40 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

Problem with that is some 12-mans won't want to play others. There have been statements made by members of units over the times, that they won't fight other (better) 12-mans if they can't win.

So what does a 12-man that wants to fight do if they are being actively avoided? It's a bit, how ya goin'.

But yeah, a "12-man flag" of sorts was discussed at the round table. Whether it will be noted down as a change is anyone's guess at this stage.

[50 50]

Don't know how well that idea of splitting the queues will go. Anything that divides the population will be counter to the whole 'get more people in one spot so we can get more games'

Personally I think the mindset and approach is too narrow and we need to come at Faction Play from another angle.

[Sjorpha]

MischiefSC, on 23 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

This is very true but what I like about the OPs original suggestion is it does what we should have been doing from day 1...

I just think the OPs suggestion is too complex to have a chance being pushed for.

Merging the attack and defence queues on each border is simple enough to explain in one sentence, which means it's short enough to be tweeted and simple enough for a drunk person to remember hearing at a round table the day after.

I'm completely serious.

[Deathlike]

Sjorpha, on 29 August 2016 - 04:54 AM, said:

I just think the OPs suggestion is too complex to have a chance being pushed for.

Merging the attack and defence queues on each border is simple enough to explain in one sentence, which means it's short enough to be tweeted and simple enough for a drunk person to remember hearing at a round table the day after.

I'm completely serious.

It's not that complex.

The problem obviously is convincing one man that it's a viable option.

The reality is integration by having different group sizes (and solos) by integrating them will help breed better experiences than having multiple organized groups/units beat up on totally unorganized solos and groups/units (yes, there are unorganized units/groups)... WHILE not requiring significant retooling of the MM (because there's no way of doing any form of skill MM based on population) and providing benefits to all parties involved.

Edited by Deathlike, 29 August 2016 - 10:50 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Deathlike, on 29 August 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

It's not that complex.

The problem obviously is convincing one man that it's a viable option.

The reality is integration by having different group sizes (and solos) by integrating them will help breed better experiences than having multiple organized groups/units beat up on totally unorganized solos and groups/units (yes, there are unorganized units/groups)... WHILE not requiring significant retooling of the MM (because there's no way of doing any form of skill MM based on population) and providing benefits to all parties involved.

not complex at all. You give bonuses to units for playing with pugs and you reward pugs for playing with units if they win.

You make the reward steep enough that it's worth dropping in an 8 or 10 man and carrying pugs and it's worth it to pugs to play along with the team for a win.

[4EVR]

This is such a great idea. Really there are only two ways for solo pugs to have a good time in CW. 1) Fill a medium-sized or bigger premade. 2) Play against other pugs, i.e. backwaters garrison vs green recruits. Any other scenario results in misery and people leaving the game mode. The "CW is hardmode" excuse was always fishy but it really doesn't work anymore when your population is dwindling fast.

I think it all goes back to some of the core aspects of game design. One of them is appropriate level of challenge. Too hard is frustrating, too easy is boring. (The too easy part can be dealt with, sort of and in a way that harms the population even more, by approaching CW as PVE for the better units, e.g. how quickly can you get 48 kills, how much damage can you farm, etc. It's a natural response to make an unchallenging game interesting for them. Factory workers who do very repetitive tasks do the same sort of things to keep themselves from getting bored.)

Another important game design aspect is progression over time. Besides the buckets problem, that's why the separation of group and solo players was always going to fail. You need the progression path where you learn from more experienced players. That's also a fun social experience. And progression over time is a more important motivator than pure competitiveness. Competitiveness only caters to a part of the population, but everyone can improve at least somewhat, and that experience tends to be an important part of why people stick around. Separating experienced from inexperienced players shuts the door on that. I think lane voting also put more emphasis on dropping as a 12-man instead of two 6-mans or three lances.

Anyway, great idea.

Edited by 4EVR, 05 September 2016 - 01:05 PM.

[LORD ORION]

Freelancers need to get loyalty points
Clicking on call to arms should not affect your unit stats (because you are solo freelancing)

You will see far more solo players in the queue and some of them will even be good

[Agent1190]

I love TLDR posts outlining a complex fix to a simple problem...

