DUST Search - 4 man squads in Pubs? Then give us Team Deploy in FW!!!!

All Channels

General Discussions

4 man squads in Pubs? Then give us Team Deploy in FW!!!!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 19	Posted - 2015.06.30 03:49:00 - [181] - Quote No-one-ganks like-Gaston wrote: True Adamance wrote: No-one-ganks like-Gaston wrote: True Adamance wrote: No-one-ganks like-Gaston wrote: [ In short, a 16 man squad of randoms could not possibly stand up to a 16 man squad of people who already know their **, and making it easier for 16 man squads to run together is just going to make it easier for close knitted teams to own the playing field. Yes. An organised 16 man team will likely and ideally should always beat a disorganised team. This is the purpose of team work. That being said I understand why you are concerned about team deploy though it does not stop me from wanting to try it out. More than winning though its about playing the game with some very cool people who also fight for the same faction. Hell listening to 16 random people shoot the about Emperor Jamal and how he dominated the inter-Empire basket ball leagues of New Eden....amongst of stupid ** is hilarious. Can you see why I think 16 man squads for FW is a bad thing, then? If a 16 man squad of randoms can't hope to stand up against an organized corp or FW channel group, that FW basically becomes a corporation playground? And it's either join a strong FW corp and hope they pick you out of their line-up of favorites or tough luck? My fears may seem silly, but as someone with no connections in Dust but still enjoys FW, it feels like my favorite game mode would be taken from me in favor of the more 'hardcore' players. When, really, do you actually need a full 16 man squad to enjoy yourselves in a match? Is there anything at all wrong with just going '8 is better than 6' and adding two more people to your regular crew? I do understand that perspective. Surely then you might see the inverse which is mine. Praetoria Imperialis Excubatoris, my alliance has made FW their home for almost a decade now, and FW in Dust has the potential to actually mean something to EVE pilots and my alliance. I want to stop being that charity case of a division that does nothing to help them. I want to actually contribute in a meaningful way to their efforts up there. FW is also my favourite mode. I don't want to see it bastardised into Public Matches 2.0 for the sake of players who don't care enough to get themselves sorted. Nor do I really want to see it become Corp Battles 2.0 either. But FW needs a real identity, it needs narrative, and it needs room for agency and those who want to take it seriously to take it seriously. I do see it, but, much like you don't agree with me, I can't quite agree with you. I'm a broken record by now, but I really don't think 16 man squads would be good for the game mode. I guess if Factionals ever actually get their platoons we'll see what comes of it. Thank you for actually talking with me, by the way, rather than simply saying 'no, you're wrong and stupid'. Even though I may very well be one or both of those things. Eh I try not to do that sort of thing if I can help it. Better to actually hear why someone believes something and where their sentiments come from than instantly dismiss it as nonsense. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
deezy dabest Evil Syndicate Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.06.30 03:50:00 - [182] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Again you mistake priority from an outright block. If there is a 14 man platoon deploy guess who would fill in the gaps? I have to agree with this. Randoms who run solo will be the ones filling in the gaps if there are any. Just don't expect a fireteam to be able to squeeze in. At least not without having someone getting dropped from the match. As a veteran faction warfare player here in Dust, my stance is that the NPC warbarge needs to be addressed. I originally wanting to suggest removing it entirely, but after reading that Deezy, Kain, and other said about the flux strikes and how they compare to the size of an EMP-type OB from an Eve player, I think the best course of action here is to remove the NPC Warbarge's ability to deliver anything else except flux strikes. But at the same time, we should NOT be stopping there. I hosted a lecture about this some time ago and the general consensus right now is that the notifications of Eve-side orbitals being available is just not there or it's not clear enough to the Dust-side players. PS: I'm kind of on the fence about whether or not it was a good idea to limit FW to no bigger than 8-man squads. Greater than 8 man squads also generates squads who are unable to join battle until they get lucky and hit a squad that matches up with them to make 16. What do you think wait times will be for 2 12 man squads that hit search? They will now be waiting on a total of 8 people with none of them being in a squad larger than 4. Anyone want to guess how bad the endless list of combinations like that will affect wait time? An 8 man squad is now waiting on any combination of 8 people while a 12 man squad is waiting on any combination of 4 people while a 6 man squad is waiting on any combination of 10 people. None of them are in battle even tho 26 people are now searching and only 16 are required to create a match. Instead they are forced to wait on specific combinations of people that can total 22 more people based on their respective requirements. How is it that no one is seeing how horribly broken this would be? It is absolute basic mathematics. If squad size reaches more than 50% of the match generation goes all to hell. Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 5	Posted - 2015.06.30 04:41:00 - [183] - Quote Deezy, except for no one that knows what their talking about is worried about matches actually occurring. The arguments that I've heard about team deploy is that there is concern that there will be instances of 16 vs 16 randoms or a variation there off. If you are going to try and argue a point at least try to use a valid argument that takes into account with a rolling player population in FW of greater than two teams your problem doesn't exist. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
deezy dabest Evil Syndicate Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.06.30 04:54:00 - [184] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Deezy, except for no one that knows what their talking about is worried about matches actually occurring. The arguments that I've heard about team deploy is that there is concern that there will be instances of 16 vs 16 randoms or a variation there off. If you are going to try and argue a point at least try to use a valid argument that takes into account with a rolling player population in FW of greater than two teams your problem doesn't exist. Why is it that no one in your corp can understand simple mathematics? Screwed up mismatches equal amazingly high search times for anyone that is not in a 16 man squad. I just gave a very straight forward and more than realistic scenario above yet just like everything else strafing level 5 kicked in and you side step the argument and actually did not even manage to make a point. Kain, why are you so hell bent on ***** up queue times for everyone in small to mid size corps who can not instantly create a full 16 man squad? I honestly do not see the point behind doing that besides hurting the game even more but when a group of people continuously avoid logic and keep arguing for something that is obviously broken there has to be an agenda. Queue times for anyone outside of certain time zones is already horrendous and even people in the prime time zones have bad search times. You want to seriously increase this all so that you dont have to count down for 2 squad leaders to hit search? Is it so that you do not have to take the risk of a different 8 man squad getting into the battle with you and you make actually have to put in some effort if they are not full on proto stompers? For someone arguing about "more organization" there is an awful lot of work going on to avoid having to get 2 people to press X at the same time. Admit you dont give a flying ** about the rest of the community and could care less about their search times being increased by any number and I will gladly leave it alone. There is zero way to argue that squads entering the queue which are larger than 50% of match size do not present a massive possibility of increased search times for everyone else so no matter what you are sending a clear message about your feelings to do with anyone outside of your group. Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 3	Posted - 2015.06.30 05:19:00 - [185] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: True Adamance hit's the nail on the head. Public matches are designed with match making and soon four-man squads to cater to fireteams (4 man groups) and solo players. FW deserves to be just as much of an end-game as Planetary Conquest. And those that want to experience group play in a game mode designed for it with friendly fire shouldn't be punished. Just because its an 'end game' doesn't mean it should be relocated to those that can exploit it the best. It needs a reasonable point of entry that it currently does not have (and no, these changes aren't going to provide one - go try playing in a public squad sometime, people do not work together). I'd also like to point out that True Adamances words should be taken with a hefty grain of salt as he rarely logs in and almost never plays. I like you True, but you and aero both have a lot of negative traits, especially when it comes to complaining on the forums to get changes you'd 'like' for a game you can't even be said to really play. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 5	Posted - 2015.06.30 05:33:00 - [186] - Quote Mina Longstrike wrote: Kain Spero wrote: True Adamance hit's the nail on the head. Public matches are designed with match making and soon four-man squads to cater to fireteams (4 man groups) and solo players. FW deserves to be just as much of an end-game as Planetary Conquest. And those that want to experience group play in a game mode designed for it with friendly fire shouldn't be punished. Just because its an 'end game' doesn't mean it should be relocated to those that can exploit it the best. It needs a reasonable point of entry that it currently does not have (and no, these changes aren't going to provide one - go try playing in a public squad sometime, people do not work together). I'd also like to point out that True Adamances words should be taken with a hefty grain of salt as he rarely logs in and almost never plays. I like you True, but you and aero both have a lot of negative traits, especially when it comes to complaining on the forums to get changes you'd 'like' for a game you can't even be said to really play. I'm sorry but cries about exploits are truly unfounded because the system in effect already has team deploy minus the UI for it. Anything that can be exploited under platoons can already be done under q-syncing team deploy (even activities with 32 players) it just requires more effort. I swear this is like people arguing about how bad DRM protects people when it does more to hurt the legit end users. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 3	Posted - 2015.06.30 05:37:00 - [187] - Quote As an update: kirjuun saaja/STF ar no longer getting cal/gal matches except for the occasional big corp and some tiny bits of randoms... We have crushed the opposition out of the warzone. If you think this is some that wouldn't be exaggerated by 'platoons' you'd be wrong. Our morale is excellent, public squads or even groups that don't come from things like pc can't often match it, there are few matches where we just roll over. Our organization is great, everyone is on the same page usually and public squads will never match that. Usually we only encounter trouble when we run into pc level corps. We probably have a >80% win rate... And we don't really have a right to. People do not play FW because they do not have a reasonable expectation of not getting redlined - forget a reasonable expectation of a win. These issues will be exacerbated by 16man squads... They'll make 'getting in' easier, but they'll do nothing to improve your chances at a fair match. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
deezy dabest Evil Syndicate Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.06.30 05:43:00 - [188] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: I'm sorry but cries about exploits are truly unfounded because the system in effect already has team deploy minus the UI for it. Anything that can be exploited under platoons can already be done under q-syncing team deploy (even activities with 32 players) it just requires more effort. I swear this is like people arguing about how bad DRM protects people when it does more to hurt the legit end users. Another side step of the basic numbers presented you showing the exact issue that makes 16 man deployment a very bad idea. We have already locked everyone we can out of PC for quite some time so I suppose the fact that it has finally at least reached a possible point that it can function for most people in the game it is time to do all we can to break another game mode. Next lets add SP locks to game modes so that we can run as many people out of the game as possible. I think I figured it out. You got PC fixed by exploiting billions of ISK and now you are trying to get Dust ported to PS4 or PC by making it miserable enough for everyone else that CCP thinks the PS3 is finally dead? Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 3	Posted - 2015.06.30 05:43:00 - [189] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Mina Longstrike wrote: Kain Spero wrote: True Adamance hit's the nail on the head. Public matches are designed with match making and soon four-man squads to cater to fireteams (4 man groups) and solo players. FW deserves to be just as much of an end-game as Planetary Conquest. And those that want to experience group play in a game mode designed for it with friendly fire shouldn't be punished. Just because its an 'end game' doesn't mean it should be relocated to those that can exploit it the best. It needs a reasonable point of entry that it currently does not have (and no, these changes aren't going to provide one - go try playing in a public squad sometime, people do not work together). I'd also like to point out that True Adamances words should be taken with a hefty grain of salt as he rarely logs in and almost never plays. I like you True, but you and aero both have a lot of negative traits, especially when it comes to complaining on the forums to get changes you'd 'like' for a game you can't even be said to really play. I'm sorry but cries about exploits are truly unfounded because the system in effect already has team deploy minus the UI for it. Anything that can be exploited under platoons can already be done under q-syncing team deploy (even activities with 32 players) it just requires more effort. I swear this is like people arguing about how bad DRM protects people when it does more to hurt the legit end users. Kane spero logic: "the system can already be exploited so let's make it easier to exploit rather than fix its exploitation". Q-syncing is something that needs to go, anyone that defends it or is genuinely in favor of platoons is pushing an afenda with a massive conflict of interest present. The current system is broken, massively exploitable and people defend it under the premise of an "open world" that has never existed for us. If I can q-sync enemy teams should be able to deploy 6-12 extra people against us. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
SirManBoy Molon Labe. RUST415 900	Posted - 2015.06.30 05:52:00 - [190] - Quote Between pubs (ambush, dom, skirm, and acquisition) and FW we only have 5 instant match experiences in Dust and not one of them caters to team deployments. I find that totally unacceptable. And yet, now that the mechanic we need to change that situation is nigh, it's still has dissenters. In my view, the only acceptable recompense for sacrificing 6-man pub squads across 4 match types is to get full 16-player team deploy in just one--FW.

