115 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Dunno; Not tinfoiling outright really but it feels to me like there was noone playing conquest so to fix the team balance, they had to take away our choices

Whats more funny is that even Rebas is mad at this.

Its telling

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 07 October 2014 - 02:18 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Foxfire, on 07 October 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

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.

I'd like to think that these next few days can be considered public testing, and that PGI will pull the feature if enough people ask for it.

[Kiiyor]

For the average PUG player, I don't believe there will be a noticeable difference. I daresay that you will still get to play the mode you want. It might be interesting to SCIENCE it - maybe tick a lower population game mode like conquest only, and track how often you are thrown into the other modes.

The team queues, however, have a much lower population, which is where this whole mode vote concept came from. The theory was that there may be a near ELO matched team stomping around in a different mode, destined to need meet you.

It'll be interesting to see if team matches are closer after this change.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Foxfire, on 07 October 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

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.

Also theyre worded in an extremely skewed way so that theres no right answer or to get ppl to vote a certain way, like the poll that led to 3pv in the 12 mans. There was no right answer for that, but noone realized that till it was too late

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Foxfire, on 07 October 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

This really is a system that should have been put through extensive public testing before pushing it to the live servers.

Theyd have to USE the test servers first and they seem to have given up on that and pushed the game back to beta

(lol)

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

I'd like to think that these next few days can be considered public testing, and that PGI will pull the feature if enough people ask for it.

Yeah like ECM

Three months of "working as intended"

Things that get dropped into the game have no history of getting pulled when ppl get angry about them.

Though this time itll be different?

Was this getting directly shoehorned into the game different?

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 07 October 2014 - 02:22 PM.

[1453 R]

As succinct and well-reasoned a summary as any I've seen on the forums here, Rebas.

I continually despair of players ever developing enough brainpower to realize that 12-5 is not a one-sided blastfest, but is instead a pretty close-fought match. I've been trying to convince players that "stomps" are a natural result of how MechWarrior Online is structured and that no amount of matchmaker tweaking will ever eliminate them. EVER.

Nobody believes me. Here's hoping they believe you, man.

[MFZ]

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

Just as an FYI, PGI did not just force this issue upon us. Russ asked the community and we voted in favor of it. If you didn't see the poll, you missed the boat and should probably be more involved with the community than you are. You have no excuse now that PGI is polling the community for so many decisions.

The poll was open _2½_ freaking days: Started by Russ Bullock, Sep 22 2014 04:24 AM
Posted 24 September 2014 - 09:28 PM
Going to lock this thread down now and let it sink away.

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

This is your game; decide its course.

Well, voting/choice as in certain countries, yes?
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3759774
"I think we have the information we hoped to achieve. Although I wish it was more like 95%"

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

MFZ, on 07 October 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

The poll was open _2½_ freaking days: Started by Russ Bullock, Sep 22 2014 04:24 AM
Posted 24 September 2014 - 09:28 PM
Going to lock this thread down now and let it sink away.



Well, voting/choice as in certain countries, yes?
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3759774
"I think we have the information we hoped to achieve. Although I wish it was more like 95%"

Like I said; its like the 3pv in 12 mans thread. Once ppl started realizing theyd been duped and started changing their votes, they locked it so it was up like a day or two and it was a TINY percentage of the threads that had been screaming against the idea in the first place (9000 to 400 against vs like 200 votes total)

They need to poll the community, but they need to stop phrasing it the way they do or make them actually fairly made. Arent biased polls moderatable?

They also need to TEST THE GODDAMNED IDEAS not just shoehorn the things directly into the friggin live servers

[1453 R]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

Like I said; its like the 3pv in 12 mans thread. Once ppl started realizing theyd been duped and started changing their votes, they locked it so it was up like a day or two and it was a TINY percentage of the threads that had been screaming against the idea in the first place (9000 to 400 against vs like 200 votes total)

They need to poll the community, but they need to stop phrasing it the way they do or make them actually fairly made. Arent biased polls moderatable?

They also need to TEST THE GODDAMNED IDEAS not just shoehorn the things directly into the friggin live servers

Nobody uses the test servers whenever they try. The only time they got sufficient test server population was when the Clan 'Mechs were up for preview in them. Of course, this is largely because Piranha only operates the test servers for very specific windows of time which exclude huge chunks of the playerbase because they're trying to catch the primetime C-bill farmers and convince them to switch to the test servers for a while. which is the worst time to run those tests because the C-bill farmers will never ever ever switch over to activities that reduce their earnings/hour ratios. No matter if it's for the long-term good of the game or not. if they ran 12-hour or 24-hour tests more often, they'd get a lot better mileage out of the test servers because some of us late-shift guys that aren't in it for billz-farming could then help out.

YOU HEAR ME, PIRANHA?! Y U NO L3T M3 H3LP?!

Edited by 1453 R, 07 October 2014 - 02:35 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

1453 R, on 07 October 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

Nobody uses the test servers whenever they try. The only time they got sufficient test server population was when the Clan 'Mechs were up for preview in them. Of course, this is largely because Piranha only operates the test servers for very specific windows of time which exclude huge chunks of the playerbase because they're trying to catch the primetime C-bill farmers and convince them to switch to the test servers for a while. if they ran 12-hour or 24-hour tests more often, they'd get a lot better mileage out of the test servers because some of us late-shift guys that aren't in it for billz-farming could then help out.