Wanna fix skittles problem? Remove solo queue from FW - you have to group up to queue up. Make some friends, be social. Get Team speak (it's free) and go to the faction hub and make a team.

Wow, problem solved. And I didn't need a wall of text.

Also, note I said group up, not join a unit.

[DarklightCA]

MischiefSC, on 29 July 2016 - 05:32 PM, said:

We can confirm that it works, it's just more work for units. So far KCom has been the only ones with the brass danglies to do it. Inventing other teams to do it will do wonders for FW.

Just for the record KCom has never been the only unit to help train players and units on how to coordinate/play the game. Saying they are is a bit disrespectful to all the other Units that do so.

[MischiefSC]

DarklightCA, on 05 September 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:

Just for the record KCom has never been the only unit to help train players and units on how to coordinate/play the game. Saying they are is a bit disrespectful to all the other Units that do so.

Perfectly fair in that context. I should refine that to say that KCom is the only one to do it for a long stretch in a specific faction. There are several good units that happily take their time to help develop pugs, the comment was in context of spending months in a single faction actively trying to train up the existing pugs in match consistently.

[Pat Kell]

MischiefSC, on 05 September 2016 - 08:32 PM, said:

Perfectly fair in that context. I should refine that to say that KCom is the only one to do it for a long stretch in a specific faction. There are several good units that happily take their time to help develop pugs, the comment was in context of spending months in a single faction actively trying to train up the existing pugs in match consistently.

And in all fairness, it wasn't so much that we actively set out to train people, we just dislike losing very much and actively communicate in drops when it's not all KCom. Thankfully, 95% of the time, people are willing to join in when you appear to know what you are doing

[iLLcapitan]

Pat Kell, on 05 September 2016 - 09:40 PM, said:

And in all fairness, it wasn't so much that we actively set out to train people, we just dislike losing very much and actively communicate in drops when it's not all KCom. Thankfully, 95% of the time, people are willing to join in when you appear to know what you are doing

It's all about the calm, manly voice

[BearFlag]

This idea needs to be fleshed out. Creates more questions for me than answers.

How does the queuing system (There is no matchmaker.) know an 8 man group is an assault group? Is any 6 to 8 man an Assault team? Or do they have to be in the same unit? So Kurita and FRR can't team up to form an Assault group? Are you setting a group flag in LFG to indicate Assault? Wouldn't everyone check that flag if 'incentives' are involved? Does Call to Arms send a responder directly into an auto-generated LFG with X max players? Are they also auto-queued? If so, does the social system have visibility on the FW queue or the other way around? What if, after forming this group, a solo has directly queued thus screwing up the numbers? Is direct queuing blocked or blocked for that match? Would pugs form "units" just to get the bonus?

It's not that I don't want this idea or many others like it to work. I just start thinking about the technical aspects, the ramifications and time PGI would have to invest. We all know that they are pretty limited in what they can do.

One note. For me and a very large segment of the player base, no amount of balancing is going make Invasion/CA appealing. Carnage Mode is just not fun. Stomp, get stomped, close match. Still boring, repetitive and not fun. PGI has had one year and ten months to fix this mode. Not one major problem has been successfully addressed.

============
In another long post here:
http://mwomercs.com/...qp-modes-in-fw/

I introduced an idea that you might be able to integrate to handle some of the dynamic situations. Read the parts about Call to Arms opt-in. Reduced, it is a method for creating a virtual pool. A matchmaker must have a pool to work with to perform any balancing. The post is about QP modes in FW, but the technique can - to an extent - be applied to Invasion and Scout.

[Deathlike]

BearFlag, on 02 October 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

This idea needs to be fleshed out. Creates more questions for me than answers.

How does the queuing system (There is no matchmaker.) know an 8 man group is an assault group? Is any 6 to 8 man an Assault team? Or do they have to be in the same unit? So Kurita and FRR can't team up to form an Assault group? Are you setting a group flag in LFG to indicate Assault? Wouldn't everyone check that flag if 'incentives' are involved? Does Call to Arms send a responder directly into an auto-generated LFG with X max players? Are they also auto-queued? If so, does the social system have visibility on the FW queue or the other way around? What if, after forming this group, a solo has directly queued thus screwing up the numbers? Is direct queuing blocked or blocked for that match? Would pugs form "units" just to get the bonus?

