34 replies to this topic

[HeavyMechTank]

Hello fellows and forum flamers,

I just wanted to share my (probably unpopular) thoughts about the new vote changes in the match making system.

So it had been a long time since I played mwo before this year, I used to play it quite a bit in 2013 but life happened and it took a long time for me to get back into the game. Come 2016 I decided to give it another try and boy oh boy is it different now !

The first thing I noticed when I queued up for the match making was the voting system which I thought was fantastically novel and dynamic the way pgi implemented it. The Old System was in my opinion, a very nice experimental and very dynamic form of democracy.

The system had what I like to call a "Popular veto" mechanic built into it. Say for instance you get a rotation of maps that looks like this, 1.Terra Therma, 2. Forest Colony, 3. Mining Collective, 4. Frozen City. Let's say the votes look like this,

1. Terra Therma - 33%
2.Forest Colony - 10%
3.Mining Collective - 28%
4.Frozen City - 29%

Now then, let's assume that all of the forest colony and indeed, everyone that didn't vote for terra therma players are okay with all of the maps being selected except that they hate terra therma. The Forest Colony players are now some of the most important on the voting board, they don't want to play on terra therma and they now can decide the fate of which map is selected. The forest colony players now have a sort of veto they can now implement to override the terra therma selection.

This veto power also applies to all of the other players that voted for either mining collective or frozen city and thusly, with a majority, override the terra therma selection.

The way system works now with not showing the percentages and locking your vote in means that 'minority' votes don't matter. If a map that the strong majority of players hate is picked by a group of people that settled on one choice, nothing can be done to override the decision of the minority players.

I am really quite saddened by the decision to go with a more classical voting model because the way the system works now just doesn't leave any sort real democratic dynamics. It's just a straight vote across the board and the one with the most votes wins. That vote can go through even if a majority of players didn't pick a particular map. A lot votes are essentially wasted this way.

I really hope this system is reverted because I feel the previous system actually provided a lot of variety and I fear, having played with a lot of games with the more classical vote system, that the match making pickings will essentially become cookie cutter now with a handful of options being picked the vast majority of the time.

And all of this makes no mention of the vote multiplier gaming which I think was perfectly fine but that's a slightly different topic.

Apologies in advance for grammatical and articulation mistakes, it has been a long time since I've written anything serious.

Edited by HeavyMechTank, 16 March 2016 - 12:04 AM.

[Paigan]

It's kind of embarrassing for me (as someone who likes to provide proper argumentation himself), but "Wall of text, didn't read". You should make a point early on and provide details later. Otherwise, people read paragraph by paragraph that only serve as an introduction, waiting for the actual point and losing interest.

From what I got you found the old system to be better.
You surely have valid points for it, but it definitely had more drawbacks than advantages. People faking votes, switching in the last second to influence the outcome, people intentionally losing to build up voting weight for the next match, overproportionally muting future votes of fellow gamers (which, btw, means an abuse and sabotage of your valued democracy in both times), etc.

If there is a change with 5 advantages and 2 drawbacks, don't complain about the 2 drawbacks. See the whole picture. Nothing is perfect. It's about improvement. And the new system definitely is an improvement.


As a side note:

HeavyMechTank, on 16 March 2016 - 12:01 AM, said:

[...]
Apologies in advance for grammatical and articulation mistakes, it has been a long time since I've written anything serious.

That made me grin.
Many people in here don't even know how to use punctuation at all (or even correctly). No need to apologize for your (way better) text. :-)

Edited by Paigan, 16 March 2016 - 12:17 AM.

[Nesutizale]

I prefere the new system over the old one for the metioned reason. People just abused the old system and it was so easy that I found myself abusing the system to build up a multiplier just so that I can influence the voiting so strong that I definilty get my map or mode.
A friend of mine made it even some kind of "sport" to get the highest multiplier.

If a system is build in a way that the only way to get what you like is to abuse it, its just bad. There is a reason why elections are made in secret.

So the new voting system gets my "like"

[Triordinant]

MWO should go back to random maps and choosing game modes. Forcing people to play game modes they despise is always a bad idea.

[MrMadguy]

But with new system it's also harder to intentionally stack your multiplier and it's impossible to exploit system via voting or vote changing at last moment, so it's harder for vote trolls to bring terrible maps, like Terra Therma. It's much better, than being able to control voting process and being able to veto terrible maps. Also you should not be able to control voting process - voting is intended to let you pick your favorite map, nothing more. But "downvote" feature would be nice though.

