949 replies to this topic

[AEgg]

Sandpit, on 09 January 2016 - 03:39 PM, said:

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


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?

Ok, so give me a reason not to have split queues OTHER THAN the fact that it won't have a positive effect on you personally (given that implementation time is PGIs problem, not ours, and that we both agree it's not a valid idea with the current population).

[MischiefSC]

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

<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.



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.

Splitting the queues IS matchmaking.

It's saying 'you don't have to fight groups more organized than you are'.

No matter how big the population is you have to have single queues for taking worlds because the point is that in CW, because it's simulating a war, being in a bigger, better, more skilled group is an advantage that needs to be and should be represented.

If someone doesn't want to play groups we have the pug queue. Add the CW gamemode and maps to the pug queue, let people who just want to pug the modes do so all they want. I've asked for that from day 1.

This is rational for CW for the same reason it's rational in real life; organized, better trained and equipped units are the best response to a rabble. If you play as a rabble you lose and you absolutely should lose.

That bit is what seems to get lost for many here. Not saying you; admittedly I've argued this point with 3 or 4 people and it can be easy to assume everyone is arguing from the same position but the point is worth repeating -

The point of CW as more than new modes for the existing pug/group queues is as a warfare simulation. Gloves off, faction vs faction warfare. The best and worst of one faction vs the best and worst of another. The point of each match is to help win the world for your faction, not your personal performance.

It's not that CW is made for groups - it's that coordination and teamwork win over people who don't do that and CW is at its core all about the win, not the individual match experience.

If you want the individual match experience we have pug/group queue. We already have it. There is absolutely no point to making CW like the existing pug/group queue.

If someone drops in CW they're dropping in a war between factions. Their goal *should* be to help win the war for their faction and they should be working to help do so. If that's not the case then everyone is happier if they go back to pug/group queue.

[Hotthedd]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

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.

Except for the fact that you said: "Just because an idea does not have any upsides is not a valid reason to oppose it" (paraphrased)
Okay, so we are ONLY discussing whether splitting the queues is a good idea or not.
Several of us have given you multiple reasons it is NOT a good idea. Many of whom ARE SOLO players!

[AEgg]

Mystere, on 09 January 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

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

(Hypothetical, but hopefully you get my drift.)



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.

That's what I meant by population. This idea does not work if any faction doesn't have enough/any solo and/or group players.

For the sake of argument, lets say that the infantry sack your city while you ignore them. I think you get the point of my example regardless, even if you don't feel like admitting it.

MischiefSC, on 09 January 2016 - 03:43 PM, said:

Splitting the queues IS matchmaking.

It's saying 'you don't have to fight groups more organized than you are'.

No matter how big the population is you have to have single queues for taking worlds because the point is that in CW, because it's simulating a war, being in a bigger, better, more skilled group is an advantage that needs to be and should be represented.

If someone doesn't want to play groups we have the pug queue. Add the CW gamemode and maps to the pug queue, let people who just want to pug the modes do so all they want. I've asked for that from day 1.

This is rational for CW for the same reason it's rational in real life; organized, better trained and equipped units are the best response to a rabble. If you play as a rabble you lose and you absolutely should lose.

That bit is what seems to get lost for many here. Not saying you; admittedly I've argued this point with 3 or 4 people and it can be easy to assume everyone is arguing from the same position but the point is worth repeating -

The point of CW as more than new modes for the existing pug/group queues is as a warfare simulation. Gloves off, faction vs faction warfare. The best and worst of one faction vs the best and worst of another. The point of each match is to help win the world for your faction, not your personal performance.

It's not that CW is made for groups - it's that coordination and teamwork win over people who don't do that and CW is at its core all about the win, not the individual match experience.

If you want the individual match experience we have pug/group queue. We already have it. There is absolutely no point to making CW like the existing pug/group queue.

If someone drops in CW they're dropping in a war between factions. Their goal *should* be to help win the war for their faction and they should be working to help do so. If that's not the case then everyone is happier if they go back to pug/group queue.

