366 replies to this topic

[TKSax]

Bilbo, on 04 January 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

The time you speak of was 4-man or 12-man groups only. They then went to groups of any size and allowing small groups in the solo queue. They then had to force the small groups into the group queue to reduce wait times in the group queue.

They never allowed Small groups into the Solo Que once they went to a 2-10/12 group size and solo que.

[Bilbo]

TKSax, on 04 January 2017 - 08:55 PM, said:

They never allowed Small groups into the Solo Que once they went to a 2-10/12 group size and solo que.

Yes, the did and the many bitched mightily because of it. Then others bitched mightily when they rolled all of them into the group queue. Granted, it didn't take long before the matchmaker didn't work unless they forced the small solely into the group queue.

Edited by Bilbo, 04 January 2017 - 09:15 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Bilbo, on 04 January 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:

Yes, the did and the many bitched mightily because of it.

No, before the queue split and you had the more complex group queue you had up to 4mans in the pug queue and it was the source of much rage and that was when groups like Lords would have 100 match winning streaks. The queues were split because the telemetry at the time showed a huge statistical advantage by dropping in a group.

Originally they were going to release it with groups up to 4 in the pug queue but then passed on that to just have a pug/premade split.

[MacClearly]

1453 R, on 03 January 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

STOP. IT.

I'ma be the first guy to say it - I don't want to talk to you.

I specifically anti-desire to go through the hassle and hullaballoo and hootinany of getting twelve people together on a third-party comms system and coordinating 'Mechs, dealing with whatever load of primadonnas LFG or whatever saddles us with that REFUSE to drop in anything but their big scawwy Marauder-IIC and to hell with everyone else.

I am one of those guys with social issues. Trying to deal with a bunch of screeching randos for every single game would drive me off of MWO pretty much completely - I do not have the patience, the extroversion, or the sheer bullheaded drill-sergeant meanness to wrangle the cats into a semblance of military order and precision. I would like to be able to link up with Maker, and maybe occasionally my brother as well, and drop in our middleweight groups without being specifically blamed for Ruining All Drops Forever™ by not maxing our f***ing tonnage and bringing as many UAC/10s as we can physically cram in our drop group.

When I drop in MWO with my buddies I want to play MWO with my buddies. Not 'my buddies' and a bunch of hooting nincomprods completely unwilling to let us do what we do because it's not Meta-Compliant, or because they need us all to drop to Locusts so they can have all the Kodiaks.

I will not f***ing get on comms with Puglandia randos. I will use the in-game VoIP as required to relay information or request things like "Light in Fox 3, you're way overextended. Get back here while I still have something to cover you with", but I'm not going to download TeamSpeak (again, and hope it works this time) and install half a million private servers just to try and assuage your bizarre desire to ensure that no one ever drops in anything less than a twelve-man squad ever again.

F***ing. Stop. It. Telling people "just get more friends, you toad!" is not only unconstructive, it is insulting as hell and, as I've just gotten through demonstrating, a great way to trigger some people. So don't f***ing do it, bruh.

Did you say tiggered and were being anything other than facetious?

Unfortunately for you and your issues, they are your issues. Nothing or nobody should have to pander to the small percentage of players or their issues. To suggest that the world adapt to you is just foolish, unrealistic, and overbearing.

[Dee Eight]

Isn't the solution for 2-man groups already illegally found in sync dropping...and the OP should learn to do that (and not tell anyone) and stop ranting in the forums about large groups ?

[Bilbo]

MischiefSC, on 04 January 2017 - 09:21 PM, said:

No, before the queue split and you had the more complex group queue you had up to 4mans in the pug queue and it was the source of much rage and that was when groups like Lords would have 100 match winning streaks. The queues were split because the telemetry at the time showed a huge statistical advantage by dropping in a group.

Originally they were going to release it with groups up to 4 in the pug queue but then passed on that to just have a pug/premade split.

