259 replies to this topic

[Gorgo7]

As of this post 1171 have voted
936 for, 235 against.

203 posts by roughly 80 people.

What am I trying to say? Lost my train of thought...
Yeah, has anyone counted the for and against here??

cheers!

[Ultimax]

I voted yes because I think it's best for the game even though I rarely enjoy conquest.

That being said the game modes of assault and conquest both need improvements.


Things like better location of objectives, to spawn points, slow mechs dragging team down in conquest, etc.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 23 September 2014 - 01:02 PM.

[Jolly Llama]

TWIAFU, on 23 September 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

If the rule of threes was removed, it would be 12 v 12 Dire Whales and only the side that brought the most Whales would win.

The drop limit MUST stay.

B S! I would drop mostly in mediums and in group mode, I have several friends that prefer wolf packs of lights. Only gangs of low skill idiots would drop 12 mans of Dire Wolves. They would get picked apart.

[Jeb]

I see the vote is leaning towards yes...

1) If it's based on a "vote" we will end up in Skirmish most of the time, (based on how people seem to play all 3 modes mostly) which means people that like Conquest and Assault will be stuck on the same game type most the time...
2) We already have so many people freak out after they die and want the rest of the team to "just die already"... the answer to those people is to play conquest or assault where there is a secondary objective and you don't have to kill every last mech...
3) I can't stand Conquest... so many people play it like Skirmish that it drives me to see red... People ignore points too often and just focus on kills costing the game...
4) We will have people drop from game modes they don't' like which will be worse in the end I think... as teams will start out being at a number disadvantage...


There has to be a better way to deal with this then to remove our choice on the type game we want...

I think conquest could be a good mode, but it needs a redesign on reward payouts to discourage it being played just like a skirmish...


I think the idea is great to use for a map selection process... but not for the actual game mode... game mode effects the game so much though it's like forcing someone to play a game they dont' want to...

Edited by Jeb, 23 September 2014 - 05:56 PM.

[White Bear 84]

Why not have two sets of queues for groups? One for competitive play and one for casual? You can mix and match groups/pugs as much as you want.

To prevent stomps and casual play trolling, have an elo bar which determines a skill cut off - so if your group/pug player falls above this bar you are pit against the competitive players...

I personally do not think groups are the issue per se (bar the 12 man problem), but when you get a highly experienced 8 man + 4 man against three 'casual' 4 man groups, who do you suppose will win?

Also what is the status with player numbers? Finding that we are coming up against the same teams quite regularly and the result is usually always the same - either a complete stomp victory or a complete stomp loss. It seems like a numbers issue as much as anything else? In which case ignore the above...

Personally right now I couldn't care less about CW - because it means nothing if the matchmaking is so screwed up. Still collecting evidence from drops and will continue to do so past the 7th to see if there is any actual change..


p.s. Another solution would be to actually have a stock only and a meta queue....

Edited by White Bear 84, 23 September 2014 - 06:04 PM.

[RockmachinE]

I don't like skill matching, I never did.

People of various skills and experiences make the game more interesting and while you do get stacked teams, the same thing happens with ANY and ALL skill matching systems anyways. There's always stomps and there's always stacks no matter what, but now you've limited the diversity and fun in a game.

I don't really understand why this whole thing became popular...well I kind of do (people in their formative years were force-fed a completely unrealistic idea of a "fair and balanced" environment which is total nonsense and completely unrealistic. They were spoon fed and spoiled, becoming easily insulted, whiny and mentally weak..... well these people now make up for the majority of the playerbase of most games whether we like it or not. The developers will obviously cater to their majority demographic, pussify and stupify the games and the whole skill balancing idea is just a tiny result of that), online gaming did EXTREMELY WELL without any mechanical skill matching for ages. Now people feel we need to have things "fair" and "balanced". I don't want a "balanced" set of players, I want chaos, pro-elite guys who'll kick my ass and show me a whole new level of play - I'll have to try really really hard to beat and have feuds with, total noobs I will plow through and feel like a god and players of my skill that give me a run for my money.

THAT IS FUN.

