778 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Bobzilla, on 15 January 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Oh i understand, you seem to have this hard on to fight this tooth and nail.

Like I said, worst case nothing changes, it stays as it is now, whats the problem? You aren't the only person that understands what was said, it's just you have a solid opinion on it, no matter what other facts are involved for some reason. Where is the problem if nothing changes?

Well, to me, a "Community Warfare" environment that allows the following possibility:

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!"

is not the "Community Warfare" I am looking for. That to me looks ridiculous for what is supposed to be a quasi-simulation of war.

To me, forced player separation is a knee-jerk and therefore unimaginative solution to the problem. A more appropriate solution is having a set of imaginative games modes that soften the blow on new players. The hinted 4x4 game mode looks like a move in the right direction.

Edited by Mystere, 15 January 2016 - 01:50 PM.

[Sandpit]

Mystere, on 15 January 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

That really depends. Would you consider Community Warfare a success if it ends up looking more like a Solaris environment, what with separate queues, PSR-based matchmaking, and leaderboards?

I myself would not.

That's just it, with so little real communication from the devs and PGI in general, we are left in the dark until a major change is announced out of the blue. Then everyone is left to speculate for a month or more before any information is actually dispersed.

I don't get it. They've been down this path before. They know the community doesn't react well to that kind of mentality and operation, yet they continue doing it...

It's like they dont' want to give away any big "trade secrets". Nobody cares PGI, we just want to know what you're doing with our money and whether or not this is another in a long list of "target audience" and "position at the time" situations because I personally am very tired of that.

I've been in alpha tests that didn't go through this much tumultuous turnover and direction changes and that's the truth of it.

I just don't see how segregating unit players from non-unit players fixes anything.

How does that stop organized griefers from just dropping without tags now?
How does it help new players get more acclimated to CW?
How does it explain the complex map and queue system of CW to new players?
How does it make it easier for new players to find others to play with?
How does it help units that try to build a community recruit and ensure new players have a more fun experience?
How does it prevent roflstomps?
How does it improve comm and social tools?
How does it add any kind of depth to CW?

Based on everything that's been stated thus far, it quite simply does not.

[Cappy]

Scout Derek, on 15 January 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

Cappy you better put the brakes on, because asking to be reported, gets a response, especially when I see it.

Anyways folks carry on with the talk, I just came in here to make sure and assure that it's still on topic.ì

Where did i ask to be reported? He threatened to report me. I merely indicated that i don't care what he does.

[Sandpit]

Mystere, on 15 January 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

Well, to me, a "Community Warfare" environment that allows the following possibility:



is not the "Community Warfare" I am looking for. That to me looks ridiculous for what is supposed to be a quasi-simulation of war.

To me, forced player separation is a knee-jerk and therefore unimaginative solution to the problem. A more appropriate solution is having a set of imaginative games modes that soften the blow on new players. The hinted 4x4 game mode looks like a move in the right direction.

I just find it odd that this has been kept completely under wraps. Everything they've hinted at has had nothing to do with this kind of thing.

That leads me to believe one of two things. Either it's a recent decision based on QQ or it's something they knew would not go well with many in the community. Either way, it's not a good way to try and build a community and look more transparent given the history of MWO, PGI, and the community...

[AdamBaines]

Good lord...21 pages already......rage from all sides......

[Sandpit]

AdamBaines, on 15 January 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

Good lord...21 pages already......rage from all sides......

There's no rage here. Not on my part

Might be a little OUTrage
But there's no malice in my heart, mind, or words to anyone. Even those who like the idea. That doesnt' mean I'm going to sit down in the corner and not pipe up on a decision I think is foolish at best and decimating at worst.

I encourage EVERYone to use the forums and speak their mind and give their feedback and leave suggestions. Even the ones I don't agree with.

I also encourage PGI to start paying a little more attention to their forums. I honestly and truly believe that the only thing they listen to is very loud and persistent QQ. Most of the time, players like me just post our counters on the forums and are done with it. When ti starts becoming apparent that that's the ONLY way to even get PGI's attention to even READ and CONSIDER ideas, well that's an issue and I'll happily get just as loud, just as QQ, and just as irritable as those guy if that's the only way to get PGI to even look in your direction.

