62 replies to this topic

[Sjorpha]

I actually don't think it's possible to have a pure group FW queue, there isn't enough people for the tetris game of reliably making up full teams to work without being able to use solos as grease in the machinery.

What I don't think should happen is teams of mostly solos.

My solution would be this:
If solos were able to drop only through call to arms, and those only wen't out to complete teams that already had groups in them making up more than half the team, you's stop seeing pure skittles teams but you'd still get the solos to fill up odd slots in teams.

[Deathlike]

Sjorpha, on 01 May 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

I actually don't think it's possible to have a pure group FW queue, there isn't enough people for the tetris game of reliably making up full teams to work without being able to use solos as grease in the machinery.

That's also a factor.

Say there was already an 8-man in the queue.

Your unit/group happens to be a 5-man. You try to queue up and wait and wait... and wait.

Of course, if you spot the queue info, you might as well tell a friend "sorry, we couldn't drop with you" (similar to the 4-man premade "quick play" days of yore) and well, bleh.


It's just not the kind of randomness you'd want to deal with.


Solos are still needed, but creating an entire team of them teaches them nothing outside of being farm bait. You have to actually WORK as a team and you actually NEED a team to be productive. Otherwise, you're going to have a bad time.

That's why I've always preferred people trying to find others through a faction hub. It makes life 10x easier for both the solo pug AND the team that picks them up.

[Kael Posavatz]

Oh my yes.

The split in between unit and non-unit queues in FW was a mess on so many levels. There were problems from differences in population numbers. There were problems because it impaired units in their ability to drop with prospective members (Russ flat out acknowledged this would be problem in the March Townhall and people would just have to live with it while they tried the non-unit queue). But the biggest problem with the split queues as implemented was that it did not address the problem it was meant to solve!

I remember the bad old days when a 4-person group would utterly dominate an 8v8 match.

And I remember how much better the matches became once groups could only drop against other groups, and those pugging could only drop against other pugs.

That was the problem that needed--and still needs--to be addressed.


The 'non-unit queue' sort of addressed it, but only at a cost to players of having to leave their units entirely whenever they wanted to pug (impractical from a cost-standpoint of small units, flatly impossible to support from large units), and not removing unit-pugs from the unit-queue. I can't speak to the quality of the games in the non-unit queue. From a few that I have talked to that played in it, they were really good games. As for the quality of games in the unit queue they were, frankly, much as before--that is, a team of pugs against a group of 8-10 with a couple of pugs as filler. (unlike some I don't particularly enjoy one-sided stomps no matter which side I'm on).

This problem was clearly addressed in the 'public' portion of MWO. It took some time to get there. The Community gripped while it was going on. The Matchmaker was overhauled a couple of times. ELO was updated, a couple of times, and then replaced with PSR and there is probably still room for improvement. But the point is, it got done. Player experience improved. Player experience has continued to improve.

But frankly, I have more fun in the 'public' game mode than I do in FW. I have more games that are fun, and I have games that are more fun.

That dichotomy is a problem. And it is a problem that has not been addressed. Not really.

The split solo-unit queue was perhaps a nice try. I am in a unit. I like being in my unit. I respect my unit enough not to stick them with a fee for me to rejoin just so that I could leave long enough to try out the solo-queue. As I said, most of those I've talked to who tried it really enjoyed the games in the solo-queue. But from the unit-queue perspective, the games did not improve.

Those same improvements to the 'public' games has has not carried over to FW and it needs to. Maybe not in the exact same way. Different game modes require different solutions. But there is a solution out there. And PGI needs to find it. Badly. Because the quality of the games I get in FW does not live up to the quality I expect having played in the public queue, and that is a major turn-off for those who've played in the public matches, had fun, and decide to give FW a try.

Maybe full-up split queues with a match-maker aren't practical. But there are interim steps, ones that PGI actually had previously in the public game mode. For example, limiting the size of group that can drop against pugs. Or requiring groups of equivalent size form the core of opposing teams.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 01 May 2016 - 03:34 PM.