Also there is a simple trick, that can prevent situation, you have described. In order to prevent vote split, that can allow vote trolls to bring terrible map, from happening, majority of players should make a silent agreement, for what map they all should always vote. In your case majority of players should have voted for Mining Collective, cuz it's best map - other 3 are from top 5 worst ones. And don't worry - majority of players already has this agreement. Players may disagree, about worst and best maps, but most players agree with following rating:



Skirmish > Assault > Conquest

So follow this rating and you will always get, what you want - chance, that terrible maps will be brought, will be minimized. This rating is proved to be very accurate. Why? Because there is a system, that trying to force most unpopular maps, via offering them for voting more often. What maps appear most often? Yeah! Worst ones! Therma, Polar, Alpine, City, Forest etc.

New map isn't in this rating yet, but it will most likely go to "Good" or even "Excellent" category - not big (no bias towards faster 'Mechs), lots of cover (no bias towards Snipe/LRM Meta), lots of spots, fights can happen around (great diversity of tactics).

New mode isn't in this rating too. Currently it isn't very promising - players hate maps like Alpine, Therma and Crimson exactly due to this "king of hill" kind of gameplay. May be it will be better, then Cunquest. Also it may be better than Assault on big maps.

[StumbleBee]

The new system will show the devs which maps and modes are most popular. That's useful, even if it means that some of us have to suffer through too many games on Polar Highlands.

[Groovdog]

MrMadguy, on 16 March 2016 - 04:43 AM, said:

Players may disagree, about worst and best maps, but most players agree with following rating:



Skirmish > Assault > Conquest

So follow this rating and you will always get, what you want - chance, that terrible maps will be brought, will be minimized. This rating is proved to be very accurate. Why? Because there is a system, that trying to force most unpopular maps, via offering them for voting more often. What maps appear most often? Yeah! Worst ones! Therma, Polar, Alpine, City, Forest etc.

New map isn't in this rating yet, but it will most likely go to "Good" or even "Excellent" category - not big (no bias towards faster 'Mechs), lots of cover (no bias towards Snipe/LRM Meta), lots of spots, fights can happen around (great diversity of tactics).

New mode isn't in this rating too. Currently it isn't very promising - players hate maps like Alpine, Therma and Crimson exactly due to this "king of hill" kind of gameplay. May be it will be better, then Cunquest. Also it may be better than Assault on big maps.

Hate to break it to you, your most players is an assumption that is not accurate. Most players of your playstyle MAYBE. The only thing I think is universal (over 90%) is dislike of Terra Therma given the prevalence of vomit.

Edited by Groovdog, 16 March 2016 - 05:41 AM.

[MrMadguy]

Groovdog, on 16 March 2016 - 05:41 AM, said:

Hate to break it to you, your most players is an assumption that is not accurate. Most players of your playstyle MAYBE. The only thing I think is universal (over 90%) is dislike of Terra Therma given the prevalence of vomit.

Current map rotation - is best proof. You should know, that due to unpopular map forcing system, maps, that appear in voting most often - are least popular ones. This causes paradoxical situation: "Neutral" maps become most played ones. Why? Because popular maps are removed from rotation and unpopular aren't picked by players, making "Neutral" maps - the only viable choice for players. That's how you can determine preferences of majority of players. Terrible maps appear most often, but aren't being picked. Good maps appear extremely rarely and being picked in 100% cases. Neutral maps - appear relatively often and being picked in most cases.

Guess, what maps are most unpopular? (Please note, that screenshots were made before blind voting was implemented, so %s may be biased due to vote trolls)








About Domination. Domination - is very map dependent. Essentially it's "Skirmish without being able to run away and hide, happening around spot, chosen by devs". First part of definition makes it better, then Skirmish. Second part - depends on how good Domination point is chosen. If it's at spot, that is used in Skirmish anyway - then Domination becomes better, then Skirmish. But if it's chosen at spot, that lacks cover and which players usually try too keep themselves away from in order to avoid bias towards Snipe/LRM Meta (like volcano's caldera at Therma) - then this mode becomes even worse, then Conquest.

Edited by MrMadguy, 16 March 2016 - 06:21 AM.

