778 replies to this topic

[Ghogiel]

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 06:30 PM, said:

^
exactly what's going to start happening because all it does is make it easier to target those players and with a segregated queue, nobody with enough organization and coordination will be ABLE to assist.

We'll see. I am just going on what other people besides Russ has said about how the non unit queue will affect planet taking. If they do, and they make taking planets meaningful, then as a unit you need to take into account the non unit queue as well. I suspect that that queue will actually be larger than the unit queue, so in that case doublely need to take care of that queue.

People have IS and clan alts. Now we have uses for non unit alts if caring about planets becomes more than a very niche thing as it is now.

Edited by Ghogiel, 16 January 2016 - 06:48 PM.

[Bonger Bob]

Ghogiel, on 16 January 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

If I understand correctly how this new queue works, I think in the new system I might have a legit use for my alt. I can coordinate my alt with players in units trying to take a planet. And similarly with other players alts. We can make sure both queues are getting farmed. Having a few kicker pugs in the non unit queue to make some groups to stomp with. And obviously you'll have to roll in larger units or super groups made on the fly or else the unit queue is going to be ggclose for the average solo player.

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 06:30 PM, said:

^
exactly what's going to start happening because all it does is make it easier to target those players and with a segregated queue, nobody with enough organization and coordination will be ABLE to assist.

exactly why the solo que should not have the same level of effect on the CW map, or better still have none at all. That coupled with lower rewards for solo and / or higher rewards for groups / units. It would motivate group que player further, and limit the incentive to game the ques because your better of in the group que for rewards and planetary captures.

[Sandpit]

Ghogiel, on 16 January 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

We'll see. I am just going on what other people besides Russ has said about how the non unit queue will affect planet taking. If they do, and they make taking planets meaningful, then as a unit you need to take into account the non unit queue as well. I suspect that that queue will actually be larger than the unit queue, so in that case doublely need to take care of that queue.

People have IS and clan alts. Now we have uses for non unit alts if caring about planets becomes more than a very niche thing as it is now.

It won't be any different than the pub queues now.

The ones that get tired of being preyed on by dbag players will find groups and units to join
The dbag players will continue preying on new players damaging the community overall
The next scapegoat will come along

Don't think so?
Well lets have a history lesson shall we?

Pgi drops group support over 4 across entire game
PGI then makes separate group queue
Premade boogeyman scapegoat goes bye bye
Guess what came next? Peace and tranquility you say? Pshaw! This is a PGI history lesson

Then those in the solo queue started berating and blaming new players
Then they started creating such a hellatious atmosphere for new players PGI implemented the PSR system
Then there was harmony right? See above

Then people started complaining about big units.
Then PGI came up with the idea of segregating the queue
What comes next?

Not sure, but if I were a betting man, I'd go with something along the lines of "see above"

[Ghogiel]

Bonger Bob, on 16 January 2016 - 06:56 PM, said:

exactly why the solo que should not have the same level of effect on the CW map, or better still have none at all. That coupled with lower rewards for solo and / or higher rewards for groups / units. It would motivate group que player further, and limit the incentive to game the ques because your better of in the group que for rewards and planetary captures.

I agree you shouldn't get much rewards if you are in the solo queue and it shouldn't affect planets at all, like I say I was just going on what other people said about that. but if it does then you need to farm that queue as well to win planets. But even if it was like you suggest, just slapping on a unit tag does nothing to stop players getting farmed, and pushing them into that queue will have some consequences I'm sure.

[Tarl Cabot]

If PGI does proceed with said split then unit players will access the map, see there is only one planet with an attacker/defender, no other players queue'd up and hit the regular queue.

And as previously noted, it is units that initiate "attack" before defenders start showing up......pugs, either unit or unitless, rarely initiate an attack. Are non-unit defenders going to queue up on a planet they already own hoping for someone to attack with the prospect of having the planet away from them?

I am not getting the thought process of those who want split queues when taking in the standard player behavior that has been seen in the CW.

[Wildstreak]

They should have just limited non-unit players to Extraction mode.

