83 replies to this topic

[Regrets]

ITT premade players look through rose colored glasses. If they are winning then there are no problems right?

Think of the huge advantage voice chat is in this game. Add on top of that the teamers are almost certainly running higher quality mechs on average. But the PUGers have a yellow arrow on the map, makes things even right? What a joke.

Espesh given the 'vertical progression' nature of the game, if this is not fixed it will ruin the game. Consider yourself warned Piranha, when matches are consistently uneven people will stop PUG-ing.

[Shootu]

InfiniteChaos, on 10 December 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

For Bobzilla and everybody complaining that a premade is unbalanced vs a PUG. Simply; do you see yellow battle markers on your map? No? Then you guys are aimlessly stomping around on the ground and not staying organized. Following a commander's direction is what the other 3 guys are doing in a premade. If the other PUG's are following the yellow map markers and doing what the icon says, then it will give an appearance of an 8 man premade.

Tell scouts to gather intel on your flanks, push as a group, defend as a group. If you split your team to 4 two-man lances all going different directions, then your team will die two at a time with a result of 0-8. When the enemy is slow and too far away from base, tell scouts to stand on their base. If you have a keyboard that can use a macro, program a couple keys for general orders that you find yourself giving a lot.

Additionally, if you see other people firing at a specific mech, also fire at that mech. A dead mech does 0 damage.

Finally, Russ mentioned that the goal for PGI is for 12v12. Having a lance of 4 is perfect for a 12v12. A group of 4 still gets roflstomped by an organized group of random PUG's. Russ' interview: http://nogutsnogalax...2-russ-bullock/

What is your win percentage when you run 4 man groups in PUGS? See one of the things I'm finding interesting in this thread is that I posted percentages (data). Nobody else has. Your post essentially boils down to if you communicate better you can win in a random PUG match against 4 man groups. Yes you can, but how often?

I'll bet your win percentage in 4 man groups against PUG's is 70%+. Is that because your team is good or because there is a bias that is difficult to overcome over a period of time?

I listened to the Russ interview before but I listened to it again to see if I was missing something. What I found was rather interesting because it seems to support my point. For those that haven't heard the interview the whole thing is good but it is long. If you don't have time to listen to the whole thing the relevant part related to this thread is 53:00 - 57:00. In this segment Russ talks about reducing the group size to 4 and then says that is 50% of the team and still may be too much. Well needless to say I agree with that.

Yes they are going to 12 vs 12's eventually. I would argue that a group that is 33% of the overall team is still too much but it is certainly better than 50%. I would say a 3 man group in a 12 vs 12 is more appropriate. Remember, WOT had 15 man teams and we could easily skew the results of those matches with 3 man groups which was just 20% of the overall team. That game had much more communication options built into the game interface so from the start those matches already had more communication in the matches than we have in MWO and we still skewed the results of the matches with 3 man groups. Four man groups in a 12 man team is still going to be too much in my opinion.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this game is somehow fundamentally different than WOT so larger group sizes (as a percentage of the overall team) are needed. PGI is well aware of WOT. Russ mentioned it multiple times in the interview including a discussion on group sizes.

Now one thing that we don't have information or data on is how will the match making be when they implement player skill matches. I'm going to predict that 4 man groups will still dominate. Why? Because the players in the groups are used to playing together and their mechs will be set up to complement each other. Those are luxuries that randoms in PUG's will not have.

Edited by Shootu, 10 December 2012 - 11:09 AM.

[Willie Sauerland]

I think most people don't have hard numbers for these types of issues because they aren't monitoring any stats.

I would guess my win/loss ratio while PUGging is around 50%. When I was in a 4-man premade (before the 8v8), it was also around 50%.

However, the problem is not that 50% of a team is made of premades. The problem is groups which have more than enough people online to be able to get multiple drops into the same match. This is not an issue of premades but an issue with the matchmaker which has been stated before in this thread and elsewhere. And to be sure, many of the matches I am in have zero premades at all - and some of these my side (again, just me alone) has won 8-0.

I was in a PUG match a couple of days ago as a 2-man premade. We wiped up the competition with our allies doing very little work (they all decided to go tunnel on Ice City and the two of us held the ridge against 8 people). So, this would seem to go against your presumptions. Or perhaps, 2 people is "overpowered" and we should nerf the premades to only comprising 1 individual...

Even two people able to communicate can create havoc on a PUG team not communicating at all. In this sense, teamwork is overpowered and not the numbers contributing to the team.

