51 replies to this topic

[FRAGTAST1C]

Rosh87, on 14 October 2019 - 11:02 PM, said:

Without assuming any Air Support - or additional infantry formations....how much of your 30 total vehicles must you realistically throw at each of those threats, to reliably take them out ? Of course casualties are likely / expected on your side, but how much of the force is needed "most of the time" to destroy Mechs - when you have vehicles engaging them ?

I'm not well versed in lore but looking at HBS's Battletech and the Roguetech mod after it, some tanks are very, very scary on their own. Say, a Demolisher with 2 AC20 in vanilla Battletech (or UAC20s in Roguetech or even scarier tanks are around in that mod) would be able to wreck your assault mech if you weren't careful. Then there are SRM carriers that spam so many SRMs that you'd become unstable and lose all your evasion (and that's the best case scenario 'cause they could wreck your mechs easily as well).

So, there is a like-for-like for tanks vs mechs I think.

[Nesutizale]

Tanks should be scary. Even in the TT I remeber that I loved the "Von Luckner" and killed several mechs with it. Sure it was also a bit of luck involved but with the newer ruleset that Tanks don't get criticals by just looking at them they became interesting.
Still a bit crit sensetive then mechs but the biggest problem for tanks, at least from what I remeber, was terrain.

Depending on what you have, tracks, wheels or hover, you would have problems in certain terrains that mechs don't have.
So I think that could also be a thing for MWO but maps would have to be adjusted or completly new maps generated to incoperate that. So you could have high damage tanks like LRM carriers that basicly needs to be guarded, because of their non existing armor and have the problem that they have to stay on clear terrain or streets so mechs could easly flank them.

At this point of MWO I say as a Dev, I would give it a try. Develop some placeholder tanks and let people test them in private matches.

[Kinski Orlawisch]

MG Flamer 35t scimmer, Savannah Master and some Long Tom /LRM boats and the Clans had a bad day.

Mech intact..Pilot dead.....

[Khobai]

FRAGTAST1C, on 14 October 2019 - 10:31 PM, said:

No, it just means that you mingle with others and not just with your select few in an echo chamber. Didn't you learn that in school? You get to make more friends.

BTW, if you'd be so kind as to stop putting words in my mouth, I'd be grateful. I never mentioned anything about making the game unbalanced.

you did though. you said if I play with my 1 friend, instead of playing with a larger group, I shouldnt expect to win.

that implies the teams arnt balanced.

if the teams were properly balanced by a working matchmaking id have close to a 50/50 chance of winning irregardless of how many friends I played with.

I wasnt putting words into your mouth. its literally what your mouth said.

PhoenixFire55, on 14 October 2019 - 11:55 PM, said:

I'm surprised you haven't drowned in your own tears you shed here on the forum for 7 years while not even playing the actual game. This game is team-based. If you aren't willing to join a team either get rekt and deal with it or go play a singleplayer title. Nuff said.

Where does MWO say you have to join a group/unit to play? It sounds like those are your own biased, misconstrued assumptions and not based on any facts whatsoever. Furthermore youre trying to impress others to play the game your way which is not only presumptuous but also offensive.

If the game is team-based why are 90% of the players solo players? Why are the vast majority of groups small groups of 2-3? Why are large groups the minority?

All of the statistics support the exact opposite of what you said: MWO is primarily a solo game/small group game and large groups/units actually introduce an unbalanced element to the game.

Allowing stacked teams in group queue and faction play is one of the main reasons (but far from the only reason) the game has lost so many solo/small group players in the last few years. And PGI has posted statistics that show those players make up over 90% of the playerbase. Keeping that ratio the same, it stands to reason that 90% of the players that quit were solo players.

And "play the game my way or quit" is a very toxic attitude. Toxic players like you actually chase other players away by constantly trying to tell them how they should play the game. The worst part is players like you dont even assume responsibility for your share of the blame for why MWO died because you dont think theres anything wrong with being oppressively toxic.

Edited by Khobai, 15 October 2019 - 10:02 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 15 October 2019 - 10:32 PM.
unconstructive, inappropriate language

[Prototelis]

Don't bother arguing with someone who doesn't play the game.

[justcallme A S H]

Khobai, on 15 October 2019 - 09:24 AM, said:

Allowing stacked teams in group queue and faction play is one of the main reasons (but far from the only reason) the game has lost so many solo/small group players in the last few years. .

Lol.

Yet another one of your textbook made up statements.

I guess asking for proof of that is pointless? Given you've never provided proof in ANY other instance when you make something up.

[K O Z A K]

Khobai, on 15 October 2019 - 09:24 AM, said:

You asking me to play the game the way you think is right is toxic, presumptuous and offensive. So I think PGI should FORCE you to play the game the way I think is right

logic seems legit

[Dee Eight]

Rosh87, on 14 October 2019 - 11:02 PM, said:

Out of curiosity from a tactical point of view, in the Lore.... how many "tanks" do you typically need to reliably engage and destroy a Mech ?

