1151 replies to this topic

[TheStrider]

EpicWarlord, on 05 September 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

By high end meta, you mean the BMMU players weren't running Lrms?

TBR, TBR, ACH, SCR, ACH, HBR, ACH (You), BJ. (Actually screenshot thge EOR for that one)

I'll admit I was making assumptions... Though based on observation.

Also I will note, one of those didn't have your tag, so that may have been a 7 man. Performance was on par with your group though.

Edited by TheStrider, 06 September 2015 - 02:27 PM.

[Lazor Sharp]

Why, O Lord WHY, is this UNIT / TEAM based game, Plagued with such a high % of SOLO/RAMBO/MORN/CoD Mindset Only players, and the totally anty-social players, and the Ultra Casual can't be bothered to do anything, but play solo, or with a friend or 2 in the small group Hell.....?

Why, O why, is a TEAM game, not totally full of 6 to 12 man GROUPS's ALL THE TIME, (even if they are from different units) who play as a TEAM, so these 2-3 man groups don't see the #'s of stomping Hell they do now.....?

Why O Why, is not every Incentive Possible given to this Largest Group of players, to join other small to meduim size units, so that newbies can be trained by all the other Vets, in a 10-12 man group that can carry them, so they learn how to play as a TEAM from the very start, and NEVER Develop the SOLO/RAMBO/MORON/CoD, gotta play Ultra Casual ONLY Mindset......?

WHY, O WHY PGI, is this UNIT / TEAM based game, not Really Truly a UNIT / TEAM based game played as a TEAM, by the vast majority of its player base.......?

Edited by Lazor Sharp, 06 September 2015 - 04:18 PM.

[Kjudoon]

You're new to gamer life arent you? Gamers ar usually anti social and individualistic. That is why. And a team does not mean unified or grouped or friends. It means you have agreed to play with a set of other individuals for the duration of the game.

Are there problems with goals and game design and rewards? Heck yeah! But these change only very slowly if ever.

Welcome to Mechwarrior Online.

To sum up... Gamers be gamers' yo?

[Lazor Sharp]

To sum up... Gamers be gamers' yo?

well dismantle MWO for groups, and make it a solo game only.... with no units or teams, and just a 12 randoms PUG CoD fest.....
because that is close to what we have now.....

[Rayne Vickers]

Lazor Sharp, on 06 September 2015 - 04:01 PM, said:

To sum up... Gamers be gamers' yo?

well dismantle MWO for groups, and make it a solo game only.... with no units or teams, and just a 12 randoms PUG CoD fest.....
because that is close to what we have now.....

How about we don't swing wildly and randomly to either extreme, and we try to include everyone? Hmm?

[Lazor Sharp]

yea I know... just trying to make a point

[Kjudoon]

Swing and a miss then on the redacto in absurdum.
This game should have been developed as a PvE multiplayer first but could not get the financial backing. So now we are backing into what should have been done first.

If you want to be all social there are many things for that. This is not stompy robot facebook.

[Rayne Vickers]

Kjudoon, on 06 September 2015 - 04:25 PM, said:

Swing and a miss then on the redacto in absurdum.
This game should have been developed as a PvE multiplayer first but could not get the financial backing. So now we are backing into what should have been done first.

If you want to be all social there are many things for that. This is not stompy robot facebook.

I agree that it should've had PvE from the get-go. However saying "it's not for social" is bullcrap. EVERY "MMO" style game has grounds for social, has always had them, and always WILL have them. In today's fully connected, always-jacked-in world, you have to allow for social concerns, or your game fails.

[Lazor Sharp]

YES should of had PvE first...! so perhaps the game can develop the PvE aspect soon.....


But a team based game, needs Many different Units to form Teams, and play in the largest groups possible 6 to 12mans at all times, to fulfill the Team based game aspect of a true Muilty Player Teams game, vs just another SOLO CoD FPS game. The Lone 2-3 mans should be few, and primarily established unit members that don't have a crew on at that time........!

Solo Q is needed for all the stated reasons elsewhere.... i have not said this Q is not needed, but its % of player base should be much lower than it is now, the Group Q and the CW Q should be the end game for the majority of players with a higher % rate, and not Solo Q or 2-3 man friends getting stomped cause they don't have a unit to play with to make up the difference until they learn the rope's and learn how to play as a team to start with, and not Solo Rambo CoD baby's to start with in the solo Q, or in the 2-3man's Friends Hell group size.......