[Jables McBarty]

MrMadguy, on 16 March 2016 - 04:43 AM, said:

But with new system it's also harder to intentionally stack your multiplier and it's impossible to exploit system via voting or vote changing at last moment, so it's harder for vote trolls to bring terrible maps, like Terra Therma. It's much better, than being able to control voting process and being able to veto terrible maps. Also you should not be able to control voting process - voting is intended to let you pick your favorite map, nothing more. But "downvote" feature would be nice though.

Also there is a simple trick, that can prevent situation, you have described. In order to prevent vote split, that can allow vote trolls to bring terrible map, from happening, majority of players should make a silent agreement, for what map they all should always vote. In your case majority of players should have voted for Mining Collective, cuz it's best map - other 3 are from top 5 worst ones. And don't worry - majority of players already has this agreement. Players may disagree, about worst and best maps, but most players agree with following rating:



Skirmish > Assault > Conquest

So follow this rating and you will always get, what you want - chance, that terrible maps will be brought, will be minimized. This rating is proved to be very accurate. Why? Because there is a system, that trying to force most unpopular maps, via offering them for voting more often. What maps appear most often? Yeah! Worst ones! Therma, Polar, Alpine, City, Forest etc.

New map isn't in this rating yet, but it will most likely go to "Good" or even "Excellent" category - not big (no bias towards faster 'Mechs), lots of cover (no bias towards Snipe/LRM Meta), lots of spots, fights can happen around (great diversity of tactics).

New mode isn't in this rating too. Currently it isn't very promising - players hate maps like Alpine, Therma and Crimson exactly due to this "king of hill" kind of gameplay. May be it will be better, then Cunquest. Also it may be better than Assault on big maps.

MrMadguy, on 16 March 2016 - 06:12 AM, said:

Current map rotation - is best proof. You should know, that due to unpopular map forcing system, maps, that appear in voting most often - are least popular ones. This causes paradoxical situation: "Neutral" maps become most played ones. Why? Because popular maps are removed from rotation and unpopular aren't picked by players, making "Neutral" maps - the only viable choice for players. That's how you can determine preferences of majority of players. Terrible maps appear most often, but aren't being picked. Good maps appear extremely rarely and being picked in 100% cases. Neutral maps - appear relatively often and being picked in most cases.

Guess, what maps are most unpopular? (Please note, that screenshots were made before blind voting was implemented, so %s may be biased due to vote trolls)

This argument.... makes no sense.

Unless you are trying to say "PGI intentionally forces unpopular maps into the voting rotation so we are forced to vote for them more often," which is at least a sensible argument (by which I mean it is an argument, not that it is valid or even remotely sane). Why do you think PGI is "forcing unpopular maps" on you? I'm pretty sure this is called confirmation bias.

As someone who actually ENJOYS playing on Terra Therma, I can guarantee you it doesn't appear in the voting any more often than any other, because I am actively looking for it. If you wish to contest this, please produce objective data with n>100 for the sake of statistical significance.

Honestly, the more I have to deal with people QQing about map and mode choices, the more I lean towards 100% random map choices and letting people opt out of game modes. Even if I had to wait longer in queues, I'd rather play Conquest with people who like conquest rather than one to six who say "**** caps, I'm going for kills" and yolo into the other team.

[Jables McBarty]

Seriously, let CoD twitchboys who just want to play only Skirmish on only HPG, Canyon and Frozen City do just that, and let the rest of us who are actually interested in game mechanics and tactics play a game that at least has some variety in terms of setting and objectives, however hamfisted it might be.

@OP: Hopefully you can be consoled to hear that everyone is quite unhappy with the voting system.

[Bilbo]

Jables McBarty, on 16 March 2016 - 06:33 AM, said:

This argument.... makes no sense.

Unless you are trying to say "PGI intentionally forces unpopular maps into the voting rotation so we are forced to vote for them more often," which is at least a sensible argument (by which I mean it is an argument, not that it is valid or even remotely sane). Why do you think PGI is "forcing unpopular maps" on you? I'm pretty sure this is called confirmation bias.

As someone who actually ENJOYS playing on Terra Therma, I can guarantee you it doesn't appear in the voting any more often than any other, because I am actively looking for it. If you wish to contest this, please produce objective data with n>100 for the sake of statistical significance.

Honestly, the more I have to deal with people QQing about map and mode choices, the more I lean towards 100% random map choices and letting people opt out of game modes. Even if I had to wait longer in queues, I'd rather play Conquest with people who like conquest rather than one to six who say "**** caps, I'm going for kills" and yolo into the other team.

