259 replies to this topic

[Gallowglas]

If I don't want to play a game mode, I'd be incredibly frustrated being forced to play it no matter what I choose.

[Miyuki]

Yes, as long as "competitive" still means BALANCED.

[GrumpyFink]

My vote would best Yes to better match skilled matches, but a big No to player voted maps - that would be open to too much abuse, of rigged voting to get the map they kit their Mech for.

[Madcap72]

I voted yes.

I only play PUG matches, and love skirmish. Probably because I've been playing BT since the table top days and lived on MW3 and 4.

While I don't feel like it would fix anything, at least it would shake it up. MW(o) is supposed to be a simulator. Stomps are going ot happen, there's even from what I cn tell a battle tech specific term for it (CLG, combat loss gorup). So there's no reason trying to fight it.



The biggest thing that's ever going ot effect game play is easier in game communications. There's been plenty of times I've turned combat blobs around from just going to the same old places and even using simple tactics won matches. Even something little like a "call for help" hotkey that will ping your location on the map would radically change gameplay since most people just chace radar contacts.


If it's a simulation, then it should be up to the good players to train the crap players and lead them in matches, not left to software to decide who will make a game "fun" or not.

[Devolton]

Hi

I voted NO , my reason is simple. I like the surprise of what MAP is coming up. It is this random map that keep me spending more C bill on equipping my Mech to meet all the challenge of different map and to test out if my mech is suitable to complete the mission alive in different map.

Like they say, "it not how big or how fast or how many lazer gun or AC20 or even ECM you have that win the war. It the pilot who make the different in field with it skill, team player, react on site situation and how good he prepare his mech."

MY wish is this, I do not want to play in the same map 6 time out of 9 round, or back to back and back again. it just not fun to play it over and over again 3 time for 45min. (each match take 15min plus 1 min waiting time if it take that long to finish) remember this, if i can only can play for an hour and 3 out of 4 is on the same map even all are for different scenario . I shall lost my interest very fast.

Hope my suggest is constructive enough for you.

Edited by Devolton, 24 September 2014 - 11:04 AM.

[Horace83]

Normally i play mostly all gamemodes anyway. A good match is a good match and i prefer that over an easy stomp.
Maybe there is the possibilty to toggle this feature on/off in case you want to practice one game mode particularly.

[Madcap72]

If I was doing it? Open slot, you're dropping. No matchmaking, no trying to find "a fun game" just jump in and go. I would have matches roll over instead of dropping back to the mechlab. Don't like the team you're on? Don't like the players? Exit out.

Just do it old school.

[Willothius]

DaveC118, on 24 September 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

..to get the map they kit their Mech for.

I don't get why that would be a BAD thing? I really love to use some weird shotgun-style up-close-'n-personal builds, but half the time I'm screwed because of large, open maps, so instead, I use an 'overall' build that EVERYONE else uses too.. Knowing what kind of map you'll drop on (which would make SO MUCH sense in lore anyway; you would KNOW where your dropship's gonna land, wouldn't you?) would make for a lot of new, adventurous, diverse builds!
Maybe it should just be a preference to set, like Large vs Small maps, or Hot vs Cold.. Something like that..

[xXBagheeraXx]

In regards to the matchmaker, I dont see why you changed it from the original formula.

If team A gets x amount of assaults, give team B the same amount of assaults. Of course some tweaking needs to be done for some of the assaults, as an Awesome is not nearly as powerful as say an atlas, or *shudder* a Dire wolf. Perhaps some system could be introduced that sets each mech with a sort of "rating" (God forbid not like the battle rating of Warthunder) Say an awesome could have the same rating as a mech like an Orion or something like that.

[Caballo]

No.

I have to deal with unknown maps, and with people complaining about me and my team dropping a 12 men vs. them pugs, Like I was to blame ¿and now you want me to play the game mode i don't want to?

Let's screw up the game a bit more.

[Zvolimir the Blackhand]

Russ Bullock, on 21 September 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

There is no doubt that conversations about a games Match Maker are always hot topics with lots of opinions on how things are or aren't working as they should be, MechWarrior Online is no different.

Although we look forward to working closer with the community on ways we can improve the match maker's performance to provide the most competitive match's possible. I wanted to discuss the implementation of one particular change that should make an immediate impact.

One of the more common problems currently is that the match maker would be able to put together a very competitive game based on the players skill levels, however one or more of those players or groups have incompatible game modes selected. Therefore the match maker has no choice but to avoid that high quality match and continue to wait or even eventually put together a game that is significantly lower quality. This can result in a play experience that is less fun or even frustrating when lower skill players are set to play against highly skilled teams.

What I propose to do is change the functionality of the game mode selector window. Currently you select the game modes that you accept to play, and are guaranteed to avoid the game modes you do not select. The way the window will function after the change is that each box selected counts as a vote. Therefore the match maker will be able to put together the best game possible based on the players skill level then at that point will take a tally of all the votes, with the highest vote count determining what game mode you play. A tie will result in a random selection of the game modes tied.

A change like this should at the very least increase the frequency of competitive matches by a modest degree. At least we would like the opportunity to see just how much it helps with our live population numbers.

