57 replies to this topic

[XX Sulla XX]

i do not play because...

1. Performance is worse than all the other game modes on my computer.
2. Game play insanely repetitive because of map design.
3. To much of a time investment.
4. I normally play in small groups so some times you get stuck with say 8-10 other players that are bad. In CW that makes for a long bad game. In group at least its a short bad game.
5. Rewards and objects are not geared to small groups.
6. There is just nothing I really find fun about it so I spend all my time in group matches instead.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 05 September 2015 - 11:55 AM.

[CocoaJin]

The problem with CW is that it's too restrictive. There is only one way to participate. It forces conventional engagements which places any non grouped participants at an inherit disadvantage after sitting around in a mind knumbing queue.

The match style game play means players are constantly exposed to extensive dull periods of waiting in queue, while punctuated by short-lived, chaotic engagements of uncoordinated cat herding. The current matches demand too much in the form of coordination for un-grouped, public team play, with no alternative for smaller, easier to coordinate team engagements.

CW engagements need to be more fluid, players should be able to come and go much easier and not every fight needs to be full conventional assault/defense. There needs to be skirmishes, raids, probing actions...and the triggering of these unconventional engagements need to be much more fluid and open.

We need some sand-box objective areas where the map opens, players ebb & flow in and out until the objective is completed or the area closes. It can have progressive objectives, multiple side specific/asymmetrical objectives. Being present for the completion of an objective would provide rewards without requiring you to have to stay until the map's closure. So a 3hr objective area would allow players to come and go as they see fit, contribute, feel both victories and defeats within a prolonged area engagement, leave, collect their rewards...and not have the punishment of being stuck in queue or having a lose be so definitive inspite of their efforts. Yes, there should be something lost when you lose, but it doesn't have to be so binary an experience that you feel like a loser, that the experience was all for nothing. There is away to allow for achievements even when you lose...but currently CW can't do that in its tournament style match play.

[Kodyn]

XX Sulla XX, on 04 September 2015 - 09:34 PM, said:

i do not play because...

1. Performance is worse than all the other game modes on my computer.
...

I also used to get really horrid performance on CW maps, like 5 FPS horrid. I gave up on it for probably about a year, came back, and now it runs exactly as all other modes and maps do, better than the newest two solo maps. Doesn't address your other points, but figured I'd let you know, in case you decided to give it another go.

As far as improvements, I find I'm just really enjoying CW right now during this mini-event. Been having great fights for the most part, and a lot of fun.

My chief complaints would be map design, which is a bit restrictive on options, and just downright cluttered on several maps. There's also the matter of attacker/defender imbalance on several maps, especially in the case of counter attacks. Spawn camping is still fairly easy to do for the clans vs IS on some of these maps.

The other really irritating thing I've noticed is that the friendly dropships seem to have a habit of friendly fire, to the point of even opening my back up on a couple of occasions tonight. They don't seem to really faze attacking, spawn-camping mechs, but they sure do damage to their own team.

Apart from that, I'd certainly love to see some more depth, greater rewards to make up for the time investment, and more variety, but I'm pretty sure all that's already in the pipeline, so it's probably redundant to bring up.

I'm glad that improvements have already been made, and in this case, I have faith that PGI will continue to keep working to make CW more attractive and fun for more players. These events are a great start, and hopefully the data they glean from them will help the process along even more.

[monk]

I think there are curently a few issues that plague CW and prohibit it from properly suceeding as a game mode.

1. There is no point. Right now you really have no reason to care. Other than bragging rights, there's no point to CW. There MUST be some sort of economy or another system that makes it an actual purposeful endeavor to make it work.
2. CW matches require significant time and devotion. Aside from just finding a match, the current respawn system makes the CW matches last a lot longer than most other drops in the game. You can't just quickly pop on for a CW game. It's a time investment. CW needs faster match modes (scouting drops, quick line probes, etc.) These really ought to be what our public solo and group queues are for (imo).
3. CW needs to not feel like a separate game within the game. It's kind of excluded over in it's own part of the game. Picking a faction should be something all new players do. They should be allowed to change this without too much of an issue, but right off the bat you should feel like you've joined up with one group or another and have started building loyalty to that organization. To help ensure each house/clan has enough pilots the incentive bonuses should be used. New players should realize these incentives when they are first picking thier initial faction.
4. Reards for CW need to be ample. You should WANT to get involved and realize he advantages for doing so.
5. Players ought not feel that CW is for the hard-core players. There need to be simple avenues for everyone to get involved that don't feel exclusive or for advanced players. You shouldn't need a drop deck to get started. From your first match after the academy, you ought to feel like you're a valued piece in your faction's war machine.

