86 replies to this topic

[Kyle Polulak]

Nothing to see here, move along Mechfan!
Please go to: http://mwomercs.com/...oting-poll-v20/

=====================================

Edit: Just got off the phone with Russ and we felt it's a good time for us to apply the KISS principle to ourselves and nuke Question 2 for simplicity's sake. If the current question leads to a No, we will bring in a separate poll for the group queue question.

Edit 2: Because IPBoard is evil. Poll reset.

Edit 3: Because even a Reset wasn't good enough: http://mwomercs.com/...oting-poll-v20/

Edited by Nikolai Lubkiewicz, 07 October 2014 - 08:22 PM.
Nuking Question 2

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

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.

[Rufus Ingram]

Thank you for the additional poll.

May want to add a question about if people participate in the group queue. I don't for example, but I have to answer both questions to be counted so my vote could skew the group question. Not sure how important this is.

[Sovery_Simple]

Just to clarify before anyone gets confused

"Yes" always means you LIKE not picking your game mode.
"No" always means you HATE not picking your game mode.
(The above is true for both the SOLO and the GROUP questions)

If you want to merely "vote" for a mode, pick yes.
If you want to know that if you uncheck conquest, you will NEVER get conquest, then pick no.

Just trying to keep people from being confused on their votes.

Random Wanderer, on 07 October 2014 - 08:09 PM, said:

I have not seen any measurable proof that this actually gives us a more balanced match experience. I have encountered just as many stomps after this was implemented as I did before. However, I think most people are coming in here and voting yes simply because it says it will improve ELO, and not caring what it has to do to do so. It could be "would you give us all your money, sacrifice your firstborn child, and shove your genitals into a meat-grinder in order to improve ELO" and I believe a large number of people would say yes, because they don't pay any attention to anything other than the words "in order to improve ELO."

This is a very strange method to go about trying to improve ELO: a proper tier system based on player statistics would be far more effective. And this change causes a great many more problems than the one thing it is ostensibly trying to fix. A player in a Dire Wolf could, would, and has suddenly be forced to drop into Conquest, where they are completely useless. The rest of their team will abandon them, and the player will die when the other team comes upon them in a horde.

Along that line of thought, when players find themselves in a game mode that they cannot enjoy, the immediate (and in my opinion, proper) response is to simply not play it. Yet we are threatened with banning if we do so. You call it griefing. I'm sorry, but we are not just logging in and then leaving to try and earn XP or c-bills, nor are we doing it to just laugh at a team who is now short one player. We are legitimately trying to play something we can enjoy, yet you are forcing us to essentially torture ourselves. And if we try to leave so that we can try again to play the game we actually like, you threaten to kick us out forever. We are not griefing people. You, sirs, are griefing us!

This entire event is going to end with lost players in the end. Only time will tell if it was worth it.

Edited by Whoops, 07 October 2014 - 08:19 PM.

[Errant Audio]

what if i'm ok with it in group que, but not so much on solo?

[Asmudius Heng]

I have not even had a chance to play yet ...

What other information does PGI have?

1. Are there more or less stomps than before?
2. Is this helping the matchmaker stop from bursting and breaking the 3/3/3/3 rule?
3. Are people on average getting more of the game mode they choose?
4. Are you seeing a lot of disconnects from rage quitters?
5. Are you open to begin looking at changing the game modes themselves so people do not neglect one over the other by choice if we went back to the old system?

[Hugh Manatee]

If these polls are going to be the deciding factor in making changes to the game you should at least try to make them more visible, maybe put a news item on the front page(not just the 5th topic down in the popular forum thread box), or if you can't build the polling into the launcher at least put a notice in one of the news feeds. If you can tell us when there are sales, when there are tourneys, new stuff to spend our money on, you can tell players when you want input on features that will radically alter the way the game works.

Edited by Hugh Manatee, 07 October 2014 - 07:22 PM.

[Zimmy]

I am sorry it just is not going to work think of a better idea and don't at this as the be all and end all to people biching about matchmaker it will not

[Jonathan Paine]

Let me again suggest a compromise:
Get to vote for the one/two/three mode(s) that are acceptable to you. Get to vote against 1 mode that is anathema to you. Possibly even to the point of vetoing 1 game mode.

Also, would love the option of "I'm happy to wait longer for a better match" check box.

[Darth Futuza]

I would suggest leaving this poll open for a several days so everyone has a chance to try it out the way it is now, before making changes. Honestly right now I'm not sure what I should vote for yet. I'm torn between fast matches, and being able to grind what I want.

