864 replies to this topic

[Wil McCullough]

csebal, on 17 June 2018 - 10:54 PM, said:

Dude, wake up.. it is your argument that falls apart when you claim that going to play 2v2 is the same as going to play 12v12 with a friend on your side. Totally different games, different mech builds, different everything. You know what, why not suggest to go play tennis instead? There's also ways to play in pairs with a friend in that one.. sure its not quite the same as playing mechwarrior, but you apparently do not care for itsy bitsy details like that.

This is exactly what i was refering to when i said that there's no other acceptable solution other than allowing duos into solo play.

It reminds me of gun nuts getting mad when they try to use home security as a reason to justify owning eight semi automatic rifles.

"Whaddaya mean i coulda use a security door and window girlls! Its not da same!"

[csebal]

Wil McCullough, on 17 June 2018 - 07:04 PM, said:

But this is not a solution for you because the actual problem you're having and don't want to admit, is somewhat different. The actual problem is that you're playing in group queue, getting stomped and you're sick of it.

Let me rephrase it for you:
"This is not a solution for you, because the actual problem you're having (and we do not seem to understand) is somewhat different and would not be solved by moving from the full game to a limited experience of 2vs2 gameplay. The actual problem is that the group queue is heavily skewed against small casual groups and is simply not fun to play as you will be stomped by larger, organized teams 9 out of 10 times, with the 10th time a large, organized team on your side carrying you to victory."

You simply make no difference as a casual in a game of two large groups of organized players... at best, if they make the effort to coordinate via the public VOIP, you can contribute somewhat to their efforts, but it is their game and you are just a prop in.

As for the solaris duos, that's another one of those non-arguments. Playing competitive 2v2 is about as far from playing casual 12v12 as it can get. Nevermind the fact, that you are once again telling casual players to go play competitively if they want to play with a friend, but also completely disregard the differences between the game modes.

The rest of your assumption filled BS is just that.. insulting assumptions how I want a change to become more competitive. It would be nice if you could stop that, but since I am not even sure you understand how such words can hurt someone who is otherwise a selfless team player, I'll just call your words out for what the are and leave it at that.

Also find it quite interesting, that far more successful games, like world of tanks - being maybe the closest relative to MWO - have no problem allowing groups of people into solo queues. If you think they do not have clubbers who go out of their way to pad stats against weaker players, then you must be very new to the internet. Still. playing there is fun, as MOST games you feel like you can contribute to the match be solo or in a small group. The few lopsided matches against very good players are easily forgotten because the overall experience is okay.

What you and your kind is saying essentially boils down to this: we should not change the system, because it could potentially be bad some of the time. Guess what.. it already is. 50% of the matches I play in solo, I end up with a team that has no communication and is running around like headless chicken. I just see no reason or argument for how that would be made worse by the inclusion of a single small premade group on each team.

Chortles, on 17 June 2018 - 07:24 PM, said:

One side can prove what will happen because it has already happened before.

BS.. It has not happened before, as what we are talking about today has nothing to do with the grouping mechanisms of old. I was here, I have played during those days and I am truly sick of people contorting / twisting facts and past events to suit their own agenda.

[Chortles]

csebal, on 17 June 2018 - 11:39 PM, said:

Let me rephrase it for you:
"This is not a solution for you, because the actual problem you're having (and we do not seem to understand) is somewhat different and would not be solved by moving from the full game to a limited experience of 2vs2 gameplay. The actual problem is that the group queue is heavily skewed against small casual groups and is simply not fun to play as you will be stomped by larger, organized teams 9 out of 10 times, with the 10th time a large, organized team on your side carrying you to victory."

You simply make no difference as a casual in a game of two large groups of organized players... at best, if they make the effort to coordinate via the public VOIP, you can contribute somewhat to their efforts, but it is their game and you are just a prop in.

As for the solaris duos, that's another one of those non-arguments. Playing competitive 2v2 is about as far from playing casual 12v12 as it can get. Nevermind the fact, that you are once again telling casual players to go play competitively if they want to play with a friend, but also completely disregard the differences between the game modes.

The rest of your assumption filled BS is just that.. insulting assumptions how I want a change to become more competitive. It would be nice if you could stop that, but since I am not even sure you understand how such words can hurt someone who is otherwise a selfless team player, I'll just call your words out for what the are and leave it at that.

