Jump to content

Why no "Stay with Group" feature?


28 replies to this topic

#21 Kraven Kor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,434 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:44 AM

Yes please.

Would work for random groups transforming into not-so-random groups, would build a framework for making and keeping friends in-game, and it would help for recruitment in the larger units as well.

It's a win-win-win scenario (even if you lose the match!) :wub:

#22 Lorcan Lladd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,037 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:44 AM

Simple and elegant, like an AC2.
I would support of this, if PGI were to implement it.


View PostLin Shai, on 31 October 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

I know I'm sure to get flamed for this but ...

Yes the social UI is ... clunky ... to be kind, but really is it THAT hard to jot down someone's name at the end of the match, send them a friend invite, then form a group?

No it's not as good as a "invite everyone from the last match to a group" button (and if you think about that, there's a bit of UI and logic involved to make that work; what if I don't want to play with the last set of randoms and someone else pushed it?) ... but it exists now, and anyone can do it.

Two nights ago myself and two other friends were playing on TS3 (Yes, a dreaded "pre-made" ... all 3 of us). One of the PUGers who got thrown in with us one match actually knew what he was doing; played with the team, didn't rambo off, got kills and assists. We sent him an in-game friend request and asked if he wanted to join our group. He did, and played the next hour or two with us. Again - he wasn't on TS3 ... just knew how to play the game and his role. We used the text chat and in-game social chat to talk to him.


You wanted people to play as teams, did you not?
If the current implementation of groups on MWO Social really was as effective for non-Teamspeak, Ventrillo or Mumble users as your fascinating tale makes it out to be, they would already.

Besides, it would be simple enough to have only those players whom had actually pressed the button being added in a group, in such a hypothetical scenario as the one you've brought up.

Edited by Lorcan Lladd, 31 October 2012 - 06:59 AM.


#23 Lin Shai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 31 October 2012 - 07:44 AM

View PostLorcan Lladd, on 31 October 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Simple and elegant, like an AC2.
I would support of this, if PGI were to implement it.




You wanted people to play as teams, did you not?
If the current implementation of groups on MWO Social really was as effective for non-Teamspeak, Ventrillo or Mumble users as your fascinating tale makes it out to be, they would already.

Besides, it would be simple enough to have only those players whom had actually pressed the button being added in a group, in such a hypothetical scenario as the one you've brought up.


I'm trying to translate your reply into something that makes sense, and am failing.

There's a social interface now that allows you to send friend and group requests to people, as well as text chat with them pre and post drop. In addition, C3 automatically will pop up if you use it.

At the end of a game, all the names of the people you just played with are displayed.

Rather than wishing that PGI would implement new UI components along with the logic required to make it work that aren't on their roadmap (which means there's pretty much no way in hades that it's going to happen) I'm simply offering that if people were to use what is there now, even though it's not perfect, the same end result can be achieved.

#24 Lorcan Lladd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,037 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:18 PM

If we were all willing to play as you do.
Are we? No.

Go to hell.

Edited by Lorcan Lladd, 31 October 2012 - 02:19 PM.


#25 Cochise

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 642 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:24 PM

...and what will this do exactly? Give people a chance to go ahead and drop if they want? I am not sure how in the big picture this will change anything. Am I missing something? Please explain.

#26 627

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 4,571 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:04 PM

in general you would stay with the same people for the next matches. would be a grouping light, you play together again without the overhead of inviting and grouping up.

#27 Velba

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 414 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA, USA

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:06 PM

17 months later.....

#28 Valder

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 680 posts
  • LocationQQmercs.com

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:07 PM

Awesome idea, dude.

#29 Digital Ninja

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 829 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:25 PM

View PostPaintedWolf, on 30 October 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

Just give players like 30 seconds to decide if they want to stay with a group, that way PUGs can slowly form their own persistent teams, and/or eliminate/weed out AFKs. That way PUGs can become closer to skill to Pre-Mades over the course of a gaming session even if a person enters Auto-Match solo.

You have that time after the match starts. If they're going to do it they'll do it. An extra 30 seconds won't help and will just be annoying.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users