86 replies to this topic

[Darth Futuza]

Jack Avery, on 07 October 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

I appreciate the increased community participation PGI has been asking for lately, but I think you maybe should have waited another day or two before starting this poll. People really need to play a bit more than one night to get a feel for things (I'm talking to you, fellow forum-goers!).

This. People whine, but that's a natural response, I think you should have waited a few days before opening it. However, since its too late for that at least leave it open for a very long time so people can change their answers if they decide they like the new system.

FinnMcKool, on 07 October 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

Make the pole ask :Do you want to be forced to play Conquest.

words today are used to confuse people rather than inform them.

Sorry state of a PC world.

But then the people that ONLY want to play Assault and nothing else would be mad.

Edited by Darth Futuza, 07 October 2014 - 07:34 PM.

[CycKath]

Want more visibility to try and get larger/more meaningful poll results that doesn't involve in-client changes? Emails!

I'm not saying email just for this issue, but a return to regular (say weekly) MechWarrior Online Insider emails announcing patches and things like polls would help...

[PappySmurf]

Wait if I understood you correctly, you want them to "just work on CW until it is done", while at the same time add additional game modes and have them NOT work on CW while they do that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darth if PGI can put in this voting system this fast im sure it would not be that hard to put in new game modes?

[Kirkland Langue]

Zainadin, on 07 October 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

The poll really doesn't matter to me. If it is not conquest mode I am saying sorry to everyone and dropping.

so far 8 ques 1 conquest mode.

Same argument could be made if someone wanted to choose the maps they fight on. Don't get me wrong - voice your disapproval through suiciding/leaving games if you wish - just pointing out that if the Devs were to consider your argument as having merit, they might also want to consider arguments regarding map choice.

[Bhael Fire]

The second question needs a third option of:

No. I want a voting system for both solo and group queue...or better yet, remove the option the select game modes altogether.

[Skillionaire]

Longtime player, rare MWO forum poster here...

I'm against the idea of the new Game Mode concept and would like to have control over what match types I would prefer to or not to play (and I voted as such).

That said, I do think that the Game Mode voting concept would be a very interesting way to handle matches in (and only in) Faction Warfare (my own term for 'Community Warfare') when phase 2 (as per the recently described concepts) comes out. Following the initial massive invasion/defense battle, I think that the Game Mode voting system applied to the follow-on matches for planetary control could add a conceptual measure of dynamic quality to the battle environment in the follow-on matches, as you wouldn't be completely sure what Game Mode & objectives you'd have each time and would be an additional factor for the larger groups & 12-mans participating in Faction Warfare to consider in their team composition drop decks. It could also add a bit of a 'fog of war' fluff concept to the Faction Warfare matches.

[Darth Futuza]

PappySmurf, on 07 October 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

Darth if PGI can put in this voting system this fast im sure it would not be that hard to put in new game modes?

The forum voting system was implemented years ago, I'm afraid you are incorrect in making that assumption. Putting new game modes in would be a nightmare of work (despite how happy it would make me).

[Sergeant Random]

Google expectation management and be the better for it.

[DaisuSaikoro Nagasawa]

This is being done too early. People always seem to freak out when new changes are implemented. Its as if some players are so afraid of change when it comes they instantly blow their gaskets.

Give the new features a week, at the least, then ask a question like this. It takes awhile to get over the initial shock of things.

Btw, this post was more for the users than PGI though everyone just DONT PANIC. It'll be okay.

[Zainadin]

Darth Futuza, on 07 October 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

Then the poll should matter to you, that means you'd rather "be assured of the game modes I am playing." I suggest you reread the poll and consider its impact on your gameplay.

I vote all the time. In real life I do it through the mail, because I want to know that my vote will be counted.

[Darth Futuza]

CycKath, on 07 October 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

Want more visibility to try and get larger/more meaningful poll results that doesn't involve in-client changes? Emails!

The patcher uses an RSS feed and web based content for announcement, adding links to the patcher would be just as simple as emailing, but far less annoying.

[Jonathan Paine]

Another thing one could do to help people get their favorite game mode is this:
You didn't get the mode you voted for?
+1 vote next time for you favorite mode
(repeat until you get your mode)

[Koniving]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 07 October 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

The second question has odd answers. Specifically, the positive response says that one only wants group-queue-restricted soft game mode selection if one can keep solo queue as hard game mode selection, while the negative response says that one only wants to prevent group queue from having soft game mode selection.

I'd rather vote No on question 2 in order to maintain consistency across both queues. I favor soft game mode selection in both queues (Yes to question 1), but I also favor an all-or-nothing approach.

