of it - told us to shut up and "get gud or get rekt." These self-important geniuses forget the 3rd option - play something else entirely other than CW.

Now - surprise, surprise - most of the players have been driven away from CW thanks to a mix of stale game modes, heavy-handed attempts at "balance," a total lack of match-making and the idiotic stomps it produces, and the horrible attitude of some of the competitive players. And why is anyone shocked by this? The people who left don't care a bit if CW dies on the vine because it was already made painfully clear that we are NOT welcome in that game mode. So, once there are 24 people left playing it, I hope they enjoy an eternity of battling each other over and over again because that's what they demanded.

When i play in CW I get wreckd, I do play something other than CW more often then not. I Still want it to remain Nightmare mode for players like me Cause not every part of a game needs to appeal to the majority. I play SWTOR and Neverwinter, I never play in the PvP areas, cause I don't do well in them and don't care for them. Should those areas be changed cause of me?

[Draal Kaan]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 July 2015 - 05:16 AM, said:

Yes his clear over all point is players, that are not as good as they think they are, want the Nightmare mode made easier to play. I have addressed this a few times already. The mode is to hard for me So I won't play unless its made easier for me to win. Not a fan of that line of logic.

Huh? Is this still refering to my post? Because this is not what i said/meant? *irritated*

[MechWarrior3671771]

"some (who will remain unnamed) teams attitudes make pugs never want anything to do with organized play if it means playing with people like that either for or against. if this is someones first experience in CW i totally understand why they would wash their hands of the whole thing when being told "GG" by the reds after a 48-5 spawncamping fest. IE some teams have no one but themselves to blame for a lack of interested players."

Yup. The normal path of Elite players is to eventually learn the concept of occupying barren terrain. You get so good, no one wants to challenge your team. And the problem is compounded if you behave like jackasses about it. Truly elite players and teams already know this, usually from learning the hard way - "why won't anyone challenge us?". They make adjustments to keep the game interesting, maybe they even field their 2nd string so their wins are closer games. Or maybe they handicap their 1st string with stock mechs or whatever to "keep it interesting".

The "elite" players that haven't figured this out yet aren't as "hardcore" as they thought.

[Joseph Mallan]

Draal Kaan, on 11 July 2015 - 06:20 AM, said:

Huh? Is this still refering to my post? Because this is not what i said/meant? *irritated*

Thats the problem with posts. If we don't hear how you say what's written, our inner voice spins the meaning.

[jss78]

kamiko kross, on 11 July 2015 - 05:09 AM, said:

jss78 I like your level headed thinking but:
How are you going to add more game modes to the public queue?

Now, that's a good question ... I can maybe think of a few things... I understand that an asymmetrical assault is in the works or at least being considered, and I think that might actually work better in PuG than the current version, in that there's a designated pushing team. In addition, I never understood why all games must be 12 vs 12 ... If something like Solaris brings maps optimized for lance-vs-lance or 8-vs-8, throw those on the public queue as well.

And in general any new PuG maps (River City quality!) will add variety.

So not really more "in depth" or intricate gameplay (I agree that's a losing proposition in PuG), but still a bit of variety.

Edited by jss78, 11 July 2015 - 06:56 AM.

[LordBraxton]

Groups\PUGs etc have nothing to do with CW's failure.

It is a lame mode, and none of the units I drop with enjoy it that much.

Certainly every 'serious,' player I know, probably has a drop deck set up, but 90%+ of the time is in the normal qeue.


Lanes + gates = chokepoints = linear gameplay

[Mystere]

jss78, on 11 July 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

I understand that an asymmetrical assault is in the works or at least being considered, and I think that might actually work better in PuG than the current version, in that there's a designated pushing team.

I'm afraid anything asymmetrical on the public solo queue is dead in the water, given the attitude of so many players on it. I can hear the whining now:

Why am I always being placed on the side that has the odds stacked against it?

QQ! QQ!

Rant! Rant!

I will rage quit! Rage Quit!

