972 replies to this topic

[-Skyrider-]

What about map voting?

[SpiralFace]

Heaven forbid that they drop in conquest as an assault and have a much smaller impact on the result of the match then they would like to think.

I personally like the reactions of many of the people as to WHY they want hard choice modes.

Lots of "I'm dropping in an assault mech, so I don't want Conquest," "I'm dropping in Light, so I don't want Skirmish" out there. Personally, I feel that this is one of the reasons why the game modes end up being so stale when you have the fragmented ques for each mode being populated by "min maxers" trying to skew the match "their" way before they even drop.

I'm personally neutral / leaning yes on this entire affair because it will create better game quality in the group ques for those that don't drop 12 mans.

An interesting note is that I have yet to see many complain about still dropping against an Elite 12 man when they formed with 2-4 groups of smaller players. Which seems like the biggest win out of all of this to me at least.

Edited by SpiralFace, 08 October 2014 - 05:35 AM.

[Sprouticus]

I votes yes, but I think we should look at the REAL stats


1) Does it shrink Elo differential in the queue.

If yes, then use it. If no, then dont.

Per Russ, during NA prime time (high water for population), it made a difference in the gorup queue but not in the solo queue. If that continues to be the case, turn it off for the solo queue and keep it for the group queue.

Or even better, make it dynamic based upon population. I am guessing that this morning and this afternoon when Asia-Pac and Euro players play the results in the solo queue will be a reduced size. That is because I figure the key to the equation is populaiton. With a high enough population the benifits of the voting system disappear


A dynamic system would be best,, if above X, then turn off the voting, if below X then turn it on...

[Turook]

Since this has been implemented I have won 2 games out of 10 and been stomped 12 to 0 or at best 12 to 2 in all the other.
I don't believe that the ELO system works at all and would at least prefer the game style I'm going to be stomped on in.

[Christo Jam]

It's simple. Vote "Yes" ELO promotes solo players. Because the system of choice would allow pro teams (or better organized players) to win more battles. The ELO parties gives more chance to win for all. I voted "Yes". Vote "No" and there is a risk to lose solo players community. Enjoy the game.

Edited by themrty, 08 October 2014 - 06:12 AM.

[HUNTERS MOON]

Make more maps and the complaining will stop. Give us 10 more by december 25. Its what we need.

[UCR Starwolf]

Once you give folk freedom it's hard to take it away. I wish it had been 'preference' the whole time instead of 'completely exclusionary.' Then there wouldn't be an issue.

[Hallbor]

Jetfire, on 08 October 2014 - 05:33 AM, said:

I like the voting idea and I had good matches last night in a 4 man in the group queue. I like the approach just as I like the idea for map selection.

However I do support the idea of maybe a hard selection as optional, but say include a CBill bonus multiplier not to use it.

Not THAT is an interesting idea.
Make it appeal to peoples wallets and they won't mind nearly as much. I can see that working easily enough.....

[Savage Wolf]

Turook, on 08 October 2014 - 05:35 AM, said:

Since this has been implemented I have won 2 games out of 10 and been stomped 12 to 0 or at best 12 to 2 in all the other.
I don't believe that the ELO system works at all and would at least prefer the game style I'm going to be stomped on in.

Stomps have nothing to do with ELO or this new change. Game modes might make a difference if the difference between them were bigger.
Stomps are a product of the core game play where losing two team members usually escalate into a stomp no matter how close the two teams are in skill. This change will not fix any of that.

[Dagor1]

Remember, if you vote NO, it only really counts for the Solo que, they stated if it goes no that they will have a second poll for group.

I voted NO because I believe, and Russ even stated, this does not effect the Solo que really, far as elo.

On a side note,I find it interesting...and telling, this poll, as of this writing, in less then 8 hours has more turnout then the old poll and its 2 day run, with nearly 1800, and still showing basically a 50/50 split.

I myself have noticed no affect on the odds of rolling or getting rolled in the solo matches...well, if anything I am winning even more. My wait to drop times are also roughly the same. And though I have skirmish unchecked, I seem to be getting it around 33% of the time.

[SpartanOfValor]

Is there a way to have both options available? Kind of like a switch, those of us that like it can keep it, and those who don't like it can get rid of it.

[Solahma]

I like the voting system, however I would like to see a re-work of the percentage numbers for determining game-mode.

[-=Heloc=-]

1. I f'ing HATE conquest, especially when I'm with a group. In assault or skirmish, if we're facing a 12-man group of really excellent players and we lose, it happens fast. But conquest matches take a lot of time win or lose. If I'm dropping solo it's not such a huge deal because, if I get myself killed mid-match, I can quit the match, grad a different 'mech and join another match. If I'm grouped, I have to watch the whole play out which often means that I'm watching a couple of players on each team run around without making enemy contact for 10 minutes and it's BORING. We have at least one clan member who will only drop solo now because if he gets a conquest match, he just quits before the round starts. I'm sure there are other people who have similarly strong feelings about the other game modes.

2. Not everyone will feel so strongly so we should have an additional check box that gives us the option to make our game mode selections preferences or requirements. That would make everyone happy.

