37 replies to this topic

[Xetelian]

Don't think either system will work.

PGI just needs to ban the people everyone would blacklist more proactively.

[Deathlike]

Asym, on 01 April 2018 - 02:09 PM, said:

OK, it's not often that I get moved to respond but, this is an exception....

We did group up. We did take advice before we grouped up. We did "train with teams and had trials"... Then, the teams left because the play became so toxic and so bizzare... The game left us; and then, they, the teams, left the game.

Bad players aren't bad: they are customers. Just like the elite players. One group is no more important than the other... But, it seems, "better players" think because they score better they are better, well, that's really silly........ Some people just don't take the game "seriously", don't study the quasi-technical made up facts because "they aren't relevant" because this is just a game and played for the fun of it....! That doesn't make them any less equal.....in fact, look where we are now: low player population because the "serious players" took their concept of "fun" and ran off an awful lot of people.....was that smart?

Intelligence? It's a freaking silly robot game lad. We have doctors, lawyers, soldiers, merchants, students, teachers and hundreds of significantly educated people playing.... So, pray tell, what are your qualifications to determine "Intelligence", "Skill", or any other metric???

Sorry, we need to start MWO again somehow.... To reset what the startegic goals are....they were never meant to be Leaderboards or statistics. They were suppose to be based in "communities" of players working together.....fighting for worlds. Alas, Solaris is what we are reaping from the years of effort before......what does that say about the community if PGI is implementing a 1x1/2x2 game mode instead of fixing Faction Play that is all about teams???

Food for thought. It takes a lot of "bad players" to make a game successful for the few "good" players games produce. Since there are always more new, novice, and average players than the top 10 percent...... Otherwise, the game folds or changes their format from teams to individuals.....so, where are we?

When I mean by "bad" players are those that strictly point the fingers at others for their losses, instead of themselves... whether it be tactics or builds. Those who fail to recognize their own faults are the ones that are more vocal about complaining about X is OP when it is really they are executing Y very poorly.

Often times when it is within a single match, people complain about "why did we do this terribad tactic?" and the followup question that doesn't get asked is "did you speak up or did you contribute to the fail?" People don't speak up are often part of the fail.

Even seeing LRMs get aimed into the terrain is not something I call "intelligent", far from it. That's before I even discuss the weapon system. If you want to produce better players, people need to actually ask for that help AND learn from their experiences. That's what I do not regularly see here, whether it is on the forums or in game (not that I've been playing that much if at all).

Honestly, I call BS, since the brown sea is more vast than the arse pirates that take your mechs and then some because they bothered to coordinate.

Edited by Deathlike, 01 April 2018 - 08:05 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Whitelist as allies? that's like bringing them as group drop in solo-queue.

If Whitelist, but only as increased chance of playing with -- that gives a chance of fighting AGAINST whitelisted players as well, maybe I'd be interested.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 01 April 2018 - 08:09 PM.

[Novakaine]

Am I included?

[MrMadguy]

Shifty McSwift, on 01 April 2018 - 03:34 AM, said:

A blocklist/blacklist is surely a tempting option at times, but consider how adversely it would effect the MM system, particularly with groups.

So why not go the opposite direction, beyond flagging people as friends, add a further option for "whitelisting" or adding as a close ally or whatever label you want to put on it, when this option is flagged by both parties (both add to whitelist) in each instance, the MM could focus on matching them up more often and/or not pitting them against eachother, as well as have an automated lobby system where whitelisted player groups will be placed in a "ready to go" lobby area (which they can leave or appear inactive if they desire), where pressing QP will autogroup with whoever is also ready to go (could come up like the invasion war messages, "allies preparing for a fight" sort of message.

I feel like it is much more containable and reasonable and encourages better attitudes than a blacklist system by far.

Stupid idea again. Your whitelist is called "Unit".

Edited by MrMadguy, 01 April 2018 - 09:20 PM.

[Johnny Z]

An after match show of the winning mechs and hopefully pilots, and then repair and rearm added would be perfect.

If anyone is asking for a so called "blacklist" and is also against repair and rearm is not being genuine and should be completely ignored.

Edited by Johnny Z, 01 April 2018 - 09:32 PM.

[Sjorpha]

My magic 8ball has revealed to me that no white or black list will ever be implemented in this game, my 8ball is never wrong.

[Shifty McSwift]

The6thMessenger, on 01 April 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

Whitelist as allies? that's like bringing them as group drop in solo-queue.
If Whitelist, but only as increased chance of playing with -- that gives a chance of fighting AGAINST whitelisted players as well, maybe I'd be interested.

Well the idea as imagined wouldn't place people on the same whitelist against eachother until the numbers of active whitelisters clicking ready to fight, (or QP or whatnot) were high enough that it could put 24 of the same whitelist into a game together and/or if the wait times were high enough to disperse the whitelist into normal QP lobbies. These 24 man team games would serve as more of a training mode for the parties, when it happens you could even have special battle parameters specific to reducing potential abuse and making the players excited to battle eachother and not ragedump.

