61 replies to this topic

[Alto]

jay35, on 01 April 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

Just a thought.

And a good one too. Hooray for your thinking!

[Rashhaverak]

Two observations,

First is that I very much like River City Night and Alpine. Both maps are great, IMO, because they fundamentally change how the game is played compared to other maps. Certain builds rise above others, and certain tactics work better. This will be even more pronounced after today's patch changes the heat and night vision... For the better, I'm hoping.

Second, I disagree strongly with the idea that game play should be driven by cbills per minute. My goal is to play the game and have fun, not how many drops per hour and cbills per minute I can get.

[Mercules]

Shumabot, on 02 April 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

You blame your dislike of the map on other people. What exactly are other people doing to ruin alpine for you that they don't do to ruin any other map?

1. I was talking about RCN.

2. I never said I dislike it. I like it less. There is a difference.

3. Examples of behavior on this map you don't see on others? Let me see... Disconnecting out of some childish tantrum about getting the map. Automatically going into fatalist, "Let's get this map over with." mode, often literally saying that in the chat, then Leroy Jenkins-ing right up the middle of the water to just get dead so they can quit. Shooting teammates because they can't tell which blue blob is in front of the other blue blob and not switching into night vision to find out. It just seems most players play significantly worse on this map from my experience.

[Alois Hammer]

Shumabot, on 02 April 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

Sure, but I expressed what is by in large a broad community opinion.

Just like universal hatred for 3rd person view, which we're getting shoved in anyway.

Shumabot, on 02 April 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

Another wonderfully useless response from an elite founder.

Replied to by another wonderfully useless random troll trying to justify being able to min-max their Mech for specific maps.

[Shumabot]

Alois Hammer, on 02 April 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Just like universal hatred for 3rd person view, which we're getting shoved in anyway.



Replied to by another wonderfully useless random troll trying to justify being able to min-max their Mech for specific maps.

Man, you're on a roll here with your absolute lack of contribution. Keep it up, do that founders tag proud.

[PappySmurf]

Josef Nader, on 01 April 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

The problem with giving players control of which maps they play on is that maps will instantly become dominated by super-focused builds minmaxed for the current environment. There will be zero room for balanced mechs. Everything will be created to completely dominate in the environment of the player's choosing, and that leads to very stale, very boring gameplay.

Only if you don't have a stock mode or tonnage based drops you are right about open custom game drops. The reason MWO has a problem with disconnects is the game is grind based for XP/Cbills/GXP. So the easy out players just want to grind and achieve top level mechs gear and skill stats till they achieve top tier levels. Then it just becomes a matter of stomping noobs for fun because they have nothing left to grind for as far as items or rewards. The game model MWO uses promotes this style of gameplay the older mech PC games promoted team play and leagues to overcome disconnects and lame gameplay except in open games where it was like MWO is A BIG FREKKIN FREE FOR ALL. Hahhahha enjoy the next 10+ years of MWOFFA online.

[jay35]

MaddMaxx, on 02 April 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Unless something has changed, every Map has a 15 minute timer. I am unsure how to incentivize Maps based on average timed a Match is played? If you get more for a shorter Match, then how does that help the Atlas on your Team? He is still attempting to assist but you "time mongers" ran off without him/her.

You're misinterpreting the proposal. I'm not saying calculate the minutes of a given match and award it at that level. What is being proposed is simply to observe the AVERAGE time a match tends to take on each map. Alpine matches tend to take 25% longer on average than the other maps that came before it. Tourmaline matches tend to take around 50% longer than those maps. Thus, Alpine payout should be adjusted to be 25% higher than current and Tourmaline's should be 50% higher than current. This just ensures that players have an equal incentive to play those maps, to spend their extra time in those matches, knowing their rewards will be equitable, based on something instead of nothing, based on the average time matches take on those maps . That's all.

No need to get into the weeds of figuring out individual match times and awarding individually based on that. That would potentially open the door to what you described, but that's not what was being proposed.

Edited by jay35, 02 April 2013 - 08:58 AM.