A lot of these systems are already in place. It would've been nice had these been itemized...

You can tell what groups are of what size based on what they are in the queue (when you've launched to find a CW match, the queue info is updated to show all the group sizes in the queue) for that particular planet.

The FW groups constructed are based on whatever the rules happen to be (which is currently those in the same faction). This can be changed or adapted to as things changed (like the mega-merging of the faction buckets for Clan vs IS).

There needs no group flag to be set... having a group of 2 is "already a group". What kinda needs to happen is essentially a global FW announcement stating "new FW group is forming up". I explicitly state the sizes of the groups (2-5, 6-8) so there's no confusion on what the bonuses are (because they separated literally by group size).

What would also need to happen is an improvement to the interface to show what the planet-group info WHILE you are constructing a team. You're not able to see this info through the convoluted screens, as you may want to plan the size of your group in order to "match up" with the existing groups in queue (you don't want a 5-man group when there's an 8-man group in queue as an example).

To "integrate" the LFG system better with FW, players that want into the FW group should be able to request the host for an invite (through the social interface - I mean I guess you "could" message that person, but they have to be a friend in the first place, which is already highly problematic)... in addition to what it is now (which is mainly invites by the host, and unit members of the hosting player automatically being able to join up).

The LFG system though the social tab should be automatically listing ALL FW groups (in the faction) that are forming up. That would increase accessibility even if a group is not actively looking for random people at the moment (usually units are adding their own first). Only the host's name is listed for the group.

The host can add people through the LFG as soon as a player wanting in a FW group uses the "requesting invite" feature. It shouldn't be designed the way it is now... where the FW group rarely ever uses LFG (it isn't even integrated well).

There is no auto-queuing. When the host launches, you are put into the queue (locking in the # that is dropping into the match).

The social system shouldn't directly view the queues - the FW interface needs to actually display those queues when you're constructing a group (you see all the people in this group) AND while highlighting the planet to drop on (this requires UI work - moving stuff around - this should not be problematic unless it's designed poorly).

The problem with the current system is that you "close" off noticing the # of players in your group in the attempt to view the queues. That is inefficient and ineffective for the purposes of matching up with other groups (trying to combine the, into a 12-man group).

For solos, they are highly advised to group up in the first place (even if it is a small group), as the priority is to groups and only solos IF NECESSARY. Essentially, solos are not prioritized. While this seems kinda similar to the priorities given to 12-mans currently (they goto the front of the line regardless of multiple groups and solos), you WANT group play to be in groups and doing otherwise would defeat the purpose of team play. Solos under this system are meant to be fillers (like a 8-man and 3-man in the queues - ideally the 3-man tries to add a solo player to the group for a bigger bonus, but if the solo player wants to solo, then whatever).

I'm not sure about what you're asking about queuing. You queue once you hit launch. You are NOT in the queues when you're forming a group.

If you're talking about the group bonus for 6 to 8 players in the group (C-bills going directly into the unit coffers)... the person not in a unit will get the C-bill bonus directly instead. Remember that the C-bills are specifically going into the unit coffers for all units involved, and while this isn't money normally going directly to the player... it's supposed to "offset" the recruiting cost for smaller units (the lame rule is still in - unit size dictates the cost for recruiting). I mean, this rule/idea could change, but ideally bigger units tend to add their own first before adding others (other units or other non-unit players).

I hope that answers most if not all your questions.


Also, I wrote this thinking about Attacks instead of Defense. The thing is about defense is that you CANNOT create groups that are not of the same faction (as currently constituted anyways). I think you could bend the rules on that, but I would disallow that (mostly because creating multi-faction groups reads "not a real group" most of the time). However, it would still be possible to have a bigger unit/group being of 1 faction, and another smaller group being of another faction, plus 1 solo from one other faction (so, potentially 3 different factions represented). So, it may be "skittle-like", but it's much more functional that "true skittles" which my entire post is trying to avoid creating in the first place. If the Clans or IS are to "work together", they need to actually show it IMO. The current system is like sending random people to fight a war for some random reason. That's just not how FW/CW should ever be like.