Actually, they do weight the rotation in an attempt to even things out. Not sure how well it was working, though, with all the voting games being played before. At least now, if you want a particular map or mode your best bet is to actually vote for it.

[Vxheous]

HeavyMechTank, on 16 March 2016 - 12:01 AM, said:

The Old System was in my opinion, a very nice experimental and very dynamic form of democracy.

I am really quite saddened by the decision to go with a more classical voting model because the way the system works now just doesn't leave any sort real democratic dynamics.

First-past-the-post voting is democratic. I mean, in which country in the world are you able to cast a vote, then change that vote multiple times before the vote is counted (old system).

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 16 March 2016 - 06:50 AM.

[MrMadguy]

Jables McBarty, on 16 March 2016 - 06:33 AM, said:

This argument.... makes no sense.

Unless you are trying to say "PGI intentionally forces unpopular maps into the voting rotation so we are forced to vote for them more often," which is at least a sensible argument (by which I mean it is an argument, not that it is valid or even remotely sane). Why do you think PGI is "forcing unpopular maps" on you? I'm pretty sure this is called confirmation bias.

As someone who actually ENJOYS playing on Terra Therma, I can guarantee you it doesn't appear in the voting any more often than any other, because I am actively looking for it. If you wish to contest this, please produce objective data with n>100 for the sake of statistical significance.

Honestly, the more I have to deal with people QQing about map and mode choices, the more I lean towards 100% random map choices and letting people opt out of game modes. Even if I had to wait longer in queues, I'd rather play Conquest with people who like conquest rather than one to six who say "**** caps, I'm going for kills" and yolo into the other team.

Actually there was a proof of it in some earlier thread.

P.S. We have democracy now. Enjoy it. You don't have vote multiplier, when you vote for your president, cuz so called "tyranny of majority" - is the only possible form of government, when interests of different people are mutually exclusive. And RNG - is tyranny of game developers. We need neither tyranny of minority, nor tyranny of game developers, cuz in fact they're minority too.

Edited by MrMadguy, 16 March 2016 - 06:56 AM.

[Jables McBarty]

HeavyMechTank, on 16 March 2016 - 12:01 AM, said:

I am really quite saddened by the decision to go with a more classical voting model because the way the system works now just doesn't leave any sort real democratic dynamics. It's just a straight vote across the board and the one with the most votes wins. That vote can go through even if a majority of players didn't pick a particular map. A lot votes are essentially wasted this way.

I really hope this system is reverted because I feel the previous system actually provided a lot of variety and I fear, having played with a lot of games with the more classical vote system, that the match making pickings will essentially become cookie cutter now with a handful of options being picked the vast majority of the time.

And all of this makes no mention of the vote multiplier gaming which I think was perfectly fine but that's a slightly different topic.

The more I think about it...I don't think it will be that big of an issue. People will try find a way to game it to get vote multipliers but it will always be a gamble, and I think we'll see the chicken votes begin to disappear. People will just vote for whatever their favorite map is. We'll see less of the reduction to "best choice vs. worst choice" as players vote for what they prefer, not what is most likely to prevent what they hate. You'll still get a multiplier for every failed vote, so if you keep voting for your preferred maps eventually you'll get them.

In the end, the point was to "restore faith" in the system. All the vote jumping and chicken-playing caused people to feel like they were getting cheated out of good gameplay (c.f. certain posts in this thread).

By preventing people from artificially inflating their multiplier or playing the ubermetagame (put your x10 multiplier for the map you hate so the people who like it vote for something else to up their multiplier, then switch at the last second), PGI is giving players the sense that they know what they are voting for, that voting is fair and not rigged, and that they get a "plurality rules" result if not a consensus.

MrMadguy, on 16 March 2016 - 06:49 AM, said:

Actually there was a proof of it in some earlier thread.

Can you link to it? In all candor I'd like to see this. Bilbo agrees with you, so it can't be complete tinfoil hat nonsense.

[cazidin]

MrMadguy, on 16 March 2016 - 04:43 AM, said:

But with new system it's also harder to intentionally stack your multiplier and it's impossible to exploit system via voting or vote changing at last moment, so it's harder for vote trolls to bring terrible maps, like Terra Therma. It's much better, than being able to control voting process and being able to veto terrible maps. Also you should not be able to control voting process - voting is intended to let you pick your favorite map, nothing more. But "downvote" feature would be nice though.

