864 replies to this topic

[Lykaon]

Kroete, on 27 June 2018 - 07:25 AM, said:

This quote says anything about you and your motivation.

Um....

Lykaon, on 27 June 2018 - 07:26 AM, said:

And here is the kicker...I really don't care about small groups in the solo queue for myself I wouldn't use it.

And...

I have already stated in this very thread that I would be directly opposed to a mandatory placement in the solo queue for 2 player groups.

I regularly play in small groups in the current group queue and like it there and would not want to have my team dropped in the solo queue when we could instead be in the groups queue.

But my drop buddies are all tier 1 and 2 so not the small group of low tier/skill players who may be interested in a mixed queue.

I can just see there may be some validity to the request and all I see here are terrible points and counter points being made with no basis on the reality of what is actually occuring in game or even what is actually being requested to be considered.

Citing a 3-5 year old game build as the reason why it won't work...the "we tried it before" argument

Applying a sinister motive to the request "you all just want to seal club"

Claiming that 2 top 1% players in a team would wreck it for everyone...come on really ? the very nature of mathematics prevents this from being true.

Ad Hominem

Strawman

Logical falicy...

[Zibmo]

Lykaon, on 27 June 2018 - 07:11 AM, said:

Let's put this out there shall we.

Back in the olden times when all players were in one queue there were no restrictions or very few. No matchmaker and PSR.we didn't have VOIP as a built in feature,quirks or skill trees or even ghostheat reigning in those 6+ PPC one shot one kill mechs.

The game as a whole had not matured and little had been done to build a balanced match maker or intergrate tools to improve grouping and player organizing.

Pretty much everything the groups and units did to perform as groups and units required third party software and organizing OUTSIDE of the game it's self.

PGI created the enviorment the players played in and some capitalized on being organized.It is no suprise that many players enjoyed winning and took steps to improve their chances of winning. It is also no suprise that the majority of players prefered winning and earning c-bills over challenging pursuits against equally organized players.

I have been here since well pretty much the whole time. Back in those days it was the player run units who were pushing the community to embrace challenging competition. I was a member of one of the largest player units of that time and we as a unit regularly would organize to battle against other units or even other players within our own unit because it was more challenging.

And my unit wasn't a rare example it was the norm. Big units wanted to fight other big units.Small units wanted to become bigger,alliances and rivalries were formed and we enjoyed it while we awaited "COMMUNITY WARFARE" since it wasn't in game yet we made our own version of it.

Large units were building a culture of true competiton and we wanted more units in the mix we just wanted more "community warfare"

Time marched on and "community warfare" still had not materialized. We only had one queue as a casual outlet and more than a few were becoming frustrated by PGI's foot dragging when it came to building community grouping tools,adding VOIP adding LFG tools or even a method of in game recruitment for membership that didn't rely of posting on the forums (reaching a small percentage of active players) or spamming the quick play queue with text adverts (annoying to many players).

Momentum dropped and many of the units were just playing in the quick play queue because it was easier than e-mailing other units or posting on their third party forums requests for matches.The lack of in game organizational tools was a problem units were starting to feel the effects of.

This lead to the quick play queue having smaller groups of very well organized and trained unit members.These players trained to compete in an arena of equal levels of organization on each team and well,to put it bluntly Puggies sucked in compareson.

The Puggies did not have the same tools at their disposal.They had no VOIP they didn't have a pre match lobby to select complimentry battlemech builds and above all they were frequently out class in skill due to no match maker.

So instead of ...

Adding in VOIP
Building a match maker
Instituting some sort of battle value and PSR system to rate pilots and mechs
Including a pre launch lobby to communicate with your team BEFORE the game and make a plan.
Add in Looking For Group tools
Support unit recruitment within the game it's self

We got...

Seperate the pugs from the groups and then do most of the stuff we should have done before seperating the queue but only for the Solo queue and neglect the groups and units.



Do you want me to be 100% honest?