[Aim64C]

jay35, on 02 April 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

That's fine that you can't relate. Many can relate, else this wouldn't be a known issue. No one's asked for you to sympathize. It's just discussing about how a developer goes about addressing what is clearly a significant issue, which you know is the case if you've played the game in the last couple weeks and experienced the frequent shorted teams and disconnects.

Honestly, I think people who disconnect for such purposes should be banned. Preferably have a trial of annihilation called upon them, as that behavioral trend is indicative of weak and unreliable behavior.

I'm not RPing. If you're going to pretend to go into battle with me and then leave me outnumbered - I'd rather kill you myself. And if you'll do it over something as mundane as a beta game - you'll certainly do it during a time of crisis.

The fundamental problem with your reasoning is that you assume people who do not want to play this game are a problem.

Do you like Ketchup?

Mustard?

Tobasco sauce?

Horse radish?

Perhaps you like all of those things, in which case, substitute some edible substance that you do not like. Regardless of whether or not you partake of it - it is offered, and there are people out there who do buy it. Huntz doesn't have to go about trying to tweak their formula to convince people who do not like Ketchup to like it and buy it. People like it as it is, and you are free to buy or not buy it.

Similarly, there are games out there that you will not buy or participate in. They should not go around changing how they do things to try and convince you to buy in. What they have works for their player base.

There are limits to how a game development team should go about catering to the player (and non-player) base. Currently, the game is understood to be in a relatively incomplete state. People who are going around, altering their files or disconnecting from maps because the game is incomplete and not meeting their needs should not be catered to. If anything - such people should be ostracized from the community.

It's like asking the guy, who goes into burger king and then pitches a fit about how the burgers always 'suck' and that they are never satisfied, how they could possibly make him happy. He's the 1 person out of 16 who acted in such a manner and seems to be unhappy no matter what is done.

Why should you change what you are doing based on the behavior of less than 10% of the base that is, for whatever reason, impossible to placate?

By all means - go someplace else that does do things the way you want to.

If the incomplete nature of this game is too much for you to handle - go do something else and check back later.

Quote

Tourmaline matches tend to take around 50% longer than those maps. Thus, Alpine payout should be adjusted to be 25% higher than current and Tourmaline's should be 50% higher than current. This just ensures that players have an equal incentive to play those maps, to spend their extra time in those matches, knowing their rewards will be equitable, based on something instead of nothing, based on the average time matches take on those maps . That's all.

That's not entirely unreasonable.

However; I'm not playing the game to get C-bills. I'm playing the game to kill (or be killed due to my own stupidity - depends upon what match we're talking about). Honestly, no effort should be made to cater to playing the game simply to grind up c-bills. I'll admit that we need to see more complex gameplay modes and metagame features to make that realistic - but the moment you start catering to tweakers is the moment everything starts going to hell in a handbasket.

Need evidence? Look no further than the ghetto or trailer park.

[TehSBGX]

I dunno I think the way maps work should be kept in tact. Yeah I despise River City Night, but doing maps like alpine where my build is at a disadvantage and learning to cope with it will ,make me better in the long run. :/

[Mystere]

What is this "cbills per time spent" thingy? It sounds more like a job than a game.

[MischiefSC]

jay;

I lost your original meaning in the post too. Clean it up and shrink it maybe? Remove the part about WHY people disco? My original understanding of your post was that the intent was 'if people don't want to play certain maps you shouldn't make them'. That I don't agree with.

Bumping rewards on bigger maps though I do. It's a matter of time vs reward. If I take longer to play certain maps then I'm dropping less and thus my reward for those maps is lower. I *hate* playing Assault, only play Conquest. However Alpine is a stone b*tch in a boomjag. Not because it's difficult but because I'll often have 8 minutes of just walking and be nearly suicidally grateful when I get someone to shoot at, win or lose.

A good recommendation. Make that the focus though - scaling rewards to projected games play time based on the map. Not on how long it takes; people will game that. Just the projected playtime for a given map.

Good idea. I like it.

