|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
699
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 11:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hell no.
I should not have to pick and choose my friends to play with because you dont have any.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
706
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 11:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Great now we have this notion stickied.
I cant believe I have to argue why forcing us to play with less friends is bad for Dust.
Blaming squad size for dust's current troubles is ludicrous. Hell the strongest point in dust is the squad size and the ability to organize with your friends., these strawman arguments are frankly nonsensical, and will for sure spell the death knell of this game. I happen to tank and fly, so no FW does give me or my friends frankly anything worth playing for, we could care less about Apex suits.
* Better matchmaking:
What is theevidence for this claim? How will smaller squads of my friends who average between 30 million SP prevent the types of new players who run Sniper starter fits in Ambush getting into our matches?
* Better fights:
Outright bullshit. Never in my time playing dust have i said, 'you know, if i only had two less friends then this match would run better." In fact its the opposite, smaller squads mean more reliance on people you don't know and can't communicate with, the smaller squad i run with the worse the matches become. Carrying 16 people with a 6 man squad > carrying 14 people witha 4 man squad
* Fewer stomps / stompathons:
Again, why is this related to squad size instead of crap matchmaking that pits new players against vets? How can you tell, player side, that stomps are directly related to squad size? sure you can say 'there was 6 FA on the other side but in a match like this
2 Unholy Legion (delboy, pyrex), 1 Nyan Tran (stefan), 1 Death by Disassociation (yours truly), 1 Amarr templar (the Judge)
on the same squad and even then we had to sync to get
1 external beings (Ghaz ) 1commando Perkonne (Shely) 1 dust brasil (chopper)
But to anyplayer who wasn't in our squad it looks the end screen makes it look like a bunch of random blueberries got together. And thats how it is for 99% of my matches,lots of of buddies run in all differnt corps and channels, and there is no way for anybody to tell exactly how many people were in one squad without cheking the team selection during the match. If you can't reliable know who was in a squad or not at the end of the match, how can you tie squad size in of itself to a stomp?
* Shorter queue times
Played enough matches solo to know that this simply isnt the case. In fact, i usually have shorter ques time the more people I squad up with, because we have 6 people at a time gearing up for a match and not waiting for one or two slots to be filled.
* But you can PC:
No i dont want to pay 30 million a clone pack to play once every 24 hours with more than 4 friends
* But you can FW:
No isk payout for FW, extremely long que times and perhaps not all of my firneds are of the same race or want the same things, or could care less about running skrimish for no pay.
I am not willing and out right reject the notion of telling any two of my friends when I log in for matches to pissoff because solo players were complaining about teamwork.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
706
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 11:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:
6) Is it possible to have, instead of our single squad option, which is causing balance issues where 6 man proto squads farm new players.
You are asking the wrong question.
Your question should be:
"why are proto squads matched up against new players" rather than of "how many proto stompers per squad is acceptable vs new players?"
Which leads us to:
"why is the MU matchmaking system not working?"
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
711
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 10:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
1. Squad size has everything to do with today's matchmaking failures. When Scotty fails to find competent opposition for a large squad of vets, we get a pubstomp. Today, pubstomps are as common as good fights. This is evidence of a problem.
Pubstomps is not about squad size its about SP disparity. Squadsize changes does nothing to adress this, annd make the game less fun. You are also assuming anybody who hasn't played dust for more than a few weeks hasn't firgurd out how to get in a squad, and over looking the benefits of looking after new players in a mixed squad of vets and noobs.
2. How will smaller squads of my friends who average between 30 million SP prevent the types of new playrers who run Sniper starter fits in Ambush getting into our matches?
Is it not reasonable to assume that newbros are less to blame for a given pubstomp than the pubstompers doing the stomping? If Team Building is working properly, newbros will find themselves onto either side of a match and effectively cancel each other out.
You are avoiding the question, how will my squad of four (or soon to be two squads of 8 ques sync) be pitted aginst other vet instead of noobs. ''but there is only 4 of you in one squad now'' means nothing, i can run solo now and still be surrounded by NPC corps, i can 4 man squad and still have a bunch of blueberries running around. Its just and off the wall claim, that has no foundation in reality.
3. Not at all BS. When Scotty succeeds in pairing equally competent forces against one another, we get a good fight. When he fails to do so, we get a stomp. There are a finite number of squads (and stompsquads) available to Scotty at the time of matchmaking. Increasing that number gives Scotty a larger pool to work with, which in turn increases the probability that he'll serve a good fight. Further, a decrease in squad size translates to a decrease in Max(Mu) potential, which again increases the probability of a good fight.