There is no difference in motive between being in a small group and not wanting to be thrown to the wolves in a match makerless group queue and being a solo player who fears increased difficulty by adding in small groups to the solo queue.

The solos want to keep their easy mode.

The small groups want to taste that sweet sweet easy themselves.

********. I say that with all respect and sincerity. I want two man groups because I would like my friends to join the game and have some clue how to play - in other words, so I can teach them. The tutorial is...insufficient.

Ten games in group queue, which we are forced into in order to play together, and they uninstall the game and ask me to go play World of Warcraft with them. Denigrate that game as much as you want, but at least you aren't (at least you weren't before zone scaling) penalized for playing with them.

[Lykaon]

Zibmo, on 27 June 2018 - 07:35 AM, said:

While I agree with a lot of the things you are saying, I think there is a huge hole in PGI's strategy. Namely, the complete and utter lack of anything remotely resembling community tools. Chat is pertinent ONLY in combat or in units. And to get to the unit chat, you have to select it (with an annoying blinking icon to tell you somebody somewhere said something). There is no persistent world because they haven't created the tools, even for players, to create one. If you want it, you have to use external websites, chat servers and so on. The failure to join units is not a player created problem. It is entirely based on PGI's lack of community vision. Is there a Looking for Unit tool in the game? How about the ability to whisper or privately chat with someone? In fact, I get notifications to "add friends" and there isn't even a note attached as to whether they want to be my friend, or just want to get me into a chat to vent at me.

Then you actually agree almost entirely on my point.

PGI split the queues before the tools to support the mixed queue or a seperation of the queues were ever developed.

As a result of this short sighted plan we have issues today many are the same issues we had then just shifted to another demographic.

Back then 3-5 years ago we had solo puggies wanting something done to protectt hem from "stomps" So it was done right then and there be damned the consequences PGI took the quick cheap and easy road that day without though for the future.

Today in this thread we have small groups wanting something done to protect them from "stomps" ironicly the same demographic that got what they wanted (solo pugs) are now bashing this new "victim" demographic for wanting exactally what they (the puggies) got years ago.

Do you see how maybe I can interpret this as hypocricy?

[Zibmo]

As I said, I agree with you in principle.

It is double tongued to want what they want and then deny it to "the other." But I believe that not everyone who is arguing against two man groups in public are disingenuous.

PGI has built a massive arena game with a difficult to access lobby, that is neither intuitive or persistent. If they actually want to succeed, they need to give players tools - and one of those tools is the enabling of new players to play with their friends without being instagibbed in group queue. If group queue is "better", why are queue times so long?

And having to resort to countdown-queuing to get people to have a chance to play with newbies to the game is Russian roulette with 5 loaded chambers. At least as far as increasing the player base is concerned.

[Lykaon]

Zibmo, on 27 June 2018 - 07:37 AM, said:

********. I say that with all respect and sincerity. I want two man groups because I would like my friends to join the game and have some clue how to play - in other words, so I can teach them. The tutorial is...insufficient. Ten games in group queue, which we are forced into in order to play together, and they uninstall the game and ask me to go play World of Warcraft with them. Denigrate that game as much as you want, but at least you aren't (at least you weren't before zone scaling) penalized for playing with them.

Use private matches to get the basic's down and have your new guys practice aiming on moving targets (you) and managing heat and anticipating enemy movements (you again)

After the basic training they should drop in the solo queue within their tier. Yes this does mean without you but you should keep connected via third party comms like discord to answer any questions that may arise to the best of your ability given the lack of your ability to observe directly.

When you feel they are ready drop in the group queue.The trick is your focus should be on further instruction of the new guys not on "winning" the win is getting them to stay in MWo by you teaching them how to cope with the shark tank.


Eventually you should have some well trained recruits.