[StumbleBee]

There should be a solo queue, but it should be part of quick play, not community warfare. Just give players who want a pick-up game the options of invasion or scouting, and give the players who want to be in units the extra depth of voting, scouting benefits, and MC rewards.

[Tarl Cabot]

Implement a Loyalist and Merc queue...

Would like PGI provide percentages of the number of mercs vs loyalists that actual drop, as well as the percentage of the average number of drops per person. Then also break that up over the three intervals.

Also provide the percentages with the now Invasion and the Scouting missions.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 01 May 2016 - 04:53 PM.

[Adamski]

Irish BoB, on 01 May 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

It would be ridiculously easy to organise but im giving Unit players the benefit of the doubt in assuming that no unit worth its salt would try to game the system and sync drop in a potential solo queue, but as i said, make it against the ToS. For the record, couldn't solo players have sync'd in the previous solo queue?

Anyways, I think its a risk vs benefit situation. I used to have a conscience when it came to playing against pugs.....but now that the queues have been merged ,I'm going to finish every game vs skittles in the first round.....or camp the dropship horrendously in a counter attack modes, apologies in advance

Forget using the ToS.

Make it so that no more than 2 players from the same unit can be in the solo queue at the same time.

So if 3 unit members are online, they should be grouped up and in the CW group queue.

Then add a checkbox for solo players to be in either the solo CW or group CW queue.

[Deathlike]

Tarl Cabot, on 01 May 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

Implement a Loyalist and Merc queue...

Would like PGI provide percentages of the number of mercs vs loyalists that actual drop, as well as the percentage of the average number of drops per person. Then also break that up over the three intervals.

Also provide the percentages with the now Invasion and the Scouting missions.

I don't think that's necessary.

You can reasonably interpolate some of the #s based on the leaderboards to find out that Mercs do most of the work, and occasionally overly large units. You will have to factor the opponents (Davion/Liao/Marik only does IS vs IS) as well.

There are a lot more Merc units doing the work vs the loyalists (it's not to say Loyalists are bad, it's that the profits to be had as a Merc than being a Loyalist, as currently constituted in FW).

[slide]

Despite the mechanics of being in the solo queue being a turn off, did PGI do anything to help promote the changes and bring some of the people who wanted the solo only queue back?

Nope.

Even something as simple a mass email telling people that the solo queue had been implemented would have made a big difference. I didn't get one for sure.

Running this current event, which has seen a massive uptake in players, before they recombined the queues would have been wise, as people would have come and tried the mode, perhaps liked it when they didn't get stomped and then continued playing after the event finishes.

IMO Russ is in an "I told you so mood" and frankly has gone out of his way to ensure that the solo queue would fail. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Relying on people to read the patch notes, or even be aware of them in the first place is a sure fire way to ensure that the majority of your players never learn anything.

Edited by slide, 02 May 2016 - 12:41 AM.

[102_devill]

Just limit the number of players belonging to a single unit to 8 within a drop Q.
The remaining 4 slots would have to be filled by players from a different unit, or solo.
They could be in a small group (up to 4) or without a group.

This would:

1. remove 1-sided seal clubbing
2. promote LFG
3. allow solo and small team players to gather experience in FP
4. improve recruitment by the big units

Everyone would win.

The only time a 12-man is necessary is when a unit is trying to gain possession of a planet. But this mechanic is so badly implemented in MWO it would need to be totally revised.

If you want to conquer a planet and put your unit mark, you shouldn't be neither screwed nor helped by pugs and other small units fighting there at the same time.

It should be just a scheduled fight between 2 units who put forth their claim for a given planet.

[Deathlike]

RokerSaMoravu, on 02 May 2016 - 06:19 AM, said:

Just limit the number of players belonging to a single unit to 8 within a drop Q.
The remaining 4 slots would have to be filled by players from a different unit, or solo.
They could be in a small group (up to 4) or without a group.

