949 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

Fen Tetsudo, on 09 January 2016 - 02:20 PM, said:

That doesn't follow. AllOfASudden you are concerned about what's fair to the new players? Because your position appears to be:

1) spawncamping newbies in trial mechs = fair
2) PGI giving newbies trial mechs = not fair

That's not consistent.

1) spawncamping newbies in trial mechs = fair, but lame. Unfortunately it is the by-product of a not well thought out or developed game mode.
2) PGI giving newbies trial mechs and allowing those mechs in CW = not fair to the newbies.

I hope that clears up my position. Both are consistent in my belief that PGI dropped the ball on this.

Fen Tetsudo, on 09 January 2016 - 02:20 PM, said:

Maybe we are arguing past each other because we aren't even on the same sheet of paper here. Tell me, as a veteran player do you have ANY responsibility to cultivate the new player base? I'm assuming you would think its lame to create an alt T5 account just to grief newbies... am I wrong?

Responsibility? No. Desire? Yes, because I love the franchise and want to see it succeed. (But Mechwarrior succeeding and MW:O succeeding are two different things.
Creating an alt account to grief newbies is beyond lame. Griefing of ANY sort in ANY game is lame.

[AEgg]

MischiefSC, on 09 January 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

Did you read what anyone else posted?

I'm all for putting CW gamemodes and maps in pug queue. Play them all you want as a pug, against other pugs.

You can't split the queues for CW because the whole concept of CW, what CW is that is different from just being new maps/modes for pug/group queue, is that it's faction vs faction warfare.

You don't get to take a planet from faction X because you never actually fought their best players or teams. You don't get to win a war because on statistical average your faction won more curated, matchermaker protected disposable matches.

Also I drop 90% of my CW drops as a pug. I'm distinctly NOT the guy in the big unit clubbing baby seals. I do however understand the difference between what CW is and just having another gamemode in the pug queue with PSR protected matchmaking.

You don't really provide any reason we can't split the queues here.

Just because someone isn't in a group doesn't mean they are a smaller part of the faction. What it does mean is that they are at an inherent disadvantage to anyone in a group.

The way it currently works, it's entirely possible for a matchup that should be a total landslide to work out to a draw, because despite one side having vastly better group AND solo players, all the groups got matched up against solos so the results didn't really depend on player skill at all. It's much like bringing a knife to a gunfight, except we have two guns and two knives. Instead of knives against guns in one match and guns against knives in another, have each group fight within itself, it makes it much more interesting for everyone.

Having a group and a solo queue, still with no matchmaking in either, is all positive, the only exception being that we probably don't have a big enough population for it. I guess the key here is to remember that you're fighting for a faction, not for your clan (well, your unit I suppose since we can't really call clans clans in MWO without confusing them with the clan factions).

[Mystere]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 02:46 PM, said:

You don't really provide any reason we can't split the queues here.

Let me take a stab at the issue:

Mystere, on 07 January 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

Local resident on radio:

"Help! Help! We're under attack! Send the army now! These foreign barbarians are massacring the population! Help us please!"

Military Command:

"Mam, I'm afraid we cannot help you at this time. You're facing a ragtag band of enemies. But, the current rules of war dictate that we can only send an equally ragtag band. Unfortunately, our military has none, and so I guess you all just have to submit to your new masters while we try to scrounge up and arm some local peasants from a nearby planet ... Yikes! We do not have any peasants!"

Doesn't that sound insane?

CW is supposed to be a quasi simulation of war.

[MischiefSC]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 02:46 PM, said:

You don't really provide any reason we can't split the queues here.

Just because someone isn't in a group doesn't mean they are a smaller part of the faction. What it does mean is that they are at an inherent disadvantage to anyone in a group.

The way it currently works, it's entirely possible for a matchup that should be a total landslide to work out to a draw, because despite one side having vastly better group AND solo players, all the groups got matched up against solos so the results didn't really depend on player skill at all. It's much like bringing a knife to a gunfight, except we have two guns and two knives. Instead of knives against guns in one match and guns against knives in another, have each group fight within itself, it makes it much more interesting for everyone.