"Oh no the people on the enemy team are to tough, we need better match making, oooo"

PUSSlES

Can't believe this site censors pus*ies - *******!

Edited by Louis Brofist, 23 September 2014 - 06:19 PM.

[Jeb]

Wildflame, on 23 September 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Making game mode vetoing premium-only is also an option. That way those who are supporting the game financially can exercise full choice, while those who are f2p will have to put up with the occasional drop on a gametype they dislike.

I have spent hundreds of dollars on this game...
founders, both clan packs, 13 hero mechs, and a bunch of colors... I am supporting the game as much or more then a lot of people buying premium time... how is that fair to then force me to pay more for premium time to play the mode I want to play...

In fact 1 year of premium time is 24,000 MC... 25,000 MC costs $99.00 dollars on the website... so a year premium time is not even the cost I just paid for the 2nd clan pack...

Sorry to be a bit blunt here, but I feel I am doing more then my part in supporting this game...

Edited by Jeb, 23 September 2014 - 06:12 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Russ's proposal depends on the distribution of current game mode selections.

If there is a great disparity between players who prefer Conquest, Skirmish, and Assault, then the minority gametype will become almost unplayable due to a lack of locally-concentrated votes at the beginning of every match.


A PLEA TO THE WISE AND KNOWING:

PGI, if there is an uneven distribution of dedicated Conquest/Assault/Skirmish players, then please don't do anything that would reduce the play-frequency of the minority gametype to vastly reduced levels... remember, local voting concentration is all that counts. If 20% of players want Conquest, then you'll rarely see more than 2 or 3 conquest votes/game, meaning Conquest won't be a playable gamemode anymore...

Edited by Prosperity Park, 23 September 2014 - 06:36 PM.

[General Taskeen]

Its time for PGI to completely scrap the matchmaker. Gut it and salvage the MP experience. Ground up, rebuild for dedicated server support, old style lobby drop-in/drop-out servers. The players will foot the bill for running their own servers, PGI saves money, people then join the servers they want. Then add in several mutator selectors in addition to mode selection, Respawn On/Off, Stock Mode On/Off, Pure Tech Custom On/Off, Restricted Tech List On/Off, First Person On/Off, etc. Hell, impossible at this point.

Edited by General Taskeen, 23 September 2014 - 06:47 PM.

[Desirsar]

I would rather have a more competitive match and still choose my game modes. I am willing to give up my TIME for this by waiting longer in the queue.

[Jolly Llama]

Desirsar, on 23 September 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

I would rather have a more competitive match and still choose my game modes. I am willing to give up my TIME for this by waiting longer in the queue.

Or scrap this asinine 3/3/3/3 business and have normal wait times with quality ELO matchings, just like it was before all the nerf whining started a few months ago. PGI panders to the new and unskilled players, being that they are about 70% of the quickly reducing server population.

[PappySmurf]

OMG I think I hate these forums and the Fued up people in this game no one wants to compromise anything about any subjects its like going to the circus around here. PGI is the ring master and we are all the clowns playing a game we love to the circus tune (as the big top turns).

Or we should call this Drama (As the mech turns) MWO is now very fun in the solo/casual MM queue with the addition of new maps and game modes its almost perfect.But the group MM and game modes are just not enough MWO needs a true live chat lobby launcher system so everyone can be happy.

You want to play 1v1-12v12 Solaris matches great do so you want to role-play Clan vs IS be my guest you want to play planetary go for it but one thing is clear too many players want what the current group MM system cannot do and not replacing the system and only band-aiding it will not work.

Helll Russ I will volunteer my time and effort to help PGI fix the group problem by contributing 20+ years playing this IP and knowing what made it tick like a perfect watch and what allowed this IP to have a community of over 1,000,000 players annually and over a hundred active leagues and how to make this game pay you a billion dollars over 10 years so you can have that fancy yacht and 100 acre mansion.

Edited by PappySmurf, 23 September 2014 - 09:39 PM.

[Deathlike]

Despite my vote being yes, there are 3 things that need to be accomplished in order for my vote to really matter...