Edited by Lazor Sharp, 06 September 2015 - 05:12 PM.

[Rayne Vickers]

Lazor Sharp, on 06 September 2015 - 04:52 PM, said:

YES should of had PvE first...! so perhaps the game can develop the PvE aspect soon.....


But a team based game, needs Many different Units to form Teams, and play in the largest groups possible 6 to 12mans at all times, to fulfill the Team based game aspect of a true Muilty Player Teams game, vs just another SOLO CoD FPS game. The Lone 2-3 mans should be few, and primarily established unit members that don't have a crew on at that time........!

Solo Q is needed for all the stated reasons elsewhere.... i have not said this Q is not needed, but its % of player base should be much lower than it is now, the Group Q and the CW Q should be the end game for the majority of players with a higher % rate, and not Solo Q or 2-3 man friends getting stomped cause they don't have a unit to play with to make up the difference until they learn the rope's and learn how to play as a team to start with, and not Solo Rambo CoD baby's to start with in the solo Q.......

I think you misunderstand what the Solo Queue is for. I'm primarily a solo player, by necessity, not necessarily by desire (I prefer small-squad tactic combat). I am not, nor have ever been a "Solo Rambo CoD baby" I've played exactly one CoD game in my life, and that was CoD2 on X360 when the console first came out, and only the SP campaign. My point being, you're making sweeping generalities that aren't necessarily true. Also, it ignores the fact that a lot of players (me included) DELIBERATELY AVOID the Group Queue because of it's current state, that artificially inflates Solo Queue numbers.

Edited by Rayne Vickers, 06 September 2015 - 05:15 PM.

[Kjudoon]

If you want to drive players to join groups you will have to at best incentivize it at worst penalize solo play. Right now there is no in game benefit to not play solo. In fact, due to the current group queue many of us if not most of us solo players left the groups because the play was so bad due to imbalance of psr nee elo averaging and the hardcore tryhards evs uating the crap pile called cw.

I would rather play co op PvE every single time and if what they develop for that is good, you will never see me in pvp again.

My point is you might wish it was a lower percentage, but that is a wish because it matches the nature of the gamer community at large.

[Lazor Sharp]

I am all For Full PvE Missions etc.... want them bad, but PvP for teams and Lore needs to be about Units, / House's / Mercs that are Teams that fight for common things, etc, etc, as posted elsewhere, and all the social aspects of that interaction....Make PVP the Focus of that Lore and Team based game aspect, and PvE solo and 4 man Co-Op the focus of the Solo / Casual Q aspect...... also a Solaris VII mode would help a lot....!

Edited by Lazor Sharp, 06 September 2015 - 05:37 PM.

[Smugsie]

I think there should be a poll for this. I almost freaked out when my group leader told me that 4 man drops will go down actually.

Please keep MWO to 8 and 12 mans, I like going to comstar and dropping with 12 people randomly and finding good players I can queue with later. My clan also consists of 14+ people, and syncing drops with 3 groups of 4 man would be like going back to square one. I only play multiplayer games with friends and having a good time.

Please admit that MWO will never be a hardcore competitive eSport like Dota 2 or CS:GO which consist of a 4-5 player team. MWO is a large multiplayer game like Battlefield, Call of Duty, War Thunder in which there are plenty of players playing together and having fun.

I came back to MWO for 8-12 man drops after 2 years of not playing. If I wanted to play with limited friends, I'll go back to working on the 2000+ hours I have invested in CS:GO and Dota 2.

[AyyLmao228]

Some of you guys are talking that PVP should be units only, twelves and stuff. I'll surely find myself a cool huge unit but only after PGI will add massive battles like 50 vs 50 or so. But not now. Currently MWO is just a 12 vs 12 game. It's about TEAMS, not ARMIES. It's more like Team Fortress or Tribes Ascend than like EVE Online. Heart and soul of team-based MMOFPS games are small groups making thier objectives. Like capping, base defense etc. I'm playing this kind of games with my friends to perform some interesting tactics available only for small groups of people that perfectly understand each other. Not to pretend that 12 people are THE ARMY. But unlike other games of this kind, MWO unfourtunately has a lack role warfare. And I believe many of you will agree that that's one of fundamental MWO's problems. All the MWO's teamplay is now more about staying together and focusing fire than making your own specialized objectives. So that's why I perceive the play with large groups just as half-measures to keep yourself effective in conditions of imperfect matchmaking. I'm not saying that MWO doesnt need big groups or they are less important but I don't think that game is now in proper condition for so wide range of group sizes being thrown into the same MM queue. It worked much better before, when groups were divided into two-three-fours and twelves only.

