86 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Pat Kell, on 20 February 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

Let's shorten your post down to a clear concise point that everyone can read quickly and understand while still being 100% right.

Yes but then someone will try to argue with it.

Rules of building a good Forum Warfare dropdeck -

1. Include examples that are self-evident, requiring agreement.

2. Repeat the same concept 3 times in slightly different ways in with self-evident points to trigger subconscious agreement with overall subject.

3. End with short, concise point that sums it up again.

4. Profit!

That and "Pug players in FW are just terrible at the game" is one of the tribal myths of MW:O we keep spreading around. We say 'play to the team' but it's not that easy. All the behaviors that get you a good score in QP help ensure your failure in FW, so someone can be a solid QP player and a terrible FW player. We don't make that clear enough and imply bad at one is bad at the other.

They're playing the game how they know how to play it and getting crushed 9 out of 10 matches. What we really, really need is a better way to show people how to play FW. That, more than any other feature, would help get and keep more people in FW.

[SuperFunkTron]

MischiefSC, on 20 February 2017 - 01:46 PM, said:

They're playing the game how they know how to play it and getting crushed 9 out of 10 matches. What we really, really need is a better way to show people how to play FW. That, more than any other feature, would help get and keep more people in FW.

Maybe a "training FP" bucket where players have to accomplish a certain number of things before they are let loose into the wild?

Beyond forcing players to complete actions that are specifically beneficial to FP tactics and play styles, the only thing that could be done to teach them is given them bucket dedicated to players who are also technically "inexperienced" in FP. Of course there are good and bad points to this, but before any real progress can be made, a very specific set of goals needs to be laid out so that simple solutions for each can be figured out before trying to combine them into a larger, functional solution. Though not idea, I'm still a fan of the "extended field training" concept for new players.

[ccrider]

I like the idea of fixing trials for newer players. Thunderbolt 5ss with med pulse and std engine. Atlas ddc with srms, ac/20. Locust 1v with LG pulse, marauder with std engine, 3 ac/5s and med lasers. Solid mechs, no lurms, no xls in bigger mechs. Better able to stay with team, better for learning to position and twist. Youd need some laser mechs for polar, etc, but that should be simple. Just please, no more voting for xl stalkers or zeus. New player can use a zeus, just make it a std engine 9s with erll or LG pulse lasers. No need to gimp people who haven't learned torso twisting yet.nn

Edited by ccrider, 20 February 2017 - 02:04 PM.

[Pat Kell]

MischiefSC, on 20 February 2017 - 01:46 PM, said:

Yes but then someone will try to argue with it.

Rules of building a good Forum Warfare dropdeck -

1. Include examples that are self-evident, requiring agreement.

2. Repeat the same concept 3 times in slightly different ways in with self-evident points to trigger subconscious agreement with overall subject.

3. End with short, concise point that sums it up again.

4. Profit!

That and "Pug players in FW are just terrible at the game" is one of the tribal myths of MW:O we keep spreading around. We say 'play to the team' but it's not that easy. All the behaviors that get you a good score in QP help ensure your failure in FW, so someone can be a solid QP player and a terrible FW player. We don't make that clear enough and imply bad at one is bad at the other.

They're playing the game how they know how to play it and getting crushed 9 out of 10 matches. What we really, really need is a better way to show people how to play FW. That, more than any other feature, would help get and keep more people in FW.

Was being a bit of a smart arse...sorry. Also though, I have found out the hard way that making long posts filled often times leads to people reading the first 2-3 sentences and moving on.

[MischiefSC]

Pat Kell, on 20 February 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

Was being a bit of a smart arse...sorry. Also though, I have found out the hard way that making long posts filled often times leads to people reading the first 2-3 sentences and moving on.

Pfft. I always assume you're being a smarta$$ Pat. It's part of your charm.

As to not reading it, that's no accident. If someone wants to argue the subject they have to read your post. So it's a cheap way to shut an argument down. Write something you know they won't read but thus won't respond to.

The fix to FW though is not 'keeping the bads out'. It's 'teaching people to play to the team instead of against it'.

Only thing I can think of for that is steep, steep rewards for team-based behaviors. Enough to bribe people to get beyond their resistance to the idea.

Keeping people out though isn't going to fix anything.

[Kin3ticX]

[DANKnuggz]

I put my time in, built my drop deck and had all their elites done BEFORE I even attempted a FP match... Only an idiot brings lesser mechs into a competitive game mode. I wouldn't mind the large wait for a match if the match didn't have a high % chance to end in a roflstomp in either direction because nobs in trials are allowed to enter a competitive game mode. On the contrary, If I had a high chance of meeting a group of experienced players while being grouped with other experienced players the wait time would feel more worth it. However right now I spend 20-30 min in queue only to find my team (or the other) is full of nobs and the match is over in no time, what a waste.

Edited by DANKnuggz, 23 February 2017 - 03:00 PM.