38 replies to this topic

[Tuis Ryche]

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, **** this voting system.

[FinnMcKool]

go back to the old system, and dont tell me this is faster ,Im not seeing that, and even if it was i would rather wait for a game mode I like and those playing with me like,,,, or it just becomes Skirmish even when its not.

[WarZ]

Holy S*** !!! You jerks shove skirmish and small maps down our throats for 2 weeks straight. Then you f'ing cry like you're being stabbed because you have some conquest thrown at you a little more often.

What about those of us who enjoy conquest, but it took 18 games to get to play it ... ONE F'ing TIME !!! That is NO lie. I kept track of the games last weekend I played. And posted my numbers (14 skirmish, 3 assault, before 1 conquest, then of course no conquest for the next 5 games after that before I decided I was done that weekend). We just had to put up with 2 weeks straight of that BS.

And conquest doesnt make your slow assault mech worthless. They are on both teams buddy. Both teams have fast and slow. It's you and your team having half a brain, and your big mechs staying together, and if a couple lighter mechs want to cap fast they cap. You don't follow the cappers in your slow arse assault mech.

Just f'ing wow with how ridiculous you sound.

[Wildstreak]

Oh, come on, corruption voting is now even more possible.
Here's the current method:

1 - Wait until the last 5 seconds or so of voting watching where the votes go.
2 - Vote for the Map & Mode least likely to win.
3 - Repeat every time until you feel your increased multiplier will make a difference when you see fit.
4 - Form a Super PAC.

Corruption, the new trend.
Still against this voting thing though it might make a nice idea for CW.

[5th Fedcom Rat]

Ghost Votes. Somehow I'm not surprised.

[Sarlic]

Kjudoon, on 17 November 2015 - 07:17 PM, said:

What? you've never heard of social media manipulation?

If anything what's annoying its these people encouraging the company to continue to make use of Twitter as a primary communication channel.

In my profile is how i think about Twitter as in my opinion.

[Black Fish]

This is at best a minor abuse of the system... only a minor few will go this far to 'secure' their favorite map/game mode, and even those few can only do so what, once every 10-12 games? It's kinda like counting cards...
I'm not always pleased with the game mode/map chosen but its better than it used to be before and wait times are *waaay* shorter (I play mostly assaults)
I usualy join the rants on this forum but on this case I can clearly see how only the displeased voices are heard...
Why would most people hate the voting system if most people get their desired map and mode?

[Tuis Ryche]

It's a ******** mini-game that wastes time under the guise of 'saving time' and tries to provide diversity and randomness under the guise of 'choice'.

[AssaultPig]

it's pretty obvious that PGI do not have anybody on staff who has even a rudimentary game theory background

this is why we keep getting game systems that create bad incentives, like this voting system, any number of poorly-conceived weekend challenges, and the entire assault game mode

they're terrible at thinking this stuff through in advance and evidently don't want to hire somebody who isn't

Edited by AssaultPig, 18 November 2015 - 12:27 AM.

[jss78]

Has anyone done the math or a simulation, regarding how often are we likely to get each map now? (too scatterbrained to attempt this myself)

The purpose of the weighted voting is to guarantee that the minority's opinion is respected once in a while, while the majority's favourites are played more often. So how much of an effect will the weighting have, over the long term?

Will it still be Frozen/HPG-warrior?

At the other end of the spectrum, can the increased weight of the minority result in all maps being picked roughly equally often? Now that'd be a funny outcome, as we could just as well do a random pick.

[Duke Nedo]

Heh, there was lots of gaming attempts yesterday, votes were flipping like mad the last seconds of the vote. I did too of course.

Ended up playing more Caustic Conquest than ever, lol! Not too far from random selection between the 4 runner up maps...

[Kjudoon]

"If anything what's annoying its these people encouraging the company to continue to make use of Twitter as a primary communication channel."

Never trust any communication method with the root word 'twit'.

[Sanul]

You should NOT be able to change your vote, once you gave it. No election allows this, why PGI?

EDIT: And the results shouldn't be visible WHILE voting either. Then its not exploitable and fair.

Edited by Sanul, 18 November 2015 - 03:59 AM.

[Doman Hugin]

If you like and want random maps, wait until late in the voting, when you see unpopular maps jump in votes vote with them and revel in the rage when they get the map they voted for.

Noticed a few people doing this ad has been fun so far.

Edited by Doman Hugin, 18 November 2015 - 04:30 AM.

[Raggedyman]

TexAce, on 17 November 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

Your logic is very flawed. You forget, that the ones who voted for assault or conquest will rack up a lot of points while you are staying at 1 point all the time.

There really not much to exploit in this system, since everyone who doesnt win a vote, gets one more vote to use.

Practically ever complaint I've seen about the new system is based on the premise that the person complaining is the only person who has multiple votes/hasn't got their way recently, and that everyone else in the vote has no vote multiplier/is effectively a non-player bot with no means to affect the results.

I'm not saying that the vote system is perfect, but I think the examples show where the real problems may be

[Kyle Travis]

This is a bit better but prefered all random.......

From what i have seen its rare that one map gets more than 35-40% so its pretty much always the minority of the players picking the maps / mode.

[Melon Lord]

Duke Nedo, on 18 November 2015 - 01:20 AM, said:

Heh, there was lots of gaming attempts yesterday, votes were flipping like mad the last seconds of the vote. I did too of course.

Ended up playing more Caustic Conquest than ever, lol! Not too far from random selection between the 4 runner up maps...

Awesome

Those trying to game the system all do it at once, and select the map/mode they least like (and lose all their previously saved vote weight as well). Nicely done!

Or you know, you could just vote for what you want. If the last 2 weeks show you anything you will probably get it, and the new voting system just means I will have to wait about 10-15 games until I see conquest instead of 20.

Edited by Melon Lord, 18 November 2015 - 06:06 AM.

[Black Fish]

Kyle Travis, on 18 November 2015 - 04:44 AM, said:

From what i have seen its rare that one map gets more than 35-40% so its pretty much always the minority of the players picking the maps / mode.

That could be due to players not voting, I know from personal experience it's very easy to miss the voting session if tabbed out

[Team Chevy86]

l33tworks, on 17 November 2015 - 05:50 AM, said:

Exactly.
Why did they got for this bizzare method. All they needed to do was make it a weighed voted system. So 70% voting for one map means its only 70% chance that will be the map.

This is exactly what I had suggested the day map voting was released. %X is the % chance that map/mode will be chosen. This way, a map with 1 vote can still have a small chance of being chosen.
I made a thread in both Gen Disc and Patch Notes, it had garnered quite a few likes before being buried under a mountain of whining.

Edited by Team Chevy86, 18 November 2015 - 11:57 PM.