Edited by monk, 05 September 2015 - 01:44 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Khobai, on 04 September 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

thered be a max of one group of upto four players per team. sync dropping multiple groups in the same game would be impossible. And by combining all the queues into CW there would presumably be enough players that it would be very difficult to drop a group of four and a bunch of solo players at the same time and have them end up in the same game.



No it would reduce the total number of queues. Youd be removing the following 6 queues: solo assault, solo conquest, solo skirmish and group assault, group conquest, and group skirmish. The only queues youd have left would be CW queues.

The benefit of making the max group size 4 with a max of one group per game is that you dont have to have seperate queues for groups anymore. CW drops would just consist of primarily solo players with a max of one group of upto 4 players per team.

Yeah.... No. We went up in arms trying to remove the ridiculous 4 players max size restriction, because it was silly, and penalized people. Have you never played with a group, and had a fifth guy come online to play with you, only to have to tell him that there is no room? No. Plus, it's a mode geared towards units, and groups. I see literally no reason why group size should be restricted to 4.

Especially since the massive majority of groups in CW are 4-6 mans, and 12 mans are less than 1% of the CW matches.

Removing the public queue is an idea that I've contemplated myself, and seen it mentioned before. I think it would have the negative impact of worsening the new player experience, and actually causing many people to leave the game, because the public queue is where most casual players go. Ideally, the game should have both the public queues, and CW, not one or the other.

Not to mention that you will have to allow synch drops, because there will be times when the only people queued up on a planet are unit players. By the way. This still doesn't stop 12 solo players synch dropping on a planet.

Khobai, on 04 September 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

I think you misunderstood what I meant by unlocking planets. Basically the way it works now when you capture planet A you can then capture any planets that planet A is linked to. With my idea, it would work the same exact way, except before you can attack any of the planets that planet A is linked to, youd first have to engage in a serious of "recon" missions to unlock the link. The recon missions would be standard assault, conquest, skirmish gamemodes.

So when you capture planet A, and planet A is linked to planets B and C, instead of automatically being linked to those planets, you'd first have to engage in recon missions on either planet B or C to establish a link to planet A before you can start the process capture them.

This would limit attack routes more and force factions to plan out their attack routes better.

I'm pretty sure the way it works right now is that you have a window of a few hours to capture one planet from faction A, when that window is done, and you own more than half of it, it flips to your side, and with the start of the next window, you can capture ONE adjacent planet. So over the course of a day, you get a max of 3 planets or so from a faction.

Your suggestion basically adds more matches before we get to attacking a planet. However, it doesn't address what I brought up earlier. What are you going to do when my unit decides to drop all it's weight on those recon missions, and unlock all 3 planets adjacent to planet A, and then cap them? We'd be capturing planets at a faster rate.

Unless all your suggestion is about just adding a few matches before we can attack the next planet. Because the way it's phrased right now, it sounds like I can unlock all planets adjacent to the one I just captured, and take them all in one fell swoop, if I have the manpower. Instead of 1 planet per cycle.

Khobai, on 04 September 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

A lot of those problems are due to a lack of proper command tools. PGI mentioned in the past the idea of having a command wheel which would allow a commander to quickly issue orders to friendly mechs on their teams. But also they mentioned adding hotkey macros to the game so you could quickly communicate vital information to your teammates and have it automatically input variables like your target or your current grid location.

Plus one of the aforementioned pilot skill trees would be a command skill tree whos entire role would be to help coordinate your team with special command equipment and modules.