It depends on the "tank" and the mech. A clan Mars assault tank will quite easily dispatch most any inner sphere mech it gets in its sights.

[jss78]

I always figured a feasible way to incorporate tanks in MWO would've been to put a few of them to guard caps. Kind of like mobile turrets, with a rudimentary AI.

Would've added some flavour, wouldn't have been too difficult to implement. Could've thrown in some infantry firing LRM's and SRM's from the shoulder -- squishy but not harmless enough to ignore. The guy who took MG's in his build could then turn said infantry to red mist and feel helpful.

Full, player-controlled combined arms would've been many times more work, and honestly probably the demand wasn't there. Always in these discussions there's a strong contingent saying "BT/MW should be all about 'mechs", and that's kind of symptomatic.

Alas, I don't figure we'll get much more than a couple 'mechpacks (if we're lucky) for MWO. Maybe we'll get some combined arms for that hypothetical Unreal-engined MWO2 as the assets will already be there.

[Sjorpha]

Khobai, on 15 October 2019 - 09:24 AM, said:

Where does MWO say you have to join a group/unit to play? It sounds like those are your own biased, misconstrued assumptions and not based on any facts whatsoever. Furthermore youre trying to impress others to play the game your way which is not only presumptuous but also offensive.

If the game is team-based why are 90% of the players solo players? Why are the vast majority of groups small groups of 2-3? Why are large groups the minority?

All of the statistics support the exact opposite of what you said: MWO is primarily a solo game/small group game and large groups/units actually introduce an unbalanced element to the game.

Allowing stacked teams in group queue and faction play is one of the main reasons (but far from the only reason) the game has lost so many solo/small group players in the last few years. And PGI has posted statistics that show those players make up over 90% of the playerbase. Keeping that ratio the same, it stands to reason that 90% of the players that quit were solo players.

And "play the game my way or quit" is a very toxic attitude. Toxic players like you actually chase other players away by constantly trying to tell them how they should play the game. The worst part is players like you dont even assume responsibility for your share of the blame for why MWO died because you dont think theres anything wrong with being oppressively toxic.

You are accusing others of chasing away players yet the only one here actually suggesting a category of players should be kicked out of the game is you.

The game is for both solos groups and units, big or small. No need to exclude anyone.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Khobai, on 15 October 2019 - 09:24 AM, said:

you did though. you said if I play with my 1 friend, instead of playing with a larger group, I shouldnt expect to win.

that implies the teams arnt balanced.

if the teams were properly balanced by a working matchmaking id have close to a 50/50 chance of winning irregardless of how many friends I played with.

I wasnt putting words into your mouth. its literally what your mouth said.



Where does MWO say you have to join a group/unit to play? It sounds like those are your own biased, misconstrued assumptions and not based on any facts whatsoever. Furthermore youre trying to impress others to play the game your way which is not only presumptuous but also offensive.

If the game is team-based why are 90% of the players solo players? Why are the vast majority of groups small groups of 2-3? Why are large groups the minority?

Easy answers...

1. You and your 1 friend will not win if you're up against a large, well co-ordinated unit. It's the same with anything in life. You and your 1 friend aren't good enough. That doesn't mean that the environment should cater for you. Solitary beings know exactly what game to play and they do it well. You don't.

2. If you bring your larger group of friends into a large team-based match, then you might have a chance. Even then, you might go up against a better unit. Again, it shouldn't mean that the better team should be split up to let you win. Instead, you can make friends with them and re-do the teams. Many of the top players actually do this.

3. In FW, the intro page actually, literally tells you that it is a competitive, highly team-oriented mode and doesn't have a match maker. So, it suggests you to bring proper mechs with good loadouts and pre-make your team as solos or small groups will get omitted in favour of a larger group.

4. There are many solo players 'cause your way of thinking has ruined teams. Your insistence that groups should be split and solos should be looked after has made sure that even friends can't play together in this game anymore. Not to worry though. Even the solos are finding it difficult to play QP games faster now 'cause the population is dwindling. I used to find a lot of matches in QP one after the other during the time that I play. But now, I sometimes have to wait for the match that's going on without me to finish to get into a match.

You clearly can't be shown why you are wrong and why your way of thinking has slowly ruined a team-oriented game. The solos and groups should exists and be allowed to play. But you want yourself and your 1 friend to be on equal footing against a larger group which is downright idiotic whichever way you look at it. Rather than making new friends and dealing with the matches together, you blame others. Perfect. Your demand for balance is just like screaming for equal outcome. That's not going to happen.

[Khobai]

Sjorpha, on 15 October 2019 - 05:58 PM, said:

You are accusing others of chasing away players yet the only one here actually suggesting a category of players should be kicked out of the game is you.

