250 replies to this topic

[Dago Red]

Lykaon, on 30 December 2017 - 03:59 AM, said:

How is this a surprise to anyone?

After all failure is never their own fault it wasn't that they (their team) failed to measure up. It's the winning team's fault!

This is exactly what happened in the past. We had a match maker that included solos and small groups of 4 or less. The match maker would always attempt to place a group of equal size on each team.

I played back then and when I was in a group the vast majority of the time the opposition team also had a group. Sometimes we won and sometimes we lost. Sometimes we won by a lot sometimes we lost by a lot.

A typical 12 v 12 match up would have been my 4 player group and 8 solos vs another 4 player group and 8 solos. This was not a rare exception it was TYPICAL for the match maker to set teams like this.

So when my 4 player group won 8 solo puggies also won. But did we ever hear about this dynamic? Nope it was only when the puggies lost that groups were ever mentioned as the cause for their loss. How easily they forget the wins they had experienced with grouped player team mates.

How they easily overlooked the majority of matches with groups assigned to each side and focused on the rare case of a group being only on one side. Did it occur to them that since group size was limited to 4 players max. then the winning team was TWO THIRDS PUG!

Even when one team was "seal clubbed" the team that did it to them was composed of two thirds solo puggies just like them most of the time.

This means that when the match maker failed to place a group on both teams (not enough groups in queue) and the side with the group won (surprise this is not a foregone conclusion) the winners were mostly solo players.

But this was so easily forgotten and replaced with heaps of confirmation bias and blame. It could not be their fault? It must have been the grouped player's fault. Easily ignoring that their own team also included a group of players that also lost that very same match.


So obviously since they got their way then of course they will try to pull the same B.S. again.

And because of the past spoon feeding of the least dedicated players we have no options to explore now but to cave in to their demands. It's not like we can go back to an older match maker model but with improved match making criteria. If groups are at all involved the confirmation bias and blame will over take facts and reason every time.

I legitimately can't believe that this fight is happening again on the forum.

Did people learn nothing from what a **** show it made of things when they got what they wanted last time?

[ScrapIron Prime]

Personally, I don’t think we can solve an issue with an underpopulated game mode by further dividing up the population into separate buckets. Something needs work, yes, but that’s not the solution.

[Asym]

justcallme A S H, on 30 December 2017 - 06:41 AM, said:

Fact? Please provide the evidence to prove it.

The actual fact (coming from a regular team player) is that we SEEK OUT teams. We long for good fights.

However such fights are rare for many reasons from other units/groups being just not as good down to low population times and there simply being no-one else on.

The time for "groups" is Fri night US Peak (Or Sat arvo my time). Those are when you'll generally find larger groups. I could post dozens of screenshots of team vs team games. Hell go and look at MercStar's youtube channel where every few days they are posting videos of team v team.

No one is "seriously not wanting to play each other". That is nothing more than unfounded rubbish and you won't ever be able to produce any shred of evidence to back up your "fact".

Earlier it was stated that teams farm when and were they can: the noobs, the psuedo teams and teams that are inferior, not my words but a team member of MS. Is that a fact? Do you believe him?

I didn't record the struggles we had with a make-up comp team. What we did have, in reality and I have no reason to lie, were horrendus fights and people literally quitting in-match and then being blocked. A cycle of we're doing this for the money, oh, I don't like you at all, insults flying around in match, people quitting and then the search for another A level player. Weeks of this to get the 20 matches..... That is opinion and I don't record everything.....this isn't a court of law.

I belong to a team and they have been here since day one (many of them) and have been on several teams. Their stories are the truth as they experienced it....Opinion again. The cycle of anti-social behaviors run amok causing teams to dissolve, collect again and dissolve again.. Alternative account for each team and they have no less than 3 seperate team accounts.....

Proof, always empirical proof for some... I sure you long for good fights and everybody longs for a good game... If I were in charge, I'd give you a separte que and let you determine the entry requirements and then, lock you out of everything non-team so that what you sow in your que stays there: for good or ill; till it proves itself safe for general consumption.... Just an opinion....