Leither Yiltron Molon Labe. 1	Posted - 2015.06.30 05:53:00 - [191] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Deezy, except for no one that knows what their talking about is worried about matches actually occurring. The arguments that I've heard about team deploy is that there is concern that there will be instances of 16 vs 16 randoms or a variation there off. If you are going to try and argue a point at least try to use a valid argument that takes into account with a rolling player population in FW of greater than two teams your problem doesn't exist. Why is it that no one in your corp can understand simple mathematics? I'm actually due to study mathematics as a graduate student at the Uni. of Oxford this upcoming year. As such, I feel reasonably confident when I say what you describe as "basic" mathematics in your posts is neither mathematics in the strictest sense of the rigor required for proper mathematical discourse, nor does it resemble mathematics that is "basic". Mathematical modelling is an entire discipline that takes serious study to understand properly. In this case we'd need to discuss a sincere amount of probability theory in deriving an appropriate approximation of the main thing we'd want to know, which is average wait time on a by-group-size basis. Realistically there are variables which can only be guessed experimentally, such as the average size of a group in the Factional Warfare matching pool. We could wax eloquent all day about how we might look to model player queuing, and queue theory in and of itself is literally its own area of research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queueing_theory). I think it's clear that none of us have the time to write a thesis on the subject. You did have the seeds of a model that I think you were trying to use to make conclusions about potential waiting time situations. It was flawed in that you assumed that matches won't start without full 16 man teams on each side, which I believe is experimentally not the case. Given the complexity of analyzing a queuing system like this from a mathematical standpoint, you'd probably be better served by discussing some other aspect of FW grouping concerns. Have a pony
deezy dabest Evil Syndicate Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.06.30 06:02:00 - [192] - Quote Leither Yiltron wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Deezy, except for no one that knows what their talking about is worried about matches actually occurring. The arguments that I've heard about team deploy is that there is concern that there will be instances of 16 vs 16 randoms or a variation there off. If you are going to try and argue a point at least try to use a valid argument that takes into account with a rolling player population in FW of greater than two teams your problem doesn't exist. Why is it that no one in your corp can understand simple mathematics? I'm actually due to study mathematics as a graduate student at the Uni. of Oxford this upcoming year. As such, I feel reasonably confident when I say what you describe as "basic" mathematics in your posts is neither mathematics in the strictest sense of the rigor required for proper mathematical discourse, nor does it resemble mathematics that is "basic". Mathematical modelling is an entire discipline that takes serious study to understand properly. In this case we'd need to discuss a sincere amount of probability theory in deriving an appropriate approximation of the main thing we'd want to know, which is average wait time on a by-group-size basis. Realistically there are variables which can only be guessed experimentally, such as the average size of a group in the Factional Warfare matching pool. We could wax eloquent all day about how we might look to model player queuing, and queue theory in and of itself is literally its own area of research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queueing_theory). I think it's clear that none of us have the time to write a thesis on the subject. You did have the seeds of a model that I think you were trying to use to make conclusions about potential waiting time situations. It was flawed in that you assumed that matches won't start without full 16 man teams on each side, which I believe is experimentally not the case. Given the complexity of analyzing a queuing system like this from a mathematical standpoint, you'd probably be better served by discussing some other aspect of FW grouping concerns. GG sir GG. We can see from what it takes to jump start FW in the morning that it does strictly take 16 people ready to enter battle for a match to begin. Unfortunately this is the only pure example as most matches after that end up with at least a couple of people getting Scotty or DCing which does present the illusion that the match has started with less than 16 people. The simplicity of it is this. The match must have 16 people to start and when squad sizes over 50% of the match size those involved are left waiting on their lucky number of players to hit to be able to go in. When you take that into account with the fact that at that point squads can be anywhere from 1 to 16 people the probability of having 16 people ready to go on either side with exactly matching numbers is significantly reduced. Queuing up in anything less than a 16 man squad becomes more of a game of luck than opening strong boxes 1 at a time. Look at that how ever you wish. Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
