209 replies to this topic

[Insanity09]

Ah, Baba Gump, nice red herring deflection, ad hominems are the go-to on the internet. Heck, I've seen several other posts doing that in the last page or so.

In most games and sports intentionally injuring your opponent, e.g. taking a baseball bat to their head, will get you kicked out of the game and probably banned for some length of time, maybe even life. (The exception being things like MMA and boxing, and even there the baseball bat option will have severe consequences.)

This is not a situation where a psycho is attacking you or your family (well, not physically).
This is not real war, in case you hadn't noticed.

This is a game, and there is just no future in being cruel to your fellow players, even if they are, for that moment, on the opposing side.
That people continue to not understand that is just sad; pathetic, really. (And that last bit is not part of any argument or suggestion, it's just my opinion.)

Edited by Insanity09, 30 August 2017 - 08:02 PM.

[Leone]

Lovas, on 30 August 2017 - 07:54 PM, said:

I mean this thread is silly now. Didn't we JUST have a 30 page thread about this same stuff from Jun-Jul before it got closed?

Pretty much, that's why I stopped paying attention.

~Leone.

[Marius Evander]

The problem is Faction Play is stuck catering to the "Vanilla WoW end game content players" where it needs to become more like Lich King and latter expansions. Which cater to casuals needs as well, both groups would benefit from it.

Sorry, both groups AND PGI's INCOME would benefit.

[MischiefSC]

Cadoazreal, on 31 August 2017 - 12:38 AM, said:

The problem is Faction Play is stuck catering to the "Vanilla WoW end game content players" where it needs to become more like Lich King and latter expansions. Which cater to casuals needs as well, both groups would benefit from it.

Sorry, both groups AND PGI's INCOME would benefit.

The rest of the game, all of it, caters to casuals.

There would be no benefit at all to group to have more pugs in FW. None. What would benefit groups would be for changes that brought the groups that left FW back to FW. That would help FW.

Put the FW content in QP. Maps/modes. Give QP respawns. Put that stuff in QP. I've always said that.

Having one slice of the game, just one, in a team based PvP game actually dedicated to team based PvP is not being unreasonable. There needs to be 'end game content' in any game. In MWO that's two segments - the team based folks and the comp folks. Comp has a tiny little slice, groups have a tiny little slice in FW. Neither needs to be made more like QP to draw in more QP players because we already have QP. Turning everything else into QP isn't going to fix anything, it would just drive more people out of the game completely.

[Marius Evander]

MischiefSC, on 31 August 2017 - 02:48 AM, said:

The rest of the game, all of it, caters to casuals.

Team based players NEVER play solo quick play ? and Comp/Private lobbies is for casuals? ... thats the "rest of the game"

MischiefSC, on 31 August 2017 - 02:48 AM, said:

Put the FW content in QP. Maps/modes. Give QP respawns. Put that stuff in QP. I've always said that.

If you add respawns to QP it wont be QUICKPlay anymore it will be "commit same time as FW" for less reward, it would become the same game, your basically saying make the 2 things the same, which means might as well make FW the same as QP currently is instead, more pug friendly.

MischiefSC, on 31 August 2017 - 02:48 AM, said:

There would be no benefit at all to group to have more pugs in FW. None. What would benefit groups would be for changes that brought the groups that left FW back to FW. That would help FW.

The benefit is more pugs would enjoy it and a few would join groups bringing more groups back to FW.

MischiefSC, on 31 August 2017 - 02:48 AM, said:

Having one slice of the game, just one, in a team based PvP game actually dedicated to team based PvP is not being unreasonable. There needs to be 'end game content' in any game. In MWO that's two segments - the team based folks and the comp folks. Comp has a tiny little slice, groups have a tiny little slice in FW. Neither needs to be made more like QP to draw in more QP players because we already have QP. Turning everything else into QP isn't going to fix anything, it would just drive more people out of the game completely.

Yes there needs to be "end game content". There needs to be "end game content" that is enjoyable for more than 2% of the games population by making it enjoyable and accessable for at least half of player base, that encourages more people into the game, instead of driving them away.