[Mystere]

Zibmo, on 27 June 2018 - 07:37 AM, said:

Ten games in group queue, which we are forced into in order to play together, and they uninstall the game and ask me to go play World of Warcraft with them. Denigrate that game as much as you want, but at least you aren't (at least you weren't before zone scaling) penalized for playing with them.

Weren't private lobbies sufficient for at least training your friends?

[Lykaon]

Zibmo, on 27 June 2018 - 07:53 AM, said:

As I said, I agree with you in principle. It is double tongued to want what they want and then deny it to "the other." But I believe that not everyone who is arguing against two man groups in public are disingenuous. PGI has built a massive arena game with a difficult to access lobby, that is neither intuitive or persistent. If they actually want to succeed, they need to give players tools - and one of those tools is the enabling of new players to play with their friends without being instagibbed in group queue. If group queue is "better", why are queue times so long? And having to resort to countdown-queuing to get people to have a chance to play with newbies to the game is Russian roulette with 5 loaded chambers. At least as far as increasing the player base is concerned.

I agree that not all of the counter points are disingenuous. I wouldn't even put that much motive on them,I actually don't believe most people to be self aware enough to analyze their motives deeply enough to recognize hypocricy.

The majority of the postings however are rife with hypocricy and shallow excuses and lack substance to really explore a solution to an obvious issue.

Instead we villanize and place sinister motives upon the opposition make ad hominem attacks (like are you stoned?) strawmans and logical fallacies.

There is little substance in this thread that actually addresses an actual issue.

We seem to have a similar understanding on what PGI has failed to materialize for us and how this has created issues (like this one) for the player base.

But I fear this thread will not yield any productive discussion as minds are made up and entrenched with assumptions and biased predictions.


And I have said it before I honestly feel that all of those tools and features are about 4 years to late and even if we got them now the damage has already been done and the wounds have festered.

[Zibmo]

Lykaon, on 27 June 2018 - 08:10 AM, said:

And I have said it before I honestly feel that all of those tools and features are about 4 years to late and even if we got them now the damage has already been done and the wounds have festered.

I'm still hopeful.

[Mystere]

Lykaon, on 27 June 2018 - 08:10 AM, said:

But I fear this thread will not yield any productive discussion as minds are made up and entrenched with assumptions and biased predictions.

Minds have already been made up long ago. Only a miracle -- or calamity -- of biblical proportions will make PGI move on this issue.

[Zibmo]

Mystere, on 27 June 2018 - 08:03 AM, said:

Weren't private lobbies sufficient for at least training your friends?

they would be if we had a complement of 24 total mechs in the game. Otherwise, I think they are insufficient. Because there is more than pointing and shooting to the game.

[MischiefSC]

Lykaon, on 27 June 2018 - 07:11 AM, said:

The solos want to keep their easy mode.

Except it's not easy mode. It's the most balanced mode in the game. Everyone comes into it on the same footing, everyone is playing their own 8.333% of their team from the same starting point as everyone else in the match.

It's CASUAL because there is no inherent demand for teamwork and if you want to go derp that's the place for it. However it's flat out false on all fronts and in all ways to say solo queue is easy mode for solos - it's balanced mode.

That's what you're wanting to take away; you want to make solo queue unbalanced for solo players so 2mans can have an easier time. Which is a selfish and overall pretty crappy idea. I say that as someone who plays FW the majority of the time and hates QP - however I'm willing to look beyond me and my immediate gratification and look at the actual impact on the game and its population and health and what is and is not 'fair'. More fair = better.

[Zibmo]

MischiefSC, on 27 June 2018 - 11:58 AM, said:

Except it's not easy mode. It's the most balanced mode in the game. Everyone comes into it on the same footing, everyone is playing their own 8.333% of their team from the same starting point as everyone else in the match.

It's CASUAL because there is no inherent demand for teamwork and if you want to go derp that's the place for it. However it's flat out false on all fronts and in all ways to say solo queue is easy mode for solos - it's balanced mode.