1) Revamp Conquest... Rewards and Cap Speeds - Since the 12v12 change, the cap speed on conquest is far longer than it should be (especially when it is NOT scaled by map) and doing nothing for what many consider a "lengthy period of time" is a waste. That and poor rewards for capping is not helping. You WILL need to revamp the mode and its rewards or it will stand unpopular.

2) Reward players for picking other modes (or just picking them all) - Since you are tracking the players popularity in selection (because, you did log who launched the match right), they should be rewarded move if they are selecting every match type. It's very simple and while some people will still pick their preference, rewarding those for picking match types you don't like IS the best incentive there is.

3) Fix Assault - It shouldn't just be a "cap" which is inherently boring and uninteresting. You need to be creative on how this is accomplished, whether it be having multiple cap locations or things that need to be blown up in random locations, it needs to be said that it cannot be so fixed and predictable. You can even borrow some ideas from MW2 where mechs were able to inspect buildings so you could find out if you had to blow it up. Really, you could stand to improve Assault generally speaking. Don't limit yourself there.

[Asmudius Heng]

I agree 100% with deathlike .... the game modes themselves need to be improved.

That being said i can handle dropping in them anyway, but they need an overhaul ... Assault in particular need multiple meaningful cap points. I posted an idea about this a long time ago.

http://mwomercs.com/...de-but-improve/

All of the game modes could be improved with OPTIONAL cap points that give some level of in game help though.

[Kjudoon]

Making sure conquest isn't a defacto skirmish mode like the conquest points in Alpine Peaks were would be a great start. They were so far apart you could maybe get to 4 of them out of the five with a moderately fast mech, but nothing more, and you better win those fights for the cap points. THAT was more interesting and distinct from what we have now. Problem is, all maps under the size of Alpine peaks is too small.

[White Bear 84]

Deathlike, on 23 September 2014 - 10:45 PM, said:

3) Fix Assault - It shouldn't just be a "cap" which is inherently boring and uninteresting. You need to be creative on how this is accomplished, whether it be having multiple cap locations or things that need to be blown up in random locations, it needs to be said that it cannot be so fixed and predictable. You can even borrow some ideas from MW2 where mechs were able to inspect buildings so you could find out if you had to blow it up. Really, you could stand to improve Assault generally speaking. Don't limit yourself there.

This should have been the case from the start and ties in with the essence of CW - capturing/destroying items etc etc as if you were invading a planet - not standing on a square like... ..idk, who does that?

[PhoenixFire55]

You don't give up smth that is "guaranteed" for smth that is "increased chance". We've heard multiple times already that matchmaker is "working as intended" and "most matches are balanced" according to some sort of values you never bothered to provide or even explain. So either these statements were lies, or you are trying to fool smb now. At some point you'll have to admit that you simply can't balance matches, and that the whole Elo MM is never gonna do what you believed it would.

[VixNix]

Yes, but why should you have to...

and

I think 90+ percent of players ignore game type and go for skirmish anyway as that's where the reward is.

If you rewarded game play more that would come into play, boost exp for capping x10 or more and people will be more interested in capping, etc...

[SgtKinCaiD]

Russ if you still read this post, you can clearly see that there is more to do before going to this last resort of the game mode vote :

• Revamp Assault and Conquest to be more rewarding,
  
• Continue to tune the MM (please reconsider the ELO buckets, and the ELO score based on W/L only).

[Kjudoon]

SgtKinCaiD, on 24 September 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:

Russ if you still read this post, you can clearly see that there is more to do before going to this last resort of the game mode vote :

• Revamp Assault and Conquest to be more rewarding,
  
• Continue to tune the MM (please reconsider the ELO buckets, and the ELO score based on W/L only).

Would be nice to see the objective to win Conquest BE conquest instead of a shorter term skirmish with worse rewards. Same goes for assault being actually used for assault and rewarded accordingly. Imagine if in conquest you got 5% of the award for killing and what not and all that difference was put into capping bases? How about assault if you reduced the awards for brawling to 25% shifting the reward to the team that captured the enemy base by assault? Would make a lot of sense in many ways I think.

Edited by Kjudoon, 24 September 2014 - 06:47 AM.