[Bonger Bob]

Ghogiel, on 16 January 2016 - 07:04 PM, said:

I agree you shouldn't get much rewards if you are in the solo queue and it shouldn't affect planets at all, like I say I was just going on what other people said about that. but if it does then you need to farm that queue as well to win planets. But even if it was like you suggest, just slapping on a unit tag does nothing to stop players getting farmed, and pushing them into that queue will have some consequences I'm sure.

Nope, nothing will stop some players remaining food, nothing will stop some players intent on gaming the systems for their own benefit.

But it does mean we can choose to jump into a round without having one side completely populated with morons that have no team skills, and when such a side is beaten, the team having beaten them will no longer end up with a devalued win with the excuse of " we were a pug, you were a group / unit ".

its not about stopping players getting farmed, you'll never stop that without introducing PSR / ELO or some other bull-shite to the CW campaign, and even then , there will always be players that will find a way. The que split only results in better options for teams to have a more validated win. The CW campaign side of things are very broken under either system and exploiting those holes will always be the intent of certain players, but not changing things for the sake of the same flaws still being around in another form means less for everyone and no further progression in development.

Im for splitting the ques, along with adding team building tools and management to the client, improving voip functionality ( separate pre-drop lobby's for CW sides allowing in game usage of mechlab etc before a drop initiates ), greater rewards for units and coordinated groups, and a meaningful CW campaign that is less influenced by random luck and solo scrubs ( that player who is devoid of team work, in it solely for themselves to do what ever they want the team be damned ).

We already have these solo scrub morons giving undue influence on the CW campaign map when they lose so horribly and repeatedly drop in rounds, and steps to remove that imbalance need to occur for CW to gain greater meaning. We currently have a pretty map that changes color depending on results of wildly differing matches. Give CW greater meaning and less influence from scrub solo's. A que split does help that, though its not the only thing that needs to happen, but not doing it is a worse idea than doing something.

TL:DR - This comes back to units / groups need better motivations to engage in and continue with CW, otherwise it remains just an alternate game mode, a different drop method. PGI need to split ques, and so much more, but I for one will not sit back and support nothing happening and things staying as they are : A window dressed alternate game mode with zero effort in pairing sides resulting in regular imbalance to a campaign lacking any substance or benefits, which only then promotes some players to find their own "benefits", at the cost of others gaming experience. This is seen at its worst when units / groups claim its skill, or scrub pugs claim its units / groups. Both sides are at fault to a degree, but if nothing changes then it will only continue.

[Sandpit]

Bonger Bob, on 16 January 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

We already have these solo scrub morons giving undue influence on the CW campaign map when they lose so horribly and repeatedly drop in rounds, and steps to remove that imbalance need to occur for CW to gain greater meaning. We currently have a pretty map that changes color depending on results of wildly differing matches. Give CW greater meaning and less influence from scrub solo's. A que split does help that, though its not the only thing that needs to happen, but not doing it is a worse idea than doing something.

or scrub pugs claim its units / groups.

smh

[Ghogiel]

Bonger Bob, on 16 January 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

Nope, nothing will stop some players remaining food, nothing will stop some players intent on gaming the systems for their own benefit.

But it does mean we can choose to jump into a round without having one side completely populated with morons that have no team skills, and when such a side is beaten, the team having beaten them will no longer end up with a devalued win with the excuse of " we were a pug, you were a group / unit ".

its not about stopping players getting farmed, you'll never stop that without introducing PSR / ELO or some other bull-shite to the CW campaign, and even then , there will always be players that will find a way. The que split only results in better options for teams to have a more validated win. The CW campaign side of things are very broken under either system and exploiting those holes will always be the intent of certain players, but not changing things for the sake of the same flaws still being around in another form means less for everyone and no further progression in development.

Im for splitting the ques, along with adding team building tools and management to the client, improving voip functionality ( separate pre-drop lobby's for CW sides allowing in game usage of mechlab etc before a drop initiates ), greater rewards for units and coordinated groups, and a meaningful CW campaign that is less influenced by random luck and solo scrubs ( that player who is devoid of team work, in it solely for themselves to do what ever they want the team be damned ).

