121 replies to this topic

[AnimeFreak40K]

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

First and foremost Those games haven't been in retail launch for 3 years taking millions of dollars from paying customers and THEN tell them their units are capped.

I would say that ArenaNet has done exactly that.

When Guild Wars 2 first came out, there was no cap on the size a Guild could be. Now there is, but you can pay some in-game currency (gold) to increase that cap further. And Guild Wars 2 has been around a bit longer than MWO.

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

You don't make huge sweeping and fundamental changes without conversing with your community after 3 years of commercial launch.

Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but most (if not all) games that fall under 'MMO' and thus has a player base that has a significant PvP population does this frequently. I don't play WoW, but I know Blizzard makes changes to how various aspects of the game work, and they sometimes do so only the warning of "we are making some changes to this thing here."
I know that ArenaNet did that plenty of times for Guild Wars; they would constantly change out how skills worked...and then would rework them (it was almost like clockwork really. You could expect a round of buffs/nerfs every month or so). Again, there was little readily available information. These changes were being made to balance things and shake things up in the PvP meta, but it screwed things hard in PvE at times to the point that some skills ended up getting split (a PvP version and a PvE version of the same skill)...and these split skills sometimes worked very differently.
Again, ANet has been doing some of the same things with Guild Wars 2; making sweeping changes in how skills, professions, etc. work...again, with only the warning of "here's some things that need changing and here's a list of the stuff that's getting changed. You will see what these changes are when the patch goes live."

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

You don't take a customers money for 3 years under the constant guise of "beta". They lost "beta" when they chose to voluntarily take money from customers.I don't care what "legally" or "technically" the word "beta" means because it's irrelevant.

This is the part where I insert a picture showing that I am now pointing and laughing at you.
I hate to break it to you, but the whole "Open Alpha"/"Open Beta" thing where people shove money at a game is something that has been going on for several years now and is an accepted business model...especially for independent publishers/studios. PGI is just one of those guys that's going with that flow. If you want someone to blame, then blame yourself for blindly shoving money into this game.

To be clear, I do *NOT* condone this business practice, and I think it has done *FAR* more harm to the gaming industry than any good, because it allows developers to be lazy, and the Triple A studios/companies are starting to take this same path.

But that is a flaw in the system, and the only way to make companies stop doing the 'perpetual beta'/'in development' is to stop incentivizing that sort of activity.

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

It's irrelevant because those customers that handed them money don't really see it that way and what's really at the basis of this "outrage" is some of the players here are getting sick and tired of being PGI's whipping boy and scapegoat because THEY can't figure out how to properly balance their game.

Yeah, I don't care how the customers see things. I mean, I can understand why folks are frustrated. I really do. But at the same time, that's also what you get for investing in a thing without proper knowledge/understanding of what it is you're getting into.

To be clear, I've felt a little bummed out by some of the purchases I made in this game...but at the same time, I have nobody to blame but myself too.

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

Some of us are sick and tired of having the rugs pulled out from under us every few months because PGI can't figure out how to run a Btech campaign. That most 13 year old GMs could do 20 years ago.

Get used to it. This is how MMO games are; stuff changes, especially when there is new content getting released and/or a new meta that's been sitting around.

Seriously, in MMO games there is no such thing as "balance". Things will be a certain way for awhile and then stuff will get shaken up for the express purpose of destroying the status quo. If you have a game that is an MMO that is not getting stuff kicked up and adjusted every so often, then you have a dead game that is no longer being supported.

As to the BTech campaign thing... you're making absolutely no sense here. At all. To my knowledge there is no "Campaign" going on, especially not in the same sense of running a tabletop campaign. And even then, what exactly are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that you could do a better job at this? Because if so, I vaguely recall that PGI has some open positions. Maybe you should submit a resume?

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

Some of us are sick and tired of getting blamed and made pariahs of simply because we understand teamwork and like to drop with friends.

Then don't take it. Just play, or not. I have friends that I like to play with and I also like to play on my own. From the looks of things, these changes won't make any difference to me unless I decide to jump in Faction Warfare and play with some guys that are in a unit... maybe. I don't know, because I don't know if I'd be able to join in their group because I don't have any unit tags.

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

Some of us are sick and tired of being PGI's excuse as to why some things in the game are unbalanced.

Here's the thing; PGI has access to data that neither you or I do. They understand what this stuff means. It also doesn't help that there are groups in this game that go out of their way to show PGI how messed up things are...and then PGI takes steps to correct that change.

The fact of the matter also is that there are a large number of people stating that they want certain changes, well, truth is, is that there have been enough people bugging PGI for a split between Solo Que and Unit Que in Faction Warfare that it's now going to happen...despite MONTHS of PGI stating that it's not going to happen ever, and that it would be a bad thing...