Leither Yiltron Molon Labe. 1	Posted - 2015.06.30 06:13:00 - [193] - Quote On the one hand, a 16 man queue requirement is not what I've observed experimentally, though there's always room for an investigation of legitimate evidence. On the other even assuming that the threshold is 16, making intricate assumptions about arrival times of groups of particular sizes isn't something to do without justification. There are plenty of interesting discussion points already on the table in regards to this thread's topic, but I virtually guarantee that mathematical modelling of wait times isn't one of them. Have a pony
deezy dabest Evil Syndicate Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.06.30 06:21:00 - [194] - Quote Leither Yiltron wrote: On the one hand, a 16 man queue requirement is not what I've observed experimentally, though there's always room for an investigation of legitimate evidence. On the other even assuming that the threshold is 16, making intricate assumptions about arrival times of groups of particular sizes isn't something to do without justification. There are plenty of interesting discussion points already on the table in regards to this thread's topic, but I virtually guarantee that mathematical modelling of wait times isn't one of them. Proof is a helluva drug. You can ask anyone that takes part in jump starts about the 16 man thing. It does not take a fully flushed out model to see the chances of it really messing up the system. I think that anyone can look at the basic example scenarios and see where flaws are in the system. Don't we already screw over new players enough that even the chance of hurting them even more is enough to consider if something is a bad call? Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
Leither Yiltron Molon Labe. 1	Posted - 2015.06.30 06:30:00 - [195] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Leither Yiltron wrote: On the one hand, a 16 man queue requirement is not what I've observed experimentally, though there's always room for an investigation of legitimate evidence. On the other even assuming that the threshold is 16, making intricate assumptions about arrival times of groups of particular sizes isn't something to do without justification. There are plenty of interesting discussion points already on the table in regards to this thread's topic, but I virtually guarantee that mathematical modelling of wait times isn't one of them. Proof is a helluva drug. It does not take a fully flushed out model to see the chances of it really messing up the system. I think that anyone can look at the basic example scenarios and see where flaws are in the system. This really isn't a trivial mathematical claim. Your concern would be a component of modelling wait times for a scenario this complex, but the actual probabilities would require a full analysis. The "basic examples" you present are meaningless without probability distributions associated with their likelihood. Have a pony
deezy dabest Evil Syndicate Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.06.30 06:37:00 - [196] - Quote Leither Yiltron wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Leither Yiltron wrote: On the one hand, a 16 man queue requirement is not what I've observed experimentally, though there's always room for an investigation of legitimate evidence. On the other even assuming that the threshold is 16, making intricate assumptions about arrival times of groups of particular sizes isn't something to do without justification. There are plenty of interesting discussion points already on the table in regards to this thread's topic, but I virtually guarantee that mathematical modelling of wait times isn't one of them. Proof is a helluva drug. It does not take a fully flushed out model to see the chances of it really messing up the system. I think that anyone can look at the basic example scenarios and see where flaws are in the system. This really isn't a trivial mathematical claim. Your concern would be a component of modelling wait times for a scenario this complex, but the actual probabilities would require a full analysis. The "basic examples" you present are meaningless without probability distributions associated with their likelihood. Okay so give me a basic example of how queue times get screwed over in 8 v 8 and lets compare. Oh wait with no number greater than 50% of the required total there is not a single such example of more than enough people searching for battle without a battle taking place. That is all that needs to be said. Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