So you want to prevent anyone from even dropping in CW if they don't drop in a 12-man, got it.

Edit: Probably a bit harsh. More accurate I think would be "So you want to prevent anyone from even dropping in CW if they don't want to drop in a 12-man if possible, got it."

Hotthedd, on 09 January 2016 - 03:45 PM, said:

Except for the fact that you said: "Just because an idea does not have any upsides is not a valid reason to oppose it" (paraphrased)
Okay, so we are ONLY discussing whether splitting the queues is a good idea or not.
Several of us have given you multiple reasons it is NOT a good idea. Many of whom ARE SOLO players!

It's a given that the argument is upsides to the speaker. If the idea had no upsides, no one would suggest it to begin with...

I really haven't seen any arguments against splitting the queues except for as follows:

Population (entirely valid, and why the queues shouldn't be split anytime soon)
"It has no advantages for me personally"
"I don't like it for (not terribly consistent) roleplaying reasons"

Edited by AEgg, 09 January 2016 - 03:53 PM.

[Sandpit]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 03:43 PM, said:

Ok, so give me a reason not to have split queues OTHER THAN the fact that it won't have a positive effect on you personally (given that implementation time is PGIs problem, not ours, and that we both agree it's not a valid idea with the current population).

positive impact on me?

I drop solo and PUG almost exclusively.
Please tell me how you're taking this stance of "us vs. them" with me when I drop exactly like the players you're trying to "improve" things for?

If you don't bother reading, and learning about the suggestions that others have come up with such as
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1


so take your "will someone think of the children and seals" propaganda and just leave it at home next time.

Posters, and posters like you? Who try to attack and paint players who don't like YOUR idea as some sort of "evil boogeyman" to try and gain support for your idea at the expense of another player's public image, reputation, etc.

maybe you should put that creativity and drive to doing something constructive like participating in constructive discussions to help improve MWO (everything including CW) for EVERYone instead of "just me"

When you want to have a serious discussion and help kick around ideas instead of pointing fingers at people who didn't like your idea, come join the adults

[oldradagast]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 03:52 PM, said:

I really haven't seen any arguments against splitting the queues except for as follows:

Population (entirely valid, and why the queues shouldn't be split anytime soon)
"It has no advantages for me personally"
"I don't like it for (not terribly consistent) roleplaying reasons"

The thing about defending the current CW mess with "adding a match-maker further splits the queues" is that it assumes that the number of players in CW is static. The whole point of adding a match-maker, and thus splitting the queues, is to bring in A LOT more players who would have a reason play. They could now look forward to reasonably balanced games vs. the mindless seal-clubbing that currently dominates the format enough to make it a ghost town.

So, if done properly, any loss from queue-splitting would be more than balanced out by an increase in general CW population numbers. That, and it's not as if the wasteland of CW could really get any more empty. Finally, even if against all odds, this idea doesn't work, it can be rolled back. It's far better for PGI to actually TRY something - even if it is somewhat radical - to fix a seriously flawed and fun-free game mode vs. simply knuckling under to the "skillz" seal-clubbers who don't want their free wins threatened.

[AEgg]

Sandpit, on 09 January 2016 - 03:57 PM, said:

positive impact on me?

I drop solo and PUG almost exclusively.
Please tell me how you're taking this stance of "us vs. them" with me when I drop exactly like the players you're trying to "improve" things for?

If you don't bother reading, and learning about the suggestions that others have come up with such as
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1


so take your "will someone think of the children and seals" propaganda and just leave it at home next time.

Posters, and posters like you? Who try to attack and paint players who don't like YOUR idea as some sort of "evil boogeyman" to try and gain support for your idea at the expense of another player's public image, reputation, etc.

maybe you should put that creativity and drive to doing something constructive like participating in constructive discussions to help improve MWO (everything including CW) for EVERYone instead of "just me"

When you want to have a serious discussion and help kick around ideas instead of pointing fingers at people who didn't like your idea, come join the adults

... I'm not talking to YOU in particular. So far in this thread, "It won't have a positive impact on me" has been the only argument against splitting queues, at least the only one I've seen. (Edit: I shouldn't have to specify this again, but fine, this excludes the population and implementation time arguments, since they aren't fundamentally part of the idea, they are external factors).

