778 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Sandpit, on 14 January 2016 - 10:02 PM, said:

You forget we as veteran players tend to view things differently, particularly in terms of broad impact and fallout... In instances like this I fear we're already too scarred from previous shenanigans to think otherwise...

That said, I'm not sure you can convince a new player it's in their best interest to learn CW at the school of hard-knocks taught by tenured vets versus marching around in their "special snowflake" playroom unsupervised.

That's not how this codified participation trophy toting generation of gamers think... And right, wrong or indifferent, this is apparently what PGI is willing to placate.

Edited by DaZur, 14 January 2016 - 10:22 PM.

[Ghogiel]

pwnface, on 14 January 2016 - 08:15 PM, said:

I think they are trying to make a barrier for this by making it cost c-bills to join a unit.

So what?

[JaxRiot]

Woo ... lots has happened since I went to work

I think a separate que is a good idea.

The Units that say that they dont like farming pugs and are in CW for the Unit play will get exactly that. Unit vs Unit play.

Pugs that say they dont want to be farmed by units will get exactly that. Pug vs Pugs free from Units being able to even 'accidentally' farm them.

The people who are already planning on attempting sync drops to farm pugs are exactly the kind of people that caused this separation in the first place. So all they will be doing is proving it was needed

I see people complaining about que times, but with the new much narrower attack lanes the que times should be much shorter for everyone, but time will tell on that one.

Suddenly I feel a renewed interest in CW. I think I will give Phase 3 a shot

[Mystere]

DaZur, on 14 January 2016 - 10:20 PM, said:

That's not how this codified participation trophy toting generation of gamers think... And right, wrong or indifferent, this is apparently what PGI is willing to placate.

I firmly believe that handing out participation trophies is detrimental to the further betterment of mankind. As such, I think handing out such things should be declared a crime against humanity and dealt with with extreme prejudice.

Edited by Mystere, 14 January 2016 - 10:27 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 January 2016 - 08:57 PM, said:

I like all the theory crafting going on in here on how to still game the system by using alts, sync-dropping, etc.

It's like Russ was right on the nose about it coming down to the players to not be d*cks at some point or something...

Mystere, on 14 January 2016 - 09:36 PM, said:

There is a huge difference between people trying to anticipate exploits in order to mitigate them, and doing the same thing to actually abuse them. Tsk! Tsk!

Mystere, on 14 January 2016 - 09:20 PM, said:

Ahem!

As Russ himself said, as the unit grows, so does the cost of recruiting new members. If the increasing cost per recruit is charged to the unit, then you are in fact discouraging units from growing up to a certain point. It's even worse -- not to mention silly -- if the increasing cost is charged to the recruit.

Also, if a unit of size A decides not to grow, but allows B% of its members to temporarily drop their tags for C amount of time and club seals to earn D c-bills before eventually returning, there will be optimum values for A, B, C, and D where doing just that becomes very profitable for every member of the unit. Is PGI going to figure this out and calculate what those optimum values are? Or are they going to remain clueless on the matter until someone tips them off (or more probably, someone loudly whines about the "exploit")?

I imagined the same scenario...a unit caps itself at whatever number is right for the equilibrium for profit (say 65 members) and rotates out x amount of pilots to keep the number always at 65 or lower. Everyone gets a chance to "seal club" and eventually rotates back into the unit at some point.

[Y E O N N E]

Mystere, on 14 January 2016 - 10:16 PM, said:

I am in those threads. So I can say with certainly that not everyone there is plotting to get around said barriers.

On the other hand, the people who I'd be most concerned about also don't typically post on these forums.

We shall see.

Quote

I know it's out of players' hands. But, they can most certainly make PGI aware of them in the hope that PGI would reconsider their design ... or just jettison their really bad ideas.

Careful there. I rarely ever take anybody saying "really bad ideas" seriously on these forums, because almost every idea PGI has had is a "bad idea" and, from my experience playing a wide selection of video-games over the last 25 years, participating in modding communities, taking formal game theory and game development classes, and being a practicing systems engineer...most people are flat-out wrong. Yes, PGI has had some misfires, like abusive quirks and game mode variation, but they've also had some good ideas that so many lazy slugs on these boards don't want to have to adapt to, like the fog on Viridian Bog or equitable damage rates between the 54-point laser TBRs and STKs.

[Bonger Bob]

Sandpit, on 14 January 2016 - 06:50 PM, said:

but the only ideas that ever seem to come from the PGI think tank are thsoe that involve punishing units and groups.

Nobody in the little Marik community we've built does that kind of thing. Don't punish US because some players are dbags. Punish THEM, directly if you have to, but I'm tried of getting stuck footing the bill for the BS they dish out. That's a community and rule issue, not a unit and group issue.