This would:

1. remove 1-sided seal clubbing
2. promote LFG
3. allow solo and small team players to gather experience in FP
4. improve recruitment by the big units

Everyone would win.

The only time a 12-man is necessary is when a unit is trying to gain possession of a planet. But this mechanic is so badly implemented in MWO it would need to be totally revised.

If you want to conquer a planet and put your unit mark, you shouldn't be neither screwed nor helped by pugs and other small units fighting there at the same time.

It should be just a scheduled fight between 2 units who put forth their claim for a given planet.

It's impossible to remove seal clubbing. When one side is decidedly organized, and another side is decidedly unorganized.. the results are predictable. It doesn't take much for a bad team to be seal clubbed, even if it is a 12-man.

[Ghogiel]

Deathlike, on 01 May 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:

That's also a factor.

Say there was already an 8-man in the queue.

Your unit/group happens to be a 5-man. You try to queue up and wait and wait... and wait.

Of course, if you spot the queue info, you might as well tell a friend "sorry, we couldn't drop with you" (similar to the 4-man premade "quick play" days of yore) and well, bleh.


It's just not the kind of randomness you'd want to deal with.

It's not a factorimo. The group queue people are all the muh organised leet git gud pugs while we farm you players, and if they really are organised like I have read with hundreds of units in the faction TSs discussing supa secret meta war planning, then organisation is not a problem to get a group to play a match.

And if it is, there is still always solo queue.

The other way this is solved is an opt in button for solo players to be put into either queue, then the MM could dump them where needed to make a drop happen.

[102_devill]

Deathlike, on 02 May 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

It's impossible to remove seal clubbing. When one side is decidedly organized, and another side is decidedly unorganized.. the results are predictable. It doesn't take much for a bad team to be seal clubbed, even if it is a 12-man.

First of all, thank you for constructively commenting the basic idea of my post without focusing on a single statement.

To respond to your comment:
Yes you can. I have never played a game with so much seal clubbing as this one.
Maybe you are a younger generation and you know of only seal clubbing games.

I am not talking about equalizing every match, but basing a match around a group of max 8 players and allowing others to fill in the slot is already a big step with respect to what we have now.

I have just played a match where my side was composed of groups of 2 and 3 and singles, against a group of 7 + group of 3 and two solos. We lost, we were on counter attack and it was emerald taiga. They rushed us nicely and did the job, but the match was very tight. It could have been different but hats off to the OPFOR.

It was challenging and interesting from the beginning to the end. And thats the MOST we can hope to have in any game, and if every game was like this I'd be happy to lose any day.

Then I go into another game against a 12-man drop from ghost bear. The same map, now we are on defense. They rush with lights, damage the gens, we killed them with some light losses. Then, superfast they respawn in Gargoyles rush us and kill omega. I was still on my first mech. Now, hats off to those guys since they werent interested in farming us. Which they could have done easily. But still this was just a big waste of time for me queuing and waiting for the match to start.

You see the difference?

Now give me the first match as an average match and I'd be quite happy. The problem is, that for me most of the matches resemble the second one.

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 01 May 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

The logical reason why solo players created one man unit is LITERALLY to avoid the wait the solo queue would suffer. Yes, the issue itself exacerbates the problem, but if that's how many of them felt (the wait for solos being too long), then it stands to reason that they felt they were better off avoiding the wait, which was always my primary contention.

Actually there is another logical reason: avoiding the non-cooperating do-my-own-thing players in the solo-only queue.

[Mystere]

RokerSaMoravu, on 02 May 2016 - 06:19 AM, said:

Just limit the number of players belonging to a single unit to 8 within a drop Q.

What makes you think this will be less of a fiasco than the pre-CW 4-man limit that drove a whole lot of group-oriented players away, never to come back?

