949 replies to this topic

[vandalhooch]

AEgg, on 10 January 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

I don't see how it applies to the discussion of splitting queues, no.

At it's heart, the simple fact that we have a queue is an abstraction, a necessity of the fact that we can only fit 24 players in a game, and that we can't actually micromanage which pilots are on which planet at any given time, and what it takes to get them to another planet to attack or defend it. If we could implement these things ingame without it having a colossaly detrimental impact on everyone's experience, sure, implement them.

But since that's not going to happen, we have a queue.

Given that, were it "war", someone would be managing that queue on both sides, trying to send their best against the opponents best. (Well, unless they wanted to just sacrifice a planet, but the fact that the queue is done by planet and still would be if it were split already supports that).

Anyone who tried to manage their forces in the way you described would deserve to be demoted, imprisoned and/or shot.

You don't send your "best against the opponents best." You send your forces where they have the greatest likelihood of achieving overall victory. That might mean best against best. It might mean best against worst in order to take strategically important areas or resources. It might mean sending worst against their best in a delaying action.

Best against best is an artifice of sports leagues, not war.

Quote

So given that the queue is effectively an abstraction of the commander of your forces, doesn't it make sense to have it match up teams where they will have the most chance of success? And to do that, you'd match solos with solos that they have a decent chance against, and teams against teams, since doing anything else would be just sacrificing forces for no particular reason.

You are so obsessed with your view you can't even see the fault in this reasoning? By your own words (bold placed for emphasis), groups should always be placed against PUGs because it causes your opponents to sacrifice their forces.

Edited by vandalhooch, 10 January 2016 - 06:57 PM.

[Hotthedd]

What I do not understand is where so many people get the idea that every CW match needs to be "balanced". That is not what CW is about, it is about competition.

Balance the tech? Okay
Balance the maps? Okay
Balance the 'mechs? Okay
Balance the tonnage? Okay

Balance the outcome? No

And that is what some people seem to be arguing: "Groups have an advantage! PGI please balance!"
CW is not supposed to work that way.

[AEgg]

vandalhooch, on 10 January 2016 - 06:33 PM, said:

Anyone who tried to manage their forces in the way you described would deserved to be demoted, imprisoned and/or shot.

You don't send your "best against the opponents best." You send your forces where they have the greatest likelihood of achieving overall victory. That might mean best against best. It might mean best against worst in order to take strategically important areas or resources. It might mean sending worst against their best in a delaying action.

Best against best is an artifice of sports leagues, not war.



You are so obsessed with your view you can't even see the fault in this reasoning? By your own words (bold placed for emphasis), groups should always be placed against PUGs because it causes your opponents to sacrifice their forces.

You have limited forces. You send your groups against PUGs, and your PUGs lose every game and you've gained nothing.

[vandalhooch]

Bonger Bob, on 10 January 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

exactly, i find it hard to believe feigned compassion regarding pugs not getting matches because there are so many teams and so few pugs.

even if this is to be believed, what is the issue with the "bads" not getting matches any more ??



a possible solution to allow a distinction between a grouped units que and a pug que have been offered by many, but still to no avail for the players that seem intend on forcing a play style on others.

What a crock of nonsense. No unit member is forcing anyone to play in any particular way. Everyone is free to group up or not group up.

What cry-hards like you seem to want is to purposely handicap yourselves by avoiding those tactics that increase your chances of winning while also enjoying the benefits of an increased chance to win.

Just no. The snowflake queue already exists. Go play that if that is what you want.

Quote

Anything that results less clubbing and balanced matches seems to draw out the rage of the select few who don't want to lose their meal ticket and might actually end up with a challenging round regularly.

Gotta love the advocates of the Big Lie. They never, ever give up on the tactic.

Quote

I love CW, I pug it, and have had matches where we've steamrolled other sides, some of which are made of mostly unit tagged players. Its not fun when it happens, and i don't delude myself into thinking that It was outright skill either, by myself or my pug group. It could be luck, pings, bad mood for the round, who knows right now, and that's the issue. It would be more entertaining if I was going up against a group that was placed somewhere on a leaderboard, and a challenge was provided that if i completed successfully, I could walk away smiling that ive improved in some way and I WAS ABLE TO MEASURE THE IMPROVEMENT IV'E HAD AND THEN BEEN ABLE TO BE PROVIDED WITH A GREATER CHALLENGE ACCORDINGLY NEXT ROUND.

They're called leagues. They already exist. You'll find that your solo, rambo attitude will get you stomped there as well.

Quote

How can a player be rated / ranked, and then enjoy a challenge by seeking out and playing against higher ranked players ??

Join a league.

Quote

How do i know that round i just won in wasn't a total fluke of luck or I was going to win no matter what as the other side was comprised mostly of brain dead mutes ?? How do i go about learning from skewed data that is worthless because of its totally random nature ??

