53 replies to this topic

[Screech]

Reminds me we need a down vote button.

[WarHippy]

Roadkill, on 24 November 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

I agree that's also bad, but they're really not the same.

One is a technological limitation. The other is a player preference.

But yeah, game mode voting has made it so that I'm not willing to pilot an Assault Mech. I don't like taking an Assault into Conquest, so since I no longer have any control over that I just don't take Assaults.

I don't have any similar option when it comes to ping, though, which is why they're not the same.

They both boil down to what is enjoyable, and as such they may not be literally the same but they do have similar end results with regard to enjoyment and being forced into it.

[Mawai]

WarHippy, on 24 November 2015 - 11:04 AM, said:

Wait times and match quality need further improvement. In particular for those poor oceanic players. I see no reason not to add server choice to the list of things we vote on for the sake of a better MM.

Unfortunately No. Unlike the choice of map or game mode the choice of server has a direct impact on the play experience of the overall game in any mode on any map. If HSR worked perfectly then perhaps it would be less of an issue but this is not the case. Ping matters and high ping degrades the game playability for everyone involved.

If this was a desired option, then they might as well shut down all of the overseas servers and move everything back to North America since the entire reason for regional servers is so folks CAN choose to play on servers where game response is better.

Since the logic is so obvious, your suggestion is either playing devil's advocate or trolling


P.S. As for the whole game mode voting issue ... the last time they tried to take away game mode choice I was adamantly against it since I hated playing Conquest. Subsequently, I just checked all game modes instead of just skirmish since the game was getting more boring ... so now I am finding the voting system less of a problem since I have been playing all game modes.

That said, I completely empathize with the folks who want to be able to hard select game modes. However, hard selected game modes slow matchmaking significantly for some players in some regions where the population is lower. In addition, this challenge is made almost exponentially worse when PGI wants to add one ore more additional game modes. In order to continue to grow the game PGI MUST put in a system that reduces player choice of game modes so that they can add more without impacting queue times.

IF you have an alternate method where PGI could implement additional game modes, that would still allow for player choice but would NOT impact queue times or add to matchmaker complexity then there are lots of us here who would like to hear it (I won't say PGI would like to hear it since I honestly doubt they pay any attention at all to their own forums ... but one can only hope ).

Basically, game mode selection was a roadblock to additional game mode development and had to go for that reason. A side effect of its removal is reduced queue times for some parts of the MWO community at the expense of some people having to play modes that they would prefer not to play.






After that experience though I added Conquest to my list of options and got used to playing it again. It wasn't so bad so the shift to game mode voting is also not that

Edited by Mawai, 24 November 2015 - 02:27 PM.

[WarHippy]

Screech, on 24 November 2015 - 02:10 PM, said:

Reminds me we need a down vote button.

If you wish to express your dislike do so, but you can't take the easy way out and just press a button instead of explaining. No dislike button for you.

[WarHippy]

Mawai, on 24 November 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

Unfortunately No. Unlike the choice of map or game mode the choice of server has a direct impact on the play experience of the overall game in any mode on any map. If HSR worked perfectly then perhaps it would be less of an issue but this is not the case. Ping matters and high ping degrades the game playability for everyone involved.

If play experience is the concern they really are no different and both have a direct impact on play experience. You not wanting to put up with high ping once in awhile for the sake of a better MM really isn't any different than someone not wanting to play a certain game mode being forced to do so once in awhile for the sake of a better MM. We really shouldn't be trying to measure someones level of enjoyment, or lack thereof, but instead we should be focusing on what is best for the MM.

Mawai, on 24 November 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

If this was a desired option, then they might as well shut down all of the overseas servers and move everything back to North America since the entire reason for regional servers is so folks CAN choose to play on servers where game response is better.

No, we can't do that after PGI has spent all this time and money on this new system these servers.

Mawai, on 24 November 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

Since the logic is so obvious, your suggestion is either playing devil's advocate or trolling

Could be.

[Tuis Ryche]

WarHippy, on 24 November 2015 - 11:04 AM, said:

Wait times and match quality need further improvement. In particular for those poor oceanic players. I see no reason not to add server choice to the list of things we vote on for the sake of a better MM.

What you did there, see it, I do.

I suppose those who would find their game inhibited would just have to adapt to these new circumstances and learn to lead targets appropriately.

It's all for the quicker matchmaking. Quantity >>> Quality.

[Sandpit]

WarHippy, on 24 November 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

Sarcastic? Absolutely, but it really isn't anymore absurd and facetious to ask for this while using the same logic I'm supposed to accept in those other threads.
I will endeavor to tone it down.
It really isn't meant to be funny. I'm trying to make a point by giving people another way to look at it. If taking away mode choice is a such a boon for the MM I really don't see why we shouldn't take it a step further and remove all choice completely.

I understand what you're doing, I'm just pointing out that many won't and are going to just dismiss what you're saying here as another forum soothsayer if they don't understand the info behind the sarcasm.

and just as an addendum I really don't see many complaining about this particular issue.