[Corwin Vickers]

Shumabot, on 02 April 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

Sure, but I expressed what is by in large a broad community opinion. I have never heard anyone praise River City Night, and Alpine quickly fell out of favor. It's purely dysfunctional in conquest, where more often then not the victory is decided by whatever team had 2 lights running in a giant circle while it's pure chance if the teams run into eachother at all. In assault the map devolves into two teams poptarting behind two hills to the northeast of the central giant mountain that makes scouting worthless because you can see all relevant places on the map from the top of it. It also has terrain that continuously and pointlessly deforms like the ground is made of jello and a significant portions of the rocks and buildings in the map aren't even touching the ground.

Insofar as everything is an opinion, sure, it's my opinion. But alpine is bad by almost every objective measurement of game design.

I like river city night and alpine because they are different. Alpine is bad by every objective measurement of game design and yet many people subjectively like it? Can't be that objective then can it?

People who are intolerant of different map lifestyles and disconnect from them should be prosecuted for hate crimes.


Seriously, I have little patience for anyone that thinks their own fun is more important than the other 7 guys on their team. This is a team game, not a single player game. It's not Burger King, YOU CANNOT HAVE IT YOUR WAY.

If you want to control what map you play, if you want want to maximize your loadout to suit the exact map you go to, if you are an unfeeling narcissist and only care about yourself, then play a single player game.

First PGI caters to players who want to control the map they drop on. Then you have people saying that they don't make as much money as so and so mech/weight class etc or on so and so map. Then you have people saying they want TDM. Other players don't want alpha strikes in the game. Some people hate the clans. Some people only want 3025 tech. No double heatsinks!!! Light mechs are too powerful, I have to shoot them once to kill then and they aren't self imploding anytime they get near me. AC2 should do more damage than an AC10. LRMs are OP, nerf them into the ground. Then you have players who have never spent a dime on the game and DEMAND that the devs cater to them. People who want to pug stomp all day with 4/8 mans and feel it is their RIGHT to do so. You have map deleters, vision cfg "enhancers" and aim botters. People forcing themselves to lag so others can't hit them.

This is what we have now. You start catering to all these people, spending game resources on them, splitting them all up into their own little communities, don't you have a single player game? The matchmaker tells me it failed to find a match a couple of times a night now. Imagine how it will be if ever little whiner got exactly what they wanted.

I think the "truism" of game design is that if you listen to every selfish, self centered a-hole you end up with a ****** game.

PGIs only mistake is catering to the lowest common denominator. To me that includes people who delete maps and disconnect from maps they don't like despite their team mates suffering for it.

[Exoth3rmic]

At the end of the day they are "fixing" part of the issue by changing the ability to modify the files thus preventing the performance of an activity that is already in breach of the terms and conditions. As for actual manual disconnects, as you say you want the developer to look at "why" some users are doing this when you, I and PGI already know "why" they are doing this - they don't like the map.

You mention "duration" as a player response but given the issue emerged around river city night, prior to the release of alpine and this is in fact one of the faster maps, we can essentially just take it that its a dislike of the map. Game length only comes in to play for alpine during the tournies as far as I have seen and the contention that Tourmaline takes longer than Alpine is not borne out by my own stats.

Spoiler

Its also difficult to conflate the random bugged discos in with the deliberate simply by polling players, but as you're talking specifically about the later we'll leave it at that.

The suggested solution of giving rewards for time served per map is a good idea in general and I see only limited reasons why it shouldn't be implemented per se, but it isn't a solution to the problems outlined.

Providing a balanced reward scale, as you suggest, is unlikely to impact the issues people have had with River City Night and I doubt any "reward" scale is going to brighten their day there.

For my own part the 'truism' you describe is only applicable when there is the option for the developer to retain a user's input and funds without impacting the rest of the user base at a cost/reward ratio. As the activity of the people you're trying to retain is inversely impacting other users gameplay and product enjoyment I actually do favour the use of the stick in this area.

If you have statistically played a tiny amount of time due to disconnects on certain maps then you've impacted at least 15 other people's experience on said games and should be punished for doing so.

Any form of punishment is more than likely to have a larger impact on player activity than simply appeasing people by removing certain maps, as an example. Its a different form of incentivisation.

