213 replies to this topic

[denAirwalkerrr]

dante245, on 28 September 2018 - 12:02 AM, said:

if PGI would actually invest in a media/advertising campaign, it could bring in the needed new blood to make the system we have work.

Battletech was such a thing. Yet hardly any of new players retained thanks to horrible new player experience of MWO. Trials system is awful, tutorial is almost non-existent, UI is slow and absolutely unintuitive, lol skill tree and so on. Until these things are fixed (which is never) there is no point in marketing.

Edited by denAirwalkerrr, 28 September 2018 - 12:06 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 September 2018 - 11:56 PM, said:

Is that really necessary? The players can see what they are getting regularly fragged by and what 'Mechs are putting up big numbers, it's not exactly obfuscated. You'd think they'd decide to ape that. Instead, what's the response? "Meta cheese tryhards!"

Not always, sometimes it is "what is that build you are using?"

Which wouldn't be a question as much if say for example there was a list of "meta mechs" that you could purchase decked out how some famous "pro" wants it to be, and/or a cycling roster with the free trial mechs of similar ends, even just making much clearer the ghost heat limits and what that means to meta building in the mechbay etc, these things can be done in ways that won't ever mess with your gameplay.

[Vxheous]

Shifty McSwift, on 28 September 2018 - 12:05 AM, said:

Not always, sometimes it is "what is that build you are using?"

Which wouldn't be a question as much if say for example there was a list of "meta mechs" that you could purchase decked out how some famous "pro" wants it to be, and/or a cycling roster with the free trial mechs of similar ends, even just making much clearer the ghost heat limits and what that means to meta building in the mechbay etc, these things can be done in ways that won't ever mess with your gameplay.

Something I actually agree with. Trial mechs should be more useful, maybe have a built in skill tree. Better explanations of game mechanics as well (ghost heat, damage spread, etc). Most top players will readily tell you what's on their mech if asked, especially in the quick play/group queue setting, but there's no way to actually get that info to the masses.

Edited by Vxheous, 28 September 2018 - 12:22 AM.

[denAirwalkerrr]

Vxheous, on 28 September 2018 - 12:21 AM, said:

Something I actually agree with. Trial mechs should be more useful, maybe have a built in skill tree. Better explanations of game mechanics as well (ghost heat, damage spread, etc). Most top players will readily tell you what's on their mech if asked, especially in the quick play/group queue setting, but there's no way to actually get that info to the masses.

I mean...

[Kroete]

Pelmeshek, on 27 September 2018 - 10:53 PM, said:

No its not a strange, its a normal. Just look for a usuall casual builds:
.....
Right how i have over 14k screen with this "casual builds". U still think we not need to blame 80-85-90% players of this game for this?
Geez, sometime i really want to create antimetamechs with name and shame.

You cant blame people for playing a game for fun without any serious attidute.

Most players play in their sparetime for relaxing and fun, they have their challenges and gitgud in their reallife and work. And the important part is, they dont want to get better or spend any energy on a virtual computer game, if its no fun they will do something other in their spare time and with their money.

But you can blame pgi for not seperating casual players and comp players and making a working matchmaker.

Lets ask you a question: How do the ladys react if you tell them "Iam a badass computer gamer!" at a party?
The reactions should show you clearly what most players think about gitgut.

Edited by Kroete, 28 September 2018 - 01:01 AM.

[Vxheous]

Kroete, on 28 September 2018 - 01:01 AM, said:

You cant blame people for playing a game for fun without any serious attidute.

Most players play in their sparetime for relaxing and fun, they have their challenges and gitgud in their reallife and work. And the important part is, they dont want to get better or spend any energy on a virtual computer game, if its no fun they will do something other in their spare time and with their money.

But you can blame pgi for not seperating casual players and comp players and making a working matchmaker.

Lets ask you a question: How do the ladys react if you tell them "Iam a badass computer gamer!" at a party?
The reactions should show you clearly what most players think about gitgut.

Thing is, it's no fun to suck either. People don't have to "git gud" and be at the highest levels in the game, but everyone should strive to be competent, otherwise, why play? There's also that disconnect that somehow being good at a computer game means you're not good at real life, or vice versa. I happen to know many people that are extremely good at this game, and also very successful in real life.

Edited by Vxheous, 28 September 2018 - 01:56 AM.

[Khobai]

Vxheous, on 27 September 2018 - 08:20 PM, said:

Yeah, we get it, you don't like good players, you wish they would be out of the game.

Nope I never said that. I have nothing against good players. I have a problem with toxic elitist players that seek to perpetuate systems of abuse to stay on top. In other words, you.

Vxheous, on 27 September 2018 - 08:20 PM, said:

Thing is, it's no fun to suck either. People don't have to "git gud" and be at the highest levels in the game, but everyone should strive to be competent, otherwise, why play? There's also that disconnect that somehow being good at a computer game means you're not good at real life, or vice versa. I happen to know many people that are extremely good at this game, and also very successful in real life.