Having a group and a solo queue, still with no matchmaking in either, is all positive, the only exception being that we probably don't have a big enough population for it. I guess the key here is to remember that you're fighting for a faction, not for your clan (well, your unit I suppose since we can't really call clans clans in MWO without confusing them with the clan factions).

Okay, so Davion wants to take a world from Kurita.

Kurita has, in this example, 228, MS and NS all in their lineup.

However Davion takes the world because with split queues and matchmaking we get lucky in pug queues. We have more total pugs than Kurita though Kurita has a huge number of drastically better teams.

The reality is that in that situation it's not really representing a faction warfare. It's not 'the best and worst of us against the best and worst of you'. Even without a PSR consideration what you're doing is letting people avoid fighting the best of the enemy by pugging.

Make sense? If you split the queues in any way it's not 'Faction A defends its world from Faction B'. It's 'Pug queue/group queue, take a tally of the score, best score wins'. It makes even the pretext of it being a war between factions pointless as the factions are not really fighting directly, you're just setting up some exhibition matches between pugs and units, trying to make sure everyone has a fun, fair time.

We already have that. Turning CW into that is pointless.

I'm going to put it this way -

If you want to win, you have to beat the enemy. Flat out. You don't get to say 'well, I only want to fight enemies who are about my own skill' or 'I don't want to fight enemies who are better organized than me'.

If you want to win, you go out and you get good enough, coordinate good enough, build strategies and tactics and apply them to win. No hand-holding. If you want a curated game where you only fight people in your own skill range and level of organization we already have that. It's the casual matches in pug/group queue.

The whole point of CW as a separate thing is that it is NOT just new maps and modes - it's a simulation, in a game, of a war between factions. When you eliminate that aspect of it then you eliminate the point of it.

[Sandpit]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 02:46 PM, said:

You don't really provide any reason we can't split the queues here.

population
it's not needed
pub queue
private matches
it's an optional mode not required to advance anywhere in the game

I can keep going if you like.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 09 January 2016 - 02:55 PM, said:

The whole point of CW as a separate thing is that it is NOT just new maps and modes - it's a simulation, in a game, of a war between factions. When you eliminate that aspect of it then you eliminate the point of it.

Well said. And as I wrote previously, I am beginning to question the motives of people.

[AEgg]

MischiefSC, on 09 January 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

Okay, so Davion wants to take a world from Kurita.

Kurita has, in this example, 228, MS and NS all in their lineup.

However Davion takes the world because with split queues and matchmaking we get lucky in pug queues. We have more total pugs than Kurita though Kurita has a huge number of drastically better teams.

The reality is that in that situation it's not really representing a faction warfare. It's not 'the best and worst of us against the best and worst of you'. Even without a PSR consideration what you're doing is letting people avoid fighting the best of the enemy by pugging.

Make sense? If you split the queues in any way it's not 'Faction A defends its world from Faction B'. It's 'Pug queue/group queue, take a tally of the score, best score wins'. It makes even the pretext of it being a war between factions pointless as the factions are not really fighting directly, you're just setting up some exhibition matches between pugs and units, trying to make sure everyone has a fun, fair time.

We already have that. Turning CW into that is pointless.

<Edit: Rereading your post I don't think you realize that I'm not suggesting we use matchmaking, only that we split the queues.>

That only holds true if you don't have enough players.

If you have enough players in both groups so that everyone finds a game, it's a total non-issue. Because solos ARE just as important as groups. A faction member is a faction member.

If you REALLY want groups to feel more important than solos, just add a simple multipler so that the total solo queue and total group queue match results are each 50% of the overall outcome.

And again, it's FACTIONS that are fighting here, not units. If Wolf has better solo players than Liao, and Liao has the best teams in the game, then Wolf deserves that planet if their solos wipe the floor with Liao's solos and their groups don't fall apart catastrophically. Similarly, if Liao's units have a 10 to 1 win loss ratio and their solos manage to avoid going 1 and 10, they take the planet.