It's beyond frustrating to literally have a small community of people who come together and donate hundreds and more plus countless hours to build a place for units and to help congregate players because you, PGI, are quite simply horrible when it comes to devloping social tools, so we picked up the slack for you.

We created TS servers
We created chat rooms
We created websites

Not you

Now you're telling us that we're to be punished for doing that for the game and community. That's where this animosity, anger, and frustration come from.

......................

Keep scapegoating units and groups and premades and whatever other bandwagon you want, it won't change anything. The reason you get "less" complaints isn't because it's "good" it's because the ones trying to get you to segregate the population so they CAN club seals relentlessly stop complaining.


I imagine you would. Makes it easier for you to kick around "scrubs" (at least that's what you call them)

how does this punish groups so badly as you attest to happening here ??? The only thing they've lost is the possibility of coming across a round with the opposing side made up entirely of scrub solo's, and roflstomping accordingly. You've stated that this is Dbag behavior and it's not what you enjoy, so how is losing this an issue ??

It only translates into less time wasted fighting a pre-decided round, not punishing group unit players.

You can still recruit players as you see fit through the missing team management and joining tools in the client.

and if you haven't picked up on it by now, scrub solo's is the term iv'e had to resort to for referring to "the solo player who is devoid of team work, not using voip or chat panels for comms, in it only for themselves to zero effect in the round" because of your continued failed attempts to blend the terminology when referencing the players that need removing from CW.

Splitting the ques has nothing to do with the ability of an individual player to continue bad behavior either. Instantly batching anyone that has argued for splitting the ques as the ones you refer to as "trying to get you to segregate the population so they CAN club seals relentlessly" is insulting and incorrect, you know that.

Some of us ARE intent on not dropping into rounds where one side is so hopelessly outclassed because the other is comprised of units / groups all on the same out of client voip, while the other is a side of scrub solo's barely using the in game voip or chat panel.

Keeping one flawed system for the sake of fears over some of those same flaws still being present in the new system makes no sense, unless the only thing you fear losing is the exploitative environment that you have used to your benefit against other players. If your using tools other players are not using, and using those to take and maintain an advantage over those other players, then your doing exactly that.

If you jump on your 3rd party player paid for and supported faction voip, you agree and form up a group ( not necessarily unit tagged players from the same unit or otherwise ) to drop collectively on the same side in a round of CW full well knowing that you have a chance of dropping against a side that has not done the same, this is exploitative, plan and simple. That is what que separation helps limit. You can still all jump on voip and agree to do that when the que splits, but there is no guarantee that you will all end up on the same round, as you'll have joined the que as solo's rather than a group. Either that or your going to be joining as a group representative of what you actually are doing in the game, playing as a group.

Being upset at no longer being able to have access to an exploitative behavior method, while attesting that you don't use said method for your own benefit then trying to cry foul under the guise of it being how you recruit and train new players is a pretty thin and transparent. Your feeling on it are well known, and the more post like this one you do, you just make yourself more transparent.

[Lupis Volk]

honestly **** this split. There are units out there that try to help pugs. But pugs don't go out of their way to be helped. they just go "i'll play my way" and drag the team down.

CW is meant for teams work. either in a unit or loosely made on the battlefield by some vets. But we don't get that. we have legions of rambo's running and dying instead of heeding orders.

[Kilo 40]

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....

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 14 January 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

Yeah, see, I'm all for this.

But it's a chicken and egg thing. We ABSOLUTELY need better management tools. But we also need a system for helping the throngs of solo players not have a horrible experience, and "join the faction hub" as it stands isn't very practical for most folks for a variety of reasons.

They're just trying CW, seeing "Wow, that really sucks getting wafflestomped into oblivion by obviously premade teams" and bailing on it pretty much just as fast.

Without the numbers, CW sucks for everyone. So, a middle ground needs to be found.

The faction hub is optimal at this point in time... PGI spent zero time/effort into any real NPE (it's still woefully insufficient before Steam, and we're expecting some sort of CW tutorial soon™? I'll probably be waiting that much longer).

What was asked for-ish in the past was some sort of global chat IN GAME (for all players), where people would attempt to assist others on their own free time about the game (it would have some restrictions for obvious reasons), but the point would be there would be a point of live communication that is completely necessity for the game to be have more friendly options available.

The reality though is that the accumulation of any chat between you and others (or one person in specific) will crash the game, since the chat text is poorly coded, and after a certain # of messages sent, you and other clients will randomly crash due to some form of buffer overflow.


It's still back to... it's PGI's responsibility to fix/address these things.

[NextGame]

Splitting the queues in cw is about the stupidest idea ive ever heard, especially as history proves that it doesnt stop one tiny iota of whining from losers who lose all their games.

Which means that of course PGI would go down this route.

The theory is that units will play other units more, which in theory is fine, I would like that, but in practice, again going by history, it just kills group queue and decreases the number of people who want to play the game.

