259 replies to this topic

[HlynkaCG]

kyrdragon, on 21 September 2014 - 10:21 PM, said:

I have only one concern here, and that's getting stuck playing Conquest if you are wanting to launch your extremely slow mech, like the direwhale. That has never been fun, especially in the solo queue where the team will leave fat one of the bunch to get eaten alive in a 5vs1 engagement. The group queue is a bit better, but it doesn't change the fact a few mechs are too slow for conquest.

If the possibility of getting stuck in a conquest makes you reconsider running your Dire Wolf in favor of something with a bit more mobility I'd say that that is a good thing.

[1453 R]

HlynkaCG, on 22 September 2014 - 02:20 AM, said:

If the possibility of getting stuck in a conquest makes you reconsider running your Dire Wolf in favor of something with a bit more mobility I'd say that that is a good thing.

If I'm allowed to have issues with the idea because Skirmish makes my blood boil over with frustrated nerdrage, other folks can have issues with other modes for perfectly valid reasons. Perhaps the man likes playing his Dire Wolf and doesn't feel like being forced to switch down to things he doesn't like?

That said, I've seen plenty of Dire Wolves wreck plenty of faces in Conquest. Not all maps are so large that Conquest games are spread out all over the place, and Whales can post up in range of a commonly contested checkpoint and reap heads covering that checkpoint. Defending a checkpoint from enemy recapture can be as useful as taking enemy checkpoints, and more than once I've been driven off a checkpoint by a Whale or two laying down enough fire on it that my lighter machines had to bail or get eaten.

Unfortunately there's no alternative, cope-with-it way to play Skirmish the way there is for Conquest and Dire Whales. Because Skirmish mode is populated by evil people with evil desires perpetuating evil plots. >_>...

Beh. This issue has me really friggin' conflicted. If there was some manner of honorable withdrawal option in Skirmish that let me just quit a bad match in progress (no, Esc. > Quit Match is NOT valid unless I suicide into a dug-in enemy team first, and I'll not do that to assuage your ego), I'd be able to vote "Yes" with a clear conscience. Is there any way we can look into "Withdraw" options for the game, Russ? For both Dire Whales looking to not get abandoned to the whims of fate on Conquest and 1453Rs who can't make themselves deal with Skirmish mode anymore? I know a Withdraw option would open up abuse on its own merits. Maybe let me start a thread up myself later and see if we can't work out a proper way of implementing it whilst limiting people's ability to abuse it the way they do Skirmish.

EDIT:: I totally did just that. Check it out.

Edited by 1453 R, 22 September 2014 - 03:11 AM.

[MadPanda]

That map voting thing should have been in the game 2 years ago.

[Kjudoon]

Good to see I'm not the only one vehemently opposed to playing a game mode I don't enjoy.

[OznerpaG]

having to play different modes would be tough since i only play Assault - with the bases Assault has more of a 'front line' feeling which makes it more like a war to me. skirmish is just a bunch of mechs on a map with no concept of up or down. conquest is a little too gamey for me, but if it was worthwhile playing just to cap with a light i'd have some fun with it

[Myke Pantera]

Hi Russ, i've been thinking about this since you mentioned it in the Town Hall Meeting, and my suggestion is this:

I like the idea of changing the hard limits to votes for the game mode, but instead of introducing a vote system for maps, i suggest we can bring 2-4 mechs from the same weight class and be able to select one of those right at the start of the match, once we know which map it's going to be.

The main reason i see for people not wanting to play Conquest is 1) finances, which isn't the topic here, but 2) because they are running a slow assault unsuited for Conquest, or a locust not suited for anything but conquest. If they could bring along an Assault that is suited for Conquest, many players won't have a problem with that. I for one love playing Locusts on Conquest, but i'd never play them in Assault or Skirmish, if the selection is just a vote, i'd probably play them a lot less.

Also i fear that a map vote system will just lower variety, because few people will vote for Terra Therma or River City Night. On the other hand, if we can select a heat efficient mech from our arsenal, once we know it's Terra Therma, more people might actually enjoy those less loved maps!

Edit: Also this encourages specialized builds, adding to diversity and probably even helps selling more mechs/modules since you need more of them ready at the same time. Beginners can still choose from the trials. I also think it adds something new to the lategame of MWO, which helps keeping players active.

Edited by Myke Pantera, 22 September 2014 - 03:21 AM.

[Unleashed3k]

Russ Bullock, on 21 September 2014 - 10:34 PM, said:

Thanks for your question I should make it clear that in your example it isn't that Crimson would be chosen, it would be that Crimson had about a 33% chance of being chosen. Also we would likely give each map at least a vote of 1, therefore everything would have at least a very small chance of being chosen with the % increasing with the number of votes.

Here's another idea for changing the map, at the beginning of a match, the players inside the public lobby get 3 options:

2 Random choosen maps, lets say (in this case) Crimson and Alpine and a third option for random map. Every player has the chance to set his vote within [20secs], if Crimson has most, game starts on Crimson etc.. If the players dont like both given maps, they can vote for random map and get the chance that another map shows up at matchstart. I've seen this method for mapselection in some other games and think this works pretty well.

what does the community think about it? what do you think about it Russ?

