115 replies to this topic

[AlphaToaster]

Osric Lancaster, on 07 October 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

"Would you give up the ability to guarantee the game mode you play for an increased chance of a more competitive match?"

If anyone was willing to do that, then wouldn't they simply select 'any' in the launch mode selector? Matches weren't "more competitive" before game mode selection was an option, anyway. Why is PGI so bad with the concept of giving players options?

And yes, asking the forums for a democratic vote at this point is going to get dumb results.
The only groups left on the forums are the Stockholm Syndroms and the Schadenfreudes.

3/3/3/3 is still dumb and shouldn't exist.

Well said. The "any" option already achieved what this is forcing onto the rest of the players. Their queues were slow because there wasn't enough people in the queue at that time to fill the game fast enough before the gates trigger.

So now rather than having the result be that people are pulled in to play a game mode they don't want to play so those others don't have to wait as long, those people are going to instead play other games, d/c, or rush a UAV at the enemy as fast as possible with the good chance of dying early so they can try again.

Result is those players who are ok with "Any" are stuck amongst themselves again, and the overall player base shrinks.

[Revis Volek]

Roland, on 07 October 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

Forcing people to play garbage game modes they SPECIFICALLY DO NOT WANT TO PLAY will force people to stop playing your game.

How PGI can fail to grasp such an obvious idea is mind blowing.

What garbage game mode is that? Kill each other, Kill each other or kill each other while lost pilots cap?

Hardly a difference anyway, i dont even pay attention to the mode anymore i just hear betty tell me my shizz is online and i look for mechs to kill.

Edited by DarthRevis, 07 October 2014 - 01:22 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Roland, on 07 October 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

Forcing people to play garbage game modes they SPECIFICALLY DO NOT WANT TO PLAY will force people to stop playing your game.

How PGI can fail to grasp such an obvious idea is mind blowing.

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

[Coolant]

I don't want to play Conquest...I've said it before, but this is a combat game and any mode where you can theoretically never fire a shot and win a game is rubbish...

[Xtrekker]

I don't think we'll see an evening of matches. I think we'll more likely see reduced wait times for assaults and heavies as they are distributed into other games modes. The timer is going to be more of an influence than Elo will.

The times I've dropped with other groups (occasionally filling in), those groups make sure they always fill the assault/heavy spots. If smaller groups are always competing with other groups similarly minded, it will be funny when that group of assaults gets pushed off into conquest.

[Jonathan Paine]

Hi, my name is Jonathan Paine and I voted "yes".
I am the kind of player that hates Skirmish, and who is not a huge fan of Assault. If the game was only Skirmish, I probably wouldn't play (or at least much much much) less and definitely would stop paying to play (unless Urbie). I played too much base cap warrior online when that was the only game mode, and is overall still happier playing Conquest.

So why did I vote yes? I'd rather play a competitive round of Skirmish every now and then than the current 80% stomps in either direction that is Conquest.

Perhaps this will come back to haunt me - especially if the matches remain roflstomps - but I would still vote "yes" today.

[Roadbeer]

Not sure what the big deal is.

They're all the same game mode, just with 0-5 capture points.

[Hoax415]

Played 5 solo games. I had assault unchecked because assault ruins the most maps of the three and I might as well cast some kind of vote.

I got 2 skirmish 2 conquest 1 assault. I saw exactly one person in all those games: so 1/115 even commenting on the change and he wasn't exactly freaking out about it.

As expected what you're likely to see as far as the game mode change is pretty much nothing except for slightly more evenly matched games in theory per elo.

[-Natural Selection-]

Funny you guys say "but its to help balance", but the 1st match I dropped in another player and I together killed 8, with around 2k damage combined on conquest. There is your balance at work

[AlphaToaster]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

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

This poll wasn't even pinned. No wonder it's news to those that missed it. I saw the announcement saying this was going live, but the poll was buried in general with a title that didn't include "Poll: new game mode voting feature" or something letting those know what it is.

Nah, lets hold a vote in a dark corner where only some people see it, then claim it was the entire community that had a say.

[Thorqemada]

The Problem is that Elo does not fulfill the role of BV.

Some Mechs with some Armament be simply so much better than others and a High-Elo-Player in a bad Mech equals probably a High-Elo-Player in a Timberwolf or Direwolf on the enemy Team making it pretty equal on the Elo but loopsided on the BV.
People dont like to lose in embarrassing ways or at all and switch to High-BV-Mechs bcs that is what you have control over making the Mechwarrior romantics that play for the Mechwarrior feeling looking bad and a liability to their Team.

Quirks pass comes and my guess is that it will shake up the BV ranking a bit until it settles down when the new "Top-Dogs" become known.

[Chemie]

nothing will change for me. I always left all checked so I will still get "whatever" map (based on MM or what other choose) and the ELO balance won't change since I was not limiting MM via game mode.