That's what you're wanting to take away; you want to make solo queue unbalanced for solo players so 2mans can have an easier time. Which is a selfish and overall pretty crappy idea. I say that as someone who plays FW the majority of the time and hates QP - however I'm willing to look beyond me and my immediate gratification and look at the actual impact on the game and its population and health and what is and is not 'fair'. More fair = better.

So you believe you can divine everyone's motives for wanting 2 man groups in public queue? That's quite an accomplishment. Tell me, what is my favorite color?

[MischiefSC]

Zibmo, on 27 June 2018 - 12:02 PM, said:

So you believe you can divine everyone's motives for wanting 2 man groups in public queue? That's quite an accomplishment. Tell me, what is my favorite color?

Hey, that's a great example of a logical fallacy!

As to 2mans in solo queue - you can already play a 2man team in group queue against other groups. We know from statistics PGI has provided that 2mans are the majority of groups. This means 2mans are playing and winning in GQ constantly. Anecdotally a slew of average to good (and a couple phenomenal) players have already commented on and affirmed this.

So given that other 2mans win often enough in group queue what reason is there to put them in solo queue? Long wait times? That would impact everyone in every queue - why are we trying to solve it only for 2mans when we should be looking at a solution for everyone? Also, again, the supposed 'long wait times' don't seem to impact everyone.

Because group queue 'isn't fun' for some 2mans... why is that? What's happening in them that isn't fun?

All of which is dancing around the same theme again and again and again. Winning is more fun than losing. If you're not winning in a 2man in GQ, don't want to get in a bigger group, don't want to get better, don't want to have to try harder or improve to win more like everyone else in the entire game has, then there's the hope of changing the game so you can win more by playing against less able/organized opponents while you don't have to take the steps everyone else in the game has to improve.

There's no divination involved. No magic. There's only 2 reasons to do it - one, so 2mans don't have to play against other teams just pugs (which is selfish, attempts to screw everyone else so terribad 2mans can try to find people worse than them to play against and would fail anyway because 2mans would have to have their PSR value inflated so they'd just be player better players - again - and get stomped)...

or #2, which is a total BS lie, which is 'queue times'. Not only is that not born out by all the rest of us who play in all timezones but it's a failed suggestion because it makes queue times worse for everyone else for the sake of 1 group type. Better to propose solos opting into group queue (which we would) to fix it that way.

Or is there some other reason for wanting 2mans in GQ? Something unrelated to losing as a 2man in GQ or the already debunked 'long wait' issue?

[Zibmo]

MischiefSC, on 27 June 2018 - 12:23 PM, said:

Hey, that's a great example of a logical fallacy!

As to 2mans in solo queue - you can already play a 2man team in group queue against other groups. We know from statistics PGI has provided that 2mans are the majority of groups. This means 2mans are playing and winning in GQ constantly. Anecdotally a slew of average to good (and a couple phenomenal) players have already commented on and affirmed this.

So given that other 2mans win often enough in group queue what reason is there to put them in solo queue? Long wait times? That would impact everyone in every queue - why are we trying to solve it only for 2mans when we should be looking at a solution for everyone? Also, again, the supposed 'long wait times' don't seem to impact everyone.

Because group queue 'isn't fun' for some 2mans... why is that? What's happening in them that isn't fun?

All of which is dancing around the same theme again and again and again. Winning is more fun than losing. If you're not winning in a 2man in GQ, don't want to get in a bigger group, don't want to get better, don't want to have to try harder or improve to win more like everyone else in the entire game has, then there's the hope of changing the game so you can win more by playing against less able/organized opponents while you don't have to take the steps everyone else in the game has to improve.

There's no divination involved. No magic. There's only 2 reasons to do it - one, so 2mans don't have to play against other teams just pugs (which is selfish, attempts to screw everyone else so terribad 2mans can try to find people worse than them to play against and would fail anyway because 2mans would have to have their PSR value inflated so they'd just be player better players - again - and get stomped)...

or #2, which is a total BS lie, which is 'queue times'. Not only is that not born out by all the rest of us who play in all timezones but it's a failed suggestion because it makes queue times worse for everyone else for the sake of 1 group type. Better to propose solos opting into group queue (which we would) to fix it that way.