Thanks in advance to help us improve the quality of matches!

[Chemie]

let 2 and 3-mans back into solo queue to allow for casual team play. Right now, small teams are faced with a roflstomp team queue and instead break up and solo in a team game which is dumb (or leave the game).

Only match full 12-mans with full 12-mans; There should be a strong weighting to NOT match 10 or 12-mans with 5 different teams. These are worst than the old pug stomps.

Also, assault and skirmish are essentially the same now with bases...so just delete one and then only 2 game modes.

Edited by Chemie, 22 September 2014 - 03:42 AM.

[NeoCodex]

Battlestar3k, on 22 September 2014 - 03:33 AM, said:

Here's another idea for changing the map, at the beginning of a match, the players inside the public lobby get 3 options:

2 Random choosen maps, lets say (in this case) Crimson and Alpine and a third option for random map. Every player has the chance to set his vote within [20secs], if Crimson has most, game starts on Crimson etc.. If the players dont like both given maps, they can vote for random map and get the chance that another map shows up at matchstart. I've seen this method for mapselection in some other games and think this works pretty well.

what does the community think about it? what do you think about it Russ?

Thanks in advance to help us improve the quality of matches!

Good idea, but this would take additional development for the lobby, and they have their hands full allready. We are looking at simpler solutions at the moment.

[Unleashed3k]

NeoCodex, on 22 September 2014 - 03:54 AM, said:

Good idea, but this would take additional development for the lobby, and they have their hands full allready. We are looking at simpler solutions at the moment.

yeah but Russ already said they would do some work on the UI late in 2014 if the first step with the gamemodes would bring an improvement. Its just the second, and in my opinion the most logic step, to bring match improvements step by step, no need to hurry, we have the test-client to test and improve these steps anyway and of course CW is the first goal to achieve.

[Dracol]

I'm am undecided because of one reason only: Mech locked for 5 to 10 minutes because of 1 last guy on Skirmish that refuses to do anything but hid because the game is lost but they don't want a death on their stats.

If skirmish did not lock my mech while 1 person wastes my time, I would have no problem voting Yes. And it is just not my time, but 22 other players get their mechs locked because 1 person wishes not to have a stat that no one sees adversely affected.

With that said, I can see this being beneficial to the group queue. 2 12 mans in queue ready to go but unable to match due to game mode should be avoided. But in regards to solo queue, I would like to still have the option to play the mode I enjoy most.

My vote:

• Yes, make mode selection a vote for Group queue
  
• No, make mode selection fixed for solo queue

Edited by Dracol, 22 September 2014 - 04:08 AM.

[MuonNeutrino]

100% against this change, at least if it applies to the solo queue (which doesn't need the help anyway).

Right now, I play 100% conquest, because I find the other two game modes to encourage styles of gameplay that I find very unfun - namely, 'grab the biggest, slowest hunk of armor you can and lurch around the map in a blob of guns'. In conquest mode at least there's *some* incentive to actually take a mech capable of more than 64 KPH (or some incentive other than 'it's a clan mech', anyway). Under this proposed system where it doesn't even look at the votes until after it's pulled everyone into a match, I doubt I would be playing conquest more than 15% of the time even if I set my preference to conquest only. And I would really, really hate that.

I've stayed with MWO through all of the various issues and problems because the core gameplay has still been fun for me. This is one of the few things that has come along that actually has the potential to change that basic equation. I've already had my enjoyment of the game significantly limited by the changes to the queues essentially locking me out of playing with my brother, and he's barely playing at all anymore. If neither of us can even play the game mode we enjoy in the solo queue, I know he'll stop playing completely, and I certainly won't enjoy it either.

Edited by MuonNeutrino, 22 September 2014 - 04:13 AM.

[CyclonerM]

I really want map voting. It makes sense that you know in which region/planet you are about to unload/hot drop your 'Mechs

About game modes, however, i fear that Conquest would be played really few times because many do not like it. I actually like it though. ..

EDIT: a question. Will map voting be in CW too? I hope so, as any planet has different regions AKA different maps. A canyion area = Canyion Network, a frozen continent = Frozen City etc.

Edited by CyclonerM, 22 September 2014 - 04:26 AM.

[NeoCodex]

MuonNeutrino, on 22 September 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

100% against this change, at least if it applies to the solo queue (which doesn't need the help anyway).

Right now, I play 100% conquest, because I find the other two game modes to encourage styles of gameplay that I find very unfun - namely, 'grab the biggest, slowest hunk of armor you can and lurch around the map in a blob of guns'. In conquest mode at least there's *some* incentive to actually take a mech capable of more than 64 KPH (or some incentive other than 'it's a clan mech', anyway). Under this proposed system where it doesn't even look at the votes until after it's pulled everyone into a match, I doubt I would be playing conquest more than 15% of the time even if I set my preference to conquest only. And I would really, really hate that.