There's no yelling at the screen, slamming keyboards, cussing, ranging, or any other malicious behavior or thought in anything I say or do, especially in regards to this.

I am, however, going to use what seems to be the most efficient way to get their attention. If it takes bugging them on Twitter more, sending them links to forum discussions regularly, encouraging others to make sure PGI sees it's not just "me" who thinks this way by using Twitter, then so be it.

Make no mistake though, there's no rage in there.

[AdamBaines]

Sandpit, on 15 January 2016 - 02:01 PM, said:

There's no rage here. Not on my part

Might be a little OUTrage
But there's no malice in my heart, mind, or words to anyone. Even those who like the idea. That doesnt' mean I'm going to sit down in the corner and not pipe up on a decision I think is foolish at best and decimating at worst.

I encourage EVERYone to use the forums and speak their mind and give their feedback and leave suggestions. Even the ones I don't agree with.

I also encourage PGI to start paying a little more attention to their forums. I honestly and truly believe that the only thing they listen to is very loud and persistent QQ. Most of the time, players like me just post our counters on the forums and are done with it. When ti starts becoming apparent that that's the ONLY way to even get PGI's attention to even READ and CONSIDER ideas, well that's an issue and I'll happily get just as loud, just as QQ, and just as irritable as those guy if that's the only way to get PGI to even look in your direction.

There's no yelling at the screen, slamming keyboards, cussing, ranging, or any other malicious behavior or thought in anything I say or do, especially in regards to this.

I am, however, going to use what seems to be the most efficient way to get their attention. If it takes bugging them on Twitter more, sending them links to forum discussions regularly, encouraging others to make sure PGI sees it's not just "me" who thinks this way by using Twitter, then so be it.

Make no mistake though, there's no rage in there.

Was not calling you out Sandpit.

You are usually very calm and outline with thoughtful reasoning your points. Weather I agree or disagree with you, its usually not because of or rage or irrational thoughts.

I think there are a lot of domino still to fall before this is settled. And we always need a starting place. So what Russ outlined is most likely it. It gets tuned and changed from there.

[Sandpit]

AdamBaines, on 15 January 2016 - 02:08 PM, said:

Was not calling you out Sandpit.

You are usually very calm and outline with thoughtful reasoning your points. Weather I agree or disagree with you, its usually not because of or rage or irrational thoughts.

I think there are a lot of domino still to fall before this is settled. And we always need a starting place. So what Russ outlined is most likely it. It gets tuned and changed from there.

I can hope. That's another reason I want this topic circulated through the community. I want people chiming in on it here in the community regardless of what their opinion on it is. I want Russ and PGI to see that it's not some "small" issue. This could potentially have large ramifications for a large chunk of the player base. That's not something that is going to go over well if it's handled poorly.

I've seen this community in full-on meltdown mode. It's not pretty. It's also not very conducive to PGI trying to improve MWO. SO why not do our best to avoid that?

[Scout Derek]

Cappy, on 15 January 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

Where did i ask to be reported? He threatened to report me. I merely indicated that i don't care what he does.

I removed it, but, I brought back a snipet of it:

Cappy, on 15 January 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:

Report away.

That's all I have to say. For now.

[Revis Volek]

I just dont understand why PGI think the Solos will stay (some will im sure) if the rewards are removed.

PGI has little hindsight, NO ONE played AT ALL, not even UNITS before the rewards were added. Now if Solo players CANT get rewards they wont JOIN units,this isn't going to MAKE THEM like PGI thinks it will. If they didn't before why would they now? Because PGI decided the SOLO players battle wasn't worth as much as the UNITS battle?

So they get less rewards, no planet tags, and no real competition.

So why are we leaving the solo queue in CW again if the mode wont even be worth playing? and i guess planets wont even switch hands if only SOLO players attack it?


Also what is to stop Unit from un tagging for an afternoon of synch dropping?

[Sandpit]

DarthRevis, on 15 January 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

Also what is to stop Unit from un tagging for an afternoon of synch dropping?

https://twitter.com/...749292447023105

That's the plan for that.
What's to stop them from creating alts?

