366 replies to this topic

[Wulfen]

Lupis Volk, on 03 January 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

well bully. You get this in any other online game.

Go play co-op oriented game. This game isn't about 4v4 it's 12v12, There's more people than just you and your "buddy".

You couldn't be more wrong. Play any other combat game (WoT, WoWS, WT, AW), and tell me that's how this works.

It isn't.

[MischiefSC]

Bilbo, on 04 January 2017 - 09:38 PM, said:

I remember differently, but it's entirely possible that I remember wrong.


No.

On my phone or I would link you. Back 2 pages in the command chair. Originally it was going to have 2-4mans in pug queue, then they split it after 10 pages of rage in the feedback thread.

[Edward Hazen]

Mystere, on 06 January 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

Private servers are (mostly) no longer a thing. Direct control over physical IP assets to ensure future sales is.

This is unfortunate and just means that when MWO finally goes offline all we will be left with are screenshots.

[1453 R]

Spoiler

InnerSphereNews, on 13 January 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

Greetings MechWarriors,

Tonnage values for the Group Queue have been adjusted as of this morning.

The Maximum Tonnage available for Group sets between 3-10 players has been lowered, while an effort has been made to keep a closer average tonnage per player as Group sizes increase. For Group sets of 7-10 players, the Minimum available Group Tonnage has also been lowered.

There were a few goals behind these changes:

• Most simply, to reduce the amount of tonnage on the battlefield for groups of 3-10 players.
• To keep the tonnage ratio closer together as the Group increases in size.
• To keep 2-player Groups as the most versatile and least restricted.
• To evaluate the results of these changes, in the wild, on the resulting amount of overall firepower and its effect on matches.

This is the first Group Tonnage change in some time, but we will monitor the results of these latest changes and adjust if needed.
New Group Tonnage values
Group Size
Min Group Tonnage
Max Group Tonnage
Per Player
2
40
200
100
3
80
255
85
4
120
280
70
5
180
325
65
6
240
360
60
7
300
410
~58.5
8
360
460
57.5
9
395
495
55
10
400
510
51
12
500
600
50





Previous Group Tonnage values



Group Size
Min Group Tonnage
Max Group Tonnage
Per Player
2
40
200
100
3
80
270
90
4
120
340
85
5
180
350
70
6
240
405
67.5
7
320
455
65
8
400
500
62.5
9
420
520
~57.5
10
435
535
53.5
12
500
600
50

So. Further tonnage restrictions on large groups and further reinforcement of two-man teams as "the Source of All Group Queue Assault 'Mechs".

Is this what folks wanted? I'm not sure either side in this particular debate was looking at further higher-tier tonnage restrictions. But hey - thread was a nice little firestorm while it lasted, so let's see if it lights up again now that the weight squeeze is even harsher on a lot of the bigger kill squads. Do you figure sheer weight of metal - provided, of course, that duo/trio groups drop exclusively in Kodiaks or Marauder IICs and never play anything they actually want to run - is enough to offset Big Group Stomp Comp?

I'unno. May run some games with Maker later, substitute a Warhawk for the Marauder IICs I don't own because f*** PiranhaTech, and see if this whole thing is as hooooorrrrible for BGSC kill squads as they keep telling us it is.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 13 January 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

Do you figure sheer weight of metal - provided, of course, that duo/trio groups drop exclusively in Kodiaks or Marauder IICs and never play anything they actually want to run - is enough to offset Big Group Stomp Comp?

Depends on the group, I wish I got a screenshot but 4-6 of us ran into a team that had 10 assaults, 1 heavy, and 1 light and they still lost.

[Dimento Graven]

Johnny Z, on 03 January 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

4% to 6% of the players is a mass exit now? Seriously?

The question is how many of the 95ish % other players have to cater to this 5% of complete blow hards.

5% is generous, because its unlikely there even that many forming 12 mans.

I think eliminating grouping options because potatos find the game hard is a bad idea.

Why can't the potatos find groups?

Oh yeah, they're potatos and no one really wants to play with them for very long.

I disagree with eliminating options.

[Natred]

12 man groups are perfect for orchestrated battles.. heck I would not mind seeing 16 vs 16 or 24 vs 24

Edited by Natred, 13 January 2017 - 12:32 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Welp, now that groups are getting nerfed in the group queue, I suppose this thread is satisfied...