[50 50]

Hang on.
Isn't that what Faction Play is at the moment?
Quick Play with Drop decks?
Or do you mean to specifically add Siege and Scout modes to the Quick Play queues?

If Quick Play is where we learn to pilot the mechs, tinker with builds and just play in a casual environment with no outcome from the matches other than the c-bill payout, then shouldn't we expect or shouldn't the goal be to migrate players towards Faction Play as the group game and bring in those extra layers of depth to the mode and meaning to the Factions?
Isn't that the goal?

It's been suggested in other areas and tossed around that perhaps Faction Play should be the group queue with the quick play only being solo queue.
There is little point in having both the quick play group queue and the Faction Play Queue doing the same thing.

However, it would make sense to have Faction Play only use a single drop into the matches just as it is with quick play and now comp play and it will also be the same for Solaris.
This is important for two reason:
1. It makes the transition between the modes easier.
2. Probably more importantly, it means that any future development that introduces more maps or new quick play modes to quick play automatically benefits Faction Play as it can be ported straight into the system without needing to stuff around modifying the maps with the drop zones or adjusting the modes, increasing that development time before we can enjoy it in Faction Play.

I would question whether Siege mode should be changed to a single drop and added to the Quick Play rotation.
I would also question why Scout mode could not be added.

My only regret would be the loss of the lengthier game times as a result, but it seems that to change Faction Play to a more open concept (like Planetside for example) is simply never going to happen..... unless perhaps we want to petition to remake Assault as some sort of continuous battle or something.

So going forward, to make Faction Play more appealing but still ensuring that it gets regular updates when the rest of the game gets updates, should we not be looking at options that give the Faction meaning and options that bring in extra layers of depth/strategy/resource management etc outside of the individual battles?

Edited by 50 50, 31 August 2017 - 02:41 PM.

[Pat Kell]

Insanity09, on 30 August 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

Ah, Baba Gump, nice red herring deflection, ad hominems are the go-to on the internet. Heck, I've seen several other posts doing that in the last page or so.

In most games and sports intentionally injuring your opponent, e.g. taking a baseball bat to their head, will get you kicked out of the game and probably banned for some length of time, maybe even life. (The exception being things like MMA and boxing, and even there the baseball bat option will have severe consequences.)

This is not a situation where a psycho is attacking you or your family (well, not physically).
This is not real war, in case you hadn't noticed.

This is a game, and there is just no future in being cruel to your fellow players, even if they are, for that moment, on the opposing side.
That people continue to not understand that is just sad; pathetic, really. (And that last bit is not part of any argument or suggestion, it's just my opinion.)

In most games, winning decisively isn't frowned upon and is often praised as long as it's done so within the rules of the game. When we win a match 48-12 we are not taking a baseball bat to someone's head, we are winning decisively. When we win a match 48-12 and then mock, ridicule and berate the enemy, then we are taking a baseball bat to someone's head. We don't do that. There is a difference. Trying your best, winning a decisive match and then saluting, handshaking or thanking the other team is not being a poor sport, it's called doing your best and being respectful to your opponent. What you SEEM to want us to do is try less than our best, which is very demeaning to an opponent in my opinion and is something I won't do.

You seem to think that by winning...even winning decisively is somehow cruel. I wholeheartedly disagree with this line of thinking. Taunting, belittling etc etc your opponent when you win (decisively or not) is cruel. By calling what we do cruel, you are both taking the sting out of true cruelty and you are trying to make people lower themselves to a level that somewhat equalizes people. No thank you. Not buying that snake oil. Everything you do will lead you to someone who does it better. That is how we evolve and become better...in everything we do. If people can't handle losing a game, even a decisive loss, then they probably shouldn't play that game...or any game for that matter. Every game has the potential for a decisive loss.

I agree that being cruel to your opponent helps to rob this game of a future, we just disagree on what being cruel is. If the people who play this game think that losing a game decisively is an example of someone being cruel to them, then they are in for a rude awakening when they decide to grow up.