We already have these solo scrub morons giving undue influence on the CW campaign map when they lose so horribly and repeatedly drop in rounds, and steps to remove that imbalance need to occur for CW to gain greater meaning. We currently have a pretty map that changes color depending on results of wildly differing matches. Give CW greater meaning and less influence from scrub solo's. A que split does help that, though its not the only thing that needs to happen, but not doing it is a worse idea than doing something.

TL:DR - This comes back to units / groups need better motivations to engage in and continue with CW, otherwise it remains just an alternate game mode, a different drop method. PGI need to split ques, and so much more, but I for one will not sit back and support nothing happening and things staying as they are : A window dressed alternate game mode with zero effort in pairing sides resulting in regular imbalance to a campaign lacking any substance or benefits, which only then promotes some players to find their own "benefits", at the cost of others gaming experience. This is seen at its worst when units / groups claim its skill, or scrub pugs claim its units / groups. Both sides are at fault to a degree, but if nothing changes then it will only continue.

I some what agree. But if unitless queue affects taking of planets then as soon as a half decent unit is having their stomping undone via that queue, it's game on to farm that queue as well. Especially if they make taking planets meaningful and players actually want them, and all the benefits and cost to other gamers will continue on, like you say someone is going to be getting farmed, it's just shfting the boogeyman to another section of the player base.

[JaxRiot]

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

I thought the same thing, apparently I was wrong, It's a unit queue, not a group queue

so again, you guys without tags have fun fending off the griefers and roflstompers and such by yourself. Those with tags can't drop with you anymore. You have fun getting rolled up by tagless dedicated 12mans

Ok, but where did you see where Russ said that groups will be able to drop in the Pug que?

Ive been trying to follow twitter and havnt seen him say that Groups will be able to drop in the Pug que, but I might have missed it.

The last thing I seen him say anything regarding Groups was they they learned their lesson with with Public matches ages ago.

He said, and I quote: "Its all or nothing when separating groups from solo"

Maybe I missed where he said that groups would be able to drop in the solo que.

could you link where you read that please?

Edited by JaxRiot, 16 January 2016 - 09:08 PM.

[Bonger Bob]

Ghogiel, on 16 January 2016 - 08:46 PM, said:

I some what agree. But if unitless queue affects taking of planets then as soon as a half decent unit is having their stomping undone via that queue, it's game on to farm that queue as well. Especially if they make taking planets meaningful and players actually want them, and all the benefits and cost to other gamers will continue on, like you say someone is going to be getting farmed, it's just shfting the boogeyman to another section of the player base.

yup, agree completely, and i have to say, i think iv'e seen a total of two people in all of this that are for splitting the ques and having it get the same rewards. There's no way in hell that the solo's should get the same, as yes, it will only result in continuing bad player behavior, and brings other problems into the fold.

[Bonger Bob]

JaxRiot, on 16 January 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

Ok, but where did you see where Russ said that groups will be able to drop in the Pug que?

Ive been trying to follow twitter and havnt seen him say that Groups will be able to drop in the Pug que, but I might have missed it.

The last thing I seen him say anything regarding Groups was they they learned their lesson with with Public matches ages ago.

He said, and I quote: "Its all or nothing when separating groups from solo"

Maybe I missed where he said that groups would be able to drop in the solo que.

could you link where you read that please?

its based on the belief that you will be able to still coordinate a "group" drop even in the solo que by sync dropping and such.

in theory, all the players will jump on TS and organize to drop in the solo que at the same moment within a second or two of each other, in the hope the end result will be them ( or most of them ) will all land on one side together ( factions separation in CW does make this a possibility ) against a solo pug side that has not done the same, in essence pitting a 3rd party voip coordinated collection of non tagged players acting as a unit against a side comprised of players who just que'd up as normal. Call it stealth unit dropping if you like, as the players doing the sync drop all in the same 3rd party voip are engaging more in unit stylized play, than anything akin to pug solo play.

Some players regard this as perfectly acceptable methods of gaming, and will engage in it accordingly. The fear of people doing so is giving rise to the belief the current system is better as the que split will bring this to the forefront of problems.

now is this a realistic possibility ?? yes, though i don't believe it will be as rampant as people are suggesting, or as easy to achieve no matter how good your timing. There is no server regional division, there is no PSR factoring match maker. There is a real possibility the sync drop group gets fractured into to different games, there is the possibility that the other side has done the same and is comprised of a stealth unit in equal measure.