I've stayed with MWO through all of the various issues and problems because the core gameplay has still been fun for me. This is one of the few things that has come along that actually has the potential to change that basic equation. I've already had my enjoyment of the game significantly limited by the changes to the queues essentially locking me out of playing with my brother, and he's barely playing at all anymore. If neither of us can even play the game mode we enjoy in the solo queue, I know he'll stop playing completely, and I certainly won't enjoy it either.

I will never understand players such as yourself, sorry. How can playing only one game mode make you feel that you're good at the game? I'm sorry if this might come off as personal, but I think that you should challenge yourself a bit more than that, and a random voting system will put you out of your comfort zone a bit to adapt and improve in other areas. There are situations in other game modes where lights are useful too, you're apparently just not using them right but for capping. I'm not a regular light player, but whenever I did play them, I did very well even in skirmish, you just have to think a little more smarter. I started with a tag/narc/ppc jenner at the time before I switched to a little more skill required ember, which still gets me many kills in assault and skirmish up to this day. And after that the 3L, which almost feels like easy mode Jenner with that ECM. I think you should rethink about how you play the lights and what their role can be in other game modes, you just see them as capping tools and that is a very limited perception of game mechanics I don't like to see.

Edited by NeoCodex, 22 September 2014 - 04:48 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

I said yes - i would like better game play quality.
To compare ELO and filter after wards sound like a solid plan - but why a Vote Option.

Neither the Map nor the Game Mode should need a vote - with a vote the chances that a premade group can play one specific drop deck - and to get the map with the best chances doesn't help the game.

No choice neither of game mode nor map.

[1453 R]

NeoCodex, on 22 September 2014 - 04:43 AM, said:

I will never understand players such as yourself, sorry. How can playing only one game mode make you feel that you're good at the game? I'm sorry if this might come off as personal, but I think that you should challenge yourself a bit more than that, and a random voting system will put you out of your comfort zone a bit to adapt and improve in other areas. There are situations in other game modes where lights are useful too, you're apparently just not using them right but for capping. I'm not a regular light player, but when I do play them, I did very well even in skirmish, you just have to think a little more smarter. I started with a tag/narc/ppc jenner at the time before I switched to a little more skill required ember, which still gets me many kills in assault and skirmish up to this day. I think you shoul rethink about how you play the lights and what their role can be in other game modes, you just see them as capping tools and that is a very limited perception of game mechanics I don't like to see.

"Might" come off as personal?

This thread is for discussion of Russ' proposal and reasons why/why not to adopt it. Taking strips of skin off of every player who doesn't want to run 100% Skirmish is hardly the way to go about it. Settle down, Codex. We get it, you're a Manly Man who sneers at anyone who's Not On Your Level.

Some of the rest of us would like to discuss options to alleviate the issues we have with this proposal, and hopefully come to a consensus that's better for everyone. You can help, or you can shove off.

[NeoCodex]

1453 R, on 22 September 2014 - 04:49 AM, said:

"Might" come off as personal?

This thread is for discussion of Russ' proposal and reasons why/why not to adopt it. Taking strips of skin off of every player who doesn't want to run 100% Skirmish is hardly the way to go about it. Settle down, Codex. We get it, you're a Manly Man who sneers at anyone who's Not On Your Level.

Some of the rest of us would like to discuss options to alleviate the issues we have with this proposal, and hopefully come to a consensus that's better for everyone. You can help, or you can shove off.

Fine. And that is also the reason he put up a vote. There will always be some players that have different views and they want to see what the community thinks about it. All I am trying to do is to help open eyes to those that will vote strongly against this proposal just because they play only 1/3 of the game modes because only thing they *think* can do is standing at the capping points, while they *are able* to do much more than that.

[Glucose]

Make a check box that the players can check that says 'Preference Only' or something of the sort. Make the check box default-on. Player's can opt out.

I think this is a good enough idea to not even bother with the debate. Do the 'both' solution

[13th Shaman]

It's a very sad thing to hear. I hate the conquest to the point that I would have it removed from the game, if I could do so and here you are telling me I will be forced to play it against my will? As I see the poll is already pointless. This seriously sucks, I'm gonna have to play this mode although I seriously don't like it?

Maybe a little kiddish reaction, but I will not move from a spawn point if I will be thrown into Conquest. It's my only option to protest. Therefore I will sabotage the quality of a match.

[Sky Hawk]

I die mostly, so I don't really care, that the REDS are better ELO or just better player or have more luck.. I die in each way...

But I really care, if you send my Assault LRM-Boats or Longrange-Sniper Builds (I have developed both style just for Skirmish only!) without my will, in example to Conquer...

For me, you can give to those players, who don't want to wait long times those flexible choices, but don't take away my ability to choose the hard restrictions if I want!

SO TAKE TIME AND MAKE THOSE SIX KLICK-BOXES! (Means: 3 boxes for hard AND 3 boxes for flexible!)