Ok, fine, it won't have a positive impact on an individual, maybe even a whole lot of individuals. There are obviously some people that it would have a positive impact on, or they wouldn't have suggested the idea to begin with.

I really don't know what to do with the rest of your post. Splitting the queues wasn't even my idea, and I know we can't do it at the moment because of population being too low. I've never even mentioned the whole "clubbing seals" thing, that's not my argument and never was.

Edited by AEgg, 09 January 2016 - 04:10 PM.

[Johnny Z]

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

... I'm not talking to YOU in particular. So far in this thread, &quot;It won't have a positive impact on me&quot; has been the only argument against splitting queues, at least the only one I've seen. (Edit: I shouldn't have to specify this again, but fine, this excludes the population and implementation time arguments, since they aren't fundamentally part of the idea, they are external factors).

Ok, fine, it won't have a positive impact on an individual, maybe even a whole lot of individuals. There are obviously some people that it would have a positive impact on, or they wouldn't have suggested the idea to begin with.

I really don't know what to do with the rest of your post. Splitting the queues wasn't even my idea, and I know we can't do it at the moment because of population being too low. I've never even mentioned the whole &quot;clubbing seals&quot; thing, that's not my argument and never was.

After having seen the arguments for making the group queue and experience fighting pre made groups while being a part of a public queue all I see here is a few players worried their synch drops will become difficult in the future and requesting divided queues to more easily facilitate this.

I think its a bad idea because it would make the faction map battles a lot more lame and cannot see even one good reason for divided queues aside from the theory above.

Like I said a few times, the game "Planetside" has no queues and there is no complaints. Why the push for divided queues for MechWarrior Online?

True the two games are entirely different and MechWarrior is much more battle oriented with little room or time for newbies to even learn how to do basic piloting before facing potentially elite pilots. This is why the regular queues having a first rate match maker is a great thing. This isn't an argument for a match maker on the galactic war map.

I will also add the push to make premade groups seem better than they are has been constant and aggressive and I think its a laugh. One of the last matches before the regular group queue was made I was actually shot by my own team so as not to take out half the premade group to ensure they got a win.

LOL In my opinion premade groups are weak and rely on synch dropping and cheats to get the win WAY WAY WAY more often than not. Straight up.

Put me in a public team with legit experienced independent pilots any day and we will wipe the floor with any premade team not running cheats. Every time.

Finally I rarely bother addressing the constant premade team push on these forums or how weak they actually are in matches without synch drops or cheats but this time, why not. If I upset some premade teams and their entire team focuses me next Galaxy map match, then good, works for me anyway. FTW.

Edited by Johnny Z, 09 January 2016 - 04:37 PM.

[Sandpit]

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

... I'm not talking to YOU in particular.

yes you are
because that's exactly what your posts sound like. You're trying to paint myself and many others in this thread as something we're not.

You so tied up in the "us vs. them" mentality and propaganda that you're not bothering to actually read and contribute to threads that address many things you don't like in favor of just sticking with the "you're an evil boogeyman who likes to club seals"

take down the indignation a bit, sit back and do some reading, participate in the threads that have actual constructive ideas and solutions to issues in CW, MWO, NPE, etc.

When you start doing that I'll be more inclined to believe you're more altruistic than you appear to be now.

Because honestly, at this point, what you really sound like is a bitter solo or small unit player that's pissy about not being able now having a special queue just for you because it would improve CW for YOU.

[MischiefSC]

AEgg, on 09 January 2016 - 03:52 PM, said:

So you want to prevent anyone from even dropping in CW if they don't drop in a 12-man, got it.

Edit: Probably a bit harsh. More accurate I think would be "So you want to prevent anyone from even dropping in CW if they don't want to drop in a 12-man if possible, got it."