Sandpit, on 09 January 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

population
it's not needed
pub queue
private matches
it's an optional mode not required to advance anywhere in the game

I can keep going if you like.

I already gave you population. The rest boil down to "There aren't any upsides". Even if I agreed with all of those points, "There aren't any upsides" is not a valid reason to oppose something, as having it thus won't negatively impact you anyway.

Edited by AEgg, 09 January 2016 - 03:12 PM.

[Mystere]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

That only holds true if you don't have enough players.

If you have enough players in both groups so that everyone finds a game, it's a total non-issue. Because solos ARE just as important as groups. A faction member is a faction member.

If you REALLY want groups to feel more important than solos, just add a simple multipler so that the total solo queue and total group queue match results are each 50% of the overall outcome.

And again, it's FACTIONS that are fighting here, not units. If Wolf has better solo players than Liao, and Liao has the best teams in the game, then Wolf deserves that planet if their solos wipe the floor with Liao's solos and their groups don't fall apart catastrophically. Similarly, if Liao's units have a 10 to 1 win loss ratio and their solos manage to avoid going 1 and 10, they take the planet.

It's not about groups being made to feel more important (I play only solo ). It's that I find the concept of separate queues in a war simulation just silly, as my sample above illustrated.

[AEgg]

Mystere, on 09 January 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

It's not about groups being made to feel more important (I play only solo ). It's that I find the concept of separate queues in a war simulation just silly, as my sample above illustrated.

Your example only holds water if population is too low to support split queues. And while that's probably true, it's not a reason that it's a fundamentally bad idea, just a reason we don't need it until we have enough players for it to be viable.

[Zibmo]

Sandpit, on 09 January 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

yes because we shoot straight out to spawns on the first wave, maybe you missed it the first two times

You are not this stupid. Really. I know better. Did I say "On the first frigging wave?"

You can build straw men til the cows come home. You're still wrong about player retention. Your defensiveness proves the point.

Mystere, on 09 January 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

Let me take a stab at the issue:



CW is supposed to be a quasi simulation of war.

That's not a reason. If you allow people to CHOOSE which way they want to play, the only rationale you could have to preserve the status quo is fear.

[Hotthedd]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

That only holds true if you don't have enough players.

If you have enough players in both groups so that everyone finds a game, it's a total non-issue.

And what happens when we don't have enough players?

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

Even if I agreed with all of those points, "There aren't any upsides" is not a valid reason to oppose something, as having it thus won't negatively impact you anyway.

Actually, "not having any upside" is probably the most valid reason any person could ever give on any subject to be against wasting the effort on implementation.

[AEgg]

Hotthedd, on 09 January 2016 - 03:19 PM, said:

And what happens when we don't have enough players?

Actually, "not having any upside" is probably the most valid reason any person could ever give on any subject to be against wasting the effort on implementation.

Implementation isn't our problem, it's PGIs. They're the ones that decide where their time is most valuable, hence, it's not relevant when discussing whether an idea is good or not. If it's a good idea, it's a good idea, whether it will take an hour to code or six months.

[Zibmo]

Sandpit, on 09 January 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

population
it's not needed
pub queue
private matches
it's an optional mode not required to advance anywhere in the game

I can keep going if you like.

Population: you're afraid "your" mode will underpopulate
It's not needed: apparently everyone who feels differently is simply wrong no matter their rationale
Pub Queue: Is only a small part of the game. You feel it correct to wall off a portion of the game based on an arbitrary set of rules you happen to like?
Private Matches: Back atcha
It's an optional mode not required for this game: ALL modes in this game are optional. You just want to be exclusive.

Continue. I'll rebut. Successfully. Because my rationale increases choice and is a goal. Your rationale is based on defensiveness and exclusion. Want to have your awesome stomps? Give people a different choice as to how they want to play.

The main point of your entire viewpoint can be condensed: I'm afraid that the queue times will grow if people have an option not to play the way they currently must.