I think PGI has done just that at least twice, still didn't get a whole lot of assistance. Many people just don't want to test.

Anyway, while generally agreeing with you guys, can we not harp on it? I'd prefer there to be data, anecdotes, or alternatives in here, not four guys posting over and over on peripheral aspects.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 07 October 2014 - 02:36 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

1453 R, on 07 October 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

Nobody uses the test servers whenever they try. The only time they got sufficient test server population was when the Clan 'Mechs were up for preview in them. Of course, this is largely because Piranha only operates the test servers for very specific windows of time which exclude huge chunks of the playerbase because they're trying to catch the primetime C-bill farmers and convince them to switch to the test servers for a while. which is the worst time to run those tests because the C-bill farmers will never ever ever switch over to activities that reduce their earnings/hour ratios. No matter if it's for the long-term good of the game or not. if they ran 12-hour or 24-hour tests more often, they'd get a lot better mileage out of the test servers because some of us late-shift guys that aren't in it for billz-farming could then help out.

YOU HEAR ME, PIRANHA?! Y U NO L3T M3 H3LP?!

Running the test server for a few days rather than two hours at the worst possible times (then creating a self fulfilling prophecy that noone uses them) might help that

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

I think PGI has done just that at least twice, still didn't get a whole lot of assistance. Many people just don't want to test.

Anyway, while generally agreeing with you guys, can we not harp on it? I'd prefer there to be data, anecdotes, or alternatives in here, not four guys posting over and over on peripheral aspects.

When? Ive never seen it EVER more than two hours twice a day

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

I think PGI has done just that at least twice, still didn't get a whole lot of assistance. Many people just don't want to test.

Anyway, while generally agreeing with you guys, can we not harp on it? I'd prefer there to be data, anecdotes, or alternatives in here, not four guys posting over and over on peripheral aspects.

lol gl with that ideda

[jackal404]

Edit: Original post http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3796823

Egomane, on 07 October 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

If you don't like the new system you have several ways of making that known, without breaking the rules.

1. Make your frustration known!

Create a post about it on the forums. Preferable in an already existing thread if there is one.

2. Stop buying!

If you are buying MC or mech packages or whatever, stop doing so. You can combine that with 1.

3. Stop playing!

If you can't get yourself to play in an unliked gamemode, no matter what, then stop playing MWO completly until this is changed. You can combine this with 1. and 2.

What is not an acceptable solution, is to try to force your will, by griefing other players.

jackal404, on 07 October 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

Bargained Well and Done!

I shall not spend money on or play MWO until this feature has been removed. I will make my displeasure know in every thread concerning this issue.

And I will not point out that PGI started the griefing first by using a poll with such low participation to make a change which effects all players.

This is a simple solution according to Egomane. Just follow his instructions and we can get rid of this disastrous change.

Edited by jackal404, 07 October 2014 - 02:58 PM.

[BARBAR0SSA]

Would be cool if they didn't have a test server but an alternate rule set server that did get you rewards.

Eg. Stock only loadout, TT weapon values, hard capped heat limit instead of ghost heat.

Find out which server people flock to and enjoy playing.

[Slepnir]

Funny I check the forums every day and I never saw the poll, what section was it in?

terrible idea BTW, I detest skirmish and refuse to play it, hopefully I won't get it much.

[Mainhunter]

I play conquest only since the first days. The new way of matchmaking is unacceptable for me. Im out now, but will watch the forums from time to time if they change it back I will play again.

Btw was there a need for this change?

[VixNix]

Okay, this is not right...

Question:
1 What is the current active player base?
2 What is the percentage of those active players that voted on this change?
3 What was the result of the vote in number for and against?

IMO if less than 25% undo this horrid change ASAP

Thank you!

[jozkhan]

The simple fact is this form of game mode selection has never EVER been implemented in multiplayer gaming...

so either PGI are ahead of the curve and trailblazing and by the end of 2015 all multiplayer games will operate a preference game mode selection system or it's a developmental dead end.

Entire games biz ever on one side - PGI alone on the other side.

hrrrm

Edited by jozkhan, 07 October 2014 - 03:55 PM.

[Sprouticus]

AlphaToaster, on 07 October 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

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.

you actually have no proof of this alpha. Not saying you are wrong, just that you are making a statement without proof.

Foxfire, on 07 October 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

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.

This game simply does not have the population to do 'extensive testing'.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Sprouticus, on 07 October 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

you actually have no proof of this alpha. Not saying you are wrong, just that you are making a statement without proof.



This game simply does not have the population to do 'extensive testing'.

Nor do the devs apparently

[N0MAD]

You say they polled the community? 1500 votes is the community? really?
But people say the community is 30k +.
It was suggested they put an announcement on the main MWO page when a feature that was to be voted on came up, nope no announcement, obscure poll and a total of 1500 votes is acted on..really?
IGP made them do it...wait..