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

Dee Eight, on 04 January 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

Isn't the solution for 2-man groups already illegally found in sync dropping...and the OP should learn to do that (and not tell anyone) and stop ranting in the forums about large groups ?

No.

[MacClearly]

Suko, on 03 January 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

Sure, a rich person can slum it for the weekend, too. The difference is that they can choose not to deal with the BS if they get tired of it.

I'm not shy and don't mind (and do) speak out on the in-game VOIP, but I am NOT going to bother with herding 10 pugs into a coordinated team just so I don't get seal-clubbed. I maybe play 4 games a night due to time limitations and...



Groups can (and should) go play FW. I honestly don't see why they NEED any group larger than 6 in the group queue. If you have more than 6 you should be in FW.

Who are you to even begin to think that they have any right to tell others what they should do?

More freedom is always better than less. I would personally be on board with letting one small group per quick per team in quick play but like others have said there would be much crying and moaning then too.

Really though the absolute nerve to think that you know what mode a group over six or where they should play is astounding. As if FW doesn't have enough problems then to actually force in on people cause, well you really can't come up with a legit reason because what you are saying is nonsense.

[MacClearly]

RestosIII, on 03 January 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:

I'd prefer just 2-mans personally, and limit it to AT LEAST 2 per team, with there never being a situation where one team has 2, but the other has none. But I hate the current group queue, so I'm apparently a minority here.

The only reason I would never want to see it two per team is those of us who have been in big units or very active units know a lot of people. My teamspeak has a lot of bookmarks and if I dropped and saw another two man, chances are now you have a co-ordinated four man in many cases.

[Skipmagnet]

So, this thread. Wow. Okay.

I agree a little bit with nearly everyone except Johnny Z. The duo experience is the best way we have right now to teach someone the game, but you get uber-rammed by larger groups in GroupQ trying to do it. The NPE is shite, unadulterated shite, but the academy is better than what was in place before. There's a ton of hyperbole coming from both sides, and I'm not particularly fond of some of the attitudes on display: Some of y'all have completely turned me off of your whole units if you're the ones they let speak in public for them. But I really feel for those who are stuck between wanting to play in a more organized fashion and just not having friends or wanting to put up with rando anoles. There has to be a better way than showing up on a TS hub and asking in random rooms to see whos dropping all the while being told to **********, told you're disrupting games, told you're not wanted or needed.

It's all lizards from here.

[DGTLDaemon]

eyeballs, on 05 January 2017 - 05:48 AM, said:

The duo experience is the best way we have right now to teach someone the game...

Unfortunately, there's a fundamental flaw with this whole "instructor-trainee" concept related to having two players of radically different skill levels in the same group. Let's say you have a T1 player who wants to play the game with their T5 buddy - show them the ropes etc. Now what would be an appropriate environment for such a group to drop in, tier-wise? T5, so that the new player can have an easier time? But then the T1 player would dominate such a game and seal-club everyone else. Maybe go up to T1, then? But that would be insanely difficult for the new player. So what, take a mathematical average of T3? But it would still be too difficult for the newbie, and too easy and boring for the experienced "instructor". And this is not an issue specific to any group size, it applies to all groups. I see it all the time in our unit. We have a large number of new members and sibkin, and those of them who are still in lower tiers often get "dragged up in tiers" when dropping in groups with our more experienced members. Some take it as an extra challenge and actually enjoy it, others may feel that it's a bit too challenging for them, but whichever way you look at it, you can't avoid it. As long as there are players of significantly different skill levels/tiers in the same group, any environment that group drops in will be inappropriate to at least some of its members. So I personally fail to see how adding small 2-3 man groups to the solo queue or limiting the group size in the group queue will help those who want to drop with their less experienced buddies, because at least one of you will always be going against the "wrong" crowd.

