174 replies to this topic

[Kyle Polulak]

Don't forget to check out Russ' latest post on Game Mode Voting!

http://mwomercs.com/...stem-explained/

Russ Bullock, on 06 October 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

I wanted to provide some more explanation on how the new game mode voting system was going to work since I saw lots of incorrect speculation. Many were feeling that certain game modes might completely disappear no matter how they voted, this shouldn't be the case. Please see the explanation below:





1. Starting Bias

The pending game starts with one default bias for all game modes:



Skirmish 1

Assault 1

Conquest 1



2. First group – +4 People - Leader’s Bias: Skirmish, Assault

A group of 4 is added to the game, and the group leaders selection was for Skirmish and Assault. The other group members votes are not transmitted to the matchmaker, so the group leaders selection is counted 4 times:



Skirmish 5 (+4 bias)

Assault 5 (+4 bias)

Conquest 1



3. Second group – +12 people – Leader’s Bias: Conquest

Next, a group of 12 is added to the game, again counting the leader of that groups selections x 12. In this case, the group leader selected only conquest:



Skirmish 5

Assault 5

Conquest 13 (+12 bias)



4. Third group – +8 people – Leader’s Bias: Assault Conquest

Finally a group of 8 is added to complete the game. The leader of this group selected assault and conquest:



Skirmish 5

Assault 13 (+8 bias)

Conquest 21 (+8 bias)



5. Cumulative Distribution Function

So final vote tally is 39 votes. Summing these values up, the following table shows a cumulative distribution function given the users votes.



Skirmish 5 (+0)

Assault 18 (+5)

Conquest 39 (+18)



6. Dice Rolls

The Matchmaker now rolls a random ’39 sided’ die. If the number comes out to 5 or less, the Matchmaker selects Skirmish. If the number is between 6 and 18, the Matchmaker selects Assault. If the number was 19 or greater, then Conquest.



Skirmish ~13% odds

Assault ~34%

Conquest ~53%





In the solo queue - of course each player is added individually instead of using group leaders.



So if you would like to see conquest more frequently, your best course of action might be to vote for Conquest only, that way you increase the likely hood of playing conquest without adding to the chances of the other game modes.



Once this goes live we will be watching the MM closely with the hope that the average ELO difference between group queue matches will reduce noticeably.



Update: Yes a future map voting system would work the same way, so no map should disappear completely but players can influence the frequency.

[Triordinant]

I guess the really important question is can players opt out of a match using a mode they don't want to ever play?

[Gallowglas]

I'll just post what I posted elsewhere...

I have to say, I *HATE* the idea that I can't directly say which game mode I get to play. I like the idea of doing this with maps, but doing this with game modes irritates me considerably. I should not be forced to play a mode I don't enjoy with a mech that isn't optimized for the mode.

Even worse, with the way the process is described, you might even have to play a mode that NOBODY voted for. The chance is small, but the random factor means that it can still happen.

[RG Notch]

I guess this is one way to deal with low player numbers.

[Asmudius Heng]

From what I understand is this more about helping the matchmaker than giving people options?

Good:
- More variety
- Forces people to consider they they might drop into a different game mode and have to plan for it
- Helps match maker find closer games in Elo/tonnage etc

Bad:
- Rage quitters leaving matches
- Possibility of being gamed? (I am not sure)
- Poor game modes

Really the last one is my gripe. I play Skirmish only because it is the most interesting and dynamic game mode not restricted in movement by turrets or cap points.

I WANT to like conquest and assault but those modes have serious issues.

Assault - Static game play and no reason to cap a base. I have posted ideas to improve this mode and make it about having a battle front and till enabling capping.
- See here: http://mwomercs.com/...ode-but-improve

Conquest - Poor rewards for capping and a 'Merry go round' mentality rather than territory control. I think a matrix system of cap points would be better for this one too.

While others hate or love the modes the way they are, giving more depth to the objective based modes would really go a LONG way to making the majority happy.

I would love to see the breakdown of modes chosen right now though.

[Rebas Kradd]

Asmudius Heng, on 06 October 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

I would love to see the breakdown of modes chosen right now though.

That might be an obtuse bit of information, given that a lot of players keep all game modes selected for the very reasons that this voting system is intended to fix.

[Triordinant]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 October 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

That might be an obtuse bit of information, given that a lot of players keep all game modes selected for the very reasons that this voting system is intended to fix.

Voting for a game mode should only apply to those players who select "ALL" then.

[AlphaToaster]

I appreciate the recent push to appease the community and make changes to the game. If not for the timing, it wouldn't seem so desperate.