Edited by Bonger Bob, 16 January 2016 - 09:32 PM.

[Sandpit]

JaxRiot, on 16 January 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

Ok, but where did you see where Russ said that groups will be able to drop in the Pug que?

he specifically stated units. Units only
Absolutely nothing about groups and solos
nothing
He specifically even told one player "The solution to not being able to drop with units is to create a 1man unit and then drop with them in that queue"
Please show me anywhere that implies anything to do with groups or solo?

[JaxRiot]

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 09:37 PM, said:

he specifically stated units. Units only
Absolutely nothing about groups and solos
nothing
He specifically even told one player "The solution to not being able to drop with units is to create a 1man unit and then drop with them in that queue"
Please show me anywhere that implies anything to do with groups or solo?

I didnt imply anything about groups vs pugs... You did.

I was responding to what you said about tagless dedicated 12 mans out there griefing.

So I was asking how those 12 man groups would be able to join the Pug que when Russ is saying that it will be Solo que.

And btw, how does that even make sense that the solution to Not drop with Units is to Create a Unit and drop?

I think you read it wrong.

The only times Russ has told anyone on Twitter to create a 1 man Unit, is when people were asking how they could drop with friends from different Units.

He told them to create 1man units and Faction Group with them in the Unit que.

[Sandpit]

JaxRiot, on 16 January 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

I didnt imply anything about groups vs pugs... You did.

I was responding to what you said about tagless dedicated 12 mans out there griefing.

So I was asking how those 12 man groups would be able to join the Pug que when Russ is saying that it will be Solo que.

And btw, how does that even make sense that the solution to Not drop with Units is to Create a Unit and drop?

I think you read it wrong.

The only times Russ has told anyone on Twitter to create a 1 man Unit, is when people were asking how they could drop with friends from different Units.

He told them to create 1man units and Faction Group with them in the Unit que.

maybe you missed the post a page or so back where I said I apparently misunderstood it at first. Then continued on with the discussion.

[Darwins Dog]

Ghogiel, on 16 January 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

We'll see. I am just going on what other people besides Russ has said about how the non unit queue will affect planet taking. If they do, and they make taking planets meaningful, then as a unit you need to take into account the non unit queue as well. I suspect that that queue will actually be larger than the unit queue, so in that case doublely need to take care of that queue.

People have IS and clan alts. Now we have uses for non unit alts if caring about planets becomes more than a very niche thing as it is now.

That sounds terrible. I have to have an alt account so that I can defend a planet that my unit fought to control? No thank you. If they want to take my planet, then they should have to fight the account that took it.

Zibmo, on 16 January 2016 - 04:50 PM, said:

I don't think anyone is saying to units "GO AWAY". I do think people are saying "As a solo player I don't like being stomped by groups." There is a big difference between the two. Nobody wants to ban you. But people DO want to play CW. On their terms. Just like you want to play it on yours.

Nobody has hurt groups. At all. Unless by "hurting groups" you mean "preventing groups from destroying other people's game play."

It hurts units in 2 ways that I can forsee.
1) It makes matches take longer to find. The solo players are often necessary for filling in gaps when you don't have 12 people on.
2) It makes recruiting harder. One of the best ways to get new recruits is to meet them in game, have fun, impress them with the power of organization, and ask if they would like to join. It helps the unit, and the recruited player. Separating them hurts both parties.

The other thing is that it also doesn't prevent stomps at the hands of groups. It will just be groups with no unit tags. It's really east to disband a unit in-game (they'll still have TS, and exist outside of the game), all attack/defend the same planet, and roll over their opponents. PGI will have to randomly assign attackers and defenders to random planets (or no planet at all) if they want to prevent groups from farming pug players.

[Wintersdark]

Darwins Dog, on 16 January 2016 - 10:47 PM, said:

That sounds terrible. I have to have an alt account so that I can defend a planet that my unit fought to control? No thank you. If they want to take my planet, then they should have to fight the account that took it.