<even though both sides are relatively even>

Edited by Mystere, 11 July 2015 - 07:27 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

LordBraxton, on 11 July 2015 - 07:09 AM, said:

Groups\PUGs etc have nothing to do with CW's failure.

It is a lame mode, and none of the units I drop with enjoy it that much.

Certainly every 'serious,' player I know, probably has a drop deck set up, but 90%+ of the time is in the normal qeue.


Lanes + gates = chokepoints = linear gameplay

On One map this could be acceptable. But we have what 3...4 Maps with go left or go right as the primary choices. Not a real thinking mans game there.

[Sjorpha]

Mystere, on 11 July 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

I'm afraid anything asymmetrical on the public solo queue is dead in the water, given the attitude of so many players on it. I can hear the whining now:

Why am I always being placed on the side that has the odds stacked against it?

QQ! QQ!

Rant! Rant!

I will rage quit! Rage Quit!

<even though both sides are relatively even>

It's not the amount of whining that measures the success of a game mode, but if enough people play it or not.

I wish all those people who threaten to quit all the time would just do it, just leave. Don't make a post about it. You don't have to tell the rest of us that you are leaving or why, we don't care. No one cares. You don't need to keep spamming the forum if you are not playing the game, the forum is for players. Just go. Please.

CWs problem is that it isn't finished, there is not enough features. If it gets more interesting features where units can do some meaningful strategic choices on the map and so on, and if it gets enough game modes and maps, then there will be enough units to play it. There is no lack of organised units to populate CW, it's that they have already done their part in testing this incomplete beta and are now waiting for the next step in development before it is interesting to play again.

That's the attitude you need to play CW right now, whether you are a unit or solo player, you need to see it as taking part in testing early development of a game mode and enjoy that. If you are not the kind of person that likes alpha testing game features you should not even try to play CW now.

[Kin3ticX]

Fenrisulvyn, on 11 July 2015 - 06:25 AM, said:

"some (who will remain unnamed) teams attitudes make pugs never want anything to do with organized play if it means playing with people like that either for or against. if this is someones first experience in CW i totally understand why they would wash their hands of the whole thing when being told "GG" by the reds after a 48-5 spawncamping fest. IE some teams have no one but themselves to blame for a lack of interested players."

Yup. The normal path of Elite players is to eventually learn the concept of occupying barren terrain. You get so good, no one wants to challenge your team. And the problem is compounded if you behave like jackasses about it. Truly elite players and teams already know this, usually from learning the hard way - "why won't anyone challenge us?". They make adjustments to keep the game interesting, maybe they even field their 2nd string so their wins are closer games. Or maybe they handicap their 1st string with stock mechs or whatever to "keep it interesting".

The "elite" players that haven't figured this out yet aren't as "hardcore" as they thought.

If you think units will shoot themselves in the foot like that you have no idea what CW even is.

Units are not obligated to adapt to how the non organized players operate. Rather, the reverse is true.

[Kin3ticX]

oldradagast, on 11 July 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

Exactly. The "rotten, dirty PUG's and casuals" already told PGI and the community what would be required for them to have any interest in CW. The "community" - at least the loud, try-hard part of it - told us to shut up and "get gud or get rekt." These self-important geniuses forget the 3rd option - play something else entirely other than CW.

Now - surprise, surprise - most of the players have been driven away from CW thanks to a mix of stale game modes, heavy-handed attempts at "balance," a total lack of match-making and the idiotic stomps it produces, and the horrible attitude of some of the competitive players. And why is anyone shocked by this? The people who left don't care a bit if CW dies on the vine because it was already made painfully clear that we are NOT welcome in that game mode. So, once there are 24 people left playing it, I hope they enjoy an eternity of battling each other over and over again because that's what they demanded.

It's okay. Big bad CW cant hurt you anymore. Maybe CW just isn't for some people. Not everyone was going to make the cut whether they have real or self imposed limitations.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 11 July 2015 - 09:11 AM.