Thats simply not true. There are plenty of people that are bad at the game and still have fun playing it.

And again you are expecting other players to accommodate your way of thinking. That is why your attitude is toxic. You expect everyone else to change for your benefit. Thats not how it works.

The way it works in reality is that different people play at different levels and different people derive fun from the game in different ways. And its not your job to dictate how people play or how they have fun.

I certainly dont think its too much to ask for a casual group to be able to join group queue with the reasonable expectation of getting a balanced matchup. That seems like a reasonable request to me. And if that means elite players can no longer stack teams to ensure win after win, that also seems reasonable.

Vxheous, on 27 September 2018 - 08:20 PM, said:

Thing is, it's no fun to suck either. People don't have to "git gud" and be at the highest levels in the game, but everyone should strive to be competent, otherwise, why play?

group queue is not supposed to be the highest level of the game though.

thats what comp play and faction play exist for.

group queue should absolutely encourage more casual groups. and it doesnt because of team stacking.

Edited by Khobai, 28 September 2018 - 02:41 AM.

[Vxheous]

Khobai, on 28 September 2018 - 02:17 AM, said:

Nope I never said that. I have nothing against good players. I have a problem with toxic elitist players that seek to perpetuate systems of abuse to stay on top. In other words, you.



Thats simply not true. There are plenty of people that are bad at the game and still have fun playing it.

And again you are expecting other players to accommodate your way of thinking. That is why your attitude is toxic. You expect everyone else to change for your benefit. Thats not how it works.

The way it works in reality is that different people play at different levels and different people derive fun from the game in different ways. And its not your job to dictate how people play or how they have fun.

LOL, I'm the toxic elitist that abuses the system? I play with small groups when and if I play group queue, no more than 3-5 players, and often running random mechs. I'm not imposing my way on anyone, or telling anyone how to have fun.

[Kroete]

Vxheous, on 28 September 2018 - 01:54 AM, said:

Thing is, it's no fun to suck either. People don't have to "git gud" and be at the highest levels in the game, but everyone should strive to be competent, otherwise, why play?

Seeing big robots explode? Stoming around? Reasons?
Doesnt matter, they can do what they want and why the want if its in the rules and they have fun.

Vxheous, on 28 September 2018 - 01:54 AM, said:

There's also that disconnect that somehow being good at a computer game means you're not good at real life, or vice versa. I happen to know many people that are extremely good at this game, and also very successful in real life.

Most players, i said, that dont exclude the option of beeing good at both.
Most people, i know, are good at their job/life, but dont play much and mostly only for fun, they dont have the time/energy for competive play. Most serious players, i know, dont have a good rl, they dont have enough time for rl. Sure there are some that do both good, but its a minority and most dont have kids.

Edited by Kroete, 28 September 2018 - 02:31 AM.

[Khobai]

Vxheous, on 28 September 2018 - 02:27 AM, said:

LOL, I'm the toxic elitist that abuses the system? I play with small groups when and if I play group queue, no more than 3-5 players, and often running random mechs. I'm not imposing my way on anyone, or telling anyone how to have fun.

3-5 good players is more than enough to stack a team

weve already established that even 2 good players can stack a team if the other team doesnt have 2 equally good players.

for hopefully obvious reasons, the game should not allow stacking of teams. if it puts X good players on one team it should also put X good players on the other team. otherwise youre going to have a stomp for sure instead of both teams having a reasonable chance of winning. I mean thats common sense.

Edited by Khobai, 28 September 2018 - 02:34 AM.

[Vxheous]

Khobai, on 28 September 2018 - 02:33 AM, said:

3-5 good players is more than enough to stack a team

weve already established that even 2 good players can stack a team if the other team doesnt have 2 equally good players.

for hopefully obvious reasons, the game should not allow stacking of teams. if it puts X good players on one team it should also put X good players on the other team. otherwise youre going to have a stomp for sure instead of both teams having a reasonable chance of winning. I mean thats common sense.

So again, we're at an impasse. You don't want good players to play with their friends, especially if said friends are also good players, because it makes lesser players unable to win. So based on skill, there should be different restrictions, which is pretty unfair. What you want is already in solo queue, albeit implemented poorly with PGI's Tier system. You're also telling me that I'm wrong when I say it's no fun to suck, that there are many people that aren't very good that have lots of fun playing the game. That doesn't really line up with your whole "reasonable chance of winning" argument. If it's fun to suck, then why worry about winning?

[RJF Volkodav]

Kroete, on 28 September 2018 - 02:28 AM, said:

Most people, i know, are good at their job/life, but dont play much and mostly only for fun, they dont have the time/energy for competive play

Oh lol. I'm 35 y/o, designing power electronics and control for power stations, have 2 sons of 13y and 10y, have my own appartments, cars, going quite good at RL and i believe this game too. There are no exuses for incompetence not in RL neither ingame. My 13 y/o son doing better than 90% of population in this game after some axplanations and still having time to study great, have good achievments in sports etc. Go learn smth finally and stop finding a reasons to be bad.

