|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
   |
Posted - 2015.07.02 12:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
SirManBoy wrote:
1. PC is on a schedule and is therefore not a persistently accessible outlet for team-based play.
2. Moreover, pubs are being turned into a paradise for casual players because no group larger than a fireteam will have access to it, and matchmaking is going to attempt to put those groupings against each other as much as it can.
3. That's a huge concession! 8-man squads in just one match type (FW-style skirm) is not a fair trade for the amount of coordinated play and social interaction that is being lost across the entire public match catalog.
1. Idea! On-the-fly raids. Have 16 guys? Open the starmap, find a district with an open raid window. Raid it.
2. "Paradise" seems a strong word for something we haven't seen yet. In fact, I've been assured by many a pubstomper in many a thread that if I run solo, I'll get stomped by a 4-man stompsquad as readily as I would a 6-man squad.
3. How is it that a change to pub squad size is a concession? Is it not more a response to extremely low match quality? Is extremely low match quality not a problem which is by-and-large to blame on stompsquads? I don't understand how fixing a problem is a concession, and I fail to see why CCP should feel the need to negotiate when it comes to fixing problems.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 12:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote: Only through adversity do we rise above and better ourselves. If you don't think that's the case I just have to feel sorry for you and your small outlook on things. 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you the guy behind the Blue Donut?
I'm on the fence here. If your side of the argument has points to make, please spare us the platitudes and browbeating and deliver those points. The other side of the argument seems to think that you're looking for easier farm mechanics. If that isn't true, explain why it isn't true. If you truly want better fights, why not open up raids so PC-level play can be available around the clock?
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 13:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:
So rather than trying to attack me as a person do you have anything specific to add regarding the current discussion of introducing team deploy?
1. If PC-level players want better fights around the clock, why does that demand have to be met by FW? Why not instead open up around-the-clock raids so PC-level play can be found on demand?
2. What mechanics would prevent the risk-free farming of FW by 32-man q-syncs?
3. Assume a newbro with no in-game connections or knowledge of the Forums wishes to earn an APEX suit through FW participation. To save Isk. Walk me through how he will meet that goal in a FW setting which supports Team Deploy.
4. What mechanics would prevent an oddly shaped block (say 5 players) from queuing for FW and remaining stuck in that queue indefinitely?
5. Why the big rush? What specific downsides are there to test-driving 8-man support first?
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 13:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Kain Spero wrote:
... do you have anything specific to add regarding the current discussion of introducing team deploy?
1. If PC-level players want access to team deploy and better fights around the clock, why does that demand have to be met by FW? Why not instead open up around-the-clock raids so PC-level play can be found on demand? 2. What mechanics would prevent the risk-free farming of FW by 32-man q-syncs? 3. Assume a newbro with no in-game connections or knowledge of the Forums wishes to earn an APEX suit through FW participation. To save Isk. Walk me through how he will meet that goal in a FW setting which supports Team Deploy. 4. What mechanics would prevent an oddly shaped block (say 5 players) from queuing for FW and remaining stuck in that queue indefinitely? 5. Why the big rush? What specific downsides are there to test-driving 8-man support first? To quote Kevall Longstride, "I do support full TD in FW but I prefer the iterative approach we have to make sure we don't break something first." Why is Kevall wrong and why shouldn't we iterate?
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 13:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
deezy dabest wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:
5. Why the big rush? What specific downsides are there to test-driving 8-man support first?
5. I will leave that one alone as we all know the answer there.
I honestly don't know the answer. Even when the Devs are careful, patches/updates and even simple balance tweaks don't always return the desired effect. Why rush a huge change through when we have the option to iterate? Why not move forward with 8-man as planned, work out all the kinks and then discuss (from an informed position) the ups and downs to 16-man?
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 14:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:We already have team deploy it just lacks an in-game UI.
@ Kain Spero, SirManBoy, Juno Tristan
Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. One last rhetorical question in response to the point above and a potential request.
Is it not true that FW q-syncs fail on occasion? And on those occasions, do the "non-party" players who've been waiting in line for FW (for potentially long periods) get into a match? As I understand it, this is the case today and it would not be the case if those q-syncing did in fact have the equivalent of team deploy.
If a team deploy UI existed, 32-man syncs would "skip the line" altogether as they effectively create their own matches. Meanwhile, the assorted lego blocks in queue would likely remain in queue until other blocks of perfect, complementary size queued alongside them. I haven't read Leither's or Wikipedia's theories on this, but I seriously doubt that at current headcounts these "perfect storms" would happen in a timely fashion. Perpetual queues would make for an extremely poor UX.