Edited by Pat Kell, 31 August 2017 - 07:15 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Cadoazreal, on 31 August 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

Team based players NEVER play solo quick play ? and Comp/Private lobbies is for casuals? ... thats the "rest of the game"




If you add respawns to QP it wont be QUICKPlay anymore it will be "commit same time as FW" for less reward, it would become the same game, your basically saying make the 2 things the same, which means might as well make FW the same as QP currently is instead, more pug friendly.



The benefit is more pugs would enjoy it and a few would join groups bringing more groups back to FW.



Yes there needs to be "end game content". There needs to be "end game content" that is enjoyable for more than 2% of the games population by making it enjoyable and accessable for at least half of player base, that encourages more people into the game, instead of driving them away.

I'm saying add a respawns option to QP.

The problem with FW is that it's too pug friendly as it is. Again, at one time it was almost all units playing it - just the things that they wanted were not added so most left. There's no point to being a loyalist, etc.

They already removed the point of factions and made it 1 bukkit. Still having population issues. That is not, and never was, about casual pugs. It was about having a point to it other than just QP with respawns. Making it more 'pug friendly' will do one thing and one thing only - get more people who are in it for the group play to leave. Same thing that happened to the (once very popular) group queue. Now that it's 'more pug friendly', designed more for small teams of 2-4 casuals, too few people play it to have the MM work even for tonnage.

The only point to making FW more 'pug friendly' is to make it less friendly to units and group play. If you have some magical way of making the game better for both at the same time, please say so. However making FW more 'pug friendly' just makes it less 'group friendly' so more group players leave. Again. What doesn't happen is more pugs showing up to MWO all together. So end result is just getting more people to leave in the hopes that maybe some of the casual QP crowd of pugs will play FW sometimes.

Units are a lot more than 2% of the games population. Count tags in any match in any mode - most players in MW:O are in some sort of unit. The reason they don't play FW (anymore) isn't because it wasn't pug friendly enough or casual enough. It's that it wasn't different or interesting enough from QP to be worth investing in. So they left. The issue was FW being too casual, as in not enough depth or purpose or rewards for being a loyalist or for the success of your unit (remember owning dropships? Planets? All that stuff?) to get them to stay.

I'm all for the content, the maps/modes, being open to everyone. Dumbing down FW even more isn't going to bring anyone to the game but it absolutely will get people to leave.

[MischiefSC]

Pat Kell, on 31 August 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

In most games, winning decisively isn't frowned upon and is often praised as long as it's done so within the rules of the game. When we win a match 48-12 we are not taking a baseball bat to someone's head, we are winning decisively. When we win a match 48-12 and then mock, ridicule and berate the enemy, then we are taking a baseball bat to someone's head. We don't do that. There is a difference. Trying your best, winning a decisive match and then saluting, handshaking or thanking the other team is not being a poor sport, it's called doing your best and being respectful to your opponent. What you SEEM to want us to do is try less than our best, which is very demeaning to an opponent in my opinion and is something I won't do.

You seem to think that by winning...even winning decisively is somehow cruel. I wholeheartedly disagree with this line of thinking. Taunting, belittling etc etc your opponent when you win (decisively or not) is cruel. By calling what we do cruel, you are both taking the sting out of true cruelty and you are trying to make people lower themselves to a level that somewhat equalizes people. No thank you. Not buying that snake oil. Everything you do will lead you to someone who does it better. That is how we evolve and become better...in everything we do. If people can't handle losing a game, even a decisive loss, then they probably shouldn't play that game...or any game for that matter. Every game has the potential for a decisive loss.

I agree that being cruel to your opponent helps to rob this game of a future, we just disagree on what being cruel is. If the people who play this game think that losing a game decisively is an example of someone being cruel to them, then they are in for a rude awakening when they decide to grow up.

The underlying problem is the idea that beating someone at a game consistently is the same as picking on them. It's the idea that everyone deserves to win, regardless of how hard they try. So if you try 100% and someone else tries 50%, you are trying harder and as such win more - the other guy could win just as much by putting in the same effort.

But he doesn't want to. He refuses to. However he still wants to win as much as you, so if you take that view then you putting in 100% effort to win is 'being cruel' to the guy who is unwilling to put in more than 50%, because you're trying harder than he's willing to and that makes him look bad and feel bad.