The game is for both solos groups and units, big or small. No need to exclude anyone.

I never made any such suggestion. Where did you get that from?

I have no desire to kick anyone out of the game or exclude anyone nor have I ever expressed any such desire. I simply want balanced teams.

I dont believe its an unreasonable expectation to not allow one team to stack the odds of winning heavily in their favor before the match even starts.

FRAGTAST1C, on 15 October 2019 - 07:09 PM, said:

Easy answers...

1. You and your 1 friend will not win if you're up against a large, well co-ordinated unit. It's the same with anything in life. You and your 1 friend aren't good enough. That doesn't mean that the environment should cater for you. Solitary beings know exactly what game to play and they do it well. You don't.

Youve missed the point entirely. Me and my 1 friend should never have to play against a large, well-coordinated unit in the first place. And in the event that the game forces us to it should at least try to balance the teams so its not a 100% stomp.

And of course the environment should cater to solo players if theyre the vast majority of players. appeasing the widest cross section of players is how every successful game operates. And why MWO isnt more successful.

FRAGTAST1C, on 15 October 2019 - 07:09 PM, said:

4. There are many solo players 'cause your way of thinking has ruined teams. Your insistence that groups should be split and solos should be looked after has made sure that even friends can't play together in this game anymore. Not to worry though. Even the solos are finding it difficult to play QP games faster now 'cause the population is dwindling. I used to find a lot of matches in QP one after the other during the time that I play. But now, I sometimes have to wait for the match that's going on without me to finish to get into a match.

Your logic makes no sense. If you take a group of 8 people and break it into two groups of 4 and put one group on each team you still have two groups of friends playing together. You also have better balanced teams then instead of a complete stomp. Furthermore I do believe I said breaking up teams would be a last resort measure to balancing teams if the matchmaker expends all other options first.

Edited by Khobai, 15 October 2019 - 07:28 PM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Khobai, on 15 October 2019 - 07:15 PM, said:

Youve missed the point entirely. Me and my 1 friend should never have to play against a large, well-coordinated unit in the first place.

This makes no sense. If you take a group of 8 people and break it into two groups of 4 and put one group on each team you still have two groups of friends playing together.

1. Nope, you don't get that "privilege" especially when it involves breaking up another unit for your happiness.

2. No, they're not playing together, they're playing against each other. How do you not see this? If you make friends with them and then see if you could split teams up equally, then it's ok 'cause then it is mutual and you're all friends. Otherwise, nobody should be catering to you and your 1 friend. Who the hell do you think you are? If the population was large enough, then we could have a tier based Group MM where the highest tiered player in the group determines which tier the said group gets matched with. But you don't want that. Instead, you want the other group to cater to you. Not going to happen.

It's the same in any game. Even the current Battle Royale games do this. It's just that the groups are limited to 4. The fact that MWO allows a group of 12 is actually very good and more friends can play together. You on the other hand, are too myopic to see the bigger picture.

[Khobai]

FRAGTAST1C, on 15 October 2019 - 07:24 PM, said:

1. Nope, you don't get that "privilege" especially when it involves breaking up another unit for your happiness.

Wow hypocrite much? How is it not equally privileged for you to expect to be able to stack teams with a bunch of your friends?

The difference is I want balanced teams. You want the ability to created stacked unbalanced teams.

So my privilege is far less self serving than yours.

FRAGTAST1C, on 15 October 2019 - 07:24 PM, said:

2. No, they're not playing together, they're playing against each other. How do you not see this? If you make friends with them and then see if you could split teams up equally, then it's ok 'cause then it is mutual and you're all friends. Otherwise, nobody should be catering to you and your 1 friend. Who the hell do you think you are? If the population was large enough, then we could have a tier based Group MM where the highest tiered player in the group determines which tier the said group gets matched with. But you don't want that. Instead, you want the other group to cater to you. Not going to happen.

Its not just me and my one friend though. According to PGI's own statistics, the number of people that play in small groups vastly outnumbers the people that play in larger groups. Or at least it did when they posted those statistics, a lot of those people have been chased off now...

And again having two relatively balanced teams should take precedence over being able to always play with your all your friends (especially if it creates an unbalanced stacked team). So I see no problem with splitting groups up if its necessary to balance the two teams. Again it would only be a last resort measure.

FRAGTAST1C, on 15 October 2019 - 07:24 PM, said:

It's the same in any game. Even the current Battle Royale games do this. It's just that the groups are limited to 4. The fact that MWO allows a group of 12 is actually very good and more friends can play together. You on the other hand, are too myopic to see the bigger picture.

Um the groups are limited to 4 (often less like 2-3) in those other games to stop the exact problems that ive been exposing. lmao. derp.

Thank you for helping me make my case.

