83 replies to this topic

[Marquis De Lafayette]

While it might be better for the "good of the game" in the long run to find some sensible way to diminish pugstomping it isn't likely to happen. Most people (as other players have said above) play to shoot robots, like to win and yes...really don't mind all that much if they do happen to win big a fair amount of the time. The idealism of some on this thread is noted and probably at least somewhat commendable, as we need new players to FW...it's just in conflict with the reality of where most of the committed playerbase likely is on how we like to play.

Heck, even as it is players on both teams often don't like it if one side (even if it is your own side) overemphasize playing for objectives vs. fighting it out. I highly doubt we (a whole) want a lot more games determined by objectives vs. killing even if PGI made it more lucrative. Sure, people sometimes understand if you really need a quick win to re-queue fast (to take planets or to try to deny the capture threshold to the enemy)....such objectives based wins are considered more of a necessary evil and are often situationally driven...i.e...you do it when feel you must. Even playing for an advantage in caps (in conquest) or for taking the circle (in domination) is often more about making the enemy come into your killbox in a haphazard manner so you can kill them easier. "Kill them all" is the player default, just because we like it the most vs. the alternatives

[TWIAFU]

PFC Carsten, on 07 February 2017 - 05:52 AM, said:

Wait - wat?? There are PUG groups not even elitist enough to get into a real unit of 12? They should just git gudder and strive to be accepted into the pinnacle of Faction Play that is a 12 premade. Everything else is kindergarten.

*continues shovelling back to where it came from*

What does that replay have to do at all with people perpetuating the boogeyman lie?

Quote

lol troll?

No. Honest suggestion. Solos want to drop in CW but solo do not want to join a group or unit, IN the Group/Unit Queue. Self imposed hamstringing. Since this is the Group/Unit queue, why not stage them someplace while the solo players are added to a group, of whatever size is needed fill out a group of 12. Make it so ALL groups in CW are even numbers, hopefully facilitating a quicker drop.

Quote

Maybe that would be a working incentive for more people to form units. Yes, I could see that. Nice suggestion.

Thank you, they happen. While it may have merits, the solos will never go for it as they think they are being punished for not being in a group and get less rewards, being special and all...

[TWIAFU]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 07 February 2017 - 06:46 AM, said:

Counterargument: Reverse it. The bigger the group (and the bigger the "rolfstomping" factor becomes) the lower the rewards become.
Sure as hell, if you PUG against a full premade, your rewards should be (at least for a win or even semi good results) a metric sh#tton higher then the rewards a full premade gets for sealclubbing.
Besides, you seem to misunderstand something about Pugs, they are neither mentally handicapped nor socially inebt.
PUG just means random group, a random group can play as a team in a team based mode.
FP is NOT the promised endgame mode for the elite bigshots. You should have noticed it by now.
Most players who participate are casuals. most even que solo.
Stop catering for the minority which are full premades. I am not allowed to drag my t1 badge into the t5 queue to pretend i am "leet" and farm mad c-bills but for FP it is somehow totally acceptable because "endgame".
If FP is endgame, then so is group queue and t1 pug queue. Hence, there is not effing endgame at all. Just one gamemode which is harder then the other two on casuals and PUG and small groups.

So, punish groups for playing the the queue made for them? Sure, that will work.....

Counterpoint: READ THE WARNING MESSAGE.

My group only comes in one size, 12, in CW. You able to take more then that? Or you going to try and perpetuate the 12man premade ********?

You end Trails in CW and end non Elited dropdecks in CW then we can talk.

Edited by TWIAFU, 08 February 2017 - 12:36 PM.

[naterist]

TWIAFU, on 08 February 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

So, punish groups for playing the the queue made for them? Sure, that will work.....

Counterpoint: READ THE WARNING MESSAGE.

My group only comes in one size, 12, in CW. You able to take more then that? Or you going to try and perpetuate the 12man premade ********?

You end Trails in CW and end non Elited dropdecks in CW then we can talk.

it may have been made for units, but units arent generally using it, so why do you persist in the belief that that kind of thinking should be upheld?

[TWIAFU]

naterist, on 08 February 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

it may have been made for units, but units arent generally using it, so why do you persist in the belief that that kind of thinking should be upheld?

My belief on the design intent and that thinking should be upheld is based on the fact that CW was made primarily for Group/Unit play.

Until PGI says that the primary design of CW is no longer centered on Group/Unit play, my thinking will continue along those lines.