[Will Randor]

I enjoy playing Seige mode not only more than QP but often more than any other game. It is a rare thing were tactics and reinforcement management need to be used properly in an FPS computer game.

However, the current (non existent) FP matchmaking is a disaster that threatens the health of the game. Even with powerful units in the Q it will blindly match 12 mans with mostly Tier5 pugs - who then hate FP. The non-siege maps are also poor in unbalanced FP matches as it is too easy to push into the drop areas.

It is easy to rate FP players based on damage they do and when they are perma-dead. The MM could populate gaps in strong sides with low Tier players but full 12 mans remain a problem if there is no suitable opposition queued. Personally I would protect the game health over all other considerations - so in that case it could break up the unit into 2 x sixes and force them each to marshall 6 bottom tier players.

From PGI's perspective any FP match with a huge kill disparity and no damage to the gens is a design failure. Let the Pugs LRM each other through a wall during this event as long as they think they had a chance in the match. Units will also benefit, as most rounds being a stomp is not fun - even if you win every time.

Edited by Will Randor, 30 December 2017 - 08:04 AM.

[xVLFBERHxT]

McHoshi, on 30 December 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:

All this discusion is so hilarious - It is so easy!

PUGs just stay out of FP and go back to QP period

Noone will need you Pugs in FP.

Fine.

But why cant pug´s have there own CW/FW like a quickplay CW/FW? In your case, there is no harm done by a split queue for the "real pro" CW/FW, even if its empty.

You guys are on your own then. Pugs can pug at events and everybody has more fun...

[Mystere]

N0MAD, on 30 December 2017 - 07:48 AM, said:

No they created the one man groups so they could receive the rewards that werent available to the non unit player.

Don't presume you know the motivations behind what I and several people I know did. <smh>

[Mystere]

xVLFBERHxT, on 30 December 2017 - 08:04 AM, said:

Fine.

But why cant pug´s have there own CW/FW like a quickplay CW/FW? In your case, there is no harm done by a split queue for the "real pro" CW/FW, even if its empty.

You guys are on your own then. Pugs can pug at events and everybody has more fun...

I have a (not so simple) question for you: Should a planet units fought hard to take be in turn taken by a solo-only team without facing units at all?

Because if you say so, that is a really ****** design for CW.

Edited by Mystere, 30 December 2017 - 08:10 AM.

[N0MAD]

Mystere, on 30 December 2017 - 08:10 AM, said:

I have a (not so simple) question for you: Should a planet units fought hard to take be in turn taken by a solo-only team without facing units at all?

Because if you say so, that is a really ****** design for CW.

Interesting.
Let me ask you something..
As it stands now with the one bucket system isnt a planet now really just contested by Clan vs IS units or afiliated mercs?.

[xVLFBERHxT]

Mystere, on 30 December 2017 - 08:10 AM, said:

I have a (not so simple) question for you: Should a planet units fought hard to take be in turn taken by a solo-only team without facing units at all?

Because if you say so, that is a really ****** design for CW.

What are planets without repair and rearm, factorys and planet-related mech access worth to you in this CW desing?

And to your "not simple" question... If you need THAT map, just made two maps. One for pugs and one for groups.

Edited by xVLFBERHxT, 30 December 2017 - 08:30 AM.

[Mystere]

xVLFBERHxT, on 30 December 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

What are planets without repair and rearm, factorys and planet-related mech access worth to you in this CW desing?

And to your "not simple" question... If you need THAT map, just made two maps. One for pugs and one for groups.

CW was supposed to be a grand war in a single universe. Now you want it to have two?

N0MAD, on 30 December 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

Interesting.
Let me ask you something..
As it stands now with the one bucket system isnt a planet now really just contested by Clan vs IS units or afiliated mercs?.

Does it really make a difference whether we have 12 factions or just 2?

[xVLFBERHxT]

Mystere, on 30 December 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

CW was supposed to be a grand war in a single universe. Now you want it to have two?

It was not supposed to be like this!

[Mystere]

xVLFBERHxT, on 30 December 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

It was not supposed to be like this!