Leither Yiltron Molon Labe. 1	Posted - 2015.06.30 06:53:00 - [197] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Leither Yiltron wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Leither Yiltron wrote: On the one hand, a 16 man queue requirement is not what I've observed experimentally, though there's always room for an investigation of legitimate evidence. On the other even assuming that the threshold is 16, making intricate assumptions about arrival times of groups of particular sizes isn't something to do without justification. There are plenty of interesting discussion points already on the table in regards to this thread's topic, but I virtually guarantee that mathematical modelling of wait times isn't one of them. Proof is a helluva drug. It does not take a fully flushed out model to see the chances of it really messing up the system. I think that anyone can look at the basic example scenarios and see where flaws are in the system. This really isn't a trivial mathematical claim. Your concern would be a component of modelling wait times for a scenario this complex, but the actual probabilities would require a full analysis. The "basic examples" you present are meaningless without probability distributions associated with their likelihood. Okay so give me a basic example of how queue times get screwed over in 8 v 8 and lets compare. Oh wait with no number greater than 50% of the required total there is not a single such example of more than enough people searching for battle without a battle taking place. That is all that needs to be said. Unfortunately I'm going to have to stop responding for awhile with the note that it's easier to make incorrect statements like yours than it is to debunk them. If there's a 0% probability of something happening, the fact that it exists as a configuration of the given system is irrelevant in a reasonable model. Additionally, purporting that queue times get "screwed up" in particular configurations without anything approaching rigorous reasoning is incorrect and irresponsible. Have a pony
deezy dabest Evil Syndicate Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.06.30 06:57:00 - [198] - Quote Leither Yiltron wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Leither Yiltron wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Leither Yiltron wrote: On the one hand, a 16 man queue requirement is not what I've observed experimentally, though there's always room for an investigation of legitimate evidence. On the other even assuming that the threshold is 16, making intricate assumptions about arrival times of groups of particular sizes isn't something to do without justification. There are plenty of interesting discussion points already on the table in regards to this thread's topic, but I virtually guarantee that mathematical modelling of wait times isn't one of them. Proof is a helluva drug. It does not take a fully flushed out model to see the chances of it really messing up the system. I think that anyone can look at the basic example scenarios and see where flaws are in the system. This really isn't a trivial mathematical claim. Your concern would be a component of modelling wait times for a scenario this complex, but the actual probabilities would require a full analysis. The "basic examples" you present are meaningless without probability distributions associated with their likelihood. Okay so give me a basic example of how queue times get screwed over in 8 v 8 and lets compare. Oh wait with no number greater than 50% of the required total there is not a single such example of more than enough people searching for battle without a battle taking place. That is all that needs to be said. Unfortunately I'm going to have to stop responding for awhile with the note that it's easier to make incorrect statements like yours than it is to debunk them. If there's a 0% probability of something happening, the fact that it exists as a configuration of the given system is irrelevant in a reasonable model. Additionally, purporting that queue times get "screwed up" in particular configurations without anything approaching rigorous reasoning is incorrect and irresponsible. Yea I guess pros and cons lists never work without a full model. I do appreciate your view on it all. The links you posted are proving a fun read at the moment. Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 5	Posted - 2015.06.30 08:00:00 - [199] - Quote SirManBoy wrote: Between pubs (ambush, dom, skirm, and acquisition) and FW we only have 5 instant match experiences in Dust and not one of them caters to team deployments. I find that totally unacceptable. And yet, now that the mechanic we need to change that situation is nigh, it's still has dissenters. In my view, the only acceptable recompense for sacrificing 6-man pub squads across 4 match types is to get full 16-player team deploy in just one--FW. I have to say that in light of squad sizes getting reduced in public matches which include 3 different game modes allow 1 game mode (FW skirmish) to be team deployment focused is more than reasonable. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 9	Posted - 2015.06.30 08:00:00 - [200] - Quote System prioritizes squad sizes. That means it rapidly generates matches to dump 16 man squads. It then immediately dumps in the 9-15 groups, filling in gaps as needed. Then it drops the 8s. Then continues down. The more people who queue, the faster the process goes. If you get 8 miscellaneous squads in the queue with 500 solos, they get dumped on each other. Then the game rapidly generates 25 more matches for the randumbs There's not going to be any idiotic exclusion. This is tinfoil... More tinfoil... And look! More tinfoil! And singe the matchmaker in FW literally looks to pit larger groups against each other, there are still lots of places for smaller queues to fall in. Trying to force FW to cater to solos isn't expanding the game play. It's fostering that "individual > team" mentality catered to in other games. If I wanted that I'd play those other games. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.