[TercieI]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 January 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

Welp, now that groups are getting nerfed in the group queue, I suppose this thread is satisfied...

PGI listening to spuds again.

[DGTLDaemon]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 January 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

Welp, now that groups are getting nerfed in the group queue, I suppose this thread is satisfied...

Nothing like discouraging teamplay in a team-based multiplayer game...

[1453 R]

Y'all'd prefer no tonnage restrictions in the group queue at all, right? Just roll over the whole thing in 12-man BGSC Kodiak teams harvesting heads all night?

Anyone still throwing around the "bads can't find groups because they're bad people" arguments clearly didn't read anything else in the thread, so they can be safely disregarded. But srsly, guys. Srsly.

You all want to never have anybody to play with again? Because 1200-ton BGSC killteams laden with Gauss Rifles is how you get a bigger ghost queue than Commodity Warfare.

[Mystere]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 January 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

Welp, now that groups are getting nerfed in the group queue, I suppose this thread is satisfied...

No. Solos have been shafted again. They're still not allowed into the group queue.

<flips a table>
<kicks a puppy>
<skins a cat>
...
<baby cries>

[Y E O N N E]

1453 R, on 13 January 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

Y'all'd prefer no tonnage restrictions in the group queue at all, right? Just roll over the whole thing in 12-man BGSC Kodiak teams harvesting heads all night?

Anyone still throwing around the "bads can't find groups because they're bad people" arguments clearly didn't read anything else in the thread, so they can be safely disregarded. But srsly, guys. Srsly.

You all want to never have anybody to play with again? Because 1200-ton BGSC killteams laden with Gauss Rifles is how you get a bigger ghost queue than Commodity Warfare.

I don't actually mind the tonnage scaling, I just think it has gone too far. Group queue will always be a shark-tank for new players no matter what, and I'd rather see 2-mans allowed into solo than see groups in group queue get nerfed again.

[Dimento Graven]

DGTLDaemon, on 13 January 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

Nothing like discouraging teamplay in a team-based multiplayer game...

Hooray for catering to the lowest common denominator.

Please PGI, please implement the "Participation Trophy" for the losing side, so that no one has to 'feel bad' for 'playing bad'.

[1453 R]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 January 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

I don't actually mind the tonnage scaling, I just think it has gone too far. Group queue will always be a shark-tank for new players no matter what, and I'd rather see 2-mans allowed into solo than see groups in group queue get nerfed again.

Frankly I didn't think this was the optimal solution either, no. It still relies on duos/trios being forced to run the fattest of fatbros for Piranha's 'balancing' to work, and everyone else just bellows about not having enough room to run a team of eight Night Gyrs anymore.

But Lahdee knows there's no option to be considered for the small-group guys beyond "feed yourselves without remorse to BGSCs, for they hunger too and cannot be fed by aught but your blood".

Blegh.

[RestosIII]

To the idiots claiming "You're just potatoes and no-one wants to play with you, that's why you're not in a large group!" or the "Participation award" idiots, I have this for you.



And no, I don't think the tonnage changes were necessary or are going to do any good. It's not going to help fix the problem that I have with it, and it's just going to make group queue less fun for the larger groups.

[TercieI]

No, it's a minimal change near the top. It punishes mid size groups most.

[Edward Hazen]

I am not quite in tier 4 yet and I grouped with a tier 3 unitmate last weekend and we were up against a large group of 228 / ACES who were running mostly meta assaults / heavies, needless to say our side got steamrolled. There are obviously not enough players in group queue to make the tier system work, so I guess the group tonnage nerf is just a band-aid fix for that. Seriously, quick play, solo and group need to be rolled into FW in a way that would appeal to all types of players.

[Dimento Graven]

RestosIII, on 13 January 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

To the idiots claiming &quot;You're just potatoes and no-one wants to play with you, that's why you're not in a large group!&quot; or the &quot;Participation award&quot; idiots, I have this for you.


...

LOL, and you wonder why no one wants to group with you...

[RestosIII]

Dimento Graven, on 13 January 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

LOL, and you wonder why no one wants to group with you...

Maybe I don't want to group up with people who scream about participation awards or that someone who doesn't want to play with a group of 6+ is a potato.