14 replies to this topic

[Imagine Dragons]

Warning, the following is a large badly formated wall'o'text and contains WoT references.

You have been warned.

Following in the same vain as my only other serious topic I have made on the forums;
http://mwomercs.com/...320#entry490320

I'm wondering about the planned state of grouping in MWO, and how it relates to the random battle grouping in World of Tanks.

A little background on grouping in WoT, basic grouping in WoT for random battle queing (random game mode, random 15v15 teams, random map) is 2 people, 3 if the group leader has a premium account.

Thats 3 people max per group in a Random Battle of 15v15. The other normal grouping system is Tank Companies, where the Company Leader can pick out his team from the pool of players that enter his lobby.

Now, at one point the Devs of WoT wanted to extend the group size to 5, but they quickly decided against that because it would give the 5 man group "too much power" in any given Random Battle.

I was under the impression from the Dev Blogs that MWO was going to have a Random Battle que like WoT but with a max premade group of 4 (lance) in a 12v12 battle.

What is WoT Syndrome? Its the general idea that the random PUG player in any given Random Battle in WoT is a brain dead monkey (usually the clanless ones)

Depending who you ask, WoT Syndrome is either an Elitist or Formite POV, and most Random Battles end with players on the losing team screaming "noob team", "my team are all terrible pugs" etc in all chat.

Soo you can imagine what might happend if you cap the group size in the Random Battles, but I wonder if unlimited group size is a lesser evil when they encounter ramdom pugs.

Thoughts? Opinions? Explainations that probably read better and get the point across many times better than I can?

------------------------------------------------

Personally, I wish for the 4 player group cap, because make no mistake war is coming, with all its glory, and all its horror.

I don't play in WoT Random Battles anymore mainly because I'm afraid of having really bad pug teams...

On the flip side I'm afraid that I will lose interest in playing MWO Random Battles if the premade random battle group is not limited.

Because as I see it, random pug teams are like some armed backwater militia while full premade groups are crack house units... with the condition that both sides have equal numbers this ends up as... well you get the (bloody) picture.

Edited by XenomorphZZ, 13 September 2012 - 07:50 AM.

[Maxwell Albritten]

I saw let those who want to coordinate and use team work have as much power as they want. There is never a need to punish those who invest time/skill into the game. Teams will be what grows the community and strengthen the game as a whole. Puggies will either learn to join a group, or you will join a group to avoid puggie situations.

Right now I'm just puggin' about because it's Closed Beta and I am just playing with random mech builds for fun. I do NOT expect everyone else to stoop to my current level of derp just for my sake.

[Duncan Fisher]

Hmmmm, well I think there are a few approaches they could take here:

1. A party-based matchmaking system (similar to what you get with Halo 3 ranked matchmaking) where if you search as a party of, say 6, you get matched with other parties of 6. Same goes for other party sizes, although for 12v12 it might have to mix and match, like a party of 9 and one of 3 vs another party of 9 and 3. Unfortunately, this might make it hard for larger parties to find games, but honestly if you have a party of 12, you're most likely going to plow through any group of randoms, so is it even worth playing if you won't match another party?

2. The 4 player limit seems similar to what they do in Battlefield (bad company at least), which I suppose works. MWO would is different though, since the nature of the game means that it is much harder for 1 person to take down multiple enemies (fairly common in an FPS like Battlefield where a few bullets will do someone in).

3. At the end of the day, it probably shouldn't be that big of a deal. If you're searching random in a 12v12, you know the risks. You have to realize beforehand that the outcome is generally meaningless. Win or lose, you are only 1/12th of the team effort, so you don't have a whole lot of control unless the teams are very well matched. I think if you are playing 12v12 random battles, you have to play for the fun of the combat itself, not for the win.


Now my question for you, since you are talking about 12v12 RANDOM battles here, will there be a similar system for "clans" or whatever main group of players you are a part of to match other teams in this 3 lance vs 3 lance combat?

[Thomas Kerensky]

The way World of Tanks addresses this issue is the optimal one and MWO should take the same approach. Right now a clan of players can create one huge group and go a**rape a group of Joe Randoms using VOIP programs for communications, command and control whereas the random group with players that may not even speak the same language will suffer from the "This is the internet no one tells me what to do..." and will have no communication, command and control and will therefore almost always lose meaning that Joe Randoms will quickly lose interest in the game thus making Pirahna Games Incorporated lose revenue from players leaving the game.