So by that same twist of reasoning and bad logic you're responsible for trying less and winning less so that the guy who won't put in 100% still feels good and like he's a winner, just without having to put in the effort to accomplish winning via his actual effort.

That's the crux of it. Wanting to win but not put in the effort to win and attempting to guilt anyone who is putting that effort into trying less so the ones who are not willing to put forward as much feel better. Trying to make you feel responsible for the other guy losing, because clearly he just can't learn to do better but you could do worse to make the other guy feel better about not trying harder.

This gets the double-down guilt trip by saying that since it's absolutely impossible for the guy losing to learn or improve or try harder or get better then it's the fault of the people winning that everyone just leaves because the standards are too high. That if you don't coddle the guy who isn't carrying his weight the whole game will end because if that guy's not getting coddled he won't play.

All of which is total, complete and utter bull ****. Two things separate FW from the rest of the game. 1 is respawns. 2 is lack of a matchmaker.

That's it. The point of these two things is it moves the premium in the game way toward teamwork and a much bigger reward for effort invested both before and during the match. Building a good deck, playing with your team either in a premade or putting the work in during the drop. Since removing pugging all together is unfair to the numerous people who do well at pugging (by doing the above stuff) and makes dropping in 11 impossible and other matchmaking limitations, PGI has elected not to remove pugging entirely but has tried to make it very clear that FW is a tougher environment.

That's the whole point.

[Insanity09]

Sigh.

Beating someone consistently is far from picking on them. Taunting them about it before, after, or during, that's different.

Winning decisively is not cruel. In fact, a quick and decisive win can actually be rather kind.
An assassin's knife, rather than the punk's shotgun.

I'm sorry the point I'm trying to make is so clearly difficult to grasp.

Treating an enemy like a cat treats a bug is cruel.

When somebody attacks without allowing any real defense, that is brutality at its core. Picking apart the enemy team mech by mech, even as the victims fall from the dropships, there is no real defense against a team spawncamping in that way.
That seems over the top.
That isn't simply winning, it is kicking an opponent when they are down, before they can even begin to think about defending themselves further, or fighting back.

There is often the opportunity for the decisively winning team to be less unsportsmanlike, basically by choosing simply to not spawn camp (entering or guarding), yet that too is lost in the quest for a supposedly quick match score boost.

I am aware that some of the driving force behind this behavior is greed, more kills and assists equals more money. Hence my 'surviving enemy mechs' victory bonus proposal.

Camping certainly isn't any faster (especially when there is the option of an objective based win). You still must wait for multiple drops to take place, and by killing people in ones and twos, that could conceivably take even longer than wiping them out en masse. Particularly if there are multiple drop zones to cover.

[Commander A9]

When should we start throwing matches, since it sounds like consistently defeating our enemy is upsetting them?

Edited by Commander A9, 02 September 2017 - 07:18 PM.

[Marius Evander]

MischiefSC, on 31 August 2017 - 10:21 PM, said:

The underlying problem ............

So your as good as michael jordan at basketball ? Pele at Football, etc etc ? people have different skill levels/ different reaction speeds. your argument that people aren't trying hard enough is saying everyone on the planet is equally as skilled and should try harder in a GAME to get gud it nonsensical. Instead of making the GAME accessable at multiple skill levels.

Edited by Cadoazreal, 02 September 2017 - 10:05 PM.

[50 50]

Are we still talking about spawn camping?
There are only two possible fixes for that.
1. Remove spawns. tada. no more camping.
2. Make the spawn points objectives that can be captured which means a dominant team has a way to control the landing zones and push an enemy force out of the battle.

A well co-ordinated, skilled team will beat anything else.
But, if this is a question of population where you come up against the same team over and over again.... that is not a fault of either side, it's the mode lacking incentive or interest to bring more players in and create the diversity.

So maybe that's the real question.
A group/team needs to play against better teams so they learn and improve.
But if this happens continuously and there is never a chance to measure yourself against an equal opponent, you do feel like cannon fodder.
But we should never expect an opponent to throw a match.
We don't tolerate it in any sports, why should we here.

