184 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

MacClearly, on 09 January 2017 - 04:10 AM, said:

No our parents don't have to be related to play hockey.

If the entire population was 10 people, hockey would be lost. That isn't enough for two teams even and is too extreme an example to be a useful comparison.

One thing this new system lacks that the old system had was the ability to see how many people were lined up on a planet. Two months ago during it's busiest times, FW at most would have 150-200 people playing across several buckets. Under a hundred people playing in total was very common and it was very possible to not get a match at all.

This new system seems to have injected more players into the mix. Using these numbers and thinking about the old ones, then consider what needs to be done about attraction and retention. If not it will certainly return to the previous low population count.

It is my contention that before anything else is looked at or changed in FW, especially tech, the skill level disparity and matchmaking need to be addressed first. To me this needs to be done and quickly before tonnage nerfs or any other temporary fixes. If this first step is not taken, I believe anything else attempted is doomed to fail.

the question is if you seperate skills again, if it won't end up "empty" again for those higher skilled people.
also, then it may be the lower skilled people that decide who wins and loses and the entire higher skills plays the game wither without effect or in worse case against no one because their bucket is too empty.

What I think may be better is making multiple buckets of cookies, like 3 contested planets, one with a large pile of cookies (MC's) and 2 smaller ones. They need to differ enough to make the higher skilled players wanting the big one, and the lower skilled ones the small ones. That way you ahve no forced seggregation but a payout motivated seggregation. But this will need some kind of "timer" to prevent the higher skilled ones grabbing all piles of cookies by simply adding something like a Jumpship mechanic that has a 2 day delay before switching between planets..

[xX PUG Xx]

Appogee, on 08 January 2017 - 11:30 PM, said:

Because you only play in a large group of experienced players, I guess you must be out of touch with the reality of what's going on in these soloist teams that you're farming.

Actually we go out of our way NOT to farm, to the extent I'll call a burn on objectives if we're completely crushing a "skittle" team. It doesn't happen very often as it is few and far between that we come across such a team on the Clan side. Our "normal" opponents seem to be [EVIL] who kick our ar**s, [DERP] [O7] [-SA-] [-SC-] and a few others that we seem to have a fair share of good / bad games against depending on the mix and who's online (Heya lads o7 ) I would say we're casually competitive and prefer a good fight to "farming", hence the reason we stayed IS for so long instead of jumping on the Clan band wagon.

Quote

When you and your buddies in a large group show up, and effortlessly focus fire a complete wave of 12 solists in the space of a minute, the new players give up on listening to advice. Sometimes they blame the experienced player who is trying to help them (ie "your plan didn't work I'm doing my own thing").

If you'd ever dropped with us or listened in on comm's you'd know it's anything but "effortless" getting this bunch to focus fire but I can see your point from a general POV. I have also been on the receiving end of being blamed for being on the receiving end of a loss due to trying to corale my lesser PuG brethern, to the point that I have all but given up on doing it over VOIP. If i'm dropping solo I accept the outcome as being my own doing, win or lose.

Quote

Frankly, it seems like you just enjoy the opportunity to farm potatoes in a large group. So the mere suggestion about creating qualification criteria for unskilled players, or creating more even matches by matching groups to groups, is disparaged as "elitegodübermenschism".

How ironic.

What I think Whiney is trying to point out is that attaching an arbitrary damage number to signify the quality/skill/experience/usefullness of a player is inappropriate. I always maintain I would rather have a team mate that is capable of moving with the group, shooting in the right direction, sharing armour with the team when it's needed and "only" manage 500 damage. Rather than the "elite" pilot that sits at the ar** end of evey move, has the rest of the team between him/her and the enemy at every moment and "farms" 3000 damage at the expense of the rest of the team.

What EVERYONE needs to bare in mind is that there are a multitude of reasons thwt a player may have (what we believe to be) low performance figures. Their PC/desktop may not be up to spec and their struggling through with what they have, at the sametime their ISP may be having a bad day. There could be physical limitations to their performance: I personaly have friends that have went through injuries but maintained their love for the BT/MW franchise by playing, I wouldn't dream of cutting them off from their release from Real Life and indulgence of their love for the IP.

