79 replies to this topic

[Lin Shai]

Wildhound, on 11 December 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

I reckon the solution is to make it so that pre-made teams can not play against PUGs at all.

And that wouldn't change a thing as many people have posted. The 4-man teams aren't the problem. The 8-man teams before them weren't the problem.

Before the game had grouping people got facerolled. The only difference was they didn't have a boogyman to blame.

On the flip side I'm all for it, because i really do want to hear the excuse / new myth as to why certain players lose all the time.

[Lefty Lucy]

Lin Shai, on 11 December 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

And that wouldn't change a thing as many people have posted. The 4-man teams aren't the problem. The 8-man teams before them weren't the problem.

Before the game had grouping people got facerolled. The only difference was they didn't have a boogyman to blame.

On the flip side I'm all for it, because i really do want to hear the excuse / new myth as to why certain players lose all the time.

Obadiah333, on 11 December 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

I think the 8v8 thing is only bunk now because of ECM. If there were no ECM, 8v8 would be where it's at.

You mean like the ECM bogeyman for 8-mans.

[Lin Shai]

Cuthbert Allgood, on 11 December 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

So all seriousness aside ,,,, Would this mean that the "Matchmaker" is the 8man premade "Bogeyman" ? hence all the 4's lol

It started out that way, yes. The "Everyone is running 8 x atlas" etc was every bit as overblown as the PUGs who claim they always play against "pre-mades".

The problem is, it turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Teams who wanted to "compete" adopted the unbalanced team makeup and teams that didn't want to play that way ... went back to 4-man. I guarantee you there's a number of people who never even tried it because of the forums posts; a lot of people are like that.

Edited by Lin Shai, 11 December 2012 - 09:51 PM.

[Obadiah333]

Lefty Lucy, on 11 December 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

You mean like the ECM bogeyman for 8-mans.

Yeah, if you haven't encountered the ECM "bogeyman" syndrome in 8 mans, then you haven't played any. It's all about ECM, and that's it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

Lefty Lucy, on 11 December 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

You mean like the ECM bogeyman for 8-mans.

LOL yeah or that too .....there sure are a lot of bogeymen in this game

[Lefty Lucy]

Obadiah333, on 11 December 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

Yeah, if you haven't encountered the ECM "bogeyman" syndrome in 8 mans, then you haven't played any. It's all about ECM, and that's it.

No, we kick butt in 8 mans, and part of the reason why is that we bring at least 4 ECM mechs every match. Adapt, or admit you're just not good enough to hack it.

[Kalliste]

Yesterday we had the same problem.

At about 6-7 p.m. (GMT+1, middle european time)
We wanted to play 8v8 and failed to find a match.

If you fail to find a match for 15min, then maybe get 1 match, then again no match found etc. etc. then you switch to 4 people teams. You wouldn't want to wait for a match more than half of the time.

So the problem could well increase by itself, because when less people play 8v8 then more people would have to wait forever to get an 8v8 match, so they quit 8v8 also and so on.....

Edited by Kalliste, 11 December 2012 - 10:04 PM.

[Obadiah333]

Lefty Lucy, on 11 December 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

No, we kick butt in 8 mans, and part of the reason why is that we bring at least 4 ECM mechs every match. Adapt, or admit you're just not good enough to hack it.

Has nothing to do with skill (or you insinuating that I have none). You can take your assumptions and cram them. See the part where you said "we bring at least 4 ECM mechs every match." Thanks for proving my point for me.

For the record, I normally like your posts and agree with a lot of what you have to say. I'm not sure if you have been replaced by a pod person or what.

[Wildhound]

Lin Shai, on 11 December 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

And that wouldn't change a thing as many people have posted. The 4-man teams aren't the problem. The 8-man teams before them weren't the problem.

Of course it would change things. People would be more likely to play 8v8, instead of ending up as a two 4 man teams against an 8 man. That would resolve the OP's problem.

Meanwhile, PUGs would be able to pick up and play and enjoy the game. Since the majority of the audience is going to be casual players, this is a win for everyone.