You can actually say it out loud. Your head won't explode.

[Hotthedd]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

Implementation isn't our problem, it's PGIs. They're the ones that decide where their time is most valuable, hence, it's not relevant when discussing whether an idea is good or not. If it's a good idea, it's a good idea, whether it will take an hour to code or six months.

Could you then help me with the logic?
If, by your own admission, the idea "has no upside", HOW does it become a "good" idea? By definition, a "good" idea has an "upside".

And please answer the question as to what happens when the population is too low to fill one side of either bucket?

[Mystere]

Zibmo, on 09 January 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

That's not a reason.

Of course it is, especially in a game mode meant to simulate war.

Zibmo, on 09 January 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

If you allow people to CHOOSE which way they want to play, the only rationale you could have to preserve the status quo is fear.

Fear of what? I play only solo and have been doing so since closed beta. I fear no big bad groups. Do you?

[AEgg]

Hotthedd, on 09 January 2016 - 03:29 PM, said:

Could you then help me with the logic?
If, by your own admission, the idea "has no upside", HOW does it become a "good" idea? By definition, a "good" idea has an "upside".

And please answer the question as to what happens when the population is too low to fill one side of either bucket?

Again, it's obvious the idea has upsides as people like it. The argument I'm refuting is "It has no upsides for me".

I've already given you population. Splitting the queues won't work if population is too low to do so. Realize that we aren't PGI; we can't (usefully) discuss whether something will actually be implemented or not, only whether it's a good idea or not.

[Mystere]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

Your example only holds water if population is too low to support split queues. And while that's probably true, it's not a reason that it's a fundamentally bad idea, just a reason we don't need it until we have enough players for it to be viable.

Population has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever in me finding separate queues in CW silly.

Roman Civilian:

Help! Help! Barbarians are at the gates!

Roman General:

We can't help you mam! We only have legions of Praetorian Guards available.

Do you still not see how silly it is?

[AEgg]

Mystere, on 09 January 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

Population has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever in me finding separate queues in CW silly.

Roman Civilian:

Help! Help! Barbarians are at the gates!

Roman General:

We can't help you mam! We only have legions of Praetorian Guards available.

Do you still not see how silly it is?

No, because that will only happen if one of the two groups has no population.
Maybe a more accurate example would be:

Quote

"Help, there are fifty tanks over there and fifty infantry over there"

Current version:
"Ok, we've got fifty infantry and fifty tanks, lets flip a coin to see which one fights what"

Split queues:
"Ok, we've got fifty infantry and fifty tanks, lets send the tanks against the tanks and the infantry against the infantry"

Edited by AEgg, 09 January 2016 - 03:40 PM.

[Sandpit]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

I already gave you population. The rest boil down to "There aren't any upsides". Even if I agreed with all of those points, "There aren't any upsides" is not a valid reason to oppose something, as having it thus won't negatively impact you anyway.

you asked I gave you several as have many others in this very thread. Just because you don't like the reasons doesn't make them invalid

Zibmo, on 09 January 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

You are not this stupid.

well you're just a poopy head. See?I can do 3rd grade personal insults as well. Want o keep going or want to use your adults words junior?

[Mystere]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

No, because that will only happen if one of the two groups has no population.

What happens to a faction with no solo players facing a faction of only solo players?

(Hypothetical, but hopefully you get my drift.)

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

Maybe a more accurate example would be:

"Help, there are fifty tanks over there and fifty infantry over there"

Current version:
"Ok, we've got fifty infantry and fifty tanks, lets flip a coin to see which one fights what"

Split queues:
"Ok, we've got fifty infantry and fifty tanks, lets send the tanks against the tanks and the infantry against the infantry"

George S. Patton:

Let's hit those enemy tanks with our tanks supported by our infantry. Once we're done, we'll then run over those enemy infantry with our tanks. Any survivors we can shoot with our infantry.

Edited by Mystere, 09 January 2016 - 03:43 PM.