Quote

It's not that I don't want this idea or many others like it to work. I just start thinking about the technical aspects, the ramifications and time PGI would have to invest. We all know that they are pretty limited in what they can do.

One note. For me and a very large segment of the player base, no amount of balancing is going make Invasion/CA appealing. Carnage Mode is just not fun. Stomp, get stomped, close match. Still boring, repetitive and not fun. PGI has had one year and ten months to fix this mode. Not one major problem has been successfully addressed.

It can't fix quality of play. If you have a group of 8-players that have NEVER experienced FW/CW, you're going to have a bad time. Learning from success (from existing units) is going to allow development of a player much better than leaving it to their own devices. There are far more fundamental things that need to be addressed in FW, but something as simple as this would help allow newer players or lesser experienced players experience FW in a better manner. Playing with established groups does help with growth... even if you do lose, you'll quickly know what's the problem (assuming you ask the right questions).

Matching up groups with groups is the proper way to go. Leaving it to chance (which is problem with "skittles") is why people say how bad it is... w/o experiencing what coordination and teamwork can do (even if it doesn't mean success - you have to take your lumps before you get what needs to be done).

Quote

============
In another long post here:
http://mwomercs.com/...qp-modes-in-fw/

I introduced an idea that you might be able to integrate to handle some of the dynamic situations. Read the parts about Call to Arms opt-in. Reduced, it is a method for creating a virtual pool. A matchmaker must have a pool to work with to perform any balancing. The post is about QP modes in FW, but the technique can - to an extent - be applied to Invasion and Scout.

Totally uninterested in making/adding QP elements into CW/FW.

Edited by Deathlike, 02 October 2016 - 08:01 PM.

[Jables McBarty]

Quasi-necroing this thread b/c OP cross-linked from the January 2017 Roundtable Discussion thread.

Freeman 52, on 05 August 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

@Deathlike, as a solo but not new player I really like your suggestion.

HOWEVER: I would include your suggestion as part of a broader package of improvement to the communication layer of FP. Right now the "community endgame" of MWO has a UI and layers of mechanics that make you feel utterly alone. We need a global chat, as well as a dedicated LFG chat channel instead of the leap of faith button that we have now. It is ridiculous that in most MMOs people can form raid groups on the fly and we can't.

I don't think the ultimate goal should be to get people on units and TS (which I see as an ancillary layer of complication that is strictly outside the game proper), but to make grouping and socializing a more intuitive and rewarding choice, so that ultimately we do get good support groups, to use your term.

If none of this is possible, like @SteelMantis says I would rather have a real solo queue.

Agent1190, on 05 September 2016 - 03:57 PM, said:

I love TLDR posts outlining a complex fix to a simple problem...

Wanna fix skittles problem? Remove solo queue from FW - you have to group up to queue up. Make some friends, be social. Get Team speak (it's free) and go to the faction hub and make a team.

Wow, problem solved. And I didn't need a wall of text.

Also, note I said group up, not join a unit.

The problem with this--and Freeman touches on it--is that TS is wholly outside the game. PGI needs to develop much better in-game social tools in the FP lobbies.

And honestly, I think most of the NPE/Pug v Premade/Pug v Unit problems could be solved if there was simply a giant all-faction forum/lobby where groups and pugs could talk and group up before matches as Freeman suggests. Then maybe Deathlike's incentives might also have a role in how groups are voluntarily formed.

Rampage, on 05 August 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

I have seen this said many time but I wonder if it is really true. Did a whole bunch of tagless solo players really start one man units when Phase 3 hit? Or were there a lot of solo players who had already created one man units before Phase 3 because they wanted to have there own tag? Then all these players were lumped in with the units instead of the solos when Phase 3 hitI know I saw a lot of unit tags well before Phase 3 that I thought were just one man tags. Quite often the telltale sign was that the unit tag was a variation or abbreviation of their in game name.

