Jump to content

I Thought A %chance Was Going To Be The Weight Factor, Not A Hard Vote Multiplier


7 replies to this topic

#1 Felicitatem Parco

    Professor of Memetics

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,522 posts
  • LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 23 November 2015 - 11:02 AM

When voting weghts were being added, I initially thought your map vote would now count as 1 side of a 12-sided die, where every vote cast would contribute a 8.3% chance of that map being chosen.

I know, I know, many people think the RNG gods have no place in MW:O. However, I think this would be an appropriate venue for them to Lord over us.

If one person chooses Conquest and 11 players choose Skirmish, I think there should be a 1/12 chance of Conquest being chosen. No multipliers, no gaming the system... Just good old "representation based on composition."

Is this a bad idea, or a good idea?

#2 Felio

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,721 posts

Posted 23 November 2015 - 12:44 PM

That was what they did the first time they tried this some months ago. I don't really see any advantages to it over the multiplier system. The multiplier seems a more reliable way to let the minority play what they want sometimes, and it also gives some consolation when you lose.

#3 Felio

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,721 posts

Posted 23 November 2015 - 12:47 PM

For posterity:

http://mwomercs.com/...oting-poll-v20/

It was determined that such a big change would need a large margin of support, which was not met, so it was reverted entirely.

Edited by Felio, 23 November 2015 - 12:48 PM.


#4 Felicitatem Parco

    Professor of Memetics

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,522 posts
  • LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 24 November 2015 - 08:07 PM

View PostFelio, on 23 November 2015 - 12:47 PM, said:

For posterity:

http://mwomercs.com/...oting-poll-v20/

It was determined that such a big change would need a large margin of support, which was not met, so it was reverted entirely.


Yeah, given the current situation.... I'd say that excuse is invalid.

#5 Lunatic_Asylum

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 600 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 08:10 PM

This is a temporary solution that is botched up, yet works better than the previous iteration of voting.
The best solution when everything works fine is removing voting.

#6 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 24 November 2015 - 08:23 PM

View PostProsperity Park, on 23 November 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

When voting weghts were being added, I initially thought your map vote would now count as 1 side of a 12-sided die, where every vote cast would contribute a 8.3% chance of that map being chosen.

I know, I know, many people think the RNG gods have no place in MW:O. However, I think this would be an appropriate venue for them to Lord over us.

If one person chooses Conquest and 11 players choose Skirmish, I think there should be a 1/12 chance of Conquest being chosen. No multipliers, no gaming the system... Just good old "representation based on composition."

Is this a bad idea, or a good idea?


This is one of the few times that RNGesus can just suck it.

There are instances where you just "accept" RNGesus, like LRM Spread (because super-coring Lurmaggeddons are bad). Then there are instances were RNGesus are awful (MG COF).

Frankly, if you were expecting otherwise (assuming instead of asking for clarification - a Lostech type of thing in the Twitterverse).. then go figure.

Mode and map, I don't honestly care for... outside of voting against Terra Therma.

#7 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 24 November 2015 - 08:27 PM

View PostProsperity Park, on 23 November 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

If one person chooses Conquest and 11 players choose Skirmish, I think there should be a 1/12 chance of Conquest being chosen. No multipliers, no gaming the system... Just good old "representation based on composition."


I disagree with OP. RNG will always bring complaints. I would rather play 10 games and guaranteed to play the map I want once, than praying for that 8.3% chance to roll my way. It is very likely that even after 10 matches, one cannot get the map they want under your system--and then their gaming time of the day is over. Then there will be QQ threads, QQ threads everywhere.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 November 2015 - 08:30 PM.


#8 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 24 November 2015 - 09:04 PM

I forgot to add...

Did the RNGesus Map event teach you nothing? Having that 1 in 9 chance to get the last map you desperately needed caused people to literally ragequit a match in order to redrop again.

Let's remind ourselves why this is here in the first place... it's to relieve the MM from its struggling minority queues (MM already struggles with location like the Oceanic servers). Whatever the minority mode happened to be (Conquest IMO was the least taken... with Skirmish being the preferred option for many), it would struggle to get the players necessary (mostly in the form of PSR) to balance things out.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users