deezy dabest Evil Syndicate Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.06.30 08:15:00 - [201] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: System prioritizes squad sizes. That means it rapidly generates matches to dump 16 man squads. It then immediately dumps in the 9-15 groups, filling in gaps as needed. Then it drops the 8s. Then continues down. The more people who queue, the faster the process goes. If you get 8 miscellaneous squads in the queue with 500 solos, they get dumped on each other. Then the game rapidly generates 25 more matches for the randumbs There's not going to be any idiotic exclusion. This is tinfoil... More tinfoil... And look! More tinfoil! And singe the matchmaker in FW literally looks to pit larger groups against each other, there are still lots of places for smaller queues to fall in. Trying to force FW to cater to solos isn't expanding the game play. It's fostering that "individual > team" mentality catered to in other games. If I wanted that I'd play those other games. What happens when a bunch of 9 man squads have priority? How about when a 12 man squad has been searching for 5 minutes and a 16 man squad jumps in? The biggest question of all is how the hell is sticking to 8 man squads who as you even stated get priority building the system around individuals? Sticking to 8 man squads caters to smaller squads far more than solos . 500 people searching for FW? HAHAHAHAHA at many points in the day that is more than 30% of the online players. We only manage to even open up the game mode when 32 people get together and force it to start. Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2	Posted - 2015.06.30 08:18:00 - [202] - Quote It's always both tragic and highly amusing when emotive issues such as this are discussed on the forums. There are few things as unintentionally funny as nerd rage. 1.2 is already at Sony for approval meaning can't be changed without a later hotfix. So come release FW will be limited to Squads and Fireteams. Like I said it'll take at least a few weeks to create the fix to add Team Deploy so we'll have the data coming from it with the new 1.2 mechanics. Once we have this data prior to any fix I'd support the addition of full deploy for a comparative study. I have to say however that I don't think TD will be allowed to stay on because I think any data study will show that its killing FW. Regardless of the arguments for and against TD in FW the one thing that I'd hope everyone will agree on it that teamwork is OP. A 16 Man team will be better organised. So once we have a couple of them swirling around FW on any given day, whats going to happen is this. Solo players and smaller squads are just going to start to leave matches when they see a 16 Man team. Quitting is the new black at the moment it seems. These 16 man teams are going to find that they keep playing matches against only a handful of players on the other side. And so it will continue until the opposing faction gets a 16 man team up as well and from that point both teams will always be put against each other. After a few days it'll dawn to nearly all FW players that it'll be pointless to play FW unless they can get a 16 man team together. You can make mathematical models as much as you want but none of them will take into account human nature. Very soon after its rolled out 16 v 16 teams will be the defacto standard match up because smaller squads will learn to stay the hell away from FW. And then the complaining about always playing the same two teams will start.... The upshot is yes, you will get 'good' fights but be prepared to be fighting the same team over and over again. CPM 2 Candidate CEO of DUST University
Starlight Burner Arrary of Clusters 304	Posted - 2015.06.30 08:36:00 - [203] - Quote Then thanks a ******* lot CPM. ^ CEO of Arrary of Clusters, a close relations corporation Caldari Factional Warfare, enlist today! Thank you for DUST
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 5	Posted - 2015.06.30 08:42:00 - [204] - Quote Again, you have public skirmish, public ambush, public domination, and public acquisition all protected by matchmaking and all having the addition of reduced squad sizes to four. Having FW skirmish be geared more towards organized play is more than reasonable, Dennie, and something that has been clamored for in the community for years. As for people leaving matches do you FW? We've already been deploying full teams of corp members and sometimes people leave and sometimes they don't, but the way the FW team builder is designed it will always fill up the team. Those that joined late don't get paid any less than those that stuck through the whole match. The more syncs you have the more likely they are to go against each other. The FW teambuilder already does its best to place the largest groups at any given time against each other that are in the queue irrespective of those groups "quality" or MU. You also have many syncs that are full of completely random groups of people. This is actually more of the norm rather than the rule. Probably one of the most important aspects here is that it allows members from corps across New Eden to play together and socialize. Also, redline matches are boring and they are not what's desired. State Task Force and Negative-Feedback have an ongoing friendly rivalry where we get excited when the other is syncing and do our best to try and fight each other. Acting like we don't already have a form of team deploy in the system and that adding a UI for what players already do every day is ridiculous. Your position on this especially after compromises were made on the front of 4 man squads in pubs makes me feel that you are truly out of touch especially with the FW community. Also, match leaving is a problem present in ALL game modes today. There is a reason removing the team list has been discussed of a of couple occasions and even touched on by CCP Rattati and leaving who you are fighting to the kill feed and the EOM screen. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