Edited by Khobai, 15 October 2019 - 07:44 PM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Khobai, on 15 October 2019 - 07:34 PM, said:

Wow hypocrite much? How is it not equally privileged for you to expect to be able to stack teams with a bunch of your friends?

The difference is I want balanced teams. You want the ability to created stacked unbalanced teams.



Its not just me and my one friend though. According to PGI's own statistics, the number of people that play in small groups outnumbers the people that play in larger groups.



Um the groups are limited to 4 in those other games to stop the exact problems that ive been exposing. lmao. derp.

Thank you for helping me make my case.

I'm not the one asking for someone to stop friends from playing together so that I can be happy.

What does statistics have to do with allowing friends to form large groups?

If the Group was limited to 4 and they trounced you and your 1 friend, then you'd ask that the group of 4 friends be split up into two for the sake of balance.

MWO is good to allow large groups to be formed. If you don't like that, then form your own large group. If you can't, then find more friends. It's really, really simple.

[Khobai]

FRAGTAST1C, on 15 October 2019 - 07:41 PM, said:

I'm not the one asking for someone to stop friends from playing together so that I can be happy.

But thats exactly what youre asking when you make group queue unbearable for smaller groups. If I cant play with my 1-2 friends because getting stomped repeatedly is a miserable experience youre basically saying small groups cant play in group queue at all.

And again I dont think asking for balanced teams is unreasonable. Its not specifically about making me happy. Its also about having better balanced teams in general.

FRAGTAST1C, on 15 October 2019 - 07:41 PM, said:

If the Group was limited to 4 and they trounced you and your 1 friend, then you'd ask that the group of 4 friends be split up into two for the sake of balance.

No I wouldnt. Groups of 4 are acceptable. I even used two groups of 4 in my example of breaking up a group of 8 and putting them on separate teams. In fact everything should be done in groups of 2 or 4. Then you could actually have a matchmaker piece together two roughly equal teams by constructing the teams from groups of 2 and 4.

Although I wasnt even going so far as to suggest a hard group limit of 4 (not that id be opposed to the idea). All I was suggesting was for the matchmaker to break up bigger groups when it cant find another big group for them to play as a last resort to balance the two teams.

Edited by Khobai, 15 October 2019 - 08:08 PM.

[MadcatX]

FRAGTAST1C, on 15 October 2019 - 07:24 PM, said:

It's the same in any game. Even the current Battle Royale games do this. It's just that the groups are limited to 4. The fact that MWO allows a group of 12 is actually very good and more friends can play together. You on the other hand, are too myopic to see the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is group queue should have never existed in the first place, should have been Solo Queue and FP only (in an ideal world where FP was done right and thus units would have been more inclined to play it as well as incentivize people who generally don't join units to do so to play that game mode). Most PvP F2P's on the market have a solo/small group queue and a unit-only queue (usually ranked and for more serious players).

[Khobai]

MadcatX, on 15 October 2019 - 07:48 PM, said:

The bigger picture is group queue should have never existed in the first place, should have been Solo Queue and FP only (in an ideal world where FP was done right and thus units would have been more inclined to play it as well as incentivize people who generally don't join units to do so to play that game mode). Most PvP F2P's on the market have a solo/small group queue and a unit-only queue (usually ranked and for more serious players).

I think group queue couldve worked fine with smaller groups.

The whole problem with group queue is you get a stacked team of 8 good players and even if you had a matchmaker it wouldnt be possible to find 8 equally good players to match them up against.

If group queue was based around groups of 2-4 then you would have smaller blocks that a matchmaker could actually rearrange into the semblance of balanced teams.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Khobai, on 15 October 2019 - 07:45 PM, said:

But thats exactly what youre asking when you make group queue unbearable for smaller groups.



No I wouldnt. Groups of 4 are acceptable.

Unbearable how? Just 'cause they win flawlessly? You want them to play with a handicap? Do you want them to make sure that THEY split up evenly so that one of their sub-groups don't have "the best of the best" and the other sub-group has their newbies who are still better than the rest? What's stopping you from complaining that one of their sub-groups is vastly superior to the one that YOU got to team up with? You're still losing badly mind you.

Groups of 4 are acceptable until when though? You can't even decide how to split the friends up to give YOU a balanced game.

MadcatX, on 15 October 2019 - 07:48 PM, said:

The bigger picture is group queue should have never existed in the first place, should have been Solo Queue and FP only (in an ideal world where FP was done right and thus units would have been more inclined to play it as well as incentivize people who generally don't join units to do so to play that game mode). Most PvP F2P's on the market have a solo/small group queue and a unit-only queue (usually ranked and for more serious players).

Actually, the GQ is a fine addition but the way that the skill system is implemented is the problem. There is a big gap between someone who is ranked 90% to someone who is 95% and then 99%. The MM will treat all T1 players as the same. That's where the problem lies.