I will just quote myself, again:

Mystere, on 25 December 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

... the problem with CW is not the queues. The problem always has been that it's just a mere skeleton of what it was supposed to be. EACH AND EVERY PROBLEM COMES FROM THAT FACT.

Mystere, on 26 December 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

It is PGI's scraps-based approach to everything (the word "piecemeal" was too generous) is what doomed the game from the beginning.

Creating a hard separation between groups and solos -- and nothing else for several months, as per their usual modus operandi -- will just just destroy CW even more as it transforms into a solo-only game mode.

Edited by Mystere, 30 December 2017 - 08:54 AM.

[DevlinCognito]

Can't we please just make it so players are unable to enter FW unless they are in a group and let Darwinism sort things out? If you want to play the team game you need to team up, if you aren't willing to team up, you don't get in, simples. If you find out player 'xx
SNiPErL33txx' isn't a good team mate, you don't have him in your group again, and pretty soon only folks willing to play the game as originally intended are playing it. Yes people could form groups with LFG, but then it would be pretty hard for those folks to then create umpteen threads about banishing teams from the team based game mode.

[PFC Carsten]

ScrapIron Prime, on 30 December 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

Personally, I don’t think we can solve an issue with an underpopulated game mode by further dividing up the population into separate buckets. Something needs work, yes, but that’s not the solution.

So, we cannot have the solution because the blatantly obvious solution was tried for what four days when it was already way to late and in a way that was set up to fail hard from the beginning? Like the multi-vector splitting of queues at once without proper beforehand warnings and events to bring players back who already left?

Gratz, welcome to the barren wasteland of today's Faction Play.

[xVLFBERHxT]

Mystere, on 30 December 2017 - 08:53 AM, said:

I will just quote myself, again:

I am with you.

But now, with this CW experience, the queues are part of the problem.

[Novakaine]

Or..........................
PGI could do something radical and actually start trying to attract new players.
I know it's insane, but it might just work.
Maybe a test drive of these bad boys to spark new interest.
I know radical huh?

[Fae Puka]

I like to think I am one of those players who are "solid", not particularly great, but solid. I follow drop calls, I support the people I am dropping with, I try to bring the best builds for the maps and drop styles. Would you exclude someone because they are not a part of a large unit when they can play correctly?

I am not massively committed to doing loads of FW/CW (whatever the current term is until PGI changes it again). I played in one large unit for around 2 years and saw it fall to infighting when all the members were told exactly what mechs and load outs to bring and even told that they were not permitted to enter into any competitions if they had not been "chosen" to do so or given permission! Really? If you care to pay for my mechs and time then fine, otherwise keep that approach to yourself. Oddly enough, a lot of very good players left that unit and ran solo for quite a while.

Later, a strong core of those players joined up under a new unit banner with the intention to have fun, whether it be in QP, Scouting or CW. We were supportive of all it's members, we had fun, drank a lot and many mistakes were made.

PGI stomped through CW again, throwing in multitudes of changes without bringing anything new to the game. People were bored; they semi retired and played other games. People left again, playing solo, partnering with other units every now and then.

CW is pretty much f***** up. We all know that. What we need to be doing is bringing back the fun element, introducing the next level of challenging play, but more importantly, bringing a new echelon of players into the mode, not excluding them!

Recently, I have been floating around a number of units as a guest in TS and I routinely see 15 - 20 members trying to get into a CW drop. When this happens, I retire and let the host unit players take a place in the drop, which is only fair. But think about it. Why not trial 8 man pre-mades with an 8 unit limit on a drop side, bring in the pugs or small unit drop teams and have 2 drops instead of waiting for a space in 1? It removes the criticism of pug clubbing (yes an 8 man from a top tier is still going to have a massive advantage as would be expected) and will hopefully act as a melting pot for the bigger units to draw from to pick up new members.

Excluding pugs will not work. Excluding trial mech pugs . . . that would make sense, after all, if you have a drop deck, you have some experience of using them. Splitting the CW pot of players will not work either - it's already taken a hammering, reducing player base wont help anyone.

Just be a little more constructive for a change rather than damning those who are not as good as you would have them be.

