415 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior1441491]

LordBraxton, on 14 March 2018 - 04:17 PM, said:

This summarizes why all of my IRL friends quit MWO, and why I finally stopped playing a long time ago as well.

When they floated the idea of return to 8v8 I was fully erect and ready to return. My discord group asks anytime MWO is brought up in conversation, "8v8 back yet?" or "can we duo in the solo queue yet?"

I feel like I have to play MWO alone, and then even carrying 3x my weight can be meaningless, or I need to rejoin a big unit and run organized 6-10 man drops.

They catered to casuals and the game went to ****.

That happens to every game that caters to casuals. Faction warfare being a perfect example of watered down crap game play that doesn't think about attracting a broad range of gamers instead of the mass amounts of run in with their trial mech super player.

They aren't the type of player that game type seeks to retain, but here we are.

Game should have rolled out with Quickplay and Solaris. Faqction warfare should have gone full advanced strategic mechanics with supply, commanders etc. Rank actually meaning a damn thing. Players creating missions. Assigning your units jump and drops ships. All that jazz. They could have bought a variety of old cardboard piece military ww2 board games for inspiration on how to do supply, movement, combat.

I'm waiting for Camelot Unchained. They have a solid team and I trust the Devs over there to actually do what they say, not "what their position was at the time".

Edited by Mechwarrior1441491, 15 March 2018 - 05:17 PM.

[Imperius]

SFC174, on 15 March 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

That word, it does not mean what you think it means.

Your willful ignorance about the matchmaker, and the point I'm making, is both amusing and disappointing. As a Tier 1 player, I count the same to the matchmaker as any of those top players - this is a flaw, but its how it is. I'm not a spot filler that gets pulled in when enough Tier 1s aren't available. Your assertion that 8v8 would take strain off the matchmaker is wrong for precisely that reason. And until the rating system is fixed, 8v8 is a bad idea. Not because 8v8 doesn't fix the matchmaker (that's your strawman, I never said it should or would), but because the matchmaker's flaws become amplified with fewer players in the game. Nothing you've said argues against that, and the reason I keep beating you about the head with it is because it's a critical flaw with going back to 8v8. Get PGI to fix that first and I'd support 8v8 in a heartbeat (even if I think fewer players is less interesting, I'd trade fewer players for an improved MM).

It's also why 8v8 would actually be better for group drops. Since there is no matchmaker there, other than trying to fit the right sized groups together, changing match size wouldn't matter from an MM standpoint. But its death to solo queue.

I read first line and stopped this is about 8v8, not matchmaker. Try again!

I also said help not fix any of the things listed other than performance and congestion.

Edited by Imperius, 15 March 2018 - 05:17 PM.

[Scout Derek]

Still got votes coming in. Don't think it's "Dead in the water" yet.

[Ensaine]

WarHippy, on 10 March 2018 - 03:13 PM, said:

/snip a lot of stuff

Anyone who consistently micro-quotes a person in EVERY post likes to argue, first and foremost. I've no need or want to hear from someone who likes to quibble .. really dude... .it's ok to let a few points go unchallenged .........

I'm for 8v8. One can say this reason, or that reason.... I suck at math, yet I can see the increased TTK from doing this....less mechs spamming X on the field = less mechs getting hit from.. like.. everything......

As it sits now, I can Linebacker into a group, SRM ALPHA into a whole herd, because all 12 people are scrambling to get behind 2-3 pieces of cover. Less mechs in play, means cover is less contested.....

I could go on and on, but, I don't want WarHippy getting too many paragraphs to quote me on.......

[Imperius]

8v8 is pretty much the only thing that is bringing me back at this point.

[WarHippy]

Ensaine, on 17 March 2018 - 03:05 AM, said:

Anyone who consistently micro-quotes a person in EVERY post likes to argue, first and foremost. I've no need or want to hear from someone who likes to quibble .. really dude... .it's ok to let a few points go unchallenged .........

I'm for 8v8. One can say this reason, or that reason.... I suck at math, yet I can see the increased TTK from doing this....less mechs spamming X on the field = less mechs getting hit from.. like.. everything......

As it sits now, I can Linebacker into a group, SRM ALPHA into a whole herd, because all 12 people are scrambling to get behind 2-3 pieces of cover. Less mechs in play, means cover is less contested.....

I could go on and on, but, I don't want WarHippy getting too many paragraphs to quote me on.......