Also find it quite interesting, that far more successful games, like world of tanks - being maybe the closest relative to MWO - have no problem allowing groups of people into solo queues. If you think they do not have clubbers who go out of their way to pad stats against weaker players, then you must be very new to the internet. Still. playing there is fun, as MOST games you feel like you can contribute to the match be solo or in a small group. The few lopsided matches against very good players are easily forgotten because the overall experience is okay.

What you and your kind is saying essentially boils down to this: we should not change the system, because it could potentially be bad some of the time. Guess what.. it already is. 50% of the matches I play in solo, I end up with a team that has no communication and is running around like headless chicken. I just see no reason or argument for how that would be made worse by the inclusion of a single small premade group on each team.


BS.. It has not happened before, as what we are talking about today has nothing to do with the grouping mechanisms of old. I was here, I have played during those days and I am truly sick of people contorting / twisting facts and past events to suit their own agenda.

So, what exactly is your problem with the current group queue? You mentioned that it's because you're being stomped by larger, more organized groups? Yet you feel that solo players should also be stomped by a group. In the previous page, the OP mentions that it's not about being stomped, yet it is the issue here.

Edited by Chortles, 17 June 2018 - 11:46 PM.

[csebal]

Chortles, on 17 June 2018 - 11:42 PM, said:

So, what exactly is your problem with the current group queue? You mentioned that it's because you're being stomped by larger, more organized groups? Yet you feel that solo players should also be stomped by a group. In the previous page, the OP mentions that it's not about being stomped, yet it is the issue here.

A pair of players is hardly the same as 8 players of the same clan, I am sure even you can count the difference there.

[Chortles]

csebal, on 17 June 2018 - 11:47 PM, said:

A pair of players is hardly the same as 8 players of the same clan, I am sure even you can count the difference there.

A pair of players is more than enough to defeat random pugs. All of your arguments has always been about you and your perspective. You forget that other people will have affected by this change. Solo players do not enjoy playing against group players. Please refer to page 9 for my example of World of Warships.

Edited by Chortles, 17 June 2018 - 11:54 PM.

[Vellron2005]

Chortles, on 17 June 2018 - 11:52 PM, said:

A pair of players is more than enough to defeat random pugs.

Yeah, maybe if they are like top-tier pros.. but this will not be the case on every drop.. most people just wanna play with their bestie or significant other..

Not everyone will form 2-man professional murder teams you know.. and not everyone will listen to, or be swayed by such teams.. pugs are notoriously difficult to manage..

I really don't see why a 2-man would be OP..

[Chortles]

Vellron2005, on 17 June 2018 - 11:56 PM, said:

Yeah, maybe if they are like top-tier pros.. but this will not be the case on every drop.. most people just wanna play with their bestie or significant other..

Not everyone will form 2-man professional murder teams you know.. and not everyone will listen to, or be swayed by such teams.. pugs are notoriously difficult to manage..

I really don't see why a 2-man would be OP..

As mentioned earlier, some groups have begun to split to smaller groups because of the weight restrictions on large groups. Even if they are pros, they want to play as efficiently as possible, most likely to maintain their positions on the leaderboard. You believe that some of these pros won't jump at the chance to stomp solo players for match score?

It's already common for players to identify names on the other team to see if they have a chance at winning. If it is an all solo game, seeing a pro on the other side sucks, but you know that he is at least playing solo style. With this change, seeing two pros grouped together on the other team means that he is also communicating with his buddy. This becomes seal clubbing for the solo players and heavily relies on the group on your own team to try to counter them, which in turn defeats the entire purpose of solo queue.

Edited by Chortles, 18 June 2018 - 12:12 AM.

[csebal]

Chortles, on 18 June 2018 - 12:06 AM, said:

As mentioned earlier, some groups have begun to split to smaller groups because of the weight restrictions on large groups. Even if they are pros, they want to play as efficiently as possible, most likely to maintain their positions on the leaderboard. You believe that some of these pros won't jump at the chance to stomp solo players for match score?

It's already common for players to identify names on the other team to see if they have a chance at winning. If it is an all solo game, seeing a pro on the other side sucks, but you know that he is at least playing solo style. With this change, seeing two pros grouped together on the other team means that he is also communicating with his buddy. This becomes seal clubbing for the solo players and heavily relies on the group on your own team to try to counter them, which in turn defeats the entire purpose of solo queue.

