972 replies to this topic

[Ripper X]

Drop voting from the game modes for the solo queue and keep it for group play.

[Darth Futuza]

Lindonius, on 07 October 2014 - 09:42 PM, said:

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

Why do you say that, is there another bug that won't allow you to change it to no?

[Nimura Nekogami]

Why not both?

I didnt understood the explaination and i dont get the idia of asking the community for something like this.
(seems my english skills letting me down on this one )

I dont play this game enough at the moment to decide something like this. I would prefer PGI would use their manpower in other building areas of the game istead of this.
Optimizing ELO is always welcome but not of the cost of loosing the coice of gamemode. Skip this and improove maps and gameplay (with additional gamemodes and features, reworking some parts of the UI 2.0 (still hate it ^^) and so on....) .

I think both is the only way for this game.

I will skip this vote since i dont see a reason to participating. Still "nice" asking the community for this.
Reminds me of the good old pre-3rd person-view times. Or the 3rd-person-view poll.

Good luck.

[Rick Rawlings]

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...

In 2012, 66 million people voted for Barak Obama out of 300 million or so total population. Right or wrong, what you described is basically how any large scale system has worked at its most democratic for the history of the planet.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Ripper X, on 07 October 2014 - 09:43 PM, said:

Drop voting from the game modes for the solo queue and keep it for group play.

WE dont want it either though

[Darth Futuza]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:

Id rather have the option of waiting longer as long as I get what I want than being forced to play something I dont want.

And just HOW long were these wait times? I have yet to see anything past a minute to wait O.o

Well if your average ELO it probably isn't too bad, but if you're really bad or really good it is horrible, especially if you are in a 12 man.

[MischiefSC]

Yes, it should go back to the glory days of Close Beta when everything was more fun and we had total control over the gamemode we played....

oh, wait.

Picking game mode was a new thing put in by UI 2.0 which was, apparently, the devil.

Except that I guess.

Think of it as training for CW. If having to play a different gamemode than you like is a life-shattering experience and leaves you an emotional cripple my suggestion would be to set the game aside for a while, because you're being silly.

We got spoiled. CW isn't going to let you pick how you want to play in terms of mode or location. You won't even be able to bring just the mechs you want. If we can't learn to deal with a few curveballs then we should just ask PGI to shelve CW until we're a better, more flexible and more competent community.

This isn't an example of PGI making a mistake it's an example of the community being too absurd to be able to handle something like what CW is going to be. Anyone who is actually dropping out of a game because it's not the gamemode they want needs to be kept out of the pool who will end up playing CW - where winning/losing will have consequence.

My big concern now is that when CW hits and win/loss starts to matter that I might end up with someone that fragile on my team. How about this - people can 'opt in' to a hard-choice on game mode but they are, in turned, locked out of CW.

That seems like a good solution to me.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Rick Rawlings, on 07 October 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

In 2012, 66 million people voted for Barak Obama out of 300 million or so total population. Right or wrong, what you described is basically how any large scale system has worked at its most democratic for the history of the planet.

this is game development, not national elections

Darth Futuza, on 07 October 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

Well if your average ELO it probably isn't too bad, but if you're really bad or really good it is horrible, especially if you are in a 12 man.

We rarely if ever dropped 12 man

[Darth Futuza]

Rick Rawlings, on 07 October 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

In 2012, 66 million people voted for Barak Obama out of 300 million or so total population. Right or wrong, what you described is basically how any large scale system has worked at its most democratic for the history of the planet.

Yeah if someone could propose a better way to running a democracy then representation, I'm all ears. It could revolutionize governments. And everything else.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 09:46 PM, said:

this is game development, not national elections

That's correct, but his argument is very much relevant to the discussion.

Edited by Darth Futuza, 07 October 2014 - 09:47 PM.

[Dakkss]

I don't really know what to think about this. I'm voting No, because I don't like playing Assault of Conquest - even though I think they are almost exactly the same as Skirmish because it just ends in a fight to the death anyway. It just means one has to deal with players who (mistakenly) think Assault and Conquest are unique because 1 of their 100 games ended with a base cap.

The ELO 'improvement' has not been noticeable whatsoever for me, so I don't see a point in voting yes really. My 2 cbills is that ELO isn't really as important as gamemode variation, because in every game you will eventually get decimated by other players - but that's how you learn to get better. What's wrong with losing sometimes? It's just a game.