There are plenty of players like me who don't have the time or the will to invest in finding and joining a group. Even if I had the time, I wouldn't be too interested in playing with a gang of teenagers and would have to work hard to find people in my own age group. I don't get married to games like that, I log in when I feel like it or have time and lash out a few games for fun. It's not a job.

When it's not fun, people like me will leave. They won't cry about it, they'll just be gone. You'll know all about it as server population declines and it becomes difficult to find a match of any kind.

[Lefty Lucy]

Obadiah333, on 11 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Has nothing to do with skill (or you insinuating that I have none). You can take your assumptions and cram them. See the part where you said "we bring at least 4 ECM mechs every match." Thanks for proving my point for me.

For the record, I normally like your posts and agree with a lot of what you have to say. I'm not sure if you have been replaced by a pod person or what.

No, a lot of my posts have been really with the point of view that we should be making the game better for new players. When it comes to 8 v 8, I'm pretty ridiculously competitive though. I do wish game balance were better, but a player who really wants good competition plays to the game.

[Lin Shai]

Wildhound, on 11 December 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

Of course it would change things. People would be more likely to play 8v8, instead of ending up as a two 4 man teams against an 8 man. That would resolve the OP's problem.

Meanwhile, PUGs would be able to pick up and play and enjoy the game. Since the majority of the audience is going to be casual players, this is a win for everyone.

There are plenty of players like me who don't have the time or the will to invest in finding and joining a group. Even if I had the time, I wouldn't be too interested in playing with a gang of teenagers and would have to work hard to find people in my own age group. I don't get married to games like that, I log in when I feel like it or have time and lash out a few games for fun. It's not a job.

When it's not fun, people like me will leave. They won't cry about it, they'll just be gone. You'll know all about it as server population declines and it becomes difficult to find a match of any kind.

You seemed to not read the words you cut off when quoting my post.

I can post them again?

Before the game had grouping people got facerolled. The only difference was they didn't have a boogyman to blame.

The game didn't start with groups; it was added because people wanted it. Before it was added (meaning, everyone was a "PUG") the results were the same as they are today: the better PUG team facerolled the lesser PUG team. But they couldn't blame it on anything.

You don't actually play against 4-man teams very often as a PUG, the same as you didn't play 8-mans as PUGs before "phase 1" very often. It's a myth. A wives tale. Something for people who aren't very good but can't accept their own and their random team's failures to blame their losses on.

[Wraith05]

Wildhound, on 11 December 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

Of course it would change things. People would be more likely to play 8v8, instead of ending up as a two 4 man teams against an 8 man. That would resolve the OP's problem.

Meanwhile, PUGs would be able to pick up and play and enjoy the game. Since the majority of the audience is going to be casual players, this is a win for everyone.

There are plenty of players like me who don't have the time or the will to invest in finding and joining a group. Even if I had the time, I wouldn't be too interested in playing with a gang of teenagers and would have to work hard to find people in my own age group. I don't get married to games like that, I log in when I feel like it or have time and lash out a few games for fun. It's not a job.

When it's not fun, people like me will leave. They won't cry about it, they'll just be gone. You'll know all about it as server population declines and it becomes difficult to find a match of any kind.

I'm not saying you should join a group. If you don't want to then don't. But you do seem to have some misconceptions about them.

Finding a 4 man can take at most 10 minutes (in which you can pug while sitting in the LFG channel on TS).

I have yet to find anyone on the TS that is (or at least acts like) a teenager (as shocking as that seems)

Getting a 4 man group really isn't hard to do, though getting an 8 man anymore seems to be.

[bob1234567890]

Riffleman, on 11 December 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

not to put most of your post down, but I would hardly call diablo 3 complete. Utter disapointment. AND years late.

I understand dont worry i am not some forum troll. i completely agree i had such high hopes and after reaching inferno and playing the same act a couple times for gear it just gets old

[Buck Cake]

D-DC - the only game in town.