I expect I am in the majority in the above, at least for 12-,man where I think most left all selected.

Net impact = zero (to game quality or maps played)

[Roadbeer]

Thorqemada, on 07 October 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

The Problem is that Elo does not fulfill the role of BV.

Some Mechs with some Armament be simply so much better than others and a High-Elo-Player in a bad Mech equals probably a High-Elo-Player in a Timberwolf or Direwolf on the enemy Team making it pretty equal on the Elo but loopsided on the BV.
People dont like to lose in embarrassing ways or at all and switch to High-BV-Mechs bcs that is what you have control over making the Mechwarrior romantics that play for the Mechwarrior feeling looking bad and a liability to their Team.

Quirks pass comes and my guess is that it will shake up the BV ranking a bit until it settles down when the new "Top-Dogs" become known.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3752619

Roadbeer, on 22 September 2014 - 02:48 PM, said:

Ultimately, I think the BEST solution (and this is just my opinion here) would be to create a Battle Value system of sorts.
Ok, before anyone says anything... STOP. I know that the BT Battle Value system WON'T work in this, that's why I said "Create a Battle Value system of sorts"

First would be to assign a rating to the variant. Like I mentioned above a RVN 2X is NOT a RVN 3L. A CPLT C1 and C4 are close, but not the same. So, create a point system that each variant has its place on it.

Second would be to assign a rating for all weapons. Say set the Medium Laser as the baseline, and base all other weapons around it. (This would also allow you to make changes to the weapon without buff/nerf. You change its rating and its weight on the MM without fundamentally changing the way the weapon works, unless there is some glaring problem with it, oh, and remove Ghost Heat)

Third is to assign a rating for all equipment: TAG, ECM, Modules, etc.

Combine those 3 things, then add in a faction multiplier, say IS = 1, Clan = 1.5 (something else you are able to modify w/o constant nerfs/buffs to equipment) and there is your base Mech Battle value.

Then add in Elo as a representation of pilot skill. Mech BV + Elo = Battle Value.

From there, you can throw on a Group Multiplier to the BV based off of the size of the group. (Solo is 1, 2 player is 1.2, 4 player is 1.5 and so on.)

I *think* this would give you an easier and more accurate formula to use in your match making.

Pick apart as you please.

[VanillaG]

Chemie, on 07 October 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

nothing will change for me. I always left all checked so I will still get "whatever" map (based on MM or what other choose) and the ELO balance won't change since I was not limiting MM via game mode.

I expect I am in the majority in the above, at least for 12-,man where I think most left all selected.

Net impact = zero (to game quality or maps played)

You might see a slight difference if you run into players with similar ELO that only played one game mode and had their mechs maxed for that specific mode. That player might have some initial difficulty adjusting to the new spawn points and objectives. Hopefully we will see slight shift in loadouts to account for the various modes so you will see less mechs optimized for a specific mode.

Edited by VanillaG, 07 October 2014 - 02:09 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

VanillaG, on 07 October 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

You might see a slight difference if you run into players with similar ELO that only played one game mode and had their mechs maxed for that specific mode. That player might have some initial difficulty adjusting to the new spawn points and objectives. Hopefully we will see slight shift in loadouts to account for the various modes so you will see less mechs optimized for a specific mode.

Which is only likely to maintain the stomps.

[VanillaG]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

Which is only likely to maintain the stomps.

Which is no different than the guy who has a higher ELO due to being carried in the group queue and getting stomped in the solo queue later. After the initially disruption everyone should settle back down to their "true" rating.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

TLDR: While gamemode voting may have been a community decision, I think we'll live to regret it.

This is why some decisions should be disregarded lol - THIS is how you tell if you have a good dev team. They know what to implement and what NOT to.

This change has me not wanting to log in if I cant even choose my game mode anymore

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 07 October 2014 - 02:15 PM.

[Squally160]

Mickey Knoxx, on 07 October 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

Our group get assault, going straight to cap. Get conquest, holding theta. Tthat's it, nothing else.

Dont lie, we will TK each other to finish either mode ASAP.

[Rebas Kradd]

Squally160, on 07 October 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

Dont lie, we will TK each other to finish either mode ASAP.

Can we please not say anything that would get the thread locked? I'd like it to stay open for discussion.

[Foxfire]

The problem with these kinds of polls and ways to ask the player base on if they are willing to give up 'X for better matches' is that, without seeing and getting to play with the final version that would be implemented, it all comes down to gut reaction.

You cannot really make a fully informed decision on the presentation of a concept.. you can only do so after seeing the end product.

This really is a system that should have been put through extensive public testing before pushing it to the live servers. Allow the players to actually experience it, see what it will do to the game... then ask and make the decision on if this is the 'right' choice for the game.

Anything else is just dangling the promise of something shiny in front of the players asking them if they want the shiny.