Or is there some other reason for wanting 2mans in GQ? Something unrelated to losing as a 2man in GQ or the already debunked 'long wait' issue?

Not a fallacy at all. You clearly stated that people want two man teams in public queue, "That's what you want...to make it easier for 2 mans..." You clearly know why people want 2 man teams in solo queue. "Easier for 2 mans" is double speak. I want to be able to bring my friends into the game and give them a chance to learn it before they are annihilated.

As stated earlier in the thread, public queue is every man for himself. That's a hell of a deep pool to toss someone into, particularly given the learning curve in this game. I have heard that's what private games are for. If I could gather 22 other people to play with so that my friends could learn the game adequately, which cannot be accomplished with a 1v1 instance (peek and poke, for example - knowing when to push and when not to for another) then I would accept that and move on. But my friends, who I would really like to be able to play with, uninstalled the game before their cadet bonuses maxed out.

The NPE in this game is, for lack of a better word, execrable.

[S O L A I S]

Zibmo, on 27 June 2018 - 12:02 PM, said:

So you believe you can divine everyone's motives for wanting 2 man groups in public queue? That's quite an accomplishment. Tell me, what is my favorite color?

Have you tried tweeting Russ and all of that? Have you gone to Paul's matchmaker thread and asked if this would possible or what the impact would be on the matchmaker and wait times?

Add to that the issues of what two 99%ers could do on a team in quick play, and that there is a group queue already.

It's great that this argument thread has got this many pages especially since it has been brought up over and over again....with the same results even. What was that saying again about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

[Tatula]

Hopefully, the fact that this thread has 35 pages and that the topic has been brought up over and over will get the attention of PGI and maybe some kind of a solution can be provided.

[Dragonporn]

1. There can be no solution (well, not easy one making everyone happy anyway).
2. This thread must die in fire already, seriously...

[Wil McCullough]

Aloha, on 27 June 2018 - 04:39 PM, said:

Hopefully, the fact that this thread has 35 pages and that the topic has been brought up over and over will get the attention of PGI and maybe some kind of a solution can be provided.

Doubt it. This thread is made of only a few people arguing back and forth (myself included).

The idea has no traction. It requires pgi to develop something (balanced matchmaker) that they have proven to be unable or unwilling to do so since forever.

Bear in mind a balanced matchmaker will rely on three main things:
1. High player population (which mwo doesn't have)
2. A zero sum psr (which pgi is unwilling to have)
3. Actual balance between tech bases and weight classes (which pgi is unable to do)

But with such a matchmaker working the way its supposed to, it eliminates the actual need for duos to be injected into solo queue in the first place, rendering the idea redundant.

That's the end of it.

I dunno why this thread is still going on tbh.

No one can refute what i just listed out, which is why mischiefsc has it right. People are using the "i want a fair match!" excuse to gain a seal clubbing advantage. That's why they're FIXATED on injecting duos into solo queue. Not balance, not matchmaker but specifically the idea of duos in qp, with them being one of the guys in the duo.

[MTier Slayed Up]

Zibmo, on 27 June 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

Not a fallacy at all. You clearly stated that people want two man teams in public queue, "That's what you want...to make it easier for 2 mans..." You clearly know why people want 2 man teams in solo queue. "Easier for 2 mans" is double speak. I want to be able to bring my friends into the game and give them a chance to learn it before they are annihilated.

It's a strawman at best.

You want to bring your friend into solo que because you're getting crushed in GQ. You want to show your friend that it's not like that at all so you can take him into QP instead and do the crushing. That's basically the gist of it.