So before anyone starts throwing disparaging remarks or casting judgement perhaps we should think of how to be more INCLUSIVE to help build the game, it's community and it's future. Not how to segregate it and make players jump through hoops to let them play what should be the main part of the game. Do I think there needs to be a "match maker" based on skill? Yes but I have no idea how PGI could implement it, let alone if the playerbase is large enough to accomodate such a system.

[Appogee]

Willard Phule, on 09 January 2017 - 04:47 AM, said:

Hey, here's an idea....two queues for FW.

"I want to win" and "I don't care if I win or not."

The "I want to win" queue can have all sorts of prereqs invloved...including no trial mechs. The other one can be for the potatoes.

Funnily enough, my unit had multiple teamspeak channels for specifically this reason:

1. The Derp Ship - for those who are mucking around, leveling, etc.
2. The Hard Ship - for those trying hard to win.

It worked quite well, while we had the critical mass of players to support multiple groups.

[Bud Crue]

xX PUG Xx, on 09 January 2017 - 05:45 AM, said:

...
So before anyone starts throwing disparaging remarks or casting judgement perhaps we should think of how to be more INCLUSIVE to help build the game, it's community and it's future. Not how to segregate it and make players jump through hoops to let them play what should be the main part of the game. Do I think there needs to be a "match maker" based on skill? Yes but I have no idea how PGI could implement it, let alone if the playerbase is large enough to accomodate such a system.

Pretend for a moment that everyone playing the game was on board with building that "INCLUSIVE" community. Now think about the mechanics of the mode, wherein each loss on your side cancels out each win on your side in the communal effort of taking a planet. Hard to be inclusive when the trainees, the bads, the casuals, hell even the less than totally dedicated to treating the mode as serious competition, are all hurting you side's efforts to win that planet.

The reality is that as long as that planetary win mechanic is the driver of the mode, it is in the best interest of "your side" to not want poor performing players on it. Even the most community driven players see this. To wit: see MTD's original postings regarding his Operation Great Dane effort, wherein he wanted only units of 1.2 W/L ratio to participate (which he did subsequently change). I don't think he had that limitation out of meanness or a lack of inclusiveness, he had it because it is only by winning more than losing will his side ever win a planet. In that environment how can you get the "betters" to teach the "bads" (assuming they are willing to learn, which many are not) when the betters have their hands full just trying to get over that w/l ratio? Yet, now they are supposed to throw out that effort to be inclusive to the bads...who often don't listen, don't run the meta, and are just, well, bad? There goes the w/l ratio.

Moreover If there exists as PGI said: "unit populations currently favoring [Clan forces] one side in the higher Skill Tier range", then that side will almost always win every planet (see the current stats: IS: 2(?), Clans: all the rest). To expect the folks on the loosing side of that equation to now make the effort to be inclusive and helpful to the very portion of the community (the Bads) that is causing the win/loss imbalance in the first place (It can't be tech. PGI says it is all about skill distribution. So no reason to go there) is an exercise in futility.

Even the most open minded, "lets help each over learn and play together in harmony regardless of skill level", type community won't do that. The only way that can be corrected is if there were a mechanism to allow and encourage those of lower skill to "git gud" without harming the the win potential of the rest of the players on their side (see past suggestions of weekly training queues and events, etc.).

TLDR:
So by all means, be inclusive. Help those that need help, and those that need it listen to those offering it. But the reality is that the mode is set up to actively discourage that act of inclusion, and discourage any sort of training or learning. Until such time as a mechanism is provided to encourage that sort of communal effort, the mode is doomed to repeat its own history of becoming barren of population.

Edited by Bud Crue, 09 January 2017 - 06:54 AM.

[KinLuu]

Why not simply:

1. I want to play solo, with and against other people playing solo
2. I want to play in a group, with and against other people playing in a group

You know, like in Quickplay? Proven concept and all that...

[Sadaaki Akamatsu]

This has been a very helpful thread. I'm spending my time in QP learning all three weapon types and am really paying attention to my damage output per match and working on getting it up above 500 per match. I have a goal and am making progress.

[Lily from animove]

KinLuu, on 09 January 2017 - 06:55 AM, said:

Why not simply:

1. I want to play solo, with and against other people playing solo
2. I want to play in a group, with and against other people playing in a group

You know, like in Quickplay? Proven concept and all that...

because then someoen comes and says:

I want top play in a group vs solo by queuen solo. autowin because my epeen > fairness,, hurrdurrr.

