104 replies to this topic

[Godfrey Kasparov]

I have CQ off and still half my matches are it ....Im not trolling but gg...
CQ sucks and that's a fact

[Russ Bullock]

It is a difficult situation.

The counter point was multiple posts per week from players stating that the group queue was frustrating enough that they were going to quit playing. The ELO spread was just to great, and with our player base size we had just to many options available as to make it impossible for the match maker to put better matches together.

Instead of just making the changes I felt would make matches more competitive I came to the community and polled players. Players chose 80% in favor of the change.

We make the change and we have some customers that are unhappy. I am planning on making an additional post to describe the results of the MM change. It does seem to be having the desired impact.

Do I not have an obligation to majority of my customers? sometimes there just isn't a middle ground. I will gather the stats but don't the majority of conquest matches just end in an enemy team being wiped out more often then by cap?

[Darth Futuza]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

It is a difficult situation.

The counter point was multiple posts per week from players stating that the group queue was frustrating enough that they were going to quit playing. The ELO spread was just to great, and with our player base size we had just to many options available as to make it impossible for the match maker to put better matches together.

Instead of just making the changes I felt would make matches more competitive I came to the community and polled players. Players chose 80% in favor of the change.

We make the change and we have some customers that are unhappy. I am planning on making an additional post to describe the results of the MM change. It does seem to be having the desired impact.

Do I not have an obligation to majority of my customers? sometimes there just isn't a middle ground. I will gather the stats but don't the majority of conquest matches just end in an enemy team being wiped out more often then by cap?

Thanks for responding, I think that's what most of us want. Personally I'm happy with it, but can you please increase the rewards for Conquest (capping only gets you 50 bonus xp, I feel like I might as well just try and play it like skirmish in order to get the same rewards as I do in the other modes).

[White Bear 84]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

We make the change and we have some customers that are unhappy. I am planning on making an additional post to describe the results of the MM change. It does seem to be having the desired impact.

But you can make even more people happy if you launch with preferences first system then use the voting system for the players that are left...

Edited by White Bear 84, 07 October 2014 - 05:49 PM.

[1453 R]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

It is a difficult situation.

The counter point was multiple posts per week from players stating that the group queue was frustrating enough that they were going to quit playing. The ELO spread was just to great, and with our player base size we had just to many options available as to make it impossible for the match maker to put better matches together.

Instead of just making the changes I felt would make matches more competitive I came to the community and polled players. Players chose 80% in favor of the change.

We make the change and we have some customers that are unhappy. I am planning on making an additional post to describe the results of the MM change. It does seem to be having the desired impact.

Do I not have an obligation to majority of my customers? sometimes there just isn't a middle ground. I will gather the stats but don't the majority of conquest matches just end in an enemy team being wiped out more often then by cap?

May I suggest, Russ, that you take another look at Conquest mode?

There's nothing to be done about players like myself who despise the sort of player behavior that happens in Skirmish, but most of us are also prepared to put our big boy pants on and deal with it anyways. However, it strikes me that giving Conquest a once-over, with the intent of making it more dynamic and increasing its payout to the same general level as the other two game modes, could make a hell of a difference in the fallout you're seeing now.

I do understand that you and Piranha are between a rock and a hard place on this one, but the solution may well be in adjusting the individual game modes themselves to be less objectionable to a greater percentage of your player base. Perhaps gather some official feedback on some desired changes for Conquest mode?

[XphR]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

Do I not have an obligation to majority of my customers? sometimes there just isn't a middle ground. I will gather the stats but don't the majority of conquest matches just end in an enemy team being wiped out more often then by cap?

They do sir,
Could you perhaps readdress cap times, granted they needed to be longer than they used to be. The shift was too heavy handed even with a cap accelerator. Perhaps the time to de-cap and cap should be very slightly adjusted again?

[Russ Bullock]

Everyone is going to have a different experience with it, and it's not going to be consistent. But for instance I would be happy to look up the player data to confirm what they say.

I for one played about 10 matches during the day and I did not play conquest even one time, and I selected conquest only as my preference.

So I understand the frustration but there is no doubt that getting conquest more often than skirmish and assault is either just a very uncommon bad set of random dice rolls and/or an exaggeration.

I suggest everyone give the feature at least a couple of days to settle out.

[Livewyr]

Odd... have not played a conquest game yet.

[Alek Ituin]

/THREAD

[Duncan Longwood]

I really feel like this "crisis" could have been averted by leaving the solo queue the way it was and implement this matchmaker change just for groups. That seems to be the target of this fix anyhow.

[jackal404]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

It is a difficult situation.

The counter point was multiple posts per week from players stating that the group queue was frustrating enough that they were going to quit playing. The ELO spread was just to great, and with our player base size we had just to many options available as to make it impossible for the match maker to put better matches together.

Instead of just making the changes I felt would make matches more competitive I came to the community and polled players. Players chose 80% in favor of the change.

We make the change and we have some customers that are unhappy. I am planning on making an additional post to describe the results of the MM change. It does seem to be having the desired impact.

Do I not have an obligation to majority of my customers? sometimes there just isn't a middle ground. I will gather the stats but don't the majority of conquest matches just end in an enemy team being wiped out more often then by cap?

If 1500+ votes in this poll constitutes a majority of players, this game has significant issues.