And the system would prefer placing whitelist groups against other whitelist groups, not throwing randoms in unless there were "spare slots" in the numbers. Players who played QP without a whitelist, or who possibly made them self inactive from their whitelist (appear offline to friends style) joining QP would be preferably placed into matches with other solo players.

Again the main ideas come back to QP already being "abused", units and groups being overly difficult to manage systems, and keep that focus toward engaging in groups and units, but making it much easier to find people you think you want to play with, flagging them, playing with them, and then over time either keeping them in your whitelist or removing them (greater personal control). The idea is not to replace or remove units and groups, and the idea is certainly not focused on creating unfair situations or new levels of abuse.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 02 April 2018 - 02:18 AM.

[Asym]

Deathlike, on 01 April 2018 - 08:04 PM, said:

When I mean by "bad" players are those that strictly point the fingers at others for their losses, instead of themselves... whether it be tactics or builds. Those who fail to recognize their own faults are the ones that are more vocal about complaining about X is OP when it is really they are executing Y very poorly.

Often times when it is within a single match, people complain about "why did we do this terribad tactic?" and the followup question that doesn't get asked is "did you speak up or did you contribute to the fail?" People don't speak up are often part of the fail.

Even seeing LRMs get aimed into the terrain is not something I call "intelligent", far from it. That's before I even discuss the weapon system. If you want to produce better players, people need to actually ask for that help AND learn from their experiences. That's what I do not regularly see here, whether it is on the forums or in game (not that I've been playing that much if at all).

Honestly, I call BS, since the brown sea is more vast than the arse pirates that take your mechs and then some because they bothered to coordinate.

Coordination failed and failed big. The legacy of the MW franchise is and is most successful when individuals play. That's why PGI is headed towards Solaris... Don't you see that? The era of teams is seriously in question because, it seems, groups of video game players just can't exist without creeping towards all things dark... Not just in MWO either. A lot of other big name franchises limit team sizes intentionally..... Just to avoid what MWO is experiencing.

Again, if a player wants to play as a mad man, using super stupid builds and illogical tactics because that is what that pilot enjoys, so be it ! That pilot has equal value no matter if the game is P2W or F2P.... Every player that isn't breaking the CoC is a valued member of this game because we need each and everyone of them to remain.solvent. And, not just financially.

I think I understand your frustrations because I'd like to have the teams I was and am on back with MWO as their primary game. We had fun. But, alas, that will not happen anytime soon.

[Shifty McSwift]

Uhm well, when you can't control who is in a unit or group unless you lead it, and when at least half of your leaders are going to be crappy people, why would you be against a personalising whitelist system? You can remove the edgy trolls from your perspective as they appear favouring never being placed with them (but not avoiding it 100%), again, likeminded people would be drawn together, and people who value crappy attitudes and trollopoly can sit in a whitelist lobby together, or continue trolling the solo QP, none of these are downsides guys.

[Johnny Z]

Sjorpha, on 01 April 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

My magic 8ball has revealed to me that no white or black list will ever be implemented in this game, my 8ball is never wrong.

The complaint button can be considered a blacklist of sorts. But your right in that there wont be an outright blacklist.

Quite a few games have a thumbs up button for good players, or MVP type things.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Not even being sarcastic here, sync dropping on steroids seems pretty neato. Pretty much always get to play with your friends whenever they're on.

Then again, if group queue didn't have those tonnage limits that limits people grouping up in the queue designed for it, it wouldn't have much purpose.

[The6thMessenger]

Shifty McSwift, on 02 April 2018 - 02:18 AM, said:

Well the idea as imagined wouldn't place people on the same whitelist against eachother until the numbers of active whitelisters clicking ready to fight, (or QP or whatnot) were high enough that it could put 24 of the same whitelist into a game together and/or if the wait times were high enough to disperse the whitelist into normal QP lobbies. These 24 man team games would serve as more of a training mode for the parties, when it happens you could even have special battle parameters specific to reducing potential abuse and making the players excited to battle eachother and not ragedump.

And the system would prefer placing whitelist groups against other whitelist groups, not throwing randoms in unless there were "spare slots" in the numbers. Players who played QP without a whitelist, or who possibly made them self inactive from their whitelist (appear offline to friends style) joining QP would be preferably placed into matches with other solo players.

Again the main ideas come back to QP already being "abused", units and groups being overly difficult to manage systems, and keep that focus toward engaging in groups and units, but making it much easier to find people you think you want to play with, flagging them, playing with them, and then over time either keeping them in your whitelist or removing them (greater personal control). The idea is not to replace or remove units and groups, and the idea is certainly not focused on creating unfair situations or new levels of abuse.