In any case, if i'm being punished with playing Alpine, everyone else should be to.

Edited by Exoth3rmic, 02 April 2013 - 11:12 PM.

[S3dition]

jay35, on 01 April 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

It is said that time spent trying to prevent users from doing something within your product that improves their user experience is counter-intuitive. It is better to invest that time in understanding why the users are doing it and providing a solution that solves the core problem that is leading users to take the rogue behavior we don't want them to take.

Here's an example of where that might come into play: We know some players are modifying certain files so they don't have to drop on certain maps. We also experience a significant amount of disconnects, in particular on certain maps.

Initial Reaction: Figure out a way to stop players from doing it.

Better Response: Understand why they don't want to play those maps and figure out a solution that will either stoke their interest in playing those maps again, or provide them an approved way to avoid having to play maps they don't want to play.

There are many options we could investigate, but simply trying to prevent them from modifying those files without providing a solution to their problem, means, if nothing else, we don't understand or don't care why they are doing it in the first place, so we aren't actually addressing the problem, we're attempting to mask a symptom. It is also poor for public relations because the developer is seen as heavy-handed and uncaring.

If the "hackers" don't simply come up with another workaround that leads to an ongoing string of whack-a-mole hacks-and-fixes, then they will simply resort to disconnecting rather than play a map they really do not want to play or you may simply lose their business entirely.

So that "solution" doesn't solve anything and in fact results in continued negative experiences for all players, whether those who are being served maps they do not want, or those who are interested in playing those maps but are stuck with teammates who have disconnected, thus imbalancing the teams, or less potential players to compete against overall.

Possible solutions that might be (and potentially have been) considered but probably won't work:

Spoiler

Provide a way for users to select the map, as is the case with other multiplayer games, whether by exposing the servers to a browser that allows players to join them ad hoc, or by allowing users to group up with the match host selecting the map to play on and that info being sent to the server, which in turn loads that map and creates the match according to the host's selected settings. That would work, but only if the matchmaker is significantly altered or deprecated, because the matchmaker needs to pull from as large a pool of players as possible in order to fill up matches and if we leave it to players to set up matches, there is legitimate concern about balance and fairness between teams. That said, exposing what mechs people are taking could help counter that, and we could go on and on discussing problems and solutions, many of which have been worked through in the past 15+ years of PC FPS games quite successfully using such models for multiplayer gaming, but it's a huge change in direction for the system as designed today. So, assuming we are stuck with the matchmaker schema, this option is no good.

Another option would be to provide a way for players to vote on the next map, but that doesn't solve the first map loaded upon the start of a match if it's only voting on the next map that will come up after the current one, and it doesn't guarantee all the players will get what they want so there's still a good chance some will still disconnect if the vote isn't satisfactory. So that's not a truly effective solution either.

But in polling the disaffected players as to why they edit files or disconnect at match start, if it turns out to be primarily an issue of match duration, or map frequency, we have a couple solutions that are more viable:

Spoiler

Of course the first thing is to return all maps to an even weighting in the server randomization so people are dropping in any map back to back, let alone Tourmaline. But we expect that adjustment to occur soon anyway, now that the new maps are not so new and most of us are getting burnt out on them. But on its own, weighting doesn't completely solve the problem.

In conjunction with weighting, we could also provide a map size filter so players can select whether they want to avoid Large maps or play All maps. This keeps the playerbase split to a minimum (one split into two pools, "No Large" and "All").

This would be considered a good use of a playerbase split if it solves an active problem with a minimum of splits, just like adding a new game mode since that provides more content for all users while only adding one new split to the playerbase. In this case, we're improving the experience for all players, whether disconnectors/hackers or those who want to play full matches without disconnects. This as opposed to, say, adding a 3rd Person View, which creates a minimum of a six-way split into the playerbase (3PV only, 1PV only, 1PV okay with playing against 3PV, and all three of those multiplied by the current number of distinct game types (2 at present) and doesn't provide anything for the majority of the playerbase. So a total of 6 pools for the matchmaker at a minimum, if that's calculated correctly) and most players gain nothing except a reduction in their pool numbers, where as a fix for people disconnecting or skipping maps, such that everyone loading into a map wants to be there, improves everyone's in-game experience.