So, pairng groups of 4 noobs against groups of 4 vets will solve 6 noobs against 6 vets this...how? Besides, good fights are about how much of the entire team is willing to fight for the win.
4.
A single squad carrying its side to victory should be a difficult undertaking but is not cause for concern. A single squad all-but-guaranteeing its side a victory match-after-match represents a serious matchmaking problem. When Scotty does his job well, the odds of winning or losing a given match are near 50:50 and winning has more to do with "teamwork" than "squadwork".
Its a matchmaking problem not a ''you have more friends than me'' problem.
5. It isn't difficult to make a mental note of the players who've stomped a match. Further, the odds of encountering the same players again and again over the course of a couple hours are pretty high. Even a dimwitted guy like me can spot a pattern if it's put-in-face a sufficient number of times.
You can make a pattern out of anything, you still have no proof to back it up. You need to show: How do you determine who is squaded with who? How many of each name you see again is in the same squad? How many players per squad? What is the SP level of each player? Otherwise, you are litterally just pulling this entire concept out of thin air.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
711
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 10:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:4 man squads would also justify dropping high end OB WP requirements.
The original 2500 WP drop was actually balanced around the 4 man squads In closed beta where a highly efficient squad could drop three but a decent squad might pull one or two.
The advent of 6 man squads saw the "steel rain" weather patterns that brought about the nerf to begin with.
There are a lot of reasons for baseline 4 man squads.
At the most basic level in military forces, four man "fire teams" led by corporals are the baseline unit. The 8-16 man unit is more appropriately called a squad, whereas a 32-36 man unit would be a platoon.
I know, don't bring real life into my game, but this doctrinal pattern , with minor variation, hasn't changed a whole lot over the last hundred years because it works.
You see we can talk doctrine till the cows come home. And what do i have against running matches with three other guys if nobody else is on. Squad size is not the be all, end all for matchmaking or having a good fight.
Yet for, over the last several years dust has socially grabbed people with groups of large squads. 6 people chewing the fat, talking about what ever crosses thier mind, working to together, trolling each other, as well as bringing lots of different things to the table. Social aspect of dust is the glue that holds it together.
All this proposal is saying in my eyes is "Look, i dont like runing with other people, and though i choose not to squad up I find it rough going against people that do. I don't want to use the tools at my disposal to find a squad, i dont want to go through creating a squad, let me make up some stuff about "balance" and see if i can cut other players down to my level"
No i don't think i should sacrifice my positive social experience to accomodate another person's playstyle, and outright refusal to make the most of whats available to them.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
715
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 09:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
SirManBoy wrote:Kain Spero wrote:As far as I know at this point the CPM is no longer split on the issue of 4 man squads in pubs provided it enables 8 and 16 man squads in FW and PC. I feel that this is an acceptable, albeit imperfect proposition in the short-term, but the ideal long-term solution needs to include a way for 8 and 16-man units to play ambush and dom matches as well. But yes, no one is standing in the way of this, especially when it has the potential to finally give us an outlet for perpetual team deployments.
It still doesn't make reducing squad size a horrible idea.
Why should squad size be a trade off between game modes? I doubt there a magical formula that says "no unless you have only 4 players per squad in pubs then 8 or 16 cannot compute for any thing else?"
Its crap CPM diplomacy, and bad representation of the Dust 514 playerbase when you want to stop god knows on how many people who have running together for years from doing so, for the sake of P (vomit) C.
You really ought to traverse the various chat channels and tell people they ought to kick every 2 guys out of each squad right now, they'll have more fun if the stop running with their friends.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
715
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 09:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
Vitantur: Why prove what is logged?
And this answer right here sums it all up. Well, if your are going to claim something you have to prove it. If your repley to a question about where you proof is "its logged in a computer somewhere so i don't have to say anything" to me says the "debate" with you is over.
All this B.S. hyperbole is NOT about stopping proto stomps (High SP vs Low SP), so lets stop ALL of the players in Dust 514 from playing with the people they've been running with for years.
Its a crap way to cover a bad matchmaking system, for the sake of solo scrubs who dont want to play with others in the first place. I don't buy the "what about the noobs" for one second, squad size that doesn't stop a proto stomper going 20-2, or 30-6 or that sniper starter fit gong 1-15 because he/she doesn't have a clue whats going on. M.U is a failure in this regard, no two ways about it.