[TopDawg]

I'll be honest, I only made it about 8 pages in before making this post. That being said, a little backdrop first:

I'm a returning player (for about a month and a half now or so) who took almost a 4 year break. I've been playing a fair bit since returning, mostly solo, sometimes in a group of 2-3, very rarely in groups of 4-6. I've missed most of what people are referencing in terms of queue/group changes, aside from anything that happened from closed beta to open beta, to a few months after 'release'.

I have gotten stomped with the duo/trio by groups of 6-8, and some nights it's a few games in a row (or the majority of games anyway; upwards of 75% or so). Other nights though, 3 of us win almost every game we play. When rarely in the group of 4-6, it's 2-3 of us with 2-3 new players in Trial Mechs and the like, and sometimes we win and sometimes we lose (but the player skill for our group isn't there in those situations).

While there's no way to know the player populations (other than Steam charts, which everyone doesn't play through Steam - I don't), I'm guessing the majority of problems with matchmaking, and a lack of separation of skill levels, comes from a low(er) player population.

As has been outlined throughout this thread, whether intentional or not, there's essentially two problems: player populations and new player experience. The bar for a new player entering MWO is megalithic. And that's excluding years, or decades, of skill refinement and knowledge about Battletech, 'Mechs, weapons, etc. Let's be perfectly honest here, if you don't have an Elite'd out 'Mech, modules, and to some extend consumables, you're not playing at 'optimal' levels.

Hopefully doing away with the three 'Mech requirement for skills will lessen the burden to new players (although it isn't yet clear how much exp will be required to gain the same effects, or how strong 'Mechs will be once maxed out). Personally, I hate F2P models because outside of MOBAs and Path of Exile, they're so hard to balance and 'get right'. That said, 20-30$ isn't an unreasonable amount to spend on MWO to get 'Mech Bays and the like (the cost of admission, as it were).

Anyway, to me, it seems the real problem in this thread is how to 'catch up' new players to the more experienced veterans. On the one hand there's a personal skill component to that. On the other hand, there's a lot of grinding required to get C-Bills for 'Mechs, and exp for 'Mech Skills (not to mention Pilot Skills); just in order to be at the same 'starting point' as people who have been playing longer.

[Edward Hazen]

TopDawg, on 05 January 2017 - 03:18 PM, said:

The bar for a new player entering MWO is megalithic.

This depends on age / IQ / gaming experience / reflexes.... your statement may reflect your personal feelings, but it is not true for every new player.

[TopDawg]

S0ulReapr, on 05 January 2017 - 06:02 PM, said:

This depends on age / IQ / gaming experience / reflexes.... your statement may reflect your personal feelings, but it is not true for every new player.

Those are factors, yes, as I said in my post (although I lumped it all together as 'personal skill'). But short of throwing hundreds of dollars at MWO, there's no way to shortcut the grind of C-Bills and Exp. That takes time, which is the biggest factor towards making the game very difficult for new players to get into.

How long did it take you to get a stable of different weight 'Mechs? When did you do this? I did it during Open Beta after the reset from Closed Beta, so no one really had more stuff then (unless they threw lots of money at it). How long are new players going to stick it out without any 'Mechs--except the starting ~2-3 you can get from the Cadet Bonus--while veteran players literally have hundreds of 'Mechs to drop in?

The game is grindy, you can't really dispute that. The 'appropriate amount of grind' is obviously up for debate. But, given that there isn't exactly a plethora of new people (friends of current players or brand new players), or necessarily a healthy playerbase, I'd guess the bar for attracting and retaining new players is too high.

[Edward Hazen]

TopDawg, on 05 January 2017 - 09:08 PM, said:

Those are factors, yes, as I said in my post (although I lumped it all together as 'personal skill'). But short of throwing hundreds of dollars at MWO, there's no way to shortcut the grind of C-Bills and Exp. That takes time, which is the biggest factor towards making the game very difficult for new players to get into.