This tells me that PGI is far more inclined to move in the direction that gives them the least amount of pushback/hate.

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

PGI needs ot take ownership and responsibility. Not us, we don't code the game. We sit here, listen to what PGI says they're going to do and what they're going to change. Then we say "Ok, here's our money". Then PGI comes back a few months later and it's always either "Well we can't do that due to technical limitations" (Which is crap to begin with most times) or something along the lines of "That was our position at the time and because new players are having problems we're going to take it out on you and publicly make you a scapegoat"

I think you need to take a step back and approach this with a clear mind.

I'm not going to lie, PGI has made a fair number of mistakes that they have not owned up to.

With regard to their technical limitations, how certain are you of PGI's technical capabilities? Have you considered that PGI doesn't have the best of resources? I mean, it's not like they're getting support from Microsoft or a publisher or other some other independent source of revenue.

I'll be quite clear, I'm not a programmer...but I have an idea of how much a programmer makes. I'm also not an owner of a company, and I certainly don't run one, but I do have an idea of how much an employee costs (which is, invariably a significant amount more than what they are being paid). This said, I also know that PGI is not a large company by any stretch of the imagination (60-some-odd employees). I also know that your larger game companies have sections that are the size of PGI working on just one facet of a game.

So yes, PGI has a bit of a habit of talking big, but then failing to meet the expectations they raise, but I don't think they do it on purpose. They have a bunch of stuff that they want to do, and then realize, after the fact that they can't do it...or can't do it in the timeline that is reasonable or that may be expected.

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

I'm tired of spending hours and dollars to try and help build a community in lieu of the actual company who brilliantly decided to beuild a multiplayer only video game and CHOSE to avoid putting in basic functions like TUTORIALS for nearly 3 years

This... all of it... goes pretty much with what I put above regarding the size of the company...and some of it you even answer/address yourself.

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

VOIP LOBBIES COMM TOOLS SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS COHESION that every other game and eveloper out there has seem fit to do for 10+ years.

You do realize that MWO is PGI's first game, right? As in their first actual title that is all theirs (as opposed to being a studio tasked with working on some facet of a game). This means that no, they don't have the experience of these other developers. They're pretty much figuring this out as they go.

You have to remember also that as a small company, PGI has only so many people on-hand that they can devote to tasks. If PGI starts working on, say, a new round of mechs, that's going to take a good portion of their developmental resources....resources that are:
- Not working on Lobbies
- Not working on Comm Tools
- Not working on Social Environments
- Not working on revisiting mechs that need revisiting
- Not working on maps that need revising
- Not making new maps
- Not making new mechs
- Not working on Tutorials

This is one the biggest problems in being part of a small company with finite resources...they can't pay attention to all the things that need paying attention to. And they can't hire people or farm this work out to another studio because they don't have the capital to do it.

So what you have is a small company taking on a project that a larger (and/or well-funded) company should be doing, so they can really only work on one thing at a time...

...and the fact of the matter is that Faction Warfare has *NOT* been PGI's priority. Oh, I'm sure they would like it to be, but they decided that maps, mechs, mech-balance and UI stuff was a higher priority.

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

I personally am sick of PGI screwing something up and then them jumping on the bandwagon to blame premades groups now units for THEIR inadequacies in being able to develop this game. PGI screws things up not preamdes groups units or any other boogeyman you want to scapegoat.

I don't think it's them so much jumping on any sort of bandwagon. Instead, they are hearing what a lot of people are saying (here, Steam, Reddit, Twitter and other social media locations) and checking their numbers and realizing that there is some merit to what people are saying.
...and what people were saying is that premades were making things un-fun in the regular games, so they split the queues.
...then people were saying that very large groups (12-mans mostly) were making things un-fun for the smaller groups, so they split up and reworked the group queue further

What people are saying now, which is what people have been saying since well before Tukayyid 1 is that CW is un-fun because of the behavior of units (such as units avoiding each other and such), and PGI has the numbers and logs to back up those statements...so PGI is making changes based on what those people are saying.

To be clear, I think that making a separate solo/PUG group in Faction Warfare is a bad idea. I think that the best way to fix many of the problems that are with CW can be solved by having a unit-cap of 100 players and have planets actually be worth something.

Here is something I learned a long time ago, and I really think it's applicable here: Perception trumps Reality. Period.
The perception is that units actively avoid each other and would rather go 'seal-clubbing'. You and I both know that this is not true for the most part... but as I said, perception trumps reality, and PGI is doing something to correct that perception.

Edited by AnimeFreak40K, 17 January 2016 - 10:02 PM.