Edited by Mystere, 02 May 2016 - 09:13 AM.

[Felio]

One thing that would have helped is getting rid of the planetary queue system. With war planning, we don't need it. Let the votes drive where the matches happen, and let the matchmaker sort out the grouping.

Right now you can easily have 24 people all spread out and 0 matches happening. It probably triples the number of players you need to support it.

[Deathlike]

Ghogiel, on 02 May 2016 - 08:46 AM, said:

It's not a factorimo. The group queue people are all the muh organised leet git gud pugs while we farm you players, and if they really are organised like I have read with hundreds of units in the faction TSs discussing supa secret meta war planning, then organisation is not a problem to get a group to play a match.

And if it is, there is still always solo queue.

The other way this is solved is an opt in button for solo players to be put into either queue, then the MM could dump them where needed to make a drop happen.

An opt-in button for solo players to drop into the group queue has not even been an option for Quick Play.. how do you expect PGI to add such a feature to FW?

RokerSaMoravu, on 02 May 2016 - 08:46 AM, said:

First of all, thank you for constructively commenting the basic idea of my post without focusing on a single statement.

That's the statement I literally focused on (the stuff in the highlighted font).

I've seen 12-man MS groups go down, mostly because they simply weren't that good. Of course, I was probably in a 12-man (or less) myself, and just because you are in a big group doesn't automatically make you good. EVERYONE has to put in the effort to play as a team.

Quote

To respond to your comment:
Yes you can. I have never played a game with so much seal clubbing as this one.
Maybe you are a younger generation and you know of only seal clubbing games.

I'm part of a "gettin' older" generation where learning how to play was fundamental in how I succeed. Find every way to play/break the game, and go from there.

Seal clubbing happens only because the opfor isn't as skilled (everyone starts somewhere) or isn't willing to be good (the people that continually do their own thing, and barely make "average" on average).

Unless you are naturally good (which most aren't), working towards a better understanding of the game is key, so we don't have to have discussions about how LRMs are somehow OP and a vast other series of complaints that exist instead of recognizing "what am I doing wrong?" type of self-analysis.

Quote

I am not talking about equalizing every match, but basing a match around a group of max 8 players and allowing others to fill in the slot is already a big step with respect to what we have now.

I have just played a match where my side was composed of groups of 2 and 3 and singles, against a group of 7 + group of 3 and two solos. We lost, we were on counter attack and it was emerald taiga. They rushed us nicely and did the job, but the match was very tight. It could have been different but hats off to the OPFOR.

It was challenging and interesting from the beginning to the end. And thats the MOST we can hope to have in any game, and if every game was like this I'd be happy to lose any day.

Then I go into another game against a 12-man drop from ghost bear. The same map, now we are on defense. They rush with lights, damage the gens, we killed them with some light losses. Then, superfast they respawn in Gargoyles rush us and kill omega. I was still on my first mech. Now, hats off to those guys since they werent interested in farming us. Which they could have done easily. But still this was just a big waste of time for me queuing and waiting for the match to start.

You see the difference?

Now give me the first match as an average match and I'd be quite happy. The problem is, that for me most of the matches resemble the second one.

That's unrealistic.

Good competition usually generates better matches, but the problem is that most of the competition that shows up really aren't even competitive.

Even if you set up a set max premade, you'll still have bad premades on either end most of the time, and occasionally groups that don't even communicate to their solos.

It might make you "feel better", but it doesn't actually change what ends up happening. Not every good unit will drop at your convenience, and not every solo pugger will ignore what the group is calling either. This is the same thing that ends up happening in the group public queue and is not that much different than FW Invasion drops (other than time and commitment) where the sheer difference between winning and losing more often than not is actually teamwork.

You cannot make a bad 8+man the same as an elite 4-man. It doesn't magically work that way.

Mystere, on 02 May 2016 - 09:06 AM, said:

Actually there is another logical reason: avoiding the non-cooperating do-my-own-thing players in the solo-only queue.