Also if the player base accepts this change and it works out well, we would consider putting this voting system in place for map selection. Players will have the ability in the front end UI to select the maps that they vote for, similar to game modes. The code will then tally votes to select the map the game will take place on.

The timing of the game mode selector change would be for the Oct 7th patch. The timing of the map vote selector is unknown as it would take additional UI work but we would push to deliver it inside of 2014.

Please let us know with your vote if you would give up the ability to guarantee your game mode for having a higher chance of getting in a competitive match.

UPDATE: See my next post below for a better explanation of the voting process for maps.

No.

Keep it random, or even more tabletop conventions will cease to matter.

If you SIMPLY MUST (but judging from this poll you should leave it the hell alone) do something like this to satisfy yourselves, game mode voting would be acceptable. However, maps must remain random in the public servers.

Edited by Zvolimir the Blackhand, 24 September 2014 - 11:21 AM.

[White Panther]

Russ Bullock, on 21 September 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

One of the more common problems currently is that the match maker would be able to put together a very competitive game based on the players skill levels, however one or more of those players or groups have incompatible game modes selected

So there are not enough players in any one single cue to put together a balanced, competitive match. Now search cues must be combined to get the right people on each side.

Good to know

[Escaflowne Z]

Like some others, I love Conquest, like Assault, and dislike Skirmish. I do like the concept of heavy maneuver warfare that the first two modes can encourage, and Conquest does move the typical engagement areas away from some of the "tactically sound" areas of the maps. I would love to see the points get changed up every so often so the maps could get explored to an even greater extent.

I voted no on this poll for a different reason though. Skirmish mode takes any and all true advantages away from light and medium pilots under the current XP system. ECM and AMS do not give any tangible after game benefits. Flanking, harassing, distracting, and backstabbing the enemy work, but are less rewarded when the majority of the teams are fielding heavies and assaults, which are heavily favored in Skirmish mode.

If the system could be changed to give lighter chassi incentives to participate, then I would happily change it to a Yes vote; who wouldn't want to have better matchmaking?

I've dabbled in Planetside 2, and I think its system would be a start. That game's concept is that 3 factions fight over different continents. Naturally, this leads to major team imbalances depending on if one faction floods one area with players. The incentive? The factions that are outnumbered get a bonus to earned XP based on how badly they are outnumbered. It has the added benefit of naturally pulling players of the weak faction to that area, raising the local population.

As to map voting, I do not like that idea. No map in MWO bothers me that much, and losing some of the temperature and range variability would be BAD for mech design.

Edited by Escaflowne Z, 24 September 2014 - 11:44 AM.

[Sardauker Legion]

A different kind of consideration:

IF you strip the ability of CHOOSING game mode,
how many players WILL DISCONNECT,
because they don't waste time in a game mode they DO NOT like?

[Peiper]

Battle value per mech + ELO value per player = better matchmaking.

Try that first.

You'll see a wider variety of mechs, too. People will be more inclined to play the mech they want to, rather the mech the feel they HAVE to to be competitive.

[CDLord HHGD]

Hopefully this doesn't get lost....

Assault mech pilots do not like being cap-raced in Conquest. Skirmish players don't like being capped in Assault. It's a vicious circle.

A redesign of the modes may not be possible but here's my idea.

All the modes should be the same.

Every map should have two outlying capture points that provide X passive benefit.
Every map should have two drop points(with turrets), the loss of which incurs X passive penalty.
Every map should have a central capture point for king-of-the-hill win condition.

Passive benefits can include things like seismic to all allies or similar.
Passive penalties can include the inability to call in Artillery and Airstrikes.

If you go for the capture point, it's not a defacto win/loss.
If you go for the enemy base, it's not a defacto win/loss.
If you capture the central base, it is a win.
If you destroy all enemy mechs, it is a win.

I'd also like to see the 4 outlying bases (drop points and capture points) be random. Meaning you can drop from any and the other two can by the capture points.

Edited by cdlord, 24 September 2014 - 11:54 AM.

[Barbaric Soul]

For the life of me, I still can not understand the need for a match maker. Why can't PGI just let us decide who we play with and against, just like every mechwarrior game has done before.

[Andross Deverow]

Anavel Gato2, on 24 September 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

A different kind of consideration:

IF you strip the ability of CHOOSING game mode,
how many players WILL DISCONNECT,
because they don't waste time in a game mode they DO NOT like?

This guy for one....

regards

Edited by Andross Deverow, 24 September 2014 - 12:05 PM.

[Joshua McEvedy]

Great idea! I voted YES!

[Russ Bullock]

Going to lock this thread down now and let it sink away.

I think we have the information we hoped to achieve. Although I wish it was more like 95% - nearly 80% is a large majority. But even with this whole poll aside, the number of threads on concerns with the group queue in MM really tells us we need to try this change to see how much it can improve the Group Queue.

My goal is to get this change in for the Oct 7th patch and see what the improvements are. Remember the way I explained the vote system - the top voted choice isn't the defacto winner but the game mode with the highest chance of being selected.

So people shouldn't worry that certain game modes will disappear.

Russ