So, get PGI to end Group/Unit centric play in CW then then you can get to work having PGI end teamwork, because most don't use it either.

[naterist]

TWIAFU, on 08 February 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

My belief on the design intent and that thinking should be upheld is based on the fact that CW was made primarily for Group/Unit play.

Until PGI says that the primary design of CW is no longer centered on Group/Unit play, my thinking will continue along those lines.

So, get PGI to end Group/Unit centric play in CW then then you can get to work having PGI end teamwork, because most don't use it either.

I dont know how you got the impression that me suggesting we make objectives matter=me suggesting we ditch teamwork....

[Leone]

naterist, on 08 February 2017 - 06:33 PM, said:

I dont know how you got the impression that me suggesting we make objectives matter=me suggesting we ditch teamwork....

naterist, on 05 February 2017 - 01:46 AM, said:

well how about this, we remove skirmish from cw (many would agree it sucks) and we add a massive cbill bonus to the person who completes the objective, and a cbill bonus for keeping mechs. so every mech lost is a hit on your bonus.

That, that right there. The part I underlined. That is where you're saying,

"Screw the team, don't share armour, and we'll pay you for hiding and running."

You are actually telling pugs you'll pay them more to bring 1k distance lrm boats and ask for locks.

~Leone.

Edited by Leone, 08 February 2017 - 11:03 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Agreed.

That is the very simple/logical end result.

[Nightbird]

Time based modifier on winning a match, so that if you win in 10 minutes you get a lot more than if you win in 25 minutes? Sure, makes sense.

[naterist]

Leone, on 08 February 2017 - 11:02 PM, said:

That, that right there. The part I underlined. That is where you're saying,

"Screw the team, don't share armour, and we'll pay you for hiding and running."

You are actually telling pugs you'll pay them more to bring 1k distance lrm boats and ask for locks.

~Leone.

we agreed page 2 that was a dumb idea. please try and read it all before popping in a straight no. we line vetod the mech bonus bit.

ironnightbird, on 09 February 2017 - 10:00 AM, said:

Time based modifier on winning a match, so that if you win in 10 minutes you get a lot more than if you win in 25 minutes? Sure, makes sense.

this is the goal. we could even add a reverse bonus. the less damage you do on a win, the bigger bonus your team gets for captured salvage. thats the faction paying you for the salvage for the battle, and gives players a reason to take objectives over farming damage on newbs. they can get larger salvage bonus's for whole mechs 'taken as salvage'.

Edited by naterist, 10 February 2017 - 01:54 PM.

[Leone]

Apologies.

~Leone.

[Jack Booted Thug]

Rather forgoe the bonus and blow up more robots. You know, more of what's fun.

[James Argent]

That's OK I guess, but saying that an incentive is worthless to you doesn't mean it would be useless to everybody. We're not trying to control everybody's individual actions, or even an entire 12-man's actions, we're trying to maintain a healthier population in FP by giving enough people the incentive they need to stop driving other people away. You are apparently the exception, because every time I see other people defending the PUGstomp with more than the juvenile 'git gud,' they say it's because that's where the CBills are. (Unless they really are like you and you're the only one with the balls to admit it.)

[Jon Gotham]

How about the pugs stop insisting on playing solo in a team based, social driven type of game? 😎

[James Argent]

Enjoy the tender camaraderie you get from a ghost drop and the corresponding 12-man circle jerk, then. Your way has been tried already. It failed. It's continuing to fail. Faction Play needs the PUGs more than the PUGs need the current form of FP.

[TWIAFU]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 07 February 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

Oh Gawd lawl.
Yes! That is what's ruining FP, how often do we have to see a fresh 12 man premade, taking their elited min/maxed comp decks out to try FP for the first time. Only to get matched against socially inept PUGs, filthy casuals who can't even get proper focus fire going on.

As per PGI, you see a full on 12man premade less then 1% of the time in the Group Queues.

So, that is how often you see the fabled 12man stomping seals.


Inversly, how often do we some pug bring a trail dropdeck or not even basic'd mechs? But yes, is it the boogeyman 12man premade in it appearance less then 1% of the time that is the real problem in the Queue primarily designed for them. Clearly cannot be the issue of pugs/casuals or the socially inept that refuse to put for any effort to be a part of the team and cannot even focus fire properly.