I don't recall the community pushing for a mode voting mechanism. I do remember there was a big push asking to be able to set the game modes we drop for. I also remember the community was asking for Map voting, not mode voting. So to take away the players ability to choose which game modes they drop in will be perceived as another shiny that PGI gave then took away.

Even well balanced teams will have stomps because that is the game in it's current state. It only takes 1 mech making a critical error, 1 critical piece of information not being relayed to the rest of the team in time, for a 12-3 or 12-4 to happen. The DC making 1 mistake at the wrong time and poof. The lack of intergroup comms in the group queue or any comms in solo queue show this. Give us comms, we asked for comms. We plead for comms.

Every team has the potential to prevent a stomp by just pushing. I know it sounds zergy but just f'kin push for crying out loud. Worst thing that can happen is the game ends 4-6 to 12 but that's much better than 0-12 right? And much more fun. The default state in MechWarrior should be a balls out push. After the first furball get all tactical but for the first 5 minutes of the match it should be about reducing the mechs on the map. Right now the default state is to line up in a nice little firing line and TRY to play Battletech but this isn't Battletech. It uses the artwork and story but it's not Table Top so it will not play like Table Top.

People who try to play Battletech get stmoped down in 3 minutes 12-0 by the brawlers playing MWO.

Welcome to the future.

[AlphaToaster]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 October 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

That might be an obtuse bit of information, given that a lot of players keep all game modes selected for the very reasons that this voting system is intended to fix.

WINNER! WINNER! Tell him what he's won!

Big fish swim in the deep waters of skirmish mode. Usually because the little fish "get away" too often with victory bypassing combat and taking the cap point/points. It is not uncommon for someone to avoid skirmish mode in an attempt to avoid the bigger fish in the deep waters.

[Asmudius Heng]

Quote

That might be an obtuse bit of information, given that a lot of players keep all game modes selected for the very reasons that this voting system is intended to fix.

I should probably change that to.

1. What is the current breakdown of game modes chosen for matches
2. What are players current preferences.

2 would be more telling. How many vote: all, just skirmish/assault/conquest, 2 types etc.

Also what is the difference between solo and groups.

Segmenting these things would be interesting - not needed, I am just curious

[CHH Badkarma]

Glad I have put several K into this game and countless hours only to potentially get forced into a mode that I do not want to play. Sorry ,pgi but I will use the good ol eject buttom if you push me in to a mode I hate.

Starting to feel like I am on an island again

[1453 R]

Aaaaaaaaand there goes anything but Skirmish mode. If more than one game in 20 lands anywhere but Skirmish, I'll be shocked. And pleased, as Skirmish mode is a horrid hateful place full of trolls and bassholes who hate the game, their opponents, and themselves.

So awesome that all my games are going to be Skirmish from now on, what with being outvoted 23-1 every single time. Damnit.

[Rebas Kradd]

AlphaToaster, on 06 October 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

I appreciate the recent push to appease the community and make changes to the game. If not for the timing, it wouldn't seem so desperate.

I don't recall the community pushing for a mode voting mechanism. I do remember there was a big push asking to be able to set the game modes we drop for. I also remember the community was asking for Map voting, not mode voting. So to take away the players ability to choose which game modes they drop in will be perceived as another shiny that PGI gave then took away.

Russ shared a while ago that one of the "hard stops" to quicker matches and better ELO matches was that the matchmaker had to factor in gamemode choice as a factor. It's just another thing that gets in the way.

So he offered us a tradeoff - give up gamemodes in order to quicken matchmaking and narrow the ELO gaps between teams. He actually did do a poll (can't find it ATM), and the community responded positively. So he did consult us.

Personally, I didn't see a problem. ELO gaps had already improved by 40% since the last round of tweaks, and matchmaking times aren't generally a huge problem. Plus, there are SO many causes for stomps besides ELO - ELO is really just the most obvious scapegoat.

But...Russ put up the poll, and the community gave its answer. It wasn't unilateral.

[Wild Hog]

So, not knowing which map we'll be on isn't bad enough, now we will be forced to play modes we cannot prepare for in advance? This isn't choice, it's the opposite! This idea should be scrapped before it even goes in. I want to know the mode and the map before I choose my mech/loadout.

[Rebas Kradd]

1453 R, on 06 October 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

Aaaaaaaaand there goes anything but Skirmish mode. If more than one game in 20 lands anywhere but Skirmish, I'll be shocked. And pleased, as Skirmish mode is a horrid hateful place full of trolls and bassholes who hate the game, their opponents, and themselves.