3. Have you guys looked at the data to determine how strongly ELO is correlated with the match outcome? Since we don't see an ELO score when we drop, there is really no way for players to know what kind of impact ELO really has. If the data says that at an ELO difference of 250, matches come down to a coin flip, then 250 is good enough. You've already acknowledged that ELO is flawed metric (as will any ELO type metric will be to some degree) but it would be nice to know to what degree it is flawed. You might convince some people that ELO is important enough that they are willing to play game modes that they despise in order to have more competitive games.

[Barfing Gopher]

Sprouticus, on 08 October 2014 - 05:28 AM, said:

so basically you want it your way or the highway. Sounds like the attitude of a child to me. Sorry if that sounds harsh, I am not meaning to be a jerk, but really, it sounds like something my 7 YO would say.

Sigh.... You're absolutely correct, you know, other than the fact that I specifically said that I play all modes and I was giving an example of what I saw OTHER players doing and how things could turn out. Wow.... such read, much point. Does it hurt when you "make thinks?"

[Savage Wolf]

LegoSpartan, on 08 October 2014 - 05:46 AM, said:

Is there a way to have both options available? Kind of like a switch, those of us that like it can keep it, and those who don't like it can get rid of it.

Isn't that more or less what the old system did? You get random if all three are chosen or you exclude som of them.

[Sapstengel]

Isn't it waaaaaay too soon for a poll like this? (People don't have the chance to be confronted enough with that awful Conquest mode to vote no)

Don't have the time, nor patience to read through 28 pages. It was probably remarked by some else, but I'd rather have it twice than not at all.

[Prophetic]

There are game modes that our unit does not enjoy playing. We will happily wait in queue for game modes of our choosing.

Voted no to current system.

[skorpionet]

Jman5, on 07 October 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

By the way Russ, if you're reading this there is another way you could improve Group Elo a little bit. We all know that the odd-number groups have the longest wait time because it's difficult to slot them into an even number team. Why don't you allow solo players to voluntarily (via checkbox) opt into being put into the group queue on occasion?

You could hard cap it to no more than 1 solo person per team and only if they are a great match for Elo/mech needed.

This would allow players to meet and mingle with larger groups and it would finally open up the ability to drop as 11-man groups.

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 08:56 PM, said:

I can ask about this again internally - there was some really good reasons we left them out in the first place but I will need a conversation with the engineers to remind myself.

I am also worried we would degrade the solo queue - right now the solo queue for most players, especially average skill level players is an amazing time.

EHI! I have copyright in this idea!!!

http://mwomercs.com/...71#entry3738471

skorpionet, on 18 September 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

Hi,

when I launch with my corp friends in small groups of 2 - 4 elements the MM waiting is really huge. I think because you don't admit SOLO players in groups queue, without unity I can understand this wait to build a 12 elements team.

I propose a check in Settings Panel: "In SOLO agree to be included also in the groups queue". In this way we can have unity elements to speed up MM algorithms.

Edited by skorpionet, 08 October 2014 - 05:59 AM.

[Gyrok]

Sprouticus, on 08 October 2014 - 05:21 AM, said:

Gyrok, have you considered that perhaps your Elo was artifically high due to always dropping in Skirmish? Im not saying that is the case, I dont know. But if you lost 19/20 and were dropping against Lords and SJr all night as you indicated, theen one of a few issues is occuring

1) The MM is borked and putting you against much higher Elo groups. Possible, especially if the group population was low last night. However Russ has indicated that the Elo difference in group was reduced tremendously.
2) Your pilots have high individual Elo' but you work relatively poorly as a group against top teams who also have high individual elo
3) there is some mechanism of Assault or conquest that your team/players do poorly on vs skirmish so you end up doing pooly in those game modes.


#1 is obviously the only one of those 3 which impacts this discussion. If #1 was the case though, then perhaps you guys are an edge case due to lords and SJr being at the top end of the Elo curve. Maybe you guys were lower in Elo, but the only team close to them so you ended up fighting them all night.

#3 is unlikely but also possible I suppose. If that is the case then this is an argument for you guys playing other game modes, both to get better and to flatten out your Elo to actual levels.

#2 is most likely IMO. Those guys work REALLY well as a team AND they have great pilots. It is a deadly combo. The quersiton of course is...would you have faced them the same even under the old system? Or would they have faced even WORSE teams, with lower Elo's?

Last night our group typically consisted of 2-3 players with more than 10k drops in game, and 3-5 players with less than 1k.

We were training bondsmen.

If it had been our comp team, no problem let us train some, the competition is healthy.

As it was, last night we had trouble keeping new players online to train because after 4 or 5 times getting stomped, they had enough and left. Maybe they come back, maybe not.

This is putting a serious damper on training and new recruits.

If this was intended to help in some way with new players, it is failing.

I do not dispute your points. I think because of the high Elo players we had trying to train (the ones you want training) the new players got sucked into an ELO curve that was totally unfair and impossible for them to contribute to meaningfully.

So, I do not support this change at all. It borks Elo by inflating it for groups of larger sizes, then allows vets to pull new players into much higher tiers than they should be learning in.

[Barfing Gopher]

Prophetic, on 08 October 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

There are game modes that our unit does not enjoy playing. We will happily wait in queue for game modes of our choosing.

Voted no to current system.

This ^

People that vote "no" aren't trying to force anyone else to play their favorite mode, they just want a choice for their experience. People that vote "yes" are forcing everyone else to play modes they do not want.