I really, truly, and thoroughly believe that most of the MM issues could be fixed by simply adding lobbies and allowing players to have a place to congregate and set up teams, matches, etc. Until that happens you are going to continue having these fractures in the community. This entire team-based team-centric, tactical shooter that can only be played on a team of 12 has zero communication tools in the game prior to launching into a game.

None

I don't see how anyone can design a multiplayer game and after 4 years not have even basic lobbies in place. It just makes no sense. You can't build a community when you're communicating and and congregating solely on the forums. Never going to happen like that. Build a lobby and they will come and I would be willing to bet that as soon as that happens you start to see a real community build up around MWO. Until then, you might as well be playing chess by email until your mech powers up in game. I think PGI is starting to see the importance of the social and comm tools though so I'm hopeful

Edited by Sandpit, 24 November 2015 - 02:39 PM.

[WarHippy]

Mawai, on 24 November 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

P.S. As for the whole game mode voting issue ... the last time they tried to take away game mode choice I was adamantly against it since I hated playing Conquest. Subsequently, I just checked all game modes instead of just skirmish since the game was getting more boring ... so now I am finding the voting system less of a problem since I have been playing all game modes.

Yes, well I'm not so weak willed that I give up at the drop of a hat.

Mawai, on 24 November 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

That said, I completely empathize with the folks who want to be able to hard select game modes. However, hard selected game modes slow matchmaking significantly for some players in some regions where the population is lower. In addition, this challenge is made almost exponentially worse when PGI wants to add one ore more additional game modes. In order to continue to grow the game PGI MUST put in a system that reduces player choice of game modes so that they can add more without impacting queue times.

IF you have an alternate method where PGI could implement additional game modes, that would still allow for player choice but would NOT impact queue times or add to matchmaker complexity then there are lots of us here who would like to hear it (I won't say PGI would like to hear it since I honestly doubt they pay any attention at all to their own forums ... but one can only hope ).

If they want people to play more than one or two game modes they need to put forth the effort in making the game modes into something people actually want to play instead of forcing them into it just for the sake of minor improvements for some and at the expense of enjoyment for others.

Mawai, on 24 November 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

Basically, game mode selection was a roadblock to additional game mode development and had to go for that reason. A side effect of its removal is reduced queue times for some parts of the MWO community at the expense of some people having to play modes that they would prefer not to play.

As I have said in other parts of the forums if they can't make their current game modes more appealing so that more people actually want to play them all instead of one or two what chance is there that their next game mode won't be as divisive? Adding yet another half baked game mode that many may or may not like simply isn't worth the loss of choice in game mode.

Sandpit, on 24 November 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

I understand what you're doing, I'm just pointing out that many won't and are going to just dismiss what you're saying here as another forum soothsayer if they don't understand the info behind the sarcasm.

It is a dangerous game I play, but where is the fun if there isn't a little risk?

[Tuis Ryche]

But it is amusing to see the reasons given, either seriously or ironically, to dismiss the OP. It's what the "vote haters" have been contending with since this started.

As for lobbies, I totally agree. The chat interface is terrible from the ground up. No real common area where people could begin organizing. Redundant lists for friends and unit because groupmaking is clumsy as hell. Reset chats in the middle of CW matches,wth. No way to scroll back.

[Troutmonkey]

Vote for servers is a terrible idea, and doesn't compare to mode voting. I can shoot robots just as well in conquest as I can in skirmish. I can't however shoot robots with 500 ping as well as I can at 100 ping. 500 ping is unplayable for me, and is too frustrating with the crazy amount of rubber banding and teleporting into/through mechs and buildings. As an Aussie I can deal with ping, and happily play in Oceanic with 100 ping and in the US with 250-300 ping. I can't play at 500 on the European servers.

Sandpit, on 24 November 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

I really, truly, and thoroughly believe that most of the MM issues could be fixed by simply adding lobbies and allowing players to have a place to congregate and set up teams, matches, etc. Until that happens you are going to continue having these fractures in the community. This entire team-based team-centric, tactical shooter that can only be played on a team of 12 has zero communication tools in the game prior to launching into a game.
None

Lobbies suck. They really do. MM is a much better system of quickly and effectively getting as many players into as many games as possible. In highly populated games with lots of game types and custom settings, yeah they could be useful. It works best in games with respawns and the ability to join mid-match. But in lowly populated games like MWO the lobby system completely fails.

The original Gears of War had a lobby system. It involved scrolling through a list of servers, finding an empty spot and then joining. You would then wait for the other players to join. Once all the players had joined you would then have to wait for the host to begin the game. Because it took ages to find players, the host was often AFK, so you would leave and then try and find another game with enough players and an attentive host. Repeat 3-4 times. After going through all of that you then play for roughly 5-10 minutes before having to repeat the whole damned process.

If you really want lobbies, try for private matches.

[sycocys]

WarHippy, on 24 November 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

Sorry, but the MM is struggling and we need more people to fill the gaps for the greater good. Sometimes having to deal with higher ping when you don't get the server you want is a small price to pay for faster queues and better quality matches for everyone else.