And how would they do that, if the solo Q is limited to 1 or *maybe* 2 groups of 2 players each? Even sync dropping, you would get a total of 4 players and no guarantees to end up on the same side. Hell, I would not mind the extra wait time to get a slot in a solo Q where only 1-1 2 man teams are allowed to participate on each side, if that would mean that me and my friend would have a fair shot at a fair game.

Because at the end of the day this is not about me trying to gain an advantage or impose a disadvantage onto others, this is me trying to find a way how I can play with a friend or two, without being tossed into the group play meat grinder. Yes, this can be twisted to sound like "I'm not good enough, so I want it easier", and there is a PoV from where that statement is true. I am not good enough to compete without any preparation against teams 4 times the size of mine, who have been practicing playing together for days on end and I just want to have a quick match with my buddy. Yes, I would want a venue, where I can play with my buddy, where the average skills and level of organization are matching mine.

The sad truth is, that until this happens, I will just keep playing alone, because I can't be arsed to play punching bag slash bio prop for clans waging their little private wars, nor do I have interest in competing on their level. I will play alone until I get bored of it and move on to games where I can play with friends again.

Now if we could only figure out why the population of MWO is dwindling.. why why why, I do wonder. What reason might there be for it.

Edited by csebal, 18 June 2018 - 12:21 AM.

[Wil McCullough]

csebal, on 17 June 2018 - 11:39 PM, said:

Let me rephrase it for you:
"This is not a solution for you, because the actual problem you're having (and we do not seem to understand) is somewhat different and would not be solved by moving from the full game to a limited experience of 2vs2 gameplay. The actual problem is that the group queue is heavily skewed against small casual groups and is simply not fun to play as you will be stomped by larger, organized teams 9 out of 10 times, with the 10th time a large, organized team on your side carrying you to victory."

You simply make no difference as a casual in a game of two large groups of organized players... at best, if they make the effort to coordinate via the public VOIP, you can contribute somewhat to their efforts, but it is their game and you are just a prop in.

As for the solaris duos, that's another one of those non-arguments. Playing competitive 2v2 is about as far from playing casual 12v12 as it can get. Nevermind the fact, that you are once again telling casual players to go play competitively if they want to play with a friend, but also completely disregard the differences between the game modes.

The rest of your assumption filled BS is just that.. insulting assumptions how I want a change to become more competitive. It would be nice if you could stop that, but since I am not even sure you understand how such words can hurt someone who is otherwise a selfless team player, I'll just call your words out for what the are and leave it at that.

Also find it quite interesting, that far more successful games, like world of tanks - being maybe the closest relative to MWO - have no problem allowing groups of people into solo queues. If you think they do not have clubbers who go out of their way to pad stats against weaker players, then you must be very new to the internet. Still. playing there is fun, as MOST games you feel like you can contribute to the match be solo or in a small group. The few lopsided matches against very good players are easily forgotten because the overall experience is okay.

What you and your kind is saying essentially boils down to this: we should not change the system, because it could potentially be bad some of the time. Guess what.. it already is. 50% of the matches I play in solo, I end up with a team that has no communication and is running around like headless chicken. I just see no reason or argument for how that would be made worse by the inclusion of a single small premade group on each team.


BS.. It has not happened before, as what we are talking about today has nothing to do with the grouping mechanisms of old. I was here, I have played during those days and I am truly sick of people contorting / twisting facts and past events to suit their own agenda.

What are you on about?

Small groups are the defacto stompers in group play because big groups get ridiculous tonnage restrictions. A group of 12 average out to mediums tonnage wise. If your small groups of assaulta are getting stomped by mediums consistently, then there's a pebkac problem. If you're getting stomped by large tonnage opponents, you're being beaten by fellow small groups.

In other words, also a pebkac problem.

Sick of getting stomped? Play solaris. Like i've said multiple times now, solaris seeds players so you nearly always go up against similarly skilled players. Wanna derp around? Go right ahead cos you'll be fighting fellow derpers.

Once again, i'll point out that mwo has everything already existing to "solve" your problem. Unless your problem is that you can't deal with a fair fight. Which would explain why you keep insisting that pgi lets you bring clubs to a fistfight.