Assuming Team Deploy is supported:
Request
* A Squad Leader cannot queue FW until he has a full squad of 8 or a full platoon of 16.
* The option to queue for FW is disabled to fireteams or partially filled squads/platoons.
* Players without squad (solo) are permitted to queue for FW to fill gaps created by disconnect, leaving battle, etc.
* Players without squad (solo) are warned when they enter a FW queue that they do so at high risk.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Deezy your examples are all flawed and full of bias in order to provide support for your hypothesis. Unless you magically have the actual numbers of players queuing for FW over some period of time there is no way for you to effectively model the system. By all means though keep wasting time coming up with fantasy scenarios.
In my opinion, it is far more fanciful to think that queue times would be fine than it is to think there might be a problem.
We may not have exact numbers, but we don't need exact numbers. We have a rough idea as to how many players are logging into Dust each day. We know that those players are split across multiple regions and timezones, and we know that those players are not all queuing for FW.
If we assume that 3000 players are logged in at any given time,
We know that we don't have 10,000 players queuing simultaneously for FW.
We know that we don't have 5,000 players queuing simultaneously for FW.
We know that we likely won't have 1,000 players queuing simultaneously for FW.
Realistically, we might have 500 players queuing simultaneously for FW.
Of those 500, I think it reasonable to assume that half will be party to organized battles.
Point being, valid concerns can be posited based solely upon ballparked figures. I'm of the opinion that extremely long waits would be much more likely than short waits. And if those waits are long, they will only lengthen as players discover that the lines are not worth waiting in.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 23:34:00 -
[8] - Quote
deezy dabest wrote:
FW is not PC and it is not meant to be.
Inclined to agree on this point.
APEX suits aren't exactly end-game gear, and they're arguably of greater value to newer players than old. Should we put end-game play between APEX suits and the players who'd benefit the most from them?
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 00:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
Imp Smash wrote:
But outside of THAT -- I think FW and up should be a full on free for all.
Hadn't considered no-squad as an alternative option to 8-man vs 16-man debate; could make for some interesting FW fights. Can't imagine the Team Deploy crowd getting behind this though. 
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 04:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:
We need to quit acting as though every game mode needs to have some kind of safety mechanism.
What if that safety mechanism's sole purpose is to prevent players from sitting in queue indefinitely? Would it be unacceptable to mechanically prevent this type of poor user experience?
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
|
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 12:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Heimdallr69 wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:
We need to quit acting as though every game mode needs to have some kind of safety mechanism.
What if that safety mechanism's sole purpose is to prevent players from sitting in queue indefinitely? Would it be unacceptable to protect users from this type of poor UX? With this playerbase it's gonna happen either way Pretty much.
Disagreed. This isn't a "yes or no" wait time situation. There are degrees of wait times. At risk of over-simplification:
(A) If I threw 100 nickels and dimes and Heim and asked him to return sets of 25 cents, he'd be able to do so in short order. His "assembly queue" would move at a fast, reliable rate and his rate of output wouldn't be largely affected by adding new 5 cent and 10 cent coins to his pile.
(B) But if I threw 100 nickels and dimes and 10 pennies at Heim and asked him to return sets of 32 cents, he'd quickly realize that he's short denomination X or Y. After the first few sets were completed, the remaining partially completed sets would have to wait on hold for their missing denominations to be added to the pile. The "assembly queue" would not move at a fast or reliable rate.
As it relates to PCU:
Scenario (A) is occasionally reliant upon new coin availability.
Scenario (B) is constantly and heavily reliant new coin availability.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 17:57:00 -
[12] - Quote
@ Attorney General - If it goes through and ends poorly, I hope you'll be around for lots and lots of "told you so". Please don't biomass/quit over this.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 14:00:00 -
[13] - Quote
thor424 wrote: There is NOTHING more damaging to the game than all the solo derp town, passive BS that goes on in pubs.
A merc might be inclined to think that low battle quality, choppy performance, low player headcounts, NPE and attrition are things we should work on to keep Dust alive. But that merc would be wrong. Soloists do more damage to Dust than anything else in the game. First, we should chase off all the soloists. 