That doesn't really fix the problem, let alone provide any insight into getting better. I mean, yes, you could avoid them altogether, but it doesn't grow the playerbase either (someone has to teach players what it takes to be reasonable acceptable, and not be a total detriment to the team).

[zolop]

I think the last town hall, Russ stated taht they don't have enough of a MWO Faction war population to split the que. The game has different modes catering to different playerbase. He said that the invasion matches for the solo que were going off about 1 per hour.

Make all maps playable in quickplay, but keep the combined que in faction war or Community Warfare as it was first called in its early development.

Something that I still don't understand when Solo pilots get destroyed in CW matches, why not join a community group per faction, for what is called "Faction / Community" warfare? Personally I wish you were forced to join / make a group in CW / FW and allowed no solo players, but that is just my opinion for a mode designed to be played by groups of players. Small groups of player can band together, using faction chat too. I am happy that the quick command wheel will be coming in soon. It helps lance / Company leaders quickly call a target that will show visually on the Mechwarrior UI.

As a developer, I wish PGI would make a design decision with the game mode and stick to it with what the game mode is suppose to represent. All this work on spliting the Ques and the work done into that could be instead put into developing more quick play modes and CW content instead. Time could've been spent putting development into a functional AI instead of trying to make the reclusive solo players happy in FW. Small groups still have faction chat to get together and work as a 12 if they have the numbers.

Happy with so Far.. FW Phase 3

Planet ownership tags (or are they solar systems?)
MC Generation with Ownership of territory
Voting for war planning
RE-enforcing planet defenses with more zones

Examples of more developed features

More game modes that represent war and its economy, EG attacking a supply base, attacking a supply line, Defending Convoy, Weapons with Faction specific quirks, Buying specific mechs with loyalty points, Salvage and repair system... FW could've been far more if time was not being spent to make people happy who were less immersed in battletech, its economy, lore, salvage mechanics and its grand wars. MWO still has the quickplay to accommodate people who are less immersed in battletech and could also have more time put into this too.

Trying to please everyone, makes no one happy PGI, make a game design decision for what FW is suppose to represent and develop that. Same goes for quick play too...

Edited by zolop, 02 May 2016 - 10:06 AM.

[102_devill]

Deathlike, on 02 May 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

That's the statement I literally focused on (the stuff in the highlighted font).

Yes and I was ironic. Now I see that you don't really want to hear any ideas on how to improve the situation. It seems that you think this is exactly as it should be. I am going to finish responding to your other points but I see there won't be a real discussion here with you.

Deathlike, on 02 May 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

I'm part of a "gettin' older" generation where learning how to play was fundamental in how I succeed. Find every way to play/break the game, and go from there.

Yeah sure, but those kind of games were usually single player. The AI doesn't get upset if you find a loop-hole in the game rules which the designer didn't anticipate. Here you have people who do get upset, yet they payed good money to have fun.

Deathlike, on 02 May 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

Seal clubbing happens only because the opfor isn't as skilled (everyone starts somewhere) or isn't willing to be good (the people that continually do their own thing, and barely make "average" on average).

Unless you are naturally good (which most aren't), working towards a better understanding of the game is key, so we don't have to have discussions about how LRMs are somehow OP and a vast other series of complaints that exist instead of recognizing "what am I doing wrong?" type of self-analysis.

Yes, true and obvious. If you send the minor league players into the Olympics you would also have seal clubbing. I wonder why we don't do that in sports?

Deathlike, on 02 May 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

That's unrealistic.

You say that to something that happened not half an hour before I wrote the post. Now, you can call me a liar, but if you were not insinuating that, then I can just say that by definition reality cannot be unrealistic.

Deathlike, on 02 May 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

Good competition usually generates better matches, but the problem is that most of the competition that shows up really aren't even competitive.

Even if you set up a set max premade, you'll still have bad premades on either end most of the time, and occasionally groups that don't even communicate to their solos.

