174 replies to this topic

[Duncan Longwood]

If I had to guess, this will result in less playtime for myself as I don't enjoy skirmish mode...at all. Skirmish is where I have played the greatest number of matches that went the full, unsatisfying 15 mins. Tell me that you are upping cbill earnings and I might be able to get on board. This is just another cbill nerf imo. We still have the stupid "ready up" screen, which does nothing but gives the matchmaker time to stall. Now I'm forced to play in more 15 minute long matches? Hourly cbill nerf, plain and simple.

Can I get a refund for my capture accelerator module? I used to use it when we had more mech module slots and I could pick conquest as my game mode, now it is a liability as you can get stuck in game modes where it has no purpose. It has gone from niche to useless with this patch.

I will try it to see how it shakes out, but skirmish mode is so unpalatable that I am already making a sour face just thinking about being forced to play it. I'm sorry PGI, but you opened Pandora's Box and let Choice out, you are gonna have a tough time trying to stuff it back in.

[Mystere]

Mitsuragi, on 07 October 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

Dear Mystere,

I definitely agree that variety is the spice of life. How do you think we can safeguard player choice while keeping all the game modes viable? Do you think that forced rotation, like maps currently are, is the only solution or do you think there are other systems that could work as well?

Regards,
Mitsuragi

Since you asked ...

The near-term solution is the release of Community Warfare. The sooner PGI releases that, the sooner I can leave the PUG scene.

And here is another one: Apply the voting system only to the group queue. PGI itself has admitted that the Elo distribution on the solo queue is very good. So keep the "very good" as is. There is no need to unnecessarily disturb that one, as they have obviously done.

(for giving out 2 alternatives )

Edited by Mystere, 07 October 2014 - 10:54 AM.

[Torgun]

So I guess Conquest with the terrible CBill payouts is played so seldom, no we have to be forced to play it every now and then?

[Mystere]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

And I will report you for conduct deterimental to the game.

Can we please do this the civilized way - as in watch the data, see if it narrows down ELO gaps, and then if it doesn't, ask for the feature to be removed?

Feel free to do so. I will bear no ill will against you.

And having said that, I am adding something else to my new "rule":

If I call on my third friend (i.e. ATL-F4) two days in a row, I will quit the game until the next Monday. And as for why:

Mystere, on 07 October 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

Sometimes, wisdom can be found hiding within the apparent madness.

[Rebas Kradd]

http://mwomercs.com/...23#entry3749623

You guys need to hold your fellow players accountable for this decision, not Russ. I think that's only fair.

[Mystere]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...23#entry3749623

You guys need to hold your fellow players accountable for this decision, not Russ. I think that's only fair.

And that is precisely what I am doing.

[Lotarr]

Typical PGI. If it isn't broke they fix it anyway, if it is broke, they break it more. GOOD JOB.

[Sandtiger]

Mitsuragi, on 07 October 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

Dear Mystere,

I definitely agree that variety is the spice of life. How do you think we can safeguard player choice while keeping all the game modes viable? Do you think that forced rotation, like maps currently are, is the only solution or do you think there are other systems that could work as well?

Regards,
Mitsuragi

Dear Mitsuragi,
I don't know how new you are to the forums, but this has been debated on many different threads. The only real way that I know of (That has been supported by many others) Is battle value.

With battle value it doesn't matter what you bring into the Frey. Each Mech Variant has a battle value assigned to it based on Components, Weapons, Upgrades, Etc... It has been discussed that instead of ELO that the battle value system would equal out matches. Myself and others are convinced that combined with 10 vs 12 game play for IS vs Clan that this system would be more effective in making the playing field fair for both teams.

I know that nothing is perfect in any game. Say that one team is slightly under classed then it could receive more experience and C-bills for being the underdogs. The battle value system is a promising feature, and I wish that the developers would give it a little more serious thought.

Here is a link to the forum threads. My favorite quote from them is listed below. https://mwomercs.com...?q=Battle+Value

Quote taken from Kiiyor on July 6th 2014

[color=#959595]It's a good idea, but there are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too many variables.[/color]

[color=#959595]Actually, there's really only one variable; player skill. Some people are far better with specific weapons or mechs than others.[/color]

[color=#959595]I've seem light pilots that could leap through the air, twisting to avoid fire while being struck by LRM's and STILL place every nanosecond of burntime for 6 medium lasers right into my CT. I've seen other players that use lasers like a drunk autistic wombat with a crayon. How do you balance the two with a number?[/color]

[color=#959595]And mech chassis? The same variables. I can't make Cataphracts work to save myself, yet up until the advent of the Clans, they were consistent top damagers in the heavy charts.[/color]

[Mitsuragi]

Lotarr, on 07 October 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

Typical PGI. If it isn't broke they fix it anyway, if it is broke, they break it more. GOOD JOB.

Dear Lotarr,

Perhaps I could direct your attention to this poll PGI conducted: http://mwomercs.com/...23#entry3749623

We can see that an overwhelming majority of players are in favor of this change. If you are against this change I encourage you to support your position with suggestions on how this feature could be implemented better or completely different alternatives. Some examples would be forced rotation, pick 1 of 2 random determined options, some other voting system, etc. I look forward to your ideas.

Regards,
Mitsuragi

[jozkhan]

What other multiplayer game does this? I mean lets you select a mode and then not let you play the one you selected?

Edited by jozkhan, 07 October 2014 - 11:19 AM.

[Erox]

First drop. First game Skirmish, which I won't play.

My solution: I went to the other team and gave them a free kill. Great improvement.