So awesome that all my games are going to be Skirmish from now on, what with being outvoted 23-1 every single time. Damnit.

You haven't read thoroughly, then. The matchmaker doesn't just select the most popular option, it just gives that option more faces on the virtual die it rolls. And it might roll your choice.

Additionally, since each player can have up to three votes, there might be up to 72 choices on the die it rolls.

Wild Hog, on 06 October 2014 - 03:03 PM, said:

So, not knowing which map we'll be on isn't bad enough, now we will be forced to play modes we cannot prepare for in advance? This isn't choice, it's the opposite!

This wasn't intended to increase choice, it was intended to decrease ELO gaps (which were already narrowing to begin with, but you know how people are with their scapegoats).

FWIW, though, I agree with you. I like to pick lights and go in for Conquest, and I was willing to wait. Now I'll have less direct control over whether I actually get my preferred mode.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 06 October 2014 - 03:13 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Hmm... I didn't vote, though I remember this being discussed. I just don't have a horse in this race.

I personally leave my selector at Any, and like the variety. I understand viewpoints on both sides of the fence here, and sympathize with both... But I'll just wait and see how it turns out.

I will say, however, (and this is why I'm commenting at all):

[B]I desperately want to see this for map selection, if for no other reason than to allow me to select everything except RCN and as such reduce the odds of getting it. God, I hate that map.

[1453 R]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 October 2014 - 03:08 PM, said:

You haven't read thoroughly, then.

First, the matchmaker randomly rolls a virtual die weighted according to the vote. If you're outvoted 23-1 (and that won't be the case every time, quit exaggerating melodramatically), the matchmaker rolls a die with Conquest as 1 face and Skirmish as the other 23 faces. You might still get your choice, it's just unlikely.

Second of all, since each player can still select up to three preferred modes, there can be up to 72 faces on the die.

I did read thoroughly. Enough to know that my two personal gamemode choices (Assault, Conquest) are going to be outvoted 23/2 pretty much every match, because of this mystifying fact that the majority of folks on this forum, SOMEHOW, believe Skirmish to be "deeper and more dynamic" than the other two. As opposed to fifteen-minute trollfests filled with slobbering neckbeards whose only goal in life is to infuriate you into uninstalling MWO. Preferably after sending them profanity-laden PMs they can treasure for all time.

You might be able to infer from this that my opinion of Skirmish and the people who play it exclusively basically could not be lower than it is today, and you would be correct. I used to leave my gamemode selector set to 'Any' for precisely the reason this vote system attempts to correct. I determined I was willing to put up with longer wait times in my match seeking in order to avoid the teeth-grinding, seething rage the things that happen every other game in Skirmish instill in me.

While I understand the bad position Russ and Piranha are in as regards the matchmaking system in the game, this decision will reduce my playtime in MWO by sheer virtue of the fact that I'll have to take much more frequent breaks from the game to avoid a resurgence of my ulcers. I tried, when this idea came up, to strike up a civil conversation with the community to try and find ways of reducing the cackling grieftrolling that occurs so dismayingly often in Skirmish mode. I was told, pretty much to a man, to "shut your f'ckin' gob and man up already, nub!"

So. Please do pardon me if I feel like I've earned my share of nasty remarks directed at this entire situation.

[AlphaToaster]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 October 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

Russ shared a while ago that one of the "hard stops" to quicker matches and better ELO matches was that the matchmaker had to factor in gamemode choice as a factor. It's just another thing that gets in the way.

So he offered us a tradeoff - give up gamemodes in order to quicken matchmaking and narrow the ELO gaps between teams. He actually did do a poll (can't find it ATM), and the community responded positively. So he did consult us.

Personally, I didn't see a problem. ELO gaps had already improved by 40% since the last round of tweaks, and matchmaking times aren't generally a huge problem. Plus, there are SO many causes for stomps besides ELO - ELO is really just the most obvious scapegoat.

But...Russ put up the poll, and the community gave its answer. It wasn't unilateral.

I like to come on these forums and read what's happening every day, usually during breaks and downtime at work. I didn't see a poll so if you could link that, that would be cool. If he tweeted it or it was a facebook poll or something on Reddit, then that would explain why I didn't see it.

[CHH Badkarma]

Better matches?
But, but I thought 3x3x3x3x3xxxx
was supposed to fix everything? Riiight.

Edited by CHH Badkarma, 06 October 2014 - 03:23 PM.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

Still do not agree with a map vote. But the gameplay vote does not bother me. I just think map voting will lead to more boats and less general builds. As they hunt for maps. And rage quitting when it isn't what they want. Had a guy blow himself up today because he didn't want apline.