

No More Than 1 Trial Per Deck
#41
Posted 26 February 2016 - 05:16 AM
Most other multiplayer has some sort of lock out condition that new players have to achieve before playing for real, Should be the same case here. Recommended even.
#42
Posted 26 February 2016 - 08:37 AM
Sandpit, on 25 February 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:
It really doesn't. We've tried to help opposing pug/small group teams organize an attack/defense so many times and all you get is a bunch of ragey children waddling through lemming style - additionally mad because we have to tell them a second time not to do that.
#43
Posted 26 February 2016 - 12:53 PM
I have only been playing for about 4 months and only started CW last week and have learned more about proper play and tactics than in the first 3 months. Even being rolled by a top MS team teaches you a few things pretty quick. CW maps have clear goals and objectives that new players can understand and learn from easier than the Clusterf@%$K that a quick game skirmish provides.
My point ... get them in Cw while they are new uncarved lumps of clay and they are more likely to listen and become better players no matter what the are piloting.
#44
Posted 28 February 2016 - 07:58 AM
Stegastreisand, on 26 February 2016 - 12:53 PM, said:
I have only been playing for about 4 months and only started CW last week and have learned more about proper play and tactics than in the first 3 months. Even being rolled by a top MS team teaches you a few things pretty quick. CW maps have clear goals and objectives that new players can understand and learn from easier than the Clusterf@%$K that a quick game skirmish provides.
My point ... get them in Cw while they are new uncarved lumps of clay and they are more likely to listen and become better players no matter what the are piloting.
Keep in mind that PGI has never shown any interest in player retainability. They chose VOIP over a system where you could communicate basic commands to people in their native language (command wheel) and it took them over 3 years to come up with a basic tutorial that is completely inadequate for CW.
They can't even come out with a tutorial-esque video that's mandatory for joining CW that explains the point of the entire exercise.
Add to that the lack of a matchmaking system that tries to keep people in matches based on experience like they do in the solo queue and you've got a recipe for what you're experiencing right now.
#45
Posted 28 February 2016 - 08:07 AM
#46
Posted 28 February 2016 - 09:08 AM
Tarogato, on 28 February 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:
So...you mean perfect the PSR/Matchmaker they're using in the Solo queue, then apply it to CW? Or just scrap all of that and design yet another overcomplicated system that will require years of band-aid patches to make minimally viable?
#47
Posted 28 February 2016 - 09:11 AM
#48
Posted 28 February 2016 - 09:34 AM
#49
Posted 28 February 2016 - 09:54 AM
#50
Posted 02 March 2016 - 02:18 PM
Willard Phule, on 28 February 2016 - 09:08 AM, said:
So...you mean perfect the PSR/Matchmaker they're using in the Solo queue, then apply it to CW? Or just scrap all of that and design yet another overcomplicated system that will require years of band-aid patches to make minimally viable?
Pretty sure (300 matches minimum) requires zero bandaids, and little time to be implemented.
#51
Posted 03 March 2016 - 12:41 AM
How about doing something really unheard of, like aggressively advertising your faction TS and setting up a system, where new players are given something called (hold your panties here or look away if you have a weak constitution, this may be too much for some) "Tertiary rule analysis internal newb instructional natural grouping". If that name is too long, then you could probably use the initials... call it something like "t.r.a.i.n.i.n.g." (you could even leave out the points is that is still too long).
Gather a few veteran players to help with this "Tertiary rule analysis internal newb instructional natural grouping".
Edited by Rushin Roulette, 03 March 2016 - 12:41 AM.
#52
Posted 03 March 2016 - 05:26 AM
IraqiWalker, on 02 March 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:
So....a HUGE prerequisite with regard to matches played before allowing them into CW? I LIKE IT.
Either that, or they need to add a "trainer" bonus to everyone that has to drop with T5s in trial mechs. Pay me to teach and I'll teach, but I'm not doing it for free ever again.
#53
Posted 03 March 2016 - 05:34 AM
BigFatGator, on 10 February 2016 - 06:54 PM, said:
At least make folks go through the trouble of having 3 of their own mechs before dropping.
first, the community is asked for champion builds and most that comes out are metas. And now you want to limit their number? I mean what is the reason of making all trials meta if you are not allowed to use the in CW???
seriously, I think tis is a personal and not a game problem...
Edited by Cyrilis, 03 March 2016 - 05:35 AM.
#54
Posted 03 March 2016 - 05:57 AM
Willard Phule, on 03 March 2016 - 05:26 AM, said:
So....a HUGE prerequisite with regard to matches played before allowing them into CW? I LIKE IT.
Either that, or they need to add a "trainer" bonus to everyone that has to drop with T5s in trial mechs. Pay me to teach and I'll teach, but I'm not doing it for free ever again.
In all fairness, the 300 number was from the post being discussed. My personal low end is 100.
#55
Posted 03 March 2016 - 09:11 AM
sycocys, on 26 February 2016 - 08:37 AM, said:
I said SOMETIMES
You get just as many ragey children in groups and so-called "elite" units. It's got nothing to do with where and how they drop
IraqiWalker, on 02 March 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:
too harsh of a gate
#56
Posted 03 March 2016 - 09:11 AM
W A R K H A N, on 10 February 2016 - 11:17 PM, said:
this, you still see people with no trials being abyssimal.
#58
Posted 03 March 2016 - 12:07 PM
Rushin Roulette, on 03 March 2016 - 12:41 AM, said:
How about doing something really unheard of, like aggressively advertising your faction TS and setting up a system, where new players are given something called (hold your panties here or look away if you have a weak constitution, this may be too much for some) "Tertiary rule analysis internal newb instructional natural grouping". If that name is too long, then you could probably use the initials... call it something like "t.r.a.i.n.i.n.g." (you could even leave out the points is that is still too long).
Gather a few veteran players to help with this "Tertiary rule analysis internal newb instructional natural grouping".
You mean like setting up stuff like websites? Who'd have thought of that?!!?!?
oh wait
housemarik.enjin.com
you mean like setting up free TS servers?
oh wait
housemarik.enjinvoice.com
you mean like setting up channels on those servers to help new players?
oh wait
already done
#59
Posted 03 March 2016 - 12:38 PM

#60
Posted 03 March 2016 - 12:51 PM
Rushin Roulette, on 03 March 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

we do
your "new" suggestion is something we've been doing for years now.
What exactly is your point?
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users