213 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

It's funny how you can provide proof, facts and evidence to back up your argument...

And yet people still, STILL claim you are wrong.

Probably believe the world is flat.

[denAirwalkerrr]

Shifty McSwift, on 27 September 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

LoL blaming casuals for the state of the game, nice.

It's a joke ffs, willfully obtuse much? Relax.

Casuals who spew thousands of comments of their stupid **** on forums. I have no issues with people just playing the game.

So is your existence btw.

Edited by denAirwalkerrr, 27 September 2018 - 12:45 AM.

[Pelmeshek]

Shifty McSwift, on 27 September 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

LoL blaming casuals for the state of the game, nice.

If the number of casual reach the critical mass they can and should be blamed as well as ******* developers.

[Shifty McSwift]

justcallme A S H, on 27 September 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

It's funny how you can provide proof, facts and evidence to back up your argument...

Funny how you call 3 images of 16 of his mates playing together evidence of anything. Wanting to see the actual game averages makes me a flat earther.

denAirwalkerrr, on 27 September 2018 - 12:44 AM, said:

Casuals who spew thousands of comments of their stupid **** on forums. I have no issues with people just playing the game.

So is your existence btw.

Not even touching that bile. Good luck.

Pelmeshek, on 27 September 2018 - 12:55 AM, said:

If the number of casual reach the critical mass they can and should be blamed as well as ******* developers.

There's a casual gamer critical mass point? What is your implication here? More players = bad thing?

[Pelmeshek]

Shifty McSwift, on 27 September 2018 - 01:23 AM, said:

There's a casual gamer critical mass point? What is your implication here? More players = bad thing?

More bad players = bad thing. Also casual gamer = bad thing in 90-95% of the time in this game.

[Vxheous]

Shifty McSwift, on 27 September 2018 - 01:23 AM, said:

Funny how you call 3 images of 16 of his mates playing together evidence of anything. Wanting to see the actual game averages makes me a flat earther.

There are probably over a thousand screenshots of internal EmP practice matches over the last 3 years (Celyth takes a screenshot of every practice match, and has them compiled along with attendance on a spreadsheet) and at least 70% of the matches end up 8-2 or less. Ash actually has access to see all of this history, so it's more than just "3 screenshots"

Practice matches are taken very seriously, and everyone tries to play their best, because performing the best in practices means representing the team in tournament play.

Edited by Vxheous, 27 September 2018 - 01:48 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Vxheous, on 27 September 2018 - 01:45 AM, said:

There are probably over a thousand screenshots of internal EmP practice matches over the last 3 years (Celyth takes a screenshot of every practice match, and has them compiled along with attendance on a spreadsheet) and at least 70% of the matches end up 8-2 or less. Ash actually has access to see all of this history, so it's more than just "3 screenshots"

I am supposed to know this? All you provided was three screenshots, a link to this gallery and spreadsheet would have been much more effective. Even then if it is all internal games I would still like to see outside averages, and SQ averages and GQ averages. I don't expect you to provide them, I was saying I haven't seen them and would be curious to, not for the purpose of proving a point just to see what the game norms tend to be.

Call me a stickler but I will take data over your assertions any day, and happily, even if its not the result I might want or expect.

[Kamikaze Viking]

I love how this thread stayed on topic for exactly ONE post.

How do we encourage smaller groups?

For me: Reset/fix PSR and hence the teams would more likely to be of even skill and the effect of the group size would be less important and hence smaller casual groups would find the skill levels of their teammates and enemies more appropriate to make a more FUN match.
For edge cases like a top 99% player introducing a newbie, there is always alt accounts..

[Bud Crue]

Kamikaze Viking, on 27 September 2018 - 02:32 AM, said:

I love how this thread stayed on topic for exactly ONE post.

How do we encourage smaller groups?

For me: Reset/fix PSR and hence the teams would more likely to be of even skill and the effect of the group size would be less important and hence smaller casual groups would find the skill levels of their teammates and enemies more appropriate to make a more FUN match.
For edge cases like a top 99% player introducing a newbie, there is always alt accounts..