[Shootu]

Willie Sauerland, on 10 December 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

I think most people don't have hard numbers for these types of issues because they aren't monitoring any stats.

I would guess my win/loss ratio while PUGging is around 50%. When I was in a 4-man premade (before the 8v8), it was also around 50%.

However, the problem is not that 50% of a team is made of premades. The problem is groups which have more than enough people online to be able to get multiple drops into the same match. This is not an issue of premades but an issue with the matchmaker which has been stated before in this thread and elsewhere. And to be sure, many of the matches I am in have zero premades at all - and some of these my side (again, just me alone) has won 8-0.

I was in a PUG match a couple of days ago as a 2-man premade. We wiped up the competition with our allies doing very little work (they all decided to go tunnel on Ice City and the two of us held the ridge against 8 people). So, this would seem to go against your presumptions. Or perhaps, 2 people is "overpowered" and we should nerf the premades to only comprising 1 individual...

Even two people able to communicate can create havoc on a PUG team not communicating at all. In this sense, teamwork is overpowered and not the numbers contributing to the team.

So you are saying when you run in a 4 man group your overall win rate is the same as when you PUG solo? Ok...

Actually it doesn't go against my presumption at all. Two man groups on an 8 man team is 25% of the overall team and will have a impact. As I've stated many times 20% of team skewed the results of our matches. So it doesn't surprise me that 25% of the team does. As I said in my original post, 25% is probably too much but since it is either no grouping or 25% of the team I suggest starting there.

Edited by Shootu, 10 December 2012 - 11:21 AM.

[Regrets]

Shootu, on 10 December 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

So you are saying when you run in a 4 man group your overall win rate is the same as when you PUG solo? Ok...

Actually it doesn't go against my presumption at all. Two man groups on an 8 man team is 25% of the overall team and will have a impact. As I've stated many times 20% of team skewed the results of our matches. So it doesn't surprise me that 25% of the team does. As I said in my original post, 25% is probably too much but since it is either no grouping or 25% of the team I suggest starting there.

From his signature, 'I feed trolls...' Must be a typo, should be 'I am the troll'.

It is like the SWTOR forums all over again. Nerf that guy, don't nerf me. PUG win percent = 8 man team win percent. AC20 should do 300 damage weight 5 tons 2 crit lots for even game play. I'm telling the truth I swear!

[Willie Sauerland]

Shootu, on 10 December 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

So you are saying when you run in a 4 man group your overall win rate is the same as when you PUG solo? Ok...

Actually it doesn't go against my presumption at all. Two man groups on an 8 man team is 25% of the overall team and will have a impact. As I've stated many times 20% of team skewed the results of our matches. So it doesn't surprise me that 25% of the team does. As I said in my original post, 25% is probably too much but since it is either no grouping or 25% of the team I suggest starting there.

Like I said before, fix the communication and you will fix the problem. This is not to say I don't think other things should be done (like an in-game training tutorial on how a mech works or an arena for nothing but new players in trial mechs, etc.) but a lot of this can't be done until other things are in place such as the ranking system. Also, I believe the ranking system will also alleviate a lot of the issues being complained about here.

As such, I do not believe a reduction in the number of players in a premade is needed. I think other content (ranking system, better matchmaker, larger maps, different modes, etc), a viable communication system, and a comprehensive set of in-game tutorials will fix this issue well enough.

[Regrets]

Willie, how the heck is a larger map going to help a bunch of noobs in trial mechs beat a bunch of teamers with XL and endosteel?

[Willie Sauerland]

Regrets, on 10 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

From his signature, 'I feed trolls...' Must be a typo, should be 'I am the troll'.

It is like the SWTOR forums all over again. Nerf that guy, don't nerf me. PUG win percent = 8 man team win percent. AC20 should do 300 damage weight 5 tons 2 crit lots for even game play. I'm telling the truth I swear!

I see reading comprehension is your forte. I'm not trolling here as I've seen completely different things than others have. I also resist the idea to make this more like WoT (gold ammo anybody?) since this is a completely different game where there is lore and canon - not like WoT where the game was made up as they went along...

As for the rest of your failed troll attempt, I have played the trial mechs and think they aren't half bad - but if a person doesn't know how to use them, they fail horribly. I can't tell you how often I have spectated and tried to communicate things to a new person via the chat. I can tell you it is horrible - but I bet you haven't even tried. Give me a viable communication system, and I bet you will find more people assisting newer players in-game and a lot of frustration which is experienced now will have magically vanished.