The mode needs more players invested in it so we can just get the matches and play the game.
No one wants to sit there for an hour, get a ghost drop and then queue again in hope they get an actual opponent and get to actually play the game.
So that is why we need more players from the casual queues to join in.
But if we make the improvements to the mode and some of those older teams come back, fan-bl00dy-tastic.
Everyone benefits.

Right at the moment, Faction Play does not offer enough over Quick Play in the way it is structured or with additional depth to bring new or older players back to the mix.
So... what would do that?
Work the solution not bicker over a symptom.

Edited by 50 50, 04 September 2017 - 07:01 PM.

[Leggin Ho]

Cadoazreal, on 02 September 2017 - 10:05 PM, said:

So your as good as michael jordan at basketball ? Pele at Football, etc etc ? people have different skill levels/ different reaction speeds. your argument that people aren't trying hard enough is saying everyone on the planet is equally as skilled and should try harder in a GAME to get gud it nonsensical. Instead of making the GAME accessable at multiple skill levels.

I don't think he's comparing himself to those players of course he's not in here whining and asking for the rules for basketball or football (soccer to us silly Americans) to be changed so have some advantage because of their specific skill level over the more skilled player. More of what he's saying is that the game is level for each player, however IF you want to play the team oriented part of this game then do the things that will help you be successful when you play it, group up, run builds that work together, use coms (Viop or whatever). Don't just run here and complain and demand changes when the playing field is already level in a individual level, teamwork is OP, but FW is the team oriented part of MWO.

[MischiefSC]

Cadoazreal, on 02 September 2017 - 10:05 PM, said:

So your as good as michael jordan at basketball ? Pele at Football, etc etc ? people have different skill levels/ different reaction speeds. your argument that people aren't trying hard enough is saying everyone on the planet is equally as skilled and should try harder in a GAME to get gud it nonsensical. Instead of making the GAME accessable at multiple skill levels.

The difference is that I'm not saying that the NBA should be more casual player friendly because there are more casual basketball players than pro sports teams.

The game is accessible to multiple skill levels. It has a pug queue with a matchmaker. It has FW, which has higher rewards but has a slightly higher expectation of performance. It has a comp queue and MWOWC with big cash prizes - I'm not demanding MWOWC be more casual friendly so I could enter and still have good odds of winning the prize.

The argument that there's always people who are bad at something or unwilling to put effort into getting good at something is not a rational argument for just making everything geared toward the lowest common denominator.

Again. Making FW more casual friendly would just get more of the less casual players to leave. It's not going to flood FW with casuals. If you have FW play exactly like a pug match but with reaspawns there would still be spawn camping and the bads would get crushed just as much, just as hard and not play FW cuz it's no fair that they lose just because they play badly in bad mechs. Only now the less casual players have nowhere for them and just wander off - like many others did with the last few FW updates dumbing it down (one bukkit).

So where's the flood of casuals who were supposed to come to FW with one bukkit and QP maps? What's that? The only thing that changed with that was most the loyalists quit so we have less players than we did before?

So now the idea is to do the same thing again, just more?

[Tarl Cabot]

I had to rewrite this a few times simply because everyone is simply reacting to what the other is saying, trying to express their viewpoints but missing the overall goal, how to bring a challenging but fun encounter.... That there is a conversation, even a heated one is actually okay.

MischiefSC said:

However you've got this impression that I (we?) have some sort of obligation .. snip

No, you should not have any sort of obligation, that SHOULD be in PGI ballpark but they have dropped the ball in this "niche game".

And as per my sig I come from the Multiplayer Battletech series that ran from 1991 to 2001 across three different versions. Kesmai was always involved with the community, both directly and indirectly via House Leaders/HXOs (NDAs). At one point, during the early part of MPBT Solaris (originally MPBT SVGA 3025) this included combat restrictions due to current game limitations for the general population which provided a severe negative gaming experience for new players. Shortly after MPBT Solaris went live on AOL, heading/legging was discouraged and became game protocol with extreme prejudice since Kesmai had not coded in enhancements with the new engine to reduce cockpit shots nor yet added the alternate combat views for when one or both legs were lost, which would allow a player to fire up/down/side views. In the Leagues such as Solaris Lance League it was allowed, provided those in each match agreed on it, same for private matches. After a period of time those combat restriction were removed community-wide with agreement of a House majority and officially went live during an SSW event hosted by House Kurita, but with House Leadership for one faction who objected and boycotted the SSW. Several of that House's units though did participate as mercs for other participating Houses. During normal play such as FFA/etc the arena/room owner did have the option of to announce no cockpit/legging.

