1017 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Russ is the source.

Told everyone that the 12man premade rolfstomp only happens 1%, or less in CW. Furthermore, 1% of Groups are 11-12.

If according to Russ 12mans arnt a problem then why did he put forward the idea of reducing max group size to 4?

http://mwomercs.com/...43#entry4664843

Obviously 12 mans ARE a problem or russ would not be suggesting max group sizes of 4 as a solution.

[Ihasa]

Khobai, on 03 September 2015 - 04:36 PM, said:

source?

Show me where PGI has released CW statistics for what percentage of CW matches contain large groups.

The only statistics I ever recall PGI releasing were the statistics from before CW even existed.

We already mentioned it earlier in this thread, which your clearly only reading what you want to see, It was a recent PGI town hall. In fact it was repeated AGAIN (and again) most recently in the latest group queue threads, except this time large groups gained a percent or two, up to 7%, with 12-mans being 2%. Previously large groups were only 5-6% and 12-mans at just 1%.

[Khobai]

Again... why does russ want to get rid of 12 mans and make max group size 4? If 12 mans arnt a problem?

He just posted yesterday that he wants to make the max group size 4 with 1/1/1/1 enforced

derp

obviously theyre having MAJOR problems balancing the larger groups with matchmaker or he never wouldve put forth the suggestion of lowering max group size to 4 to the community.

Edited by Khobai, 04 September 2015 - 10:16 AM.

[Ihasa]

Khobai, on 04 September 2015 - 09:59 AM, said:

If according to Russ 12mans arnt a problem then why did he put forward the idea of reducing max group size to 4?

http://mwomercs.com/...43#entry4664843

Obviously 12 mans ARE a problem or russ would not be suggesting max group sizes of 4 as a solution.

12-mans aren't the problem. The new matchmaker using PSR and all our recently acquired choices/options is the problem. He's not solving "for the issue of 12-mans" he's solving for a struggling match maker taking 15+ minutes to make matches.

[ApolloKaras]

Khobai, on 04 September 2015 - 10:15 AM, said:

Again... why does russ want to get rid of 12 mans and make max group size 4? If 12 mans arnt a problem?

He just posted yesterday that he wants to make the max group size 4 with 1/1/1/1 enforced

derp

obviously theyre having MAJOR problems balancing the larger groups with matchmaker or he never wouldve put forth the suggestion of lowering max group size to 4 to the community.

I debunked these stats in another thread. However he wasn't talking about CW he was talking about the Group/Solo queue

[VorpalAnvil]

Airwolf, on 15 August 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

Ack ... too many pages to read ... read a couple of pages from the beginning, and read some of the pages at the end.

My 2 C-Bills (for what it's worth).

1) For many, if not most of us, it's the first viable MechWarrior/BattleTech game in over 10+ years. We *LOVED* the "big, stompy, shoot-em-up robot mayhem" and that's why we're here, it's as simple as that ... period.

2) Is this game perfect? ... got news for you guys ... *NO* game is perfect ... there's *always* room for improvement and PGI's working on it. Does it seem haphazard at times? ... Try having thousands of people constantly screaming in your ears, demanding everything under the sun and see how well *YOU* do.

3) Why team up / group up / join a unit / get on TS / etc? For me it's simple, it's for the social aspect. All the coordinated movement, tactics, etc are just a bonus. We get to celebrate together when we succeed, and yell and scream and blame each other when we fail (and believe me, we really get ugly with each other when we fail ).

4) Why play CW? Simple, you can end up doing something really stupid with your first or even second mech and still make up for it with the rest of your mechs. In the Public matches, if you screw up, you're done, it's over for you, start another search.

5) No rewards in CW? Um ... Faction Loyalty Points / Levels? ... I haven't done the math (too lazy) but I'm pretty sure that the rewards are far greater overall than the Public Achievements rewards. Sure it'd be nice if taking / holding planets gave you something (other than bragging rights). It'd also be nice if we could actually *DO* something with the Unit Coffers. Once again, I believe that PGI's working on it.

My personal opinion is that the biggest issue is NOT with the game, but with the mentality of too many of the players. Many come from those FPS games where (while you may be assigned to a team) it's basically a go-do-your-own-thing, free-for-all. MWO is *NOT* one of those types of games, never was, and (hopefully) will never become one. This is true in both Public and CW matches. If you're one of those go-do-your-own-thing, not-work-with-others type of person, then you may be happier with some other game. I'm sure that your teammates would appreciate it.

When I first started playing this game ... let's face it ... I sucked ... being ineffective, losing, over and over and over again. It was about a month before I even heard about Teamspeak. Just getting on comms made a *WORLD* of difference. Sure, I still lost many a game ... but now I didn't lose as many games and I was able to either learn from others or learned *with* others what worked and didn't work both mech build-wise as well as tactically on the field. Joining a unit just made everything more consistant and we won many more games than we lost.