For me, and maybe this is my filthy casual, not a good player who loses more than he wins and plays a lot of bad mechs because at heart he still plays out of nostalgia, and thus am some how at fault for the current state of the game perspective speaking (-ahem-), but why exactly should we want or need to change things to further accommodate and encourage "small group" play? Do we not have a group queue where a 3 man can go...and enjoy the benefits of greater tonnage? Do we not have a scouting mode (which if we are honest is just a regular skirmish most of the time) where a 4 player team can go have a field day? Is there not a 2v2 option in Solaris?

To me, from day one of paying attention to its development to the day I actually decided to start playing, the allure of MWO was about team PVP. We seem to have lost that, or at least it is becoming more of an exceptional experience to have 2 organized or even semi-organized 12 mans against each other in any mode. So, If anything, I would like to see changes which encourage the formation of 12 mans in both GQ and in FP. There is nothing more fun and more "MWO" at heart than 2 12mans (of comp tier or even us filthy casual level players thank you very much) facing off. The potential for Large group, organized team play, is what sets this game apart in my eyes and THAT is what I would like to see encouraged.

[Kroete]

Pelmeshek, on 27 September 2018 - 12:55 AM, said:

If the number of casual reach the critical mass they can and should be blamed as well as ******* developers.

Most players playing casual, just look at comp-play, solaris or groupplay and pgis numbers.
Competive players are a small minority, like cw- or groupplayers.

Blaming more then 80% of the players because they dont take a game as serious then you sounds a little strange.
Letting compplayers and casualplayers or groups and pugs play together is only pgis failure.

Istn there a comp-queue where you dont have to play with casuals?

[denAirwalkerrr]

Kroete, on 27 September 2018 - 03:29 AM, said:

Istn there a comp-queue where you dont have to play with casuals?

Nope cuz thanks to PGI it was also filled with casuals.

[Ssamout]

Kroete, on 27 September 2018 - 03:29 AM, said:

Istn there a comp-queue where you dont have to play with casuals?

Comp-queue is not a queue as such. It's just used to seed teams to mwowc, and totally dead (disabled) out side of that.
Its open 3 days a week and rarely has more than 0 teams queued up. It has very strict team policy and if you dont have just those people that have been put to roster online, you cant play. Only team leader can change roster, and if he is missing nothing can be done.

All in all, comp-queue works as well as FP, as a minimally viable product.

[Mystere]

Mr Steinbrenner, on 26 September 2018 - 04:35 PM, said:

As usual its the incel irregulars expecting solo players and small groups (the majority of the playerbase) to compromise but the 12 man give up nothing.

Are you sure you actually know the meaning of that word?

[Mystere]

Eisenhorne, on 26 September 2018 - 09:55 PM, said:

Lol I would rather this game die than bottom feeding solo trash kill groups.

I may be a solo player 100% but I totally agree with you.

[Daurock]

Ssamout, on 27 September 2018 - 04:45 AM, said:

Comp-queue is not a queue as such. It's just used to seed teams to mwowc, and totally dead (disabled) out side of that.
Its open 3 days a week and rarely has more than 0 teams queued up. It has very strict team policy and if you dont have just those people that have been put to roster online, you cant play. Only team leader can change roster, and if he is missing nothing can be done.

All in all, comp-queue works as well as FP, as a minimally viable product.

Honestly, this is something the game is missing too. Completely Pug-Free, full group on group only play isn't something that currently exists in the game, outside of the very limited comp que. Most similar games have at least one spot where full teams, but not comp-level organized, teams go to fight other, similar teams. WoT, for example has the World map, and Company Battles in addition to the regular Tournaments. (Only the tournament battles require a leader to make specific teams, like the Comp que does.) I doubt the game has the playerbase anymore to support a mode, outside of maybe a 4v4, or 6v6 type of mode, but one can still dream.

[Shifty McSwift]

Daurock, on 27 September 2018 - 07:12 AM, said:

Honestly, this is something the game is missing too. Completely Pug-Free, full group on group only play isn't something that currently exists in the game, outside of the very limited comp que. Most similar games have at least one spot where full teams, but not comp-level organized, teams go to fight other, similar teams. WoT, for example has the World map, and Company Battles in addition to the regular Tournaments. (Only the tournament battles require a leader to make specific teams, like the Comp que does.) I doubt the game has the playerbase anymore to support a mode, outside of maybe a 4v4, or 6v6 type of mode, but one can still dream.

Grouping should be the norm yes, the game should foundationally be training players to play a team game and engage in the tactics, hence my idea for lance training systems and possibly lance grouping options.