[Crockdaddy]

Back when NS was big into FP, we had a few not very good players. We mixed them into the higher skilled folks. We asked them to run certain roles such as ECM ERLL Raven, DDC push Atlas etc. Overtime they became better players and most importantly for us they filled a role.

Often very low scoring players in solo play are the sheep which high skilled players use to score their high damage numbers. Someone has to push right? I think if you consistently score well under 1K then yes you should consider more "practice time" in the QP queue where matchmaker will help you out some.

I doubt most of the players posts like this might target even read the forums to be honest.

What should change and needs to change is the overall tone with how folks deal with others but honestly much of MWO is fairly friendly. Unlike say CoD of BF1 or name your AAA title with millions of players.

[Murphy7]

I wander into FP routinely as a solo player. It's hell on the W/L ratio, but experience is the only way I am going to learn the system quirks, especially with the QP maps and modes worked into the rotation.

I am not quite ready to start calling drops on VOIP, but I do find simply calling out targets, locations, and apparent damage on those targets is helpful. Given even little direction, people are more apt to follow through than simply ignore it entirely. I'm trying not to bemoan lack of communication and coordination if I haven't been getting on the comms myself. Takes at least two to focus a target, after all.

I would appreciate a slightly longer time lead in to a match drop, enough time try to get coordinated with a mixed group before we all drop into the match with whatever is handy. A 75 or 90 second timer wouldn't be that much more waiting if implemented. Hell, let the ready system advance it to a 5 second count down if everyone has hit the button, as it occasionally can be in quickplay.

[Xiphias]

BLOOD WOLF, on 08 January 2017 - 07:42 PM, said:

Its supposed to be that way. That isn't a problem. It's assumed that those 12 know what they are doing.

I didn't say it was a problem. Just stating the way it is. More balanced matches would make it more fun though and players consistently doing <500 damage are a problem.

[Ssamout]

KinLuu, on 09 January 2017 - 06:55 AM, said:

Why not simply:

1. I want to play solo, with and against other people playing solo
2. I want to play in a group, with and against other people playing in a group

You know, like in Quickplay? Proven concept and all that...

This would be nice, but with one more option;
3. I want to play solo, but in hardmode so drop me with groups.

[MischiefSC]

KinLuu, on 09 January 2017 - 06:55 AM, said:

Why not simply:

1. I want to play solo, with and against other people playing solo
2. I want to play in a group, with and against other people playing in a group

You know, like in Quickplay? Proven concept and all that...

If the population for FW was the same as it is for QP that would work great. It's not, so issues.

However I'm all for it, so long as the option 3 given by Ssamout is there. I'd pug all day if I could pug in the group queue.

Maybe it only lets you opt in if your W/L and KDR is over 1. Bare, bare minimum, means you're carrying your weight at least.

[Willard Phule]

Appogee, on 09 January 2017 - 06:14 AM, said:

Funnily enough, my unit had multiple teamspeak channels for specifically this reason:

1. The Derp Ship - for those who are mucking around, leveling, etc.
2. The Hard Ship - for those trying hard to win.

It worked quite well, while we had the critical mass of players to support multiple groups.

Or, here's a better one.....two queues for FP.

One that requires certain specific achievements, like "mastering first mech" or "completed the tutorial."

The other one is open for everyone. With a disclaimer that clearly states that you may be dropping with new players.

[MischiefSC]

Willard Phule, on 09 January 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

Or, here's a better one.....two queues for FP.

One that requires certain specific achievements, like "mastering first mech" or "completed the tutorial."

The other one is open for everyone. With a disclaimer that clearly states that you may be dropping with new players.

People would farm the newbies.

I hate to say it but I think the better option is a staggered reward system. You *want* new players to play with experienced players and learn to play, you want to reward experienced players for taking the time to train up newbies to GIT GUD.

You need to adjust payouts based on who is on both sides. If you're a good player playing with newbies, you make more even on a loss and way more on a win. If you're a good team playing vs bads/newbies, you make less on a win and take a drubbing if you lose.

Make sense? You want to promote the integration of newer players into the group. Conversely the individual payouts need to scale down based on matches played with no improvement. If you're at a 0.5 W/L with 200 FW matches total played you need to have your payout start scaling down. You either need to improve or move back to QP.