Another alternative, i..e, the recommended solution, and one which is a relatively simple and immediate fix alongside balanced weighting of the maps, would be to balance the map match rewards based on how long matches take on average for each map. Using the existing rewards scale as the minimum standard, any map that takes more than the average time to play per match, should have its awards increased proportionally, both for winners and losers, in order to provide an incentive for all players to play regardless of which map comes up. If matches on Alpine Peaks and Tourmaline Desert paid out equally as well based on the time investment required to play matches on them, that could significantly reduce the quits. Currently, Tourmaline seems to run roughly 50% longer matches than the previous maps other than Alpine, and Alpine runs roughly 25% longer matches than those other previous maps.

(tl;dr) While it is not a complete solution, and ideally players could be able to filter out Large maps entirely (as described above), providing a balanced reward scale is a relatively simple fix to test to see if it significantly improves things and incentivizes more/most players to play every match rather than disconnect or hack a file.

Implementing this improvement alongside balancing the weighting of the maps, while removing the current file hack as well, would provide a much smoother reaction from the community, demonstrate good will and interest on the part of the developer, and reduce the incentive for players to find new loopholes or disconnect at match start.

Just a thought.

I'm not the type to mess with files, but will freely admit there have been a few times I've disconnected at map load because Tourmaline came up for the umpteenth time in a row and generally there were others disconnected so the match was already busted. I hate that. I don't want to disconnect. It's simply bad design to put players in a situation where that is the most appealing thing for them to do.

----------
Discussion from page 2 that should help clarify some things:


And that's precisely what the recommendation provides. Good, glad we could agree on that. Make the maps worth playing.

Not so fast. That's a red herring. It's not about making the highest income in the shortest amount of time. It's about making the same average income regardless of which maps you end up on. Meaning, if you invest one hour of your time into the game, assuming the same number of wins and losses during that time, your income over that period of time should be the same regardless of which maps you played on. What is being proposed is increasing BALANCE in an aspect of the game that is not currently balanced. What you're arguing against is a strawman of imbalance that is not what is being proposed.


Precisely how I feel. I've suffered through enough imbalanced matches due to quitters, hence why I'm proposing something I think might alleviate that without ANY downside to trying it out. There is NO downside to balancing map payout by average match time. If it has the impact of reducing disconnects, it is a success.

Didn't have to read the huge rant to give you an answer:

Why they want to play a certain map - to make a boat that requires a perfect environment to work, such as a laser boat for frozen city night or LRM boat for alpine.

This is a problem with the core battletech mechanics, as the very map you play on can give you an unfair advantage if you determine it in advance. You cannot fix this and remain true to the battletech lore. Either Mechwarrior becomes Genericanimewarrior online, or you do the very simple task of prohibiting people from controlling their map rotation queue.

Personally, I'd rather force people to make dynamic builds than cater to the exploit crowd.

[Ghogiel]

There was an official response on the matter of circumventing certain maps by tampering with the game files. It's says don't do it or you can get a suspention/ban
http://mwomercs.com/...wo-game-client/

They have all the stats. All they need to do is look at players drop rates on certain maps, and if they aren't dropping on them, they should just suspend/ban those accounts. Simple filter would highlight those players that need to be dealt with.


PGIGP have an abysmal record of dealing with in game abuse. Remember it took 6 weeks of much complaining on the forums before one of the Devs actually decided to do something, and personally banned that first AFK botter account Kevin whats his face.

So players can't help PGI by reporting players who do this, we'll just never know, they have all the tools and power to deal with the issue and are already aware of it and given a statement on the matter as fair warning.

[Corwin Vickers]

You don't always have information on a planet before you start your drop. Only the defending forces do. Star League records are frequently missing or out of date. If it is a small backwater you might know nothing about it at all.

So are you saying you haul 20 mechs per pilot on multiple drops ships so that when you get there you have a choice? Or maybe you do a full refit on the dropship on the burn in when you would normally need a mech factory and millions of c-bills to do the kind of customization we do on our mechs?