Otherwise, take your wannabe elitest attitude elsewhere as it has nothing to do with this topic at all.

Thanks.

Regrets, on 10 December 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

Willie, how the heck is a larger map going to help a bunch of noobs in trial mechs beat a bunch of teamers with XL and endosteel?

Again, reading comprehension is your forte. Do I need to use smaller words for you? Go reread the post again (since I do not quote myself - attribution looks stupid then) and then slap yourself on the forehead. Don't worry, I'll wait.

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 10 December 2012 - 11:36 AM.

[Regrets]

Ya man, keep telling yourself that 2 ML and 2 HS vs 3 ML and 3 DHS is an even match. It isn't a super complicated concept.

Want to say again what you think the win percent is PUGing with 7 trial mechs versus coordinated teamwork and voice chat? If its 50/50 then you might want to work on your coordination a bit.

[Willie Sauerland]

Regrets, on 10 December 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Ya man, keep telling yourself that 2 ML and 2 HS vs 3 ML and 3 DHS is an even match. It isn't a super complicated concept.

Want to say again what you think the win percent is PUGing with 7 trial mechs versus coordinated teamwork and voice chat? If its 50/50 then you might want to work on your coordination a bit.

Again, calm down and go reread the posts I have made. You're missing quite a bit of detail...

Willie Sauerland, on 10 December 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Like I said before, fix the communication and you will fix the problem. This is not to say I don't think other things should be done (like an in-game training tutorial on how a mech works or an arena for nothing but new players in trial mechs, etc.) but a lot of this can't be done until other things are in place such as the ranking system. Also, I believe the ranking system will also alleviate a lot of the issues being complained about here.

As such, I do not believe a reduction in the number of players in a premade is needed. I think other content (ranking system, better matchmaker, larger maps, different modes, etc), a viable communication system, and a comprehensive set of in-game tutorials will fix this issue well enough.

Just to make it easier for Regrets since he seems to be missing some things. (Emphasis mine - ah hell, it is my quote so of course it is mine...)

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 10 December 2012 - 11:42 AM.

[Shootu]

The important thing is we acknowledge there is an issue that needs to be addressed. How it is addressed is always going to be debatable. If we want to be heard we need to stay constructive and civil toward one another. Once we start the name calling and insults PGI will tune us out so please keep that in mind.

Thanks.

Edited by Shootu, 10 December 2012 - 11:52 AM.

[Regrets]

Willie Sauerland, on 10 December 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

I see reading comprehension is your forte.

Willie Sauerland, on 10 December 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

larger maps, different modes, etc), a viable communication system, and a comprehensive set of in-game tutorials will fix this issue well enough.

Willie Sauerland, on 10 December 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

I would guess my win/loss ratio while PUGging is around 50%. When I was in a 4-man premade (before the 8v8), it was also around 50%.

2 ez

Edited by Regrets, 10 December 2012 - 11:48 AM.

[Regrets]

FWIW, I do agree rated games would solve a lot. I've had to say what I wanted to say.

[Willie Sauerland]

Regrets, on 10 December 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

2 ez

I'm not sure what you are on about. First, you want to complain about larger maps while ignoring everything else I wrote. Hardly a valid argumentation tactic.

Then you quote about something of which I can only guess. However, since you seem to be so interested, since Open Beta began, my win loss ratio (as a whole) is 58.5% (258) wins to 41.5% (183) losses. This is to say, my matches have been fairly even. I don't even know how many of those wins came with me running a trial mech in a PUG match all by myself but there were quite a few. I have been handed losses from groups running two premade teams on the same side (synchronized drop and broken matchmaker). So I know what it is like out there in the game. I PUG quite a bit actually, which is why I can say (quite authoritatively I think) that the communication capabilities suck balls.

The new person experience needs to be made better - there is no doubt about it. However, limiting the number of premades to a team isn't the answer. It might be a temporary relief, but it isn't the answer. This is why I am opposed and want a comprehensive solution (you know, the parts you didn't quote)...

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 10 December 2012 - 12:02 PM.

[Shootu]

@Willie, since open beta started my game experience in all honesty has been less than optimal. Literally all the people that came over from WOT with me have gone back. They no longer play MWO at all and all of them were Founders. They keep trying to get me to go back to WOT.

The issue this thread is about was a big reason but not the only reason. They realized in order to be competitive they needed to play grouped. The problem is that I'm in the US and a couple was in Australia (different parts), one was in Indonesia, etc. In other words our time zones are all messed up. In WOT we would just solo grind until one of the "regulars" logged in and then we would group up. In MWO nobody wants to run solo since they know how badly the odds are against them.