/ sarcasm
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 15:03:00 -
[14] - Quote
thor424 wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:thor424 wrote: There is NOTHING more damaging to the game than all the solo derp town, passive BS that goes on in pubs. A merc might be inclined to think that low battle quality, choppy performance, low player headcounts, NPE and attrition are things we should work on to keep Dust alive. But that merc would be wrong. Soloists do more damage to Dust than anything else in the game. First, we should chase off all the soloists. / sarcasm The best NPE for Dust was pushing players into squads (auto squading). The randomness of 20-30 players individually running around doing who knows what makes for a frustrating experience far more often than not. It's a shame people are too stubborn to admit that, or too stupid to realize it.
Turning a handful of indicators from blue to green solves all kinds of newberry problems. Defies all practical sense, but it works!
Tired of getting officer stomped?
Are you ready to fight back?
Use squadfinder, today!
/ s
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 16:23:00 -
[15] - Quote
If autosquad paired noobs to vets, then yes, the noobs would benefit. Right up until those mixed squads get tired of getting wrecked by proper squads. We end up with more of the same; stomp or be stomped with a touch of "well, we tried". Like with squadfinder.
We can do better than this. For newberries to thrive, NPE needs more of a safe zone.
Edit: And for bacon's sake, don't try to pin Dust's woes on soloists. (* not directed at Aeon).
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 17:03:00 -
[16] - Quote
Fun math. Which variable represents time? Or are we assuming infinite time?
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 18:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:At it's core though the indication is that issues with the team builder breaking down are not based in any kind of real math.
This is a textbook optimization problem, and optimization is a very real kind of math, Kain Spero. Restricting input sizes to 4, 8 or 16 would absolutely result in less process time and - more importantly- substantially lesser odds of oddly shaped inputs getting hung up in queue while awaiting complementary pairs.
If you think I'm trying to fool you, ask Demens Grimwulff. Or get Leither in here to defend his theory. Leither's math is fun and appears to be accurate, but for these purposes, it is incomplete and assumptive.
Edit: You've got a billion Isk, right? Care to make a wager?
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 19:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Considering that this thread has made it to 26 pages based almost exclusively around the same handful of people arguing the same points of logic despite what can only be described as a great majority of players being in favor of the Team Deploy.... Is startling.
Like, seriously. CCP Rattati's thread has 52 likes, this one has 45. I'd say that that is a pretty sizable portion of the players being in favor of team deploy and considering that, as mentioned above, it's the same handful of people arguing against it...? Maybe those concerns are ill-founded when compared to the rest of the community's desires.
But, yanno, tin-foil about how the only people who would support this are boosters.
Sounds like the Forums during AR-514, right? For every one guy who had a problem with It, there were 4 or 5 there to proclaim that everything was fine.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 20:00:00 -
[19] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Considering that this thread has made it to 26 pages based almost exclusively around the same handful of people arguing the same points of logic despite what can only be described as a great majority of players being in favor of the Team Deploy.... Is startling.
Like, seriously. CCP Rattati's thread has 52 likes, this one has 45. I'd say that that is a pretty sizable portion of the players being in favor of team deploy and considering that, as mentioned above, it's the same handful of people arguing against it...? Maybe those concerns are ill-founded when compared to the rest of the community's desires.
But, yanno, tin-foil about how the only people who would support this are boosters. Lemme just twist this around right quick in an attempt to completely derail the thread AND SHOW MY HATRED OF THE PAST GRRRRRR ADIPEM SMASH PUNY THINGS THAT HAPPENED TWO YEARS AGO. FTFY
"The vast majority" isn't always right; what the majority wants isn't always what's best for the game.
PS: I don't have a horse in this race; OK either way. Though if teamdeploy does go through and flops, I do intend to laugh at Kain's hubris. Maybe even make some isk if he's willing to wager Isk on queue problems.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 01:25:00 -
[20] - Quote
Leither Yiltron wrote:
I'm not really going to sit around arguing this point much further, since I'm pretty sure only you and Adipem insist on trying to draw mathematical conclusions without any particular rigorous basis in fact.
Whoa now. Let's not get confused about who's drawing conclusions here. Kain Spero is dismissing as "nonsense" concerns about potential queue complications, citing your earlier math as evidence.
My position is and has been that queues would move faster and probability of "hang ups" would be lower if matchmaking were fed blocks of 4, 8 or 16 (for example) rather than 1<=n<=16. From an optimization standpoint, this is a simple and obvious truth.
I'm not arguing for or against team deploy. I'm simply pointing that at present headcounts, the potential for queuing problem exists under 1<=n<=16, and that "blocking" inputs together could be a simple solution for that problem.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|