It hurts units in 2 ways that I can forsee.
1) It makes matches take longer to find. The solo players are often necessary for filling in gaps when you don't have 12 people on.

There still are solo players in the unit queue. It's not solo vs. group, it's untagged vs. unit tagged.

Quote

2) It makes recruiting harder. One of the best ways to get new recruits is to meet them in game, have fun, impress them with the power of organization, and ask if they would like to join. It helps the unit, and the recruited player. Separating them hurts both parties.

As sandpit has so clearly said, yeah - but the solution here is that we absolutely desperately need better social tools.

Quote

The other thing is that it also doesn't prevent stomps at the hands of groups. It will just be groups with no unit tags. It's really east to disband a unit in-game (they'll still have TS, and exist outside of the game), all attack/defend the same planet, and roll over their opponents. PGI will have to randomly assign attackers and defenders to random planets (or no planet at all) if they want to prevent groups from farming pug players.

Well, this is a mixed bag, and why there's the scaling fee on rejoining a unit. It costs you money to join; how much being based on the size of the unit. Specifically to stop people from hopping in and out of units.

And you want to be in a unit, to gain from the added rewards.



Of course all this depends on:

Unit rewards being better organized than they are now, or you'll have a comp unit per faction simply sucking up all the planet tags and reaping all the rewards, while small units get nothing (and thus have no reason to continue in the Unit queue). This is about the biggest potential failing so far IMHO.

The price to join a unit being very low for a small unit, or else you cripple them unnecessarily.

Untagged forces cannot simply take tagged worlds, as the controller of the tagged world cannot defend against them. This MUST be addressed.

What's critical is that it's more profitable to be in a unit, even if you're not a completely successful one. It must be more profitable than playing un-tagged.



Keep in mind, all we know so far is from a couple tweets. We don't have all the details.

So, don't get too worked up, but I'd recommend thinking of a couple good, concise questions to ask in the Town Hall where this will be discussed.

[Bonger Bob]

Darwins Dog, on 16 January 2016 - 10:47 PM, said:

It hurts units in 2 ways that I can forsee.
1) It makes matches take longer to find. The solo players are often necessary for filling in gaps when you don't have 12 people on.
2) It makes recruiting harder. One of the best ways to get new recruits is to meet them in game, have fun, impress them with the power of organization, and ask if they would like to join. It helps the unit, and the recruited player. Separating them hurts both parties.

The other thing is that it also doesn't prevent stomps at the hands of groups. It will just be groups with no unit tags. It's really east to disband a unit in-game (they'll still have TS, and exist outside of the game), all attack/defend the same planet, and roll over their opponents. PGI will have to randomly assign attackers and defenders to random planets (or no planet at all) if they want to prevent groups from farming pug players.

1 - Population is currently at its highest ever levels, and there is no regional separation of ques like there is in quick play, so there will remain to be less division than exists currently in the fast flowing quick play que. Your solo players can still fill holes by applying a unit tag ( just for them, a solo tag unit ) and joining the groups / units que.

2 - Recruitment and training at the end of a gun barrel does nothing but make you lazy and alienate other players. There are better ways to recruit and if you want to use others to train against, that's what quick play is for.

and everyone here is at least in agreement on the fact that the solo que should NOT get the same rewards nor have influence on the CW campaign map to the extent that groups / units should. That is a problem, and one PGI has been needing to address for a long time, but que separation doesn't cause the bad behavior, it will just alter its patterns.

It will bring about better gaming for groups / units, with a greater focus on joining and being a part of a unit, and less wasted time on rounds that are pointless.

[Sandpit]

Wintersdark, on 16 January 2016 - 10:55 PM, said:

Keep in mind, all we know so far is from a couple tweets. We don't have all the details.

So, don't get too worked up, but I'd recommend thinking of a couple good, concise questions to ask in the Town Hall where this will be discussed.

Which is why I think discussion now is good and encourage everyone to attend the townhall on it as well.

[Bonger Bob]

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

Which is why I think discussion now is good and encourage everyone to attend the townhall on it as well.

so long as their all aligned to your particular view of things i take it ???, you've done your best to berate and denigrate anyone who has spoken out about the split as positive.

why the sudden shift in attitudes to one that is more open and inclusive ???