As it goes people log in and don't see the others so they log back out again. They do that a few times and then they just stop logging in. It isn't something anyone intended. It just happened. So out of the original group of 8 players that came over I'm the only one left. Since open beta I think we got together a couple times and in groups of 4 we crushed everything. Our win percentage was ridiculous although I can't say I know exactly what it was. It was in excess of 80% I'm guessing and at the time in closed beta and in open beta we couldn't understand why this was allowed in the game. As I recall we only lost when someone had a crash to desktop or disconnect but I can't say for sure. It has been quite awhile now.

Now I solo PUG mostly during prime US hours and needless to say that experience has been completely different and not very pleasant. It is what it is so-to-speak. I'm trying to address what I feel is an imbalance that I strongly suspect has turned away many potential MWO'ers.

Edited by Shootu, 10 December 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[Willie Sauerland]

Shootu, on 10 December 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

@Willie, since open beta started my game experience in all honesty has been less than optimal. Literally all the people that came over from WOT with me have gone back. They no longer play MWO at all and all of them were Founders. They keep trying to get me to go back to WOT.

The issue this thread is about was a big reason but not the only reason. They realized in order to be competitive they needed to play grouped. The problem is that I'm in the US and a couple was in Australia (different parts), one was in Indonesia, etc. In other words our time zones are all messed up. In WOT we would just solo grind until one of the "regulars" logged in and then we would group up. In MWO nobody wants to run solo since they know how badly the odds are against them.

As it goes people log in and don't see the others so they log back out again. They do that a few times and then they just stop logging in. It isn't something anyone intended, it just happened. So out of the original group of 8 players that came over I'm the only one left. Since open beta I think we got together a couple times and in groups of 4 we crushed everything. Our win percentage was ridiculous although I can't say I know exactly what it was. It was in excess of 80% I'm guessing and at the time in closed beta and in open beta we couldn't understand why this was allowed in the game. As I recall we only lost when someone had a crash to desktop or disconnect but I can't say for sure. It has been quite awhile now.

Now I solo PUG and needless to say that experience has been completely different and not very pleasant. It is what it is so-to-speak. I'm trying to address what I feel is an imbalance that I strongly suspect has turned away many potential MWO'ers.

FIrst, I PUG solo and will happily PUG solo with you or anybody else. Some days the magic works, and some days it doesn't....

However, the problem you are speaking of here is a group of friends who are not able to play together and due to not seeing anybody they know online then log back out. This isn't an issue of premades or the matchmaker. I would highly recommend either joining an already established group or at a minimum visit http://mwomercs.com/...mspeak-servers/ to get on a Teamspeak server. This will help an new player immensely.

Of course, a game lobby would help with this as well. Sure, we might be losing players right now because these features are not implemented, however, I would bet we will gain some of them back (plus more) as this game gets closer to its official release.

All of these are known issues and are going to be implemented in the future. Perhaps the game isn't at the stage most people would like it to be. I know it isn't for me. However, I have fun playing and enjoy working with my Merc Corps. I didn't know a single one of them when I first started. Now, I can't imagine what this game would be like without them and their voice-chat antics.

We make this game what it is. We also make of this game what we will. Sometimes, the two don't necessarily coincide. Perhaps your friends will be happier waiting for a while before they come back. Perhaps not. However, it is finding the community here which I think makes things better (or in some cases worse ). I do hope your friends get interested again after a couple of patches. Having read some of the road maps, I think some great things are in store (and I'm sure some new and improved bugs ).

Unfortunately, until some of the more social features are added, we'll have to continue working around them....

[Shootu]

Willie Sauerland, on 10 December 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

However, the problem you are speaking of here is a group of friends who are not able to play together and due to not seeing anybody they know online then log back out. This isn't an issue of premades or the matchmaker. I would highly recommend either joining an already established group or at a minimum visit http://mwomercs.com/...mspeak-servers/ to get on a Teamspeak server. This will help an new player immensely.

I'm only quoting the part of your message I'm going to challenge because I agree with you on the rest of your post. I also ninja edited my post at the same time you was quoting it so if people see it they won't quite match up and that is why.

I would just add if my friends felt they had a fair chance solo PUGing they wouldn't have cared if someone they knew was online at the time, they would have just played anyway. Remember all of us had many games in WOT so we knew what the percentages on the teams meant.