Better, more financially stable solution.

Get rid of the servers that can't hold up enough population to make them worth the expense.

[Impyrium]

Poor comparison. I happen to be significantly more used to playing at higher pings than many of the players here, most of which seem to complain at anything over 200, but I can still tell you that there's significant difference between having to play a fully functioning game mode you don't like, and dealing with warping and desyncing.

[Tuis Ryche]

You'll adapt.

Let's do this.

[50 50]

EU players can't play on the OC server and OC players can't play on the EU server due to poor connections.
NA is still good, we could consolidate back to that single server if warranted.

However, for quicker matches there may be other options.
Re-combine solo and group queues.
Allowing matches to start so long as both sides have even numbers.
Once the AI is ready we could have AI fillers for the teams.

[Sandpit]

WarHippy, on 24 November 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

It is a dangerous game I play, but where is the fun if there isn't a little risk?

Which is why I've never accused you of needing to be a higher caliber troll lol

Quote

[color=#959595]Lobbies suck. They really do. MM is a much better system of quickly and effectively getting as many players into as many games as possible.[/color]

Really they don't though. All one has to do is quite simply be given an option to not have the chat channel active if they so choose, just like they gave the ability to mute VOIP entirely if you choose to do so. It's all about options. Nobody said this is a mandatory thing.
I also never said anything about changing the MM or how it places players. One is exclusive of the other and has nothing to do with it. Lobbies don't change the MM system.

Quote

[color=#959595]The original Gears of War had a lobby system[/color]

So has every other online multiplayer game in the history of online gaming just about. This is kinda my point. It's not hard to implement some moderation and filters and optional participation into a lobby. Sometimes it feels like some of you guys want to paint this very obtuse black and white picture where an idea or suggestion has to somehow interfere with something else or with those of you who, for whatever reason, chose to come to a multiplayer online team based game and not want to deal with the whole "team thing", when it does neither of those things.

It's about creating more options and building a community. You obviously want to be part of that community or you wouldn't be here investing your time in it on the forums. There's tons of ideas on the forums that are creative and viable. If you don't like one that's great, but at least explain why and/or how you would improve it. I can give you several ways around your complaints of a lobby. They are viable, widely done already, and offer minimal to zero interference for those who could care less to participate.

[El Bandito]

WarHippy, on 24 November 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

True, so let us just take away the option, and whatever server you get is the one you play on. No more choice.
Sorry, but the MM is struggling and we need more people to fill the gaps for the greater good. Sometimes having to deal with higher ping when you don't get the server you want is a small price to pay for faster queues and better quality matches for everyone else.

For the greater good? You are literally suggesting to screw the greater part of the community (NA and EU players) by forcing them to drop into a tiny minority server with huge lag (Oceanic). This is the exact opposite of greater good.

sycocys, on 24 November 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

Better, more financially stable solution.
Get rid of the servers that can't hold up enough population to make them worth the expense.

This I agree with.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 November 2015 - 09:02 PM.

[adamts01]

WarHippy, on 24 November 2015 - 11:04 AM, said:

Wait times and match quality need further improvement. In particular for those poor oceanic players. I see no reason not to add server choice to the list of things we vote on for the sake of a better MM.

As everyone clearly knows from my monthly MM rage posts, the Oceanic server is sad. But it's all I've got. My ping to NA is 450 and EU is usually 100 worse. Believe me, I've tried, I can't even effectively run LRMs. I realize I'm in the minority that will wait longer times for Metter matches so I'll stop with that. I think, as many others have suggested, switching to 8v8 before mixing tiers 5&3 or tiers 1&3 is a good move. Our current maps will work with that size and 8v8 was good back in the day as soon as the 4 mans were removed from it.

[adamts01]

sycocys, on 24 November 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

Better, more financially stable solution.

Get rid of the servers that can't hold up enough population to make them worth the expense.

I don't know why they started this Oceanic server. It doesn't have the players and they clearly aren't marketing adequately. But... It's a HUGE market they can't afford not to tap in to. Gaming centers are absolutely everywhere here. It costs about $2 to play literally all day. Consoles are financially out of the question for many families so kids play ftp games in Lan centers all the time. Currently MWO's prices for everything are out of reach for these kids but of prices were lowered and PGI could popularize the game here it would be worth it. Even if they didn't get much income, the player influx would make people like me absolutely spend more money. Maybe steam will make it easier for more of the population to make purchases as well. I wouldn't write off this server just yet.

[Tuis Ryche]

*cue my casual dismissal of your dissent as your issue does not affect me*

Implement this posthaste, so that we may have lightning speed matchmaking.

Edited by Tuis Ryche, 24 November 2015 - 10:28 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

Tuis Ryche, on 24 November 2015 - 10:27 PM, said:

*cue my casual dismissal of your dissent as your issue does not affect me*

Implement this posthaste, so that we may have lightning speed matchmaking.

I was getting games in less than 10 seconds last night. About 7PM Australian Central Standard time was good