I'm going to pick the 12man (insert just about any unit you want here) in trial mechs to win over
Random group of pugs and new players in various mechs

Every single time. So this protects, enhances, and improves CW for new and solop layers how exactly?

That's the part I keep missing somehow. I fail to see where this idea improves or fixes any of that.

[MrJeffers]

DarthRevis, on 15 January 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

I just dont understand why PGI think the Solos will stay (some will im sure) if the rewards are removed.

PGI has little hindsight, NO ONE played AT ALL, not even UNITS before the rewards were added. Now if Solo players CANT get rewards they wont JOIN units,this isn't going to MAKE THEM like PGI thinks it will. If they didn't before why would they now? Because PGI decided the SOLO players battle wasn't worth as much as the UNITS battle?

So they get less rewards, no planet tags, and no real competition.

So why are we leaving the solo queue in CW again if the mode wont even be worth playing? and i guess planets wont even switch hands if only SOLO players attack it?


Also what is to stop Unit from un tagging for an afternoon of synch dropping?

They are not removing rewards from non-unit players, at least not that I have seen mentioned anywhere. But only units will be able to tag planets, and having tagged planets in CW phase 3 is supposed to have in game financial rewards of MC for the owning unit.

In match rewards and loyalty points are remaining unchanged as far as I know. So what it really boils down to is that non-units are going to be basically still playing for CW 2.0 rewards, where unit members get to partake in the new rewards of CW 3.0. These rewards are supposed to be the carrot at the end of the stick to keep people in units, not faction hop, etc.

Edited by MrJeffers, 15 January 2016 - 02:19 PM.

[MischiefSC]

So to reiterate some things that might work -

1. Split off a tagless queue. Let it influence tagged matches but not flip worlds. If you let tagless queue flip worlds you put unit v unit matches in direct competition with tagless v tagless matches for the same objectives; flipping worlds for your faction. That will be gamed, it's unfair and cheap and dilutes the point of CW. Let tagless players get LP up to level 6 (that's 2 mech bays, about as far as most people get who are shopping for mech bays) and earn cool rewards.

2. Reduce faction fronts from 2 worlds to 1. Attack/defend both be the same world. If you pug in CW you know that tagless players are, depending on the faction, 40/50% of the population. The population and long match wait times are an issue for everyone involved.

3. remove the whole 'MC for tagging a world' thing. That's going to be so stupidly exploitable it's going to become the focus of he game and it'll destroy CW for anyone who isn't a huge comp-tier unit. The fact that most solo players and PGI are so utterly oblivious to why people join units and why people in units play is and has always been a big issue here. I'm not going to stop being friends with all my friends in this game and go try to join a comp tier unit. Big units are not going to just drop most their friends from membership or make each other split up to be effective. All those ideas are so stupid that I don't even know where to begin - units are units because they are people who enjoy playing together. Reward people for participating in taking worlds and keeping them but just tagging a planet is so exploitable and so stupid it's like trying to pay players to ruin the game.

That would work. You stop making unit players and pug players adversaries. Quit trying to make them compete for the same thing and you remove the source of the issue. Quit trying to make being in a unit, especially a bit or successful unit, some terrible thing that is being done just to bully all the weaker kids in class.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 15 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

You stop making unit players and pug players adversaries.

This has been the mentality and community mindset PGI has fostered for 3 years now. It's always from day 1 of OB been "Us vs. them" in regards to anyone wanting to not just drop solo.

[MischiefSC]

So Russ has backed out of the conversation on twitter and we'll discuss it in the town hall. Hopefully these concerns will get addressed.

I can appreciate the need for both a training area for CW - we're all frustrated at people who are not able to compete effectively in CW and get farmed. If the only people defending Davion were people who knew how to play, how to communicate and coordinate we could absolutely hold 3 fronts. Right now though we've got people playing CW like it's pug queue who are getting stomped by people putting in a bare minimum of effort and it makes it that much harder for everyone else.