You want to make room for people to improve playing with experienced players and teams. You want it to be inclusive. However once that opportunity has been presented if someone isn't utilizing that and is still constantly losing and playing poorly even after a bunch of matches.... well, they need motivation to step up or step out.

[Wildstreak]

Why do people make these posts when they have no effect whatsoever?

[Barkem Squirrel]

Lets see, 500 damage. I think the most I have ever got was over 4,000.

Then that fateful patch for the Zeus happened and totally screwed up the dam game for me, hell it took me 10 months to learn to play the game again and at a huge drop in skill.

Now I have to deal with the upper torso phasing from right to left not turning but phasing violently. In other words I can fire a laser miss the person standing infront of me, but hit the two people standing next to him. Ok there are torso twisting benefits here also. People watching me can see a blur of my upper torso when it gets phasing very fast.

Now there are some M+++ issues due to patch activity in December causing me to have very bad lag.

But dammit I can still get 500 damage and that is after having someone (on this thread) head shot me twice before the first push.

Edited by Barkem Squirrel, 09 January 2017 - 01:45 PM.

[Barkem Squirrel]

MischiefSC, on 09 January 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

If the population for FW was the same as it is for QP that would work great. It's not, so issues.

However I'm all for it, so long as the option 3 given by Ssamout is there. I'd pug all day if I could pug in the group queue.

Maybe it only lets you opt in if your W/L and KDR is over 1. Bare, bare minimum, means you're carrying your weight at least.

Think about this How many people in the game have a KDR greater than 1? That is what about 4 or 5 thousand active players and how many of them do not play CW?.
How long does it take a new player to get the KDR up to above 1 after loosing again and a again?
What if a player gets a new computer and the low KDR jumps due to being able to play the game at a good frame rate?
What if they have 10,000 games and have a kdr that needs 500 to 1000 kills to even out the KDR?

Here is what I see. You want a game mode where during short periods each day there would be enough players online to have a match. Remember KDR is a poor way to evaluate mechs. Even to a point the W/L is hard at times.

I still see, a required number of regular drops before CW. Then as an exemption allowing people with not enough matches to drop in a groups of a certain size with experienced players. That is it.

[Appogee]

Wildstreak, on 09 January 2017 - 01:13 PM, said:

Why do people make these posts when they have no effect whatsoever?

Why do we post anything in the forums, ever?

[Bud Crue]

Appogee, on 09 January 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

Why do we post anything in the forums, ever?

Boredom at work?
Venting?
Some sort of odd need for anonymous attention?
A desire to engage others with whom we have a common and shared interest, namely this game, it mechanics, its characteristics and those of its makers?
A desperate but futile hope that PGI will some day listen to our individual issues?
Mental masturbation?

Whud I miss?

[MischiefSC]

Barkem Squirrel, on 09 January 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

Think about this How many people in the game have a KDR greater than 1? That is what about 4 or 5 thousand active players and how many of them do not play CW?.
How long does it take a new player to get the KDR up to above 1 after loosing again and a again?
What if a player gets a new computer and the low KDR jumps due to being able to play the game at a good frame rate?
What if they have 10,000 games and have a kdr that needs 500 to 1000 kills to even out the KDR?

Here is what I see. You want a game mode where during short periods each day there would be enough players online to have a match. Remember KDR is a poor way to evaluate mechs. Even to a point the W/L is hard at times.

I still see, a required number of regular drops before CW. Then as an exemption allowing people with not enough matches to drop in a groups of a certain size with experienced players. That is it.

You're missing what I said.

Split the queue, pug/premade.

The idea being that you can pug solo in the premade queue if you're over 1 W/L and KDR.

So you can play with a sub 1.0 W/L and KDR either while in a premade in the premade queue or pugging in the pug queue, but if you want to pug in the premade queue you need to be over a 1 W/L and KDR.

Make more sense? I'm all for a split, though I still strongly believe what we need is better tools to help new and experienced players play together, rewarding and encouraging experienced players for helping newer and less experienced players. Splitting queues in the end just ensure that newer players won't have the chance to play with experienced teams and learn to be good at the game. By the same token though you want to keep people who are just not up for it (and the many, many players who strongly resist anything that would help them get better) out of the deeper end of the pool.