46 replies to this topic

[sycocys]

Fierostetz, on 12 October 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

If as much effort went into self improvement as goes into finding ways to nerf other people (that spent the time and effort to improve in the first place) everyone would be a whole lot better at the game, and these suggestions wouldn't be needed.

Another true story.

[crustydog]

AUSSIETROOPER4, on 12 October 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

I suggest this action at least until the population increases with steam release to encourage fairer team distribution. If you are in a team of 12 and vs broken teams of smaller groups your income should reflect the level of hardness this represents. I.E. Because it is easier the income should be less.

My first reaction to this suggestion was "HELL NO..." but then I did do some thinking on it - The earnings per player in a 12 man are not that great overall - but then again, the 12 man teams are usually made up of experienced and well equipped players in the first place - and, to be frank, their need for C-Bills is not that great.

I am not saying nerf the earnings of the 12 mans - but perhaps a solo player earnings bonus instead? Driving solo it is extremely difficult to earn decent C-Bills when facing 12 mans - and the solo populated teams do tend to have far higher numbers of newer players, driving trial gear, or certainly non-optimized equipment. It is not uncommon for newer players to have drastically lower incomes, especially during CW matches, and yet these are the very players for whom the C-Bills provide the greatest good.

As a newer solo player - driving your first fully optimized Thunderbolt 5SS can be a truly game changing experience. It was for me.

I often think that players forget that after the initial income surge for newer players - once they complete their first 25 matches, their income drops away almost to nothing. When they have to play CW, they are forced to do so in trial decks - and if any of you think that is fun, then I suggest you try it out for yourselves - that, more than anything, will help to communicate the plight of the newer player in MWO.

Severe grind without reward is the plague of this game - it is the greatest factor in limiting our new player retention rate, IMHO. Without a stable and growing player population, where will we be? In the trash bin with all of the other titles.

[Siegegun]

Except we are not talking about CW crustydog (which I assume is what you ARE talking about). We are talking about the group que where solo players are not currently allowed. There is no solo vs. a 12 man in group que, there are only groups vs. groups. This "suggestion" the OP makes is an attempt to balance the terrible, 12 man vs. combined small groups. CW has no bearing on this.

The terrible 12 man being what MechWarrior's tell their children about to make them behave. "Now Timmy, if you do not calm down and go to sleep, you will find yourself facing a 12 man in group que!"... "The horrible 12 man eats children Timmy, and if you do not sleep now when you grow up you will face 12 man teams ALL THE TIME! EVERY DAMN DAY TIMMY! DO NOT BE LIKE YOUR FATHER, EVERY DAY I DROP IN GROUP QUE AND ITS ALWAYS A 12 MAN!". Except... it isn't.

[Lykaon]

AUSSIETROOPER4, on 12 October 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

I suggest this action at least until the population increases with steam release to encourage fairer team distribution. If you are in a team of 12 and vs broken teams of smaller groups your income should reflect the level of hardness this represents. I.E. Because it is easier the income should be less.

Let's just stop bleeding grouping to death a little nick at a time and just slit it's throat already.

Remove grouping entirely.

Eventually the puggie mob will get it's way as they always seem to so let's not waste any more time and unconditionally surrender to the puggie majority.

As it stands now nearly every demand made by the puggies and caved to by the development team has screwed grouping players in one way or another.

Any "improvement" in puggie matches has come at the expense of group matches and that is essentially fact.

So let's just stop with the death of a thousand cuts already.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Night Thastus, on 12 October 2015 - 05:47 AM, said:

No thanks. The grind is bad enough. If we have to nerf groups a little by tonnage, fine, but hell no to C-bill losses. Then no one would ever run in a group at all.

The guys looking for easy wins would continue to do it

[TWIAFU]

Lykaon, on 12 October 2015 - 12:32 PM, said:

Let's just stop bleeding grouping to death a little nick at a time and just slit it's throat already.

Remove grouping entirely.

Eventually the puggie mob will get it's way as they always seem to so let's not waste any more time and unconditionally surrender to the puggie majority.

As it stands now nearly every demand made by the puggies and caved to by the development team has screwed grouping players in one way or another.

Any "improvement" in puggie matches has come at the expense of group matches and that is essentially fact.

So let's just stop with the death of a thousand cuts already.

I understand your frustration, I really do.

I came here from a game that was group based and it was ruined, literally ruined by the solo. Since the game was designed and difficulty set based upon a group, solo found it to hard even with difficulty settings customized just for them, the solo.

So, DEVs listened and made everything easy for solo play. Hardest content on hardest setting was now made into a cakewalk. Grouping was now pointless as difficulty now set for solo play, even as content still designed for groups.

During my 10 years playing, slowly, methodically, the game was set upon by anti-social solo's, and year after year, update after update, the game was continually chipped away making it into basically Chutes and Ladders without the Ladders. It is now a comical shell of what it once was.

The same thing is starting to happen here and going to fight against another group and teamowor based game ruined by people that cannot nor will not play with others.

I hope you and other will join in the fight.