I would welcome a consistent challenge, not the total randomness that exists currently. I challenge these people that are spouting that "joining a unit" is the only way to improve to actually accept the fact that there is more luck involved than there is skill currently in deciding a win in CW.

A new record for dumbest thing said in this thread. Congrats.

Quote

That's what i would welcome an end to, and a leader-board / ranking / rating system of some sort IS REQUIRED for that to happen, which goes hand in hand with a match maker coming into play.

It will happen eventually, why not help shape it to something that allows a distinction for units to receive greater rewards, and a more challenging consistency of rounds for ALL in CW accordingly.

Faction Play is not supposed to be a league. It's supposed to be an immersive story of futuristic, galactic-scale warfare.

If you want leagues and rankings, then ask PGI to finish creating the Solaris mode. I look forward to seeing you get stomped in that mode as well.

Just stop asking to have Faction Play turned into something it isn't supposed to be.

[N0MAD]

Why does PGI balance the tech between the Factions?

[vandalhooch]

AEgg, on 10 January 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

You have limited forces. You send your groups against PUGs, and your PUGs lose every game and you've gained nothing.

Then to win the war, DON'T HAVE PUGS! Train all the pilots in your faction to be team players. That's what the most successful factions do in CW over the long term. And that is exactly what we have been trying to drill into your thick skull.

We don't want new players to leave the mode. We want them to learn how to play the mode effectively and become as immersed in the story as we are.

[MerryIguana]

vandalhooch, on 10 January 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

become as immersed in the story as we are.

Did i miss something?

[vandalhooch]

N0MAD, on 10 January 2016 - 06:43 PM, said:

Why does PGI balance the tech between the Factions?

Because a large percentage of players, given the freedom to choose factions, would choose the overpowered Clan mechs. It's hard enough getting the playerbase to spread itself out into all of the factions relatively evenly.

Because said clan mechs are also used in the Quick Play queue with its random assortment of team members.

Because you couldn't possibly be this stupid or think we are so stupid as to be "stumped" by this question?

[Sandpit]

Hotthedd, on 10 January 2016 - 06:35 PM, said:

Balance the outcome?

which is really what they're asking for

[vandalhooch]

N0MAD, on 10 January 2016 - 05:58 PM, said:

Well brother i was responding to Mischiefs post, i actually addressed it to him,, re read his posts, who was it that compared this game to a war scenario?

Yes. Your statement was an entirely accurate description of what you knew he meant with his words. No one could possibly think he meant a war-like game at all.

Stop being so dense. It only makes you look dense.

And stop trying to act like others in here are as dense.

[Bonger Bob]

vandalhooch, on 10 January 2016 - 06:43 PM, said:

Faction Play is not supposed to be a league. It's supposed to be an immersive story of futuristic, galactic-scale warfare.

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

its has NEVER been and while in PGI's hands NEVER WILL BE THIS

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

Its an alternate game mode with no matchmaker, random dumb luck has more to do with some wins than others, that is what needs removing from this alternate game mode.

Galactic Scale warfare my arse, the map is a glossy version of a pair of dice grouping 2 sides together, with a load of unit tagged tryhards thinking they're all that and gods gift to the gaming community. Is it any wonder why some people avoid these "teams" like the plague ??

there is no objective in CW other than doing your best to have your side win that round, its a different style of quick-play with longer waits and more meaningful objectives IN THE ROUND, outside of that its missing large sections of anything remotely akin to what you describe it as.

and ok, you want to believe that CW is setup for teams and ranking etc, iv'e made the suggestion before about splitting it in 2 sections, of which the units tagged side has the only influence over the "galactic scale warfare in an immersive futuristic story" window dressing map, and the pugs is training mode with little to no rewards outside of the already farmable cbills. I'm sure you'll find some way to say that this is unfair and untenable though as it would mean the roflstomps are no longer available for an easy buck and it doesn't force people to engage in your preferred method of gameplay.

[Captain Stiffy]

Mothermoy, on 01 January 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

was just running a pug community warfare, just simply for more stocking pulls. When i load up.....crap its 11 outa 12 premade on the other team. So im thinking ill do what damage i can.

Now dont get me wrong this group on the other team was really good, amazing in fact. Great teamwork. great plan. HOWEVER, it was obvious after the first 5 minutes this game was over.

HOWEVER Instead of just killing the gens, and being professional, this group proceeds to spawn farm every last one of us. Really guys? Without puggers this mode is deader then dead. When its obvious that you severely outclass the pug team you are against, just kill the gens and move on.

To many people have lives and professions and just don't have the time to commit to a unit or group. So instead of this units making CW more pug friendly, they were all complete and total morons. it may not matter, but i for one am done with CW.