Except the hotkey macros, and the command wheel, are both practically unnecessary, when we have voice comms, and are communicating at the speed of sound. Which is faster than me typing a message, or macroing one, and relying on the off chance that my teammates actually see the text pop up on their screen, and read it.

The command wheel would have been awesome, before we got VoIP. Now, it's gonna be practically redundant.

I still like the idea of these skill trees buffing your mech's role, and I think that idea needs to get fleshed out.

However, I will say that you are mistaken in saying the only role is damage. Scouting is still very much a role that we have in CW.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 05 September 2015 - 09:53 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Yeah.... No. We went up in arms trying to remove the ridiculous 4 players max size restriction, because it was silly, and penalized people. Have you never played with a group, and had a fifth guy come online to play with you, only to have to tell him that there is no room? No

Russ is the one that suggested lowering max group size back down to 4. Because matchmaker has difficulty balancing large groups.

I would rather have balanced matches and have to tell that fifth guy "no" than have unbalanced matches. So if max group size of four gets us balanced matches im all for it.

And nothing would be preventing you from making custom games in the lobby that could support upto two groups of 12. But allowing large groups to continue pugstomping is unacceptable.

Quote

Except the hotkey macros, and the command wheel, are both practically unnecessary, when we have voice comms,

A lot of people dont use voice comms though. Or they ignore them because theyre listening to music.

Plus I think psychologically theres a huge difference between someone telling you to do something on voice comms vs actually being issued orders through a command interface and having those orders appear on your map. I think players would be far more likely to follow orders if the latter existed.

So I disagree I think a command wheel and hotkey macros, if done right, would be much more successful than voice comms for pugs.

Edited by Khobai, 05 September 2015 - 03:27 PM.

[Livewyr]

Khobai, on 04 September 2015 - 08:00 AM, said:

These are the changes id like to see to CW:

1) get rid of large groups entirely. Make max group size 4 with 1/1/1/1 enforced. Max one group per team. PGI has already suggested doing this because balancing large groups is pretty much impossible and any game with a large group in it deteriorates into a pugstomp.

2) integrate ALL current gamemodes and maps into CW. Assault, conquest, and skirmish queues should just be fully integrated into CW and should no longer be seperate queues. All games played should contribute to CW. And by reducing the number of queues you reduce the wait times considerably too.

3) assault, skirmish, conquest would be like "recon" gamemodes for unlocking planets for your faction to attack. Once a planet is unlocked it could progress to the next stage (see below)

4) add a new game mode: dropship defense. when attackers first land on a planet they need to defend their dropship in order to progress to the invasion stage. If the attackers fail to defend their dropship then they must repeat this gamemode until they successfully defend their dropship. If they succeed then the next game played in the same slot becomes an invasion game and winning an invasion game would gain control of that slot of the planet.

5) add actual role warfare to the game so lights and mediums have more important roles to play in CW. The easiest way to do this is pilot skill trees: have at least three pilot skill trees and players have to choose one of them before each match (the three trees could be like: recon/pursuit, strike/assault, command/support)


These changes would accomplish THREE major things. First it would make the game more accessible to casuals and solo players by getting rid of pugstomping. It would also shorten queue times considerably. Secondly it would add much more variation to the gamemodes in CW making it way less repetitive. Youd have 6 potential gamemodes instead of only 2 gamemodes. Lastly it would add actual role warfare to the game which has been needed for a long time to help lights and mediums.

#2-5, ok.

#1- Are you out of your mind?

A: This is a team game.
B: I would like to play, from time to time at least, with a team that I *know* isn't bringing LRM Warhawks that fire into walls the whole damned game. (I don't mind losing, I hate losing because of window lickers that I cannot keep out off of my team.)

Absotively, Posilutely, No.

Leave the pug requirement to the pug queue.

(EDIT: Russ was talking about bringing the max group size down to 4, for the group queue... also dumb because the group queue was made because the 4man limit in the main queue proved to be too small.)

Edited by Livewyr, 05 September 2015 - 03:34 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Khobai, on 05 September 2015 - 03:15 PM, said:

Russ is the one that suggested lowering max group size back down to 4. Because matchmaker has difficulty balancing large groups.