Bear this in mind if you can't take that away: Bringing your T5 brand spanking new player friend into a T1 game is still largely going to be the same experience for him. He will be crushed.

Zibmo, on 27 June 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

As stated earlier in the thread, public queue is every man for himself. That's a hell of a deep pool to toss someone into, particularly given the learning curve in this game. I have heard that's what private games are for. If I could gather 22 other people to play with so that my friends could learn the game adequately, which cannot be accomplished with a 1v1 instance (peek and poke, for example - knowing when to push and when not to for another) then I would accept that and move on. But my friends, who I would really like to be able to play with, uninstalled the game before their cadet bonuses maxed out.

You CAN teach your friend in a private lobby without 22 players. You can show him what a NASCAR is, you can show him a YouTube video or two, you can show him different builds or metamechs.com, you can do a plethora of things on his and your time to cover the basic fundamentals. This is not a hard game to understand, and it's actually rather simplistic.
These are resources provided to you and they have been around for years now. Whether or not you choose to use it is completely up to you and him.

If all else fails, you can join a unit and be a social butterfly. It's certainly not his or your prerogative to join one, but it's recommended. Strength in numbers and all. And even if you're unwillingly to put in the effort to actually teach him the basics in a private lobby, there's a number of players in several units out there that are more than willing to do it.

Edited by DrtyDshSoap, 28 June 2018 - 12:02 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

DrtyDshSoap, on 27 June 2018 - 11:58 PM, said:

It's a strawman at best.

You want to bring your friend into solo que because you're getting crushed in GQ. You want to show your friend that it's not like that at all so you can take him into QP instead and do the crushing. That's basically the gist of it.

Bear this in mind if you can't take that away: Bringing your T5 brand spanking new player friend into a T1 game is still largely going to be the same experience for him. He will be crushed.

(nods) then what would likely happen next after the T5 gets crushed in a T1 game, the T1 player would make a alt account which would allow both to drop in the lower tiers. The T1 could derp and just communicate w/friend, derp and communicate with team, or be a shark. While the other's side, the duo are new players starting together. Blood bath if the T1 communicates and acts as the shark. Not much different if it was done in GQ on a similar team. The worst case scenario.

Quote

You CAN teach your friend in a private lobby without 22 players. You can show him what a NASCAR is, you can show him a YouTube video or two, you can show him different builds or metamechs.com, you can do a plethora of things on his and your time to cover the basic fundamentals. This is not a hard game to understand, and it's actually rather simplistic.
These are resources provided to you and they have been around for years now. Whether or not you choose to use it is completely up to you and him.

If all else fails, you can join a unit and be a social butterfly. It's certainly not his or your prerogative to join one, but it's recommended. Strength in numbers and all. And even if you're unwillingly to put in the effort to actually teach him the basics in a private lobby, there's a number of players in several units out there that are more than willing to do it.

For the OP, though I myself would be okay with duo in the queue with specific setup, many of us can see how it can be abused in the lowered tiers, more so than the upper tiers. There is also the factor of the "cadet" modifier. it would not take a ton of battles to move out T5 and T4 with a decent match score and winning, moving at least that fake T5 to T4, and his buddy, if he is halfway decent would be right behind him, etc.

As for the upper Tiers, if there were duos, be it Emp, MS, 228, etc and said pairs had at least one effective drop caller, would that not possibly allow more group-minded tactics to come into play instead of the blob moving to the same "nav" points each time?

And one of the setup to introduce duos would require a soft PSR reset, in a similar manner as when we moved from Elo to PSR, as well as one duo per team, no ability to opt out of group queue, need different weight class, use highest tier of duo, etc.

But I do not see any of that happening. Too many unknown factors including the previous history of the mix but without in-game VOIP, the groups were on external TS without the ability to effectively communicate in game except per chat (chuckles).

I would like to see private drops that had AI mechs with different levels, ie Academy type but that would allow more than one person in it for said training episodes, speed runs, test out builds, etc.