[Sandpit]

AnimeFreak40K, on 17 January 2016 - 09:59 PM, said:

You and I both know that this is not true for the most part... but as I said, perception trumps reality, and PGI is doing something to correct that perception.

then the best thing you can actually do, is explain to others when they start in with that rhetoric that it's simply untrue and show newer players and members of the community that that type of behavior is not the norm.

[MischiefSC]

In general when people accuse others of crimes of intent it's because that's what they would do in the same situation. A dishonest person tends to assume other people lie all the time, for example.

Not saying that's universal but it's worth mentioning. People assume have some evil secret plan because units are organizing for mutual benefit - and to someone who really only sees the game as 'I want every advantage I can' they assume it's all about in game advantage.

The reality is that 99% of units are about 'these guys are fun to hang out with'.

[Ewigan]

As a disclaimer: i only speak for me, not for the PHL high command. But as i am company lead for one of our 5 companies i hope to know what i am talking about.

So, do we avoid fighting groups in CW? Hell no!
Do we actively search groups in CW? It depends.

We are MERCS. We play as loyal MERCs, so if we are given a command from the high command of the faction we are with, we follow that command.
Adding to that we usually try to defent "our" planets.
That kinda leaves us in a sore spot for "searching out groups". If we have groups against us we are truly happy, cause fighting against PUGs is seriously boring. I play for having fun, winning is completely optional.

Regards,
Ewigan of the Phoenix Legion, Leader of the II.1. company the "Burning Devils"

[Conjure]

Sooooo,

You mean to tell me some of the best and most competitive players/units are intentionally avoiding competitive play?

[Nightbird]

People like new content, the new quirk pass made a lot of people want to play IS mechs for a while creating a player imbalance. It's mostly returning to normal now, as you can see on the map.

[AnimeFreak40K]

Conjure, on 18 January 2016 - 12:09 AM, said:

Sooooo, You mean to tell me some of the best and most competitive players/units are intentionally avoiding competitive play?

In a word, yes.

In a larger, less-single-word answer, it's complicated...

A lot of the large and/or competitive units that still play MWO/Faction Warfare (this number has seriously fallen off for a variety of reasons) have the primary concern of "taking planets" (that is, putting that unit's tag on said planet) and/or "getting into a game quickly" (spending as little time waiting for a match as possible).
This is entirely due to the "Call To Arms" (CTA) feature in the game
- If you have a planet with no attackers, a CTA does not go out to bring attackers in (at least to my knowledge anyway).
- It is a lot easier for a unit to organize a 12-person team and go hit a planet; they are guaranteed a match within 10 minutes (the CTA will bring defenders in).
- Win or lose, they can just hit the same planet again and they will be promised a different map and and a variety of opponents, and an almost instantaneous drop...again, thanks to the CTA driving the fighting population of that planet up.

This also falls in line with why these units primarily stick between the Clans or FRR, Steiner and Kurita. An Inner Sphere attack on a Clan world will allow *all* of the Clans to come in and defend that world (same is true for a Clan attack on the Inner Sphere). However, if Steiner were to attack, say, Davion, only Davion could defend against the attack; that massive drop in potential opponents is reason alone to keep these units who want quick fights on the borders.

Because of the way the system presently works with regards to claiming/tagging planets, the mechanic favors the attack. Why?
- If the attacking force can push a faction's borders to sit against multiple opposing factions (which is done by taking planets and moving the border), this means more options to take more planets.
- After Tukayyid 1 some changes were done to the algorithm used to calculate planet flipping such that it is now better to attack than defend (I vaguely recall a forum post on this matter titled something along the lines of "So the best way to defend a planet is to not defend it"). Effectively, this means there is very little incentive for a unit to defend a planet.
- To my knowledge, if a unit spends most of their time defending, I don't think they can actually tag that planet if it's kept. So a unit that is focused on taking planets would have very little incentive to defend.

Why did a lot of units suddenly switch to Inner Sphere?
A number of reasons, and these reasons *will* vary from unit to unit, but here's a list of the reasons that I have seen:
- The unit was Clan (and had been Clan for some time) before Tukayyid 2 and felt it was time to play for the Inner Sphere
- The unit was traditionally Inner Sphere, but switched to Clan for the event in the interest of getting quick matches but then returned to their historical homes after the event
- PGI recently released the Marauder, an Inner Sphere mech that people had been looking forward to for a *long* time that people wanted to try out in Faction Warfare...to do this, they had to switch to Inner Sphere. I have a feeling that similar behavior will happen around Tuesday with the release of the Warhammer.

TL;DR: Yes, competitive units unintentionally avoid each other because of both the mechanic of how Faction Warfare works and they have other goals when it comes to playing in Faction Warfare.