Edited by RJF Volkodav, 28 September 2018 - 02:42 AM.

[Khobai]

Vxheous, on 28 September 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

Soagain, we're at an impasse. You don't want good players to play with their friends

I have no problem with good players playing with their friends as long as the teams arnt stacked as a result. If the game can put an equal number of good players on the other team theres no problem.

The problem is when you stack a bunch of good players on one team and then the game does absolutely nothing to balance it out. And then a stomp occurs.

Ive already explained all of this in depth so im not sure how youre still unsure of my position.

Group queue should have a matchmaker that calculates the average ELO of groups and then tries to match groups up against same sized groups of similar ELO. If the game is unable to do that, as a last resort it should break up groups or swap people around between groups in order to balance the ELO as closely as it can. Because how else can you balance teams in group queue with this games low population problem? The matchmaker has to have the capability to break up stacked teams.

Vxheous, on 28 September 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

So That doesn't really line up with your whole "reasonable chance of winning" argument. If it's fun to suck, then why worry about winning?

Ive already explained that. Different people have different motivations for playing and derive fun in different ways. Not everyone has fun regardless of the outcome of the game. Some people have fun winning. And the game still needs to be reasonably balanced for those people. Allowing deathstacks of 99%+ players is not conducive to that.

Edited by Khobai, 28 September 2018 - 02:55 AM.

[Vxheous]

RJF Volkodav, on 28 September 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

Oh lol. I'm 35 y/o, designing power electronics and control for power stations, have 2 sons of 13y and 10y, have my own appartments, cars, going quite good at RL and i believe this game too. There are no exuses for incompetence not in RL neither ingame. My 13 y/o son doing better than 90% of population in this game after some axplanations and still having time to study great, have good achievments in sports etc. Go learn smth finally and stop finding a reasons to be bad.

I'm also 35 y/o, married, 2 kids 7 and 5, and a healthcare professional. Both my wife and I are EmP. We typically only play 1-2 hrs a night apart from practice nights. There's no reason to just "be bad". Again, I'm not even saying everyone should be high tier comp level, just competent is good.

[Kroete]

RJF Volkodav, on 28 September 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

...

And still no understanding of the word "most", it seems?

[RJF Volkodav]

Vxheous, on 28 September 2018 - 02:45 AM, said:

Both my wife and I are EmP.

Heh. That should be a great expirience. I couldnt get my wife to the games sadly . But i have 2 siblings to get into and crush enemy mechs with .

[RJF Volkodav]

Kroete, on 28 September 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

And still no understanding of the word "most", it seems?

That was not about giving an example only. I just wanted to point that it is possible to be competent without spending your life on. It just depends on if a person want to improve himself. Lots of off course depends on surrounding. I'm having quite a big unit with a good learning programm so those coming to RJF get their knowledge fast. I would say almost 80% of ppl coming was able to improve up to "moderate" playing in a couple of months playing for fun. But there are another 20% who just dont want to... But thinking now about the percentage i would say that the great problem here is not just ppl, but also lack of explanations for them how should they do to perform better.

[Khobai]

However there seems to be a disagreement as to how much someone should have to improve to play in group queue.

In my opinion, group queue should not represent the highest levels of play. Because other gamemodes like comp play and faction play exist for that purpose.

Afterall the whole topic is about group queue encouraging casual groups. Group queue should essentially be the entry level gamemode for casual groups. Which group queue obviously fails miserably at for various reasons, most of which have already been covered.

[RJF Volkodav]

And all that thoughts are just breaking if you would take for example casual group of my unit siblings that are mostly playing for fun, but using adequate builds, playstyles, maneuvers that they've learned looking for expirienced players and group of LRMing assaults sitting on the same spot, not able to aim/position/maneuver. As for me i see no fun in that at all. And i wonder why after getting some stomps theese ppl are not trying to understand effective playstyles that are breaking their "fun". But they go on forums and ask if there is ability to make their incompetent playstyle viable for having fun.

The only solution i see for this group is to improve up to a mediocre level of play to be at least a bit usefull in most of the games. There are no way to have fun not having a skill for that as for me.

Edited by RJF Volkodav, 28 September 2018 - 03:11 AM.

[Vxheous]

Khobai, on 28 September 2018 - 03:03 AM, said:

However there seems to be a disagreement as to how much someone should have to improve to play in group queue.

In my opinion, group queue should not represent the highest levels of play. Because other gamemodes like comp play and faction play exist for that purpose.

Afterall the whole topic is about group queue encouraging casual groups. Group queue should essentially be the entry level gamemode for casual groups. Which group queue obviously fails miserably at for various reasons, most of which have already been covered.

Comp queue is not a true queue as it's only meant for seeding for MWOWC, and not a true mode. Faction Play is stale, and also long 25 minute games. 90% of the population prefers to play quick play modes, whether solo queue, or group queue. Making group queue the "entry level" gamemode would basically kill what's left of the group game, such as it is.