If you want to play a game where a bad player can win a good player in a face-off, i suggest picking up golf. Unlike golf, mwo doesn't have built-in handicap rules unless you count tonnage restrictions. Which you obviously don't. This is a game where a good player and/or a good team will win a bad player/team most of the time. You're not entitled to a win simply by showing up and pew-pewing things.

Edited by Wil McCullough, 18 June 2018 - 12:43 AM.

[Blindbeard the Pirate]

csebal, on 18 June 2018 - 12:15 AM, said:

And how would they do that, if the solo Q is limited to 1 or *maybe* 2 groups of 2 players each? Even sync dropping, you would get a total of 4 players and no guarantees to end up on the same side. Hell, I would not mind the extra wait time to get a slot in a solo Q where only 1-1 2 man teams are allowed to participate on each side, if that would mean that me and my friend would have a fair shot at a fair game.

Because at the end of the day this is not about me trying to gain an advantage or impose a disadvantage onto others, this is me trying to find a way how I can play with a friend or two, without being tossed into the group play meat grinder.

Okay, seriously. You are actually complaining about a disadvantage. Group play is no meat grinder unless maybe you get thrown up against EMP, 228 on some nights, Sustained, Tier or Bear_claw. Even then, they can be beaten with coordination, and unless I see teams like those, it's effectively just another game to me, regardless of whether I'm in a group with my partner or bffs or not. Group queue isn't basically comp lite, but yeah, they are a little tiny bit more coordinated than your average pug, which means you need to be willing to hop into coms, do some callouts, and play your role. You will get your crap stomped right out of tier 4 by these people if they're allowed into solo play, because make no mistake, it would make solo play marginally harder unless they implement changes to the PSR system.

Queues can improved both ways for small groups by either allowing singles into GP, or duos with a gratuitous amount of safety checks into SP. Queues are what this should be about, because if you CAN get games then they DO have the chance to get good.

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding you here.

Edited by Ulriya Sykora, 18 June 2018 - 12:29 AM.

[Haipyng]

Lukoi Banacek, on 17 June 2018 - 07:21 PM, said:

Or maybe quite a few of us, simply disagree with you.

I don't dispute that and am totally fine with it. I don't have all the answers and disagreement breeds discussion of the issues.

Lukoi Banacek, on 17 June 2018 - 07:21 PM, said:

Since neither side of the argument can prove what will happen if 2-mans are let in, or if that opens the slippery slope to 3's, 4's etc....neither can do much more than offer an opinion. But don't let that stop some folks from thinking their the ones riding the high road on the discussion.

You are right, it's all opinions and I have never made any assertion that any claim of mine is anything else (other than a shrinking population). So far all we have heard is (and I am paraphrasing, please feel free to correct me) that 2 mans won't work because we have already tried 4 mans and it didn't work. This has been rebutted with that it was at a time of no in game voice comms (so these 4 mans were on Teamspeak or something else- Teamwork is OP after all). We also had a terrible MM system based in ELO and it was shown to still be broken for quite awhile after 4 mans were removed. I don't think anyone has said a return to four mans in QP is a great idea. I think I could be convinced 3 mans would be a bad idea. I don't think 2 mans are going to have as big of an impact as others think. We already have two mans (or more) sync dropping now in QP. No one is talking about removing the tier system in QP MM, if the highest player in the group is T1, then they are going to be dropped in the tier 1 bucket. The sort of players that could leverage any sort of real affect are the vast minority of players. They are much more likely to influence a team based game by organizing the team, which they can now do with in game comms. They can also do that sync dropping or solo for that matter.

In the end I am in favor of doing something about the issues affecting a dwindling population. Doing nothing solves nothing and we continue as we are until Queues fold or are merged when the population is too low to sustain it.

For the Slippery Slope argument, that is a logical fallacy.

I don't think there is any moral superiority (or high road) to any idea I have put forth. If your referring to not engaging with those that insist we want to club seals in QP, there is nothing morally superior about that either, it is just sanity saving for the reason I have already stated.

Lukoi Banacek, on 17 June 2018 - 07:21 PM, said:

Many of us don't believe it will make the game better in the slightest. Stricter adherence to some semblance of MM in Group Queue would do much more for this game imo, but with our niche population, none of these ideas are likely to be tried.