A common saying on the forums is "Teamwork is OP" because teamwork wins matches, and man i never thought i'd see the day where CCP would be like "teams is OP, lets crack down on teamwork"
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
715
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 11:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
SirManBoy wrote:
If you think I am thrilled by this, then you are mistaken. However, this is the way the wind is blowing. Instead of obstructing the process, I plan on brokering the most equitable outcome I can for all interested parties.
Its extremley frustrating seeing a good chunk of what makes dust fun is being tossed out for no good reason at all. Certainly not for matchmaking.
Are the Devs trying to convince people to run PC? Sure Pc is being reworked right now, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Its still the least popular game mode, any tradeoff that affects every player of Dust for a fringe minority is bad one.
FW? Why do i want to run a game mode exactly the same as a pub skirmish that doesn't pay in Isk. Last time i checked there are no Assault Dropships in the loyalty store.
Dust 514 is still a lobby shooter. Login, squad with friends, pick a game mode, play some matches, log off. To keep the same social/cooperative level we have now, either wait 24hrs, accomadate each person's racial faction, or que sync two squads. people are complaining one squad of 6 is killing the game, yet want to encourage two squads of eight....
Its one of the worst ideas I have ever seen. For the devs to think its a good one, well its disheartening, shows a true lack of understanding of anything to do with Dust. Which is players enjoy the company of other players, teamwork and what that brings to table. Theres no story mode here, there is no PvE, its literaaly just the experinces that the players make together. So why wound it?
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
715
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 06:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
LAVALLOIS Nash wrote:
Im starting to think that you arent even reading anything ANYONE has written and you are just ranting and ranting that "well I cant play the game with people ive been playing with for years"
For the sake of having a decent conversation, can you stop repeating that lie? 8 and 16 man squads means youll have even more friends.
Sirmanboy is trying to work out a deal where 8 and 16 man squads could deploy in Public contracts, as long as they are deployed against another pair of 8 man squads or a 16 man squad. So that you and your friends can till queue together for a public dom/ambush/skim.
Everyone is trying to compromise to make sure that new/causal players have somewhere to play, squads have somewhere to play, corps have somewhere to play, ect.
But you arent listening to ANY of this. You just keep repeating that the game is ruined because you cant deploy with 5 other people against an unorganized team of casual players.
The game is going in a very simple direction is going to benefit everyone: If you want to take it easy and play casually, Public is going to be made more friendly. If you like to play team focused and play to win, Faction Warfare is being ramped up and compromises might be made for deploys in Public.
The only people who lose here are people who were counting on running into a team of new players for their success, or people in squads who always get carried, and know they might not make the 4 man cut for the squad, and they aren't good enough to survive in any other mode except by being carried in public. Yeah, its going to be rough for them.
So do us all a favor, go pour yourself a coffee, take a smoke break if you smoke (chew some gum if you dont), and then read through this thread carefully. Youll see that alot of your concerns (No ISK for FW? Should have read the 10 posts from Rattati on mutiple threads about it) have already been looked at and will be part of the consideration for changing squad sizes and restrictions.
You ought to get Reading comprehension up to at least level 3. Sir man boy has alread accepted 4 man squad only for pubs.
SirManBoy wrote:Kain Spero wrote:As far as I know at this point the CPM is no longer split on the issue of 4 man squads in pubs provided it enables 8 and 16 man squads in FW and PC. I feel that this is an acceptable, albeit imperfect proposition in the short-term, but the ideal long-term solution needs to include a way for 8 and 16-man units to play ambush and dom matches as well. But yes, no one is standing in the way of this, especially when it has the potential to finally give us an outlet for perpetual team deployments.
Its not a comprimise at all, we can already seperate new players from vets via the academy by a standard metric, toal WP earned. Why not stagger that metric? Seperate players by every 100,000 warpoints, then you give everybody somewhere to go, and keep the vets with the vets, causuals with the casuals, and noobs with the noobs.