[Mystere]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 September 2018 - 11:00 PM, said:

As for being elitist, not really. It's a simple statement of fact. The real "elitism" comes from the players who aggressively refuse to play this game in ways which would allow them to win. They cling to the marketing PGI gave them way back when about how there would be lore trappings, despite the fact that what we have is the same as what every MW multiplayer game has had: a PvP-only arena shooter. These grognards need to embrace it or quit whinging when other players do.

I agree with your sentiment. However, "elitism" is not the word I would use. I'd use "role players".

[Khobai]

denAirwalkerrr, on 27 September 2018 - 12:24 AM, said:

Actually managed to read through all ******** Khobai and Shifty wrote in this thread. I have only two words: GIT GUD. You guys are exact reason why this game reached its’ current state following delusional suggestions and whines like this one.

huh? how is asking for balanced teams a delusion suggestion?

because thats literally the only thing ive suggested...

GIT GUD has nothing to do with it. Even if I was the best player in MWO, I would still have the reasonable expectation that both teams should be balanced.

whats delusional is that you actually think its fine that players can stack teams and abuse the system.

Yeonne Greene, on 26 September 2018 - 10:04 PM, said:

As for being elitist, not really. It's a simple statement of fact. The real "elitism" comes from the players who aggressively refuse to play this game in ways which would allow them to win.

that is not elitism. do you even know what the word means? lmao.

elitism is when you think youre better than everyone else and because you think youre better youre entitled to certain things.

elitism describes exactly the people who stack their teams with good players in order to win more often than they should.

people who want balanced teams and a reasonable expectation of winning are not elitists.

Edited by Khobai, 27 September 2018 - 09:27 AM.

[Eisenhorne]

Khobai, on 27 September 2018 - 09:18 AM, said:

huh? since when is asking for balanced teams a delusion suggestion?

Since there is no way to do it without disallowing people from grouping with their friends.

I'm not a 99% player, and neither are most of my in-game friends. We still generally stomp group queue anyway, since we're all 90% or higher. I've got like a 4.15 w/l ratio this month, because I mostly played group queue for the event. So, it's not just the 99%+ guys who are rocking the group queue, the 90%ers can do it almost as well. How do you balance my group, without saying I can't play with my friends? There simply aren't enough people online to ensure that there are equally skilled groups on both sides, the matchmaker literally takes what it can get to form groups, and throws them together. You also can't throw us against 99%ers if you're looking for balance, because they will trash us. There's a rather large gulf between even 95% and a 99% player. Hell, the gap between 97% and 99% is pretty large too. There just usually isn't a counterpart group online that matches up well enough to balance my group at any given time.

So you either disallow grouping entirely and force together players based on skill (which would be solo queue with ELO matchmaking instead of the garbage PSR) which I don't like because then I can't play with friends, or you just deal with imbalanced teams and try to get better so you lose less.

[Khobai]

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

Since there is no way to do it without disallowing people from grouping with their friends.

ensuring a balanced game takes priority over people playing with their friends.

I have no problem with people playing with their friends as long as both teams are reasonably balanced. But when people playing with their friends creates stacked unbalanced teams, thats a very real problem that needs to be addressed.

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

There simply aren't enough people online to ensure that there are equally skilled groups on both sides

which is exactly why those groups need to be broken up.

for example, instead of allowing 6-8 good players to be grouped up one team, that group should be broken up into two groups of 3-4 placed on opposite teams. that balances the teams better.

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

So you either disallow grouping entirely

I dont believe thats necessary. just limiting group size and having a matchmaker that puts an equal number of good (or bad) players on both teams would be fine.

that would at least help prevent large groups of good players (or large groups of bad players) from all being on one team. it would prevent both of those extremes from occurring.

if the supply of good players is limited, then those good players need to be distributed more equally between both teams, not all be allowed to stack on one team. stacking teams is not something that should ever be allowed.

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

which I don't like because then I can't play with friends, or you just deal with imbalanced teams and try to get better so you lose less.

why is your need to play with friends, and "stomp group queue", more important than other peoples' need to have a balanced game?

that sounds exactly like elitism.

having teams be as balanced as possible should take priority over all other considerations.

Edited by Khobai, 27 September 2018 - 09:46 AM.