How long did it take you to get a stable of different weight 'Mechs? When did you do this? I did it during Open Beta after the reset from Closed Beta, so no one really had more stuff then (unless they threw lots of money at it). How long are new players going to stick it out without any 'Mechs--except the starting ~2-3 you can get from the Cadet Bonus--while veteran players literally have hundreds of 'Mechs to drop in?

The game is grindy, you can't really dispute that. The 'appropriate amount of grind' is obviously up for debate. But, given that there isn't exactly a plethora of new people (friends of current players or brand new players), or necessarily a healthy playerbase, I'd guess the bar for attracting and retaining new players is too high.

I currently have three Mad IIcs, two Griffins and the NCIX centurion, my account is quite new and I am forcing myself to master my 3 Mad IIcs and grind the c-Bills for the third Griffin before I buy any more mechs (with real or in-game money). With the C-Bills I earned from the academy achievements and 25 cadet matches (with the free day of premium time from a new account) as well as rewards from the holiday events, I was able to buy and kit - out both of my Griffins. I did spend $40 for the Marauder IIC collector pack, because it was the best deal for the money and I have purchased a small amount of MC for paints and decals, but that cost very little due to the boxing day sale. I would not consider the < $60 I have spent so far to be a huge amount of money. Also I see that there are quite a few people who get along just fine in this game without spending any money.

[TopDawg]

S0ulReapr, on 05 January 2017 - 09:15 PM, said:

I currently have three Mad IIcs, two Griffins and the NCIX centurion, my account is quite new and I am forcing myself to master my 3 Mad IIcs and grind the c-Bills for the third Griffin before I buy any more mechs (with real or in-game money). With the C-Bills I earned from the academy achievements and 25 cadet matches (with the free day of premium time from a new account) as well as rewards from the holiday events, I was able to buy and kit - out both of my Griffins. I did spend $40 for the Marauder IIC collector pack, because it was the best deal for the money and I have purchased a small amount of MC for paints and decals, but that cost very little due to the boxing day sale. I would not consider the < $60 I have spent so far to be a huge amount of money. Also I see that there are quite a few people who get along just fine in this game without spending any money.

I bought the MAD IICs (and Scorch) as well, since 20$ for three Assaults + 30 days of Premium time is on the cheap side where this game is concerned. But again, paying money helps out tremendously. And I would argue that the only way to get by on this game without spending money is by having multiple accounts; essentially one for each 'Mech or two, due to being limited to 4 'Mech Bays.

But my point being, outside of buying three Mechs and getting a free one (and taking advantage of the good Thanksgiving/Holiday deals), in ~a month you've only gotten two Griffins (Mediums), with probably enough for one or two heavier 'Mechs.

I dunno. This is only an Arena shooter and not an MMORPG or something of that nature with more 'global permanence', as it were. If people are only gaining, let's even say 4, 'Mechs a month from grinding, I would wager most people just don't stick with it if they aren't already a MechWarrior/BattleTech fan.

[Edward Hazen]

TopDawg, on 05 January 2017 - 10:07 PM, said:

I bought the MAD IICs (and Scorch) as well, since 20$ for three Assaults + 30 days of Premium time is on the cheap side where this game is concerned. But again, paying money helps out tremendously. And I would argue that the only way to get by on this game without spending money is by having multiple accounts; essentially one for each 'Mech or two, due to being limited to 4 'Mech Bays.

But my point being, outside of buying three Mechs and getting a free one (and taking advantage of the good Thanksgiving/Holiday deals), in ~a month you've only gotten two Griffins (Mediums), with probably enough for one or two heavier 'Mechs.

I dunno. This is only an Arena shooter and not an MMORPG or something of that nature with more 'global permanence', as it were. If people are only gaining, let's even say 4, 'Mechs a month from grinding, I would wager most people just don't stick with it if they aren't already a MechWarrior/BattleTech fan.