[Moomtazz]

What is the range of skill? A difference of 200 or 400 average skill between teams does not tell me anything without knowing the scale. If the max skill is 1000 then you are talking a 20% or 40% difference on average skill. That would be crazy!

[50 50]

I'd like to note that dropping as a group ranging from 2 players to 6 over the weekend, we had fairly quick drops for the majority.
There were a few blow outs where we did seem to wait longer, but overall it was quite good.

There was a bit of an effort to try and spread out the mech selections in the group and we also left the game selection on for all modes and servers to help improve our chances. Seems to me that it would be easier to use an available weight for the teams instead of the 3/3/3/3.
Unfortunately didn't record any times to get some sort of metrics.

We did encounter some fairly hefty opposition where our entire team was wiped out very efficiently which made me think that the skill difference was substantial for those matches.
Also had some quite tight games which were very enjoyable.
So still a mixed bag there and I feel that's more to do with being able to fight against opposition 2 tiers above or below instead of just 1 level of difference.

[Lunatic_Asylum]

1. I was a fan of the 8-man groups, but inasmuch as the newer maps feel much bigger, reducing the number of players from 12 will hurt the gameplay. Also, Imagine how bad it would be to have a 19.1kmph Stalker, 171.1kmph Commando, Cicada and Hellbringer in one team. There is no sense in decreasing the number of players in a group. Maybe we can even add 2 more for the larger maps (Alpine, Forest, and River).
2. The queue waiting time and overall matchmaking sorting is perfect at the moment. The only problem is that people should more often go to CW.
3. Do not prevent tier 1 from fighting along tier 5 when PSR comes in effect.
4. Add visible PSR to everyone. Press "Q" to see it in the game.
5. The waiting time is low. Check games like Age of Conan where one minigame takes 1-2 hours to pop up. This game is in perfect shape.
6. The balancing is perfect.

Keep up the great work, and we will send you money! :-)

Edited by Lunatic_Asylum, 06 September 2015 - 08:51 PM.

[Davers]

The only thing I wish to add is my great disappointment. We launched over a year ago and PGI is still recycling unpopular ideas. It's obvious they have no idea how to balance the weight classes or group sizes.

[Magna Canus]

Russ Bullock, on 03 September 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

Well this is precisely what 1/1/1/1 is across the board.

So your just saying to keep all group sizes as it is now but put the 1's throughout.

This could be a viable first option but it sounds many dislike that aspect as much as anything.

Hi Russ,
I would much more preferr a dynamic 4x1 setup than being limited to only 4 people. It sucks for the 5th guy to be the odd man out, plain and simple, no way around that. I really would like to continue playing MWO, but when I have to choose between excluding friends from drops or playing a different game then option 2 will always win.
Something somewhere has to give. At least one Q has to be "put on your big boy pants". Pick one and stick to it please. Solo Q is "casual", sounds like group Q will become more casual as well, so will CW be "big boy" or are you going to soften that up as well for casual players?

[Magna Canus]

The Near Perfect Killing Machine, on 03 September 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

The issue here in my mind is the lack of incentive players have to join units and play as actual teams. Thats why you see so few large groups in Group Queue and such a paltry CW population. Being in a unit and playing in a team has no in game benefit. There needs to be a financial or prestige based incentive to draw players into groups. Group queue and especially CW will continue to suffer as long as MWO remains a primarily solo player game.

This is an online multiplayer game. It's time to start dangling the carrot so that players more willingly join and play within units. This is a retention booster too. Half the reason folks stick with a game is due to social connections they've made within the community and the shared goals that drive unit players forward. Without a solid incentive for group play, the game has a very transient user base. Fix that issue and the group MM and CW population problems will clear up.

The greatest advantages to playing in a unit are already there; playing together with friends and limiting the number of mentally challenged on your team.
Adding a financial advantage on top will just start a storm of tears on the forum.