And that's fine. If you chose to make a 12-man, but otherwise you don't train or prepare, you have nothing to complain about. Although a good game would have matchmaking based on skill, or in the case of WoT you can try to chose a goal which has the least possibility of you getting pitted against a top competitive team. Or, in IL2 hyperlobby for example you can see who are the players in each room and you can chose whether to go in or search for a lesser opponent. So, there are ways to do stuff better.

Deathlike, on 02 May 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

It might make you "feel better", but it doesn't actually change what ends up happening. Not every good unit will drop at your convenience, and not every solo pugger will ignore what the group is calling either. This is the same thing that ends up happening in the group public queue and is not that much different than FW Invasion drops (other than time and commitment) where the sheer difference between winning and losing more often than not is actually teamwork.

You cannot make a bad 8+man the same as an elite 4-man. It doesn't magically work that way.

Well bingo. I don't care what the outcome will be, I am not playing this GAME for money. I am playing it because I like Mechwarrior and I want to have FUN! Why is "fun" a curse word for you elitist types? You may have a syndrome of taking-yourself-way-too-seriously.

Why do YOU play this game? There are much better competitive games out there for you to show your skill. I reckon that ppl playing this game competitively, given the bad design and ample opportunity for an unfair match, are actually just trying to profit from such a situation. A real competitive person would look for a real challenge to show his penis size, not go seal clubbing and arguing to keep the baby seals coming out.

[Deathlike]

RokerSaMoravu, on 02 May 2016 - 10:35 AM, said:

Yes and I was ironic. Now I see that you don't really want to hear any ideas on how to improve the situation. It seems that you think this is exactly as it should be. I am going to finish responding to your other points but I see there won't be a real discussion here with you.

The only ideas that exist for improving the game is really simple...

1) Actually ask for help - people are willing to offer help if you are looking for it

2) Actually take advice to improve your game - requires #1 to be followed

Outside of asking PGI to improve tutorials, the best way to get better literally is to find out what you're doing wrong. There's no shortcut to this.

If there was a better way, I'd love to hear it outside of trying to handicap teams, and that's what Quick Play is for and NOT Faction Warfare.

Quote

Yeah sure, but those kind of games were usually single player. The AI doesn't get upset if you find a loop-hole in the game rules which the designer didn't anticipate. Here you have people who do get upset, yet they payed good money to have fun.

I did this with MW3 and MW4 and it wasn't that much different. They were designed with multiplayer (although probably not balanced necessarily with multiplayer in mind), and learning to see what works in multiplayer and what doesn't is actually rather important.

The difference between older games and what we have nowadays is that we have a forum to complain to the developers instead of trying to make the most of what we have. I'm not saying there aren't legit things to bring up to a developer, but ignoring the criticisms of of what the community deems a universally bad weapon/loadout is not going to help your game.

Quote

Yes, true and obvious. If you send the minor league players into the Olympics you would also have seal clubbing. I wonder why we don't do that in sports?

A lot of players do not belong in the proper tiers (mostly due to a flaw in how PSR works), but mostly that people actually need to learn the fundamentals before they criticize what works and what doesn't. I'm not going to listen to someone that tries to fire IS LRMs under 180m... I can't help people that repeat obvious errors when they ignore feedback (telling them it doesn't work).

Seal clubbing will happens, but that stems from general population that hasn't learned a lot of the fundamentals. The comp teams are surely the minority, but the level of play in general (IMO) on average is really just poor of said fundamentals, and raising the level play (as long as the casuals get up to a certain point) helps out the game in general. There would still be seal clubbing, but not to the same degree (you can't club seals that are willing to get organized and get better).

Quote

You say that to something that happened not half an hour before I wrote the post. Now, you can call me a liar, but if you were not insinuating that, then I can just say that by definition reality cannot be unrealistic.

I'm not calling you a liar.