Well, the idea isn't really that good, it's too self-serving. It's borderline GP on QP that defeats the purpose of a solo-queue. It can be abused if it's pairing less whitelisted groups. If you want to play with your team, just group drop with them and be done with it. And you'd be dropping with equally "whitelisted" teams on the other side.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 02 April 2018 - 04:49 PM.

[Vellron2005]

Shifty McSwift, on 01 April 2018 - 03:34 AM, said:

A blocklist/blacklist is surely a tempting option at times, but consider how adversely it would effect the MM system, particularly with groups.

So why not go the opposite direction, beyond flagging people as friends, add a further option for "whitelisting" or adding as a close ally or whatever label you want to put on it, when this option is flagged by both parties (both add to whitelist) in each instance, the MM could focus on matching them up more often and/or not pitting them against eachother, as well as have an automated lobby system where whitelisted player groups will be placed in a "ready to go" lobby area (which they can leave or appear inactive if they desire), where pressing QP will autogroup with whoever is also ready to go (could come up like the invasion war messages, "allies preparing for a fight" sort of message.

I feel like it is much more containable and reasonable and encourages better attitudes than a blacklist system by far.

Well done. Great idea.

Making the MM more likely to match me with people in my friend's list would be nice.

I would still like the ability to completely avoid some people..

[Johnny Z]

Vellron2005, on 03 April 2018 - 12:21 AM, said:

Well done. Great idea.

Making the MM more likely to match me with people in my friend's list would be nice.

I would still like the ability to completely avoid some people..

This is honest at least. You want to personally create matches using your personal preferences.

This not a new request on these forums. From private lobby requests all the way to the start of faction play where lobbies were requested and installed in that game mode at first.

These things are in game already with private matches. So you should be happy.

Edited by Johnny Z, 03 April 2018 - 12:34 AM.

[UnofficialOperator]

Basically this is sync dropping or group queue pre-solo queue.

Just go group queue if you want to queue with friends.

PS: On a larger scale, if all the "good" pilots just form a monopoly against the "bad" pilots (with a prerequisite of a certain wlr or kdr), then it makes it easier to farm unknowns or bads. So no, this idea is just bad.

Edited by UnofficialOperator, 03 April 2018 - 01:29 AM.

[sharknoise]

Quote

And yes it pushes likeminded people together and allows a player to choose who he wants most to play with, and modify his list to suit as he goes, and will likely have an effect of not only getting good players to whitelist eachother and play together, but push toward a desire to engage in teamwork/communication more thoroughly in the QP modes.

Shifty, your intentions are good, but such whitelist simply won't work the way you expect it to work. The following will happen:

After a match with 24 players, 2 players got more than 800 damage. Everyone saw that these 2 players are skilled, brave, move with the team, use voice comms, suggest great plans etc. So most of the participants of the match whitelisted these 2 players.
But! These 2 players had no reason to whitelist everyone else back. They only whitelisted each other.
In the same match there were some people who did less than 100 damage. They might have been nice people with a good attitude, not whiny, not angry, but no one whitelisted them because having several sub-100dmg players on your team leads to bas losses.
After many similar matches all stronger, communicative, team-oriented players whitelisted each other and tend to be in one team. Everyone else tends to be in the other team. So it's stomp after stomp after stomp, worse than what we have today.

Yes, there are reasons to whitelist people which don't directly influence the strength of a team. Some likemindedness, conversational traits, sense of humor. But don't expect that they will outweigh raw effectiveness. People won't say to themselves "I only whitelist strong players", but they will tend to do it nonetheless, with rare exceptions.
Yes, you can sync drop in solo queue today. But strong players rarely do it, because the consequence (easy, boring win) is too obvious. With a whitelist system the consequence will be somewhat veiled and delayed, but it'll end the same: very unevenly skilled teams, bad games.

[Deathlike]

Asym, on 02 April 2018 - 05:47 AM, said:

Coordination failed and failed big. The legacy of the MW franchise is and is most successful when individuals play. That's why PGI is headed towards Solaris... Don't you see that? The era of teams is seriously in question because, it seems, groups of video game players just can't exist without creeping towards all things dark... Not just in MWO either. A lot of other big name franchises limit team sizes intentionally..... Just to avoid what MWO is experiencing.

Again, if a player wants to play as a mad man, using super stupid builds and illogical tactics because that is what that pilot enjoys, so be it ! That pilot has equal value no matter if the game is P2W or F2P.... Every player that isn't breaking the CoC is a valued member of this game because we need each and everyone of them to remain.solvent. And, not just financially.

I think I understand your frustrations because I'd like to have the teams I was and am on back with MWO as their primary game. We had fun. But, alas, that will not happen anytime soon.

Coordination is everything. If you don't want to coordinate, do not expect to win, no matter how much you ask for it.

It is really as simple as that. If you want to have fun and care of the consequences, so be it. Just don't be surprised what comes with that territory, no different from good players expecting very little from non-cooperative players.