deezy dabest Evil Syndicate Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.06.30 08:53:00 - [205] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Also, match leaving is a problem present in ALL game modes today. There is a reason removing the team list has been discussed of a of couple occasions and even touched on by CCP Rattati and leaving who you are fighting to the kill feed and the EOM screen. The whole match leaving thing seems to fall back more on incentive to fight. There is just not any real reward to battling it out and taking the win. Adding incentive to win solves the issues of leaving matches as well as gives people a reason to want to work together and bring an actual fight to the table. When it comes to solving that the possibilities are truly endless which is strange to me that out of all the things that could work we ended up with the one that does the exact opposite. Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
Starlight Burner Arrary of Clusters 307	Posted - 2015.06.30 08:55:00 - [206] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Also, match leaving is a problem present in ALL game modes today. There is a reason removing the team list has been discussed of a of couple occasions and even touched on by CCP Rattati and leaving who you are fighting to the kill feed and the EOM screen. The whole match leaving thing seems to fall back more on incentive to fight. There is just not any real reward to battling it out and taking the win. Adding incentive to win solves the issues of leaving matches as well as gives people a reason to want to work together and bring an actual fight to the table. When it comes to solving that the possibilities are truly endless which is strange to me that out of all the things that could work we ended up with the one that does the exact opposite. The incentive to fight is LP and affecting EVE Online. Lets not forget the fact that we've complained about the **** LP payouts. They boosted LP to add more incentive to fight. CEO of Arrary of Clusters, a close relations corporation Caldari Factional Warfare, enlist today! Thank you for DUST
deezy dabest Evil Syndicate Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.06.30 09:02:00 - [207] - Quote Starlight Burner wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Also, match leaving is a problem present in ALL game modes today. There is a reason removing the team list has been discussed of a of couple occasions and even touched on by CCP Rattati and leaving who you are fighting to the kill feed and the EOM screen. The whole match leaving thing seems to fall back more on incentive to fight. There is just not any real reward to battling it out and taking the win. Adding incentive to win solves the issues of leaving matches as well as gives people a reason to want to work together and bring an actual fight to the table. When it comes to solving that the possibilities are truly endless which is strange to me that out of all the things that could work we ended up with the one that does the exact opposite. The incentive to fight is LP and affecting EVE Online. Lets not forget the fact that we've complained about the **** LP payouts. They boosted LP to add more incentive to fight. I was speaking more to all game modes on that part. With regards to FW every single one of us know that point that a match is lost and that no profit is going to be made no matter what happens so the whole match just turns into waiting for it to end. There are anomalies in there that go against that such as wanting bragging rights or whatever but none of the rest of our team share those feelings unless there is at minimum a partial sync so that we can get others excited. I am not even bothering to say what I have tried to get people to see in that whole thing as this thread has been argumentative enough. What I will say is that something needs to be done for both FW and pubs because we can all agree on that. Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
Spaceman-Rob Dead Man's Game 853	Posted - 2015.06.30 09:11:00 - [208] - Quote I can't believe we're not getting team deploy, I thought it's what we all wanted
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 5	Posted - 2015.06.30 09:15:00 - [209] - Quote I was talking to SMB on this point this evening in-game actually. I think one potential solution would be to give players 40% reimbursement win or loose but make all of the salvage go to the winners similar to what was done with PC payouts. The differential in LP should provide incentive to win along with the salvage while the ISK reimbursement would encourage players to go hard even In a loosing fight. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 9	Posted - 2015.06.30 09:44:00 - [210] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Starlight Burner wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Also, match leaving is a problem present in ALL game modes today. There is a reason removing the team list has been discussed of a of couple occasions and even touched on by CCP Rattati and leaving who you are fighting to the kill feed and the EOM screen. The whole match leaving thing seems to fall back more on incentive to fight. There is just not any real reward to battling it out and taking the win. Adding incentive to win solves the issues of leaving matches as well as gives people a reason to want to work together and bring an actual fight to the table. When it comes to solving that the possibilities are truly endless which is strange to me that out of all the things that could work we ended up with the one that does the exact opposite. The incentive to fight is LP and affecting EVE Online. Lets not forget the fact that we've complained about the **** LP payouts. They boosted LP to add more incentive to fight. I was speaking more to all game modes on that part. With regards to FW every single one of us know that point that a match is lost and that no profit is going to be made no matter what happens so the whole match just turns into waiting for it to end. There are anomalies in there that go against that such as wanting bragging rights or whatever but none of the rest of our team share those feelings unless there is at minimum a partial sync so that we can get others excited. I am not even bothering to say what I have tried to get people to see in that whole thing as this thread has been argumentative enough. What I will say is that something needs to be done for both FW and pubs because we can all agree on that. You steps out of pubs? Then you pays your money, and takes your chances. The FW queue was never intended to be "balanced" or "fair." If youwant fair and to never have to worry about getting pasted just stay in pubs. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.