For you guys *CONSTANTLY* moaning and groaning about the quality of 'Solos / PUGS' that you end up with on your team or even on the opposing team, let me ask you something ... what have you personally *DONE* about it, anything? ... have you tried to direct / guide them through in-game chat / VOIP? Yeah, I know that wrangling PUGS sometimes is harder than herding cats (and there are those that just won't listen ... ever) but I've had many matches in both Public and CW where I've been lucky enough to do exactly that and we've won ... even against full 12-man teams. Our unit has, on many occasions, told the enemy PUG / Rainbow team exactly what our attack plans were at the start of the match. Once (although, I wasn't there to be a part of it ), our unit did a batchall and bid away our first 24 mechs ... even before they knew who they were up against. Luckily someone recorded it. And for the record, we won that match . Our unit tries to make it a point to teach / guide others both friendly and enemy so *EVERYONE* can have more fun. I'm sure that many/most people can learn what we've learned on their own, we just want them to learn it quicker .

I can think of several dozen guys that I've played with over the years from many different units that if we all ended up on the same team, not using TS, nor in-game VOIP, nor in-game text chat ... I'd bet that we'd either completely smoke the enemy team or at least give them one hell of a run for their money. It's called experience ... it's called having a clue ... we might not be on any type of comms, but we've learned and know what needs to be done and we do it, not individually, but together ... as a team.

Bottom line is that if you want better Solos / PUGS, then you more experienced guys *HAVE* to help them get more experience in the game and get better. I'm pretty sure that when many / most of you started out playing this game, you weren't all that good either, at least compared to how you are now.

While I agree with you in spirit Airwolf, the simple fact is most pugs don't want to be helped in the first place. They aren't willing to put in the work to git gud. They want a participation trophy and the rest of us and the game to be dumbed down to their lazy level.

[VorpalAnvil]

TWIAFU, on 16 August 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:

There is a difference between loosing and have lost.

Those that have lost use that information and experience toward the next battle. They observe, learn, and adapt. They become better warriors from that lost battle.

Those that loose are the ones that do the same thing over and over, never learning anything, and place fault on everyone and everything that is not themselves.

The first player you want to play with. Will accept a loss so long as something is learned from it.

The second player you want to avoid. This one cannot accept loss. This is the players that cannot rise to any challenge but demands the bar lowered and everything changed to suit his usually solo-rambo playstyle.

Lose = opposite of win
Loose = your mom

Nathan K, on 16 August 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

Fun?! Fun has no place in video games! If you do not play to win, you are a loser! STOP PLAYING!

Your participation trophy is in the mail.

[cSand]

Love the elitism in here

you guys are certainly great at reinforcing stereotypes

[BSK]

cSand, on 04 September 2015 - 11:15 AM, said:

Love the elitism in here

Is it elitism or have a least adequat fundament?

[Khereg]

Khobai, on 04 September 2015 - 10:15 AM, said:

Again... why does russ want to get rid of 12 mans and make max group size 4? If 12 mans arnt a problem?

He was talking about public group queue, not CW.

And the reason is to help the matchmaker make matches quicker and with better team parity.

Since there's no matchmaker in CW, his comments don't apply here.

[cSand]

BSK, on 04 September 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

Is it elitism or have a least adequat fundament?

It's seriously serious business, bro!

[Uncle Totty]

VorpalAnvil, on 04 September 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

Lose = opposite of win
Loose = your mom


Your participation trophy is in the mail.

What part of any of that makes you think I care for trophies?

[ApolloKaras]

VorpalAnvil, on 04 September 2015 - 11:03 AM, said:

While I agree with you in spirit Airwolf, the simple fact is most pugs don't want to be helped in the first place. They aren't willing to put in the work to git gud. They want a participation trophy and the rest of us and the game to be dumbed down to their lazy level.

Quote

Love the elitism in here you guys are certainly great at reinforcing stereotypes

Unfortunately Vorpal is right. I've all but quit helping these guys attempt to form decent builds. I either get, "I REFUSE TO PLAY META", "YOU WORRY ABOUT YOU I'LL WORRY ABOUT ME", as he does 500 damage across 4 mechs, "GO DIE IN A FIRE".

Brilliant...

[cSand]

Lol

I understand your frustration but

that's hilarious

[Uncle Totty]

Saxie, on 04 September 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

Unfortunately Vorpal is right. I've all but quit helping these guys attempt to form decent builds. I either get, "I REFUSE TO PLAY META", "YOU WORRY ABOUT YOU I'LL WORRY ABOUT ME", as he does 500 damage across 4 mechs, "GO DIE IN A FIRE".

Brilliant...

"You can only do well in a meta."

"You will only do poorly in a non-meta."

