972 replies to this topic

[Slyder]

Joanna Conners, on 07 October 2014 - 09:31 PM, said:

In most games it is a minority of people who are on the forums vs. the number of people in the game. The majority is often silent and happy, while the minority screams loud enough to evoke changes that no one else likes.

Changing gameplay like this based on a poll that is not indicative of the entire playerbase is always a bad idea.

Exactly.

How can you enforce such a MAJOR gameplay change to the game. Say, for example...that 25% of the player base actually uses and follows the forums. Then, you run this poll...and its split 55% - 45% in favor of Mode A over Mode B (just placeholders)

55% of 25% of the playert base = ~14% of the TOTAL player base get to decide for the other 86% of the player base what is best for the game?

Sure, more people SHOULD use forums...but it isnt the case in ANY GAME IN HISTROY...Something like this topic should NOT be decided on a simple forum poll...

[PappySmurf]

Elizander (If players hate Conquest but Conquest keeps coming up, do most players not on the forums actually have Conquest or All checked? Maybe most people do check Conquest or All and just don't bother to complain here?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok here is my answer to this statement. I don't hate conquest I like all the game modes but I don't play conquest because I never know until after I have picked my mech which game mode comes up or which map im on. I would rather know the map first which game mode im playing then be able to pick a mech to play its as simple as that.

Plus I would like to be able to pick a mech confab I liked and saved from mechlab after that then drop into a battle.Its much more than just a ELO or game mode problem in MWO matchmaking its like totally backward in its matchmaking steps.

Plus the matchmaker should in conquest only allow 1assault-1heavy-6mediums and 4lights to play that game mode or 7 mediums and 5lights.when I do play conquest its like 3-8 assaults and heavy's and it just ends up in a brawl death match anyways.

Edited by PappySmurf, 07 October 2014 - 09:37 PM.

[Alex Morgaine]

Madcap72, on 07 October 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

Third option, no elo, no matchmaking... drop in open spots and that's it.


Old school computer game style.

Fast, brutal, and lots of rage, but it would work. But for now, if we can get a reason for the light queue to go past 10% I know I'd be happy... I can only ruin(run? Maybe my phone is right) light mechs so much before I want to run my heavier mechs...

[Slyder]

Darth Futuza, on 07 October 2014 - 09:35 PM, said:

Yeah I get what you're saying and I agree, but the old system comes at the expense of longer match finding times. That's why I think the new system is better: average faster match-to-find times.

I disagree....my group queues tonight took much longer then they ever had under the old system.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Darth Futuza, on 07 October 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:

Enlighten me.

You cant see how putting a live game back into beta and not testing things before they get put on the live server is a bad thing?!

I have no words

[MechPorn]

I was dropping solo and group queues all evening, and i got to say that there was a vast improvement in matching players. I can however see some issues with people manipulating there teams ELO scores. This can easily create some stomps, but I think it is a great improvemeng.

[Neutron IX]

I'm quite torn on what to vote.

On the one hand, I appreciate the attempt to improve ELO matching, and felt I was indeed seeing that result perhaps...

On the other hand, I just played a match of Conquest I didn't "vote" for in my CTF-4X that has a stock engine...

Kind of a tough call here.

[Lindonius]

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

PappySmurf, on 07 October 2014 - 09:37 PM, said:

Elizander: (If players hate Conquest but Conquest keeps coming up, do most players not on the forums actually have Conquest or All checked? Maybe most people do check Conquest or All and just don't bother to complain here?)

I think youre coming up conquest more because its being played less and needs more players to fill the holes.

That was the point of this wasnt it?

[Papaspud]

Until they change it back, I am done playing.... every game is gather in a furball and wait...... boring, boring , boring.

[Joanna Conners]

Slyder, on 07 October 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:

Exactly.

How can you enforce such a MAJOR gameplay change to the game. Say, for example...that 25% of the player base actually uses and follows the forums. Then, you run this poll...and its split 55% - 45% in favor of Mode A over Mode B (just placeholders)

55% of 25% of the playert base = ~14% of the TOTAL player base get to decide for the other 86% of the player base what is best for the game?

Sure, more people SHOULD use forums...but it isnt the case in ANY GAME IN HISTROY...Something like this topic should NOT be decided on a simple forum poll...