I pose a question to all the larger units. Do you really think farming pug groups to the last mech, instead of just winning the match and moving on, will encourage us puggers to play? Really? and the sad thing is, this will not stop, this group will load up again, and farm every last mech AGAIN, and drive more puggers away. This CW mode is dead, and will stay dead.

Pugs vs Premades ruined it from the start. There's no going back except to change that one thing. Before that is changed it's a farmfest for those with outfits to farm and for those dumb enough to accidentally solo-queue to hate.

I have been saying this VERY LOUDLY from the get-go. When are they going to admit failure? The feature that could have made a hundred thousand steam users stick like glue instead is giving them a very early lesson in how much more the devs like their ideas than their players.

Edited by Captain Stiffy, 10 January 2016 - 07:04 PM.

[Bonger Bob]

vandalhooch, on 10 January 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

Then to win the war, DON'T HAVE PUGS! Train all the pilots in your faction to be team players. That's what the most successful factions do in CW over the long term. And that is exactly what we have been trying to drill into your thick skull.

We don't want new players to leave the mode. We want them to learn how to play the mode effectively and become as immersed in the story as we are.

yet you claim you don't want to force others to play how you see fit. This reads very differently and is a great example of the arseholyerthanthou attitude that makes tagged units undesirable currently.

and again more of the "not in a unit / TS, you must be useless and not a team player" crap. You might be surprised that some people are actually capable solo players who don't use TS but do communicate and work with and for the team to win the round.

Edited by Bonger Bob, 10 January 2016 - 07:08 PM.

[AEgg]

vandalhooch, on 10 January 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

Then to win the war, DON'T HAVE PUGS! Train all the pilots in your faction to be team players. That's what the most successful factions do in CW over the long term. And that is exactly what we have been trying to drill into your thick skull.

We don't want new players to leave the mode. We want them to learn how to play the mode effectively and become as immersed in the story as we are.

You can't not have PUGs, unless you block them from CW entirely. Players are players, if they don't want to do something, they won't, and you can't change that. You can't train pilots that don't want to be trained.

[Sandpit]

vandalhooch, on 10 January 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

Then to win the war, DON'T HAVE PUGS! Train all the pilots in your faction to be team players. That's what the most successful factions do in CW over the long term. And that is exactly what we have been trying to drill into your thick skull.

We don't want new players to leave the mode. We want them to learn how to play the mode effectively and become as immersed in the story as we are.

You mean like some of us have also suggested?

Instead of whining about how "bad" your faction's solo and new players are, how about get off your lazy butts and help them out. Or is PGI supposed to handle all of that for you as well and while we're at it, we'll let you hand pick the players "allowed" in your faction, then you'll have nobody to QQ about except yourselves (well and everything else "wrong" with the game that causes you to lose)

[Hotthedd]

N0MAD, on 10 January 2016 - 06:43 PM, said:

Why does PGI balance the tech between the Factions?

Laziness.

It was either balance the tech, or create assymetric game modes for CW, and re-work quick play into a mode that would not mix the technologies. (Otherwise nobody would bring I.S. mechs in Quick play)

Making the tech even was much simpler and did not involve thinking up ways to make unbalanced tech work.

[Captain Stiffy]

PGI - here's how to retain the steam players you are already losing;

1) Balance clans vs IS
2) No pugs vs premades

My consulting fee is ten thousand USD. You can add it in MC to my account.

[Hotthedd]

Captain Stiffy, on 10 January 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

PGI - here's how to retain the steam players you are already losing;

1) Balance clans vs IS
2) No pugs vs premades

My consulting fee is ten thousand USD. You can add it in MC to my account.

PGI, here is how to retain the core group of people that allowed you to fund the creation of the game:

1) Make the game you SAID you were going to make.
2) Stop chasing the lowest common denominator player.

I really don't need the money.

[Sandpit]

Bonger Bob, on 10 January 2016 - 07:01 PM, said:

its has NEVER been and while in PGI's hands NEVER WILL BE THIS

http://mwomercs.com/...rd/page__st__20
http://mwomercs.com/...rightful-cause/
http://mwomercs.com/...nt/page__st__20
http://mwomercs.com/...21-house-marik/

and countless other threads and alliances made.

in other words, speak for yourself

Hotthedd, on 10 January 2016 - 07:16 PM, said:

PGI, here is how to retain the core group of people that allowed you to fund the creation of the game:

1) Make the game you SAID you were going to make.
2) Stop chasing the lowest common denominator player.

I really don't need the money.

free advice is best advice

[N0MAD]

So some players playing overpowered mechs is unfair to those not using them? that makes sense.
Yet its ok and fair for organised units with the advantage of co ordination, better dropdecks, thousands of games played, ALL the advantages, to be pitted against teams with none of those advantages? and you call that hard mode or competitive, lol.
Anyway each to his own
Vandal, you have insulted me several times over the last few posts boy, keep it up, its expected from 12 years olds with very low IQs.