If Pugs, casuals, or the socially inept, want to play in a queue where groups and teamwork are key to survival and victory and not be part of the group or use teamwork it is their own fault. If they play like that and don't like to get stomped by those that do, maybe they should go back to QP where they do not need to use teamwork or be part of a group.

However, since they cannot or will not take steps, minimal steps, to take part in the primary design of CW then maybe, just maybe, CW is not for them. Not all Queues are nor should they be for all players and playstyles.

Gate entry to CW to protect the pugs, casuals, and socially inept from themselves and ruining CW for eveyone else.

James Argent, on 11 February 2017 - 03:28 PM, said:

Enjoy the tender camaraderie you get from a ghost drop and the corresponding 12-man circle jerk, then. Your way has been tried already. It failed. It's continuing to fail. Faction Play needs the PUGs more than the PUGs need the current form of FP.

Dont like playing against a group in the group queue while your playing solo, then pick the queue that is designed for your playstyle.

See how easy that is?

Now you can get rolled by other solo/casual players and not by groups. As is good now.

[James Argent]

So in the same post, you're saying that the groups for which the mode is designed make up less than 1% of the participants, and you want to get rid of the other 99%. Because if you get rid of solo PUGs, the 11-man group can't drop at all. The 10-man could only drop with the aid of a dedicated 2-man, and so on. Most would never see the lobby. None would ever get a match.

Cut the crap with this 'primary design' BS. The 'primary design' of the Call to Arms is to bring solo PUGs into FP. An active game system repeatedly inviting the PUGs to join one at a time is a better indicator of who is supposed to be included in FP than a one-time throwaway popup saying 'this is hard, be ready.'

[naterist]

TWIAFU, on 12 February 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

As per PGI, you see a full on 12man premade less then 1% of the time in the Group Queues.

So, that is how often you see the fabled 12man stomping seals.


Inversly, how often do we some pug bring a trail dropdeck or not even basic'd mechs? But yes, is it the boogeyman 12man premade in it appearance less then 1% of the time that is the real problem in the Queue primarily designed for them. Clearly cannot be the issue of pugs/casuals or the socially inept that refuse to put for any effort to be a part of the team and cannot even focus fire properly.

If Pugs, casuals, or the socially inept, want to play in a queue where groups and teamwork are key to survival and victory and not be part of the group or use teamwork it is their own fault. If they play like that and don't like to get stomped by those that do, maybe they should go back to QP where they do not need to use teamwork or be part of a group.

However, since they cannot or will not take steps, minimal steps, to take part in the primary design of CW then maybe, just maybe, CW is not for them. Not all Queues are nor should they be for all players and playstyles.

Gate entry to CW to protect the pugs, casuals, and socially inept from themselves and ruining CW for eveyone else.



Dont like playing against a group in the group queue while your playing solo, then pick the queue that is designed for your playstyle.

See how easy that is?

Now you can get rolled by other solo/casual players and not by groups. As is good now.

.

So if them 12 mans are so rare, what will gating cw do? It just means therell maybe be 1-2 matches in fw a day.

[MacClearly]

James Argent, on 12 February 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

So in the same post, you're saying that the groups for which the mode is designed make up less than 1% of the participants, and you want to get rid of the other 99%. Because if you get rid of solo PUGs, the 11-man group can't drop at all. The 10-man could only drop with the aid of a dedicated 2-man, and so on. Most would never see the lobby. None would ever get a match.

Cut the crap with this 'primary design' BS. The 'primary design' of the Call to Arms is to bring solo PUGs into FP. An active game system repeatedly inviting the PUGs to join one at a time is a better indicator of who is supposed to be included in FP than a one-time throwaway popup saying 'this is hard, be ready.'

Do you see when you go to planets and see unit 'tags' on a planet? How many do you see from pugs? Do you understand how planets are 'tagged'?

Also this is a game built around 12 vs. 12. Not being able to have full teams playing against each other and having it be strictly 12 strangers against 12 other strangers in a game where teamwork really matter is about as silly a concept as it gets.

So if you think a guy in tier 5 who wants to play FW should be angry at twelve mans because PGI doesn't split the queue into tiers you are wrong. The anger should be against the poor design and not the folks who worked hard to be ready and able to play the mode as designed against better or worse competition.

[Black Ivan]

We already had the Que split, but horribly implemented by PGI. They should have never allowed One man units. Their idea was broken from the ground up, but hey. Wanna buy a Mech Pack ?