I'm saying that the majority of the playerbase isn't really that good, and only a small portion is even remotely "competent" (at least by my standards) where people can perform the basic key things important to success. The only reasonable way to even have a shot of that is to actually work together. There's no substitute for that.

Quote

And that's fine. If you chose to make a 12-man, but otherwise you don't train or prepare, you have nothing to complain about. Although a good game would have matchmaking based on skill, or in the case of WoT you can try to chose a goal which has the least possibility of you getting pitted against a top competitive team. Or, in IL2 hyperlobby for example you can see who are the players in each room and you can chose whether to go in or search for a lesser opponent. So, there are ways to do stuff better.

That's what Quick Play is for. Faction Warfare demands you meet some level of commitment and standard in order to be able to perform reasonably well. Failure to do that will probably not be enjoyable on any level.

You simply don't have to be in a comp team to accomplish this.

Quote

Well bingo. I don't care what the outcome will be, I am not playing this GAME for money. I am playing it because I like Mechwarrior and I want to have FUN! Why is "fun" a curse word for you elitist types? You may have a syndrome of taking-yourself-way-too-seriously.

I play to have fun too, but the definition of fun is different for everyone.

The biggest problem with "fun" is that if you fail to be effective/useful "in the name of fun" (which can be detrimental to the team if you're not being a useful contributor to the match), then people aren't going to "accept" your definition of fun. I don't mean you have to win at all costs, but you have to not be an intentional handicap to the team - you have to contribute as much as possible to the team's success (if you fail, you fail, but showing up with 0 damage while in an Assault mech does not bold well for a positive result).

I'll play fun mechs too, but I have to actually "do my part" or I'll deserve whatever blame I get. That's just the way it is.

Quote

Why do YOU play this game? There are much better competitive games out there for you to show your skill. I reckon that ppl playing this game competitively, given the bad design and ample opportunity for an unfair match, are actually just trying to profit from such a situation. A real competitive person would look for a real challenge to show his penis size, not go seal clubbing and arguing to keep the baby seals coming out.

I'm looking for interesting matches. The thing is that the general population isn't that good. As a result, most matches are trivial... it's easy to expose bad teammates on the opfor and take advantage of that. It's not my problem when a fundamental part of playing a match involves grouping up, focus firing, and pushing together (when it makes sense to, not just to push for the sake of pushing).

There's simply not enough competent players in the Faction Warfare queues to have "equally skilled matches" and even the Quick Play queues suffer from that from time to time. Many people simply play the hand they are dealt. Seal clubbing doesn't really teach anything positive, except develop really bad habits that would get you killed easily in comp play.

If the seals being clubbed actually "got to the level" to be competent, then everyone would be more enjoyable matches. That simply isn't the case at the moment.

[DarklightCA]

Randy Poffo, on 01 May 2016 - 12:46 AM, said:

When you give up on growing that population, you admit that you're just waiting for it to die.

So the real choice is between hope, and trying to make decisions that would make things better... or making things come to a long drawn out end until finally all the baby seals have been clubbed and the existing population loses interest.

And nobody, not even PGI, knows how many solo players there were. Why? Because there was no way for Freelancers to q, nothing that could be recorded in a database. They know how many Freelancers clicked CTA buttons, but when those buttons were not appearing there was nothing for them to record. And given what Russ said in the town hall I do not think that was an accident.

There is a difference between "hope" and reality. Reality being this game does not have the population to support any form of a split queue no matter how you split it. Non-unit queue was so completely empty that they couldn't get games and unit queue had a lot of factions struggling to get drops, even for 4vs4 scouting. No matter how you split that queue you would run into the exact same problems.

PGI gave the community a means to play Faction Warfare and opt out of playing against unit groups but instead of opting out people opted in instead creating 1 man units. The minority of the population that complains about 12 man's don't represent the majority of the playerbase.

Edited by DarklightCA, 02 May 2016 - 12:13 PM.