949 replies to this topic

[N0MAD]

Sandpit, on 10 January 2016 - 05:38 PM, said:

you know you're playing a computer WAR game right?

no im playing a computer fantasy game.

[vandalhooch]

N0MAD, on 10 January 2016 - 05:48 PM, said:

How is this Strawman?

No one ever claimed that this was actual war. Only you asserted that someone had. Claiming that this game is akin to actual warfare is flat out ridiculous and easily refuted.

The very definition of a strawman.

[AEgg]

vandalhooch, on 10 January 2016 - 05:54 PM, said:

No one ever claimed that this was actual war. Only you asserted that someone had. Claiming that this game is akin to actual warfare is flat out ridiculous and easily refuted.

The very definition of a strawman.

Uhh, aren't you supporting him, then? The stawman is that the game is like war, which he was refuting. Your post sounded like you were arguing with him.

[MischiefSC]

N0MAD, on 10 January 2016 - 05:37 PM, said:

Mischief, war is war and not a computer game, you know this right?.
Let me disappoint you a little here, War will never be waged by bipedal 100 ton machines, simple thing like PSI will guarantee that.

......

The game is about war. There is already a whole segment of the game designed around pugging. CW is about faction vs faction warfare. That's what that part of the game is about. I'm all for CW maps and modes being available in pug/group queue.

I just said in the post above the incredibly obvious point that it makes CW utterly irrelevant as something other than extra maps/modes for group/pug queue if you split queues. Why has been stated repeatedly. In the post you responded to even.

Do you guys just not understand the concept? That if you win because you never had to face the best of the enemy the whole conflict is pointless? At that point you're just handing out trophies for showing up.

[N0MAD]

vandalhooch, on 10 January 2016 - 05:54 PM, said:

No one ever claimed that this was actual war. Only you asserted that someone had. Claiming that this game is akin to actual warfare is flat out ridiculous and easily refuted.

The very definition of a strawman.

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?

[Sandpit]

N0MAD, on 10 January 2016 - 05:52 PM, said:

no im playing a computer fantasy game.

lol ok
smh

want to know why "PGI doesn't listen"

because your'e literally doing nothing but trying to argue schematics over the definition of a single word so that you can "justify" your opinion on something.

It's silly. It detracts from the actual discussion.

Your entire response equates to "Nuh uh cuz I'm going to use the word fantasy instead because by the legalistic definition you can't dispute it so nyah nyah"

Which is exactly why we have a term called "spirit of the rules"

Anyone who has EVER run a tabletop game as a GM will know exactly why and what it means when I now refer to you as a "rules lawyer" and the very reason "spirit of the rules" even has to be mentioned.

I don't care what your opinion or "letter of the law" rhetoric is, this is a war based video game.

Here, let me explain how:
Community WARfare
there, now you can continue discussing the definition of "war game" if you like but the rest of us are going to have an actual meaningful discussion

[Mystere]

AEgg, on 10 January 2016 - 05:46 PM, said:

I've already addressed Mystere's scenarios, they only happen when a queue is empty.

If a queue isn't empty, then they translate to "Barbarians at the gate". "Ok, flip a coin. Heads, we send barbarians at them, tails, we send Praetorian Guards at them". Still nonsense. Your battles are determined by luck, not by who has the better team.

After a few repetitions, you are still not getting my point. Maybe you should look here to see where I am coming from.

[Sandpit]

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?

see above

[MerryIguana]

Sandpit, on 10 January 2016 - 05:38 PM, said:

you know you're playing a computer WAR game right?

And here i thought i was playing an arena shooter with a shoehorned map.

[MischiefSC]

AEgg, on 10 January 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

Uhh, aren't you supporting him, then? The stawman is that the game is like war, which he was refuting. Your post sounded like you were arguing with him.

How is pointing out the the whole purpose of CW, the reason we have CW and not just extra maps/modes for pug/group queue is to simulate a war between factions?

You know. Community Warfare?

Warfare?

Warfare?

Warfare?

I'm genuinely curious. Do you really, truly not understand the concept? Are you just avoiding it because it makes your whole argument pointless or does it really not make sense to you?

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 10 January 2016 - 06:00 PM, said:

I'm genuinely curious. Do you really, truly not understand the concept?

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!
You know better than to ask a question like that!!! Now we're going to spend the next 5 pages listening to how everyone (us, other players, PGI, etc.) is "wrong" about the word war and what it means to work as a team in CW.

I hate you lol

[AEgg]

MischiefSC, on 10 January 2016 - 05:57 PM, said:

......

The game is about war. There is already a whole segment of the game designed around pugging. CW is about faction vs faction warfare. That's what that part of the game is about. I'm all for CW maps and modes being available in pug/group queue.

I just said in the post above the incredibly obvious point that it makes CW utterly irrelevant as something other than extra maps/modes for group/pug queue if you split queues. Why has been stated repeatedly. In the post you responded to even.