It may not. How will we actually know unless we try it?

As for GP MM I don't disagree. It's always been broken and I think the issues were ignored for too long. The diminished population there is showing and adding filtering to GP MM now could cause even longer wait times due to low population. Even then when the safeties let go to keep people from waiting to long, you will still get bad matches. Maybe it is just too late to do much of anything.

Edited by Haipyng, 18 June 2018 - 07:50 AM.

[Haipyng]

Wil McCullough, on 18 June 2018 - 12:25 AM, said:

What are you on about?

Small groups are the defacto stompers in group play because big groups get ridiculous tonnage restrictions. A group of 12 average out to mediums tonnage wise. If your small groups of assaulta are getting stomped by mediums consistently, then there's a pebkac problem. If you're getting stomped by large tonnage opponents, you're being beaten by fellow small groups.

Tonnage restriction was a poor way to attempt to introduce balance into GP. It was also an acknowledgement from PGI that teamwork is OP and there is an issue in GP in placing small groups against large groups. Other than tonnage restrictions, and making 12 man teams, there is not any other filtering happening. No attempts to balance by builds or tiers. This also creates the opportunity for some very strange teams compositions. QP by comparison is very fair and balanced.

Touting tonnage as a real balancing factor doesn't really hold up. We have seen too many assaults that have been left behind and taken down by a lone light backstabber (as an extreme example) show that. Mobility is often as important as firepower.

Wil McCullough, on 18 June 2018 - 12:25 AM, said:

Sick of getting stomped? Play solaris. Like i've said multiple times now, solaris seeds players so you nearly always go up against similarly skilled players. Wanna derp around? Go right ahead cos you'll be fighting fellow derpers.

You have said it multiple times, and people have answered it multiple times and explained why it's not a solution for them. Either you don't or can't accept their answer. Why keep proposing it as a fix?

Wil McCullough, on 18 June 2018 - 12:25 AM, said:

Once again, i'll point out that mwo has everything already existing to "solve" your problem. Unless your problem is that you can't deal with a fair fight. Which would explain why you keep insisting that pgi lets you bring clubs to a fistfight.

If you want to play a game where a bad player can win a good player in a face-off, i suggest picking up golf. Unlike golf, mwo doesn't have built-in handicap rules unless you count tonnage restrictions. Which you obviously don't. This is a game where a good player and/or a good team will win a bad player/team most of the time. You're not entitled to a win simply by showing up and pew-pewing things.

If MWO had that, the GP population would not be dwindling like it is. Tonnage balancing isn't effective. Casual groups rarely get a balanced match. Large groups don't like the restrictions placed on them. You can deny that there are problems all you like, they are still there.

[Wil McCullough]

Haipyng, on 18 June 2018 - 05:47 AM, said:

snip

i keep proposing as a fix because it answers all the excuses people use to try to justify putting duos in solo qp.

"long queue times wehhh" not for solaris.

"i can't play with my friend wehhh" solaris was built for just that.

"i get mashed by better players in group queue wehhh" not with solaris seeding, you don't. you get fair fights after your seeding is done.

so if they want me to stop proposing it as a fix, then they should make the effort to come up with better excuses for their attempt to wield clubs against seals.
__

if tonnage restrictions don't work as a "drawback" to teamwork, what do you think the outcome will be when duos are brought to qp?

like you said, in comparison qp is very fair and balanced. once duos are introduced this balance goes kaput. which is exactly what i DON'T want and exactly what players who want to bring duos into qp DO want.

btw, tonnage difference does affect group play games as a balancing factor. and it's actually the opposite of what all these "weh weh big groups stealing my candy" folks are crying about.taking equal skill level of pilots on both teams, as long as players on each team communicate, the side with more small groups will win more than not mainly because they can bring more robot to a robot fight. with in-game mic support, big groups is more like challenge mode. it actually makes it harder to win because you have none of the advantages and all of the drawbacks. in other words, these guys are whining because they're losing even though the deck is stacked in their favor. so now they want a new deck.

here's the thing: if there was any advantage to big groups, you wouldn't see sync dropping happen.

and here's another thing:

to be able to have duos work fairly in quick play, matchmaker has to be fixed. but if matchmaker was fixed, then there's no need for duos in quick play. see how self-defeating the whole thing is?