I would rather have balanced matches and have to tell that fifth guy "no" than have unbalanced matches. So if max group size of four gets us balanced matches im all for it.

And nothing would be preventing you from making custom games in the lobby that could support upto two groups of 12. But allowing large groups to continue pugstomping is unacceptable.

1- You should have realized since the term "matchmaker" popped into the conversation, that Russ was talking about public queues, not CW. CW has NO matchmaker. Russ in fact was talking about the PSR matchmaker having trouble giving groups matches in a fast enough fashion, due to the massive PSR range between the players.

2- How are these large group matches organized in the public lobby, going to affect CW? You're basically going into the mode designed specifically for units, and telling them to get out and play in a different yard. I'm sorry, from a moral standpoint, I have to object to that.

3- Most stomps, in fact, that massively overwhelming majority of stomps in CW, are not large groups, we're talking 4-6. Those are the larges portion of the group population. So it's not large groups doing the stomping. If I were to be brutally honest, it's disorganized players that refuse to work together, getting stomped, and it would have been the same if they faced 12 pugs that worked together.

Or, as is the case in many matches I've seen, they ended up with a ringer on the enemy team. In CW, there is no Elo to save people, by letting them face only players of a similar skill level. In CW, a tier 5 player could end up against a tier 1 player, and I've seen good players mow down a lance or two, in one mech. Simply because there is such a massive skill gap.

Khobai, on 05 September 2015 - 03:15 PM, said:

A lot of people dont use voice comms though. Or they ignore them because theyre listening to music.

They're dumb for not even listening to voice comms, and they shouldn't be listening to music in a CW match, where everyone knows that orders are going to be issued over comms. There's a difference between helping out players that are suffering from a handicap, and trying to make the system work for people being intentionally stupid. I have no problem with the former, but I take a major issue with the latter.

Khobai, on 05 September 2015 - 03:15 PM, said:

Plus I think psychologically theres a huge difference between someone telling you to do something on voice comms vs actually being issued orders through a command interface and having those orders appear on your map. I think players would be far more likely to follow orders if the latter existed.

So I disagree I think a command wheel and hotkey macros, if done right, would be much more successful than voice comms for pugs.

I completely disagree, but this has become a matter of opinion. You think it would be better, I don't think so at all. On the other hand, neither one of us objects to adding a command wheel.

[Kilo 40]

Kira_Onime, on 04 September 2015 - 06:37 AM, said:

CW Beta3 said to start around October.

actually Russ now says they are "busting ass to make it 2015". so it now looks like december....maybe.

Edited by Kilo 40, 05 September 2015 - 08:19 PM.

[Yokaiko]

Khobai, on 05 September 2015 - 03:15 PM, said:

Russ is the one that suggested lowering max group size back down to 4. Because matchmaker has difficulty balancing large groups.

I would rather have balanced matches and have to tell that fifth guy "no" than have unbalanced matches. So if max group size of four gets us balanced matches im all for it.

Last time they did that I saw my unit participation drop from over 40 online at a time to not being able to fill an 8 man.

No, just no.

**** the snowflakes.

[Kilo 40]

Yokaiko, on 05 September 2015 - 08:21 PM, said:

**** the snowflakes.

the snowflakes are the mediocre, or just plain bad, players who can't play outside of large groups. they're the ones who had the artificially high ELOs, based off of pug stomping and and the crutch of surrounding themselves with better players.

[Khobai]

Quote

#1- Are you out of your mind?

nope im not. look at other similar games: world of tanks: max group size is 3. war thunder: max group size is 4.

group size is restricted in those other games for very good reason: large groups are impossible to balance in games like this. And MWO needs to follow suit when it comes to limiting group sizes.

Quote

A: This is a team game.
B: I would like to play, from time to time at least, with a team that I *know* isn't bringing LRM Warhawks that fire into walls the whole damned game

1) world of tanks and war thunder are team games too. having pugs on your team doesnt suddenly make them not team games.
2) No what you want is to gain an advantage by not having a pug on your team so you can pugstomp the other team. Which is exactly what shouldnt be allowed.