[AUSSIETROOPER4]

Certainly the point is to break up the larger groups when they are facing sets of smaller ones. Pgi have already pleaded with the large 8-12 man groups to so this and it has not happened.
My next suggestion would be that if a 12 man drops against a smaller set of groups that the match maker splits the 12 man across the two sides until the group breakup is even again.

[Davers]

AUSSIETROOPER4, on 12 October 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

I suggest this action at least until the population increases with steam release to encourage fairer team distribution. If you are in a team of 12 and vs broken teams of smaller groups your income should reflect the level of hardness this represents. I.E. Because it is easier the income should be less.

[Suggestion] Get more friends, or have all your friends join a larger unit. Problem solved and no one has to lose Cbills.

[ColourfulConfetti]

Lmao, playing with a group is the only reason I stayed around as long as I did. In other words, this is a brilliant idea, let's discourage dropping with an established team.

[AUSSIETROOPER4]

Davers and PalmaRoma trust me I understand how you feel. Large group co-operation is my ideal as well.
Other games that I play including World of Warships, Total War Arena and Heroes and Generals all limit squad sizes to stop the kind of PUG stomping you get in Mech. This actually takes away from the gameplay as you never REALLY get a proper army or navy and never REALLY get any real tactics or polish to your game going.
BUT I have been invited to several large groups, but when I tried some drops with 12 mans all I saw was PUG rolls. I saw how easy it was to co-ordinate against what are essentially helpless zombie balls with little or no direction. There was no competition and matches were often over in minutes with the enemy almost getting no score.
The little or no direction caused by people either not caring or the fact that there is no point to organising and leading a group of unknowns that will likely be fighting against you in the near future?

The 12 mans do get dropped against smaller splinter groups, it happens regularly and is way too easy for the 12 man groups if they are even mediocre at what they do. The population simply is not large enough for 12 mans to fight 12 mans all the time. let alone have 12 mans ranked and laddered so the best 12 mans do not face the worst. If I drop with one friend it is not uncommon for me to see 10-12 man teams on the other side.

These rules would only apply when you drop against inferior splinter groups, so I don't see why larger groups would have a problem getting split up in these situations. They then have a chance to show their small group skill at arms.

SPLIT THE LARGE GROUPS ACROSS THE SIDES ONLY WHEN THE OTHER SIDE IS NOT THE SAME GROUP MAKE UP. THIS WAY GROUP SLITS ON BOTH SIDES ARE EVEN

Once again please do not think of yourself when it comes to these rules. More think of it as bringing the population back to group queues and building up the 12 man rosters so that the rules do not split you.

To me it's just common sense, unless one wants a lop sided game against some fodder. These options I present are much better than going back to what MWO used to have. Limited to groups of 4 because of the same problem.

There is certainly no honour in a batchall of this kind

Edited by AUSSIETROOPER4, 12 October 2015 - 04:49 PM.

[Wyest]

AUSSIETROOPER4, on 12 October 2015 - 02:45 PM, said:

My next suggestion would be that if a 12 man drops against a smaller set of groups that the match maker splits the 12 man across the two sides until the group breakup is even again.

Group population is simply not high enough to ever prevent this happening. Penalising the group because someone can actually form one competently? Fast way to kill interest in group drops at all.

AUSSIETROOPER4, on 12 October 2015 - 04:29 PM, said:

These rules would only apply when you drop against inferior splinter groups, so I don't see why larger groups would have a problem getting split up in these situations. They then have a chance to show their small group skill at arms.

SPLIT THE LARGE GROUPS ACROSS THE SIDES ONLY WHEN THE OTHER SIDE IS NOT THE SAME GROUP MAKE UP. THIS WAY GROUP SLITS ON BOTH SIDES ARE EVEN

Tell you what, consider this applying to 2man drops. You are guaranteed to have your friend on the other team when you drop. Why would you group drop? Now apply that concept to 12mans. You've already admitted 12 mans rarely get to face another 12man, so you're guaranteed to have half the group on the other team most drops. Why drop as a 12? EVER? Same applies at any group level.

May as well force a 4/6 man limit on groups. You've effectively done the same thing.

Quote

Once again please do not think of yourself when it comes to these rules. More think of it as bringing the population back to group queues and building up the 12 man rosters so that the rules do not split you.

This doesn't improve the group queue at all. In fact, it's almost guaranteed to REMOVE population from it, because you cannot have a larger group without being split. So what will happen is people will start rejecting people after 6, or whatever the split limit is, instead of taking groups of any size available, because you won't end up playing with them anyway, so why bother?

Bad idea is bad.

[AUSSIETROOPER4]

"So what will happen is people will start rejecting people after 6"
That is fine with me as the population stands and is in fact greater in number than almost any other online game of this kind. WOW is 3 and Arena is 4 for instance.

I tend to think in the opposite direction to you. More along the lines of a high chance of being PUG stomped has chased population off and once people knew this was less likely to happen they would start group dropping casually again and the nucleus for a new less hard core population (but possible future hard core population) would be spurred on.

Population is already dying and lets face it. The hard core mech heads are more likely to stay with their large clans than the people who might come back if this got implemented.