I know for my part, two friends of mine from ~10-20 years ago created our own unit for vanity's sake during Phase 2; come Phase 3 we had sentimental attachment to the tag and didn't want to nix it, hence I ended up in Group Queue even though I generally played solo.

[Carl Vickers]

Terrastras Rex, on 05 August 2016 - 02:53 AM, said:

Imagine:

If solo skittles could only join a "DEFEND" queue that put them behind walls + gave them turrets + AI reinforcements.

If grouped units were the only ones who could "ATTACK" ...


Solo skittles would learn the FP ropes, doing their "poke from cover" quickplay style. The walls+turrets+gates would prevent the stomp.

They would quickly learn that coordinated attacking units that work together to push/charge/nascar will always beat them.

They will want to join units to join the attack, having grown tired of defending from behind walls.


Solo skittles need actual gameplay mechanics to prevent the experienced pros from stomping them.

This is exactly what happened in FP 3 and it failed miserably. The pugglets thought defense was a sure way to win and units wanted their tags on planets so they could get MC. The pugglets ended up getting rekt.

Why, cause there was no direction for the defenders. Very few people calling the drop and some of those were learning the drop command ropes so they were not very good at it.

The only way they will learn is to network and drop with groups so they learn the ropes. Being taught the ropes by people/groups who know what they are doing is the key. Dont need to join a unit, just drop with them to learn the ropes, im sure most units would be happy to fill out their 8-10 mans, one thing, they may require direct fire mechs, so you need to be prepared.

[Deathlike]

Jables McBarty, on 02 February 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

Quasi-necroing this thread b/c OP cross-linked from the January 2017 Roundtable Discussion thread.




The problem with this--and Freeman touches on it--is that TS is wholly outside the game. PGI needs to develop much better in-game social tools in the FP lobbies.

And honestly, I think most of the NPE/Pug v Premade/Pug v Unit problems could be solved if there was simply a giant all-faction forum/lobby where groups and pugs could talk and group up before matches as Freeman suggests. Then maybe Deathlike's incentives might also have a role in how groups are voluntarily formed.

TS is already integrated to the game, but rather poorly.

The reason why we have TS is to communicate efficiently and plan. While I don't object to having a global chat, just understand that what would be done there can be grossly inefficient for the stated task. Mind you, I have plenty of experience being a chatwarrior when we had things like the MSN Gaming Zone for MW3+MW4... and communicating through TS is far more effective and efficient at this. I would say that PGI would have to integrate it better (like being able to drop into a TS channel within the game for people that wish to speak with each other).

The fact that FP drops are like "1 min til drop" is by no means optimal for preplaning or dropdeck making at all. You can't realistically do any of that stuff outside of minor substitutions. There is a reason I call for improvements in this area.


I'm not a fan of any solo queues... because you are very unlikely to learn the fundamentals to succeed in FP. It's like playing in the solo queue with 4 respawns. What exactly makes you want to work with your teammates? How exactly will any of that translate when you actually play against teams that actually work together?

People need to get over the idea of having a solo only queue for FW honestly (it's not like it's really helping QP). It doesn't teach them anything. PGI needs to really understand that just because you offer some solutions, they can still do a lot better at how it is offered.

Edited by Deathlike, 02 February 2017 - 06:35 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Deathlike, on 02 February 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

People need to get over the idea of having a solo only queue for FW honestly (it's not like it's really helping QP). It doesn't teach them anything. PGI needs to really understand that just because you offer some solutions, they can still do a lot better at how it is offered.

So correct.

For reference, make an Alt Accnt and drop-call in a T5/T4 QP match.

All you have to do is basic stuff. Grid square and what target to shoot. Most of the time you can 12-2/4 easily because usually there is zero organisation, teamwork or otherwise in solo QP.

People bring this play style to FP and well, yeah, it just doesn't work and they don't get better... Will never get better to be more accurate.

[Willard Phule]

Terrastras Rex, on 05 August 2016 - 02:53 AM, said:

Imagine:

If solo skittles could only join a "DEFEND" queue that put them behind walls + gave them turrets + AI reinforcements.