The future of MWO depends on paying costumers and for that to be possible every type of player must be able to play the game as a Joe Random playing solo and not be forced to be part of a clan or a group.
No random players will play MWO if they get creamed and hammered by premades in every single game and the game will descend into elitism and oblivion if that ends up being the case.

The developers of W.oT. understand this and therefore have they created this limit on premade group sizes.

Edited by Thomas Kerensky, 13 September 2012 - 08:03 AM.

[ArcFade]

My first post on these forums, yay!

I'm finding myself in favor of limiting party sizes for randoms. None of my friends are in the beta yet, so I really don't have anybody to play WITH. I've been in matches that has stacked me up in PUGs vs premades, and it's generally unfun to have THAT much of a disadvantage. I agree with Thomas' post.

I feel that 3-4 people in a party can still make a big difference in a random by coordinating, without it being a complete slaughter house - giving both sides the opportunity for challenge and fun.

That being said, I hope they incorporate 12v12s only FOR premades as well.

[Peyje]

In my opinion, I would prefer not limiting the battle groups. Way back in 2008 I used to play the original CoD:MW, It was me and a group of friends that would go, hang out, and play. We fairly often played with a maxed out team, I don't quite remember but I do believe the max team was 8. Yes, we often bowled through, but, and this is something that I really liked about CoD:MW, the lobbies were constant until people left, so we could get into 6 or 7 matches with another group like us or just an incredible group of pugs. I don't think that premade groups will really be as big of an issue as you make it out to be. There will never be so many premade groups that don't end up fighting each other to completely drown out the pugs, especially since this will be a F2P game.

Edit: I forgot to mention that most of the reason I want to play MWO is to try to recapture the fun of hanging out with some guys on the internet, and either rocking peoples **** or going up against some really good teams and being able to sit back and say, "Now THAT was a fun match."

Edited by Peyje, 13 September 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

I vote for a max Lance sized group.

And OP, the general theme of the random Pubbie being a "Brain dead monkey"....its far more true then you could ever know.......

My uncle says the battles in MWO last no more then about 5 minutes, every one rushes center and fires like mad......that iswhat we see in WoT now. the battles are over just as quickly as they start.....I fear for MWO now......I think WoTitis has already infected this game...

[Kurayami]

And why please tell me i should suffer from 2\3 of team consisting of brain dead monkeys with reducing of premade group? i want to play in large group with specialized lances etc if pug suffering - just balance my group with another group of same size or BV. as for WoT - lets not warp facts - devs decided "hey why wont we make some money from making extended group size premium feature?" but than epic shitstorm arose from lemmings and so they decided to reduce group size a little while still leaving it big enough to rule the battlefield with premium (yes 3 tanks can and will rule pug in WoT) so they can get money from both parties.

[Boswelli]

From my point of view i will only pay for a game if i am having fun with it. I'm talking the whole day to hundred people or more, anybody could imagine that i want just having some fast and plain fun at evening? So why the hell should i'd like to make group battles, and, more worse, should talk about tactics in a foreign language in my rare free time? Anybody here has children and family? I think most of you who prefer these unfair groups vs. solo-casual battles don't mention what that means.

You can say about WoT what you want but the matches on long term basis are really fair. Ok, sometimes you get a team which is to stupid/bad/drunk to drive, not to mention about aiming and firing. But over the time you also get at least as much games where the teamplay works without any communication because the people know the maps, the weakspots and all of the tactics. It's just a matter of time, and then even the "monkeys" will get better and better. In WoT you CAN play in larger groups if you like, but that's no need. And, most important point, larger groups NEVER get into normal random battles!

So why all of you "elite"-players want a MWO for real teams only? Seems a bit intolerant, isn't it? Why telling the casuals to go away and search for another casual-friendly game if MWO could deliver something for both worlds? PGI can not let MWO alive if they only make it open (and playable) for teamplayers. They really need the money from after-work-players, casuals, family guys etc., because they are who pay the most money if it's worth for them. The few geeks with too much time are really good beta testers, but no basis a business project like this could live very long with!

Edited by Boswelli, 13 September 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[New Day]

I thinks it's useless to talk about this until matchmaking is properly implemented, for all we know the devs have already decided how it's going to work.