Edited by Wil McCullough, 18 June 2018 - 06:45 AM.

[Mystere]

Wil McCullough, on 17 June 2018 - 07:04 PM, said:

If you want lower queue times, you'd be demanding low queue times. Not "i want duos in solo qp".

Bingo! We have a winner!

[Mystere]

Wil McCullough, on 17 June 2018 - 11:14 PM, said:

It reminds me of gun nuts getting mad when they try to use home security as a reason to justify owning eight semi automatic rifles -- and an RPG.

That was actually in the news many moons ago.

[Mystere]

csebal, on 17 June 2018 - 11:39 PM, said:

Also find it quite interesting, that far more successful games, like world of tanks - being maybe the closest relative to MWO - have no problem allowing groups of people into solo queues. If you think they do not have clubbers who go out of their way to pad stats against weaker players, then you must be very new to the internet. Still. playing there is fun, as MOST games you feel like you can contribute to the match be solo or in a small group. The few lopsided matches against very good players are easily forgotten because the overall experience is okay.

I don't play WoT but I do play War Thunder. Those games have a pool of thousands to choose from at any given moment. As such, a matchmaker has the ability to apply most of not all of it's rules, and do so rather quickly.

MWO has what, several hundred?

csebal, on 18 June 2018 - 12:15 AM, said:

Now if we could only figure out why the population of MWO is dwindling.. why why why, I do wonder. What reason might there be for it.

MWO is less than a skeleton of a game that was originally promised but never delivered and in all likelihood will never be. That reason?

Edited by Mystere, 18 June 2018 - 07:18 AM.

[Vesper11]

Wil McCullough, on 18 June 2018 - 06:40 AM, said:

weh weh I like stomping small casual groups in GQ with my 11 other syncdropped totally friends.

I wanted to do it too.

Mystere, on 18 June 2018 - 06:53 AM, said:

Bingo! We have a winner!

Can I have another draw please? The one that says "fix the useless MM" so that after that I could draw "balanced MM score for groups and removal of GQ".

All that talk of not letting people in SQ is all about randoms getting stomped by organized team which we already see in GQ (which might be dead for exactly this reason) and that might happen in SQ if small groups are allowed but neither this proposal nor what we have no fixes problem of letting people enjoy the game with friend(s). The very same cause is also part of the reason why some battles are so damn stupid when you have more than half the team running in all directions like headless chicken while the enemy picks them one by one in semi-organized manner, and the cause is a useless placeholder MM, which works like experience bar which says almost nothing about player skill while people can still easily make smurf accounts and get almost any mech they want with basic cheevos completely ignoring it altogether.
While I do want to be able to play with a friend without wasting 10 minutes waiting for a one-sided game, the best course of action is to first fix MM, then the groups in SQ problem will fix itself.

[a le Roi]

Wil McCullough, on 17 June 2018 - 03:16 PM, said:

Solaris duos. Solaris even has a seeding system so you play with people on your skill level.

But you're not looking for a fair fight. You're not looking for duos vs duos. You're looking to bring duos into solo qp.

Your arguments fall apart under scrutiny.

When you scrutinize your own post you will discover the truth within.

[Wil McCullough]

Vesper11, on 18 June 2018 - 07:25 AM, said:

I wanted to do it too.

the only time i played group was in season 11. try again.

i actually used to play solely qp. which is why i'm firmly against this proposition.

[a le Roi]

Chortles, on 17 June 2018 - 11:52 PM, said:

A pair of players is more than enough to defeat random pugs. All of your arguments has always been about you and your perspective. You forget that other people will have affected by this change. Solo players do not enjoy playing against group players. Please refer to page 9 for my example of World of Warships.

You are pretending that

a) sync dropping doesn't already happen, and

b) the other team wouldn't also have a 2-person group.



Neither of which is or would be true.

Wil McCullough, on 17 June 2018 - 10:28 PM, said:

Pgi gave players like the op the absolute best solution to the problem they keep crying about - solaris duos. Two man drops, fast queue times, fair matchmatcher.

But solaris duos is a ghost town.

Why?

Because people didn't come to MWO to play 2v2. I sure didn't.

It's no more complicated than that, really. Stop with the conspiracy theories.

Edited by a le Roi, 18 June 2018 - 07:55 AM.