Quote

You should have realized since the term "matchmaker" popped into the conversation, that Russ was talking about public queues, not CW. CW has NO matchmaker

The fact CW has no matchmaker is part of the whole problem. Its why you see roflstomps happen so often in CW. The only way to ensure CW has proper matchmaking is to disallow large groups.

Quote

Last time they did that I saw my unit participation drop from over 40 online at a time to not being able to fill an 8 man.

I see nothing wrong with that. In fact one of the other things Russ has discussed is reducing max unit size to 50-100 players. So units that can have 40+ people on at once can no longer completely dominate CW.

Besides if the primary motivation for why your unit's members play is to form large groups and pugstomp then were better off without them anyway.

Edited by Khobai, 05 September 2015 - 10:06 PM.

[Yokaiko]

Khobai, on 05 September 2015 - 09:46 PM, said:

nope im not. look at other similar games: world of tanks: max group size is 3. war thunder: max group size is 4.

group size is restricted in those other games for very good reason: large groups are impossible to balance in games like this. And MWO needs to follow suit when it comes to limiting group sizes.




1) world of tanks and war thunder are team games too. having pugs on your team doesnt suddenly make them not team games.
2) No what you want is to gain an advantage by not having a pug on your team so you can pugstomp the other team. Which is exactly what shouldnt be allowed.




The fact CW has no matchmaker is part of the whole problem. Its why you see roflstomps happen so often in CW. The only way to ensure CW has proper matchmaking is to disallow large groups.



I see nothing wrong with that. In fact one of the other things Russ has discussed is reducing max unit size to 50-100 players. So units that can have 40+ people on at once can no longer completely dominate CW.

Besides if the primary motivation for why your unit's members play is to form large groups and pugstomp then were better off without them anyway.

Yeah, the games population numbers support that? Don't they. This game has only succeeded despite PGI, not because of them, and playing with people is about all that makes it tolerable.

The value placed on the solo whiners is one of the reasons that calling it a community here in MWO land is a frigging joke the game is barely at a 1995 level of social support, which is a bad thing for a multi-player online game with NO solo mode.

[Yokaiko]

Kilo 40, on 05 September 2015 - 09:46 PM, said:

the snowflakes are the mediocre, or just plain bad, players who can't play outside of large groups. they're the ones who had the artificially high ELOs, based off of pug stomping and and the crutch of surrounding themselves with better players.

Oh that is why there is always screaming that the "Awesome solo players" don't stand a chance against a team, ANY team. You win some you lose some, I play primarily solo because I live in Japan, most of my game time is when my friends in game are asleep because its 4am

[Kilo 40]

Yokaiko, on 05 September 2015 - 10:20 PM, said:

Oh that is why there is always screaming that the "Awesome solo players" don't stand a chance against a team, ANY team.

it's cute that you think being on a team makes someone a good player.

Quote

I play primarily solo because I live in Japan, most of my game time is when my friends in game are asleep because its 4am

cool story bro

[Yokaiko]

Kilo 40, on 05 September 2015 - 10:29 PM, said:

it's cute that you think being on a team makes someone a good player.

No it DOES make them a team player in a competitive arena shooter.

So better, yes.

[Kilo 40]

Yokaiko, on 05 September 2015 - 10:38 PM, said:

No it DOES make them a team player in a competitive arena shooter.

Pug or group, you are still a team player in a *cough* "competitive" arena shooter.

Quote

So better, yes.

lol!

[Yokaiko]

Kilo 40, on 05 September 2015 - 10:41 PM, said:

Pug or group, you are still a team player in a *cough* "competitive" arena shooter.



lol!

If that point flew over your head there isn't much I can do for you, there is no solo mode.

[Kilo 40]

Yokaiko, on 05 September 2015 - 10:42 PM, said:

If that point flew over your head there isn't much I can do for you, there is no solo mode.

where did I say there was a solo mode?

as for your point, I know what your point is, the problem is that it's just not true.

[Kjudoon]

One change i would like to see is making loyalty points spendable allowing you to buy ranks and mech bays and everything else currently offered in the bonuses for loyalty.