[Jon Gotham]

jss78, on 11 July 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

Now, that's a good question ... I can maybe think of a few things... I understand that an asymmetrical assault is in the works or at least being considered, and I think that might actually work better in PuG than the current version, in that there's a designated pushing team. In addition, I never understood why all games must be 12 vs 12 ... If something like Solaris brings maps optimized for lance-vs-lance or 8-vs-8, throw those on the public queue as well.

And in general any new PuG maps (River City quality!) will add variety.

So not really more "in depth" or intricate gameplay (I agree that's a losing proposition in PuG), but still a bit of variety.

What do you think of an ME3 multiplayer co-op style mode? I think that'd go down well with the casual playerbase? A game I play warthunder, has pve missions you can do with friends as does a new one Armoured Warfare...
All I want is a place for me to play with my friends-no more dliuted MWO with even more solo only stuff please. I play online games to socialise with people! I just don't want groups to keep on getting hammered by the angry solo mob, a notable few of which reside on this thread and they seemingly want to scupper group play utterly.
The attitude here seems to be to hate on people for using teamwork and for being social in a game designed around those two things.player refuses, player b does not refuse=player b is farming scum, apparently....

I just thought I refer to people as casual,yet I am casual too-yet get branded an uber elite because I group up....????


Oh and Oldraghast, solo players are perfectly welcome in CW-I love to meet new people but as Iraqiwalker quite rightly pointed out, solo players are welcome-solo play isn't. Talk to people, communicate, pitch in, work together and be welcome.
Not a hard or bad ask really?

Edited by kamiko kross, 11 July 2015 - 09:28 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

One Medic Army, on 10 July 2015 - 11:32 PM, said:

What Russ said was 1% of groups were 12mans. That includes the group queue, he wasn't just using CW stats.

And I clearly said CW and non-CW group drops in my post, because that is what Russ said, 12 man groups are 1% of the total and 2-4 man groups are the VAST majority, 94% I think it was? So ALL the whining and screaming about getting constantly stomped by 12 mans in CW and outside of CW are pure bs, the data shows it is quite literally impossible for that to be happening. And yet that has been a constant refrain in this thread about CW and why it's avoided. It's a constant refrain about the non-CW group que as well.

As a matter of fact, posts about getting stomped constantly, game after game after game, are a constant in these forums. And it's ALWAYS due to either 12 man bogeymen OR the horribly broken MM, it is NEVER the fault of the people making the posts, despite them being the only constant in all of those games.

I see the trend clearly, I've been seeing it and commenting on it for almost 4 years now, as it was happening BEFORE we 12 mans, BEFORE we even had grouping in the game, it was happening. And since BEFORE CB started we've had people going off about organized teams and how they ruin the game, BEFORE WE EVEN HAD A GAME TO PLAY! There has been a very big anti-team sentiment on the MWO forums since they opened up in 2011, and it's not gotten any less nasty over the years now.

CW's problem are that it isn't finished, it's lacking any incentives to play it other then testing the system as it stands, THAT is it. In 2011 when this game was announced, CW was promised as the team playground, where the House and Clan units duke it out over the planets, and Lonewolves can go along IF there's any open slots. That was the original pitch, remember? Russ has been keeping that promise, you can't even DO CW until you pick a Team, one of the Houses or Clans, got to pick a Faction before you can even do CW. Russ has also stated that CW is for the units and organized players, if you aren't willing to play on that level, CW won't be much fun for you, you might want to avoid it.

So, what part of ANY of that is unclear? This isn't a change in how CW was supposed to work, it's not deviated from that at all in 4 years now, so why do the solo players who refuse to coordinate and communicate ingame demand that CW cater specifically to THEM and screw the teams it was promised to be designed for all along? What, will you take your ball and go home if it's doesn't? What is the downside of that, exactly? I can't think of any, since most of the solo players are people I personally would just as soon see leave, non-team oriented players in a team oriented game, really ruins MY fun, and does the same for a lot of other team oriented players as well, and since we're talking about the team oriented game mode that's been promised to the team players, what's the downside again?