My most anticipated thing since I bought my Founders is Dropship Mode. I don't exactly know why Dropship Mode can only come in once CW does, but I think it would become pretty popular when/if it ever shows up.

Sorry to go off track from the matchmaking and whine about gamemodes instead, but it's my honest opinion.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Darth Futuza, on 07 October 2014 - 09:46 PM, said:

Yeah if someone could propose a better way to running a democracy then representation, I'm all ears. It could revolutionize governments. And everything else.

government =/= game development

just sayin

also

Democracy =/= game development

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 07 October 2014 - 09:48 PM.

[Darth Futuza]

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

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

I'm definitely willing to go back to the old system, if it turns out to be better for not just choice, but also queues. I hope PGI releases statistical data about this. Since going off of my own experiences alone really won't tell me that much.

[Slyder]

Rick Rawlings, on 07 October 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

In 2012, 66 million people voted for Barak Obama out of 300 million or so total population. Right or wrong, what you described is basically how any large scale system has worked at its most democratic for the history of the planet.

Yes, but were not talking about the next president of the united states. Were talking about video game development regarding player experience.

And with the new mode, you exclude a large portion of your player base, thus making them unhappy. With the old mode, both sides of players could play how they wanted and were happy.

Does it not make sence from a business standpoint to make both sides of the fence happy, by leaving the choices of maps in? Or does it make more sence to alienate a large portion of the consumers by alowing a small group to chose for them.

As for polotics, the current system doesnt work either...but side B still will pay their taxes, and for the most part follow the law. In the world of consumers, side b could simply stop paying for your services, and thus your company loses money.

[ArchAngelT]

I only play using Assualt mechs, 100ton monsters the Atlas D DC, and the Direwolf. Because of slower speeds"the atlas has never won a race" and the BS of no engine change in the direwolf, I dont play conquest! I dont like conquest, and shouldnt have to play it. being forced into a game mode I dont want means I'm not gonna play it. I logged in today and chose assualt like always, and then I get forced to play conquest!! If thats how its gonna be I wont play the game. Atleast until its fixed.

Edited by ArchAngelT, 07 October 2014 - 09:51 PM.

[Sovery_Simple]

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.

Longer match times for who? Skirmish was already the apparent "majority", so it would have the QUICKEST queue times. Those who say "I just play on all types so this is great for me" already have lowest queue times out of everyone! The ONLY group that could complain are conquest-only players (we can probably assume they had the lowest pop.)

That's it. Mystery over. No queue time changes, just modes being forced on all (for the "majority")

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion everyone crying about the queue times being so long are;
A: Playing a heavy when the queue is 30%+
B: or playing an assault when the queue manages to hit 50%+
C: and are doing this on skirmish, where the heavies and assaults go to console themselves when an enemy light pack catches them alone.

Anyone?

[Namicus]

I voted No. I hate conquest and it was the only mode I don't have checked. After four conquest matches in a row, and 6 of 10 matches conquest, I had to log out.

But the conundrum is that I can't stand playing groups with my one buddy who plays because we keep getting matched up against teams of of 8-12 and get stomped which is no fun either. I thought I'd be for the "yes" option when I figured it would be the odd match of conquest, but more conquest matches than the other two combined is complete shite and is unacceptable to me.

I'd like to see the improved elo applied to group Q and the hard choosing of match type to the solo Q.

[White Bear 84]

Duncan Longwood, on 07 October 2014 - 08:49 PM, said:

Imagine (if you can) going to look at an adult website and you only have 15 minutes to play.

Go on...

On a more serious note, here is ANOTHER suggestion - why not make the voting system like the maps, you can chose to be a part of it? That way those that select 'Count my vote' or whatever can be added to that pool of players as well as the pool of players that have not selected the vote function. Simples.

Edited by White Bear 84, 07 October 2014 - 09:51 PM.

[Sgt Minuteman]

Yes = slavery
No= freedom to play the mode you want.

[Madcap72]

Joanna Conners, on 07 October 2014 - 09:42 PM, said:

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.

So, when you say customer base are you speaking of all players registerd, or only paying customers?

[Rick Rawlings]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:

government =/= game development

just sayin

also

Democracy =/= game development

Nobody is saying it is. The guy I quoted was talking about percent of representation in decision making. I was merely trying to point out that decisions far more important than this are made with much the same level of consent of the "majority"