972 replies to this topic

[AdamBaines]

Gremlinn, on 07 October 2014 - 08:23 PM, said:

VOTE NO!!! Save mechwarrior.

No=you get to chose your mode of gameplay
Yes=you get a slightly closer match (only about a 50 elo closer)

[Rant]
I Hate how this game and these forums have turned into political campaigns. I really want to participate in these forums, but its gets harder and harder everyday as I get more and more frustrated by reading posts by fellow forum members. Pro MWO and CON MWO people alike are brick walls who will plainly just believe what they want to believe and not listen to any sort of counter argument. "But but but.....you don't understand, I have STATS to support what I WANT. Screw what you want." Its like the House or Senate here in the US: No agreement, no discussion, no working towards a solution that might work for everyone. Just me me me and what I want want want. AHHHHHHH!!!!!!
[/Rant]

[Curve3]

I don't like it that I'm forced to play modes that have not my intrest.
Piranha games is doing the same like Microsoft with their stupid Windows 8.
I think of quitting with Mech warrior online, the fun is over for me.

[Bilbo]

Gyrok, on 08 October 2014 - 05:53 AM, said:

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.

That has always been the case. If you can't effectively train in the queue, there is always the option of private matches.

[Fewwy]

I understand how important developing is, but i vot "no" for this system. Skirmish mode is awful and i really dont like it. For example in Belorussian Tanks - people cant choose the game mods for almost a year and everyone hate it!

Edited by Fewwy, 08 October 2014 - 06:00 AM.

[Tastian]

I *only* played 4 games this morning after patching. 2 of them were complete rolls, 1 was pretty lopsided and the 4th game was a very close fight. This doesn't seem any better then before so not sure if the voting game mode really helped.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

I might be kicking my original opinions tush when I voted yes but truly I feel game mode shuffle should stay for better ELO average.

I have an idea, let's increase C-Bill (and XP) rewards for playing in the less popular game modes and maps. There are positives to playing each game mode/map. Conquest gets our legs stretched and uses the map, Assault adds strategy to the battle and Skirmish is death match which gives the quickest rewards, I think. Increase resource collection C-Bills and give more C-Bills for damaging/taking a base! That could (doubt it) make modules like capture more desirable as well.
In the public queue a similar map voting feature would be amazing, especially if less played maps received a significant enough C-Bill bonus to entice pilots. I assume maps will be static in CW, picture the public queue on the planetary map, when a map (planet) is less played it could go through stages, stage one: +x% XP, stage two: +x% XP/C-Bills. That would make playing conquest on terra therma worth your time, lol, j/k just an example. I fear that with a map selection feature everyone will want Skirmish River City, then again everyone doesn't like to play that way so it's important to keep a random option and keep the shuffle on, just like game mode voting.

Tweak the game modes + give bonuses for less desirable maps = win. I think, who knows.

[KuunLan]

If you want to make the matches fair then you need to compute ELO per mech . Moving into a AWS 9M after playing DWF 's 3 months was a catastrophe for me and my teams . Also you kind of need to adjust the ELO faster than waiting for w/l ratios to be influenced by the player's action , averaging gamescores would be quite enough

[Jman5]

skorpionet, on 08 October 2014 - 05:52 AM, said:

EHI! I have copyright in this idea!!!

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

haha, I know it's been tossed around a few times by different people. But the key is to sneak it into conversations that the developers are reading.

[Revengex]

Having a vote does not transfer responsibility from you guys. Nice try. "Hey you all voted so shut up." Not going to work.

[T K O]

My clan mates and myself play skirmish for a reason and forcing players to play something they didn't chose is completely asinine. Especially after the choice of playing your game instead of others, and even worse the money we've thrown your way to be forced to play certain modes. This is easily a NO vote and to see the amount of yes votes is astonishingly upsetting. Have fun getting thrown into crap game modes in solo and group que and having no control of your gaming preference.

[Rattler85]

No.

I would like to see more game modes. A few scenarios would be nice. This is the most expensive game that I have played and may quit playing it because of the lack of content. It is basically deathmatch, deathmatch with a base that can defend itself and capture the flags.

I originally stopped playing this game and came back to it and actually got into it even more, I even joined a clan. However, it is becoming more and more boring.

[IM Bullwinkle]

When the modes were conquest and assault, we rejoiced when skirmish was added. When we were given the choice to select game modes we wanted to participate in, we rejoiced at the ability. When that was taken away, we scorn the decision.

Polls such as these do not necessarily represent the broad population of players since most recreational; players do not frequent all areas of the forums.

Why is it so hard to let the players decide on reward (shorter queue times and even ELO) with control (not having to play a mode they HATE)?

If you want to wait less, pick all three modes. If you don't mind waiting a little longer, pick the only modes you want to play.

If you really like playing one mode and are neutral about another but hate the third, it shouldn't be hard to build that logic into the matchmaker. My guess is that the matchmaker is such convoluted piece of code (the result of tweaks) that simple logic trees don't work.

Edited by IM Bullwinkle, 08 October 2014 - 06:14 AM.

[Xiomburg]

It's so funny that in the community town halls, this is exactly what people were told would induce a better ELO ranked match(s). Most of the community who was at these town halls were okay with this.

The second part of it, is that this is training for Community Warfare and not Community Welfare. In CW you will have objectives in a lot of the matches that you play. Getting use to killing them all, all the time, is not a good user experience for most with the attention beyond that of a gnat.

[Revengex]

You could justify forcing us to use just one weigh class and mech type to improve ELO. Everyone gets a raven 3L only. ELO would be accurate.

[Joe Mallad]

I have to ask a few simple questions. If this voting system does pass and its also adopted into CW game ques, are players and or full units going to quit games because a game mode comes up that they don't like to play?

Again, if it passes, will players and units drop from game modes they don't want to play and on turn ruin the game for everyone?

[GoCanes]

I think that the current system is fine if you solo queue, but when grouped you should have the choice of game modes.

[Boyka]

Simply NO!
In my case I hate skirmish mode and I WILL QUIT EVERY SKIRMISH MATCH the matchmaker will put me in after next patch if this system will not be changed.
I'm a founder, i've bought lot of your stuff including phoenix and clan packages, not only for the mechs (I don't use half of them) but for support a game and a franchise i like.
However I cannot understand why I should be forced to play a game mode i hate, that's not fair in my loyal customer opinion and it's not fair for a lot of loyal players too.

And please, MAKE MORE GAME MODE!

[Triordinant]

Because of how the question was worded, I voted No. Russ Bullock already said the new voting system didn't change anything in the solo queue but improved things in the group queue. If it said the voting system would only apply to the group queue where it would make a difference, I might vote Yes.

[UndeadEdd]

I really hate the new game mode voting system. You don't force people to play "death match" in Ttribes Ascend when they choose a class which is best used in "capture the flag" (like a technician, an infiltrator or a sentinel for example). When I play MWO I do it for the awesome battles between giant mechs, not for the boring "stand in place untill point is captured" that is "conquest" mode. I hate it that I lose a game where my team stomps the other team, just because the other team managed to gather more of the magical "resource" points. This isn't mechwarior.

Edited by UndeadEdd, 08 October 2014 - 06:21 AM.

[Triordinant]

GoCanes, on 08 October 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

I think that the current system is fine if you solo queue, but when grouped you should have the choice of game modes.

It's actually the opposite. See my last post above for Why.

Edited by Triordinant, 08 October 2014 - 06:20 AM.