I would suggest you do the poll again, and link it to player game log in so that you reach the "majority" of your players.

[Russ Bullock]

XphR, on 07 October 2014 - 05:51 PM, said:

They do sir,
Could you perhaps readdress cap times, granted they needed to be longer than they used to be. The shift was too heavy handed even with a cap accelerator. Perhaps the time to de-cap and cap should be very slightly adjusted again?

a reasonable suggestion.

[Joe Mallad]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

It is a difficult situation.

The counter point was multiple posts per week from players stating that the group queue was frustrating enough that they were going to quit playing. The ELO spread was just to great, and with our player base size we had just to many options available as to make it impossible for the match maker to put better matches together.

Instead of just making the changes I felt would make matches more competitive I came to the community and polled players. Players chose 80% in favor of the change.

We make the change and we have some customers that are unhappy. I am planning on making an additional post to describe the results of the MM change. It does seem to be having the desired impact.

Do I not have an obligation to majority of my customers? sometimes there just isn't a middle ground. I will gather the stats but don't the majority of conquest matches just end in an enemy team being wiped out more often then by cap?

yes, which is why those of use that like modes like conquest have asked for more options in these game modes that give people reason to not always want to just brawl it out in the middle of the map. There is at this point, no real role warfare (reason to do anything other than brawl). And those that would like to play lights and faster mechs that are not meant for brawling, are still forced to do so because everyone else is.

We also need 4 vs 4, 8 vs 8 and the 12 vs 12 ques. If people are going to keep throwing games and costing the rest of us a match, than I'd prefer to play a game where my 8 man unit drops together, is agreed in the game type and will stick with each other. And I don't want to have to worry about the other guys in my 12 man that my unit is forced to work with in the 12 vs 12, dropping and messing up the match for my unit.

Also, if this voting system stays, we are going to need a way to pick our mechs AFTER the mod is set, so we can go into that mode with the desired mech that is optimized for that mode.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 07 October 2014 - 05:56 PM.

[WarHippy]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

It is a difficult situation.

You created the situation.

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

The counter point was multiple posts per week from players stating that the group queue was frustrating enough that they were going to quit playing. The ELO spread was just to great, and with our player base size we had just to many options available as to make it impossible for the match maker to put better matches together.

People always complain when they lose and they always have an excuse as to why. The MM was their scape goat this time, and even with this change we are still going to see complaints about the MM. This does nothing but piss people off.

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

Instead of just making the changes I felt would make matches more competitive I came to the community and polled players. Players chose 80% in favor of the change.

Yeah, 80% of a small group of a small group. You didn't even have the same turnout for that poll as you did the heavy mech poll. A lot of people that voted for this crap thought this would get rid of stomps which it has not. On a similar note why listen to a tiny "majority" this time but not all the other times like 3rd person and ghost heat? You bringing up the piss poor poll is nothing but a cop out.

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

We make the change and we have some customers that are unhappy. I am planning on making an additional post to describe the results of the MM change. It does seem to be having the desired impact.

I don't buy it, nor are fluffy words going to cut it for me.

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

Do I not have an obligation to majority of my customers? sometimes there just isn't a middle ground. I will gather the stats but don't the majority of conquest matches just end in an enemy team being wiped out more often then by cap?

If the majority of conquest matches end in a team fight it is because YOU failed to make it an interesting game mode with worthwhile objectives. Forcing people to play it because "hey its similar right" is damned insulting.

[ZealotTheFallen]

voting for this, is just a smoke screen, for them to what they will do. They already said they don't care what is said here. And no way would i believe anything said by THEM

[XphR]

ZealotTheFallen, on 07 October 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

voting for this, is just a smoke screen, for them to what they will do. They already said they don't care what is said here. And no way would i believe anything said by THEM

So, you do then believe they care or did you talk yourself into a corner?

[Russ Bullock]

WarHippy, on 07 October 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

Yeah, 80% of a small group of a small group. You didn't even have the same turnout for that poll as you did the heavy mech poll. A lot of people that voted for this crap thought this would get rid of stomps which it has not. On a similar note why listen to a tiny "majority" this time but not all the other times like 3rd person and ghost heat? You bringing up the piss poor poll is nothing but a cop out.

You said listen to the forum goers more, so we are. Now that is unacceptable, so what would you like from us now?

[ZealotTheFallen]

This is just a grind fest PERIOD Call of robot, and clan mechs destroyed any real fun in battles now. Unless you have a clan mech. Toe to toe clan wins everytime, unless the pilot is New or just bad. every weight class. C W just see many clans and IS start to shrink, as all the new players(young ones) want the biggest and baddest. IMO this is the way it will go. Tweaking IS big deal, will never compare.

Don tbelieve you RUSS AT All you jerked us around and around and around too much

we gave you the money to make the game you said you were making LIE

[Orbit Rain]

I agree with doing another poll, with a link in the game client. Simple keep or revert poll.

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 05:52 PM, said:

I suggest everyone give the feature at least a couple of days to settle out.

I won't be playing for at least a couple of days then.

[Godfrey Kasparov]

Well for any rate , hopefully it will prove out that the change with this patch will cause such an uproar that those that be will look into it.
I still see such an ecm disparity between teams and matches that are so lopsided in the last few days its very discouraging . I will be taking a break ....