[Sandpit]

Conjure, on 18 January 2016 - 12:09 AM, said:

Sooooo,

You mean to tell me some of the best and most competitive players/units are intentionally avoiding competitive play?

no
I'll tell you that a small portion of players in general regardless of unit or group affiliation, solo or premade, drop to do things like that.

Units, premades, tags, etc. are just used as scapegoats for those things happening.

[Khereg]

Resurrecting this just to say we had several arranged CW matches with LoP last night and it was fun for both sides (I think).

Thanks guys, good drops. And evidence that we do, in fact, arrange group v group matches on occasion.

[Sandpit]

Khereg, on 28 January 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:

Resurrecting this just to say we had several arranged CW matches with LoP last night and it was fun for both sides (I think).

Thanks guys, good drops. And evidence that we do, in fact, arrange group v group matches on occasion.

It would happen more often if PGI would actually put in some social tools

[Tom Sawyer]

/me dreams of lobbies

[sycocys]

https://mwomercs.com...stiener-please/

Just going to say, we tried while we were clan and wanted some stiff competition from any IS teams out there.
At least 50 views in the first 20 minutes on that and the only reply was to defend a planet with 2 12's on it already.

Opened it up to every IS team to show us how unplayable Clan mechs were and no one wanted to prove it. Meh.

Miss the days when MS and 228 would intentionally line their better teams up across from us so we could all have good matches.

[Sandpit]

sycocys, on 28 January 2016 - 11:31 AM, said:

https://mwomercs.com...stiener-please/

Just going to say, we tried while we were clan and wanted some stiff competition from any IS teams out there.
At least 50 views in the first 20 minutes on that and the only reply was to defend a planet with 2 12's on it already.

Opened it up to every IS team to show us how unplayable Clan mechs were and no one wanted to prove it. Meh.

Miss the days when MS and 228 would intentionally line their better teams up across from us so we could all have good matches.

Too many players here are too lazy honestly.

They want and expect PGI to create a system that perfectly places them in perfectly balanced match with perfectly balanced weight, perfectly balanced player skills, while at the same time making sure nobody in a group plays with them.

If players really wanted a livelier CW, all they really have to do is utilize the forums and faction chat.

Most common response I get?
It wouldn't do any good.

It's "hard" to get off your butt and do something to improve your own experience for some apparently. Others I'm just thoroughly convinced that want to have a bad personal experience so they have something to QQ about

[Bjorn Coston]

Speaking for a unit that is relatiely small and by no means on par with major units like MS, 228, QQ, KCOM, etc. We most certainly do not avoid particular units. In fact, we pray that we drop against organized units. Makes for much more intense game play and affords valuable learning experience.

[sycocys]

Bjorn Bekker, on 28 January 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

Speaking for a unit that is relatiely small and by no means on par with major units like MS, 228, QQ, KCOM, etc. We most certainly do not avoid particular units. In fact, we pray that we drop against organized units. Makes for much more intense game play and affords valuable learning experience.

Well if you see anyone from OLD online, shoot us a message so we can set up drops. Playing vs pugs is boring af.

[Bjorn Coston]

sycocys, on 28 January 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:

Well if you see anyone from OLD online, shoot us a message so we can set up drops. Playing vs pugs is boring af.

We actually played OLD a couple of nights ago. Had a fun match but you ended up winning o7. [(EK)]- Ebon Keshik is our unit tag. I'll hit you up with a friend request in game so we can set up some matches one of these nights.

[MischiefSC]

I would like to see the telemetry on how many matches are unit vs unit, especially the top units. What % of their matches are against comparable units.

The only matches pugs see are pugs vs whoever. Currently in CJF 100% of the matches I've seen are pug vs 10man+. However if there are 12mans on the Clan side dropping vs units I wouldn't see that.

I've tweeted Russ to see if he can get that telemetry for the town hall. If units already play most their matches against units that's a good talking point against a split.

[Khereg]

sycocys, on 28 January 2016 - 11:31 AM, said:

Miss the days when MS and 228 would intentionally line their better teams up across from us so we could all have good matches.

Tough right now since we're in the same faction, but once we move on stop by our teamspeak and see what we're up to. I think you'll find some interest.

[sycocys]

Khereg, on 28 January 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

Tough right now since we're in the same faction, but once we move on stop by our teamspeak and see what we're up to. I think you'll find some interest.

We will certainly do that.

[Tasker]

Don't know about units avoiding other units, OP.

i do know that certain big mercenary units had people log on to alt accounts as inactive bots to help them take planets faster because they kept getting clowned by a certain Kurita loyalist unit.