Also, wouldn't it be the defender who chooses the field of battle?

[Sifright]

Corwin Vickers, on 03 April 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

You don't always have information on a planet before you start your drop. Only the defending forces do. Star League records are frequently missing or out of date. If it is a small backwater you might know nothing about it at all.

So are you saying you haul 20 mechs per pilot on multiple drops ships so that when you get there you have a choice? Or maybe you do a full refit on the dropship on the burn in when you would normally need a mech factory and millions of c-bills to do the kind of customization we do on our mechs?

Also, wouldn't it be the defender who chooses the field of battle?

Strike me down with all of your hatred..
...and your journey towards the Dark Side will be complete.

[1ShotPaddy]

Shumabot, on 02 April 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

Get rid of the games two worst maps, River City Night and Alpine and suddenly people aren't forcing disconnects to avoid playing on them. Both are abysmal, unbalanced, and fail completely to interact with the games objectives. Night has an excuse that it's just really dark, but honestly, Alpine is beyond saving. It is the worst map I have ever seen, it's designed terribly for gameplay, for interaction with objectives, and it just looks awful.

Given that it took them a year to make river city night playable (assuming the vision mode changes do that at all) and alpine is brand new implies that they're not going to be addressing these issues anytime soon.

Alpine is quickly becoming my favourite map, so large that enemies more often get stranded with the huge mountains blocking LOS to their team mates. I'm having fun in my Centurion scouting the terrain and waiting for those kinds of opportunities to attack isolated enemies. It offers something new and for the first time really you can now get into good vantage points to oversee the battle below. Lighter and faster mechs, with added artillery and airstrike modules can now direct the fight from above, telling their heavy hitter teammates where to attack etc.

Quote

In assault the map devolves into two teams poptarting behind two hills to the northeast of the central giant mountain that makes scouting worthless because you can see all relevant places on the map from the top of it.

It's all about getting the high ground in that map. The two teams will have to send a lance up to fight for the central mountain, whoever wins that battle has a huge advantage for the rest of the map. A nice terrain based objective, good map design (although yes the geometry seriously needs touched up)

River City Night is okay, just as good as the day version. I don't mind the vision modules, I'm too busy playing the game. No complaints really, although I think it would use the low visibiltiy better if it was a tad bit larger. Giving ecm cloaked mechs, in the dark of night, ninja abilities to launch ambushes in a dense urban environment (Like that early MW5 trailer, ninja Atlas comes out from behind a building and Ac/20's you in the face, no big red square or a warning from betty.)

We need more larger maps to add that element to the game, small maps lend themselves more to brawls, and it's very hard to remain unseen.

Anywa, to end, variety is good. Your missing out if you skip the large maps, there is enjoyment to be had from them. ALthough when CW is introduced, and galactic conquest, you'll most likely be able to choose your map, specializing in specific roles for specific environments. e.g. after capturing a world that uses the Forest Colony map you take on the task of defending, playing it and it alone.

Quote

Faction Worlds

The battle for control over faction planets is a simple war of attrition. The faction with the most influence over a particular planet occupies it. By virtue of simply competing in online matches, faction players contribute influence points to target planets.

http://mwomercs.com/...munity-warfare/

Edited by 1ShotPaddy, 03 April 2013 - 04:37 AM.

[Chris Morris]

Disconnecting from a map because it is not your favorite really hampers the team you were supposed to play with. Not only is it poor sportsmanship but it is quite a selfish thing to do.

[Odanan]

Corwin Vickers, on 03 April 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

You don't always have information on a planet before you start your drop. Only the defending forces do. Star League records are frequently missing or out of date. If it is a small backwater you might know nothing about it at all.

So are you saying you haul 20 mechs per pilot on multiple drops ships so that when you get there you have a choice? Or maybe you do a full refit on the dropship on the burn in when you would normally need a mech factory and millions of c-bills to do the kind of customization we do on our mechs?

Also, wouldn't it be the defender who chooses the field of battle?

Not to mention one planet can have all sort of terrains (all sort of different maps).