Heh, I won't deny that I like to argue, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong(or right for that matter). We all have our viewpoints and opinions on what is and isn't the right thing to do. Sorry if sharing mine offends you.

[JohnnyWayne]

WarHippy, on 18 March 2018 - 12:29 PM, said:

Heh, I won't deny that I like to argue, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong(or right for that matter). We all have our viewpoints and opinions on what is and isn't the right thing to do. Sorry if sharing mine offends you.

You are welcome to have opinions and viewpoints and point them out. But, as I stated before, ripping posts apart left and right does not bring anyone anywhere. This is why I stopped replying to you pretty early.

[Imperius]

The elephant in the room is we spend more time on the forums than in game

[WarHippy]

JohnnyWayne, on 18 March 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

You are welcome to have opinions and viewpoints and point them out. But, as I stated before, ripping posts apart left and right does not bring anyone anywhere. This is why I stopped replying to you pretty early.

If someone is going to make a point to support their opinion they should expect someone may have a counterpoint to support a different opinion. That is how discussion works unless you just want an echo chamber(and echo chambers don't get us anywhere either, or at least nowhere good).

[WarHippy]

Ensaine, on 17 March 2018 - 03:05 AM, said:

Anyone who consistently micro-quotes a person in EVERY post likes to argue, first and foremost. I've no need or want to hear from someone who likes to quibble .. really dude... .it's ok to let a few points go unchallenged .........

I'm for 8v8. One can say this reason, or that reason.... I suck at math, yet I can see the increased TTK from doing this....less mechs spamming X on the field = less mechs getting hit from.. like.. everything......

As it sits now, I can Linebacker into a group, SRM ALPHA into a whole herd, because all 12 people are scrambling to get behind 2-3 pieces of cover. Less mechs in play, means cover is less contested.....

I could go on and on, but, I don't want WarHippy getting too many paragraphs to quote me on.......

JohnnyWayne, on 18 March 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

You are welcome to have opinions and viewpoints and point them out. But, as I stated before, ripping posts apart left and right does not bring anyone anywhere. This is why I stopped replying to you pretty early.

Out of curiosity what is the ratio of point/counterpoint you think is appropriate? If someone makes a post with five points for example how many am I allowed to respond to? I'm just asking because you don't seem to want any back and forth, and you want your stated opinion unchallenged. Should we have a system in place so you can flag the parts of your post you are willing to defend or discuss?

[sycocys]

Imperius, on 18 March 2018 - 04:35 PM, said:

The elephant in the room is we spend more time on the forums than in game

That's because the forums are a better game, hands down.

[JohnnyWayne]

WarHippy, on 18 March 2018 - 05:01 PM, said:

If someone is going to make a point to support their opinion they should expect someone may have a counterpoint to support a different opinion.

A point. Not 30 for each post. This is not discussing this is spam.

[WarHippy]

JohnnyWayne, on 19 March 2018 - 02:11 AM, said:

A point. Not 30 for each post. This is not discussing this is spam.

A single post can contain more than one point that may need to be addressed. So am I to assume the ratio I'm allowed to respond to is 30 to 1?

[JohnnyWayne]

Listen I don't know how old you are, but doing exactly that will lead to 20 discussions indivudally discussing 30 points in parallel and everyone will lose sight of the matter at hand. You will have to learn at some point in your life that you have to focus on the important things. I don't expect it to be today, however, that is why I actually stopped replying earlier and will proceed to do so now.

[WarHippy]

JohnnyWayne, on 19 March 2018 - 08:03 AM, said:

Listen I don't know how old you are, but doing exactly that will lead to 20 discussions indivudally discussing 30 points in parallel and everyone will lose sight of the matter at hand. You will have to learn at some point in your life that you have to focus on the important things. I don't expect it to be today, however, that is why I actually stopped replying earlier and will proceed to do so now.

If all the points are on topic it shouldn't(and doesn't) matter. Nobody is losing sight of anything except for you and anyone else unwilling to defend their viewpoints and is instead trying to distract from the discussion by saying I reply too pointedly. Besides who is to say what is or isn't important to focus on when discussing a game on said games forums where the topic/game in the grand scheme of things has no actual importance?

As for how old I am you can see that in my profile. Though, I have to wonder if wanting to know that isn't losing sight of the matter at hand, or for that matter focusing on something that isn't one of the important things.

[McValium]

Enough, closing.