Now could they have joined a merc group? Yep, and in all honesty I probably will, but my issue is that people shouldn't have to in order to have a fair game and really that is my point in all this. Changes can be made to make the game more fair to everyone and I suspect my suggestion could be implemented quickly.

I know people really like the number 4 because that is the size of a lance in cannon so maybe we could have a 4 vs 4 premade game mode as well as an 8 vs 8 premade game mode. Then people that want to play in lances but don't have a full 8 players can go against other lances. Same maps etc, but 4 vs 4 instead of 8 vs 8.

As always Willie, I know we don't agree on some things but you are constructive and helpful and that is what matters.

[aspect]

3 would be manageable but 2 is very silly. It would basically mean that nobody outside of an organized group can ever play with their friends who also play the game, and I think that's a horrible idea. Not everybody wants to join a corp or go on TS in order to group up with the people they know IRL.

[Willie Sauerland]

Shootu, on 10 December 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

I'm only quoting the part of your message I'm going to challenge because I agree with you on the rest of your post. I also ninja edited my post at the same time you was quoting it so if people see it they won't quite match up and that is why.

No worries about the editing - it happens.

Quote

I would just add if my friends felt they had a fair chance solo PUGing they wouldn't have cared if someone they knew was online at the time, they would have just played anyway. Remember all of us had many games in WOT so we knew what the percentages on the teams meant.

Now could they have joined a merc group? Yep, and in all honesty I probably will, but my issue is that people shouldn't have to in order to have a fair game and really that is my point in all this. Changes can be made to make the game more fair to everyone and I suspect my suggestion could be implemented quickly.

I know people really like the number 4 because that is the size of a lance in cannon so maybe we could have a 4 vs 4 premade game mode as well as an 8 vs 8 premade game mode. Then people that want to play in lances but don't have a full 8 players can go against other lances. Same maps etc, but 4 vs 4 instead of 8 vs 8.

This I can absolutely agree with. I would also like to see this.

Quote

As always Willie, I know we don't agree on some things but you are constructive and helpful and that is what matters.

I find that not everybody needs to agree, but I try to assist where I can. I'm glad you found it beneficial in some fashion.

[InfiniteChaos]

Shootu, on 10 December 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

What is your win percentage when you run 4 man groups in PUGS? See one of the things I'm finding interesting in this thread is that I posted percentages (data). Nobody else has. Your post essentially boils down to if you communicate better you can win in a random PUG match against 4 man groups. Yes you can, but how often?

I'll bet your win percentage in 4 man groups against PUG's is 70%+. Is that because your team is good or because there is a bias that is difficult to overcome over a period of time?

I listened to the Russ interview before but I listened to it again to see if I was missing something. What I found was rather interesting because it seems to support my point. For those that haven't heard the interview the whole thing is good but it is long. If you don't have time to listen to the whole thing the relevant part related to this thread is 53:00 - 57:00. In this segment Russ talks about reducing the group size to 4 and then says that is 50% of the team and still may be too much. Well needless to say I agree with that.

Yes they are going to 12 vs 12's eventually. I would argue that a group that is 33% of the overall team is still too much but it is certainly better than 50%. I would say a 3 man group in a 12 vs 12 is more appropriate. Remember, WOT had 15 man teams and we could easily skew the results of those matches with 3 man groups which was just 20% of the overall team. That game had much more communication options built into the game interface so from the start those matches already had more communication in the matches than we have in MWO and we still skewed the results of the matches with 3 man groups. Four man groups in a 12 man team is still going to be too much in my opinion.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this game is somehow fundamentally different than WOT so larger group sizes (as a percentage of the overall team) are needed. PGI is well aware of WOT. Russ mentioned it multiple times in the interview including a discussion on group sizes.

Now one thing that we don't have information or data on is how will the match making be when they implement player skill matches. I'm going to predict that 4 man groups will still dominate. Why? Because the players in the groups are used to playing together and their mechs will be set up to complement each other. Those are luxuries that randoms in PUG's will not have.

You wanted percentages, so I shall give them to you. When farming C-Bills, by doing 4 man groups, the team I am on will win roughly 92% of the time. Out of every 100, we will lose 8. When I only have 3 or 2 people in my group, including myself, the win/lose percentage doesn't change. Only when I drop into a match by myself does it drop down to a 55-45 split. Bottom line, grouping with ANYBODY dramatically increase your chances of winning. Bottom line, if the PUGs follow the yellow markers on the map I set forth or the commander sets forth, we win. If everybody scatters like the wind, we lose. It's really that simple.