[One Medic Army]

Kristov Kerensky, on 11 July 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

And I clearly said CW and non-CW group drops in my post, because that is what Russ said, 12 man groups are 1% of the total and 2-4 man groups are the VAST majority, 94% I think it was? So ALL the whining and screaming about getting constantly stomped by 12 mans in CW and outside of CW are pure bs, the data shows it is quite literally impossible for that to be happening. And yet that has been a constant refrain in this thread about CW and why it's avoided. It's a constant refrain about the non-CW group que as well.

As a matter of fact, posts about getting stomped constantly, game after game after game, are a constant in these forums. And it's ALWAYS due to either 12 man bogeymen OR the horribly broken MM, it is NEVER the fault of the people making the posts, despite them being the only constant in all of those games.

I see the trend clearly, I've been seeing it and commenting on it for almost 4 years now, as it was happening BEFORE we 12 mans, BEFORE we even had grouping in the game, it was happening. And since BEFORE CB started we've had people going off about organized teams and how they ruin the game, BEFORE WE EVEN HAD A GAME TO PLAY! There has been a very big anti-team sentiment on the MWO forums since they opened up in 2011, and it's not gotten any less nasty over the years now.

CW's problem are that it isn't finished, it's lacking any incentives to play it other then testing the system as it stands, THAT is it. In 2011 when this game was announced, CW was promised as the team playground, where the House and Clan units duke it out over the planets, and Lonewolves can go along IF there's any open slots. That was the original pitch, remember? Russ has been keeping that promise, you can't even DO CW until you pick a Team, one of the Houses or Clans, got to pick a Faction before you can even do CW. Russ has also stated that CW is for the units and organized players, if you aren't willing to play on that level, CW won't be much fun for you, you might want to avoid it.

So, what part of ANY of that is unclear? This isn't a change in how CW was supposed to work, it's not deviated from that at all in 4 years now, so why do the solo players who refuse to coordinate and communicate ingame demand that CW cater specifically to THEM and screw the teams it was promised to be designed for all along? What, will you take your ball and go home if it's doesn't? What is the downside of that, exactly? I can't think of any, since most of the solo players are people I personally would just as soon see leave, non-team oriented players in a team oriented game, really ruins MY fun, and does the same for a lot of other team oriented players as well, and since we're talking about the team oriented game mode that's been promised to the team players, what's the downside again?

I didn't read your wall of text, because you missed the main point in the first paragraph.

Since Russ' statistic was not for only CW, you can infer nothing from it about CW matchups. It's that simple.

For instance, if 90% of groups are playing in the group queue, and no 12mans were in the group queue, that would make 12mans in CW 1 in 10 groups.

Then let's consider the fact that CW matchmaker favors 12man groups, so they get matched faster. They also win quicker (usually) and as such get more matches.

There's plenty of logical reasons the conclusions you infer are complete bunk.

[Kristov Kerensky]

One Medic Army, on 11 July 2015 - 09:49 AM, said:

I didn't read your wall of text, because you missed the main point in the first paragraph.

Since Russ' statistic was not for only CW, you can infer nothing from it about CW matchups. It's that simple.

For instance, if 90% of groups are playing in the group queue, and no 12mans were in the group queue, that would make 12mans in CW 1 in 10 groups.

Then let's consider the fact that CW matchmaker favors 12man groups, so they get matched faster. They also win quicker (usually) and as such get more matches.

There's plenty of logical reasons the conclusions you infer are complete bunk.

Oh...I see, you want to play statistical musical chairs where YOU decide when the music plays and stops, and only YOU can hear it on top of that, cool! I know that game, and I know that when you pull that crap, it means you've got nothing to back your claims up so you pull stuff out of..well..you know.

CW isn't finished, pure and simple, all the rest of the bs reasons are bs reasons. There's no incentive to play CW except to test it, and most of us who want to play CW have tested the hell out of it already, so we're mostly tired of it until the next phase comes out. It's not like we're getting paid to test it after all, actually, most of US are paying TO test it, so, yeah, kind of burned out until the next phase comes out.