Instead, we will continue to throw new players to wolves straight out of the academy, and trading my friends because scoty's incompetence is a no- go.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
715
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 06:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
Vitantur Nothus wrote:@ Tesfa Alem I cannot prove (nor is it my function to prove) whether or not a relationship exists between pubstomps and stompsquads. That doesn't mean that stompsquads aren't stomping matches; nor does it mean that proof does not exist. We know that pertinent match details are stored server-side. Let's assume you and I were somehow able to access that data. If we were to analyze a sample of stomped matches, do you think we (you and I) would find evidence of a relationship between pubstomps and stompsquads? Or do you suspect we'd find proof to the contrary, namely, that no relationship whatsoever exists? In which of these cases do you think it more likely we would return from our analysis thinking aloud: CCP Rattati wrote:I think it [the 4 man squad] is one of the simplest way to alleviate pubstomping
If you can't prove it dont claim it. I would love to see Rattati show why it would work as well.
To answer your question, Since stomping is about High SP vs Low SP I'd work on breaking that up first. The first thought in my mind seeing squads of 40 million SP players fighting 5 million SP players is
"what are they doing paired against each other?
rather than
"Since players have figured out running in a squad improves the odds of winning, lets reduce the squad numbers for everyone and leave the 40 million SP vets against the 5 million SP players"
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
716
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 12:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
LAVALLOIS Nash wrote:
Because, (again covered), the playerbase is too small to split up by meta or tier level. If you start tirering people by WP or SP, its going to stretch the playerbase to the point that there will be alot of matches with incomplete teams.
The reason this is a viable matchmaking aid is because it helps spread out the vet players over both teams. Its easier to place vets in blocks of 4 into a situation where they will be opposing eachother instead of all on the same team. 6 man groups, the SP is too concentrated. This dilutes it across both teams.
As for your friends, you can 8 man squad with them, you can 16 man squad with them, you can hang out in a channel, you can skype eachother, you can text and call eachother, email eachother, send chainmail to eachother. So how exactly are you trading your friends in? Where are the burned bridges? Just because you cant deploy with exactly 6 people in the exact mode you want with the exact conditions you want....you wont have any friends? That doesn't make any sense.
But anyway, I doubt you care or that youll take the time to read. You just want your entitlement, and everyone else be damned.
Entitlement would infer I have acess to something which nobody else does. Everybody from zero SP and up has the ability to form squads, to find other people in the squad finder, and to join open squads. A lot of corp recruitment is done via squadfinder. My ability to use the same tools equally open to every one in the game from the academy on up is not restrictive.
What you are advocating is the nearly the definition of entitlement. "I refuse to do something open equally to all players so all players should be brought down to my level."
Friendships are built in game by running with players in a squad. I log into dust to squad up with my friends, or i squad up to make new ones, I don't as you put it " skype each other, you can text and call eachother, email each other, send chainmail to each other " or do everything but play Dust 514 with them when I log on to play Dust
"B-b-but, but you can 8 man squad or Q-sync" Which defeats the same self purpose for 6 man squads are getting nerfed.
If 6 man squads are too OP for pubs, how will 8 man squads be balanced for FW?
If 6 man squads are too OP for pubs, how is encouraging two Q-synced squads of 8 to compensate going to balanced for pubs?
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
716
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 16:16:00 -
[12] - Quote
Regis Blackbird wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:If 6 man squads are too OP for pubs, how will 8 man squads be balanced for FW? Should they be balanced in FW? If we have four options: Solo, Squad, Platoon and Battleforce, and the likelihood of winning is greater the larger group you have, what do you think people who want to be successful in FW will do? Band together and form larger groups. As it should be IMHO. (At least then we don't have to endure the 6 + 6 + 4 Q-sync mess. I would just find the appropriate Platoon or Battleforce and go) Tesfa Alem wrote:If 6 man squads are too OP for pubs, how is encouraging two Q-synced squads of 8 to compensate going to balanced for pubs? By making sure a Platoon can never face Solo and small Squads, just other Platoons or Battleforces.
Actually this variation of the idea i like. I would much rather keep orgainized groups vs other organized groupsin the game mode of preference, rather than restricting current normal gameplay to the barren wastes of FW and PC. More organization leads to better matches, not less.
On the side topic of auto squads, it is a feature i have seen regularly in War Thunder. It's hit and miss, it doesn't stop random players from doing random things, but there are higher rewards for keeping close to your assigned squad mate than flying off alone. I tend to fly close enough to get the extra points whenever he/she scores a kill and vice versa.
It certainly couldn't hurt Dust, especially if we introduce a teamwork bonus for WP to incentivize people to stick close together at least for the duration of the match. Mute them or turn squad chat off who cares? You can work together without comms, or just run solo. You're not tied to the squad (i.e didn't LFS or ask for an invite) so you do can still do what you will.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
|
|
|