There is a lot more to gain here than to lose imho and when the 12 man groups become common again the system will automatically NOT re-adjust them. Alternatively the 12 mans can remove themselves from the group queue and organise proper clan matches privately.

Edited by AUSSIETROOPER4, 12 October 2015 - 05:27 PM.

[R Razor]

Oh look, another "punish people that play a team game as a part of a team" thread............I was wondering when another would be started.

[Lazor Sharp]

if you dont want to be pug stomped, stop playing as a pugggie, and join a larger unit, and play as a 12 man coordinated unit, and quit bitchin about pug stomps in a 12 man TEAM GAME............................

Edited by Lazor Sharp, 12 October 2015 - 05:39 PM.

[Wyest]

AUSSIETROOPER4, on 12 October 2015 - 05:23 PM, said:

There is a lot more to gain here than to lose imho and when the 12 man groups become common again the system will automatically NOT re-adjust them.

So, how will these 12mans reform later on? Because you need a critical mass of 12mans formed at the same time to not be penalised. Without that, the penalty is still there, which screws with your group. No point in making a penalised group. So nobody will do it.

That's not taking into account the mechanics of the splitting a 3/3/3/3 group without chancing one side being given the better dominant mechs or pilots (even if everyone's T1 and running the same meta, it's still never going to balance properly).

Remains a bad and poorly thought out idea.

PGI had a better idea with changing the limits on group drops to tonnage and giving more flexibility to smaller groups than large. At least that includes a carrot for the small groups instead of penalising the larger ones.

Oh, and the biggest issue I have with the other games you mentioned with group size limits: Bad gameplay due to team stupidity and lack of coordination. It's why I stopped playing WoWS.

[crustydog]

Siegegun, on 12 October 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

Except we are not talking about CW crustydog (which I assume is what you ARE talking about).

LOL you are completely right of course. I simply assumed CW because I don't play a lot of group queue myself.

My apologies - wrong thread:)

[Khobai]

they should just make max group size 4 with a max of one group per team to prevent sync drops. lol

then matchmaker could actually balance groups

[Mudhutwarrior]

I would think in the other direction. Have a bonus for group play with multipliers from 2 to 12 man. The larger the group the better the bonus. Use it only in group and CW. of course. The bonus would only apply if you dropped against the same size group. This would go a long way to slow down farming and increase team competition.

Of course none of this matters because I have found the top tier players to be the same as in any other Human Hierarchy. The goal is not really to get better but suppress others from diluting the income stream and maintain control. Many examples of this throughout the forums. Biggest of all would be anyone mentions cheating, Macros, sync drops or graphics tweaks. You never see top players give away how to, only tell you it doesn't exist in this game. Off course we all really know it does exist and is rampant across tier one and two. How do you think they got there?

[AUSSIETROOPER4]

Lazor Sharp, on 12 October 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

if you dont want to be pug stomped, stop playing as a pugggie, and join a larger unit, and play as a 12 man coordinated unit, and quit bitchin about pug stomps in a 12 man TEAM GAME............................

I have already mentioned that I had done that with various groups and found it boring and too easy because all too often the enemy was not organised or a 12 man.

[AUSSIETROOPER4]

Wyest, on 12 October 2015 - 06:53 PM, said:

So, how will these 12mans reform later on? Because you need a critical mass of 12mans formed at the same time to not be penalised. Without that, the penalty is still there, which screws with your group. No point in making a penalised group. So nobody will do it.

That's not taking into account the mechanics of the splitting a 3/3/3/3 group without chancing one side being given the better dominant mechs or pilots (even if everyone's T1 and running the same meta, it's still never going to balance properly).

Remains a bad and poorly thought out idea.

PGI had a better idea with changing the limits on group drops to tonnage and giving more flexibility to smaller groups than large. At least that includes a carrot for the small groups instead of penalising the larger ones.

Oh, and the biggest issue I have with the other games you mentioned with group size limits: Bad gameplay due to team stupidity and lack of coordination. It's why I stopped playing WoWS.

Good point about the critical mass. Of course now there is no critical mass as it is anyway.
Also agreed about the other games limiting group numbers. It's a bad compromise. My suggestion at least allows full groups and full group vs full group would not be penalised.

Mudhutwarrior, on 13 October 2015 - 02:00 AM, said:

I would think in the other direction. Have a bonus for group play with multipliers from 2 to 12 man. The larger the group the better the bonus. Use it only in group and CW. of course. The bonus would only apply if you dropped against the same size group. This would go a long way to slow down farming and increase team competition.

Of course none of this matters because I have found the top tier players to be the same as in any other Human Hierarchy. The goal is not really to get better but suppress others from diluting the income stream and maintain control. Many examples of this throughout the forums. Biggest of all would be anyone mentions cheating, Macros, sync drops or graphics tweaks. You never see top players give away how to, only tell you it doesn't exist in this game. Off course we all really know it does exist and is rampant across tier one and two. How do you think they got there?

Wow. Is this just conspiracy theory or is it for real. I do not often visit the forums you see.