If grouped units were the only ones who could "ATTACK" ...


Solo skittles would learn the FP ropes, doing their "poke from cover" quickplay style. The walls+turrets+gates would prevent the stomp.

They would quickly learn that coordinated attacking units that work together to push/charge/nascar will always beat them.

They will want to join units to join the attack, having grown tired of defending from behind walls.


Solo skittles need actual gameplay mechanics to prevent the experienced pros from stomping them.

Ooooooh...Tier level could come into play....

Think about it....the T4s and T5s could automatically be shunted to a "defense" mode, keeping them out of the offensive missions until they learn the important things like moving forward.

[Jables McBarty]

Deathlike, on 02 February 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

TS is already integrated to the game, but rather poorly.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, when you say TS you mean VOIP, right? Because TS is a completely separate application from MWO; however MWO does have in-game VOIP.

When I read "TS integration" I imagine being able to sync my MWO account and TS account and jump servers within the game, rather than alt+tabbing back and forth.

Quote

The reason why we have TS is to communicate efficiently and plan. While I don't object to having a global chat, just understand that what would be done there can be grossly inefficient for the stated task. Mind you, I have plenty of experience being a chatwarrior when we had things like the MSN Gaming Zone for MW3+MW4... and communicating through TS is far more effective and efficient at this. I would say that PGI would have to integrate it better (like being able to drop into a TS channel within the game for people that wish to speak with each other).

The fact that FP drops are like "1 min til drop" is by no means optimal for preplaning or dropdeck making at all. You can't realistically do any of that stuff outside of minor substitutions. There is a reason I call for improvements in this area.

To clarify, what I'd like to see is more robust LFG/group-forming channels/lobbies. So you click FP button and are taken into a lobby where you can see all the "open" groups and what they are looking for--all 100% text-based chat. Maybe you have a group of 10 vets, so you post "Vets looking for 2 nub PUGs who want to learn." Then noob PUG Jables joins that group, at which point maybe the group lobby has VOIP, or if it's all text-based then the leaders can still redirect to a TS server if necessary.

But then once you are in that group, it works like a current-state group and you can coordinate and MechLab and DeckBuild until everyone is ready to drop.

The in-game interface isn't up to that standard.

Quote

I'm not a fan of any solo queues... because you are very unlikely to learn the fundamentals to succeed in FP. It's like playing in the solo queue with 4 respawns. What exactly makes you want to work with your teammates? How exactly will any of that translate when you actually play against teams that actually work together?

People need to get over the idea of having a solo only queue for FW honestly (it's not like it's really helping QP). It doesn't teach them anything. PGI needs to really understand that just because you offer some solutions, they can still do a lot better at how it is offered.

What makes you want to work with your teammates? ....I don't know, the desire to win?

Sounds like you've had some seriously bad experiences in solo-Q, but that's like 90% of what I do, and I enjoy it.

If I had to drop either with a group or as a solo in a mixed queue, I'd probably leave the game. Unless they make a far better matchmaker.

I think there's a fundamental difference in perspective here: Sounds like you think everyone should ultimately be fighting in big groups, whereas a large number (plurality? Majority? Significant minority? Idk.) of us strongly prefer running solo all the time. Because.

Literally, just because. It's just how I and others like me play online video games. I have a healthy social life: I play MWO to pwn nubs (or get pwned and angry), not to make friends (which is not meant as a slight to people who do, just different strokes and all that).

Anyway, slight tangent, but the point is: What if the purpose of a Solo-Q is not to prepare people for a Group-Q, but merely to provide a gaming experience for those of us who just want to game?

Willard Phule, on 03 February 2017 - 05:02 AM, said:

Ooooooh...Tier level could come into play....

Think about it....the T4s and T5s could automatically be shunted to a "defense" mode, keeping them out of the offensive missions until they learn the important things like moving forward.

That's kind of what happened anyway with pre-4.1 FP.

Units and vets would form groups and initiate attacks on planets.

Pugs and nubs would respond to call-to-arms and defend.