Firstly, no. I pug in CW all the time. Have a ton of fun at it. Lots of people do. We just don't expect to play like pugs.

Second, you're always in a 12man. Every single match. It's all 12 v 12. If someone is playing like it's not a 12man that's them failing to play well. That's not a big deal in pug or even group queue because the match doesn't matter. You can play that way in CW too; just realize you're going to lose to people who play better.

You also keep trying to avoid the realities we've gone over and trying to strawman up an argument about how people just don't want pugs in CW. Not true, at all.

I'm going to quote myself again, since you ignored it -

MischiefSC, on 09 January 2016 - 03:43 PM, said:

Splitting the queues IS matchmaking.

It's saying 'you don't have to fight groups more organized than you are'.

No matter how big the population is you have to have single queues for taking worlds because the point is that in CW, because it's simulating a war, being in a bigger, better, more skilled group is an advantage that needs to be and should be represented.

If someone doesn't want to play groups we have the pug queue. Add the CW gamemode and maps to the pug queue, let people who just want to pug the modes do so all they want. I've asked for that from day 1.

This is rational for CW for the same reason it's rational in real life; organized, better trained and equipped units are the best response to a rabble. If you play as a rabble you lose and you absolutely should lose.

That bit is what seems to get lost for many here. Not saying you; admittedly I've argued this point with 3 or 4 people and it can be easy to assume everyone is arguing from the same position but the point is worth repeating -

The point of CW as more than new modes for the existing pug/group queues is as a warfare simulation. Gloves off, faction vs faction warfare. The best and worst of one faction vs the best and worst of another. The point of each match is to help win the world for your faction, not your personal performance.

It's not that CW is made for groups - it's that coordination and teamwork win over people who don't do that and CW is at its core all about the win, not the individual match experience.

If you want the individual match experience we have pug/group queue. We already have it. There is absolutely no point to making CW like the existing pug/group queue.

If someone drops in CW they're dropping in a war between factions. Their goal *should* be to help win the war for their faction and they should be working to help do so. If that's not the case then everyone is happier if they go back to pug/group queue.

You didn't actually respond to any of it saying I just didn't want pugs in CW. Which I never said, given that would keep me from playing CW 90% of the time.

If you don't want to fight a war against units as a pug, play in pug queue. If you don't mind that or enjoy it, come play CW. CW is a game simulation of faction vs faction warfare.

[stoogah]

Sorry to intrude into matters that do not affect me (I'm not playing CW at all) but I read some really uncool things in the first pages.

I played a lot of online shooters for a very long time (almost 20 years) and MWO is the first time I see spawncamping tolerated or even defended by some players... and not some random players but unit members.

it's not about winning. It's about how did you won... HOW.

If that's how CW is played then I'm glad I stay away.

That's just my 2c for "old fart but pretty new to online gaming" who completly missed the point of OP.

[Jack Booted Thug]

Most units aren't dropping with full 12 mans. With the low population there aren't enough other groups per faction to match up exactly the number needed to make a full 12. Solo players are very much needed.

Not everyone is using Team Speak or on the same hub. Getting the right configuration of groups to match up to 12 within the same faction would be extremely difficult. Or people would have to sit out to get a 12.

Separating the ques won't work at present.

[Satan n stuff]

Hotthedd, on 09 January 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

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.

What do you have against trial mechs? They're perfectly good alternatives to player owned mechs when someone doesn't happen to have a particular build ready. If you want to keep newbies out of CW, try to find a way that doesn't needlessly restrict the options of every other player as well.

[Mystere]

stoogah, on 09 January 2016 - 05:37 PM, said:

Sorry to intrude into matters that do not affect me (I'm not playing CW at all) but I read some really uncool things in the first pages.

I played a lot of online shooters for a very long time (almost 20 years) and MWO is the first time I see spawncamping tolerated or even defended by some players... and not some random players but unit members.

it's not about winning. It's about how did you won... HOW.

If that's how CW is played then I'm glad I stay away.

That's just my 2c for "old fart but pretty new to online gaming" who completly missed the point of OP.