Do you guys just not understand the concept? That if you win because you never had to face the best of the enemy the whole conflict is pointless? At that point you're just handing out trophies for showing up.

But with split queues you CAN'T win without facing the best of the enemy. It will be your best against their best, and your rabble against their rabble. If you don't fight their groups, you lose, no matter how well your solos do (since solos can be at most half of the result).

How much impact the "best" has vs how much impact the "rabble" has can be easily set, since they are separate queues. It doesn't have to be "one win in either queue has the same impact", it could be "Win/Loss by the groups is 90% of the outcome and Win/Loss by the solos is 10% of the outcome"

[Sandpit]

AEgg, on 10 January 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

But with split queues you CAN'T win without facing the best of the enemy.

interesting theory
explain to me how this works again because the PUB queue is broken exactly how you're suggesting and I promise you it doesn't work anything like what you're suggesting here...

[Mystere]

Which part of "WAR" in Community WARfare are people not comprehending?

AEgg, on 10 January 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

"Win/Loss by the groups is 90% of the outcome and Win/Loss by the solos is 10% of the outcome"

Hilarious! Freaking hilarious!

So much for any kind of depth. <smh>

Edited by Mystere, 10 January 2016 - 06:09 PM.

[AEgg]

MischiefSC, on 10 January 2016 - 06:00 PM, said:

How is pointing out the the whole purpose of CW, the reason we have CW and not just extra maps/modes for pug/group queue is to simulate a war between factions?

You know. Community Warfare?

Warfare?

Warfare?

Warfare?

I'm genuinely curious. Do you really, truly not understand the concept? Are you just avoiding it because it makes your whole argument pointless or does it really not make sense to you?

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).

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.

[N0MAD]

MischiefSC, on 10 January 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

So if you don't want to play solo against teams you don't have to. Play pug queue.

You don't get to win a war by just not having to fight the organized enemy troops. If you fight in the war you fight the enemy no matter who that is. Because the war isn't about you having fair, balanced matches.

It's about winning the war.

Am i confused here? you are talking about a war scenario, right?
In a computer game, i thought the idea was to provide a balanced fair game for peoples entertainment.
If this was a war simulation, for a start the clans would be far more powerful due to their large tech advantage, or so lore tells us.
So PGI has gone to great lengths to balance tech between the factions to provide a better/fairer player experience, yet it wont balance the teams playing each other?
As i said im confused.

[Bonger Bob]

AEgg, on 10 January 2016 - 05:46 PM, said:

How is that a downside to split queues? Or even relevant to split queues at all? "Don't Play CW" is a statement to an individual, it doesn't have anything to do with the game mode.

I've already addressed Mystere's scenarios, they only happen when a queue is empty.

If a queue isn't empty, then they translate to "Barbarians at the gate". "Ok, flip a coin. Heads, we send barbarians at them, tails, we send Praetorian Guards at them". Still nonsense. Your battles are determined by luck, not by who has the better team.

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 ??

AEgg, on 10 January 2016 - 05:46 PM, said:

How does it do that? How are 12 solos any less part of a faction than 12 players in a group? Just because you don't join a unit doesn't mean you don't want to support your faction. And if the matchmaker (or lack thereof) is setting up stomps when it could be setting up balanced matches with the same group of players, isn't that detracting from your unit's involvement, not adding to it?

It's not a shallower experience if you just continue to play group queue. You just will be facing better opposition and wasting less time in matches that provide no challenge at all.

Unless we block solos from playing CW, they will be there, and since they vastly outnumber grouped players (at least according to PGI...), they will have a big impact on the overall outcome. At least with split queues how much groups and solos influence the outcome can be a set value (ideally 50/50 but it could be 90/10 in favor of groups if we want it to be).

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. 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.

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.

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

Edited by Bonger Bob, 10 January 2016 - 06:22 PM.

[Sandpit]

N0MAD, on 10 January 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

Am i confused here?

Yes and we've pointed out why several times now

N0MAD, on 10 January 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

you are talking about a war scenario, right?

Yes, Community WARfare to be precise

N0MAD, on 10 January 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

i thought the idea was to provide a balanced fair game for peoples entertainment.

It is, that's why the perfectly good PUB queue you already have available to you is there

Hope that clears up any confusion

[vandalhooch]

AEgg, on 10 January 2016 - 05:46 PM, said:

How is that a downside to split queues? Or even relevant to split queues at all? "Don't Play CW" is a statement to an individual, it doesn't have anything to do with the game mode.

I've already addressed Mystere's scenarios, they only happen when a queue is empty.

If a queue isn't empty, then they translate to "Barbarians at the gate". "Ok, flip a coin. Heads, we send barbarians at them, tails, we send Praetorian Guards at them". Still nonsense. Your battles are determined by luck, not by who has the better team.

How does it do that? How are 12 solos any less part of a faction than 12 players in a group?

Seriously? Have you never played a competitive game in your life?

If one Faction, let's say Kurita, has several very good units what's to stop say Davion from trying to take their planets by only dropping in the solo queue in order to avoid those units?