We need to remove direct competition from units and pugs. Nobody should lose a world because the other teams bads were better than your own bads. That's always been a frustration point. I can see however how someone who doesn't do the communicate/coordinate thing still wants to feel like they're playing in the deep side of the pool, so having a place for them to do so without being stomped and not sandbagging their faction is a good thing.

We also need to stop some of the stupid ideas about tagging. Make it based on how many drops you WON on a world, that's it. Make it pay out OVER TIME, so retention is important. Tagging should be a vanity, nothing more. Otherwise you eliminate any point of participation for anyone who isn't in either a huge unit or a comp tier unit, which is most the unit tagged players in CW.

So save it for the town hall. Don't use up the pitchfork and torch stockpile just yet.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 15 January 2016 - 02:27 PM, said:

So save it for the town hall. Don't use up the pitchfork and torch stockpile just yet.

That stuff was on sale last Black Friday!

Seriously though, people really don't see how much of a struggle at times to put a CW team... and I get burned out easily enough.

I do describe this here.... http://mwomercs.com/...ng/page__st__60

At the end of the day - people who play together (unitless or not) tend to enjoy CW more than relying on those NOT on your faction coms to do what needs to be done to win.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 15 January 2016 - 02:27 PM, said:

So Russ has backed out of the conversation on twitter and we'll discuss it in the town hall. Hopefully these concerns will get addressed.

I can appreciate the need for both a training area for CW - we're all frustrated at people who are not able to compete effectively in CW and get farmed. If the only people defending Davion were people who knew how to play, how to communicate and coordinate we could absolutely hold 3 fronts. Right now though we've got people playing CW like it's pug queue who are getting stomped by people putting in a bare minimum of effort and it makes it that much harder for everyone else.

We need to remove direct competition from units and pugs. Nobody should lose a world because the other teams bads were better than your own bads. That's always been a frustration point. I can see however how someone who doesn't do the communicate/coordinate thing still wants to feel like they're playing in the deep side of the pool, so having a place for them to do so without being stomped and not sandbagging their faction is a good thing.

We also need to stop some of the stupid ideas about tagging. Make it based on how many drops you WON on a world, that's it. Make it pay out OVER TIME, so retention is important. Tagging should be a vanity, nothing more. Otherwise you eliminate any point of participation for anyone who isn't in either a huge unit or a comp tier unit, which is most the unit tagged players in CW.

So save it for the town hall. Don't use up the pitchfork and torch stockpile just yet.

I'm all for it, I"m not in "pithfork" mode yet, but I still think WE, as the community, need to keep discussion going on it. I will still continue posting links and using Twitter to try and help bring attention to it. I'm going to start using the same methods that seem to work for others on here.

I really am tired of being made into some pariah, getting accused of seal clubbing, made to look like some ***** who just want to roll up easy game pugs, etc.

I play this game as close to the spirit of the rules as I can. I don't run metas. RMA doesn't have regimented drop decks or player skill requirements, I don't disdain or refer to new players with negative connotations like "scrubs". I don't run around and do my best to make sure someone else has a poor game experience, and yet I've spent 3 years being labeled as such by not only the QQers in the community, but PGI as well.

They want to make these blanket statements, give no context, and then wonder why other players get this negative image of those who drop in organized groups and such. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of being made to feel like I'm not welcome here in many cases. I'm tired of my unit being maligned and lied about because some dbag wants to QQ about getting beat.

Why in the world would ANY company trying to build a community think segregating and bemoaning a certain segment PUBLICLY no less, is a good thing isd beyond me.

This community and its units have spent YEARS letting PGI know we're here to help them if they want and woudl let us.

From testing to map building, to hit box and geometry feeback and information, you name it. We've done it, we've tried over and over again.

Yet, every time it comes right down to it the only ones that really seem to have any "goodwill" from PGI are the elite player class and those that QQ the most.

All I'll say on this at this point is, PGI I hope you take a VERY good, hard look at the feedback you're choosing to listen to. Some of the community has nothing but MWO's best interest at heart, and some of the community has nothing but THEIR best interests at heart.

If you want MWO to thrive and grow, you better start learning how to build a community of followers and sorry it ain't going to be built by the 1-2% of "competitive" players looking for esports and 100k championships.