It is the free to play model, if you have lots of time and little money, you can grind it out, if you have lots of money and little time, you can pay for a short-term advantage. Not having any grind at all in the game would make it grow very boring very quickly. Anyway, I do not care about playing "PokeMech" and "catching them all" I just want to get a few mechs that I do pretty well in and just stick with those.

Edited by S0ulReapr, 05 January 2017 - 11:58 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Dee Eight, on 04 January 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

Isn't the solution for 2-man groups already illegally found in sync dropping...and the OP should learn to do that (and not tell anyone) and stop ranting in the forums about large groups ?

Age is relative, my Grandfather was walking on stilts working full days at 76 and was in excellent condition even for someone of 21 years of age to do a full days work and maybe better than most. Best guy I ever worked with. His eye sight remained excellent as well, he never needed glasses for reading or distance, same with me. He didn't work because he had to, he rests in a mosoleum now and was well off, I am sorry he went before his time not long ago as a side note.

Edited by Johnny Z, 06 January 2017 - 03:57 AM.

[TopDawg]

S0ulReapr, on 05 January 2017 - 11:58 PM, said:

It is the free to play model, if you have lots of time and little money, you can grind it out, if you have lots of money and little time, you can pay for a short-term advantage. Not having any grind at all in the game would make it grow very boring very quickly. Anyway, I do not care about playing "PokeMech" and "catching them all" I just want to get a few mechs that I do pretty well in and just stick with those.

That's why I'm not a fan of F2P games, and am glad they seem to be waning in popularity. But it's not about 'catching them all' really, it's about needing 4 'Mechs for Community Warfare (ideally elite'd out, geared out, module'ed out, etc), and a little bit of variety for a drop deck for playing with others and conforming to the tonnage requirements (in solo/duo/trio it isn't much of a problem).

Leveling up 'Mechs and having something to play for is fine, and good game mechanics usually. It just gets tricky to balance that in an Arena shooter. Which takes me back to my point about the bar of entry being fairly high for most players, and the playerbase not exactly thriving. Unless BattleTech/MechWarrior really is just that unpopular and that's why people don't play it; that seems unlikely to me but is definitely a possibility.

[Edward Hazen]

TopDawg, on 06 January 2017 - 03:55 AM, said:

That's why I'm not a fan of F2P games, and am glad they seem to be waning in popularity. But it's not about 'catching them all' really, it's about needing 4 'Mechs for Community Warfare (ideally elite'd out, geared out, module'ed out, etc), and a little bit of variety for a drop deck for playing with others and conforming to the tonnage requirements (in solo/duo/trio it isn't much of a problem).

Leveling up 'Mechs and having something to play for is fine, and good game mechanics usually. It just gets tricky to balance that in an Arena shooter. Which takes me back to my point about the bar of entry being fairly high for most players, and the playerbase not exactly thriving. Unless BattleTech/MechWarrior really is just that unpopular and that's why people don't play it; that seems unlikely to me but is definitely a possibility.

PGI originally wanted to make MW5, but apparently couldn't get the funding up front and ended up making the FTP MWO. It is now seemingly apparent that MWO is just a vehicle to earn money for and create assets for the development of MW5. Honestly, if PGI makes a network co-op PvE mode and Solaris style PVP (both playable on private servers) mode for MW5, as well and makes MW5 DRM free, then they could make quite a bit of money off of DLCs and would have much less back-end to deal with.

[Mystere]

S0ulReapr, on 06 January 2017 - 08:01 AM, said:

PGI originally wanted to make MW5, but apparently couldn't get the funding up front and ended up making the FTP MWO. It is now seemingly apparent that MWO is just a vehicle to earn money for and create assets for the development of MW5. Honestly, if PGI makes a network co-op PvE mode and Solaris style PVP (both playable on private servers) mode for MW5, as well and makes MW5 DRM free, then they could make quite a bit of money off of DLCs and would have much less back-end to deal with.

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

Edited by Mystere, 06 January 2017 - 11:49 AM.