131 replies to this topic

[Druarc]

You could always do what me and a friend do, we click the play at the same time in solo pugs, funny thing is we usually end up play against each other which is also fun,

We're also both on Skype so just talk **** when we're in different matches.

When we get four or more together we'll do group as 4+ can influence a match if you drop with a good complement of mechs and work as a lance.

[TWIAFU]

Mystere, on 02 August 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

Why would 2/3-man groups ever want to drop in the group queue again if they feel they have the advantage in solo queue?

And why only up to 3 instead of 4? And if 4, why not up to 5? And if 5 ... you get the picture.

Having solo-only and group queues make more sense, although as I have said earlier solos should also be allowed in the group queue.

What is frikkien hillarious is these duo group people do not want to go up against a group that displays TEAMWORK. So the "solution" is to place them were teamwork is the rarity. So instead of getting stomped playing 2 vs 12 they want to stomp the 12. Funny thing is, they will still get stomped because they cannot play as part of a TEAM.

Their "team" cannot play against teamwork so that "team" wants to be put where there is no teamwork.

[TWIAFU]

Kristov Kerensky, on 03 August 2015 - 01:11 PM, said:

At least with Tribes, people had an excuse, it had NO single player side to each you anything but basic movement, and that was all it had for offline or single player. Tribes 2 had actual single player missions and training, but that didn't matter, few people bothered with it, same with BF1942, et al. People got the games, jumped immediately into the multiplayer side without ever learning how the game actually played, so WE, the players who did know, taught them, usually using some sort of private drop or server so we could teach them without dealing with other players messing with them. Quake games, Unreal, Counter Strike, hell even the original CoD game, we did this, because most people just wanted to play online and never bothered to touch the single player side to learn how to play.

God, I miss Tribes and Tribes2! Thank you for the good flashback!

There are no better teachers for gaming then those that play the game. Been here since late Alpha/Early Beta and I still ask questions and seek advice!

Screech, on 03 August 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:

Was very interesting to hear Russ say 93% of matches in the group queue have only groups of size 4 or smaller. So it would appear that most of these stories about new friends getting run off by 12 mans pretty overblown.

Russ said these 12man Unit rolfstomps only happen 1% of the time or less.

So yes, the BS is strong with a lot of people. And they still use it as an excuse!

[Throat Punch]

TWIAFU, on 05 August 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:

Russ said these 12man Unit rolfstomps only happen 1% of the time or less.

So yes, the BS is strong with a lot of people. And they still use it as an excuse!

Shush you. Quit using fact. Facts can be used to prove anything that's even remotely true. Everyone knows the 12 man premade boogieman is true. It has sharp pointy op Clan 'mech's, steals your MC while you sleep, and gives you halitosis.

[TWIAFU]

Joseph Mallan, on 05 August 2015 - 02:42 AM, said:

The only bad game is the one you lose. Even then I can find solace when I kill 2 assist with 3 and do 250+ damage. I had a good game even in loss.

If you are able to learn something from a loss, in the end, it will be a win.

Those that cannot learn from a loss are those that complain and point fingers at everyone and everything else as the cause.

The only time, well nearly all the time, I get upset at a loss is when I can't learn something from it.

Success can only come from the ashes of failure.

Mors Draco, on 05 August 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:

Shush you. Quit using fact. Facts can be used to prove anything that's even remotely true. Everyone knows the 12 man premade boogieman is true. It has sharp pointy op Clan 'mech's, steals your MC while you sleep, and gives you halitosis.

And they are all sync-dropping to steal your lunch money.

[Zergling]

I've 'duo-ed' with a friend before, but it simply wasn't enjoyable for us.

It's true that there wasn't a lot of 10-12 player groups when we played, but there was a lot of 4 to 8 player groups.
A 2 player group simply stands little chance against that, and it isn't fun at all being so handicapped by not being in a larger group.

[Throat Punch]

Zergling, on 05 August 2015 - 03:59 AM, said:

I've 'duo-ed' with a friend before, but it simply wasn't enjoyable for us.