I concur. I am not angry at PGI over this, but I am unhappy with the change and it made for a frustrating time tonight playing games no one in my unit wanted to play. Each gametype requires a completely different focus, particularly Conquest, and combined with us not knowing what map we are going to drop on, we are completely unprepared even more now.

It is hardly MechWarrior not to know where you are fighting or what the terms of the engagement will be. Planning appropriately is a significant part of this franchise. It is deeply frustrating.

[Darth Futuza]

Mystere, on 07 October 2014 - 09:30 PM, said:

Which now begs the question: Who the frak really wanted this? Is it just those people who voted for it on the original poll?

Well right now 50% of the poll people are.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

The screwed up thing is Russ SAYS they know that the forums dont represent the majority yet theyre running a two day poll and jamming it directly into the game regardless

You must not like representative democracies very much...
Before you get me wrong, I agree, they should have given it more time, but right now there's not really very many other ways for them to get feedback other then the forums. I'm just glad they've realized they should give it a revote chance.

[Zainadin]

Is anyone else looking at the results so far? After I voted it was; 216 for yes, and 216 no. 50%

Edited by Zainadin, 07 October 2014 - 09:41 PM.

[Darth Futuza]

Rip Snorgan, on 07 October 2014 - 09:39 PM, said:

I'm quite torn on what to vote.

On the one hand, I appreciate the attempt to improve ELO matching, and felt I was indeed seeing that result perhaps...

On the other hand, I just played a match of Conquest I didn't "vote" for in my CTF-4X that has a stock engine...

Kind of a tough call here.

You can always edit your vote before the poll ends. Just FYI.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

You cant see how putting a live game back into beta and not testing things before they get put on the live server is a bad thing?!



I have no words

I can see how that could be a bad thing, what I can't see is how you expect them to gather useful statistical data from a very small population. That's what I want you to explain.

Edited by Darth Futuza, 07 October 2014 - 09:42 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Joanna Conners, on 07 October 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

I concur. I am not angry at PGI over this, but I am unhappy with the change and it made for a frustrating time tonight playing games no one in my unit wanted to play. Each gametype requires a completely different focus, particularly Conquest, and combined with us not knowing what map we are going to drop on, we are completely unprepared even more now.

It is hardly MechWarrior not to know where you are fighting or what the terms of the engagement will be. Planning appropriately is a significant part of this franchise. It is deeply frustrating.

Actually; its a step backwards in the game's development. We've essentially rolled back to before there WAS a selector and ppl are trying to argue thats better?

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

Im not voting for ether one. I simply dont care at this point. Im still getting the same outcomes. LOLerstomp win... LOLerstomp loose. win on map X the very next time I get that same map X its a loss or visa-versa. 12-3 12-4 seams the best the MM can do when it comes to losses 12-0 is about what I only get for wins. Simply put, im not having fun.

Its time Elo was scraped and PGI implemented some sort of average damage/kills/assists/aim system. PGI THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO WITH ELO TO MAKE THE MM WORK IN THIS GAME! NOTHING!

Edited by Funkadelic Mayhem, 07 October 2014 - 09:45 PM.

[Joanna Conners]

Darth Futuza, on 07 October 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

Well right now 50% of the poll people are.

[size=4]
You must not like representative democracies very much...
Before you get me wrong, I agree, they should have given it more time, but right now there's not really very many other ways for them to get feedback other then the forums. I'm just glad they've realized they should give it a revote chance.

I stated before that e-mail is a much better way to get the customer base involved. E-mail the link to the poll. Show the customers that their opinion matters and that you are involving them in the evolution of the game.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Darth Futuza, on 07 October 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

You must not like representative democracies very much...

Not in game development, no

What other games are developed directly from poll interactions on forums (without extensive testing) and not ever asking ppl in the game what they want

IE what other representitive democracies are there in gaming?

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 07 October 2014 - 09:44 PM.

[Lindonius]

Darth Futuza, on 07 October 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

You can always edit your vote before the poll ends. Just FYI.

As long as you're changing your vote to YES.

[Joanna Conners]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 09:41 PM, said:

Actually; its a step backwards in the game's development. We've essentially rolled back to before there WAS a selector and ppl are trying to argue thats better?

We have certainly regressed. I agree.