Kurita units see what is going on so they flood the solo queue in order to defend their planets. Because these are pilots who have spent months learning how to work together as a team they end up rolling the solo attackers just like they do now.

The next thing the solo-only players will cry for is either a PSR matchmaker in the solo queue or an outright ban on anyone with a unit tag dropping in the solo queue. At that point, we've turned Faction play into just another mode for Quick Play.

Quote

Just because you don't join a unit doesn't mean you don't want to support your faction.

Great. Stop into the Faction teamspeak hub. Join a temporary group. Use LFG and faction chat to link up with other members of your Faction. Just know that in order to support your Faction you will be expected to actually defeat members of other Factions. Not some of the other members. Any of the other Faction's members. Just like they must defeat any of your own Faction's pilots.

Quote

And if the matchmaker (or lack thereof) is setting up stomps when it could be setting up balanced matches with the same group of players, isn't that detracting from your unit's involvement, not adding to it?

This is where you show your complete ignorance to what is really going on.

The matchmaker is not setting up anything. The players set themselves up for a stomp. They go in without enough experience. They go in without properly built, competitive mechs. They go in with all the wrong instincts that the solo queue has ingrained into them. They go in with an attitude of knowing what works best despite having never experienced actual success in the mode. And most of all, they go in as a bunch of solo players instead of as a team.

The point of Faction Play is not to have "balanced matches." It's to defeat an opposing Faction.

Quote

It's not a shallower experience if you just continue to play group queue.

Yes it is. Do you need factions to run group queue? Do you need units? All you need is a friends list and the ability to form groups.

At the end of the group queue match, is there any ongoing impact beyond the C-bill coffers of all the participants? Do other players have to deal with the ramifications of the outcome of any particular group queue match?

Quote

You just will be facing better opposition and wasting less time in matches that provide no challenge at all.

Oh. I see what you mean by group queue. You mean your version of the Faction Play group queue. Here's where you just don't get it. Other Faction's will actively try to avoid known units while still trying to lay claim to their planets. Your system will create situations where planets will be taken by waves of PUGs while they avoid tough units. That completely destroys any semblance of immersion and makes the members of units feel cheated out of their possessions. There is no way that that system would remain popular at all.

Your system would also incentivize everyone leaving and rejoining their units over and over again. Or, they will all create solo alt accounts and the PUG stomps will continue.

The split queue will absolutely not solve the problem you are trying to solve. As long as there is only one galaxy map, you can not have two separate queues vying for control of it.

Quote

Unless we block solos from playing CW, they will be there, and since they vastly outnumber grouped players (at least according to PGI...),

I think you are completely misunderstanding that data. There is a huge difference between a solo PUG fresh from their terrible training in the Quick Play queue and a solo PUG who is a member of a unit or is a regular participant in team drops who is dropping solo at times. PGI's data has no way to differentiate between those two "solos." One of them is the cause of all the cry-hard, salt threads lately and the other is the source of the numerous posts pointing out how ridiculous your claims and ideas are.

Quote

they will have a big impact on the overall outcome. At least with split queues how much groups and solos influence the outcome can be a set value (ideally 50/50 but it could be 90/10 in favor of groups if we want it to be).

Do you honestly think the same people who are crying now would be happy if they could only contribute 10% towards the taking or defending of a planet? What happens when planetary rewards becomes a thing with Phase 3? Do they only get 10% of those rewards as well? They won't be back making more cry-hard threads in the forums then?

AEgg, on 10 January 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

Uhh, aren't you supporting him, then? The stawman is that the game is like war, which he was refuting. Your post sounded like you were arguing with him.

No. He was claiming that others said this was war. That is not what they said. He purposely misrepresented their arguments in an absurd manner.

[MischiefSC]

AEgg, on 10 January 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

But with split queues you CAN'T win without facing the best of the enemy. It will be your best against their best, and your rabble against their rabble. If you don't fight their groups, you lose, no matter how well your solos do (since solos can be at most half of the result).

How much impact the "best" has vs how much impact the "rabble" has can be easily set, since they are separate queues. It doesn't have to be "one win in either queue has the same impact", it could be "Win/Loss by the groups is 90% of the outcome and Win/Loss by the solos is 10% of the outcome"

Except you're not. You're segregating the population to protect rabble from teams. It's also never going to be a balanced population split. Plus pugs are not always rabble - I pug constantly and regularly see pugs beat teams.

You're trying to set two standards. We already have that. The purpose of CW is to NOT be what we already have. It's not that CW is "only for units". It's that CW simulates a war between factions and playing as a member of the other 11 people on your team regardless of being a premade group or not beats playing as rabble.

You're not talking about splitting people dropping in premade from people dropping individually. You're wanting to make a separate queue to let people play as pugs, ignoring their teams and otherwise doing what fails and but still pretending they are "winning".

Better idea. If you don't want to play in a faction vs faction war, play in the pug queue.