Also please add this as an announcement in the patcher so that non forumers are aware of the poll.

Edited by Darth Futuza, 07 October 2014 - 07:22 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Asmudius Heng, on 07 October 2014 - 07:13 PM, said:

I have not even had a chance to play yet ...

What other information does PGI have?

1. Are there more or less stomps than before?
2. Is this helping the matchmaker stop from bursting and breaking the 3/3/3/3 rule?
3. Are people on average getting more of the game mode they choose?
4. Are you seeing a lot of disconnects from rage quitters?
5. Are you open to begin looking at changing the game modes themselves so people do not neglect one over the other by choice if we went back to the old system?

I don't know about PGI's stats, but I've played a good bit this past weekend and earlier today, in a duo with my father, and here are my observations:

1 - Seemed pretty similar on first impression between the weekend and post-patch today.

2 - This weekend I saw a match that had 5 assaults (4 Daishis and an Awesome) on the enemy team, and none on mine. This afternoon, post patch, I didn't see any egregious mech imbalances.

3 - I just have all three checked. I play all three, and find that the unpredictable variety makes for much stronger gameplay on my part.

4 - I haven't seen any since the patch.

5 - Now this, I'd love to see. Specifically, a serious rework of Conquest rewards, and to a lesser extent Assault rewards, to promote objective victories as similarly profitable to deathmatch-style gameplay.

I hope PGI is able and willing to post some more detailed metrics, though their data set is probably pretty small right now, since the change has only been live for half a day.

[Sneaky Shadow Stalker]

please set the queues back to what they were, group leader checks are what everone in group goes as. no one.. i mean no one, has had a problem with this style since the game introduced selection of game mode choices. why is it that even if no one in your group has conquest selected in your group, you get put into a conquest game. right now, there is actually no choice then, it might as well be random again and take the mode selection off!!

[Kirkland Langue]

To be honest, this type of MM probably needs to be in soloqueue more than in Group.

On the one hand, soloqueue is supposed to be more relaxed and a place to test builds - so allowing players to restrict to a single battle type might make sense since they could be testing just to see how they do on a given battle type.

On the other hand, Soloqueue is where your newer players will be. If experienced players get to choose their game mode and configure a mech to be best on that game mode - they will have a significant advantage over the newer players who are less likely to have configured specific mechs for specific game modes.

If anything, the soloqueue should probably be completely random to remove this type of disadvantage for newer players.

[PappySmurf]

Thanks for the re-poll I did not have a chance to vote on the other one due to other forum issues.

All I can say is go back to what you had before the vote system then just match by tonnage and skill based on what the player has skilled on his mech.If a player only has basic skills match him up with similar basic mech skilled players same with mastered and elite skilled mechs.

If you want to change the mech drops per battle like 3/3/3/3/ or 2/2/4/4 or 2/2/5/3 make it a random variable in battle drops so its always not just assaults or heavies in all game modes.

Plus just add IS vs Clan and trial vs trial game modes to MWO so we have 5 game modes and not just 3 game modes just add a few new maps and please just work on CW until it is done.

A long term solution to the group MM queues would be just to make a lobby system to replace the current group mm system and let them play in leagues like they used to play in MechWarrior4 and let the community rebound and grow and help finance MWO.

Well I hope I helped with these ideas I cant condone what you and your staff did by banning my brother then calling us all frauds.My family has played MechWarrior since MechWarrio2-MW3-MW4 all 5+ of us brothers sons and kids and cousins we just cannot afford to all run separate computers and individual ip's so some of us play on the same computers and ip addresses.

Edited by PappySmurf, 07 October 2014 - 07:29 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

No w let's hope all the butthurt QQers who want to complain about everything actually vote.

Because if they don't? If they can't be bothered to check the forums? Then I don't give a rat's butt about their complaints AFTER the fact.


Be proactive people or deal with it.

[Darth Futuza]

PappySmurf, on 07 October 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

Plus just add IS vs Clan and trial vs trial game modes to MWO so we have 5 game modes and not just 3 game modes just add a few new maps and please just work on CW until it is done.

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?

[Zainadin]

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.

[Jack Avery]

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!).

What I really don't understand is the absolute revulsion that some people have to the different game modes. Perhaps trying to gather some more specific feedback on what exactly people hate and trying to improve upon the modes themselves might soften the current game mode selection issues? Or perhaps not, we do seem to be a picky bunch.

[Darth Futuza]

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.

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.

[FinnMcKool]

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.