Also there is a simple trick, that can prevent situation, you have described. In order to prevent vote split, that can allow vote trolls to bring terrible map, from happening, majority of players should make a silent agreement, for what map they all should always vote. In your case majority of players should have voted for Mining Collective, cuz it's best map - other 3 are from top 5 worst ones. And don't worry - majority of players already has this agreement. Players may disagree, about worst and best maps, but most players agree with following rating:



Skirmish > Assault > Conquest

So follow this rating and you will always get, what you want - chance, that terrible maps will be brought, will be minimized. This rating is proved to be very accurate. Why? Because there is a system, that trying to force most unpopular maps, via offering them for voting more often. What maps appear most often? Yeah! Worst ones! Therma, Polar, Alpine, City, Forest etc.

New map isn't in this rating yet, but it will most likely go to "Good" or even "Excellent" category - not big (no bias towards faster 'Mechs), lots of cover (no bias towards Snipe/LRM Meta), lots of spots, fights can happen around (great diversity of tactics).

New mode isn't in this rating too. Currently it isn't very promising - players hate maps like Alpine, Therma and Crimson exactly due to this "king of hill" kind of gameplay. May be it will be better, then Cunquest. Also it may be better than Assault on big maps.

MrMadGuy, I have to ask. What did you use to make that list of good and bad maps? No disrespect I'm just curious about your logic.

[MrMadguy]

cazidin, on 16 March 2016 - 06:59 AM, said:

MrMadGuy, I have to ask. What did you use to make that list of good and bad maps? No disrespect I'm just curious about your logic.

Short answer

Long answer: thousands of matches of experience since Open Beta in about 70 different 'Mechs, using almost every possible build in this game.

You usually don't need so much experience. All you need to intuitively feel, what maps are better and what are worse - is to play any 'Mech, that isn't Meta biased. Cuz of course every map will suit you, if you will play something like sickening ER-Raven Meta crap, that wouldn't even be possible with sized hardpoints.

Edited by MrMadguy, 16 March 2016 - 07:22 AM.

[cazidin]

MrMadguy, on 16 March 2016 - 07:16 AM, said:

Short answer

Long answer: thousands of matches of experience since Open Beta in about 70 different 'Mechs, using almost every possible build in this game.

You usually don't need so much experience. All you need to intuitively feel, what maps are better and what are worse - is to play any 'Mech, that isn't Meta biased. Cuz of course every map will suit you, if you will play something like sickening ER-Raven Meta crap, that wouldn't even be possible with sized hardpoints.

Fair enough. I'd personally have a different rating but I respect the logic of your system. Thank you.

Edited by cazidin, 16 March 2016 - 07:22 AM.

[Meathook]

MrMadguy, on 16 March 2016 - 07:16 AM, said:

Short answer

Long answer: thousands of matches of experience since Open Beta in about 70 different 'Mechs, using almost every possible build in this game.

You usually don't need so much experience. All you need to intuitively feel, what maps are better and what are worse - is to play any 'Mech, that isn't Meta biased. Cuz of course every map will suit you, if you will play something like sickening ER-Raven Meta crap, that wouldn't even be possible with sized hardpoints.

Classic MrMadGuy, this guy never ceases to amaze me

[Tyler Valentine]

MrMadguy, on 16 March 2016 - 07:16 AM, said:

Short answer

Long answer: thousands of matches of experience since Open Beta in about 70 different 'Mechs, using almost every possible build in this game.

You usually don't need so much experience. All you need to intuitively feel, what maps are better and what are worse - is to play any 'Mech, that isn't Meta biased. Cuz of course every map will suit you, if you will play something like sickening ER-Raven Meta crap, that wouldn't even be possible with sized hardpoints.

Alistair has the fourth post, saying your list is crap, with 18 likes...

Your short answer is almost as useless as your long answer.

[demoyn]

Paigan, on 16 March 2016 - 12:08 AM, said:

If there is a change with 5 advantages and 2 drawbacks, don't complain about the 2 drawbacks. See the whole picture. Nothing is perfect. It's about improvement. And the new system definitely is an improvement.

Well... except for the original system. That one was perfect. Sure am glad they changed it just because people didn't like their horrible game modes...