This.

Voted yes on question one. I voted No on question 2 but to be honest, my real answer is "I want soft mode selection for both."

[ArcDemon]

I would like to take the third option - improve the game modes so they are merely different rather then repulsive to some players. Specifically:

Conquest: It seems to suffer from two related problems. One is that it is often a superior strategy to simply destroy all enemy mechs, which cheapens the efforts of those trying to play it by points. The other is that the extended capture time required frustrates many players who feel like they are sitting in a box instead of actually playing. I think the first step is to immediately speed up the capture time in Conquest to keep the game moving. Altering the collection speed and/or victory requirement to emphasize the capture condition over the destruction one would also help. Perhaps the speed of collection could increase exponentally rather then linearly with the number of bases held. Finally the C-bill rewards could be tweaked, increasing the rewards for the resources collected and making it a more profitable game mode.

Assault: The introduction of turrets helped to remove early base rushing, but their behavoir doesn't balance correctly on some maps leading to frustration. For example Caustic Valley where one team has turrets covering their side of the crater, or River City where the bases are close enough together that stepping forward is rewarded with LRM fire. Using feedback to change the position and type (LRM into laser on smaller maps) of turrets could clear that up.

[Mawai]

Your initial post indicates that initial data indicates that there has been no improvement in Elo differences in the solo queue. If this is the case, why should this system be retained in the solo queue at all if the entire purpose was to improve matchmaking?

Your post also indicated that there had been improvement in the group queue matchmaking as a result of the change.

Your first question states: "Yes - I want the improvement in team ELO differences" ... but you have explicitly stated this is NOT true in the solo queue. This makes the first question biased and misleading if folks have not read through your entire post ... they might tick Yes without realizing that the statement only applies to the group queue based on your current sample data.

Your first question should read:
1) Would you like to keep the game mode voting system in the solo queue?

Yes ... even though it doesn't result in any measurable improvement in Elo difference
No ... I prefer to be able to select my game modes

The second question is more clear though in this case you COULD actually state "
Yes - I want the improvement in team ELO differences" because your data support that statement.

In any case, the way you have set up the poll with the comments is misleading at best and could appear to favour a particular decision because there is no evidence that this change has resulted in any improvement whatsoever in the solo queue.

P.S. I will also state that I don't like the idea of forcing folks to play game modes they don't like. People have limited time to play the game. They come to play for fun and having to play modes they hate is not fun. If all modes actually were enjoyable it would be fine but they are not. There is probably nothing more frustrating than playing a slow assault mech (like a direwolf) and being forced into a totally inappropriate conquest match where the speed is a liability.

Personally, I also think conquest is broken, there is no reward in terms of cbills or xp for capping, yet the mode is supposed to be motivated by capping ... instead you get some folks sacrificing their game time to be bored capping for no rewards in order to make the chance of winning higher ... while the rest play skirmish on a conquest map.

Other people despise skirmish since they have encountered folks who run off and power down in a hidden corner and run the match out to a loss while griefing the other players in the match and wasting their time.

So ... if this makes for better more balanced matches in the group queue ... then that is fine and it might be a valid option ... but if it doesn't make any difference in the solo queue then I can't see any point to it except to upset the players.

Edited by Mawai, 07 October 2014 - 07:54 PM.

[Darth Futuza]

Zainadin, on 07 October 2014 - 07:38 PM, said:

I vote all the time. In real life I do it through the mail, because I want to know that my vote will be counted.

...and what does that have to do with this?

[Domenoth]

Anyone else have their vote removed? I revoted but don't really know what caused the poll to open back up for me.

[Bishop Steiner]

FinnMcKool, on 07 October 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

Make the pole ask :Do you want to be forced to play Conquest.
words today are used to confuse people rather than inform them.
Sorry state of a PC world.

because it involves more than that.

Believe it or not, some of us prefer to take off our training wheels and play something besides braindead, zerg rush TDM skirmish. So simply asking if people want to play Conquest, is rather narrow and self serving, quiaff?

[BarbaryCoast]

Meh, I would just rather play skirmish mode all day with people of crappy skill.Games are a frivolous endeavor anyway, but the tears on gamer forums are many times much better than the games themselves.

ggclose

[Kaputz]

The only problem I have with the voting system is that if I tick all three modes, I am voting once for each mode, however if I untick a single game mode I am only voting twice for two game modes, where does the extra one vote I am now not using go? I think the system would work better if unchecking two of the game modes put the votes you would have used on those into the checked game mode. This way people that dont care/bother and people that want a specific game mode are getting the same number of votes.