It's true that there wasn't a lot of 10-12 player groups when we played, but there was a lot of 4 to 8 player groups.
A 2 player group simply stands little chance against that, and it isn't fun at all being so handicapped by not being in a larger group.

Regardless of what the other team had, your team was also made up of groups as well. It's no different than the solo queue. If you do not coordinate with the other people/groups then your chance of success diminishes. You being or not being in a larger group and having more success doesn't float. An 6-man group cannot carry a team of people that do not coordinate in some fashion. Being in a large group does not = insta win.

[Lugh]

Zergling, on 05 August 2015 - 03:59 AM, said:

I've 'duo-ed' with a friend before, but it simply wasn't enjoyable for us.

It's true that there wasn't a lot of 10-12 player groups when we played, but there was a lot of 4 to 8 player groups.
A 2 player group simply stands little chance against that, and it isn't fun at all being so handicapped by not being in a larger group.

Yes because taking your 2 and shielding / running along side the assaults is SOOOO fricking hard to do. Your two could be firing at targets that are going OMG DIREWOLF for 3 seconds.. and you should kill at least one if not more of those targets of opportunity and be on the way to killing the second by the time your own assault mech has retreated or died.

Then if you cover his retreat as the aggressive attempt to end him, you kill another, and so it goes until you win.

[Zergling]

Mors Draco, on 05 August 2015 - 05:17 AM, said:

Regardless of what the other team had, your team was also made up of groups as well. It's no different than the solo queue.

It sure didn't feel like that. Quite frankly, the game felt exceptionally frustrating, until the point we both ragequit. We might have just been having a bad losing streak, but given we played some 20 or 30 battles, I'm not so sure.

I suspect there's a synergistic effect at work; a team with two groups of 6 players each will coordinate and play better than a team of three groups of 4 players each.
Its the same reason a group of 12 players will normally trounce a team consisting of two groups of 6 players, or whatever combination of smaller groups.

Lugh, on 05 August 2015 - 05:27 AM, said:

Yes because taking your 2 and shielding / running along side the assaults is SOOOO fricking hard to do. Your two could be firing at targets that are going OMG DIREWOLF for 3 seconds.. and you should kill at least one if not more of those targets of opportunity and be on the way to killing the second by the time your own assault mech has retreated or died.

Then if you cover his retreat as the aggressive attempt to end him, you kill another, and so it goes until you win.

It isn't so hard to avoid assuming those with complaints are bad players either.

[Almond Brown]

If one assumes a Loss going in, for whatever reason, a Loss is almost always the likely result. Any 2 players is but 1/6 of the "Team" needed to generate a Win.

A 1(solo), operating Solo and independently maybe called a Rambo, but a 2-man, with the same general attitude, is just a larger version of that same Rambo. There is no "just me and my bud" in Team. LOL

[Lugh]

Almond Brown, on 06 August 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

If one assumes a Loss going in, for whatever reason, a Loss is almost always the likely result. Any 2 players is but 1/6 of the "Team" needed to generate a Win.

A 1(solo), operating Solo and independently maybe called a Rambo, but a 2-man, with the same general attitude, is just a larger version of that same Rambo. There is no "just me and my bud" in Team. LOL

But there is MEAT. Which is all they are without working like a TEAM.

[topgun505]

I agree that there is going to be no magic solution that makes everyone happy. So, that being the case. What is a solution that would irk the fewest people and, more importantly, would help get new blood into the game and/or help with new player retention?

Honestly, I don't see a huge downfall to allowing 2-man groups into the solo que. If solo-puggers are REALLY worried about it you could limit it to one 2-man group per side.

Which is worse? Being a solo and knowing the opposing team is 10 solos and one 2-man? Or being in a 2-man and getting dropped against a 10-man (i.e. what we have now)?

I'd take the former. It's less of a likelihood of a steamroll result, and it is far more friendly to pairs of people where a vet is trying to show a new person the ropes ... and still grants cbills and Xp, unlike private lobbies.