CW is supposed to be a simulation of war. War is dirty. War is painful. And in the end, the victors get to enjoy the spoils.

[pwnface]

For the please asking to split the queues:

What exactly is preventing groups from sync dropping to dominate the solo queue as well?

If a faction is winning all it's group drops but their solos are losing, why wouldn't the groups just split and dominate solo queue?

[DarklightCA]

Splitting the ques will accomplish nothing but increasing a already long wait time, there is no population in Community Warfare to support two ques when the population can barely support the one that already exists all because some player's prefer to solo que and not suprisingly get stomped by organized teams.

***** and complain all you want about organized teams but so long as you continue to choose the pug life, organized teams and teams that are better/more coordinated than you will always stomp you. It's not up to PGI to make that less likely in Community Warfare being Community Warfare is designed for those organized teams and has no match maker so suck it up butter cup and get with the program.

As for organized teams farming pugs in Community Warfare, kills + damage = more Cbills and XP which is a lot better to do because the enemy team can still counter-attack if they wanted but most just hide in there spawn. A lot better than what most pug teams do which is just flat out rush Gen's for a easy win. Like I waited 20 minutes to play a 2 minute gen kill simulator. Last game I played on Boreal on counter-attack as defense the enemy team called quits before they even dropped at a 8 man group instead of giving it a honest effort. They never attacked, they just sat at there spawn so we went out and farmed them because if you are going to hide in your spawn instead of playing the game. I may as well get some Cbills out of you.

[Hotthedd]

Satan n stuff, on 09 January 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

What do you have against trial mechs? They're perfectly good alternatives to player owned mechs when someone doesn't happen to have a particular build ready. If you want to keep newbies out of CW, try to find a way that doesn't needlessly restrict the options of every other player as well.

Actually I had a post about a month ago that spelled my position out more clearly.

I think a graduated scale would work quite well:
Tier 1 - drop in any mechs you want (including 4 trials), and can solo CW
Tier 2 - limited to 3 trial mechs, can solo CW
Tier 3 - May use 2 trial mechs if grouped, 1 if solo
Tier 4 - May use 1 trial mech, must be in a group of 2 or more
Tier 5 - May use 1 trial mech, must be in group of at least 4.

This would promote team play, and lessen the chance of being spawn camped.

[Mystere]

Hotthedd, on 09 January 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

Actually I had a post about a month ago that spelled my position out more clearly.

I think a graduated scale would work quite well:
Tier 1 - drop in any mechs you want (including 4 trials), and can solo CW
Tier 2 - limited to 3 trial mechs, can solo CW
Tier 3 - May use 2 trial mechs if grouped, 1 if solo
Tier 4 - May use 1 trial mech, must be in a group of 2 or more
Tier 5 - May use 1 trial mech, must be in group of at least 4.

This would promote team play, and lessen the chance of being spawn camped.

It's too complicated. An "Enter at your own risk!" warning is plenty enough for me.

[Mead]

l)arklight, on 09 January 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

Splitting the ques will accomplish nothing but increasing a already long wait time, there is no population in Community Warfare to support two ques when the population can barely support the one that already exists all because some player's prefer to solo que and not suprisingly get stomped by organized teams.

Wait, you're saying it's the pugs' fault that the population is low and wait times are huge? Really? The population can barely support one QUEUE because some players prefer to "solo QUEUE". Right? That's what you're going with? Be sure about that, now...

[Adamski]

Mystere, on 09 January 2016 - 05:54 PM, said:

CW is supposed to be a simulation of war. War is dirty. War is painful. And in the end, the victors get to enjoy the spoils.

No, CW is supposed to be a GAME mode with a persistent map / objectives.

PGI disproved your war simulation hypothesis when they put in longer timers on ghost drops and put in the useless defense ghost drops to further penalize population disparity.

The difference between dropping solo in CW and dropping in a group is HUGE, and its not because comms make such a huge difference, but because requiring players to use the LFG tool or find the faction comms server weeds out the most useless of the underhive.