[Chuckie]

How about its too early to judge or worry about it..

Its a balance issue that right now is low on the totem pole.

We are in a C-L-O-S-E-D B-E-T-A

Which means the game isn't finished yet, and they have a LOT on thier plate to get this game to Open Beta by the Holiday season. They have stated they are going to make it better and AT BEST it's version 0.2 righht now.

BALANCING Team matching right now is NOT a MVC (Minimum Viable Content) issue, its an AFTER MVC issue.

They have to get to MVC to get the game launched to Open Beta, and that's when they can start to take MORE peoples money.

So take a deep breath and relax...

<BTW>

When in PUG Matches, when friends aren't around on teamspeak, balance is a little off, but its not crippling. Lose ratio is a little higher, but not terrible, and you can ask in TEAM chat if your on a team or a partial team and find out what they want to do that way at the game start.

Edited by Chuckie, 13 September 2012 - 09:57 AM.

[Kurayami]

Boswelli, on 13 September 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

..

its not "we are elites - you go play something else" its "please balance us accordingly" and balancing is yet to be seen implemented so there is no point in arguing now. as far as it goes - groups of larger than x will fight only against groups of same number of mech\some other stat so pug players wont suffer. even now when we run premade with few pugs against another premade with few pugs - pugs are complaining "my team are all stupid pugs\noobs etc" last time we got 6x6 premades (checked it later) with pugs on whats left. using tactics etc we made it out without losses from our group.. only to be told that we are bunch of stupid pugs with no team play whatsoever noobs and all should just go die because we prevailed while some kerensky dunno what number got 0 kills and like 50 damage done rushing center of the map (those who died actually praised us) and i dont even want to remember what other team pugs stated about their premade (both team pugs didt know that we are premade groups) =_= so reducing group not only will not change a thing to pugs but it will also ruin groups game experience.

[JebusGeist]

XenomorphZZ, on 13 September 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Because as I see it, random pug teams are like some armed backwater militia while full premade groups are crack house units... with the condition that both sides have equal numbers this ends up as... well you get the (bloody) picture.

MWO has crack houses?

[PanzerMagier]

Even though an Individual mech cannot make much of a difference, a group of well co-ordinated strikes can.
Too many games have I seen where the enemy team mops the floor with us, wiping the whole team out without losing a single Mech. It kind of makes you feel as if testing out the game is quite redundant in the first place (before you can start cracking off at enemies and make kills, suffer grievous damage, your whole team is wiped out and you're left standing, think why did you even bother to try?!). I think in order to improve the CLOSED BETA environment, at least add some form of matchmaking mechanic. Don't know what's all the hate on pugs, you were one too -.-

Personally I find it extremely exhilarating to be paired up with a couple of strangers and then knowing I will face enemies that are equally indifferent to each other. It lessens the required amount of team play skill and promotes individual skill play. However, in my opinion, premade teams simply just ruin this, their obvious teamwork advantage giving them an edge not possible to get when in a team of randoms.

I'd certainly find my self playing more hours of mechwarrior, testing it out, if the platform was more comfortable. Knowing that I could be facing well trained premade teams with a group of strangers is quite a demoralizing picture. And you really feel it when you're the last man standing and not one enemy mech has been downed.

Honestly, if you want to play with friends and think your self good in playing MW, at least have the dignity to ask that you should be pitted against enemies with an equal advantage.

EDIT: Thomas Kerensky, I support your notion fully. Your very reply inspired me to make my first post here, where it can make a difference. It's good to know that there still are people who believe in Fair fights.

Edited by PanzerMagier, 14 September 2012 - 07:33 AM.

[slayerkdm]

Those many like elite teams squads, lances or whatever flavor a game has for teaming, those people are always in the minority. Games like this need casual players like me to survive, just guys or gals who come home from work and want to blow up some robots for an hour or two. I say limit the groups to something small. Even a four man group can be devastating when coordinated. If they allow big groups or lances, casual players will get sick of getting creamed, leave, and then the power players will find themselves alone in a dying game.

As much as some players rant about bad players, sometimes it comes down to luck in one form or another. Most older, possibly more mature players, just want to shoot something. We dont have our self worth tied up in the outcome of any battle. These games simply cannot survive on the elite type players, who bitterly complain about the casual player. You need us guys who frankly, suck compared to the elite players in many ways.