[MischiefSC]

MummyPig, on 30 December 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

I like to think I am one of those players who are &quot;solid&quot;, not particularly great, but solid. I follow drop calls, I support the people I am dropping with, I try to bring the best builds for the maps and drop styles. Would you exclude someone because they are not a part of a large unit when they can play correctly?

I am not massively committed to doing loads of FW/CW (whatever the current term is until PGI changes it again). I played in one large unit for around 2 years and saw it fall to infighting when all the members were told exactly what mechs and load outs to bring and even told that they were not permitted to enter into any competitions if they had not been &quot;chosen&quot; to do so or given permission! Really? If you care to pay for my mechs and time then fine, otherwise keep that approach to yourself. Oddly enough, a lot of very good players left that unit and ran solo for quite a while.

Later, a strong core of those players joined up under a new unit banner with the intention to have fun, whether it be in QP, Scouting or CW. We were supportive of all it's members, we had fun, drank a lot and many mistakes were made.

PGI stomped through CW again, throwing in multitudes of changes without bringing anything new to the game. People were bored; they semi retired and played other games. People left again, playing solo, partnering with other units every now and then.

CW is pretty much f***** up. We all know that. What we need to be doing is bringing back the fun element, introducing the next level of challenging play, but more importantly, bringing a new echelon of players into the mode, not excluding them!

Recently, I have been floating around a number of units as a guest in TS and I routinely see 15 - 20 members trying to get into a CW drop. When this happens, I retire and let the host unit players take a place in the drop, which is only fair. But think about it. Why not trial 8 man pre-mades with an 8 unit limit on a drop side, bring in the pugs or small unit drop teams and have 2 drops instead of waiting for a space in 1? It removes the criticism of pug clubbing (yes an 8 man from a top tier is still going to have a massive advantage as would be expected) and will hopefully act as a melting pot for the bigger units to draw from to pick up new members.

Excluding pugs will not work. Excluding trial mech pugs . . . that would make sense, after all, if you have a drop deck, you have some experience of using them. Splitting the CW pot of players will not work either - it's already taken a hammering, reducing player base wont help anyone.

Just be a little more constructive for a change rather than damning those who are not as good as you would have them be.

KCom is rarely 12 players in a drop anymore. Very rarely. We drop with whoever shows up and if we get a good pug are happy to have them come in TS with us. I'm a big fan of having veteran players pair with newer players.

However I'm not sure trying to force that will work. Good pugs are uncommon now and requiring people to play with bad pugs is just going to enduce rage.

[Maxxi]

Jesus christ this thread. For now the only reason that all want Faction Warfare is team vs team? Is not a place for solo players? New players? casual players?

Yeah, you people are the reason that mode is dying. Keep like that!

My suggestion is: Play the game, be less toxic. Every player play this game like whatever they want. If this is gettin salty, well I suggest go take some fresh air.

P/D: I played solo and in a team. The fun is where you are having fun shooting and PTFO.

Also there's a competitive mode no?

[Kwea]

N0MAD, on 29 December 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

ASH.
A lot of people will tell you the FP pop is so low because there isnt separate Qs.
Todays most popular Thread was about a team just quitting when faced with a large group that was just going to farm them, this is just lowering the potential FP population.
A separate Q would only increase the population, the only way it would go down is if teams would refuse to play other teams instead of being able to farm pugs.
Everyones game experience would benefit from separate Qs Pugs would get better games, units would get better more competitive games, only the clubbers/farmers would see a downside to this.
Using the excuse of low population isnt valid when you consider that keeping the current system is just driving the population away and lowering it even further.
There are many more problems in FP, as you point out, but this is something that PGI can fix unlike the many other problems they wont or cant fix.

A lot of people are morons.

The solo queue was a complete failure for both solo's and groups. NO ONE will play this game at all if we have to wait longer than we already do for matches. Wait times are already too long for the content delivered.


You are making strawman arguments against players who play this game specifically the way it was designed, man. It isn't QP with multispawns, so stop trying to ruin it (worse than it already is) the way PGI did for horribads in QP.