[Ursh]

What I'm getting from this topic is that the hardcore teams min/maxed, stomped a bunch of more casual teams, and now they're upset that the casual teams stopped queing for 8 mans, which is causing long delays in finding a match as well as a massive reduction in the variety of opposition teams. Maybe they need to have a tiered system: rated and unrated 8vs8 premades. That way the hardcore clans could fight other hardcore clans and get the competition they say they want, and the casual comstar server teams could play other casual teams. The cool thing with trying that system would be that the hardcore teams would further sort themselves out, and then find out that maybe they aren't as hardcore as they thought they were, and would find out that what they really enjoyed was stomping 8 man casual teams.

It's not a matter of being afraid of competition. It's a matter of 8 mans being boring, and wanting to fight against a variety of mechs. ECM lights paired with Jenners, ECM Atlases paired with ballistics cataphracts and K2 catapults. Wow, so much skill involved in choosing that team composition. Now all you need is low ping heavies and you can focus fire core mechs in two seconds.

My real life includes a lot of competition. Competition for money, competition for women, etc. My job also includes loads of demanding social interaction with expectations for me to communicate and educate at a high level. You'll have to forgive me for coming home and wanting a more relaxed playstyle. If I wasn't afraid of going into the pre-patch normal 8 man game full of 4 man premades, including ones who were trying to do synced drops, what makes you think I'm afraid of the "challenge" of 8 vs 8 premades?

I have more fun in a chilled out four man group, and that's the bottom line. Ask PGI to make 8vs8 more appealing by doing something like aoe artillery rains on base areas if neither team has engaged after the first 2 minutes. If neither team has done significant damage after 7 minutes of play, have all the ECMs malfunction and cease to work.

[deadeye mcduck]

Lefty Lucy, on 11 December 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Yep. Despite all the cries of "we don't care about our W/L record we just want to play with 8 of our friends"... well it turns out they really, really care about their W/L record.

This, seems all the 8-mans just want to face PUG's and not take on the serious challenge of facing a better team. My Merc corp love the 8 man vs 8 man (when we get one), and have had some really close battles that push our tactics/co-ordination to the limit.

I can say that when phase 3 hits, all these 8-mans that face PUGS will suffer even more as they dont want to face a serious challenge.

[ForceUser]

I dunno, we've been running for the most part 2 D-DCs and 2 ravens with a mix of med/heavy/light for the other 4 and been stomping most any 8 team we came up against. Yes ECM is important but there is 4 different ECM mechs currently and you guys can switch them around from player to player, whoever has them available. Not that I mind piloting my D-DC. It's always been my fav mech, even in closed beta (ok maybe after the C1. Man I efing love my C1)

[BoomDog]

I've got it!

Let the 8 man teams farm the 4 man teams!

Kinda like how the 4 mans farm pugs, but the hunters become the hunted, lol.

[Fais]

ForceUser, on 12 December 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

I dunno, we've been running for the most part 2 D-DCs and 2 ravens with a mix of med/heavy/light for the other 4 and been stomping most any 8 team we came up against. Yes ECM is important but there is 4 different ECM mechs currently and you guys can switch them around from player to player, whoever has them available. Not that I mind piloting my D-DC. It's always been my fav mech, even in closed beta (ok maybe after the C1. Man I efing love my C1)

Same here, we usually have 1 DDC and 2 ravens. Usually the matches we loose are for someone who dropped or something else. 5 DDC groups havent been very sucessful against us. If anything I would look to the 2 ECM light mechs as being more imbalanced. Its hard to justify any scout other then an ECM scout right now. All other lights are just another brawler (which can be good too).

[Slanski]

It's all about incentives and risk reward. Currently there is no additional honorific for your 8man team games won, no extra cash for a more time consuming, difficult match.

We might say: Play for fun, play for the challenge, play 8vs8 (which I, as a former EVE-Online Fleet Commander love). The truth is, great games reward challenge. Small challenge, small reward, big challenge, big reward. As of this moment MWO only rewards its players through CBills and a hidden W/L ratio to keep track of your success. Find ways to make 8on8 more appealing in rewards and you will see more people line up to claim the prize.