[Mitsuragi]

Sandtiger, on 07 October 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

Dear Mitsuragi,
I don't know how new you are to the forums, but this has been debated on many different threads. The only real way that I know of (That has been supported by many others) Is battle value.

With battle value it doesn't matter what you bring into the Frey...

Dear Sandtiger,

Thank you for the link! I've ghosted the forums periodically and sometimes miss good discussions on how to improve or change the direction of MWO. I definitely agree that Battle Value has a place in MatchMaker when determining potential match ups as the advantages are many and include alleviating some of the impetus on weapon and chassis balance. That said I also believe that ELO (more finely tuned to your performance stats on equipped weapons, mechs) should be a consideration.

Those things aside I'm committed to facilitating the discussion on MatchMaker improvements and in specific the voting system this thread represents. I want to encourage people to provide high quality, actionable feedback so we all can have the best game possible.

Regards,
Mitsuragi

[Hannibal Chow]

I just love all the rage here, how about giving the changes a few days and then having an opinion?

[jackal404]

Mystere, on 07 October 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

My personal threshold for this is two skirmish games in a row. On the third, I will bring two new friends:

ESC and Quit Match

And on the fourth, I will bring a third friend:

ALT-F4

Happy hunting!

I'd rather have forced game mode rotations.

Being new to this game, I seemed to have missed the poll about this new bug feature. I like the idea of leaving a match that I didn't select to play in.

Someone posted that this would be a violation of the terms of service - if so, I guess that makes the decision even easier for me. I see no way that this is going to eliminate MY problem with the group queue - getting stomped 12-1,2, or 3 while playing with my casual friends.

[Darth Futuza]

Jaz 249, on 07 October 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

I just love all the rage here, how about giving the changes a few days and then having an opinion?

Do you mean a poll?

[Lotarr]

Mitsuragi, on 07 October 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

Dear Lotarr,

Perhaps I could direct your attention to this poll PGI conducted: http://mwomercs.com/...23#entry3749623

We can see that an overwhelming majority of players are in favor of this change. If you are against this change I encourage you to support your position with suggestions on how this feature could be implemented better or completely different alternatives. Some examples would be forced rotation, pick 1 of 2 random determined options, some other voting system, etc. I look forward to your ideas.

Regards,
Mitsuragi

Who cares about polls, try reason and logic when making a game. Under 1600 people voted, hardly representative. You want ideas....How about ams not shooting thru walls... mechs traveling thru water as thru air....missiles acting as if they have parachutes... plenty of things to fix that are actually broken.

[Jalthibuster]

Guess everything has been said already...

blablabla, half the team will quit if mode "x" shows up etc...blablabla

REALLY stupid move. I'd rather wait 5 minutes for a game than play some bs mode. Same goes for maps.

[Fle]

well, here is my response for new game voting system: BURN IN HELL

[Mitsuragi]

jackal404, on 07 October 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

I see no way that this is going to eliminate MY problem with the group queue - getting stomped 12-1,2, or 3 while playing with my casual friends.

Dear jackal404,

The way this solves your experience is by allowing MatchMaker to have more players relative to your skill level to match you with. Previously players were in 'silos' by game mode, so if good matches for you weren't playing your game mode you had to settle for worse matches. Now MatchMaker can use the best players to fit your skill level while making your game. If you think there's a better or more player friendly way to go about this please contribute away! Remember, ideas with supporting details carry more weight.

Lotarr, on 07 October 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

Who cares about polls, try reason and logic when making a game. Under 1600 people voted, hardly representative. You want ideas....How about ams not shooting thru walls... mechs traveling thru water as thru air....missiles acting as if they have parachutes... plenty of things to fix that are actually broken.

Dear Lotarr,

Sadly polls and voting turn out are always low compared to the overall population. You've no further to look than your own country's voter turn out for any major election. This is also true for MWO. There are many polls run on the forum that players do not vote in. However, if you receive enough votes you can use the results as a representative of the overall player base sentiments.

In this case 1600 votes is pretty significant. We can say several things about those 1600 votes. First, they cared enough to participate in the poll. Second, they are engaged in the community and were aware of the poll. Third, they felt that sacrificing restrictions on MatchMaker for more balanced teams is a good choice.

If you feel differently I challenge you to engage more like-minded people in MWO polls to support your position.

Regards,
Mitsuragi

[Sandtiger]

Mitsuragi, on 07 October 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

Dear Sandtiger,

Thank you for the link! I've ghosted the forums periodically and sometimes miss good discussions on how to improve or change the direction of MWO. I definitely agree that Battle Value has a place in MatchMaker when determining potential match ups as the advantages are many and include alleviating some of the impetus on weapon and chassis balance. That said I also believe that ELO (more finely tuned to your performance stats on equipped weapons, mechs) should be a consideration.

Those things aside I'm committed to facilitating the discussion on MatchMaker improvements and in specific the voting system this thread represents. I want to encourage people to provide high quality, actionable feedback so we all can have the best game possible.

Regards,
Mitsuragi

Dear Mitsuragi,

Well Spoken. I hope I didn't seem like I was trying to distract from the current Match Maker mechanic discussion. It wold be nice if BV and ELO could work congruently with one another.

As for the voting system. There is only one way to my knowledge to give everyone a chance to be heard. That would be an in Game Mechanic for voting on upcoming proposed changes. There are some people out their whom detest forum banter, and this mechanic would give them an anonymous vote for the direction of the games development (mainly, everyone I know ~Grins)

Not to mention it would save people like us. Hours of coming through forums to find hard data, or information on opinions expressed both past and present.

Cheers!