These two ideas are narrow-minded, dumb, and need to die. I have faced the meta, and I have played the meta. (Got myself a Thunderwub some days ago.) They are good mechs, but not the be-all end-all gods you try to make them out to be.

Edited by Nathan K, 04 September 2015 - 11:57 AM.

[ApolloKaras]

Nathan K, on 04 September 2015 - 11:52 AM, said:

"You can only do well in a meta."

"You will only do poorly in a non-meta."

These two ideas are narrow-minded, dumb, and need to die. I have faced the meta, and I have played the meta. (Got myself a Thunderwub some days ago.) They are good mechs, but not the be-all end-all gods you try to make them out to be.

What exactly do you think I'm referring to, stop placing thoughts in my head. If you are confused about something I said ASK. Don't jump to conclusions. I'm referring to these LRM crabs, a Raven with 1 Medium and 1 Pulse, a light with a standard Engine because it survives more hits wat? How exactly are these viable.

Edited by Saxie, 04 September 2015 - 12:07 PM.

[Uncle Totty]

Saxie, on 04 September 2015 - 12:06 PM, said:

What exactly do you think I'm referring to, stop placing thoughts in my head. If you are confused about something I said ASK. Don't jump to conclusions. I'm referring to these LRM crabs, a Raven with 1 Medium and 1 Pulse, a light with a standard Engine because it survives more hits wat? How exactly are these viable.

Yeah, reading this made me cringe.

Sorry, some people have been talking smack about my x6 C-MPLaser, x2 C-SRM6 Timber Wolf. Saying "It's not meta, you must get meta to get good."

Edited by Nathan K, 04 September 2015 - 12:24 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

I like being a solo in CW.

It lets me bring my Awesomes, Panthers, and Vindicators and rake in 8-12 kills and 2000-2500 damage because there is no MM and the odds are ever in my favor.

[Armando]

Nathan K, on 04 September 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

Yeah, reading this made me cringe.

Sorry, some people have been talking smack about my x6 C-MPLaser, x2 C-SRM6 Timber Wolf. Saying "It's not meta, you must get meta to get good."

It's not meta...it takes FAR more than a meta mech to 'get good'.

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 04 September 2015 - 01:25 PM, said:

I like being a solo in CW.

It lets me bring my Awesomes, Panthers, and Vindicators and rake in 8-12 kills and 2000-2500 damage because there is no MM and the odds are ever in my favor.

I have seen your play in CW....you are NOT a 'solo' player. You are a well above average pilot and even when you PUG drop in CW you know how to work with your teammates.

Edited by Armando, 04 September 2015 - 01:48 PM.

[BitXer0]

This topic is elitist, but the conversations here have brought up some great points and some meaningful conversations.

1) Should solo players be allowed in CW?

Without question. Not every unit can form a twelve man and not every unit twelve man plays better than a 12 man of pug players. CW like the rest of MWO comes down to teamwork. That doesn't mean that other things don't effect it, like mech load-outs and pilot skill, but without great teamwork it would be tough to win a match regardless of how skilled your pilots are.

On the other hand, it might make some sense not to allow cadets to join CW, or have them go through a tutorial first in order to open CW. This may also help newer players gently wade through CW's treacherous water without being too overwhelmed, thus encouraging them to continue rather than quitting that mode all together out of frustration.

There is also a responsibility by the units, but also by the community in general, to welcome new players. If we don't continue to get new players or our frustration causes others to quit, then we are only sabotaging our MWO gaming experience, which may lead to longer queue times and stagnant competition.

2) Should trial mechs be allowed in CW?

Of course! Some people don't have the resources or time to acquire all the mechs in the game. So, for example, if someone wants to take a clan contract and primarily has inner sphere mechs there should be an option for them to still experience CW in that fashion. That's where trials come in. That being said, quite a few of the trials had rather "interesting" load-outs and I think PGI has been doing the right thing by gathering community input about their load-outs as it helps to make these chassis more competitive.

That being said, honestly I don't really care what load-out anyone brings to CW or any other match. Metas change and teamwork still trumps load-outs so if your load-out works for you and your piloting style, then go for it. For those of you going around telling players to change their "horrible load-outs", why not be a better community member and educate the player through constructive criticism or mentor them on how to make more suitable load-outs for CW, rather than excoriating them.

Alternatively, one could also turn this argument around and state that extremely large units are ruining CW as they have enough members to continually drop 12-man groups until whatever planet they want is controlled. In any case community warfare is still a work in progress and as stated on the site, still in beta. PGI has been looking for ways to engage lone wolves and smaller groups more effectively. With the upcoming addition of scouting missions, tutorials, better role warfare tweaks and other objectives we may soon see more people on CW, which should be the ultimate goal if you enjoy playing it and wish to do so more often.