Your community is what pays your bills, supports you, promotes you, reviews your game on Steam specifically because YOU asked us to, builds UNIT groups on steam FOR YOU to help get the brand and game in front of more players.

Think long and hard PGI.
Please

[Bobzilla]

Sandpit, on 15 January 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

...

I may make this my new signature lol

Ask PGI. They're the ones saying something has to change because new players and casual players are getting poor CW experiences. That's the problem if nothing changes. You're not interested in facts, you're simply interested in arguing. Keep on keepin on lol

Like I said, if you want an answer to that question why don't you go ask PGI. My answers, and many others from the community, are in this thread. Go read them. I'm not reposting them because you're lazy. I'm not your personal librarian

I've yet to see any logical answer. I know why PGI is making this change, I'm asking you why are getting bent out of shape if "nothing is going to change". You also said it'll be bad for community because people will drop units, that just fine, if nobody wants it, no need.

But have fun with your sky is falling crusade with your Twitter army you're raising. I don't care either way.

[Sandpit]

Bobzilla, on 15 January 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

I've yet to see any logical answer. I know why PGI is making this change, I'm asking you why are getting bent out of shape if "nothing is going to change". You also said it'll be bad for community because people will drop units, that just fine, if nobody wants it, no need.

But have fun with your sky is falling crusade with your Twitter army you're raising. I don't care either way.

If "nothing changes" then you just pissed off a good portion of your player base for just that, nothing. You should REALLY read more and stop with your propaganda. I responded to this because at first it looked like you were ready to have an adult discussion, then after I started responding I read this part.

Bobzilla, on 15 January 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

But have fun with your sky is falling crusade with your Twitter army you're raising. I don't care either way.

so again, please stop with the lame flame bait and such, anyone that's bothered to actually read anything posted in this thread knows exactly how silly YOU look right now. If you want to have a discussion like the rest of the adults are doing, please, partake, involve yourself, otherwise go find another thread to troll and attempt to bait.

It won't work here, you're troll-fu isn't strong enough and nobody that I've seen posting in this thread regularly is dumb enough to take your bait.

Please, just stop, post your ideas and suggestions, give opinions on the subject matter, not the people posting. Otherwise, just find another thread bud, this one's got nothing for you and you're going to end up looking VERY foolish.

[Wintersdark]

Kilo 40, on 14 January 2016 - 11:24 PM, said:

the absolute panic dripping off of every post by those terror stricken with the idea that they will actually have to fight against other units instead of pugs is so deliciously sweet....

smokefield, on 14 January 2016 - 11:59 PM, said:

the absolute joy dripping off every post by those delightfully stricken with the idea that they actually don't have to work as a team against a real unit instead of pugs is so deliciously sour.

Do you guys realize that both of these posts are perfectly correct and valid? It's not one side against the other, as much as it can seem that way from either end.

Yes, teamwork is the path to victory, it's a team game, and all that. I never have ever argued against that. And yes, the chances of a group of random pugs winning against a practiced team is very low. We all know the situation. We all know the pugs could choose to form into units, practice, etc - well, for those who can actually do that, not everyone can. But lets ignore that.

The reality is that a massive number don't, and won't. You can just say screw them, but you need them. You need them to enjoy playing solo, but to see that there are increased rewards in a unit - THAT is how you incentivize their joining units. But you still need them able to have a fun solo experience, or nobody will stick around to find out.

Here we need to take a pragmatic view. It's not good enough to say "Just join a unit!" It's never been good enough. Just saying that doesn't make it happen.

CW isn't end-game content, because it's open and fully accessible. If PGI put barriers to entry (say, having 4 mechs with at least full basic skills) or something, that would serve to segregate it, and reinforce it as more advanced content. But that's not the case. A brand new player can come in off the street, and play nothing but CW. A single little text box popup isn't enough.

I realise many of you will just say "Well, that's his problem then, if he didn't read the warning." But it's not. It's your problem too. Because this is basic human behavior, and it's something PGI needs to account for and design around, because if they can't get enough players into CW, it doesn't work for anyone. If it doesn't work, it's not worth development time, and it just languishes in the background.