Edited by NextGame, 14 January 2016 - 11:26 PM.

[Bonger Bob]

Lupis Volk, on 14 January 2016 - 11:11 PM, said:

honestly **** this split. There are units out there that try to help pugs. But pugs don't go out of their way to be helped. they just go "i'll play my way" and drag the team down.

CW is meant for teams work. either in a unit or loosely made on the battlefield by some vets. But we don't get that. we have legions of rambo's running and dying instead of heeding orders.

with the split, you can reduce / remove your exposure to them entirely, how is this bad ??? or are you upset about the lack of team building / management tools in the client ???, which is nothing to do with a que split.

Either the units / groups already have the populations to make a group que viable, or they don't and the real issue comes to the forefront : The teams that think roflstomping a bunch of solo scrubs and then attempting to pass it off as recruitment and training / skill is doing more damage than good.

Lore has been systematically killed off by PGI for various reasons ( a FPS transition from what was a Table Top turn based game is going to take some burning of lore ), and a lack of team management tools integrated to the client has little to do with que splitting, but that seems to be what people are translating it to, which only comes off as trying to maintain the easy meal ticket.

If you want to "help pugs" then argue for better teams integration in the game client, not support a system that is being exploited by a handful under the guise of "training and teaching" for their own benefit. That is not CW, its not a warlike simulation, it's not a hard mode for players seeking the next level of gameplay. Its exploitative behavior and only serves to waste time on dull matches, providing little real challenge with any amount of consistency all the while distorting the CW campaign map results.

Admittedly, the split will still result in distorted CW campaign map results, but the exploitative behavior has more limits. That is an improvement where none was being offered previously, by the players or PGI.

[TheCharlatan]

This was needed.
I'm surprised so few of you understand that one of the reasons CW has low pop is PUG stomping.
With less stomping comes more fun in CW, with more fun comes more people, with more people come more recriuts for units that want "the real thing", and lower wait times for all of us.
It's win-win in the long run, at least in theory.
Only real concern are sync-drops. Pretty hard to avoid, unless the attack lanes are few and pop is high. We shall have to see.
Edit: also, let solos who want to drop in group queue (which, BTW, apparently just requires creating a very small unit). So people who want to be recruited can go scout the group queue and fill up missing slots.

Edited by TheCharlatan, 14 January 2016 - 11:59 PM.

[smokefield]

Quote

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....

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.

[TheCharlatan]

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.

Is it so upsetting that people can play a game in a manner different from your own tastes?

[MischiefSC]

TheCharlatan, on 15 January 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

Is it so upsetting that people can play a game in a manner different from your own tastes?

That's not what it is. Communication and coordination are skills. Just like aim and positioning. Pugs communicate and coordinate as well as premade teams and beat premade teams. I know, I see it all the time.


This is just introducing a locked T5 PSR protected queue in for CW.

To a degree I'm good with it, so long as playing in that queue doesn't take worlds or really compete with win/loss in CW overall, simply gives participation awards and provides perks to the people playing in the grown-up queue.

It also segregates people who are bad at the game from the people who could, if wanted, help them get better. That's not even about joining a unit, just seeing how communication and coordination work in the game to an advantage.

Most the people in most drops have tags. Just about everyone in every unit pugs, and they are the pugs that make up the drops that can and do get stomped by better coordinated teams or, conversely, communicate and coordinate to win against teams made up of people with the same tags on.

This isn't about 'protecting a playstyle' though unless you consider 'playing badly' a playstyle.

There is already a PSR protected facet of the game. Pug queue. While I agree, firmly, that CW needs a training environment you can't have the training environment actually flip worlds and the like.

[smokefield]

thansk mischief for the explanation.

I'll be as short as possbile - i have nothing against different playstyle...but i do have a lot against people who do not want to play this game mode as a team. CW is meant to be a team play mode. You want to play solo and do your own thing - you have the public queue to do that. Leave CW for those who actually want to play as a team with all that implies, coordination, communication, strategy, commanding, following commands regardless of what you personally think. That's why trying to make CW a place for solo players it is a bad idea. Ah..you will say you want to play the maps from CW - then ask for the maps to be available in solo drops and have fun there. Leave the CW for the teams. If you join CW you should be ready to be part of a team.

[Bonger Bob]

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.

So quick to box anyone wanting an end to the ******** into this category.

I for one am ecstatic that ill be able to que without having to go into matches where the opposing side is filled with solo scrubs devoid of team work that presents zero challenge for that round. Ill love the fact that units / groups get to face a challenge and a win holding meaning other than free C-bills.

about the only problem i have with it is IF ( we don't know yet ?? ) the solo ques still get to influence the campaign map to the same extent, and if they get the same C-bill rewards, this i don't support.

[LordNothing]

i have a feeling pug games will suffer for this.

[smokefield]

you misunderstood that bob..read above