We do not have official "House/Clan" Leadership, be it HL-HXO/Khan-SaKhan (not really viable in current climate/setup), nor even a council of Unit/Community Leaders hosted or not by PGI. Nor is there any real involvement by by PGI to help direct the Community as a whole. Unfortunately it is usually quite the opposite, relying on code, or not to do their work.

Pat Kell, on 31 August 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

In most games, winning decisively isn't frowned upon and is often praised as long as it's done so within the rules of the game.......

You seem to think that by winning...even winning decisively is somehow cruel.
.....

......

(nods) Winning decisiviely is usually praised. The it is not when the winning team rubs salt into the wound by keeping their 1st string on the field/court, rarely substituing in one or two 2nd-3rd string players throughout most of the game. That is called running up the score, though not against the rules is considered very unsportmanship. And doing that 19 out of 20 games....? Hai, next this will move this is not a sport, this is war. It is a form of combat, hai, but it is also a game, a very 'niche' game at that. Is playing and being viewed ruthless though good for the game, the community and for the units?

Are we in agreement that what was promised to the community has been shorted, and we have to play with the hand dealt to us? And that there are no COMMUNITY/Faction leaders where a consensus of how the Community/Factions should operate? Are most in agreement that the contention between the various types of players are not going away because PGI is not able to code certain gaming aspects, or simply cannot or do not care because the population and how the current overall game is setup?

There is one aspect of Lore though that could be used, it is the bidding itself after a batchall has been announced. Are the units, when facing "militia-type" units able to defeat the enemy with a smaller force? You had posted in a few threads of how your unit felt when they had an actual challenge. How does your unit feel the same way when they have rolled the "militia" types 9 out of last 10 drops? None are saying those coming under fire are the hold back, it is holding back 2-3 (maybe 4) players for the first wave or two, cycling out. Then getting other active units involved, a consensus. Should it be announced at the beginning or wait until after the first wave or two? The idea is attempting to give both sides a challenge while keeping the upper hand (the reserve) without throwing the fight. The militia will still lose but it would not necessarily be over as quickly as previous setups, and it will likely not prevent spawn camping.

Of course, this is simply a discussion on how we as players could overall enhance, to give a positive spin to part of the game that PGI, for all intents and purposes, appears to not be really committed to, or does not know what route to take in order to provide a meaningful and positive impact.

Pat Kell, on 29 August 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

... That's my fault.

I couldn't help it!!!!!! IBTL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 03 September 2017 - 02:50 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Okay, so I don't agree on saying after I win a wave I have to go reset to the middle of the map or wherever until the other team decides to come out. Exactly how do you want to regulate the pugs? Which of us has the tools and authority to dictate rules on penalty of anything to the pug players?

You're talking about a situation with no real relevance to FW. If you have some means of enforcing player behavior for everyone and the rules don't involve me having to waste a lot of time I'd be happy to talk about it at least. I'm game with some player engagement to make stuff fun -

Except the pugs almost never want to play and you can't compel them, so the idea is irrelevant.

[Commander A9]

I'm not even too sure what we're even arguing about anymore...

[ccrider]

I think the one thing we can all agree on here is that my Atlas' need better torso twist speed as well as pitch and yaw. God I miss them.




MY Atlas', not other people's.

Edited by ccrider, 03 September 2017 - 11:10 PM.

[Marius Evander]

Were arguing that basketball with 20 + diiferent skill levels of competition is the same as mwo having 2-3 different divisions of skill level and that people in the middle of the field should have to play against either Michael Jordan or 5 year olds, nothing in between.

And that portland and indiana quit end of last season because they dont want to play with phoenix and brookyln, not because the top teams beat them 80 - 20.

Edited by Cadoazreal, 03 September 2017 - 11:20 PM.